Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Still more "liquidation" (NOT "terrorism" -- no no, that's right out)
One of my favorite quotes bears repeating:
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but does not have an Air Force." -- William Blum
This is not new (it's from last Friday), but I thought it relevant given that everyone's asking "why would Israel strike against the U.N.?" :
From Juan Cole's 'Informed Comment' blog :
' I've just heard from Christine . . . via text messaging . She is in the Bekaa valley in a bomb shelter and Israel is bombing the village where she is at the moment. She says they are bombing the Red Cross, food lorries, fire brigade, hospitals and emergency relief centres . . . She is very concerned about the lack of reporting by the international media about the details of this violence. '
There's over-abundant evidence of the deliberate targeting of civilians (sometimes, in candid moments, they even come right out and admit that what they're trying to do is make the Lebanese people suffer so that they will blame Hezbollah and turn against them -- the problem, of course, being that they're more likely to achieve the exact opposite with this type of insane escalation). But even giving Israel the benefit of the doubt: if it really was an accident, then they need to stop talking about "smart bombs" or "precision bombs" and their alleged accuracy; and they need to just come out and state clearly that they bomb with the full knowledge and understanding that they're killing and maiming scores of innocent civilians.
This is obvious on its face, by the way -- otherwise, why are the U.S. and all the European countries scrambling to evacuate their citizens? Unless you're a member of Hezbollah, you should be safe, right?
I hate the way this sounds, but honestly I wish we had left all the Americans there and not evacuated a single one. Why? Because I think once a few Americans started being blown up by Israeli air strikes, you'd see an end to this horrific shit real fucking fast.
Whether the attack on the U.N. observer post was deliberate, I don't know. I thought Kofi Annan made a very strong case:
"This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked U.N. post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would be spared Israeli fire," he said in a statement.
"Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the U.N. force commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular U.N. position from attack."
Again, you might ask, "Why would they do that? Wouldn't that just turn more people against them? What would they really have to gain from it?" Well, what do they really have to gain from murdering nearly four hundred people in one week and destroying half of Lebanon? What did they really have to gain from Sabra and Shatila, or from occupying Gaza and the West Bank? What did they have to gain from invading Lebanon the first time? Similarly you might ask, What did Hezbollah have to gain by capturing 2 Israeli soldiers (well, actually in that case they thought they would gain the release of Lebanese prisoners -- but, details.) What did the U.S. have to gain by bombing the Red Cross on at least three separate occasions, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq? Or by bombing Al Jazeera -- also in both countries? Or by taking over the hospitals of Falluja? Or by telling the Iraqis, in pretty clear terms, "we're going to destroy your country and then steal your oil, which we will then sell to rebuild it"? Or by refusing to promise Iraq that we have no plans to permanently occupy their country and do not wish to establish permanent military bases there? Or by refusing to have elections there or a trial for Saddam for over a year? What did Osama Bin Laden have to gain by plotting 9/11? I really don't know. I'm not convinced these are terribly rational people.
"Why would they do that when it's just going to make people turn against them?" You tell me. (If there's an answer, it's probably something like "Let them hate, so long as they fear.")
Meanwhile, White House Endorses Column Calling For Israel to Attack Syria
And now, some comic relief (lest I go and stick my head in the oven) :
FOX NEWS headline tonight: "BIGGER THREAT TO U.S.: MIDEAST FIGHTING OR HUGO CHAVEZ?"
You can't make this stuff up.
This was pretty interesting, too: rather than exploring why there's so much animosity towards the state of Israel, FOX chose instead to interview an Orthodox Rabbi who believes the State of Israel should be dismantled. Odd: "Blame Israel?"
I thought Hell had frozen over in another segment, in which FOX allowed an actual debate to take place! : Are Arab media fueling flames of hatred in Middle East? (Perhaps because they have a narrow and stereotypical view of Al Jazeera, they assumed any representative from that station would simply be a raving nut yelling loudly for the killing of all Jews everywhere or something, and thus make their case for them.)
No doubt "fueling the flames of hatred" means "actually showing the truth of what's going on," which is not allowed on FOX. I think the Israeli bombs are doing enough "hatred flame fueling" on their own, myself. And, you know, ACTUAL FLAME fueling and stuff. But, maybe that's just me.