President of Iraqi Kurdish region urges end to rebellion

"We have always struggled for the sake of peace, democracy, development and stability for our people and peoples of the region. We are in fact in a bitter and continued state of struggle against terrorism," the statement [by Kurdish President Massud Barzani] said.

Whst's still unclear to me is, how does the global community keep letting this happen? How do we always figure out a way to ignore one group's crises by focusing too hard on another's? And then crazy shit starts to erupt on the street behind our backs because we were busily looking hard in the other direction, and we turn to see what's going on behind us and we are shocked. Well, the rest of the world keeps operating. We are in fact in a... struggle against terrorism. These communities - shit, not just communities, entire regiouns - of people, on their native land or not, feeling at risk, feeling like victims. The story of the Kurds is sad. It's not surprising that, for their own protection, they would seek it from amongst their people and be able to ignore questionable activities because they all know what they need protection against. So they set up this militia, which "largely operates clandestinely through local social groups in the three northern Iraqi Kurdish provinces of Sulaimaniyah, Arbil and Dohuk." They'll call it 'social groups,' I'd say you'd be better off to understand them as organizations like Fatah.

""We do not want to sacrifice our cultural and economic relations with Iraq for the sake of a terror organisation," [Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan] said, referring to the PKK."

Source: Agence France-Presse

Kurds make a bid for freedom,

Or at least, thats what I think Kurdish militiamen are ultimately trying to accomplish. By drawing attention to themselves in the global media, they are trying to gain support and sympathy. They have no desire to remain a part of Iraq - the Iraqi flag is regarded as a symbol of their genocide.

I could be wrong about this and I very well may be.

This article from Time is quite interesting, detailing the political implications of Turkey being drawn into Iraq.

...Turkish public fury has now found a second target in the Kurdish regional government of north Iraq, which popular opinion in Turkey has accused of harboring the PKK.


I have to wonder, what's the major difference between a political faction enabling and possibly harboring militant opposition groups and a political party or candidate indulging the interests of otherwise questionable groups in order to gain political capital and support.

Iraqi Kurds appear to be relying on Washington to intervene, but the U.S. is caught between a rock and a hard place. North Iraq is the only relatively stable region in that country and the Kurds there are its only allies. Washington has repeatedly urged respect for Iraq's sovereignty. At the same time, however, Turkey is one of the biggest U.S. allies — the only mainly Muslim NATO member and a key player in a volatile region that Washington cannot risk alienating.

America doesn't dare risk alienating its allies at this point, as it is slowly losing political legitimacy on a global scale. As long as it remains an occupying military force in another nation, it is dependent on global support to achieve whatever twisted ends they have envisioned. Does anyone even know why we're there anymore? Why we were there in the first place?

Are we allowed to be angry? Should we be entitled to voice our opinions? A democratic political system says yes, but a minor opposition voice says no one is particularly interested. How do we fix this? Are some of these horrible things that are happening due, in part, to our apathy?

What a world.

Bush defies China in public meeting with Dalai Lama

Is this how desperate America is for friends on the world stage? A Congressional Medal of Honor to the Dalai Lama... why? Because the current government lacks global credibility?

Perhaps...

Analysts Find Israel Struck a Nuclear Project in Syria.


Well, my mother and I had been speculating that since the initial attack. Israel really is 'warmongering.' My family all thinks I've turned traitor because I refuse to call myself pro-Israel. To them, because I'm not pro-Israel, I must be anti-Israel, and have something horribly wrong with my head.

Oh well. A quest for knowledge always has those on the side who just simply can't understand. I'll live.

You could almost feel bad for the Bush Administration.
US covering up Iraqi corruption: lawmakers
Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’

Yeah, almost.

It seems like the Bush Administration is having a lot of trouble, especially as of late. In July, former Surgeon General Richard Carmona testified that that top officials in the administration tried to weaken and suppress important public health reports for "political considerations." Also this summer, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales embarrassingly resigned amid a hail storm of controversy regarding alleged perjury when testifying about the firing of a number of US attorneys. Oh, and let us not forget Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld... Who could? It seems that Bush's entire tenure is marked and marred with corruption and controversy. So this statement from former President Jimmy Carter is not at all shocking. In fact, it's completely natural in the line of everything else this administration has been accused of.

Well, at least there's one person who can be glad that George Bush "won" presidency in 2000. Yep, you guessed it, former Vice President Al Gore. Why, if he hadn't "lost" to Dubya, he might be caught up in the same ridiculous political circus the US Government has made of itself. He might even be wallowing in some awful and pointless war following a major terrorist attack. Instead, though, he's basking in the spotlight, hobnobbing with the stars, and winning both Academy Awards and Nobel Peace Prizes. And he's also pulling huge support from the liberal youth ... many people would support his presidential candidacy. But he doesn't want it. He knows he can do something so much better, and so much more important. And he is.

Bush allows torture: Carter

This article from AFP is, unfortunately, not at all shocking to me.

Also unfortunately, it is two in the morning and I have an early class, so I will come back to this tomorrow when I have time.

I feel like I use AFP as my source far too much. My brother points out that MetroNYC uses AP as their news source >93.6% of the time, I feel like I'm doing that with AFP. Oh well, AFP report those things which interests me.


On a personal note: It's amazing how you can step outside of yourself for a few hours to enjoy the glitz and glamor of New York City, but as soon as you step back outside, there is a homeless man sleeping on the corner, and the dichotomy is blinding. New York is not a real place. It's amazing.

Follow-up and thensome...

A follow-up to this post...US experts leave for NKorea to begin disabling nuclear arsenal. I'll reiterate: Diplomacy works. Bush administration, you should try it. Part of me imagines this is a slap in the face to those who truly 'believed' that whole Axis of Evil theory of George Bush's. Remember, everyone, "these people," those North Koreans, are actually terrorists so they're beyond negotiating with! Oh, wait... That was Iraq. And perhaps Iran. Hm.

All I know is, whoever inherits George Bush's title gets a beautiful steaming hot mess dropped right into their lap. You have to admire anyone delusional enough to stand up and say, "Hey, I think that I can fix this!"


I've had an exciting week, media-wise. Last night, I went to the Colbert Report with some friends. Quite an experience, to witness an un-'Colbert' Stephen Colbert. I even got a hug from him, as he ran around hugging all the women in the front row in celebration of the release of his book, I Am America and So Can You. I guess this doesn't count as a particularly mind-broadening experience but it certainly was fun. Besides, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart are pioneers in their field and are certainly an important part of informing the younger masses. I hope that those who watch these shows go out and try to follow the stories the shows cover, but if not, at least they know a little more than they would were they not watching. So, after that horribly-formed sentence that I will come back later to edit, I grant my stamp of approval to Colbert and Stewart.

And onto the second experience... Ethan Bronner, Deputy Foreign Editor of The New York Times, came in today to try to present to us how the New York Times, particularly his branch, goes about reporting the news. What the information process is, who the players are, what is news ... I'll type up some of that at a later time, I think. It was quite interesting. Out of the three speakers we've experienced so far, I must say Bronner has been the most interesting to me, possibly because of his career. Although sometimes I consider a career in politics, I'm more interested in knowledge, in knowing what's happening everywhere and why. That's why being a journalist really appeals to me. Or at least involved in some way with journalism. That's what Bronner imparted upon us. He tried to impress that he truly believes that The New York Times presents a fair and even report to the best of their ability. A "cold blooded thirst for the truth," he said, is what those who work at The Times possess in order to live up to their expectations of fair and impartial reporting.

In response to questions about accusations that The Times does indeed have a specific agenda, he said, "Some people just can't believe that not everything has to be political. We're not political, we're just trying to present what happens." Of course, people will see agendas everywhere based on how they're taught to view the world. It's a fascinating phenomenon ... An either you're with us or against us mentality that often stunts one's ability to accept that, perhaps, their particular side may not always be right. This phenomenon is particularly evident when the issue is polarized by the media and the general public. For instance, "pro-choice" & "pro-life," or "pro-Israel" & "pro-Palestine." When viewing a news piece through a frame of that sort, it's often difficult to discern when something is simply fact and when something is biased against your particular stance.

Ultimately, we've had three different men in to speak with us: The general, the politician, and the editor. The one I want to be when I grow up is the editor. Getting to watch what moves the general and the politician make, and then analyze them and reflect on them based on their other actions, other people's actions, history, the world's politics... Amazing.

That's why the news is so fascinating.

Michelin families leave Algeria - BBC
Basque separatists say Madrid had declared war with arrests - AFP
Protests around the world against Myanmar's junta - AFP
Bush Denies Plan to Attack Iran - AP
Deadlines loom at US-Russia talks - AP
Suspected Islamist rebels kill Somali army general - Reuters

News alert?

Huh. I guess I didn't realize I registered for the New York Times to send me news alerts to my inbox, but since I did and they did, I now have something to write about.


News Alert: Musharraf Wins Pakistan Presidential Election
Gen. Pervez Musharraf won re-election as Pakistan's president
today, officials said. But the Supreme Court will have final
say on whether the balloting is valid.


Clearly, the editorial decision to send this out as a news alert means, "We, the editors of the international section of the New York Times, felt that this decision was so important that it needed to be sent to your inbox as a registered member of the New York Times website. So even if you don't read another news headline today, we have gone the extra step to make sure that you are informed of this information."

Thanks, New York Times.

So I clicked the link provided in the email and was brought to the main page of the Times, where the first headline reads, "Boycotts and Legal Fight Cloud Victory for Musharraf."

Pakistan's political scene exploded into an all-out war while we were too busy watching Iran and Iraq. Same thing happened in Burma. It's, at the very least, a good reminder that, just because we're not looking, it doesn't stop the rest of the world from turning. American media is so mostly uninterested in what doesn't seem to directly affect it that the American populace is allowed to ignore the politics of the rest of the world. It seems like it's less than accidental, too. The media is a many-faced monster with many agendas. It might not be that far-fetched.

We are all Africans.

Zimbabwe a disaster, Merkel tells South Africa's Mbeki. - AFP

How are so many atrocities possible? It seems like, that is human nature.

Watching:
Pakistan's Bhutto, Musharraf agree on accord - AFP
Debate Erupts on Techniques Used by C.I.A. - NYT
Myanmar junta offers to meet Suu Kyi - AFP

Free Burma! - International Bloggers' Day

Today is International Bloggers' Day in support of the protesting monks in Myanmar. This will be quick because there's only 28 minutes left in the day.

I think it is a beautiful thing that the peaceful protesting of a religious group can draw planet-wide attention, and that it is partially due to the resource of the Internet. If you are smart and want people to really pay attention, you use the Internet to your advantage, and you shall succeed. If you can make enough noise, everyone will look eventually.

NKorea agrees to declare, disable nuclear programmes

Link: Agence France-Presse

Proof that diplomacy actually is actually still capable of working, contrary to the Bush Administration's insistence that "these people [sic]" are too far gone into "evil" (Axis of Evil, of course) to be negotiated with, that political moves are futile and martial law must be put in place.

War is uncivilized. War is honestly needless destruction. I'm not a pacifist, I'm not a hippie, I'm not an anti-war protester, although I sympathize with all these ideas, as I do with other opposing views, as well. Everyone has a good point. But the wars America wages, especially as of late, violate so many human rights that its impossible to support with good conscience.

Well, at least some people still know how to talk, and to use it to their advantage.

Robert Malley, President William Jefferson Clinton's former senior adviser for the Middle East, came in to talk with us today. Ultimately, what we/I got was that he is entirely skeptical that George Bush's Middle East summit scheduled for November is going to be in any way successful.

So I thought. But what are the implications, if failure is imminent?

Am currently keeping an eye on this developing summit between North and South Korea. One must smile and hope for the best of situations at all times, and grab at the potential good news when the rest of the world seems to be imploding upon itself.


Well, you never know. Maybe this summit will lead to negotiations and possible reconciliations between the Koreas, and will be a beacon of hope for everyone idealistically wishing world peace were actually possible, and can be a model, however foolishly, for the rest of the warring nations to follow (ha, yeah right).

Is Chairman Kim seriously interested in peace? What are the motives on each side? What could be gained? What might be lost?


"It is up to us whether we can play a leading role in establishing a new order of peace in Northeast Asia," [South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun] told a dinner hosted by Kim Yong-Nam.

So maybe my idea isn't so far-fetched. Maybe not the Middle East, but certainly parts of Asia... It's a "start." Not that peace is a path leading to a pot of gold and rainbows and eternal bliss. Creatures of war, we are, but since it is our nature, what can we do but to fight? Peace happens in some places but not in others, and then the world changes and the cycles shift, and peace shifts too. Thus is the world.

I'm reading this article on AFP, and am struck by a few things.

The posters and billboards, offering between 20,000 and 200,000 dollars for the capture of a dozen "wanted" Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters, will be put up in eastern Afghanistan, US Sergeant Dean Welch told AFP.

The part that really bugs me is that the campaign is really looking for twelve members of these terrorist organizations, and they're offering only 20-200k for the capture of these men? It seems like these twelve are seriously important, but they're only worth a couple hundred grand at best? Sure, that's a lot of money, especially in Afghanistan, and yet that's bull compared to what the US government is capable of offering, since these men are so significant that they warrant a poster campaign seeking their capture.

Just me.