peace in my time

2002-09-21T21:55:00.000Z

...so: part 2, anyone?

2002-09-12T23:38:00.000Z

2002-03-15T14:55:00.000Z

Helloooo? Anyone out there?

Oh, Terry, I love you so.

2002-01-28T16:22:00.000Z

2002-01-25T14:45:00.000Z

Live from the WTC: a weblog from one of the on-site workers.

2002-01-07T01:45:00.000Z

Anyone who still wants to send a MangoCard, the link is still live. Don't tell mp3.com though ;)

I guess we're all waiting for the next thing to happen, huh?

except the last thing is still happening. The US are still bombing places where Bin Laden might be, or might have once have ordered a takeaway from. Israel still isn't talking to Palestine. If it comes to that, from the time before this, Iraq is still penniless and hungry (am I right in thinking that the oil-for-food program has resulted in the trading of $50billion's worth of oil for $7billion's worth of aid? Bit of a bargain, isn't it?)

2002-01-04T12:51:00.000Z

Is anyone out there is still reading this? I suggest you go and read The Sensitive Cynic as his updates are more regular.

2001-12-29T00:48:00.000Z

Ben has been successful enough with Peace Mango that mp3.com have now provided e-cards until new year's day. Send them to all the people you know who wanted world peace for christmas. And all the people who didn't.

2001-12-21T18:01:00.000Z

Pictures of the biggest anti-war demo for 30 years are up now:
page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4

And don't forget to check out Ben's Peace Mango song.

2001-12-12T11:41:00.000Z

Because you never know when you might need it: Helpful hints on how to survive an atomic attack.

2001-12-10T04:59:00.000Z

A little satire for ya.

Things are shifting.

Watch this channel.

2001-11-30T17:21:00.000Z

Get your peace on!

2001-11-21T00:10:00.000Z

Today the Taliban tried to surrender a front-line at Konduz. Apparently, according to the verbiage on CNN's site, they're attempted to an 'unconditional surrender' the Norther Alliance, moderated by the U.N.

The U.N. has apparently indicated that they cannot honor the request, as they lack the necessary resources.

So, I mean, I read this, and it comes off to my paranoiac conciousness like so:

Taliban tries to surrender.

World says no.

So if slaughter continues -- if the Taliban tries to surrender, no one will permit it, and shots are still being fired ... Is this officially venturing into the territory of war crime and murder?

I'd like to know.

2001-11-15T15:09:00.000Z

The Net and the real story of Afghan women

"Peace enables stability that is created by schools, by hospitals and by the structure of public services. That is something the women of Afghanistan have proven that they can create. So, why aren't they at the table — relegated instead to pleading their case on the Internet — while others make decisions about how they should live in the next period of their lives as Afghan people?"

Interesting article here. (via betty woo)

2001-11-13T23:15:00.000Z

What happens next?

At a news conference in Kabul, Abdullah said all Afghan groups should come to the capital to negotiate the future of Afghanistan. And he invited the United Nations to send teams "to help us in the peace process."

is it about to stop?

where do we go from here?

2001-11-13T20:21:00.000Z

Yow.

Well, the Northern Alliance took Kabul today. Admittedly, John Simpson went in to soften the opposition up first.

A lot of people nodding and going hmm, maybe America's doing the right thing after all?

this war should never have been necessary.

2001-11-13T13:31:00.000Z

Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Sylvester Stallone is "working on the script of a fourth Rambo film in which the former Green Beret parachutes into Afghanistan to take on the Taliban". Ferfucksake! (via traveller's diagram)

2001-11-13T10:20:00.000Z

This morning's headlines from the BBC provide plenty of food for thought.

The Northern Alliance have taken control of Kabul. (But what about the Northern Alliance's own brutal past?)

Ministers from the six countries surrounding Afghanistan, plus Russia and America, are seeking to form an alternative government in Afghanistan.

Initial reports still claim that yesterday's plane crash in New York was an "accident".

And George Bush announces that the USA will go ahead with substantial cuts to their nuclear arsenal.

2001-11-09T17:21:00.000Z

Discussion of the aforementioned flower incident is going on here, if anyone is interested.

2001-11-09T16:15:00.000Z

Tom makes a very good point about British media.

2001-11-09T16:07:00.000Z

Whatever you do, don't say it with flowers

Girl gets 15 years for protesting against the war.

2001-11-08T00:44:00.000Z

1. nuclear bombs!
when Bush warned of the Al-Qaeda's potential nuclear capability, many people (including myself) regarded it as mothing more than a cheap piece of paranoia-feeding misdirection. the news that Turkish police have just last week managed to catch wideboy gangsters selling weapons-grade uranium on the black market makes me nervous - to say the least.

2. daisy-cutters!
meanwhile, over in Afghanistan, the US has moved from heinously-expensive 'smart' bombs, to the portable minefield by any other name that is the cluster bomb - into a phase of carpet bombing (until recently, even derided as part of a dishonourable past by the US military themselves) - and now...

laydeez and gannelmen, i give you the single - most - destructive - bomb (short of the nuuuuclear option - it quite literally sets - the air - on - fire - vapouriiiiises everything inside a square - kilometre - it's the daisy-cutter!

at least two of these confirmed dropped today.

3. hunger!
a big fave since biblical times - read it and weep:

Experienced, respected food aid organizations warn that even before the bombing of Afghanistan began on October 7, some 7,500,000 Afghans were -- through a gut-wrenching combination of poverty, drought, war, dislocation, and repression -- at risk of starving to death this winter. When the bombing began, almost all delivery of food from the outside world stopped. Now, roads and bridges are destroyed, millions more people are dislocated, and the snow is steadily approaching from higher elevations and from the north.

Seven and a half million people at risk of dying in a matter of months. That's three times the number of people Pol Pot took years to kill. Thirty-five times the number that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined. If 5,000 died on September 11 (a number that reports are now suggesting is vastly inflated), we're talking the equivalent number of deaths to ten World Trade Centers, every day, for 150 days. Slow, painful deaths. Entirely avoidable deaths. Deaths whose sole cause is not the United States, but most of which can still be prevented -- except that the United States is refusing to allow them to be prevented.

That's today. What will happen if millions of Afghans die this winter? How much future terrorism will the dunderheads of the Bush Administration have inspired then? If several million Islamic sisters and brothers starve to death, innocent civilians trapped between winter and the rage of America, how many of Islam's 1.2 billion adherents -- or the five billion other people on earth -- are going to take George Bush's proclamations about eradicating "terrorists" and "evildoers" to heart, and label him, and us, as the prime examples? (ZNet)

- a caveat, here - i've seen reports in the media from NGOs themselves that would seem to suggest the 7.5 million figure is a worst case scenario, and - despite everything, they feel they've done enough to stave off death on this scale (though, obviously, there's no way of knowing - difficult to get reliable info from a warzone...)

as apathy and plain old boredom seize the public, it seems the stakes have been raised again.

2001-11-07T16:49:00.000Z

Is this image the work of hackers or a drunken photo-editor?

2001-11-07T12:35:00.000Z

2001-11-07T01:05:00.000Z

everywhere i go, people are bored of the war. people can hardly believe it's still happening. meanwhile, the US has resorted to carpet bombing...

i don't know what to thnk right now. the way in which the attention span of the general public heals over like a scab. the lack of outrage. the willingness to believe. my contribution to this site has been slight - i've been busy writing a play, of all things. but - it doesn't feel like we're at war. just like it didn't last time. the west's gotten so used to building up and knocking down entire regions' fortunes by remote control...

i can't help but feel that history will come to see us as a decadent culture - our foreign policy a series of accidental or purposeful atrocities, our media a slavish sprawl of one-part propaganda and two-parts escapism.

in related news: the Queen "speaks out" (good, solid figurehead stuff), Bush orders everyone to jump on the bandwagon and - here's a link to an Afghan bulletin board, Arianae - chiefly notable for intrusive braindead jingoism from american racists with nothing better to do.

2001-11-06T15:01:00.000Z

In case you needed reminding, it's all about oil. Again.

Impressed by the ruthlessness and willingness of the then-emerging Taliban to cut a pipeline deal, the State Department and Pakistan's Inter- Services Intelligence agency agreed to funnel arms and funding to the Taliban in their war against the ethnically Tajik Northern Alliance. As recently as 1999, U.S. taxpayers paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official, all in the hopes of returning to the days of dollar-a- gallon gas.

It's getting so I can hardly be bothered posting info on double standards and the atrocious effects of capitalism, and particularly fossil fuel driven capitalism, because I read this stuff and go 'so what's new?'

2001-11-06T14:08:00.000Z

Reminders

Tom and Michael have both linked to this thread. At the time, I was also posting and collating information from this thread. Rereading them both brings up a whole multitude of mixed emotions, but it's particularly chilling -- though not unexpected -- to read about Bush threatening to find the people responsible and "deal" with them, mere hours after it first happened. Chilling, because, let's face it: what good has it done so far? Jack Straw thinks that killing Bin Laden won't stop terrorism (and most sane people think that's true), and Bush thinks that al-Quaeda is seeking to stockpile nuclear weapons. Though one has to wonder how the hell al-Quaeda would even manage to get hold of them. This isn't comics. Bin Laden isn't Lex Luthor. We aren't about to be rescued by superheroes.

And this war still hasn't solved a damn thing.

2001-11-02T15:17:00.000Z

More from Clare Short, speaking last night in the Commons.

-The Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, opened a debate in the House of Commons, on 1 November, on the current ‘desperate’ situation in Afghanistan.

Worth noting that several Labour and some other backbenchers took the opportunity to protest against the war and vote against the government.

-She first of all, highlighted the suffering that the people of Afghanistan have had to endure as a result of war and famine over many years and the ‘barbarism’ the Taliban have inflicted on them. Ms Short went on to express concern over the difficulties faced by United Nations and other aid agencies in trying to alleviate the suffering, but stressed that a pause in the bombing campaign would only make the situation worse.

How, exactly? I really fail to see the logic, Clare.

-She said that liaison between the humanitarian effort and the military campaign is crucial to ensure that relief gets through to those who need it.

Such as not bombing hospitals, and rendering the roads that the aid trucks need to travel on impassable? Just an idea.

I don't envy Clare Short her current job. Trying to organise an aid effort in a war zone is not gonna be easy. But public opinion- according to the Guardian- supports a pause in the bombing to sort out food supplies for the winter. And now Jack Straw is at least not ruling it out. So let's hope the pressure keeps up, and the UK government (now, it seems, the foreign policy consultancy for the White House) can put the squeeze on the US hawks over this.

2001-11-01T15:32:00.000Z

'Enduring Freedom' trading cards? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Good interview with David Rees (creator of Get Your War On) by ex-Barbeloid Jay Babcock over at The LA Weekly. (Begging the question once again, why doesn't London have a free paper with as high quality journalism as all the major North American cities?)

(links via random walks)

2001-11-01T14:34:00.000Z

If there's anything good to come out of this whole thing, it's that John Pilger is doing mainstream journalism again. And that The Mirror is publishing it.

2001-11-01T14:09:00.000Z

Yeeeiiiiikes!! I've been desperately trying to avoid such scary, doom-laden scenarios, but I'm fucking grateful someone else has considered the risks, aren't you?

2001-10-31T17:25:00.000Z

Some update snippets courtesy of my favourite spooks-for-hire, Stratfor.

the ground war- roughly 500 U.S. and allied soldiers are fighting with the Taliban opposition in northern Afghanistan.

The Pakistani government has decided not to allow any citizen of Pakistan to cross over the border into Afghanistan and join the fight against the United States.

A U.S. Special Forces unit has reportedly been training to take out Pakistan's nuclear weapons in case the government of President Pervez Musharraf falls.

Note the spin- it's now a 'fight against the United States.' To me that suggests further failure in the propaganda 'war'.It's well worth checking out a few sites from a little closer to the action... like Paknews. If you can catch them online, that is... several of these sites seem to be frequently offline. Which is either bad webmastery or indicative of a deeper problem. I don't want to yell censorship when it's entirely possible that the 'Net is having a bad hair day.

More Fear and Loathing- The government of Pakistan has reportedly handed over 3 nuclear scientists to a joint FBI/CIA task force for questioning... The government of Pakistan is denying the reports but can't account for the missing scientists.

Representatives of the Taliban and the opposition Hizbi Islami of Afghanistan have reportedly meet in last few days about the prospect of entering into an alliance to fight the United States.

Two Iranian men were charged this week with trying to smuggle cyanide out of the United Kingdom last week.

With all this panic around and the anthrax scare continuing, it's easy to overlook the humanitarian crisis. This is not something we can afford to do. Write to your MP, your senator, whoever calls the shots in your neck of the woods. If you're in the UK right now, one person who could use a letter from you is Clare Short (who doesn't have a publicly available email... how 20th century...) By the Government's own admission, not enough is being done to get food to people who need it.

2001-10-31T14:18:00.000Z

A peaceful response.

Whether we like it or not, globalization affects every aspect of our lives today, and we have to consider what patriotism means in the face of that. We wear clothes made in countries we never heard of by workers whose lives we can barely imagine
[....]
The new patriotism will have to be about involvement with the world, with our neighbors - both individuals and nations. It will have to be about heated and deep discussions of directions past and directions future. It will have to be about education that goes beyond our own perspective.

Rock on, Judith McDaniel.

2001-10-31T13:50:00.000Z

Westerby has some good comments and linkage on the current global climate. And other things.

2001-10-30T15:24:00.000Z

a moment of daffy humour

2001-10-28T17:10:00.000Z

Faaark!

Things are not going to get better, are they?

2001-10-28T16:04:00.000Z

hmm...

2001-10-26T15:16:00.000Z

Just when the anti-war movement was starting to look interesting, here comes the anti-anti-war movement. God Bless America.

2001-10-26T14:32:00.000Z

Speaking of disinformation, I also found this link. He claims that the CIA is trying to kill him because of his website. Ah, paranoiacs, doncha just love 'em?

2001-10-26T14:27:00.000Z

Taleban claims to have executed Abdul Haq

His nephew says otherwise, though.

Propaganda? Disinformation? Or what?

2001-10-26T11:52:00.000Z

Thomas Cook cuts jobs, UK manufacturing export prospects are "the worst in 21 years", foreign investors "shun Britain", but don't worry -- the UK will avoid a recession.

Hmm...Something. Does. Not. Compute.

2001-10-26T11:46:00.000Z

Copycat crime, or someone with a serious grudge?

2001-10-26T11:41:00.000Z

Taleban capture key opponent

The Taleban have captured a senior opposition figure, Abdul Haq, close to the capital Kabul. Commander Haq had been widely expected to be a key figure in any post-Taleban administration. A Taleban spokesman said he had been seized despite efforts by US helicopters to rescue him.

from BBC news

2001-10-25T16:40:00.000Z

"Nothing can excuse or justify an act of terrorism, whether it is committed by religious fundamentalists, private militia, people's resistance movements - or whether it's dressed up as a war of retribution by a recognised government. The bombing of Afghanistan is not revenge for New York and Washington. It is yet another act of terror against the people of the world.

Each innocent person that is killed must be added to, not set off against, the grisly toll of civilians who died in New York and Washington.

People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed.

Governments moult and regroup, hydra-headed. They use flags first to shrink-wrap people's minds and smother thought, and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury their willing dead. On both sides, in Afghanistan as well as America, civilians are now hostage to the actions of their own governments.

Unknowingly, ordinary people in both countries share a common bond - they have to live with the phenomenon of blind, unpredictable terror. Each batch of bombs that is dropped on Afghanistan is matched by a corresponding escalation of mass hysteria in America about anthrax, more hijackings and other terrorist acts."

Arundhati Roy, in The Guardian. This is quite a distressing piece, because you can kind of sense the anger, the frustration, the confusion that the author seems to be feeling - and I know what she means. I find myself wondering if there's something wrong with me, and my friends and other people I know who feel the same way, if maybe we're just too sensitive, too "emotional" as Clare Short called the anti-war movement... because I don't "get it", because I don't see what the fucking point is of dropping bombs on hospitals in Afghanistan.

2001-10-24T23:51:00.000Z

"I am seeing anecdotal reports that they are considering using neighbourhoods and mosques and other areas where they [Afghan soldiers] can try to hide or get in the close proximity of to try to salvage some of their capability," he said.

He indicated, however, that American forces would continue to seek out targets.

"We will find other ways," he said, "using the full-spectrum capability of our military to get at those who might cowardly decide to hide in residential neighbourhoods." - Rear Admiral Stufflebeam, quoted over at the BBC

- oh. my. god.

2001-10-24T10:32:00.000Z

hee hee hee!

2001-10-24T10:17:00.000Z

"A few weeks back, I was at a conference on terrorism, and in the hallway I spotted Charles Cogan, a former senior CIA official who oversaw the Afghanistan project. What do you say, I asked him, to the criticism that the CIA helped create the bin Laden monster? Very curtly, he replied, "We had nothing to do with him, we never had any direct contact with him. It's a canard." Before I could query him further, Cogan uneasily shuffled away."

Some facts, som speculation, some conjecture -- and the CIA in denial, again.

If anyone can find a copy of the William Blum translation of the interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter's national security adviser), please email me, and I'll post it up.

2001-10-24T10:07:00.000Z

ICRA Ratings of News Stories

"Now that the war against Afghanistan is under way, I started to wonder if whitehouse.gov, the Pentagon's websites, and news articles about the conflict (or the WTC body search) should be blocked under these ICRA categories:
* Material Setting Bad Example For Young Children
* Material That Might Disturb Young Children
* Promotion of Weapon Use
* Promotion of Harm Against People"

More details here.

2001-10-23T22:00:00.000Z

attack on Afghanistan FAQ no.1
is the attack on Afghanistan illegal?

Well - not as straightfoward as it might seem (unfortunately). The US and UK have (successfully) used Article 51 of the UN charter as justification for their campaign: "...the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." This has been widely reported and barely questioned. But the lengths to which 'self-defence' can apparently be stretched is surely a cause for concern - and enough to render it almost useless as a meaningful term. Using 'self-defence' as a motive when there is no visible, immediate threat sets worrying precedents. And the UN's silence does not serve those who may be caught in the crossfire and trapped in the fall-out of an ill-advised military campaign.

...but grudgingly, one must admit that, because the UN refuses to stand up for the courage of its convictions, technically this attack is legal. Many would argue, because of the reasons outlined above - it should not be.

2001-10-23T20:59:00.000Z

flip the script: the news in reverse:
The UN has announced that a military hospital has been destroyed in the western British city of Birmingham, as Kabul admits that at least three bombs have missed their intended targets.

United Nations spokeswoman Stephanie Bunker told a news conference in France that the 100-bed hospital was reportedly struck on Sunday during the air campaign.

The Labour Government claims that 100 patients and medical workers were killed, although that figure cannot be independently verified. Labour officials also say an Afghan bomb fell on a church in the same city, killing 15 people praying inside.

2001-10-22T14:45:00.000Z

2001-10-22T13:27:00.000Z

STOP THE WAR

g'wan. double dare you.

2001-10-20T08:15:00.000Z

"Attention, Taliban. You are condemned. Did you know that? The instant the terrorists you support took over our planes, you sentenced yourselves to death," the broadcasts said in Pashtu and Dari.

"You will be attacked by land, sea and air... Resistance is futile," it continued. "When you decide to surrender, approach United States forces with your hands in the air. Sling your weapon across your back, muzzle toward the ground. Remove your magazine and expel any rounds. Doing this is your only chance of survival."

the ground war's begun. next phase of an organized obscenity.

2001-10-19T17:13:00.000Z

i've been having a lot of arguments since 9/11. with friends, family, with work colleagues - people i don't know, people in the UK, people in the US. i've offered my condolences to a guy who lost his brother in the WTC, tried to convince him that hate wasn't the answer. mostly, i've gotten nowhere.

but every now and again - from nowhere - common ground can open up between people that were diametrically opposed only minutes earlier. this is an extract from the most recent time it's happened - my response, on a bulletin board. maybe it goes some way to introducing to where i'm coming from and what i'm doing this for:

"i don't suppose any of us here are [military experts], - but Mohamed Heikal, long considered the most respected politiical commentator of the Arab world said this: "I have seen Afghanistan, and there is not one target deserving the $1m that a cruise missile costs, not even the royal palace..."

he also said, regarding the evidence against bin Laden: "I understand that the American administration wanted an enemy right away to hit, to absorb the anger of the American people," he says, "but I wish they had produced some real evidence. I read what Mr Blair said in the House of Commons carefully: they had prepared the atmosphere for that statement by saying he is going to reveal some of the proof, but there is no proof, nothing; it is all deductions. Colin Powell was more honest than anybody: he said if not this, it doesn't matter, he has committed so many other crimes that necessitate taking action against him. But that is like the Chinese proverb: 'Hit your wife every day; if you don't know the reason, she does.' You can't do it this way."

and as for what the US should do. well, it's straightforward - if you follow international law. you take yr grievance to the UN, and submit it to their ruling. they tell you what you can and can't do. now: it's true to say the US has adhered to the procedure here, citing Article 51 as a legitimation of their attack. the UN has accepted it. however: the reason a lot of people have a problem with this (including myself) is that Article 51 is supposed to be invoked only in the interest of self-defence.
right now, the US cannot conclusively prove who was the perpetrator of the attack (meaning no one can sanction a target), and cannot prove it is under direct threat. in this case 'self defence' means that the US is being allowed to take whatever action it feels is necessary, against anyone it suspects or plain dislikes. i don't think anyone particularly likes the taleban or al-qaeda - but it sets a singuilarly dangerous precedent - and there's not another country on earth strong enough to get away with it. the US considers itself above the law. but - like i say, the US has paid lip service to international law, and the UN are allowing it. that's an argument for another day.

what the US should do next is throw its weight behind a truly powerful international anti-terrorist force. but this will only work if it is non-partisan - if the powerful nations who commit atrocities are just as likely to be brought before it as the stateless groups.

...so we agree over many things - but i think you're missing the crucial shift that has to come out of this: the US must alter its foreign policy once and for all. again: It is important, Heikal says, to differentiate between the powerful anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East and the response to the attack on the World Trade Centre. "I know there were some demonstrations by people who expressed happiness," he says, "but they are not representative. People in the Middle East know what terrorism means. When tourists were shot at Luxor, there was indignation in Egypt. On the other hand, there is an unbelievable degree of anti-American feeling all over the area."

The reasons for that loathing of the US are, he says, easy to pinpoint - the Americans' "blind" support for Israel and their backing for illegitimate, discredited regimes across the Middle East. He castigates every government in the region, including his own, and blames the US for propping them up. "The people did not choose these governments and in any free election none of them would succeed. They are not legitimate governments; they do not represent anything other than power."

This is bad enough, but the fact that the US - the shining city on the hill - colludes with them is even worse. "The US supports the status quo whatever it is. They talk about democracy and then ignore it; they talk about the UN and ignore it; in every way you can accuse them of double standards. It is revolting to see them talking about democracy and then supporting undemocratic regimes. They talk about international legitimacy and then support what the Israelis are doing." All this is said with an analyst's precision, rather than an orator's passion.

it looks increasingly likely that al-qaeda does not operate in a traditional top-down way - that its strength comes from autonomous cells who create their own 'actions' - the only unifying factor an ideology fuelled by bitter experience of powerlessness and poverty in their home nations.

the only way to destroy terrorism is to remove the causes of terrorism."

- all sources courtesy of ZNet.

2001-10-19T09:32:00.000Z

USA and China Partners in Terror War

"The war on terrorism must never be an excuse to persecute minorities,'' Bush said, an apparent reference to China's treatment of the restive Uighur population in China's northwest Xinjiang region.

Bush said he also stressed the need "to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology.'' On Sept. 1, the State Department imposed sanctions on a Chinese arms producer for allegedly selling missile technology to Pakistan in violation of a U.S.-Chinese agreement signed last November.

The hypocrisy shouldn't astound me, but it does.