Obama, The Prince Of Bait-And-Switch

John Pilger describes the denigration of the of civilian casualties in colonial wars, and the anointing of Barack Obama, as he tours the battlefields, sounding more and more like George W. Bush.

By John Pilger

24/07/08 “ICH” — – On 12 July, The Times devoted two pages to Afghanistan. It was mostly a complaint about the heat. The reporter, Magnus Linklater, described in detail his discomfort and how he had needed to be sprayed with iced water. He also described the “high drama” and “meticulously practised routine” of evacuating another overheated journalist. For her US Marine rescuers, wrote Linklater, “saving a life took precedence over [their] security”. Alongside this was a report whose final paragraph offered the only mention that “47 civilians, most of them women and children, were killed when a US aircraft bombed a wedding party in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday”.

 

Slaughters on this scale are common, and mostly unknown to the British public. I interviewed a woman who had lost eight members of her family, including six children. A 500lb US Mk82 bomb was dropped on her mud, stone and straw house. There was no “enemy” nearby. I interviewed a headmaster whose house disappeared in a fireball caused by another “precision” bomb. Inside were nine people – his wife, his four sons, his brother and his wife, and his sister and her husband. Neither of these mass murders was news. As Harold Pinter wrote of such crimes: “Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.”

 

A total of 64 civilians were bombed to death while The Times man was discomforted. Most were guests at the wedding party. Wedding parties are a “coalition” speciality. At least four of them have been obliterated – at Mazar and in Khost, Uruzgan and Nangarhar provinces. Many of the details, including the names of victims, have been compiled by a New Hampshire professor, Marc Herold, whose Afghan Victim Memorial Project is a meticulous work of journalism that shames those who are paid to keep the record straight and report almost everything about the Afghan War through the public relations facilities of the British and American military.

 

The US and its allies are dropping record numbers of bombs on Afghanistan. This is not news. In the first half of this year, 1,853 bombs were dropped: more than all the bombs of 2006 and most of 2007. “The most frequently used bombs,” the Air Force Times reports, “are the 500lb and 2,000lb satellite-guided…” Without this one-sided onslaught, the resurgence of the Taliban, it is clear, might not have happened. Even Hamid Karzai, America’s and Britain’s puppet, has said so. The presence and the aggression of foreigners have all but united a resistance that now includes former warlords once on the CIA’s payroll.

 

The scandal of this would be headline news, were it not for what George W Bush’s former spokesman Scott McClellan has called “complicit enablers” – journalists who serve as little more than official amplifiers. Having declared Afghanistan a “good war”, the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the bloodfests in Afghanistan and Iraq. What they never say is that Obama is a bomber.

 

In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghanistan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power – because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, “bait-and-switch” Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince.

 

Those who write of Obama that “when it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush” demonstrate the same wilful naivety that backed the bait-and-switch of Bill Clinton – and Tony Blair. Of Blair, wrote the late Hugo Young in 1997, “ideology has surrendered entirely to ‘values’… there are no sacred cows [and] no fossilised limits to the ground over which the mind might range in search of a better Britain…”

 

Eleven years and five wars later, at least a million people lie dead. Barack Obama is the American Blair. That he is a smooth operator and a black man is irrelevant. He is of an enduring, rampant system whose drum majors and cheer squads never see, or want to see, the consequences of 500lb bombs dropped unerringly on mud, stone and straw houses.

 

First published in the New Statesman

Advertisement

Samir Quntar: The resistance must be supported until the destruction of Israel

Samir Quntar was a Lebanese prison held for one of the longest terms and was freed in the prisoner exchange between Hizbollah and the Zionist regime. He said: “I will continue to resist until the occupied territories are completely freed and Israel is destroyed.”

 The Saudi Arabian newspaper ‘Akaz narrated that Samir Quntar spent 30 years of his youth in Israeli prisons and wants to return to the occupied territories saying that these lands can only be freed through resistance.

 Quntar said that the years he spent in prison were very difficult but also very special. He said that he could not describe the tortures and being away from his hometown in only a ten minute span though.

Full article: www.insight-info.com

Who is Dalal Maghribi who Barak hates so much?

Dalal Maghribi was the first woman commander in Palestine’s history of resistance. When she was only twenty years old she led around 10 Palestinians into one of the worst martyrdom missions. After killing many Israeli soldiers they faced the Israeli Special Forces on the way back led by Ehud Barak himself. In the end all of them reached martyrdom. This was so bad for the Zionists that Barak was seen on television dragging the corpse of this brave lady through the ground.

 

Dalal Maghribi was born in 1958 in the Palestinian camp of Sabra from a Palestinian family originating from Yafa who had refugee status in Lebanon. She went to elementary and middle school in Beirut in schools run by agencies trying to help Palestinian refugees.

 

She started military training while she was still in school. She was familiarized with various weapons and styles of war. At that time she became famous for her bravery and revolutionary spirit.

 

26 Years on 1982 Invasion, Resistance Made the Change

June 6 is a day with a special characteristic. It’s a day that marked the beginning of a new era in the Arab-Israeli conflict and paved the way for strong resistance movements to rise and eventually make a change.

us embassy beirut


On this day, twenty-six years ago, Israeli occupation forces launched a massive military incursion into Lebanon in an operation dubbed “Peace for Galilee.” At first glance, the Israeli aggression seemed to be aimed at south Lebanon, but then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon pushed all the way to the capital Beirut.
“Peace for Galilee” for the Israelis is the “Israeli Invasion” for the Lebanese.  It began on 6 June, less than two months after Israel transformed its defeat in Sinai into a political victory in Camp David. Then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin got the impression that all Arab countries would follow Egypt and sign so-called peace deals with Israel.
 
Jordan gave its word to Israel that it would sign such treaty once Lebanon signs a similar one. The Kingdom did not want to get involved in any agreement that would put it at odds with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) that had its leadership headquarters in Beirut.
Back then, Lebanon meant the fertile land for Palestinian resistance movements; thus dealing a blow to the PLO in Lebanon would crush the resistance once and for all and pave the way for signing a peace deal with Lebanon and then with Arab states. In doing this, Israel would extract the acknowledgment of Arabs in the so-called “state of Israel” and open the way for political and economic expansion in the Middle East region.
 
Menachem Begin found that the only way to achieve this “glory” for Israel was to invade Lebanon to crush the PLO, but under what pretext?
 
On July 24, 1981, US President Ronald Reagan’s special envoy Philip Habib arrived in Beirut with a controversial mission. Habib managed to broker a shaky nine-months ceasefire between Yasser Arafat and Israel. When the ceasefire took effect, Tel Aviv was like a beehive preparing politically and logistically for their “big time invasion.”  
Back in Beirut, Israeli and pro-Israeli bodies worked persistently on straining the internal front. Clashes between Lebanese and Palestinian forces expanded throughout south Lebanon. Both forces got weak and their chances of closing ranks to confront any Israeli military operation were zero.  
 
The element of direct military resistance was removed at a time some Arab regimes were at the Arab Summit in Fass preparing a formula to penetrate the Arab impregnability.
So everything was ready for the invasion. Israel just needed the pretext and it was not hard to find. On June 3, 1982, Israel’s ambassador in London Shlomo Argov escaped an assassination attempt.
The Israeli intelligence told Begin that the PLO was not involved in the attack, however he withheld this information from his cabinet. Rafael Eitan, who was then the Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, responded to the aforementioned information in his famous saying “Abu Nidal, abu shmidal. We need to end PLO!”

Full article: http://www.insight-info.com/articles/item.aspx?i=1156

Egyptian Intellectuals Praise Hezbollah, Resistance

Egyptian intellectuals, clerics and politicians considered honesty, belongingness, and even the geographical location as assets for the Lebanese Resistance and its Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah. They also viewed Hezbollah fighting conscious ideology as a main reason for the resistance victory, saying Hezbollah resistant structure gave it popularity that increased due to the credibility of its Secretary General.

lebanon may 2008
 
The Egyptian views were explored in a poll organized by the Cairo-based Arab Committee for the support to the Lebanese Resistance on the reasons behind Hezbollah’s victory on Israel and its agents. The poll, entitled “Resistance as seen by Egyptian intellectuals,” showed the objective perspective of the resistance movement in Lebanon as well as the clear perception of the causes of its victory.
 
The Egyptian figures stressed the Lebanese Resistance’s belief in the legality of its cause played a major role in achieving victories while at the same time abandoning any tendency to personalize Hezbollah’s organizational structure and the complete devotion to the cause. They added that these characteristics as well as the history of martyrs and their lofty values constitute the guidelines on the road to victory.
 
The Egyptian intellectuals also ruled out the possibility that the latest Lebanon incidents have negatively affected Hezbollah’s popularity. They stressed that what happened in Beirut was victory of the choice of resistance on the  Zionist-American scheme that sought to escalate the situation in Beirut to spread to other Lebanese regions to cause in Lebanon. They underlined that recent incidents were political, not sectarian.
 
“Sayyed Nasrallah is mandated by a large Arab popular base and the popular forces support him, despite the fact that some Arab leaders and governments that are allied with the US, differ on his role,” they said.
 
In the end, the Egyptian intellectuals, clerics and politicians quoted an Israeli remark acknowledging the strength of the Lebanese resistance: “No force could ever defeat Hezbollah.”

Source