Monthly Archives: March 2003

Morning the second revision.

Thursday, March 27, 2003

OK, later today I'm going to make a video collage; I've got a little spare time today and I've been recording lots of stuff off CNN that I think people should see… This morning I recorded shots of Iraqi POWs sitting blindfolded in little barbed wire cage with no blankets or even a jacket as storms raged around them… In the foreground was a US soldier proudly talking about how well treated the Iraqis are and how they should be lucky to surrender and get this great treatment… I guess he didn't realize what was in the background of the shot.

It was pretty weird… Remember, the American POWs in Iraq have said in interviews with al-Jazeera that they're being treated well, and if you don't want to believe that (coersion is of course possible), the POWs from the Afghanistan war (and the Taliban is definitely more brutal than Saddam) all said they were treated exceptionally well, and in many cases said that they had better food and sleeping quarters than their captors, who basically treated them as guests.

Well, like I said, I'll let the footage speak for itself and people can draw their own conclusions from it…

On more pleasant news, I expect that the IM-bot (that is, the taskbar-based IM checker system that sits in your Windows tray and notifies you whenever you have new messages) should be out for public beta today. I will also be looking for a Mac programmer to replicate it for the Mac (this is a paid contract job) so if you're a qualified Mac programmer, I hope I'll hear from you after you've had a chance to try out the Windows version.

Comments (0)

Who will take the fall?

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

I'm getting a lot more mail than usual today telling me basically these two key points, and I wanted to address them:

  • Americans don't support Bush, so I should not “blame Americans” for anything that's happening in Iraq. (I thought America was a democracy where the government represents the will of the people?)
  • It's wrong of me to include the American flag in any images from Iraq.

Please understand that I realize that most people reading my page are no fans of Bush and would stop this war if they could. But also please understand that it's not Bush that's going to answer for the crimes he's committing right now. He's going to walk away from this very rich — ka-ching — no matter how it turns out.

But the American people will answer for these crimes, whether they supported this war or not (apparently 80% do). It is you that will be hurt when the reprisals and consequences start to roll in. Whether you like it or not, it's your name that's getting written on those corpses, and it's your corpse that the parents and relatives will demand in return. Bush is immune.

As far as including the American flag in the pictures, you have to realize that these killings in Iraq are not happening anonymously. I include the flag because people are so conditioned by images of violence on TV that unless they're “personalized” they get ignored. It's a horrible truth of the TV society we've greated.

If it really hurts you to see the American flag associated with them, then you shouldn't argue to hide the name of the aggressor — you should argue to stop the aggression. Me adding a flag doesn't change the event — and it's not there to “hurt” you or be “mean” to you — it's there so you understand, with brutal honesty, what is being carried out in your name.

Remember, the most patriotic thing you can do as an American is stand up to your government and tell them to do what you ask. If America is a democracy they must listen. So call your Congressman. Write a letter. And make sure everyone you know does the same. Because like it or not, this war is happening in your name and you will be paying the price both in blood and in cash.


To: *****
From: Shannon <glider@bmezine.com>
Subject: Re: The war

>About the pictures of the people hurt, and mangled on
>your page. I was somewhat for war before this war started.
>After seeing your side of it….I am ashamed to be an
>american. Just thought I would tell you that.

Don't be ashamed to be an American — be proud to be an
American and do what you can, as an American, to stop these
people from committing these acts in your name.

Shannon

Comments (0)

Holy Hell

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

I don't know how many people watched Bush's rally today for the troops in Flordia, but I record all of them. They're crazy to watch. Seriously crazy… I have no idea how people can watch him tell full-on lies (today included things like implying that Saddam was ready to launch chemical strikes on American soil, that al-Qaeda had been defeated, etc.) and not say “what the hell is going on?”… Part of me thinks his handlers are trying to get him assassinated.

Anyway, I'd like to quote from today's “Hand of God” speech, as I like to call it:


“I want to thank Chaplain Stone. I appreciate your words of prayer for [our military]… People acorss this country are praying. We pray that God will bless and receive each of the fallen and we thank God that liberty found such brave defenders.

The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, but God's gift to humanity. May God bless America.”

Um… Is it just me, or is Bush saying that (a) this is a holy war and America is acting as the hand of God, (b) God hand-picked the American troops to fight Satan's army, and (c) any fallen troops will go straight to heaven, presumably to their holy harem of virgins?

I'd like to know what church — and what God — gave Bush that authority. The Pope has said Bush is going to hell for this and has said that any soldiers killed in action are going straight to Hell where they will burn for an eternity. That's straight from the Pope. Don't want to believe the Pope? Even the Church that Bush claims to belong to has said the same thing. (more)

Bush's America is not the hand of God. It is the hand of evil.

Comments (0)

Idiots, idiots, idiots.

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

There's no excuse for how flat-out stupid the Allies are being. The strategy being employed in Iraq (bomb first, then send in ground troops) is designed to fail. I just can't believe that US military planners are this stupid. For whatever reason, this action is designed not to work.

Let me recommend three classic books that help illustrate:

The overwhelming message in all of those books, which explain in simple terms how an underfunded underequipped and minimally trained force can best large advanced well funded militaries, is this:

For grass-roots guerrilla action to succeed, the people must understand your political mission, and must relate to it. If the people do not support you, no matter how just your cause, you will fail. But with the people's support, no matter how great the enemy, you will be victorious.

Everyone agrees I think that Baghdad may be the “defining” battle in Iraq… And the people are the real wildcard. Saddam may have a lot of troops (outnumbering the US forces potentially), but Baghdad is no mud-hut village — it's a modern metropolis of four million people. Change the writing in the advertising billboards and shave everyone's mustache and you'd think it was Miami.

So what does the US do? Launch missiles into civilian markets. Do you really think that the people who's family's bodies litter the streets are cheering for American-style freedom? Do you really think they understand that this is just “unfortunate collateral damage”? Maybe they'll see that in twenty-five years, but they're not going to believe that lie any time soon.

So what is the US doing? It's taking a giant population of people who could easily have swung politically toward the US, and instead guarantees the opposite… Whereas they should have sent in ground troops first (into civilian areas). Yes, more US troops might have died, but the Iraqis would not be shown the dishonor that it means to be part of the American military, and would not be living with the proven belief that Americans will never improve their lives.

It's a very basic strategical failure.

Everyone in the military knows that. Guerrilla forces have been a significant part of mainstream warfare for the last fifty years. Which means that logically, this was a reasoned decision.

Now ask yourself, why would the US make military decisions, that, no matter what the end outcome (I'm not saying the US can't eventually pound Iraq into submission — it's got probably a hundred thousand times the assets to throw at this), will guarantee civilian hostilities and a deeply destabilized region? I offer you two potential overlapping answers:

  • The more damage that's done, the more money will be spent. That is, the corporate interests will reap rewards directly in relation to the damage. These corporate interests are not only the largest contributors to the Bush/Cheney regime, but they are personally involved as well. These attacks go a long way to guaranteeing that those companies, as well as key figures in the regime, will become outrageously wealthy.
  • Iraq was on the cusp of having sanctions lifted, its tourism was way up, and its population was largely Westernized (look at pictures of Iraqi's urban centres if you don't believe me; the picture above really is Baghdad). It was literally on the verge of becoming a “first world” nation with the same ideals of freedoms as places like America (well, maybe not America, but you know what I mean). These attacks go a long way to guaranteeing that won't happen.

Maybe you have another answer…. But the only other answer I could come up with is “the people making the plans are morons” and we know that's not true…

Comments (0)

War isn't pretty

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

I'm not an idiot, and I understand how war “works”… I understand that friendly fire happens in war and that one shouldn't read too much into isolated incidents of it. But let's take a look at the death count so far. According to the British, “friendly fire” currently accounts for 90% of their fatalities. That means that if you're a British soldier, and you're killed in this war, so far there's a 90% chance that your own Allies killed you, not “the enemy”.

If you want to see something interesting, watch the Chinese news… They have a pile of their own military experts explaining why the US will lose this war. To simplify, the US still fights wars “like WWII”, whereas Iraq has been so impoverished as far as gear goes for so long that it's had forty years of relatively well-funded guerrilla training, putting it at a massive strategic advantge on some levels.

Which may mean that short of just levelling the country through air-based nuclear strikes, Iraq might be able to hold its own. I still think America should be able to win this war quickly and will be quite confused when they don't… But then… Remember, God is anti-war.

Now it's common sense time… and thanks to mal for this link of clarification. Now I understand the debate and how the logic of all this works…

PS. Feel free to take these pictures I'm posting and forward them to anyone you'd like.

Comments (0)

Updated

Wednesday, March 26, 2003


Well, the update is in place thankfully. I honestly wasn't sure if I'd wake up and have to restart it manually… But it's there in place, and I'll get the rest of it online later today I hope.

As most of you know, one of the things US troops “discovered” (it was a known target so “discovered” isn't really the right word) was a chemical plant that was “bunkered” and slightly hidden. The suspicion was that it was a chemical weapons plant (although any idiot can tell you that if you're building even a legitimate factory in Iraq you should probably shield/hide it to protect it from US attacks). I saw the following post:

I heard about some warehouse possibly had chem weapons in it….then my mom said a neigbor said it was FILLED and blah blah blah, now I cant find ANYTHING about it. weird. i dont beleive that there were WMD, but i find it weird that i cant even find it now.

I think that pretty much typifies how “information” comes out in this war. The US makes some outlandish statement and then it turns out to a lie, and we never hear about it again — it just gets back page coverage so unless you actually read the news, you don't always hear about it. That chemical plant turned out to be clean for example. A couple other examples:

  • The US gave a list of folks it thought was dead including Saddam and Tariq…. turned out they were not.
  • The US said that Iraq fired a SCUD at Kuwaid…. turned out they didn't.
  • The US said Umm Qasr had fallen…. turns out it didn't.
  • The US said the Iraqis had surrended in bulk…. turns out they didn't.
  • The US said Iraq hadn't shot down any choppers… turned out they did.
  • The US said there would be a civil uprising against Saddam…. turns out the people are more loyal to him than ever.
  • The US said the Republican Guard would surrender…. turns out it didn't happen.
  • The US said Basra had fallen…. turns out it didn't.
  • The US said Iraq had fired on Iran…. turns out they didn't.

I can list these on and on. Unfortunately most people just hear the first part of the statement since it's aid ten times as loud. The Bush administration has told Americans that the “victory” will come with a price in American blood. But let's look at what price that victory comes at for the Iraqis… What regime-legacy is being left for them?.

Saddam, even if you believe he's an “evil man” with a “rape room” that “eats babies” and may even breathe fire, is far less “evil” than many of the alternatives. And we do seem to be playing a game of choosing the “lesser” evil, right? To oversimplify, there are two major theo-political forces in Iraq — extremist Muslims, and then moderates like Saddam.

The extremists have been clear: “If you want to kill Saddam for us, fine, but when you're done with that, get the hell out or we'll massacre every soldier you leave here, and then we start on your citizens.” Seriously, this is right up there with when the US put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan.

Here are some guarantees. Everything else is up for debate. All of these are true even if the war magically ends fifteen minutes from now:

  • Billions of dollars of damage to Iraq
  • Billions of dollars of American tax money wasted
  • Thousands of Iraqis killed, if not more
  • Hundreds of American soldiers killed
  • Religious extremists (aka potential terrorists) empowered

I could expand that list almost indefinitely, and it gets worse every minute this goes on. There is no payback for the Iraqi people. All that'll happen for them is one dictator gets replaced with a far worse one and a lot of people get killed. All that'll happen for the American people is economic crisis and terrorist attacks… Some US companies might get right in the process.

But you will suffer for them.

But keep your head high, the flag of freedom will soon fly over Iraq, right? Either that or by the time Bush is through, the image of the US flag will be so tarnished that America will have to design a new flag out of shame.

Comments (0)