blogosphere (iraks distracts)

I have discovered a new feature on the internet : the blogosphere.

Blogs used to be for me what my blog is, lowtech(hardly use html), (semi-)personal, basically directed at information.

As such i have had great advantage of blogs in my "researches".
A vivid and representative political blog is very easily identified.

How to find out remote peoples opinions through blogs:

There are about 3 factors, (my blog is neither vivid nor representative, since it is mostly a radical personal outlet, and not something collective.)
that identifie an "important" or "significant" blog, for a political situation.

1st. the topic should be diverse.. generally when the genre of the posting is the old cow type, (10 years ago so and so blew up X, for the communist Y, when in fact not much is clear about that, such blogs are prejudiced.

They can be relevant as a ending point in researching one specific idea, or party, but they are not much use for informing on the actual situation.


2nd. Commenting should be unmoderated. Blogs (not commercial newsoutlets etc.) that moderate every comment can be ok, but they will mostly represent a party.
On such blogs you usually find a somewhat limited nr of opinions, of slightly more then rewarded animosity. Typically against the same targets, and when the blog is chiefly directed at westerners not necessarily the same targets over time.

3rd. The blogger must provide some handheld or debatable input of their own.
Without that there is not an actualist and evolving discussion often.

Ofcourse blogs that forfill these 3 prerequisites tend to get into the eye, firstly of the blogosphere perhaps, but not uncommonly only from the infosphere.
The general linkage through inet.

As a result of that blogs have an uncommon element of censoring and influentiation of their own. Superficially it shapes into 2 forms.
Selfcensoring: where the maker of the blog censors certain opinions or aproaches things onesidedly (as long as the comments are not masked it does not matter, it is only a statistical negative implication for its relevance. It will seem to represent an opinion that is in fact less general then it looks on the blog.

Contributional censoring. Certain contributors will be strongly in denial,
usually decibelling loudly over obstrusive subjects of spelling and "official" reports. They tend to hold untenable opinions over the local situation and they end up chatting among another.

Certain nations (US, Israel) have a great number of people using this aproach,
a good third??? not easy. Hongkong or so? Probably a european country, at least on the national fora this trend is available in the netherlands. It is not as common or pronounced.
Such people may or may not pose as other people. Lebanese blogs eg. are a bit dilluted by this phenomenon. They may for example pose as radical elements of something. Or as plain dumb stubborn supporters of the other cause.
They may also pretend to be a neutral third party, or just a random element of the (western) public. Sometimes such people say they have lost familymembers in wtc, afghan and whereever else pitty might silence us. That is more chattish then bloggish, however it is in the taste.(perhaps it is the same as the Shoa collective 'fears'.)

My favourite example for this development is "healing Irak"
an integer (albeit rather conformative) blog. One where 1? time i got censored.
Still i don't think it was that smart, but at least i was convinced the blog, may have thought my post was to "hot", i think it was not, wich then proved the next day, but it does not matter that much. Only i post not there anymore when it is important.

In the healing irak blog, the very direct emphasis of the writer on the iraki and baghdad situation helps the public to stay awake. To realise what untenable situation irak is in. In terms of blogs irak is the one most organised example i know. It plays a role that the situation rewards study perhaps, still iraki slogger is also an unequalled source.

However some years ago the iraki blogosphere got under the attention of the Usian and to a lesser extend GB-european scrutiny. Several bloggers skyrocketed into fame,
and several blogs got checked with surprising regularity by surprising numbers.
It must have changed everything, when i entered the iraki blogosphere 2 years ago,
the atmosphere was scary. Several bloggers where disappearing, had disappeared, or otherways gave up hope? anyway a lot of bad news there, all major blogs had their
wurms and moles, blogs get spamned by endless contributions of us housewives with fort Hope opinions. etc. etc.

All the major blogs had been usurped by the secret services. They preserved only a dormant neutrality. It could be dangerous for others to post, and I was not sure about wich party would actually react more violently in most any case.
(i'm rarely very into cases when i reply for that reason, it gets rather hard to say everyone is okay and you ahouldn't blame the antagonists, when you have to be precise over a certain bloodbath eg.)

So i found 'healing irak's precautions superfluous, as i was already very cautious.
Anyhow. I don't blame him, it was obviously a point of discussion and i do trust the person of healing irak to have a decent sense of "irakiness".
That besides he is hardly pretending to be impartial. He is obviously on the hand of security and against militia in any shape, but it doesnt much help him to define his position i think. He tends to be against sadr's movement a little on the propagandistic side though. That is btw. a rather common emotion in irak. Real neutral opinions are hard to find.

People in irak are forced into having an opinion, also on something that would otherways be marginal or even merely institutional like a mahdist movement. That exagerated through the Usian stress on diversity of the shia south,(for probably mostly militairy reasons for starters) turned into a huge factor.(GB did her thing but only in the big scheme).

Sadr has not been playing the game badly. He has not been a major factor of escalation(afaik), Except the apparent availability of his troops. He stuck to the social aspect of his movement, and he has been voicing a few usefull opinions.
Not in the least pointing out that a mahdist movement has the greater interest in getting foreigners out.
Overall i think he has tried to treat the situation fairly under a rather great bias.

(not that he would admit the exact content of his foreign relations if any)
Nevertheless he scares us to death.

The nature of the situation , with every piece of baghdad divided into bits, shortages, ethnically based outrage, mediocre contact, and administration as a result.Seperative feelings of every involved group, and the idea to be thrown in the arena of the world powers, before the lions. That is an idea that is close to the exact definition of mahdism. For someone just sympathising with sadr indeed their own militia are selfdefence.

I cannot judge the exact proportions of violence, do the sadr more damage then the regular shia? It didn't start like that what i know. Personally my guess is the tables are not weighing heavy on sadr. He has been showing some constraint, and such an attitude is not always fake.

Also the non militia mahdist are the really dangerous one. They have the prototype for suicide attack, since they are motivated through 'injustice out of control',
the struggle of an individual against a repressive context, through years, severe circumstances and also generations, typically. A mahdist does not expect to live through the fight because they well know all the firepower is on the other side.
It's only : do something and die, instead of , just die.

No wonder we are scared to death. And they have death squads of their own, though honestly i think the coalition forces routed out the worst ones by now.

Irakis are really scared for sadr now... he has got everything the other politicians have not. Anyhow one good thing is there is a consensus that Sadr can't be president..

i'm wondering why exactly exactly, for 2 days now, and i have some thoughts
Thirstly the concept of secularism is known in irak, but it is not really the point.
Many religious types may have been in politics in irak, and many partys have a religious base.

The point is exactly also why iran cannot come to an arrangement with him, although the perspective , be it anarchist or iraki, is completely different.

Sadr might play a role in iraki politics when the situation gets stabilised. Only...
How should that situation look for Sadr to play the right role, noone knows.
Not even Sadr.

Saddams last words were, don't take sadr..
Maybe even himself he doesn't want to be president.

Sadr is the kind of person with the kind of movement that at the right moment should say... No we represent the people, this natures reserve must stay!

He doesn't need to be a president to manage most affairs where his influence is usefull. Sadr is slightly less dangerous then politics, and we 'd like to keep it that way.

Ofcourse in certain areas (the nature reserve eg.) these arguments hardly count,
however that is the discussion about splitting up irak.

How do i think of splitting up irak?
Actually i think it would not hurt, it was never needed, but now it is made to be that way, it won't hurt. It would be nice when the sunni have quiet in middle irak,
the shia in the south and the israelis in jerusalem (since what will they do about baghdad then). The precedent of sharing remaining oil wealth, or preferably that of regaining control of the resources, can be as unifying for this world as anything.

The only problem i have with it is the confirming of the prejudice, that a united irak would not be possible because of "muslim barbarism".

Me nor Sadr perceives recent iraki times that way, wich is why Sadr is so heavily under fire from the western media. That he is also under fire of the more moderate forces in the chorus is because of the fear.

We fear the moment he gets the idea to indeed seperate, to start fighting the government before the occupation in revenge of attacks and deaths.
When the mahdi army as a whole would start behaving as the regular deathsquads in irak do, all hell would break loose. Sadr would never accept that though.
I ( an anarchist) oppose that to, social chaos and anarchy are completely different things.

Not surprisingly this translates into a defensive strategical option. Sadr's interests are basicly Iraki, so he needs to clear some ground to hide.
Still it actually happens naturally as a result of people securing their own safety.

I mentioned before, i think i am in no position to have an overview of proportions, although i think i might do ok at scales.

I can not judge wether the US army, the US allied Irak army, The us allied Irak police, The irak police, The government militias, The non us allied irak army, the non us allied irak police, what that matter even the kurdish security corps, or any other security corps preventing loss of job, any splinter or opponent of the aforementioned, eg. The government allied shia police pro-militia deathsquads mahdi engagement group with the peshmerga link , or perhaps the nongovernment allied army anti police pro-militia and mahdi engagement anticoalition group with a direct mossad contact, is responsible for the most violence(neither of the 2 last i thought). In short.....

who did it?

A picture like this makes you wonder if anyone is really in a position to care.