Saturday 25 February 2006
Who destroyed the al-Askariya shrine?
Yet more extreme violence in Iraq. The al-Askariya shrine was destroyed last Wednesday. The shrine, an important Shiite holy site, is reputedly the burial site for two early and important Shia Imams and is famed for its prominent golden dome. The predominately Sunni town of Samarra has seen a great deal of unrest since the US lead invasion of Iraq and at various times has been under the control of insurgents.
So far no one has claimed responsibility for the attack. Most 'experts' suspect an al Qaeda linked or inspired group.
Unsurprisingly Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has another theory. He has publicly blamed the 'defeated Zionists and occupiers'. By this he means, the US and Israel. He says they destroyed the shrine because they 'oppose God and justice'. Unfortunately the news items I've read have failed to describe his evidence. This might be because the media is a part of the 'international Zionist conspiracy'* and doesn't want us to know about it, or - more likely - it might be because he has none.
There are some on the left (and extreme right) who say that there is no real freedom of expression/media in the West. They point to issues like politco-corporate linkages, narrow ideological frameworks and the appeasement of commercial interests that prevent our media from 'telling it the way it is'. I accept that these factors and others mean that our media is far from perfect. But things like freedom of expression and freedom of the media are sliding scales. Does anyone really believe that a 'Western' leader would get away with such an untested claim as Ahmadinejad's? I know some will say, 'Bush got away with Iraq!' (or some version of this), but everyone - from late night comedians to mainstream Hollywood actors, from middle school kids to their grand parents - knows pretty much what Bush did and why he was wrong. Hell, even a few country music artists know. It isn't just hip young urbanites, finding the truth; despite the best efforts of the man to keep it from them. It is a real sign that, despite its flaws, our media can deliver.
Ahmadinejad does not have to face anything like the scrutiny Bush (or Howard or Blair) faces. He can make assertions and accusations with impunity because the state, which his political masters control, exercises strict supervision over the media. They don't do this through a secret cabal of back-room elites manipulating unwary journalists and opinion writers, but by closing media organisations - both temporarily and permanently, arresting journalists - sometimes with and sometimes without trial, and even occasionally disappearing journalists altogether. In this environment public expression of political dissent is understandably rare.
Without media scrutiny it is enough for Ahmadinejad to offer a vaguely plausible reason why the US and/or Israel might want to destroy the shrine as proof that they actually did.
What Ahmadinejad won't mention is the real possibility that Iran was behind the attack. It's no surprise that the religious conservatives who run Iran are nervous about developments in Iraq. Iraq has become only the second 'Islamic' country to be run by the Shiites. Disappointingly for Iran, Iraq's Shia have opted for democratic processes rather than theocracy and are not interested in falling in line behind Iran as part of an emerging Iranian lead 'Islamic' power-base. It gets worse for the religious conservatives; Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a widely respected Shia scholar, has backed the fledgling Iraqi democracy. Because of his reputation, this has implications in Iran. The Iranian people can see an alternative to clerical rule that is supported by a senior and respected cleric in practice. This can only strengthen Iranian dissent.
A full blown civil war in Iraq - a possible outcome of the shrine's destruction - could change things in Iran's favour. If the civil war became too bloody, the US led coalition would probably leave. Though they represent the majority, Iraq's Shia would not fair well in a full blown civil war. The real military power is held by the Kurds and they would act to protect their own interests first, leaving the Shia to face the brunt of Iraq's Arab Sunnis who would be well supported by neighbouring countries - counties led by their co-religious and eager to prevent the emergence of a Shia led Iraq. This would force Iraq's Shia to turn to Iran for support, setting them up for dominion by Iran.
Iran's involvement would go some way to explaining the odd method of attack. The attackers - dressed as police - took over the shrine, tied up its guards and set charges in the roof to destroy the dome. Reportedly no one was killed and the main part of the building was left largely intact by the resulting blast. Given the religious importance of the shrine to the Shia, it would be hard to imagine Iran's clerics ordering its total destruction. In fact the dome would be the ideal choice for an Iranian backed attack because it would pose the least threat to the tombs which are the religiously significant part of the shrine.
The US and/or Israel, not concerned with the religious significance of the shrine, would have had no qualms about destroying it completely. Al Qaeda would have used a massive blast to obliterate the building and kill as many Shia as they could. When you look at it that way, it appears that Iran must have been behind the attack.
Do I believe they were? No. Just finding a plausible explanation is not proof of anything. At this stage I agree with the 'experts' and believe an al Qaeda linked (or inspired) group was most likely behind the attack. One possible explanation for the odd method might be that it was carried out by a group of local Samarra Sunnis; inspired by al Qaeda, though reluctant to wreak total carnage upon their neighbours.
Some reports indicate that arrests were made, perhaps some real evidence of who was behind the attack might emerge there. Until then (if real evidence ever does emerge) Ahmadinejad's comments are yet another example of the importance of free expression/media.
*Ahmadinejad mistakenly believes this conspiracy is all about destroying Islam, when actually it is - as we in the 'West' know - really about maximising profits by keeping 'us' under their thumb. When will this stuff get old?
So far no one has claimed responsibility for the attack. Most 'experts' suspect an al Qaeda linked or inspired group.
Unsurprisingly Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has another theory. He has publicly blamed the 'defeated Zionists and occupiers'. By this he means, the US and Israel. He says they destroyed the shrine because they 'oppose God and justice'. Unfortunately the news items I've read have failed to describe his evidence. This might be because the media is a part of the 'international Zionist conspiracy'* and doesn't want us to know about it, or - more likely - it might be because he has none.
There are some on the left (and extreme right) who say that there is no real freedom of expression/media in the West. They point to issues like politco-corporate linkages, narrow ideological frameworks and the appeasement of commercial interests that prevent our media from 'telling it the way it is'. I accept that these factors and others mean that our media is far from perfect. But things like freedom of expression and freedom of the media are sliding scales. Does anyone really believe that a 'Western' leader would get away with such an untested claim as Ahmadinejad's? I know some will say, 'Bush got away with Iraq!' (or some version of this), but everyone - from late night comedians to mainstream Hollywood actors, from middle school kids to their grand parents - knows pretty much what Bush did and why he was wrong. Hell, even a few country music artists know. It isn't just hip young urbanites, finding the truth; despite the best efforts of the man to keep it from them. It is a real sign that, despite its flaws, our media can deliver.
Ahmadinejad does not have to face anything like the scrutiny Bush (or Howard or Blair) faces. He can make assertions and accusations with impunity because the state, which his political masters control, exercises strict supervision over the media. They don't do this through a secret cabal of back-room elites manipulating unwary journalists and opinion writers, but by closing media organisations - both temporarily and permanently, arresting journalists - sometimes with and sometimes without trial, and even occasionally disappearing journalists altogether. In this environment public expression of political dissent is understandably rare.
Without media scrutiny it is enough for Ahmadinejad to offer a vaguely plausible reason why the US and/or Israel might want to destroy the shrine as proof that they actually did.
What Ahmadinejad won't mention is the real possibility that Iran was behind the attack. It's no surprise that the religious conservatives who run Iran are nervous about developments in Iraq. Iraq has become only the second 'Islamic' country to be run by the Shiites. Disappointingly for Iran, Iraq's Shia have opted for democratic processes rather than theocracy and are not interested in falling in line behind Iran as part of an emerging Iranian lead 'Islamic' power-base. It gets worse for the religious conservatives; Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a widely respected Shia scholar, has backed the fledgling Iraqi democracy. Because of his reputation, this has implications in Iran. The Iranian people can see an alternative to clerical rule that is supported by a senior and respected cleric in practice. This can only strengthen Iranian dissent.
A full blown civil war in Iraq - a possible outcome of the shrine's destruction - could change things in Iran's favour. If the civil war became too bloody, the US led coalition would probably leave. Though they represent the majority, Iraq's Shia would not fair well in a full blown civil war. The real military power is held by the Kurds and they would act to protect their own interests first, leaving the Shia to face the brunt of Iraq's Arab Sunnis who would be well supported by neighbouring countries - counties led by their co-religious and eager to prevent the emergence of a Shia led Iraq. This would force Iraq's Shia to turn to Iran for support, setting them up for dominion by Iran.
Iran's involvement would go some way to explaining the odd method of attack. The attackers - dressed as police - took over the shrine, tied up its guards and set charges in the roof to destroy the dome. Reportedly no one was killed and the main part of the building was left largely intact by the resulting blast. Given the religious importance of the shrine to the Shia, it would be hard to imagine Iran's clerics ordering its total destruction. In fact the dome would be the ideal choice for an Iranian backed attack because it would pose the least threat to the tombs which are the religiously significant part of the shrine.
The US and/or Israel, not concerned with the religious significance of the shrine, would have had no qualms about destroying it completely. Al Qaeda would have used a massive blast to obliterate the building and kill as many Shia as they could. When you look at it that way, it appears that Iran must have been behind the attack.
Do I believe they were? No. Just finding a plausible explanation is not proof of anything. At this stage I agree with the 'experts' and believe an al Qaeda linked (or inspired) group was most likely behind the attack. One possible explanation for the odd method might be that it was carried out by a group of local Samarra Sunnis; inspired by al Qaeda, though reluctant to wreak total carnage upon their neighbours.
Some reports indicate that arrests were made, perhaps some real evidence of who was behind the attack might emerge there. Until then (if real evidence ever does emerge) Ahmadinejad's comments are yet another example of the importance of free expression/media.
*Ahmadinejad mistakenly believes this conspiracy is all about destroying Islam, when actually it is - as we in the 'West' know - really about maximising profits by keeping 'us' under their thumb. When will this stuff get old?
Saturday 11 February 2006
Own goals...
The 'Danish cartoon' controversy has so far cost upwards of eleven lives in two countries and looks like continuing for a while at least. As I stated in a comment I left on Andrew Montin's blog, I am deeply suspicious of the motives behind the publication of those cartoons, but regard the over-reaction in some Islamic countries as part of an ongoing campaign against free speech.
I have followed with great interest a debate between Andrew and ultra-left blogger Mark. They are debating a technicality; the inherent racism of the cartoons themselves. (Andrew - denying inherent racism - seems to me to be winning that debate hands down.)
I want to look at another 'cartoon controversy' that hasn't quite arrived yet. A European Arab organisation briefly made headlines a few days ago with a campaign of their own.
The Arab-European League (AEL) states that they are against the publication of the 'Danish cartoons' because they demonise Arab and Muslim people. I am not unsympathetic to that view, however central to their thesis is that there is a double standard in Europe (or the West) that allows the unpleasant side of Islam to be openly discussed while other issues are off limits. I am not convinced that this is the case.
Anyway they launched a series of their own cartoons that they say redresses this imbalance. I'll look at four of them and explain why they are offensive and probably should not have been published. (I would have done the same for the Danish cartoons but am not brave enough to republish them.)
This is one of three cartoons, out of a series of six so far, that deals with the Holocaust. It invokes the memory of Anne Frank, a young Dutch victim of the Nazis, to suggest that 'the Jews' were 'in bed' with Hitler. This conspiracy theory, in wide circulation in the Islamic world (I heard it again just a few days ago, earnestly repeated by an otherwise reasonable acquaintance who would characterise himself as a mainstream Moslem), suggests that 'the Jews' collaborated with the Nazis in order to achieve their Zionist agenda. In my opinion it is the most offensive of the Holocaust cartoons. It perpetuates the pernicious 'crafty Jew' stereo type in the most hideous way. Not to mention the outright racism of depicting a Jewish child victim as a co-conspirator in such a monstrous fraud. All in all a very nasty piece of work.
This cartoon is labelled 'solving female circumcision complications'. It is an appalling reduction of the serious problem of female genital mutilation to one of - otherwise spoilt - women missing out on sexual pleasure; nothing a suitably large man couldn't fix. Clearly offensive to all victims of these practices and women in general.
A nasty, narrow-minded reaction to some recent improvements in Gay rights. The common gripe of religious conservatives of all creeds is that we're on a slippery slope towards total moral depravity. A terribly offensive piece of homophobic equivalency; homosexuality is just another kind of sexual perversion.
Actually this one's not terribly offensive. I only included it because I think that's John Howard on the left (hard to know because of the poor quality of the artwork) and I love to see Australia on the world stage. Incidentally, given the motives of the AEL campaign it's worth noting that similar cartoons appear in newspapers throughout 'the West' just about every day.
A couple of the 'Danish cartoons' left me baffled and may well be hugely offensive, but of those I understood, none comes even close to the first three in terms of offensiveness. The AEL have certainly explored the limits of free speech. They've clearly offered offence to Jews, homosexuals and women. (On second thoughts that's been going on for centuries.) I disagree with everything these cartoons suggest. Actually I find most of it disgusting. However I would not ban them, and I would certainly not kill anyone over them. All I'd do is what I've just done - point out that they're offensive and wrong and explain why they are offensive and wrong.
Given the muted reaction to these cartoons - they've been mentioned in short news items and lampooned by late night comedians - I'd say they might not have achieved all that the AEL wanted. In fact the reaction so far suggests that 'the West' does broadly accept free speech and that nothing is off limits.
I have followed with great interest a debate between Andrew and ultra-left blogger Mark. They are debating a technicality; the inherent racism of the cartoons themselves. (Andrew - denying inherent racism - seems to me to be winning that debate hands down.)
I want to look at another 'cartoon controversy' that hasn't quite arrived yet. A European Arab organisation briefly made headlines a few days ago with a campaign of their own.
The Arab-European League (AEL) states that they are against the publication of the 'Danish cartoons' because they demonise Arab and Muslim people. I am not unsympathetic to that view, however central to their thesis is that there is a double standard in Europe (or the West) that allows the unpleasant side of Islam to be openly discussed while other issues are off limits. I am not convinced that this is the case.
Anyway they launched a series of their own cartoons that they say redresses this imbalance. I'll look at four of them and explain why they are offensive and probably should not have been published. (I would have done the same for the Danish cartoons but am not brave enough to republish them.)
This is one of three cartoons, out of a series of six so far, that deals with the Holocaust. It invokes the memory of Anne Frank, a young Dutch victim of the Nazis, to suggest that 'the Jews' were 'in bed' with Hitler. This conspiracy theory, in wide circulation in the Islamic world (I heard it again just a few days ago, earnestly repeated by an otherwise reasonable acquaintance who would characterise himself as a mainstream Moslem), suggests that 'the Jews' collaborated with the Nazis in order to achieve their Zionist agenda. In my opinion it is the most offensive of the Holocaust cartoons. It perpetuates the pernicious 'crafty Jew' stereo type in the most hideous way. Not to mention the outright racism of depicting a Jewish child victim as a co-conspirator in such a monstrous fraud. All in all a very nasty piece of work.
This cartoon is labelled 'solving female circumcision complications'. It is an appalling reduction of the serious problem of female genital mutilation to one of - otherwise spoilt - women missing out on sexual pleasure; nothing a suitably large man couldn't fix. Clearly offensive to all victims of these practices and women in general.
A nasty, narrow-minded reaction to some recent improvements in Gay rights. The common gripe of religious conservatives of all creeds is that we're on a slippery slope towards total moral depravity. A terribly offensive piece of homophobic equivalency; homosexuality is just another kind of sexual perversion.
Actually this one's not terribly offensive. I only included it because I think that's John Howard on the left (hard to know because of the poor quality of the artwork) and I love to see Australia on the world stage. Incidentally, given the motives of the AEL campaign it's worth noting that similar cartoons appear in newspapers throughout 'the West' just about every day.
A couple of the 'Danish cartoons' left me baffled and may well be hugely offensive, but of those I understood, none comes even close to the first three in terms of offensiveness. The AEL have certainly explored the limits of free speech. They've clearly offered offence to Jews, homosexuals and women. (On second thoughts that's been going on for centuries.) I disagree with everything these cartoons suggest. Actually I find most of it disgusting. However I would not ban them, and I would certainly not kill anyone over them. All I'd do is what I've just done - point out that they're offensive and wrong and explain why they are offensive and wrong.
Given the muted reaction to these cartoons - they've been mentioned in short news items and lampooned by late night comedians - I'd say they might not have achieved all that the AEL wanted. In fact the reaction so far suggests that 'the West' does broadly accept free speech and that nothing is off limits.
