SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A "remorseful" Islamist has admitted to destroying shrines at a world heritage site in Timbuktu, and received a nine year prison sentence. It is the International Criminal Court's first conviction for "cultural destruction":
The International Criminal Court has sentenced an Islamist militant who destroyed ancient shrines in Timbuktu to nine years in jail. Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi admitted to leading rebel forces who destroyed historic mausoleums at the world heritage site in Mali in 2012. Judges at the court in The Hague found he had shown "remorse and empathy" for the crime. It is the first sentence based on cultural destruction as a war crime.
[...] Mahdi - described as a "religious scholar" in court documents - led rebels who used pickaxes and crowbars to destroy nine of Timbuktu's mausoleums and the centuries-old door of the city's Sidi Yahia mosque. The court found he not only offered "logistical and moral support" for the attacks, but also took part in the physical destruction of at least five out of the 10 buildings. However, Mahdi had at first advised rebel leaders not to attack the shrines. Admitting to the charges last month, Mahdi claimed he had been swept up in "an evil wave". Pleading guilty, he said: "I am really sorry, I am really remorseful, and I regret all the damage that my actions have caused. I would like to give a piece of advice to all Muslims in the world, not to get involved in the same acts I got involved in, because they are not going to lead to any good for humanity," he added.
Also at NPR. The presiding judge in the case hopes the sentence will deter attacks on other world heritage sites.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:11AM
You obviously know jackshit about what went down in timbuktu. Tons of people joined Ansar Dine because they were paying good money and the people were dirt poor. This guy may have lead one group but he was not in charge. When you are starving and the crazy people are the only ones food, you tend to go along with the crazy people. Better some historical artifacts get destroyed then you get murdered for your "principles."
Oh, the "just following orders" excuse.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @07:29AM
To me 9 years seems a bit much, assuming he didn't kill anybody.
Artifacts are nice to have and keep around, but it's obvious that only very few learn from history, so I wouldn't place such great importance on them.
So why punish this guy so much when he seems to be learning from his own history? Should be a sentence equivalent to theft and/or vandalism.
If the human species lives long enough we'd be creating more historical objects anyway and we can't keep all of them around.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:32PM
To me 9 years seems a bit much, assuming he didn't kill anybody.
What's excessive about the sentence?
Artifacts are nice to have and keep around, but it's obvious that only very few learn from history, so I wouldn't place such great importance on them.
Suuuure. But why should I take you seriously at this point?
If the human species lives long enough we'd be creating more historical objects anyway and we can't keep all of them around.
How long is "long enough" again?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:13PM
> Suuuure. But why should I take you seriously at this point?
Why should anyone take you seriously at this point? You equated the murder of millions of jews with the destruction of stuff. In your privileged little mind this guy should have risked his life for stuff. How fucking warped are you?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:19PM
You equated the murder of millions of jews with the destruction of stuff.
You're the only one making that comparison. But since we're on this very relevant subject, it's worth noting that destruction and reinterpretation of the past is a common aspect of all totalitarian ideologies. As Orwell noted, in 1984 (inspired by his exposure to fascism and Marxist/Leninist communism):
He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.
and
The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.
A key precursor movement to European fascism, futurism embraced destruction of the past as a core precept (from the Manifesto of Futurism [unknown.nu]):
8. We stand on the last promontory of the centuries!... Why should we look back, when what we want is to break down the mysterious doors of the Impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We already live in the absolute, because we have created eternal, omnipresent speed.
and
10. We will destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind, will fight moralism, feminism, every opportunistic or utilitarian cowardice.
Finally, there is the matter of why this destruction occurred. It is to destroy rival sense of identity and increase power over the oppressed. You are Communists, Nazis, or Fascists whose identity is fully delineated by the totalitarian ideology.
Similarly, the tactics of this particular Mali Islamist group, Ansar Dine are the same and to the same purpose. It is to increase their power [wordpress.com] over the people they subjugated.
It is believed that Islamist factions, including Ansar Dine and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, now control two-thirds of Mali, West Africa’s largest country. Since ousting the secessionist National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) in the northern third of the country in the past few months, these barbaric groups have gone on the rampage. Not only do they hope to impose Sharia Law on the helpless Malian populace but the terrorists seemingly wish to destroy any traces of Malian history and with it the Malian national identity.
History and nationalism go hand in hand. A state cannot have a unified national identity if its people do not share a distinct history. The history of Mali happens to be particularly rich and is of national, regional and international significance. This rich heritage is symbolised by Timbuktu, the legendary commercial hub of 13th century Africa where gold, ivory and knowledge were shared freely between traders and scholars alike. Ansar Dine and its vile cohorts have since reduced a substantial amount of the desert city to ruins, willingly destroying many of its sacred libraries and mosques where some of the rarest and greatest work of Islamic scholars have long resided.
and
Many would argue that thethreat posed by Al-Qaeda and its associates to human life is of far greater concern. Islamic terrorists have shown themselves extremely capable of indiscriminate massacre and torture of innocent civilians. The destruction of history, however, is of equal significance. Should the process of radical Islamisation in Mali not be be reversed soon, children will grow up unaware that they are part of the same nation as their counterparts in distant parts of the country. They will become enemies by default, oblivious to their shared heritage and civilisation and their victories over unscrupulous colonial powers.
So why not consider this desecration of historical sites like vandalism or theft? Because it was an important part of the oppression of the people of Mali by Ansar Dine using some of the vilest strategies of the 20th Century.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:38PM
What's excessive about the sentence?
The 9 years bit? Others have _intentionally_ destroyed historical artifacts without getting as long sentences (some didn't even get any prison sentences). Go look it up.
Suuuure. But why should I take you seriously at this point?
Up to you.
I don't take the destruction of most such ancient artifacts that seriously. Most really aren't that important. It's destruction of recent history that is more likely affect people than the destruction of distant past. For example, the corpse of the Iceman and who killed him is more of an academic curiosity today. Whereas the corpse of someone murdered yesterday is a bit more important today- since the murderer is still around.
Of course, if one day someone destroys an ancient artifact that does significant mass to energy conversion then I'd say that's serious. Whether a serious "well done, good job!" or "Oh no, you shouldn't have done that", it's a bit hard to decide at the moment :).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 01 2016, @10:44PM
The 9 years bit? Others have _intentionally_ destroyed historical artifacts without getting as long sentences (some didn't even get any prison sentences). Go look it up.
I see two caveats here. First, it's a war crime, not just an act of vandalism. They destroyed those historical places as part of a plan to subjugate northern Mali and destroy peoples' knowledge of their past. That puts it beyond mere vandalism.
Second, why is this an argument that this person's sentence is too long rather than those other peoples' sentences being too light? To take your argument to its logical conclusion, if someone doesn't get a prison sentence for murder (say because they're an authority in North Korea), why should anyone get a prison sentence for murder?