quote:

---

During the 2006 war, Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets indiscriminately and at times deliberately at civilian areas in northern Israel, killing at least 39 civilians, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Human Rights Watch said that Hezbollah’s justifications for its attacks on Israeli towns – as a response to indiscriminate Israeli fire into southern Lebanon and to draw Israel into a ground war – had no legal basis under the laws of war.

---

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/08/30/lebano16740.htm

there will be some who justify INDISCRIMINATE attacks on Lebanon's civilian populations by Israel. They are beneath contempt. There are also those who will justify INDISCRIMINATE attacks on Israeli civilians. They are also beneath contempt.

"You are worse!" is something human rights abusers often say. But the legal, and the humanitarian, response is that indiscriminate attacks on civilians are intolerable.

[ 04 September 2007: Message edited by: jeff house ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
Jeff, you're absolutely right.

So are you saying that Israel is allowed to be as bad as a known terrorist organization?

---

No. He is pointing out that the singularization of Israeli warcrimes is dangerous, leaving other regional antagonists with a sort of tabula rosa. There is to a degree an over-emphasis on Israeli infractions in the popular mind of the left. It borders on obsessive. Likewise, the only denunciation of other regional players comes when it is on the issue of women or gay rights - sometimes complaining about privatization. However, those issues are directly related to both neoliberalism (which is disregarded and hated here) and religion (again, to a degree several members of this community have a pathological fear and hatred of religion bordering on irrationality).

The ramification of the crimes of Hizbullah as a political organization are downplayed in many media sources. The only people that really note it are pro-Zionist media who are overtly biased and a few people versed in international law. Various leftists should probably stop focusing so singly upon Israel as some sort of monolithic n'er do right entity and start taking into account how horribly degraded the region is due to internecine conflicts that would've occurred regardless of the creation of Israel. This degradation is the fault of so, so many. It forced Israel to become a militaristic state (you can't do much else when you're surrounded by enemies that launched several historical existential wars) with a severe case of paranoia. This sort of national mindset, though far from ubiquitous, is what fuels Israel's failed and more-often-than-not morally questionable policy choices in the region. Likewise this confluence of issues has fueled organizations like Hizbullah, that have done on the ground community work, in their militancy and their blatant disregard of any ethical or legal considerations of their actions.

The over-focusing on Israel is intellectually weak and therefore reduces extremely complex issues to a game of pointing the finger and being overly shrill. I'm not out there defending Israel's awful track record on various fronts (like human rights, and that is a fairly broadly bad track record) nor their disproportionate responses and overly zealous application of force. I'm simply saying that people need to take into account and denounce all the antagonists in that region. No one there is fighting for what is right, for what is going to be good for people. Why bother defending anyone more than is necessary and why bother demonizing people to the point of debasing one's own argument?

[ 04 September 2007: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
...start taking into account how horribly degraded the region is due to internecine conflicts that would've occurred regardless of the creation of Israel.9/qb]

---

You cannot know this for sure, it is nothing more than empty speculation.

quote:

---

[qb] This degradation is the fault of so, so many.

---

Such as?

quote:

---

It forced Israel to become a militaristic state

---

quote:

---

He is pointing out that the singularization of Israeli warcrimes is dangerous, leaving other regional antagonists with a sort of tabula rosa. There is to a degree an over-emphasis on Israeli infractions in the popular mind of the left. It borders on obsessive.

---

Does it match the labelling of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and the corresponding sanctions imposed by the US and supported by Canada and Europe?

Does it match the media's overwhelming support of Israel's actions in the middle-east including the war crimes in Lebanon? Where are the Hague indictments?

Does not Israel enjoy a "tabula rosa", as you termed it, from the international community, the United States, and the media, that no amount of supposed and purposeful leftist head turning with regard to crimes by Hezbollah could possibly hope to match?

Is the degradation solely the fault of Israel? No. It is the fault of countless puppet regimes created at the behest of a plethora of world powers, it was created through the constant meddling of affairs by outside powers, it was created through religion's very entrance and the denunciation of theological alterations to certain religions. It has been created through various ideologies. All of these things are vessels which humans have created, and it is these humans that have caused the region to turn into a hornets nest. Simplifying the root causes of regional instability is a very, very intellectually dishonest act.

Well, when you're facing many, many armies bearing down on your people and adversaries pledging to eliminate you from the face of the Earth a certain mentality is created. This mentality inevitably led to the rise of the militant currents within Israeli politics. Had Israel not been attacked in many wars it is doubtful that it would be the fortress state it is today. That mindset didn't come with Israel, it was forced on them by aggressors who chose the wrong avenue to right the wrongs done to them by western powers when Israel was created without enough consultation. The Arab states created it, Israel has to bear the blame for not trying more reconciliatory measures following those wars and furthering the degradation of the region after the 1970s.

edit:: FM, I usually don't bother entering these threads because there is hardly a semblance of reasonable discourse on this board. It is really just a pile-up on whoever is trying to find the middle road. But I'm going to try to address you.

I'm not talking about Israel's general "We'll slap you on the wrist, but we'll turn a blind eye" deal with many governments. I'm talking about the actual intellectual integrity that various forces should muster to make sure that their positions are solid.

"
Let's say that is true. How close does it come to balancing the blank cheque given to Israel to wage violent war, including war crimes, against the Lebanese and to carry out atrocities against the Palestinians without international consequence?"

Did I say anything to that effect? No.

"Does it match the labelling of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and the corresponding sanctions imposed by the US and supported by Canada and Europe?"

Hizbullah is a terrorist organization. It kills people for the purpose of spreading terror to further its political aims. It kills civilians and isn't particularly nice. Do you not agree that bombings of civilians are deplorable and constitute terror? If so, then Hizbullah is a terrorist organization and needs to be sanctioned for its actions. I'm not saying deny them dialog, but I am saying that appropriate stances have to be taken by the world community against such groups.

Also, I'd wager that it isn't particularly kind to label the people of Israel as bacterial infections, nor is it appropriate. Mind you, the common cold is viral, rather than bacterial.

[ 04 September 2007: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

quote:

---

Well, when you're facing many, many armies bearing down on your people and adversaries pledging to eliminate you from the face of the Earth a certain mentality is created. This mentality inevitably led to the rise of the militant currents within Israeli politics.

---

Funny you should say that ...

quote:

---

The results were very instructive. In 2002, 73% (seventy three percent!) supported this solution. In the next two years, support declined, but it was still accepted by the majority. In 2005 the percentage of supporters slipped under the 50% line. What had changed in these years?

The TV presenter painted in the context: in 2002 the second intifada had reached its climax. There were frequent attacks in Israeli cities, people were being killed. The majority in Israel preferred to pay the price of peace than to suffer the bloodshed.

Later, the intifada declined, together with the Israeli public’s readiness for compromise. In 2005, Sharon carried out the “unilateral separation”. It seemed to many Israelis that they could manage without an agreement with the Palestinians. The readiness for peace dropped below the half mark.

---

eta: Also, there is generally a fatigue that people can stomach as their cities are being bombed by foreign actors not directly affiliated to governments.

When Israel was attacked in several wars of aggression the old-guard formed a horrible mindset that lives on today. Those foreign actors were governments that were to be held accountable by international law, armies that could be defeated, and people that weren't willy-nilly killing civilians and aiming most of their resources at civilians. Nasser never put a suicide bomber on a bus and killed children. Various terrorist organizations have. The Israeli people when faced by the fact that there could be someone so singularly devoted to a cause as to kill themselves to kill others get terrified - as any human would.

I just reread the article, it just sort of reinforces my point actually. I don't agree with the political conclusions, but it does offer information that helps me out.

[ 04 September 2007: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

[ 04 September 2007: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

And please don't paint me like that, FM. Every post you're making is a direct attack on me and is deliberately twisting words. I'm treating you cordially, you have no reason to be so cantankerous.

[ 04 September 2007: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

Weren't over 1,000 Lebanese civilians killed as a result of such strikes?

But let's talk about the 40 civilian dead from Hezbollah's rockets.

Didn't Israel, in the three days before cessation of hostilities, salt southern Lebanon with over a million cluster munitions?

But let's talk about Hezbollah's rockets.

Wasn't the Lebanese campaign preceded by a spike in Israeli activity in Palestine including multiple arrests of democratically elected Hamas politicians and the usual wanton slaughter of Palestinian civilians?

But let's talk about Hezbollah's rockets.

Also, Papal Bull advances the laughable notion that Israel's militarism was born in response to attacks from neighbouring states. How then to explain the pre-statehood activities of Stern and Irgun, elements of which went on to become the present Israeli leadership? Israel was born in slaughter, the wholesale destruction of over fifty Arab villages and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians.

quote:

---

That's generally what happens when you're induced to believe you're in a hopeless situation. Do you think that the Arabs want to negotiate when they feel that they are backed against the wall? The Israeli mentality is one where the people feel secure and the 'us v. EVERYONE' ideal kicks in. It is a fortress state. Every Israeli I've spoken to deplores the fact that they can't really think any other way due to circumstances forced on them as civilians due to an over zealous military and the many terrorist attacks that incite fear into them.

---

Jeff rushes to the barricades, when Israel is condemned, to find others who have sinned "also". How very legally correct and noble.

This opens up a whole new field of thread topics. Anything goes:

"Canada, like North Korea, has citizens suffering from extreme poverty"

"Richard Latimer, like Clifford Olson, found guilty of murder"

"Darren McGuinty, like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, refuses to fund religious schools"

quote:

---

This thread title makes no distinction between aggressor and defender

---

quote:

---

Jeff, you're absolutely right.
So are you saying that Israel is allowed to be as bad as a known terrorist organization?

---

As I said, neither one is "allowed" to violate international law.

If they do, they are to be condemned.

That is the whole idea of having a single standard.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
That is not "rushing to the barricades", that is refusing to jump to either side of the barricades.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

It's so true. Blood thirsty terrorists keep attacking Israel and people just "blame the victim"

---

Israel the state hasn't been a victim for about 50 years now, though many of its citizens have certainly been victims at various times.

I hesitate to wade into yet another screaming match about Israel and the rest of the people who live near Israel. That said, any residual sympathy I had for the state of Israel all but evaporated with its ruthless slaughter of Lebanese civilians last summer. My sympathy for the civilians on all sides remains, but the state (and many of the other non-state aggressors) are behaving criminally.

quote:

---

During the 2006 war, Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets indiscriminately and at times deliberately at civilian areas in northern Israel, killing at least 39 civilians, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Human Rights Watch said that Hezbollah’s justifications for its attacks on Israeli towns – as a response to indiscriminate Israeli fire into southern Lebanon and to draw Israel into a ground war – had no legal basis under the laws of war.

---

Really?:Nearly all the war crimes were Israel's

quote:

---

As a first-hand observer of the fighting from Israel's side of the border last year, I noted on several occasions that Israel had built many of its permanent military installations, including weapons factories and army camps, and set up temporary artillery positions next to -- and in some cases inside -- civilian communities in the north of Israel.

Many of those communities are Arab: Arab citizens constitute about half of the Galilee's population. Locating military bases next to these communities was a particularly reckless act by the army as Arab towns and villages lack the public shelters and air raid warning systems available in Jewish communities. Eighteen of the 43 Israeli civilians killed were Arab -- a proportion that surprised many Israeli Jews, who assumed that Hizbullah would not want to target Arab communities.

---

quote:

---

Human Rights Watch, however, has argued that, because Hizbullah's basic rockets were not precise, every time they were fired into Israel they were effectively targeted at civilians. Hizbullah was therefore guilty of war crimes in using its rockets, whatever the intention of the launch teams. In other words, according to this reading of international law, only Israel had the right to fire missiles and drop bombs because its military hardware is more sophisticated -- and, of course, more deadly.

---

quote:

---

Blood thirsty terrorists keep attacking Israel and people just "blame the victim"

---

Israel attacked Lebanon. They did so with genocidal fury at the civilian population. They did so because they thought they'd have an easy victory. When Hizbollah defeated them, they further punished the people of Lebanon by dumping millions of cluster bombs into the south. Israel is a terrorist state. Blame the victim, indeed.

[ 04 September 2007: Message edited by: Jingles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
I don't see why you're ignoring the larger thrusts of my arguments and then simply going ad hominem. I'm not defending Israel's military tactics. I'm trying to find in any post where I've defended the use of cluster bombs. Why is it that people on this board are so quick to attack?

Yes, Zionism has always had a strain of militarism. But then so has pretty much everything else. I'm arguing that the current Israeli mindset isn't due to earlier theoretical points of ideology, but due to several aggressive wars launched by Arab neighbours. The Israeli state gradually built itself up more and more and more towards a military fortress. That is all that I'm saying. You may not agree with that, but there is absolutely no reason to presuppose my intentions and then blatantly ignore that Hizbullah used civilian areas to launch rockets into Israel for the express purpose of killing civilians and terrorizing many innocent people. That sort of action is not justifiable and wrong. Just like using cluster bombs or Cobra attack helicopters to strafe civilian positions. Do you not see what I'm driving at here?

---

Don't mean to ad hominem but you're parroting MSM mythology. Faultlessly. I remember at the time how pathetically one-sided the coverage was, with all this talk of Hezbollah 'terrorists'. The problem with such a term is it triggers the same conditioned response as 'child-molester' and does more to obscure the truth than reveal it. It suggests that somehow Hezbollah are bad guys and the IDF were entirely within their rights to lay waste to swathes of Lebanon as they hunted down the child-molesters. Not just 'terrorizing' but displacing - what was it, 2 million Lebanese civilians in the process?

As I recall the IDF responded to a run of the mill Hezbollah tit for tat attack on a patrol with a long-planned assault on Lebanon out of all proportion to the pretext - a war of aggression masquerading as justifiable retribution.

If I'm not mistaken - though perhaps it hardly matters - Hezbollah RESPONDED - to Israeli airstrikes with volleys of shitty rockets. Through the entire conflict Hezbollah launched some 4,000 rockets of which 1,000 landed within inhabited areas. The net effect was to visit on the innocent civilian inhabitants of northern Israel some small taste of the far greater destruction the IDF was then bringing down upon the equally innocent heads of Lebanese civilians.

I'm sure if Hezbollah had a force anywhere near the power of Israels' they'd have chosen to neutralize incoming Israeli bombers but this option was not available to them. Imagine the hue and cry if Hezbollah were to dot the border with sophisticated anti-aircraft batteries! It's a non-starter.

So they responded with the wretched, nasty, inaccurate, unguided resources they had to hand.

Here's a quote from The Independent from August 5 of that year:

"The Israeli air force killed at least 33 people in north-east Lebanon yesterday when it attacked a farm near Qaa in the Bekaa Valley where workers, mostly Syrian Kurds, were loading plums and peaches on to trucks.

It was the second deadliest strike of the 24-day conflict after Sunday's air raid on the village of Qana that killed up to 54 civilians and sparked global protests.

Despite growing outrage at Israel's continuing violation of humanitarian law, fighter aircraft went into action to destroy four bridges on the main coastal highway north of Beirut, further disrupting aid convoys for the civilians trapped by the conflict."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

Kind of sounds like America right now. Would you make the same justifications for their wars?

---

quote:

---

How pure. How noble. Thank God we have people who make no distinctions and take no stand.

---

It is quite possible to "take a stand" on the war in Lebanon. I opposed it at the time, and I still oppose it.

But when I take a stand, I try to take reality fully into account. I don't play "good guy/bad guy in international relations, because that is far too simplistic.

Of course, it WOULD be possible to just pretend that ONLY Israel violates international law, and that Hezbollah are a group of innocent lambies.

That is, in fact, the argument of unionist and the little pro-Iran, pro-Cuba group which reduces most political questions to absurdity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
He might even do it for free. I understand he does a fair bit of pro bozo work!

---

That maybe another reason why Israel, not the Hezbollah, is being singled out for boycotts and criticism by more and more thinking citizens. Boycotts and criticism are at least non-violent forms of expression, and questions of some individual choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
That is, in fact, the argument of unionist and the little pro-Iran, pro-Cuba group which reduces most political questions to absurdity.

---

Just a suggestion, but can we ban the next person for a week (or more) who drags cuba into a totally unrelated discussion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
That is, in fact, the argument of unionist and the little pro-Iran, pro-Cuba group ...

---

You forgot "pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah, pro-Stalin, pro-North Korea, pro-Saddam Hussein, pro-Hugo Chavez, pro-Mao, pro-Taliban, pro-Al Qaeda, pro-Evil, anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-Uncle, anti-matter..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:

Just a suggestion, but can we ban the next person for a week (or more) who drags cuba into a totally unrelated discussion?

---

You were ok with dragging IRAN in??

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You were ok with dragging IRAN in??

It's all right, I just filled in jeff's gaps (yes, I'm targetting him directly) and dragged in everything else I could think of. I'm looking for a long holiday.

---

At least Iran is in the neighbourhood... and although it's been a while, Iran's leaders have mentioned Isreal before.

So, anyone visit Holguin recently?

[ 04 September 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Look, this whole thread was a provocation from the word go - just read the title - so as far as I'm concerned, Cuba is fair game.

---

quote:

---

Israeli aircraft targeted Lebanese infrastructure, including bridges and Beirut airport, and heavily damaged a district of Beirut known as a Hizbollah stronghold, as well as attacking Hizbollah centres in villages near the border. Hizbollah fired nearly 4,000 rockets at northern Israel, killing 119 soldiers. In the fighting, 40 Israeli civilians were killed.

Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watch executive director, said there were only "rare" cases of Hizbollah operating in civilian villages.

"To the contrary, once the war started, most Hizbollah military officials and even many political officials left the villages," he said. "Most Hizbollah military activity was conducted from prepared positions outside Lebanese villages in the hills and valleys around."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
Jeff, you're absolutely right.

So are you saying that Israel is allowed to be as bad as a known terrorist organization?

---

Hexbollah is not a "terrorist" organization. I will accept this if you are fine with me calling me Israel a "terrorist state." I am sure that wont wash. Even under the very loose terms used by the Bush adminstration Hexbollah is not a "terrorist" organization. If you want to apply such terms, you are going to have to show that the whole organization is committed to a campaign of terrorist acts, which you most certainly can not.

Of course the NY Times has done no such thing.

quote:

---

A little more interesting is Power's tacit endorsement of the Bush doctrine that states that harbor terrorists are no different from terrorist states, and should be treated accordingly: bombed and invaded, and subjected to regime change. There is, of course, not the slightest doubt that the US harbors terrorists, even under the narrowest interpretation of that term: e.g., by the judgment of the Justice Department and the FBI, which accused Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch of dozens of terrorist acts and urged that he be deported as a threat to US security. He was pardoned by Bush I, and lives happily in Florida, where he has now been joined by his associate Luis Posada, thanks to Bush II's lack of concern about harboring terrorists. There are plenty of others, even putting aside those who have offices in Washington. Like John Negroponte, surely one of the leading terrorists of the late 20th century, not very controversially, so naturally appointed to the position of counter-terrorism Czar by Bush II, with no particular notice.

Even keeping to the completely uncontroversial cases, like Bosch, it follows that Power and the NY Times are calling for the bombing of Washington. But -- oddly -- the Justice Department is not about to indict them, though people are rotting in Guantanamo on far lesser charges. What is interesting and enlightening is that no matter how many times trivialities like this are pointed out -- and it's been many times -- it is entirely incomprehensible within the intellectual culture. That reveals a very impressive level of subordination to authority and indoctrination, well beyond what one would expect in totalitarian states.

---

Samantha Power, Bush and Terrorism.

By all accounts Chomsky's new book about the trip he and his wife Carol took to Lebanon after the horrific devastation imposed by Israel in the summer of 2006 looks to be outstanding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Hexbollah is not a "terrorist" organization. I will accept this if you are fine with me calling me Israel a "terrorist state."

---

Hell yeah, Israel is a terrorist state in my eyes.

By definition

"Terrorism in the modern sense is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals."

And anyone feel free to argue how Israels actions in Gaza as of today, Lebanon last summer, or any of the 'targetted killings' which tends to always find a few civilians as well does NOT fit this description.

quote:

---

Politician: How do we get the message across that our violence is good and their violence is bad?

Spin Doctor: How about defining their violence as "terrorism"?

Politician: Beauty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:

Hell yeah, Israel is a terrorist state in my eyes.

By definition

"Terrorism in the modern sense is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals."

And anyone feel free to argue how Israels actions in Gaza as of today, Lebanon last summer, or any of the 'targetted killings' which tends to always find a few civilians as well does NOT fit this description.

That said, Canada's acts in Afghanistan also fit this description.

---

And my point is that the definition is completely useless, and more importantly canon fodder for a specific ideological agenda, therefore the terminology should be carefully avoided, since using it only encourages the idea that inform the ideological agenda it was designed to serve.

quote:

---

Cueball: And my point is that the definition [of terrorism] is completely useless, and more importantly canon fodder for a specific ideological agenda, therefore the terminology should be carefully avoided, since using it only encourages the idea that inform the ideological agenda it was designed to serve.

---

In response to those events, the U.S. government has declared war on a proper noun; hence the "War on Terror". It's idiotic and a subject of ridicule by observant policymakers like Z. Brezhinzki who (now) publicly mock its stupidity by calling it a war on a technique. But why abandon a good opportunity to draw attention to applications of the terminology to the U.S. and other countries? That's just giving up ground and conceding defeat in the battle of ideas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
The hype has done its work. Ordinary people understand that something new happened on September 11, 2001, despite the predictability of such an event as a result of U.S. foreign policy over the decades. It was an extraordinary new act of terrorism on U.S. soil. What other word will do, anyway?

---

Nothing new happened on September 11th. Someone attacked an urban target in the USA using an unconventional weapons system without regard to loss of civilian life. This is not at all unusual, except in regards to the location.

Maintaining this falacy, only serves to hide the fact that the US has been doing the same thing on and of for the better part of a century. Saying that it was something "new" adds credibility to the case that wipes out that history of bloody murder of civilians, as if September 11th is a turning point in histury.

I looked a picture of one of the so called "Islamic Terrorists" they caught in Germany the other day, a long haired clean shaven fellow with a chisseled face, and I thought: "Bader Mienhoff."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Inside job? I have no idea who did September 11th. If I did I would likely be in with a bad crowd. Thankfully I am not.

---

Sorry for interupting your thread drift. I always mention the real 9/11 because it was an attack on people just like me by the most powerful nation on the planet for the crime of actively electing a socialist government. The few hundred people killed in New York is nowhere close to the worst attack on democracy it is a side show just like the thread drift.

Look here don't look at the atrocities that the USA committs. Look here, look here, America is the victim, America is the victim. Bullshit to those sentiments on September 11. I will always honour the leftists and trade unionists murdered by the Chilean corporate elite.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:

The ramification of the crimes of Hizbullah as a political organization are downplayed in many media sources. The only people that really note it are pro-Zionist media who are overtly biased and a few people versed in international law. Various leftists should probably stop focusing so singly upon Israel as some sort of monolithic n'er do right entity and start taking into account how horribly degraded the region is due to internecine conflicts that would've occurred regardless of the creation of Israel. This degradation is the fault of so, so many.
[ 04 September 2007: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I always mention the real 9/11 because it was an attack on people just like me by the most powerful nation on the planet for the crime of actively electing a socialist government. The few hundred people killed in New York is nowhere close to the worst attack on democracy it is a side show just like the thread drift.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbgatkinkos:

Israel is far from the worst country in the world when it comes to human rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbgatkinkos:

Allende was not about to hold further free elections.

---

That is a demonstrable lie. Allende was, in fact, about to announce that he would hold a referendum on whether or not he should be allowed to finish the term of office he was freely elected to. The coup was staged to prevent this announcement.

And Allende's Popular Unity coalition had gained seats in the Congressional elections held
only six months before the coup.

And the death toll in Chile's 9/11 was the same as the U.S. 9/11-about 3,000 each. The societal cost was higher when the tens of thousands of Chileans who were arrested, deported or tortured were added to the toll.

You have no basis whatsoever to be claiming that Allende was antidemocratic.

[ 11 September 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I thought this was a thread about Hezbaollah.

Sorry for interupting your thread drift. I always mention the real 9/11 because it was an attack on people just like me by the most powerful nation on the planet for the crime of actively electing a socialist government. The few hundred people killed in New York is nowhere close to the worst attack on democracy it is a side show just like the thread drift.

Look here don't look at the atrocities that the USA committs. Look here, look here, America is the victim, America is the victim. Bullshit to those sentiments on September 11. I will always honour the leftists and trade unionists murdered by the Chilean corporate elite.

I do understand how some people would be far more concerned that people involved in the globalization of the planet were murdered than people who would opposed the American juntas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbgatkinkos:

Spot on!!! This message needs to be more well known and better distributed. Israel is far from the worst country in the world when it comes to human rights.

---