The War on Palestinians

So, Israeli propaganda dominates the airwaves. Israeli officials are wheeled out to proclaim that their murder of nearly 500 Palestinians and the launch of over 800 strikes is a 'defensive action'. It is barely possible to watch the news as these officials trundle out lie after lie with straight faces, apparently convinced of their own lies. The lie that Israeli action is defensive being just one of a whole pack of lies which the Israeli government know will be almost impossible to disprove. Still, if nothing else, the propaganda offensive has been 'impressive'.

One thing must be kept in mind when watching any news coverage of this murderous attack on Gaza. International journalists are not allowed into Gaza to verify any of the claims of the Israeli government. Even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot ban foreign correspondents, they remain banned. As a result, it makes it impossible to verify the claims of the government, a fact they are all to aware of. Take this morning's attack on a mosque in Gaza. On various networks, officials have been interviews and claimed that the strike was unfortunate, but that munitions are routinely stored in civilian locations across Gaza and, this implies, the strike was justified. One question is never asked: where is the proof? If the mosque contained munitions, why not provide the proof? Why not tell us where exactly these munitions were stored? Why? Because it is part of a blatant attempt to convince the people of the world that this mass murder, this attempt at ethnic cleansing, is in someway justified.

Every civilian death is seen as suspicious. Every civilian death is blamed on the Palestinian people. Oh, they say they blame Hamas, but by claiming that the Palestinians allow munitions to be stored on their properties, they are essentially saying that any Palestinian civilian that is killed is responsible for their own murder. It is ironic, nay perverse, that so often, the very same people who claim that the Palestinians (the victims) are at fault and that the Israelis (the perpetrators) are deserving of our sympathy, are the very same ones that proclaim that individuals should take the responsibility for their actions and not blame external factors. Why are Palestinians not deserving of this? Why, in this case, should the murderers not take responsibility for their actions? Which the victim suffer whilst the perpetrator has excuses made in their favour? It is the great double standard at the heart of much of the rhetoric that emanates from certain sections of the political spectrum.

And why should we believe what the Israeli government says anyway. Their propaganda has already been exposed for what it is only this morning. Footage that was uploaded on YouTube to prove the accuracy of the Israeli assault has now been revealed as a disgraceful piece of propaganda. Instead of missiles being loaded onto the targeted truck (as the Israeli government claimed), oxygen cylinders were being prepared for distribution. As a result of this action, eight Palestinians were killed. And yet, this video clip is being used as an example of how the Israelis are so careful in their targeting. And, given the lack of journalists in Gaza, one wonders how many other examples are waiting to emerge from the woodwork.

Despite the horrors that are being conducted in Gaza, one must remember that these are the actions of a corrupt elite that are in power in Israel. They are not representative of the people of Israel. The Communist Party of Israel and Hadash have been organising demonstrations in Tel Aviv in protest against the assault on Gaza and the continuing siege. There have been reports that over 10,000 people have taken to the streets in protest against Israeli action. And their bravery in expressing their right to free speech is underlined when considering the disgusting language of some of the extreme elements in Israeli political life:

Israel Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman said that "in the same way that the Israeli government knows that it is impossible to stop the operation in Gaza until Hamas is eradicated, [the government] must act against those Israeli citizens who are not loyal to the State of Israel."

"The demonstration in Sakhnin in which ten thousand protesters are participating proves that their loyalty is to Hamas and to those who want to destroy Israel."

Ironically those that really seek to destroy Israel are quite possibly the Israeli government themselves. After all, does anyone seriously believe that these attacks will put a stop to the extremists in Gaza? Does anyone really believe that the children who witness the deaths of their mothers, fathers, brother, sisters at the hands of Israeli rockets, will not turn their hatred on Israel? It would be foolish to think that they wouldn't. Each rocket that lands in Gaza produces another extremist. Another person intent on destroying Israel. Another suicide bomber intent on killing Israeli civilians. Until the Israeli government realises this simple fact, the cycle will continue. Unless, of course, that is what they want. To keep the people of Israel living in fear. Well, they may just get their wish.

MOD To Keep Cluster Bombs

Remember the good old days of an 'ethical foreign policy'??? No? Neither do I. And here's a further reminder of this country's failure to operate ethically on the global stage:

The British government is deeply divided over its policy on cluster bombs on the eve of international negotiations about a ban, the Guardian has learned.

The split sets the Ministry of Defence, which wants to retain two types of cluster munitions in the British armoury, against Downing Street and the Foreign Office, which want to honour Gordon Brown's pledge last year "to work internationally for a ban" on those weapons that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.

An international conference on cluster munitions - shells or rockets which contain several smaller bombs - begins on Monday in Dublin. Officials said it was unlikely British divisions would be resolved by then. Instead, they hope the position taken by European allies could throw up a workable compromise.

Why not write to Des Browne and tell him what you think of this policy (in a polite way of course)? Here's his email address:

browned@parliament.uk

Now get cracking.

Inquiry Into Death of Baha Mousa

Good news for the family of Baha Mousa, but one wonders whether the outcome will be entirely just:

Lawyers for the family of an Iraqi civilian who died in the custody of British troops claimed a victory after the Government announced a public inquiry into his death.

Four-and-a-half years after Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old hotel receptionist, died while detained by soldiers from the 1st Battalion The Queen's Lancashire Regiment, Defence Secretary Des Browne said holding an inquiry was "the right thing to do".

The head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, said the inquiry - to be headed by a senior judge - needed to establish whether his death was the result of the "misguided" actions of a few individuals or a wider "systemic" failure.

However ministers indicated they would resist demands by lawyers for the family that it should also look at other cases involving alleged mistreatment by British soldiers.

Whose money is on it being down to 'a few individuals'??

Free Men in a Hierarchical Structure

I had to share this barking mad comment from my 'About' page:

In league with the stones... Every September, I recall that is more than half a century (62 years) since I landed at Nagasaki with the 2nd Marine Division in the original occupation of Japan following World War II. This time every year, I have watched and listened to the light-hearted "peaceniks" and their light-headed symbolism-without-substance of ringing bells, flying pigeons, floating candles, and sonorous chanting and I recall again that "Peace is not a cause - it is an effect."

In July, 1945, my fellow 8th RCT Marines [I was a BARman] and I returned to Saipan following the successful conclusion of the Battle of Okinawa. We were issued new equipment and replacements joined each outfit in preparation for our coming amphibious assault on the home islands of Japan.

B-29 bombing had leveled the major cities of Japan, including Kobe, Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohama, Yokosuka, and Tokyo.

We were informed we would land three Marine divisions and six Army divisions, perhaps abreast, with large reserves following us in. It was estimated that it would cost half a million casualties to subdue the Japanese homeland.

In August, the A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima but the Japanese government refused to surrender. Three days later a second A-bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. The Imperial Japanese government finally surrendered.

Following the 1941 sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, a Japanese admiral said, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." Indeed, they had. Not surprisingly, the atomic bomb was produced by a free people functioning in a free environment. Not surprisingly because the creative process is a natural human choice-making process and inventiveness occurs most readily where choice-making opportunities abound. America!

Tamper with a giant, indeed! Tyrants, beware: Free men are nature's pit bulls of Liberty! The Japanese learned the hard way what tyrants of any generation should know: Never start a war with a free people - you never know what they may invent!

As a newly assigned member of a U.S. Marine intelligence section, I had a unique opportunity to visit many major cities of Japan, including Tokyo and Hiroshima, within weeks of their destruction. For a full year I observed the beaches, weapons, and troops we would have assaulted had the A-bombs not been dropped. Yes, it would have been very destructive for all, but especially for the people of Japan.

When we landed in Japan, for what came to be the finest and most humane occupation of a defeated enemy in recorded history, it was with great appreciation, thanksgiving, and praise for the atomic bomb team, including the aircrew of the Enola Gay. A half million American homes had been spared the Gold Star flag, including, I'm sure, my own.

Whenever I hear the apologists expressing guilt and shame for A-bombing and ending the war Japan had started (they ignore the cause-effect relation between Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki), I have noted that neither the effete critics nor the puff-adder politicians are among us in the assault landing-craft or the stinking rice paddies of their suggested alternative, "conventional" warfare. Stammering reluctance is obvious and continuous, but they do love to pontificate about the Rights that others, and the Bomb, have bought and preserved for them.

The vanities of ignorance and camouflaged cowardice abound as license for the assertion of virtuous "rights" purchased by the blood of others - those others who have borne the burden and physical expense of Rights whining apologists so casually and self-righteously claim.

At best, these fakers manifest a profound and cryptic ignorance of causal relations, myopic perception, and dull I.Q. At worst, there is a word and description in The Constitution defining those who love the enemy more than they love their own countrymen and their own posterity. Every Yankee Doodle Dandy knows what that word is.

In 1945, America was the only nation in the world with the Bomb and it behaved responsibly and respectfully. It remained so until two among us betrayed it to the Kremlin. Still, this American weapon system has been the prime deterrent to earth's latest model world- tyranny: Seventy years of Soviet collectivist definition, coercion, and domination of individual human beings.

The message is this: Trust Freedom. Remember, tyrants never learn. The restriction of Freedom is the limitation of human choice, and choice is the fulcrum-point of the creative process in human affairs. As earth's choicemaker, it is our human identity on nature's beautiful blue planet and the natural premise of man's free institutions, environments, and respectful relations with one another. Made in the image of our Creator, free men choose, create, and progress - or die.

Free men should not fear the moon-god-crowd oppressor nor choose any of his ways. Recall with a confident Job and a victorious David, "Know ye not that you are in league with the stones of the field?"
Semper Fidelis Jim Baxter Sgt. USMC WW II and Korean War
Job 5:23 Proverbs 3:31 I Samuel 17:40 See: http://www.choicemaker.net/

Do you see what he did there?? Freedom repeated countless times, followed by references to the Bible. Poor soul cannot see the contradiction. As for America behaving responsibly, perhaps it is best not to rake over 60 years of American imperialism.

Israeli Soldiers Beat Women and Children

A shocking story from today's Observer about conditions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. A study by a leading Israeli psychologist has found tales of immense brutality on the Palestinians. The study by Nufar Yishai-Karin was based around interviews with 21 Israeli soldiers in which they confessed to frequent, brutal assaults. According to one soldier:

'We were in a weapons carrier when this guy, around 25, passed by in the street and, just like that, for no reason - he didn't throw a stone, did nothing - bang, a bullet in the stomach, he shot him in the stomach and the guy is dying on the pavement and we keep going, apathetic. No one gave him a second look.'

Women weren't spared from this horrific treatment:

'With women I have no problem. With women, one threw a clog at me and I kicked her here [pointing to the crotch], I broke everything there. She can't have children. Next time she won't throw clogs at me. When one of them [a woman] spat at me, I gave her the rifle butt in the face. She doesn't have what to spit with any more.'

Even children are subjected to horrendous abuses:

'After two months in Rafah, a [new] commanding officer arrived... So we do a first patrol with him. It's 6am, Rafah is under curfew, there isn't so much as a dog in the streets. Only a little boy of four playing in the sand. He is building a castle in his yard. He [the officer] suddenly starts running and we all run with him. He was from the combat engineers.

'He grabbed the boy. I am a degenerate if I am not telling you the truth. He broke his hand here at the wrist, broke his leg here. And started to stomp on his stomach, three times, and left. We are all there, jaws dropping, looking at him in shock...

'The next day I go out with him on another patrol, and the soldiers are already starting to do the same thing.'

The revelations have provoked a massive debate within Israeli society about the legitimacy of the actions of the IDF. Israeli society is seriously beginning to question some of the abuses that are conducted in their name. This recent shift in attitudes has been reflected in a massive rise in conscientious objection, as well as widespread draft-dodging. As the Telegraph reported earlier in the year, the figures for draft-dodging in 2006 were the highest in Israeli history. Twenty-five percent of Israelis avoided their military service as a result of growing disquiet about the activities of the Israeli Defence Force.

And yet, the blood thirsty drum beaters still play the same tune. Witness Melanie Phillips' recent defence of the state that can do no wrong:

‘Every time I visit, the situation seems to have worsened,’ he [John Dugard, the UN human rights envoy for the Palestinian Territories] said in a BBC interview. This time, I was very struck by the sense of hopelessness among the Palestinian people.’ Mr Dugard attributed this to ‘the crushing effect of human rights violations’, and in particular Israeli restrictions on Palestinians’ freedom of movement.

Yes, the Palestinians’ situation has worsened. This is principally the result of two things. a) The regime of terror instituted by the Hamas administration for which the Palestinians so unwisely voted and which is progressively making their lives a misery; and b) the restrictions imposed by the Israelis to counter the rockets which the Palestinians are lobbing at Israeli towns from Gaza, and the human bomb attacks they are ceaselessly attempting to perpetrate against Israelis. Strangely, Dugard makes no mention of either.

He said that although Israel did have a threat to its security, ‘its response is very disproportionate’.

Let’s see now: checkpoints to stop its citizens from being murdered? Very disproportionate. Targeted assassinations, to kill terror godfathers while sparing innocent Palestinians as far as possible? Very disproportionate. Sitting on Israeli hands while rockets fired from Gaza slam into southern Israeli towns? Very disproportionate.

Her willful denial of the very facts provided above show just how out of touch with reality she really is. The IDF is guilty of considerable human rights violations. It's treatment of innocent civilians is an utter disgrace. Disproportionate?? I would argue that that would put it very mildly indeed. These offences are off the scale. Beating women and children and failing to differentiate between genuine threats and innocent civilians, is systematic of a brutal, abusive regime. That the Israeli people are realising this is a very welcome development indeed.

Bush - Child Killer

I was going to post on this yesterday, but I was otherwise engaged. From The Guardian:

George Bush yesterday used his presidential veto for only the fourth time in seven years to block legislation that would have given health insurance to millions of poor American children.

He announced his opposition to the expansion of an existing insurance programme last month. The exercise of his veto power yesterday isolates the White House on the most pressing domestic issue for many Americans, and puts Mr Bush in conflict with Congress, where there was widespread Republican support for the legislation.

The legislation would have extended health cover to 10 million poor children, and would have cost $60bn (£29.5bn) over the next five years. It had widespread support outside Congress, from state governors and even the health insurance industry.

The White House argued that the programme represented a stealth effort to bring in government health care, and would have extended coverage to middle class families as well as the poor. "This legislation would move health care in this country in the wrong direction," Mr Bush said yesterday. "Under this bill government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children."

Of course, there are far better things to spend tax payers money on, like the murder of thousands of people around the globe. From Colombia to Iraq to Afghanistan, Bush chooses to spend money on death rather than life. Maybe if just a fraction of military spending was re-directed to healthcare, thousands of people's lives might just be saved. But then I guess a fair, decent healthcare system in a capitalist world is beyond the reasoning of man.

Free Burma

Find out what you can do to put an end to the military dictatorship in Burma, visit The Burma Cammpaign UK and start writing emails to the companies that support the regime.

[image taken from Free Burma!]

The Karen - Ethnically Cleansed in Burma Thanks To Corporate Investment

There have been many interesting posts about the ongoing situation in Burma, what with the images of peaceful monks being slaughtered by over zealous soldiers eager to please their military leaders. One story that has bubbled under the surface is the case of the systematic cleansing of ethnic minorities along the Burmese/Thai border. One of the main victims of this growing genocide has been the Karen.

The Karen (self-titled Pwa Ka Nyaw Po and also known in Thailand as the Kariang) originate from Tibet and have had tempestuous relations with the Burmese throughout their history. In 1947, the KNU ( Karen National Union) was formed. The KNU was involved in an insurgency against the Burmese military junta throughout the 1980s leading, ultimately, to the 8888 uprising which was brutally crushed by the Burmese regime, leading to deaths numbering in the thousands. After the uprising, the junta cracked down on the KNU and its numbers dropped from 40,000 to 4,000. Even now they are suffering the consequences for their call for freedom.

Along the border with Thailand, the Karen (along with other groups) have been murdered, raped, forced into labour and had their houses burnt down. In short, a genocide is taking place. Only now, with the spotlight on Burma, has the grim reality of life in Burma as an ethnic minority become apparent. The following is taken from The Guardian:

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) - While international attention has focused on the protests for democracy in Myanmar's cities, a hidden war has decimated generations of the country's powerless ethnic minorities, who have faced brutality for decades.

The Karen, the Shan and other minority groups who live along the Myanmar-Thai border have been attacked, raped and killed by government soldiers. Their thatched-roofed, bamboo homes have been torched. Men have been seized into forced labor for the army, while women, children and the elderly either hide out in nearby jungles until the soldiers leave or flee over the mountains to crowded, makeshift refugee camps.

``Many, many thousands of Karen have died in those 60 years,'' Karen National Union secretary general Mahn Sha said this week of his people's struggle for autonomy since 1947.

The military junta has denied reports of atrocities and says the ethnic rebels are "terrorists'' [note the use of the word] trying to overthrow the government.

The Southeast Asian nation, formerly known as Burma, has more than 100 subtribes. Myanmar's diverse minority groups make up nearly a third of the country's 54 million population.

About two-thirds of the country belong to the Burman ethnic majority, which is also known as the Myanmar. The other ethnic groups include the Shan, the Karen, the Chin, the Mon, the Arakan or Rakhine, and the Kachin.

The plight of the Karen emphasises the impact that Western investment has in the region. Those companies that have been operating in Burma (the teak suppliers, the travel industry etc) have effectively been paying for these human rights abuses. Every bullet fired into every man/woman/child is paid for by the corporations operating in the region. Every rape that is committed is the direct responsibility of the corporations that invest there. Every village that is burnt to the ground is done so with the support of those very corporations that claim to have a conscience. How else can they explain why they are happy to give the Burmese government the money to indulge their military in such a way? I don't really know how these people can sleep at night knowing that they are financing murder and rape. May it rest heavy on their souls.

John Edwards To Speak Out Against Blackwater

Now, I'm no big fan of the Democrats in the US. As far as I am concerned, they are virtually indistinguishable from the GOP. Having said that, I have to admit I was quite impressed by John Edwards during the last Presidential campaign. After Howard Dean lost a lot of momentum, Edwards seemed like the next best bet (if you can deal with his car salesman look). I have to say that this campaign looks no different. Again, I have to reinforce the point, I would not vote for either party in the US, but Edwards comes closer than any other Democrat ever could (sadly, my opinion counts for nothing as I do not have a say in the outcome of the election).

With this in mind, it was good to see that Edwards was planning to speak out against the prevalence of unaccountable security firms being employed to do the military's dirty work. From the Associated Press:

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AP) — Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards wants to limit the role of security contractors working in Iraq and elsewhere, joining the growing criticism of a shootout that left 11 Iraqi civilians dead.

Edwards' remarks, planned for Wednesday, targeted Blackwater USA, a private security firm under investigation for its role in the Sept. 16 incident in Baghdad. The confrontation has become fodder for congressional hearings and outcry from war critics.

"We must put the democracy back in our military and prevent a disaster like the continuation of the Iraq War from ever occurring again," Edwards says in remarks provided to The Associated Press. "As commander in chief, I will transfer most security missions currently performed by contractors back to military command, where they belong."

Edwards' speech also takes a swipe at chief Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has refused to make a pledges to end all military operations in Iraq, citing the need to stay on offense against terrorism.

"Come on. If you're not ending combat operations, you're not ending the war," Edwards says.

Edwards wants to end all combat missions in Iraq and have a full exit of troops within 10 months, except those needed to protect diplomatic efforts including the U.S. Embassy.

Edwards said there is no federal oversight for contractors working in Iraq and called for a centralized budget for contractors who work across U.S. agencies, including the State Department and Pentagon.

"There should never be any mystery about when a contractor can use force and the consequences for improper action," he says. "We also must make sure not only that we have laws, but that we use them ... to ensure alleged crimes by contractors are always investigated and prosecuted."

About 50,000 private contractors currently work in Iraq and in most cases operate outside the military chain of command and without legal oversight.

Edwards blames the Bush administration's outsourcing of security tasks to "political cronies." Poor management led directly to the Blackwater incident, along with a separate shooting of an Iraqi security agent by an allegedly drunk Blackwater employee after a 2006 Christmas party, he maintained.

In testimony before a House committee Tuesday, Blackwater chairman Erik Prince rejected suggestions that his employees were cowboys immune from prosecutions. "I believe we acted appropriately at all times," he said.

The underlined incident is a particularly worrying example of the dangerous nature of these private security groups. From The Guardian:

But a memo by congressional staff said Blackwater has been involved in an average of 1.4 shootings a week. The memo detailed various incidents, including one on December 24 when a 26-year-old Blackwater staffer killed a 32-year-old guard to Adil Abd al-Mahdi, the Iraqi vice-president, provoking an angry response from the Iraqi government.

The memo said that documents it had obtained say "the Blackwater contractor, who worked as an armourer, had attended a party on the evening of December 24, had consumed several alcoholic beverages and was described as drunk by witnesses who encountered him that evening".

Armed with a Glock 9mm pistol he passed through a gate near the compound of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, when he was confronted by the Iraqi security guard. He opened fire with his pistol, hitting one of the guards, Raheem Khalif, three times. Khalif, 32, later died at a US military hospital.

The Blackwater employee fled to a guard post, where he said he had been in a gunfight with Iraqis who were chasing him and shooting at him. But the guards had not heard any shots.

And the following sums up exactly why these groups should have no business running security in war zones:

Mr Prince said the employee had been sacked and fined. Asked why he had been whisked out of Iraq within two days without being charged, Mr Prince said the company had no power to detain anyone. "We can't flog him, we can't incarcerate him," he said.

Rogue elements do not face the same justice that members of the military have to face up to (theoretically, the army always seem to wiggle out of their obligations too). These men aren't even obliged to adhere to the Geneva conventions (much like their leaders it would appear). Companies like Blackwater should be dissolved with immediate effect and its directors imprisoned. They are just as guilty of war crimes as their superiors. Justice must be served.

Burma - The Fight Against Dictatorship

I have been a little slow on the current situation in Burma, but RickB has a series of posts with the latest. And Avaaz have released the following:

Dear friends,

After decades of brutal dictatorship, the people of Burma are rising--and they need our help.

Clicking below will add your name to this petition to Chinese Premier Hu Jintao and the UN Security Council:

"We stand alongside the citizens of Burma in their peaceful protests. We urge you to oppose a violent crackdown on the demonstrators, and to support genuine reconciliation and democracy in Burma. We pledge to hold you accountable for any further bloodshed."

Click Here to Sign Now

Today over 100,000 people are on the streets of Rangoon, more around the country. When protesters last marched in 1988, the military massacred thousands.

But this time it can be different--if only the world stands with the marchers. The United Nations summit starts today in New York. Let's raise an emergency global campaign, demanding they press the Burmese generals to negotiate rather than crush the demonstrators. We'll deliver it to Security Council members--particularly China's Hu Jintao, until now the military junta's protector--and to media at the UN this week. Sign our emergency petition supporting the peaceful protests in Burma--click here, then spread the word:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/f.php?cl=20234942&signup=1

For decades the Burmese dictatorship fought off pressure--imprisoning elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi and democracy activists, wiping out thousands of villages in the provinces, bringing miseries from forced labour to refugee camps. One-third of children under 5 now suffer malnutrition; millions are down to one meal a day.

But last Tuesday Buddhist monks and nuns, overwhelmingly respected in Burma, began marching and chanting prayers. The protests spread--now they're growing by tens of thousands every day, as ordinary people, even celebrities and comedians join in. They've broken the chains of fear and given hope to 52 million Burmese.

However, this hope is hanging by a thread. While hesitating to attack the respected monks, the regime is reported to be organising violence. Demonstrators have already been beaten, shots have been fired.

This is one of those moments where the world can make the difference: standing shoulder to shoulder with the Burmese people, helping to shine a dissolving light on tyranny. Let's call on powers at the UN--in particular, China (next year's Olympics host)--to warn the generals that violence will have the gravest consequences, and the time has come for change.

People power is rising through the streets of Burma today. Let the demonstrators know the world is with them. Click here to sign the petition, then tell everyone you know:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/f.php?cl=20234942&signup=1

In hope,

Paul, Pascal, Graziela, Ricken and the whole Avaaz team

PS: The government has just threatened the monks--here's an Associated Press article: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iy-MfhLN9Q7MwtQ1VlrvexLjr2dA

And we've just heard this from the international Burma Campaign: the military has reportedly ordered a battalion of soldiers to shave their heads, pose as monks and operate as agents provocateurs. This might be the first first step towards a bloody crackdown. See http://www.uscampaignforburma.org/ for more background.

What Exactly Were Israeli Fighters Doing in Syria?

The plot thickens. From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 — After days of silence from the Israeli government, American officials confirmed Tuesday that Israeli warplanes launched airstrikes inside Syria last week, the first such attack since 2003.

A Defense Department official said Israeli jets had struck at least one target in northeastern Syria last Thursday, but the official said it was still unclear exactly what the jets hit and the extent of the bombing damage.

Syria has lodged a protest at the United Nations in response to the airstrike, accusing Israel of “flagrant violation” of its airspace. But Israel’s government has repeatedly declined to comment on the matter.

Officials in Washington said that the most likely targets of the raid were weapons caches that Israel’s government believes Iran has been sending the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah through Syria. Iran and Syria are Hezbollah’s primary benefactors, and American intelligence officials say a steady flow of munitions from Iran runs through Syria and into Lebanon.

One Bush administration official said Israel had recently carried out reconnaissance flights over Syria, taking pictures of possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials believed might have been supplied with material from North Korea. The administration official said Israeli officials believed that North Korea might be unloading some of its nuclear material on Syria.

“The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,” the official said. He said it was unclear whether the Israeli strike had produced any evidence that might validate that belief.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a military action by another government.

So they were involved in a military operation after all. And apparently it is all linked to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Clearly, once more, the Israeli government is bending to the will of the US government. Until Israel gives up its aggressive actions against its neighbours, it will continue to be the centre of the region's grievances.

Israeli Warplanes Enter Syrian Territory

Is this an example of the Israeli government flexing its muscles in the light of a massive arms deal with America? From Haaretz:

The Syrian army said Thursday that its air defenses fired on an Israel Air Force warplane that entered Syria airspace and "dropped munitions," the country's official news agency reported.

The Israel Defense Forces said it would have no comment on the Syrian reports. "It is not our custom to respond to these kinds of reports," the IDF Spokesman's Office said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also said there would be no comment beyond the military statement.

Syrian air defenses fired at the incoming plane, which crossed into Syria after midnight local time, the Syrian news agency said.

The Syrian Army spokesman, quoted by the official Syrian Arab News Agency, did not say how the military fired on the aircraft, but confirmed that the incident occurred at midnight Wednesday night.

To be fair to Syria, they also denied that this was not part of a bombing raid:

A Syrian analyst told Hebzollah's Al-Manar television that the plane was likely dumping munitions in order to maneuver, and was not carrying out a bombing raid.

However, it is curious that they were in the northern part of Syria. As this map from the BBC shows, the northern border of Syria is quite a long way from Israel.

Very curious indeed.

Rafsanjani Elected as Speaker of Assembly of Experts in Iran

It has emerged that former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has been elected as speaker of the Assembly of Experts, a group whose key role is to supervise Iran's Supreme Leader. The BBC reports:

Mr Rafsanjani will succeed Ayatollah Ali Meshkini, who died in July.

Correspondents say the appointment further consolidates the authority of Mr Rafsanjani, who is already a powerful figure in Iranian politics.

Considered a "pragmatic conservative", Mr Rafsanjani's victory will also be seen as a blow to Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says there is now a clear divide in Iranian politics between supporters of Mr Rafsanjani and those of Mr Ahmadinejad, and a complex power struggle is being carried out behind the scenes.

This development is crucial to the future of Iran. The panel itself has a big say in who will become the next Supreme Leader, where the real power is held in Iran (see post on Ten Percent for more detail on the make-up of the Iranian constitution). Although Rafsanjani is still a conservative, he is more open to the West and Russia. He has also taken a more cautious approach than Ahlmadinejad with respect to the nuclear issue. This has lead to somewhat of an internal struggle between the more moderate forces that Rafsanjani represents and the hardline faction behind Ahlmadinejad.

A military attack at this point would be foolish in the extreme. Given that much of Ahlmadinejad's rhetoric is based on the idea that the West is eager to strike at Iran, any military action would have very serious consequences. A military strike would shore up Ahlmadinejad's support and make it harder to win support from the Iranian people. The growth in influence of Rafsanjani is an opportunity for the West to resolve this situation peacefully without resorting to the high number of civilian casualties that would undoubtedly result from any attack. At this time, it would be wise of the West to remain cautious in response to developments in Iran. As Rafsanjani's influence increases, the more likely it is that his faction will see off the hardliners that back the current Iranian President. The chance of a peaceful resolution is in the offing. The question is, will the West take it.

General Sir Mike Jackson Attacks US Policy in Iraq

He doesn't pull his punches with Rumsfeld either:

The head of the British army during the Iraq invasion has said US post-war policy was "intellectually bankrupt".

In a Daily Telegraph interview, former chief of the general staff, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, added that US strategy had been "short-sighted".

He said former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld was "one of the most responsible for the current situation".

I'm no general, but I could have told you that US strategy was short-sighted several years ago. Still, better late than never. I also found myself agreeing with a Tory (that's twice in a week that I have been complimentary - I need to be hosed down pronto) quoted in the BBC's report. Malcolm Rifkind said:

"I think one of the most fundamental criticisms is not just that Rumsfeld was incompetent - which he was - but it was actually his boss, George Bush, who actually made the extraordinary decision to put the Pentagon and Rumsfeld in control of political nation-building after the actual war ended."

So, if Rumsfeld is incompetent, what does that make his boss?? Well put, for a Tory scumbag.

IAEA Report on Iran - Enrichment Programme 'Well Below Capacity'

Although you would barely know it from the reporting on the BBC. Although their report describes 'significant developments', it only gives a passing mention to the fact that the enrichment programme is well below capacity. According to the BBC:

The UN nuclear watchdog says Iran has agreed to a plan aimed at clearing up questions about its controversial nuclear activities.

The IAEA says the development is "significant", but adds that for the plan to work, it is essential to get full and active co-operation from Iran.

It also says Iran is continuing its enrichment programme, but at a slower pace than before, despite UN sanctions.

Western powers fear Iran could try to make nuclear arms, which Tehran denies.

Notice the fact that the reduction in enrichment is secondary to the fact that they are enriching and that this is contrary to UN sanctions. Their actual capacity seems barely important to the BBC, who concentrate on the agreement between the IAEA and Iran. Compare this to the coverage in Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper:

Iran's uranium enrichment program is operating well below capacity and is far from producing nuclear fuel in significant amounts, according to a confidential United Nations nuclear watchdog report.

A senior Iranian nuclear official said the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report showed U.S. suspicions about Tehran's nuclear intentions were baseless.

Officials familiar with the report said the IAEA could open future inquiries into Iran's atomic activity if new suspicions arose, even after Tehran answers questions about the program under a transparency deal reached this month.

Western leaders suspect Iran wants to build atom bombs, not generate electricity, and were alarmed when Tehran said in April it had reached "industrial capacity" to enrich uranium.

But the IAEA report said Tehran remained far short of that threshold. Iran had just under 2,000 centrifuges divided into 12 cascades, or interlinked units, of 164 machines each refining uranium at its underground Natanz plant as of August 19, it said.

Not only does this undermine the case for war that is slowly being built up by the US, it also proves the extent to which the Iranian regime will over-exaggerate their capacity. Reports such as these are often overlooked as governments build the case for military action. It is clear that Iran is a long way from posing the threat that the Western powers allege, however, this does not mean that the propaganda campaign will cease. On the contrary, they will continue to present Iran as a country seeking nuclear armaments in attempt to threaten the world. This is, perhaps, the reason why Iran has requested that its understanding of the agreement with the IAEA be published on the IAEA website (which you can read here - pdf file).

Iran's Strength Has Grown - I Wonder Why?

Following on from the news that the US administration is aiming to increase military aid in the Middle East, Condoleeza Rice has been in the region meeting America's allies. The whole thing is entirely laughable, were it not for the fact that some in the administration are after another war. According to the BBC:

The US will help its allies in the Middle East meet their security needs and counter the growing power of Iran, the US secretary of state has said.

Condoleezza Rice met key Arab allies a day after announcing arms deals worth $63bn (£31bn) for a host of Middle Eastern states.

There are two questions one must ask in response to this. Firstly, why has Iran grown in power in recent years? The answer is found in recent US foreign policy. Iran has grown in power because the US has eliminated its main adversary in the region. The removal of Saddam coupled with the ongoing chaos, has meant that Iran no longer needs to worry about a hostile entity on its border. With its main rival out of the picture, Iran has been able to grow in confidence and flex its muscle across the region. Which leads me neatly on to the second reason for Iran's strength. Israel's assault on Lebanon last year left only one real winner. Iran. As we know, Hezbollah has ties with the Iranian regime and its victory last summer has shown many across the Middle East that Iran is a key player in the region. The defeat also did much to undermine whatever strength the US had in the region (given that Israel was acting as America's proxy). Little wonder Iran's confidence is soaring. Almost makes you wonder if the current administration had planned for this particular outcome in preparation of a new wave of tub-thumping. But then I wouldn't want to put forward any world conspiracy theories. Still, it makes you wonder.......

The other question one must ask is why is the US funding Sunni regimes? It was Sunni Muslims behind the attacks on the US on September 11th, 2001. I don't recall Shia Muslims being implicated in any way. So the question remains, why is the US funding increased militarisation of nations who have far closer ties to those attacks than Iran? Isn't it the Sunni Muslim countries that we should be worried about?? Guess not if you want to foment a new war in the region and shift the balance of power in your favour.

Supreme Court Fights Back Against Musharraf

Pakistan's supreme court has overturned Musharraf's suspension of the chief justice. According to The Guardian:

Lawyers and civil society activists whooped with joy at the verdict in favour of Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry - the first time in Pakistan's 60-year history that a civilian has challenged a military leader in court and won. "This is a defining moment for our country - the first time we have true liberty," said Naseer Ullah Khan, a black-suited lawyer on the courthouse steps, where men embraced, shouted, and chanted, "Go, Musharraf, go".

I suspect he won't go without a fight. The pressure is certainly mounting on Musharraf. Just a couple of days ago, The Guardian reported:

A chill has descended over "Mush and Bush", as the Pakistan press dubbed the US-Pakistan axis. And the storming of the Red Mosque 11 days ago - an ostentatious strike against Islamists, killing its leading rebel cleric alongside an unknown number of hostages and students - is unlikely to put him back in favour: this was a seminary Musharraf had let grow since 2002, despite its vociferous endorsement of suicide bombings and the Taliban. While Washington and London continue publicly to characterise Musharraf as the west's best hope of stopping Pakistan's descent into Islamic extremism, in reality they have concluded that it is the general who is easing the path of the jihadis. And he must be stopped.

Gone are the days when he would be warmly described as "one of my best friends" by Bush. So close was the relationship, that the US increased arms exports by 45,000%. Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that a right-wing US administration has armed a dictator. And, as with the previous beneficiary, US troops could soon by operating within his borders. The US has recently been debating military strikes within Pakistan against al-Qaeda. With such mounting pressures, how much longer will it be before Musharraf acts like any other beast that is cornered and lash out at those around him? These are very dangerous times in Pakistan. Faced with two enemies within, and an enemy without, chaos is just around the corner. One must hope that Musharraf can be removed by his own people and democracy, free of foreign interference, can be restored.

What Could This Mean.......

Why would they be searching for 'satellite imagery of Haditha dam' I wonder?

British Officer Claims Iraq War Is 'Illegal' And 'Immoral'

I was going to post on this story a couple of days ago, but I was otherwise engaged. Medialens has posted a copy of a letter sent to the BBC's Mark Urban from an unnamed British Army Officer serving in Iraq. The email was in response to an email that Mark Urban sent to Medialens lampooning their view of America's role in Iraq. Urban claimed that:

“I do however think that your desire to force all of the elements in a woefully complex situation into a simple proposition such as, 'America's real objective is to smother all opposition so they can pinch the oil', to be a sorry form of fundamentalism.” (Email to Media Lens, May 31, 2007)

Now, far be it for me to throw around accusations of bias (I'll leave that to others of a certain persuasion), but it is a very interesting response by Urban. The reply from a serving army officer is even more interesting.

Dear Mr Urban,

I am a serving British Army officer with operational experience in a number of theatres. I am concerned regarding the effect of your recent reports from Baghdad. I have been forwarded the correspondence between yourself and David Edwards of medialens.org, and would like to highlight that it is not merely medialens users, who are concerned about embedded coverage with the US Army. The intentions and continuing effects of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq have been questioned by too few people in the mainstream media and political parties, primarily only the Guardian and Independent, and the Liberal Democrats, respectively.

There is a widespread, and well-sourced, belief based on both experience and evidence, in both the British military and academia, that the US is not "just in Iraq to keep the peace, regardless of what the troops on the ground believe. It is in Iraq to establish a client state amenable to the requirements of US realpolitik in a key, oil-rich region. To doubt this is to be ignorant of the motives that have guided US foreign policy in the post-war period* and a mountain of evidence since 2003." (quote from medialens)

That the invasion was 'illegal, immoral and unwinnable', and the 'greatest foreign policy blunder since Suez' - to paraphrase the Liberal Democrats - is the overwhelming feeling of many of my peers, and they speak of loathsome six-month tours, during which they led patrols with dread and fear, reluctantly providing target practice for insurgents, senselessly haemorrhaging casualties, and squandering soldiers' lives, as part of Bush's vain attempt to delay the inevitable Anglo-US rout until after the next US election. Given a free choice most of us would never have invaded Iraq, and certainly would have withdrawn long ago. Hopefully, Tony Blairs's handover to Gordon Brown will herald a change of policy, and rapid withdrawal, but skewed pro-US coverage inhibits proper public debate, and is deeply unhealthy; lethally-so to many of us deployed to Iraq.

The [inadvertent] dangers of bias of embedded journalism are well known and there is a risk that the 'official line' can be conflated with evidence and facts. Jon Snow graphically demonstrated the effect of this during the initial invasion of Iraq in his programme The True Face of War**. I am conscious that reporting independently, outside of the 'green zone' in Iraq is nigh on impossible, but I would merely request that the 'official line/White House propaganda' be handled with an appropriate degree of scepticism, and be caveated accordingly.

Thank you for your time,



* Pragmatic self-interest is not unusual in US foreign policy, seehttp://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-Military-Interventions-Since/dp/1567510523

** http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/774944: " ...the hidden face of the Iraq War, which includes killing of civilians by US troops, the beating up of journalists and through never-before-seen footage, the grim treatment of POWs. Jon Snow also reports on how the war was presented to British and American viewers and investigates the way in which the media was managed by the allies."

Even a serving British Officer calls it 'illegal' and 'immoral'. Shame a few armchair critics fail to realise this reality.

War=Fashion

Good news for all you war loving fashionistas, the RAF is to produce its first official clothing range. According to the head of the RAF's PR and corporate communications, it is all part of an 'education' campaign:

'We started kicking around this idea about two years ago. Our understanding is that the general public is very supportive of us, but they know very little about us - very few can name any frontline aircraft, or explain what we do. So we want to build on their support and create better awareness.'

Smart thinking. Clearly, the military has never been as fashionable as it is now. Although aimed at "middle to young trendy men and....ladies," luckily they also intend on launching a children's range shortly. The militarisation of children has never looked so appealing.