Terrorist-Girls-Gone-Wild

Below I've included a somber quotation from the July 30th entry of the excellent Iraqi blog, 'Baghdad Burning' (http://www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com/).

"...And the world wonders how ‘terrorists’ are created! A 15-year-old Lebanese girl lost five of her siblings and her parents and home in the Qana bombing… Ehud Olmert might as well kill her now because if he thinks she’s going to grow up with anything but hate in her heart towards him and everything he represents, then he’s delusional.

Is this whole debacle the fine line between terrorism and protecting ones nation? If it’s a militia, insurgent or military resistance- then it’s terrorism (unless of course the militia, insurgent(s) and/or resistance are being funded exclusively by the CIA). If it’s the Israeli, American or British army, then it’s a pre-emptive strike, or a ‘war on terror’. No matter the loss of hundreds of innocent lives. No matter the children who died last night- they’re only Arabs, after all, right?"

Yes Ehud, will one more day of terrorist-generating bloodshed be sufficient for you?? Yes? Good ...
Shalom, dude!

Former Refugees now Refugee-MAKERS

The Jewish people, with their legendary, and much admired determination that preserved their singular culture even while dispersed around the world, are today allowing the Israeli leadership to pursue policies of refugee-creation and oppression, with an increasingly arrogant, Roman-like malice toward the exiled Palestinians in Lebanon and Gaza.

This week's news of Israeli attacks on a Palestinian refugee camp in southern Lebanon (as reported on the respected, Middle-East foreign-policy blog: http://juancole.com on Aug 9th):
.....
' An Israeli strike on the Ain al Hilweh camp in the port city of Sidon early Wednesday killed at least two people and wounded 15, including five children, medics said. . . '

About one third of the deaths in this war have been children under 12 years of age. [One Israeli shell hit the amusement park at Sidon, an obvious hotbed of terrorism.]
.....

Based on other emerging media releases:
It seems that the Israel's savage attack on the whole of Lebanon has started to bother even George W. Bush (much to his credit!). I rarely applaude the President these days, and when it reaches that point, then the (former refugee) Israelis have really gone too far!

The UN-Resolution

Yes, this very bad nation of Lebanon, refusing so arrogantly to implement UN Resolution 1559 which requires that they exercise authority over the entire acreage of their homeland, such that none is left available for control by Hezbollah. Does this also require that the Lebanese Army immediately push all IDF forces from the South of Lebanon, so as not to allow its use by outside terrorist forces (either one)? If so, perhaps a UN force should assist in this effort - a la Korea - maybe ending in a DMZ carved out of both sides of the border?

Well, really what's the problem with this so-called Lebanon anyway? Haven't they been provided with a sterling example of un-compliance with UN-Resolutions by southern neighborly state Israel? So many UN-Resolutions on those West Bank Jewish settlements - who can keep track of it all? It all boils down to friends in high places. Friends who could create a new state out of an old religious text - and make it stick - sort of. I grew up on that old text (along with the newer one) so I see plainly where American emotions will lie for a long time to come. All the old stories are still with me - even after such a long lapse. But, also with me are the lessons of the newer text - the ones of peace and love before honor and vanity and land and wealth - the same ones now pushed aside and not observed.

Israel: Such an Example

Yes, it's true that Iran has been just a little secretive about its plans for nuclear development. Or, perhaps it doesn't enjoy being lectured by more "responsible" countries like the USA - the only country ever to use nuclear weapons in war (twice against almost entirely civilian targets!) - to be followed-up later by decades of "first use - Yes!" policy. And now, on to a new round of weapons development..... (yes, but not for you)

Or maybe Iran just hasn't grown up around such good examples in its own neighborhood - like Israel - the world's most mysterious nuclear power. Of course Israel has nuclear bombs, but this can never be mentioned in polite company. Since it's never admitted, what's to inspect? - sign the Non-Proliferation treaty, but why? - admit inspectors, to see what? So, make sure that Iran and Iraq lay prostrate for inspections without limit. As for Israel, shut up, play it smart and they'll forget you even asked them about it - you didn't know it was off limits - Mr. Ulmert is a fair man - he doesn't want to see a dumb gentile kid get roughed up.

Will we always be "at war" now - or just until further notice?

It seems like a perfectly valid question. Yet, this bold presidential statement that "we are at war" - so stridently made after 9/11, and accepted by most of the American public without question for nearly 5 years now, is not a self-evident declaration that should enter the annals of history without at least a few questions (even at this late date).

Does the fact that 19 terrorists destroyed two skyscrapers in NYC nearly five years ago mean that we are automatically AT WAR until George W. Bush says otherwise? We're depending on the one person for whom a self-declared "state of war" yields nearly unlimited, unquestioned power, to tell us when it's all over and we're back to normal. The President once said to reporters: "...you don't think I WANT to be a War President, do you?". Oh yes Mr. President, with all due respect, I DO think so!

If you've read "1984" by George Orwell and you don't see some pretty obvious parallels with the current "war", then please read it again!

The massacre on 9/11 was truly horrible. But, how was it "more horrible" than our many recent actions in the Middle East involving "collateral damage". It's not certain, but you may have a factor of intent (or may not in some cases). And at one time, the numbers would have tilted the comparison to 9/11, but it's mostly been reversed by now - such that it's very likely that more than 3000 innocent people have now been killed cumulatively in cases of "collateral damage", mistaken identity, language deficiency, unclear roadblock protocol, troops letting off steam in Iraq (and also you can start counting dead innocents in Lebanon - just more "birth pangs" Condi tells us).

And going beyond 9/11/2001, how many Americans were killed on American soil by terrorists in 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? so far in 2006? I believe that the answer in each case is zero - and yet the attack continues and the war rages on.....