15 January 2009
Good riddance to the last war criminal: Dubya Bush
As the clock counts down to the final exit of Dubya Bush, only the most deaf, dumb, blind and intellectually/morally challenged people will miss the worst US president in history. But even amongst those Americans glad to see the backside of that cowboy, some were Dubya supporters until things turned to crap - to use a diplomatic turn of phrase.
It was only when "victory" in Iraq wasn't happening, and most recently, the economy was going down the crap tube, that it began to dawn upon them, maybe just maybe Bush was and is a Loser. And maybe, just maybe, it was legitimate to question his policies and actions.
But it wasn't lost on many people around the world, these late converts weren't driven by moral principle to repudiate the Loser. They began to repudiate the Loser only when an Iraqi victory was slipping away and when they became victims of the still deepening, and soon to be depression.
At no time, did the immorality of an illegal war nor the terrible pre and post-invasion Iraqi civilian casualties cause these late converts to question the crimes being committed in their name. And now, having peddled the neo-con brand of freedom and democracy abroad in the form of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Prison, kidnappings, torture etc and given the one-fingered salute to the rest of the world, what a surprise America's reputation and standing slid down the crap tube into the moral cess pool.
You know the old saying...one deserves the politicians one elects!
So it was a delightful surprise to see Dubya immortalised in the dying days of his presidency by dodging shoes!
It was only when "victory" in Iraq wasn't happening, and most recently, the economy was going down the crap tube, that it began to dawn upon them, maybe just maybe Bush was and is a Loser. And maybe, just maybe, it was legitimate to question his policies and actions.
But it wasn't lost on many people around the world, these late converts weren't driven by moral principle to repudiate the Loser. They began to repudiate the Loser only when an Iraqi victory was slipping away and when they became victims of the still deepening, and soon to be depression.
At no time, did the immorality of an illegal war nor the terrible pre and post-invasion Iraqi civilian casualties cause these late converts to question the crimes being committed in their name. And now, having peddled the neo-con brand of freedom and democracy abroad in the form of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Prison, kidnappings, torture etc and given the one-fingered salute to the rest of the world, what a surprise America's reputation and standing slid down the crap tube into the moral cess pool.
You know the old saying...one deserves the politicians one elects!
So it was a delightful surprise to see Dubya immortalised in the dying days of his presidency by dodging shoes!
Finally, in a few days, the last of the troika of war criminals also known as the three stooges, Bush, Blair and Howard, will ride off into the dustbin of history. He hands over a country sliding further into a likely depression, saddled with a likely US$2 trillion deficit, a national reputation in tatters...what more can a country ask for?
Mission Accomplished!
Mission Accomplished!
Labels: abu ghraib, blair, bush, deficit, depression, howard, recession, war crimes
22 June 2008
Echoes of evil in the US military
I missed a significant but notorious 40th anniversary of the My Lai massacre on 15 March 2008.
As official US government and military propaganda then claimed, the massacre was an isolated spontaneous act of mass murder executed by an infantry company, instigated by a Lt William Calley. But as a recent BBC documentary reported, after an exhaustive search of US National Archive records, the truth was quite the opposite.
The relevant records were hidden and uncatalogued (administrative equivalent of burying secrets) in a small portion of an enormous collection of records chronicling US Army operations in Vietnam. Doubtless, the Pentagon hoped that nobody would find the damning reports of Lt General William Peers' inquiry into the massacre. It was for good reason the Pentagon wished to bury the bodies.
My Lai was only one of three hamlets identified for complete destruction by Col Oran Henderson, a brigade commander of the 23rd US Infantry Division (aka Americal Division). As Lt Gen Peers found, Task Force Barker was ordered to "kill everything," raze crops and dwellings, without exception. More than one company, Charlie, was involved in the terrible massacre. Peers found that Bravo company was also involved.
The general recorded some 400 hours of testimony by personnel of all ranks which were also released to the BBC. The accounts claimed mass rapes of women and girls as young as 12; followed by their executions to eliminate witnesses. Hurling terrified civilians into ditches and machine gunning them, SS Stormtrooper style, was recorded in chilling verbal testimonies. This was "winning the hearts and minds" of the local population. It was about keeping Vietnam free and democratic.
Fortunately, a few people survived by feigning death. Lt Gen Peers travelled to interview the survivors in 1970, and found their testimony corroborated the accounts of mass rapes and murders.
"The first shot hit a baby in the head and I turned around and (was) sick" - one soldier. Another: "Most people in our company didn't consider the Vietnamese human…..A guy would just grab one of the girls there and ….they shot the girls when they got done."
"...when they got done..." refers to raping the girls.
A monstrous cover-up was subsequently orchestrated by the division commander, Maj Gen Sam Koster; one which was eventually blown apart by Lt Gen Peers' investigation. However, the findings of Peers' inquiry were so shocking that the Pentagon suppressed the full truth, and instead, claimed the massacre was an isolated incident.
It was instructive then, as now in the context of Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Mahmudiyah, that of 14 officers charged, only the most junior, Calley, was court-martialled and found guilty. Brigade commander, Col Henderson, was acquitted. Yet, as the archived records and report showed, the atrocity was ordered by the highest levels of the divisional chain of command.
The BBC documentary is both fascinating and yet revealing, in that when Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Mahmudiyah are framed in the context of the My Lai massacre, it really seems little has changed in 40 years. No superior values of democracy and freedom are evident, no humanity is shown to innocent civilians, no honour, integrity and accountability are demonstrated by the top brass, and no exemplary leadership worth emulating is to be found in the White House.
Instead evil, identical to that which escaped in My Lai, seems to be evident in Iraq; apparent to all who aren't wilfully blind, deaf and dumb. This evil is an echo of what others were accused of perpetrating in WW2. It only goes to show that nobody has a monopoly on virtue and morality. And those who claim to be the beacons of "democracy and freedom" bring exactly the opposite to those unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end.
Soon, the world will be rid of the nastiest and blackest of the three stooges, Bush, Blair and Howard, who brought unprovoked death and destruction to Iraq. But sadly, there will be no war crimes trials for these criminals. The only thing that will happen to Bush, Blair and Howard is that they will be consigned to the garbage can of history. Truly, a poor punishment for their war crimes.
Therein lies the fundamental and glaring flaw of our so-called "democracies." Who wants to emulate a hypocritical system that fails to hold accountable those who kill in our name, and with our tacit assent?
As official US government and military propaganda then claimed, the massacre was an isolated spontaneous act of mass murder executed by an infantry company, instigated by a Lt William Calley. But as a recent BBC documentary reported, after an exhaustive search of US National Archive records, the truth was quite the opposite.
The relevant records were hidden and uncatalogued (administrative equivalent of burying secrets) in a small portion of an enormous collection of records chronicling US Army operations in Vietnam. Doubtless, the Pentagon hoped that nobody would find the damning reports of Lt General William Peers' inquiry into the massacre. It was for good reason the Pentagon wished to bury the bodies.
My Lai was only one of three hamlets identified for complete destruction by Col Oran Henderson, a brigade commander of the 23rd US Infantry Division (aka Americal Division). As Lt Gen Peers found, Task Force Barker was ordered to "kill everything," raze crops and dwellings, without exception. More than one company, Charlie, was involved in the terrible massacre. Peers found that Bravo company was also involved.
The general recorded some 400 hours of testimony by personnel of all ranks which were also released to the BBC. The accounts claimed mass rapes of women and girls as young as 12; followed by their executions to eliminate witnesses. Hurling terrified civilians into ditches and machine gunning them, SS Stormtrooper style, was recorded in chilling verbal testimonies. This was "winning the hearts and minds" of the local population. It was about keeping Vietnam free and democratic.
Fortunately, a few people survived by feigning death. Lt Gen Peers travelled to interview the survivors in 1970, and found their testimony corroborated the accounts of mass rapes and murders.
"The first shot hit a baby in the head and I turned around and (was) sick" - one soldier. Another: "Most people in our company didn't consider the Vietnamese human…..A guy would just grab one of the girls there and ….they shot the girls when they got done."
"...when they got done..." refers to raping the girls.
A monstrous cover-up was subsequently orchestrated by the division commander, Maj Gen Sam Koster; one which was eventually blown apart by Lt Gen Peers' investigation. However, the findings of Peers' inquiry were so shocking that the Pentagon suppressed the full truth, and instead, claimed the massacre was an isolated incident.
It was instructive then, as now in the context of Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Mahmudiyah, that of 14 officers charged, only the most junior, Calley, was court-martialled and found guilty. Brigade commander, Col Henderson, was acquitted. Yet, as the archived records and report showed, the atrocity was ordered by the highest levels of the divisional chain of command.
The BBC documentary is both fascinating and yet revealing, in that when Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Mahmudiyah are framed in the context of the My Lai massacre, it really seems little has changed in 40 years. No superior values of democracy and freedom are evident, no humanity is shown to innocent civilians, no honour, integrity and accountability are demonstrated by the top brass, and no exemplary leadership worth emulating is to be found in the White House.
Instead evil, identical to that which escaped in My Lai, seems to be evident in Iraq; apparent to all who aren't wilfully blind, deaf and dumb. This evil is an echo of what others were accused of perpetrating in WW2. It only goes to show that nobody has a monopoly on virtue and morality. And those who claim to be the beacons of "democracy and freedom" bring exactly the opposite to those unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end.
Soon, the world will be rid of the nastiest and blackest of the three stooges, Bush, Blair and Howard, who brought unprovoked death and destruction to Iraq. But sadly, there will be no war crimes trials for these criminals. The only thing that will happen to Bush, Blair and Howard is that they will be consigned to the garbage can of history. Truly, a poor punishment for their war crimes.
Therein lies the fundamental and glaring flaw of our so-called "democracies." Who wants to emulate a hypocritical system that fails to hold accountable those who kill in our name, and with our tacit assent?
Labels: abu ghraib, blair, bush, haditha, howard, mahmudiyah, my lai massacre
24 June 2007
Apocalypto for the Neo-Cons
With the Senate and House back under Democratic Party control, the much-touted troop surge turning in a casualty surge, Rummie consigned to the dustbin of history, Wolfie fired from his cushy World Bank job, Libby transformed from a Cheney rooster into a feather duster, Poodle Tony [Blair] politically euthanased by his party and just maybe Chi Hua-Hua John [Howard] to be booted in his backside by voters, things are going really well for Dubya and his neo-con partners-in-war-crimes.
Even as the great neo-con dream slowly morphs into the putrid nightmare that it really is, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of the monstrous crimes committed under the guise of "democracy and freedom." A most disturbing and morally repugnant revelation to surface recently is Seymour Hersh's article about a patriotic and honourable US general who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal. Hersh's article must be read to understand some of the terribly malignant transformations wrought by the neo-cons.
General Taguba's treatment by factions in a Pentagon politicised by the neo-cons was in a word, disgraceful. Former Chief of Army, General Eric Shinseki, suffered similar treatment following his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on the eve of the Iraq invasion. So it is clear that like the broader American society under neo-con "leadership," hallmark values of a democracy such as honour, integrity, compassion, fairness etc have been twisted into Orwellian caricatures of the exact opposite in the uniformed services.
Taguba says it best in Hersh's article:
"There was no doubt in my mind that this stuff—the explicit images—was gravitating upward. It was standard operating procedure to assume that this had to go higher. The President had to be aware of this."
He said that Rumsfeld, his senior aides, and the high-ranking generals and admirals who stood with him as he misrepresented what he knew about Abu Ghraib had failed the nation.
"From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."
What was done in the name of "democracy and freedom" has been no different to what Stalin and Hitler did.
For those who deny the moral equivalence (because America is always morally right, of course), I say put yourselves to the test by using the same Nuremburg war crimes trial standards the US and its allies used to judge the Nazis. Go on, be all that you claim to be by proving what's good for the goose is equally good for the gander.
To quote Will Durant,
"A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
Even as the great neo-con dream slowly morphs into the putrid nightmare that it really is, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of the monstrous crimes committed under the guise of "democracy and freedom." A most disturbing and morally repugnant revelation to surface recently is Seymour Hersh's article about a patriotic and honourable US general who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal. Hersh's article must be read to understand some of the terribly malignant transformations wrought by the neo-cons.
General Taguba's treatment by factions in a Pentagon politicised by the neo-cons was in a word, disgraceful. Former Chief of Army, General Eric Shinseki, suffered similar treatment following his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on the eve of the Iraq invasion. So it is clear that like the broader American society under neo-con "leadership," hallmark values of a democracy such as honour, integrity, compassion, fairness etc have been twisted into Orwellian caricatures of the exact opposite in the uniformed services.
Taguba says it best in Hersh's article:
"There was no doubt in my mind that this stuff—the explicit images—was gravitating upward. It was standard operating procedure to assume that this had to go higher. The President had to be aware of this."
He said that Rumsfeld, his senior aides, and the high-ranking generals and admirals who stood with him as he misrepresented what he knew about Abu Ghraib had failed the nation.
"From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."
What was done in the name of "democracy and freedom" has been no different to what Stalin and Hitler did.
For those who deny the moral equivalence (because America is always morally right, of course), I say put yourselves to the test by using the same Nuremburg war crimes trial standards the US and its allies used to judge the Nazis. Go on, be all that you claim to be by proving what's good for the goose is equally good for the gander.
To quote Will Durant,
"A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
Labels: blair, bush, cheney, hitler, howard, iraq, libby, neo-conservatives, rumsfeld, stalin, surge, taguba, wolfowitz
12 February 2007
John Howard's hubris
Australian PM John Howard stunned many people on both sides of the Pacific with his ferocious attack on US Democratic presidential nomination hopeful, Barack Obama. In one fell swoop, Howard has probably helped to harden US and possibly Australian public opinion against Bush's Iraqi disaster rather than help his beseiged master in the White House.
Not only that, imagine the knives that would be out for Howard were he to win re-election in Australia while a Democratic Party ruled both the Congress and White House! Chi Hua-Hua John will surely get booted up his rear end by the rightly outraged Democrats.
In a reverse incident some years back, many Australians were angered when a Bush crony, the then US ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, saw fit to tell Australians that voting for the then Labor Party opposition leader, Mark Latham, would be a disaster for the country. Australians on both sides of politics regarded Schieffer's intervention as arrogant interference in Australia's domestic politics.
Howard's bemusing outburst against Obama is fascinating for its possible motives. Let's be clear, Obama is just one of the majority of US voters, presidential hopefuls, senators and congressmen who oppose America's continuing involvement in Iraq. For example, even Republican senator John Warner (one time secretary for the navy) is opposed to the troop escalation and questions continuing involvement in Iraq.
So what on earth prompted Howard to single out Obama and not for example, Hillary Clinton - who has also pledged to bring US troops home? I think the answer lies in Obama's broad-based bipartisan appeal to US voters. His charisma and perceived sincerity project much greater gravitas and credibility than his brief government experience would suggest.
Howard quite rightly perceived that Obama's views would play very well to a nation cynical about long-time politicians, and therefore have great capacity to shift public opinion even more resolutely against Bush and his policies. Were this to happen, then anyone strongly associated with the war-criminal would also be similarly discredited in the eyes of their own voters.
Let's deconstruct Howard into the hypocrite that he is, shall we? As the BBC reported,
"Mr Howard said any withdrawal of US troops by March 2008 - the date Mr Obama believes should be set - would mean defeat for Washington.
And of course last but not least, if Iraq is so vital to Australia's national security, then Howard should have far more than the paltry 1400 Australian troops in Iraq, and they should be in the Baghdad frontline instead of the safe southern province. Better still, Howard should demonstrate the courage of his apparent convictions by getting his sons into the army (instead of one working for the US Republican Party), and ensuring they serve in Baghdad. It's all about leadership by example, Chi Hua-Hua John.
Instead, what do we see? Bush's little lap dog yaps from the sidelines, committing very little to his bullshit. What a strange and twisted set of moral values Chi Hua-Hua John possesses.
So how are Australian voters likely to react to Howard's hypocritical dummy spit?
What about the Howard regime's economic management credentials? In the important swing states of Victoria and New South Wales, mortgage defaults are sky-rocketing due to recent interest rate increases. Mortgagee-in-possession sales have strongly affected the swing voters who gave Howard his last election victory.
And now that these voters have lost their homes, they are certainly feeling less wealthy than before. If my observations of these voters are correct (again see False dawn or a real sea change?), then Howard's economic management credentials have a stake through the heart as far as these voters are concerned. So if Obama rings true with US voters on Iraq and it flows through to Australian voters, then Howard's two advantages over his Labor rival Kevin Rudd, would be neutralised.
A final possible motive for Howard's attack on Obama, is that he fears a parallel appeal with Australian voters in the Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd. Since Rudd's ascension as leader of the opposition, Howard has been focussing on the former's lack of government experience. Indeed, if Howard can successfully play up voter fears about Rudd's inexperience, then voters are likely to re-elect the devil they know rather than the acolyte they don't know.
On the other hand, if voters see Rudd's inexperience in the same positive light as Obama's - ie the cleanskin untarnished by cynical power broker plays in dim backrooms, then Howard would represent all that is bad about the old ways.
The coming federal election will be a genuine "at-a-crossroad" experience for the country. While there's much to dislike about Rudd, there's even more to dislike about Howard.
Not only that, imagine the knives that would be out for Howard were he to win re-election in Australia while a Democratic Party ruled both the Congress and White House! Chi Hua-Hua John will surely get booted up his rear end by the rightly outraged Democrats.
In a reverse incident some years back, many Australians were angered when a Bush crony, the then US ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, saw fit to tell Australians that voting for the then Labor Party opposition leader, Mark Latham, would be a disaster for the country. Australians on both sides of politics regarded Schieffer's intervention as arrogant interference in Australia's domestic politics.
Howard's bemusing outburst against Obama is fascinating for its possible motives. Let's be clear, Obama is just one of the majority of US voters, presidential hopefuls, senators and congressmen who oppose America's continuing involvement in Iraq. For example, even Republican senator John Warner (one time secretary for the navy) is opposed to the troop escalation and questions continuing involvement in Iraq.
So what on earth prompted Howard to single out Obama and not for example, Hillary Clinton - who has also pledged to bring US troops home? I think the answer lies in Obama's broad-based bipartisan appeal to US voters. His charisma and perceived sincerity project much greater gravitas and credibility than his brief government experience would suggest.
Howard quite rightly perceived that Obama's views would play very well to a nation cynical about long-time politicians, and therefore have great capacity to shift public opinion even more resolutely against Bush and his policies. Were this to happen, then anyone strongly associated with the war-criminal would also be similarly discredited in the eyes of their own voters.
Let's deconstruct Howard into the hypocrite that he is, shall we? As the BBC reported,
"Mr Howard said any withdrawal of US troops by March 2008 - the date Mr Obama believes should be set - would mean defeat for Washington.
He said that defeat for the US would end hopes for peace in the Palestinian Territories and cause widespread destabilisation in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan."
Well, let's see now. If Chi Hua-Hua Howard was really so concerned about stability in the Middle East, then he would have urged his partner in war crimes not to invade Iraq under the bullshit cover of non-existent NBC weapons. Saudi Arabia and Jordan were a whole lot less jittery when Saddam Hussein was in power - counter-balancing Iran. But after turning Iraq into rubble, Team Neo-Con opened the door for Iran to fill the vacuum.
And of course last but not least, if Iraq is so vital to Australia's national security, then Howard should have far more than the paltry 1400 Australian troops in Iraq, and they should be in the Baghdad frontline instead of the safe southern province. Better still, Howard should demonstrate the courage of his apparent convictions by getting his sons into the army (instead of one working for the US Republican Party), and ensuring they serve in Baghdad. It's all about leadership by example, Chi Hua-Hua John.
Instead, what do we see? Bush's little lap dog yaps from the sidelines, committing very little to his bullshit. What a strange and twisted set of moral values Chi Hua-Hua John possesses.
So how are Australian voters likely to react to Howard's hypocritical dummy spit?
In an earlier post, I observed (False dawn or real sea change?) that Australian and US voters are more similar to each other in their behaviour, compared to their British counterparts. And although Australian voters have proven they won't vote a prime minister out of office on the grounds of moral turpitude, a strengthening of voter perceptions that the Iraqi war is immoral undermines Howard's self-proclaimed national security credentials.
As Howard himself recently claimed, the Coalition government is more trusted than the Labor opposition on economic management and national security. But if Obama hardens US voter sentiment against Bush's policies, Australian voters could similarly react by increasing their distrust of Howard on national security issues.What about the Howard regime's economic management credentials? In the important swing states of Victoria and New South Wales, mortgage defaults are sky-rocketing due to recent interest rate increases. Mortgagee-in-possession sales have strongly affected the swing voters who gave Howard his last election victory.
And now that these voters have lost their homes, they are certainly feeling less wealthy than before. If my observations of these voters are correct (again see False dawn or a real sea change?), then Howard's economic management credentials have a stake through the heart as far as these voters are concerned. So if Obama rings true with US voters on Iraq and it flows through to Australian voters, then Howard's two advantages over his Labor rival Kevin Rudd, would be neutralised.
A final possible motive for Howard's attack on Obama, is that he fears a parallel appeal with Australian voters in the Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd. Since Rudd's ascension as leader of the opposition, Howard has been focussing on the former's lack of government experience. Indeed, if Howard can successfully play up voter fears about Rudd's inexperience, then voters are likely to re-elect the devil they know rather than the acolyte they don't know.
On the other hand, if voters see Rudd's inexperience in the same positive light as Obama's - ie the cleanskin untarnished by cynical power broker plays in dim backrooms, then Howard would represent all that is bad about the old ways.
The coming federal election will be a genuine "at-a-crossroad" experience for the country. While there's much to dislike about Rudd, there's even more to dislike about Howard.
Labels: bush, chi hua-hua, clinton, crony, democratic party, destabilisation, howard, iraq, lap dog, obama, republican, schieffer
08 January 2007
Are the Neo-Cons dead yet?
Will the return of a Democrat controlled congress in last November's congressional elections herald the death of the Neo-Cons and their reign of unfettered freedom to cause murder and mayhem abroad? Or has Team Neo-Con just taken a few rounds to the head; only to rise like Lazarus (or more correctly, Dracula) to cause further mayhem later?
To answer this question, I think we will need to set milestones by which we can measure the real death of Team Neo-Con rather than just non-fatal injury. Critical short term milestones would be:
1. Congress investigates the who, how and why involving the fabrication of false evidence justifying the illegal invasion of Iraq.
2. Following the investigation, Congress indicts people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams, John Ashcroft, Gen Geoffrey Miller (set up Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons), Richard Perle and last but not least, Dubya the Decider (of criminal acts).
3. Congress acknowledges the number of Iraqi civilian casualties inflicted during the March 2003 invasion.
4. Congress forces the closure of Abu Ghraib and Bagram Airport prisons and indicts senior military and CIA officers for unlawful assault and murder of detainees.
5. Congress demands the prosecution of US military personnel responsible for the murder of an Al Jazeera journalist during the invasion.
Collectively, these would be tangible evidence of repudiating the unlawful actions of Team Neo-Con, and a genuine move towards restoring the badly sullied reputation of the US both at home and abroad. Although the reign of the Neo-Con regime will be judged as one of America's darkest times; doing the above will also prove the regime to be a transient aberration rather than the norm.
We should be greatly encouraged that Congress has already commenced step 1. We can only hope that the momentum will be sustained for the remaining steps.
To answer this question, I think we will need to set milestones by which we can measure the real death of Team Neo-Con rather than just non-fatal injury. Critical short term milestones would be:
1. Congress investigates the who, how and why involving the fabrication of false evidence justifying the illegal invasion of Iraq.
2. Following the investigation, Congress indicts people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams, John Ashcroft, Gen Geoffrey Miller (set up Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons), Richard Perle and last but not least, Dubya the Decider (of criminal acts).
3. Congress acknowledges the number of Iraqi civilian casualties inflicted during the March 2003 invasion.
4. Congress forces the closure of Abu Ghraib and Bagram Airport prisons and indicts senior military and CIA officers for unlawful assault and murder of detainees.
5. Congress demands the prosecution of US military personnel responsible for the murder of an Al Jazeera journalist during the invasion.
Collectively, these would be tangible evidence of repudiating the unlawful actions of Team Neo-Con, and a genuine move towards restoring the badly sullied reputation of the US both at home and abroad. Although the reign of the Neo-Con regime will be judged as one of America's darkest times; doing the above will also prove the regime to be a transient aberration rather than the norm.
We should be greatly encouraged that Congress has already commenced step 1. We can only hope that the momentum will be sustained for the remaining steps.
Labels: abu ghraib, bush, cheney, condi rice, feith, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, rumsfeld, wolfowitz
11 September 2006
The day the whole world changed...for Iraqis
As the fifth anniversary of the WTC attack rolls around; accompanied by the usual narcissistic commemorations in the US; spare a thought for weak, or humble or innocent Iraqis who were crushed underfoot by a rampaging cabal of war criminals with so much blood on their hands.
Remember Team Neo-Con invaded Iraq in 2003 claiming that the country possessed NBC (Nuclear, Biological & Chemical) weapons and intended to use them against America. But US weapons inspector, David Kay, appointed by Bush himself, found no evidence they existed as claimed. Then Bush claimed the invasion was sparked by Iraq's involvement in the WTC attack. But again, a US Senate investigation found this to be false. Then Bush repudiated an earlier declaration that the war wasn't about regime change; and said it was to liberate Iraqis from their tyrant.
So despite Team Neo-Con changing their reasons for an illegal war as often as they changed their underpants, surely, these child casualties understood America only wanted the best for them rather than their country's oil...
Photo: BBC/AP
And for recalcitrant and sceptical Iraqis, a little remedial instruction was all that was required. First, they were given time out to reconsider their politically incorrect views...
Photo: The New Yorker/AP
Then after time out to reconsider their politically incorrect views, cuddly puppies happily assisted these slow learners to mend their ways...
Photo: The New Yorker/AP
But of course, particularly naughty and extra slow learners needed firmer instruction. After all, as the good lord said, "Spare the rod and spoil the child..."
Photo: The Washington Post/AP
However, despite the best efforts of America's finest, some were truly incorrigible. Never mind, they were just despatched to the nearest cemetery with America's best "Have a nice day" hometown send off...
Photo: ABC/AP
Bringing democracy and freedom to darkened cities like Fallujah was also part of the good lord's work. So winning hearts and minds was ever so much more important than preserving material things like homes and businesses...
Photo: www.globalpolicy.org
Every so often, a little collateral damage occurred. And that was too bad. But it was a small price to pay because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the blood of the innocent and defenceless...
Photo: www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com
Today, many who still support Bush delude themselves into believing that people hate them for their stand on "democracy and freedom."
The reality is that people don't give a rat's brass razoo what Team Neo-Con does inside America. But when Bush's style of "democracy and freedom" is imposed upon non-Americans - whether they want it or not - why is it a surprise that some refuse to fall on bended knee in gratitude?
Rest in peace, victims of George W Bush and Team Neo-Con. You are remembered even though the world's beacon of Truth, Justice and the Neo-Con way cares not to do so.
Remember Team Neo-Con invaded Iraq in 2003 claiming that the country possessed NBC (Nuclear, Biological & Chemical) weapons and intended to use them against America. But US weapons inspector, David Kay, appointed by Bush himself, found no evidence they existed as claimed. Then Bush claimed the invasion was sparked by Iraq's involvement in the WTC attack. But again, a US Senate investigation found this to be false. Then Bush repudiated an earlier declaration that the war wasn't about regime change; and said it was to liberate Iraqis from their tyrant.
So despite Team Neo-Con changing their reasons for an illegal war as often as they changed their underpants, surely, these child casualties understood America only wanted the best for them rather than their country's oil...
Photo: BBC/AP
And for recalcitrant and sceptical Iraqis, a little remedial instruction was all that was required. First, they were given time out to reconsider their politically incorrect views...
Photo: The New Yorker/AP
Then after time out to reconsider their politically incorrect views, cuddly puppies happily assisted these slow learners to mend their ways...
Photo: The New Yorker/AP
But of course, particularly naughty and extra slow learners needed firmer instruction. After all, as the good lord said, "Spare the rod and spoil the child..."
Photo: The Washington Post/AP
However, despite the best efforts of America's finest, some were truly incorrigible. Never mind, they were just despatched to the nearest cemetery with America's best "Have a nice day" hometown send off...
Photo: ABC/AP
Bringing democracy and freedom to darkened cities like Fallujah was also part of the good lord's work. So winning hearts and minds was ever so much more important than preserving material things like homes and businesses...
Photo: www.globalpolicy.org
Every so often, a little collateral damage occurred. And that was too bad. But it was a small price to pay because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the blood of the innocent and defenceless...
Photo: www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com
Today, many who still support Bush delude themselves into believing that people hate them for their stand on "democracy and freedom."
The reality is that people don't give a rat's brass razoo what Team Neo-Con does inside America. But when Bush's style of "democracy and freedom" is imposed upon non-Americans - whether they want it or not - why is it a surprise that some refuse to fall on bended knee in gratitude?
Rest in peace, victims of George W Bush and Team Neo-Con. You are remembered even though the world's beacon of Truth, Justice and the Neo-Con way cares not to do so.
Labels: bush, democracy, freedom, iraq, nbc weapons, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, wmd, wtc attack
19 August 2006
Chinese ambassador tells US to "Shut Up!"
When I first heard a BBC radio broadcast in which China's ambassador to the UN in Geneva said:
"It's better for the US to shut up," he said. "Keep quiet. It's much, much better."
I was both surprised and delighted that someone had finally responded to the Bush regime's hypocrisy in language that Team Neo-Con may better understand. What provoked the ambassador, Mr Sha Zu Kang, to respond in such refreshingly practical language?
Repeated whinings by US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, that China was consistently under-reporting its defence spending, and that such large expenditures posed a threat to global stability! Can you beat the sheer audacity and hypocrisy of this man? Coming from the world's chief destabiliser bar none, it's a source of much bemusement, to say the least.
For more detailed background on this issue, please refer to earlier posts on this blog, "The old whiff of rank hypocrisy" and "Who is the real threat today?" At the heart of Rummie's complaints, is the need to justify America's continued gargantuan defence spending to voters.
Make no mistake, Team Neo-Con doesn't give a rat's brass razoo what the rest of the world thinks. After all, if that wasn't the case, Iraq wouldn't be the rubble strewn and wretched wasteland it is today.
One of the things driving Rumsfeld is something called mid-term congressional elections looming in November this year. Amid rising voter disgust over the Republican Party corruption scandals, and the ongoing disaster of Iraq, Team Neo-Con is practising the political scoundrel's time honoured tactic of pointing to some external threat to divert attention away from internal scandals.
The short term political agenda of Team Neo-Con also dovetails with the ruling civilian and military establishment's long term agenda of sustaining gargantuan defence budgets. There's nothing like creating a state of fear in a country's citizens to receive a blank cheque to spend big on defence while eliminating real democracy and freedom to scrutinise the integrity and morality of those who presume to lead.
But hey, don't take my word on it. Read Prof Chalmers Johnson's book "The Sorrows of Empire" to learn how many decent Americans have been hoodwinked into allowing their beloved country to be transformed into an Imperial Empire, so despised by those on the receiving end of its behaviour.
Perhaps they may understand that non-Americans actually don't dislike the US because, as Bush claims, "we [Americans] stand for freedom and democracy." I mean, some poor working stiff scratching out a living in some place outside America doesn't have the time nor interest to give a rat's brass razoo what happens in America. After all, how would Bush being the US president affect them if all he did was rampage around in the US?
Really, it's only when Bush and his henchmen and henchwomen inflict themselves upon other countries, that non-Americans hate what is being done to them by the US government. This is why it is a treat when people like Ambassador Sha bluntly put Team Neo-Con back into its box.
Just as Team Neo-Con doesn't take lectures from anyone else, China (whether you support them or not) doesn't need lectures from a very sooty black pot!
"It's better for the US to shut up," he said. "Keep quiet. It's much, much better."
I was both surprised and delighted that someone had finally responded to the Bush regime's hypocrisy in language that Team Neo-Con may better understand. What provoked the ambassador, Mr Sha Zu Kang, to respond in such refreshingly practical language?
Repeated whinings by US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, that China was consistently under-reporting its defence spending, and that such large expenditures posed a threat to global stability! Can you beat the sheer audacity and hypocrisy of this man? Coming from the world's chief destabiliser bar none, it's a source of much bemusement, to say the least.
For more detailed background on this issue, please refer to earlier posts on this blog, "The old whiff of rank hypocrisy" and "Who is the real threat today?" At the heart of Rummie's complaints, is the need to justify America's continued gargantuan defence spending to voters.
Make no mistake, Team Neo-Con doesn't give a rat's brass razoo what the rest of the world thinks. After all, if that wasn't the case, Iraq wouldn't be the rubble strewn and wretched wasteland it is today.
One of the things driving Rumsfeld is something called mid-term congressional elections looming in November this year. Amid rising voter disgust over the Republican Party corruption scandals, and the ongoing disaster of Iraq, Team Neo-Con is practising the political scoundrel's time honoured tactic of pointing to some external threat to divert attention away from internal scandals.
The short term political agenda of Team Neo-Con also dovetails with the ruling civilian and military establishment's long term agenda of sustaining gargantuan defence budgets. There's nothing like creating a state of fear in a country's citizens to receive a blank cheque to spend big on defence while eliminating real democracy and freedom to scrutinise the integrity and morality of those who presume to lead.
But hey, don't take my word on it. Read Prof Chalmers Johnson's book "The Sorrows of Empire" to learn how many decent Americans have been hoodwinked into allowing their beloved country to be transformed into an Imperial Empire, so despised by those on the receiving end of its behaviour.
Perhaps they may understand that non-Americans actually don't dislike the US because, as Bush claims, "we [Americans] stand for freedom and democracy." I mean, some poor working stiff scratching out a living in some place outside America doesn't have the time nor interest to give a rat's brass razoo what happens in America. After all, how would Bush being the US president affect them if all he did was rampage around in the US?
Really, it's only when Bush and his henchmen and henchwomen inflict themselves upon other countries, that non-Americans hate what is being done to them by the US government. This is why it is a treat when people like Ambassador Sha bluntly put Team Neo-Con back into its box.
Just as Team Neo-Con doesn't take lectures from anyone else, China (whether you support them or not) doesn't need lectures from a very sooty black pot!
Labels: budget, bush, chalmers johnson, china, defence, defense, destabiliser, destabilizer, imperial, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, rumsfeld, sorrows of empire
17 August 2006
Case for a multi-polar world
An oft-heard whine we hear from Team Neo-Con and its supporters is that the rest of the world refuses to fall on bended knee in obsequious gratitude for deliverance from the bad guys of the world. Team Neo-Con is right about the rest of the world having an aversion to genuflecting. But they are dead wrong about the reasons.
To understand the reasons, we need to go back to Team Neo-Con's holy day. 11th September 2001, is often quoted by many as "The Day the Whole World Changed." For the Bush regime, it gave them the opportunity to launch a crusade to smite those who were not with them in their holy mission to deliver us from the bad guys of the world. Of course, the irony of Team Neo-Con sounding an awful lot like the Islamic Fascists they wish to kill, is lost on these morons.
As an aside, the narcissistic pomposity of "The Day the Whole World Changed" grates on many as well. Anyway, let's try a little perspective calibration on this holy day of justification for Team Neo-Con...
1st September 1939
Germany invades Poland, thereby sparking WW2; in which about 56 million people died (vs 2,752 deaths in the WTC attack). Now that's what most people would regard as a world changing day.
20th March 2003
America invades Iraq in a pre-emptive strike to destroy non-existent NBC weapons. British medical journal The Lancet estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths. I'd say the whole world changed for these casualties and their families.
With just two simple examples, I wonder how far off the zero reading would the WTC attack register on the scale of calamitous events in world history?
In reality, the WTC attack simply provided justification for Team Neo-Con to accelerate transformation of the US from an admired nation to that of a rabid mongrel biting anyone not subscribing to Pax Americana's imperial agenda. If anything, I'd suggest a minor world changing day occurred not on 11th September 2001 but on 9th December 2000. That was when a Republican-dominated US Supreme Court stopped a statewide ballot recount in Florida; thereby giving the presidency and a free reign to terrorise, to Bush.
But I digress.
Bush supporters often love to ask if Bush critics prefer a world dominated by China. My answer to them is that they're asking the wrong question. The real question is whether we prefer a uni-polar or a multi-polar world?
You see, we have been proven wrong in assuming that a uni-polar world would be relatively peaceful, led by a benevolent hyper-power, the US. Under US "leadership," the invasion of Iraq scandalised and radicalised a good number of moderate Muslims sufficiently to move Islamic militants into the mainstream.
As the US government's own CIA has admitted many times, Iraq was not a centre of terrorism pre-invasion. But now it is. Iraq has also sparked off home-grown terrorism elsewhere in the world, despite the self-serving declarations to the contrary by Team Neo-Con's pet poodle Tony Blair. Excellent own goals, Einsteins!
So in the absence of a wise and benevolent hyper-power leading a uni-polar world, an infinitely better alternative is a multi-polar world. Greater independent assertiveness on the part of the EU, Russia, China and India will all help in ring fencing a rabid Team Neo-Con. And while these states cannot match the military might of Team Neo-Con, they do possess a reasonable degree of economic and financial leverage over the US.
Provided they are prepared to threaten economic mutually assured destruction, it's possible that the rabid mongrel may pause from biting everyone for a while. This is a lesser evil than the status quo.
To understand the reasons, we need to go back to Team Neo-Con's holy day. 11th September 2001, is often quoted by many as "The Day the Whole World Changed." For the Bush regime, it gave them the opportunity to launch a crusade to smite those who were not with them in their holy mission to deliver us from the bad guys of the world. Of course, the irony of Team Neo-Con sounding an awful lot like the Islamic Fascists they wish to kill, is lost on these morons.
As an aside, the narcissistic pomposity of "The Day the Whole World Changed" grates on many as well. Anyway, let's try a little perspective calibration on this holy day of justification for Team Neo-Con...
1st September 1939
Germany invades Poland, thereby sparking WW2; in which about 56 million people died (vs 2,752 deaths in the WTC attack). Now that's what most people would regard as a world changing day.
20th March 2003
America invades Iraq in a pre-emptive strike to destroy non-existent NBC weapons. British medical journal The Lancet estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths. I'd say the whole world changed for these casualties and their families.
With just two simple examples, I wonder how far off the zero reading would the WTC attack register on the scale of calamitous events in world history?
In reality, the WTC attack simply provided justification for Team Neo-Con to accelerate transformation of the US from an admired nation to that of a rabid mongrel biting anyone not subscribing to Pax Americana's imperial agenda. If anything, I'd suggest a minor world changing day occurred not on 11th September 2001 but on 9th December 2000. That was when a Republican-dominated US Supreme Court stopped a statewide ballot recount in Florida; thereby giving the presidency and a free reign to terrorise, to Bush.
But I digress.
Bush supporters often love to ask if Bush critics prefer a world dominated by China. My answer to them is that they're asking the wrong question. The real question is whether we prefer a uni-polar or a multi-polar world?
You see, we have been proven wrong in assuming that a uni-polar world would be relatively peaceful, led by a benevolent hyper-power, the US. Under US "leadership," the invasion of Iraq scandalised and radicalised a good number of moderate Muslims sufficiently to move Islamic militants into the mainstream.
As the US government's own CIA has admitted many times, Iraq was not a centre of terrorism pre-invasion. But now it is. Iraq has also sparked off home-grown terrorism elsewhere in the world, despite the self-serving declarations to the contrary by Team Neo-Con's pet poodle Tony Blair. Excellent own goals, Einsteins!
So in the absence of a wise and benevolent hyper-power leading a uni-polar world, an infinitely better alternative is a multi-polar world. Greater independent assertiveness on the part of the EU, Russia, China and India will all help in ring fencing a rabid Team Neo-Con. And while these states cannot match the military might of Team Neo-Con, they do possess a reasonable degree of economic and financial leverage over the US.
Provided they are prepared to threaten economic mutually assured destruction, it's possible that the rabid mongrel may pause from biting everyone for a while. This is a lesser evil than the status quo.
Labels: bush, china, iraq, islamic fascists, multi-polar, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, pax americana, uni-polar, wtc attack
16 August 2006
Neo-con freedom and democracy for Lebanon
As a BBC article tells us, Big Dick Cheney was the god-father from whom Israel sought approval to launch its operations in Lebanon. Once Big Dick gave his blessing, "Bush was never a problem," the article quotes a source as saying. That accords with long-held perceptions by many that the real president is Big Dick Cheney and his puppet is Big Dubya.
Imagine this comic nightmare scenario. The world suffers for eight years under Big Dick Cheney ruling by proxy through Big Dubya. Then Big Dick runs for president and wins two terms in his own right thereafter. Wow, the world gets 16 years of Big Dick! Someone please pass me a Tylenol...I just had a frisson of terror...
Black humour aside, now that there's a ceasefire in Lebanon, let's check out some of the results of the "birth pangs" of neo-con "freedom and democracy in Lebanon" (as Condi Fried Rice so eloquently put it), shall we?
In order to build a new, free and democratic Lebanon, Team Neo-Con says it's vital to thoroughly demolish the old one first...
Credit: BBC
Part of the democratic cleansing process demands all forms of terrorists (NB not neo-con approved freedom fighters) be rendered dead, as was convincingly demonstrated in Qana, Lebanon...
Credit: AP/Nasser Nasser
And in the "War on Terror," it's absolutely critical to ensure Islamic Fascists are rendered dead with extreme prejudice using precision guided weapons supplied by the good guys, the Neo-Con Christian Fascists holding court in the White House and Downing Street...
Credit: Jeroen Kramer
You see, Team Neo-Con believes that if you don't get them when they're young, they'll grow up into American-hating Islamic Fascists; bent on returning the favour to the greatest messianic empire on Earth!
Imagine this comic nightmare scenario. The world suffers for eight years under Big Dick Cheney ruling by proxy through Big Dubya. Then Big Dick runs for president and wins two terms in his own right thereafter. Wow, the world gets 16 years of Big Dick! Someone please pass me a Tylenol...I just had a frisson of terror...
Black humour aside, now that there's a ceasefire in Lebanon, let's check out some of the results of the "birth pangs" of neo-con "freedom and democracy in Lebanon" (as Condi Fried Rice so eloquently put it), shall we?
In order to build a new, free and democratic Lebanon, Team Neo-Con says it's vital to thoroughly demolish the old one first...
Credit: BBC
Part of the democratic cleansing process demands all forms of terrorists (NB not neo-con approved freedom fighters) be rendered dead, as was convincingly demonstrated in Qana, Lebanon...
Credit: AP/Nasser Nasser
And in the "War on Terror," it's absolutely critical to ensure Islamic Fascists are rendered dead with extreme prejudice using precision guided weapons supplied by the good guys, the Neo-Con Christian Fascists holding court in the White House and Downing Street...
Credit: Jeroen Kramer
You see, Team Neo-Con believes that if you don't get them when they're young, they'll grow up into American-hating Islamic Fascists; bent on returning the favour to the greatest messianic empire on Earth!
Labels: bush, cheney, christian fascists, condi rice, democracy, freedom, islamic fascists, lebanon, messianic empire, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, qana, war on terror
03 August 2006
Terrorists and Freedom Fighters
Consider the following actions of a political organisation:
1. Attacking British military and police personnel
2. Bombing a hotel and killing 91; mostly civilians
3. Assassinating a British politican and peer
4. Murdering 99 civilians over a sample 4 month period
Would the George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard regimes waste any time in designating it a terrorist organisation worthy of a free holiday in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib prisons? Would such a bunch of murderers earn Dubya's epithet as Islamic Fascists? You bet.
Would these terrorists deserve to be hunted down all over the world and when caught, brought before Dubya's military tribunals to be found guilty and executed? You bet - especially if you're a pure as the driven snow Neo-Con Christian Fascist!
Now, here's a little more detail behind each of the terrorist actions listed above.
1. A Jewish terrorist organisation called Irgun, killed numerous British military and police personnel from 1944 through 1948.
2. Irgun claimed responsibility for bombing the King David Hotel; causing the 91 deaths.
3. In 1944, Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by Irgun's sister organisation, Lehi.
4. From April 1939 to July 1939, 99 civilians were shot dead or blown to bits by Irgun.
Yet today, when Hezbollah and Hamas are doing no more than emulating Irgun's business model, they stand condemned as terrorists and "unlawful" combatants by the US, UK and Israel. While Hezbollah's and Hamas' terrorist actions cannot be excused nor condoned, sadly, the hypocritical amnesia of the US, UK and Israel furnishes convenient cover to reduce Lebanon into rubble.
Now, if Winston Churchill (who was a friend of Lord Moyne) had remained in power after WW2, and had reduced Jewish held towns and villages in Palestine to rubble - in an effort to kill off Irgun (just as Israel justifies its actions in Lebanon now), would Condi Fried Rice have regarded this as no more than "birth pangs" of a new Israel? Hmm, somehow I think not!
Let's talk a bit more about Irgun. When it was most active against the British, Irgun was led by none other than Menachem Begin. It was Begin who ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel. Considering that such an act today would surely have earned him odium to perhaps the same level as that reserved for Osama bin Laden, Begin instead became the sixth Prime Minister of Israel while leader of the right wing Likud Party.
Under his watch, Begin charged Ariel Sharon with the task of greatly expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied terrorities - the cause of much enmity between Israelis and Palestinians for such a long time. Then in 1982, with Begin still as PM and Sharon as Defence minister, Israel embarked on the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Lebanon. It was during this invasion, that large numbers of Palestinian refugees were massacred in the Sabra and Shatila camps by Lebanese Christian militias allied with Israel.
So things aren't really as objective and balanced as the US, UK and Israel would have the world believe. In their fantasies, the "good guys" have a higher moral standing than the "bad guys". The high moral standing of the good guys allows them to commit war crimes directly or through proxies like Israel, against unarmed civilians; while dismissing the deaths as "birth pangs" of a new Lebanon. Yeah right. Some birth that's going to be in the rubble strewn country!
Yet the reality is that we in the west, not only failed to capture, try and execute an unlawful combatant and terrorist called Menachem Begin, we recognised him as the lawful prime minister of Israel. We compound our hypocrisy by green lighting the systematic destruction of a friendly and democratic Lebanon, all in the name of destroying Hezbollah; an organisation formed to protect Lebanese Shia Muslims during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
The US, UK and Australia among others, lauded Menachem Begin as a Freedom Fighter but regard Sheik Hassan Nasrallah (present leader of Hezbollah) as a terrorist. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Moral hypocrisy founded on expedient values has no bounds in the White House, Downing Street and Kirribilli House, don't you think?
1. Attacking British military and police personnel
2. Bombing a hotel and killing 91; mostly civilians
3. Assassinating a British politican and peer
4. Murdering 99 civilians over a sample 4 month period
Would the George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard regimes waste any time in designating it a terrorist organisation worthy of a free holiday in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib prisons? Would such a bunch of murderers earn Dubya's epithet as Islamic Fascists? You bet.
Would these terrorists deserve to be hunted down all over the world and when caught, brought before Dubya's military tribunals to be found guilty and executed? You bet - especially if you're a pure as the driven snow Neo-Con Christian Fascist!
Now, here's a little more detail behind each of the terrorist actions listed above.
1. A Jewish terrorist organisation called Irgun, killed numerous British military and police personnel from 1944 through 1948.
2. Irgun claimed responsibility for bombing the King David Hotel; causing the 91 deaths.
3. In 1944, Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by Irgun's sister organisation, Lehi.
4. From April 1939 to July 1939, 99 civilians were shot dead or blown to bits by Irgun.
Yet today, when Hezbollah and Hamas are doing no more than emulating Irgun's business model, they stand condemned as terrorists and "unlawful" combatants by the US, UK and Israel. While Hezbollah's and Hamas' terrorist actions cannot be excused nor condoned, sadly, the hypocritical amnesia of the US, UK and Israel furnishes convenient cover to reduce Lebanon into rubble.
Now, if Winston Churchill (who was a friend of Lord Moyne) had remained in power after WW2, and had reduced Jewish held towns and villages in Palestine to rubble - in an effort to kill off Irgun (just as Israel justifies its actions in Lebanon now), would Condi Fried Rice have regarded this as no more than "birth pangs" of a new Israel? Hmm, somehow I think not!
Let's talk a bit more about Irgun. When it was most active against the British, Irgun was led by none other than Menachem Begin. It was Begin who ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel. Considering that such an act today would surely have earned him odium to perhaps the same level as that reserved for Osama bin Laden, Begin instead became the sixth Prime Minister of Israel while leader of the right wing Likud Party.
Under his watch, Begin charged Ariel Sharon with the task of greatly expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied terrorities - the cause of much enmity between Israelis and Palestinians for such a long time. Then in 1982, with Begin still as PM and Sharon as Defence minister, Israel embarked on the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Lebanon. It was during this invasion, that large numbers of Palestinian refugees were massacred in the Sabra and Shatila camps by Lebanese Christian militias allied with Israel.
So things aren't really as objective and balanced as the US, UK and Israel would have the world believe. In their fantasies, the "good guys" have a higher moral standing than the "bad guys". The high moral standing of the good guys allows them to commit war crimes directly or through proxies like Israel, against unarmed civilians; while dismissing the deaths as "birth pangs" of a new Lebanon. Yeah right. Some birth that's going to be in the rubble strewn country!
Yet the reality is that we in the west, not only failed to capture, try and execute an unlawful combatant and terrorist called Menachem Begin, we recognised him as the lawful prime minister of Israel. We compound our hypocrisy by green lighting the systematic destruction of a friendly and democratic Lebanon, all in the name of destroying Hezbollah; an organisation formed to protect Lebanese Shia Muslims during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
The US, UK and Australia among others, lauded Menachem Begin as a Freedom Fighter but regard Sheik Hassan Nasrallah (present leader of Hezbollah) as a terrorist. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Moral hypocrisy founded on expedient values has no bounds in the White House, Downing Street and Kirribilli House, don't you think?
Labels: abu ghraib, ariel sharon, blair, bush, guantanamo, hamas, hezbollah, howard, irgun, islamic fascist, israel, king david hotel, lebanon, lehi, likud, menachem begin, osama bin laden, terrorist
