 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| ||
|
← "Copying" |
Return to Main Page
| "Sweat" →
February 24, 2004
You are on the invidual archive page of Island Idiots. Click Simon World weblog for the main page.
|
|
Island Idiots
Indonesia's nearly invisible President Megawati has made a speech saying the US and allies commit acts of "exceptional injustice" against Muslim majority countries. Mrs Megawati sought to contrast the way Indonesia had used the law to find and prosecute its terrorists with the "unilateral" US-led invasion of Iraq. The remarks opened an international conference of Islamic scholars, which her government partly funded.I think she's trying to extrapolate the Iraq invasion into an invasion on all Muslim countries. The problem is the nations involved in the war on Iraq did not use WMD as the "sole justification" for the invasion. Indeed it was only one part of a slew of reasons including Iraq's continual refusal to follow UN resolutions, Sadaam's proven gross human-rights violations and his demonstrable continual threat to regional and world peace, to name but a few. I still don't hear too many Iraqis' clamouring for the "good old days" when Sadaam ruled the roost. Other than that there doesn't seem to be too many examples of this so-called injustice. Unless it's that in the West there is a tendency towards democracy, rule of law, strong anti-corruption measures and respect for human rights. Pesky details. But it's so much easier to say the West is picking on Muslims. Instead we should follow Indonesia's example. Indonesia was a genuinely moderate Muslim society that used the justice system to oppose terrorism, such as the bombings in Bali, she said. "The nation resolutely repudiates and legally prosecutes those perpetrating acts of violence against others, despite their conviction that those are religious acts."Yes. Sure. Just like they prosecute anyone who's ever taken a bribe, been a member of the ruling family, driving banks into the ground, that kind of thing. Not to mention letting the army loose whenever there's trouble (please see East Timor or Aceh for examples). The USA and its allies seem to use exactly the same methods to oppose terrorism too, the difference being they actually use those methods rather than talk about them. Not even those who opposed the war in Iraq get off. Although France had staunchly opposed the Iraqi invasion, she said it was guilty of perpetrating a "far smaller" injustice towards Muslims by its recent move to restrict women and girls from wearing the Islamic head scarf.It's the old chestnut that the West is against Islam and we're in a clash of civilisations. It's also complete baloney. The upcoming Indonesian elections mean plenty more of this tripe is likely in the coming months. It's a shame a country as diverse and interesting as Indonesia is lumbered with such an inept ruling class. posted by Simon on 02.24.04 at 01:37 PM in the
Trackbacks:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/12240 Send a manual trackback ping to this post. that was a crazy game of poker Excerpt: In your free time, check out the pages about 3 card poker video net poker gambling tournament Weblog: that was a crazy game of poker Tracked: April 24, 2005 06:50 AM
Comments:
You can make it difficult to be your brother some times... I always thought you strong willed, but now find that you have lept onto the Bush/Howard/Blair propoganda wagon and are happily toeing the party line for them. The sole reason for the invasion of Iraq at the time it was invaded, as invoked by the Allies, was the failure of the country to comply with the UN resolution to demonstrate that the country had abandoned and dismantled its WMD programs and weapons. The invasion was not justified by Saddam being a bad man. It was not done because Saddam was a threat to world peace. It was not done because of human rights violations. After the war eneded, and everyone failed to find the slightest bit of evidence of any WMD, the invasion was rejustified along the lines you mentioned: that Saddam was a despot, the people are better off and the world is now a safer place. I'm not saying those reasons aren't true. I'm not going to argue about the slippery slope of invading countries when we don't like how they are run. But don't confuse the justifications given after the invasion with the basis for the invasion in the first place. As Derryn Hinch would have once said, and may in fact still do so, Shame, Simon, Shame. posted by: paul on 02.24.04 at 02:09 PM [permalink]Here, dear brother, is where I start to wonder if we really are related. I think you will find plenty of evidence that while Bush/Howard/Blair and co used WMD as a primary justification for Iraq, there were several additional reasons used to bolster the case.It is too simplistic to say it was all about WMD. Sadaam ignored 10 years of UN resolutions. PArt of the justification for invading was to give teeth to the UN, even if the UN wasn't prepared to endorse it. Prior to the war Sadaam was a card-carrying member of the axis of evil and seen as a despot. Going further, even knowing what we now know, it's likely that given the same set of circumstances the invasion was the right thing to do. The failure of intelligence agencies to obtain accurate information is a seperate debate. But at the time the leadership of these countries saw and believed that Sadaam was in possession of WMD and prepared to use them. It's not a matter of post-hoc changing of reasons. It's just that the main reason the leaders pushed turned out to be wrong. That's not to say that on the facts as they were at the time didn't justify it. posted by: Simon on 02.24.04 at 02:39 PM [permalink]I think you left the parts out of her speech about how Muslims should focus on building a religious community that is more tolerant in your commentary. The speech was equally as critical of the Islamicists before whom she stood. posted by: boy on 02.24.04 at 03:20 PM [permalink]You turned out to be more a tool of propoganda than I thought. If you don't begin to exercise independant thought I will request my company add you to the 'blocked internet site' list. I eagerly await your evidence to show that the 'Allies' did not invade Iraq on the sole legal basis that they failed to comply with the UN resolution. I can't wait for you to provide a gripping account of how a country that ignores UN resolutions should be invaded. Heaven help us if the UN becomes a moral arbitrater for the world. Zionism was racism for over 10 years, but did this give Syria the right to invade Israel? The UN did not claim to support the invasion. The 'Allies' were not giving teeth to the UN. The UN had stated it wasn't getting involved yet. Legal justification was claimed by the Allies based on an existing resolution, though the rest of the UN felt this was not the intent of the resolution. And to say the war is justified because Saddam was part of the axis of evil is ridiculous. The axis was named by the US, and the concept wasn't even supported by its allies, let alone the rest of the world. Should I be checking CNN daily for news that the US has gone to war with North Korea and Syria now?? I believe you are missing my point entirely. I am not saying the invasion wasn't a good thing. I'd be happy to see the UN get involved in more invasions to get rid of oher idiots in the world of international politics. I'm not saying that sometimes in life we do the right thing for the wrong reasons. But when that does happen, it is critical not to forget that the initial reason was wrong, and that everthing that follows, while it may be true, is just spin. posted by: paul on 02.25.04 at 05:49 AM [permalink] |
|