Politics's loss is the military's gain

I've just had my attention drawn to this (1):

The gentleman talking is one Colonel Alan West, who has just been elected to congress, who appears to have retired after some 'controversy' surrounding his treatment of an Iraqi prisoner (2).

Sorry, what's the point here? He seems to be claiming Muslims are somehow displaying a unique impulse towards conquest, warfare and a religiously motivated desire to slay infidels even though they are acting pretty much like everyone else has acted throughout history?

Seems a bit of a silly argument to me, as non-Muslims and non-Islamic states have been indulging their penchant for violence and expansion for millenia. Verily, since before there were even Muslims! The Romans, afer all, were not followers of Mohammed.

So, according to Col. West, if Muslims invade another country or indulge in a bit of naval warfare, its because it is a requirement of their faith. Even though, in doing it, they're just behaving like everyone else. Because his argument is that - while Muslim states have historically acted in a way very similar to everyone else, invading, conquering, salting cattle and raping fields and so on, this is somehow different from the same behaviours exhibited by other cultures and countries. We invaded, we conquered, we salted cattle and raped fields on a far grander scale than the Muslims. Which would suggest, that there's nothing particularly different about them doing it.

Consider the empire building antics of the Romans, the British, the French, the Germans, the Austro-Hungarians, the Spanish, the Dutch, even the friggin' Portuguese had one. And that's ignoring for now the Vikings, the Saxons, the Angles, the Jutes, the Normans (though they were Vikings) and all the other various national and tribal factions that have been happily creating mayhem over the years. European history is a continual process of warring, invasion, conquest and colonisation. West is arguing that Muslim states and empires are somehow different because they behave in exactly the same way as Europeans! Sorry, but that makes no sense.

Nations have always sought more power and wealth, to maintain their status and to keep their standing armies busy. Armies were piling into Europe from that part of the world from almost before history - Darius I could hardly have been a Muslim, as he preceded Mohammed by about a thousand years.

The Muslim holy book says DON'T EAT PIGS, PRAY TO MECCA LOTS and SMITE INFIDELS It doesn't really say that, but lets pretend for now it does). So Muslims don't eat pigs, pray to Mecca lots and smite infidels. Fair enough. But then we compare their behaviour to ours. Our holy book (which informs our culture even if we don't officially believe in it any more) says YOU CAN EAT AS MANY PIGS AS YOU WANT, DON'T WORRY ABOUT MECCA and DON'T GO ABOUT SMITING ANYONE (I don't think the pigs thing was ever properly cleared up, but we kinda decided to assume pigs were okay). So we blithely eat pigs, don't care a damn about Mecca ... and smite just about anyone we feel like.

The obvious lesson from this is that the urge to smite stems from somewhere other than what is said in holy books. You can attribute it to some basic human instinct to smite, or some basic economic factor that forces empires to continually expand, but the holy books don't seem to have much to do with it. They might be useful in deciding who gets smote, but when that doesn't avail, anything will do.

As for the title of this post? Think about it like an accountant would.

1 - "Sura 9:5 says, 'Slay the idolaters wherever you find them'," posted on You Tube by AmericanFamilyAssoc1, 9th of December, 2010. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYbaln3Uqfc)
2 - "The Struggle For Iraq: Interrogations; How Colonel Risked His Career By Menacing Detainee and Lost," by Deborah Sontag and Ian Fisher. Published in the New York Times, 27th of May, 2004. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/world/struggle-for-iraq-interrogations-colonel-risked-his-career-menacing-detainee.html?scp=1&sq=How+Colonel+Risked+His+Career+by+Menacing+Detainee+and+Lost&st=nyt)

Israel offerred to sell apartheid South Africa nuclear weapons

In 1978, Graham Greene published a book called The Human Factor, which - if my memory serves me correctly - included a sub-plot about the sale of nuclear arms to apartheid South Africa. I think the idea originated from unsubstantiated rumours about efforts by Israel to conduct such a transaction.

Well, now they are are substantiated:

The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.

They will also undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted. (1)

Now what is it they say about truth and fiction?

Beyond the hypocrisy of preaching about the dangers of Iran passing on nuclear arms and technology is the jaw dropping idea that Israel supplying the most blatantly racist and fascistic government since the fall of the Nazis with nuclear arms. I can't help but read this as showing that the Israeli government of the day - which means luminaries like Peres who are still in office - tacitly agreed with the sick ideas of the racist apartheid regime.

Any Israeli would surely agree that regime that offered support to the Nazis in World War Two and tried to supply them with secret weapons would have faced vilification and ostracism, especially if they continued to keep the people who brokered the deals in power. I can't see why a similar sanction shouldn't be applied to Israel, as long as it continues to honour the scum who masterminded this disgustingly cynical ploy.

A regime that defies the UN, attacks civilian populations within its borders, is suspected of possessing weapons of mass destruction, and is willing to sell them to evil bastards. Bit of deja vu?

1 - "Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons," by Chris Mcgreal. Published in The Guardian, 23rd of May, 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons)

Stop me if you've heard this one before ...

Israel's former deputy defence minister, rattling his sabre like crazy:

Ephraim Sneh, Israel's deputy defence minister until 2007, said a nuclear-armed Iran was an unacceptable threat to Israel. No Israeli government could put its faith in President Barack Obama's efforts to bring Tehran to the negotiating table over its nuclear programme, he said.

"The Israeli government is the only entity that is responsible for the existence of the Jewish people," he said. "Iran has been explicit in its hostility to Israel time and again. They would use these weapons.

"We believe that Iran has the capacity and the delivery capability for nuclear weapons. They can proceed to production. We have got two months to act - before the end of 2009." (1)

Never mind that there isn't a shred of evidence that Iran's nuclear programme is intended for anything other than peaceful purposes, or is in violation of any treaty or obligation.

And "We believe that Iran has the capacity and the delivery capability for nuclear weapons."

That sounds achingly familiar. Where have I heard it before ... ?

Would it take them 45 minutes to deploy these weapons, I wonder?

1 - "Israel 'will attack Iran this year' if West does not cripple Tehran with sanctions," by Damien McElroy, published by The Telegraph, 17th of September, 2009. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/6199002/Israel-will-attack-Iran-this-year-if-West-does-not-cripple-Tehran-with-sanctions.html)

He's only gone and bleedin' done it

The other day I suggested it was time for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was about due another attention seeking tantrum (1). Right on cue, here he goes:

Iran announced the successful test-launch yesterday of an "advanced technology" missile capable of hitting Israel and US bases in the Gulf.

In a move that some analysts saw as a response to the meeting on Monday between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Sejil 2 missile had "landed exactly on the target".

The launch, which Mr Ahmadinejad said had taken place earlier in the day, may also have been timed to coincide with the official start of campaigning for the 12 June election.

The President faces challenges by critics of his stridently anti-Israel and anti-Western rhetoric. At a rally in the northern Selman province, where the official Iranian news agency IRNA said the launch had taken place, Mr Ahmadinejad said Iran had the power to "send to hell" any military base from which "a bullet" was fired against the country. State television showed footage of a missile soaring into the sky, followed by a vapour trail. (2)

Unfortunately, in the same post, I also predicted that if this occurred, I'd be arrested on suspicion of hacking into top secret government files. No sign of the NWO goons yet, but I'm expecting them any time.

Hang on, the dog's barking ...

1 - As described previosuly on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2009/05/just-when-it-looked-like-things-couldnt.html
2 - " Iran's long-range missile test is 'playing with fire', says Israel," by Donald MacIntyre, published in The Independent, 21st of May, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/irans-longrange-missile-test-is-playing-with-fire-says-israel-1688643.html)

Iranian ship sunk off Sudanese coast

An unconfirmed and sketchy account of ominous events in the Middle East:

An Egyptian weekly reported Sunday that an Iranian ship carrying weapons traveling en route to the Gaza Strip has been sunk in the Red Sea, off the coast of Sudan.

Al-Usbua's report quotes sources from Sudan's capitol Khartoum, who say missiles were fired towards the ship from "an unidentified boat, which may be Israeli or American."

The report says the Iranian ship was headed for Sudan in order to unload the weapons, which would then travel by land to the Gaza Strip. But the ship was sunk by the missiles, along with its crew. (1)

Oh. Shit.

This could be bad, as it could be interpreted, by Iran, as an act of war. One of their ships has bene sunk, lives, presumably, lost, in a hostile act by a foreign power. If Israel was less armed and funded by the USA formidable then the act would almost certainly lead to a direct military response.

As it stands, it would be suicidally stupid of Iran to attack Israel, even in the face of this obscene provokation. But that doesn't mean the Israel is free do do as it pleases. The response will be indirect, but just as bloody as a full invasion. There will be more Muslims who are willing to step forward to attack Israel by terrorism, and and Ahmadinejad is more likely to be re-elected - for the same reason that Bush was given a second term.

Which, a shadowy and suspicious part of my mind suggests, is exactly what Netanyahu wants. Keeping the fool of Tehran in power and in the public eye will keep tensions high in the region and justify his own strident rhetoric in response.

What will Obama do? Show some leadership, cuff the 51st (rogue) state into line, or let it go carry on doigng what it likes?

1 - "Iranian arms ship sunk of Sudan coast," unattributed news article published on Ynet, 26th of Arpil, 2009. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3706989,00.html)

UPDATE [29/4/09]

Looks like a false alarm:

Iran rejects a report that an Iranian navy vessel has been targeted by "Israeli or American missiles" and was ultimately sunk in the Red Sea.

The report "about a missile attack by the US or Israel against an Iranian navy ship" is false, an informed source speaking on condition of anonymity told Press TV on Tuesday.

An Egyptian magazine had published a report, claiming that the Iranian vessel had been targeted by missiles near Sudan.

The unnamed source dismissed the report as the product of a propaganda machine against the Tehran government.

Thankfully.

1 - "Iran denies 'US-Israeli' assault on navy ship," unattributed MD/HGH story, published on presstv.ir, 29th of April, 2009. (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=92820&sectionid=351020101)

It's over - I am officially disillusioned with Barak Obama

Okay, I was never that illusioned with him, but there is always aperiod in a new relationship when you think - usually against your better judgement and experience - that this one might work out differently, it might beat the odds and might be as good as it seems like it will be when it is merely a yearned for possibility.

Then reality kicks in, and it usually gives you an extra hard cuff round the ear for daring to be so foolish as to hope.

So I'm saying now that I'm officially disillusioned with Barak Obama. The reason for it is what Hilary Clinton said at her Senate confirmation hearing (1), and it came doewn to just one phrase: "Smart force."

What a sickening, cynical lie the idea of "Smart force" is. It's meant to suggest that the USA will use its massive resources in a clever and adroit manner. What it really means is, "We'll carry on bombing people, but we'll make it see like we're doing it in a nice way where civilians don't get blown apart ad mained by our super smart munitions and bombs that are smart enough to sniff out terrorists and obliterate them without anyone else getting hurt, even if they are in the same room as the evil terrorist obliteree."

"Smart force," meaning, "We'll be just as ruthless and wicked as the last lot, but we'll be smart enough not to make ourselves look like we're evil. Because this is "smart force." Not dumb force, like Dumb Dubya used and which made him look bad. We wouldn't use dumb force. We'll use "smart force," and we'll always look good, even as we carry on being as evil hearted as ever."

Business as usual in other words.

And more business as usual in the rest of her hearing. She calls for "A just and lasting peace agreement" in Israel and the Occupied Territories - but don't they all, and universally fail to deliver. She adds that "We cannot negotiate with Hamas until it recognises Israel, renouncesviolence and agrees to abide by previous agreements," (2) while not requiring the same of Israel, which has killed around a thousand Palestinians in the last few days, a death toll that the vicious thugs of Hamas's might dream of but are completely incapable of matching, and which has flaunted so many United Nations resolutions and exhortations, up to and including one this week. Yet the USA is not just willing to negotiate with Israel, they are willing to fund and arm them with the weapons currently maiming women and children - and the occasional terrorist, to be fair - in Gaza.

Same again for Iran, wher "no option is off the table" (3). So the Bush doctrine of randomly threatening and applying force (smart or otherwise) still applies. No change, in other words.

So it is back to the old game of hoping a new leader won't be as bad as the last one, rather than hoping for something truly great.

1 - "Clinton announces dawn of 'smart power'," by David Usborne in The Independent, 14th of January, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-announces-dawn-of-smart-power-1334256.html)
2 - Ibid.
3 - Ibid.

Fisk on war with Iran

Fisk pondering, in passing, the likelihood of military action against Iran:

Yet still the Middle East debates whether Israel or the US will bomb Iran. Personally, I don't believe this will happen – but then again, that's what I told my friend Seymour Hersh before the Iraqi catastrophe, when he said we would invade and I said we wouldn't. Currently, he thinks an Iran attack is still on the cards. So, apparently, does the Emir of Qatar. He's generously handed the Americans yet more desert for their massive air base outside Doha, land that stretches away on the further side of the military installation. He's asked for the return of the side of the base closest to the capital. The reason? Well, if America bombs Iran, the Islamic republic's missiles are likely to come hissing towards US forces in Qatar. The Emir wants them exploding as far from Doha as possible.

And we'll have to finish in America. I received a letter last week from an old friend whose son has just returned from military duties in Iraq. And he's been wandering the Pisgah mountains in the US with a group of schoolkids in an area where he noticed a lot of military training going on a year ago, and ... Well, I'll let him tell you the story. "I had seen nothing more up there until this past week, when C-130s and C-17s suddenly were making low runs through the high mountain valleys. There were also military helicopters around. It may mean nothing, but it may indicate something for the future. I am enclosing some photos of the area to give you an idea of what it is like. Perhaps it reminds you of somewhere."

And I looked carefully through my friend's snapshots of rocky mountainsides and thick forests. And, darn me if they didn't remind me of the Elborz mountain chain just outside Tehran. (1)

One for the scrapbook, given the likely desire in US circles that retribution be meted out to someone, because Russia had the audacity to make the USA look foolish. Russia itself is too big a challenge, even the peanut-brained ideologues in the Pentagon and Whitehouse realise that, but someone, somewhere has to be made to suffer in the name of America's military prestige.

1 - "Robert Fisk's World: A region boiling with tales of kings, gangs and war," by Robert Fisk in The Independent, 16th of August, 2008. (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisks-world-a-region-boiling-with-tales-of-kings-gangs-and-war-899000.html)

Has the Georgian fiasco sealed Iran's fate?

I do wonder if Russia's triumph in Georgia and the consequent humiliation by proxy (1) of the USA means that military action is more likely against Iran.

I don't know if the US government has such a thing as a National Prestige Advisor, but the 'ghost of Veitnam' obssessed the nation for decades. (Remember, the 'ghost' that was supposed to be 'exorcised' by the venture in Iraq?).

Whether or not the nation at large would still be angsting over it if they weren't constantly being reminded of it and told that they should feel angst is another matter. And whether or not they are reminded of it so often to encourage people to think they need to redeem themselves through some new display of geo-political machismo, another again.

The idea that the CORMMUNISTS (sic) have managed to dole out a successful cuffing to an irritant nation, while the USA continues to wallow ineffectually in Afghanistan and Iraq is likely to inflame bellicose sentiment - which will be encouraged by Faux News propoganda machine and the nonsense spewed by rightwing 'think-tanks,' just like before the invasion of Iraq.

So bombs may rain down on Tehran and obliterate innocent Iranians in the name of world peace and - doubtless - the whole shoddy act of mass murder will be proclaimed as a new front in the 'War on Terror.' That it will only make people hate us all the more will be conveniently ignored, as will the failure of bomb wrecked Iran to produce any credible evidence of a nuclear weapons programme. And the guilty will go unpunished, as they did after the invasion of Iraq (2).

And the US public, convinced that they have endured an insufferable - though ill defined - humiliation, may allow themselves to be fooled once again.

1 - 'Little to do, lots to learn for impotent US,' by Rupert Cornwell, published in The Independent, 15th of August, 2008.
(http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/rupert-cornwell/rupert-cornwell-little-to-do-lots-to-learn-for-impotent-us-897560.html)
2 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-are-they-still-free-why-are-they.html