http://deepblade.net/journal/2006/07/democrats-committed-to-violence.html Cutting through the effects of the US empire Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:15:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 http://deepblade.net/journal/2006/07/democrats-committed-to-violence.html#comment-7 Deep Blade Journal » Blog Archive » War parties Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:41:01 +0000 http://deepblade.net/journal/2006/07/democrats-committed-to-violence.html#comment-7 [...] I wrote about the letter signed by Democratic senators opposing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s statements condemning the Israeli attack on Lebanon here. [...] [...] I wrote about the letter signed by Democratic senators opposing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s statements condemning the Israeli attack on Lebanon here. [...]

]]> http://deepblade.net/journal/2006/07/democrats-committed-to-violence.html#comment-623 Wallsy Sat, 29 Jul 2006 04:42:18 +0000 http://deepblade.net/journal/2006/07/democrats-committed-to-violence.html#comment-623 It's all spin isn't it! I thought it was mildly amusing that Bush's poster boy for Iraqi "democracy" would criticise Israel's war crimes. It was quite amazing that Bush did not comment at all on these remarks. It speaks volumes about the neocons and Bush; they support whomsoever fulfills their manaical political goals, whether they're pro or against Israel or not. Naturally, Israel would always come first, but in Bush/neocon world morals and ethics are not important. I mean, if it suited their agenda they would cut aid to Israel in a heartbeat and Israel knows it. They turncoated on Saddam in 1990 didn't they and had no qualms about supporting him during the 1980s? But yes, of course, there will always be the Lobby and yes support for Israel wil probably always be prioritised no matter the situation. But this issue of self-defence is so completely spurious. I mean a cursory glance at the facts would tell you that the cause of the current crisis was not about Israel being under imminent threat such as to warrant a heavy defensive reaction. Israel's towns, cities and infrastructure, civilians etc were not being bombarded were they? NO, Hezbullah's actions, rightly or wromgly, did not warrant the action Israel took. By using the term "self-defence" one is once again playing into the narrative that resounds that Israel is the perennial victim and peace-loving party in all of this. And unfortunately this narrative is still effective even during the most liberal of representations in the media (such as CNN, for example). It’s all spin isn’t it! I thought it was mildly amusing that Bush’s poster boy for Iraqi “democracy” would criticise Israel’s war crimes. It was quite amazing that Bush did not comment at all on these remarks. It speaks volumes about the neocons and Bush; they support whomsoever fulfills their manaical political goals, whether they’re pro or against Israel or not. Naturally, Israel would always come first, but in Bush/neocon world morals and ethics are not important. I mean, if it suited their agenda they would cut aid to Israel in a heartbeat and Israel knows it. They turncoated on Saddam in 1990 didn’t they and had no qualms about supporting him during the 1980s? But yes, of course, there will always be the Lobby and yes support for Israel wil probably always be prioritised no matter the situation. But this issue of self-defence is so completely spurious. I mean a cursory glance at the facts would tell you that the cause of the current crisis was not about Israel being under imminent threat such as to warrant a heavy defensive reaction. Israel’s towns, cities and infrastructure, civilians etc were not being bombarded were they? NO, Hezbullah’s actions, rightly or wromgly, did not warrant the action Israel took. By using the term “self-defence” one is once again playing into the narrative that resounds that Israel is the perennial victim and peace-loving party in all of this. And unfortunately this narrative is still effective even during the most liberal of representations in the media (such as CNN, for example).

]]>