Sycamore's Interactive War Diary
 

A collection of photos, thoughts, and other odds-and-sods that I will cull during wartime.

Today, I was listening to CBC Radio One Toronto (which is currently broadcasting nationwide war coverage), and a reporter went to a Muslim grade school in Calgary to talk to the students.

Now granted, I realize that these were just 13 and 14 year old kids, but some of what I heard coming out of their mouths worried me.

Many of course were upset about the US going to war against Iraq. They expressed their concerns about how innocent civilians would be killed, how the US is only concerned about oil, etc. But then one girl said that if we are so concerned about nuclear weapons, why don't we attack North Korea? And it was the way she said it--as if it was cool to bomb North Korea, but not Iraq.

Then, this same girl mentioned that b/c Iraqis are Muslims, the war hurts them that much more.

What concerned me so much about these statements was that these kids seemed to put too much religion into the current situation. I'm not a fan of this war, but I'm pretty certain that this war is NOT about Christianity vs. Islam. We're not attacking Iraq b/c they are a Muslim nation.

What are these kids being taught at home? Are they looking at various sources before coming to these conclusions, or is it them mirroring their parents' beliefs? (I'm leaning more on the latter. Though, they seemed like well-articulated kids. The internet and satellite television allow kids to learn more about the world now than I could at age 13 in 1988.)

This underscores one of my biggest gripes about organized religion. In some sects of each one, it seems to go "You attack one of us, you attack all of us." That's something I might expect from a country, but a religion?

Very unsettling. I hope this is the exception and not the rule.

Re: Sycamore's Interactive War Diary
 

I'm imagining an accordian-like teenager...


- Pie:)

Play a particular key, the kid makes a different noise. :)

About 2000 or so folks decided to protest the war in Chicago tonight. They wound up taking over Lake Shore Drive (probably Chicago's busiest street), snarling evening traffic.

http://msdelta.net/~sycamore/cellar/chiprotest.jpg

(From AP and the Chicago Sun-Times)

These sort of protests have been happening here in Philadelphia. One occurred Tuesday night I believe, in front of Dilworth Plaza at 15th and Market. Several of them lay down in the crosswalk at 5pm, and blocked traffic moving south on 15th St.

To give non-Phila folks an idea, this is in front of our City Hall, which sits in the middle of the street...on a square. Traffic moves counter-clockwise around City Hall. This blockade prevented traffic coming around City Hall from North Broad St. and westbound Market St. from moving forward. A real mess.

I'm all for peaceful protest. Hell, if there's a decent protest rally over the weekend, I might go. But I'm not a fan of blocking traffic, which is colored by something personal.

What if a hospital calls Rho saying that they have a kidney for her? And she drives around City Hall towards one of the hospitals in the area, not knowing what is about to occur. Then, b/c of the time it takes her to get to the hospital, the donor kidney is no longer usable.

Of course, this applies to many situations...ambulances, police cars, fire trucks, etc.

The Philadelphia Police has decided to treat them with kid gloves, primarily due to problems involving the police and protestors during the 2000 Republican convention here. Our police commissioner, Sylvester Johnson, has said in so many words that they will let protestors disrupt traffic.

Here's an idea, you dumbfuck: Next time, don't rough up protestors and use dirty tactics to prevent peaceful protest. Then, you won't have to fear charges getting dropped and your asses getting sued. Then you won't fear moving these people out of the way, locking 'em in a paddy wagon, and driving them off.

Exception and not the rule? Where have you been the last year and a half? Every fucking whiny asshole Muslim in every publication talks about how this is a war on Islam. I've seen maybe five who haven't. I've got no problem with Islam, but this makes me want to strangle someone. Yes, yes, <b>of course</b> it's a war on Islam! That's why our country is the most free place to practice it! That's why we're not invading any of the other Muslim countries! That's why we're backing a - wait for it, wait for it - Muslim leader in Afghanistan!

Get fucking real. I hate people.

Please don't flip-flop on your opinion here just because I agree with you.


Hey, whaddafuk is a muslim again? ;)

Gestures were discussed in another thread. I happened to find a page that discusses various gestures in Arab culture. There is also this PDF file on Arab gestures and taboos from the Navy, which includes the "thumbs up" gesture (it's at the bottom of page 10 of the file).

There is currently a pro-American rally in Clarksville, TN, near Fort Campbell. It's all good, so long as it doesn't turn anti-Muslim, or devolve into something like some of the anti-war rallies.

Hmmm...well, I've lived in Philadelphia since September 2000. I've done some traveling throughout the northeast: DC, New York, Boston, the Poconos, the Jersey Shore. Other than that though, I've been in Philadelphia.

I think a good chunk of the "war on Islam" talk is just that--talk. Give someone a mic, an opportunity, and an audience, and it's amazing what they'll say. Sort of like when the media talk to hardcore Klan members, and they start spouting off shit like "we're protecting the white race" and "niggers are inferior."

I would like to think that most Muslims don't think that way. Including some of those talking on TV. Perhaps the shock and fear provokes an emotional response. Perhaps it's meant as a scare tactic. We're only hearing from what? 200-500 Muslims? Out of a billion?

Akbar Ahmed is a professor of International Relations at the American University in Washington, DC. He did an interactive essay for the BBC that discusses relations with the western world and Islam. Good stuff...check it out. (Click on the link, then click on Mr. Ahmed, then watch the video or read the transcript. You may also be interested in the other essays presented.)

Slang, you know! Muslims...those dirty low-life fighters that believe some god named Allah! It's sacriligious, I tell you!

In the navy document, I found the information starting that the bottom of page 12 interesting ... related to appropriate handling of the Qur'an. That's a lot to remember when you're sitting down to read.

Overall, good stuff.

Damnit! They attacked Pennsylvania!

Camp Pennsylvania, that is...

Could you explain this comment for those of us that cannot read your mind.

Thank you.

I would have thought that "securing the camp perimeter" was part of Warfare 101 ... that's was part of lessons learned in Vietnam, Korea, WWII ... (etc etc) I'm not surprised at the addition of small party incursions, which I think will ultimately prove to be more damanging than a lot of the direct assult by divisions stuff.

From CBC's Web One: Manipulating Minds: The Psychological War on Iraq. Best to check out on broadband.

Talk about me being in the dark...I had no idea that Keith Olbermann was now a news anchor for MSNBC.

That was both simpler AND more clever than I expected.

Once again, thanks for finding something cool and relevant.

As I understand it, a missing member of the division has been taken in for questioning. Damn...I sure hope it wasn't an inside job.

I just watched the VP of Iraq speak. According to MSNBC, he was talking about how everything was going well for them. But truth be told, I didn't understand a fucking thing he was saying. It could have been the translation, but it just seemed like he was going off on some sort of tangent...he could have been talking about how much he would like a McChicken sandwich for all I know.

Now up and running at Sycamoreland: The War Room at Sycamoreland. I intend it to be a place for news links, info, and comic relief. Thus far, the news links are up, along with a smidge of trademark Sycamore commentary. Check it out.

In this Quality Images thread, UT posted a photo of a group of naked people forming the word "PEACE" with their bodies.

It was done by a UK group called Bare Witness, "Naked Protest for Peace" as their website says. You can buy a t-shirt with the PEACE photo for $15.66 US (£10 UK).

http://msdelta.net/~sycamore/cellar/lsdove.jpg

The above photo came from the Bare Witness site: It's a group of people forming a dove on Lake Superior. A larger version of the photo is available on the Bare Witness site. Apparently, as the folks were doing this, they were being heckled by people on snowmobiles.

And sorry, folks...they're not naked.

When I heard about the Al-jazeera footage this morning, I headed over to their site. As of early this afternoon, they had only posted pics of dead Iraqi civilians. I suspect that they have posted the POW footage now though...their site is overwhelmed with traffic. I can't get to it.

Al-Jazeera is apparently justifying showing the footage by saying that the US showed photos of the captured Taliban in Afghanistan. Great...are we going to get into a shit-flinging fight over "illegal combatants" again? Perhaps I should read up on US policy and the Geneva Convention.

Did anyone see the President on TV this afternoon? Did you see how grey his hair has gotten since he became president? Just like Clinton. Shit, I couldn't be president...I don't like grey hair.

From the BBC: Kuwaitis talk about Iraq and the United States. Also, a look at the history of Britain's relationship with Iraq.

WARNING...GRAPHIC

Dead US soldiers (in Arabic--I can't get Ajeeb to do the translation right now)

All the world leaders would be snickering at you with *RED* hair rufus.

BTW, the pow footage has only been out for a day or two and I'm burned out from it already. Where is the footage of the 3000 pows in US custody?

Did anyone see Michael Moore's Oscar speech Sunday night?

From the San Francisco Chronicle (note the bolded area):

"We live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts," Moore said.

I like Michael Moore...I agree with a lot of what he says.

But what the fuck was that first part about?

Newsflash to the bitter: Bush won. It's over. He won fair and square, under the conditions asked for by Gore. Bush got the most electoral votes. End of story. If you don't like it, vote him out next November.

Did you all know that Flipper is serving the US military proudly? God bless him!

With the pre-war talk of offering Saddam Hussein exile, CBC presents various leaders that have fled into exile. Surprising omissions: The Shah of Iran, Mobutu Sese Seko, Baby Doc. Interesting tidbit: Idi Amin is living happily in Saudi Arabia.

Uday Hussein a possible murderer? Liars! If indeed true, it's horrible, yet not surprising.

Talk radio host Michael Smerconish wrote an article in the Philadelphia Daily News on Friday, arguing that we should not be protesting against war b/c of its possible effects on the troops. Read the article.

I don't mind Smerconish sometimes, but other times, he just hits that crack pipe a bit too hard.

People have the right to protest, for freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment. Unless people have been living under rocks, it's been well-noted for some time that a war would not be favored by some of the population. Those going to battle most likely knew this. And with all the embedded press, I'm sure those soldiers now know that recent polls show strong support for the war. Furthermore, I think we learned a valuable lesson from Vietnam, and I don't honestly think we would treat Gulf War vets as we did Vietnam vets (if unsuccessful).

Lastly, Al-Jazeera has created a small English-language site. My recommendation: use ajeeb.com to translate the Arabic version.

It's only obvious in the light...but at least there's no grey hair. :)

But the nosering, that's obvious, right?

I'm amazed that you have a higher tolerance level of (Philly talk radio guy) Smerc than I do. I think the guy's an ass.

Wow ... dissed Syc and used Latin to do it.

Man, that turns me on. ;)
(in a "wow, Tish, you spoke French" kind of way, except, of course, we're boycotting France right now.)

Well ... there's two major players in this game, one of whom pays attention to the stuff in the Geneva Convention, and one that doesn't ....

Unfortunately, thats the basis of a lot of the Democratic opposition to the war. If Gore were doing it it'd be fine. The Donkeys certainly enjoy warmaking as much as the Elephants, although they prolly would have sought foreign support.

I'm not so sure of that...the one seems to pay attention to it only when it's convenient.

It almost sounds like a Clintonism, it all depends on how you define enemy combatant.

I like hearing the intelligent commentary of Tony Blair. He has persuaded me to have a bit of hope for a positive outcome. Bush and his circle scare me with their brand of morality, fundamental religiosity, and clumsy rationalization abroad and at home.

Blair is a remarkable speaker and a true leader.

*twilight zone moment*

For some reason, the way Shepps said that made him sound like Radar.

doo-doo-doo-doo...

hmmm... so Blair making my skin crawl isn't the common reaction. Must be latent Irish Republicanism or a contempt for war mongering politicians or some combination thereof, either way it probably doesn't reflect well on me.

Maybe its the accent.

I was gonna say more, then I deleted it, then I felt bad like I should post anyway, ...

post it.

Oh come on Shepps! Don't pussy out now...

Truth be told, I was surprised when the UK came to our defense so quickly. I expected more skepticism from them.

I like Tony Blair. I get a sense from him that he really believes that Saddam should be removed for moral reasons...a "noble purpose," if you will. I don't get that vibe from Bush...maybe it's because I'm so cynical about the Bush administration. Having said this, Blair does seem awfully "yes-like," though it would seem that public support is swinging his way.

C'mon yah candy ass!

Seriously though I caught the news conference today and if Blair can drag Bush kicking and screaming to a workable Palestinian solution, I'll get over it.

Here is the text of Blair's 3/18 House of Commons speech. Its doesnt include the thoughtful delivery, and the skilled debate. Its a better arguement that we've gotten from Bush.

On today's Morning Edition, NPR's Anne Garrels reported that supplies of valium were running low in Baghdad. Parents are swiping it up to give it to their kids (apparently, to calm them). Great...not only will they be hungry, but now they'll be drug addicts!

It is far easier to sleep through bombing than the screams of a child.

I have slept through any number of large explosions and thunderstorms (including a power transformer blowing off a power pole DURING a thunderstorm.

There is something in the frequency range of screaming child that just gets your attention, no matter how deep into REM sleep you get.

Perhaps we should include a drug kit in each box on the relief convoys. When the trucks arrive in Baghdad, the kids will beat their parents to the trucks.

Fuck, let's throw some oxycontin on there for fun.

I just saw one of those self-promotional commercials for MSNBC. It was basically MSNBC using reviews that describe how good the frontline reporting of David Bloom is. But one of them struck me as odd, b/c it was from the Washington Post, which works extensively with MSNBC.

Granted, I've liked David Bloom's reports from the field, but perhaps they should have used a more objective source for a review.

From CBC New Brunswick comes the story of a couple living on the Maine-New Brunswick border...and how bizarre things have become since the US went to Code Orange.

In a similar vein comes the story of two towns, different countries, but very much joined.

From MSNBC: The US-Turkey issue--a mutual fuck-up

And lastly, an article that touches on our discussion of yesterday, from the BBC: Dubya and Tony Blair--a perspective of their relationship

Shit...forgot about the stuff I found yesterday...

We've discussed the media coverage in another thread, and how confusing it can be...the BBC analyzes (or is that "analyses") it as well.

Also from the BBC: How Iraqis get their news

And from PRI's The World...an audio history of Iraq.

I've had a chance to really kick back and watch/listen to the 3 major cable news channels (in the US) this weekend. My critique on each one:

--MSNBC: Good, factual-based reporting, good coverage in the field (particularly Peter Arnett), solid analysts (e.g. Norman Schwarzkopf), too much repetition, not a whole lot of slant with a few exceptions (Dan Abrams), a bit too patriotic IMO

--Fox: Good factual-based reporting, gives more of a connected-to-Washington feel, Oliver North in the field is a nice plus, not having to see Geraldo also a plus, a bit too much sarcasm from anchors, most slanted of the three (towards the right)

--CNN: Good factual-based reporting, most experience of the networks, some whiny liberal slant, doesn't seem to have the inside track as it used to, which I think reflects in its reporting

From what I saw of the ratings the night that the war started, NBC was the clear winner, besting ABC by 5 million or so. Add the 4 million from MSNBC and CNBC, and the gap goes to 9 million. Fox News had the most viewers on cable (close to 8 million), beating CNN by almost a million.

Which brings me to ask...do we WANT slant in our newscast? Oh sure, we may claim that we want fair and accurate news, but does it give us comfort to hear viewpoints that are more in-line with our own?

Based on my viewing this weekend, you can get relatively fair and accurate news from the above 3 cable news channels. And each one has well-known personalities. And each one has neato graphics and their own little polls. And, each one fucks up...probably more often than they should. (It's 24 hour news...whaddaya gonna do?)

So, to answer my own question, I would say, yes, I do like to hear those with the same viewpoint as mine. It tells me that I'm not alone. But at the same time, I still want that opposing viewpoint. I want to know why those opposite me feel and think the way they do. And in some cases, it provides humor for me.

Saw Fox do a bit of baiting today -- or was it really news? -- that Peter Arnett was on Iraqi TV, talking about how great the Ministry of Information has been to the reporters and how his reports have really bolstered anti-war sentiment world-wide.

I saw that on CNN, which presents it pretty straight-forward.

If he is indeed a hard dove, it hasn't shown in his reporting, IMO.

An anchor on Fox today was ragging on this editorial (I think this is the right one) in the Baltimore Sun (a pretty liberal newspaper). And that's completely cool, but I wouldn't recommend doing it with a reporter from the Washington Times (apparently owned by the Moonies).

I mostly saw Arnett's little foray into the Iraqi media as major sucking up to the powers that be (for now).

On the other hand, I think that fawning over the Iraqi Ministry of Information (the very name brings Orwellian repression to mind) at the present moment may have been one of those regrettable career moves. Perhaps he'll later claim that he was just buttering them up so he could get the best access to scoops.

"Mr. Arnett, Hamdan Abdul Haleh here...how'd you like an exclusive on the fall of Baghdad?" Yeah, right...

Ditto. He wanted to complete his coverage instead of being detained or jailed.

NBC/MSNBC ends relationship with Arnett.

To be discussed later...

This is the blog of a reporter in Iraq. Looks promising.

http://back-to-iraq.com/


edit - found a nice description of the site on warblogging.com:

<blockquote><i>Christopher Allbritton, the Internet's first very own war correspondent, has gotten his Syrian visa, he reports on Back To Iraq. He is currently in Ankara, but will be departing for Syria — and then the Syrian-Iraqi border — tomorrow morning.

Chris is travelling to Iraqi Kurdistan to report on the war in an independent fashion, outside the controlling influence of the US Army or major media organisations. His trip is entirely funded by his readers, who have so far donated more than ten thousand dollars. Panisonic, Motorola and other companies have donated equipment such as a laptop and satellite telephone.

Chris e-mails reports from the field to those who have donated, and those reports then get posted to his weblog. He hopes to be in Duhok or Erbil in northern Iraq by tomorrow night.</i></blockquote>

If anyone can pull that off, they win a ceegar!

Come on ... if nothing else, losing three jobs in one day is impressive.

(he probably would have been okay if he had failed to editorialize).

The Peter Arnett employment situation goes a little something like this, from what I understand: He works for some online media group, and was hired to do stuff through that group for National Geographic Explorer. Since all of NBC's folks left Baghdad, and he was still there, and b/c of the relationship with MSNBC and the NGS, he started reporting for MSNBC (and subsequently for NBC). So basically, MSNBC/NBC decided not to show his coverage anymore, and he was subsequently let go by National Geographic.

I wrote an e-mail to Kojo Nnamdi today for his show (though it wasn't read...damnit!), and it basically went like this: What he did wasn't the smartest thing to do; however, I don't think what he did was necessarily inappropriate. He offered a unique perspective on the war, and it's a shame that this happened. Furthermore, the folks at NBC should be ashamed for doing an about face.

Now, having said that, I understand why NBC pulled the plug. The network itself is number 1, and the cable news network is number 3. No reason to ruin your top spot, and dig yourself deeper into a pit at the same time.

If anything, journalists will be more careful in what they say and to whom they say it. While that might not be a bad idea right now, I'm not sure that's such a good thing in the long run.

If George W. Bush can figure out the Israel/Palestine situation, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. It's that simple.

That indy journalist better be careful, lest he wind up like the guy from ITN.

Hey, I heard that Geraldo was embedded over in Iraq for Fox, and apparently he got in some shit over possibly revealing a location. Anybody else hear that?

CNN is reporting that Arnett has been hired by that venerable bastion of yellow British journalism, the Daily Mirror.

He must really be proud. At least, he is quoted by The Mirror as saying he is proud to be working for them. Seems he has always admired the paper.

I like it too, especially those headlines about Princess Di back in the day. After all, I never would have known she was pregnant by some Arab guy if it hadn't been for them.

Arnett wasn't canned for what he reported. He was canned for editorializing in an interview with Iraqi TV; he was making propaganda for the enemy, not reporting news. Unless it turns out the man had a pistol aimed at his back, he got what he deserved.

I agree with russotto. Arnett was making, not reporting news. He looked to me like a weasel trying to kiss ass to stay in town.

Geraldo, I love to hear him get grief, was apparently diagraming military locations in the sand for viewers. I heard the division he was with drove him to the boarder and dropped him off. Good riddance.

I know he wasn't canned for his reporting. I was merely commenting (in my e-mail to Kojo Nnamdi) about the perspective Arnett was providing in his news reports.

The way I see it, who the fuck really cares what Peter Arnett says to Iraqi TV? Negative comments and media coverage thus far haven't hurt public opinion. And he was reporting for a network that's pulling in *guesstimate* maybe 20-30% of news watchers overall in the US. Besides, it's not like it was Walter Cronkite.

In addition, I don't see that much difference between him saying what he said on Iraqi TV, and what other reporters/anchors do when they go on the late night shows. All in all, I think it was just a bad decision on Arnett's part, made at the wrong time.

Last I read (it's been a slow news day, it seems), Geraldo was lashing out at MSNBC, saying they were responsible for the rumors.

Time for a humor break...too much war will make you sound like Shepps. ;)

From CBC Saskatchewan, "The Extra Hour."

Peter Arnett's apparent first column for the Daily Mirror

Good Lord...what a crappy writer Arnett is!

"The troops are in the country and fighting there way up here. " (fighting *there* way up here? Please.)

"Optimists in the Pentagon talk about an internal coup. BNut who would have had believed Umm Qasr would hold out for six days? " (*Who would have had believed*? There's a tongue twister for you)

His sentences are short and lousy, not tight and concise. He whines, he is petulant, and he truly seems amazed that he was fired. I used to have some respect for Arnett, but no more. What a doofus. I imagine that he is dictating his reports over the phone to a semi-literate copywriter, and thus the usage errors and typos (quality control is non-existant these days in just about every industry, methinks), but if he's going to write for a newspaper, he needs to stop delivering his commentary like he had a camera stuck in his face.

He an Geraldo should get together over drinks or something, but neither one of them is apparently smart enough to know what to order.

In short he's perfect for tv. :)

Geraldo is back in Kuwait...I saw him on Fox today.

I wonder if Arnett actually "wrote" that column...given that that article was released on Tuesday, it's possible that he gave it over the phone and it was transcribed by someone else.

He's apparently still in Baghdad...here's today's article.