.. but it's *our* microcosm[1]!
subtitle: squaring a few circles[2]?
-=*=-
It is slightly amusing, to watch a few WD-denizens Oh, so publicly devour each other. Especially delicious is that right at the centre of the storm - actually not 'just' at the centre but adding enormous (misguided!) energy to the maelstrom like the demented dervish she undoubtedly is, is none other than the self-promoting putative madam president[3] of the MK old bags club.
Taking account of possible paranoia and any tendency towards self-selection, it is an easy accusation to make, that the demented dervish deployed her dubious 'charms' against more than just a few of the honest truth-seekers now marked largely by their absence 'over there.' Interesting too, is that exactly the same technique of abuse she claims has her targeted, was the same as that which a certain lying troll directed at me. Did madam putative-president spring to my defence 'back then?' (Detested Ameri-speak - spit!) No, and not on your Nelly, she did not. Partly my fault; I once declared WD to be my workplace, the farmer/fishwife may well have decided to work towards having me ejected from exactly that point. (On grounds that WD is partly her possession, partly her play-pen, and how dare anyone disagree with her - however she may justify that stance. But even murderers (see next bit) - just as child-mind abusers, say - presumably *somehow* feel justified.)
But I tire of it: as Mme. Albright might'a said (but didn't) "The price just ain't worth it." Specifically, although attempts to weed the real nasties out'a WD had some initial success 'back then' (spit!), WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get), WD is now - not exclusively, but extensively, a playground open for such bigots and the aforesaid lying trolls.
The WD-nub: commenter to commenter abuse is OK, just as long as it's sufficiently well disguised (Paul Walter to Jenny Hume, Paul Morrella to me), telling any lie is also OK; the rules themselves may be arbitrarily abused (see looong discussions 'in here,' Damian's (g'day) and some less salubrious places (listening, Harr'äh?) - and in the end it all just becomes a corrupt power-play.
Just like 'real life' in fact, hence 'microcosm.' This, then, is the 1st circle that cannot be squared. Despite our hopes and expectations, WD has ground to earth, and is nothing more than a CWA-style Kaffeeklatsch, with neither the intention nor ability to change anything.
-=* =-
Just as some liars appear to prosper in WD (listening, Morrella?), so in the wider world. Try this story:
«US rejects Rudd's claims on 'flawed' Iraq intel
By Washington correspondent Michael Rowland
Mr Rudd told Parliament that the decision to go to war was based on flawed intelligence, a fact he said was not disclosed to the Australian public at the time.
He cited as an example the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
In response, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the Bush administration was acting in good faith on the information it had in the months leading up to the invasion.»
[AusBC]
Well, of course, and kindly pardon my French, but what a pack of flamin' bloody lies!
Not what Rudd said (appears quite reasonable, even surprisingly so in the face of the "US alliance" position seemingly forced on our wide-brown), but what the White House spokeswoman dared to say. That, in the face of the 935 lies - and the recent revelations of McClellan. And all the rest of the evidence pointing to wilful, criminal mass-murder for oil. (Whilst 'helping' Israel's equally theft-by-murder intention of grabbing a "Greater Israel" from the hapless *legal* owners of ex-Palestine and surrounds.)
Hypocrisy hardly gets more breathless than this. And the AusBC regurgitates it without blushing. Shame!
I can't understand how countries like Germany or France can tolerate what USrael are doing. Forget about trying to square any circles, if the liars (all the filthy accessory/enablers, listening, Morrella?) aren't locked up and soonest, and the main criminal order-givers hanged by the neck until dead, then there's just no justice at all.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] microcosm n. (often foll. by of) miniature representation, e.g. mankind or a community seen as a small-scale model of the universe; epitome. microcosmic adj. [from *micro-, *cosmos] [POD]
[2] To square the circle Attempt the impossible:
Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatig:
"Futile is the labor of those who fatigue themselves with calculations to square the circle."
My comment: It doesn't exactly fit (haw!) - But I'm a bit sick of Sisyphean ennui.
[3] madam n. 1 polite or respectful form of address or mode of reference to a woman. 2 colloq. conceited or precocious girl or young woman. 3 woman brothel-keeper. [related to *Madame] [POD]
11 comments:
G'day Phil, "slightly amusing" - at a stretch. But we see the same old bs and the same old diversions. With a bit of Hitchens' disease thrown in. All these years later and some keep on peddling the same old, same old regardless of the evidence that appears and regardless of the evidence that was available before the war of aggression was launched. Not forgetting that it began months before March 2003 with bombing under the cover of the unauthorised "no-fly zones".
Ray McGovern has an appropriate article on the matter.
"Fairy tales" are mentioned. Some people still dwell in a world of their own imagining. For some their ego is more important than the death and destruction ... and the truth.
G'day Phil, a report from the Independent which, if true, shows the lie of so much of what the US has claimed about Iraq.
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
...
The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.
The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.
Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."
Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.
We have seen previously hints and suggestions about what the agreement included, now we can watch for further developments.
G'day Bob,
...Saw something about this earlier on ICH:
«'US Bribing Iraqi MPs To Sign Deal'
The US has offered bribes to Iraqi MPs to lure them into endorsing a security deal that critics believe would make Iraq a US colony.
By Press TV
31/05/08»
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20016.htm
All the machinery is 'in-place' (Bremer et al.) - except the 'clean-up' bits; was the oil-law (stalled, dead?) - and now could be this one, or this one is 'needed' too. Just so the US criminals can say "See? They gave us the whole country and all its oil. What can we do? We *must* plunder it!"
G'day Phil, Iraqis were susoicious.
And won't accept infringement of sovereignty.
But what pressures will be brought to bear?
G'day Bob,
...2nd 'chomp.'
The last line of your cited article is this:
«The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.»
Of course, 'divide and rule' is well known; but perhaps not well enough known.
On March 26, 2007 - 4:13pm I had the following published:
Gandhi vs. bin Laden_1837
I ask one individual Muslim anywhere, to read and agree to this:
... suspend all hostilities between your Muslim selves, for a brief time only until a single event: the withdrawal of US forces from Muslim lands everywhere. (There is a 2nd part to my wish coming up...)
Yes, I mean anywhere and everywhere that considers itself a Muslim land, whether in the Middle-East or elsewhere (and with oil or without, but mostly with); the 2nd part is only that you - the one individual Muslim somewhere - talk to at least two others of your Muslim 'brethren.' (I hope you will excuse my formulations; I know only English well enough to make this appeal.) When you to talk to these others, your Muslim neighbours, friends or acquaintances, pass this message on, securing in turn (at least) two new agreements to this proposal.
It should be emphasised, that this proposal must always go from one agreed person to (at least) two not yet agreed; two who are willing to and in fact do agree. At each step, the number agreeing must (at least) double. See where this is going?
I seek nothing other than the agreement to suspend all hostilities by each person to whom this message is successfully passed. United you can be strong, but especially in this case, disunity is certain death for many, as we see daily in Iraq.
I make no suggestion of fighting the US, one must only ignore them. Refuse to have anything to do with them. If they are in the street - with or without their disgusting killing machines, merely walk away. Never do business with them, never talk to them, never even acknowledge their presence. Be silent towards them, and never do anything except walk away. This is called passive resistance... if you must say something, anything at all, say only "Go home, US! - Go away!"
If you (each and collectively) do this one small thing, each of you at every step, you will simply be amazed at how quickly - and yes how easily, success will come to you and your brethren, everywhere.
I wish you all peace, equally as I wish it for me and mine.
PS There are some 1.5bio Muslims, with a lot'a them sitting on a lot'a the world's oil. There are approximately 300mio US, 60mio UK, 20mio Aus and 6mio Israelis, give or take (and as we know, mostly take). What the US/UK/Aus & Israel all hope to get (actually steal by murder) is all Muslim oil. If Muslims keep fighting amongst themselves, the US/UK/Aus & Israel will probably win; 386mio against 1.5bio Muslims. You can see this happening; first "Shock and Awe" to Iraq, and probably next to Iran. One thing is certain: if you do nothing, then you will lose the lot. Not a very good deal for all those 1.5bio losers - including you, hmmm? It is entirely possible that your troubles have been ignited and/or accelerated by, say, Cheney's black-ops or some such - after all, any country willing to "Shock and Awe" (aka Blitzkrieg) is capable of any heinous crime; but only Muslims can now stop it. Sooo, instead of all this silly - and deadly - fighting amongst yourselves, perhaps you'd better try to stop these murderingly thieving invaders, which you could do by the peaceful means outlined above. After all, Gandhi did it, and so could you: but you've gotta start somewhere; see above. First one agrees, then two more; double up again and again... Easy, eh?
PPS (Added 5Jun'08.)
Quite obviously, nothing has changed much. The US is still intent on completing its 'murder for oil' in Iraq, can't keep its eyes off its next target, Iran. Another quote from Bob's article:
«Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.»
This illustrates a grave problem. Why should Nouri al-Maliki jeopardise Iraq's sovereignty & 'patrimony' both, just to hang on to his pitiful power, which hardly extends beyond the Green Zone?
What (shocking!) price disunity? (Was it Latham? "Disunity is death!")
PPPS Bob, Iraq is *occupied* by the US. The government is a *puppet* of the US. How can Iraq *resist* being plundered by the US? The US tries to murder all resistance. Is there *any* hope for Iraq? Iran? Any at all? What about for us, we the sheople everywhere? Or must we simply lie down and accept having the world ruled by murdering US gangsters?
G'day Phil, how to impose the US? Some Iraqi mps have taken their case to the US Congress.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday.
Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat and Iraq war opponent, released excerpts from a letter he was handed by Iraqi parliamentarians laying down conditions for the security pact that the Bush administration seeks with Iraq.
...
"The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq," the letter to the leaders of Congress said.
The signatures represented just over half the membership of Iraq's parliament, said Delahunt, a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee chairman.
The signatures represented just over half the membership of Iraq's parliament, said Delahunt, a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee chairman.
Two Iraqi lawmakers whose parties were listed as signatories testified to Delahunt's panel on Wednesday that U.S. troops should leave Iraq, and that talks on the long-term security pact should be postponed until after they are gone.
What will Congress do? What will the next administration do?
G'day Phil, first some follow up material - on the Iraqi who got the matter to Congress.
And on the agreement.
And.
Now to Chris Floyd and don't expect too much from Obama.
Within this piece is a link to this article which deserves highlighting - and the comments are also well worth reading.
Shock-and-Awe is explained in great detail in a 1996 book written by its two architects, Ullman and Wade. The authors explain in it that the goal is to control "means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure." The objective is to cause
the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the
adversary's society.
One seeks to shut down, not the military infrastructure, but the adversary's society. Am I putting too much emphasis on just one unfortunate choice of words? Let's hear Ullman elaborate on the subject:
"You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general
and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also
take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power,
water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and
psychologically exhausted."
It's unambiguous. The goal is to use violence to inspire fear in a way that will shut down all or part of society. The objective is the same as that of 9/11: bring a society to its knees by using terror. (The Ullman-Wade book even mentions Hiroshima approvingly as an example of Shock-and-Awe.)
Shock-and-awe is factually, conceptually, and morally equivalent to or worse than 9/11. Factually: Iraq Body Count estimated the death toll at more than 6,000, which is twice 9/11. Conceptually: The means are terrorism, ie, the goal is to achieve political ends through violence and fear against innocent people. Morally: this was not self-defense or even retaliation; it was premeditated murder of thousands of innocent civilians (including many more children than on 9/11).
When you hear that "9/11 changed everything," make sure to ask: "Did Shock-and-Awe change everything?"
When people tell you Americans can't understand "Islamofascist terrorists," tell them that Americans, in fact, are uniquely qualified to understand bin Laden.
In March 2003, Americans were asked if they wanted to be terrorists. A large majority said "Yes." The word terrorism was already taken, so they went for the closest synonym they could find: Shock-and-Awe.
Note the reference in the first paragraph of the aboive extract to ""means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure." - there is a matter of illegality which has been overlooked. And was, of course, from the Gulf War onwards.
And is Iraq - and the aggression and criminality enough? So much to do, and so little time.
G'day Bob,
picking up on your "So much to do, and so little time," I reply at this time in haste.
Your cited 'tinyrevolution' article is extraordinary; I'm halfway into the comments and will have to read it a few times more to appreciate it in all its complexity. More of the same please - but not too fast, so I may have a chance at keeping up.
G'day Phil, here's another article which puts McClellan's book in perspective after the "secret plan" was exposed.
When you combine this piece of legislation with the Union busting tactics the provisional authority established and the Hydrocarbon law that they are still trying to stuff down the Iraqi’s throat, you begin to get a glimpse of just what kind of “freedom” that Bush and his associates have been gunning for since day one.
This comes out just in time to put a damper on Scott McClellan’s revised history of the Bush administration that paints the entire administration as a well meaning group of idealists that simply wanted to bring democracy to the middle East. Is this what McClellan calls “democracy”?
George W. Bush is doing to Iraq what Saddam tried to do to Kuwait. It is a war crime; an international war of aggression. It is an invasion. and it is criminal in the eyes of civilized society. His “shock and awe” waged on the civilian targets in the opening days of this criminal act are no different than the bombing of London or the Rape of Nanking.
As I have said previously - all these years and all of the evidence ...anyone who doesn't get it, doesn't want to.
cognitive dissonance
Subtitle: vs. cloud cookoo land
-=*=-
G'day Bob,
I mentioned c-d[1] last on 2008/05/27 and before that on 2008/02/12.
Now, referring to your "all these years and all of the evidence ...anyone who doesn't get it, doesn't want to,"
.. I'm thinking "It just can't be.[2]"
I'm thinking that they know, alright, that WYS is in fact WYG; 'murder for oil' is 'going down' (detested Ameri-speak - spit!) over there in Iraq - and the cretins that won't admit it - can't admit it - secretly agree that that's exactly what the Iraqis 'deserve.' Watch out, Iran!
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] Cognitive Dissonance: Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon first identified by Leon Festinger. It occurs when there is a discrepancy between what a person believes, knows and values, and persuasive information that calls these into question. The discrepancy causes psychological discomfort, and the mind adjusts to reduce the discrepancy. In ethics, cognitive dissonance is important in its ability to alter values, such as when an admired celebrity embraces behavior that his or her admirers deplore. Their dissonance will often result in changing their attitudes toward the behavior. Dissonance also leads to rationalizations of unethical conduct, as when the appeal and potential benefits of a large amount of money makes unethical actions to acquire it seem less objectionable than if they were applied to smaller amounts.
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_definitions.html
[2] No, no, know it just can’t be
No it just can’t be
There’s got to be some kind of answer.
No it just can’t be
And everywhere I look, there’s none around
G'day Phil, some more reading maztter on the media. Tom Engelhardt on 5 years of Tomdispatch - and the Bush administration. Scott Ritter on the media.
Post a Comment