Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah ‘worse than Hiroshima’

I wonder if right-wing Iranian-Americans know about such a disturbing tragedy when they advocate for war or strikes on Iran: The Independent – Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait.

Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that “to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened”.

US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other munitions.

In the assault US commanders largely treated Fallujah as a free-fire zone to try to reduce casualties among their own troops. British officers were appalled by the lack of concern for civilian casualties. “During preparatory operations in the November 2004 Fallujah clearance operation, on one night over 40 155mm artillery rounds were fired into a small sector of the city,” recalled Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, a British commander serving with the American forces in Baghdad.

He added that the US commander who ordered this devastating use of firepower did not consider it significant enough to mention it in his daily report to the US general in command. Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: “My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside.”

The survey was carried out by a team of 11 researchers in January and February this year who visited 711 houses in Fallujah. A questionnaire was filled in by householders giving details of cancers, birth outcomes and infant mortality. Hitherto the Iraqi government has been loath to respond to complaints from civilians about damage to their health during military operations.

Researchers were initially regarded with some suspicion by locals, particularly after a Baghdad television station broadcast a report saying a survey was being carried out by terrorists and anybody conducting it or answering questions would be arrested. Those organising the survey subsequently arranged to be accompanied by a person of standing in the community to allay suspicions.

The study, entitled “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009”, is by Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi, and concludes that anecdotal evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects is correct. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report says that the types of cancer are “similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout”.

Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people.

Of particular significance was the finding that the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls had changed. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.

The US cut back on its use of firepower in Iraq from 2007 because of the anger it provoked among civilians. But at the same time there has been a decline in healthcare and sanitary conditions in Iraq since 2003. The impact of war on civilians was more severe in Fallujah than anywhere else in Iraq because the city continued to be blockaded and cut off from the rest of the country long after 2004. War damage was only slowly repaired and people from the city were frightened to go to hospitals in Baghdad because of military checkpoints on the road into the capital.

Posted in Iraq | Comments Off on Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah ‘worse than Hiroshima’

The Syrian “Jihad” Part 2: Saudi Youth Fighting Against Assad Regime in Syria

What a miserable state of affairs. The Syrian Uprising had such hope and promise. Now look at it, it’s turning into a Salafi Jihad (in part).  Part of the blame must be leveled at the Syrian regime. Had the regime avoided using lethal force to deal with what was certainly a peaceful uprising, there wouldn’t be such a call to arms.  Another part of the blame must be leveled at the Persian Gulf states, specifically the dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of which are funding and arming the most fanatic of the armed groups. The Global Post: Following a circuitous route from here up through Turkey or Jordan and then crossing a lawless border, hundreds of young Saudis are secretly making their way into Syria to join extremist groups fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, GlobalPost has learned.

With the tacit approval from the House of Saud, and financial support from wealthy Saudi elites, the young men take up arms in what Saudi clerics have called a “jihad,” or “holy war” against the Assad regime.

Based on a month of reporting in the region and in Washington, over a dozen sources have confirmed that wealthy Saudis, as well as the government, are arming some Syrian rebel groups. Saudi and Syrian sources confirm that hundreds of Saudis are joining the rebels, but the government denies any sponsoring role.

The Saudis are part of an inflow of Sunni fighters from Libya, Tunisia, and Jordan, according to Aaron Zelin, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute.

“Most of the foreigners are fighting with al-Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham,” both extremist groups, Zelin said.

Sunni extremist fighters are now part of a vicious civil war that has killed an estimated 70,000 people and created more than a million refugees. The fighters are also part of a larger struggle in a region in which opportunistic leaders stoke the age-old rift between the Sunni and Shia in Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and in Saudi Arabia itself.

The Saudis hope to weaken their regional competitor Iran, a Shia theocracy that is backing Assad. Saudi officials also hope to divert simmering political unrest at home by encouraging young protesters to instead fight in Syria, according to Saudi government critics.

The government seeks to “diffuse domestic pressure by recruiting young kids to join in another proxy war in the region,” said Mohammad Fahd al-Qahtani, a human rights activist and economics professor at the Institute of Diplomatic Studies in Riyadh. They are joining ultraconservative groups who “definitely are against democracy and human rights. The ramifications could be quite serious in the whole region.”

In one documented case, a Saudi judge encouraged young anti-government protesters to fight in Syria rather than face punishment at home. Twenty-two year old Mohammed al-Talq was arrested and found guilty of participating in a demonstration in the north-central Saudi city of Buraidah.

After giving 19 young men suspended sentences, the judge called the defendants into his private chambers and gave them a long lecture about the need to fight Shia Muslims in Syria, according to Mohammed’s father, Abdurrahman al-Talq.

“You should save all your energy and fight against the real enemy, the Shia, and not fight inside Saudi Arabia,” said the father, quoting the judge. “The judge gave them a reason to go to Syria.”

Within weeks, 11 of the 19 protesters left to join the rebels. In December 2012, Mohammed al-Talq was killed in Syria. His father filed a formal complaint against the judge late last year, but said he has received no response.

Saudi Arabia shares no border with Syria, so young fighters such as Mohammad must travel through Turkey or Jordan.

Those without criminal records can fly as tourists to Istanbul. Those convicted of crimes or on government watch lists cannot travel without official Ministry of Interior permission. Critics say the government allows such militants to depart with a wink and a nod. Then they sneak across the Jordanian border into southern Syria.

The young militants are sometimes funded by rich Saudis. They acquire black market AK-47s and cross at night along the now porous Syrian borders, according to a local journalist.

Sami Hamwi, the pseudonym of an exiled Syrian journalist who regularly reports from inside the country, has carefully observed the flow of the Saudi fighters to Syria. He told GlobalPost that groups of 3-5 Saudis often join Jabhat al-Nusra, a prominent rebel faction the United States says has links to Al Qaeda.

Al-Nusra went public in February 2012 after taking credit for several major bombings in Damascus and Aleppo. Its reputation as one

of the most effective fighting groups, as well as its efforts to provide aid to average Syrians, has won over some in the opposition.

Many Syrians “like the fact that Saudis come with a lot of money,” Hamwi said. “Civil society activists do not like foreign fighters. They think they will cause more trouble.”

The term “civil society activists” refers to the largely secular, progressive Syrians who led the initial stage of the Syrian uprising but who have since been eclipsed by the armed militias.

Saudi officials deny that the government encourages youth to fight in Syria. They point to a religious decree (fatwa) issued by Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah Al al-Sheikh. He urged youth not to fight in Syria, noting that aid to rebels should be sent through “regular channels.”

But Saudi authorities also admit they have no control over people who legally leave the country and later join the rebels.

Fighting with the rebels in Syria is illegal, declared Maj. Gen. Mansour al-Turki, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Interior. “Anybody who wants to travel outside Saudi Arabia in order to get involved in such conflict will be arrested and prosecuted,” he said. “But only if we have the evidence before he leaves the country.”

That position gives the Saudi government plausible deniability, according to Randa Slim, a scholar with the Middle East Institute in Washington. The Saudi government purges the country of young troublemakers while undermining a hostile neighbor, she said. “In the name of a good cause, they are getting rid of a problem.”

Human rights activist al-Qahtani called the Saudi stand a “don’t ask, don’t tell policy.” Saudi authorities have a strategic goal in Syria, he said.

“Their ultimate policy is to have a regime change similar to what happened in Yemen, where they lose the head of state and substitute it with one more friendly to the Saudis,” al-Qahtani said. “But Syria is quite different. It will never happen that way.”

Last week, a Saudi Court sentenced al-Qahtani to 10 years in prison for sedition and providing false information to foreign media. Human rights groups immediately defended al-Qahtani, saying he is being persecuted for his political views and human rights work.

Meanwhile, evidence mounts that Saudis are pouring into Syria.

Last year a close friend of Abdulaziz Alghufili bought a Kalashnikov rifle and slipped into Syria to join an extremist militia fighting the Assad regime. “My friend is putting his life at risk,” said Alghufili, an electrical engineer not involved in his friend’s activities.

So far his friend remains alive. But dozens of Facebook pages and Twitter feeds document the deaths of other Saudis not so fortunate. Almost all joined the al-Nusra Front.

“Most people going there don’t think they will come back,” Alghufili said. “They will fight to die or win freedom.”

The Muslim Brotherhood maintains the most support among rebel fighters, but has recently met strong competition from extremists, including al-Nusra, which supports the establishment of an Islamist state and a harsh version of Sharia law in Syria.

Al-Qahtani argues that Saudi support for al-Nusra resembles their aid to the mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Back then Osama bin Laden was a scion of a Saudi construction magnate who transferred his inherited wealth out of Saudi Arabia and into what came to be called “The Base,” English for Al Qaeda. Both the United States and Saudi Arabia encouraged the flow of Arab fighters and arms to the Afghans, part of a proxy war against the Soviets.

Saudi authorities set up networks to support the mujahedeen. “They recruited kids to fight there,” al-Qahtani said. “They financed them and provided them with [airplane] tickets.”

In the 1980s, the CIA and Saudis backed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an ultraconservative Islamic extremist because his group was the best organized and most anti-communist, although it lacked popular support. After the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, Hekmatyar switched sides and today is fighting the United States and NATO.

The Saudi government faced a similar problem with its former clients. When the Soviet backed regime fell and the fighters returned to Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, some engaged in terrorist bombings and assassinations in an unsuccessful effort to overthrow the government. A nascent form of Al Qaeda began to take shape, metastasizing throughout the region and eventually lining up against the Saudi and US governments.

Al-Qahtani notes that the current support for Syrian rebels falls well below the massive effort in Afghanistan, in part because the Obama administration has tamped down Saudi efforts, worried about the growth of extremist groups.

Some US officials and analysts argue that the Saudi government doesn’t arm extremist groups at all, having been chastened by the Afghan experience. According to their view, the Saudi government and al-Nusra ideologically oppose one another and compete for the same, conservative political base in the region.

A State Department official described Saudi Arabia as an opponent of Syrian extremist groups. “The Saudi government and Arab League share the same concerns about Nusra,” he said. “Nobody wants instability.”

The Washington Institute’s Zelin agrees.

“All the funding for such groups comes from private sources,” Zelin said. “The Saudis learned the lessons of Afghanistan in 1980s.”

The Middle East Institute’s Slim sees truth in both arguments.

The Saudi royal family certainly doesn’t want a repeat of terrorist fighting on its own soil, nor does it want to anger its chief ally, the United States, Slim said.

“To avoid US ire, they can have individuals fund al-Nusra while the government funds groups vetted by the US,” she said. ”The Saudis are outsourcing the fight.”

Officially, the Obama administration offers political support to the Syrian rebels and provides only “humanitarian” aid in the form of communications equipment, food and medical supplies. The British provide humanitarian supplies that may include body armor and night vision goggles.

But the CIA has also facilitated covert military aid since at least the middle of 2012. The CIA sent operatives to southern Turkey to vet various factions of the Free Syrian Army, the umbrella group encompassing most of the local militias fighting Assad. Those fighters who passed muster received arms from Saudi Arabia and the gulf emirate of Qatar, according to the New York Times.

In May 2012, a Saudi- and Qatar-financed shipment of small arms landed in Turkey and was trucked to the Syrian border without interference from Turkish authorities. The shipment included AK-47 assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and small-caliber machine guns. In 2013, CIA sources admitted that the agency is training Syria rebels in Jordan.

The US initially helped supply militias led by the Muslim Brotherhood, but later soured on the Brotherhood and sought to arm other groups more in agreement with US policy, according to Brotherhood leaders.

Officially, the Obama administration is proceeding cautiously to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of extremist groups like al-Nusra. Syrian opposition leaders say, in reality, the United States is being parsimonious with aid because it hasn’t found rebel leaders it can trust.

“The Americans haven’t supported the revolution strongly enough because they are still looking for someone who can ensure their interests in the future,” Omar Mushaweh, a spokesman for Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood living in Istanbul, said last year.

The activities of Saudi Arabia — along with Turkey, Qatar, Iran and the United States — have significantly complicated the Syrian civil war, according to Saudi human rights activists.

“The people of Syria want their revolution to be as clean as possible,” al-Qahtani said. “Once foreigners are involved, it could lead to the situation of Afghanistan. It could give an excuse for the Syrian regime that it is foreigners who are fighting, which is a wrong policy.”

Posted in Saudi Arabia, Syria | 2 Comments

Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticised for hugging mother of Hugo Chavez

There is a tremendous amount of controversy regarding this little news story (posted below).  Some Iranians are convinced that it was photoshopped in order to embarrass Ahmadinejad. I do not think it was altered whatsoever. Others have rightly criticized him for expressing such emotions in ’13 when he condemned those dying on the streets in ’09. The conservative clerics in Iran have exploited this image in order to condemn Ahmadinejad.  What petty politics. The Telegraph – The Iranian president’s domestic opponents reacted furiously after photos emerged of him giving Elena Frias de Chavez, 78, a consoling hug at last Friday’s funeral in Caracas – at which he also kissed Mr Chavez’s coffin.

Religious conservatives said the act insulted Iran’s religious dignity and amounted to “haram” – a term used to describe a religiously forbidden act under Islamic rules.

Mohammad Taghi Rahbar, the Friday prayer leader of Iran’s second city, Isfahan, told Mehr news agency that Mr Ahmadinejad had “lost control”.

He added: “Shaking hands with a non-mahram (unrelated by family) woman, under any circumstances, whether young or old, is not allowed. Hugging or expressing emotions is improper for the dignity of the president of a country like the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Posted in Iran | Comments Off on Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticised for hugging mother of Hugo Chavez

Chavez

There’s much to say about Chavez but I’ll be brief. First, why does Fox News insist on referring to Chavez as a dictator? Chavez was repeatedly re-elected and the elections were always fair. His elections had far more legitimacy than Bush’s in ’00. So if Chavez is a “dictator” by the standards of Fox News, then what is Bush? Also, I’m not going to pretend like I know what it’s like to be a citizen who lives under his leadership. As a world citizen, however, I will not forget how he recalled his ambassador from Israel when it was ruthlessly and savagely bombing Lebanon in ’06.  He had the clarity of thought to take such an important symbolic action when neighboring Arab dictators were shamefully silent.

But lest we not forget, Chavez was a politician and like all politicians, his record also has many stains. He supported Qaddafi and the Ba’ath regimes in Syria and Iraq. Though to be fair, he probably supported them more out of anti-imperialist sentiment than anything else. Speaking of which, all news media outlets should stop referring to him as anti-US. He was not anti-American, whatever that means. More accurately, he was anti-US domination of Latin America, which has been a grievance of Latin Americans for over a century.  He was especially aggrieved at US foreign policy, especially since the United States attempted and failed to overthrow him in the early 2000s.

Posted in Lebanon, Libya, Syria, US Foreign Policy | Comments Off on Chavez

Argo as Best Picture?

I’ve noticed that some of my Iranian friends on Facebook celebrated Argo’s Best Picture win, which blows my mind. They act as if it’s a win for all Iranians or it’s a story that for once shows us in a good light. Thus, I’m re-posting my article from last October about the film. It was originally published by The Huffington Post but the another cleaner version was posted by Muftah so I’m post the latter version below.

Ben Affleck and Argo’s Narrow Iran Lens

The season of Oscar worthy films is upon us. Released on October 12, 2012, Ben Affleck’s third and probably most important directorial feat, Argo, is considered one of the top contenders for the Best Picture award. Set in revolutionary Iran in 1979, Argo is based on the true story of six Americans who escaped from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran after it was overrun by Iranian hostage takers.

Argo is a gripping political thriller that will keep moviegoers on the edge of their seats. While it will certainly receive due attention from the Academy, the film provides anything but a balanced depiction of Iran and Iranians. In addition, by revisiting the Iran Hostage Crisis amid the increasing drums of war when Iran is subject to ceaseless demonization by political hawks, Argo unintentionally aids these efforts. Furthermore, crucial history relevant to understanding the crisis is neglected, thereby facilitating baseless parallels between 1979 Iran and recent events in Libya.

The film centers around Tony Mendez, a real-life character and CIA operative. Mendez concocts an elaborate plan to fly to Tehran and free American embassy officials holed up for months in the Canadian ambassador’s residence in Tehran. To enter Iran, Mendez, played by Ben Affleck, pretends to be part of a Canadian film crew scouting for locations to make a B-level science-fiction film set in the Middle East, called Argo.

Providing only limited historical backdrop at the beginning of the film, Argo describes the Anglo-American overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Muhammad Mossadeq, in 1953. Mossadeq’s overthrow led to the immediate reinstatement of Iran’s autocratic shah, Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

Surprisingly, however, the film fails to show the very real relationship between the 1953 coup and the 1979 hostage crisis. Many viewers are left unaware of the fact that the coup was planned and orchestrated from the U.S. embassy in Tehran. No mention is made of the fact that revolutionaries in Iran seized the embassy because they feared that the Shah, who had recently arrived in the U.S. for cancer treatment, would be restored to power by way of yet another coup spearheaded through the very same embassy.

Revisiting this history is not meant to condone or justify hostage taking. Rather, it underscores the inappropriate nature of parallels being made between the U.S. Hostage Crisis and last month’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which claimed the lives of four Americans. By drawing such baseless connections, politicians, such as U.S. presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, are marginalizing the critical history preceding the Hostage Crisis for personal political gain.

The film’s shortcomings extend beyond its selective treatment of history. For example, while providing nuanced and sensitive depictions of its American characters, Argo presents Iran exclusively through the lens of terrorism and hostage-taking, public executions, bearded men shouting so hysterically spit flies from their mouths, and other one-dimensional, unflattering portrayals. For instance, the film repeatedly focuses on large and enraged crowds of seemingly irrational protesters, thereby reducing an entire country to a singular mob mentality. The only Iranian toward which the viewer is supposed to be sympathetic is a servile housekeeper.

In his book Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Conflict in the Middle East, Professor Ali Ansari writes, “For the US, the traumatic scene of Americans being paraded in front of cameras blindfolded, marked the beginning of a U.S. obsession with Iran.” That obsession has led many Americans to view Iran strictly through the narrow scope of the Hostage Crisis. So ubiquitous is this trend that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president of Iran in 2005, mainstream American media outlets mistook him for one of the hostage takers. The frenzy dissipated only when one of the American hostages, Thomas E. Schaefer, refuted the accusation.

Through its unbalanced depiction of its Iranian characters, Argo presents the people of Iran as violent, angry, and hostile toward the U.S. In doing so, it undermines and discounts the basic humanity and everyday struggles that Iranians have long shared with the rest of the world. In this way, Argo is a distinct foil to the Academy Award winning film, A Separation – a riveting story about a husband and wife torn apart by real-life struggles in Iran. The contrast in how Iran is portrayed in these two films is immense.

A telling example of the difference and its effects can be found in the reception A Separation received in Israel, where it was a surprise hit. After being fed a steady diet of anti-Iranian news and media portrayals, A Separation resonated with Israeli viewers, many of whom were surprised to learn that “everyone had a fridge and a washing machine.” After viewing the film, one Israeli movie critic observed, “Ultimately you don’t think about nuclear bombs or dictators threatening world peace. You see them driving cars and going to movies and they look exactly like us.” Indeed, Iranians are not that different if people are willing to see beyond the harmful stereotypes.

My intention is not to whitewash the radicalism and show trials of Iran’s fiery revolutionary days, or to imply that the country’s current human rights record is a shining example for the world to follow. The first step toward war is, however, denying the humanity of the other. Argo is an unwitting part of that effort. Iranians, like everyone else, worry about the future of their children, care about the health of their parents, and yes, own “fridges” and “washing machines.” As Asghar Farhadi, the director of A Separation, reminded Americans in his masterful Oscar acceptance speech:

At this time, many Iranians all over the world are watching us and I imagine them to be very happy. They are happy not just because of an important award or a film or filmmaker, but because at the time when talk of war, intimidation, and aggression is exchanged between politicians, the name of their country Iran is spoken here through her glorious culture, a rich and ancient culture that has been hidden under the heavy dust of politics. I proudly offer this award to the people of my country, a people who respect all cultures and civilizations and despise hostility and resentment.

To avoid another catastrophic war in the Middle East, it is imperative that we eschew the narrow, one-dimensional approach to Iran embodied in Argo, recognize the basic humanity of the Iranian people, and move beyond the oppressively limiting, dangerous and outdated “us versus them” paradigm. We must maintain a better grasp on history so we don’t fall victim to the chicanery of politicians who ignore historical fact for political gain.

Posted in Film, Iran | 1 Comment

Palestinian Tortured to Death

If this doesn’t make you angry, I don’t know what will. His name was Arafat Jaradat.  See the video here.

Posted in Palestine | Comments Off on Palestinian Tortured to Death

The Harlem Shake in Solidarity with Palestine

If this doesn’t make you smile, I don’t know what will. See the video here.

Posted in Palestine | Comments Off on The Harlem Shake in Solidarity with Palestine

Ahmadinejad in Egypt and the Shaykhs of Al-Azhar

Ahmadinejad is in Egypt right for the first visit by an Iranian head-of-state in decades. The shaykhs of Al-Azhar have shared their criticism of Iran’s regional policies with Ahmadinejad. They have expressed their concern with Iranian “meddling” in the Persian Gulf along with Iran’s support for the Assad dictatorship in Syria. Could the shaykhs of Al-Azhar be anymore sectarian? They support the Bahraini dictatorship in the face of pro-democracy protests only because the regime there is Sunni and the pro-democracy protesters are largely (though not exclusively) Shi’ites. And they support the uprising in Syria only because it is against a non-Sunni regime. What hypocrisy. I think it’s important to condemn dictatorships across the board, starting with the Persian Gulf sheikhdoms (emphasis SAUDI ARABIA). But I should not be so annoyed since nobody really cares what the shaykhs of Al-Azhar have to say. I mean, these are the same shaykhs that came out against the uprising in their own Egypt and then switched sides when it became apparent that the regime was falling. These are the same shaykhs that gave religious sanction to Egypt’s wars with Israel and then switched policies when the Sadat regime sought peace in the late 70s. They go in any direction the wind blows. Here’s the al-Jazeera video brief on the visit.

Posted in Egypt, Iran | 4 Comments

Why did men stop wearing high heels?

The BBC: For generations they have signified femininity and glamour – but a pair of high heels was once an essential accessory for men.

Beautiful, provocative, sexy – high heels may be all these things and more, but even their most ardent fans wouldn’t claim they were practical.

They’re no good for hiking or driving. They get stuck in things. Women in heels are advised to stay off the grass – and also ice, cobbled streets and posh floors.

And high heels don’t tend to be very comfortable. It is almost as though they just weren’t designed for walking in.

Originally, they weren’t.

“The high heel was worn for centuries throughout the near east as a form of riding footwear,” says Elizabeth Semmelhack of the Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto.

Good horsemanship was essential to the fighting styles of the Persia – the historical name for modern-day Iran.

“When the soldier stood up in his stirrups, the heel helped him to secure his stance so that he could shoot his bow and arrow more effectively,” says Semmelhack.

At the end of the 16th Century, Persia’s Shah Abbas I had the largest cavalry in the world. He was keen to forge links with rulers in Western Europe to help him defeat his great enemy, the Ottoman Empire.

So in 1599, Abbas sent the first Persian diplomatic mission to Europe – it called on the courts of Russia, Germany and Spain.

A wave of interest in all things Persian passed through Western Europe. Persian style shoes were enthusiastically adopted by aristocrats, who sought to give their appearance a virile, masculine edge that, it suddenly seemed, only heeled shoes could supply.

As the wearing of heels filtered into the lower ranks of society, the aristocracy responded by dramatically increasing the height of their shoes – and the high heel was born.

In the muddy, rutted streets of 17th Century Europe, these new shoes had no utility value whatsoever – but that was the point.

“One of the best ways that status can be conveyed is through impracticality,” says Semmelhack, adding that the upper classes have always used impractical, uncomfortable and luxurious clothing to announce their privileged status.

“They aren’t in the fields working and they don’t have to walk far.”

When it comes to history’s most notable shoe collectors, the Imelda Marcos of his day was arguably Louis XIV of France. For a great king, he was rather diminutively proportioned at only 5ft 4in (1.63m).

He supplemented his stature by a further 4in (10cm) with heels, often elaborately decorated with depictions of battle scenes.

The heels and soles were always red – the dye was expensive and carried a martial overtone. The fashion soon spread overseas – Charles II of England’s coronation portrait of 1661 features him wearing a pair of enormous red, French style heels – although he was over 6ft (1.85m) to begin with.

In the 1670s, Louis XIV issued an edict that only members of his court were allowed to wear red heels. In theory, all anyone in French society had to do to check whether someone was in favour with the king was to glance downwards. In practice, unauthorised, imitation heels were available.

Although Europeans were first attracted to heels because the Persian connection gave them a macho air, a craze in women’s fashion for adopting elements of men’s dress meant their use soon spread to women and children.

“In the 1630s you had women cutting their hair, adding epaulettes to their outfits,” says Semmelhack.

“They would smoke pipes, they would wear hats that were very masculine. And this is why women adopted the heel – it was in an effort to masculinise their outfits.”

From that time, Europe’s upper classes followed a unisex shoe fashion until the end of the 17th Century, when things began to change again.

“You start seeing a change in the heel at this point,” says Helen Persson, a curator at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. “Men started to have a squarer, more robust, lower, stacky heel, while women’s heels became more slender, more curvaceous.”

The toes of women’s shoes were often tapered so that when the tips appeared from her skirts, the wearer’s feet appeared to be small and dainty.

Fast forward a few more years and the intellectual movement that came to be known as the Enlightenment brought with it a new respect for the rational and useful and an emphasis on education rather than privilege. Men’s fashion shifted towards more practical clothing. In England, aristocrats began to wear simplified clothes that were linked to their work managing country estates.

It was the beginning of what has been called the Great Male Renunciation, which would see men abandon the wearing of jewellery, bright colours and ostentatious fabrics in favour of a dark, more sober, and homogeneous look. Men’s clothing no longer operated so clearly as a signifier of social class, but while these boundaries were being blurred, the differences between the sexes became more pronounced.

“There begins a discussion about how men, regardless of station, of birth, if educated could become citizens,” says Semmelhack.

“Women, in contrast, were seen as emotional, sentimental and uneducatable. Female desirability begins to be constructed in terms of irrational fashion and the high heel – once separated from its original function of horseback riding – becomes a primary example of impractical dress.”

High heels were seen as foolish and effeminate. By 1740 men had stopped wearing them altogether.

But it was only 50 years before they disappeared from women’s feet too, falling out of favour after the French Revolution.

By the time the heel came back into fashion, in the mid-19th Century, photography was transforming the way that fashions – and the female self-image – were constructed.

Pornographers were amongst the first to embrace the new technology, taking pictures of naked women for dirty postcards, positioning models in poses that resembled classical nudes, but wearing modern-day high heels.

Elizabeth Semmelhack, author of Heights of Fashion: A History of the Elevated Shoe, believes that this association with pornography led to high heels being seen as an erotic adornment for women.

The 1960s saw a return of low heeled cowboy boots for men and some dandies strutted their stuff in platform shoes in the 1970s.

But the era of men walking around on their toes seems to be behind us. Could we ever return to an era of guys squeezing their big hairy feet into four-inch, shiny, brightly coloured high heels?

“Absolutely,” says Semmelhack. There is no reason, she believes, why the high heel cannot continue to be ascribed new meanings – although we may have to wait for true gender equality first.

“If it becomes a signifier of actual power, then men will be as willing to wear it as women.”

Posted in Iran | 1 Comment

The Syrian “Jihad”

This is the flag of the biggest and most effective jihad group in Syria, jabha al Nusrah. When I see this flag, I doubtless see the black flag of al-Qaeda.

I’ve been extra busy with work, school, setting up a house, etc., and I may not be blogging regularly but I’ve definitely stayed on top of it in terms of reading the news and staying updated. The Syrian War is going in a terrifyingly radical and unpredictable direction. What was a peaceful uprising has become militarized beyond recognition.  Look at this video brief. The Syrian War is now a full blown jihad like the one in Afghanistan in the 80s when Islamists from all corners of the Muslim world came to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Now a new generation is fighting in Syria against Assad’s criminal regime.

What happened in the 80s may have been several decades ago but it is still very instructive. In the 80s, a generation of Islamists were radicalized and fought and defeated the Soviets – the world’s second super power. They returned to their home countries battle-tested and battle-hardened with a triumphant zeal ready to replicate the Afghan success in their home countries. This along with local conditions is why the world witnessed an outbreak of violence in the 90s in places like Algeria and Egypt. Many of those militants that fought their respective states were veterans of the Afghan war, the so-called Arab Afghans.

Today a new generation of Islamists is being baptized in the so-called holy war. Some of them are themselves defeated veterans of the Iraq War who now seek to recover the loss of that war by waging a successful jihad in Syria. Alternatively, these same Iraq veterans could also be strategizing that a victory in Syria could help re-ignite a 2nd campaign in Iraq. Indeed, there is already a spill-over of the conflict into Syria.

Concurrently, some of the fighters in Syria are the victors of the recent Libya war. The commander who led the charge in taking Tripoli, AbdulHakim Belhadj, for instance, has been rumored to now be fighting in Syria. Although this is probably untrue, there are certainly veterans of the Libya War in Syria fighting today.

These veterans are training a new generation of militants, Syrian or otherwise, to wage the latest jihad against the Assad regime. The question everyone should be asking is what happens when the war ends? According to the video linked above, some would have it that the jihad continues until there is one Islamic state ruling over all of the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine/Israel). Others from further afar could return to their home countries to continue the jihad, as the Arab Afghans did in the 90s.

Whatever happens, a Jeffersonian democracy in a stable unified Syria seems the farthest possible outcome at this point.

Posted in Syria | 1 Comment

Recent Tweet Re: Sandy Hook Shooting

“FOX News has not stated the religion of the Connecticut shooter. He must not be Muslim.”

Posted in Gun Violence | 4 Comments

Morgan Freeman on the recent shooting…

“You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why.It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbedpeople who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN’s article says that if the body count “holds up”, this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.”

Posted in Gun Violence | 4 Comments

On Palestine’s UN Bid

I watched Mahmoud Abbas’ UN speech along with that of the Israeli ambassador to the UN live. There is much to say about Israel’s mythical narrative. For starters, the Israeli ambassador said that when Israel “withdrew” from Gaza, all it got in return was a barrage of missiles. What a selective reading of history! How can that be considered “withdrawal” when they continued to control the land, sea, and air of the Gaza Strip.  Furthermore, when Israel “withdrew” from the Gaza Strip it relocated most of its illegal settlers to the West Bank and continued and expanded its occupation there. Israelis must be informed that what fate befalls the West Bank affects the Gaza Strip and vice versa.  The people who reside in those two territories, the remaining territories of historic Palestine, are one. Consequently, as long as the occupation in the West Bank continued and was fortified, the Palestine-Israel conflict never ended in the Gaza Strip.

The ambassador also called Gaza an Iranian “weapons dump.” The thinking, I presume, is that no one is allowed to send Gaza weapons but Israel can enjoy super power military, political, and economic support in order to continue its illegal military occupation of the remainder of historic Palestine. What silly rationale.

He also mentioned that Israel accepted the UN decision in 1948 to partition Palestine but that Arabs rejected it. Of course Israel accepted it, foreign born European Jews got most of the land, much of which was the most fertile, when the native Palestinians were the majority. And he went on to say that Arabs invaded Israel to push “the Jews into the sea.” Elan Pappe’s famous book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, would take serious issue with this narrative. Pappe chronicles how Israel launched the war as a smokescreen to ethnically cleanse the native Palestinians from that land. He argues that the cleansing was not a byproduct of war but the main purpose behind why the war was launched by Israel.  Furthermore, the ambassador paints a picture in which he presents Israel as this underdog who survived 1948 miraculously.  The truth is, they launched the war and outnumbered Arab soldiers 2 to 1 (some estimates put it at 3 to 1) and systematically killed and scared off the survivors from that land.

Lastly, the ambassador kept talking about how Israel wants peace. I’m sorry sir, but the only peace you and your government want is a peace where you are the masters of all of Palestine and the natives are either gone or subjugated to your savage and racist apartheid system. We all want peace, but your peace is one that has little justice to it. You can’t say you want peace all the while enforcing a military occupation on a largely defenseless population while you colonize their land. Who are you fooling?

Palestine’s upgraded status might change little on the ground but if they’re happy, if it’s a moral and diplomatic victory, then I couldn’t be happier. They deserve it.

For the viewers on this blog that care about justice and have long supported and sympathized with the noble Palestinian cause… I think it’s important to note that as fortunate as we are not to live under that merciless and brutal occupation, we are connected to that people through our shared humanity and are part of a global effort that seeks to remedy this long and heinous injustice. Keep the faith, every dollar donated, protest attended, blog/facebook/twitter/google+/youtube post, university lecture organized or attended, documentary screening, personal conversation with an uninformed but curious friend or stranger, article written, petition signed, etc is all part of a global effort to wake up the world’s citizens to this long and barbarous crime in order to bring it to a just and long overdue conclusion.  And you know the world is in fact waking up to the reality in Palestine when neutral Switzerland voted FOR Palestine’s bid, along with nearly 140 other countries.

Indeed, keep the faith… however long it takes, Palestine will see light of justice.

Posted in Gaza, Palestine | Comments Off on On Palestine’s UN Bid

Israel-Hamas “Ceasefire”

Let the record show that I strongly believe a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel will only last a short while because as long as Israel continues its blockage on Gaza and its military occupation of the West Bank, the conflict will continue. Israel’s occupation is one long drawn out offensive that every so often kills a Palestinian. The ceasefire effectively means that Israel can continue to militarily rule the Palestinians and that they cannot respond or resist without feeling the wrath of Israel’s cruel war machine.  And when they do, the latest so-called “ceasefire” will be over.

Posted in Palestine | Comments Off on Israel-Hamas “Ceasefire”

Gazans thank Iran for support in Israeli war

That Hamas has thanked Iran for its military help that came to bear in the latest phase of the Israeli occupation of the remainder of Palestine and its repercussions affirms two points: 1. Hamas is not unified. The Damascus branch experienced a falling out with Iran over the latter’s support for the Assad regime in Syria, but the Gazan faction is still very close to Iran; 2) Western media are hypocritical. The Western media have jumped on the billboards as proof that Iran supports Hamas. They quip at Iran for supporting Hamas while making very little of the fact that Western powers support Israel with far more lethal weaponry. For the record, Israel enjoys the military support of the world’s leading superpower and has killed far more civilians than all the armed factions in Palestine combined. If you don’t like Hamas having weapons then you should support the end of the occupation that breeds armed resistance against it. You simply can’t have the military occupation continue and expect peace at the same time. You must choose.

p.s. I wonder if the peace signs on Iran’s flags at the bottom of the banner are photo shopped, were a mistake, or were done deliberately.

Posted in Gaza | Comments Off on Gazans thank Iran for support in Israeli war