Sunday 29 June 2014

Many places of worship destroyed, say Iraqi residents

PRAVEEN SWAMI

Even as fighting rages on in Iraq between the ISIS insurgents and Iraqi troops, local residents who fled to Erbil, say several Shi’a places of worship have been destroyed — among them, the mausoleum of the saint Fathi al-Ka’en, and shrines in the villages of Sharikhan and al-Qubbah. The statue of the Virgin in the Church of the Immacuate in the al-Shifa area, Christian refugees told The Hindu, is also gone.
“No one protested,” a Mosul school teacher told The Hindu over the telephone, “even though these things are very dear to all communities in the city. Perhaps it is because everyone here is too busy trying to stay alive”.
The doors of the Mosul museum — looted in 2003, after the United States invasion of Iraq, but still home to one of the world’s great collections of sculpture — have been padlocked, local residents said. The centuries-old manuscripts stored in Mosul’s central library, many of them gold-leaf religious texts, have been removed.
The Iraq-affairs magazine Niqash records the Mosul calligrapher Abdallah Ismail noting that “the worst thing about wars is that they do not distinguish between the present and the past.”

Future bleak
“I'm sure that if they continue to control this city, the ISIS will destroy all of those things,” Qais Hussein, head of Iraq’s State Board of Antiquities and Heritage, told the news agency AINA. “They've already aggressively attacked our employees working in those sites and in the museums, telling them that this is haram [forbidden] to work in a place with those statues and objects.”
There are some 1,800 sites in Mosul and 250 buildings in the surrounding Nineveh province that the government classifies as historical, he said. Parts of Nineveh province have come under the control of Kurdish forces, but Islamist insurgents still control large swathes.

Hatra and the Ashour Temples — both UNESCO World Heritage Sites — are causes of particular concern to archaeologists. The well-preserved 2CE complex at Hatra — familiar to millions as the set for the opening scenes for the iconic 1973 horror film ‘The Exorcist’ — is thought to be a potential target, because of its statues of pre-Islamic gods. ISIS also controls the temple complex at Nimrud, home to 3,000-year-old statues of Assyrian deities and gods.

Islamist insurgents have frequently destroyed pre-Islamic art: Afghanistan’s Taliban blew up the Buddha statues at Bamiyan in 2001, while Mali’s Ansar Dine destroyed Sufi shrines when it captured Timbuktu in 2012. ISIS itself looted the museum at the Syrian city of Raqqa, after capturing the city, selling the art on the international black market to raise funds.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/many-places-of-worship-destroyed-say-iraqi-residents/article6158615.ece?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication

US-Backed Syria Rebels Crumbling in Face of ISIS Expansion


Many Quitting Rebellion, or Joining ISIS


by Jason Ditz,
In the ongoing Syrian Civil War, one constant has been the Free Syrian Army’s downward trajectory as a rebel faction of consequence. The primary of the US-backed “moderate” rebel groups has steadily lost influence to bolder Islamist factions for years.
Now, with ISIS seizing massive portions of Syria and Iraq and seemingly on the cusp of forming a new nation, the FSA is falling apart at the seams, with no territory to speak of and many of its fighters on the way out the door, either quitting the rebellion outright or to join the more successful ISIS.
FSA leaders have long complained about the US aid not being aggressive enough, and now, as President Obama looks to escalate, they’re complaining it’s simply too late.
That doesn’t seem to be stalling the administration, but it should, as the defections to more extreme rebel factions mean those “carefully vetted” fighters are going to be bringing their US provided weapons and cash straight to the harshest militants on the planet.
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/06/27/us-backed-syria-rebels-crumbling-in-face-of-isis-expansion/

Greenwald: NSA is attack on our dissent

“Good people don’t hide; bad people have to hide because they are planning evil things like trying to bomb this auditorium,” said Glenn Greenwald during a presentation at Carnegie Hall in New York City earlier this week.
He explained that he took that line from former CIA director Michael Hayden, who kept on repeating that warning during a debate in Toronto a couple months ago.” In that debate, Greenwald took on two grumpy old men, one who looked like Eric Forman’s father from That ‘70s Show and the other who claimed to be a liberal democrat who believes that we can have enough surveillance that is consistent with liberty. Needless to say, Greenwald destroyed them both with his secret weapon: the NSA’s own files, which he received from Edward Snowden in what has become one of the greatest government leaks in history.
Truth be told, I didn’t really know or care much about Glenn Greenwald until I heard Facebook rumors that Bolivian president Evo Morales’s plane had been stopped and frisked in Austria. From there, I began to read about him, including about his reaction to the nine-hour detention and questioning of his partner in the London airport. 
“If the U.K. and U.S. governments believe that tactics like this are going to deter or intimidate us in any way from continuing to report aggressively on what these documents reveal, they are beyond deluded. If anything, it will have only the opposite effect: to embolden us even further,” Greenwald responded.
I had to give the man some props. 
Of course, Greenwald is best known for exposing the vast and unchecked surveillance of the National Security Agency, whose very motto, he explained in his presentation on Monday, is: “Collect it all.” But what was most interesting about his talk was not what the NSA is doing, but why we should care.
Greenwald’s response to that question begins with a look at the amount of character-shaming Snowden received after he revealed himself as the source of the leaks. As Greenwald explained, Snowden was a 29-year-old who had a loving girlfriend, a well-paying job and parents and friends who loved him. The idea that he would throw that all away was incomprehensible to the media and elites, who Greenwald described as “soulless.” So, according to Greenwald, they quickly assumed that the whistleblower must have psychological problems, and went on to diagnose him as a “fame-seeking narcissist.”
This, Greenwald says, is a fundamental problem that goes beyond Snowden. Instead, it speaks to a too-common view that dissent is a form of mental illness, and that submission to the status quo is indicative of a healthy state of mind. Now, let’s be clear: Actions like Snowden’s are called dissent because there are no other ways or processes to actually address the flaws of this system. This leads to dissent as an act of survival (not as a symptom of psychosis), which, in return, provides the excuse for government surveillance in the first place. And, as Greenwald explained and studies have shown, a society that is being watched is a society that is complacent and compliant.
In other words, the NSA’s surveillance at its core is an attack on our ability to dissent — and our ability to try to meaningfully change the flaws of our system.
The big question, of course, is: What do we do about this?
During his presentation, Greenwald mentioned the temptation to simply succumb to this type of problem, since at times it seems so grand. We automatically assume a sense of perceived helplessness and view subjugation as rational. And that’s what the NSA and its “Collect it all, exploit it all” machine is betting on: That if they place enough eyes on everything we do, we will be scared off this incredibly powerful and rich resource, which is the Internet. This is why we are going to have to go through a massive recognition and reclamation process if we want a fighting chance. Just as many indigenous and First Nation peoples have been reclaiming land and water across the world. We need to begin seeing the Internet as a territory as real and resource-rich as physical land, and we have to reclaim our right to it.

With the combination of NSA spying and the recent attacks on net neutrality, this is looking like a monumental task. But Greenwald had a few words of encouragement there too, explaining that “history has shown over and over again that if you have the will and good political clarity, you will always find the power.” 


http://wagingnonviolence.org/2014/06/greenwald-nsa-attack-dissent/

Iraq and the 'Saudi question'

How much influence does the House of Saud hold over its neighbour? And how can it be influenced?

Gen. Dempsey: Iraq Coordination With Iran ‘Not Impossible’

Pentagon Had Previously Ruled Out Military Coordination

by Jason Ditz,
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey contradicted previous comments from the Pentagon today, saying he believes it is “not impossible” that the US will begin coordinating its military operations in Iraq with Iran.
The Pentagon had previously insisted that there wouldnever be any coordination with Iran, but Gen. Dempsey conceded in today’s interview that there could be situations where, with both sides’ interests coinciding, they could work together.
Gen. Dempsey sought to downplay the significance of this, saying he was clear the US and Iran had different overall interests in Iraq, but the difference realistically seems minimal, with both angling for a situation where a Shi’ite-dominated government remains in power and controlling the entirety of Iraq’s borders.
US officials have suggested previously there were more eager to see Prime Minister Maliki go than Iran was, though Iran’s interest in Maliki has always been in continuing Shi’ite rule, ensuring an ally in Iraq, and all indications are that whoever replaces Maliki will be another Shi’ite, likely one with even closer ties to Iran.
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/06/27/gen-dempsey-iraq-coordination-with-iran-not-impossible/

Saturday 28 June 2014

Obama Downplays ISIS Threat to US Security


Continues to Escalate US Involvement in Iraq

by Jason Ditz,
Speaking today on Good Morning America, President Obama sought to downplay the idea that ISIS establishing its own country in the Middle East posed a real security threat to America, insisting the US is constantly facing “serious threats” and would be fine either way.
The issue of how big a potential threat ISIS is has been the center of some debate, with hawks arguing for even more aggressive military action on the grounds that ISIS poses a serious threat to US interests.
Which of course entirely misses the point that US attacks on ISIS make them a dramatically bigger threat, and ISIS supporters have openly been vowing retaliation if (and when) the US insinuates itself directly into the Iraq war.
Likewise, Obama’s attempts to portray ISIS as no real threat inevitably beget the question of why he is so determined to continue sending troops to Iraq to fight ISIS in the first place.
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/06/27/obama-downplays-isis-threat-to-us-security/

An Englishman’s Take on the Arabic Language


What Does ISIS Really Stand For?

by DAVID STANSFIELD

The Islamic extremists known as ISIS are a great deal more dangerous than most of us realize. The reason for this is hidden in plain sight in the name itself: ISIS. In English, this stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but that’s not what it stands for in Arabic: ad-Dawlat al-Islamiyya fī’l-‘Iraq wa’sh-Sham: The Islamic State in Iraq and Ash-Sham.
The crucial difference is the word Sham, a word that resonates in the Arabic-speaker’s mind on multiple levels. To see why, let’s step into a time machine. All we have to do is start to read any passage of written Arabic, and we find ourselves traveling down that passage, all the way back to a certain day in the Arabian desert circa 630 A.D. It doesn’t matter whether what we are reading is from a novel or from today’s headlines, it is — and always will be — written in exactly the self-same Arabic, letter for letter and dot for dot, that was used almost 1,400 years ago.
That seventh-century day in the desert is the heart and soul of the Islamic religion: the moment, and the only moment, when God spoke to man. It is the foundation of the Islamic faith; accept this truth and Islam accepts you. Recite the words, la illaha illa Allah wa Muhammad rasul Ullah (“There is no god but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God”) and abracadraba, you’re a Muslim. In other words, all you need to do to become one of the faithful is to truly believe that — through the Angel Gabriel — God spoke to one man, and one man only out there in the sand dunes when he dictated “The Reading”: al-Qur’an. Since this is the one and only time God spoke to man since the universe began, and since He chose to use the language of the desert dwellers of the day, at that instant that particular desert dialect froze as solid and immutable as the Ka’aba itself in Holy Mecca. The power of one: one God, one man, one moment, one tongue. If the Jews are the chosen people, Arabic is the chosen language.
This fact has many ramifications. For one thing, the ancient desert dwellers hadn’t yet evolved any letters for vowels, so vowel letters could never be allowed to evolve. This makes reading Arabic script challenging, to say the least. You have to mouth the words to read them at all; you have to sound them out. In a sense, if you don’t already know the word — or at least its context — you can’t read it. It’s like trying to read a word spelled “bk” — is it book or beak or bike or bake? The only solution is to throw yourself into the deep end, drown yourself in the written words, gulp them down into your vocal chords, never quite knowing what’s going to happen next — until you hear your own voice telling you. You can’t skip ahead to see what’s coming ’round the next sentence, you just have to plough on, one or two words at a time. So it’s very difficult to be objective about what you’re reading; the very act of decoding the words is so deeply involving, you simply don’t have time to weigh their meaning coolly and unemotionally.
When the spoken words did eventually get written down, they immediately took on the same divine power as speech, which has also had some interesting consequences. In rural Egypt, up until surprisingly recent times, one of the surefire ways of curing disease was to “drink the Qur’an” — or rather the ink in which it was written. Recipe: copy suitable verses from the holy book onto the inner surface of an earthenware bowl, pour in some water, stir it around until the words are absorbed into the water, then let the patient swallow this inky concoction, which the sacred words have now transformed into sacred medicine.
The divinity of the script has also meant that to this day it has to look as if it were handwritten, for there were no printing presses in Muhammad’s time. Until our computer age, this obliged printers to cast three different versions of each Arabic letter, for use at the beginning, middle and end of words, so that when all the letters in the word are strung together it looks as if the word has been written in a flowing cursive hand.
Moving through our Roman script landscape is Roman in every sense of the word, with its forbidding inorganic columned typeface, with the more important text spelled out in the sternest shape of all: the eponymous Times Roman of the august newspaper, its capital letters standing guard over the culture, serifs cocked at head and foot like so many epaulettes and spurs. Moving through an Arabic script landscape, on the other hand, is to saunter through an organic, lazy-lettered world where even the stop sign – qif – instead of standing at attention, lies flat on its back like a lizard basking in the sun with flies bobbing up and down on its nose.
There are other consequences of Arabic’s celestial origin. The desert dwellers all those hundreds of years ago not only lacked vowel letters, they had no capital letters, which fact coupled with an absence of any kind of punctuation made it impossible to indicate the beginning or end of what Westerners would call a “sentence.” This, too, hardly changed until fairly recent times. For God didn’t divvy up His wisdom into discrete little fragments, He spouted it in one continuous stream with no beginning and no end.
The only permissible means that was devised to indicate a new thought was to begin it with the Arabic word for “and” — wa — a practice the desert wanderers had absorbed from Aramaic and Hebrew-writers, whose Old Testament habit of beginning almost every sentence with “and,” produced that unstoppable rolling thunder of continuous biblical prose:
“And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters and God said let there be light and there was light and God saw the light that it was good and God divided the light from the darkness and God called the light day and the darkness he called night and the evening and the morning were the first day…”
Now imagine the effect of that same unstoppable divine thunder rolling through even the most mundane paragraph of everyday Arabic, whether it’s telling you what’s playing at your local theater or how to make tomato soup – or most alarmingly – why you should drive Israel into the sea. In any other language, you might have a chance to analyze the message, to criticize it. But in Arabic, whether you are Tunisian or Egyptian, Lebanese or Iraqi, it is irresistible stuff, by definition uncriticizable. For every word and phrase uttered by a charismatic Arab leader is in the language of the Qur’an, the voice of God ringing down the centuries. There were even echoes of the Almighty in the delusional Saddam Hussein’s declaration that the Gulf War was the “Mother of Battles,” Umm al-Ma’arik, paralleling the phrase Umm al-Kitab, Mother of the Book: the way the Holy Qur’an describes itself.
No wonder the Arab world confounds so many Western journalists. If you don’t know the language, it is impossible to understand what is really going on in the listener’s mind when an Arab leader addresses his people, what levels and depths of meaning and feeling are being plumbed. No translation can get close. It’s not like going from German to English, or even from Hindi to English. It’s like going from another galaxy to ours. In every sense of the word, Arabic is a different script that tells a different story. And all because of that moment nearly 1,400 years ago that deified both its spoken and written form.
So back to Sham, and all the ponderously heavy cultural baggage this word entails. What in God’s name does it mean? Well, one thing it does NOT mean is the truncated Syria that was created by the French in 1922. Rather, it means the “North,” the “Greater Syria” that encompasses, not only Cyprus and part of southern Turkey, but also the artificial states the British and the French carved out of the Ottoman Empire after World War One: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Palestine – and subsequently Israel. For most of the last three thousand years, all these regions were one, not only under the empires of the Ottomans, the Caliphs, the Byzantines, the Romans, the Greeks and the Persians, but also under the AsSYRIAns, and even more ancient civilizations before that, dating all the way back to 2,500 B.C.
Sham’s roots run very deep – and very dangerously – indeed. Roses may smell as sweet by any other name, but Syria does not.
David Stansfield is an Arabic scholar trained at the universities of Durham, Cambridge, the Sorbonne and Toronto, who has lived in many parts of the Arab world. He is also the writer-producer of the 14-part TVOntario/Encyclopedia Britannica television series: “The Middle East.”
 http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/27/what-does-isis-really-stand-for/