Bomb Everyone by George Monbiot
Humanitarian arguments, if consistently applied, could be used to flatten the entire Middle East
Let's bomb the Muslim world – all of it – to save the lives of its people. Surely this is the only consistent moral course? Why stop at blowing up Islamic State, when the Syrian government has murdered and tortured so many? This, after all, was last year's moral imperative. What's changed?
How about blasting the Shia militias in Iraq? One of them selected 40 people from the streets of Baghdad in June and murdered them for being Sunnis(1). Another massacred 68 people at a mosque in August(2). They now talk openly of "cleansing" and "erasure"(3), once Islamic State has been defeated. As a senior Shia politician warns, "we are in the process of creating Shia al-Qaida radical groups equal in their radicalisation to the Sunni Qaida."(4)
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/1/2/1388681429135/Car-bomb-explosion-in-Har-011.jpg)
SOURCE: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/02/beirut-car-bomb-blast-hezbollah-stronghold
What humanitarian principle instructs you to stop there? In Gaza this year, 2,100 Palestinians were massacred: including people taking shelter in schools and hospitals. Surely these atrocities demand an air war against Israel? And what's the moral basis for refusing to liquidate Iran? Mohsen Amir-Aslani was hanged there last week for making "innovations in the religion" (suggesting that the story of Jonah in the Qu'ran was symbolic rather than literal)(5). Surely that should inspire humanitarian action from above? Pakistan is crying out for friendly bombs: an elderly British man, Mohammed Asghar, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, is, like other blasphemers, awaiting execution there after claiming to be a holy prophet(6). One of his prison guards has already shot him in the back.
Is there not an urgent duty to blow up Saudi Arabia? It has beheaded 59 people so far this year, for offences that include adultery, sorcery and witchcraft(7). It has long presented a far greater threat to the west than Isis now poses. In 2009 Hillary Clinton warned in a secret memo that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban ... and other terrorist groups."(8) In July, the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, revealed that Prince Bandar bin Sultan, until recently the head of Saudi intelligence, told him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."(9) Saudi support for extreme Sunni militias in Syria during Bandar's tenure is widely blamed for the rapid rise of Isis(10,11). Why take out the subsidiary and spare the headquarters?
The humanitarian arguments aired in parliament last week(12), if consistently applied, could be used to flatten the entire Middle East and West Asia. By this means you could end all human suffering, liberating the people of these regions from the vale of tears in which they live.
More here at George Monbiot's website: http://www.monbiot.com/2014/09/30/bomb-everyone/
George Monbiot is a leading thinker in the anti-capitalist movement and a campaigner for economic justice. There are many fascinating articles on his website which I recommend. http://www.monbiot.com/
In George's words: Here are some of the things I try to fight: undemocratic power, corruption, deception of the public, environmental destruction, injustice, inequality and the misallocation of resources, waste, denial, the libertarianism which grants freedom to the powerful at the expense of the powerless, undisclosed interests, complacency.
I read his...rant, as the best way I can describe it, and I'm a bit confused? What would he have the Western nations do? He ends it on his site by a line seemingly suggesting that any meeting of violence with violence is a losing proposition. Okay.....I'd be interested in any example across human history where determined and meaningfully applied violence was met with anything short of the power to end it by force, and then met anything but defeat in the process?
ISIS isn't a terrorist organization like others, whose purpose is simply to inflict terror on populations to force political change (text book definition, if anyone recognizes it). ISIS is different in that terrorist tactics are a short term and very carefully applied tool of control and manipulation. When the need is over, the tactics likely will be too. That sets them apart from all but groups like Hezbollah, that has done much the same while forming as much a social services agency as any militant organization.
I agree with the author of that in saying I absolutely don't think that bombing them is the answer. Air power to influence the outcome of ground war has been tried before and Obama could never hope to match the raw power or force of the 1991 "Shock and Awe" campaign, even if he had the power of a dream to work with. We simply don't have the raw force required, if we used everything we still have in Uniform and on reserve status combined.....and that effort still failed to achieve it's goals without a MASSIVE ground operation to follow ...which did engage in old fashioned armor battles, as one example of how lacking air power truly is when relied upon alone.
So... Our current approach is historically shown to be a failed concept by those hoping to wage war on the "safe and sane plan". It makes BIGGER wars later, when the half way effort fails.
Doing nothing is attractive...but then what? ISIS isn't converting populations. It's looking at the people within a new area it takes, segregating those who believe as they do, giving an option to those who don't (maybe) and brutally executing everyone else, however many that happens to be. (They just keep digging holes to accommodate higher numbers, apparently). It's a cold, simple and terribly effective approach. When you literally HAVE nothing alive left to disagree, power is assured and victory comes by default. That lesson is obviously not lost on them at all. It takes a monster to prosecute a war that way...but.....well?
So...again, George there would seem to suggest fighting is a lost cause, and fighting without focus and without specific goals IS a lost cause. I'll agree with him there. Fighting evil in itself though? Well... We can do nothing and as the proverb says....that's all Evil requires to win and hold dominion.
Perhaps Obama needs to reach WAY WAY down and find his guts, to try a new approach. Kill the leadership, specifically and as individual men. Not as "There is the building they MIGHT be in with 1,000 other people! Bomb it!". No.. How about solutions coming at about 3,000 feet per second in a very personalized effort for single people. After all, the greatest empire in history can still be broken down to a handful of individual men that made it something more than other countless efforts which failed, while attempting the same thing. Fight people..not populations, and ISIS may be defeated instead of being made infinitely stronger by pursuing old and frankly, barbaric methods of war by attrition (one sided, no less) when attrition IS NOT necessary here.
Just my two cents into the 'ol blender.
Monbiot is being sarcastic/ironic. He is opposed to intervention. He is pointing out how ludicrous it is to intervene on the moral basis that we should bomb them because of human rights atrocities. On that basis we should do what Zorgon suggested and nuke the entire Middle East and Pakistan. That is his point.
Of course if that is the basis for action then I guess we should continue the acts of destruction, but why make ISIS a special case?
Quote from: Pimander on October 01, 2014, 04:08:33 PM
Monbiot is being sarcastic/ironic. He is opposed to intervention. He is pointing out how ludicrous it is to intervene on the moral basis that we should bomb them because of human rights atrocities. On that basis we should do what Zorgon suggested and nuke the entire Middle East and Pakistan. That is his point.
Of course if that is the basis for action then I guess we should continue the acts of destruction. but why make ISIS a special case?
How is ISIS not a special case? They are working on an organizational model not seen in that area of the world since the late 13th Century and working for a goal not seen in reality there for about the same period of time. (The Ottoman empire is also referred to as a Caliphate, but I'm not counting that for it's very drastic contrasts from strictly Islamic versions running down the bloodlines)
They aren't fighting to fight and win battles, as even the Iraqis seem hung up on, but are straight out fighting to conquer, occupy and claim territory in an old school way I don't think the world was ready for seeing outside a nation-state. Of course, that is precisely what they are becoming in a sequence of events I wouldn't have believed possible until watching it unfold like this.
They seem to define the very idea of 'special case' in a region where they are operating beyond and outside the norms everyone else does.
(Of course, I figured George was being sarcastic and why I didn't even refer to his claims on the face of them...but referred to his aversion to intervention directly, since that is obviously the only point he's actually looking to make)
Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia are all states who are committing atrocities. Israel's are certainly related to territory and you can question the legitimacy of Israel as a Nation state quite easily. Pakistan was created by the British by drawing a line on maps (as were many US states LOL) and therefore is hardly a bona fide state from its inception. Basically there is no real morally defensible reason for the intervention. It is being done as an excuse to be perpetually at war and to protect oil interests.
We can write essays about how IS are a special case. All places are different. The pretext for intervention is to fight the evil IS. Well that argument can be applied to so many other states where we do not intervene (I'm British BTW) that the argument is ludicrous. It is the interests of the USA, France and Britain that the Hawks believe they are protecting. That is the truth.
You sound like a Washington Hawk politician (probably republican) crossed with a liberal academic. :o
I agree with Pi.
There is NOTHING special about ISIS, apart from it's special treatment by the Western news media - thus far it sounds like the Taliban 2.0.
It's sole purpose is to create a pretext to topple Asad.
If you want to talk 'special' atrocities - lets talk Africa ::)
Interesting to note that the US and UK Infantry were in close proxmity to the area where all those Kenyan girls went missing, I know, an ex boyfriend was stationed there - jar head :-X
Quote from: Sinny on October 01, 2014, 05:13:18 PM
I agree with Pi.
There is NOTHING special about ISIS, apart from it's special treatment by the Western news media - thus far it sounds like the Taliban 2.0.
The Taliban were strictly nationalist for the control and "freedom" (as they saw it) of Afghanistan. ISIS has absolutely no loyalty to any one specific nation, and the fall or loss of one nation is of minor importance to them in the big picture. If they succeed, their new nation will form over the top of at least 6 or 8 nations we see on our map today. The Taliban sought a nation of their own. ISIS seeks a world power of their own. Orders of magnitude for the difference, IMO.
If nothing else, that alone puts the ambition and blood-lust to achieve it, worlds beyond anything the Taliban sought in their fighting. I think ISIS exists and operates at a level far beyond the simpletons that formed the Taliban command structure.
World domination , there's a new one lol.
Quote from: Sinny on October 01, 2014, 06:05:35 PM
World domination , there's a new one lol.
Not really new... If ISIS succeeds, they will be the third such Islamic state the world has seen with near or, to the thinking of the time, total "world" domination. Oh, neither of the first two versions conquered everything they wanted, but it's interesting to read their own writings on the topic in contemporary terms. What wasn't conquered was often seen as beneath the effort required to do it. England is an exception of course...and the Caliphs would have given near anything to have taken that island outright, but thankfully, no one is perfect. Even a Caliph.
So..not so much new, since future generations will simply read of it as the 3rd variant of a very distinct philosophy for governance mixed heavily with and based upon theology. However, it will be entirely new today and especially in a modern world where awareness of history is often considered to be the area of nerds and dedicated historians. That lack of awareness, sadly, is why ISIS will probably go a long way toward their goals before being shut down (if they are successfully shut down at all). After all, the leadership of ISIS aren't idiot stick Jihadis looking for self aggrandizement. They are professionals with some carrying Doctorate level education and who have decided to use that intelligence to replay the success of the past, while avoiding it's failures by example. Imagine a historian with the powers of a King....
Oh.. We're in for a real real bad few years to come, I think.
all i know is the women of the world, and their daughters, granddaughters, moms, sisters, aunts and nieces, etc, are in serious trouble, enmasse, if this thing keeps moving in the direction its heading in right now
Quote from: undo11 on October 01, 2014, 06:45:49 PM
all i know is the women of the world, and their daughters, granddaughters, moms, sisters, aunts and nieces, etc, are in serious trouble, enmasse, if this thing keeps moving in the direction its heading in right now
Why? Will some Arabs wiping each other out thousands of miles away with the assistance of the USAF mean that your nation will move back from being run by the current 95% male right wing chauvinists to 100% again?
Quote from: Pimander on October 01, 2014, 08:25:17 PM
Why? Will some Arabs wiping each other out thousands of miles away with the assistance of the USAF mean that your nation will move back from being run by the current 95% male right wing chauvinists to 100% again?
i have no idea what they are doing over there, but one thing i do know, i'm not a fan of chauvinism or islam. i don't have a problem with muslim people, i have a problem with the religion itself, particularly how it characterizes women as a subspecies. i have the same gripe about christian teachings on the subject of women.
for example, apostle paul said that he doesn't allow women to teach because of eve. then he goes on to explain himself -- eve was tricked, he said. at first i didn't realize what he meant. i've always thought it was meant as women being subpar, intellectually, until i realized how this applies to the garden scenario, where women are cursed and humans in general, condemned.
according to the text, women are cursed with pain, misery, death and suffering, because they were "fooled" by the supposedly trickiest guy in the universe. it took me a few months to work out that what we are witnessing in the scene is the bad guy condemning humans for, well, being human, and women particulary, because we make more humans. this is when i realized the concept of sin, particularly eve's sin, was a big stinking pile of nonsense, promulgated by some kind of extra-terrestrial or other dimensional, evil.
paul had essentially given the whole thing away when he said, eve was fooled. that meant eve was innocent. now let's take that a step further - in islam, the woman is at fault if they man rapes her. this sounds like the bad guy in the garden teaching human men to deliberately abuse and murder their women folk. if that goes global, the whole planet will have failed the human race, and particularly their women.
i don't care how you couch it, in whatever rhetoric you deem politically satisfying, the difference between how the lives of women are today in western nations, and the example in islam nations, is light freakin night and day.
in sumerian terms that reads thusly:
enki creates humans from a prior race that he upgrades with procreation.
enlil throws a hissy fit and demands the human life span be limited, thus resulting in the nerfing of our dna, which included pain, misery and suffering to varying degrees, before complete shutdown of our bodies (death). the excuse is given that because we had "eaten from the tree of knowledge", when in effect the tree of knowledge is procreative dna. the thing is hidden in the verses, but hints are dropped everywhere, such as the verse that says, adam KNEW his wife and she begat. to know, or have knowledge, meant to procreate.
so the god that says, go forth, be fruitful and multiply, is not the same guy who condemned us, because multiply means, procreate. he told us to go forth, be fruitful and procreate. and the other guy went ballistic and said, nooo, don't procreate.
one of these things is not like the other.
Quote from: undo11 on October 01, 2014, 08:41:07 PM
in islam, the woman is at fault if they man rapes her.
Is it?
oopsie
don't misunderstand . i'm not saying we should be bombing them. that's ludicrous. but if someone doesn't correct the situation, it's going to get very bad and deadly for at least 50% of the human species, and flat out deadly for the other half.
on top of that, we have no way of knowing if this scenario is being used as a depopulation function and just using the cover of islam as a means to an end, which can then be blamed on islamic people. whatever the reason, it needs to stop.
Quote from: undo11 on October 01, 2014, 10:09:45 PM
yes the fundie version blames it on women.
That explains it, the fundie version of almost all religions does it.
Quote from: ArMaP on October 01, 2014, 09:52:09 PM
Is it?
Under strict Islamic law, "4 males" who bore witness to the rape and subsequently testify in court to that effect, are required for a conviction of the suspect. Or the suspect admits guilt and his intentional "non-consensual" nature of the encounter.
If one of those criteria are not met, the woman is essentially (and I believe legally) admitting to sexual conduct. If she is married, then that is adultery.
the problem is, even if isis is not composed of actual muslims, the fact the fundie version of their teachings, support that behavior, would still allow truly evil bastards to use it to their advantage, regardless and then blame it on all muslims, regardless. on the other hand, no one wants to be dictated to about what they should or shouldn't believe. the difference here is a matter of extremes .
Quote from: ArMaP on October 01, 2014, 10:18:40 PM
That explains it, the fundie version of almost all religions does it.
agreed, and that includes world views that don't contain religious teachings as well. a fundie is someone who takes otherwise ethical teaching and turns it into an excuse to remodel the planet in whatever fashion they want it. this would naturally include atheists and agnostics who would be happy not to have to share the planet with fundies of any kind.
two wrongs will never make a right, and that's what this thread is attempting to explain. however, if someone doesn't stop this isis thing from spreading, you can all kiss your shiney hineys good bye. cause the machine sounds to be designed for the purpose of killing, period, not for making life better for muslim people.
Quote from: ArMaP on October 01, 2014, 09:52:09 PM
Is it?
I think that it says so in Leviticus. Leviticus is also a holy book of Christianity and Judaism.
I thought a fundie was a fundamentalist? SOmeone who thinks that scripture is fundamentally and literally true?
Quote from: Pimander on October 01, 2014, 11:22:19 PM
I think that it says so in Leviticus. Leviticus is also a holy book of Christianity and Judaism.
precisely, and that's based on the idea that it's our fault we are procreators, which is the silly. sin = becoming procreators.
then, followed up by the teaching that it was the creator who condemned us with shortened life spans and that women were particularly evil because they tempted man with procreation . that's where the whole concept of blaming the female, came from.
clearly these are 2 entirely different teachings, being taught as if the creator was the destroyer, when in fact, the creator was not the problem at all. the problem was the owner of the planet, who holds the planet as a piece of real estate.
Quote from: Pimander on October 01, 2014, 11:26:00 PM
I thought a fundie was a fundamentalist? SOmeone who thinks that scripture is fundamentally and literally true?
fundamentalism is any extreme version of an ethical teaching, whether that be from a government or a church. to be fundamental about something is to be extreme.
unfortunately, forcing people to not be extreme to the detriment of their otherwise ethical world view, has not been successful either.
Quote from: Glaucon on October 01, 2014, 10:28:07 PM
Under strict Islamic law, "4 males" who bore witness to the rape and subsequently testify in court to that effect, are required for a conviction of the suspect. Or the suspect admits guilt and his intentional "non-consensual" nature of the encounter.
True
QuoteIf one of those criteria are not met, the woman is essentially (and I believe legally) admitting to sexual conduct. If she is married, then that is adultery.
If one of those criteria is not met then she is accused of lying to incriminate someone and punished for that.
to say i'm pissed off that i now know that the issue of sin, was not even our fault, in the first place, is putting it mildly, however, this does not mean i'm going to go out and kill people to remedy that anger. rather i'm going to ask the question:
is it really, HONESTLY, worth it to hold to your view that because you disagree with someone that he/she should be coerced, forced or otherwise manipulated into believing as you do, or die?
i woud seriously like an answer to that question ^
if it's okay for us to go around killing people we disagree with,
how come no one told me that?
anybody know the answer to that?
Quote from: undo11 on October 01, 2014, 11:28:03 PM
fundamentalism is any extreme version of an ethical teaching, whether that be from a government or a church. to be fundamental about something is to be extreme.
unfortunately, forcing people to not be extreme to the detriment of their otherwise ethical world view, has not been successful either.
To be sure, there are agents provocateurs that whip up "fundamentalism." The urge to profit from war is strong on the dark side. So... What would happen if there was no way to pay toadies? Would there be the agents provocateurs, the false flags, the psyops, the yellow and manufactured "journalism," the false rumors, the shilling, the downright lies?
Back to Your regularly scheduled program. [smile]
Quote from: undo11 on October 02, 2014, 12:00:16 AM
if it's okay for us to go around killing people we disagree with,
how come no one told me that?
anybody know the answer to that?
I don't know why nobody told you that but it isn't okey with me to kill anyone for disagreeing.
Quote from: Pimander on October 02, 2014, 12:07:15 AM
it isn't okey with me to kill anyone for disagreeing.
thank you, pim. i was concerned that isis represented the desire of the "Free world" to just be done with the fundie thing, permanently. unfortuntately, as you pointed out earlier, fundie is described as either muslim or protestant, and having been raised early on, as a protestant, i would very remotely resemble that comment. in fact,i often referred to myself as a fundie christian. but now that i have a better grasp of what is transpiring on the planet, i will not go quietly into the dark night.
that doesn't mean, however, that i approve of what they are doing in iraq. it just means i don't want to be subjected to islamic laws. thanks but no thanks. from what i can tell, that's enlil revisited, and we've had several thousand years of him, already
Quote from: undo11 on October 01, 2014, 10:59:34 PM
if someone doesn't stop this isis thing from spreading, you can all kiss your shiney hineys good bye. cause the machine sounds to be designed for the purpose of
..gaining an asymmetric advantage in the (their) operational environment. Hence why US airstrikes are targeting critical infrastructure of IS's unconventional/conventional support structure.
It seems like OPE (Operational preparation of the environment). Which means we'll likely see conventional forces on the ground in the near future. In this case, I presume the free syrian Army and it's moderate affiliates constitute the ground forces. I'm sure US SF are vetting them as we speak.
JFK, 1962 United States Military Academy
[W]e need to be prepared to fight a different war. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin, war by guerilla, subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by
ambush instead of combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him and these are the challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training.
Quote from: undo11 on October 01, 2014, 11:49:58 PM
is it really, HONESTLY, worth it to hold to your view that because you disagree with someone that he/she should be coerced, forced or otherwise manipulated into believing as you do, or die?
I don't think it is, or to kill someone just to get access to the resources of their lands or just because they have the "wrong" colour, etc., I think that killing someone should be only used as a last attempt to save out someone else's life.
Quote from: undo11 on October 01, 2014, 11:49:58 PM
is it really, HONESTLY, worth it to hold to your view that because you disagree with someone that he/she should be coerced, forced or otherwise manipulated into believing as you do, or die?
Absolutely not, but a problem arises from this justification. Particularly, the Western Worlds historic capability to kill those who don't believe in "Universal human" rights.
The recruits and believers who wave Al Qaeda's flag believe they're saving the "Caliphate" from American
Imperialism and the West's "hypocrisy". What they really need is a good education...
Quote from: Glaucon on October 02, 2014, 12:50:32 AM
Absolutely not, but a problem arises from this justification. Particularly, the Western Worlds historic capability to kill those who don't believe in "Universal human" rights.
The recruits and believers who wave Al Qaeda's flag believe they're saving the "Caliphate" from American Imperialism and the West's "hypocrisy". What they really need is a good education...
yeah, what a horrible situation this has all turned out to be.