Contact Me

Monday, September 28, 2009

Israel and Iran's UN General Assembly Speeches


The irony in Netanyahu’s talk about the Holocaust, nuclear capabilities, and peace was astounding. I guess it's not really a forum for apologizing for one's mistakes so much as telling why you are so awesome, though. I thought Iran and Israel stood out for exceptional irony. Qaddafi just stood out-- but I'm not going there.

Interestingly, people walked out on Ahmedinejad's speech when he was critical of Israel, not for the legitimate (and obvious?) reason of the disputed elections- if I have heard the news report correctly. He made some good points about double standards and Palestine, but who’s going to listen to this guy what with the dubious election results, aggressive style and his country’s own human rights record?

Netanyahu, in his UN address
, started off with condemning Ahmedinejad and Holocaust denial and those who didn’t walk out on him. He used this speech as a platform to “build” a case for invading Iran. He said of the UN and all nations that were either too critical of Israel or not critical enough of Iran that they were on the side of terror (!). I’m having Bush déjà vu. His comparison of Iran and Hamas with the Nazis was gratuitous. Forget about Iran’s disputed elections, it’s always about the Holocaust (the Jewish one, not the one the Jews perpetrated), right? He condemned Iran as backward and fanatic. Nice. That should help diplomatic efforts.

And he’s trying to channel former President Bush here- trying to con people into thinking that his pet project (or diversion) is the real problem of the day:

“The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge?”


Netanyahu also condemned the recent UN report, the Human Rights Council, and the whole UN for daring to say anyone other than Israel is the victim:

“We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.”



No one is allowed to deny or even debate facts surrounding the Holocaust. It’s taboo. Other people died too, but discussing it as anything but a Jewish tragedy is forbidden. But, on the other hand, saying there is no such thing as Palestinians (or making al-Nakba commemoration illegal) is not a problem. On the contrary, it’s a convenient solution. And surprisingly, it’s one people don’t dismiss out of hand. They consider it; they aren’t enraged at the suggestion and they don’t think the person who suggested it is racist or loony- like Holocaust denial or disputing various numbers or events surrounding it. If you say Palestinians didn’t exist, then you massacred nobody and nobody has a claim to the land you “found” totally (and conveniently) empty. You are occupying nobody’s land, oppressing nobody and therefore aren’t committing any crimes. Perhaps this is why Netanyahu is incensed? He’s being blamed for the tragedy of a people that he thinks don’t exist?

Here is an outright lie:

“In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza.”

(Dov Weisglass said the intent of his government at the time was “political formaldehyde,”- his term- the holding off of real negotiations, which would mean peace- for Israel, minus responsibility for past crimes- without justice for Palestinians)

His constant assertion, here, is that Israel wants peace, but his examples are telling. He names Jordan and Egypt as successes, but the only way they got those agreements was by taking Palestinian issues off the table. These agreements were probably of significant importance in subjugating and oppressing Palestinians, since both were regional heavyweights (Egypt- militarily; Jordan- diplomatically or politically), but not so much for solving the main issue causing unrest in the region.

Netanyahu also talks about the ridiculous demilitarized state idea:

“The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.”


He just got finished talking about how it is Israel’s right to defend itself and now he turns around and says Palestinians don’t have this right?? Israel may want peace, but it has to be on Israel’s terms! Notice that mentality where he wants delegates to choose Israel’s side and reject the report or else Israel can’t make any more ‘risks for peace’:

“This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow.”


To his credit, he didn’t mention equality or justice in his speech, so kudos for not lying about wanting or intending to bestow these gifts- I guess.

He goes there- to 1947. The Jews accepted this resolution; Arabs didn’t. Hmmm. What if the UN were to do the same today and give Palestinians 50% of the Israel/Palestine area. Would Jews accept that?? No way! Back then, Palestinians rightfully owned (not occupied) some 95% of the land and the UN decided to divide it in two and give 55% to this small population of Jews. That was crazy to them. Hindsight being 20/20, I guess they should have taken it, right? But, back then, I bet it seemed nuts to accept such an unfair division of their land. They didn’t really have a guarantee, though, that the Jews wouldn’t have invaded and taken more land, seeing as how they had connections to get more people and weapons from escaping Jews and all people against the Holocaust (one example, another).
*In both of those linked examples, you see the appearance of the idea that little David (Israel) was fighting big, evil Goliath (7 Arab armies), but check this, among other sources, before you swallow that whopper.

And there's the nukes. Israel won’t sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, like India and Pakistan, but we’re supposed to crack down on Iran. Israel succeeded in keeping their nuclear weapons program secret for a long time and considers Vanunu, who outed them, an enemy of the state who will never be free. No one thinks this odd, but Iran is assumed to be planning an imminent attack on Israel because it doesn’t want its enemies to know about its capabilities.

Freedom, justice and self-defense are Israel’s right, but not Palestinians’ as evidenced by the reservations to the Roadmap and the conditions under which Netanyahu would accept a Palestinian entity. Nuclear power and weapons are Israel’s right to have or disclose-- or not, but everyone else is subject to rules, inspections or bans.

Apartheid is bad, except when Israel does it. Ethnic cleansing is bad, except if Israel does it (it’s always “self-defense”). I’m starting to see a pattern? Are you?


Full text of the speeches (Sept. 23 & 24, 2009):

Netanyahu Speech at UN: Full Text Transcript and Video
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/netanyahu-speech-un-full-text-transcript-and-video

Transcript of Ahmadinejad's U.N. Speech
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6107339

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Israeli voices- we love the right

Anderson Cooper's show the night before last:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/23/acd.01.html

I watched a bit of this, but the panel was rather curious. I don’t know if he called them a panel of experts, but I hope not.

Oren- Israeli ambassador. I’ll give them that, though, you already know what he’s going to say. Defending settlements and Israel’s behavior no matter how crazy or hypocritical the argument.

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/09/un-condemns-war-crimes-in-gaza.html

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/06/clintons-metting-with-terrorist.html


Zakaria- He’s an analyst. I’ll give them that, but he’s CNN, so that’s a little lame.

And last, but not least (?)…
Shmuley Boteach??- Shalom in the Home? Is that what qualifies him? Or the protesting outside the UN? Maybe Supernanny had something to say- let’s get her on. Or me. I’ve written some letters to the president.

***

Reminds me on NPR when Halevy was making the rounds on The Story to tell his story
http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Story

and on Diane Rehm as an analyst.
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/02/11.php#24677


At least Diane Rehm had another guest that could present the other point of view!


As for Mr. Cooper, why not call on Illan Pappe or Amira Hass or Neve Gordon or Gideon Levy when you need as Israeli? I thought MSNBC was supposed to be liberal? Maybe it was shout out to the right night? What was the deal? Perhaps Boteach was supposed to keep it light? I give up.

I should cut him some slack, though. I'm not actually that familiar with his show, so maybe he does invite more of a variety than others, but that night was particularly hawk-heavy.

It seems we inordinately hear from the right-most Israeli voices in the US. If we could hear from the Israeli left, maybe more in the US would demand that Israel follow the law? Or we could have a decent discussion without those demanding Israel abide by international law or face consequences being dismissed as terrorist sympathizers.

If you want to hear from the Israeli left, you have to go dig it up yourself. The mainstream as yet seems unable to deliver. It will be well worth your while to do so. Enlightening, maybe.



Gibson's Netanyahu interview this week

Full text:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/09/charlie-gibson-interviews-benjamin-netanyahu-the-full-transcript.html

Article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/netanyahu-israels-prime-minister-worries-palestinians-iran/story?id=8644832


Basically Netanyahu brushes off the settlement freeze precondition, but adds that Palestinians must recognize Israel (as a precondition?) and Israel needs security (cease-fire or permanent disarming??) Precondition or otherwise, Palestinians or anyone would have to be stupid to even consider disarming!

We’re talking international law, here, versus Israel’s desire (recognition) and result (both recognition and security) of a resolution to the problem – OCCUPATION! Until the problem is addressed, they are just treading water. I’m not saying discussing the illegality of settlements is a bad thing, but the occupation discussion is the only one that will bring the “final status issues” to the forefront, like Obama recently said he wanted to do (has he been reading my letters!?).

The Occupation is the reason for the humanitarian crisis, the reason for the anger, the reason for the attacks on Israel. The denial/ignoring of the Occupation is the reason Israel feels it has a free hand to break the law (or feels it is not breaking the law) and many ordinary Israelis remain blissfully ignorant of the actual situation their neighbors are in.

Netanyahu on the settlement freeze and why it can’t be done:

“You know, they need kindergartens. They need schools.
They need health plans. They're living. I'm committed not to build new settlements. I am committed not to expropriate additional land for existing settlements. But people have to live. You can't freeze life.”


They’ve frozen life for Palestinians for decades. It CAN be done!! It may involve shelling peaceful protesters, bombing, assassinations, massacres, the targeting of civilians and vital infrastructure for demise, poverty, and starvation, like Israel’s done to Palestinians- but it can in fact be done quite effectively.

Normal life (used to be “natural growth”).
Illegal settlers deserve normal life? Hmmm. Those breaking the law deserve to continue because it would be too inconvenient to change course? Yeah, let's adopt that here. Empty the prisons! It disrupts their life, after all. Conveniently, this "natural growth" is the status quo, by the way.

What about those from whom this land was taken to build these illegal settlements, those from who the land was taken to build the “security areas” and roads that surround such illegal monstrosities? They are illegal, exist at great cost to Israel (to “defend”), have cost Palestinians much in the very land they sit on as well as their normal life. And then there’s the water. Palestinians can’t get clean water, yet illegal settlers have carefully manicured lawns and full swimming pools. So forgive me if I don’t see the fairness, lawfulness, or sense in giving illegal settlers natural growth (AKA "normal life").


And when facts fail you, blame it on the Palestinians. And old tactic, hey, it works:

“And I think Mamoud Abbas has a great choice to make. We all do. But he has to decide: is he going to be an Arafat or an Anwar Sadat? If he’s an Anwar Sadat, he’ll find in me a partner for peace and we’ll make peace.”

Hmm. A Sadat. That would be good for Israel, wouldn’t it? Lose focus and save face yourself and forget about the Palestinian people or the rest of your allies in the region? When his historic chance came, he negotiated a separate peace with Israel that may or may not have gained him respect with the US, Israel and the world and a fat aid package instead of sticking to the plan that Arab states agreed to, which was to include holding Israel to UN resolutions and international law among other things. Instead, Palestinians did not get any guarantees on rights like- pre-67 borders, refugees, Jerusalem, a state, etc and they had the only serious military force that remotely had the ability and desire to protect them removed from the equation. A lose-lose situation for them.

An Arafat? Really? Some claim Arafat endorsed terrorism and that’s why he was so unacceptable. Abbas may want to stand by a settlement freeze that international law also demands and that’s somehow equivalent to endorsing terrorist methods??? Wow.

***

“There is a growing awareness in Washington, I believe in European
capitals and elsewhere, that the development or acquisition of Iran of nuclear weapons is something that endangers world peace. Iran is the major sponsor of world terrorism.”

Some would argue Israel is a state sponsor of terrorism and given the UN report on their violations, media blackouts, crackdowns on peaceful protestors, apartheid-like policies, they often act more like a terrorist regime than a democracy, albeit mostly in regard to Palestinians. It’s ironic they are so worried about Iran.

His emphasis on Iran is especially ironic given the UN report detailing Israeli war crimes and the fact that their own nuclear program is not open to IAEA inspectors, they are actively engaged in an arms race, refuse to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and until the infamous prisoner Vanunu forced it out of them, refused to admit they had any weapons or even a program.

I guess Iran’s really their only hope to avoid responsibility in past and present conflicts and to delay the peace process in which people are realizing they bear more responsibility than we have admitted before. The onus is increasingly on them, as it should be, and Iran’s the only way out of this.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Palestinian puppets

Sometimes the Palestinian leadership seems oddly disconnected from the people, willing to give up highly valued and sought after rights in return for nothing from the Israelis. This might explain why.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EL-20090817&articleId=14810

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

kids say...

I should really write more of the kids' sayings down. I'm going to forget all of it. I guess this and emailing myself stuff is the best I can do now. I hope it will end up in a baby book one day.

I should really submit this one to Parents or something. Classic.
I took my daughter potty at a bridal shower I went to recently and was busy keeping her "on task" and trying to keep her from snooping around. As she poked her head in the shower, she asked when Lori was going to take her shower or if she was going to take the shower after she opened the presents or something like that. My kids' language have always been really good for whatever reason, but you forget sometimes how hard it must be to get some of the meanings we take for granted. Just makes you wonder when you say things and they are silent what mental image they are getting.

She recently slammed the door on her finger and the nail came off. She told her Grandma that she'd grow a new one and show it to her.

My son calls dryer sheets, 'dryer sheeps'. That one's so cute that I haven't corrected him yet. I wonder if he thinks of sheep when he says it.

He also alerts us to dirty diapers with an unsolicited "I not pooping!" if you look at him.

The kids both "call" their aunt on play phones and sometimes we let them do the real thing. A week or so before his 2nd birthday, my husband let him do this and he held an entire little conversation. He sounded so grown up. He'd say, "I'm going to be 2, Ginger," and answered questions like a big boy.

And pay attention when they say they are going to "play deal." It means they are going to shred a piece of paper or preferably (for them) tissues (or an entire box worth).

Playing "I know" is fun for all- yell at the top of your lungs when the vacuum is on. My husband used to do that, so that one may be genetic.



The bigoted 9/11 forwards are alive and well: 'The Budweiser (and Pepsi) Story'


What will I do when people stop making up this crazy stuff? Gotta love the "(not a joke)".

Hopefully by now people when people read things like this, a red flag goes up and they know to check the validity. I'm hoping people have more sense now and maybe have used past events as an opportunity to educate themselves on Arab culture, Arab-Americans, the Arab and or Muslim response, etc.

According to http://www.snopes.com/rumors/budweiser.asp , this is actually a joke- or a lie- your choice. All the files at the end are 9/11 remembrance badges, various representations of US flags, a cartoon soldier, a God Bless America, and of course a beer glass.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blbudweiser.htm

http://septterror.tripod.com/emailmyths_2.html


Enjoy:

The Budweiser Story

(not a joke)

This is TRUE!

How Budweiser handled those who laughed at those

who died on the 11th of September, 2001...

Thought you might like to know what happened

in a little town north of Bakersfield , California

After you finish reading this,

please forward this story on to others

so that our nation and people around the world

will know about those who laughed

when they found out about the tragic events

in New York , Pennsylvania , and the Pentagon.

On September 11th,

A Budweiser employee was making a delivery

to a convenience store in a California town named McFarland.

He knew of the tragedy that had occurred

in New York when he entered the business

to find the two Arabs, who owned the business,

whooping and hollering to show their approval

and support of this treacherous attack.

The Budweiser employee went to his truck,

called his boss and told him

of the very upsetting event!

He didn't feel he could be in that store with those

horrible people. His boss asked him,

'Do you think you could go in there long enough

to pull every Budweiser product and item

our beverage company sells there?

We'll never deliver to them again.'

The employee walked in,

proceeded to pull every single product his

beverage company provided and left

with an incredible grin on his face.

He told them never to bother to call for a delivery again.

Budweiser happens to be the beer of choice

for that community.

Just letting you know how Kern County

handled this situation. And Now



The Rest Of The Story:

It seems that the Bud driver and the Pepsi man

are neighbors. Bud called Pepsi and told him.

Pepsi called his boss who told him to

pull all Pepsi products as well!!!

That would include Frito Lay, etc.

Furthermore, word spread and

all vendors followed suit! At last report, on June 26, 2009,
Fareed Katib closed the store and filed bankruptcy!

Good old American

Passive-Aggressive A$$ Whoopin!

Pass this along, America needs to know

that we're all working together!

If you can read this.

Thank a teacher...

If you are reading it in English....

THANK A SOLDIER!!!

[See the attached file]
[See the attached file]

If you do not send this you have no soul !!!!

[See the attached file]
[See the attached file]
[See the attached file]

Thursday, September 17, 2009

UN condemns 'war crimes' in Gaza

UN condemns 'war crimes' in Gaza - I saw this or a similar one Sept 14 or 15, so this is old news, but I meant to comment, preferably before I heard other commentary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8257301.stm

Goldstone's (he's the head of the fact-finding mission) Op Ed:



***
After this, there are 2 Analysis/Interviews I listened to this week.


“Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev told the BBC the report had been "born in sin" and had no mandate for its investigation.”

Pretty funny description, but at least you can see how Israel feels about this.

It’s good to see this in print and to have something official, but I seriously doubt it will go anywhere. It has 3 and 6 month deadlines. I just don’t see either side launching credible investigations in that time, nor do I see Israel’s case being sent to the ICJ. They’ve got friends in high places, or so I’ve heard. More likely is that Hamas will get charged. Or Iran. Never mind that they aren’t in the report. Israel will find a way. I’m sure they helped develop the “threat of Iraq” and its bogus 9/11 link, so I have more confidence they can turn this around on Iran than they will get charged or have to deal with any unpleasant consequences (reparations, sanctions, etc).

This article details Hamas’ violations more than the others and shows the disdain of Israel for the whole thing (and Hamas).

I think it was the PBS link below where Goldstone tells about the investigation of Israel’s excuses for bombing UN shelters, schools, ambulances, etc and how there was no evidence. It seemed flimsy, but it’s good that it was investigated some.


Analysis/Interview 1:
Finkelstein on Democracy Now discussing the UN report:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/16/un_inquiry_finds_israel_punished_and


He says:


“Goldstone reports Israel guilty of massive war crimes and also faults Hamas.” That’s what a true headline would have read.”

I think he’s getting at what Goldstone will explain in the PBS link up next.

He makes the point that the report is based on laws of war, but it was a massacre; no battles, just bombing. This is an especially good point to think about if you read Goldstone's Op Ed in the NYT.

He mentions this support for the massacre claim - “Breaking the Silence.” Do a search on “insane” to see soldiers complain that they weren’t fighting anyone, it was boring, etc.

Breaking silence on Gaza abuses
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8151336.stm

“You see a house, a window, shoot at the window. You don't see a terrorist there? Fire at the window. In urban warfare, anyone is your enemy. No innocents.”
The quote and link are from my past post- http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/07/could-israel-be-getting-conscience.html


He also brings to light that the mandate was for Israeli crimes, but Goldstone wouldn’t do it unless it looked at all sides, plus he’s a supporter of Israel. The bias argument is unfounded in this way in addition to the facts on the ground.

Palmor, Israel’s FM spokesperson, says Israel will look at it carefully/ Oren (below) and others say Israel discounts it. More double-speak. Which is it, people?

How can we constantly hold Israel up as a model democracy and valuable ally when the facts continually and consistently contradict Israel’s official statements? The report is a step in the right direction. The settlement discussion that Obama started in the US is another. There’s a long way to go to get justice and hence peace.


Analysis/Interview 2:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec09/gaza_09-15.html


In the first part, Goldstone himself explains what I started talking about in the last post. Most of the report deals with Israel, not because Hamas didn’t also commit crimes against humanity or it was biased, but because Israel committed a massive number of crimes and they are more so (whether or not they occurred or constituted crimes) in dispute in the current political atmosphere than are Hamas’.

In the second part, Ambassador Oren from Israel tells Israel’s side.

Joe Wilson should meet this guy. He’d (Wilson) actually have a valid point.

His first response to the question, what is right and what is wrong in the UN report, are that Israel’s sorry about the deaths; Hamas isn’t. How is that relevant (we won’t even assess the truthfulness)?

And get this:

“And then, finally, the commission itself, the report, the investigation took place under the auspices of the Hamas-run government in Gaza. Hamas actually picked the witnesses for this commission. So Israel basically was the equivalent of being summoned to a court in which its guilt was already presumed, in which one of the jurors had already declared Israel guilty, and which the witnesses for the prosecution were, in fact, the murderers.


I can't think of any country in the world which would participate in such a farce of justice.”

I can think of one…Israel. This sounds like the “trials” of Palestinians if they are indeed charged with anything while in Israeli jails! But the report isn’t quite as he portrayed it, unfortunately for his analogy.

And when the – ‘the report was conducted under Hamas auspices’ – thing didn’t shut Ifill down, we move to the – ‘if our own investigations (in which Israel is found innocent on every count) don’t satisfy the international community, then it is a victory for terror and concern of free democracies everywhere’ argument. Will this finally close the discussion of these irrelevant unpleasantries?

Next was Ifill’s question:


“Is there any way that you feel that the two of you might at least agree on this point, that maybe this report is not worth the paper it's printed on? Or do you believe that this is a starting point for a deeper conversation and investigation about the conflict?”

He doesn’t appear to want to agree with Hamas there, but also doesn’t think this report has anything to do with getting peace talks back on track. On what planet wouldn’t a report such as this that talks about so many Israeli breaches of law, along with the settlement problem and the refusal to implement the UN approved right of return for refugees and status of Jerusalem be relevant???

The guy criticized the report and was so confident in Israel’s decision to not participate in it, I had assumed he had read it. I was wrong. It’s 570 pages after all. And critical of Israel. Best thing is to discredit it. When can we talk about Iran? He was eager to tell why Israel was not participating- Hamas was running the show (supposedly). When confronted with the other sources of war crimes, witnesses, etc- he says, oh, hmm, I haven’t actually read it. Unbelievable!

So why should we listen to this guy or the government he represents that told him to say such nonsense?

He said the results of the report were prejudged. I guess Israel know something about this concept. Palestinians that are able to make it into the “justice” system are prejudged to be guilty and Israeli soldiers (or military in general) accused of crimes are innocent.

***
Update:
Why The Goldstone Report Matters
http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/09/21/why-the-goldstone-report-matters/

“So why did the Israeli government boycott the commission? The real answer is quite simple: they knew full well that the commission, any commission, would have to reach the conclusions it did reach.”Uri Avnery (Israeli peace activist, and former Knesset member), “On the Goldstone Report” 19 Sept 2009

Other reactions:

"We are going to deploy great diplomatic and political efforts on the
international stage to block and contain the perverse and noxious effects of the Goldstone Commission report,"
foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told AFP.


The mass-selling Yediot Aharonot said the instinctive reaction to the report is "a polite invitation to kiss our rear end."


J Post- Israel called the Goldstone Commission Report "nauseating"…

Netanyahu – kangaroo court

Danny Ayalon – circus

Regev - report was conceived in sin

Lieberman – The Goldstone report is seeking to bring the UN back to the dark days in which it decided, under the guidance of states with interests, that Zionism is racism, ”


Settler slideshow and talk of bias

Fervent Believers- a slide show:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/09/13/world/20090913SETTLERS_4.html


#6 says volumes; #7 is terrorist activity, but you're not allowed to call it that. Remove the Jews with guns and replace them with Palestinians and the criticism of the kids, their parents (oooooh, see?, they teach their kids to hate!!), all Palestinians, all Muslims would be rampant and instantaneous. Settlers generally somehow escape this type of indictment and generalization.

Most of this is rather sympathetic toward these illegal settlers- praying above the sea of lights, washing a kid in the middle of rubble, religious ceremony of the devout. The same sort of photos in a major publication of Palestinian terrorists and those who sympathize with them would result in explosive riots. You can’t even discuss how having your family killed, land stolen, being a refugee three times over might drive one to fight and not care if you live or die. This is considered support for terrorism. Sympathizing and understanding Jewish terrorists and terrorism is second nature to us- they had the Holocaust, after all. Good enough. You don’t even have to say it. All is justified.

Sympathizing with illegal settlers who heckle, beat, and steal, however, is just one’s own opinion to which we all are entitled. Frequent additions include: Freedom of speech. Isn’t this country (/Israel) great? You can say what you think without consequences, unlike in those Arab countries.

Going back to sympathizing with Jewish terrorists being ok versus sympathy with Arab terrorists being a terrorist action itself... I think this sort of thing is where accusation of bias of something being too pro-Palestinian comes from. We are allowed to present the Jewish point of view without an Arab voice, but to present a Muslim or Palestinian POV without the Jewish response is pro-Palestinian and virtually unheard of in the mainstream discussion. Does presenting the (a, some, etc- as there are more than one) Palestinian perspective really indicate bias or does it only seem so because the news is dominated with the Jewish or Christian Zionist perspective? In the recent UN report that officially called Israel out for war crimes, this comes into play. More text was dedicated to Israeli war crimes, so Israel and others discount it as biased. End of discussion. Lets talk about Iran and how we are going to dupe the Americans into taking them out, too. No. More text is needed because exponentially more damage was inflicted by Israel and more accusations are presented (which Israel tries and fails to justify), so more investigation is needed. Also, Israel's crimes are disputed by Israel and the US (and it's veto power) and Hamas' crimes aren't disputed by very many at all so there isn't much to prove or discuss there.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Finkelstein, Holocaust hoaxes and denials

I’ve been trying to put my list of books to read online so I can stop carrying around 100s of tiny bits of paper with titles or authors scribbled on them. I decided to see which ones I could find at my little local library. I found 2 or 3 of the 40 or so. I did find 2 others on the Middle East and The Conflict that sounded interesting. Prisoners was one. Should have left that one on the shelf. So, that brings me to Finkelstein’s book. I searched and found no Pappe, Findley, Segev, etc, but Dershowitz aplenty. Naturally I was pretty surprised to see Finkelstein come up in the search results.

"The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" by Norman Finkelstein discusses some of these works (of fiction, as it turns out) below and the implications and or possible causes.

I would feel a little sad to read a great memoir of someone who overcomes such tragedy only to find out its a fake. Maybe it wouldn't make much difference, though. A good story is a good story. But there is just something about it being a true account. Maybe, as suggested elsewhere, the story became their own in the course of the writing such that they couldn't separate themselves from it. Creative genius?

Holocaust Memoirs Subsequently Found to be Fictional:

"The Painted Bird" by Jerzy Kosinsky

"Hitler's Willing Executioners" by Goldhagen (Finkelstein calls it “Fragments with footnotes”)

"Fragments" by Binjamin Wilkomirski

"Angel at the Fence" by Herman Rosenblat- outed ~ Dec 2008

***

"In A Nation on Trial" by Ruth Bettina Birn- an exposee on one or more of these frauds

FYI-- Raul Hilberg is thought by Finkelstein to be a Holocaust scholar, in contrast to the above collection

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

The Holocaust isn't unique in its hoax production...

Another Hoax:

A Hoax and Honor Lost for Norma Khouri
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/7966

Book: Forbidden Love/ Honor Lost

The Real Deal:

Rana Husseini: Jordanian Journalist Who Exposed 'Honor Killings' Tells Story In New Book
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/rana-husseini-jordanian-j_n_246534.html
Book: "Murder in the Name of Honor"


*
*
*

Around the time of the last Holocaust memoir hoax, the BBC discussed Holocaust denial or the taboo of questioning the Holocaust on WHYS. Finkelstein's book also reminded me of this. He comments on this taboo of how it is considered sacreligious to question details or to compare this tragedy with others or its victims with other victims. Both the book and the BBC make interesting points and raise interesting questions probably in a way that no one else can without being labeled anti-Semitic.

Here's the email with the show topic info:

Hi Chloe here,

He was ordered to leave Argentina after the inflammatory comments he made about the holocaust, now the Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson has returned to Britain. Now let's be clear in an interview with Swedish television he didn't deny the holocaust took place, but he did deny the extent of it. He said

"I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against -- is hugely against -- 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.....I believe there were no gas chambers."

More here: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/25/holocaust.bishop.britain/index.html

ON AIR: WHAT'S WRONG WITH QUESTIONING THE HOLOCAUST?

Bishop Williamson isn't the first person to step into this area. British historian David Irving was sentenced to a prison term for denying the holocaust

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm


Richard Williamson has even been in contact with David Irving about how to present his views
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/02/25/13327/


We're not debating whether the holocaust took place. But is this the one event in history that can't be questioned? Some people would argue that questioning the holocaust is just an opinion, and a minority one at that, so does it matter? Isn't the right to free speech important to protect, even if we find certain views offensive? Have laws outlawing holocaust denial in Germany stopped people having those views?

Or is there a danger that people who question or deny that the holocaust took place are actually legitimising the views of Neo- Nazis.

If you're to question someone's religious faith, you wouldn't be shunned by people or lose your job. But you could be if you questioned holocaust ....Why?

There is a debate taking place already....

http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/02/debating-holocaust-new-look-at-both.html

More here: http://hdot.org/

Speak later,
Chloe

SUGGEST A DEBATE FOR WHYS: http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/suggest-a-debate/

SUBSCRIBE TO THE WHYS PODCAST: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/whys/



Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Reactions to Obama's Middle East Peace Plan and Settlements


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8242387.stm


So, Israel is again made an announcement to build/expand settlements around the time of talks with the US on a settlement freeze. We are supposed to be a superpower or something, but little Israel sure knows how to make us look like a superfool! We need to boycott, divest and sanction if we want results. Clearly, the decades of asking nicely and ignoring the violations of law aren't inducing them to comply.

In the article, telling it like it is:

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to have it both ways."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8241247.stm


I have used a variety of metaphors to explain this, but here it is in plain terms. In the above article, Hanan Ashrawi telling it like it is:

"What Netanyahu is doing is clearly at the scale of a grand deception," said Fatah spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi.

"He thinks that he can deceive the rest of the world... but what he is doing under a variety of pretexts is the continuation of settlements and at the same time demanding a price in return."



Edit: Sept 10, 2009- 2 quotes below are from the article-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8246434.stm


Obama's ready to cave and give Israel what it wants in return for its doing nothing, but the EU's standing firm...for now:

The European Union expressed "serious concern" over Israel's latest moves to expand settlements.

"The European Union reiterates its call on Israel to immediately end settlement activities, including in East Jerusalem," the EU said in a statement.


And a profound truth from Erekat:
"If you could not convince the Israelis to stop settlement activity, will anybody in the Arab and Islamic world believe you can make Israel return to the '67 borders or withdraw from settlements?" he said.


******************

Israeli troops 'ill-treat kids'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8186905.stm

Seeing this, it reminded me of folks who have sent me pics of dead Israelis, Palestinian kids in suicide bomber gear, and other images to "see what I think." They ask how could I criticize Israel, why am I "anti-Semitic," why do I side with them- given the gruesome video or picture they forwarded to me. I could return the favor and send them an equally gruesome picture or video of Israelis beating, killing, and maiming Palestinian kids (there are plenty out there), but for the fact that I can't stand looking at these pictures and it makes me sick to see them used to prove whatever messed up, sane, or other point you may be trying to make.

Why I "side with them" is more likely due to my ability to state the obvious, my shock at the entity with the biggest advantage crying victim...and being believed (at least by Americans), a sense of (lack of) justice and shock at the fact that we aren't fighting for it- we're siding with the oppressor. No, I don't like the sight of dead Israelis. Nor do I think empathy for the oppressed should be the basis for accusations of bigotry.


Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Barack Obama's Middle East Peace Plan (?)http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

When I saw the Guardian’s headline on my ipod, ‘Barack Obama’s middle east peace plan,’ I thought, cool. I wonder what their take is. Maybe they can tell me what on earth he’s doing. I think I keep relatively up to date on foreign affairs and I can’t seem to figure it out. He talks tough on settlements, yet Israel is still building. We continue to fund them while sometimes talking indirectly about them being the cause of Palestinian suffering. Obama promises change, but this is more of the same. Well, ok. Obama does allow a few lines of criticism of Israel now and again. Republicans don’t allow that. It’s un-American or something. I guess you could call that change. Sort of. Not really.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/25/barack-obama-middle-east-peace

Now, what is this plan?

We are going to take a tougher stance on Iran for Israel to be able to stomach following the law* with a partial settlement freeze???

* they are actually almost fulfilling our kind request, but this is a small step toward following the law


As a part of this plan, I wonder if Palestinians will be allowed to confiscate Israeli land for natural growth or normal life? Hmmm...

I can see this going horribly wrong. If Iran doesn't do what Israel wants or if we don't respond to Iran the way Israel wants, they suddenly have yet another excuse (or several) to scrap the whole thing and keep defying the law and doing what they want. If we were going to make a concession to Israel it probably shouldn't have been anything contingent upon another country's doings, let alone Ahmedinejad's- if we wanted it to be successful, that is. So much for tough talk. Israel got what they wanted---again.

Another part of this deal is normalization with Arab states. I can't believe this is even being considered. Israel should get normalization after it begins to act civilly with the Palestinian state and follow the law, not when it promises to sort of freeze settlements but only if the US gets tougher with Iran. Settlements are illegal. Israel should be punished for breaking the law and treating people like animals- and worse! Sanctions, boycott, divestment. But, hey. Maybe I've got it wrong; we've got it wrong. Perhaps we in the US should be paying our hardened criminals not to commit any more murders, thefts, etc instead of putting them in prison? Any takers?

If one were looking really hard to find the bright side, one could say, gee, it looks like we’re working hard to get that settlement "freeze". If you were more realistic, you’d say we need a policy freeze for a minute to figure this out. We’re going to risk unnecessarily getting ourselves into another ‘war of choice’ in order to get Israel to not comply with a particular part of a law they should be following anyway as a supposedly democratic government with which we have not just a working, but very warm relationship?? If we’re going to risk that, we’d be better off going for the big picture- end the occupation! I wonder what we will have to concede to get Israel to finally allow right of return or compensation to Palestinians for all the confiscated land- from 1948 on? Attack Syria and a few other local states? Or worse? We Americans are paying for Israel's mistakes constantly. Why are we having to make concessions in order to make Israel "right it's wrongs" to the Palestinians? Palestinians have been made to pay for Germany's sins. When is Israel going to take responsibility and pay up?

One Israeli has the right idea:

Boycott Israel by Neve Gordon
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gordon20-2009aug20,0,1126906.story

And the Israeli response:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-09-02-cancerous-traitor
Two quotes from the article:
“academics who feel this way about their country are welcome to search for a personal and professional home elsewhere” (Gordon's employer)

"...hundreds of angry readers have called Gordon a traitor, a virus and cancerous, and have threatened to expel him from Israel. Some have even called for his execution."

I don't agree with this article completely, but the title I especially do agree with and ask whenever I think about this stuff-- 'Why not sanctions for Israel?'
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/Why-not-sanctions-for-Israel-.html

***
I read an article recently about someone under South African apartheid who said that the sports and academic boycotts really hit home for the average person. The sports boycott hit the government economically like other economic boycotts, but it was the ones that affected average people that inspired them to pressure their government to end apartheid. I can’t find the link now.

comment on the FWD posts

Some people might think all or most of these forwards are pretty loony. That's good. That's progress, I guess. Sadly, when I received them around 9/11/01 through the run up to the Iraq invasion, people were forwarding these things like mad, posting them on message boards, echoing the sentiments, etc. I read these things and the reactions to them with almost as much shock as when I heard the first WTC tower had been hit.

So I apologize if I don't get out my biggest American flag and wave it a fit of patriotic fervor when I'm supposed to. A recent forward urges us to "Take a moment to think back to how you felt on 9/11 and let those sentiments guide you." I heard internment camps advocated a few times during the week after- no joke. I didn't really think that could happen today (didn't think it was impossible, either), but I didn't think we'd actually attack Iraq, either. Please don't let those and the ones in these emails ever guide you!

It disgusts me every time I look back to that day. I was horrified by the event, but I was almost as horrified by our response.


Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Fwd: Vital Information about the War on terrorism

Here are 2 forwards with very similar contents I received at key political moments. I responded to some, but not all of the totally ridiculous contents at the time. It's all old stuff.


Before reading see: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp

My comments are in red.

Subjects I saw for the email in the chain of forwarded messages:
Fwd: Vital Information about the War on terrorism!!!!!
Fwd: WHAT WE ALL NEED TO BE AWARE OF CONCERNING THE MUSLIM RELIGION.

And here we go for the first one:

PLEASE TAKE TIME TO READ THIS!!

For those of us with kids and grandkids this is very scary indeed.

Please take the time to read the essay by Dr. Chong. It is without a doubt the most articulate and convincing writing I have read regarding the War in Iraq. If you have any doubts please open your mind to his essay and give a fair evaluation.

I had no idea who Dr. Chong is or the source of these thoughts... so when I received them, I almost deleted them - as well-written as they are. But then I did a "Google search" on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. Yes, but did he write it? Hmmm.


*Subject: Muslims, terrorists and the USA. A different spin on Iraq war.

This WAR is for REAL!
Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General,
USAF, Retired

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 ---I know someone sent me this somewhere in 2002-2004, too.

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means. ---OK. You can't win a war on terror. It will always be there. There will always be injustice, those who fight against it, those who will stop at nothing and do the unthinkable, etc. And we're not going to totally lose it, either, unless we all fall into a wrinkle in time, an alternate universe where the US disbands the military and we cut off diplomatic ties and trade with everyone. This guy seems to think the world will end or we'll be prisoners if we were no longer the superpower. Things may not go how our leaders would like 100% of the time if we were not the superpower, but I think that might be good in a lot of cases, especially recently. Those of us in these generations could see how the other countries felt. Maybe our children would resort to terrorism for the injustice they feel and the world would be concerned about American terrorists.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United State is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: ---These seemed to start when US policy took a definite shift toward Israel, actually.

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; ---Israel knew about this one and consciously made the decision not to tell us. Some friend, huh?
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). ---This was obviously put in here as a scare tactic as well, but it doesn't help his point much. If there were that many attacks and only a handful were on us, it would seem we're not in as much existential danger as he would have us believe after all.

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter. ---Envy?? Are they kidding? Terrorism is political. The recent attacks have had political justification. Religion is a convenient tool for recruiting. They perceive injustice and are hitting the country responsible. They hit us in our financial district and almost at our center of government; they did hit the Pentagon. And they know that when that many people die, people take notice. They no doubt achieved some of their goal-we are talking about it now, aren't we?? Envy. We wish. If that were true, we'd bear no responsibility whatsoever. We do so much around the world, supporting murderous dictators when it suits us, etc that it is not inconceivable that countries could hate us for our policies and what we did to them. There is more evidence for this (and it makes more sense) than for saying they are so envious of us that they want to kill us.

As long as people strut around and say they hate us because of our freedom or success, you are missing the point and we'll keep being hit; the target on our back gets bigger an bigger. The more we make policies favoring one nation who doesn't deserve it above others and continue to invade said others on false pretenses which somehow confounds the public, but inexplicably ends up fulfilling the top goals of the aforementioned "one nation", the more we will be attacked. When Bush unleashed his doctrine of preemption on the world, he also opened us up to more attacks. You can't have that sort of 'invade now ask questions later' policy and not invite all kinds of trouble. The policy provokes.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims. ---And why is that? Not because we're infidels, but because Muslim nations are tired of the way we treat them, perhaps?

4. What is the Muslim population of the World?

25%. ---He goes from talking about the US everywhere else to the world here probably because the Muslim population in the US is less than 1% and that's not nearly as impressive as a whopping 25%!

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. ---You're right it's not material! Terrorism is political, not religious. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). see: (http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm)

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die? ---The US attitude toward Muslim nations is much the same--change your government to one that suits me or I'll carpet bomb your country.

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. --- So once they "conquer us, they will pick off others? Sounds like they are starting with us if you even believe this junk. Compare to the part where he says we are the last bastion of defense! So, are we the first to fall, or the last? It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. (???) It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Really? There is no other explanation? Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast! ---Too late for France? Fading fast?? He seems here to equate all Muslims with terrorism. Guess his #5 IS material, after all. He wants you to think he doesn't have a problem with peaceful Muslims, but he does. If he were right in his assumption, then the world would have already "fallen".

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? ---Here again with the all Muslims=terrorists. Unbelievable! This is obviously propaganda and was written to gain support for military action in the Middle East. It lumps Iraq in with the war on terror, it vilifies Muslims, creates fear of Muslims as well as fear of "losing" this very generic, broad war. It also perpetuates the silly notion that they hate us "cause they're jealous." This guy wishes. They hate because of our policies, our support for one nation in the region regardless of how many international laws it disregards or how it spies on us and acts unscrupulously toward us.

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

[Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself cannot stand - Jesus, Matthew 12:25]~ inserted by B.L.~

---I hate when scripture is invoked in worldly battle cries and support for war.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. ---Some will have to give up more than others, for sure. He is obviously not in the group that will have to sacrifice the most, so you bet he is all for giving up rights. He is not being looked at and prejudged as though he single handedly brought down the World Trade Center.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
---Give up our rights?? Are you kidding? The war on terrorism is so broad that it will never be over. Declaring war on drugs and terrorism is asking for a continual state of war. So those willing to give up rights for the "war" are doing so indefinitely. "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
---This guy is not a big fan of justice. He criticizes, rightly, those who behead and don't allow freedom of speech, etc, BUT he also ridicules our government and those who supported justice for the soldiers who terrorized Iraqis. He wants us to adopt the practices of those people he looks upon with hatred and disgust. If we do get "these things out of our heads", where will we be? We will be terrorists. We are really riding the fence on that one as we speak. The only difference is, we sometimes appear to censure or discipline ourselves. I hope it is truly to seek justice, but sometimes I fear it is only to look like we are seeking justice.


Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
---Oh at least this guy isn't calling those who disagree unpatriotic...uuh...instead he calls them ignorant. Much better! (note sarcasm) Though he stops short of calling dissenters disloyal, he goes right on to say that they help the enemy, concern our friends and generally harm "our cause". Isn't that disloyalty essentially? He doesn't want to call names, but he goes on to do just that.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners --not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. ---That was the PC term; the correct term is torture.

Can this be for real? ---I have been asking this of your email!!

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense. ---Whaaat?? That is not supported by facts and isn't even supported by this person's rant.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim country throughout the world that allows freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world. ---This guy must hate Muslims. Wait. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he is afraid of the unknown. He doesn't know any Muslims, what they believe or who they are. His history's a bit flawed, too.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire - If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read. ---Anyone who doesn't hate Muslims, who isn't for invading Iraq, who isn't for torturing prisoners and ethnic profiling is for America's downfall. Message received. And another dig at Muslims. Wonderful.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses.

Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
---Let's hope not, because the vast majority of them are peaceful!

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that include the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

If you would like to see who this fellow is go to this Air Force web site and look him up. ---Too bad he didn't write it!

(http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000)

And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your Redemption draweth nigh!_Luke 21:28

---Really. This was probably added by a forwarder, but scripture just shouldn't be used in this way at all!

This thing conjures images of Iraq, yet that invasion had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Hussein wasn't an imminent threat (previous reason for going to war) and he wasn't doing what Bush & Co charged him with. Maybe we can't fault Bush on that one since he fell for Israel's faulty (either by accident or by design) intelligence...again.

This garbage made its rounds before. I was trying to put my finger on it. I think I got it around 2002 or 2003 either surrounding Afghanistan or Iraq. It is making its rounds again no doubt because of the thwarted plane hijackings that recently made the news. Sounds like it could have originated or made another trip around the prisoner abuse scandal or extraordinary rendition discoveries.

***********************
***********************

Ok. This one is from the admin of a Christian mailing list I was on. It was a good list, though a bit conservative at times. Not to say conservative is bad; I mean it was more conservative than the situation or scripture warranted at times. This is the one I described as getting between 2002-2004 in my post about a forward with similar content (see Lame terrorism email forward).

Interesting how the individual admits to having limited exposure to Islam, yet says he agrees (wholeheartedly!) with the letter!! That makes no sense. Why believe what a random email forward has to say about a religion rather than asking someone who practices it?

Subject: The World Situation email forward AKA WHAT WE ALL NEED TO BE AWARE OF...

DRL NOTE2: Today someone sent to me one of the most interesting and challenging articles I have read in quite some time regarding current events. I read it carefully and I truly believe that it is deserving of a very wide circulation. I have had some quite limited exposure to Islam in my 2 visits to India and 5 to Indonesia. I tend to agree wholeheartedly with the conclusions of this article. I do not know the writer's name--it was not included in the Email I received. I thought so much of the article that I re-formated to make it easier to read than the version I read and have uploaded it to my website. It is a rather lengthy article, but I believe it is well worth your time to read. It is in the form of a letter from a father to his sons. I would encourage as many of you as feel so inclined to distribute the URL far and wide. You may find it at: http://www.hcis.net/users/dlemmons/TheWorldSituation.htm

THE WORLD SITUATION * A LETTER TO MY SONS
This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.
Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,
As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to.
To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt - WWII: President Truman - Korean War 1950; President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy Vietnam (1961); [1] eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). [2]
So be sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point.
Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics: 1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush 2.
3. We can not fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
4. Who were the attackers?
In each case of attacks on US they were Muslims.
5. What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%
6.. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). ( http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm ). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.. [5] The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us infidels. I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other
than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid
verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win
if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - 'What does losing mean?'. It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:
. We would no longer be the premier country in the world.
. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
. We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and can not help them.
. They will pick off the other non Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.
. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.
. If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend
the life and death seriousness of this situation.

. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slipperyslope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

. Some of us have gone so far out in our criticism of the war and/or our Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

. Of more recent vintage, the uproar fuelled by the politicians and media, regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own
people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'. That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.
***************
My Response to World Situation (now that I read it again, it wasn't the best response, so please forgive!)

The biggest threat to us is not Islam, but ourselves, our submission to temptation. In the end, will it matter whether we are killed in a terror attack or by natural causes? Whether we are free or under an Islamic extremist's power or Communist regime are we not still commanded to remain faithful to the end? The way I see it emailing everyone and telling them that a certain group who needs our prayers and who needs to be introduced to the Word wants nothing but to kill them creates a climate of fear, not the urgency to convert Muslim radicals and other Muslims. Should we not be emailing to pray for these people (our perceived "enemies"?) and their conversion rather than telling people they want to kill us?
http://www.hcis.net/users/dlemmons/TheWorldSituation.htm
***
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush 2.
***
Maybe there are some in the Middle East who are jealous of the West, but I guarantee that the Muslim radicals/fanatics who are planning attacks are not. They make the rules, so they have whatever freedoms they want, but unfortunately the people they rule in many cases do not share their opinion and so cannot consider themselves free.

The reason extremists attack the West is because of our foreign policies. We support Israel ($3billion/yr+) even though they flout international laws, violate human rights continually, and still try and hide/deny their massive nuclear arsenal (oops, I mean textile factory ;) ). Not to mention they kept intelligence from us (at a time when we were "sharing" with them) in 1982 that could have prevented the Beruit attack on the marine base and many such incidents. Their current prime minister, Sharon (then Defense Minister), was found responsible for the 1982 Beruit massacres in Sabra and Shatila and found unfit for public office, yet our government considers him a man of peace. Israelis are living on Palestinian land in violation of the Geneva Convention (no portion of the Occupier's population is supposed to be moved to the Territory it occupies) and has killed three times as many Palestinians as Palestinians have Israelis, yet the US only regurlarly criticizes and blames Palestinians. Israel tortures detainees (not yet charged with any crime) during interogations to the point that they cannot have children again or they need a limb amputated, but the US gives it's money to support this right to "self-defense".
*Crime= could be anything from planning to kill Israelis to flying a Palestinian flag or writing slogans against occupation or being accused of being a member of an illegal Palestinian political party (doesn't matter if they really are or not; what Israel says is how it is, period)
We will bomb and Arab country in a heartbeat (or on 20 year old "evidence"), but we refuse to sanction or even say a mean word against Israel (instead, Congress passes a resolution saying how much we agree with them) even when they are in fact in the wrong.

Hatred of the double standard and some of our policies is the single thing that unites the moderates and radicals, it isn't Islam, though radicals try and intimidate by saying this. If we had just policies, we could pit the moderates against the extremists.

And I won't even get into our forays into Central America and the School of the Americas....