eclectica
2006-08-02, 02:29
Let me explain to you what has been going on recently in the Middle East. Israel (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=129) has been bombing parts of Lebanon. Many in the press have said that Israel is retaliating for the kidnapping of its soldiers or defending itself because of rocket fire from Hezbollah. Now you will read my version of the events which have occurred in the last couple of months.
The conflict started out on June 9th when Israel fired an artillery round that killed (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/13/isrlpa13544.htm) a family of seven Palestinians. On June 25th an Israeli soldier was kidnapped through a tunnel that had been dug under the border from Gaza Strip to Israel. Afterwards Israel invaded the Palestinian territory and waged war on the civilian population, along with targeting nonmilitary things such as the power plant. On July 12th six of eight Israeli soldiers who ventured (http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=9401) into Aitaa al-Chaab in Lebanon were killed while the other two were kidnapped. Israel responded as it did with the Palestinians, by bombing the civilians in Lebanon. Hezbollah defended Lebanon and retaliated by firing rockets from Lebanon into Israel.
Let me just point out that when a person apologizes or expresses regret, and then throws a "but" or similar type of disclaimer right afterwards, that it is not really an apology. So far the language of the United States, Britain, and Israel in regards to the deaths of the Lebanese civilians, has been what starts out as an apology or statement of regret, followed with a disclaimer using the words "but".
The justification of collateral damage (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0409-03.htm) is one that was started by organizations called "governments" and then picked up on afterwards by organizations called "terrorists". A lot of times it is the government organization which causes a higher amount of collateral damage than the terrorist. Collateral damage is the highest when an organization wages its war by way of air and with large explosives, rather than through the usage of ground troops who have better control over where the deadly force is directed. Generally it is governments which have that air and large explosives capability, and therefore they are the ones who produce more collateral damage.
The difference between a government organization and a terrorist organization is not black and white, but involves shades of grey. It is also a difference that depends on one's opinion. The democratically elected government of Palestine run by the Hamas party is called a terrorist organization by the United States. Meanwhile the dictatorship in Egypt is given the status of "government" by the American rulers. The United States and Israel both have democratically elected terrorist organizations ruling them which are thought of by many people to be "governments". Terrorism and democracy are not incompatible, as it is possible for the terrorists to win the favor of the majority of the people. And it is possible for the terrorists and the government to be the same people.
Hezbollah provides community services for the people of Lebanon, and in that regard it is like a government.
The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter can never be resolved objectively and will always be one of opinion. But the difference between a terrorist attack and an act of war can be more objectively defined. A terrorist attack targets civilians while an act of war targets other combatants.
Organizations carry out varying missions. Some times they carry out terrorist attacks and other times they carry out acts of war. One should not think that an organization is limited to one type of activity. For example, on 1998-08-07, the organization called Al Qaeda bombed the U. S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, in what I would call an act of terrorism. On 2000-10-12 the same organization attacked the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, in what I would call an act of war.
The notion of collective punishment is one which is officially shunned but is often practiced by the warring parties. Collective punishment also allows one to justify collateral damage, by assigning guilt to the victims. One thing to consider is that when a government organization wages war against a terrorist organization, the government organization is always expected to behave more ethically and responsibly than the terrorist organization. That is because the government in a democracy supposedly represents the will of the people more so than the terrorist organization does.Thus the notion of collective punishment and the justification of collateral damage is more justified when the terrorist organization uses it to justify killing civilians that reside in the same country as the government organization, than when the government organization uses it to justify killing civilians that reside in the same country as the terrorist organization.
Are the Lebanese guilty for having Hezbollah in their midst and are the Palestinians guilty for having the military wing of Hamas in their midst? According to the Israeli government they are. So the Israelis have now waged war on their respective civilian populations, causing much collateral damage. I would not call the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli military unintentional, any more than a person playing Russian Roulette could claim that the resulting death that occurs from playing the game was an "accident". These are not excusable accidents (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=110) by the Israelis, because they are aware of what the risks are, and are responsible when they miscalulate. If you look at what the Israelis have targeted in their wars against the Palestinians and the Lebanese, they have targeted them so as to collectively punish their populations. In Lebanon the bombing of the airport and other pieces of infrastructure was an act of collective punishment against the Lebanese. Nothing the Israeli army has done in the last two months can be called accidental.
Both the Israelis and the Americans are to blame for the current oppression of the Lebanese and the Palestinian people. The Americans finance and arm the Israelis. It would be interesting to debate whether it is the Americans or the Israelis who are the most to blame. In any case it seems that people are angry at the Americans more so than even the Israelis. It makes sense because while the Israelis are just being themselves by following their Zionist mandate, the Americans are really the ones who should know better. Their country was founded in a secular freedom loving spirit, and their position as the World's greatest power means that they should be promoting peace and justice rather than war and injustice.
The resentment towards Americans will last for years. Let us not forget how many people are angry in other parts of the World such as in Iraq, or anywhere where oppressive dictators and "governments" or bad policies are supported by the Americans. Perhaps the actions of Bush in supporting Israel is a type of job security action, to ensure that future terrorist attacks will occur against Americans. He thrives on war, from the comfort of his armchair or bunker. By ensuring that future attacks will occur on Americans, he has set it up so that his type of leadership, which is popular for populations under siege, will continue to rule in the future even after he has left office.
The seeds of resentment towards the United States were sown in the years prior to 9/11. There is the notable quote of bin Laden regarding the Israeli siege of Lebanon in a video tape that was first shown on Al Jazeera 2004-10-29. Here is an excerpt of the full text (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm):
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
I've noticed that Muslims particularly get angry at what happens to other Muslims throughout the World. The reaction against the publishing of the cartoons (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=970) of the Prophet Muhammed were to me the reactions of a group of crybabies. There was much outrage over mere cartoons. Now what is going on in Lebanon and in Palestine is worthy of outrage. But it is not just Muslims who should be angry, but all those who seek justice and peace should be outraged at how the terrorist organization of Israel has conducted itself. It's part of a larger pattern, and it is not just about Islam versus Zionism and the West. It is part of the larger problem in the World where the weak and defenseless are killed and brutalized, and those in power do not do anything to protect them, or are the ones involved in brutalizing them. I can cite for example how in Rwanda (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=424) in 1994, there was the genocide in which 800,000 people died, and the World could not be bothered to put a stop to it.
The impotence of the United Nations (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=474) in condemning or dealing with rogue states who are affiliated with the five permanent members has been seen. That is because of the special veto powers that Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States have. The United Nations is a failure because of that, and as a result is not really a democratic organization. As a result of the American and British vetoes, the United Nations can not condemn Israel, can not fight against the Israelis to defend the Lebanese and Palestinians, and can not apply sanctions to Israel. Some people are citing U.N. Resolution 1559 in order to justify the oppression of the Lebanese people by Israel. But there are other U. N. resolutions which should also be followed, that Israel and other countries haven't been following. They can't just pick and choose what U. N. resolutions they would like to follow.
Americans should distance themselves fast as hell from Israel. Only bad things can happen from such an alliance. You will only need to see that the recent 109th Congress, House Resolution 921 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE00921:) affirming the support of the United States towards Israel received a rather lopsided vote (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll391.xml) on July 20th in which the Resolution was agreed to. Only 8 representatives took a stand for what was good for the United States. They are:
Abercrombie, Neil (Hawaii)
Conyers, John Jr. (Michigan)
Dingell, John D. (Michigan)
Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. (Michigan)
McDermott, Jim (Washington)
Paul, Ron (Texas)
Rahall, Nick J. (Illinois)
Stark, Fortney Pete (California)
While the situation in the United States Congress is dismal with such strong support of Israel in which only 1.8% did the right thing in the House vote, I see that small group of eight optimistically as a starting point for a new vision and hope for the future of the United States. After all there were only a small amount of congressmen initially who were opposed to the war in Iraq. I hope that soon the majority of Americans come to see the support of Israel as alien to the principles that the country was founded on, and to see that the support of Israel goes against American interests and is damaging to the country. If the nation does not alter its course in regards to Israel, then it will be doomed to following the vision of religious fanatics who want to fulfill their biblical prophesy of the Middle East. And we as Americans will have a lot more enemies than friends throughout the World.
The conflict started out on June 9th when Israel fired an artillery round that killed (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/13/isrlpa13544.htm) a family of seven Palestinians. On June 25th an Israeli soldier was kidnapped through a tunnel that had been dug under the border from Gaza Strip to Israel. Afterwards Israel invaded the Palestinian territory and waged war on the civilian population, along with targeting nonmilitary things such as the power plant. On July 12th six of eight Israeli soldiers who ventured (http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=9401) into Aitaa al-Chaab in Lebanon were killed while the other two were kidnapped. Israel responded as it did with the Palestinians, by bombing the civilians in Lebanon. Hezbollah defended Lebanon and retaliated by firing rockets from Lebanon into Israel.
Let me just point out that when a person apologizes or expresses regret, and then throws a "but" or similar type of disclaimer right afterwards, that it is not really an apology. So far the language of the United States, Britain, and Israel in regards to the deaths of the Lebanese civilians, has been what starts out as an apology or statement of regret, followed with a disclaimer using the words "but".
The justification of collateral damage (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0409-03.htm) is one that was started by organizations called "governments" and then picked up on afterwards by organizations called "terrorists". A lot of times it is the government organization which causes a higher amount of collateral damage than the terrorist. Collateral damage is the highest when an organization wages its war by way of air and with large explosives, rather than through the usage of ground troops who have better control over where the deadly force is directed. Generally it is governments which have that air and large explosives capability, and therefore they are the ones who produce more collateral damage.
The difference between a government organization and a terrorist organization is not black and white, but involves shades of grey. It is also a difference that depends on one's opinion. The democratically elected government of Palestine run by the Hamas party is called a terrorist organization by the United States. Meanwhile the dictatorship in Egypt is given the status of "government" by the American rulers. The United States and Israel both have democratically elected terrorist organizations ruling them which are thought of by many people to be "governments". Terrorism and democracy are not incompatible, as it is possible for the terrorists to win the favor of the majority of the people. And it is possible for the terrorists and the government to be the same people.
Hezbollah provides community services for the people of Lebanon, and in that regard it is like a government.
The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter can never be resolved objectively and will always be one of opinion. But the difference between a terrorist attack and an act of war can be more objectively defined. A terrorist attack targets civilians while an act of war targets other combatants.
Organizations carry out varying missions. Some times they carry out terrorist attacks and other times they carry out acts of war. One should not think that an organization is limited to one type of activity. For example, on 1998-08-07, the organization called Al Qaeda bombed the U. S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, in what I would call an act of terrorism. On 2000-10-12 the same organization attacked the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, in what I would call an act of war.
The notion of collective punishment is one which is officially shunned but is often practiced by the warring parties. Collective punishment also allows one to justify collateral damage, by assigning guilt to the victims. One thing to consider is that when a government organization wages war against a terrorist organization, the government organization is always expected to behave more ethically and responsibly than the terrorist organization. That is because the government in a democracy supposedly represents the will of the people more so than the terrorist organization does.Thus the notion of collective punishment and the justification of collateral damage is more justified when the terrorist organization uses it to justify killing civilians that reside in the same country as the government organization, than when the government organization uses it to justify killing civilians that reside in the same country as the terrorist organization.
Are the Lebanese guilty for having Hezbollah in their midst and are the Palestinians guilty for having the military wing of Hamas in their midst? According to the Israeli government they are. So the Israelis have now waged war on their respective civilian populations, causing much collateral damage. I would not call the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli military unintentional, any more than a person playing Russian Roulette could claim that the resulting death that occurs from playing the game was an "accident". These are not excusable accidents (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=110) by the Israelis, because they are aware of what the risks are, and are responsible when they miscalulate. If you look at what the Israelis have targeted in their wars against the Palestinians and the Lebanese, they have targeted them so as to collectively punish their populations. In Lebanon the bombing of the airport and other pieces of infrastructure was an act of collective punishment against the Lebanese. Nothing the Israeli army has done in the last two months can be called accidental.
Both the Israelis and the Americans are to blame for the current oppression of the Lebanese and the Palestinian people. The Americans finance and arm the Israelis. It would be interesting to debate whether it is the Americans or the Israelis who are the most to blame. In any case it seems that people are angry at the Americans more so than even the Israelis. It makes sense because while the Israelis are just being themselves by following their Zionist mandate, the Americans are really the ones who should know better. Their country was founded in a secular freedom loving spirit, and their position as the World's greatest power means that they should be promoting peace and justice rather than war and injustice.
The resentment towards Americans will last for years. Let us not forget how many people are angry in other parts of the World such as in Iraq, or anywhere where oppressive dictators and "governments" or bad policies are supported by the Americans. Perhaps the actions of Bush in supporting Israel is a type of job security action, to ensure that future terrorist attacks will occur against Americans. He thrives on war, from the comfort of his armchair or bunker. By ensuring that future attacks will occur on Americans, he has set it up so that his type of leadership, which is popular for populations under siege, will continue to rule in the future even after he has left office.
The seeds of resentment towards the United States were sown in the years prior to 9/11. There is the notable quote of bin Laden regarding the Israeli siege of Lebanon in a video tape that was first shown on Al Jazeera 2004-10-29. Here is an excerpt of the full text (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm):
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
I've noticed that Muslims particularly get angry at what happens to other Muslims throughout the World. The reaction against the publishing of the cartoons (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=970) of the Prophet Muhammed were to me the reactions of a group of crybabies. There was much outrage over mere cartoons. Now what is going on in Lebanon and in Palestine is worthy of outrage. But it is not just Muslims who should be angry, but all those who seek justice and peace should be outraged at how the terrorist organization of Israel has conducted itself. It's part of a larger pattern, and it is not just about Islam versus Zionism and the West. It is part of the larger problem in the World where the weak and defenseless are killed and brutalized, and those in power do not do anything to protect them, or are the ones involved in brutalizing them. I can cite for example how in Rwanda (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=424) in 1994, there was the genocide in which 800,000 people died, and the World could not be bothered to put a stop to it.
The impotence of the United Nations (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=474) in condemning or dealing with rogue states who are affiliated with the five permanent members has been seen. That is because of the special veto powers that Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States have. The United Nations is a failure because of that, and as a result is not really a democratic organization. As a result of the American and British vetoes, the United Nations can not condemn Israel, can not fight against the Israelis to defend the Lebanese and Palestinians, and can not apply sanctions to Israel. Some people are citing U.N. Resolution 1559 in order to justify the oppression of the Lebanese people by Israel. But there are other U. N. resolutions which should also be followed, that Israel and other countries haven't been following. They can't just pick and choose what U. N. resolutions they would like to follow.
Americans should distance themselves fast as hell from Israel. Only bad things can happen from such an alliance. You will only need to see that the recent 109th Congress, House Resolution 921 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE00921:) affirming the support of the United States towards Israel received a rather lopsided vote (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll391.xml) on July 20th in which the Resolution was agreed to. Only 8 representatives took a stand for what was good for the United States. They are:
Abercrombie, Neil (Hawaii)
Conyers, John Jr. (Michigan)
Dingell, John D. (Michigan)
Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. (Michigan)
McDermott, Jim (Washington)
Paul, Ron (Texas)
Rahall, Nick J. (Illinois)
Stark, Fortney Pete (California)
While the situation in the United States Congress is dismal with such strong support of Israel in which only 1.8% did the right thing in the House vote, I see that small group of eight optimistically as a starting point for a new vision and hope for the future of the United States. After all there were only a small amount of congressmen initially who were opposed to the war in Iraq. I hope that soon the majority of Americans come to see the support of Israel as alien to the principles that the country was founded on, and to see that the support of Israel goes against American interests and is damaging to the country. If the nation does not alter its course in regards to Israel, then it will be doomed to following the vision of religious fanatics who want to fulfill their biblical prophesy of the Middle East. And we as Americans will have a lot more enemies than friends throughout the World.