Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

[geekster]

I think this is a pretty fair Op Ed column from the SF Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 98M3I1.DTL

[Rabbi Dali Rick]

Finally, a partial and easy electronic at home voting system. Now Kerry might have a fighting chance.

http://wearabledissent.com/101/floridavote.html


perfectly,
the rebbi

[Simply Joel]

I think this is a pretty fair Op Ed column from the SF Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 98M3I1.DTL

you never know what you have until it is gone

[DVD Burner]

Anyone still convinced that America is still winning the "war" in Iraq or gonna win the "war" in Iraq?

[Simply Joel]

Anyone still convinced that America is still winning the "war" in Iraq or gonna win the "war" in Iraq?

i believe capitulation in the war on terrorism is a fool's choice.

Main Entry: ca·pit·u·la·tion
Pronunciation: k&-"pi-ch&-'lA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : a set of terms or articles constituting an agreement between governments
2 a : the act of surrendering or yielding b : the terms of surrender

October 21, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Hunting the Tiger
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

I'm sure that experts would tell us there are many reasons that the presidential race is too close to call, but I would argue that it all comes down to this one simple point: We still don't know which man used the debates to overcome his biggest liability.

Let me explain. I believe there are two things troubling the soul of America today. One of them is: We really do have enemies out there. The other is: We are really on the wrong track.

Whether they are watching the news from Iraq, where hooded men are sawing off the heads of Americans and blowing up Iraqi civilians who are standing in line to join the Iraqis' own police force, or they are contemplating the suicide bombings from Bali to Istanbul, or they are merely reflecting on 9/11 and the applause that attack still receives in certain quarters, nearly all Americans do feel in their gut that we really do have enemies out there.

John Kerry's most important challenge in this election campaign is to connect up with that gut fear in the American soul and pass a simple threshold test: "Does this man understand that we have real enemies?" Mr. Kerry, wrongly in my view, tried to use his heroic Vietnam War record to pass that test by implication. He did not make the sale.

In the debates, he tried to both criticize the Iraq war and to look voters in the eye and say: I know we have enemies and I will confront them, albeit in a different and wiser manner than George Bush has.

How did that go over? I believe that Mr. Kerry presented himself as an articulate, informed and credible commander in chief - but did he make the sale to the great American center? Not clear. My own free advice to Mr. Kerry is if he is unsure about this, he should drop everything else - health care, deficits and middle-class tax cuts - and focus on this issue. Everything else is secondary.

President Bush has a different problem. The threshold test that Mr. Bush had to pass was: "Does this man understand that we are on the wrong track?" Even though the situation is still salvageable, right now Iraq is a terrible mess because of the criminal incompetence of the Bush national security team, and we are more alone in the world than ever.

Conservatives profess to care deeply about the outcome in Iraq, but they sat silently for the last year as the situation there steadily deteriorated. Then they participated in a shameful effort to refocus the country's attention on what John Kerry did on the rivers of Vietnam 30 years ago, not on what George Bush and his team are doing on the rivers of Babylon today, where some 140,000 American lives are on the line. Is this what it means to be a conservative today?

Had conservatives spoken up loudly a year ago and said what both of Mr. Bush's senior Iraq envoys, Jay Garner and Paul Bremer, have now said (and what many of us who believed in the importance of Iraq were saying) - that we never had enough troops to control Iraq's borders, keep the terrorists out, prevent looting and establish authority - the president might have changed course. Instead, they served as a Greek chorus, applauding Mr. Bush's missteps and mocking anyone who challenged them.

Conservatives have failed their own test of patriotism. In the end, it has been more important for them to defeat liberals than to get Iraq right. Had Democrats been running this war with the incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld & Friends, conservatives would have demanded their heads a year ago - and gotten them.

Did the president, in the debates, answer these concerns? He barely tried. His strategy is to focus all his energy on fanning doubts about whether Mr. Kerry understands that we have real enemies, so voters will not focus on how much we are on the wrong track - with virtually no friends in the world and an Iraq that is now so insecure our own soldiers are afraid to drive certain roads.

In British politics there used to be a standard test for candidates for prime minister: Would you want to go on a tiger hunt with this person? That is, would this candidate kill the tiger or try to reason with the tiger? Graham Allison, the Harvard international relations professor who just published a book called "Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe," said to me the other day that the tiger hunt is even more relevant in America today.

"The big question about Kerry is, Will he pull the trigger?" Mr. Allison said. "And the big question about Bush is, Can he aim? With Bush, we know he can pull the trigger, but it's like he shot himself in the foot - and the tiger is still out there. It's the tiger who needs to be shot, not us."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Simply Joel]

Anyone still convinced that America is still winning the "war" in Iraq or gonna win the "war" in Iraq?

AT WAR WITH WHAT OR WHOM?
by William F Buckley Jr

The word "war" is used for convenience, the motive being to attach the highest order of gravity to a military engagement, actual or prospective. It is encouraged on its rhetorical mission by the solemn exercises that often accompany it. These are most notably a formal request by the president of the United States to the U.S. Senate to declare that a state of war exists. Not many need to be reminded that that constitutional choreography is not widely practiced. We didn't do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq I, Vietnam or Korea.

Why then do we tolerate the word? There isn't any way to tame word usage to appropriate and sensible limits, so that we will continue to have "wars" against obesity and acne, but when the same word is used to describe an ongoing military situation, we are entitled to ask for its bona fides.

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, were as much a declaration of war as the events of Dec. 7, 1941. And although the Japanese enemy was far more formidable than the forces of Osama bin Laden, the execution of his strike against us was brilliant, inventive and humiliating. When you dwell on the incapacity of the grand armies of Japan, Germany and Italy to drop a single bomb on the United States mainland in four years, you get some sense of the magnitude of Osama's operation.

So it was always clear that we would strike back at Osama, and we did. The next thing we did was identify the land or vessel from which the killer instruments sprang forth, and now technology began to cool conventional analysis. The deadly instruments were made in America and were launched from such humdrum sites as Boston and Newark airports. This was the high point of the art of hijacking. Unarmed American planes killed 3,100 people.

The president of the United States sprang into action and declared war on his own authority. In so doing he was spared the obligation of naming geographic or ethnic or religious entities against whom we were warring. Having all but subdued Afghanistan, we moved on to Iraq for reasons that did not bear directly on the transgressions of 9/11. The pilots had been Saudis, for the most part, the financing was done by al-Qaida, supervised by bin Laden. The administration has urged the public to view Afghanistan and Iraq as a common place, fit for retaliatory war before they get around to launching another 9/11.

But we conquered Afghanistan and caught Saddam Hussein, who presumably will eventually be hanged, but nothing much has happened to lower the intensity of our rhetoric -- we have become warriors through and through. The only thing that makes this plausible is that a fight rages on in Iraq. Although we conquered Baghdad, we have not quelled the anti-Americans. On top of which, we came to lose sight of just what it is that has provoked them to anti-Americanism.

Starting in, we took it for granted that that part of the world was an al-Qaida world inflamed by Islamic radicalism. This helped a bit, because if it was radical Islamism that we were to contend with, that at least gave us a goalpost. But the line of sight between our cannon and their goalpost was never for one instant clear. There was no equivalent of Hitler's bunker or Tojo's headquarters.

Many reporters on the scene tell us that the suicide fighters are motivated not so much to kill one more infidel as to drive one more infidel away from their sacred land. Some Muslim of prominence intoned a while ago that he looked forward to a world ruled by an Islamic caliphate. That reminds some of us exactly of Adm. Yamamoto announcing soon after Pearl Harbor that he looked forward to dictating the terms of the peace in the White House.

We should all be ready to go to war to defend Christian individualism and the separation of church and state, but who all is pressing this point beyond western endurance? Herbert Agar defined in the late '30s what he called "the anarchic passion to smash." That fever accounts for much that has been going on in the world, the bloodletting in Indonesia and in the Philippines (unrelated movements), and in Ireland and Libya. We are lucky we didn't swoop down on them as qualified targets for our current war. Israel knows it can count on us if it gets into deep trouble, and Iran poses a problem sui generis, along with North Korea, with which it is related not at all.

Is it that we are, simply, at war with the anarchic passion to smash; here and there; now and in the future; to be quelled, but without gentrifying the engagement into a real war?

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

[Rian Jackson]

jesus. typical. the soldier who shot up that little girl just, apparently, got cleared.

fuck.

[Rian Jackson]

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Two Peoples, One State
By MICHAEL TARAZI

Published: October 4, 2004


Israel's untenable policy in the Middle East was more obvious than usual last week, as the Israeli Army made repeated incursions into Gaza, killing dozens of Palestinians in the deadliest attacks in more than two years, even as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon reiterated his plans to withdraw from the territory. Israel's overall strategy toward the Palestinians is ultimately self-defeating: it wants Palestinian land but not the Palestinians who live on that land.

As Christians and Muslims, the millions of Palestinians under occupation are not welcome in the Jewish state. Many Palestinians are now convinced that Israeli support for a Palestinian state is motivated not by a hope for reconciliation, but by a desire to segregate non-Jews while taking as much of their land and resources as possible. They are increasingly questioning the most commonly accepted solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - "two states living side by side in peace and security," in the words of President Bush - and are being forced to consider a one-state solution.

To Palestinians, the strategy behind Israel's two-state solution is clear.
More than 400,000 Israelis live illegally in more than 150 colonies, many of which are atop Palestinian water sources. Mr. Sharon is prepared to evacuate settlers from Gaza - but only in exchange for expanding settlements in the West Bank. And Israel is building a barrier wall not on its land but rather inside occupied Palestinian territory. The wall's route maximizes the amount of Palestinian farmland and water on one side and the number of Palestinians on the other.

Yet while Israelis try to allay a demographic threat, they are creating a
democratic threat. After years of negotiations, coupled with incessant
building of settlements and now the construction of the wall, Palestinians finally understand that Israel is offering "independence" on a reservation stripped of water and arable soil, economically dependent on Israel and even lacking the right to self-defense.

As a result, many Palestinians are contemplating whether the quest for equal statehood should now be superseded by a struggle for equal citizenship. In other words, a one-state solution in which citizens of all faiths and ethnicities live together as equals. Recent polls indicate that a quarter of Palestinians favor the secular one-state solution – a surprisingly high number given that it is not officially advocated by any senior Palestinian leader.

Support for one state is hardly a radical idea; it is simply the recognition of the uncomfortable reality that Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories already function as a single state. They share the same aquifers, the same highway network, the same electricity grid and the same international borders. There are no road signs reading "Welcome to Occupied Territory" when one drives into East Jerusalem. Some government maps of Israel do not delineate Israel's 1967 pre-occupation border. Settlers in the occupied West Bank (including
East Jerusalem) are interspersed among Palestinian towns and now constitute nearly a fifth of the population. In the words of one Palestinian farmer, you can't unscramble an egg.

But in this de facto state, 3.5 million Palestinian Christians and Muslims are denied the same political and civil rights as Jews. These Palestinians must drive on separate roads, in cars bearing distinctive license plates, and only to and from designated Palestinian areas. It is illegal for a Palestinian to drive a car with an Israeli license plate. These Palestinians, as non-Jews, neither qualify for Israeli citizenship nor have the right to vote in Israeli elections. In South Africa, such an allocation of rights and privileges based on ethnic or religious affiliation was called apartheid. In Israel, it is called the Middle East's only democracy.

Most Israelis recoil at the thought of giving Palestinians equal rights,
understandably fearing that a possible Palestinian majority will treat Jews the way Jews have treated Palestinians. They fear the destruction of the never-defined "Jewish state." The one-state solution, however, neither destroys the Jewish character of the Holy Land nor negates the Jewish historical and religious attachment (although it would destroy the superior status of Jews in that state). Rather, it affirms that the Holy Land has an equal Christian and Muslim character.

For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing. In theory, Zionism is the movement of Jewish national liberation. In practice, it has been a movement of Jewish supremacy. It is this domination of one ethnic or religious group over another that must be defeated before we can meaningfully speak of a new era of peace; neither Jews nor Muslims nor Christians have a unique claim on this sacred land.

The struggle for Palestinian equality will not be easy. Power is never
voluntarily shared by those who wield it. Palestinians will have to capture the world's imagination, organize the international community and refuse to be seduced into negotiating for their rights. But the struggle against South African apartheid proves the battle can be
won. The only question is how long it will take, and how much all sides will have to suffer, before Israeli Jews can view Palestinian Christians and Muslims not as demographic threats but as fellow citizens.

Michael Tarazi is a legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization.

[Simply Joel]

RJ, i find the omission of the cessation of suicide/homicide bombers against Israel undercuts the argument put forth...

[Rian Jackson]

no Joel, cessation of violence from both sides was not the issue here.
obviously, it's necessary for peace. but i find interesting that although the article doesn't speak of the end of military assaults (though it is used as a backdrop), you only point out that the one side is missing.

this is a greater plan for co-existence, not just what is usually spoken of - cessation of violence. and without a one state solution i, and many others, don't believe that we will see an end to the killings - on either side.

and i could also point out that if you want to talk about cause and effect, the suicide bombings started loooong after military aggression toward civilians. i've said it many times and i can say it again: generally, the party or parties who wield the power and inflict the oppression must be the ones to cease theur activities first.

[Simply Joel]

i could also point out that if you want to talk about cause and effect, the suicide bombings started loooong after military aggression toward civilians.

i'd appreciate a cite or two.

i've said it many times and i can say it again: generally, the party or parties who wield the power and inflict the oppression must be the ones to cease theur activities first.

so, the radical palestinians are oppressing the moderate palestinians... as the radical israelis are oppressing the moderate israelis

[Rian Jackson]

i could also point out that if you want to talk about cause and effect, the suicide bombings started loooong after military aggression toward civilians.

i'd appreciate a cite or two.

i'll have to crack my books tonight to get you proper cites, but if memory serves, the first suicide bombing was in 1993, after the massacre at the mosque in Hebron (which was perpetrated by a settler, i believe.) Military aggression has been going on for ages, but i it helps, look at the first intifada - in the late 1980s.

i need to check on these stats. for sure, this is fairly accurate for suicide attacks on civilians, which are what people generally are speaking of when they discuss an amaliya attack.

it's actually a new tactic. the reason that Palestinians won a lot of support world wide during the first Intifada is that the practice was, along with stone throwing, mostly non-violent resistance - tax refusal, general strikes, marches, sit ins. after that was met with deadly force from the military, they learned, for better or for worse. and now we have the situation of today, where suicide bombings ARE one of the tactics that are used. but, certainly, it's new... and probably not nearly as commonplace as you think.

i don't have a percentage, but my understanding is that a majority of the suicide attacks are also against military rather than civilians. i'm not passing judgement on right or wrong here, just saying that it's fair game under geneva conventions... and to paint all suicide attacks as the killing of babies, as frequently happens in the pro-Israeli/conservative press, is grossly innaccurate. most seem to happen at checkpoints, in fact. a few in Al-Quds. but any search of recent news will show that .

[samtzu]

Actually... the first massacre occured in 1928 when Palestinians under Abu Hassen al Husseini attack Jewish worshipers at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem.

Be that as it may, one would think that both fucking sides would have figured out by now that violence solves nothing... that is, if they actually wanted something solved. Political leaders on both sides are now strapped to raging tigers that they can't let go of without getting torn to shreds. It is in their best interest to see the violence continue.

And to think that this is simply a popular reaction to oppression is also wrong. The people (of both sides) are more than willing to follow their leaders because of the pressure that is being applied to them by both sides.

I agree that the Israeli Government needs to take the first step towards peace (a realistic, substansive step, not a symbolic one), since they are the ones in the (theoretical) position of power, but the Palestinian leaders need to ensure that this step will be honored... and that they cannot do! After stoking the fires (with the help of the Israelis) for decades, they do not have control over the anger of their own people. They cannot stop the rage. The tiger won't let them.

[Simply Joel]

thanks sam... i had a suspicion that the terrorism started earlier than asserted...

and yes, i must agree, violence hasn't solved much... population control possibly, yet there are less messy methods.

[Rian Jackson]

Actually... the first massacre occured in 1928 when Palestinians under Abu Hassen al Husseini attack Jewish worshipers at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem.

Be that as it may, one would think that both fucking sides would have figured out by now that violence solves nothing... that is, if they actually wanted something solved. Political leaders on both sides are now strapped to raging tigers that they can't let go of without getting torn to shreds. It is in their best interest to see the violence continue.

And to think that this is simply a popular reaction to oppression is also wrong. The people (of both sides) are more than willing to follow their leaders because of the pressure that is being applied to them by both sides.

I agree that the Israeli Government needs to take the first step towards peace (a realistic, substansive step, not a symbolic one), since they are the ones in the (theoretical) position of power, but the Palestinian leaders need to ensure that this step will be honored... and that they cannot do! After stoking the fires (with the help of the Israelis) for decades, they do not have control over the anger of their own people. They cannot stop the rage. The tiger won't let them.

Sam:
1) this was a discussion of amaliya techniques, not all violence. that probably does little good to discuss (though i'm going to check up on the 1890-1948 period - a lot was happening). if we're going to have a fairly focused discussion, better not to divert it.
2) though you're right in some ways, i really think you're making some pretty simplistic statements. bullshit about people on both sides following their lame-ass leaders like puppy dogs. it happens to some extent because thats all they have. but YOU explain the Israeli protests againt Sharon or the Palestinian actions against Arafat in light of your statements.
you are right, though, i think, that the CURRENT leadership of either nation is not capable of controlling their people.

what has helped to stop suicide atacks? welll, let's talk about it. from what i know, there was a major lull in that activity... trying to remember the months... of this last year. why? because the general concensus was that it wasn't working, did more harm than good... that was a general feeling within Palestinian society. they have NEVER stopped or slowed because of the construction of the Wall (this has caused more, in fact). nor because of collective punishment (also has caused more) And during the times when military activity is at a minimum, there are few or none.

So what can we get from this? the people, not the leaders are making decisions about how and where to resist. not as a whole - it's pretty fractious - but they aren't getting dictates from on high. bombings are not a policy. nor are they supported by everyone. in fact, i see an aweful lot of people NOT making the choice to do that.... or rather making the choice not to.

there is no decent police structure to deal with militants or collaborators (most former security folks have been killed or imprisioned by the Israelis. ) And no matter what anyone tells you, evidence points to the fact that Kitaab, for instance, was not a creation of Fateh, or of Arafat. It was started by people in Balata who wanted to find another way to resist. And everyone acts as if Arafat has control of them... which is, again, pretty much bull and always has been.

i find it interesting that shahiid bombings are the thing that keeps coming up in discussion. because if they were just offing people with M16s, i doubt it would be talked about nearly so much. the fact is, we apparently, as a culture, have a really hard time accepting that life can be so shitty that you'd strap a bomb onto your body and strike your blow against your oppressors that way. i ain't saying i'm supporting it - certainly not against civilians - but wrap your minds around it, people, and then put it in it's place - as one of many pieces, but certainly not the most important, in the situation.

[Rian Jackson]

thanks sam... i had a suspicion that the terrorism started earlier than asserted...

and yes, i must agree, violence hasn't solved much... population control possibly, yet there are less messy methods.

have you looked at the early Israeli *terrorism* against the Jews in Iraq, for instance?
very interesting.

so long as we're gonna throw around hot-button terms....

and once again, decide what your topic is. your willingness to create grey areas - when usually you're pretty clear - is mildly telling. i know that you have a far better analytical mind than that.

[Alpha]

THE CASE AGAINST BUSH
By Ted Rall

Ten Reasons America Needs a Change

PORTLAND--George W. Bush has been a busy boy these past four years. Because his Administration's policies are so radical and his attempts to change our country so far-reaching, it is sometimes difficult to remember them all. Here's a summary of why Bush and his gang of bloodthirsty corporate goons must go; voters may take them along to the polls to help them cast their ballots.


1. He stole the 2000 election. Voting to "reelect" an illegitimate commander-in-chief who seized power by judicial coup d'état is a tacit endorsement of how he got into the White House in the first place. How the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore is irrelevant. As a federal court, the five runaway Supreme Court justices had no right to agree to hear the case. Under our system of government, elections--and election disputes--fall under state jurisdiction. Their decision to take the case, the way they fixed the outcome in Bush's favor, and Bush's willingness to assume the presidency extraconstitutionally are outrages that no patriotic American, even if they agree with his policies, can forgive.


2. He politicized 9/11. During the early days after the attacks on New York and Washington, a stunned nation came together to mourn, and to assess the motivations of the 19 men who despised us so much they were willing to commit suicide as mass murderers to drive home the point. Rather than channel our newfound solidarity into positive initiatives, however, Bush used 9/11 to push for the USA Patriot Act, fast-track signing authority on free trade, tax cuts for the wealthy, lax regulations for polluters and a multitude of items from the partisan Republican Party wish list. He portrayed Democrats and others who disagreed with him as un-American traitors.


3. He let the terrorists get away while giving them a payraise. The 9/11 hijackers were Egyptians and Saudis recruited by an Egyptian group, Islamic Jihad, with funding from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, some of whom received training at camps which were mostly in Pakistan, all of which were funded by Pakistani secret intelligence. Osama bin Laden, who may have funded all or part of the operation via Al Qaeda, was in Pakistan on 9/11. So who does Bush go after? Afghanistan, at best a back lot of Pakistani-backed Islamists and Iraq--which had nothing to do with 9/11. And what does he do about our real enemies in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia? He sells them more weapons. Egypt becomes the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Israel, collecting over $2 billion annually. Pakistan, ruled by a pro-Taliban general who jailed and tortured his democratically elected predecessor, is encouraged to develop its nascent nuclear capabilities. The 3,000 victims of 9/11 remain unavenged--and the stage is set for future attacks.


4. He murdered nearly 100,000 people. The war in Afghanistan killed at least 10,000 civilians and 20,000 Afghan soldiers (of which 10,000 were POWs allegedly massacred by Northern Alliance soldiers as U.S. Special Forces troops supervised the slaughter.) As of three weeks after the fall of Baghdad, General Tommy Franks estimated Iraqi dead at 30,000 civilians and 30,000 Iraqi soldiers, men who were fighting to defend their country from a hostile invasion army. At least 10,000 more civilians and 5,000 Iraqi resistance soldiers have died since then. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have anything to do with the war on terrorism, which has yet to start. Both wars were waged to expand American military and economic hegemony and Dick Cheney's policy of "total energy dominance" over oil and natural gas resources. The world would be safer if Charles Manson, a mere amateur killer by comparison, were released and Bush was sitting in prison.


5. He bankrupted the treasury. When Bush took the oath of office in January 2001, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of $5 trillion over the next ten years. Now, after two expensive wars of aggression and two series of extravagant tax cuts for the ultrarich--including the elimination of inheritance taxes on multimillionaires' estates--the federal budget is facing a $5 trillion shortfall. That's a $10 trillion net deficit--ten times more than the Reagan deficit that took Clinton his entire tenure to pay off--for giveaways to Bush-connected defense contractors like Halliburton and a fraction of one percent of wealthy individuals. Most Americans will get nothing out of this but the bill which, if history serves a guide, won't be repaid until our children are dead. Goodbye national healthcare, sayonara help with college tuition. Bush has stolen our future.


6. He threw thousands of innocent people into concentration camps. Drawing from another of fascism's greatest hits, Bush used his fictional war on terrorism as a lame pretext to throw thousands of Muslims and Arabs into a new gulag archipelago spanning the globe from secret CIA-run prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq--including the infamous Abu Ghraib--to INS detention centers in Brooklyn to the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Detainees caught in battle were denied their Geneva Convention rights as POWs, tortured and even murdered. Illegal immigrants who should have been deported were jailed indefinitely without access to attorneys, or visits from family. In the ultimate Orwellian twist, they were turned into "unpersons"; even their names were withheld from the media. Any president who endorses such atrocities, as Bush has repeatedly done in speeches, is against everything that America purports to stands for. Bush has even signed a secret directive authorizing himself with the right to assassinate anyone, anywhere--including American citizens--as "enemy combatants."


7. We are more feared than Al Qaeda. Bush's radical new policy of "preemption"--a self-ascribed right to invade other countries based on a presumed hunch--has terrorized then international community. Even though they have never threatened us, nations like Iran and Syria wonder whether or not Bush will invade them next--and are racing to develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the U.S. threat. Our traditional allies, who still want to engage themselves with the rest of the world, have been forced to distance themselves from our bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy. We, not Islamist terrorists, are the world's most feared power. We are feared, which is why we are hated. Because we are hated, we are in greater danger.


8. Bush has done nothing to improve the economy. At one of the presidential debates, Bush was asked what he would tell someone who had lost their job to outsourcing overseas. He answered that the unemployed had received their $300 tax cuts, and that within five years his education policies would start to help children. The truth is, Bush did nothing to jumpstart the weak post-dot-com economy he inherited in 2000. Like most Republicans, he favors high unemployment as a way to keep labor week and salaries cheap. A Bush victory would ensure more of the same--fewer jobs, lower salaries, reduced unemployment benefits. A president can do a lot to stimulate the economy: jobs programs funded by the government, tax cuts for the working class. But Bush won't act because it would run counter to his ideological beliefs.


9. Bush will appoint the next Supreme Court justice. Whether they're values issues like abortion or gay marriage, or the next election dispute, the Supreme Court is balanced on the razor's edge between reason and right-wing fascism. Sandra Day O'Connor and William Rehnquist, who originally intended to step down during the last four years but evidently decided not to do so because of Bush's lunacy, are over 80 years old. They may not last another four years. We can't let Bush have the chance to appoint their successors.


10. We deserve a president who can speak English and doesn't look like a chimpanzee. John Kerry is a far from ideal prospect but he's a huge leap forward from an evolutionary standpoint.


(Ted Rall is the author of two new books, "Wake Up, You're Liberal!: How We Can Take America Back From the Right" and "Generalissimo El Busho: Essays and Cartoons on the Bush Years." Ordering information is available at amazon.com.)

[Simply Joel]

thanks sam... i had a suspicion that the terrorism started earlier than asserted...

and yes, i must agree, violence hasn't solved much... population control possibly, yet there are less messy methods.

have you looked at the early Israeli *terrorism* against the Jews in Iraq, for instance?
very interesting.

so long as we're gonna throw around hot-button terms....

and once again, decide what your topic is. your willingness to create grey areas - when usually you're pretty clear - is mildly telling. i know that you have a far better analytical mind than that.

hey, i think they all ought to stop killing and take a breath... yet, i don't think either side is listening.

[Rian Jackson]

hey, i think they all ought to stop killing and take a breath... yet, i don't think either side is listening.

yeah, i hear ya there.

grief, on either side, doesn't seem to have ears.
neither does anger.
and it makes the work that needs doing rather difficult...

[Rian Jackson]

I'm looking for the 1928 bit. Here's something from 20 years after that in Al-Dawayima... just posting info on EITHER side massacreing the other, as information is a good thing.

An unnamed Israeli soldier told this version:

The first wave of conquerors killed about 80 to 100 Arabs, women and children. The children they killed by breaking their heads with sticks. There was not a house without dead. One woman, with a newborn baby in her arms was employed to clean the courtyard.... (they) shot her and the baby.... This was not in the heat of battle.... but a system of expulsion and destruction (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestine Refugee Problem, p. 222)

The UN inspection team

On November 17, Agriculture Minister Aharon Cizling told the cabinet; I feel that things are going on which are hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here ... Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken. (src)

[Simply Joel]

The Case for John Kerry... by joel

1. I am not George Bush.

2. I have never been George Bush.

3. I will never be George Bush.

4. Repeat the sentences above until convinced.

[Alpha]

> The case for Kerry

Good enough for me. Hell I'd vote for Al Sharpton if I thought he could defeat the neocons....

[samtzu]

The little fireball wrote:

though you're right in some ways, i really think you're making some pretty simplistic statements. bullshit about people on both sides following their lame-ass leaders like puppy dogs. it happens to some extent because thats all they have. but YOU explain the Israeli protests againt Sharon or the Palestinian actions against Arafat in light of your statements.

Group actions DO NOT happen in a vacum. They are started, and led, by leaders. These leaders jockey for power and they surf 'the will of the people' to get into that power. I don't believe in 'popular' movements, no matter how popular they are. I've read too much history. Sure, the people genuinely have something to protest against, but no group of people will form spontaneously... unless there is an organization planning that spontaneatie (however the fuck you spell that)

what has helped to stop suicide atacks?

As long as people have no other recourse, there will be suicide attacks. Give them running water, a secure home, food on the table, and no soldiers shooting at them, and they will stop blowing themselves up. Cites? As soon as The Draft was removed as a threat in the USA in the Seventies, the Anti-War movement evaporated.

we apparently, as a culture, have a really hard time accepting that life can be so shitty that you'd strap a bomb onto your body and strike your blow against your oppressors that way. i ain't saying i'm supporting it - certainly not against civilians - but wrap your minds around it, people, and then put it in it's place - as one of many pieces, but certainly not the most important, in the situation.

Actually, I find this very significant. They are oppressed to the point of suicide. But blowing up civilians will not ease their oppression! The Israelis will not back off due to this pressure, they will only increase their own pressure. And the suicide bombings are not initiated and carried out by individuals; they are carried out by groups that have access to bomb making materials.

Unfortunately, I'm at work and don't have the time to go into detail on this issue. I have to generalize, and then leave that generalization out there, unsupported. So, here goes: Both groups are dead wrong and they don't care because they are blinded by hatred. The only cure for hatred is understanding and forgiveness; understanding that the thing you hate is also, very much, a part of you; and forgiveness needs to be applied, not only to what you hate, but with yourself for allowing that hate to infect you.

Will there be Peace in the Middle East? Not fucking likely, as long as people refuse to allow understanding and forgivness to have the upper hand. Again, read the history books. This kind of crap has been going on for as long as people could write, and probably for a hell of a lot longer than that.

[Rian Jackson]

Sam, I'm really fucking frustrated with you right now.
I wish you'd quit loarding your years, waving them about like they entitle you to all knowledge.
It's not the norm for you.
Did you even read what i wrote?? You keep taking little bits and missing the entire idea. Have you even bothered?

And i'm frustrated with both you and Joel because for once - just for once - a conversation is started which isn't about division but about possible hope for the future, about what solutions could look like. And you two, like children, fuck, like politicians, have ripped it back into the same old argument.

Sam, I'm really tempted to do what you're doing and to say 'fuck you all, you've never been so quit acting like you know all of it.' i'm trying not to because i think we all have a lot to learn from each other. for all the times you are right -including in this conversaton - and because i know you happen to be a decent person and not an ass - i'm not going to.

there isn't even any fuck off here.
i'm just really disappointed in you guys.
really
really
disappointed.

*shakes her head and walks away...*

[Simply Joel]

And i'm frustrated with both you and Joel because for once - just for once - a conversation is started which isn't about division but about possible hope for the future, about what solutions could look like. And you two, like children, fuck, like politicians, have ripped it back into the same old argument.

sure, i can be a child... but who was the last person i blew up because i didn't feel franchised?

i would say when the moderate palestinians take over the process from the terrorists (PLO) and eliminate the destruction of Israel as one of their basic tenets... then you might see some progress... personally, i have become quite calloused (insensitive) to the wants/demands of the palestinians... and i am not too carzy about the israeli's position either.

[Rian Jackson]

sure, i can be a child... but who was the last person i blew up because i didn't feel franchised?

*shakes her head
shakes her head
shakes her head
shakes her head
shakes her head
shakes her head
and walks away...*

[Rian Jackson]

posting in order that i find things. still looking for 1928. here's Qibya:

The attack was the climax of a number of border clashes; such clashes began almost immediately after the signing of the armistice in 1949. The State of Israel was confronted by a wave of Palestinian infiltrators
[Palestinian immigrations into Israel were numerous border-crossings by Palestinian Arabs considered illegal by the Israeli authorities, during the first years of Israeli statehood. Most of the immigrants were re-immigrating refugees from homes recently lost to the Israeli state. Between 30,000 and 90,000 Palestinian refugees resettled in Israel as a result. They wanted to return to their homes prior to the Arab-Israeli War, looking for their lost loved ones, harvesting crops from fields that were confiscated, and to reclaim property other than land. There were also Bedouins to whom the concept of newly established borders were foreign.]
from Jordan. The Jordanian Arab Legion made attempts to stop the infiltrations.
On October 12, 1953, a Jewish mother and her two children were killed by Jordanian infiltrators in the Israeli town of Yahud. The Israeli government decided to carry out a retaliatory strike against the village of Qibya in the West Bank. The order was given by Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon, who did not consult the cabinet and apparently misinformed Acting Prime Minister Moshe Sharett of the order. On October 13, at the meeting with the MAC (Mixed Armistice Commission), the Jordanian representative denounced the attack and promised Israel full cooperation in tracking down the murderers and asked Israel to refrain from retaliation. (The Iron Wall, Avi Shlaim, p.90-93). Sharett said later that "the Commander of the Jordan Legion, Glubb Pasha, had asked for police blood-hounds to cross over from Israel to track down the Yahud murderers" (Jerusalem Post, October 31, 1965).
The attack on Qibya took place in the evening of October 14. It began with an artillery barrage at the village until Israeli troops reached the outskirts of the village. Mines were laid out on roads to prevent Jordanian troops from joining the fight. When the village had been cleared of resistance, Israeli soldiers ordered the civilians to leave their homes and stated that they would be demolished; they then laid explosives around many of the houses and blew them up. The claim that villagers were given an opportunity to flee is contradicted by the fact that the Israeli units had an order to achieve maximum civilian casualties. At dawn the operation was considered completed and the Israeli troops returned home.
Forty five villagers' houses had been destroyed, as well as the mosque, the school and the water reservoir. Over 50 people were killed, two thirds of them women and children. The rest of the village population, around 2,700 in number, were able to flee. The Israeli government initially claimed that the killing was carried out by Jewish civilians living near the border, but later admitted that it was done by military forces.
The IDF claims that the plan was to ambush Arab Legion forces in the area, by destroying some houses as a decoy [Lexicon]. The original orders issued by the Israeli General Staff were relatively confined in scale, implying "blowing up a number of houses ... and hitting the inhabitants". However, going down the command ladder, before they reached the units' commanders, the orders changed to demand "maximum killing" (Morris).
Ariel Sharon later wrote in his diary that he received orders to inflict heavy damage on the inhabitants of Qibya. "The orders were utterly clear: Qibya was to be an example for everyone". Sharon said that he thought the houses were empty and that the unit checked all houses before detonating the explosives. In his autobiography Warrior (1987) he wrote:
"I couldn't belive my ears. As I went back over each step of the operation, I began to understand what must have happened. For years Israeli reprisal raids had never succeeded in doing more than blowing up a few outlying buildings, if that. Expecting the same, some Arab families must have stayed in their houses rather than running away. In those big stone houses... some could easily have hidden in the cellars and back rooms, keeping quiet when the paratroopers went in to check and yell out a warning. The result was this tragedy that had happened".
Benny Morris expresses doubt in this claim, considering the nature of the orders Unit 101 received. He also points to the fact that US, UN and Arab Legion reports indicates that villagers were killed before the demolition of the houses began. The UN observer who inspected the scene, Major General Vagn Bennike, chief of staff of the U.N. Truce Supervision Organization (which investigated the scene the next day) said: "one story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshold, indicating that the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them".

[Rian Jackson]

in 1929 Arab mobs massacred over 100 Jews, 60 of them in Hebron alone, an ancient community where Jews lived among Arabs peacefully for centuries

still looking... is this the one you meant?

[Rian Jackson]

When used against civilian targets, suicide bombing usually causes fear in the target population greater than that caused by other forms of terrorism, as the fact that the bomber intends to die makes deterrence almost impossible. Though use against civilian targets have differing effects on their goals (see reaction below). Some economists suggest that this tactic goes beyond symbolism and is actually a response to commodified or controlled or devalued lives, and consider family prestige and financial compensation from the community to compensate for their own life.
The doctrine of asymmetric warfare views suicide bombing in terms of an imbalance of power. Groups with little significant power resort to suicide bombing as a response to actions or policies of a group with great power. Groups which have significant power have no need to resort to suicide bombing to achieve their aims: in consequence suicide bombing is overwhelmingly used by guerrilla and other irregular fighting forces. Among many such groups, there are religious overtones: bombers and their supporters may believe that their sacrifice will be rewarded in an afterlife. Suicide bombers often believe, correctly or incorrectly, that their actions are in accordance with moral or social standards because they are aimed at fighting unjust acts.

[Rian Jackson]

i dunno, hon, i'd like to see some cites as to this:

Actually... the first massacre occured in 1928 when Palestinians under Abu Hassen al Husseini attack Jewish worshipers at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem.

all i can find is the aforementioned 1929 massacre in hebron. the wailing wall (called by Jews the Western Wall) is in Jerusalem at the Temple Mount.

before that it seems relatively quiet back until the riots in 1921, for which the Zionists were eventually found guilty.

but if you have more, i'd loke to hear it...