Layla Al-Attar (born in Baghdad, Iraq) was an Iraqi artist and painter that graduated from the Academy of fine Arts in Baghdad in 1965. Layla, known for her beauty and kindness, had once held five one-women shows in Iraq and took part in all national and other collective exhibitions held in the country and abroad. Layla also took part in Kuwait Biennil (1973), the first Arab Biennil (Baghdad 1974), second Arab Biennil (1976), Kuwait Biennil (1981) and won the Golden Sail Medal in Cairo Biennil (1984). She was director of the Iraqi National Art Museum.
On June 27, 1993, Layla, her husband and their housekeeper, were killed by a U.S. missile attack on Baghdad which was ordered by U.S. President Bill Clinton in retaliation for an alleged assassination attempt by the Iraqi Intelligence Service on former U.S. President George Bush, during his visit to Kuwait in April 1993. These allegations were not proven. The attack also blinded her daughter.
After the missile attack that killed her, a study prepared by the CIA's Counter Terrorism Center suggested that Kuwait might have fabricated the alleged presidential assassination plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf. All the alleged assassins were later released from Kuwaiti jails.
RAID ON BAGHDAD; Poll Shows Raid on Iraq Buoyed Clinton's Popularity
By RICHARD L. BERKE
Published: June 29, 1993
President Clinton's decision to attack Iraq has brought him a substantial boost in approval ratings for handling both foreign policy and his overall job as President and has diminished uncertainty over his leadership on the world stage, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
The poll found that two-thirds of Americans surveyed supported the weekend air strike on the Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad, and six out of 10 approved of Mr. Clinton's general dealings with Iraq, more than approved of Mr. Clinton's handling of the crises in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Somalia.
As Mr. Clinton prepares to travel to Tokyo next week for a meeting of the Group of Seven industrial democracies, White House officials seized on the air strike as evidence that the President is sure-footed in international affairs. The Administration sent out its top military officials, most notably Gen. Colin L. Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on a series of television and newspaper interviews in the past two days to praise Mr. Clinton as a tough leader who would not be bullied by the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein.
The poll indicated that many in the public were already supportive; 61 percent said the retaliation is "a good idea because it teaches Saddam Hussein a lesson," while 28 percent said it is "a bad idea because it risks further bloodshed."
The incident appears to be the latest in a line of what scholars call "rally events," when uses of force abroad or diplomatic breakthroughs cause Americans to rally around their flag, their troops and their Commander in Chief. Past "rally events" have produced, on average, an 8-percentage-point increase in the President's approval rating, and they have lasted an average of about 10 weeks, according to an analysis of the last 10 presidencies by the Gallup Organization.
Layla Al-Attar (born in Baghdad, Iraq) was an Iraqi artist and painter
Layla
You got WMDs
Layla
I'm bombing Baghdad's streets
Layla
Darling won't you boost my approvals
Had they been real AQ agents supplying him with real materials, real people would be dead by now due to his actions. A sting operation like this is nowhere close to entrapment, as the criminal initiative came entirely from Ferdaus.
what's the consensus here on Fanon anyways?
HenryKrinkle posted:i'm currently reading wretched of the earth.
what's the consensus here on Fanon anyways?
well Tom says hes a nigger
discipline posted:I liked wretched of the earth
Did you borrow my copy? I cant remeber who did that, proably you
Crow posted:he posted this article http://ouraim.blogspot.com/2008/03/absence-of-islamism-in-fanons-work.html which seems to have some biographical problems with it, as pointed out in a kind of haphazard way in the comments (the psychiatric work i'd really like to track down), but also has a general gap i would designate 'maoism'. but what do i know. who do i know.
I think A Dying Colonialism is what you're looking for. I haven't read it in a couple of years so I'm not to sure, but it seem to deal with Islam(there's a whole chapter on veiled women!).
Lysenko posted:Crow posted:he posted this article http://ouraim.blogspot.com/2008/03/absence-of-islamism-in-fanons-work.html which seems to have some biographical problems with it, as pointed out in a kind of haphazard way in the comments (the psychiatric work i'd really like to track down), but also has a general gap i would designate 'maoism'. but what do i know. who do i know.
I think A Dying Colonialism is what you're looking for. I haven't read it in a couple of years so I'm not to sure, but it seem to deal with Islam(there's a whole chapter on veiled women!).
this looks good!
In 'A Dying Colonialism' (1970) Fanon devotes many pages to the veil and its political importance:
"For the tourist and the foreigner, the veil demarcates both Algerian society and its feminine counterpart." (a dying colonialism, 35-36 {l'an cinq de la rev
algerienne)
Here Wyrick offers us the complexity of the role of the veil in the Algerian revolution: "...European bosses tried to reacculturate their male Algerian employees, demanding that they bring their wives to company functions. Algerian men were caught in a double bind: if they agreed, they violated cultural prohibitions against women being on display; if they refused, they risked losing their jobs."
She shows how Fanon looks at this question from many points of view; he says:"The rape of the Algerian woman in the dream of a European...is always preceded by a rending of the veil." (dc 45)
explains goatstein's obsession, dont it!
General Melchior-Joseph-Eugéne Daumas (1803 - 1871) was the most prominent masculine voice of the time. His numerous publications shaped the European vision of Algerian women for almost a century. He was the first colonial official to establish woman as an object of systematic and scientific inquiry. His aim as a writer was "to tear off the veil which still hides mores, customs, and ideas". J. Clancy - Smith sees here a possible suggestion of rape(22). F. Fanon broadly examined the same colonial desire(23).
Daumas examine the way "La Femme Arabe" was perceived by the French colonizers, with a great emphasis on her sexuality. By forcing women to unveil (as in the events of 13 May 1930), or by spreading studio-made postcards representing unveiled Algerian women,
French colonizers emphasized the impulse to see what was concealed. With regard to the missionaries, Elisabeth Warnock Fernea highlighted(24)the main characteristic of their approach to the Orient: " Generally, travelers and missionaries sent home the accounts that the readers expected, accounts that only confirmed Western preconceptions". However, in the eyes of the colonizers, the Algerian woman remained unmistakably `she who hides behind a veil'(25).
here's Fanon's chapter Algeria Unveiled
[url]http://ayersamazingwiki.wikispaces.com/file/view/Good+Country+People+Full+Text.pdf[/url]
ftw!!!!!!!
Edited by ilmdge ()
deadken posted:i bought a bunch of books and they're all by ｌｏｕｉｓ ａｌｔｈｕｓｓｅｒ
from perec's biography, upon hearing of althusser's termination with extreme prejudice of his wife-
"Tears were streaming down Perec's face, for he could barely stop giggling over the vicious pun he had just invented: "Althusser trop fort!"
("Althusser too strong"- "Al! tu serres trop fort!"- "Al, you're pressing too hard!")
cleanhands posted:imo the french should leave puns to the big boys
why don't you show them how it's done, ~big boy~
(for full effect, please pretend that I whispered "big boy" coyly in your ear while stroking your chest with one hand and gently fingering a large yummy sandwich, perhaps a tuna melt or spicy openface meatloaf thing, the choice of sandwich is yours, with the other hand)
basically i don't think many of harvey's concepts stand up to scrutiny. for example, "accumulation by dispossession" as a special category seems odd, given that's exactly what primitive accumulation is - and anyway, isn't the whole marxist argument really that all accumulation is by dispossession? indeed, i think harvey's analysis of neoliberalism generally isn't quite sustained by either empirical evidence or his theory - he's appealing to a periodisation that isn't really there, certainly in the form he describes.
moreover, harvey also works his sly way around even attempting to describe in any rigour or detail the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall - the primary mechanism by which capitalism enters crisis. instead he joins the chorus of bourgeois economists, blaming his lack of understanding on marx being wrong (implicitly at least). instead he essentially proposes a marxo-keynesian underconsumptionist theory of crisis (i know he doesn't put it like this, i can explain more what i think harvey does if you like). andrew kliman has pretty satisfactorily demonstrated that actually, the crisis from the 1980s on has not been a matter of underconsumption, but a crisis caused by a decline in the rate of profit.
like, it was telling at HM 2012 that no one cited harvey except to criticise him. i think academics have realised somewhat that he's pulled the wool over their eyes a little, and engaged in a nice bit of intellectual homesteading with the various concepts he's reheated in different formulations.
