Israelis doing business as usual... Embassies are not out of reach

After watching the devastation in Lebanon during the last month, and also the permanent incursions in Gaza, I've been wondering if anything would stop the Israelis from chasing Palestinians or Lebanese wherever these may be. They bomb whatever parts of Lebanon they want, they bomb whatever areas of Gaza where they think there's someone they want to kill - so much for charging Palestinians in a Court of Law, if you think they're guilty of something then just kill them!! - and while doing this they kill hundreds of innocent by-standers in Lebanon or Palestine.

Even if they go everywhere in their search for alleged terrorists, or even collaborators or sponsors of alleged terrorrists, I was still surprise to find out that this thursday the Israelis entered the UK Embassy to capture a Palestinian...

If a Government sends the Police inside Embassies, then it means they really do not stop at nothing!

A person that seeks asylum is handed over just like that??? So much for International Law..

Sure the UK is a close ally of Israel, so maybe that was not the best choice to ask for asylum.. But what the UK should have done was to have a court decide whether this person should be granted asylum, and let the Israelis explain why they want them by asking an extradition.

But why bother right? Why give people the right to defend themselves in Court?

It seems like they're becoming something of the past, either in Israel or the US - remember Guantanamo? they're still there and no trial. Fortunately the Supreme Court (even with a majority of Conservative judges) ruled that the President does not get to make the rules by which the Gunatanamo prisioners are 'judged' (they wouldn't be judged att all if Bush had his way, since they wouldn't show evidence so people couldn't argue they're innocent, but fortunately one branch of Power is still rational in this Country thank God).

Let's hope that this and future Governments in Israel restrain themselves from attacking their neighbors including Lebanon.

It's sad but true that in a western-like country like Israel, Governments are unpopullar when they're seen as weak on war -which is the case of the Lebanon bombings - when people should be angry at the fact that 800 or more Lebanese were killed for any reason. Sure, they wanted more Hezbollah fighters killed, not civilians, but would that solve anything? And is there a way to start a war and not kill inocent civilians? Of course not.

Bush was popular when it seemed like the war in Iraq was easy. Now he is unpopular as ever because people realised - a few year late, but sill they realised- that war is never easy. For sure not in the Middle East.

Is it too difficult to realize that democratic countries such as the US or Israel are not supposed to start wars??

That was what Hitler did, and here we are trying to prevent other supposed Hitlers from starting war, so we start it ourselves?? Isn't that contradictory, to say the least?


---------


Israeli police storm UK embassy, capture Palestinian
POSTED: 5:42 p.m. EDT, August 31, 2006

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israeli police commandos stormed the British Embassy late Thursday and captured a Palestinian man holed up inside. There were no reports of injuries.

The man had burst into the embassy several hours earlier, demanding political asylum.

After capturing the man, Israeli police said he was wielding a plastic gun. Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld earlier had said the man was armed with a pistol.

The Death Penalty does not apply to Marines...

Why am I not surprised that in a country where most States eagerly aplly the death penalty, a Marine charged with killing an Iraqi civilian won't be charged?

I could tell from the way the American media reports the war in Iraq that American lives are valued way over those of Iraqis, since the permanent killing of the latter - might be 50 or more per day - is reported as the figure of inflation from last month. But the killing, or even the kidnapping, of one American will make news for a long time - unless their soldiers, because talking about their deaths is not convenient for the quasi-fascist Government of Bush.

This is just the confirmation that it is ok for soldiers to kill Iraqis - and the same for Afghanis or people living in other countries occupied by the USA. If I was a soldier and found out about this case I'd think: "We're safe. It's ok if we mess up and kills some 'evil' guys -this is the usual american manicheist way of thinking unfortunately - because we dont' get charged with the death penalty "(like most Americans that are charged with killing a fellow citizen).

I would never expect otherwise since the States have not joined the International Criminal Court - and for sure will not join as long as they want to be the only World Superpower (that's an euphemism for the only Imperialist power). Bush claims they are spreading democracy and freedom - and some 30% of Americans still believe he's doing that in Iraq (it's low but should still be lower)- but the freedom he cherrishs more is that of the US Army to do whatever they want without being possible for anyone to put them on trial for murder or crimes against humanity. Sad, sad, sad.


Marine charged in Iraqi death won't face death penalty
POSTED: 10:15 p.m. EDT, August 30, 2006

CAMP PENDLETON, California (CNN) -- The government will not seek the death penalty against one of eight servicemen charged with the shooting death of an Iraqi civilian in April, a military prosecutor said Wednesday.

Lt. Col. John Baker made the announcement during a hearing for Pfc. John J. Jodka III, 20, one of seven Marines and a Navy corpsman facing charges in the case.

"The recommendation of the prosecution team is that a capital referral not be sought in this case. It is our position that a capital referral is not appropriate," Baker said.

The race for the Senate is on in New York

Even with Lieberman's loss, I'd say it will be pretty tough for Jonathan Tassini to win Hillary Clinton's seat. Specially when the first has $100,000 in donations and the second $22 Million.

Still, New Yorkers should take some time to ckeck out his ideas

http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/

which include withdrawal of troops form Iraq, Medicare for all, opposing the death penalty and promoting President Bush's impeachment,

and compare to Clinton's

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

which are considerably more 'moderate' let's say.

Mixing politics with terror and stirring up fear - Cheney's prefered recipe

In a conference call with reporters Wednesday night, Cheney implied that US Senator Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) loss to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont was a victory for "al Qaeda types."
????????????????????

Fortunately, Democrats are speaking out: '"I don't take anything he says seriously anymore," Senator Clinton said when asked about Cheney at a later campaign stop'. What Hillary Clinton should say is that the VP is a complete looney!

How is it possible that in this country, the person who is in a position of becoming President if the actual one dies, can do such statements and walk away with them??

The GOP will use anything to stir up people's fears, mixing terror with Iraq, with partisan politics.

How the hell taking people accountable for approving the war in Iraq is related to fighting off terror atacks in the States? I'm hoping the American People is not mislead so easily, but since the 04 election i don't know what to think anymore.

The diversion of troops, along with the immense spending, and the instability in the Middle East generated by the war in Iraq, has made this country more vulnerable, not less to attacks of all sorts. If attacks like the one being planned in the UK were stopped that's due to inteligence in Pakistan and the UK that allowed for it to be discovered. That's the way to go. (That does not mean the President needs to have the power to listen to every conversation from and to the US, which is completely useless) Military action has no purpose as anti-terrorism strategy. To have Intelligence Agencies and the Pollice in control and stop a terrorist attack a few weeks before it happens, like 2 days ago in the UK, is a risk and generates panic for a while, but it's the only way to make sure we're going after those who really are planning something, and not someone at random.

The fact that we are now hearing more frequently the discovery of activities being planned to attack the USA or Canada or the UK shows that the situation in the Middle East, first in Iraq and now also in Lebanon, only motivates these desperate young men to attack those they see as responsible for all the chaos there - and unfortunately they are motivated for that by extremist religious leaders in the Islamic World.

Cease fire... or maybe not yet

Yesterday night the Security Council of the UN approved a Declaration for a cease-fire in Lebanon, which is supposed to be backed by the 2 countries involved, as weel as by Hezbollah leader, as he has just announced, even if 'with reservations' according to CNN. At the same time, Israel is intensifying its operations in South Lebanon, multiplying by 3 the number of troops stationed there.

Top Israel's General (Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz) has said "The fact that a U.N. resolution was accepted yesterday doesn't apply immediately on the cease-fire arrangement" . Nasrallah also admitted 'we are still in a war'

What will this Resolution achieve then?
Israel will keep its ofensive as long as it deems it necessary to protect its people, while Hezbollah will keep firing rockets as long as there are Israeli troops in Lebanon.

So, how will this stop? Will the UN troops be able to stop the attacks?
Does not seem likely at all, since they were not authorized the use of force by the Security Council since Lebanon did not agree. What should happen is that Israel troops should stop the attacks so the Lebanese army can take control of the south of the country. If Israelis don't stop then Hezbollah won't step down from its positions.

Besides the risk that the UN Resolution might not be taken seriously, the fact that it took 1 month for an agreement to be achieved sent a terrible message - go on, keep killing each other!... Who is to blame for that? Only 1 person, President George W. Bush! He wouldn't ask for a cease fire before because he wanted conditions for lasting peace and he claimed Israel had the right to disarm Hezbollah - by the same logic, Palestinians would have the right to disarm the state of Israel since Israel has kidnapped not just 2 soldiers like Hezbollah did, but a big part of the Palestinian Cabinet!!

Have any of those two things been achieved?
About lasting peace, there's no comment, it's obvious that a month of killing of both Lebanese and Israeli civilians only sparks more hate in the region.
About disarming Hezbollah, it's also obvious it won't be achieved since the last month, the Israel army has moved little to nothing inside Lebanon - they claimed in the beggining that 2 weeks would be enough to control the 'Enemy'- and Hezbollah keeps firing over 100 rockets a day.

As so many times before, war is serving no purpose at all.

If the UN Resolutions are enforced, the Lebanese Army should get control over the south, and Hezbollah would move their soldiers out of the border area. That would be an achievement for Israel. But couldn't this be achieved by negotiations? Was it necessary to bomb Beirut, Tyr and so many other Lebanese cities?

Lieberman lost Democrat nomination, wins White House support...

'Karl Rove, a close advisor to the President, has expressed interest in assisting Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in retaining his seat, despite a loss in the Democratic Primary last night, ABC News has reported.'
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/REport_Karl_Rove_offered_President_Bushs_0809.html

Yesterday Lieberman lost the Democratic Primary in Connecticut. Today he has President Bush backing him for his election bid to the Senate as Independent! Isn't this enough proof that Lieberman did not stand for Democratic voters in the Senate?

Now it looks like the Conneticut Democrats will split between their official candidate, Ned Lamont, and Lieberman, who will benefit from a likely dropout of the GOP candidate. In the end he might keep his seat, but this sure is a sign that Democratic national leaders have to start showing they are truly opposed to the Bush White House.

Of course the reaction of the GOP was to paint the Democratic Party as 'extreme leftists', as they do every time they can, as so to scare voters. I am preety sure this strategy will not have any effect, as we will hopefully confirm next November.

"It's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they're going to come after you." (Tony Snow)

Well Mr Snow, it was not the leaders but else the voters that have shown they will come after whoever agrees with the President on such things such as staying in Iraq indefenitely. That's what the Democratic Party needs to do in order to win the elections of 06 and 08! Bipartisanship talk was great for the GOP because people thought all along that Democratics didn't know what do to differently.

Please starting saying what's the difference for once!

For now, the fact that the Democratic leadership, starting with Hillary Clinton (also facing a though challenger in NY, but will still win easily) is backing Lamont is a sign that they are learning the lesson from yesterday's primary.

30 percent of Americans don't know which year 9/11 happenned... Excuse me, say again?

from rawstory.com

Some 30 percent of Americans cannot say in what year the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington took place, according to a poll published in the Washington Post newspaper.

While the country is preparing to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the attacks that claimed nearly 3,000 lives and shocked the world, 95 percent of Americans questioned in the poll were able to remember the month and the day of the attacks, according to Wednesday's edition of the newspaper.

But when asked what year, 30 percent could not give a correct answer.

Of that group, six percent gave an earlier year, eight percent gave a later year, and 16 percent admitted they had no idea whatsoever.

All in one boat

Just face it! We are all in one boat, that is to say, in only ONE WORLD!! That's all there is!

If we screw up this Earth, it's done. No more Men or Women in the entire Universe.

Let's stop for a minute and think about this.

I chose this name for my Blog as I was watching 'World Trade Center', the Oliver Stone movie about 2 Porth Authority cops that were inside one of the towers when it collapsed on September 11, 2001.

As I was watching it, I realised that people living in Beirut or Haifa at the exact same moment might have had their building collapsed just like the WTC did on 9/11. And what for?

We're all in the same boat, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists. We're all together here on Earth and there's only one Planet for all of us. The only two choices are to get along with eachother, or else blow up eachother until everybody's gone. Which one will it be?


PS- One photo is from 'Ground Zero', NYC. The other could be called 'Ground Zero', Beirut