Resurgence of.... The Taliban?

The mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks is still at large, Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, the US was too effective in turning the Iraqis against each other (an old tactic dating back to Roman times and used extensivly by the British during their imperial years to spare their own troops by fostering divisions in occupied populations so they attack each other rather than their occupiers) and have sparked a bloody civil war, and the first "victory" for the US in their "war on terror" wasn't much of a victory at all, as we see in the news today.

From Al Jazeera:

Taliban seize second district
By James Bays in Helmand

Nato has confirmed to Al Jazeera that the Taliban has seized a second district in Afghanistan's Helmand province.

Qari Yousef, a Taliban spokesman, told Al Jazeera on Tuesday that Taliban fighters were holding captive 33 police officers after taking over Washir - a remote desert area in the northwest of Helmand - the day before.

A spokeswoman for the Nato-led ISAF force told Al Jazeera: "I can confirm that Washir district centre is in the hands of the Taliban."

She said the town would be brought back under government control but declined to comment on any plans to do that.

Qari said the officers' police vehicles had been seized and distributed among Taliban fighters.

Afghan government forces had made an effort to retake the district centre but the attack was repulsed, he said.

Mullah Abdel Rahim, the Taliban commander in Helmand province, said: "It's not just Musa Qala and Washeer, we are in control of much of Helmand province. The people are with us. They give us food, they give us shelter."
Dada Mohammed Khan, the district's MP and former chief of intelligence, said: "The Taliban will now increase its force here and take over the rest of the province."
... it continues ...

New Nuclear Weapons

I can't help but think of a passage from the bible I read recently (book of Matthew, about hypocrisy) when I come across this article, in the context of the US's assertion that Iran isn't living up to their Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty obligations (which the IAEA says they are, but what does the IAEA know?).

From The Washington Post:

New Nuclear Weapons Program To Continue

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 2, 2006; Page A07

The Nuclear Weapons Council, made up of senior Defense Department and National Nuclear Security Administration officials, said yesterday that they plan to continue developing a new nuclear weapons program even though recent studies suggested that existing stockpiles are in better condition than had been thought.

The announcement comes just two days after the release of studies by the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories showing that plutonium triggers in currently stockpiled weapons will remain reliable for 90 to 100 years.

While many western media agencies are ignoring the news, it has not been missed by China's state-run news agency Xinhua.

The Post also neglects to mention the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, which specifically states:

All Parties must pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

The treaty went into effect in March of 1970. Thirty-Six years later one of the drafting parties of the treaty is working on a new arsenal of Nuclear Weapons. Does that seems like a good faith pursuit of "general and complete disarmament" to you?

Israel's Peace Offer?

Recently there has been much news coverage of the "ceasefire" between Hamas and Israel (which Condi Rice was in Israel trying to "shore up" on Thursday) and the magnanamous offer by Ehud Olmert of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

The fact that the ceasefire has been anything-but aside (monday, for example, after the ceasefire took effect sunday, Palestinian militants fired rockets into Israel and the IDF shot and killed a "militant" and a 50 year old woman they claimed tried to "run off" with his weapon. I must say, that's the first time I've ever heard of a 50 year old woman running...), Israel's "offer of peace" has been on the table now since 1947.

Peace is offered to Palestine in return for the wholesale removal of all palestinians and the creation of a Jewish-Zionist state that runs from the mediterranean to the Jordan river. Okay, I exaggerate (a little). The best offer made by Israel at the Camp David negotiations still included a 12 percent reduction in the then-current territory under direct control of the Palestinian Authority, which didn't include of course any area that is still legally part of Palestine but under de-facto Israeli control. All current offers by Israel include taking Palestinian territory that cuts straight through the center of the west bank to the Jordan river, thus dividing the West Bank into walled-in enclaves with no inter-regional transportation (due to the Israeli "security fence" and buffer zone).

Palestine's offer (from Hamas and Fatah and Al-Aqsa etc.), which was made with much less publicity just a few months back, is that Israel withdraw to their pre-1967 borders (internationally viewed as the legal boundries of Israel and referred to as the "green line") and cease all military operations in Palestine. However, we don't hear about Palestine's offer in the West, although it has stood fairly unchanged since the early 1970s.

Yet, the western media gleefully reports every action by Olmert as a "major policy shift" that is obviously him taking the high road in looking for peace. He echos the offer of a "Palestinian State" but fails to mention, and this is never pointed out in the media, that the "state" they offer is essentially a small number of small and impossible to leave communes, all surrounded by the "State" of Israel and cut off from access to water or arable land, which technically (by international law) belongs to Palestine now but is part of the self-declared state of Israel in reality.

Olmert's offer is that some "suspected militants", thousands of whom are being detained without charge or trial by Israel, will be released after a kidnapped Israeli soldier is returned to Israel. They have already begun by releasing one Palestinian government minister who was kidnapped just a few weeks ago. Yes, you read that correctly: their graciousness has been displayed by releasing a kidnapped Palestinian government minister.

They also consistantly claim that Israel was planning to "unilaterally withdraw" from the west bank. But that is misleading. Israel offered to withdraw from the sections of the west bank it does not wish to keep, but maintains its claims on the farmlands and water supplies that are legally in the West Bank but viewed (only by the US and Israel and their puppy... what's it called again? Bushtain? Blairtain? Britrael?) as part of "Israeli territory."

What doesn't get covered is the UN report that was released this week that stated Israel "violated every article" of a crossings agreement they made last year regarding entry and exit from Palestinian areas. You need look no further than the blog of "A Mother From Gaza" who, as we speak, is waiting to get back into Palestine. She has been waiting, and waiting, and waiting and waiting, and waiting, and waiting... The effects of this de-facto blockade are disasterous for the Palestinians, left with no livelyhood, no food, and no water. So, as the report just linked to explains, while Israelis freely water their lawns with sprinklers, Palestinians are left having to pray for Red Cross water shipments... which are usually blocked by the IDF from entering Palestinian areas anyway.

Meanwhile, Palestine suffers from a whopping 40% unemployment rate; simultaneously, the US has historically provided unconditional aid to Israel to the tune of nearly a hundred billion dollars, and it continues to increase to this day.

The Human Rights Situation in Palestine is a travesty, and it has been inflicted upon Palestinians by Israel for decades. Additionally, those familiar with the situation are well aware of the disasterous effects that America's unconditional support for Israel has on the US's standing in the world, as evidenced by a letter from 50 retired American diplomats to George Bush on the subject. However, we in the west cannot say anything negative about Israel.

To give an example, a well known and very knowledgeable diplomat and former US president intricately familiar with the subject recently published a book called "Peace not Apartheid" which is naturally critical of Israel's actions towards Palestine.

Upon the book's release, the "new breed" of democrats who are taking over the US Congress in january were chomping at the bit to condemn the book as anti-semetic. Among those who came out against the book were Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers.

The formula is nothing new. Anything that is anti-Zionist (Zionism meaning building a Jewish state in the holy land, by UN terms it was a code-name for racism for 20 years lets not forget) and disagrees with Israel's murderous policies (much like 62 percent of the Israeli population disagreed with Ehud Olmert's actions in Lebanon this summer) must therefore be anti-semetic.

I think this kind of fear-and-hate mongering insults the intelligence and the morality of Jews and Gentiles everywhere. One does not have to support murder to be jewish, as those who are so quick to throw out the anti-semetic label would like you to believe, and one does not hate jews just because they disagree with the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians. The whole issue is so asinine I can't believe it even has to be addressed.

In 2002 Counterpunch published an interesting article on "anti-semitism." It's worth a read.

As far as Israel's "peace offer" goes, I would like to reiterate my take on the issue. Once the following conditions are met, I'm sure peace will soon follow.

• The US needs to cut off its unconditional military aid to Israel, instead offering such aid only on the condition that murderous incursions by the IDF into foreign territories is ended immediately and finally.


• Israel must withdraw from occupied territories back to the internationally agreed 1967 borders, and tear down its illegal perimeter wall.


• The US must at once re-evaluate its position of unconditional support for Israeli policies and cease using its Security Council Veto to stymie any international attempt at mediation.


• Iran must exert its influence on Hamas and Hizballah to stop targeting civilian areas, as it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.


• Israel must cease aggressive posturing against Iran that encourages the Iranian leadership to encourage Hamas and Hizballah to continue to provoke the IDF into attacks.

What is YOUR Terrorism / Crime risk factor?

Almost every day in the news there's something that causes me, for just a second, to lose my breath and wonder, have I dozed off and found myself in some strange dream based on George Orwells 1984?

Today, the Associated Press reported on a system that the US government maintains in which a federal agent will basically arbitrarily assign a score that assesses their risk for being a terrorist or a criminal. They will then keep this rating on file for the next FOURTY YEARS. We, as the voting public, are forbidden from accessing this information. For national security reasons, of course, because naturally "for the protection of the people and the state" certain things must be done, right?

Your terrorist/criminal score is explained by the AP as follows:

The scores are assigned to people entering and leaving the United States after computers assess their travel records, including where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meals they ordered.

The Homeland Security Department notice called it "one of the most advanced targeting systems in the world" and said U.S. ability to spot criminals and other security threats "would be critically impaired without access to this data."

The next time you fly to/from/around the US, bear this in mind as the immigration/customs/security person gives you a second look after checking their computer screen.

Extraordinary Rendition

I am appalled by what I am reading in the news today.

I place great hope in the EU. Progressive governance and an increasing ability (though apparently lacking desire) to break out from under the thumb of the US government gives Europeans great pride. However, continuing complicity towards Crimes Against Humanity should make all Europeans cringe as they read the news today.

From Ireland comes news today confirming the suspicion that Fianna Fáil (the party in power) gave their tacit support to American War Crimes in allowing the CIA to run over one hundred flights through Shannon Airport of "suspected terrorists" to formerly-secret concentration camps in Eastern Europe, with the full knowledge that those being taken would likely face torture.

F.F. have dishonored the memory of all those who died to bring about the Irish Republic, and for that they should be beyond ashamed.

From RTE News:

'Serious concerns' over use of Irish airports

28 November 2006 22:57
A draft European Parliament report into alleged CIA rendition flights has expressed 'serious concerns' over the 147 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at Irish airports.

The report says these aircraft were on many occasions coming from, or en route to, countries linked with so-called 'extraordinary rendition' and the transfer of alleged terrorism suspects or detainees.

It also claims that CIA linked aircraft which had stopped off in Ireland had 'certainly been used for the extraordinary renditions' of nine named individuals.

From Al Jazeera:

Many European Union governments were aware of US secret jails being operated in Europe, according to a draft report.

Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, also made "omissions and denials" to EU investigators despite knowing about the CIA's covert operations in Europe, the European Parliament report says.

Claudio Fava, the author of the draft report on the CIA's use of European countries for the illegal transport and detention of prisoners, said: "Many governments co-operated passively or actively [with the CIA]. They knew."

To allow the CIA to use the airports of a supposedly neutral country is a violation of the solemn vow given by government ministers to represent the will of their population. That is an insult to the population, one that I hope will not be allowed to pass unnoticed.

American Hegemony: India and Iran in the New World Order

Updated November 24 & 25 below.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lord Acton once implored us to remember a simple mantra:

Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Since its inception, American foreign policy has essentially been to expand the sphere of American dominance at whatever cost is necessary. It began with simple expansion out along the American continent, slaughtering the inhabitants along the way. In 1899 President McKinley issued the "Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation" announcing Americas intention to set up its own version of the British Empire. This policy continued through the years of "Wilsonian Idealism" and accelerated after World War II, reaching its climax under the guise of "Humanitarian Intervention" under Clinton. Each step along the way has seen an increase in the scope of Americas hegemonic ambitions, and each time the sphere of influence was expanded. First it was just the North American continent, then nearby islands, Central and South America, and finally expanding through the Middle and Far East.

Americas two most recent conquests, Afghanistan and Iraq, are becoming indicators that the time of American Empire may be coming to an end. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States remained as the sole world superpower, excersising its will with reckless abandon. However, the extension - and expansion upon - these policies by George Bush Junior has polarised the world in a very different way. The unipolar order of The United States and everybody else is giving way under the paralysing weight of American ambitions of dominance. What is emerging is a multipolar order, with the United States being put in a position of being unable to exert its influence at will, and instead having to increasingly accept foreign influence and input in world affairs.

The end of America's reign as the worlds sole superpower, and the absolute corruption that such power brings along, should be welcomed and encouraged by people the world over. As important policies in America are seldom even discussed (The Kyoto Protocols, Nuclear Disarmarment, Human Rights), and the US is using its global power to marginalise such important doctrines as those set forth by the Geneva Conventions, any move away from the absolutely corrupting Absolute Power given to American interests should be heralded as a positive move by anyone concerned about the safety and well being of our species as a whole.

Lynchpin: India

The United States Senate last week passed (by a vote of 85 to 12) a measure approving the transfer of Nuclear technology, equipment, and fuel to India. Doing so required that an exception be made to the Atomic Energy Act, which specifically forbids the sale of nuclear materials to countries that are non-signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The important reasoning behind this was spelled out in a recent article in The New York Times which stated that the vote was "expressing that a goal of nurturing India as an ally outweighed concerns over the risks of spreading nuclear skills and bomb-making materials." Such an agreement also brings to an end the 30 year old doctrine prohibiting the transfer by the United States of Nuclear reactor components and fuel to other countries.

Today, Chinese Premier Hu Jintao is in India on a visit meant to increase bilateral ties between the two countries. The China Daily reports that

As the first Chinese president to visit the country in a decade, Hu is expected to work with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to "fill in the specifics" in the strategic partnership, according to Sun Yuxi, Chinese ambassador to India.

China and India announced the establishment of their strategic partnership for peace and prosperity last April in a joint statement signed by Premier Wen Jiabao and Singh.

Hu's talks with Singh today will iron out the details for enhancing this partnership in political, economic, military, cultural, scientific, technological and educational spheres, Sun revealed in a group interview last Friday with Chinese journalists at his residence.

Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that this meeting between Chinese and Indian premieres is likely to lead to a Nuclear arrangement being ironed out between those two countries as well, with China adding their bid for India to the one already on the table from the US.

If China and India enter into a nuclear cooperation agreement, it will mark a new stage in the increasing competition between China and the United States for India's friendship.

President Bush branded China a "strategic competitor" as soon as he came to office in 2001. Since India's burgeoning economy and muscular military can tip the balance of power in Asia, over the last year the United States and China have been trying to build closer ties with India, said Sun Shihai, deputy director of the Institute for Asia Pacific Studies at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.

"The US always said it wants to use India to balance China," Sun said. "China feels it needs to engage India more [and] develop some kind of Russia-China-India cooperation" that can balance US hegemony. "So there is some kind of competition happening."

The White House's July 2005 decision to enter into civilian nuclear cooperation was widely seen as a critical step in attracting India into the US orbit.

The worrysome emergence of spheres of influence outside of US control, specifically Russia and China (with partnerships growing to include Latin America, India, Iran and Pakistan), has US planners on their heels, of which the US offer of Nuclear technology to India is merely a byproduct.

The most specific worry for US planners is the duo of China and Russia extending their influence beyond the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and including countries in Latin America (Brazil, Venezuela) and such strategic heavyweights as India, Pakistan, and Iran. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US has aggressively been trying to expand NATO influence as far east as possible, encompassing many former Warsaw Pact nations. This is where the importance of India comes into play.

Were India to join a strategic alliance with China and Russia, they would throw their sizeable population (over 1 Billion people, the 2nd most populous nation on the planet behind China and much larger than the US with 300 Million) and strategic central-asia location (between China and another country the SCO has been courting, Pakistan) into the already economically- and militarily- hefty China/Russia partnership. Moves have already been made in increasing cooperation between China and India with trade set to exceed $20billion (US) this year, exceeding the target set by the two governments for 2008. There is also talk of a bilateral free trade agreement between the two countries, which could enable an increase in the already strong rate of general economic growth in the region.

There are, of course, a couple of sticking points in the China-India relationship, which the US is trying to take advantage of while it still has the opportunity. These include Chinese cooperation with India's foe Pakistan, the asylum of the Dali Lama from Tibet in India, and the China/India border. The border was in fact originally drawn by the British government near the end of their colonial reign, and has not been agreed upon by China or India. In the heat of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Nikita Kruschev is rumored to have encouraged Chairman Mao to go ahead and attack India over their disputed border, which India accepts but China views as claiming for India 90,000sq-km of Chinese territory. This act set in motion stronger ties between the US and India, which continue to this day; for instance, including a ten year mutual protection pact between the two countries currently in effect.

However, steps have also been taken in recent years to increase military cooperation between China and India, another factor worrying to US planners who hedge their bets on permanent US military dominance. This cooperation is being manifested in the areas of economics and defense, mainstays in the US's exertion of dominance in world affairs.

The value of courting India away from China/Russia is not lost on analysts, with such influential writers as Henry Kissinger and Noam Chomsky making their opinions heard on the subject. A regional economic and military alliance comprising Russia, China, and India, would have severe implications for continued American dominance.

Battleground: Iran

Successful defiance of American hegemonic interests is not undertaken lightly. However, the failed US invasion and occupation of Iraq has put the United States in its weakest position in decades, leaving open the opportunity for other power centres to assert their influence.

Previous attempts at defiance have led to serious consequences for countries such as Cuba, which suffered at the hands of an American economic strangulation since the overthrow of the US-backed Batista regime. Overt actions have been taken against others guilty of defiance in the past, such as many Latin American countries, North Korea, Vietnam, Sudan, and the recent US-sponsored coup attempt in Venezuela to oust the elected president Hugo Chavez.

Historically, Russia and/or China have consistantly fought the US on different battlegrounds, with Mao's troops fighting American troops in both North Korea and Vietnam (in the latter, the 100,000 strong Chinese forces even went so far as to don their Chinese military uniforms), the placement of Russian Nukes in Cuba, American Nukes in Turkey, and so on.

The re-emergence of Russia and China as global players is today being showcased in Iran. What was originally a confrontation strictly between France (proportedly representing the EU, although EU polls at the time indicated that the EU population was more worried about US militarism than Iran's nuclear program) and Iran has become a standoff between the East (Russia/China) and West (US/UK). Backed by these two UN Security Council Veto holders, Iran has refused to back down in front of US pressure regarding their nuclear program. Simultaneously, Iran is stepping to the forefront of one of the major issues of the day, the civil war raging in Iraq.

After two decades of diplomacy suspension, Iran's close ally Syria and American occupied Iraq are resuming diplomatic relations. Syria, branded by George Bush Jr. as a member of the "axis of evil" along with Iran and North Korea, broke ties with Iraq in 1982 in reaction to the US-backed war against their partner Iran; increasing ties between Syria and the US-installed regime of Malaki (and Talabani) could only be as surprising to their US masters as Malakis denunciation of Israel's US-backed murderous escapades in Lebanon and Palestine over the past few months.

Even more surprising for the US is the acceptance of the offer of a state visit to Iran by Talabani this weekend, where the major issue is likely to be the civil war raging in Iraq (it is often referred to in the western media as the "security situation" but to a rational observer 100 sectarian murders a day is beyond a simple "security situation"). This is on the heels of a call by Tehran for a summit with Iraqi and Syrian leaders to discuss Iraqs deep seeded problems.

The idea of such a summit occuring is so worrysome to the US that the US Embassy immediately issued a warning to the Iraqi government to stay away from Iran and Syria, and The US Propaganda machine immediately issued a report that such a summit would never happen.

Why should America be so worried about Iranian influence on Iraq? It is generally accepted by those who look beyond Fox News Headlines that the US's intention was to impose a client regime on Iraq, opening up for US businesses "economic opportunities," in other words unfettered access to Iraqs vast reserves of natural resources, and a permanent US presence in the center of the resource-blessed region. Iran, on the other hand, wholeheartedly rejects the idea of any American and British influence in the region. An op-ed in the Iran Daily reflects this:

Many Arabs and Muslims I talked to at the weekend about his new round of irresponsible statements about Iran were of the opinion that Blair could be suffering from a fresh bout of dementia.

In a television interview, the Labour boss known to many peace lovers in and outside Britain as “Tony Bliar“, “Phoney Tony“ and “King of Spin“, publicly admitted that the war he jointly engineered with George Bush was a “disaster.“
However, that admission of defeat did not stop him from blaming Tehran for all that has been going very wrong in occupied Iraq as a direct result of the Bush-Blair arrogance.
...
He said he had a message for Tehran and Damascus: “If you are prepared to be a part of the solution, there is a partnership available to you.“

We cannot speak for the leadership in Syria, nor do we know if or when Bashar Assad proposed any mechanism to help bring peace to the volatile Middle East. As far as Tehran is concerned, Blair, who will be remembered by posterity as a pro-war ruler obsessed with Israeli security and interests, had the wrong address once again. Those who decide foreign policy in our country do not recall ever wanting to be partners with killers of innocent Muslims like Blair or Bush.

Having said that, it deserves mention that the UK prime minister who dragged his country into the bottomless quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, is simply not in a position to make offers or speak on behalf of the people in our part of the world. One need not be a political scientist to understand that there is not one single country in the Muslim-Arab world that wants even impartial western rulers to speak on its behalf.

Now, how can Iran get away with such blatant disobedience of American power? The answer lies, once again, in the East. Iran's ties with Russia and China are consistantly played down in the western media in favor of a portrayal of Iran as a country on the verge of aquiring nuclear weapons and intent on using them to commit genocide against Israel. However, if we look back at the timeline of the most recent developments in the confrontation we see other important factors. Iran's military is being supplied by the Chinese (who in turn were supplied by Russia), and their military capabilities were most recently demonstrated in excersises they carried out in nearly half of their provinces and the Persian Gulf. This chinese-supplied military capability is widely seen as a deterrant to the American military option. Additionally, Iran has secured a trade partnership with Russia (and, in turn, the SCO) that comprises the worlds largest supply of Natural Gas and one of the top five supplies of crude oil, and it is Russia (not Iran) that is building in Iran a new state-of-the-art nuclear reactor.

Strategically, Iran is in an ideal position to all but cut off the supply of Middle East oil to the West, while allowing oil supply to continue through pipelines to their allies in the East. Iran's close ties with China and Russia are likely to prevent the US taking any more aggressive stance against the country than they already have, for economic reasons I have explained before:

Another dangerous economic trend is the steady decline in value of the US Dollar. Against the Euro it has dropped by more than a third of its value over the past five years. America's aggressive foreign policy isn't helping the situation much either, as the countries that were subsidising the US's enormous budget deficit by (as required by the IMF) purchasing US government bonds as collateral to insure their own currencies, such as many South American, Asian, and "Old Europe" countries, are looking to withdraw from their IMF obligations and take their money elsewhere in response to what they rightly perceive as American Imperialism.

Perhaps more worrysome for the American economy is the fact that major energy-commodity trading countries, which have been propping up the value of the dollar since the seventies as it is the major trading currency for oil, are also responding to american imperialism with a desire to switch to other currencies as their oil buying and selling currency. Most notable would be China, which holds the largest foreign reserve of US dollars on the planet, and which has begun serious discussions this year to switch to Euros as its oil buying currency. That would lead their main oil supplier Iran, which the US has been bullying recently, to switch to Euros as well (for oil), and could lead other OPEC countries to follow suit. This would lead to a rapid decline in the value of the already weak dollar, and skyrocketing inflation in America.

The end result is that the US, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and facing strong eastern opposition, is not currently in any position to enforce their hegemony.

Future Implications

Once an empire enters into decline, history tells us that the end result is consistantly terminal to their ambitions of dominance. Rome, Greece, Persia, the Ottomans, Britain; each have fallen by the wayside as their policies led to their downfall. What is emerging now is a multipolar order (rather than a unipolar order under US control) with the US sharing its global power with China and Russia, India (whom America is having to attempt to woo away from the other emerging powers), and a Latin America being led by Democratic Venezuela in partnership with defiant Cuba and economically strong Brazil, and with close ties to the strategic alliance of Russia and China in the East.

The indications of the demise of America as the worlds sole dominant superpower can only be welcomed by those who care about the future of our civilisation. The absolute power and absolute corruption that a system of American Hegemony has brought along is far from the best interests of the people, and it will be the people who benefit from moving away from the current Status Quo.


--------------------
cross posted at Daily Kos and European Tribune.
---------------------------------------
Update: November 24, 2006

The India Daily reports today that China will be soon announcing its full support for India to be granted a permanent UN Security Council seat. This is different from the recent Kofi Annan proposal of six semi-permanent non-veto holding seats.

China opposes Japan and favors India just to make sure Western dominance of in UN Security Council is challenged. Japan is seen as an American satellite. Brazil is a mixed bag. Though India is tending towards Japan’s posture, most likely Indian people will not accept American policies as their own.

We should also bear in mind that the US does not want to see a peaceful and prosperous relationship between India and Pakistan, as it might lead to a strengthening of the Asian bloc that is emerging as a counterbalance to American hegemony. China sees this, and on Hu Jintao's recent visit he was quoted as saying china "welcomes and supports" improved relations and would like to take a "constructive role" in advancing the interests of Asian peace. However, he stopped short of offering to directly mediate talks. I get the impression that India and Pakistan, although still succeptable to mutual pervading animosity, are aware of the positive ramifications of normalisation and strengthening of relations. This would be an important step in the emergence of a South Asian bloc to counterbalance current American hegemonic interests.
------------------------
Update November 25

As previously mentioned, China supplies much of Iran's defensive military capabilities. As Xinhua (China's State-Run news agency) is reporting today Russia is also supplying defensive military capabilities to Iran.

MOSCOW, Nov. 24 (Xinhua) -- Russia has begun delivering air defense systems Tor-M1 to Iran within the framework of an earlier signed agreement, Russian news agencies reported on Friday.

"The deliveries of Tor-M1 to Iran have begun. The first systems have been delivered to Iran," a source in Russia's military and intestinal complex was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying, adding the Iranian soldiers who will operate the systems were trained in Russia.

"Earlier Russian officials stated that Iran is a sovereign state, a member of the UN and League of Arab States, and no international sanctions prohibiting it from receiving defensive arms have been imposed," the arms-exporting company Rosoboronexport said.

One lesson that States who find themselves on the US's hit list have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan is that the likelyhood of attack increases as military power decreases. Both Iraq and Afghanistan had little or no military capabilities, which made them easy targets for the militaristic Bush administration.

One byproduct of these invasions is that it has sparked a mini arms race, with countries that the US comes out against scrambling to build up a military deterrant, as evidenced by Iran's increasing purchase of weapons from the east and North Koreas test of a nuclear bomb some weeks back, seen as a "deterrant to US designs" in the words of N. Chomsky.

China and Russia are eager to provide such a deterrant to countries who are willing to offer to them their strategic value, such as Iran, while simultaneously condemning measures that are viewed as "provoking" the United States, such as N. Koreas missile and nuke tests.

It should also be noticed how Russia is working to build an energy consortium which "runs counter to and increasingly circumvents the established liberal US-backed global oil market denominated in US dollars," often (as seen by their recent stance with Georgia) in a very aggressive and (dare I say) Western Capitalist manner.

Also, it will be interesting to see how the how the cold-war-relic Robert Gates, anti-Chinese Nancy Pelosi, and anti-Russian Tom Lantos (incoming Chairman, House Committee on International Relations) affect the re-emerging competitive nature of the relationship between East and West. The Asia Times has a thoughtful analysis on the subject.

Elections, The EU, Idiotic British Government, Beit Hanoun

Before mentioning the American Midterm Elections, lets take a moment to look southward. Does anyone remember when Ronald Reagan and George Bush (the first), along with Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, et. al., went about selling arms to Iran to fund their support for an anti-government terrorist organisation in Nicaragua? Those fighting against the government in Nicaragua were called the "contras," and they were working specifically on bahalf of the US government against the leftist-socialist president Daniel Ortega. Most recently, Oliver North flew to Nicaragua to specifically campaign against Ortega. Well, it didn't work.

We can factually state, now, that Daniel Ortega has won (and this is not a projection) the Presidency of Nicaragua, returning after over 15 years away. I'll bet Reagan is turning over in his grave.

Before touching on the U.S. elections, I would like to ask, with all due respect, who is the idiot in the EU government that decided, JUST WEEKS after the US passed a law doing away with the 800 year old concept of Habeus Corpus (the ability to ask for a fair panel to decide wether it is legal (or not) for you to be detained), and also putting in the hands of the untrustworthy US president the ability to singlehandely decide what constitutes torture, that the EU has decided to set up a high level group to work on increasing "anti terror" cooperation with the US. Just typing it makes me want to go wash my hands.

I would also like to mention to the British people that, every time you (as consistantly happens) tell your government to stop acting like a slave to the US, your government slaps you in the face. The british parliament has passed a law making it possible for the US to demand, and immediately receive, any British citizen that they demand (on "terror" grounds) without having to provide any evidence whatsoever. However, if the British government requests (not demands, requests) someone to be extradited from the US, they must carry the burden of proof that this person needs to be sent to Britain. Good luck with that.

In the western Middle East, the IDF has pulled out of Beit Hanoun after their "Autumn Clouds" operation leaving 50+ dead and hundreds more wounded, in addition to intense destruction of housing and infrastructure. As The Guardian reports, "Israel pulls out, leaving a trail of death."

On the American elections, already "glitches" in the voting system are popping up all over the country, with problems reported in Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Florida, Colorado, Indiana, and Oklahoma. However, voter turnout seems to be approaching an unprecedented level for a midterm election. All of this is discussed in articles in The Guardian and RTE (Ireland).

I also have statement of fact to make: Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat, or an Independent-- he is a Republican.

VOTE BY PARTY ID TOTAL Lieberman Lamont Schlesinger
Democrat (39%) 32% 66% 2%
Republican (26%) 71% 9% 20%
Independent (35%) 54% 36% 9%


VOTE BY IDEOLOGY TOTAL Lieberman Lamont Schlesinger
Liberal (26%) 27% 70% 3%
Moderate (53%) 55% 37% 8%
Conservative (21%) 66% 13% 20%
----source------


----------------------
"It will represent a significant change in the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches" of the United States government -Wolf Blitzer, CNN, on the democrats being projected to win control of the House of Representatives.

No, it won't. In general, the democrats are still, by and large, quite conservative. They want to stay in Iraq, they want to "win." The question, as posed by Chuch Schumer, was how much of an agressive foreign policy people will support... not that they want to stop the conservative imperial agenda, just that they don't want to do it the same way.

We can hold out hope that they might shine some light into the dark corners of the US government, and it is an important first step in initiating change... but it is not the end of the fight. It is only the beginning.

Saddam Hussein Trial

An article I came across today got me thinking: Saddam Hussein is on trial for the deaths of 148 Kurds in 1982, a charge that carries the death penalty as punishment. The fact that the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq has directly lead to a minimum of 3,000 times that many deaths notwithstanding... doesn't anyone think it's strange that Bush II, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al. have set Saddam up on this trial for an act he committed the exact same year that Reagan, Bush I, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al. had Hussein's Iraq removed from the US. State Sponsors of Terror List so that he could be provided with military aid?

How does such a glaring irregularity escape the notice of the mass media????????????????????????????
-----------------------------------------
Update 07-11-06
"Who will teach the White House some core values?" That's what I'm wondering. They claim Christian piety and yet applaud the handing down of a sentence of death on an adversary... have they never actual read Jesus' words "let whomever amongst you that is whithout sin be the first to cast a stone"? In other words, if you are completely innocent, then you are in a position to pass judgement. But there is no innocence in washington.

Instead, they set up illegal tribunals to try to vindicate an illegal war and scream out to the world that "justice has been served!" And yet the american "opposition party" agree with these policies, they want this "Iraq war" and they "want to win!" So therefore, all americans support the war, right? I mean, all of their politicians do, and in the american "democracy" the government represents the people... right?

This editorial was on Pravda.ru :

The Iraqi high tribunal has just announced the death sentence of Saddam Hussein. This should surprise no one. In fact, no other outcome was ever possible. From the moment he was captured in his underground hideout, Saddam's fate was sealed.

Saddam Hussein and the others were convicted for crimes that happened almost 25 years ago. 148 members of the pro-Iranian Dawa Party were executed for attempting to assassinate Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. The executions followed a two year investigation, involving the torture and imprisonment of entire families, and judicial findings that 148 people were guilty of sedition for supporting Iran in the war and plotting to kill their own president.

While none of us would condone the mass execution of 148 people, we know little about what actually happened. Anonymous witnesses were brought forth, and in some cases, the witnesses did not even appear, but submitted affidavits instead. These people testified to the terrible experiences they and their loved ones had in prison. But whether they received fair trials, or were summarily executed, no one really knows. The transcript of the 1982 proceedings, and the evidence used to convict the defendants were excluded from the trial of Saddam Hussein. It's ironic that Saddam will be executed, essentially, for the unfair way in which these people were dealt with, yet his own trial was so unfair that the earlier proceedings and evidence were inadmissible.

Many have commented on the unfairness of Saddam's trial. Some have remarked that the trial is a political circus, searching for reasons to justify the war and the ongoing occupation. Yet few see the larger issue, which is that the court itself is illegal under international law, setting a terrible precedent that overshadows the need to avenge crimes of the Iran-Iraq war.

...it continues...

Free and Fair Elections

Yesterday I mentioned EU Elections Inspectors busy at work in the Congo to oversee democratic elections there. I have also discussed in previous posts the question of "democracy" "promotion" both in the U.S. and in other nations, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. There is an interesting article pertaining to the subject on Salon.com today, regarding a documentary meant to be aired on HBO (of international "Sopranos" and "Sex and the City" fame) in the US this evening, November 2. The article is entitled "Hacking Democracy" and the introduction and link to the full article are below.

"Hacking Democracy"
On Tuesday, 40 percent of voters will cast ballots on electronic touch-screens. If you're not worried already about the dangers of paperless voting, this HBO documentary will blow your mind.

By Farhad Manjoo

Nov. 2, 2006 | "When people see what is really going on, there is no way we will allow this to continue," the crusading election-reform activist Bev Harris declares at the beginning of "Hacking Democracy," a documentary film about the flawed American election system that premieres on HBO on Nov. 2. It's a nice thought, one you want to believe: If only Americans could be made to understand the true, gut-sinking atrociousness of just about everything involved in U.S. elections -- from the gerrymandered districts to the undemocratic distribution of electoral power to the enormous influence wielded by partisan officials to the underfunded, overwhelmed local offices to, finally, the insanely dangerous technology we use to run the whole thing -- well, then, maybe folks would actually do something about the problem.

...it continues...

Some other interesting reading on the subject would include Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Conscent" regarding the current incumbents' (in their first run under Reagan) views on democracy abroad, specifically elections in Nicaragua, Guatamala, and El Salvador.

Global Warming

Among the dangerous threats facing our species (and in fact all species on this planet) today is the grave threat of climate change and global warming. The following article was posted on BBC News today.

Climate change 'hitting Africa'
Climate change is already affecting people across Africa and will wipe out efforts to tackle poverty there unless urgent action is taken, a report says.
Droughts are getting worse and climate uncertainty is growing, the research from a coalition of UK aid agencies and environmental groups says.

Climate change is an "unprecedented" threat to food security, it says.

It calls for a "climate-proof" model of development and massive emissions cuts to avoid "possibly cataclysmic change".

The report, Up In Smoke 2, updates previous research from the organisations - Oxfam, the New Economics Foundation and the Working Group on Climate Change and Development, an umbrella group of aid and green groups.


Global warming is set to make many of the problems which Africa already deals with, much, much worse
Andrew Simms
New Economics Foundation

It says that although climates across Africa have always been erratic, scientific research and the experience of the contributing groups "indicates new and dangerous extremes".

Arid or semi-arid areas in northern, western, eastern and parts of southern Africa are becoming drier, while equatorial Africa and other parts of southern Africa are getting wetter, the report says.

The continent is, on average, 0.5C warmer than it was 100 years ago, but temperatures have risen much higher in some areas - such as a part of Kenya which has become 3.5C hotter in the past 20 years, the agencies report.

Andrew Simms, from the New Economics Foundation, said: "Global warming is set to make many of the problems which Africa already deals with, much, much worse," he said.

"In the last year alone, 25 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa have faced food crisis.

"Global warming means that that many dry areas are going to get drier and wet areas are going to get wetter. They are going to be caught between the devil of drought and the deep blue seas of floods."

He added that the "great tragedy" was that Africa had played virtually no role in global warming, a problem he said was caused by economic activity of the rich, industrial countries.

Mr Simms said unless climate change was tackled all the "best efforts" to help Africa could come to nothing.

One of the biggest threats is growing climate unpredictability, which makes subsistence farming difficult, the report says.

The average number of food emergencies in Africa per year almost tripled since the mid 1980s, it points out.

But it says that better planning to reduce the risk from disasters, together with developing agricultural practices that can withstand changing climates, have been shown to work and could help mitigate the impact if used be more widely.

'Overwhelming'

Up in Smoke 2 also laments the failure of industrialised governments to help developing countries adapt to climate change.

Between $10bn (£5.2bn) and $40bn is needed annually, the report says, but industrialised countries have given only $43m - a tenth of the amount they have pledged - while rich country fossil fuel subsidies total $73bn a year.

The agencies say that greenhouse emissions cuts of 60% - 90% will ultimately be needed - way beyond the targets set in the Kyoto agreement.

"Climate change is overwhelming the situation in Africa... unless we take genuine steps now to reduce our emissions, people in the developed world will be condemning millions to hunger, starvation and death," said Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth.

The report comes two weeks before a key summit on climate change in Nairobi, where delegates will look at the progress made on the Kyoto agreement that requires industrial nations to cut their emissions by an average of 5.2% from 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012.

Delegates will also consider what system should be adopted when the current period ends.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/6092564.stm

Published: 2006/10/28 23:44:57 GMT

© BBC MMVI

One of the organisations behind the report has some additional information available here.

The actual report is available here.

-----------
Update: 31/10/2006

The British Treasury and Cambridge University have also produced a related report about the economic consequences of global warming.

The report is available through the official website of the British Treasury, accessable by clicking here.

Essentially the conclusions of the report (available most easily through the executive summary) are nothing new. For instance, one of the important assertions of the report is that it will cost less to stem pollution now than it will cost to deal with the warming effects later. Of course, a pure capitalist system does not really care about the future, for systematic reasons. The current Robber Barrons (masters of big business) view their position as being at the top of a democratic structure in which votes are cast in dollars (or foreign equivalent). The opinions of the public (as viewed by where the money is going) is of course of paramount importantce. However, in this system that is based strictly on the here and now, future generations are of no value as they cannot cast their dollar-votes today. As such, anything that would adversely affect the bottom line now is rejected.

However, this particular aspect of the system is in contrast with the general will of the populations of the world, the majority of whom would like to see governments sign and impliment the Kyoto Protocols on global warming.

The important question, which shouldn't even have to be brought up in "democratic" states, is will our governments do what we want?
---------------------------
Update: November 4, 2006

The AFP today reports on a demonstration in London 10,000 strong calling for urgent action on climate change.

On Monday, November 6, the second United Nations Climate Change conference for parties to the (1997) Kyoto Protocols on climate change will meet in Nairobi, Kenya. This event is likely to be overshadowed by coverage of the US elections set to take place on 7 November, and will not include a delegation from the United States as the US is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocols. However, as the US the worlds leading producer of CO2 (greenhouse gas) emissions which have been increasing at an alarming rate over the past few decades and are likely to continue to increase exponentially without immediate action being taken, such as pollution reduction to 2002 target levels, which still hadn't been reached by many industrialised nations by 2005, the time at which the target levels were set to decrease again. These are simple steps to take, and of the utmost importance for those who care about the world that we leave (or don't leave) our children.

-----------------

Update 07-11-06
Insects to Rule the Earth soon due to Global Warming. From Pravda.ru

A rise in the Earth’s temperature could lead to an increase in the number of insects worldwide, with potentially dire consequences for humans, a new study suggests.

New research shows that insect species living in warmer areas are more likely to undergo rapid population growth because they have higher metabolic rates and reproduce more frequently. The finding has scientists concerned that global warming could give rise to more fast-growing insect populations and that we could see a spike in the number of six-legged critters.

The consequences could be more serious than just a few extra bug bites each summer. “If they’re crop species, we could count on needing to use more pesticides and it could be very costly,” said Melanie Frazier, a doctoral student at the University of Washington and lead author of the study.

Insect-borne diseases are also a worry. Malaria, Lyme Disease and a host of others rely on insect vectors to spread among humans, and a swell in their populations could mean more infections.

Already, scientists have observed a widening of malarial zones with new cases appearing in previously unaffected areas. The change is thought to be due to rising temperatures and an expansion of areas habitable for mosquitoes. The new research, detailed in the October issue of The American Naturalist, shows rising temperatures would mean insects would not only spread out, but also multiply more quickly.

...it continues...

Cut and Run

from Cartledge's Grub Street Journal.
---------------------------
The Civil War in Iraq, which is claiming, on average, 100 Iraqis a day, is still finding its way into the news headlines. Not surprising as many of the moneyed elites are beginning to wonder whether the seizure of Iraqi oil was worth the cost (based on continually soaring oil and petrol prices), and that divergence in elite opinion leads to more questioning articles in news reports (see Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Conscent").

The White House, not sure how to handle the situation, is simultaneously saying "we will stay the course" and "´staying the course´ has never been the president's plan." Also, while worldwide news reports are constantly pointing out the failure of the US's strategy in Iraq ("Heck of a Job, Malaki!"), the White House is "very happy, acually, with the way the Prime Minister is working" and putting together a team of occupation experts (sorry, I meant a "high level working group") to address security concerns in Iraq.

My question is, how many people must die before America gives up its imperial ambitions? If 500,000 isn't enough, would 5,000,000? 50,000,000? How many will it take?

Hope

When confronted with harsh realities, human beings have an inherent nature to do one of two things: bury their heads in the sand and say "it can't be true," or give up hope along the lines of a pessimistic austrian writer who once wrote "A first sign of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die."

Grave predictions, uncertain futures, and a feeling of powerlessness can lead people to give up hope. I won't pretend to not understand why someone in Baghdad who has lost their family to american shells and sectarian bullets would want to give up hope. Or why someone in Michigan might sigh as they look back on 2 presidential elections that should have been won, the first that was stolen blatantly and the second that produced an unimaginable result based on what seemed to be an astounding turnout of young and opposition voters, and surrender to institutional structures that they believe will never change. Or how someone, after too long under the screw of an oppressive occupation, could be left so devoid of hope that they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the purpose of hurting their oppressors. I can understand these people.

But hope should never be abandoned. We as human beings have the capability to be so much more than we allow ourselves to be. I believe that human beings have the capability to forsake anger and hatred, vengence and violence, and overcome any challenge they are presented without having to sacrifice their dignity and morality. This power comes not only from our minds, but from our hearts as well.

A courageous leader once stated that "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." He also pointed out that "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

Leading scientists and intellectuals often proffer dire predictions and observations, and many of us pass along these statements without pointing out constructive solutions. It is painfully obvious that human beings have an unprecedented capability to destroy, but along with the ability to destroy comes an unprecedented ability to create, to nourish, and to improve.

We must never allow ourselves to become slaves to fear, hopelessness, vengence, or greed. We need not destroy ourselves and our environment to satisfy our primal urges, we have the capability to be so much better than that.


There are many things wrong with the world today. There is no other species that destroys its own with such ferocity and on such an immense scale. I would like to present you today with the words of unquestionably one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, Albert Einstein, with help from Bertrand Russell.

From the Russell - Einstein Manifesto:

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

...

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

...

"In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them."

Now, I do not consider myself a pacifist. I believe that there are situations, as described in Article 51 of the UN Charter, in which military action is appropriate. However, military action as a first resort, rather than a last resort, is a danger to all of us, and a danger that can easily be avoided.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty demands that its signatories not only refrain from producing new nuclear weapons, but also take steps to dismantle existing nuclear arsenals. The Bush administration's continued simultaneous assertions to be against the proliferation of WMDs and intent development of "low yeild" "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons are not only hypocritical , but a danger to all of us. Their actions have already triggered the beginning of an arms race, and their constant war-like posturing is increasing the danger posed to all of us. Simultaneously they claim christian piety, and as such, to them and their supporters I say "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5).

On this page I had previously planned to illustrate the un-democratic nature of American governance, but not for the purpose of inspiring despair, or causing people to surrender to what they see as an unbreakable system for the "protection of the minority of the opulent," but rather because real change, for the better, is possible. In any event, a discussion of the American Republic form of government (republic, not democracy) and its implications for the world will be postponed.

Rather, at this point it is necessary to point out some key facts that are relevant to the world's current state of affairs.

The first is American Militarism. Most Americans are in fact not the militant "chicken hawks" that are so often highlighted in the media. The majority of Americans do not wish to go to war unless no other options are available. As we have seen with the collapse of all pretexts for the invasion of Iraq, those in power are not catering to the will of their people. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and "liberation," by any rational definition, does not entail 500,000 civilian deaths as a direct result. The only people who have reaped any positive benefit from the invasion are the small number of people who made a profit off of the $350billion in congressional budget appropriations for the conflict, and a profit from the redistribution of Iraq's wealth of natural resources to private companies. A well informed American would not have chosen such a course of action. A byproduct of this invasion, brought about by a militarism that is not in the wishes of a majority of the population, is an increase in support for organisations that assert their intentention to launch reprisals against what they perceive (rightly) as American Imperialism.

Another byproduct of this militarism, or resort-to-force-as-the-first-option, is that other countries are developing their own military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, as a deterrant to the American threat. This is evidenced by North Korea's recent Nuclear test. This increases a danger to us all, due to the fact that they increase the risk of provocation of a larger conflict, and as discussed by Russell and Einstein above, this would have disasterous effects for our species as a whole.

But how can this situation be changed? Because it is America that poses this threat, it is the American people who are in the best position to alleviate it. It is widely understood that the coming American election will have little or no effect on US government policy. Simultaneously, there is a pervailing sentiment (rarely articulated) that regardless of who is in charge (in the US), things will stay the same. This is partially right. Madeline Albright (Bill Clinton's Secretary of State) has intoned that every president over the past few decades has had a strategy like George Bush's in their back pocket, they just know better than to bash people over the head with said strategy. We need look no farther than the first months of the Clinton administration to see that he was more than willing to engage in military strikes as a first option, with disasterous consequences for hundreds of children holed up in a Baghdad childrens shelter.

However, a change in regime as far as the US congress is concerned could lead to additional positive moves. Most notably, the American public would likely be let in on the realities that have been so vehemently hidden from them for the past 6 years. As we all know, an ignorant population is easy to control, and the Bush administration has excersised this control to the fullest. Their unprecedented control over the flow of information to the population has allowed them to excersise unprecedented control over public discussion on major issues, many of which are not open for public discussion to begin with. A few examples:

The first that comes to mind is the recent "conflict" between Israel and the civilian populations of Lebanon and Palestine. The very limited discourse on the subject was limited to the scope of Israel's actions, proportedly against "terrorists" but realistically against civilians (in violation of the Geneva conventions), was evidenced both in the mainstream and so-called "fringe" media. I'm including in the "fringe" media blog sites and information websites, including the well known site "MyLeftWing." On that particular site I was directly threatened with expulsion from discussion by the site's owner for a comment regarding the fact that those who supported the Israeli military incursions that killed thousands of civilians, many of whom were children, was tantamount to support for murder. And this site is proportedly the epitome of "the left" in America, which it was observed to me by a source that I trust that there really is no "left" left in America, and "the right" committed political genocide against "the left" decades ago. Aprepo, though not entirely accurate. The fact of the matter is that most Americans, even those who consider themselves well versed in news and politics, and of a "liberal" bent, are inherently subject to the information control mechanisms of an overreaching Executive, which has the power to disseminate a very large volume of disinformation to the public so as to cloud any attempt at rational discourse. Supressed from the public was the fact that Israel's invasion plans were drawn up long before the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, that Israeli soldiers had kidnapped "suspected hizballah" members just days before, and the fact that the weapons used to flatten Lebanon were handed to the Israeli military with the costs deferred to the American taxpayers.

Another example that comes quickly to mind is of course the Iraq war, wherein civilian and military death tolls are surpressed to an unprecedented extent by the Bush administration. This has included going so far as to arrest Hospital personnell in Iraq for realeasing accurate but "too high" casualty figures, and barring the US media from covering the return of injured or dead American soldiers. Due to current disagreement in elite circles as to the effectiveness of the US's Iraq policy, some dissent has filtered through into the US Media (much the same as in later stages of the Vietnam conflict), and as such the issue is receiving a large amount of coverage. However, even policy makers on the democratic side of the aisle (including Chuch Schumer and Hilliary Clinton) do not disagree with the administrations stated goals, merely question the methods. Again, even a "regime change" in the US congress is unlikely to have any impact on policy.

However, that is not to say that people should give up hope in initiating change. One of the first steps for making changes is to be presented with the full picture, which influential analysts argue will increase in likelyhood with a change in those in charge (in congress) of overseeing the actions of the government as a whole, specifically the executive. It is pointed out that Democratic oversight committees would be able to share much needed information with the American public, and put them in a better position to make informed decisions, one of the most important aspects of reclaiming democracy in America.
From Unclaimed Territory:

A Democratic takeover of one or even both houses of Congress is unlikely to result in any new affirmative legislation or policies, since their control will be by only a small margin, dependent on conservative lawmakers in their majority, and subject to a presidential veto. With some exceptions (such as the power to control appropriations and cut off funding), the real power they will have will be to investigate and expose the conduct of the Bush administration and to reveal to Americans what has really been going on.

It is difficult to overstate how crucial that is for exposing what the Republican Party has become and undermining those who control it. The administration has been able to ward off even the most incriminating accusations and disclosures because they control the primary sources of information. They can deny anything, selectively release misleading exculpatory information, and operate in the darkest shadows and behind the highest walls of secrecy. As a result, disclosures about what they have done are always piecemeal and easily obscured.

Armed with a more realistic view of what's going on, Americans are put in a much better position to initiate the so-badly-needed changes that the rest of the world is screaming for. Hope for a better tomorrow always exists as long as there are those who are willing to work for it, and who are aware of the needs and opportunities involved.

Naturally, there are those whose vested interest in seeing that things continue as they are leads them to continue to take steps to quiet their opposition. The murders ("unintentional") of dozens of foreign journalists by US troops notwithstanding, the tactics employed are nothing new: maintaining claims that "everything is allright, trust us" or playing upon the most negative of emotions, fear and anger.

To give just a couple of examples, today the BBC published a report by the US Ambassador to Iraq that "success" by the US in Iraq was still possible. This was in response to the admittal by a US State Department official that the US was "arrogant" and "stupid" in Iraq, a statement claimed by the White House to have been mistranslated but verified by the BBC to have been accurate. It was also immediately following an analysis by Robert Dreyfuss, echoing the sentiments of many prominent analysists, that a coup was on the cards in Iraq.

Facing such grim news, the Bush administration reverts to its classic strategy of playing upon the fears of the American population. The latest of a virtual plethora of examples is a video recently published on the Republican party's website RNC.org designed to scare the American public into obedience (much the same as Mao scared his population into obedience). The video is below:


The Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad had some thoughts and observations on this very subject in his letter to George Bush a few months back:

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

I think the answer is obvious. To constantly push the buttons of the population and use their fear as a tool of manipulation is an intense disservice not only to the American population, but to those against whom the fear is used to mobilise militant action. But I have hope. I have hope that Americans are as fed up with the situation as the rest of the world is. I have hope that the "elites" in the american business world are not right in their assessment that the candidate with the largest campaign war chest [must have] superior grass-roots support, the war chest referring to the amount of money they have left for their campaign. I have hope that Americans are intelligent enough to realise that the Dow Jones' record performance recently does not represent the economic welfare of their nation or themselves as individuals.

I think Americans are at a breaking point, that the situation is bad enough at this stage (domestically, for americans, and internationally) that many are coming to realise that major changes are needed, of which making a showing at their election next month is an important first step.

I have hope that the strength of morality and human decency will overpower the will of those whose greed, arrogance, and or fear have monopolised their decision making processes. I have hope for the future.

We have the power, we must only choose to use it.

America

Now, more than ever, America is finding itself alone in the world. With a population blinded by a media censored for "National Security" reasons and trained to pass along official government statements as "News" in a truly dictatorial fashion, the not-so-Duly-Elected government is fairly rapidly removing personal freedoms and doing away with social welfare and retirement benefits while alienating allies and strengthening the resolve of- and recruitment for- terror groups who would seek to attack America.

The Bush administration's "petri dish" for testing the National Security Strategy of 2002 has plummeted into a civil war, with thousands of civilians dead in the last month alone, and even brainwashed Democrats are surprised that their specifically chosen and installed "democratic" government is echoing the views of every other country on the planet condemning Israel's murderous incursions into Lebanon.

International leaders will be meeting in Rome to discuss deployment of international Peacekeepers into southern Lebanon, with or without American and Israeli support.

Russia, once subsurvient to Washington's demands, is starting to break free of America's stranglehold. Recent comments by Russian officials criticising American policies, such as the statement that "a hysterical atmosphere was being artificially created and a political environment that was favorable for launching a process of overthrowing legally constituted governments was being formed" and, scoffing at remarks by Bush saying Russia should institute a democracy more similar to that of Iraq, Putin replied “We of course don’t want to have a democracy like the one in Iraq.” This was an obvious reference to the un-democratic nature of the elections held in Iraq, wherein all of the choices in the election had been hand picked by the U.S. government; by definition undemocratic.

The American Constitution, once lauded as the best system of governance on the planet, is being ignored and marginalised by the government's Executive branch. The following story ran yesterday in The Guardian newspaper in the U.K.:

Leading lawyers say Bush creates loopholes in laws he doesn't like

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday July 25, 2006
The Guardian


President George Bush's practice of writing exceptions to legislation as he signs it into law represents a violation of the constitution and a danger to democracy, America's leading lawyers alleged yesterday.

The American Bar Association, an independent lawyers' organisation, issued a report on President Bush's prolific use of "signing statements" and found he was using them to create unconstitutional loopholes to laws passed by Congress.

The ABA found that the president used signing statements to make more than 800 challenges to congressional legislation, 200 more than all previous US presidents put together. Signing statements have been issued since the nation's founding but they have traditionally served a ceremonial function, extolling the virtues of the legislation just signed.

Mr Bush has used the statements to distance himself from the laws he signs rather than veto them outright. A veto can be overruled by Congress but the legislature has so far been powerless to make the White House enforce provisions the president does not like.

For example, in signing a bill last year banning the use of torture by American personnel, the president wrote that the executive branch would "construe" the legislation "in a manner consistent" with the president's powers and "the constitutional limitations on the judicial power". In other words the president would not enforce the law if it conflicted with his authority as commander-in-chief to pursue his "war on terror" as he saw fit.

"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," the ABA's president, Michael Greco, said. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."

Asked about the report yesterday, the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said: "The president does not have the luxury of practising civil disobedience. The laws that have been enacted must be executed by the government. A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality. It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'"

The justice department has denied that Mr Bush's use of signing statements has gone significantly beyond previous presidents. However, the Bush administration subscribes to a constitutional theory known as the "unitary executive". It stipulates that under the constitution, the president has supreme control over all executive branches of government and that Congress has very limited power to divest him of that authority.

The ABA report found that the administration's interpretation of the "unitary executive" theory violated the constitution's strictures on the separation of powers, that were "essential to the preservation of liberty".

"The constitution thus limits the president's role in the lawmaking process to the recommendation of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks unwise," it said.

The president's attempts to gain the power to issue "line item vetoes" against individual provisions within congressional bills, have been rebuffed by Congress. The ABA called on Congress to pass a bill allowing signing statements to be challenged in the courts.

However, the American public is completely unaware of the worsening state of the nation, choosing instead to stay in their dreamworld rather than face harsh realities.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
-----------------------------
Thank you to Truth About Iraqis for the beginning graphic.

Crimes Against Humanity: American-Backed Israeli Offensive

Warning: Graphic Images

Updated 07-26 below

Today, well informed Americans are ashamed of America. To see the kind of destruction, slaughter, a malicious violence that is carried out by, on behalf of, or with support from the U.S. government, well informed Americans who possess a conscience are left bewildered and heartbroken.

Sadly, most Americans are not well informed, regardless of whether or not they think they are. All of the American news agencies are willfully regurgitating only what the U.S. and Israeli governments want the American public to know, which is that (1)Hizballah/Lebanon and Palestine/Hamas are the aggressors, killing Israeli civilians and causing much hardship, however there is no apparent hardship for the Lebanese or Palestinians, (2) Israel is acting in self defence, (3) Israel is targeting only the Hizballah and Hamas fighters, and (4) there are only minimal, and often not sufficient to mention, Lebanese and Palestinian civilian casualties.

Most news stories in America describe the fighting as Hezbollah and Israel trading attacks, implying that Hizballah is attacking Israel and Israel is attacking (strictly) Hizballah. CNN's main story on the subject includes a video story of "How Life in an Israeli Bomb Shelter is So Hard For Children," a heartbreaking account of suffering on the Israeli side of the conflict. However, no mention is made of Lebanese or Palestinian children, being murdered by the hundreds by the IDF. Why, when the civilian death toll is nearly 400 to 40, would the non-Israeli casualties be ignored in favor of the 90% smaller number of Israeli casualties? For those who value human life, shouldn't there be 10 times more coverage of the non-Israeli casualties?

I believe in a simple philosophy: Murder is Murder. Murder by Israel is just as wrong as murder by Hizballah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, the U.S. Military, U.S. Defence Contractors, Russia, Somali Warlords, Chechen Rebels, the IRA, the Mafia, CIA assassins, serial killers... it's all the same, regardless of the justification given.

Hizballah has killed 37 Israeli civilians in rocket attacks into Israeli civilian areas. These acts are a crime against humanity due to the fact that those being intentionally targeted are civilians, and as such the perpetrators of this crime should be brought to Justice, using established methods of law enforcement rather than targeted assassinations.

Israel has killed 373 civilians in Lebanon alone, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. The Australian Broadcasting Company reports that roughly 50 of those civilians killed had some affiliation with Hizballah, although there has been no evidence provided to support this claim. To avoid starting a discussion on the validity of assertions for which there is no substantiating evidence, we will instead focus on those 320+ and counting civilians and families that have fallen victim to Israeli attacks. I am not now, nor have I ever, condoned the murder of civilians by terror groups, including the IDF and Hizballah. However, I am going to put more of a heavy emphasis on the far larger number of Lebanese civilian casualties in the Lebanon front of Israel's offensive, rather than Israeli casualties, because the Israelis are receiving far more western media coverage even though their death toll is only a small percentage of that for Lebanon (and palestine).

The assertions made by Israel that they are targeting Hizballah are false, yet widely repeated in news reports that claim the fighting is between "Hezbollah and Israel." To give some examples, the Sydney Morning Herald reports on families fleeing southern Lebanon coming under fire from the IDF, even though they were visibly displaying white flags, the international meaning of which is surrender.

Inside the stricken car were Zein Zabad, 45, his wife, Alia Tame, 39, daughter, Abiye, 13, and sons Hussein, 10, Khalid, 8, and Hassan, 7. There were also three injured members of the Srour family, whom Zabad had stopped to rescue after a helicopter attacked their car a few kilometres down the road.

Medical staff dragged all the victims from the wreck, injured but alive, before the fire reached the petrol tank. Just as the flames flared up a Red Cross ambulance came careering past the burning car, from the road to the south.

The ambulance contained six members of the Shaayto family from Tyre. There were two women, two girls, two little boys, survivors from a minivan crammed with 19 people that had just been attacked as it tried to escape Israel's killing zone.

Kathar Shaayto, a 10-year-old girl, had tears on her face but her voice was calm as she lay on a trolley and talked to the doctors studying the large piece of shrapnel embedded in her hand.

"My father is dead," she told them. "My mother has multiple injuries. I don't know about the others." Then she broke down.

While the American media asserts that those who were killed must be terrorists (aren't all Lebanese?), the United Nations, EU, Arab League, and other nations across the globe are condeming Israel for attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure. This is a blatant violation of international law, and separated from law and justice, man is at his worst.

Chapter 4, Article 57 of the First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions reads:

(ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects; (iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

(b) an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

Article 85 of the First Protocol reads:

3. In addition to the grave breaches defined in Article 11, the following acts shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health: (a) making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack; (b) launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii); (c) launching an attack against works or installations containing dangerous forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii); (d) making non-defended localities and demilitarized zones the object of attack; (e) making a person the object of attack in the knowledge that he is hors de combat;

The much-discussed Article 51 states specifically that civilian populations should not be object of attack.

In the news, however, we read of families bombed by the IDF while fleeing southern Lebanon, including this harrowing account by a 14 year old boy, one of 3 survivors from a truck of 24 civilians following the Israeli order to evacuate the south of Lebanon:

Wissam and his extended family were on a truck fleeing the southern village of Marwaheen on July 15.

'We were 24 people in the truck,' he told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa. 'The ones who survived are me, my father and my sister, who is now fighting for her life after she was severely wounded.'

His leg badly wounded and his body riddled with shrapnel, Wissam speaks in fragments, wide-eyed and frightened, tears rolling down his cheeks.

The memory of what happened, he says, will be imprinted on his mind and heart until his death.

'They (Israelis) first bombed the truck from a warship from the sea while we were still near our village.'

'The shell directly hit our truck and I suddenly saw that most of the people had flown outside the truck and turned into shredded pieces of flesh and bones.'

Wissam found his little sister outside the vehicle, screaming in pain and fear as her leg was heavily torn and bleeding, and begging for her life.

'As I tried to reach her, to at least give her comfort, an Israeli Apache helicopter came to finish off the rest of us, bombing us again.' His sister was 7 years old.

'My little sister was killed, so were most of the rest of those who survived the first bombing,' he shouted in anger, saying he still could not believe what happened was real.

Wissam paused as more tears poured down his face and asked: 'Isn't this a war crime? Isn't it?' He paused again as his eyes looked up at the ceiling, and remembered: 'They killed my whole family, and now I'm waiting for my 12-year-old sister to die as well.'

The young boy lost his mother, two sisters and brother in the attack. His family, like tens of thousands of others from southern Lebanese villages, were leaving their homes after Israeli warplanes dropped leaflets warning civilians to vacate the area.

Israel, and Hizballah, are both guilty of "Grave Breaches," which are by definition War Crimes, and for the sake of maintaining peace and stability, those on both sides should be brought to trial before the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

The Jurist law publication discusses reports that civilian food storage facilities are being targeted by Israel, in violation of Section 2 of Article 54 which states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works."
The article, which is incidentally supportive of Israel's right to "self defence," aknowledges what the EU and Kofi Annan have stated recently about the disproportionate nature of Israel's "response" in targeting civilian areas:

Although statements and reports out of Lebanon are notoriously unreliable, there appears to be a sufficient confluence of internet posts that Israeli planes are now dropping their bombs and firing their missiles indiscriminately against civilian targets. Grain silos, food production, and storage plants have been destroyed. Bombs have reportedly been dropped on hospitals and on convoys of villagers fleeing from the Israeli shelling. It is getting close to the kind of carpet bombing that occurred during the Vietnam war against Hanoi. At that time, pilots were repeatedly sent out on bombing missions, told to return without any bombs, and not to disclose their targets. The result, after the first visible military targets were bombed, was the bombing of civilian targets such as schools, hospitals, and the Hanoi dam. These, too, were war crimes, and although the perpetrators were never prosecuted, at least the United States has never condoned them.

Israel appears to be continuing its bombing campaign out of a sense of frustration, bitterness at the failure of the bombs to slow down Hezbollah’s rocket launchings, and perhaps a homegrown political need to demonstrate to the Israeli public that “something is being done” about the rocket attacks. The militarily inexperienced Olmert-Peretz government may think that its political future is at stake if the public is not reassured by daily bombardment of Lebanon. But if these are the reasons for the continuation of the aerial campaign, they are among the feeblest of excuses for the commission of war crimes.

News reports discuss "Bodies stacked 3 or 4 feet high at morgues in Lebanon, and international aid workers state that the damage inflicted upon civilian casualties is consistant with use of what Israel describes as "bombs with special fillings" and are commonly referred to as shells made of depleted uranium, which is also against international law.

Meanwhile, the U.S.'s Condeleeza Rice has headed to the region for the purpose of assuring Israel that their assault on Lebanon must continue, yet telling the international media that the American desire to see the violence continue for at least another week or two is "calling for and urgent ceasefire," while rejecting an offer by Syria at a diplomatic solution.

As I have discussed on many previous occasions, such egregious violations of international law going unpunished, along with the infliction of such pain and suffering on civilian populations, will only lead to an increase in recruitment for "extremist" groups as people look for an avenue for vengence in the absence of justice. The Asia Times has an intuitive series on the subject entitled "How To Lose The War On Terror.

What proceeds is what is being hidden from the majority of the western world by governments and a complicit media that wish to maintain the overwhelming level of support for Israel's terrorist policies. The following are pictures from the Israeli offensive c/o As-Safir Newspaper and Uruknet.info
--------------------------

Beirut A body killed by a burning object lies in a Beirut suburb July 17- Reuters A Lebanese firefighter extinguishes the charred body of a Lebanese truck driver who was killed when Israeli planes attacked the port in Beirut July 17 - AP A member of the Lebanese Red Cross walks past a badly burnt body in Beirut's port, which was targeted by Israeli warplanes, July 17 - Reuters A member of the Lebanese Red Cross walks past a badly burnt body in Beirut's port, which was targeted by Israeli warplanes A member of the Lebanese Red Cross walks past a badly burnt body in Beirut's port, which was targeted by Israeli warplanes-2. Lebanese firefighters try to extinguish the fire while the dismembered and burnt corpses of two Lebanese civilians killed in an Israeli air raid lie on the ground at the port in Beirut Lebanese men remove a recovered body of a man from the back of a vehicle in Beirut July 17- Reuters.jpg Lebanese Red Cross members remove the dismembered and burnt corpses of two Lebanese civilians killed in an Israeli air raid at the port in Beirut 17 July Lebanese Red Cross members remove the dismembered and burnt corpses of two Lebanese civilians killed in an Israeli air raid at the port in Beirut. look at his right eye - Lebanese citizens gather around a man who was killed by shrapnel from an explosion in Kfarshima, near Beirut, Lebanon, Monday, July 17 -AP look at the foot - beirut prot july 17 - Reuters Sidon A Lebanese medic carries the body of a young girl, in a refrigerated truck used as a makeshift morgue, in the port city of Sidon, Lebanon, Monday, July 17 - AP A Medic inspects burned bodies of Lebanese civilians who were attacked as they passed by a bridge that was targeted in north Saida, southern Lebanon, July 17 - Reuters Tyr A badly injured Lebanese civilian is seen at a hospital following Israeli air strikes on a house in the southern city of Tyre, 17 July - AFP A Lebanese rescue worker gathers the remains of a woman from the rubble of residential buildings hit by the Israeli bombardement in the southern Lebanese city of Tyre, 18 July - AFP An 18-month-old Lebanese child lies dead 17 July on a hospital bed in Saida eight hours after being injured yesterday in an Israeli air attack in Tyre - AFP Lebanese man that was injured and burned by Israeli attacks on Tyre, lies in a hospital in south Lebanon July 15 - Reuters The corpse of a dead man lies admist the rubble from devastating Israeli air strikes in Tyre, south Lebanon, 16 July - AFP The corpse of a Lebanese civilian lies amidst the rubble following a devastating Israeli air strike in Tyre, south Lebanon, 16 July a Rmayleh A civil defense member transports the corpse of a Lebanese civilian killed in an Israeli air raid that targeted the Rmeyleh bridge near Saida 17 July afp. A Lebanese medic carries the body of a young girl, in a refrigerated truck used as a makeshift morgue, as another body lies covered, in the port city of Sidon, Lebanon, Monday, July 17 Civil defence rescuers carry the body of a woman away from a civilian car that was struck by an Israeli warplane missile- rmayleih juy 17 - AP Drivers carry away Lebanese Ali Wahid after he was seriously wounded in his car, while he was driving past a bridge when was struck by an Israeli warplane missile- rmayleh july 17 ap. Lebanese Red Cross members cover the burnt corpse of a Lebanese civilian killed in an Israeli air raid that targeted the Rmeyleh bridge in Saida 17 July AFP. look at his face - A 7-year-old Lebanese boy fights for his life on a hospital bed in Saida 17 July 2006 after being injured in an Israeli air raid - AFP Marwahin A badly charred and mutilated body lies on the ground after an Israeli missile hit a van carrying passengers on a road in southern Lebanon, July 15, - Reuters A body of a man from the southern village of Marwahin, who was killed along with 17 others near the village of Shamaa A United Nations medic holds a body that was badly charred and destroyed after an Israeli missile hit a van carrying passengers on a road in southern Lebanon, July 15 - Reuters. KILLED ON THE SAME ROAD IN THE SOUTH JULY 15 - REUTERS Lebanese civil defence member carries the corpse of a young girl from the southern village of Marwahin MARWA Marwa Abdallah, who survived Saturday's attack on a van in Tyre where twenty people where killed IN HOSPITAL JULY 16 - REUTERS. MARWAHIN (SOUTH ) JULY 15 - AFP MARWAHIN (SOUTH ) JULY 15 - REUTERS Zebdine A Lebanese Red Cross staff collects human remains following an Israeli air raid on Zebdine village (south )JULY 16 AFP Teir Harfa TEIR HAFRA 1 (SOUTH) JULY 15 - AP TEIR HAFRA 2 SOUTH) JULY 15 - AP TEIR HAFRA 3(SOUTH) JULY 15 - AP TEIR HAFRA 4 (SOUTH) JULY 15 - AP TEIR HAFRA 5 (SOUTH ) JULY 15 - AP TEIR HAFRA 6 (SOUTH ) JULY 15 AP Bekaa look at the eye- Issam Mostafa, a 3-year-old Lebanese boy, rests at a hospital in Shtora in the Bekaa valley 17 July afp.

Images come from As-Safir Newspaper, c/o Uruknet.info
---------------------

Update

The Guardian newspaper reports that, regarding Israel's bombing of a UN post in Lebanon, the attack was deliberate and lasted for hours.

"the shelling started in the morning and went on until after 7pm. You cannot imagine the anguish of the unarmed men and women peacekeepers who were there."
-Kofi Annan

Is the UN part of Hizballah now?
-----------
This was the front page of The Independent (U.K.) this past Sunday