[Imc-uk-features] [Imc-uk-process] Anti-Imperial Editorial Guideline?

[Garcon du Monde]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

hi,

i think we are moving away from the point at little bit here: of course
i do not agree with the writer of the comment but i do think that it is
a valid contribution to the debate, particularly when the following 2
comments both attempt to refute it. i also disagree, it should be added,
with the notion that the comment be promoted.

as an aside, the CiF comment is interesting: i understand from irc that
CiF refers to 'comment is free' a la the gruniad website [1]. indymedia
was fairly novel in that it portrayed the news as it was happening and
*also* allowed a space for people to comment on, clarify, correct, add
etc to the original piece [2]. that this is now being taken up by
"professional" media organisations is surely something for which imc
should be credited.

solidarity,

	--gdm

[1] http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/index.html
[2] as indicated under the editorial guidelines, which state:

Comments: Everybody can add their own comments at the end of each
article. Comments are subject to the guidelines for hiding. They can be
used to:

    * State an opinion about any given posting.
    * Add information.
    * Correct inaccurate or malicious information.
    * Rectify misinformation.

https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html

freethepeeps at aktivix.org wrote:
> Quoting Garcon du Monde <gdm at fifthhorseman.net>:
> 
> 
>> i'm not so sure it is understandable. at least, i don't understand. and
>> Ben seemed to disagree as well. it doesn't seem offensive and there is
>> probably at very least an element of truth in it (the US game plan was
>> most definitely not a good one, and quite possibly would have been a lot
>> better if the british had been in command).
>>
> 
> Is there also an element of truth in the claim that attacking Iraq for WMDs was
> justifiable? Because if we hadn't gone down that road, it would all be a rather
> moot point.
> 
> The post claims this:
> 
> " The UK has spent time and money training Iraqi froces to replace them on a
> road by road, town by town, province by province basis and this has enabled a
> gradual reduction in forces and in general far more local stability when
> compared to the US controlled areas."
> 
> Heres how  a subject of all that time and training sees it:
> 
> ""We are happy to be rid of the British," Iraqi army officer Sadoun Hami said on
> Monday after Britain pulled out its troops from its last base in southern
> Iraq.
> 
> "They were harassing us in the streets and raided our houses and arrested our
> sons. We now want to see them out of greater Basra," he added.
> 
> But despite the optimism of some police and residents, the city remains gripped
> by a brutal turf war between rival militias."
> 
> furthermore, despite all the claims about time and money:
> 
> "Mayyahi, who is also security chief for Basra, said Iraq's security forces were
> ready to take over control of the city "despite the shortage of men and
> equipment"."
> http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&art_id=vn20070904051318223C778484&click_id=2813&set_id=1
> 
> Was it was good/justifiable to subject Iraqis to this? Have we taught Iraqis how
> to police themselves? Do we have any right to even try to do that? Is it not
> blatant fact that 'our boys (or heroes as the Independent puts it) are leaving
> Basra in a state of upheaval and precarity - and that life is now much more
> dangerous than it was under Saddam? 
> 
> Our illustrious troll also goes on to big up our ability to keep the necks of
> the Iraqis under the soles of our jackboots:
> 
> "UK and US air superiority is absolute, the insurgents have no attack capability
> against massed armour"
> 
> If people are happy with that state of affairs, that is sad. If they are arguing
> that praising "British restraint" in a murderous scramble for further
> geopolitical domination of the Middle East is okay for Indymedia, then we might
> as well shut down and migrate to CiF.
> 
> Offensive?
> 
> I think so.
> 
> Yours in anger and disgust
> 
> ftp
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
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=6yJk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----