Like most of humanity, I have been stunned by the sheer savagery and cruelty of the Islamic State. Yet, thousands have flocked to the ISIS forces from the West. For me, it has been a particularly shocking phenomenon. The images that repel us, attract them. Religion is clearly a release for these people. A release from the obligations of decency and humanity. Images show Islamic State fighters laughing and enjoying the torture and murder of captives. Muslim clerics with ISIS assure them that they can treat non-Muslims as lower than animals and commit rape as an Islamically pure act. It has been an incredibly depressing time for those of us who believe that humans can aspire to true greatest of spirit and caring. This Christmas, however, my daughter showed me the YouTube clip below of a man named Matt Harding who goes around the world getting people to dance with him. After watching him, my faith in humanity was restored.
What is so striking about the Islamic State and other extreme Muslim groups is that they most hate joyous expressions from dancing to singing. They throw acid on little girls trying to become educated and destroy the houses of worship of other groups.
Nothing could be a greater antithesis to the hate of these extremists than Matt Harding and people like him:
What is even more reassuring is that he is not alone. Around the world, people are spontaneously singing and dancing. These are a few clips shared by our readers this year. Watching them restores some of the faith in the future that these extremists really cannot extinguish the joy in the world.
This blog gets the occasional vapid article like this one.
Don’t know what happened to the blockquote. Take 2:
Though note the caveat in the Duelfer Report’s Scope Note:
The loss of “a great amount of” evidence means what the ISG was able to collect in post-war Iraq is more telling about the pre-war status of Saddam’s weapons program than what the ISG did not find.
Anarchist 2.0: “Hey Eric, doesn’t it strike you as more than a little bit silly that you’re quoting a report compiled by the CIA and the Pentagon under Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq.”
Like the UNMOVIC Cluster Document is the definitive finding of Iraq’s noncompliance with UNSCR 687 at the decision point for OIF, the Iraq Survey Group’s Duelfer Report is the definitive post-war finding of the status of Saddam’s weapons program.
Though note the caveat in the Duelfer Report’s Scope Note:
In fact, combined with the chaos of the war and the widespread looting in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, it resulted in the loss of a great amount of potentially very valuable information and material for constructing a full picture of Iraqi WMD capabilities. Sites were looted. Documents were either ignored or collected haphazardly or burned by either the Regime or Coalition forces.
The loss of “a great amount of” evidence means what the ISG was able to collect in post-war Iraq is more telling about the pre-war status of Saddam’s weapons program than what the ISG did not find.
Despite that caveat, there simply is no alternative to the ISG findings for a reference of what’s known about Saddam’s weapons program. In fact, the Charles Lewis report with the much-echoed assertion that “President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials … made at least 935 false statements [and] … It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction” refers to “the multinational Iraq Survey Group”.
Like I said, the law and policy, fact basis of the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom is frozen in time. It’s not like I can be creative with it or add to it. While the post hoc ISG findings are corroborative rather than relevant to the decision for OIF, the principle applies.
Eric- “Your believe that assistance for UN inspectors struggling against Saddam’s “concealment and deception activities” (Duelfer Report) forced Saddam to refuse abide. . .”
Obviously my objection went far beyond that, as is obvious by any honest reading of my comment. Go back an read my comment again and see if this time you can respond without lying about my actual objection. . . Actually, nevermind. You’re far too duplicitous to waste any more time on.
beat it
Anarchist 2.0: “Mujaheddin- an armed force created to a great extent by the CIA.”
That’s slightly valid.
First of all, Mujahideen – as applied in the 1979-1989 Soviet war – was an umbrella name for the heterogeneous conglomerate of Afghan factions. While the present-day Taliban came from one part of that conglomerate, Mujahideen and Taliban are not interchangeable.
The US favored the Mujahideen factions in the Soviet war that later made up the relatively moderate Northern Alliance with whom we ousted the Taliban in the 2001 campaign. In that sense, we’ve fought alongside Mujahideen in Afghanistan since 2001 against different Mujahideen.
After the war with the Soviet Union, the US lost interest. The various Mujahideen factions fought each other for dominance of Afghanistan and the Taliban, supported by foreign assistance that did not include US assistance, emerged on top.
Where your view is slightly valid is that US aid to the Mujahideen in the Soviet war was channeled through Pakistan. While we favored particular factions of Mujahideen, our priority was to assist the Mujahideen as a whole in their war effort. We relinquished hands-on control of US aid when it passed from US hands to the Pakistani hands that controlled delivery.
Did Pakistan route at least some US aid to future enemies? I don’t doubt that happened.
However, the characterization of the Taliban (which came from only part of the Mujahideen) as “an armed force created to a great extent by the CIA” is incorrect. It’s incongruent with the limited US role in the Soviet war, especially relative to other actors like Pakistan, the relatively modest (if dramatized) US aid in the war, and the absence of the US in the post-war events where the Taliban rose to power. The characterization also overlooks the provenance of the Taliban itself.
Another mischaracterization you made earlier is that the US provided chemical weapons to Iraq.
Actually, the US never provided chemical weapons to Iraq. However, in the 1980s, some US firms were licensed to sell “dual use” technologies to Iraq that were then applied in the development of Iraq’s WMD program. It was a mistake that was rectified, with much self-recrimination, in response to the Gulf War.
That said, the main offenders of supplying WMD-related technologies to Iraq have been European. Unfortunately, after the Gulf War, despite the ceasefire prohibitions, many of them continued to do business with Saddam. The largest area of disarmament violation found in Iraq by the ISG was procurement.
Anarchist 2.0: “US actions which would force Saddam to refuse to abide by UN resolutions”
Your believe that assistance for UN inspectors struggling against Saddam’s “concealment and deception activities” (Duelfer Report) forced Saddam to refuse abide by UNSCRs to “immediately end … the repression of the Iraqi civilian population” (UNSCR 688), “condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism” (UNSCR 687), provide a “declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8”, “[yield] by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless [of] … [8] (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;”, and “unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8”?