Lebanon Photo Series: Refugees, Rubble and Resistance

by Frank Adam - private citizen Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:50

The daftest idea in this discussion is that US support of Israel somehow enables the US to keep a grip on the oil supplying countries. Maybe Andy and others could supply the logic lines - with evidence.

The other tantrum is the abstractions that the quarrel has prevented the Arabs of Palestine from creating their state. What prevents an Arab state in Palestine is the Arab head banging practice of attacking Israel with varieties of distracting violence and disingenuous demands for exceptional treatment. If instead of attacking Israel whether in 1947 or 2000 the Arabs had put their money into statebuilding in the part of Palestine they held or hold they would be "in clover" now.

Proof is simple. After Irish Independence the Irish created their own state quite successfully even though they did not have the whole Island of Ireland. Real life is about what you can do while waiting for opportunities for what you
would like to do.

Ditto Israel which in 1948 - 67 and since has continued, despite Arab aggravation, to create Israel.

For that matter even though Pakistan - in the name of Moslem particularism - walked out of a single successor India to the entire Raj, India continued to flourish on what it had and has. Pakistan has the problems because it suffers from a certain big headedness that pursues medieval visions of theocracy instead of modern practicality. Yours, FDA

by Brian Tue Nov 06, 2007 09:21

Could it be JUST possible that both Israel and Arab states, both with their terribly good reasons for strikes, defensive or otherwise, and endless retaliations, are moronicly incapable of doing anything else? Nearly all the posts on here are just mirror versions of each other. It would be really funny if it weren't so tragic.

by hmmz Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:24

Supposing they were members of the military wing of Hamas. Is it justified to do this? To execute 4 men and injure 27 bystanders, without a charge sheet, warrant, proof, or even a burden of proof?

Paddy Dunce, Is it Justified to BLOW yourself up killing nothing but civilians?
Because that is all HAMAS do.
HAMAS charter calls for the killing of every |JEW, anyone who is a member of such an association therefore shares that view. The also believe in the imposing of Sharia law across the territory. They are in fact raving lunatics

by Robert Sun Sep 17, 2006 02:21

This guy may be racist.

by Avi H. Thu Sep 14, 2006 00:24

1) Zionism which is essentially for all you non-knowers of history out there the self-determination of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland should not be used as a term of abuse. To do so is clearly bigotry of the first order.

2) Anti-zionists often claim that they are not anti-semites. Yet, if this is so, how come they often use all the arguments that anti-semites have traditionally used? For example, that Jews conspire to kill defenceless children, secretly control the governments of many powerful nations, want to dominate and control those around them, are latter-day Nazis etc. (Nazi comparisons being particularly offensive to Jews).

3) A basic assumption of the left seems to be that as the Pals are the militarily weaker party, they must always be right. This is odd, as their schools are full of hate indoctrination and their children are deliberately sent to blow themselves up, so as to kill as many Jews as possible. The logical flaw in such a view is easy to see: if it were true, then virtually every criminal, as an inadequate person from a hopeless background, would be in the right, no matter how many crimes violent or otherwise he commits, whereas the police who are there to uphold the law and protect the innocent would always be in the wrong: a clear reductio ad absurdum !

4) The Irish, with an inherent inferiority complex and a permanent chip on their shoulder about past British domination, have a particular soft spot for the Pals, as a 'fellow oppressed people'. What many do not realize is that one size does not fit all and that the Irish model does not at all fit the complex realities of the Middle East. While comparisons with the Pals may yield a pleasing symmetry, the similarities are only superficial: in fact, there really is no substitute for independent, courageous thinking. I will throw just one little spanner in the works here. Consider this: the Jews, LIKE THE IRISH, successfully fought a war of independence against the British. We even closely studied and admired Michael Collins' tactics. We are a historically oppressed people, just like the Irish, only for some reason, (could it be antisemitism?) that doesn't seem to count for anything in Ireland south of the border.

by Update Thu Sep 07, 2006 03:38

Have found out over the last few days that Kathy and Farah have returned to the U.S where they are spreading the word on the war.

by PaddyK Thu Sep 07, 2006 02:44

A Horrid turn of events in Lebanon has led to an unimaginable journalistic spat.

Jonathon Cook states:

"More than a little uncomfortably, I find myself with a bone to pick with one of our finest champions of humanitarian values and opponents of war."

Jonathon Cook, an Israeli based Journalist has taken Issue with Robert Fisk's reportage of the Lebanon Bombardment. The case of the pot calling the Kettle a blackened pot.

Mr Cook insists:

"Fisk, rightly, lays the main blame for the damage to Lebanon's national infrastructure -- and the deaths of more than 1,000 civilians -- at Israel's door. But he owes it to his readers to be much clearer about how and why he thinks Syria and Hizbullah conspired to offer Israel the chance to wreak such destruction. It's time for Fisk to tell us the whole story. "

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=2...10895

by PaddyK Thu Sep 07, 2006 02:26

"On Tuesday evening, 5 September 2006, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) committed two extra-judicial executions in Rafah in two hours, which killed four members of the 'Izziddin al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, and wounded 27 civilian bystanders, including five children."

Here is an alleged targetted attack on the enemy of Israel. The report says four members were killed.
Members of what? Members of Hamas military wing, is the allegation.

Supposing they were members of the military wing of Hamas. Is it justified to do this? To execute 4 men and injure 27 bystanders, without a charge sheet, warrant, proof, or even a burden of proof?

It the answer is yes, then by that logic, all Sinn Fein members are potential legitimate targets of the British Airforce firing missiles into Derry or Belfast, with no culpability imagined on their behalf for whatever amount of body parts get scattered..
If this is the society that we approve for Palestine then it gets automatic approval across the board. Welcome to the new world order.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5693.shtml

by PaddyK Wed Sep 06, 2006 22:44

I am a Zionist? You base this on my statement below ? Wow, I'm underwhelmed.

Don't I have any human feelings towards the Arab civilians who are killed by such Israeli shells?

Well Tank Girl, When a well targetted shell hits the Hideout of a suicide bomber cell, I envisage that all the civilians killed were in the terror plot. That's what well targetted means. The only person I feel sorry for there is the sucker who got conned into the martyrdom deal as a victim of the insidious tactics employed by these martyr bomb masterminds.
I do not deny Israel the right to defend itself , I just deny Israel the right to kill civilians at will and with impunity and then use that context as a lame excuse for those state sanctioned murders, which is what's happening as we speak.

If I am a Zionist , in your book, for supporting Israel's right to defend itself from terrorist attack then you have issues that cannot be resolved here. I support the right of Israel to exist in safe and secure borders, but not at the expense of every other country around it, or world stability, or Lebanese society.

But I would still like you to tell me what is your definition of a Zionist, seeing as you come out so strongly against them all the time. What is a Zionist?

by Tank Girl Wed Sep 06, 2006 14:14

"Tank Girl : What is a Zionist ?"

You are. I base this on your statement below. Don't you have any human feelings towards the Arab civilians who are killed by such Israeli shells? Also, given your attitude towards the Kurds, I certainly dont think you could be described as an Anti-Imperialist.

"Nor could I rightly pour scorn on a well aimed Israeli shell taking out the hideout of a suicide bomber operation and saving tens of its own unarmed civilians by terror attack."

by Anorak Thu Aug 31, 2006 15:29

I think you are engaging in sophistry above in bringing in arguments about democracy being responsible for the attacks on Iraq. But let the readers decide on that, no point in repeating ourselves further.

Well now, that there is not a repetition of anything, it's a complete twisting of what I said. I don't believe that "Democracy and Freedom" are any more responsible for the attack on Iraq any more than I believe that "Islam" is responsible for stoning of women. To believe either would be obviously wrong. That's the point. I now retire from this unproductive squabbling and leave the readers to enjoy the pictures of the cities of Lebanon pulverised into rubble in the name of Israeli self-defence and anti-terrorism.

by Anarko Thu Aug 31, 2006 15:07

"hang the Mullahs" and "Islam murders women". Perhaps you dont even know it, but these phrase are a source of racism and bigotry."

How is it racist to suggest that political clergymen should be hanged for crimes against humanity? How is it racist to suggest that to tell the truth is racist? In Iran women are murdered by the apparatus and functionaries of the Islamic State.

Just a couple of comments ago you were suggesting that the Iranian Socialist Feminists were Islamophobes. Now you are off on a new angle trying to suggest that they are not out to overthrow Islam. Well they are. Looking forward to visiting a Secular Iran one of these days. An Iran free of the control of Mullahs and an Iran free of US domination.

by PaddyK Thu Aug 31, 2006 15:00

No, I do not treat muslims with contempt , whatever their political persuasion I am treating your argument with contempt because thats what it deserves. I did not remotely claim that Muslims cannot have a secular government in their countries, that would be stupid seeing as how Turkey and Egypt both have secular governments as I posted earlier, they also have shocking Human rights records which flies in the face of your magic wand solution to human rights abuses "by Islam".
I am at odds with your spouting of phrases such as "hang the Mullahs" and "Islam murders women". Perhaps you dont even know it, but these phrase are a source of racism and bigotry. If you arent aware of that, I'm making you aware of it now, in order that you can stop.

I aslo did not say that if the Kurds start a war of independence it will be to serve American interests, I said that Iran has a historical prerogative to fear America engaging in proxy wars through it's neighbouring countries as it did with Iraq. If the Kurds wish to make a bid for independence through warfare then I say good luck to them, the chances that they will receive strategic asssistance from America and Israel is very high. The chances that Iran and Turkey will pulverise them is also very high. That is why I recommended they go the Political route. But either way certainly not the terorist route.

If you look real closely at the intro to the manifesto you posted, you might notice that it is the menace of Islamic terrorism they wish to overthrow and Not Islam, as you preach.

Over and out.

by Anarko Thu Aug 31, 2006 14:06

I wasnt addressing you, It was Anorak.

"You are spouter of Islamophobic rubbish on the internet. Its not funny and this is for real. Muslims are real people and these are real issues"

You are the one who thinks that muslims are incapable of developing a secular government. You are the one who treats real life secular muslims with contempt. You certainly act like Gnasher. You say that if the WPI in Iran is out to overthrow Islam and establish a secular government* then it is somehow acting on behalf of the US. Well think again. Read what the Third Camp have to say.

*All of the Iranian opposition groups be they Liberal, Conservative, Social Democratic, Communist, Nationalist, Kurdish, Arab, Turkish wish to establish a Secular State. Some might wish to opt out of that State or at least have Autonomy.

Manifesto of the Third Camp against US Militarism and Islamic Terrorism

The present conflict between the Western governments and the Islamic Republic of Iran can have disastrous human, political and social consequences. The terrible experience of Iraq has shown to all the catastrophes that can result from economic sanctions and a military attack. Deterioration of living conditions, economic plight, death, destruction and displacement of people, and increased repression by the Islamic regime, would be some of the immediate consequences of economic sanctions or a military attack on Iran. This policy would unleash Islamic terrorism on a regional scale and escalate it internationally.

We must stand up with all our power to the US government’s and its allies’ bullying. We must put an end to the crimes of the opposite pole, i.e. Islamic terrorism. We must help the people of Islam-stricken countries to get rid of the menace of Islamic terrorist states and forces. American militarism and Islamic terrorism have brutalised the world. Neither of them has a solution to the present crisis and its resulting problems. Rather, they are themselves the cause of this crisis and its aggravation. Civilised humanity must rise up against both these poles and the suffering that they have imposed on the world. The human and genuine solution to the problem of nuclear weapons, to Islamic terrorism and its horrific crimes against the people of the world, and to the militaristic bullying of the US and Western governments lies in the hands of us people.

Full Manifesto and latest news and articles here:
http://www.thirdcamp.com/indexe.php

by PaddyK Thu Aug 31, 2006 13:22

"I reckon thats more than you would get if I really was who you think I am!"

Do you think this is some kind of Denis the menace club, ooh, my secret name is Gnashers.

Gnash , gnash.

You are spouter of Islamophobic rubbish on the internet. Its not funny and this is for real. Muslims are real people and these are real issues. Grow up.

by omg Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:37

Voices for Creative Non-Violence

I have heard that the above organisation mick is soon to display a photoshoot of **Israeli scum killed by brave hezbollah people who fire rockets indiscriminately(but it was JUSTIFIED!) **

Now you can be sure that thats a war crime my friends

this group Voices for Creative Non-Violence is a funny one as it advocates hating the US/Israel--yet it has a title such as creative non violence, why do you create these ridicoulus names, are you ashamed that you hate the USA and ISRAEL and hide under a **non violence** title while you advocate and support suicide bombers and say that they are **JUSTIFIED** in their actions

Hypocrite.com

tis an interesting if not slighty confused read

Basiacally these organisations hate the USA and Israel and UK and any wars which they involve themselves in they are wrong and committing mass murder but the other side is correct and morally correct and they are supported by such organisations as the Voices for Creative Non-Violence

dont make me laugh, for a start your aim dont go with your name honies

by Anarko Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:45

"Your careless, intolerant and apparently ignorant assertion that "Islam is to blame for stoning women" is overly general and comes straight from the playbook of the USAID and other propaganda outlets. "

No its not. Its also the view that is held by Worker-communist Party of Iran. The state isnt just called Islamic. Its parliament, laws and judicary are Islamic. It walks like a duck, it talks, like a duck, its a duck.

I think you are engaging in sophistry above in bringing in arguments about democracy being responsible for the attacks on Iraq. But let the readers decide on that, no point in repeating ourselves further.

I was wrong about one thing though and that was to characterise you as a misogynist . Its obvious from your considered reply to me and from your responses to Paddy K that you are a supporter of womens rights. I offer you an apology for wronging you and I reckon thats more than you would get if I really was who you think I am!

by Mick Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:32

For fear of being accused of being someone who is spouting "re-heated bar-stool cliches" can I ask why the creative non violence people have not sought to include any images of the damage caused in Isreal by the rockets fired from Lebanon?

Balance is a wonderful thing - hard to and rarely acheived!

MM

by Anorak Wed Aug 30, 2006 18:59

presumes that the "secular Muslim" will evolve in an Un-Islamic manner in response to these passages.

Again, attempting to claim that something is "un-Islamic" holds no water and the evidence of most religions and belief systems is that they evolve to greater liberality, freedom and openness when they're not under threat or attack. There's every reason to believe that those that are nominally Muslim will extend the same rights to women and homosexuals as the Christian societies (hopefully it'll be even better than that, but ultimately there's a limit to what an irrational belief system can achieve, although the apostasy of the archbishop of Canterbury gives me hope.)

by PaddyK Wed Aug 30, 2006 18:14

"It would be sweeping and unfair to believe that all Muslims were interested in killing jews and discriminating against women."

Absolutely , Anorak, that's my point. Anarko likes to project the liberal sounding argument of supporting the "Secular Muslim" in order to "overthrow Islam".
He completely ignores however the evolving nature of the Islamic environment within which the Muslim must remain Secular . He simultaneously ignores the seemingly repugnant Quranic passages that each and every Muslim is duty bound to interpret and apply to their own lives and presumes that the "secular Muslim" will evolve in an Un-Islamic manner in response to these passages. Im not sure if he expects the fish to drain the sea or drink it in order to satisfy Anorak's fear of what effect the sea might have on the fish.

And , yes, meanwhile the greatest mass murders are passing under his radar in the name of his precious secularism, and that seemingly has nothing to do with Women's rights. I think he cares not so long as the Mullahs swing.

by Anorak Wed Aug 30, 2006 16:52

So having lots of "Secular Muslims" in the world is your simple answer to women's rights violations. Even though all Muslims are personally bound to obey the teachings of the Quran and apply them as they understand them with all those things about seeking out the Jews behind the rocks and killing them and all that apparent differenciation between men's and women's rights.

"As they understand them" being the very important part there PaddyK. As I'm absolutely sure you know there are lots of vile actions taken in the name of Xtianity. It would be sweeping and unfair to believe that all Muslims were interested in killing jews and discriminating against women.

Similarly the greatest mass-murders of our time are being carried out in the name of Freedom, Democracy and Secular society (with a splash of women's and gay right's thrown in) yet that central lie does not have to be accepted.

by Michael Gallagher - Photographer Tue Aug 29, 2006 23:42

www.fotothing.com/libertypix

by Michael Gallagher - Photographer Tue Aug 29, 2006 23:39 libertypix at yahoo dot co dot uk

I know this might seem like to some people that it's veering from the main arguements here (and I haven't read them all, but got the gist of it), but I was surprised to see that there is no news on indymedia of the death of the world renouned photographer/journalist, Joe Rosenthal.
He has the distinction of taking the world famous image of the US soldiers raising the flag at Iowa Jima. Go to the link below and enter joe rosenthal in the search box.

I only found out through the link on my own website, www.fotothing.com/libertypics

Be prepared, what I read was nauseating!

by PaddyK Tue Aug 29, 2006 22:27

So having lots of "Secular Muslims" in the world is your simple answer to women's rights violations. Even though all Muslims are personally bound to obey the teachings of the Quran and apply them as they understand them with all those things about seeking out the Jews behind the rocks and killing them and all that apparent differenciation between men's and women's rights. Thats OK by you because it's in the privacy of the home and not in the open forum of a house of parliament for discussion. It's Islam that's to blame and not the Muslims. They can be "secular".

So go the Egyptian route and ban the Islamic parties. Egypt, that bastion of civilisation.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=egypt

Or the Turkish model for Human rights.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=europe&c=turkey

Perhaps we should Secularise the Muslims who are a little too Islamic, you know , tell them what to wear for a start.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/women01.htm

Another question , Anarko: to instigate this ban on Islam in government, do you suggest that we should ban the Islamic parties in this democracy or just try to convince the Muslims to be secular of their own free will ? Like for example the people who voted in Hamas to government in Palestine. They are too stupid to be sufficiently secular perhaps ? Or even better, are you going to tell me that Hamas did not actually win the election. That would be very funny, the defender of Women's rights who will not recognise the clear outcome of free, fair and democratic elections because an Islamic party won them.

BTW, could you post those jokes I allegedly made about opression of Gays and women ? I wont be appeasing you today by saying I oppose the stoning of women, you will have to figure that out for yourself, in the meantime you can believe what you like.

Anarko said:

"Do you think that the Iranian and Iraqi Socialist Feminists are Islamophobic? They want to overthrow Islam. They have made it clear that there will be an accounting when the Mullahs are finally overthrown."

Which is it, the Iranian Mullahs or Islam that they want to overthrow ? If it's Islam they might be in luck cos the American Governmment and lots of other Islamophobes are on their side.

by Anorak Tue Aug 29, 2006 20:19

Thats what Iran is called,

And Bush calls the invasion and bombing of Iraq a triumph for Freedom and Democracy. That doesn't make the invasion and occupation of Iraq a triumph for Freedom and Democracy any more than extermist mullahs calling Iran an Islamic State makes it an Islamic State.

You've got to be more specific. You've got to recognise that the Iranian state is one interpretation of islam and that neither their laying claim to it being islamic, nor the US characterisation of it as islamic allows you to state that "Islam is responsible for the stoning of women". There are liberal muslims, fundamentalist muslims, moderate muslims, and extremist muslims all of whom believe very different things about sharia and not all of whom like the idea of stoning women to death for adultery, any more than all Christians like the idea of preventing women from having abortions, contraception, sex with whomever they like, free childcare, etc.

Your careless, intolerant and apparently ignorant assertion that "Islam is to blame for stoning women" is overly general and comes straight from the playbook of the USAID and other propaganda outlets.

by Anarko Tue Aug 29, 2006 18:19

"In these two wretched phrases you have characterised Islamophobia perfectly. You are sure that Islam creates murder and the Mullahs of Iran are to be executed for that."

You have not provided any evidence to make me believe that you oppose the stoning of women. Why not just say it? In the past you have made jokes about the oppression of women and gays by Islamists. Do you think that the Iranian and Iraqi Socialist Feminists are Islamophobic? They want to overthrow Islam. They have made it clear that there will be an accounting when the Mullahs are finally overthrown.

Heres the email addreses for Iranian & Iraqi Socialist Feminists. Why dont you contact them and tell them that they are Islamophobes?
Tell them that womens rights are a diversion.

Iran
sohailasharifi@yahoo.co.uk

parvinkaboli@yahoo.se

Iraq
houzan73@yahoo.co.uk

baharmunzir@yahoo.com

"Anarko, please explain to us : What is a secular Muslim?"

A Secular Muslim is the same as a Secular Christian, someone who while personally being a Muslim/Christian believes in the seperation of Church and State. To even suggest such a thing in Iran would be enough to get yourself debarred from standing for parliament.

You think your views are uncontoversial? Maybe in the IAWM/SWP but not amongst the rest of the Left. I think that you will also find that intelligent Irish people reject the sort of hypocrisy that refuses to condemn the ill-treatment of women in Islamic societies.

by Anarko Tue Aug 29, 2006 17:59

Islam is responsible for the stoning of Women in so far as it is done under the Sharia law which is written and supported by Islamic "Scholars" and clerics. The Women are tried in Islamic Sharia Courts, prosecuted by Islamic Sharia Lawyers, Judgement and sentence is passed by Islamic Judges. All of these events happen in an Islamic State. Thats what Iran is called, The Islamic Republic of Iran. This Islamic Republic is ruled by an elected parliament, but to be a candidate for election you have to be approved by the Islamic Council of Guardians (selected by the Islamic clergy). Even if legislation is passed by the parliament the Council of Guardians can overturn it. Appeals go to the Islamic Supreme Ayetollah (selected by the senior Islamic Clergy).

All in all I think its fair to say that Islam has a lot to do with the stoning of women in Iran. The same is true in other countries where the Sharia is in operation. Many Muslims are opposed to a strict interpetation of the Sharia, but they are not prepared to split with the fundamentalists.

You think the picture was photo-shopped. Amnesty International do not.

by Anorak Tue Aug 29, 2006 17:17

My argument is simply that Anarko's assertion that Islam as a whole is to blame for stoning is over-general. I think that the US propaganda machine is busy trying to make sure that Westerners see Islamicists as sub-human monsters that stone women and thus we won't object too much to them being bombed en masse.

It's completely ridiculous that I should have to say this, but I oppose the stoning of women or any other from of violence against them and I also believe in the separation of church and state and would like to see most people make a rational choice and completely avoid religious belief.

I do not however believe that Islam is inextricably and inevitably linked to the stoning of women and I question the intelligence and/or motivations of anyone that argues that it is.

Similarly I'd argue that the apparent uncritical support of the SWP and other left groups for a generalised, unspecified "resistance" falls into the other side of the same logical error that Anarko makes above.

The picture looks like complete rubbish to me, but it's irrelevant to my argument, just illustrative of the gullibility of Anorak in falling for the US propaganda.

by PaddyK Tue Aug 29, 2006 02:49

We are relying on the peaceful voice of Israel.
Uri Avnery of the Israeli Peace Group, Gush Shalom, writes:

"We want to live here in 100 years, in 500 years. Our most basic national interests demand that we extend our hands to the Arab nations that accept us, and act together with them for the rehabilitation of this region. That was true 59 years ago, and that will be true 59 years hence.
Little politicians like Olmert, Peretz and Halutz are unable to think in these terms. They can hardly see as far as the end of their noses. But where are the intellectuals, who should be more far-sighted? "

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=2...10840

Uri Avnery is the voice of Israeli activism, an Israeli who opposes the violence of militant Israel.

http://www.avnery-news.co.il/

by PaddyK Mon Aug 28, 2006 23:16

MichaelY said : There may be, of course, people who share anorak's or PaddyK's views.

I'm sure plenty of people share my views, they are generally uncontroversial among people with a factually based world view.

Anorak makes a sound argument and the fact that Anarko cannot understand it is not anyone's fault. However, I must disagree with his debate when he dismisses the "stoning picture" out of hand. Anorak, can we please have some evidence to support your dismissal if this is part of your argument ?
Remember that the picture of the bereaved girl on the beach in Gaza, after her family was killed by the Israeli Navy, was dismissed as "Pallywood".

Anarko said:

"Why do you have a problem with condemning the murder of women by Islam? "

"Mullahs will hang from every lamp post in Tehran "

In these two wretched phrases you have characterised Islamophobia perfectly. You are sure that Islam creates murder and the Mullahs of Iran are to be executed for that.
In the real world, Islam is a very complex concept and most Muslims will only be sure about what they don't understand.

Anarko, please explain to us : What is a secular Muslim?

Tank Girl : What is a Zionist ?

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Aug 28, 2006 18:37

I must say it wasn't my intention to provoke such a heated argument and debate with my simple message above....still the issues under question are so important that views and arguments are only to be welcomed. It's not my place to take sides here - I have made my position clear. I am delighted that Tank Girl [(s)he is becoming almost an old friend by now] and I find ourselves on the same wavelength - I don't, of course, agree that almost all our comrades in the IAWM are set against womens rights...only last week in two IAWM meetings in North Strand and Inchicore respectively, I met women comrades, members of the IAWM, with whom platforms were shared from as far back as the Anti(Abortion) Amendment Campaign 25 years ago. And they were and continue to be honest feminists - for women in Ireland and afar.
There may be, of course, people who share anorak's or PaddyK's views...but, to answer an earlier point made by anarcho, I am prepared and try to work with anybody who opposes the war and the collaboration of the Irish government re: Shannon and Baldonnel. Because the IAWM and the Anti War Network are movement structures....not parties or organisations with specific ideological compositions.
Finally I really liked the point made about the Iranian communists - that they're a party but not of the Leninist type!!!! Let me add and not of the Trotskyist type - lol!

by Tank Girl Mon Aug 28, 2006 18:28

The image of the Iranian woman being stoned to death is hosted on the Amnesty Norway site. Amnesty are usually accused of photoshopping by those who support human rights abuse.

Why would Anorak wish to pretend that women are not stoned to death in Iran? Whats his agenda?

Heres the link to the picture.
http://www.amnesty.no/web.nsf/files/steining_iran_web.jpg/$File/steining_iran_web.jpg

by Anarko Mon Aug 28, 2006 18:22

Knew it was around somewhere. You can read more about the stoning of Women in Iran at the URL. Maybe you think Amnesty are making it up as well.

The Iranian Penal Code is very specific about the manner of execution and types of stones which should be used. Article 102 women will be buried up to their breasts for the purpose of execution by stoning. Article 104 states, with reference to the penalty for adultery, that the stones used should "not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes; nor should they should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones".

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78081

by Anarko Mon Aug 28, 2006 18:17

"Again, Iraq is bombed in the name of Freedom and Democracy. Does this mean that the concepts of Freedom and Democracy are to be shunned?"

No because I never made the above staement. You did. You are setting up men of straw. Next please.

"You've made unsupportable assertions which seek to tar all of Islam with the beliefs of its most reactionary and extermist adherents (a minority) and similarly assert that somehow that the sexual abuse of children is inherent to Catholicism. "

No I have not . I suggest you reread it. A bit more slowly this time. I dont respond in detail to misrepresentation.

"Your own statement there should give you pause for thought, but added to it is (a perhaps unintentional) dishonesty and fudging of the issue in that you retreat from the level of generalisation you use for Islam and focus on a specific sub-group: Catholics. "

What exactly are you on about in that mangled attempt at a compound sentence?

I"n order to be consistent you'd have to assert that child-sex abuse is inherent to Christianity. And really you may as well take it further and argue that it's inherent to "Western culture". Now, why not go the whole hog and say that child-sex abuse is in fact intricately bound up with being a European white? "

Child sex abuse takes place in all societies. Child-sex abuse is in fact intricately bound up with being a human being. But it is particularly prevalent in those who preach sexual morality, the clergy.

"Your zeal in attacking specific behaviours leads you into unsupportable statements which diminish the real problems faced by the people on whose behalf you profess to be outraged."

Again its difficult to know what you are on about here. Women face th real problems of being stoned to death in Islamic societies.

"(p.s. I love the ridiculous photoshopped image above)"

And that is truly ridiclious on your part. The Iranian Theocracy boasts about how many women it stones to death. In the Iranian penal code, the size of the stones to be used is specified.

by Anorak Mon Aug 28, 2006 18:08

Again, Iraq is bombed in the name of Freedom and Democracy. Does this mean that the concepts of Freedom and Democracy are to be shunned?

You've made unsupportable assertions which seek to tar all of Islam with the beliefs of its most reactionary and extermist adherents (a minority) and similarly assert that somehow that the sexual abuse of children is inherent to Catholicism. Your own statement there should give you pause for thought, but added to it is (a perhaps unintentional) dishonesty and fudging of the issue in that you retreat from the level of generalisation you use for Islam and focus on a specific sub-group: Catholics. In order to be consistent you'd have to assert that child-sex abuse is inherent to Christianity. And really you may as well take it further and argue that it's inherent to "Western culture". Now, why not go the whole hog and say that child-sex abuse is in fact intricately bound up with being a European white?

Your zeal in attacking specific behaviours leads you into unsupportable statements which diminish the real problems faced by the people on whose behalf you profess to be outraged. (p.s. I love the ridiculous photoshopped image above)

by pat c Mon Aug 28, 2006 18:06

On the debate above I generally support the points being made by Tank Girl and Anarko. Womens rights and Gay rights cannot be swept under the carpet.

Interesting statement by Kofi Annan below. He wants to see the Israelis released but doesnt mention the Lebanese POWS held by the Israelis. But it looks as if the Germans are prepared to mediate a prisoner exchange. Full article at link.

Annan Demands Hezbollah Free Israelis

By ZEINA KARAM
Associated Press Writer

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan demanded Monday that Hezbollah release two captured Israeli soldiers to the international Red Cross, and that Israel lift its air and sea blockade of Lebanon.

by Tank Girl Mon Aug 28, 2006 17:33

The fight will always go on. Thats what it looks like from here. There wil always be those males who are happy to see women ground under and even killed. Using the excuses of Anti Imperialism or Multiculturalism they will cheer on the Islamists who treat women like animals. I am not including Michael in this I can see that he is on the side of womens rights the trouble is that the same cannot be said of many in the IAWM.

When it comes to the war I also support both Hamas and Hezbollah in their defensive actions against Zionist imperialism. Like Anarcho I dont think civilians should be targetted but I do think that Hezbollah could have killed many more Israeli civilians if they so wished. They chose not to.

The important thing to remember is that Socialist Feminists from an Islamic background are fighting for their rights in Islamic societies. These women and their organisations are well worth supporting. Heres a few links and a picture of an Iranian woman about to be stoned to death.

International campaign for the defense of Women's Right in Iran
http://www.irandwr.org/english/index.htm

Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East
http://www.middleastwomen.org/

The Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI)
http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm

Worker-communist Party of Iran (WPI)
http://www.wpiran.org/English/english.htm

The left Worker-communist Party of Iraq
http://www.socialismnow.org/index1.html

Iranian Woman About To Be Stoned To Death.

by Anarko Mon Aug 28, 2006 17:09

The Sharia laws are introduced and administered by Islamic clerics. They claim justification for they do and base it on the Islamic Koran. Now some Muslims might dispute their interpetation of the Koran. But the idea that women should be stoned to death for adultery is considered to be an acceptable subject for debate in mainstream Islam.

Wherever Islamists have gained power they have introduced Sharia law. I suppose you also reckon that Catholicism isnt responsible for child abuse carried out by priests?

by Anorak Mon Aug 28, 2006 16:58

if the laws that oppress women are being imposed in the name of Islam, then Islam is to blame

And by this same logic, if Bush bombs Iraq in the name of Freedom and Democracy then Freedom and Democracy are to blame for bombing. Really....

by Anarko Mon Aug 28, 2006 16:42

Peace be upon you.

I would share some of the opinions of the WPI and in this casr they have called it well. It is worth pointing out that while they are a party, they are not a Leninist Party.

I think I have a lot in common with you but very little in common with uncritical Islamophile Paddy K. Building a broad movement is impossible with the likes of Paddy K on board. If you are not prepared to criticise Islamic Fundamentalism then you will be seen as hypocrites. You can try and ignore it but it wont ignore you. Hypocrisy is not a good recruiting sergeant. The iAWM should have learned that lesson.

by Anarko Mon Aug 28, 2006 16:34

"It certainly is not, but it is Islamophobic to suggest directly, or subtley that women in certain societies have no power to defend their own rights because of Islam. "

But if the laws that oppress women are being imposed in the name of Islam, then Islam is to blame.

"It is Islamophobic to continually suggest that it is an unavoidable effect of applying Islam, or even Sharia Law that women's rights will be obliterated."

The Sharia (in its most severe form) clearly states that women who commit adultery should be stoned to death. The Sharia has to be opposed by all secular peopler, otherwise you are collaborating in the oppression and even murder of women. Womens rights cannot exist under Sharia law.

" It is Islamophobic to use Iranian executions or Taliban decrees to paint a picture of Islam that is directly intended to cause fear and hysteria in any society."

No rational secular person could support your statement above. It is a fact that women and gays are executed in Iran for "sexual crimes". Only a misogynist, homophobe or supporter of the Islamic Fundamentalists would wish to hide this fact.

"If someone indulges in Islam bashing as a broad part of their argument when relating to the the rights of people in the ME to a safe society free of wars and occupation, by attacking Hezbollah and Hamas as extremist islamist organisation and overlook the truely more ominous fanatic extremism of Israeli expansionism or American Imperialism, they are Islamophobic."

Hezbollah and Hamas are both organisations whose political programmes I would not support. I will support them in their military actions against the IDF. It is outrageous for you to claim it is Islamophobic for secular socialists to criticise a programme which based on Theocracy.

"Hamas are the democratically elected majority representatives of the occupied Palestinian people, to undermine this on the basis of your dislikes of certain current practices within certain Muslim societies is Islamophobic."

Hamas got 43% of the vote. Secular parties got 57% of the vote. Are those Palestinian socialists who criticise "certain current practices within certain Muslim societies " Islamophobes?

"To undermine Hezbollah's legitimate role in the recents invasion of Lebanon as the true resistance of the Lebanese people on the basis of the treatment of women or homosexuals in certain societies is Islamophobic."

You really seem to think that Hezbollah should et uncritical suport. No, it is legitimate for me to point out that Hezbollahs views towards women and gays are wrong.

"People who engage in those kind of mono-directional diatribes in arguments relating to the Human rights of the people of oppressed Middle Eastern, or other, countries should be challenged as Islamophobic. "

And people like you who trample on womens and gay rights should be challenged as misogynists and homophobes.

"Human rights for all, will bring women's rights for all in any society."

But if you are in support of Human rights then why are you opposed to me supporting womens rights and LGBT rights now? I reckon there never will be a right for you to support human rights.

Why dont you support the Secular Majority in Palestine? Why not support the secular opposition in Iran? Why not support the Secular parties in Lebanon?Why not support the Democratic forces who are fighting for Democracy, Womens Rights, LGBT Rights? Why do you support the Islamic Fundamentalists against them?

by Michael Gallagher - Photographer Mon Aug 28, 2006 16:07 libertypix at yahoo dot co dot uk fotothing.com/libertypix

Could someone please pass on contact numbers to me of Farah, redjade and Michael Birmingham. If any of the names mentioned read this including, Cathy Kelly, my website is getting hundreds of hits a week and I want to get some of the photos from the Lebanon etc onto it, and to include some in the exhibiton, 'Images of Resistance', which will be havin another showing next month.

Thanks.

by PaddyK Mon Aug 28, 2006 15:35

It certainly is not, but it is Islamophobic to suggest directly, or subtley that women in certain societies have no power to defend their own rights because of Islam. It is Islamophobic to continually suggest that it is an unavoidable effect of applying Islam, or even Sharia Law that women's rights will be obliterated. It is Islamophobic to use Iranian executions or Taliban decrees to paint a picture of Islam that is directly intended to cause fear and hysteria in any society.
Human rights and Women's rights are not two peas in a pod. Women's rights are one single pea in the Human rights pod, along side men's rights, childrens rights, sexual rights, etc.
If someone indulges in Islam bashing as a broad part of their argument when relating to the the rights of people in the ME to a safe society free of wars and occupation, by attacking Hezbollah and Hamas as extremist islamist organisation and overlook the truely more ominous fanatic extremism of Israeli expansionism or American Imperialism, they are Islamophobic.
Hamas are the democratically elected majority representatives of the occupied Palestinian people, to undermine this on the basis of your dislikes of certain current practices within certain Muslim societies is Islamophobic. To undermine Hezbollah's legitimate role in the recents invasion of Lebanon as the true resistance of the Lebanese people on the basis of the treatment of women or homosexuals in certain societies is Islamophobic.
People who engage in those kind of mono-directional diatribes in arguments relating to the Human rights of the people of oppressed Middle Eastern, or other, countries should be challenged as Islamophobic.
Human rights for all, will bring women's rights for all in any society.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Aug 28, 2006 14:08

Hi,

I am glad you responded the way you have.

I am sure you know of them but my views on Iran and the internal situation in the Islamic Republic are well summarised by
http://www.hekmatist.com/the%20threat%20of%20military%2...n.htm

Now, with reference to the IPSC meeting, yes I thought David's remarks while correct in substance, his theatrical exit and the fact that his 'fury' was directed at an anti-zionist Israeli intellectual who did not want to criticise Hamas, and for sound reasons in my opinion, were misplaced and uncalled for. Btw, I had an occasion to personally discuss/resolve this with David, at a recent RAR gig, so the issue is closed.

I think we can proceed in peace from this point onwards. My view is that what unites us is much much more substantial than what, theoretically, may separate us.

by Anarko Mon Aug 28, 2006 13:42

Apologies. I put that rather strongly. At times you have veered a bit towards uncritical acceptance of support for Islam. I would point to your reported performance at the IPSC meeting when you criticised David Norris for raising the case of the two young gays hanged in Iran.

There are people on the threads in question who give uncritical support to the entire programme of Islamist organisations. They use the smear Islamophobe against anyone who raises the issue of Womens rights or LGBT rights. I have yet to see you specifically confront them and point out that all socialists and democrats should support democratic rights and that it is not Islamophobic to defend Womens rights.

by :-) Mon Aug 28, 2006 13:14

Here's an Anti-War Ireland view, published recently in the Irish Examiner:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story....1.asp

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:58

Hi anarko,

Thank you for the constructive comments. I have no doubt that the absolute majority of the anarchist movement, and its components, oppose imperialism and support the armed resistance of the Iraqi, Lebanese and Palestinian people. And you're absolutely right - they have been a whole set of messages in this and other threads to that effect.
So - to answer your question - no - I am not looking for a fight .....and I have no question in my mind that we are on the same side re:Shannon/Baldonnel etc.

However, you must agree, that there have also been a number of commentaries, usually from anonymistas, that pose the issue as one of direct opposition to the islamic-led resistance on ideological premises. This usually comes out as a 'twin opposition' - we oppose what the Israeli state is doing but we also oppose Hezbollah!! This reflects itself either in the fallacy that it was Hezbollah that was "responsible" for the invasion or that in the other shibboleth that Hezbollah was e q u a l l y responsible for "civilian deaths"!! Your rhetorical question of supporting civilian deaths or not was, I am sure, rhetorical.

It is to those comments and the political current(s) that are underneath, that my message was directed. As to your assertion that either my, or the IAWM's, principles are 'flexible', I will let it go too. Read carefully the two messages preceding mine above....that's the type of politics that I was trying to argue against. And, again, thanks for the quick and principled response.

by Anarko Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:24

Starting the week looking for a fight are you? Anarchists oppose imperialism, you will have seen comments here where Libertarians have supported action by the Palestinians and Hezbollah against military targets but not against civilian targets. Do you support attacks on civilians?

Anarchists will not support Islamists or the the Islamic religion. They support womens rights and gay rights and wont stop doing so just because there is a war on. Your principles may be flexible, ours are not.

Stop tilting at windmills. Not a single Libertarian has supported the idea of US action against Iran. What they have done is call for the overthrow of the Theocracy by internal forces.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:57

Some of the comments coming from the left/libertarian circles re: the recent invasion of Lebanon and the barbaric slaughter of civilians by Israel are contradictory - to say the least.

One of the most basic tenets of consistent mass democracy, one fundamental tenet of a society free from exploitation and barbarism, one of the things the Left and activists have fought since the Hungarian revolution of '56, and Algeria, Cuba, Prague '68 and Vietnam afterwards, is solidarity with mass-based rebellions against occupation, national oppression and colonial rule when and where they actually occur. Solidarity - with no ifs and buts and ideological lectures from the 'free' West to the oppressed.

It is in this context that conscious anti-war and left activists, the world over, support the uprising against imperialism in Iraq...support the struggle of the Palestinian people and their organisations (including Hamas) and the Lebanese people and their organisations (essentially Hezbollah). Political analyses based on the concept of the 'twin evil' at best signify political abstentionism and at worst back-handed support for imperialists, disguising a western social chauvinism with “socialist/anarchist” slogans. Huntington's clash of civilisations seems to have permeated deep in some circles - a particularly nauseating process.

The biggest obstacle to US domination of Iraq is the armed resistance to the US military occupation of Iraq - which takes many forms and is made up of a diverse set of ideological components. The biggest obstacle to US/Israeli domination of their 'new Middle East' project has become the armed resistance of Hamas and Hezbollah. These are very positive developments in terms of the interests of the world’s oppressed, including us here in Ireland, because any success for the US and its allies in its current so-called "war on terrorism" will strengthen their arrogance and belligerence. One need not lend political support to the Islamic-led armed resistance in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine in order to call for their military victory against the occupying/ invading forces. Without that resistance, US imperialism might well now be preparing troops and planes for a full-scale invasion of Iran - and Syria to come?

Which brings me to a final point: All the secular and left leaning organisations inside Iran, including some right-wing pro-Shah royalist organisations (one of them led by Shah's son), are dead against US warmongering...despite their direct opposition to the theocratic regime of the mullahs, they argue, correctly, that the one element that would unite the entire population around and in support of the regime would be if Iran was attacked. This was the Israeli plan in Lebanon - to divide the population and get the Christian Druze and Sunni Lebanese to oppose Hezbollah. The plan backfired badly and Hezbollah's political (and military) support has never been so impressive. So, rather than the pathetic two fingers up and may the devil take the lot of you simplistic attitude of the message above, let us unite around our opposition to war, our opposition to the use of Shannon and Baldonnel as warports and in our support of the armed resistance when and where it occurs.

I am reminded here of Bakunin's point that revolutions are made by people with the demon inside. Most likely he meant people from the most oppressed social strata and national/racial sections with rage and hatred in their heart. On that point he was absolutely spot on.

by MurderBike Mon Aug 28, 2006 02:35

make that SAME.

also,heres the link to the Class War website.

by MurderBike Mon Aug 28, 2006 02:34

small piece of statement from Londons "Class War".

"Neither the Israeli army nor Hezbollah give a flying fuck about 'their' civilians, except as bloody totems to hang in front of the cameras of the world's press in order to justify their own next atrocity.

The left have adopted two approaches.

Firstly, wholesale adoption of the Islamist agenda, cheerleading Hamas or Hezbollah without qualification or criticism. This 'Idiot anti-imperialism', the trademark of today's SWP, says my enemy's enemy is my friend and any criticism of them, no matter how mild, is 'racism, islamophobia, and Zionist pro American warmongering"

I would agree with this myself, that we should not support the "lesser-evil" but rather out and out condemn both sides. Hezbollah are not "radical revolutionaries" in my own eyes.

The world needs to tell Israel it has had enough of it's terrorist actions, and also give the shame two fingers to Islamic Extremism.

by PaddyK Sun Aug 27, 2006 04:01

In light of Caoimhe Butterly's succinct report from Southern Lebanon, I propose the following:

The immediate dispatch of any bomb disposal personnel , equipment, expertise, technology or otherwise to the South of Lebanon. Include any Hardware and software and the economic support to apply it.
At the behest of the sovereign state of Ireland and within the auspices of The Department of Defence in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs.

In order to relieve the current suffering of the people of the sovereign state of Lebanon.

by PaddyK..sort of. Sun Aug 27, 2006 00:19

Fair play to Caoimhe, you know, she really is doing sort of a great job over there in, you know Lebanon. It sort of cant be easy to , you know enter a sort of war zone. You know that girl's got balls....sort of.
You know?

by Michael Gallagher - Photographer Sat Aug 26, 2006 23:05 libertypix at yahoo dot co dot uk

These images are powerful, sad and all too real.
Is it possible to send me some of these pics in their original file size?
The exhibition, 'Images of Resistance' is being given its third showing at a community week in Drimnagh next month. We dont have any images of actual war zones, so some of these would add immensely to the work. If redjade or someone could email a selection (defineately the one of the pile of rubble with made in USA on top).

Just a footnote: Dennis Halliday has agreed to open the exhibition in New York next year. Details to be finalised.

by Ali Sat Aug 26, 2006 21:04

"The USS liberty was "mistakenly" attacked by the Israeli airforce and navy, though they had already overflown the ship numerous times and knew exactly what it was. Keep it real, Charles, keep it real."

It was NO ACCIDNET when hezbollah slaughtered 250 US Marine peacekeepers in Beirut.

What's funny, is when lefties defend the NSA....(USS Liberty was an NSA spy ship operating in a war zone.) At any rate, reparations were paid and apologies for the error were made...when was the last time a member of the Religion of Peace (TM) apologized for slaughtering innocents?
Their only apology is that they don't have enough candy to hand out to everyone as they celebrate death and destruction

by Andy Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:11

It's the standard US propaganda line. The USS liberty was "mistakenly" attacked by the Israeli airforce and navy, though they had already overflown the ship numerous times and knew exactly what it was. Keep it real, Charles, keep it real.

by Mikey Fri Aug 25, 2006 04:18

Interesting

by Frank Murphy Fri Aug 25, 2006 01:53

I think you Need to learn to comprehende the english language, boyo. it also states in the NPR? interview;

"Egypt was ruled by Gamal Abdel Nasser, a firebrand nationalist whose army was the strongest in the Arab Middle East. Syria was governed by the radical Baathist Party, constantly issuing threats to push Israel into the sea.

And the crowded and angry Palestinian refugee camps dating back to the 1948 war had spawned groups in the shadows, including Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, which had launched guerrilla attacks on Israel from Lebanon and Jordan. It was all connected, says Rashid Khalidi, a historian of the Middle East at the University of Chicago.

RASHID KHALIDI: In a sense the Palestinian tail wagged the Syrian dog which wagged the Egyptian dog which dragged the region into a conflict, which Israel initiated but which had several triggers.

SHUSTER: Most historians now agree that although Israel struck first, this pre-emptive strike was defensive in nature.

In the spring of 1967, the Soviet Union misinformed the radical government in Damascus that Israel was planning an invasion of Syria. Syria shared this misinformation with Nasser, who responded with several threatening actions. He closed the Gulf of Aqaba to shipping, cutting off Israel from its primary oil supplies. He told U.N. peacekeepers in the Sinai Peninsula to leave. He then sent scores of tanks and hundreds of troops into the Sinai closer to Israel. The Arab world was delirious with support, says Michael Oren, author of Six Days of War. "

by Ali Fri Aug 25, 2006 00:51

Ali, that's really funny. The blockade of Israeli ports was the first act of war. Syria, Egypt and Jordan massed troops at Israel's border. Egypt kicked the UN out of the Sinai. The rest only took SIX DAYS...always backing a losing horse.

But you are in luck, if you're free tonight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8vC0K-ylq0&eurl

by Ali H. Thu Aug 24, 2006 19:25

The NPR intrview states:

"SHUSTER: Most historians now agree that Israel struck first ...

RASHID KHALIDI: ... a conflict, which Israel initiated ..."

The 1967 war was started by the Israelis ... end of story!

Any excuses were cooked up afer the fact as is the common practice for the ZioNazis.

by Charles Martel Thu Aug 24, 2006 17:20

NPR series refutes your allegations andy, try again

by redjade Thu Aug 24, 2006 16:44

August 23rd, 2006

AMY GOODMAN: Ana reported, after she filed the story, that the number of casualties from unexploded ordinances has risen to eight people killed and at least 25 wounded. For more on the story, we're joined by longtime peace activist Caoimhe Butterly. She's in southern Lebanon, where she's helping with rebuilding efforts and working to raise awareness about the leftover cluster bombs. We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Caoimhe Butterly.

CAOIMHE BUTTERLY: Good morning, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Can you tell us about the situation there and exactly what you're doing?

CAOIMHE BUTTERLY: We’re presently based in a village called Aita al-Shaab, which is near to Bint Jbeil, which was sort of scene of some of the heaviest fighting during the invasion. I’m working with a sort of grassroots activist and volunteer network called Samidoun, which is based out of Beirut and comprises over 400 mainly volunteers, although we have sort of teams of doctors and engineers, etc., working with us.

And our main function at the moment in Aita al-Shaab is the distribution of aid and just trying to see that it's distributed sort of equally and fairly in surrounding villages, as well as doing workshops and sort of role-playing activities with children and with different both Lebanese and international groups who are trying to de-mine the area, in terms of raising awareness about the situation in terms of cluster bombs and just trying to teach children how to identify the different unexploded ordinances and to stay away from them and how to mark them, as well.

more at
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/23/1413209

download MP3
http://www.archive.org/download/dn2006-0823/dn2006-0823...b.mp3

by Andy Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:27

Yes, elephant, isn't it convenient how all Israel's wars have been wars of self-defence. Like in 1967, when the Israeli air force sank the USS Liberty and machine-gunned its sailors in the water, because a US intel vessel might have cast doubt on Israel's fable about responding to aggression. Israel uses the same tale that Hitler did: in justifying the Nazi attack on Poland, a propaganda stunt was organized whereby Polish citizens were abducted, executed, and dressed in army uniforms to provide evidence of an 'invasion'.

In the case of Nazi Germany, Hitler was supported and built up by Britain and America, by means of international financiers and arms companies, to provide a bulwark against 'communism'
.
Israel receives unflagging US funding and support for geo-political reasons: namely, to keep the Middle East and its oil under control by keeping it in a state of permanent instability. The best way to do this is by funding the existence, and providing propaganda for, a sectarian state which appeals to religious fanatacism to justify its expansionism, and cites the Torah to justify its cleansing of Canaanites from the 'Promised Land'.

by elephant man Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:00

It is not that long ago that it all happened, I'm surprised to see that people could have already forgotten how it happened, how the country of israel came to be

Indeed by vote of the UN 13 To 3 as did Transvaal Jordan, with the idea of the british mandate in palestine extingushing on a certain date and then both countries come into excistance --which is what happened, but the arabs then decided to invade on the day Israel came into existance, advising the then arabs in palestine to evacuate as they were going to wash the streets with Jewish blood(which created the refugee problem-as the arabs lost the unlosable war the arabs had to then shamefully try to return to palestine ), but as a similar scenario repeated time after time, the arabs invade, the arabs get wasted, as a result Israel to increase its security keeps land obtained through war to create a **buffer zone** against its neighbours that continuaslly attack her, you may notice that the arab states it has peace treaties with--it returned all their lands as they are no longer aggressive towards her

Indeed all the arab states came into excistance the very same way, there were no arab territories untill the west allocated them in return for their blood in fighting the ottoman empire

Its the harsh truth that is often forgotten
You should do some learning yourself kid
keep it real

by Paul MacGiolla Bán Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:43

Sean has called said that Israel's response was "careless". However, this is a mistake. Israel's actions response were very deliberate.

As for the idea of Hizbollah starting the war, and Israel responding disproportionately, the reality is that Israel's actions are more than a response to the Hizbollah capture of Israeli soldiers. This event certainly inspired the timing of the assault, and there is surely an element of reprisal here, but Israel's actions are clearly strategic. The attack on Lebanon is part of an overall vision for their Middle East strategy, and feeds into the US goals for the region.

Fred Halliday, International Relations scholar of the London School of Economics, has identified contemporary events as the basis for identifying a "new geopolitical region - greater West Asia". He has characterised the current situation in the Middle East as a tripartite regional conflict between the following groups:
Firstly, there is "Iran and its radical allies (Syria, Iraqi Shi'a parties, Hizbollah, Hamas)", secondly, "the forces of radical Sunni insurgency (in Iraq and in the al-Qaida network)", and finally, "the US and its regional allies", of which Israel is prominent.

Halliday reminds us that one of these US allies is a major cause of regional instability, but is conveniently omitted from the discourse on terrorism: Pakistan. Halliday states that Pakistan is "more responsible than any for spreading terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, nuclear proliferation and corruption across the region". But while the US engages in rhetoric about Iran and Syria, and invades Afghanistan and Iraq, Pakistan is conceptualised as a trusted ally and enemy of terror.

This is not to say that the US-Israel axis is entirely at fault: Hizbollah's targeting of civilians amount to war crimes. But the dishonesty of the US rhetoric must be exposed. And meanwhile, Israel is a power in the region, not the underdog it likes to present itself as. It's constant claim is that its existence is in jeapordy. But it is a nuclear power with the support of the most militarily advanced state in the world. While humanitarian aid is donated to Lebanon, military aid is donated to Israel. What is needed is a clearer understanding of the region-wide interlinkages between the various conflicts and tensions at the heart of the current situation.

Halliday’s full article:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization/westasia_cri...3.jsp

And let’s not forget about Palestine – here’s a blog from an Irish humanitarian worker in the Gaza Strip:
eoinmurray.blogspot.com

by Memoria de elefante - Planeta Terra Tue Aug 22, 2006 22:33

Just a note on the comment that says "hezbollah started this"

That's not true, Israel crossed the border on to Lebanon, Hezbollah responded. That's all.

Same with Palestinians, Israel attacked them, invaded their territory, Palestinians will keep fighting as all other peoples who have been invaded - Zulus, Irish, Goitacas, Kanienkeh and many others. And so will the Lebanese.

Israel just happens to have a lot more weapons than the people who they were attacking because they are sponsored by corporate USA... but that doesn't mean anything, all bullies go down one day or another

Israel is a violent state, created with a signature and maintained with the use of constant violence - violent media, violent military, violent discourse... the need to maintain an artificial state leads israelis to be constantly defensive, constantly reassuring themselves and the rest of the world that they should be there on that land, that they were promised that land by god (for the ones who believe on the same one or any), that they are a strategic post in that region (for the ones who want to invest) and that they will do anything to keep the stolen territories (for the ones who were there before)

It is not that long ago that it all happened, I'm surprised to see that people could have already forgotten how it happened, how the country of israel came to be - or maybe they just want to forget, to be biased but sound fair, to twist history to protect their investment or interests? or maybe they just don't know, were born in the "information technology" era and got overloaded, registered nothing and just don't know, are simply ignorant, but still want to have an opinion (and some, unfortunately,happen to be doing that on the media, creating more 'impressions of knowledge')

Anyway, have a look around, read a bit more, listen a bit more, be less hysterial about things, watch and learn, think about what you read, as well, articulate your own thoughts, stop repeating slogans, stop following people who are only asking your support to protect their own financial interests - you are just making a fool of yourself (but then again, you didn't sign your message - and neither did I :-)

by Sean Tue Aug 22, 2006 14:31

"Hezbollah started this mess, Lebanon is the loser."

This is true, and must be remembered.

The problem was Israelis response, which was completely over the top,careless and uncalled for. Religious and State terror are both enemies of the people, and Hezbullah are hardly "radical", or "resistance" in the sense we use the term here.

The Israeli reaction didn't shock me tbh, because sadly it was to be expected from the Israeli Gov.- that kind of all out punishment can not be tolerated.

There are no winners here. Two enemies of the people,fighting a propagandha war.

by Yusuf Tue Aug 22, 2006 14:18

http://www.irishlebproject.com./

The "Irish Lebanon Project" was a bold attempt to build Medical Centres in the villages of South Lebanon but since the Israeli destruction of Lebanon in July 2006, the Constitution of the "Irish Lebanon Project" has broadened its scope to build not only Medical Centres, but Schools, Community Centres and Houses.

We will also liaise with the Municipal Councils of the Villages of South Lebanon to co-ordinate the building of the varies structures. BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT WHAT IS THE IRISH LEBANON PROJECT ? We will fly tradespeople out from Ireland to south Lebanon to build Medical Centres, Schools, Community Centres and Houses The Tradespeople will consist of:
1. Blocklayers
2. Plumbers
3. Plasterers
4. Carpenters
5. Electricians
6. General Labourers The Tradespeople will be asked to give a week of their lives to exercise their trade to the benifit of the Villagers of South Lebanon

You can go on trips to South Lebanon on this site

http://www.theleb.com/

although due to the Barbaris Israeli Bombardment and murder these trips have had to be temporarily cancelled

Donate to the charity at

http://www.irishlebproject.com/so.html

Volunteer at

http://www.irishlebproject.com/volunteer.html

Donate to Tibnin Orphanage Fund

May Allah Bless all who help

by Deirdre Clancy - AWI Tue Aug 22, 2006 02:07

Thanks for passing on this documentary evidence of wholescale wanton destruction and massacre, with some beauty and humanity also showing through the rubble. Farah's ability to sum up war and human rights situations in both photos and words belies her very tender years. She was only 19 when she came to Dublin in late 2002 to testify as to the situation in Iraq under the economic sanctions, which she had recently witnessed. Her testimonies and those of Michael Bermingham made a big impact on me and many others. Voices for Creative Non-Violence also includes Kathy Kelly of course, who has a similar singular vision, and a total and lifelong commitment to solidarity work with those facing war and poverty. I am consistently humbled by the work they do. They deserve as much support from the activist community as possible in these times, as they are one of the the most important and committed groups witnessing to, and documenting, what is going on in the Middle East.

by Duine Mon Aug 21, 2006 21:52

Is maith toradh na cogaíochta a thaispeáint.

Maith na grianghrafadóirí!

by Kathy Kelly via DM Mon Aug 21, 2006 20:51

20 August 2006
The Massacre at Qana

by Kathy Kelly

Two days ago, driving toward the village of Qana, we saw men at work, creating neatly aligned rows of rectangular cement structures that would soon be ready for burials. On foot, we entered Qana, thinking we should at least identify the site where a massacre had taken place when, on July 30th, an Israeli bomb hit a building that sheltered children as they slept. It took five hours for ambulances to reach them. Statistics differ, but the most recent Human Rights Watch report estimated that twenty-three were killed.

Continued at link:

by Damien Mon Aug 21, 2006 20:44

Keep an eye on www.lebanonsolidarity.org and consider sending this link to all concerned friends.

To Beirut --
Peace to Beirut with all my heart
And kisses -- to the sea and clouds,
To the rock of a city that looks like an old sailor's face.

From the soul of her people
she makes wine,
From their sweat,
she makes bread and jasmine.

So how did it come to taste of smoke and fire?

- Anon.

Keep an eye on Farah's blog

http://www.farahmarie.blogspot.com/

and Voices for Creative Nonviolence

www.VCNV.org

by Bill Mon Aug 21, 2006 20:27

"How many massacres of Lebanese children do you want?"

Hezbollah started this mess, Lebanon is the loser.

by redjade Sun Aug 20, 2006 15:49

redjade note:More photos by Farah Mokhtareizadeh
but without text explanations.

More photos and text coming in the email soon, I suspect.

Kathy Kelly walks through rubble

by Farah Sun Aug 20, 2006 15:40

Farah Mokhtareizadeh writes....
This picture was taken in the Sanayeh park in the city centre of Beirut that was turned into a major refugee camp during the war. I am afraid I do not have the names of these two little girls, however I do know that they were both from Srifa in Southern Lebanon a city we visited yesterday where nearly 40 people were massacre and almost the entire city destroyed. I am afraid that these two little ones will not have very much to be bring them joy when they return home. Many of the refugees from the South had begun going home in the day or two after the ceasefire was called.

Two little girls

by Farah Sun Aug 20, 2006 15:33

Farah Mokhtareizadeh writes....
This picture was another from the Sheeyah district of Southern Beirut. The little boy's name is Ahmed and he used to live in one of the three buildings that were destroyed. His father told us that he the family had been in Sheeyah when the bombs fell and that this little boy was close enough to suffer minor cuts from glass that had blown in their apartment building due to the blast.

Boy looking at rubble

by Farah Sun Aug 20, 2006 15:30

Farah Mokhtareizadeh writes....
Yet another picture of a burnt out apartment building in Dahiyah district of Southern Beirut. Helps to show that even when one building is destroyed fire will move between buildings leaving many more people homeless.

Burnt Apartment Building

by Farah Sun Aug 20, 2006 15:29

Farah Mokhtareizadeh writes....
The man in the blue collared shirt walking amidst the rubble is Michael Birmingham from Ireland who is part of our Voices group here. I chose this picture to give an idea of how encompassing the damage in many places is. This picture is near to where the first picture was taken in the Dahiyah district of Souther Beirut. The smell in this district was unbearable, and city block after city block had been destroyed.

Street scene

by Farah Sun Aug 20, 2006 15:26

Farah Mokhtareizadeh writes....
This photo was taken near to the massacre of 48 people in the Sheeya district of Southern Beirut. The sign reads,"Olmert, Bush/How many massacres of Lebanese children do you want?" The sign was put up near to three apartment buildings that were blown up, again, by a very powerful bomb(s). The day that we arrived was the first day of the ceasefire and many people who had fled the area had come back to see what had happened to their homes- this is what they found.

Sign in Sheeya District

Sign in Sheeya District - Close up

by Farah Sun Aug 20, 2006 15:21

Farah Mokhtareizadeh writes....
This photo was taken in the Dahiyah district of Southern Beirut. The man is standing next to the rubble of a 10 story residential apartment building. We are uncertain what powerful bomb was used, but it was able to reduce the entire building to rubble and we do know that 600-pound bunker busters were used in this neighborhood. We were able to meet the owner of the building who told us some stories about the families who lived here who were not present in the building at the time of the bombing. However, this is clearly not a military instalation and would surely constitute a war-crime.

Man with wreckage