Thursday, August 31, 2006

Christianity without Christ

Speaking of religion, Simon Cozens proposes (found via here) that American Christianity – referring to what is variously called American Evangelism, Christian Zionism, or Dominionism, and comprising much of mainstream American Protestantism - isn’t really Christianity at all.  It seems they’ve taken the goriest bits from the Old Testament, added the Book of Revelations and a smattering of very Aryan and militaristic visual images of Jesus, and purport to call it Christianity.  Missing completely is the Four Gospels, as Christ Himself in word and deed is far too radical for them to tolerate.  It’s Christianity without Christ.  I’d compare it to Satanism, except that would be too much of an insult to the good people who worship the Dark Lord. 

Pro-Peace Investment Strategy for the Middle East

The largest Protestant church in Canada, The United Church of Canada, has adopted a divestment strategy, although, under enormous pressure from the Lobby (represented by the Canadian Jewish Congress and others) it is not allowed to use the code word ‘divestment’, but is using the convoluted phrase ‘Pro-Peace Investment Strategy for the Middle East’.  If you read the definition of ‘non-peaceful pursuits’, however, it is completely clear that this is an anti-occupation divestment strategy (see comment to the August 27, 2006 entry here).  The results of the lobbying are being heavily spun by the Zionist media (the headline has very little to do with the contents of the article, and is in fact misleading).  Note how terrified they are of the word ‘divestment’, which is to Zionists what garlic is to vampires.

The United Church of Canada is possibly the most liberal large church in the world (American Christian Zionists would have a heart attack over much of this), and the only surprise is that it has taken it this long to come around to the only possible moral – and Christian – position.

 

 

Karr details

It was reported that authorities asked Patsy Ramsey – presumably while she was still alive – whether she was prepared to meet with the man who claimed to be JonBenet’s murderer.  We now know this person to be John Mark Karr.  The odd thing is that the authorities did not know who this man was until after Patsy’s death (see paragraphs 15 to 17 of the motion of quash the arrest warrant).

A large part of the rationalizations for the stupidities of the Boulder DA’s office relates to protecting children -Thai children – from the alleged threat caused by the predations of Karr.  Why then, once they identified him, did they allow him to stay in Thailand for a considerable period of time before he was picked up?  The Thai authorities claimed to have been following him for three weeks, during which time he could have done a lot of harm.  If the Boulder DA’s office was really concerned about protecting children, what was it waiting for?

The crime can never be solved now.  The laughing stock DA’s office wouldn’t dare mention another suspect.  In fact, preventing the solving of the murder was probably the whole point of this sorry exercise.  We are left with three coincidences:

  1. Was it a coincidence that the Karr persecution started within days of Patsy’s death?
  2. Was it a coincidence that Karr lived only a few miles away from the Ramseys while they lived in Georgia?
  3. Was it a coincidence that the Ramsey family received velvet glove treatment from the Boulder authorities – deference greater than a billionaire would have received – while John was a military contractor?

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Double-D day

It is possible that the day we’ve all been waiting for – the day on which American battlefield deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan surpass the number of deaths caused by the attacks on September 11 which were ostensibly the reason for the American wars – will occur on September 11, 2006.

Friday, August 25, 2006

The missing moon tapes

I’ve written about the the mystery of the missing moon tapes.  The conspiracy theory is that the tapes are missing as a detailed analysis of the original high-quality tapes would show that they were faked.  The fakery was done either to cover up the fact that there was no moon landing and the money for the missions was pocketed by the military-industrial complex, or because the originals showed something we weren’t supposed to see like little green men waving behind some moon rocks (some astronauts have hinted that they saw some weird things up there).  Just as ‘pirated’ – I prefer the proper term ‘shared’ - DVD’s are made by filming a cinema screen with a camcorder, the televised moon landing films were made by pointing a film camera at a television broadcast of the original tapes, a procedure unnecessarily complex and thus inherently suspicious.

I note that any evidence left on the moon  – a visible artifact or a broadcasting transmitter – could have just as easily been left by an un-manned mission, and thus does not answer the question.

There is a letter by D Ryden in the September 2006 Fortean Times which proposes a clever compromise (I can’t find the letter on the internet).  What if the moon landing was real, and the broadcasts of the moon landing were fake.   NASA may have made a fake enactment of the landing on the eventuality that some technical problem might occur to make the live broadcast impossible.  This would have been a disaster for future NASA funding, so a studio film could have been made to fill in for the real thing.  The film broadcast to the world was intentionally degraded to hide possible flaws in the enactment, and the originals were then ‘lost’ to avoid detection. 

It is an interesting coincidence that this issue is hitting the mainstream media at the same time as the death of astrophysicist James Van Allen, who believed that manned spaceflight would be impossible due to radiation in the Van Allen belts (see here). 

Karr DNA and handwriting

If:

  1. Karr had nothing to do with the killing of JonBenet Ramsey; and
  2. the police have DNA taken from the scene; and
  3. the Boulder DA wants to frame Karr for the murder

then it will be necessary to fake the DNA results or otherwise finesse them, as otherwise a non-match will be completely exculpatory.  Lo and behold, the evidence from the scene has been compromised

The handwriting ‘expert’, who has stated he is 99.9 percent certain that Karr wrote the ransom note, based on a questionable analysis without seeing the original documents, has “been disqualified by judges from testifying as an expert witness after they learned he has little education and is not certified, according to court records.”

Thursday, August 24, 2006

The success of the international resistance

From, of all places, Insight Magazine:

“Mr. Rumsfeld is said to have assessed that Sunni and Shiite militias would use the Hezbollah model in the insurgency war in Iraq. The defense secretary has been concerned that Iranian-backed Shiite militias would soon deploy anti-tank missiles that Hezbollah used against the Israeli army in Lebanon.

‘If they can knock out the [Israeli main battle tank] Merkava, then they can certainly do the same with the Bradley, Stryker and even Abrams,’ an official said. ‘This will be a priority for Rumsfeld and the army.’”

The Tamil Tigers perfected suicide bombing.  The IRA taught the Iraqi resistance about IEDs.  Hezbollah expertise at using anti-tank weapons both against tanks and against personnel is making its way around the world.  Hezbollah has learned a lot about aiming its missiles, and the next time won’t be so inaccurate, and will pass its knowledge to its friends.  The resistance is learning and so can we:

  1. Egocentric Western military strategists, talking about concepts like ‘asymmetric warfare’, are out to lunch.  Hezbollah won on the battlefield that Israel picked.  Hezbollah won as an army fighting an army, fair and square.  Contrary to the opinion of all the analysts, that Hezbollah won because Western popular opinion tied Israel’s hands, nothing could be further from the truth.  The Americans gave Israel enough time to destroy an entire country.  Western popular opinion was either non-existent, or irrelevant.  Israel’s hands weren’t tied in the least, and, after what it did to Lebanon, it is obscene to suggest otherwise.  Hezbollah didn’t use civilians as shields as the Lebanese civilian population is too riddled with informants.  The fact that it didn’t fire its missiles from civilian areas –  a racist idea promoted by the racist Zionists – is proven from the universal support it now has from all Lebanese civilians.  In fact, the ‘asymmetric warfare’ concept of fighting by using terror against civilians for political purposes – classic ‘terrorism’, as defined by the experts - was Israeli strategy, not Hezbollah’s.  Israelis are the real terrorists.  All the excuses made for the abject failure of the IDF are simply lies, and anyone who believes them will continue to make the same mistakes that Israel made.
  2. The use of cheap and easily available military technology against richer but stupider opponents is going to continue to become more prevalent and more sophisticated.  We are seeing the rise of a virtual world-wide resistance, where various groups, often separated by religion or ideology (the Marxists must be sad, as the international resistance is defined in terms that don’t fit their pattern in any way), are sharing techniques.  The relatively cheap matériel is easily available on the world arms market (the Marxists might have an argument about how the sanctity of the market, which includes the market for arms, has provided enough rope for the imperialists to hang themselves).  It is going to become more and more difficult for imperialist countries to sustain the casualty rates that will be required for their politicians and generals to win their battles.
  3. All the American and Israeli plans failed because of one fact:  Hezbollah fought the Israelis and won.  Had Hezbollah been defeated, the settlers’ pools would now be full of stolen Lebanese water.  Western popular opinion had nothing to do with it.  In fact, the phony resistance of the ‘left’, exemplified by characters such as Chomsky, does far more harm than good, and simply provides cover for the imperialists to try their worst.  The resistance is completely on its own, and has to win its own battles.  Fortunately, it is proving that it is fully capable of doing so.

Traditional states like Venezuela or Syria, states which are in the cross-hairs of the evildoers, would be well advised to learn from resistance groups like Hezbollah, and prepare to defend themselves accordingly.  The wars of the future will be won in the long run, after the initial apparent success of the imperial powers.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

It must be frightening to be an Israeli now

It must be frightening to be an Israeli now.  The class bully comes back from summer vacation and finds that all the little kids he used to beat up are now bigger than he is.  Although we’ll never read it in the mainstream press, and in fact are seeing a small tsunami of articles on ‘making Aliyah’, I’m sure there is a big net emigration from Israel, as it suddenly has become apparent that he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword (the ‘demographic problem’ is about to become much worse).  Instead of using the lessons learned in Lebanon to lead to an interest in negotiation, the Israeli right is using the defeat as a prod to push for more violence.  Soon, Netanyahu will be back in power, and the almost hopeless situation will become completely hopeless.

By the way, the test of good faith in reading anything on this issue is whether an attempt is made to claim that the Israeli attack on Lebanese civilians was an act of self-defense.  If you see even a hint of ‘self-defense’, the writer is incapable of understanding that it is not acceptable to slaughter civilians and destroy an entire country in retaliation for the capture of two soldiers, particularly when:

  • The soldiers were almost certainly captured in Lebanon;
  • There have recently been hundreds of incidents along the border, almost all instigated by Israel, and none of which led to military escalation;
  • Hezbollah captured the soldiers in order to exchange them for Lebanese held illegally by Israel;
  • the Israeli attack on Lebanon had been planned for at least a year before the Israeli soldiers were captured.

An inability to comprehend that the Israel-has-a-right-to-defend-itself defense has moral limits is the unique Israeli/Zionist form of psychopathy.  It is based - and unfortunately this in now undeniable, and forms the basis for the right-left Israeli consensus that the problem with the attack was that not enough Lebanese were killed - in the unstated assumption that Jews are the only human beings that have moral worth.  This also explains why prominent Jewish ‘human rights’ advocates seem to have no interest in the plight of the Palestinians.  Only human beings have human rights, and the only full human beings are Jewish.

There is no obvious direct military threat to Israel’s existence.  Hezbollah’s victory – and it was a clear victory, with the small number of Hezbollah military funerals leading to the conclusion that the death ratio was probably well over two-to-one in favor of Hezbollah – was completely defensive.  Nevertheless, the entire equation of Israel’s existence has always been based on the idea that no Arab could defeat an IDF operation.  That delusion has been shattered.  The problem was both at the level of the highest military and political planners, and at the level of the IDF, and at the level of the Israeli soldiers.

The planners seemed to think that extensive intentional bombing of civilians would cause the Lebanese to blame Hezbollah for their problems, thus removing the civilian support for Hezbollah, thus leading to an easy Israeli military victory.  Instead, as any fool could tell you would happen, Lebanese civilian opinion went entirely against the people dropping the bombs, and entirely towards the only group in the country with the ability to defend the Lebanese people.  The Israelis based their analysis on the NATO success at bombing Serbian civilians, missing the point that Serbia had a functioning government in charge of the whole country which cared about the status of its civilian population.  NATO blackmailed the central Serbian government into capitulating on the basis that it would keep slaughtering civilians until the government gave up.  Since the central Lebanese government had no control over Hezbollah, the bombing plan was flawed from the outset, and just served to strengthen Hezbollah.  Once again, the dream of military planners, that a war can be won from the air, has been proven to be wrong.

The Israelis are noticing that the IDF has become sloppy and ineffective, largely based on the fact that it has been exclusively employed as a police unit in charge of brutalizing Palestinian civilians.  Israeli soldiers, used to showing force to groups of cowering Palestinian grandmothers, arrogantly stood around in Lebanese mountain passes, allowing Hezbollah to take them out in groups using anti-tank weapons.  Even worse, the entire fighting ability of the IDF, both tactics and military hardware, has been formed around battling Palestinian small arms fire in urban settings on relatively flat ground.  In the hills of Lebanon, facing well trained soldiers with anti-tank weapons, the Israelis were sitting ducks.  A fighting unit geared around an ability to fire tank shells into groups of Palestinian schoolchildren was no match for Hezbollah.  There is some karma in this:  a history of brutalizing Palestinian civilians has made the IDF ineffective as a fighting force against real soldiers.

The final problem – and mentioning this is the ultimate taboo – is with the soldiers themselves.  Israelis have always fought valiantly on the theory that the Jewish people had their backs against the wall and that the fight to preserve the Jewish people from anti-Semitic annihilation was just.  Sending conscripts – many of them born in the Soviet Union and dragged by their phony-Jew parents to Israel as part of the ongoing Israeli scam to increase its non-Arab population, and with no interest in Israel or Jewish history or culture –  who correctly understand that there is no real ‘existential threat’ to Israel, to risk their lives so the settlers can have swimming pools full of stolen water, isn’t quite the same thing.  In fact, it was the Hezbollah soldiers who benefited from the fact that they knew their fight to defend their families and their country was just.  We are now seeing the lies that form the basis of racist Israeli statehood finally coming home to roost.

 

 

 

Monday, August 21, 2006

Mother Jones

The supposedly progressive American magazine Mother Jones is thirty years old.  Since I saw this hack job on Rachel Corrie, something so bad Little Green Footballs would have been embarrassed to publish it (and expertly eviscerated by Phan Nguyen), I’ve lost all respect for Mother Jones.  This is more proof that what Americans mean by ‘progressive’ is what the rest of the world sees as ultra-reactionary.  Publishing this kind of hate literature is an editorial mistake you are simply not allowed to make.  I wouldn’t piss on Mother Jones if she were on fire.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

More patsy talk

I don’t usually like to go back to the scene of the blog crime, but this Ramsey patsy thing is just too delicious to resist:

  1. I’ve been dumping all over Patsy, but the fact that the Thai police claim to have been following the patsy for three weeks before arresting him means that the patsification was set in motion only a few weeks after she died.  It is possible that the plan of blaming another person to take pressure off the family was resisted by Patsy, and had to await her death before being set in motion.  We are now being spun a ‘limited hangout’ connection between Patsy and patsy.
  2. The conundrum of a family member, usually a mother, who has a dead child and who fears that the perpetrator is another loved one is a classic of crime fiction.  If there is a reason to forgive, it is a rational decision, having permanently lost one family member, to attempt not to lose another to the wheels of justice.  My problem with the Ramsey family is that they are self-satisfied, power-wielding, manipulative creeps, who use money and influence to get their way and then sob about how victimized they are.  All their problems are caused by their unwillingness to play the game by the same rules that everyone else has to put up with.
  3. The Boulder police and prosecutors demonstrate a level of incompetence and corruption that you usually only see in third world countries.  Didn’t anybody think that it might be a good idea to talk to the patsy, just to find out whether he is an obvious loon, before broadcasting his capture to the world and crowing that the case is finally solved?  It is a little late to be talking about the presumption of innocence after you have told the world about his ‘confession’.  
  4. That Thai policeman, Lt. Gen. Suwat Tumrongsiskul, has changed his story about the ‘confession’ again, now claiming that the confession story is all true except for those bits that happen to contradict what the American evidence shows.  Ha!  We’ve gone from no confession (in fact, full denial), to full confession, to very conveniently edited confession.  I wonder what the policeman misheard when Karr said ‘chloroform’?
  5. Everybody says that Karr is smart, and he may be very smart.  By making a ‘confession’ lurid enough to have him deported immediately to the United States, but obviously filled with details that are impossible (accidental killing, chloroform, sexual intercourse, school day, kidnapping), he manages to be spirited away from the Thai prison system, and faces an American charge of, at worst, lying to American officials.
  6. First principles tell us immediately that this entire story is bogus.  If Karr was a kidnaper, why didn’t he bring a ransom note with him?  The note was written on Patsy’s paper with Patsy’s pen.  How could he know he could wander around the house until he found something to write with?  How did he, officially a complete stranger, know to put a demand in the note that exactly matched John’s bonus?  There also appear to be handwriting problems with Karr, although Patsy, notably, has never been eliminated as the writer of the note, and typical Ramsey family obfuscation means that the issue was never determined.
  7. What’s with the story that Karr thought he was emailing Patsy, but his emails were being redirected to the Boulder police?  There is an indication that this ruse was being run out of Georgia, but it makes very little sense.  Is this story another attempt to distance Patsy from patsy?
  8.  Michael Tracey, who had a unsettling email correspondence with the patsy, is connected to both Patsy and Lou Smit, the detective who was, and is, the prime promoter of Ramsey family innocence.  Tracey became suspicious about Karr, and “passed his concerns on to investigators working the case privately”, who in turn involved the Boulder DA.

Commentators say I’m wasting my time on this, but I see it as good old-fashioned conspiracy theory, an example of the military-industrial complex covertly messing with the American justice system, not to mention the Thai justice system.  The Thai sex angle is the red herring that is supposed to distract us.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

More on the Ramsey patsy

Thai authorities are now claiming the suspect to the Ramsey murder confessed, saying it was an accident as a result of a botched kidnapping.  This comes from Immigration Police chief Lieutenant-General Suwat Tumroungsiskul, the same guy who had previously said that the suspect had denied any connection to the murder. This ‘confession’ isn’t even coherent as, whatever it was, the incident wasn’t a kidnapping, although it appears to be an amateur attempt by someone inside the house to make it look like a kidnapping.  The fact that the ‘confession’ follows the Official Story kidnapping theory tells us that the patsy is being forced into taking the fall based on the Ramsey family view of the crime.  Whoever is behind this has enough power to manipulate the Thai authorities. 

Since every American, and thus every prospective juror, has now heard of the patsy’s ‘confession’, even if it is ruled inadmissible due to coercion or worse applied by Thai authorities, the patsy has no chance of getting a fair trial.

Ramsey patsy

Sometimes when you get the title for a blog posting, the thing just writes itself.  They’ve picked up a patsy named John Karr for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.  How do I know he is a patsy?:

  1. The original reports said he was in jail in Thailand on unrelated sex charges.  This is untrue, as they arrested him at his apartment, and there were no charges (the confusion is even noted here).  Who gave the press misleading, and rather specific and prejudicial, information?  “Federal officials in the United States, speaking on condition of anonymity.”  The story is obviously being managed.
  2. He had a child porn rap, which makes him a perfect patsy for this kind of crime.
  3. His ex-wife alibis him.
  4. He had lived in Georgia at the same time the Ramseys had lived in Georgia, near their home.  John Ramsey denies knowing him, but leaves open the question of whether Patsy did.  If she knew about his criminal past, he would make the perfect patsy for Patsy.
  5. Thai officials are unequivocal in stating that the suspect denied all allegations;  hints of confession come only from anonymous American officials.
  6. Reading between the lines, it is fairly clear that she set him up.  The arrest was based on information that only the murderer would have known, based on communication on the internet between him and someone in Boulder:

Thai police said that when Karr was arrested, he denied any involvement in JonBenet's slaying. But a source close to the investigation in the U.S. said Karr confessed to certain elements of the crime. Also, a law enforcement source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the AP that Karr had been communicating periodically with somebody in Boulder who had been following the case and cooperating with law enforcement officials.”

That someone would be Patsy (both John and Patsy were ‘consulted’ during the course of the investigation), before the family moved away.  Of course, she would also know information that only the killer would know (!), and may have enticed him by asking him to help her (his ex-wife says he researched both this case and the Klaas case).  Making contact with a vulnerable guy she knew from Georgia is the final piece of the pattern which began with an obviously staged crime scene, manipulated to hide what really happened.  She leads him on, provides him with information which only the killer would know, and mentions his name to the police, helpfully pointing out that he is a convicted sex offender who knew the family in Georgia.  John confirms that the Boulder police had informed them of the investigation of the patsy before Patsy died.  He death is very convenient, as it is now impossible to question her.  She must have been happy approaching death that the last part of the cover-up was falling into place, and just awaited her death and the patsy being in a suspicious place like Thailand.  With a convicted patsy, the real perp would be home free (so to speak).

Don’t be fooled when they claim to have a DNA match, as they would have collected DNA when they arrested him on the child porn charge (which makes you wonder why that DNA didn’t come up on a standard match when they searched the databases).  The conspiracy in this matter goes to a very high level.  I’m surprised – well, no, not really – that nobody has tried to connect John Ramsey’s connections to the Pentagon to the bafflingly shoddy police work and the myriad problems with the official story.  Whoever managed this story had a lot of pull.  I have no idea who committed the original crime – although I could take a guess as to who a mother might want to cover for – but I know this entire story is just as suspicious as it has always been.

 

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Flying without liquids

A few useful articles on the latest phony terror scam  – aka ‘Operation Save Tony’s Ass’ – from London:

The internet is agog over the revelation in the last article that some of the alleged terrorists hadn’t bothered to obtain passports!  It is clear that the governments of the United States, Britain, and Canada have an inventory of suspects under long-term surveillance who can be used as patsies whenever the mood strikes the politicians.  The crime of the patsies consists entirely in the fact that they are young Muslim males.

We will continue to be fooled by the politicians as long as they need to hide behind the ‘war on terror’ in order to stay in power.  In this case, we have upcoming American elections coupled with Tony’s pressing problem of unpopular support for Israel’s massacre of Lebanese civilians.  Therefore, everyone else gets to pay with increasing inconvenience at the airports.  The joke is that the inconvenience stays at its highest levels until the airline executives manage to get their phone calls through to the politicians, when suddenly the terrorist threat is reduced a shade or two, just in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.

This political scam can continue as long as we agree to put up with it.  Airline security is a joke, with the neanderthal screeners picking out the 90-year-old grandmothers for strip-searches, and the guards pouring all the chemicals, which supposedly explode on being mixed, into the same vats.  Why can’t the terrorists soak their sweaters in one chemical, their shirts in another, and repair to the airplane bathrooms to soak themselves up an explosion when the two chemicals are mixed?  Whether they actually do this or not, the politicians can continue to fool us as long as there is a reasonable reason to believe that there is anger in the world-wide Muslim community. The only way to stop the problem in the long term is to stop the root cause, and the root cause is almost entirely Anglo-American support for Zionist wars against Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon.

People forget that the inventor of the ‘war on terror’, the war we are fighting at great expense and inconvenience but can never win, is a guy called Benjamin Netanyahu.  He set out the basic principles in books and in a famous speech (or here) he made at the Jewish Agency Assembly Plenary meetings on June 24, 2001 (note the date).  On the morning of September 11, Netanyahu said:

  “It’s very good.  Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans].”

The plan has always been to involve the Americans and the British in the Zionist phony ‘war on terror’.  The ‘war on terror’ is simply a propaganda trick developed to allow Israel to steal land from, amongst others, the Palestinians.  Isn’t it time we put an end to the inconvenience, the expense (in money and lives), the fear, and the violence, and stopped dancing to the tune of land thieves like Netanyahu?

Monday, August 14, 2006

The Israeli double bind

Whip-smart analysis of the Israel Lobby thesis by Jean Bricmont (Bricmont, who is politically associated with Chomsky, makes poor Noam look senile, a thesis I’ll take rather than assume Noam is just a closet Zionist).  Bricmont makes the critical point that much of the strength of the Lobby comes from its ability to make accusations of anti-Semitism, illogical allegations which bear considerable weight in the United States because of decades of brainwashing.  This is particularly ironic as Zionism itself is completely grounded in anti-Arab/anti-Muslim bigotry. 

I find the musings of Jostein Gaarder a rather refreshing antidote to the smothering of all rational thought on the subject of the Middle East under fear of being called a Nazi.  Gaardner is proving to be a formidable trickster, drawing the Zionists into his trap and then hitting them with the statement that they can have the 1948 borders!  Of course, Gaardner is perfectly correct:  since you can no longer gain ground by military conquest, the only legitimate Israeli borders are the 1948 borders.

Gaardner is essentially making the ultimate threat:  stop abusing claims of anti-Semitism or we’ll call your bluff and connect what Israel does to allegations about the nature of Judaism, thus reversing 50 years of success in eliminating much of the world’s anti-Semitism.  If you want us to reestablish that connection, just keep ‘standing for’ Israel’s slaughter of civilians.  We dare you.

The Zionists defend Israel by claiming that the Jews, due to centuries of prosecution culminating in that thing the Germans did (I’m reserving the H-word to describe what Israel is now doing to Arabs), have a special right to defend themselves.  In other words, the state of the Jewish people has peculiar rights due to the nature of Jewish history.  On the other hand, even raising the issue of whether the nature of Israeli expansionism might have anything to do with the nature of Judaism results in the slur of anti-Semitism flying around.  This is the Israeli double bind.  They want us to unquestioningly accept the concept of a state based on racist religious/ethnic basis – a basis so complicated you need a rabbinical expert to determine who is in the ‘in’ group and who is in the ‘out’ group – while simultaneously pretending to ignore the fact that the illegal actions of that state appear to be grounded in religious exceptionalism.  They rely on the Jewish nature of Israel when it suits them, and parry legitimate complaints about what Israel is doing by screaming ‘anti-Semitism!’.

They can’t continue to have it both ways.  Either Israel is a normal state bound by normal rules of international law, including a requirement to obey UN resolutions and a requirement not to attempt to acquire land by military conquest, or it is the only magical state in the world which obtains all its rights from some religious law, in which case we have a right to ask questions about the connections between Judaism and Israel’s actions.  If you don’t want people asking these ancient questions which have long been used as slurs against the Jewish people, rein in the Jewish state.

North American Jews are the lowest of the low.  They live in absolute peace and security, proclaim upset at what is being done to the poor Palestinians, while covertly using their influence and money to manipulate politicians and the media to encourage the worst excesses of Israeli colonialism.  Unfortunately, due to the nature of Israeli politics there are always politicians around eager to take the bait and kill and brutalize Arabs.  One of the good things about the Israeli attack on Lebanon is that a lot of these two-faced North American bastards have been outed by their public display of support for Israel (which amounts to the aiding and abetting of war crimes).  The real anti-Semites are those who secretly work for policies that will inevitably destroy Israel.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Anti-Zionist boycott follow-up

YayaCanada picks up the discussion of the anti-Zionist boycott.  It is important to follow up on this issue now, while the world can still see the images of an entire country destroyed by land-and-water-stealing racist madmen, all operating under the political shelter created by a small number of very wealthy North American Jews (I’m sorry to have to put it so starkly, but that is the sad truth, and while I’m making you mad, you might as well look at some calming cartoons:  this one – or here - found via YayaCanada, and this one, from ThomasMc.com).  Otherwise, Israel will withdraw, lick its wounds, and prepare for the next in an ongoing series of outrages.  The only leverage we have, in the complete absence of any shred of integrity in the politicians taken hostage by Zionism, is to attack the underpinnings of Zionism by attacking those who make Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity possible.  You can see the real motivations behind those who have denied the Israel Lobby thesis (and in the light of the machinations over the withdrawal resolution, those who denied the Israel Lobby thesis have been conclusively proved to be fools or liars, or worse):  protecting the plutocrats who make Zionist crimes possible.

Once Israel withdraws, assuming it does (and the only real reason it will withdraw is to avoid embarrassment at the hands of Hezbollah fighters, proving once again that the only friend the Arabs have is their ability to fight back), the political commentators will fall all over themselves praising Israel for its ‘restraint’, while the Palestinians will continue to receive their daily dose of Lebanon treatment, invisible to most of the world media.  Jenin and Qana were pretty much the same as massacres go, with Jenin falling into obscurity and Qana becoming a wake-up call for many who have failed to pay attention to what Israel is really doing.  The reason for this discrepancy is three-fold:

  1. The Lebanese have access to media channels that are not available to the Palestinians, and the world saw the slaughter.
  2. Everyone can empathize with the plight of the Lebanese, who went to bed one night feeling safe and secure as they fought to modernize their country, and woke up the next morning under the rubble caused by an unprovoked and irrational and illegal attack.  If it could happen to Beirut, it could happen anywhere.
  3. Jesus the Magician performed one of his best tricks at Cana.

Israel has no set borders because, as far as Zionism is concerned, the real borders of Israel are the Nile and the Euphrates, or at least as much of that territory that the Zionists can get away with stealing.  The original UN mandated borders weren’t enough, the 1967 borders weren’t enough, Israel and the Occupied Territories isn’t enough, Israel up to the Litani River isn’t enough.  Nothing is enough.   They won’t – probably can’t – stop until they are stopped, and the only way I can see to stop them is for individuals to take personal action to make it clear that the human beings in the world – as opposed to the politicians, the media, and the corporations – won’t put up with it any longer.

Friday, August 11, 2006

More shenanigans by Israel?

I read recent reports of the death of a number of Israeli soldiers in northern Israel, and wasn’t much interested.  But then I got to thinking.  From the report in the Guardian (my emphasis in red):

“Israel yesterday endured the bloodiest day of the war so far when at least 15 people, among them 12 soldiers, were killed in a series of Hizbullah rocket strikes on the north of the country.

The soldiers, all recently called-up reservists, were gathered around two parked cars under a row of fir trees at the edge of an historic cemetery next to the kibbutz of Kfar Giladi, when a barrage of rockets rained down on the northern hills. One landed just in front of one of the cars, gouging a shallow crater in the road. Both cars were left blackened and burnt out.”

and:

“The greatest loss of Israeli life came after sirens sounded at the Kfar Giladi kibbutz at midday yesterday, warning of an imminent rocket attack. The few residents left on site took shelter in a strong room, but the reservists remained where they stood. A heavy barrage of rockets followed, with about 100 Katyushas thundering into the hills around them in 15 minutes.”

and:

The cemetery is the burial place of Josef Trumpeldor, a Zionist who was killed in 1920 fighting against the Palestinians and is famed in Israeli history for his dying words: ‘It is good to die for our country.’

and:

“Israel said later that its warplanes had attacked the town of Qana and destroyed the launchers that fired the rockets on Haifa. Qana was the scene of an Israeli attack last Friday in which 28 civilians died. Israel acknowledged that last week's attack was a mistake, but insisted Hizbullah was hiding its launching sites among the town's civilians.”

Are you thinking what I’m thinking?  Hezbollah, which can’t hit the broad side of a mountain with its rockets, suddenly becomes Annie Oakley and takes out 12 soldiers at once.  Although Hezbollah, contrary to Zionist reports, has been targeting military installations and not civilians, and kills civilians because of the Israeli tactic of using Arab Israelis as human shields by putting its military installations near Arab neighborhoods (the Guardian article is one of the rare instances where this is pointed out, noting: “The most heavily bombarded areas were Haifa's Arab neighbourhoods.”), suddenly Hezbollah fires rockets at a Kibbutz in the countryside, with notable success.  Some questions:

  • How did Hezbollah know that the reservists would be there, showing a remarkable grasp of intelligence in Israel, or were they just lucky?
  • Why did they fire at a holiday resort in the countryside hills?
  • How did they develop such pinpoint accuracy?
  • Why did the reservists not heed the alarm and take shelter?
  • Is it a coincidence that the attack occurred at a Zionist shrine to someone who said “It is good to die for our country.”?
  • Isn’t it convenient that Israel attacked Qana in retaliation for the attack, supposedly the site of the rockets, after its infamous ‘mistaken’ attack?

As part of its propaganda war, Israel has fired rockets on its own citizens before, it appears that Israel sent the captured and killed soldiers on a suicide mission into Lebanon to serve as the reason for a long pre-planned attack on Lebanon, Israel has admitted to leaving Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon to cause Israeli civilian deaths, and and Israel has shown a peculiar disinclination towards rocket defense.  Is it possible to imagine that the rocket that killed these soldiers was fired from Israel?

 

 

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Why are the Jews so Jew-y?

Norwegian novelist Jostein Gaarder breaks the ultimate taboo in an anti-Israel rant by tying the irrationality of Israeli violence to Judaism (the link is to an unofficial translation, which starts as follows):

“There is no turning back. It is time to learn a new lesson: We do no longer recognize the state of Israel. We could not recognize the South African apartheid regime, nor did we recognize the Afghan Taliban regime. Then there were many who did not recognize Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the Serbs’ ethnic cleansing. We must now get used to the idea: The state of Israel in its current form is history.

We do not believe in the notion of God’s chosen people. We laugh at this people’s fancies and weep over its misdeeds. To act as God’s chosen people is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism.

There are limits to our patience, and there are limits to our tolerance. We do not believe in divine promises as justification for occupation and apartheid. We have left the Middle Ages behind. We laugh uneasily at those who still believe that the God of flora, fauna, and galaxies has selected one people in particular as his favorite and given it funny stone tablets, burning bushes, and a license to kill.

We call child murderers ‘child murderers’ and will never accept that such have a divine or historic mandate excusing their outrages. We say but this: Shame on all apartheid, shame on ethnic cleansing, shame on every terrorist strike against civilians, be it carried out by Hamas, Hizballah, or the state of Israel!”

There has been a huge reaction to this little essay, and the author has decided to say no more on the subject.  There are a number of things that are strikingly unusual about Israel and the Jewish people:

  • Israeli attitudes to its neighbors and a large part of its own population are completely racist, and this racism allows for the most vile attacks against human beings with the almost total support of the Israeli population and its supporters outside Israel; 
  • Israeli attitudes and the attitudes of world-wide Jewry towards Israel are predicated on the basis of an alleged fear of being wiped off the map – ‘pushed into the sea’ – but we know that Israel has never been under any real existential threat (back to its earliest days, Israel always outgunned all its potential opponents), and has never been more militarily powerful than it is now;
  • the hypersensitivity of the Jewish people towards the security of Israel is supposed to derive from what the Nazis did, yet the complete set of ideas and attitudes about  the Jewish state, Zionism, predate National Socialism by fifty years;
  • The Jewish people are typically the most humanist and tolerant people in the world, except when it comes to Israel, when the only fair comparison of their worldview is to National Socialism (Dershowitz is now saying that international law protections for civilians do not apply to the entire civilian population of Lebanon - !!! - and he is just elucidating the common North American Jewish perception);
  • the international Jewish population, particularly in North America, identifies with Israel and its illegal and immoral actions to an extent that is both incomprehensible and unsettling.

When Benny Morris decided to examine the truth behind Palestinian stories about the Nakba, he was surprised to find that the worst of the Palestinian allegations about what the Israelis had done were absolutely true.  You would normally expect that his reaction would have been remorse, coupled with a desire to do right by the Palestinians.  Instead, he has argued that what Israel has done is so vile that it can never possibly be forgiven, meaning that the Palestinians can never stop trying to obtain revenge, meaning that the only solution is to put an end to any possible method for the Palestinians to get such revenge.  In other words, the solution to finding out that you are a moral monster is to try to become more of a moral monster.

I’ve always wondered whether this is a cultural problem.  The Jewish god isn’t big on the concept of forgiveness, or for that matter on anything else that can be thought of as sane.  As described in the Hebrew Bible, He is a psychopath.  The reforming religions of Christianity and Islam have a much more humane deity, one for which the concept of forgiveness is important.  Is it possible that Morris can’t understand the Palestinians in any terms other than revenge because he doesn’t understand that they are capable of the un-Jewish idea of forgiveness? 

My own personal genetic background is from a group that historically has been one of the most oppressed in the world.  Growing up, I was always aware of my background, but never for one minute had any particular interest in the plight of ‘my people’, any more at least than I had an interest in the plight of the Cambodians, or the South Africans, or the Palestinians.  Making politics out of my genetics is completely incomprehensible to me.  Why is it that a Jewish person I might meet on the street, possessed of a collection of the most liberal ideas of any person in the world, is fully prepared to treat much of the internal population of Israel, and all of its neighbors’ populations, as worse than vermin?  How is it that he can regale me with stories of how oppressed and mistreated ‘his people’ are, and simultaneously boast of the complete superiority of ‘his people’, as evidenced by the fact that they fill leadership roles in academia, law, medicine, business, and politics?  Just imagine how well they’d do if they weren’t so oppressed!  Is it possible that this perverse combination of a persecution complex and a superiority complex, all based on the idea of a ‘Jewish race’, is behind the peculiar attitude of world Jewry towards Israel and the violent racism of the Jewish state?  Does the evil in Israel and its supporters come out of a culturally transmitted series of ideas that come out of Judaism itself?  That’s the kind of big crackpot theory I normally don’t put much truck in, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain the actions of Israel and its Jewish apologists without some cultural/religious root causes.

Monday, August 07, 2006

The anti-Zionist boycott

The world faces a set of unique circumstances which make a boycott of business leaders and businesses that support Israel and Zionism both possible, and necessary:

  1. Since the first settlers were allowed to live in the Occupied Territories, Israel’s crimes have continued to escalate, and the latest attack on the civilian population and infrastructure of Lebanon proves that Israel is beyond redemption.  I remember noting that the optimism over the last Israeli election results was misplaced, and the tragedy is that there is now no real opposition in Israel to the worst excesses of the extreme Israeli right, represented by the generals, which has become mainstream Israeli thinking.  No opposition from political parties, and no opposition from the people.  The only real opposition is that the brutalization of Lebanon isn’t brutal enough.  Israel is like a serial killer that has psychologically worked its way up to mass murder.  There is no cure.  When Israel eventually partly withdraws from Lebanon, it will just be the usual temporary ‘ratchet’ measure, a PR move intended to set the stage for the next outrage.
  2. Israel is inevitably going to pull the world into World War Three, the Energy War, a certainty which is so important that it calls for emergency measures to stop it.  Even leaving aside self-interest, every decent human being has an obligation to attempt to stop the kind of crimes being committed in the name of Zionism against the peoples of Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, not to mention whoever is next on the list.
  3. The world community has proven itself to be completely useless, or worse than useless, in answering the challenge of Israeli crimes.  The current American and French – the French appear to have set themselves up for some big terrorism attacks, which, frankly, will be well deserved – ceasefire proposal is some kind of joke, and looks like it was written by the American neocons with the help of the Israeli generals.  We have seen the beginnings of the Euro pusillanimity in its bizarre choice to support the Israeli ‘diet plan’ for the Palestinians because they had the temerity to exercise the democracy supposedly granted to them by the Americans and vote for who they wanted to lead them.  There are no longer any ‘honest brokers’.  The average people in the world cannot rely on their governments or on international organizations to do the right thing.
  4. On the positive side, the problem has a single source, and a single vulnerability.  Israel is able to do what it does solely because of support from the Anglophone world, particularly the United States, and the craven inability of Europe to put up any kind of opposition to American policies.  The American situation, closely paralleled in the UK and Canada, is that the government is run by a relatively small number of Zionists, who control key bureaucratic positions, key politicians (Bush and Blair), and all the media.  In the United States, Zionists have a stranglehold over both political parties, with the Democrats actually much more corrupted than the Republicans.  The politicians are beyond redemption – Bush and particularly Blair are religiously insane – but the peculiar intensity of the pressure leaves a particular vulnerability.  
  5. A boycott clearly directed at business leaders and businesses that support Zionism has a chance to cut Zionism off at the knees.  This boycott would be directed at anyone who has shown support for either Israel or Zionist policies – we can no longer afford to play along with the Zionist lie that there is a difference between Israel and Zionist colonialism –  including support for any of the usual suspect lobby groups (and almost all lobby groups associated with support for Israel are suspect).  Anyone who participates in any of the recent rallies ‘standing’ for Israel, which is essentially aiding and abetting massive war crimes, should be on the list.  Note that this boycott is not directed at Jews – the obvious attack which this proposal will receive – as it applies to Christian Zionists as well as Jewish Zionists, and anyone - Christian, Jew or Hindu - can get off the list by denouncing Zionism and Israeli colonialism, pledging to work towards Israel being limited to its 1967 borders next to a full Palestinian state, and, depending on how much support has been given to Zionist organizations in the past, making a generous compensatory donation to Palestinian/Lebanese relief efforts.
  6. The world is seriously engaged on this issue, and I’m sure this would be a popular boycott (needless to say, a full boycott against Israel itself – including academic and investment divestment boycotts - would be a part of the program, but would not succeed unless we can cut off American government and media support for Israel, simply because American support is the real reason Israel survives as a colonialist power).  People want to do something, realize their own governments are corrupted or worse than useless, but need information in order to boycott effectively.  What we require to go forward is a full list of all the financial supporters of Zionism, and the businesses with which they are associated, so we can know where to make our purchasing decisions.  Publicly-traded corporations would no longer be able to be associated with Zionists, as it would depress their share prices.  It should be possible for businesses to obtain some kind of certification from an international body of being free of Zionist supporters, thus allowing moral individuals to purchase their products.
  7. In the case of media outlets, where Zionist lies help to hide the worst outrages, we need list of advertisers, so that we can threaten to boycott the advertisers on the worst offending media outlets.  This will take some time as, in the case of the United States, all media outlets are corrupted.  Nevertheless, those outlets that attempt to tell the truth should be rewarded by not having their advertisers on the secondary boycott list.

We can and should get our placards and march around in a circle, but until the American government/Zionist/Israel nexus is broken, the Israeli generals will just laugh at us.  This is why it is so critically important to fight the closet Zionist idea that what Israel does is at the instance of the American establishment, or is merely part of a covert war over oil, a classic example of getting the cart and the horse mixed up.  The only way to put an end to Israeli colonialism, and to prevent World War Three, is to hurt the supporters of Zionism financially.  The fact that this is the only way to stop Zionism is proof of the real power relations between the parties.  The Noams of the world can issue all the letters they want claiming how upset they are over Lebanon, and it won’t make a tinker’s damn of difference.  A boycott of Zionists will work.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

The crazy mega-conspiracy oil theory

Juan Cole posits the crazy mega-conspiracy oil theory in order to explain the Israeli attack on Lebanon.  The problem with the theory is the obvious one:  rather than weaken Hezbollah and Iran, nothing has done more to strengthen them, and even encourage the dreaded Sunni-Shi’ite alliance.  In order to accept the theory, you have to believe that the Anglo-American geopolitical strategists are idiots (the Europeans have no interest in whether their Iranian oil is pumped by Iranian companies or American ones). What’s happening in Lebanon is exactly what it looks like:  the Israeli generals, perceiving a weakening of the neocons in Washington (Israeli neocolonialism is tied directly to crooked American voting machines!), and wanting to take a last crack at stealing Litani River water and breaking up Lebanon, are using the Christian Zionist duo of Bush-Blair, while they are in power, along with the neocon traitors and the Zionist American media spin machine, to expand Israel while they still can.  Christian Lebanon is being attacked as part of the Yinon strategy - followed religiously by the generals who really rule Israel - to destroy Lebanon as a single state. 

It’s funny how we hear that the most obvious conspiracy theories in the world are nonsense, unless they provide cover for Zionism, in which case the most insane counterintuitive conspiracy theories are the only possible answer.  I hope that ‘Peak Oil’ is true (unlikely that we would be so lucky), as it is the only thing that will save us from our real problem, global warming (the obvious long-term plan is to power everything by hydrogen manufactured using energy from mini-nuclear plants, leaving oil as a quaint chapter in the history of technology).

A joke at a useful time

Rick Salutin, the only sane Globe and Mail columnist left, on Mel Gibson and the Zionist misuse of anti-Semitism:

“At last we know what Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic about. He doesn't abhor Jews because they killed Christ, though his film clearly depicted them that way. It's because they have a veto (he thinks) on his Hollywood projects.

And now, due to his drunken outburst on a California highway, more Lebanese villagers will be bombed and uprooted. I mean this symbolically, in the sense that generations of Arabs have had to pay for two millenniums of Christian anti-Semitism in Europe, once ‘the West’ decided it owed a debt to Jews for the Holocaust.

And I mean it literally: He reinforced a sense that an ancient, ineradicable hatred of Jews lurks behind the current strife. One Hollywood agent said: ‘At a time of escalating tensions in the world, the entertainment industry cannot idly stand by and allow Mel Gibson to get away with such tragically inflammatory statements.’ Notice the link.

The history of anti-Semitism, crowned by the Holocaust, is so odious that a mere mention tends to override other factors, and even facts. For instance, this week, Marcus Gee, in The Globe and Mail, condemned ‘the refusal of the Arab world to accept a Jewish state in its midst.’ Yet, at a 2002 summit, the Arab world offered a comprehensive peace with Israel if it returned to its 1967 borders. He writes as if that never happened. It's as if a horror of anti-Semitism can eclipse reality itself, and Gibson-like outbursts help keep the fear active.”

It now looks like Mel wasn’t in on the conspiracy, but there was a conspiracy.  Mel wasn’t really drunk, but is a notorious practical joker.  He obviously isn’t an anti-Semite (Jewish publicist, Jewish bodyguard, and works with Jewish people every day of the year), but probably picked up on the fact that an arresting officer was Jewish, and decided to have a little fun.  He never expected that his little joke would be used for political purposes, but was blind-sided by the need for the American Zionist spin machine to come up with the traditional explanation for why Israel has to commit wholesale war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Thus, Mel’s joke was publicized (normally, the publicity wouldn’t go beyond the charge and an ugly mug shot;  btw, doesn’t Mel take an atypically handsome mug shot, especially as compared with the norm?), and the full court press by the usual suspects, replete with over-the-top calls for a Hollywood ban of Mel, was misused in order to provide some sorely-needed protection for the Zionist murdering state.  The message to Hollywood stars is to lay off the jokes about Jews while Israel is involved in a massive civilian slaughter (you can joke during the usual slow-motion slaughter of Palestinians). 

Watch for Mel to make a self-deprecating joke at the next Oscars, and receive a big laugh from the 85 per cent Jewish audience (the other 15 per cent being seat-fillers), proving that his joke served its purpose and everybody wants to continue to make money with the guy.

 

Friday, August 04, 2006

Spontaneous human explosion

Watching the Democrats spin the Israeli massacre of the Lebanese people is like watching a spectator to an altercation between a 200-pound man and a six-year-old girl.  The man keeps knocking the girl down, but she gamely gets up, only to be knocked down again.  Gradually, as she struggles more and more to get up, it becomes apparent that he is killing her.  Nevertheless, the spectator, Mr. Democrat, claims to be completely oblivious to what is going on, as witness his series of comments:

  • She must have done something to provoke him;
  • Look, she held up her arm to defend herself, it’s obviously a fair fight;
  • These issues are too complicated for any outside observer to understand;
  • We have to let them work out their own problems (although the man is using American brass knuckles supplied with the approval of Mr. Democrat);
  • There are thousands of years of conflict behind this, and we have no role to play;
  • It all comes down to ‘He said, she said’;  who knows who is right and who is wrong?

Of course, the analogy is faulty, as we would have to add that the 200-pound man’s brother, Mr. Israel Lobby, is standing beside Mr. Democrat handing him one hundred dollar bills, and whispering, “You won’t get any more unless you support the man”.  The rationalizations of a position that you are taking solely because you are being bribed are sickening.  I’ve cleaned up my blogroll to remove some of the worst offenders (I note that Defense Tech, not a Democrat blog, actually seemed to be getting a sexual thrill describing the technology Israel was using to murder Lebanese civilians).

Mr. Democrat’s position is even more sickening when you consider that the American public is against what Israel is doing.  Despite the heavy spin of the Los Angeles Times (not to mention a lying headline), their recent poll shows that 43% of Americans feel the Israeli actions are justified and not excessively harsh, while 44% think those actions are either unjustified or excessively harsh.  You have to read this poll in the light of the fact that the mainstream American media depicts the conflict as the unprovoked attack by Arab ‘terrorists’ on innocent Israeli civilians, attacks shown in massive detail, along with veiled rumors that Arabs are suffering from something akin to spontaneous human explosion, cause unknown.  Despite the lying news coverage, the truth is sneaking through.  The only lesson to be taken from this is that the Democrats are doing this rationalization solely for money, and not for political support.  They make the Republicans look ethical.

By the way, doesn’t the current situation make those who denied the Israel Lobby thesis look positively foolish? 

In Canada, ‘Steve’ – what Bush, but nobody else, calls him, so ‘Steve’ it is  – Harper, who wanted nothing more in life than to win a majority government in the next election, has kissed it all away mostly because of his bizarre Israel-über-alles position on the conflict.  Canada has probably the closest connection to Lebanon of any country in the world, but Harper could see no wrong in Israel, and it will probably cost him enough votes in Quebec and Ontario to make him a political failure.  Harper’s position was so insane that when a Canadian career soldier serving as a UN observer was murdered by Israeli bombardment, Harper complained that it was the UN’s fault for having the observers where they were, as if they should be observing from a safe place far away where they couldn’t see anything!  How much has the Israel Lobby agreed to pay him, anyway?

I can’t forget Blair, a man who should have been deposed by his spineless colleagues months ago, colleagues who are now in open revolt.  As I predicted, leaving Blair around was a dangerous mistake, and the time is now to get rid of him, and turn him over to a war crimes tribunal for conviction and sentencing.

The massacre at Qana was a huge world-shifting turning point, and the Israelis, and their apologists, are terrified of it.  That explains the continuing efforts to spin the massacre, with arguments that it was a set-up, with the bodies shipped in by Hezbollah to fake an Israeli attack, or that there were missiles firing from there, a position so untenable that even the Israeli government is too ashamed to make it.  The weak attempts at lying their way around it don’t fool anybody except those who want to be fooled, and alert everybody else to the enormity of the crime.  Qana woke up the entire world, including even the Americans, to the realities of the conflict with Lebanon, not to mention the conflict with the Palestinians.  The Israelis have lost so much support on just this one incident that it will go down as a turning point in the history of Israel.  That makes this an important time to provide the people – as opposed to their governments, corrupted by the Israel Lobby, and their media, spinning mightily, but with decreasing effect, for Israel – with something they can do.  The boycott.  Of which more anon.

 

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

It's a small world, anthrax division

Before I leap back into the world of boycotts, a slight detour into the subject of the American anthrax attacks:

  • Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld owns a considerable number of shares in a corporation called Gilead Sciences;
  • Gilead owns the intellectual property rights to Tamiflu;
  • Tamiflu is a pharmaceutical touted by the Bush Administration as a remedy for anthrax (although in fact it is not indicated for anthrax);
  • the anthrax attacks on the United States vastly increased the demand for Tamiflu, and thus increased the value of Gilead, and thus made Rumsfeld a lot of money;
  • the anthrax for the attacks almost certainly came from an American military laboratory at Fort Detrick;
  • one of the named suspects at the lab is Philip Zack, a man who left the lab in 1991 after being involved in a racist attack against a fellow scientist of Arab origin, and a man who was observed having unauthorized access to the area of the lab containing the Ames strain of anthrax used in the attacks, around the time that some of the anthrax went missing (he had such access in 1992, after he had left the lab);
  • Philip Zack attracted a mysterious lack of official interest in the investigation of the anthrax attacks (as opposed to the completely innocent Steven Hatfill, who was hounded by the FBI, almost as if he were a distraction); and
  • Philip Zack, as neatly described here (found via here),  went on to work for Gilead (identified from a scientific paper published in December 2000).

I know it is a small world, but is it that small?