A New Moral Low Point

Perhaps this is what Tony means by 'going into the Muslim community'?

Incidentally, did you see someone in the Guardian claiming that Hizbullah was the third most potent military force in the region (after Israel and Iran)? I'd have suspected that the Saudis had a good claim to this, but that the most potent military force in the Middle East belongs to the USA. The attempt to portray Hizbullah as an actual equal combatent to Israel is perhaps the most irritating aspect of the hyper-biased coverage (not just on reputable stations, Virgin Radio news yesterday devoted a whole thirty seconds to the story, with a single, nice, balanced soundbite from - Binyamin Netanyahu).

Tony and George aren't Christians, they're Calvanists. OK, I'm slightly biased, but most of the support for Israeli military expeditions comes not from the US Jewish community, but from the religious right. Naturally they don't want them to stop, there might be an Apocalypse coming. I fail to discern much difference between death cults like al-Qaeda and fundamenalist conservative Christians in the USA - 'let's kill people so we can go to Paradise' seems to be the mantra on both sides.

See also this from Lenin's Tomb

After Chinese and Russian opposition (through the Shanghai Co-operation Organistation) to any attack on Iran over its nuclear programme, the US/UK/Israel axis is destroying Lebanon to provoke a reaction, or maybe even engineer an 'event' that can be blamed squarely on Iran/Syria.

These two countries have been in Israeli, err... sorry, US sights for a long time and its always been a case of finding/making an excuse 'to do the right thing for freedom and democracy' against 'those who are trying to destroy civilisation'.

Funny the way the UK and USA send naval vessels to rescue their own citizens from Lebanon, but don't give a rat's ass about what happens to the actual Lebanese. Well, it's our own people doing the killing (after all Israelis are Westerners, aren't they?), so the best thing to do is say as little as possible until the fuss dies down.

Also odd the way Dubya says (with Tone's enthusiastic support) that Israel has "the right to defend itself" by invading someone else's country, bombarding its cities, and killing its citizens. Hmmm, does that remind you of the way any other nation "defends" itself?

Now for a little thought experiment. Suppose nation X is annoyed because nation Y blew up one of its airliners, killing 290 innocent civilians. Hey, that's terrorism, isn't it? So nation X uses whatever means it can to destroy some of nation Y's buildings and people. Fair enough, right? Nation X has a right to defend itself? Oh, wait a moment. Nation Y is the USA, so nobody has any right to attack it, scratch any of its property or touch one hair of any of its citizens' heads - or there will be hell to pay.

Maybe Hezbollah should do what the Pentagon always does when it kills a few hundred foreign civilians, and say it was a tragic accident, and they are very sorry. That should prevent any violent reprisals. You can't take revenge on someone who just made a mistake, can you?

I am becoming overwhelmed by Blair and Bush's complicity in this mass murder of civilians.

The spin machines of several countries have become networked and trot out excuses and justification for the US funded action in Lebanon.

Click for the Childcatcher Quartermasters picture.

And is it just me or is Sky News quickly morphing into it's sister channel Fox. The presenter claimed they were 'balanced' in their coverage the other day. When do they become totally sloganized and trade on the old Fox lie of "Fair & Balanced".

I am completely appalled by our spineless so-called leaders, none of whom have the decency let alone the courage (quelle surprise there then) to admit to the fact that Israel's totally outrageous actions in Lebanon are even a smigeon "disproportionate" let alone unacceptable. A recent attempt at the UN to pass a resolution to that effect was vetoed by the US, hardly a surprise. However apparently the UK has no opinion on the matter (we abstained). The recent interview on the Today programme with Margaret Beckett was sickening to bear witness to and only highlighted her as a total intellectual lightweight. It is very clear from that interview that our foreign policy is either decided by the White House, or failing any direct orders from that direction, is made up on the hoof as the doomed New Labour Project continues to muddle along seeking loans and handouts on the way... Perhaps its time for a mass evacuation of the UK by those who do care about justice, fair play and, God help us, democracy...

The other half of what our esteemed leaders are doing is delaying the introduction of UN troops to the south of Lebanon.

This is clearly not in the Israeli interest as successful UN action there would lead to UN presences in Palestine and the Gaza prison strip. This would have unthinkable consequences for Israel's ruling cadre.
In the background of this issue is the Palestinian Parliaments vote to recognise Israel to the 1967 borders which Israel cannot allow, they would have to give back all those nice settlements and the water they have stolen and get back within their original borders, thus destroying decades of hard work on their hostile expansion programmes.

A major concern for the Bush-Blair alliance is that this might bring up the nasty spectre of the democratically elected Iraqi government having agreed a peace deal (like Bliar's much touted Good Friday Agreement) with their 'insurgents' that required the removal of US troops and private security contractors from Iraq. The US vetoed this which caused another escalation of violence in Iraq leading to the Govt declaration of a state of emergency. Democracy flourishing The American Way.

This would then foil the evil master plan to use Iraq the same way the US use the UK / Australia etc etc as a forward military base. The US plan is for permanent occupation of Iraq and differs from the Israeli plans for that nice extension we call Palestine only in scale.

See Global Research article The U.S. won’t leave Iraq unless Iraqis force it out for info on the 106 acre 'Embassy' Halliburton Brown and Cheney are building as the first step in Iraq.

Having to simply admit that Iraq is another Vietnam and slink off with their tails between their legs is not an option for Cheney / Rumpsfeld / Rice as this would sink their administration.

We can only hope...

Ye Gods, this is one of the maddest blog posts i've read for a long time:

"As for the so-called Stop the War Coalition, they are beneath contempt. They are promoting war. Far from wanting to stop any war, they take sides and glory in slaughter, especially slaughter of Muslim civilians, so long as it is done by anyone other than American or British troops."

So barking that even New Labour had to get rid of her...

It took me a while (I've been at the beer) to work out why quarsan was slagging off Stop the War, until I realised there was a link in the post and no quotes. Yes, she is obviously incredibly stupid. I seem to remember reading about why she stopped being MP for Reading East, in an old Private Eye, but I can't remember any details. Wasn't creditable to someone, anyway. Aha, if you trust Wikipedia:

Why are there no posts on there, I wonder? Shall we add a few (politely, of course?). After all, she believes in democracy everywhere - someone should remind her when the last Lebanese, Palestinian and Iranian elections were, and that, if she believes so strongly that British taxpayers should pay for the imposition of 'democracy' by military means, she doesn't want to contribute her whack.

I made exactly the same mistake, and I don't even have the excuse that I've been drinking. I've read the post though, and yes, she is barking.