Bad news from Lebanon.
An Israeli air strike killed at least 40 Lebanese civilians, including 23 children, on Sunday, prompting Lebanon to tell U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice she was unwelcome in Beirut before a ceasefire.
Hundreds of protesters chanting “Death to
Israel, Death to America” stormed the U.N. headquarters in Beirut, even though witnesses said Hizbollah officials tried to discourage them.Rice, who plans to stay on in Israel, said she was deeply saddened by the air raid on the southern village of Qana, but stopped well short of calling for an immediate ceasefire.
This tragic massacre is probably the nail in the coffin of Israel’s ill-advised temper tantrum. There are two schools of thought (at least) on what is going on. One school takes the Israelis at face value. They hoped to punish Hizbollah, eliminate their rocket stockpile, and turn Lebanese public opinion against the Shi’a terror group. If this is what they set out to do, they have failed in the most spectacular way. Hizbollah has never been more popular and Israel was hit by 115 rockets today alone. Of course, I do not think Israel is so stupid as to have miscalculated this severely. They may be surprised at the resiliency of the rocket launchers, but they certainly didn’t think bombing Lebanon’s infrastructure and their northern areas was going to turn the Lebanese against Hizbollah.
I still maintain that this war was planned at Beaver Creek in June, in a meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu and Dick Cheney (and possibly Rumsfeld) and that Netanyahu reported back to Olmert.
What are their strategic aims? They can only be to widen the conflict with a minimum goal of regime change in Damascus. The first aim, therefore, is to get American troops positioned in Southern Lebanon. Once there, and taking fire, they will ratchet up the rhetoric and begin taking actions against Syria. To carry out this plan, first Israel overreacts to a border confrontration. Then the world demands a cease-fire. Israel demands peacekeepers. The world is unable to provide them. The U.S. decides to do it themselves and blame the international organizations and Europe for their hypocrisy and impotence.
It’s not that complicated, really. It’s devilish and borderline insane. But it actually makes quite a bit more strategic sense than what they are selling publicly…which is that Israel is pursuing a hearts-and-minds campaign for the soul of Lebanon by killing their women and children and destroying their infratructure and tourist trade.
It makes strategic sense because there is now a kind of Shi’a crescent extending from Beirut to Teheran. And that crescent is opposed to both U.S.-Israeli interests and to our Sunni client states in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates, and Egypt. Regime change in Syria is the best way to isolate Iran and keep their proxies off Israel’s doorstep. At least, that is the theory.
[Meteor Blades has a good diary on this. It’s where I got the sources for this article.]
I don’t think the USA will make Israel stop. Condi and the neocons are much more tolerant of civilian blood-letting than the world is, and Israel does not listen to the world.
I think this is going to last for another month, or more, just as it is.
There aren’t many other explanations that would fit. Look at the result of the ‘accident’ you mentioned. Violent protest in Beirut. Who owns a playbook with that kind of page in it? The idea of disarming Hezbollah, or any similar group, is ridiculous with the expansion of uncontrolled PMCs globally. Most any of those private businesses can legally buy/sell or transport these weapons. If the PMCs daw employees by most money for military action, where do their loyalties lie? I would think loyalty is sold to the highest bidder or most lucrative alliance.
Still you don’t address if all this fits a larger agenda. Bush is a Psychopath and he has surrounded himself with Psychopaths. But they might just be actors in a larger agenda. In the short term chaos in the Middle East makes Israel feel safe, but the chaos makes it possible to set in motion larger long term changes. This article made me realize that we may be witnessing a large scale @ long term power realignment brought about by military means after the initial peaceful collapse of the Soviet Empire.
But I have to admit people may just be insane. Stu Piddy on MLW had this to say to the above
Listening to the news this morning, I was sickened by the report of the deaths of yet more civilians in Lebanon.
I too question whether the U.S. wants to see a speedy end to the fighting, and is really setting the stage for war against Syria and Iran.
One tiny, tiny sliver of hope was an interview with Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema, and Italy’s push for an international peace process for Lebanon.
May the more sane nations of the world stand up and stop us, asap.
Looking for sanity in an insane world may well be a pipe dream. The flow of history, those who survive the insanity has come with the clever approach. It’s always been darkest just before the dawn.
Iraq is screaming at us that we have spent our defence treasure on the wrong thing. Combat fatigue in Iraq is running in the mid to high 30% rate. Iraq was obviously a trap. We’ve been ambushed and don’t seem to have the honesty to admit it. Disaster commencerate with Dunkirk stares us in the face.
The success of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was devistatinging to the Japanese high command. Only then and too late did they realize they had spent their money buying obselete battle ships.
Do we have the hindsight to see that wars cannot be won with Pearl Harbors, stated in Iraq as “shock and awe?” Yeah, 85 billion dollars worth of high explosives delivered with lazer guided percision is shocking and awesome but it does not get the job done.
The job is changing the minds of the people in the region. Nothing is being done of significance on that front. Why? We have the most moral administration in history that could only be topped by Pat Robertson becoming dictator.
Lies that cause people to believe, have faith have been deemed to be moral. By us!!! http://www.hoax-buster.org
The glimmer of hope for us is our ability to throw the battle ship admirals over the side. Is there a democrat with the wisdom to say, “bugler! sound retreat!!?” And. Have the courage to stand up to the religious establishment? The future of democracy hangs in the balance.
Cripe.
It is so ironic.
We’ve spent the last twenty years or so introducing conflict resolution, diversity awareness and anti-bullying programs to our school systems. I guess it is only intended to be theoretical, however. This nation of “adults” seems to think that the appropriate response to any insult/assault is to retaliate with greater amounts of the same. Leading to the predictable cycle of violence leading to no where. How did talking to people with whom we are at odds become seen as being weak? When did empathy become anathema? When did accepting responsibility for our own actions and having the integrity to forgive others get thrown out of our “moral” playbook?
When, when will we stop all the madness? How do we begin?
There are two schools of thought (at least) on what is going on.
Why can’t Israel’s intention be to clear a buffer zone in southern Lebanon through a scorched earth policy, and to just do it after giving adequate warnings of their intentions to the involved population. This would serve as a buffer and example to other border areas of what happens if they attack Israel? Why is this not a third viable alternative?
First: because that is not what Israel did. They destroyed the infrastructure of the country and have bombed Lebanon in every area of the country, from the northern border to their lighthouses, to their western border.
Second: because Israel cannot create a buffer zone without occupying it, which they have no domestic support for. They had to know that the end result would require an international force.
Third: their actions have assured that the international community will not provide those troops. For example, the apparently deliberate bombing of a UN outpost. Another example, alienating the government of Lebanon assures that they will not move south and take on Hizbollah.
Fourth: this was all predictable and could hardly be a surprise.
Fifth: Netanyahu and Cheney DID meet in June to discuss strategy. Netanyahu DID then go and brief Olmert, Peres, and Barak. Israel DID then launch this campaign at the next provocation.
then you say this would/wouldn’t do for a solution
This is an op-ed from brent scrowcorft this am in the WP.. what do you think? would it work not not.
Brenda,
The people running the Bush regime have no interest in a cessation of hostilities. I believe as long as this is the operative dynamic there will be no meaningful progress vis a vis US/Israeli action in the Middle East.
Brent Scowcroft, the authour of the Op-Ed you linked to, represents the gang of people who used to run US foreign policy for decades until the Neocons usurped them when they rode in to the White House with Bush. I believe there’s a pitched battle going on between these two groups for control of US affairs again, and that if the Scowcroft gang, (The Carlyle Group types), do manage to finally drive the insane neocons from power the world may avert an otherwise unavoidable catastrophe of epic proportions.
But the outcome of this battle, and the events that might shift the balance of power, will have nothing to do with the UN or congress.
It saddens me to say this, but no, it won’t work. Brent is a deep thinker and he lays out a good argument. There are two problems with it, however. The first is that he is just pissing in the wind. The Bush administration would sooner take my advice than his.
The second is that he gets off on the wrong foot. He suggests that we first get the Quartet together, then put an international force together, then deploy it, and then call for a cease-fire. We need a cease-fire (one that Hezbollah respects) before we can get an international force.
There is only one force in the world that might be willing to go in there without a cease fire and that is the United States.
That is, in my opinion, the plan. But first we have to go thru the motions of attempting to get an international force. For Cheney, the key is to make sure that effort fails. For Scowcroft, the key is to make sure it does not fail.
On the merits, Scowcroft is correct. The devil is in the details. And maybe NATO will shock me and agree to peacekeepers for a region where there is no peace.
Maybe this is all part of the judicious studying of the new realities they create. Trouble is, they’re off creating newer new realities while these are studied, as we will.
I kinda like his approach even though it is in a early formative stage. It goes back to the only root problem that can get us anywhere on a constructive basis. If the antagonism in the area is due to stolen lands and the perceptions of injustice on and by Muslims, then his ideas here are getting at the heart of the matter, correct? However, if the real problem, God Forbid (figure of speech only), is the desire of Muslims to destroy all Jews, well then Israel is not taking half a strong enough action now, IMO!
I think you need some remedial history on the founding of the state of Israel and the intent of the founders.
From Stan Goff @ HuffPost:
Sounds like the Arabs aren’t the only ones who wish for the ‘other’ not to exist. Take off your blinders for Israel and see that there are real people on the other side of the border who have hopes and dreams and desires just as the colonizers of Israel did/ do. Until you recognize that racism cuts both ways there will never be peace.
I agree with the content of this piece as it confronts the ownership rights issues brought up by the formation of Israel. Racism was not part of my equation!
The Jews may well have a legitimate historical claim on this area as well. I think the mistake was not to grant proper compensation to those displaced physically and of ownership rights. The solution to that is what Scowcroft is getting at, and I say again it is the root of the crisis if we want a root that can be solved. The racist taint that the Arabs put on the situation when they vow to destroy Israel does not help us get to any meaningful solution, and hopefully they do not mean this. That was the point of my related post, I thought!
Boo,
All you say here is speculative and can have other explanations, as I will try to give below. Also what happens in a war cannot be easily so scripted, so yes some things like the bombing of the UN outpost may have actually been part of the fog of war.
Israel wants to show Syria and all of Lebanon that its airpower can easily reach them. Also Israel wants all of Lebanon to feel the heat from the hezbollah actions so that either through another Lebanese civil war or through any possible internal Lebanese diplomacy, the inside Lebanon forces may pressure hezbollah to stop attacking and inciting Israel. Israel may well also be trying to shut down re-supply routes for hezbollah from Syria and/or the Air and Sea, which is a smart war planning idea!
Finally, I think you try too hard to give evidence for a point of view that is yours and is quite speculative at best. I don’t fault you for giving these explanations, but stop trying to be so darn authoritative that what you speculate on is the right and only answer. Obviously I anyway, see it differently than many of you, but that’s okay as I am also speculating here and admit it!
I’m pretty sure Syria and Iran are well aware the F-16’s can reach their countries.
This is posted from a newsgroup posting. It seems the Reuters article has been pulled from the net.
They looked fairly peaceful in May and you know we just can’t have that, can we.
1. Israel wants to show Syria and all of Lebanon that its airpower can easily reach them.
I assume you mean that they want to make sure that they feel some consequences for Hizballah’s actions. This is basic deterrence. The problem with this is that Lebanon is powerless to control Hizbollah and far from motivating them to try, they know have even 80% of Christians supporting Hizbollah. This was not a mistake by Israel, they just didn’t care. That is why the deterrence argument fails.
2. the bombing of the UN outpost may have actually been part of the fog of war.
That is true. However, it looks like they were in constant contact with that headquarters and should have avoided bombing it. I don’t really know what happened.
3. Israel wants all of Lebanon to feel the heat from the hezbollah actions so that either through another Lebanese civil war or through any possible internal Lebanese diplomacy, the inside Lebanon forces may pressure hezbollah to stop attacking and inciting Israel.
Their actions have had the exact opposite result, which argues that your hypothesis is incorrect. Is Israel trying to send Lebanon into a civil war? Perhaps. But they still do not want to occupy Lebanon, so it would take a long time for this strategy to provide any security, if ever.
4. Israel may well also be trying to shut down re-supply routes for hezbollah from Syria and/or the Air and Sea, which is a smart war planning idea!
Think about this for a second. Hizbollah has 3,000 rockets, at least. While it makes sense to cut their supply lines to Syria, how long do they plan on keeping the airport shut down, the roads impassable, and the ports blocked? It’s not that they intentionally pissed off the Lebanese government. It’s that they took actions that were sure to piss them off. That means they never had a realistic expectation that the government would turn on Hizbollah and help disarm them.
5. stop trying to be so darn authoritative that what you speculate on is the right and only answer.
Sorry. I’m just making my arguments.
Again, lots of speculation to go around. The one additional point that comes to my mind as I read what you wrote here is the time factors really involved. You make assumptions based on hours and days, but maybe the real results will not show for weeks, months, and years!
I’m getting pretty sick of this “adequate warnings” crap. You go on justifying the targeting and killing of civilians if that’s what you need to do to ease your mind. But any buffer zone they are after is being built on the heaps of dead children that are piling up.
You know, I could be just giving alternative explanations for what is happening as a didactic or perceptive exercise without advocating any position. I might also just like arguments or have had too much coffee today!
Decaf always makes me argumentative.
What’s the possibility of using smaller precise munition?
I posed a question elsewhere…
If an organized, professional military force conducted precision missile strikes on our armed forces recruiting offices, would those be legitimate targets?
Hmm. Let’s try this on for size.
England gives the cities of Dublin and Belfast ‘adequate warning’ to flee and then bombs the shit out of the city and creates hundreds of thousands of refugees. Do you think the world would support that?
And the problem with ‘adequate warning’ is that real people actually live in that area and my not want to leave their whole lives behind so Israel can rain fire from the sky.
Question, what would you take with you if you were given ‘adequate warning’ to vacate before your house was destroyed? Me, probably a AK-47 if one was available.
What you do not see or realize is the internal neighborhood actions or lack thereof inside Lebanon. Israel is a powerful force and rightly demands its security. If your hezbollah neighbor in Lebanon is shooting rockets at Israel and you do nothing about this, you are either part of the problem or you should damn well expect a violent response from those being rocketed and get the hell out for a while. Now what am I missing again?
IMO, I would try more at extending myself into the reality of what happens behind the scenes that leads up to these situation before passing too quick a judgment.
Well, at this point the Lebanese are viewing hezbollah as the only defenders of their country so I doubt they’ll try and stop them much.
Also, Hezbollah, unlike Hamas and the PLO doesn’t hide within the civilian population.
And finally, the US has military installations right next to cities and communities all over the US — if a country invaded you and the US military counter-attacked, would your neighbourhoods be fair game because you didn’t stop your military?
And finally, the US has military installations right next to cities and communities all over the US — if a country invaded you and the US military counter-attacked, would your neighbourhoods be fair game because you didn’t stop your military?
Yes, and I would get away from these installations if and when I could not stop the coming war! As the saying goes, things can be replaced, lives cannot!
How would you stop the war?
You mention the guy whose neighbour is firing a hezbollah rocket — how should he stop his neighbour? How would you stop the US military?
From this basis of thought, as al-Qaeda had declared war on the US prior to 9/11, the Pentagon was fair game and all resulting innocent casualties were just collateral damage right? No need to cry or be concerned over their deaths, correct? They shouldn’t have been in the area.
These aren’t abstract questions, they are directly related to your arguments here.
War is a slightly controlled chaos. Not every aspect will fit a neat paradigm. However, it is prudent to get away from military targets once a war starts and the enemy is at hand!
Obviously many folks cannot stop war efforts, but they still cannot make believe they are safe or immortal, so they should get out. If Israel warned people in southern Lebanon to get out before an offensive and these folks did not, they are stupid or involved for the most . yes some may be unfortunate, but please do not bring me the outlier poor soul who was trapped and make an entire argument for that one person. Also,see my comment on the US atomic bomb destruction on Japan, and maybe comment on that!
People should just get out eh?
Like the Katrina victims were able to get out?
Like the Lebanese in Qanta who had no gas or cars?
Or the fact the convoys were being bombed?
It’s quite easy to preach about ‘just getting out’ when you are able to do so.
And no, I won’t comment on the genocide committed against the Japanese by the US. If that’s your solution to the ‘problem’ you are one sick puppy.
And no, I won’t comment on the genocide committed against the Japanese by the US. If that’s your solution to the ‘problem’ you are one sick puppy.
I am sure if you took a poll of all US citizens, I woud not be the only sick puppy on whether the US should have done this!! Indeed, you might well find how out of touch you are, IMHO!
I’m not a US citizen so the brainwashing doesn’t work on me unfortunately.
But if you wanted to take a poll on world opinion…
I am in agreement with you Spider, I think Katrina is a perfect example of not being able to get out of an area with trouble boring down on it.
Not to mention that just in the leaving they are targets as well, as we have seen over and over. For heaven sakes, if they are targeting red cross and ambulances, what chance does a car have, that is if you even have a car.
I am also impressed,(not) with Israels precision guided ‘missles’, which I cannot seem to spell today.
Yeah, they should just hop on their flying pigs and head up to Beirut, where they can live on manna from the sky.
Maybe Israel could have done a better announcement job, but it is not their job or mission to evacuate these people after the warning. Indeed, the Israelis want to make the Lebanese think twice in the future before allowing military action against Israel from their own back yard.
Maybe Israel’s current tactic will not succeed, but it is one way to proceed and Israel does not have too many other acceptable options. I also reject that a strong military power should act weak and turn the other cheek in response to aggression from an enemy that has pledged to destroy them.
Do you genuinely believe your own bullshit? Just curious.
Targeting refugee convoys and red cross ambulances after bombing the roads and bridges is their job and mission?
I am not a conspiracy theorist, so yes, I believe it as a logical response. Do you really believe that turning the other cheek against an enemy that has sworn your destruction is realistic and smart???
No, you’re right of course. What’s realistic and smart is to savagely destroy a whole country, driving nearly a million civilians to flee, and killing hundreds of kids. That way lies long-term security, as the 1978, 1982, and 1996 operations proved.
Whose to say what long-term security is in today’s world. Israel is a thriving country and is here now. If they had not been militarily aggressive to those that swore their destruction, maybe they would not even be here now. Again, whose to say, but Arab terrorism has not shown the world the way to peace either?
There big, big, big difference between the US’s response to terrorism in say Iraq and Israel’s response to groups like Hezbollah, is that Israel is defending their homeland. Their backs are against the wall and their very lives are truly at stake, so there is no room for alternative realities should they badly falter. There is no real comparison between how an Israeli feels about the threat from Hezbollah and how a US citizen really feels about Iraq, IMO!
Please consider reading this: How Israel created Hizbollah.
Yes, I think Israel must have the right to exist and defend itself. I even find the idea of a “security zone” a good one. But then, in the name of decency, it should surely be located in Israel and not in Lebanon. After all, you don’t empty your garbage bin over the fence to your neighbor, right
I read the article and am citing the above as a possible realistic option. I think Israel is a small country, and it cannot afford to get in a war of attrition where one Israel dies for each palestinean. The surgical precision needed to fight such a civilian casualty free war just isn’t in Israel’s favor, so they will not. If war is going to happen, it is going to be messy, not surgical.
That said, I have no problem with a security zone being set up in Israel or in Lebanon or a bit of both. Realistically I am not able to visualize if Israel could give up this much land and survive economically, but if it could it should!
Unless and until the Arabs show that they can find an acceptable answer to Israel’s right to exist, I am afraid that a large buffer zone of some kind backed up by brutal force will be the only solution giving Israel any security, like it or not! What do the Arabs want, and can they even agree among themselves and honor any result?
How much money has Israel received in foreign aid for missile defense development? Have those appropriations been accounted for in the apparently complete failure to develop a deployable system? Worse yet, does such a system exist and is deliberately not deployed?
I am no expert on such things, but I also do not believe there will ever be a defense system against low flying, short range small missiles! If Israel got funds for a missile defense study, it was for larger and longer range missiles capable of carry bigger payloads, just like we are trying to do here.
Here’s another question for you to ponder:
If the purpose is to destroy Hezbollah’s military capability, wouldn’t warning the population of an impending attack kind of defeat the purpose? Wouldn’t they just move the weaponry somewhere else and regroup?
If the purpose is to destroy Hezbollah’s military capability, wouldn’t warning the population of an impending attack kind of defeat the purpose? Wouldn’t they just move the weaponry somewhere else and regroup?
In a close call conflict, yes, but this is not a close call conflict. Israel knows it can destroy Hezbollah, but it is unsure how aggressively it needs to act to accomplish this mission. Therefore, at least give them credit for announcing some warnings!
Let me pose this for you to ponder. If Hezbollah knows how strong Israel is militarily and how much Israel cherishes their security, why would Hezbollah irritate Israel so, and why not give into the Israeli demands once the coming attack is announced?? Just who does Hezbollah think was going to suffer the most by continuing this campaign. For you folks here that are so quick to blame and criticize Israel, try answering my question, and what about the Israeli’s killed by indiscriminate Hezbollah rocket attacks?
The hiding among civilians myth
Nobody has jumped on the question I asked, so far. I noticed the recruiting offices right beside the WalMart I didn’t go into. On the way home, I passed by the NG Armory that’s been in the city limits for longer than I’ve been alive.
…just wondering, like you.
I think the best answer that comes to mind for your questions are an example that the US already following in Japan. The Atom bombs dropped on Japan destroyed:
In Hiroshima almost everything up to about one mile from X was completely destroyed, except for a small number (about 50) of heavily reinforced concrete buildings, most of which were specially designed to withstand earthquake shock, which were not collapsed by the blast; most of these buildings had their interiors completely gutted, and all windows, doors, sashes, and frames ripped out. In Nagasaki, nearly everything within 1/2 mile of the explosion was destroyed, including heavy structures. All Japanese homes were destroyed within 1 1/2 miles from X.
Your answer and link mentioned nothing of WalMart. What does that prove?
seriously, how can you compare that total destruction to a question of precision military targets?
question of precision military targets?
There is really no such thing! Explosions will kill indiscriminately no matter who sets them off, sort of like a new pathogenic virus!
Now, that’s just crazy talk. You stop that foolishness. Of course there are precision missile weapons. Of course, there’s also MOAB that could explain a few things or the GBU? series of tactical nuc bunker busters.
I’m sorry, and sure there are, just like the new pathologic fungus that just kills social conservatives!
Like the ones that hit the ‘bullseye’ on Red Cross vehicles.
Isn’t that exactly what Kaiser Wilhelm Kristol and the neocons are proposing we do in Iran?
Let’s face it: the people running our junta will tell us any lie they think they can get away with–and they’ll even believe it themselves!–in order to get us to beat up people they are afraid of.
Obviously, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Assad, and Hizbollah are terrorists, because, look how terrified all our leaders are of them.
The people of the US need to rise up and throw out this war and energy profiteering crowd and take our country back.
We need to oust the chickenhawks if we ever want leaders who can negotiate from real strength: strength of character.
Here’s a link to an article that I think describes another factor in the ‘big picture’ understanding of irrational actions and hidden motives
(emph mine)
oh jesus. Cofer Black left the CIA to work for Blackwater? God fucking damnit.
Did you make the connection of Woolsey to Booz-Allen, VP I think and BZ being the only outside auditor for SWIFT? BZ makes the call on what gets investigated/monitored/blocked in the SWIFT surveillance program. How about the connections of Wm Lash’s commerce-reconstruction postion?
Oh Boo, I was trying to tell you this a very long time ago when we were discussing things with Lang. Black is part of the cabal back in VN days…can you not see this??!! Yet lang was so hot and heavy to do the same shit in Iraq as in VN…I think not. This is what we were trying to avoid, or so I thought it was. I think you missed that part of it…;o) Hell yes he was part of the cabal then and now, as well. I think he is so much trouble that we need to throw him to the sharks and forget about him. He brings along too much excess bagage IMHO
I’m guessing you’re familiar with the history of Executive Outcomes, too.
<<wink, wink>>>
;o)
Even before the 2000 election both Cheney and Rumsfeld signed the PNAC document that stated the US goal of regime change in Iraq, Syria and Iran. Like all psychotic war mongers they never learn. They still think even after the Iraq Debacle that they can fight a Holy War of attrition against Muslims on the cheap.
Likely at Beaver Creek, a wink and a nod was given to the Likudites to take out Hezbollah. At best it would take out a Syrian and Iranian client and at worst give justification for a bombing campaign against Damascus and Tehran. I doubt it ever crossed their minds that Shiites would mount a credible defense and that Haifa would be shut down due to rocket attacks 18 days into the war.
No State can allow outsiders to rocket their cities. Israel is still fighting the war on the cheap. Jews have a decision to make. Do they want to live in peace with Muslims or do they want to win the war. If it is war, a 50 mile buffer has to be cleared from their borders; ethnic cleansing.
some lay out for your imagining what and who. some interesting names for sure.
an interesting insight to what I refer to
These people are relentless. They’ll never stop until they receive their goal, whatever that may be. But I think they are eliminationalists. I think what’s going on is outright genocide, if in slow motion.
A little story I read on the emerging of the far right in the US i read somewhere described how they do it. In a city council somwhere where the far right recently had begun to gain some influence but not yet majority council meetings were often stalled due to lengthy and outrageous debates going on long into the nights. Not before enough people had left due to other priorities that the far right suddenly were in the majority at that meating was any votes taken. And on and on.
GWB might have been right of one thing: the UN isn’t more than a lot of talk. And it works in favor of relentless people like the Likudniks.
I have come to the realizatiion that what’s needed in the current situation isn’t peace-keeping forces. We have to do some tit for tat and destroy some Israeli infrastructure until Israel begs for cease-fire. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
just too sad
This part is haunting and should send chills down each American’s spine for it tells of things to come…
A voice of sanity and rationality is such a treasure in neocon America.
THANK YOU!
damn, this was an interesting conversation. Thanks to everyone for an informative discussion.