- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Top 10 highlights in a week of war

10: Condi Rice says she is not going to the region to call for a cease fire – um help me out here, what the hell are you doing love? I don’t want to rain on your parade, but seeing as Israel is kinda like, your bitch, shouldn’t you perhaps nudge them a little to stop?

9: Calling the war crimes being committed in Lebanon as ‘Birth pangs’ of a new Lebanon. Oh we laughed so hard at that one, the people of Lebanon will be over the moon with joy that you are helping to ‘birth’ their new country. Of course the dead ones won’t be so happy.

8: The Israeli spin machine has been able to convince most media outlets to refer to the invasion of Lebanon as an ‘incursion’, it sounds a hell of a lot less aggressive. On that point, they have also convinced American media to not call Palestine, ‘occupied territory’, only 4% of American news now call Palestine ‘occupied territory’.

7: The British have finally condemned the attacks in Lebanon, but why should anyone listen to the British? Remind me again, didn’t you illegally invade Iraq on a false pretext with America? Shut up Britain, you don’t have any moral high ground here.

6: Israel describes their attacks as ‘precision strikes’ with ‘smart bombs’– except for all those dumb bombs which accidentally blew up all those woman and children. Their strikes are about as precise as that naval shell they lobbed at that Palestinian family who were picnicking on the beach last month.

5: America is rushing precision missiles to Israel, so maybe their aim will improve as much as it has for the Americans in Iraq – what’s the body count there now?

4: Are the bets on that Syria and Iran are now next on the countries we have to invade for democracy?

3: Why don’t we ever invade countries that need democracy but have no oil?

2: Wouldn’t trading those two kidnapped soldiers for any of the Palestinian or Lebanese held prisoners (many of whom have just been arrested for no reason whatsoever, other than being Palestinian or Lebanese) actually be better than the death and destruction that has been wrought now?

1: I love how George Bush is now selling this war to America as part of a wider war on Terrorism, hold on, I thought this was about the return of two kidnapped soldiers, now it’s a wider front on the ‘war of terrorism’? God bless America.

14 Comments:

At 23/7/06 6:28 pm, Anonymous deano said...

Why oh why are you so one-eyed Bomber? I see thirty Israelis have just been killed by Hezbollah rockets. Hezbollah- you never condemn them, do you? I've been following this war pretty closely. Like it or not, it is part of the wider war on terrorism now. Why? Because Hezbollah are terrorists. They indoctrinate their children from birth to hate Israel and train them to kill Israelis. All Israelis are fair game and their attacks are indiscriminate. Israel, on the other hand, has warned civilians to leave southern Lebanon and to distance themselves from Hezbollah positions. They are defending themselves, aggressively. They have to, Bomber. Israel is basically a small island surrounded by nations who want them dead. Weakness is not an option. The deaths of innocents on both sides are tragic, but if Hezbollah had not killed those eight soldiers and kidnapped the other two, this would not be happening. Hezbollah promotes a culture of death. If you die you are a martyr, and the lives of your enemy mean nothing. Most Israelis do not want to kill innocents or create a humanitarian crisis, they only want to crush Hezbollah. As long as there are Hezbollah fighters in rocket range of Israel, the attacks will continue.

Israel have to press on and cut off the head of Hezbollah. If they only do half the job, support for these terrorists will grow, but if Hezbollah is crushed, perhaps those in the Arab world will sit up and take notice.

If Israel stop now, what will happen? Hezbollah will proclaim victory. Lunatics will fire AK-47s in the streets, and go back to building more rockets to lob at Israel and train more suicide bombers. Nothing will change. However, if Israel are successful in exterminating the bulk of Hezbollah, maybe there will be some meaningful change.

 
At 23/7/06 7:06 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Israel, on the other hand, has warned civilians to leave southern Lebanon and to distance themselves from Hezbollah positions"
wasn't that after days of strikes?

"but if Hezbollah is crushed"
Not going to happen though is it.

"perhaps those in the Arab world will sit up and take notice."
and maybe take action...oh my more militants, great long term strategy

 
At 23/7/06 8:31 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Israeli government chose to take the action of killing hundreds of innocent civilians and destroying Lebanese infrastructure. Hezbollah didn't make the choice for them.

The Lebanese government didn't start it nor did the vast majority of Lebanese civilians. A small handful of Hezbollah members decided to kill and capture a small handful of Israelis. Going to war against an entire country won't eliminate a highly mobile group of terrorists.

 
At 24/7/06 5:03 am, Anonymous bomber said...

………………………..Hey Deano, I respect the passion of your convictions, but I will have to disagree with the thrust of your argument. You are right though, why haven’t I criticized Hezbollah? I am as disgusted as any that they have killed 30 Israelis, however, their missile attacks are a direct response to the destruction Israel is wrecking upon Lebanon. Now that is no justification for killing innocent people, BUT it is a reason why they are doing it. Just as their kidnapping of two Israeli troops was about the thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners Israel holds, for little more reason than simply being Lebanese or Palestinian. Let’s also remember this followed the invasion and attack on Palestine, which had just pulled the same kidnapping stunt. There are long standing issues at play here, and the only solution is a diplomatic solution, for Christ’s sake Deano, everyone is calling for a ceasefire (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, even fucking Iran) – the only ones saying no are Israel and the US. And who the hell gave Israel the right to respond like this? Self defense is not a justification. As for the indoctrination, dude that cuts both ways, look at my film review for Avenge but one of my two eyes. Are you telling me that asking Jewish school children on a visit to Masada if they would commit suicide or fight isn’t part of an indoctrination program? The hatred from both sides is pathological, from Israelis, the horror of the holocaust has created an aggressive paranoid culture that will use security to justify any action and from the Muslims and deep seated hatred towards Jews fostered from the brutal nature of occupation. The reality is neither party can be trusted to be fair towards one another, which is why outside direction and help is so necessary. That is why the role of America is so despicable, rather than act as a peace broker, America has allowed the aggression to continue because their ain’t no money in peace. America gives Israel $2 billion in military aid per year (although I’ve seen figures suggesting it’s pushing $4billion now), which has to be spent on the American military industrial complex, which in turn pay large contributions to the political parties, who in turn keep voting for this corporate welfare. The vested interest in seeing the conflict continue is part of the fundamental problem in this situation. I’m sorry Deano, but I honestly think your appraisal of the situation is just too simplistic.

 
At 24/7/06 7:05 am, Blogger Rob Good said...

Jump into Iran and we will more than likely have WWIII

 
At 24/7/06 9:20 am, Anonymous bomber said...

.......................................... Hey Rob, yes I agree if they attacked Iran, it could spin well out of control. The problem seems to be that there are minds in America and Israel who BELIEVE that they could win if they struck first with massive air power, there seems to be many games in play right now that have been 10 years in the planning, for Israel it is the 1996 white paper, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm?” and in America it is the 2000 white paper, 'Project for the New American Century' - both papers lay out strategies for global and regional domination, and both papers were credited with names of neo cons who are now in positions of power. I wish journalists would read those two white papers to understand the deeper, darker plans at work here.

 
At 24/7/06 11:32 am, Blogger bomber said...

................................................Meanwhile in the United States of Torture

Iraq prisoner abuse 'was routine'

FROM THE BBC: The torture of prisoners in US custody in Iraq was authorised and routine even after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light, a US-based rights group says.

Soldiers' accounts show that detainees routinely faced severe beatings, sleep deprivation and other abuses for much of 2003-2005, Human Rights Watch says.

Soldiers who tried to complain about the abuse were rebuffed or ignored.

But a Pentagon spokesman said 12 reviews had found there was no policy condoning or encouraging abuse.

"The standard of treatment is and always has been humane treatment of detainees in [Department of Defence] custody," Lt Col Mark Ballesteros told Reuters news agency.

John Sifton, author of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, said the accounts given to the group by former US soldiers revealed the opposite.

"These accounts rebut US government claims that torture and abuse in Iraq was unauthorised and exceptional - on the contrary, it was condoned and commonly used," he said.

Photos showing US soldiers abusing and sexually humiliating Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad in 2004 shocked the world.

Eleven US soldiers have now been convicted in connection with the abuse. No senior officers have so far been convicted.

Stress positions

The HRW report gives first-hand accounts of abuses at a detention centre at Baghdad airport called Camp Nama, as well as a facility near Mosul airport and a base near al-Qaim on the Syrian border.

An interrogator posted at Mosul in 2004 told HRW that he and his fellow interrogators had been told by the officer in charge of their unit to use abuse techniques on some detainees.

He described how they used dogs to intimidate the detainees, had them walking on their knees in the gravel and standing for extended periods with arms outstretched holding water bottles.

An interrogator at Camp Nama said the use of abuse techniques was commonplace - authorisation forms could be easily prepared for commanding officers to sign.

"I never saw a sheet that wasn't signed," the soldier said.

HRW gives accounts of instances where soldiers who were concerned by the abuses were thwarted from reporting it.

One military police guard at the facility near Qaim, who took his concerns to an officer, was reportedly told: "You need to go ahead and drop this, sergeant."

Geneva Conventions

HRW says its findings show that criminal investigations of abuses need to follow the military chain of command, rather than focusing on lower-ranked soldiers.

The New York-based organisation calls on the US Congress to appoint an independent commission to investigate the extent of the problem, and urges US President George W Bush to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of the abuse.

"It is now clear that leaders were responsible for abuses in Iraq," Mr Sifton said. "It's time for them to be held accountable".

The Bush administration has faced intense and sustained international criticism for its treatment of prisoners - in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Earlier this month, the White House announced that all US military detainees would be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions.

The shift in policy came almost two weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees.

The Geneva Conventions, which were passed in the wake of World War II, are meant to guarantee minimum standards of protection for non-combatants and former combatants in war.

 
At 24/7/06 2:29 pm, Anonymous Princess Ringworm said...

Oh how I love you Martyn Bradbury. You see through your eyes and through the eyes of motherless children. You see through the eyes of dead soldiers and through the eyes of innocent dead children. You see through the eyes of propraganda and right through the blank stare of George Bush and the sweaty brows of Tony Blair whilst he licking the shit stains off Bush's monkey type arse. Keep it up.

 
At 24/7/06 2:31 pm, Anonymous Tim said...

Bomber, in respect of why so many Arabs have such a hatred of Jews, I'd reccommend the book "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism - Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al Husseini" from even earlier than the Hebron Massacre of 1936 it argues the point well that the prevailing ideology infusing much of the Arab world is one which predates the foundation of Israel as a state, let alone the occupation of Gaza and thew West Bank following the 6 day war in 1967, (a war which incidentally was triggered by the remilitarisation of the Sinai and the closure of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt).

Also, the rocket attacks on Haifa from Hezbolla are not as you argue a response to "the destruction Israel is wreaking on Lebanon", in rteality, these rocket attacks have been ongoing since Israel's withdrawl from South Lebanon in 2000, despite the fact that this withdrawl was done opn the basis that it would ensure peace in the region. Incidentally, his peace was supposed to be maintained by the UN.

 
At 24/7/06 10:53 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Deano, speaking of indoctrination. Don't you think it's dangerous for a state like Israel- which ever since its 'birth' has taught its people everyone is out to get them- is no better than Hizbullah teaching hate? As you claim. The constant reminder of the holocaust has had some disturbing psychological repercussions in Israeli society.

It's also interesting how you apply the term 'terrorism' only to the acts of Hizbullah, and not Israel. Killing civilians is an act of terrorism. By definition. Whoever is doing it. Let's not selectively apply the term.

Israel is defending itself....why? That's where the source of the problem lies. Arab governments- US subordinates are no threat to Israel. They're too busy trying to maintain their own positions. They don't want instability in the region. Israel wants everyone to believe this though, because again, it justifies their assaults and continued violation of international law under this facade of 'defence'.

Israel has no chance of killing of Hizbullah. It's impossible. But let's say they did, you think that's going to be the solution to the conflict? More Hizbullah's will be created. More hate will be created. I guarantee you, the best way to get rid of groups like Hizbullah, is take away their reasons for existing. Stop bombing Lebanon. Abide by international law and withdraw to the 1967 borders (personally i think even this is fucked up and should be 1948 borders but IL only recognises 1967). And so on...then the radicalism you see in the region today will have no justification to exist. the source of the radicalism you witness is frustration and resentment. Hamas didn't come into power 'cause Palestinians want the destruction of Israel. They came into power because of the regressive policies and broken promises.

Problem lies with the US. They don't want a settlement and have been preventing one for the past 25 years. Get rid of the US as a mediator and things will improve a hell of a lot. But that won't happen. US needs Israel. Israel needs US.


-Anti-Flag.

 
At 24/7/06 11:15 pm, Anonymous neil morrison said...

What better summarry of the left's morally bankrupt views on Israel than from anti-flag above.

The good news is that such views have no influence where it matters. The next pres of the US will be Hillary Clinton not Compsky.

go for it bomber, keep on marginalising the left.

 
At 24/7/06 11:40 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh please, neil morrison, while people like you scream loudly from the roof-tops, you are in a great social minority. 'Morally bankrupt?' Why are you even discussing anything on this blog when you cannot provide an arugment of your own.

THe fact that Hillary Clinton may be president is an indictment on the United States, where only the tiny elite ruling class, pandering strongly to business interests as did Bill, will ever be elected to office. The military will grow and grow, resentment will fester and in ten years time you'll stil fail to understand why people hate.

 
At 27/7/06 10:26 am, Anonymous bomber said...

................................... Grin, oh come on Neil, marginalising the left? How come we get branded that for telling the truth? The excuses, the fear mongering, the brutal occupation - the second 'we' on the left point out the occupation for what it is, the second we tie the points together showing the vested interests of the American Military Industrial Complex in prolonging the Israeli conflict, selling to a deeply paranoid and frightened culture like Israel - we are marginalising the left? Dude I understand the blinkered world view the corporate media provide to keep everyone pacified is a hard world view to snap out of, but you can't really believe what you are saying can you?

 
At 30/7/06 2:16 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Condoleeza is saying quietly under her breath..."you reap what you sow, so sweat a little more you terrorist bastards I'm in no hurry" hahah.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home