h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I had a carefully crafted post almost finished and the damn computer crashed. Now I'm just tired so I'll do it quick and sloppy:

"terrorist" is a meaningless term. Everybody uses it with no precision to describe people they don't like.

CNN now has started putting "terrorist" in double quotes when they use the term about the Iraqi resistence. Most often they use resistence or insurgents.

"Iraqi resistence" is also a fairly meaningless term. It has certainly been used of the baathist remnants (however many of those there actually are) and of the various Wahabi inspired groups that Zagreb and many others would describe as "terrorists". It has also been used of the various militias who, if viewed with a clear head, certainly deserve the term "resistance" in a classic sense. And, clearly, I think, the term could be used of grass roots, peaceful opposition to the occupation by ordinary Iraqis. Certainly this type of "resistance" exists. Furthermore, "Iraqi resistance" could be used in a more general sense to include the global opposition to the invasion and occupation.

Now, I haven't looked to see whether Indymedia explains their banner anywhere, Zagreb, but I, for one, would not have jumped to the conclusions you have after seeing the banner you described. And, based on my browsing around the Indymedia site, I'd say that Indymedia is simply H2G2 without editors or quite the same sense of fun.

Mudhooks,

Can you explain why you put terrorist in scare-quotes (as I said, explain to me why the insurgency are *not* terrorists) and why you call them "civilians"? Are you aware polls (from such scary neocon conspiracies as, er, the BBC) show 70% or Iraqis support the interim government in Iraq and that most Iraqs consider the main priority of the new government to be putting down the insurgency (sorry, "resistance") - hardly surprising, since the insurgents regularly and shamelessly target Iraqi civilians (something you condemn the Americans for doing (without proof)).

Also, can you answer my main question - why should a "leftwinger" (I feel those scare-quotes are entirely justified) support or defend a site that happily publishes racist and holocaust-denying material and links to sites and (I would claim, based on the priortity they gives those banners) supports sites that encourage solidarity towards Ba'athist and Islamist far-right terrorist insurgencies in Iraq?

<>

Which is why I get so peeved at hearing the NZ media (very American influenced) referring to them as "insurgents", "rebels", Terrorists and foreigners!

I don't know why Mudhooks puts the quotes in. I don't know why CNN does either. I suspect it's because, as I mentioned above, both Mudhooks and CNN realize that "terrorist" is a meaningless term.

(I also don't know why Toys R Us gets war reparation payments from the present Iraqi government.)

"CNN now has started putting "terrorist" in double quotes when they use the term about the Iraqi resistence. Most often they use resistence or insurgents."

As they should. The BBC and much of the British media uses the term "militant". Terrorist is a loaded term and using it suggests strongly that a side is being taken. Whilst I think the Iraqi insurgency use terrorist tactics (and I am happy to call them terrorists), I have no problem with more neutral terms being used by the media in order to resist accusations of bias.

""Iraqi resistence" is also a fairly meaningless term. It has certainly been used of the baathist remnants (however many of those there actually are) and of the various Wahabi inspired groups that Zagreb and many others would describe as "terrorists". It has also been used of the various militias who, if viewed with a clear head, certainly deserve the term "resistance" in a classic sense. And, clearly, I think, the term could be used of grass roots, peaceful opposition to the occupation by ordinary Iraqis. Certainly this type of "resistance" exists. Furthermore, "Iraqi resistance" could be used in a more general sense to include the global opposition to the invasion and occupation."

There's a lot of truth in there, but I do think that anyone who sees the term "Iraqi resistance" will immediately assume it refers to the Ba'athist and Islamist insurgents who are described as "the Iraqi resistance" by many of their supporters in the UK (and I would imagine elsewhere). Whilst it may be true, in an intellectual sense, that "resistance" could include the non-violent anti-war movement this is not what people associate with the term and Indymedia will be more than aware of that. I think it's naive to assume otherwise (if, indeed, you are making that assumption).

"Now, I haven't looked to see whether Indymedia explains their banner anywhere, Zagreb, but I, for one, would not have jumped to the conclusions you have after seeing the banner you described. And, based on my browsing around the Indymedia site, I'd say that Indymedia is simply H2G2 without editors or quite the same sense of fun."

Possibly, but then h2g2 would never leave on-site an entry encouraging holocaust denial and the racist murder and ethnic eleansing of the Jewish population in Israel and Palestine. Indymedia seem quite happy to leave that article where it is.

"I don't know why Mudhooks puts the quotes in. I don't know why CNN does either. I suspect it's because, as I mentioned above, both Mudhooks and CNN realize that "terrorist" is a meaningless term."

My own definition of terrorist is any non-government organisation that deliberately targets and uses violence (includng murder) against a civilian population in order to achieve political aims. This certainly applies to the Iraqi insurgency.

' I do think that anyone who sees the term "Iraqi resistance" will immediately assume it refers to the Ba'athist and Islamist insurgents who are described as "the Iraqi resistance" by many of their supporters in the UK (and I would imagine elsewhere)'

Well, I don't immediately assume it refers to them. In fact, I assume it refers to the various militias unless it is further specified. I assume it refers to groups having a certain degree of military structure, like al-Sadr's militia, for example.

' Whilst it may be true, in an intellectual sense, that "resistance" could include the non-violent anti-war movement this is not what people associate with the term and Indymedia will be more than aware of that. I think it's naive to assume otherwise (if, indeed, you are making that assumption).'

Well, I'm happy to say that I did not make an assumption. I made an estimation of probability. And, from where I stand, in Canada (our government was a part of the resistance to the Invasion), it is a pretty safe estimation that Indymedia probably intended to present an image of the global opposition to the invasion and occupation. And, it also seems probably that they intended to let people feel solidarity with which ever definition they felt comfortable with, including the pre-invasion resistance to Sadaam.

Any other assumption is, I think, narrow and, indeed, naive.

I agree with you about the holocaust denial bits. Are the ones you previously saw still online? It would be interesting to know if they do in fact get removed but then get reposted. That would certainly colour things a little differently.

Sorry, Zagreb, simulpost:

'This certainly applies to the Iraqi insurgency.'

which insurgency? There are certainly a number of different groups with a bunch of different goals, tactics, and strategies.

I don't mean to treat this discussion lightly but I have to take care of dinner and other real life things. I certainly don't mean to be running away from it, Zagreb.

Okay, I have a quick minute for something important:

You're absolutely right, Zagreb. Whatever the definition we want to put on "Iraqi resistance", the banner betrays an impartial agenda just as much as a banner supporting "the anti-Bush league" or the "Republican Majority" would betray an agenda.

That having been said, do you suppose that pro-American foriegn policy or pro-Bush or pro-Israeli pieces would be left on the site? Do you suppose that supporters of such things would post to Indymedia? If such pieces do get posted and do get left up, then I don't see that the agenda (whatever its specifics) indicated by the banner are affecting what gets left on the site. It may affect what gets posted however.

Gotta do that dinner.

Zagreb:

I need help. I can't find the banner you mention. I'm looking all over the damn site and I can't find it.

I'm going to keep looking for a while. Dinner is done.

Okay. I still haven't found the banner. And I haven't found the Holocaust denial thing. I'm not saying they're not there, but there is so much on that site, and so many links to sites which aren't actually a part of Indymedia, that it's hard to know where to look.

I did find some bizzare stuff about people in Texas shooting mangey coyotes and claiming that they're actually some new type of animal.

Okay, seriously. I even went to the Palestinian Solidarity web page whose link was in one of the stories and I couldn't find a banner.

I'm willing to go along with your concerns, Zagreb, even to the point of taking your word for things for most of the discussion, but what, specifically are you talking about with this banner? If it's this hard for me to find, how can it possibly be a major indication of Indymedia's horrible bias?

I hope you'll provide some links so we can actually discuss this. I am a little disturbed that I've bothered to do carry this on so long. I really expected, from the way you were arguing your point, that this banner was going to be at the top of the Indymedia homepage.

Until you can demonstrate where all this offensive or biased stuff is, I feel like the whole subject is just hot air.

Look:

Anti-American story.

Anti-Jewish story.

Palestinian solidarity.

CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/10/18/mahathir.liars.ap/index.html

Am I wrong?

I just checked out Zagreb's link from back on the first LED. Seems that a number of readers have actually used their critical faculties, in particular one jjf:

"disregard this article. The group in question doesn't exist, the article is intended to discredit anti-war groups."


I pretty much realized that after about thirty seconds.

So, Indymedia has an opinion piece on their site which is designed to discredit those who are against the war in Iraq. Seems they've got quite the bias.

I agree, Zagreb. The piece is offensive. So is Mein Kampf. Is it bad to post Mein Kampf and show how Hitler thought?

Mahathir.. he's nothing if not interesting.

Latest news and thories on:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/21/indymedia_home_office_denial/

(and the subsequent page linked from the above).

curiouser and curiouser.

Very!

"The one with fewest black helicopters attached is the cockup theory"
I do like the Reg when they get their teeth into things like this. Normally I treat them very much as a technology tabloid and season their offerings liberally, but in Tech/Law conspiracy they seem to do quite well.

"I just checked out Zagreb's link from back on the first LED. Seems that a number of readers have actually used their critical faculties, in particular one jjf:

"disregard this article. The group in question doesn't exist, the article is intended to discredit anti-war groups.""

Yes, a number of "readers", not editors. This doesn't prove the article is fake it just proves some indymedia readers think it is. It also does not explain why the indymedia editors didn't remove it as offensive extreme-rightwing garbage (which it most certainly is).


"I pretty much realized that after about thirty seconds."

My impression of it wasn't that it was fake, it was that it was extremely hyperbolic and dreadfully written. Stupid (often young) people drawn to extremist politics often rant like this and are incapable of writing well-thought-out articles, instead tending towards button-pushing, dogma and overuse of scare-quotes ("democratic" "freedom" "liberal" etc) without explaining them. I think the article was probably genuine because it was typical of extremist output. That doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who posts to or reads Indymedia automatically agrees with it but it is interesting that the writer felt it would get a sympathetic reading on such a site and it's more interesting that Indymedia didn't immediately yank it on a point of principle (and they certainly would have done had they thought it was designed to discredit their own site).