more is less, peace is war, 1982 all over again

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/19/video-of-israeli-bombs-fa_n_25412.html

a clear blue sky theory from last nites lateline.....

TED LAPKIN: Well, again, this started when Hezbollah violated Israel's border and violated Israel's sovereignty in a completely unprovoked and pre-meditated attack.

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/07/19/facts-about-israel-the-media-isnt-telling-you-2/


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/16/wmid16.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/16/i

suddenly the sky is not so clear.

Despatch from the duly elected PM of Iraq:

"I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers' meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression."

meanwhile in gaza, from the NYT:

Israel’s operations against Palestinian militants continued in the Gaza. Israeli forces killed six Palestinians today after tanks moved into a refugee camp in central Gaza under cover of machine-gun fire, the latest incursion in Israel’s three-week military push in the seaside territory.
Separately, in the West Bank city of Nablus, three Palestinians were killed when the army surrounded a prison where wanted militants were apparently hiding, Palestinian officials said.

an updated report: now up to 14 dead

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1691398.htm

meanwhile the carnage in Iraq doesnt just continue, it gets bigger by the day:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?ei=5090&en=9183fb4f01b6dadc&ex=1310961600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all


while the new american century lies through its well funded teeth:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/19/kristol-iran/

Kristol, who claims not to be apart of the neo-cons, or the new american century project despite writing articles for it, signing letters on its behalf and stumping for its agenda, wants war, no matter how wrong he has been on every issue so far this new century.

"It is, but also the Iranian people dislike their regime. I think they would be – the right use of targeted military force — but especially if political pressure before we use military force – could cause them to reconsider whether they really want to have this regime in power."

He is a little right (no pun intended) in saying that the average Iranian does not like the present, I spoke to probably a hundred ordinary people throughout the central cities of Iran, all said the same thing, and all said that if Americans invaded, they would defend thier homeland. A policeman I had a good chat with late one night at a train station in Yadhz told me that he gave the current regime about 5 years before it would go, but that it would not go from the outside, only from the inside. He was extremely hopeful for the future (as were most I spoke to), complaining as all did about the influence of the mullahs, (number one complaint of everybody was the cost of living) but provided the Iranians were allowed to settle who governed their country by themselves, not by a reimposition of the Peacock Throne by the US (although the zorastrians had a lot more love for thier ex dictator than anyone else).

William Kristol talks through his arse and conservatives clearly prick up thier ears whenever sodomy is mentioned. Espcially if it means fucking up any country, including their own.

Key words you will hear repeated ad nauseam in any discussion of Israels use of force:

terrorists (anyone the IDF kills eg “Terrorists use the population and live among them” which of course means the terrorists are civilians)

surgical strikes (dropping the bombs exactly where the bombs fell)

pinpoint (dropping the bombs where we think they fell or a little to the left)

strictly military targets (we dont know where the bombs landed)

Israel wants to avoid (sure the f-16 hit the clearly marked ambulance, but we wanted to avoid it,)

respond (what we did in retaliation to what we provoked)

unprovoked (we did it, you prove otherwise)

provoked (someone did it, maybe us, maybe them, depends on when you figure the day started)

self defense (we have the right, you don't, and to suggest otherwise is anti-semetic)

security (we have the right to it, you don't, and to suggest otherwise is anti-semetic)

anti-Semitism (used an awful lot to describe any critism of Israel or the BBC as a whole)

security reasons (insert into any discusion for any reason you like regarding any actions, its all linked)

violation (only others do it)

Morality (as in the "IDF is the most moral army in the world", we own the copyright, like fair and balanced)

conspiracy (only applies when critisism of Israel comes from more than one person)

factual errors (even if you are 100% right I can still claim you are wrong and 90% of people wont bother check to see who is right)

legitimacy (we are 100% right, just ask any settler living in the westbank)

UN resolutions (give legitmacy when it suits, can be completely disregarded when inconvient, see also bush adminsitration for this one)

protocols of the elders of Zion (like a charge of anti-semitism used more to change subject or stifle debate, brought up when an argument fails, does any thinking person in the last fifty years bring up these old forgeries to make a point, yes we know that anti-semetism has and does exist, but to berate liberals/anyone who question Israeli policy with this, is try to smear what could well be useful thought with utter garbage.)