Ok, The untimely deaths of Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett have dominated our "news" these last 24 hrs, with Iran before that. The continued operations in Iraq almost seem a distant memory as far as our "media" is concerned.
**The spellings of some of these Arabic words/names may be different from what you read in NYT. I try to get my info from many sources including Al Jazeera and I tend to mix and match spelling variations-I apologize for any confusion**
In case you missed it, yesterday a bombing killed an estimated 75+ people in a section of Baghdad that is home to over 2 million people. This is just the most recent in a string of attacks- including the suicide bombings of a Shiite Muslim shrine right outside of Baghdad.
In the past month, there have been over 35 explosions. All of these acts of violence have been perpetrated against Shiites by al-Zarqawi's(who was killed in June by a US air-strike) successor, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, who has taken over as leader of al-Qa'ida in the Land of the Two Rivers (AQI)-or al-Qaida in Iraq. Their main "beef" is with Shiites at large, whom they refer to as "Rawafid" -which means, "those who reject." Which, though true, has become a derrogatory term.
al-Zarqawi's ideas and strategies have been questioned and criticized by many of his supporters and predecessors including al-Zawahiri himself (arguably the leader of al-Qaida). They claim that al Zarqawi invented a new form of Salafi jihadism.
Salafi basically refers to the idea that Islam was "perfect" up to the 2 generations following the death of Muhammad...and then it went down the shitter due to materialism and cultural changes. Salafism basically seeks to go back to the "original" form of Islam and is pretty much the same as Wahhabism, though followers of Salafism reject Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab's changing the name to his own.
Why do I deem this all important??
'Cause under an agreement signed last year between the US and Iraq, American troops must leave Iraqi cities by the end of June, and President Obama has pledged to withdraw most Americans from Iraq by the end of 2010. Officials in both governments, however, have said the pullback might be delayed in areas where violence remains high.
It would seem as though the violence not only remains high, but is increasing.
**I found the first article/blurb interresting/scary: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200706/primarysources
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Musings on non-violence and Iran
These past few days i've been watching/reading quite a bit on Iran. Also, last night I watched Gandhi w/ my mom as I thought it a travesty she had never seen it (it made it's debut in '82->few years before me haha). I got to thinking about Gandhi's concept of "Satyagraha" which has been loosely translated to mean "passive resistance". This is not a proper translation as it has been compared to translating "light" as "non-darkness" Basically, it is only takes a passive form b/c it espouses self-restraint. One may be more familiar w/ Thoreau's concept of "Civil Disobedience"-which Gandhi read.
I am doubful, per usual, but I wonder if something like this would work in Iran? The Islamic Republic of Iran is no more brutal than the British were, if not less so(the Amritsar Massacre comes to mind as well as the brutal put-down of the march on the Dharasana Salt Works). There was the misunderstanding that those who practiced this concept of non-violent resistance were cowards-quite the opposite is true. I know that I most certainly would not be able to to march peacefully-not raising a hand- as a group of men wielding steel-tipped clubs beat the shit out of me. I am def. the kind of person who when hit, hits back.
I also think of Dr. King Jr. (who based a lot of the Civil Rights Movement on Gandhi's writings) when he said "returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."
I guess the main issue here is how far are both the oppressed and the oppressors willing to go? How many people have to die before one side gives in? Many, many, Indians and African Americans died in their struggle. How many Iranians have to die before there is a change there? How many Czechs had to die before the Moscow Protocols were signed?
Of course there have been failures like China in 1989 in not only Tiananmen Square(Beijing), but also in Shanghai, Nanking, Hunan, and Hong Kong. These protests were very violently put-down and nothing changed. Had the people continued, who knows what would have happened? It is such a great sacrifice though.
The main goal of non-violent resistance is to shame the oppressors for using violent force against it until they grow weary of all the violence. The down-side is that it takes a very courageous and strong solidarity. One person could ruin the whole movement. I for one know that if I were demonstrating and I saw this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oqGx_aI-Ng
I would react violently. Does this kind of thinking that people like Gandhi encourage ask too much of people? Does it require too much bloodshed and sacrifice? Is it fair to say that there are ideals that people should be willing to die for, but not to kill for? Also, with Moussavi M.I. A., will the protesting stop- do such movements require a strong leader? Feel free to share your thoughts.
As an addendum:
Perhaps I am in the minority, but I was confused about who the Basij was, and how they differed from the Revolutionary Guards, the army, and the plain ol' police. Upon further insomnia-inspired research, I figured it all out and assigned my family members their appropriate spots:
-Basij- My parents would be great candidates for this group. Though it comprises mainly of indoctrinated young(sorry mom) thugs, they would fit the bill because of what vigilantes these folks are. These religious zealots mainly join for the benefits they can recieve(my parents are religious for the "benefits" of an afterlife) and are responsible for cruelty towards those who are guilty of any infraction against the Koran( My parents also feel the need to judge based on a Holy Book)
-Artesh (Regular Army)- My youngest sister fits this bill. Very non-political and relatively unreliable. The Artesh's main responsibility is to guard the borders and military service for 2 years is manditory.
-Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard)- Gina would be great for this. Their loyalty to the Revolution and the regime is unwavering. They were created after the 1979 revolution because the fledgling government did not trust the military for protection. This groups is given a lot of independence as they are an extremely devoted and trustworthy.
I am doubful, per usual, but I wonder if something like this would work in Iran? The Islamic Republic of Iran is no more brutal than the British were, if not less so(the Amritsar Massacre comes to mind as well as the brutal put-down of the march on the Dharasana Salt Works). There was the misunderstanding that those who practiced this concept of non-violent resistance were cowards-quite the opposite is true. I know that I most certainly would not be able to to march peacefully-not raising a hand- as a group of men wielding steel-tipped clubs beat the shit out of me. I am def. the kind of person who when hit, hits back.
I also think of Dr. King Jr. (who based a lot of the Civil Rights Movement on Gandhi's writings) when he said "returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."
I guess the main issue here is how far are both the oppressed and the oppressors willing to go? How many people have to die before one side gives in? Many, many, Indians and African Americans died in their struggle. How many Iranians have to die before there is a change there? How many Czechs had to die before the Moscow Protocols were signed?
Of course there have been failures like China in 1989 in not only Tiananmen Square(Beijing), but also in Shanghai, Nanking, Hunan, and Hong Kong. These protests were very violently put-down and nothing changed. Had the people continued, who knows what would have happened? It is such a great sacrifice though.
The main goal of non-violent resistance is to shame the oppressors for using violent force against it until they grow weary of all the violence. The down-side is that it takes a very courageous and strong solidarity. One person could ruin the whole movement. I for one know that if I were demonstrating and I saw this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oqGx_aI-Ng
I would react violently. Does this kind of thinking that people like Gandhi encourage ask too much of people? Does it require too much bloodshed and sacrifice? Is it fair to say that there are ideals that people should be willing to die for, but not to kill for? Also, with Moussavi M.I. A., will the protesting stop- do such movements require a strong leader? Feel free to share your thoughts.
As an addendum:
Perhaps I am in the minority, but I was confused about who the Basij was, and how they differed from the Revolutionary Guards, the army, and the plain ol' police. Upon further insomnia-inspired research, I figured it all out and assigned my family members their appropriate spots:
-Basij- My parents would be great candidates for this group. Though it comprises mainly of indoctrinated young(sorry mom) thugs, they would fit the bill because of what vigilantes these folks are. These religious zealots mainly join for the benefits they can recieve(my parents are religious for the "benefits" of an afterlife) and are responsible for cruelty towards those who are guilty of any infraction against the Koran( My parents also feel the need to judge based on a Holy Book)
-Artesh (Regular Army)- My youngest sister fits this bill. Very non-political and relatively unreliable. The Artesh's main responsibility is to guard the borders and military service for 2 years is manditory.
-Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard)- Gina would be great for this. Their loyalty to the Revolution and the regime is unwavering. They were created after the 1979 revolution because the fledgling government did not trust the military for protection. This groups is given a lot of independence as they are an extremely devoted and trustworthy.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
MO' Movies that'll teach ya' sumthin'
On my continued quest to not get dumb after school, I am still watching educational movies...mostly at 3am when I cannot sleep. This week's movies were The Last King of Scotland and A Passage To India.
In The Last King of Scotland, Forest Whittaker plays Ugandan President-turned dictator- Idi Amin. James McAvoy is the main character, playing Amin's doctor(a fictional role). If I may insert a disclaimer here, apparently this film was made after a book, written by a British author, which would totally ruin my stance on "Read before Watching" but I was totally unaware of this. Mea Culpa!!!
Basically, I already had some background on Amin's very oppressive and bloody rule. It is estimated that he killed some 200,000 Ugandans. His ties to the PLO were also well portrayed in the film when the 1976 flight from Athens was hijacked by the PLO and the occupants were taken to Uganda before negotiations secured the release of most of the occupants (Israeli troops came in and got the rest(this was not showin in the film)-Israeli citizens were the only ones not released by Amin) in exchange for the release of jailed PLO members.
I thought the movie was really good. I saw the human side of Amin and could-to an extent- understand his growing paranoia. I would def reccomend this film!! Oh, the reference to Scotland is basically Amin's deep respect for the Scottish who fought against the British (Uganda had also been under British imperial rule).
At least I read the book to the second movie I watched: A Passage To India. It was slightly different than the movie, but E.M. Forster's book was by far much better. I would highly reccomend it!! The movie was pretty good though. The basic plot line(of the movie) is India circa 1920's, during British Imperialist rule. A young English woman and her future mother-in-law travel to India to visit her fiance', who is the chief magistrate in the area. The women are aghast at how the British treat the Indian people and wish to see the "real" India. They meet and befriend a well-educated Indian doctor. During an outing the English woman accuses the Indian doctor of rapping her and the whole area is turned upside down during the trial. The woman recants her testimony but she completely ruins the way the Indian doctor sees the world. He rejects the Western ways that he so admired and wished to be a part of before, and goes back to tradional Muslim garb and outlook.
All in all, it is an amazing story(book or film tho I def preferred the book) and really shows the brutality of British Imperialism and the twisted way of thinking at that time-very similar to Conrad's Heart of Darkness or Achebe's Things Fall Apart in that I find all three of these books have very sad undertones (I have to re-read Conrad b/c i've realized how much I missed out of when I read books in h.s. and was not yet ready to appreciate them fully).
My new saying that I've picked up from Jon Stewart applies well to my thoughts on many of the characters in these kinds of films/books: " Wow-Be a Fucking Person."
In The Last King of Scotland, Forest Whittaker plays Ugandan President-turned dictator- Idi Amin. James McAvoy is the main character, playing Amin's doctor(a fictional role). If I may insert a disclaimer here, apparently this film was made after a book, written by a British author, which would totally ruin my stance on "Read before Watching" but I was totally unaware of this. Mea Culpa!!!
Basically, I already had some background on Amin's very oppressive and bloody rule. It is estimated that he killed some 200,000 Ugandans. His ties to the PLO were also well portrayed in the film when the 1976 flight from Athens was hijacked by the PLO and the occupants were taken to Uganda before negotiations secured the release of most of the occupants (Israeli troops came in and got the rest(this was not showin in the film)-Israeli citizens were the only ones not released by Amin) in exchange for the release of jailed PLO members.
I thought the movie was really good. I saw the human side of Amin and could-to an extent- understand his growing paranoia. I would def reccomend this film!! Oh, the reference to Scotland is basically Amin's deep respect for the Scottish who fought against the British (Uganda had also been under British imperial rule).
At least I read the book to the second movie I watched: A Passage To India. It was slightly different than the movie, but E.M. Forster's book was by far much better. I would highly reccomend it!! The movie was pretty good though. The basic plot line(of the movie) is India circa 1920's, during British Imperialist rule. A young English woman and her future mother-in-law travel to India to visit her fiance', who is the chief magistrate in the area. The women are aghast at how the British treat the Indian people and wish to see the "real" India. They meet and befriend a well-educated Indian doctor. During an outing the English woman accuses the Indian doctor of rapping her and the whole area is turned upside down during the trial. The woman recants her testimony but she completely ruins the way the Indian doctor sees the world. He rejects the Western ways that he so admired and wished to be a part of before, and goes back to tradional Muslim garb and outlook.
All in all, it is an amazing story(book or film tho I def preferred the book) and really shows the brutality of British Imperialism and the twisted way of thinking at that time-very similar to Conrad's Heart of Darkness or Achebe's Things Fall Apart in that I find all three of these books have very sad undertones (I have to re-read Conrad b/c i've realized how much I missed out of when I read books in h.s. and was not yet ready to appreciate them fully).
My new saying that I've picked up from Jon Stewart applies well to my thoughts on many of the characters in these kinds of films/books: " Wow-Be a Fucking Person."
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Movie critiques-> It's rainy, sit on your ass and learn a 'lil sumthin'
I learn best through a variety of methods. In brushing up on my history/foreign policy, i've been trying to watch pertinent movies. Tonite...well, at 3:00 am, I am watching Breaker Morant This movie takes place during the Boer War of the early 1900's between the Dutch Boer settlers and the British Empire.
It basically is a court-room drama( Law and Order South Africa??) as 3 Austrailian soldiers are accused of War Crimes while they maintained they were only following orders in an unconventional war against guerilla fighters. Wow, does this seem familiar??? I would also compare the "scorched earth" policy that the British employed (similar to Sherman's March To The Sea->bastard dashed my dreams of ever living in a beautiful southern plantation house with a wrap-around porch and slaves quarters->JK JK JK about the last part haha) to what we did in Fallujah:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/fallujah-tent-city-awaits-compensation.html
The movie was made in the 80s (as was I-hahaha) but it explores topics and questions that we still are trying to answer today. As I mentioned with the case of Fallujah, how logical is the idea that we implemented during Vietnam that "we have to destroy it to save it." Who are the bad guys in the film? Is there a bias? I think so, but I want other people to watch it and discuss it with me.
The weather has been shitty the past few days so I think ya'll should go out and rent this educational film and have a "history-buff, though not IN the buff, dork-out fest" with me. I'm adding this movie to the list that i'm trying to get my family to watch. I got Blood Diamond off the list(more so for their curiosity at a movie that could make me cry continually for 10mins) but I still need them to watch Why We Fight, which is a movie about the Military Industrial Complex(coined wisely by Eisenhower) ie. the American War Machine. It features the John McCain that I would have voted for...not the guy who ran on the GOP ticket this past election.
Go rent the movie, or pirate it off the internet (as I do haha) and do some thinking-lest we see the events of the movie Idiocracy unfold.(Thank you for telling me to see it David) That movie was pretty entertaining and really may come to be a reality in the future. We see everyday that educated people are not reproducing at the rate of uneducated morons. To me, this is prolly the most realistic dystopia-or utopia, depending on whether or not you think an idiotic, sex-crazed, overly-commercialist society is a good thing?? ...Uhh.. wait...don't we already live in that kind of society already?? haha.
Obv. my rainy day activity is watching movies!!
It basically is a court-room drama( Law and Order South Africa??) as 3 Austrailian soldiers are accused of War Crimes while they maintained they were only following orders in an unconventional war against guerilla fighters. Wow, does this seem familiar??? I would also compare the "scorched earth" policy that the British employed (similar to Sherman's March To The Sea->bastard dashed my dreams of ever living in a beautiful southern plantation house with a wrap-around porch and slaves quarters->JK JK JK about the last part haha) to what we did in Fallujah:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/fallujah-tent-city-awaits-compensation.html
The movie was made in the 80s (as was I-hahaha) but it explores topics and questions that we still are trying to answer today. As I mentioned with the case of Fallujah, how logical is the idea that we implemented during Vietnam that "we have to destroy it to save it." Who are the bad guys in the film? Is there a bias? I think so, but I want other people to watch it and discuss it with me.
The weather has been shitty the past few days so I think ya'll should go out and rent this educational film and have a "history-buff, though not IN the buff, dork-out fest" with me. I'm adding this movie to the list that i'm trying to get my family to watch. I got Blood Diamond off the list(more so for their curiosity at a movie that could make me cry continually for 10mins) but I still need them to watch Why We Fight, which is a movie about the Military Industrial Complex(coined wisely by Eisenhower) ie. the American War Machine. It features the John McCain that I would have voted for...not the guy who ran on the GOP ticket this past election.
Go rent the movie, or pirate it off the internet (as I do haha) and do some thinking-lest we see the events of the movie Idiocracy unfold.(Thank you for telling me to see it David) That movie was pretty entertaining and really may come to be a reality in the future. We see everyday that educated people are not reproducing at the rate of uneducated morons. To me, this is prolly the most realistic dystopia-or utopia, depending on whether or not you think an idiotic, sex-crazed, overly-commercialist society is a good thing?? ...Uhh.. wait...don't we already live in that kind of society already?? haha.
Obv. my rainy day activity is watching movies!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
