Hezbollah: Barbarous terrorists?: "When the police van arrived and the six who were to die stepped out, a tremendous and awful cry arose from the crowd. The six young men walked firmly to the iron posts, and as their hands were tied behind the shafts they held their bare heads upright, one or two with closed eyes, the others staring over the line of the buildings and the crowd into the lowering clouds . . . There was the jarring, metallic noise of rifle bolts and then the sharp report. The six young men slid slowly to their knees, their heads falling to one side. An officer ran with frantic haste from one to the other, giving the coup de grâce with a revolver, and one of the victims was seen to work his mouth as though trying to say something to the executioner. As the last shot was fired, the terrible, savage cry rose again from the crowd. Mothers with babies rushed forward to look on the bodies at close range, and small boys ran from one to the other spitting upon the bodies. The crowd dispersed, men and women laughing and shouting at one another. Barbarous?"

"Barak abandoned Lebanon two months ahead of schedule, suddenly and without advance warning, on 23 May 2000. His SLA clients and other Lebanese who had worked for the occupation over the previous 22 years were caught off guard. A few escaped into Israel, but most remained. UN personnel made urgent appeals for help to avert a massacre by Hizbullah. Hizbullah went in, but nothing happened.

"‘It is no secret that some young combatants, as well as some of the region’s citizens, had a desire for vengeance – especially those who were aware of what collaborators and their families had inflicted on the mujahedin and their next of kin across the occupied villages,’ Qassem wrote in Hizbullah: The Story from Within. ‘Resistance leadership issued a strict warning forbidding any such action and vowing to discipline those who took it whatever the justifications.’ Hizbullah captured Israeli weapons, which it is now using against Israel, and turned over SLA militiamen to the government without murdering any of them. Barbarous?"

"Naim Qassem called the liberation of south Lebanon ‘the grandest and most important victory over Israel since it commenced its occupation [of Palestine] fifty years before – a liberation that was achieved at the hands of the weakest of nations, of a resistance operating through the most modest of means, not at the hands of armies with powerful military arsenals.’ But what impressed most Lebanese as much as Hizbullah’s victory over Israel was its refusal to murder collaborators – a triumph over the tribalism that has plagued and divided Lebanese society since its founding. Christians I knew in the Lebanese army admitted that their own side would have committed atrocities."

Hezbollah: Barbarous terrorists?: "When the police van arrived and the six who were to die stepped out, a tremendous and awful cry arose from the crowd. The six young men walked firmly to the iron posts, and as their hands were tied behind the shafts they held their bare heads upright, one or two with closed eyes, the others staring over the line of the buildings and the crowd into the lowering clouds . . . There was the jarring, metallic noise of rifle bolts and then the sharp report. The six young men slid slowly to their knees, their heads falling to one side. An officer ran with frantic haste from one to the other, giving the coup de grâce with a revolver, and one of the victims was seen to work his mouth as though trying to say something to the executioner. As the last shot was fired, the terrible, savage cry rose again from the crowd. Mothers with babies rushed forward to look on the bodies at close range, and small boys ran from one to the other spitting upon the bodies. The crowd dispersed, men and women laughing and shouting at one another. Barbarous?"

"Barak abandoned Lebanon two months ahead of schedule, suddenly and without advance warning, on 23 May 2000. His SLA clients and other Lebanese who had worked for the occupation over the previous 22 years were caught off guard. A few escaped into Israel, but most remained. UN personnel made urgent appeals for help to avert a massacre by Hizbullah. Hizbullah went in, but nothing happened.

"‘It is no secret that some young combatants, as well as some of the region’s citizens, had a desire for vengeance – especially those who were aware of what collaborators and their families had inflicted on the mujahedin and their next of kin across the occupied villages,’ Qassem wrote in Hizbullah: The Story from Within. ‘Resistance leadership issued a strict warning forbidding any such action and vowing to discipline those who took it whatever the justifications.’ Hizbullah captured Israeli weapons, which it is now using against Israel, and turned over SLA militiamen to the government without murdering any of them. Barbarous?"

"Naim Qassem called the liberation of south Lebanon ‘the grandest and most important victory over Israel since it commenced its occupation [of Palestine] fifty years before – a liberation that was achieved at the hands of the weakest of nations, of a resistance operating through the most modest of means, not at the hands of armies with powerful military arsenals.’ But what impressed most Lebanese as much as Hizbullah’s victory over Israel was its refusal to murder collaborators – a triumph over the tribalism that has plagued and divided Lebanese society since its founding. Christians I knew in the Lebanese army admitted that their own side would have committed atrocities."

Jon Benet Ramsay and Abeer al-Janabi: "Overseas readers who don't watch US-based cable news may not know that there is a news blackout on the 24 hours news stations, which have shown endless hours of useless speculation on a ten year old small town murder case. Why the cable news channels in the US behave in this stupid and lemming-like fashion no doubt has to do with the severe discipline of the advertising market and its dependence on ratings. I.e., news has to generate 20 percent profits, which it cannot do, and so lurid infotainment is substituted. It is also possible that they are deliberately attempting to turn American gray matter into mush so as to ensure that nobody on this continent notices what is really going on around them."

"But although I mind this pollution of the air waves with something that is not, whatever it is, news, the main thing I mind is the racism.

"The case of Abeer al-Janabi, the little fourteen-year old Iraqi girl who was allegedly raped and killed after being stalked by a US serviceman would never be given the wall to wall coverage treatment. That is frankly because the victim was not a blonde, blue-eyed American, but a black-eyed, brunette Iraqi."

Jon Benet Ramsay and Abeer al-Janabi: "Overseas readers who don't watch US-based cable news may not know that there is a news blackout on the 24 hours news stations, which have shown endless hours of useless speculation on a ten year old small town murder case. Why the cable news channels in the US behave in this stupid and lemming-like fashion no doubt has to do with the severe discipline of the advertising market and its dependence on ratings. I.e., news has to generate 20 percent profits, which it cannot do, and so lurid infotainment is substituted. It is also possible that they are deliberately attempting to turn American gray matter into mush so as to ensure that nobody on this continent notices what is really going on around them."

"But although I mind this pollution of the air waves with something that is not, whatever it is, news, the main thing I mind is the racism.

"The case of Abeer al-Janabi, the little fourteen-year old Iraqi girl who was allegedly raped and killed after being stalked by a US serviceman would never be given the wall to wall coverage treatment. That is frankly because the victim was not a blonde, blue-eyed American, but a black-eyed, brunette Iraqi."

The view from the Gulf: The US cannot lead the world anymore: "The Israeli war against Lebanon has destroyed the last vestige of honour that the US could use to justify its hegemony."

"It acted in favour of the aggressor leaving the victim to face its deadly fate. Who can trust the US not to repeat the same scenario on a larger scale? The facts that have emerged in the current war should prompt the world to unite in its search for a different system in order to stop the irresponsible management of world crises that threaten to destroy human civilisation.

"The conclusion from the four-week-old war against Lebanon is that the US would have defended the Lebanese had Syria assaulted them, but Israel can create havoc in the country and destroy the nation with full backing from the US. This morally ill and unjust attitude by a superpower should have no place in the world of the 21st century."

"No one can believe how the US administration has inflicted such a degree of damage to its own image while claiming to work on winning the hearts and minds of people in the region. The damage that has wrecked the US image around the world by way of the US administration is more damaging than the work of any of its enemies or the efforts invested by all of its enemies."

"Apart from crippling the United Nations Security Council from making what has been always an obvious and automatic choice against conflicts in the world (an immediate ceasefire) the US has supplied Israel with all its military needs to kill children and women.

"The Qana and Al Qaa massacres were just examples of how precise and intelligent the war machine of the US in Israelis hands can be. This happened in front of TV cameras and was transmitted live all over the world.

"In addition to helping the defence forces, the US administration has also decided to give the aggressor ample time to finish the job and prevented any political solution to the crisis."

"The US could have supplied Israel with the weapons and the intelligence it needed while allowing the Security Council to call for a ceasefire."

This is a good point. The Bush Administration's arrogance and hubris leads it to neglect diplomacy and appearances, devastating the credibility of the US in the process. In one sense this is a good thing in that the 'veil has been removed'.

An example of this was when an Israeli minister announced publicly at a certain point that the US had 'given Israel a green light.' If the US knew what it was about, it would have jumped hard on this statement and said publicly it wanted a ceasefire. The US could also have publicly supported a ceasefire but privately assured Israel it could continue with the attack and secretly resupplied the IDF with depleted bombs and fuel. Naturally all the odium of conducting the war and being in defiance of the 'international community' would attach even more so to Israel, but as Israel is a client state, the US could hardly mind that and even prefer it if the US can maintain an image as an 'honest broker'. But Bush, Cheney and the neocons are too arrogant and perhaps too stupid to practice this kind of duplicity of which previous US administrations have been past masters.

"The world is going through times similar to those that resulted in the dissolving of the League of Nations (1919-1945) because of its failure to stop the Second World War."

"The world's major powers other than the US, including the EU, Russia, China, Japan and Canada should sit and discuss the security in the world and how war crimes have actually surged since the US launched its war against terrorism. The rational world's leaders must come up with a better formula to manage human societies instead of leaving them at the mercy of the US and its Jezebel state of Israel."

This is exactly what is needed to try and rescue the United Nations and International Law, but by definition it involves a sustained confrontation with the US, which none of the powers have an appetite for. Nevertheless the citizens of the world must clamour that their governments act.

The view from the Gulf: The US cannot lead the world anymore: "The Israeli war against Lebanon has destroyed the last vestige of honour that the US could use to justify its hegemony."

"It acted in favour of the aggressor leaving the victim to face its deadly fate. Who can trust the US not to repeat the same scenario on a larger scale? The facts that have emerged in the current war should prompt the world to unite in its search for a different system in order to stop the irresponsible management of world crises that threaten to destroy human civilisation.

"The conclusion from the four-week-old war against Lebanon is that the US would have defended the Lebanese had Syria assaulted them, but Israel can create havoc in the country and destroy the nation with full backing from the US. This morally ill and unjust attitude by a superpower should have no place in the world of the 21st century."

"No one can believe how the US administration has inflicted such a degree of damage to its own image while claiming to work on winning the hearts and minds of people in the region. The damage that has wrecked the US image around the world by way of the US administration is more damaging than the work of any of its enemies or the efforts invested by all of its enemies."

"Apart from crippling the United Nations Security Council from making what has been always an obvious and automatic choice against conflicts in the world (an immediate ceasefire) the US has supplied Israel with all its military needs to kill children and women.

"The Qana and Al Qaa massacres were just examples of how precise and intelligent the war machine of the US in Israelis hands can be. This happened in front of TV cameras and was transmitted live all over the world.

"In addition to helping the defence forces, the US administration has also decided to give the aggressor ample time to finish the job and prevented any political solution to the crisis."

"The US could have supplied Israel with the weapons and the intelligence it needed while allowing the Security Council to call for a ceasefire."

This is a good point. The Bush Administration's arrogance and hubris leads it to neglect diplomacy and appearances, devastating the credibility of the US in the process. In one sense this is a good thing in that the 'veil has been removed'.

An example of this was when an Israeli minister announced publicly at a certain point that the US had 'given Israel a green light.' If the US knew what it was about, it would have jumped hard on this statement and said publicly it wanted a ceasefire. The US could also have publicly supported a ceasefire but privately assured Israel it could continue with the attack and secretly resupplied the IDF with depleted bombs and fuel. Naturally all the odium of conducting the war and being in defiance of the 'international community' would attach even more so to Israel, but as Israel is a client state, the US could hardly mind that and even prefer it if the US can maintain an image as an 'honest broker'. But Bush, Cheney and the neocons are too arrogant and perhaps too stupid to practice this kind of duplicity of which previous US administrations have been past masters.

"The world is going through times similar to those that resulted in the dissolving of the League of Nations (1919-1945) because of its failure to stop the Second World War."

"The world's major powers other than the US, including the EU, Russia, China, Japan and Canada should sit and discuss the security in the world and how war crimes have actually surged since the US launched its war against terrorism. The rational world's leaders must come up with a better formula to manage human societies instead of leaving them at the mercy of the US and its Jezebel state of Israel."

This is exactly what is needed to try and rescue the United Nations and International Law, but by definition it involves a sustained confrontation with the US, which none of the powers have an appetite for. Nevertheless the citizens of the world must clamour that their governments act.

Larry Johnson: Uncomfortable Truths about Israel: "We are faced with the spectacle of Hizbullah acting with statesmanship and restraint while the Israelis destroy their credibility among the international community."

One commenter links to 'Jews against Zionism', who maintain that Zionism is contrary to Judaism (this contrasts with Shahak's view that Zionism is a revival of Medieval Judaism). Shahak would probably argue this is a 'revisionist' version of what Judaism really was. Regardless of whether it is more accurately designated 'authentic' or 'reformed' Judaism, obviously it is superior to chauvinist forms.

There is some harsh criticism of the anti-semitism and nazi collaboration of some Zionists. The true and full story of this has probably never been told.

Larry Johnson: Uncomfortable Truths about Israel: "We are faced with the spectacle of Hizbullah acting with statesmanship and restraint while the Israelis destroy their credibility among the international community."

One commenter links to 'Jews against Zionism', who maintain that Zionism is contrary to Judaism (this contrasts with Shahak's view that Zionism is a revival of Medieval Judaism). Shahak would probably argue this is a 'revisionist' version of what Judaism really was. Regardless of whether it is more accurately designated 'authentic' or 'reformed' Judaism, obviously it is superior to chauvinist forms.

There is some harsh criticism of the anti-semitism and nazi collaboration of some Zionists. The true and full story of this has probably never been told.

Jonathon Wallace article on Israel: The perspective of an American jew who can see what is happening. It's odd that so many, a majority presumably, cannot.

Jonathon Wallace article on Israel: The perspective of an American jew who can see what is happening. It's odd that so many, a majority presumably, cannot.

7 Facts You Might Not Know about the Iraq War: Michael Schwarz summarises (with links) the disastrous state of Iraq. As Chomsky says, the US has created an unparalleled disaster in that country.

7 Facts You Might Not Know about the Iraq War: Michael Schwarz summarises (with links) the disastrous state of Iraq. As Chomsky says, the US has created an unparalleled disaster in that country.

Levy: What the right has to offer: "The Israeli right has no solutions. For the long term, there are only two real possibilities: transfer, or an end to the occupation."

"Returning territory as part of an agreement is not acceptable to the right. Annexing the territories is not an option because even the right realizes that means the state becomes binational, which the right does not want. What remains? To wait. For what exactly? For the Palestinians to be a majority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River? And then what? The Arab countries equip themselves with more advanced weaponry and ultimately with nuclear bombs? And then what?"

"There is no Israeli consensus about what to do about that except for continuing to arm, which is nothing more than a false formula, as the latest war proved.

"Time only increases the dangers faced by Israel, which is walking down the rightist path to an abyss. In effect, it has never really tried any other path. It has never tried to truly end the occupation. The Oslo Accords were never properly implemented, and in any case, were not enough to end the occupation; Ehud Barak offered what he offered, but never actually implemented anything; the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, while continuing to keep it under siege, did not end its occupation."

"It is amazing to see how a failed and dangerous approach, which only makes things worse for Israel, wins increasing popularity after a war that proved just how ineffective that approach has become."

It is amazing, and depressing, how a right wing approach of violence and authoritarianism can always muster so much support, while a left wing approach of peace and justice is so much marginalised.

Levy: What the right has to offer: "The Israeli right has no solutions. For the long term, there are only two real possibilities: transfer, or an end to the occupation."

"Returning territory as part of an agreement is not acceptable to the right. Annexing the territories is not an option because even the right realizes that means the state becomes binational, which the right does not want. What remains? To wait. For what exactly? For the Palestinians to be a majority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River? And then what? The Arab countries equip themselves with more advanced weaponry and ultimately with nuclear bombs? And then what?"

"There is no Israeli consensus about what to do about that except for continuing to arm, which is nothing more than a false formula, as the latest war proved.

"Time only increases the dangers faced by Israel, which is walking down the rightist path to an abyss. In effect, it has never really tried any other path. It has never tried to truly end the occupation. The Oslo Accords were never properly implemented, and in any case, were not enough to end the occupation; Ehud Barak offered what he offered, but never actually implemented anything; the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, while continuing to keep it under siege, did not end its occupation."

"It is amazing to see how a failed and dangerous approach, which only makes things worse for Israel, wins increasing popularity after a war that proved just how ineffective that approach has become."

It is amazing, and depressing, how a right wing approach of violence and authoritarianism can always muster so much support, while a left wing approach of peace and justice is so much marginalised.

Evangelical Michael Gerson on Bush's 'Noble Cause' - war with Iran: "As long as the Middle East remains a bitter and backward mess, America will not be secure....[the vision is of] a reformed Middle East that joins the world instead of resenting and assaulting it."

This sort of stuff would make more sense if the terms were reversed: "As long as America remains a bitter and backward mess, the Middle East will not be secure... [the vision is of] a reformed America that joins the world instead of resenting and assaulting it."

Evangelical Michael Gerson on Bush's 'Noble Cause' - war with Iran: "As long as the Middle East remains a bitter and backward mess, America will not be secure....[the vision is of] a reformed Middle East that joins the world instead of resenting and assaulting it."

This sort of stuff would make more sense if the terms were reversed: "As long as America remains a bitter and backward mess, the Middle East will not be secure... [the vision is of] a reformed America that joins the world instead of resenting and assaulting it."

Housing crash puts sellers in debt crisis: "A THREE-BEDROOM brick-veneer house in St Clair sold for just $260,000 at the weekend - down about 42 per cent from its last sale at $450,000 in 2003 in a further sign of the depressed state of the Sydney property market.

"Only one person bid on the house in the city's west. The mortgagee sale was forced after the owners could not meet the interest payments on the $405,000 they borrowed to buy the house at the peak of the market.

"Auction clearance rates are hovering around 48 per cent since the recent interest rate rise, but plummeting property prices have meant many vendors are confronting negative equity, where they owe more on the property than it is worth. The Herald checked 16 properties in south-western and western suburbs listed at the weekend and found 60 per cent had prices or had attracted offers at a discount to their last sale price."

"Increasing petrol prices appear to be compounding the impact of repeated interest rate rises on properties in Sydney's outlying suburbs by driving prices down. Lethbridge Park, near Penrith, recorded the second highest fall, when a townhouse that sold for $257,000 in 2003 was resold by mortgagees for $156,500, reflecting a roughly 40 per cent fall.

"At Heckenberg, a four-bedroom house that sold for $330,000 in 2003 resold at $255,000 in another mortgagee sale. Four of the seven registered buyers put in bids before the Adaminaby Street house sold at an approximate 22 per cent discount to the property-boom price. "There are some people around Liverpool who think that prices have further to fall, but I couldn't imagine this type of house will fetch less in six months' time," said its selling agent, Ray Dimarco."

"At Parramatta, mortagees accepted $541,500 for an unrenovated house that fetched $736,000 in 2003 when it was sold as a deceased estate. The bank lent $580,000 on its 2003 sale. Even the inner-suburban areas are showing signs of depressed prices. In Lilyfield a four-bedroom house on 607 square metres last sold at $1,355,000 unrenovated in boom-time 2003 It attracted a $1,179,000 top bid after its recent renovation by its owner-builder. Two registered bidders competed at the on-site auction but the property was passed in well short of the owner's expectations. The freestanding house now has a $1.35 million asking price.

"Given it has been 16 years since the last recession, long-time estate agents fear the fate of a generation of owners who had not experienced having a loan when times were tough. Mr Beatty said: "There was a wave of people punting on the expectation of constant price rises until well into 2004, even after the three interest rate rises of late 2003. There has been significant price deflation and many now have negative equity in their homes.

""There are some sad stories. But we have to show the sellers the comparable sales and say honestly this is where the market is realistically at.""

Its begun. That's a crash, not a downturn. No one is going to sell in this market, except those that are forced. The peak of land values has come a couple of years too early according to the Georg/Hoyt/Harrison 18-year cycle, but it looks very much like a classic land boom and bust, of the kind we've been having in Australia since 1836.

Housing crash puts sellers in debt crisis: "A THREE-BEDROOM brick-veneer house in St Clair sold for just $260,000 at the weekend - down about 42 per cent from its last sale at $450,000 in 2003 in a further sign of the depressed state of the Sydney property market.

"Only one person bid on the house in the city's west. The mortgagee sale was forced after the owners could not meet the interest payments on the $405,000 they borrowed to buy the house at the peak of the market.

"Auction clearance rates are hovering around 48 per cent since the recent interest rate rise, but plummeting property prices have meant many vendors are confronting negative equity, where they owe more on the property than it is worth. The Herald checked 16 properties in south-western and western suburbs listed at the weekend and found 60 per cent had prices or had attracted offers at a discount to their last sale price."

"Increasing petrol prices appear to be compounding the impact of repeated interest rate rises on properties in Sydney's outlying suburbs by driving prices down. Lethbridge Park, near Penrith, recorded the second highest fall, when a townhouse that sold for $257,000 in 2003 was resold by mortgagees for $156,500, reflecting a roughly 40 per cent fall.

"At Heckenberg, a four-bedroom house that sold for $330,000 in 2003 resold at $255,000 in another mortgagee sale. Four of the seven registered buyers put in bids before the Adaminaby Street house sold at an approximate 22 per cent discount to the property-boom price. "There are some people around Liverpool who think that prices have further to fall, but I couldn't imagine this type of house will fetch less in six months' time," said its selling agent, Ray Dimarco."

"At Parramatta, mortagees accepted $541,500 for an unrenovated house that fetched $736,000 in 2003 when it was sold as a deceased estate. The bank lent $580,000 on its 2003 sale. Even the inner-suburban areas are showing signs of depressed prices. In Lilyfield a four-bedroom house on 607 square metres last sold at $1,355,000 unrenovated in boom-time 2003 It attracted a $1,179,000 top bid after its recent renovation by its owner-builder. Two registered bidders competed at the on-site auction but the property was passed in well short of the owner's expectations. The freestanding house now has a $1.35 million asking price.

"Given it has been 16 years since the last recession, long-time estate agents fear the fate of a generation of owners who had not experienced having a loan when times were tough. Mr Beatty said: "There was a wave of people punting on the expectation of constant price rises until well into 2004, even after the three interest rate rises of late 2003. There has been significant price deflation and many now have negative equity in their homes.

""There are some sad stories. But we have to show the sellers the comparable sales and say honestly this is where the market is realistically at.""

Its begun. That's a crash, not a downturn. No one is going to sell in this market, except those that are forced. The peak of land values has come a couple of years too early according to the Georg/Hoyt/Harrison 18-year cycle, but it looks very much like a classic land boom and bust, of the kind we've been having in Australia since 1836.

Badtux the Snarky Penguin: Israel as a concentration camp for Jews: This thesis ties in to some extent with Shahak's view that Zionism is an attempt to re-impose the ghetto on the jewish population.

Badtux the Snarky Penguin: Israel as a concentration camp for Jews: This thesis ties in to some extent with Shahak's view that Zionism is an attempt to re-impose the ghetto on the jewish population.

SPI Died for Your Sins Essay on the glory days and curious disappearance of 'wargaming.' "Strategy and Tactics" considered the highpoint.

SPI Died for Your Sins Essay on the glory days and curious disappearance of 'wargaming.' "Strategy and Tactics" considered the highpoint.

Armed and Dangerous: Eric Raymond is some kind of identity in the 'open source' movement, but he is also a completely deranged fascist/imperialist. Take the following for example:

"I am irresistibly reminded of a piece of cynical wisdom from the mouth of the mad Roman emperor Caligula, born of experience in dealing with the barbarians of his day: Oderint, dum metuant: “Let them hate, so long as they fear”."

A famous quote indeed, practically the essence of fascist imperialism, of which the Romans were the one true and only. One wonders why he would want to quote it, however. What next? Is Raymond going to express a desire that thousands of 'Islamofascists' be crucified along Pennsylvania Avenue?

More Raymond:

"Maybe you think you can intimidate me, or that threats like this will stop other bloggers from speaking the truth about your barbaric mass-murdering death-cult. Well, screw you and the camel you rode in. I will not be silenced, and we will not be silenced. All you do with terroristic threats is to demonstrate your evil nature, confirm our resolve to resist you, and speed the day when your diseased ideology will be wiped from the face of the Earth."

This is a guy that needs to sign up. There's plenty of 'cultists' to kill over there in Iraq, sorry Lebanon, sorry Iran.

Armed and Dangerous: Eric Raymond is some kind of identity in the 'open source' movement, but he is also a completely deranged fascist/imperialist. Take the following for example:

"I am irresistibly reminded of a piece of cynical wisdom from the mouth of the mad Roman emperor Caligula, born of experience in dealing with the barbarians of his day: Oderint, dum metuant: “Let them hate, so long as they fear”."

A famous quote indeed, practically the essence of fascist imperialism, of which the Romans were the one true and only. One wonders why he would want to quote it, however. What next? Is Raymond going to express a desire that thousands of 'Islamofascists' be crucified along Pennsylvania Avenue?

More Raymond:

"Maybe you think you can intimidate me, or that threats like this will stop other bloggers from speaking the truth about your barbaric mass-murdering death-cult. Well, screw you and the camel you rode in. I will not be silenced, and we will not be silenced. All you do with terroristic threats is to demonstrate your evil nature, confirm our resolve to resist you, and speed the day when your diseased ideology will be wiped from the face of the Earth."

This is a guy that needs to sign up. There's plenty of 'cultists' to kill over there in Iraq, sorry Lebanon, sorry Iran.

Cthulhu Can Eat Me: Scott Westerfeld makes a strong argument that Pluto is in fact not a planet and will have to be correspondingly demoted. Cthulhu however will get his revenge...

Cthulhu Can Eat Me: Scott Westerfeld makes a strong argument that Pluto is in fact not a planet and will have to be correspondingly demoted. Cthulhu however will get his revenge...

How Washington Goaded Israel to Invade Lebanon: Stephen Zunes argues the war on Lebanon was thoroughly planned in advance by Israel in conjunction with the US. Bush even reportedly pushed Israel to expand the war and attack Syria, but that was too much for the Israelis who said 'nuts'. The Israeli defeat is thus a disaster for the US as well as Israel. US policy in the Middle East is badly foundering. The most feared outcome, a Shiite crescent from Iran to Lebanon, hostile to the US, looks more and more likely.

"Not only have a growing number of Israelis acknowledged that the war has been a disaster for Israel, there is growing recognition of U.S. responsibility for getting them into that mess. A July 23 article in Haaretz about an anti-war demonstration in Tel Aviv noted how “this was a distinctly anti-American protest” that included “chants of ‘We will not die and kill in the service of the United States,’ and slogans condemning President George W. Bush.”"

"One of the more unsettling aspects of the broad support in Washington for the use of Israel as U.S. proxy in the Middle East is how closely it corresponds to historic anti-Semitism. In past centuries, the ruling elite of European countries would, in return for granting limited religious and cultural autonomy, established certain individuals in the Jewish community as the visible agents of the oppressive social order, such as tax collectors and moneylenders. When the population threatened to rise up against the ruling elite, the rulers could then blame the Jews, channeling the wrath of an exploited people against convenient scapegoats. The resulting pogroms and waves of repression took place throughout the Jewish Diaspora."

This summarises the argument of Shahak in his book 'Jewish Religion'. Zionism and Israel have put millions of Jews in a dangerous position as Imperialist agents, hated by the masses. Its a tragic irony that this should be repeated. Should the Emperor (Tsar, US) fall, pogroms or even in certain circumstances a Holocaust could be unleashed. And yet Zionists aggressively argue that Israel is in response to the Holocaust and cast as anti-semites anyone who points out the folly and danger of this policy....

How Washington Goaded Israel to Invade Lebanon: Stephen Zunes argues the war on Lebanon was thoroughly planned in advance by Israel in conjunction with the US. Bush even reportedly pushed Israel to expand the war and attack Syria, but that was too much for the Israelis who said 'nuts'. The Israeli defeat is thus a disaster for the US as well as Israel. US policy in the Middle East is badly foundering. The most feared outcome, a Shiite crescent from Iran to Lebanon, hostile to the US, looks more and more likely.

"Not only have a growing number of Israelis acknowledged that the war has been a disaster for Israel, there is growing recognition of U.S. responsibility for getting them into that mess. A July 23 article in Haaretz about an anti-war demonstration in Tel Aviv noted how “this was a distinctly anti-American protest” that included “chants of ‘We will not die and kill in the service of the United States,’ and slogans condemning President George W. Bush.”"

"One of the more unsettling aspects of the broad support in Washington for the use of Israel as U.S. proxy in the Middle East is how closely it corresponds to historic anti-Semitism. In past centuries, the ruling elite of European countries would, in return for granting limited religious and cultural autonomy, established certain individuals in the Jewish community as the visible agents of the oppressive social order, such as tax collectors and moneylenders. When the population threatened to rise up against the ruling elite, the rulers could then blame the Jews, channeling the wrath of an exploited people against convenient scapegoats. The resulting pogroms and waves of repression took place throughout the Jewish Diaspora."

This summarises the argument of Shahak in his book 'Jewish Religion'. Zionism and Israel have put millions of Jews in a dangerous position as Imperialist agents, hated by the masses. Its a tragic irony that this should be repeated. Should the Emperor (Tsar, US) fall, pogroms or even in certain circumstances a Holocaust could be unleashed. And yet Zionists aggressively argue that Israel is in response to the Holocaust and cast as anti-semites anyone who points out the folly and danger of this policy....

Interview with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah: Nasrallah demonstrates his sophistication by appealing, as an Islamist leader, to world socialists for solidarity in the anti-imperialist struggle.

UPDATE: This interview is denounced as a fake.

Interview with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah: Nasrallah demonstrates his sophistication by appealing, as an Islamist leader, to world socialists for solidarity in the anti-imperialist struggle.

UPDATE: This interview is denounced as a fake.

Australia's involvement in Vietnam began with a lie: "The Vietnamese request for assistance was simply contrived."

Not to mention that the Vietnamese 'government' was an Imperialist puppet.

"In the 1960's, a conservative political hegemony existed in this country. And we were led by fools. The Vietnamese War was manipulated by conservative politicians for the best part of a decade to divide and rule."

"The nonsense of the domino theory was holy writ and conservative appeals to fear and xenophobia were rewarded briefly at the ballot box, at the expense of the national interest."

"Serious or critical discussion of what was really occurring in Indochina was often drowned out by allegations that dissenting voices were either "treasonous" or "communist". By all means let's be fair and balanced in the treatment of the nation's history.

"Australian kids deserve nothing less in our schools. But a white blindfold, involving a dismissal of past conservative preparedness to manipulate the bravery of Australian soldiers for short term electoral gain, is no substitute for honest reflection."

Its an unfortunate fact of political life that war is beneficial for the political leadership. The Vietnam war is comparable in so many ways to the Iraq debacle. History should of course be accurately told on this question, and the current line needs to be ruthlessly deconstructed.

Australia's involvement in Vietnam began with a lie: "The Vietnamese request for assistance was simply contrived."

Not to mention that the Vietnamese 'government' was an Imperialist puppet.

"In the 1960's, a conservative political hegemony existed in this country. And we were led by fools. The Vietnamese War was manipulated by conservative politicians for the best part of a decade to divide and rule."

"The nonsense of the domino theory was holy writ and conservative appeals to fear and xenophobia were rewarded briefly at the ballot box, at the expense of the national interest."

"Serious or critical discussion of what was really occurring in Indochina was often drowned out by allegations that dissenting voices were either "treasonous" or "communist". By all means let's be fair and balanced in the treatment of the nation's history.

"Australian kids deserve nothing less in our schools. But a white blindfold, involving a dismissal of past conservative preparedness to manipulate the bravery of Australian soldiers for short term electoral gain, is no substitute for honest reflection."

Its an unfortunate fact of political life that war is beneficial for the political leadership. The Vietnam war is comparable in so many ways to the Iraq debacle. History should of course be accurately told on this question, and the current line needs to be ruthlessly deconstructed.

The Timing is Political: Craig Murray articulates further scepticism over the 'terror bomb plot'. Whilst on the one hand the risk of terrorist attack has been significantly increased by the aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon; at the same time the credibility of the Anglo-saxon governments and their agencies has been destroyed by these aggressions and the lies and false pretexts under which they have been perpetrated. The public can therefore hardly know the true status of these alleged plots.

The Timing is Political: Craig Murray articulates further scepticism over the 'terror bomb plot'. Whilst on the one hand the risk of terrorist attack has been significantly increased by the aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon; at the same time the credibility of the Anglo-saxon governments and their agencies has been destroyed by these aggressions and the lies and false pretexts under which they have been perpetrated. The public can therefore hardly know the true status of these alleged plots.

Lebanon: The 33-Day War and UNSC Resolution 1701: Achcar summarises the goals and outcome of he war: "The Israeli offensive was a total and blatant failure."

Lebanon: The 33-Day War and UNSC Resolution 1701: Achcar summarises the goals and outcome of he war: "The Israeli offensive was a total and blatant failure."

Noam Chomsky on the Lebanon war: "The 'real issue' that is being ignored is the systematic destruction of any prospects for a viable Palestinian existence as Israel annexes valuable land and major resources (water particularly), leaving the shrinking territories assigned to Palestinians as unviable cantons, largely separated from one another and from whatever little bit of Jerusalem is to be left to Palestinians, and completely imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan valley (and of course controls air space, etc.)."

"The paired events, a day apart, demonstrate with bitter clarity that the show of outrage over the Shalit kidnapping was cynical fraud. They reveal that by Western moral standards, kidnapping of civilians is just fine if it is done by "our side," but capture of a soldier on "our side" a day later is a despicable crime that requires severe punishment of the population. As Gideon Levy accurately wrote in Ha'aretz, the IDF kidnapping of civilians the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any "legitimate basis for the IDF's operation," and, we may add, any legitimate basis for support for these operations."

These juxtapositions are characteristic points, but who can deny the validity of them? More Chomsky:

"Virtually all informed observers agree that a fair and equitable resolution of the plight of the Palestinians would considerably weaken the anger and hatred towards Israel and the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Such an agreement is surely within reach, if the US and Israel depart from their long-standing rejectionism. Before they were called off prematurely by Ehud Barak, the Taba negotiations of January 2001 were coming close to a viable settlement, carried forward by subseqnent negotiations, most prominently the Geneva Accord released on December 2002, which received strong international support but was dismissed by the US and rejected by Israel. One can raise various criticisms of these proposals, but they are at least a basis, perhaps a solid basis, for progress towards peaceful settlement ­ if the US and Israel sharply reverse their rejectionist policies."

A political settlement of the Arab-Israeli is still possible, along the lines of the two state solution. But, tragically, Israel appears committed to attempting to wipe this solution out, and annex as much land as possible. This unreconstructed expansionist Zionism will likely ruin the State of Israel in the end.

"In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.

"In June 2006, Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed that Iran would back a two-state solution if the Palestinians accepted" (Financial Times, July 26, 2006). Of course, the PLO has officially backed a two-state solution for many years, and backed the 2002 Arab League proposal. Hamas has also indicated its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement, as is surely well-known in Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of the 2003 proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.

"The US and Israel do not want to hear any of this. They prefer to hear that Iran "is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state" (Jerusalem correspondent Charles Radin, Boston Globe, 2 August), the standard and more convenient story.

"They also do not want to hear that Iran appears to be the only country to have accepted the proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that all weapons-usable fissile materials be placed under international control, a step towards a verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), as mandated by the UN General Assembly in 1993. ElBaradei's proposal, if implemented, would not only end the Iranian nuclear crisis but would also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: the growing threat of nuclear war, which leads prominent strategic analysts to warn of "apocalypse soon" (Robert McNamara) if policies continue on their current course."

"The US and Israel are stirring up popular forces that are very ominous, and which will only gain in power and become more extremist if the US and Israel persist in demolishing any hope of realization of Palestinian national rights, and destroying Lebanon. It should also be recognized that Washington's primary concern, as in the past, is not Israel and Lebanon, but the vast energy resources of the Middle East, recognized 60 years ago to be a "stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history." We can expect, with confidence, that the US will continue to do what it can to control this unparalleled source of strategic power."

As they say, go read the whole thing. This is a particularly good interview. Chomsky has always been very strong on Israel. What a pity Israelis and jews generally seem to take no notice.

Noam Chomsky on the Lebanon war: "The 'real issue' that is being ignored is the systematic destruction of any prospects for a viable Palestinian existence as Israel annexes valuable land and major resources (water particularly), leaving the shrinking territories assigned to Palestinians as unviable cantons, largely separated from one another and from whatever little bit of Jerusalem is to be left to Palestinians, and completely imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan valley (and of course controls air space, etc.)."

"The paired events, a day apart, demonstrate with bitter clarity that the show of outrage over the Shalit kidnapping was cynical fraud. They reveal that by Western moral standards, kidnapping of civilians is just fine if it is done by "our side," but capture of a soldier on "our side" a day later is a despicable crime that requires severe punishment of the population. As Gideon Levy accurately wrote in Ha'aretz, the IDF kidnapping of civilians the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any "legitimate basis for the IDF's operation," and, we may add, any legitimate basis for support for these operations."

These juxtapositions are characteristic points, but who can deny the validity of them? More Chomsky:

"Virtually all informed observers agree that a fair and equitable resolution of the plight of the Palestinians would considerably weaken the anger and hatred towards Israel and the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Such an agreement is surely within reach, if the US and Israel depart from their long-standing rejectionism. Before they were called off prematurely by Ehud Barak, the Taba negotiations of January 2001 were coming close to a viable settlement, carried forward by subseqnent negotiations, most prominently the Geneva Accord released on December 2002, which received strong international support but was dismissed by the US and rejected by Israel. One can raise various criticisms of these proposals, but they are at least a basis, perhaps a solid basis, for progress towards peaceful settlement ­ if the US and Israel sharply reverse their rejectionist policies."

A political settlement of the Arab-Israeli is still possible, along the lines of the two state solution. But, tragically, Israel appears committed to attempting to wipe this solution out, and annex as much land as possible. This unreconstructed expansionist Zionism will likely ruin the State of Israel in the end.

"In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.

"In June 2006, Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed that Iran would back a two-state solution if the Palestinians accepted" (Financial Times, July 26, 2006). Of course, the PLO has officially backed a two-state solution for many years, and backed the 2002 Arab League proposal. Hamas has also indicated its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement, as is surely well-known in Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of the 2003 proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.

"The US and Israel do not want to hear any of this. They prefer to hear that Iran "is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state" (Jerusalem correspondent Charles Radin, Boston Globe, 2 August), the standard and more convenient story.

"They also do not want to hear that Iran appears to be the only country to have accepted the proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that all weapons-usable fissile materials be placed under international control, a step towards a verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), as mandated by the UN General Assembly in 1993. ElBaradei's proposal, if implemented, would not only end the Iranian nuclear crisis but would also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: the growing threat of nuclear war, which leads prominent strategic analysts to warn of "apocalypse soon" (Robert McNamara) if policies continue on their current course."

"The US and Israel are stirring up popular forces that are very ominous, and which will only gain in power and become more extremist if the US and Israel persist in demolishing any hope of realization of Palestinian national rights, and destroying Lebanon. It should also be recognized that Washington's primary concern, as in the past, is not Israel and Lebanon, but the vast energy resources of the Middle East, recognized 60 years ago to be a "stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history." We can expect, with confidence, that the US will continue to do what it can to control this unparalleled source of strategic power."

As they say, go read the whole thing. This is a particularly good interview. Chomsky has always been very strong on Israel. What a pity Israelis and jews generally seem to take no notice.

Israeli army chief under attack over share sell-off: "Halutz went to his bank branch and sold shares worth 120,000 shekels ($27,460) three hours after the soldiers were seized by the Lebanese guerrilla group on July 12.

"Key share indexes in Israel fell around 12 percent at the outset of fighting between Israeli forces and Hizbollah after the abduction. Share prices gradually recovered and now stand slightly below pre-war levels.

"It is true that I sold the portfolio on July 12 but it is impossible to link that to the war. At the time, I did not expect or think there would be a war," [Halutz] said, according to Maariv."

He did not think there would be a war? How credible is that? According to Hersh and others, the war was pre-planned in advance, and co-ordinated with the US, and could not be any other way.

Israeli army chief under attack over share sell-off: "Halutz went to his bank branch and sold shares worth 120,000 shekels ($27,460) three hours after the soldiers were seized by the Lebanese guerrilla group on July 12.

"Key share indexes in Israel fell around 12 percent at the outset of fighting between Israeli forces and Hizbollah after the abduction. Share prices gradually recovered and now stand slightly below pre-war levels.

"It is true that I sold the portfolio on July 12 but it is impossible to link that to the war. At the time, I did not expect or think there would be a war," [Halutz] said, according to Maariv."

He did not think there would be a war? How credible is that? According to Hersh and others, the war was pre-planned in advance, and co-ordinated with the US, and could not be any other way.

Craig Murray: The UK Terror plot: What's Really Going On?: "None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

"In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

"What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

"Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth."

I havent been paying too much attention to the 'terror bomb plot'. I tend to take the view that the credibility of the Anglo-saxon governments and their defence departments, intelligence agencies and police departments has been destroyed by Saddam's non-existent 'weapons of mass destruction' and the phony 'war on terror.' Nothing they say can be believed - everything has to be independently verified.

Maybe Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction but he certainly seems to have achieved the annihilation of Western credibility.

The risk of further terrorist attacks has been increased by the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, but this incident seemed to coincide with the Lebanon war. The political advantage of terror and 'another 9/11' is all too obvious.

Craig Murray: The UK Terror plot: What's Really Going On?: "None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

"In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

"What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

"Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth."

I havent been paying too much attention to the 'terror bomb plot'. I tend to take the view that the credibility of the Anglo-saxon governments and their defence departments, intelligence agencies and police departments has been destroyed by Saddam's non-existent 'weapons of mass destruction' and the phony 'war on terror.' Nothing they say can be believed - everything has to be independently verified.

Maybe Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction but he certainly seems to have achieved the annihilation of Western credibility.

The risk of further terrorist attacks has been increased by the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, but this incident seemed to coincide with the Lebanon war. The political advantage of terror and 'another 9/11' is all too obvious.

Why Israel lost the war in Lebanon - by Uri Avnery: Uri draws the inevitable conclusion: 'There is no military solution!'

Why Israel lost the war in Lebanon - by Uri Avnery: Uri draws the inevitable conclusion: 'There is no military solution!'

Syria, Iran hail Hezbollah 'victory': "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says Hezbollah's 'victory' in the recent war with Israel has destroyed US plans to reshape the Middle East.

"Iran's President has also praised Hezbollah's resistance to Israel during a month-long conflict in Lebanon, saying the United States and Britain should pay compensation for war damage.

"Syria, a key Hezbollah ally, wants the Lebanon war to lead to a comprehensive peace settlement that addresses what it regards as the root of instability - Israeli occupation of Arab land, including the Syrian Golan Heights.

"Mr Assad has also aimed sharp criticism at Israel and says peace in the Middle East will remain elusive for the foreseeable future.

"'Their 'New Middle East', based on subjugation and humiliation, and denial of rights and identity, has turned into an illusion,' Mr Assad said in reference to the US's goal of helping to shape what it calls a new, democratic Middle East. It is evident that after six years of this [US] administration that there is no peace and there will be none in the foreseeable future.'

"Mr Assad, 40, who is shaped by his late father's lifetime of struggle against Israel, says the Jewish state must return Arab land it has occupied since 1967, or face more insecurity. 'The Israeli leadership ... is in front of an historic crossroads. Either it moves toward peace and gives back rights or face constant instability until an (Arab) generation comes and puts an end to the issue,' he said."

I'm no fan of the Assad dictatorship, or any dictatorship, but as is so often the case, countries under the gun can speak with more integrity and credibility than the heads of government of the arrogant, hubristic, disgraced and discredited Western imperialist powers.

Syria, Iran hail Hezbollah 'victory': "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says Hezbollah's 'victory' in the recent war with Israel has destroyed US plans to reshape the Middle East.

"Iran's President has also praised Hezbollah's resistance to Israel during a month-long conflict in Lebanon, saying the United States and Britain should pay compensation for war damage.

"Syria, a key Hezbollah ally, wants the Lebanon war to lead to a comprehensive peace settlement that addresses what it regards as the root of instability - Israeli occupation of Arab land, including the Syrian Golan Heights.

"Mr Assad has also aimed sharp criticism at Israel and says peace in the Middle East will remain elusive for the foreseeable future.

"'Their 'New Middle East', based on subjugation and humiliation, and denial of rights and identity, has turned into an illusion,' Mr Assad said in reference to the US's goal of helping to shape what it calls a new, democratic Middle East. It is evident that after six years of this [US] administration that there is no peace and there will be none in the foreseeable future.'

"Mr Assad, 40, who is shaped by his late father's lifetime of struggle against Israel, says the Jewish state must return Arab land it has occupied since 1967, or face more insecurity. 'The Israeli leadership ... is in front of an historic crossroads. Either it moves toward peace and gives back rights or face constant instability until an (Arab) generation comes and puts an end to the issue,' he said."

I'm no fan of the Assad dictatorship, or any dictatorship, but as is so often the case, countries under the gun can speak with more integrity and credibility than the heads of government of the arrogant, hubristic, disgraced and discredited Western imperialist powers.

PM's response to Peak Oil: Billion dollar giveaway: The central proposal is to subsidise the conversion of cars to LPG, and subsidies petrol stations of make ethanol blends (E10) available, but not to mandate ethanol.

I suppose the temptation to give money away is irresistible when it is not your money and it makes you look good for a day, but one wonders whether this is an appropriate allocation of public funds, or a politically motivated giveaway. What is needed as a matter of the highest urgency is energy conservation, renewable energy and investment in public transport, particularly rail.

In recent testimony before the Australian Senate, Dr Bakhtiari warned that peak oil at 81 million barrels per day was upon us now, with production expected to fall to around 55mbpd by 2020. This obviously has profound implications for the price of liquid fuels and the future of automobile transport. Has Mr Howard considered this at all? Or does he simply not have any correct information about the subject, just like how he (apparently) had no correct information about the state of Saddam's weapons and the decision to go to war.

Whether government advisors fail utterly in their role, or the Prime Minister more or less instructs them not to inform him of certain matters, or the Prime Minister simply tells falsehoods - it would be hard to imagine a person more unfit for the responsibility of government who cannot comprehend and act upon an accurate assessment of fundamentally important matters such as war and energy.

Dr Bakhtiari also expressed surprise at the long term gas deals Australia has signed with China. Its been said the price is around 5c a litre - a giveaway of staggering proportions, and yet Mr Howard boasts he is making Australia into an 'energy superpower'.

PM's response to Peak Oil: Billion dollar giveaway: The central proposal is to subsidise the conversion of cars to LPG, and subsidies petrol stations of make ethanol blends (E10) available, but not to mandate ethanol.

I suppose the temptation to give money away is irresistible when it is not your money and it makes you look good for a day, but one wonders whether this is an appropriate allocation of public funds, or a politically motivated giveaway. What is needed as a matter of the highest urgency is energy conservation, renewable energy and investment in public transport, particularly rail.

In recent testimony before the Australian Senate, Dr Bakhtiari warned that peak oil at 81 million barrels per day was upon us now, with production expected to fall to around 55mbpd by 2020. This obviously has profound implications for the price of liquid fuels and the future of automobile transport. Has Mr Howard considered this at all? Or does he simply not have any correct information about the subject, just like how he (apparently) had no correct information about the state of Saddam's weapons and the decision to go to war.

Whether government advisors fail utterly in their role, or the Prime Minister more or less instructs them not to inform him of certain matters, or the Prime Minister simply tells falsehoods - it would be hard to imagine a person more unfit for the responsibility of government who cannot comprehend and act upon an accurate assessment of fundamentally important matters such as war and energy.

Dr Bakhtiari also expressed surprise at the long term gas deals Australia has signed with China. Its been said the price is around 5c a litre - a giveaway of staggering proportions, and yet Mr Howard boasts he is making Australia into an 'energy superpower'.

Seymour Hersh on the Lebanon war: Hersh's argument is that the attack was preplanned by the US and Israel, essentially as a prelude to a possible attack on Iran. There were two main objectives: to eliminate the Hezbollah rocket threat to Israel (which might expect to be activated in the event of a war against Iran); and to test the ability of the airforce to destroy underground bunkers. The failure of the war makes the attack on Iran somewhat less likely. In all the circumstances, therefore, the region and the world might be grateful for the surprising resistance that Hezbollah has put up.

Seymour Hersh on the Lebanon war: Hersh's argument is that the attack was preplanned by the US and Israel, essentially as a prelude to a possible attack on Iran. There were two main objectives: to eliminate the Hezbollah rocket threat to Israel (which might expect to be activated in the event of a war against Iran); and to test the ability of the airforce to destroy underground bunkers. The failure of the war makes the attack on Iran somewhat less likely. In all the circumstances, therefore, the region and the world might be grateful for the surprising resistance that Hezbollah has put up.

Israeli Armour neutralised by modern anti-tank weapons: "The first major shock was when Hezbollah narrowly missed sinking an Israeli destroyer with a Chinese shore-to-sea missile. Four crew were killed in the attack."

""The main threat is the use of sophisticated anti-tank weapons against our armoured vehicles. One of the most effective is the Kornet, which was supplied by Russia to Iran and then to Hezbollah," said Lt. Col. Olivier Rafowicz."

"One member of a tank crew who had just left Lebanon said: "It's terrible. You do not fight anti-tank teams with tanks. You use infantry supported by artillery and helicopters. Wide valleys without shelter are the wrong place to use tanks."

"In addition, Israel has restricted its use of helicopters, particularly the Apache gun ships. The helicopters have been used to hit coastal targets, but not in the inland valleys and hills for fear of Hezbollah anti-aircraft weapons."

Israeli Armour neutralised by modern anti-tank weapons: "The first major shock was when Hezbollah narrowly missed sinking an Israeli destroyer with a Chinese shore-to-sea missile. Four crew were killed in the attack."

""The main threat is the use of sophisticated anti-tank weapons against our armoured vehicles. One of the most effective is the Kornet, which was supplied by Russia to Iran and then to Hezbollah," said Lt. Col. Olivier Rafowicz."

"One member of a tank crew who had just left Lebanon said: "It's terrible. You do not fight anti-tank teams with tanks. You use infantry supported by artillery and helicopters. Wide valleys without shelter are the wrong place to use tanks."

"In addition, Israel has restricted its use of helicopters, particularly the Apache gun ships. The helicopters have been used to hit coastal targets, but not in the inland valleys and hills for fear of Hezbollah anti-aircraft weapons."

Peres: 15 Isrealis a day will be killed in war: "Peres, now deputy Prime Minister, told Yediot Ahronoth, Israel's best-selling daily newspaper, that Israel was likely to suffer 15 deaths a day if it continued its ground war."

"Dawn broke to reveal tanks were being crippled within sight of the border town of Metulla. Shoulder-launched Hezbollah missiles sent tank crews sprinting for safety while other vehicles laid down smoke to cover their escape."

Its a tremendous effort that Hezbollah is putting up. The US and France will likely come up with a face-saving Resolution for Israel to claim 'victory' in the war, but how can it be other than a disaster for them? In reality, a severe check has been delivered. Israel can no longer attack with impunity Lebanon or even the Palestinians.

Peres: 15 Isrealis a day will be killed in war: "Peres, now deputy Prime Minister, told Yediot Ahronoth, Israel's best-selling daily newspaper, that Israel was likely to suffer 15 deaths a day if it continued its ground war."

"Dawn broke to reveal tanks were being crippled within sight of the border town of Metulla. Shoulder-launched Hezbollah missiles sent tank crews sprinting for safety while other vehicles laid down smoke to cover their escape."

Its a tremendous effort that Hezbollah is putting up. The US and France will likely come up with a face-saving Resolution for Israel to claim 'victory' in the war, but how can it be other than a disaster for them? In reality, a severe check has been delivered. Israel can no longer attack with impunity Lebanon or even the Palestinians.

Retroactive War Crime Protection Proposed: "The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal."

Changing the law against torture to prevent prosecutions for torture is evidence of guilt, is it not? Where is the shame and outrage. Does PM Howard still support the Bush Administration?

Retroactive War Crime Protection Proposed: "The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal."

Changing the law against torture to prevent prosecutions for torture is evidence of guilt, is it not? Where is the shame and outrage. Does PM Howard still support the Bush Administration?

Israeli PM Olmert hits back at Europe: "'Where do they get the right to preach to Israel?' he was quoted as saying in an interview published by Welt Am Sonntag. 'European countries attacked Kosovo and killed 10,000 civilians. Ten thousand and none of those countries had to suffer from a single rocket before that.'"

10,000 is a higher figure than I can recall seeing previously, but the point is valid. The US and the Western power through the barbaric Kosovo attack significantly damaged if not destroyed international law. Consequences must follow. It will be a long and hard road to rebuild international law. Bush and Blair might be compared to Mussolini. With his invasion of Ethiopia the League of Nations was virtually destroyed and 'rule of the jungle' came back in.

Israeli PM Olmert hits back at Europe: "'Where do they get the right to preach to Israel?' he was quoted as saying in an interview published by Welt Am Sonntag. 'European countries attacked Kosovo and killed 10,000 civilians. Ten thousand and none of those countries had to suffer from a single rocket before that.'"

10,000 is a higher figure than I can recall seeing previously, but the point is valid. The US and the Western power through the barbaric Kosovo attack significantly damaged if not destroyed international law. Consequences must follow. It will be a long and hard road to rebuild international law. Bush and Blair might be compared to Mussolini. With his invasion of Ethiopia the League of Nations was virtually destroyed and 'rule of the jungle' came back in.

A trump card in the nuclear power play: "Flannery concludes his book by arguing that 'there is no need to wait for government action' - voluntary action by well-meaning consumers is the only way to save the planet.... This is music to the Government's ears. The assignment of individual responsibility is consistent with the economic rationalist view of the world, which wants everything left to the market, even when the market manifestly fails.... It is obvious why a government that wants to do nothing finds such an approach appealing: it can pretend to be concerned while protecting powerful business interests."

It would be hard to imagine anything more mindnumbingly irresponsible than this, or anything more downright stupid as this cargo-cult 'market provides' ideology.

Let's be under no illusions: in the face of this global catastrophe, we find our governments and major political parties (not to mention media and intellectuals) effectively owned and controlled by corporate interests whose goal is short term profit under the banner of an ideology which says 'market provides, get govt out of the way.'

And as if collective action and individual political activism was not an expression of 'personal responsibility' towards the problem.

A trump card in the nuclear power play: "Flannery concludes his book by arguing that 'there is no need to wait for government action' - voluntary action by well-meaning consumers is the only way to save the planet.... This is music to the Government's ears. The assignment of individual responsibility is consistent with the economic rationalist view of the world, which wants everything left to the market, even when the market manifestly fails.... It is obvious why a government that wants to do nothing finds such an approach appealing: it can pretend to be concerned while protecting powerful business interests."

It would be hard to imagine anything more mindnumbingly irresponsible than this, or anything more downright stupid as this cargo-cult 'market provides' ideology.

Let's be under no illusions: in the face of this global catastrophe, we find our governments and major political parties (not to mention media and intellectuals) effectively owned and controlled by corporate interests whose goal is short term profit under the banner of an ideology which says 'market provides, get govt out of the way.'

And as if collective action and individual political activism was not an expression of 'personal responsibility' towards the problem.

Gerard Henderson 'evenhandedly' defends Israel and blames Hezbollah: Henderson is not a journalist or even a commentator, he is a propagandist for modern state corporate rule, ie neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism.

Like the rest of us, a tool like Henderson would not be informed as to which country is going to be attacked next, and when, but he knows that when the attack goes in, his job is to propagandise for it. This made for some hard going over the blatantly unacceptable and disastrous Iraq war, but undeterred, he soldiers on v Lebanon. Take this latest piece, which is phrased as an attack on the Hiroshima Day peace rally.

Gerard Henderson 'evenhandedly' defends Israel and blames Hezbollah: Henderson is not a journalist or even a commentator, he is a propagandist for modern state corporate rule, ie neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism.

Like the rest of us, a tool like Henderson would not be informed as to which country is going to be attacked next, and when, but he knows that when the attack goes in, his job is to propagandise for it. This made for some hard going over the blatantly unacceptable and disastrous Iraq war, but undeterred, he soldiers on v Lebanon. Take this latest piece, which is phrased as an attack on the Hiroshima Day peace rally.

A Disciplined Hezbollah Surprises Israel With Its Training, Tactics and Weapons: Interesting article describes Hezbollah training, tactics and equipment, and helps explain their remarkable success. All so ominous for Israel.

A Disciplined Hezbollah Surprises Israel With Its Training, Tactics and Weapons: Interesting article describes Hezbollah training, tactics and equipment, and helps explain their remarkable success. All so ominous for Israel.

Poll: Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD: "The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

"Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story."

There has hardly ever been a bigger official lie than this rubbish about the 'weapons of mass destruction'. Chomsky & Herman have been proven correct. The corporate media system is a propaganda tool - it leads the public believe lies and nonsense, ie what the rulers want the public to believe. In this sense it is comparable to Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda or Stalin's 'Factory of Lies.' But all too many people in Western countries have either not perceived this as yet, or find the very idea incredible.

Poll: Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD: "The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

"Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story."

There has hardly ever been a bigger official lie than this rubbish about the 'weapons of mass destruction'. Chomsky & Herman have been proven correct. The corporate media system is a propaganda tool - it leads the public believe lies and nonsense, ie what the rulers want the public to believe. In this sense it is comparable to Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda or Stalin's 'Factory of Lies.' But all too many people in Western countries have either not perceived this as yet, or find the very idea incredible.

Juan Cole discusses Peak Oil and the Lebanon war: "I floated the fungibility [market access] of petroleum as a reason for which the Iraq War could not be only about oil".

And then in the very next paragraph Cole says:

"In a worst case scenario, Washington would like to retain the option of military action against Iran, so as to gain access to its resources and deny them to rivals."

This is self-contradictory. Its not about access, its about control. The US seeks a 'strategic veto' over other industrial powers. Japan and Europe will be obliged to align their policies with the US (if not become client states) if the US has 'control' over energy reserves.

This is the 'hegemonic' argument Chomsky has been making for years. I dont see why it should not be adopted or indeed regarded as other than obvious.

Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia are the key regimes one wants as clients. Other regimes such as Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Turkey and even as far away as Cyprus, Greece, Italy etc are also strategically important in terms of geopolitical control.

The US obviously lusts to convert Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran into client states. It has NOTHING to do with democracy (or WMDs, or 'terror'). These regimes represent an inherent threat to US hegemony. So does Iraq and if the US is forced to retreat from Iraq it would represent a stunning imperial defeat in the most crucial region of the world.

As for war (or empire for that matter) 'not making any sense', that is the nature of the beast. It is destructive, dangerous and can precipitate a catastrophe.

Juan Cole discusses Peak Oil and the Lebanon war: "I floated the fungibility [market access] of petroleum as a reason for which the Iraq War could not be only about oil".

And then in the very next paragraph Cole says:

"In a worst case scenario, Washington would like to retain the option of military action against Iran, so as to gain access to its resources and deny them to rivals."

This is self-contradictory. Its not about access, its about control. The US seeks a 'strategic veto' over other industrial powers. Japan and Europe will be obliged to align their policies with the US (if not become client states) if the US has 'control' over energy reserves.

This is the 'hegemonic' argument Chomsky has been making for years. I dont see why it should not be adopted or indeed regarded as other than obvious.

Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia are the key regimes one wants as clients. Other regimes such as Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Turkey and even as far away as Cyprus, Greece, Italy etc are also strategically important in terms of geopolitical control.

The US obviously lusts to convert Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran into client states. It has NOTHING to do with democracy (or WMDs, or 'terror'). These regimes represent an inherent threat to US hegemony. So does Iraq and if the US is forced to retreat from Iraq it would represent a stunning imperial defeat in the most crucial region of the world.

As for war (or empire for that matter) 'not making any sense', that is the nature of the beast. It is destructive, dangerous and can precipitate a catastrophe.

Ayn Rand and the teenage worldview: Digby and commenters have some incisive insights into Randism. Its tripe but they get 'em young.

Ayn Rand and the teenage worldview: Digby and commenters have some incisive insights into Randism. Its tripe but they get 'em young.

LEBANON: Israeli terrorism: "Three days after Israel’s “justice” minister, Haim Ramon, told Israeli Army Radio on July 27 that “everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist”"

This is the sort to thing that needs to be thoroughly documented, and then followed up. I mean date, time, name of program; transcript and audio if possible. And then the Minister and Government questioned about the statement.

Could he really have said such a thing? You know what that means? What they do to 'terrorists'? This means that the Israeli Government is openly proclaiming its intention to either kill or ethnically cleanse the entire population - men, women, children, old, sick, disabled. A major war crime.

Some say the Israeli plan is to ethnically cleanse southern Lebanon, colonise it with Jews, and annex it to Israel. This cant be, surely?

LEBANON: Israeli terrorism: "Three days after Israel’s “justice” minister, Haim Ramon, told Israeli Army Radio on July 27 that “everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist”"

This is the sort to thing that needs to be thoroughly documented, and then followed up. I mean date, time, name of program; transcript and audio if possible. And then the Minister and Government questioned about the statement.

Could he really have said such a thing? You know what that means? What they do to 'terrorists'? This means that the Israeli Government is openly proclaiming its intention to either kill or ethnically cleanse the entire population - men, women, children, old, sick, disabled. A major war crime.

Some say the Israeli plan is to ethnically cleanse southern Lebanon, colonise it with Jews, and annex it to Israel. This cant be, surely?

The Hiroshima Myth and the real reason the bomb was dropped: Basically it was a massive warcrime. The bomb(s) was dropped simply to demonstrate the US's power and ruthlessness and to intimidate the Soviet Union and anyone else watching. "We've got a big bomb and we're gonna drop it on a whole city. And if you didnt get the message the first time we're gonna do it again. Got that?"

The Hiroshima Myth and the real reason the bomb was dropped: Basically it was a massive warcrime. The bomb(s) was dropped simply to demonstrate the US's power and ruthlessness and to intimidate the Soviet Union and anyone else watching. "We've got a big bomb and we're gonna drop it on a whole city. And if you didnt get the message the first time we're gonna do it again. Got that?"

Achcar: Israeli-lebanon war: "The Lebanese Communist Party (LCP) is a shadow of its former self, of what it used to be in the 70s and 80s. It was one of the most important Communist Parties in the Arab world, relative to the size of the country, and one of the major actors in the civil war of 1975-1990. The LCP was the first to launch attacks against the Israeli occupation in 1982, after the invasion settled down, in the name of the 'national resistance'. Only later were the 'Islamic resistance' and Hizbollah launched. Hizbollah dealt with the LCP as a rival since the latter's main social base was among Shiites and in southern Lebanon, that is among Hisbollah's target constituency. Hizbollah built itself partially through fighting the LCP over this constituency and managed to prevail. In that, it was greatly helped by Iranian backing and by the fact that it played on the dominant ideological trend in the region that was in favour of Islamic fundamentalism since the 1970s, whereas the LCP lacked political boldness and was deeply affected by the unfolding crisis of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s the LCP itself went into deep crisis, splitting and fragmenting. What remains is not completely invisible, but it is no longer in a position to play an important role -- unfortunately, as it is the major left-wing grouping in the country. Hence, Lebanon is no exception to the general rule in the area: the historical failure of nationalist forces and the failure of the left have created a vacuum that has been filled by Islamic fundamentalists."

"This question [Israeli vulnerability] relates to a point long made by Jewish critics of Zionism. Far from becoming the sanctuary for the Jews of the world that the Zionists promised, Israel is more and more turning into a deadly trap for its Jewish inhabitants. The old warning by anti-Zionist Jews is getting more and more relevant because of the evolution in destructive techniques and weaponry. Israel is exposing its own population to huge risks. Israel's ruthless, barbaric way of dealing with the Palestinians and the Lebanese feeds hatred against it in the whole area. This will certainly result in many people wanting to inflict on the Israelis the most painful damage possible, compared to which Hizbollah's Katyusha rockets might look quite benign. It takes some 50 Hizbollah rockets to kill one Israeli on average in the ongoing confrontation. But what if devices could be made to inflict mass destruction on Israel? That is what Israel is inciting against itself."

Achcar: Israeli-lebanon war: "The Lebanese Communist Party (LCP) is a shadow of its former self, of what it used to be in the 70s and 80s. It was one of the most important Communist Parties in the Arab world, relative to the size of the country, and one of the major actors in the civil war of 1975-1990. The LCP was the first to launch attacks against the Israeli occupation in 1982, after the invasion settled down, in the name of the 'national resistance'. Only later were the 'Islamic resistance' and Hizbollah launched. Hizbollah dealt with the LCP as a rival since the latter's main social base was among Shiites and in southern Lebanon, that is among Hisbollah's target constituency. Hizbollah built itself partially through fighting the LCP over this constituency and managed to prevail. In that, it was greatly helped by Iranian backing and by the fact that it played on the dominant ideological trend in the region that was in favour of Islamic fundamentalism since the 1970s, whereas the LCP lacked political boldness and was deeply affected by the unfolding crisis of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s the LCP itself went into deep crisis, splitting and fragmenting. What remains is not completely invisible, but it is no longer in a position to play an important role -- unfortunately, as it is the major left-wing grouping in the country. Hence, Lebanon is no exception to the general rule in the area: the historical failure of nationalist forces and the failure of the left have created a vacuum that has been filled by Islamic fundamentalists."

"This question [Israeli vulnerability] relates to a point long made by Jewish critics of Zionism. Far from becoming the sanctuary for the Jews of the world that the Zionists promised, Israel is more and more turning into a deadly trap for its Jewish inhabitants. The old warning by anti-Zionist Jews is getting more and more relevant because of the evolution in destructive techniques and weaponry. Israel is exposing its own population to huge risks. Israel's ruthless, barbaric way of dealing with the Palestinians and the Lebanese feeds hatred against it in the whole area. This will certainly result in many people wanting to inflict on the Israelis the most painful damage possible, compared to which Hizbollah's Katyusha rockets might look quite benign. It takes some 50 Hizbollah rockets to kill one Israeli on average in the ongoing confrontation. But what if devices could be made to inflict mass destruction on Israel? That is what Israel is inciting against itself."

RIAA Goes after LimeWire: "It was bound to happen. I mean, look at the people they have sued (from Wiki): The RIAA has been criticised in the media after they subpoenaed Gertrude Walton, an 83-year-old grandmother who had died in December of 2004 [23]. Mrs. Walton stood accused of swapping rock, pop and rap songs. The RIAA in 2003 attempted to sue Sarah Seabury Ward, a 66 year-old sculptor residing in Boston, Massachusetts. They alleged that she shared more than 2,000 songs illegally. The RIAA dropped the suit when it was discovered that she was a computer novice. The case was dismissed, but without prejudice. The RIAA has also been criticised for bringing lawsuits against children, such as 12 year old Brianna LaHara in 2003 [24]. The RIAA also attempted to sue Candy Chan of Michigan, for the alleged actions of her daughter, 13 year old Brittany Chan. The court dismissed Priority Records v. Chan [25] because it was ruled that the mother could not be sued for the alleged infringements of her daughter. [26] When the court ruled in favor of the mother, dismissing the case, the RIAA proceeded to sue her child. However, prosecuting a minor is more difficult, and many previous adult defendants have said that the P2P software installation and copyright infringement was done without their knowledge by one of their children. And on a related note: The RIAA's recent targeting of students has generated controversy as well. An April 4th story in the MIT campus newspaper The Tech indicates that an RIAA representative stated to Cassi Hunt, an alleged file-sharer, that previously, 'the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements.'[27] Is that PATHETIC or what?! RIAA/MPAA needs to die. The world would be a better place."

RIAA Goes after LimeWire: "It was bound to happen. I mean, look at the people they have sued (from Wiki): The RIAA has been criticised in the media after they subpoenaed Gertrude Walton, an 83-year-old grandmother who had died in December of 2004 [23]. Mrs. Walton stood accused of swapping rock, pop and rap songs. The RIAA in 2003 attempted to sue Sarah Seabury Ward, a 66 year-old sculptor residing in Boston, Massachusetts. They alleged that she shared more than 2,000 songs illegally. The RIAA dropped the suit when it was discovered that she was a computer novice. The case was dismissed, but without prejudice. The RIAA has also been criticised for bringing lawsuits against children, such as 12 year old Brianna LaHara in 2003 [24]. The RIAA also attempted to sue Candy Chan of Michigan, for the alleged actions of her daughter, 13 year old Brittany Chan. The court dismissed Priority Records v. Chan [25] because it was ruled that the mother could not be sued for the alleged infringements of her daughter. [26] When the court ruled in favor of the mother, dismissing the case, the RIAA proceeded to sue her child. However, prosecuting a minor is more difficult, and many previous adult defendants have said that the P2P software installation and copyright infringement was done without their knowledge by one of their children. And on a related note: The RIAA's recent targeting of students has generated controversy as well. An April 4th story in the MIT campus newspaper The Tech indicates that an RIAA representative stated to Cassi Hunt, an alleged file-sharer, that previously, 'the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements.'[27] Is that PATHETIC or what?! RIAA/MPAA needs to die. The world would be a better place."

Pape: Clue for Bush and the 'why do they hate us' crowd: "In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

"What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force."

Why do they hate us? The dumbest question from the dumbest President ever. They are resisting occupation and foreign oppression. This is also another clue for PM Howard who appeared genuinely surprised and angered at a suggestion that Hizbullah be delisted as a terrorist organisation: it is an indigenous resistance movement. You might do the same if it was your country, little johnny.

Pape: Clue for Bush and the 'why do they hate us' crowd: "In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

"What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force."

Why do they hate us? The dumbest question from the dumbest President ever. They are resisting occupation and foreign oppression. This is also another clue for PM Howard who appeared genuinely surprised and angered at a suggestion that Hizbullah be delisted as a terrorist organisation: it is an indigenous resistance movement. You might do the same if it was your country, little johnny.

Ilan Pappe on the dark tragedy of Zionism and Occupation: "I believe what Israel is doing will destroy the Jewish people in the near or distant future as well. Even with 250 nuclear weapons and the support of the world’s only superpower. For the sake of Jews and Arabs, the world has to play a role in dismantling apartheid. The world has to help. And the only way short of violence, which I am against, is pressure."

Ilan Pappe on the dark tragedy of Zionism and Occupation: "I believe what Israel is doing will destroy the Jewish people in the near or distant future as well. Even with 250 nuclear weapons and the support of the world’s only superpower. For the sake of Jews and Arabs, the world has to play a role in dismantling apartheid. The world has to help. And the only way short of violence, which I am against, is pressure."

Rolling Stone : THE LOW POST: Why the Democrats Are Still Doomed Matt Taibi musters some fine rhetoric with which to savage the Democrat party

Rolling Stone : THE LOW POST: Why the Democrats Are Still Doomed Matt Taibi musters some fine rhetoric with which to savage the Democrat party

Stop For The Sake Of Stopping: "I couldn't believe it when George Bush, talking about Israel's attack on Lebanon, said he was against 'stopping for the sake of stopping.'"

These are so tiresome, these sourceless and referenceless commondreams.org articles, modelled presumably on the 'op-ed' tradition in American newspaper journalism.

As if anybody could seriously be 'surprised' at bush's attitude. It is the US that vetoed a UN Security Council resolution of 13 July calling for an immediate ceasefire, and then proceeded to re-supply the Israeli airforce their depleted bombs and fuel, in addition to already being the single biggest US recipient of diplomatic, financial and weapons aid. What does that tell you?

The official US policy is 'sustainable ceasefire' (unrestricted warfare).

Critics of government policy must express the reality and document it: that is, deconstruct the lies and document the reality. Instead of the miserable kissinger alternative of 'formulating what people think'.

Stop For The Sake Of Stopping: "I couldn't believe it when George Bush, talking about Israel's attack on Lebanon, said he was against 'stopping for the sake of stopping.'"

These are so tiresome, these sourceless and referenceless commondreams.org articles, modelled presumably on the 'op-ed' tradition in American newspaper journalism.

As if anybody could seriously be 'surprised' at bush's attitude. It is the US that vetoed a UN Security Council resolution of 13 July calling for an immediate ceasefire, and then proceeded to re-supply the Israeli airforce their depleted bombs and fuel, in addition to already being the single biggest US recipient of diplomatic, financial and weapons aid. What does that tell you?

The official US policy is 'sustainable ceasefire' (unrestricted warfare).

Critics of government policy must express the reality and document it: that is, deconstruct the lies and document the reality. Instead of the miserable kissinger alternative of 'formulating what people think'.

Qana bomb made in the US: "It has been revealed that the bombs used in the attacks Israel launched on the southern Lebanese village of Qana were produced by the US. At least 60 civilians, most of whom were children had been killed in the attack.... the bombs used in the attacks were laser-controlled BSU 37/B bunker busters manufactured by the US.... The same type bomb had been used in last week’s attack that killed four UN observers. The Bush administration had shipped 2.5 tons, 100 GBU-28 “bunker busters” to the region after the operation began on 12 July."

Qana bomb made in the US: "It has been revealed that the bombs used in the attacks Israel launched on the southern Lebanese village of Qana were produced by the US. At least 60 civilians, most of whom were children had been killed in the attack.... the bombs used in the attacks were laser-controlled BSU 37/B bunker busters manufactured by the US.... The same type bomb had been used in last week’s attack that killed four UN observers. The Bush administration had shipped 2.5 tons, 100 GBU-28 “bunker busters” to the region after the operation began on 12 July."

Brent Scowcroft endorses two-state solution: Scowcroft's plan is a variant on the fundamentals of the two-state solution which has been available for a long time now, as far back as 1971 and Sadat's original peace offer: Withdrawal of Jewish soldiers and settlers behind the 1967 Green line; minor and mutually agreed border modifications; a practical resolution of the refugee problem.

This solution is available for adoption by the US or Israel anytime they wish, for the moment. The US evidently prefers Israel as the 'cop on the beat', the 'Israeli Sparta', the 'militarised dependency.' And Israel, it seems, lacks all sense of danger and security, and believes in the unreconstructed folly of Zionism and the hubristic madness of permanent regional hegemony. US interest in the region runs out with the oil in 30-40 years tops, maybe much sooner, especially if it suffers a defeat in Iraq. Israel's interest is to negotiate a comprehensive peace from a position of strength, and that means NOW. There will come a time (perhaps fairly soon) when the tide finally turns and the Arabs will no longer be prepared to concede as much as they might now.

Brent Scowcroft endorses two-state solution: Scowcroft's plan is a variant on the fundamentals of the two-state solution which has been available for a long time now, as far back as 1971 and Sadat's original peace offer: Withdrawal of Jewish soldiers and settlers behind the 1967 Green line; minor and mutually agreed border modifications; a practical resolution of the refugee problem.

This solution is available for adoption by the US or Israel anytime they wish, for the moment. The US evidently prefers Israel as the 'cop on the beat', the 'Israeli Sparta', the 'militarised dependency.' And Israel, it seems, lacks all sense of danger and security, and believes in the unreconstructed folly of Zionism and the hubristic madness of permanent regional hegemony. US interest in the region runs out with the oil in 30-40 years tops, maybe much sooner, especially if it suffers a defeat in Iraq. Israel's interest is to negotiate a comprehensive peace from a position of strength, and that means NOW. There will come a time (perhaps fairly soon) when the tide finally turns and the Arabs will no longer be prepared to concede as much as they might now.

Tehran editorial: UN Security Council or U.S. Security Council?: "China and Russia made a major concession to the United States in UN Resolution 1696. A day before the adoption of the resolution, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had said Moscow opposed any deadline, sanctions, or threats against Iran. China had adopted similar stances. The resolution implies that these powers made a backdoor deal, a fact which Iranian officials should take into consideration."

"Even if the international community accepts that the Security Council adopted the resolution to maintain world peace and security, how can it accept its shameful silence over the massacre of the Lebanese and Palestinian children by Israel?

"There is one likely answer. In the eyes of the Security Council, the regime that is free to produce nuclear weapons is also free to butcher hundreds of defenseless women and children. The Security Council, which has kept mum about the massacre of defenseless children in Qana, Lebanon but has passed a resolution against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program within the framework of international law, is not the Security Council, it is the Insecurity Council! It is not the UN Security Council, rather it is the U.S. Security Council."

"From the legal point of view, it is not acceptable that in the second paragraph of the resolution, the Security Council states that it “Reaffirms its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalls the right of states party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination”, and deprives a country of its right while it has not violated the NPT.The resolution is proof that the five major nuclear powers are using international bodies as tools to impose their demands on Iran."

So Iran continues its battle (virtually alone) against White Western hegemony. Iranian President Ahmadinejad launches into some blunt criticism: "'The United States and Britain are responsible for Israel's killing of civilians in Lebanon and should not be trusted with seats on the U.N. Security Council'.... Iran regularly blames Britain, as a creator of Israel, and the United States, as the state that bankrolls and protects it, for deaths in conflicts in the Middle East. "They are not competent to be members of the Security Council or to have the power of veto ... They are criminals and should be put on trial," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the northeastern town of Bojnurd.... Ahmadinejad accused Israeli forces of being part of a British and U.S. plan to recreate a colonial Middle East."

Tehran editorial: UN Security Council or U.S. Security Council?: "China and Russia made a major concession to the United States in UN Resolution 1696. A day before the adoption of the resolution, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had said Moscow opposed any deadline, sanctions, or threats against Iran. China had adopted similar stances. The resolution implies that these powers made a backdoor deal, a fact which Iranian officials should take into consideration."

"Even if the international community accepts that the Security Council adopted the resolution to maintain world peace and security, how can it accept its shameful silence over the massacre of the Lebanese and Palestinian children by Israel?

"There is one likely answer. In the eyes of the Security Council, the regime that is free to produce nuclear weapons is also free to butcher hundreds of defenseless women and children. The Security Council, which has kept mum about the massacre of defenseless children in Qana, Lebanon but has passed a resolution against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program within the framework of international law, is not the Security Council, it is the Insecurity Council! It is not the UN Security Council, rather it is the U.S. Security Council."

"From the legal point of view, it is not acceptable that in the second paragraph of the resolution, the Security Council states that it “Reaffirms its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalls the right of states party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination”, and deprives a country of its right while it has not violated the NPT.The resolution is proof that the five major nuclear powers are using international bodies as tools to impose their demands on Iran."

So Iran continues its battle (virtually alone) against White Western hegemony. Iranian President Ahmadinejad launches into some blunt criticism: "'The United States and Britain are responsible for Israel's killing of civilians in Lebanon and should not be trusted with seats on the U.N. Security Council'.... Iran regularly blames Britain, as a creator of Israel, and the United States, as the state that bankrolls and protects it, for deaths in conflicts in the Middle East. "They are not competent to be members of the Security Council or to have the power of veto ... They are criminals and should be put on trial," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the northeastern town of Bojnurd.... Ahmadinejad accused Israeli forces of being part of a British and U.S. plan to recreate a colonial Middle East."

Bakhtiari addresses the Australian Senate Committee: A few of the interesting points made in this testimony:

Peak oil is here: "Over the next 14 years present global production of 81 million barrels per day will decrease by roughly 32 per cent, down to around 55 million barrels per day by the year 2020."

What to do: "Every preparative step taken today will prove far cheaper than any step taken tomorrow."

Anti-science attitude of the ruling elite: "Maybe one explanation could be that they are interested parties and we are disinterested parties."

The importance of gas: "Fortunately, Australia has an enormous amount of gas, and I believe this is going to become very handy."

"Senator MILNE— Australia, as you know, has just signed up to long-term gas exports to China at a fixed price. Given what you have just said, that looks like an increasingly bad deal.

"Dr Samsam Bakhtiari—At a fixed price?

"Senator MILNE—That is what I said. Yes, I can see that you are not impressed by the brilliance of that and neither are we."

Transport Fuel Efficiency: "the future is to rails because rails are the most fuel efficient system.... At tonne kilometres per litre of fuel, aeroplanes are between two and three, cars are between 10 and 22, trucks are between 65 and 85 and trains are around 320.... Aeroplanes will be the first casualty in the system. They are already making losses. I do not know how they can carry on because the jet fuel is directly proportional to the increases in crude oil."

ie, rail is four and a half times more efficient that trucks, 21 times more efficient than cars and up to 160 times more efficient that air. Shipping is more fuel efficient still.

So we have a Federal Government that invades Iraq, sells gas at a low fixed price to China, and says it will be an energy superpower by mining and selling uranium and taking back the waste. And a State Government that refuses to build rail and light rail networks and builds no end of motorways. Could it get any more irresponsible?

Bakhtiari addresses the Australian Senate Committee: A few of the interesting points made in this testimony:

Peak oil is here: "Over the next 14 years present global production of 81 million barrels per day will decrease by roughly 32 per cent, down to around 55 million barrels per day by the year 2020."

What to do: "Every preparative step taken today will prove far cheaper than any step taken tomorrow."

Anti-science attitude of the ruling elite: "Maybe one explanation could be that they are interested parties and we are disinterested parties."

The importance of gas: "Fortunately, Australia has an enormous amount of gas, and I believe this is going to become very handy."

"Senator MILNE— Australia, as you know, has just signed up to long-term gas exports to China at a fixed price. Given what you have just said, that looks like an increasingly bad deal.

"Dr Samsam Bakhtiari—At a fixed price?

"Senator MILNE—That is what I said. Yes, I can see that you are not impressed by the brilliance of that and neither are we."

Transport Fuel Efficiency: "the future is to rails because rails are the most fuel efficient system.... At tonne kilometres per litre of fuel, aeroplanes are between two and three, cars are between 10 and 22, trucks are between 65 and 85 and trains are around 320.... Aeroplanes will be the first casualty in the system. They are already making losses. I do not know how they can carry on because the jet fuel is directly proportional to the increases in crude oil."

ie, rail is four and a half times more efficient that trucks, 21 times more efficient than cars and up to 160 times more efficient that air. Shipping is more fuel efficient still.

So we have a Federal Government that invades Iraq, sells gas at a low fixed price to China, and says it will be an energy superpower by mining and selling uranium and taking back the waste. And a State Government that refuses to build rail and light rail networks and builds no end of motorways. Could it get any more irresponsible?

Remembering Hiroshima: A horrifying warcrime. This article traces the genesis of the myth that it was necessary to 'save millions of American boys'.

Remembering Hiroshima: A horrifying warcrime. This article traces the genesis of the myth that it was necessary to 'save millions of American boys'.

Torvalds rejects GPLv3: "Torvalds ' who insists on calling his software 'open' to make a distinction from, and avoid association with, 'free software' advocates ' said the discussions of GPLv3 have not allowed for real opposition. He also criticized an earlier version of the GPLv3, calling it a 'crusade.'"

Plainly Torvalds doesnt care about 'free software' or the GPL. In which case he simply doesnt get it. Its not about Torvalds, 'Linux' or 'open' software, its about freedom, Stallman and the GPL.

There are some harsh comments about Torvalds on Slashdot, perhaps not unjustified:

"Linus' problem is that he never really agreed with these ideals [freedom]. He originally licensed Linux as free for non-commerical use, but then released it under the GPL as a result of pressure from the community. Linus calls himself a pragmatist, which is a polite way of saying socially short-sighted.... Linus' view is the equivalent of saying 'Why should we want to outlaw slavery? I'm not a slave.'"

"Linus is becoming less and less relevant as time goes by."

"It makes me sad to see Linus' mind rotting like this but I can't support that attitude in any way."

"Clearly Linus has sold out.... He doesn't care, all the evidence suggests that Linus became a whore turning tricks for corporate masters a long time ago. This public outcry against pro-consumer/modder yet anti-profiteer clauses of the GPLv3 can only be the result of payoffs from corporate masters. It isn't really suprising that Linus has sold out, who knows, maybe any of us would do it in his position. But there is no reason the community has to support him in this."

There seems to be an interminable debate among software developers between the free software advocates (Stallman & co) and those who 'dont get it' (Torvalds & co). Stallman needs political support.

It seems people should stop going to Torvalds for philosophical comment, and also stop calling it 'Linux'. Call it unix or ubuntu and be done with it. Torvalds is a programmer, not a leader.

Torvalds rejects GPLv3: "Torvalds ' who insists on calling his software 'open' to make a distinction from, and avoid association with, 'free software' advocates ' said the discussions of GPLv3 have not allowed for real opposition. He also criticized an earlier version of the GPLv3, calling it a 'crusade.'"

Plainly Torvalds doesnt care about 'free software' or the GPL. In which case he simply doesnt get it. Its not about Torvalds, 'Linux' or 'open' software, its about freedom, Stallman and the GPL.

There are some harsh comments about Torvalds on Slashdot, perhaps not unjustified:

"Linus' problem is that he never really agreed with these ideals [freedom]. He originally licensed Linux as free for non-commerical use, but then released it under the GPL as a result of pressure from the community. Linus calls himself a pragmatist, which is a polite way of saying socially short-sighted.... Linus' view is the equivalent of saying 'Why should we want to outlaw slavery? I'm not a slave.'"

"Linus is becoming less and less relevant as time goes by."

"It makes me sad to see Linus' mind rotting like this but I can't support that attitude in any way."

"Clearly Linus has sold out.... He doesn't care, all the evidence suggests that Linus became a whore turning tricks for corporate masters a long time ago. This public outcry against pro-consumer/modder yet anti-profiteer clauses of the GPLv3 can only be the result of payoffs from corporate masters. It isn't really suprising that Linus has sold out, who knows, maybe any of us would do it in his position. But there is no reason the community has to support him in this."

There seems to be an interminable debate among software developers between the free software advocates (Stallman & co) and those who 'dont get it' (Torvalds & co). Stallman needs political support.

It seems people should stop going to Torvalds for philosophical comment, and also stop calling it 'Linux'. Call it unix or ubuntu and be done with it. Torvalds is a programmer, not a leader.

Children killed in Qana outrage: Blair is a kind of Saruman of the West - No.2 who wanted to be no.1 because (he believes) he is smarter, better and more deserving. No.1 (Cheney) is obviously unimpressed.

And after his evil has been fully exposed to devastating effect, Blair is repeatedly offered opportunities to repent, but he refuses and viciously turns back to his stupid and self-destructive ways.

Children killed in Qana outrage: Blair is a kind of Saruman of the West - No.2 who wanted to be no.1 because (he believes) he is smarter, better and more deserving. No.1 (Cheney) is obviously unimpressed.

And after his evil has been fully exposed to devastating effect, Blair is repeatedly offered opportunities to repent, but he refuses and viciously turns back to his stupid and self-destructive ways.

Hopeless Courage: "Tolkien had eternal respect for such figures who fought against evil not for the promise of any eternal reward (there was none; Valhalla was but a training ground for the final battle in which the forces of good would be obliterated once and for all), but for the simple reason that it was the right thing to do. The hopeless struggle of good against evil evokes a world in which heroes are able to attain a nobility of character unparalleled in other traditions and mythologies."

Hopeless Courage: "Tolkien had eternal respect for such figures who fought against evil not for the promise of any eternal reward (there was none; Valhalla was but a training ground for the final battle in which the forces of good would be obliterated once and for all), but for the simple reason that it was the right thing to do. The hopeless struggle of good against evil evokes a world in which heroes are able to attain a nobility of character unparalleled in other traditions and mythologies."

Uri Avnery Q & A on the Israel/Hizbollah war: Some plain speaking on the subject, not very flattering to the civilian and military Israeli leadership.

Uri Avnery Q & A on the Israel/Hizbollah war: Some plain speaking on the subject, not very flattering to the civilian and military Israeli leadership.

No ceasefire 'for weeks' as Lebanon talks stall: "“Could the Prime Minister really not speak up for the simple proposition that the slaughter of innocent people in Lebanon, the destruction of their country and the ruin of half a million lives were wrong and should stop immediately?”"

Put that up on Blair's tombstone as an epitaph, right along with the 'weapons of mass destruction'.

No ceasefire 'for weeks' as Lebanon talks stall: "“Could the Prime Minister really not speak up for the simple proposition that the slaughter of innocent people in Lebanon, the destruction of their country and the ruin of half a million lives were wrong and should stop immediately?”"

Put that up on Blair's tombstone as an epitaph, right along with the 'weapons of mass destruction'.

UN observers begged Israelis to stop shelling their position: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described the killing of 4 unarmed UN peacekeepers (including a Chinese soldier) as 'apparently deliberate'.

This war has highlighted the arrogance and militarism of Israel, and produced some of the most disastrous publicity for it. Who was the military genius who decided to bomb Beirut International airport as one of the first acts of the war? This immediately left stranded thousands upon thousands of foreign nationals, who began screaming into their TV cameras to get them the hell out of the place, producing a seemingly endless barrage of negative publicity.

Isreal seems more and more like the Prussia of the Middle East: a small country with a large military that believes war is the answer. The military overwhelms the civilian leadership, pulling Schlieffen plans out of the draw to execute without apparent regard to the negative political and diplomatic consequences of bombing the airport, the UN or the civilian infrastructure generally, not to mention the consequences of a war which is lost or only partly won.

And when Condi Rice appeared in Beirut, Israeli bombing temporarily stopped. Here's a suggestion: send her back to Beirut or 'somewhere in southern Lebanon.'

The US vetoed a resolution in the Security Council and has a position calling for a 'sustainable ceasefire'. This Orwellian phrase simply means no ceasefire at all but a green light for Israel to continue attacking, including attacks on peacekeepers, civilians and civilian infrastructure, as long as it likes. Howard, predictably, echoes the US line. One wonders whether he is in touch with the US to pick up directly the US/Israeli talking points.

And its a duplicitous game that Howard is playing:

Australia apparently voted with the rest of the world in the General Assembly, but Howard publicly supports the US/UK/Israeli position of a sustainable ceasefire (unrestricted warfare). What can explain this inconsistency? I would venture that Howard does not want Australia to be seen to be globally isolated in the General Assembly in support of an indefensible position, but at the same time because Assembly votes are generally ignored no one outside the chamber will notice if he publicly supports the UKUSIS (UK/US/Israel) position.

Diplomacy and votes in both the Security Council and the General Assembly are not reported as promptly and prominently as they ought, except for one dramatic recent exception: the massive reporting on the Security Council debate over Saddam's 'weapons of mass destruction.' And that of course explains why there is little reporting: that affair was a devastating diplomatic and political defeat for the United States. Day after day, week after week the lack of credibility of the US position and its nakedly aggressive agenda was held up for the whole world to see. With Powell gone and yo Blair! the poodle despised, Bush & co will be sure not to make that mistake again. Cheney and Rumsfeld didnt want to do it in the first place. Which is precisely why the UN should get full attention in progressive reporting.

UN observers begged Israelis to stop shelling their position: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described the killing of 4 unarmed UN peacekeepers (including a Chinese soldier) as 'apparently deliberate'.

This war has highlighted the arrogance and militarism of Israel, and produced some of the most disastrous publicity for it. Who was the military genius who decided to bomb Beirut International airport as one of the first acts of the war? This immediately left stranded thousands upon thousands of foreign nationals, who began screaming into their TV cameras to get them the hell out of the place, producing a seemingly endless barrage of negative publicity.

Isreal seems more and more like the Prussia of the Middle East: a small country with a large military that believes war is the answer. The military overwhelms the civilian leadership, pulling Schlieffen plans out of the draw to execute without apparent regard to the negative political and diplomatic consequences of bombing the airport, the UN or the civilian infrastructure generally, not to mention the consequences of a war which is lost or only partly won.

And when Condi Rice appeared in Beirut, Israeli bombing temporarily stopped. Here's a suggestion: send her back to Beirut or 'somewhere in southern Lebanon.'

The US vetoed a resolution in the Security Council and has a position calling for a 'sustainable ceasefire'. This Orwellian phrase simply means no ceasefire at all but a green light for Israel to continue attacking, including attacks on peacekeepers, civilians and civilian infrastructure, as long as it likes. Howard, predictably, echoes the US line. One wonders whether he is in touch with the US to pick up directly the US/Israeli talking points.

And its a duplicitous game that Howard is playing:

Australia apparently voted with the rest of the world in the General Assembly, but Howard publicly supports the US/UK/Israeli position of a sustainable ceasefire (unrestricted warfare). What can explain this inconsistency? I would venture that Howard does not want Australia to be seen to be globally isolated in the General Assembly in support of an indefensible position, but at the same time because Assembly votes are generally ignored no one outside the chamber will notice if he publicly supports the UKUSIS (UK/US/Israel) position.

Diplomacy and votes in both the Security Council and the General Assembly are not reported as promptly and prominently as they ought, except for one dramatic recent exception: the massive reporting on the Security Council debate over Saddam's 'weapons of mass destruction.' And that of course explains why there is little reporting: that affair was a devastating diplomatic and political defeat for the United States. Day after day, week after week the lack of credibility of the US position and its nakedly aggressive agenda was held up for the whole world to see. With Powell gone and yo Blair! the poodle despised, Bush & co will be sure not to make that mistake again. Cheney and Rumsfeld didnt want to do it in the first place. Which is precisely why the UN should get full attention in progressive reporting.

'Israel is to the US what Serbia was to Russia in The Summer of 1914 - by William S. Lind: "If Hezbollah and Hamas win – and winning just means surviving, given that Israel's objective is to destroy both entities – a powerful state will have suffered a new kind of defeat".

But Israel already suffered a new and major kind of defeat in Lebanon - Sharon's 1982 invasion led to the creation of Hezbollah (where nothing existed before) which then proceeded to expel Israel from Lebanon altogether.

"So far, Hezbollah is winning. As Arab states stood silent and helpless before Israel's assault on Hamas, another non-state entity, Hezbollah, intervened to relieve the siege of Gaza by opening a second front. Its initial move, a brilliantly conducted raid that killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two for the loss of one Hezbollah fighter, showed once again that Hezbollah can take on state armed forces on even terms."

"Hezbollah then pulled off two more firsts. It responded effectively to terror bombing from the air, which states think is their monopoly, with rocket barrages that reached deep into Israel. One can only imagine how this resonated worldwide with people who are often bombed but can never bomb back. And, it attacked another state monopoly, navies, by hitting and disabling a blockading Israeli warship with something."

"Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, referring to the initial Hezbollah raid, said, "I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a terror act but the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without reason." This is an obvious fiction, as the state of Lebanon had nothing to do with the raid and cannot control Hezbollah. But it is a necessary fiction for Israel, because otherwise who can it respond against?"

'Israel is to the US what Serbia was to Russia in The Summer of 1914 - by William S. Lind: "If Hezbollah and Hamas win – and winning just means surviving, given that Israel's objective is to destroy both entities – a powerful state will have suffered a new kind of defeat".

But Israel already suffered a new and major kind of defeat in Lebanon - Sharon's 1982 invasion led to the creation of Hezbollah (where nothing existed before) which then proceeded to expel Israel from Lebanon altogether.

"So far, Hezbollah is winning. As Arab states stood silent and helpless before Israel's assault on Hamas, another non-state entity, Hezbollah, intervened to relieve the siege of Gaza by opening a second front. Its initial move, a brilliantly conducted raid that killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two for the loss of one Hezbollah fighter, showed once again that Hezbollah can take on state armed forces on even terms."

"Hezbollah then pulled off two more firsts. It responded effectively to terror bombing from the air, which states think is their monopoly, with rocket barrages that reached deep into Israel. One can only imagine how this resonated worldwide with people who are often bombed but can never bomb back. And, it attacked another state monopoly, navies, by hitting and disabling a blockading Israeli warship with something."

"Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, referring to the initial Hezbollah raid, said, "I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a terror act but the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without reason." This is an obvious fiction, as the state of Lebanon had nothing to do with the raid and cannot control Hezbollah. But it is a necessary fiction for Israel, because otherwise who can it respond against?"

Avnery: The Real Aim: "THE REAL aim is to change the regime in Lebanon and to install a puppet government. That was the aim of Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It failed. But Sharon and his pupils in the military and political leadership have never really given up on it. As in 1982, the present operation, too, was planned and is being carried out in full coordination with the US."

Avnery: The Real Aim: "THE REAL aim is to change the regime in Lebanon and to install a puppet government. That was the aim of Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It failed. But Sharon and his pupils in the military and political leadership have never really given up on it. As in 1982, the present operation, too, was planned and is being carried out in full coordination with the US."

Hizbollah's Response Reveals Months Of Planning By Robert Fisk

Hizbollah's Response Reveals Months Of Planning By Robert Fisk

Putin rejects Bush's Iraq democracy model: "During a joint news conference Saturday in St. Petersburg, Bush said he raised concerns about democracy in Russia during a frank discussion with the Russian leader.

"'I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same,' Bush said."

"Putin replied, 'We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly.'" Very droll...

Putin rejects Bush's Iraq democracy model: "During a joint news conference Saturday in St. Petersburg, Bush said he raised concerns about democracy in Russia during a frank discussion with the Russian leader.

"'I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same,' Bush said."

"Putin replied, 'We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly.'" Very droll...

Two Palestinians in Gaza Kidnapped By Israel before the capture of Israeli soldier: If you've been watching the corporate media (goddamit but its hard to avoid) the Israeli spokesmen have been demanding the release of the soldier every day but how much has been reported of the kidnapped Palestinians?

"Interestingly, the language used by the British media mirrors that used by the Israeli media. The words "retaliation", "escalation", "pressure", "kidnap" and "hostage" are all drawn from the lexicon of the Israeli press when talking about the Palestinians. The only Israeli term avoided in British coverage is the label "terrorists" for the Palestinian militants who attacked the army post near Gaza on 25 June. In other words, the British media have adopted the same terminology as Israeli media organisations, even though the latter proudly declare their role as cheerleading for their army against the Palestinian enemy."

Two Palestinians in Gaza Kidnapped By Israel before the capture of Israeli soldier: If you've been watching the corporate media (goddamit but its hard to avoid) the Israeli spokesmen have been demanding the release of the soldier every day but how much has been reported of the kidnapped Palestinians?

"Interestingly, the language used by the British media mirrors that used by the Israeli media. The words "retaliation", "escalation", "pressure", "kidnap" and "hostage" are all drawn from the lexicon of the Israeli press when talking about the Palestinians. The only Israeli term avoided in British coverage is the label "terrorists" for the Palestinian militants who attacked the army post near Gaza on 25 June. In other words, the British media have adopted the same terminology as Israeli media organisations, even though the latter proudly declare their role as cheerleading for their army against the Palestinian enemy."

Reinhart: Attack on Gaza (and Lebanon?) pre-meditated: "Whatever may be the fate of the captive soldier Gilad Shalit, the Israeli army's war in Gaza is not about him. As senior security analyst Alex Fishman widely reported, the army was preparing for an attack months earlier and was constantly pushing for it, with the goal of destroying the Hamas infrastructure and its government. The army initiated an escalation on 8 June when it assassinated Abu Samhadana, a senior appointee of the Hamas government, and intensified its shelling of civilians in the Gaza Strip. Governmental authorization for action on a larger scale was already given by 12 June, but it was postponed in the wake of the global reverberation caused by the killing of civilians in the air force bombing the next day. The abduction of the soldier released the safety-catch, and the operation began on 28 June with the destruction of infrastructure in Gaza and the mass detention of the Hamas leadership in the West Bank, which was also planned weeks in advance.... Hamas remains committed to political struggle against the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. In Israel's view, the Palestinians elections results is a disaster, because for the first time they have a leadership that insists on representing Palestinian interests rather than just collaborating with Israel's demands."

The corporate media, of course, takes the Israeli narrative at face value.

Reinhart: Attack on Gaza (and Lebanon?) pre-meditated: "Whatever may be the fate of the captive soldier Gilad Shalit, the Israeli army's war in Gaza is not about him. As senior security analyst Alex Fishman widely reported, the army was preparing for an attack months earlier and was constantly pushing for it, with the goal of destroying the Hamas infrastructure and its government. The army initiated an escalation on 8 June when it assassinated Abu Samhadana, a senior appointee of the Hamas government, and intensified its shelling of civilians in the Gaza Strip. Governmental authorization for action on a larger scale was already given by 12 June, but it was postponed in the wake of the global reverberation caused by the killing of civilians in the air force bombing the next day. The abduction of the soldier released the safety-catch, and the operation began on 28 June with the destruction of infrastructure in Gaza and the mass detention of the Hamas leadership in the West Bank, which was also planned weeks in advance.... Hamas remains committed to political struggle against the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. In Israel's view, the Palestinians elections results is a disaster, because for the first time they have a leadership that insists on representing Palestinian interests rather than just collaborating with Israel's demands."

The corporate media, of course, takes the Israeli narrative at face value.

Noam Chomsky in Lebanon May 2006 - first ever visit to Lebanon: Interesting summary of his 8 day visit. Includes a meeting with Hizbollah leader Nasrallah.

Noam Chomsky in Lebanon May 2006 - first ever visit to Lebanon: Interesting summary of his 8 day visit. Includes a meeting with Hizbollah leader Nasrallah.

Latest Hersh on Iran: The Pentagon is trying to warn Bush against war with Iran: "A retired four-star general, who ran a major command, said, “The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don’t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, ‘We stood up.’”"

Iran is warning the Gulf states: "Iran’s message to the oil-producing Gulf states, the retired diplomat said, has been that it will respond, and “you are on the wrong side of history.”"

Latest Hersh on Iran: The Pentagon is trying to warn Bush against war with Iran: "A retired four-star general, who ran a major command, said, “The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don’t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, ‘We stood up.’”"

Iran is warning the Gulf states: "Iran’s message to the oil-producing Gulf states, the retired diplomat said, has been that it will respond, and “you are on the wrong side of history.”"

Karzai: Revealed, Reviled, Orphaned, and at Bay - by Bahlol Lohdi: Article on the slow and probably unstoppable disintegration of the Afghan occupation, with a focus on Karzai, "an incompetent foreign puppet of no intellect, and totally corrupt."

Of note is a remarkable incident involving Cheney:

"The first overt sign of the changed circumstances in Afghanistan became apparent when Cheney visited Kabul to participate in the inauguration of Afghanistan's "first freely elected parliament." As Cheney's motorcade approached the parliament compound, the guards allowed his car to pass but firmly closed the gates in the face of the rest of his entourage. All of Cheney's staff members, men and women, were forced to disembark, made to face the wall, and enthusiastically body-searched. The situation turned more tense and ugly when the guards insisted on rummaging through the military aide's brief case, which contained the codes for unleashing a nuclear war. Fortunately, after a brief tussle, the Afghan security detail relented and Cheney's staff was allowed to enter the bastion of Afghan democracy. Surprisingly, the American media ignored this unprecedented and grossly insulting behavior toward the vice president of the United States."

Karzai: Revealed, Reviled, Orphaned, and at Bay - by Bahlol Lohdi: Article on the slow and probably unstoppable disintegration of the Afghan occupation, with a focus on Karzai, "an incompetent foreign puppet of no intellect, and totally corrupt."

Of note is a remarkable incident involving Cheney:

"The first overt sign of the changed circumstances in Afghanistan became apparent when Cheney visited Kabul to participate in the inauguration of Afghanistan's "first freely elected parliament." As Cheney's motorcade approached the parliament compound, the guards allowed his car to pass but firmly closed the gates in the face of the rest of his entourage. All of Cheney's staff members, men and women, were forced to disembark, made to face the wall, and enthusiastically body-searched. The situation turned more tense and ugly when the guards insisted on rummaging through the military aide's brief case, which contained the codes for unleashing a nuclear war. Fortunately, after a brief tussle, the Afghan security detail relented and Cheney's staff was allowed to enter the bastion of Afghan democracy. Surprisingly, the American media ignored this unprecedented and grossly insulting behavior toward the vice president of the United States."

Revealed: how Downer waged war with US to protect Iraq wheat trade: "They show that more than six months before the outbreak of war, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, suggested that military support for the US in Iraq would benefit Australia's commercial position. Once war had broken out, he was concerned the US would use its battle deaths as justification for seizing Australia's wheat trade.

At a meeting in August 2002 in Mr Downer's Canberra office, the Prime Minister, John Howard, senior government officials and executives from the wheat exporter AWB discussed the outlook for Australia's sales.

"The documents reveal an idea was floated at the meeting whereby Australia would provide military support for the US on the condition its wheat trade was protected. A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade record of conversation shows Mr Downer suggested Australian support for the US would benefit 'Australia's commercial position in Iraq'."

"In one dispatch, a Foreign Affairs official reported Mr Downer telling Mr Powell words to the effect that the US could 'forget Aussie support in future' if America flooded Iraq with wheat after the war. Mr Downer stipulated that his request for Australia's Iraqi sales to be protected be formally recorded in the minutes of his meetings with Mr Powell. Senior Australian officials in Washington were instructed to press the issue at every opportunity.

"Once the war began, the wheat issue was never far from the Government's mind."

I thought the purpose of the war was to find the weapons get Saddam for 9/11 build democracy, not to fix up big wheat contracts. The cynicism of our ruling elite is such that it wouldn't surprise me if Downer more or less proudly admitted that the substance of this report is correct.

Revealed: how Downer waged war with US to protect Iraq wheat trade: "They show that more than six months before the outbreak of war, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, suggested that military support for the US in Iraq would benefit Australia's commercial position. Once war had broken out, he was concerned the US would use its battle deaths as justification for seizing Australia's wheat trade.

At a meeting in August 2002 in Mr Downer's Canberra office, the Prime Minister, John Howard, senior government officials and executives from the wheat exporter AWB discussed the outlook for Australia's sales.

"The documents reveal an idea was floated at the meeting whereby Australia would provide military support for the US on the condition its wheat trade was protected. A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade record of conversation shows Mr Downer suggested Australian support for the US would benefit 'Australia's commercial position in Iraq'."

"In one dispatch, a Foreign Affairs official reported Mr Downer telling Mr Powell words to the effect that the US could 'forget Aussie support in future' if America flooded Iraq with wheat after the war. Mr Downer stipulated that his request for Australia's Iraqi sales to be protected be formally recorded in the minutes of his meetings with Mr Powell. Senior Australian officials in Washington were instructed to press the issue at every opportunity.

"Once the war began, the wheat issue was never far from the Government's mind."

I thought the purpose of the war was to find the weapons get Saddam for 9/11 build democracy, not to fix up big wheat contracts. The cynicism of our ruling elite is such that it wouldn't surprise me if Downer more or less proudly admitted that the substance of this report is correct.

Gleen Greenwald post on redstate hatespeech: This is an all too typical example of degraded political discourse in the US. Hatespeech and violent political rhetoric are intrinsically dangerous and as such should be strongly and consistently condemned by every civilised person. But I remain to be convinced that the current manisfestations are anything other than political rhetoric.

One of the features of Hitler's rise to power was that the whole effort was dedicated from the outset to establishing a dictatorship led by Hitler himself - party, SA, SS, stormtroopers, streetfighters, propaganda, everything. Surely Rove & co cannot seriously be entertaining overtfascism. They can exploit this kind of nasty rhetoric for political purposes but it may leave them nowhere to go in the end. Or could there be a stumbling and accidental descent into fully-fledged fascism?

Gleen Greenwald post on redstate hatespeech: This is an all too typical example of degraded political discourse in the US. Hatespeech and violent political rhetoric are intrinsically dangerous and as such should be strongly and consistently condemned by every civilised person. But I remain to be convinced that the current manisfestations are anything other than political rhetoric.

One of the features of Hitler's rise to power was that the whole effort was dedicated from the outset to establishing a dictatorship led by Hitler himself - party, SA, SS, stormtroopers, streetfighters, propaganda, everything. Surely Rove & co cannot seriously be entertaining overtfascism. They can exploit this kind of nasty rhetoric for political purposes but it may leave them nowhere to go in the end. Or could there be a stumbling and accidental descent into fully-fledged fascism?

Israel: an adolescent with nukes: "By the age of 58 a country - like a man - should have achieved a certain maturity. After nearly six decades of existence we know, for good and for bad, who we are, what we have done and how we appear to others, warts and all. We acknowledge, however reluctantly and privately, our mistakes and our shortcomings. And though we still harbor the occasional illusion about ourselves and our prospects, we are wise enough to recognize that these are indeed for the most part just that: illusions. In short, we are adults.

"But the State of Israel remains curiously (and among Western-style democracies, uniquely) immature. The social transformations of the country - and its many economic achievements - have not brought the political wisdom that usually accompanies age. Seen from the outside, Israel still comports itself like an adolescent: consumed by a brittle confidence in its own uniqueness; certain that no one 'understands' it and everyone is 'against' it; full of wounded self-esteem, quick to take offense and quick to give it. Like many adolescents Israel is convinced - and makes a point of aggressively and repeatedly asserting - that it can do as it wishes, that its actions carry no consequences and that it is immortal."

"Even the inauguration of the illegal settlements and the disastrous invasion of Lebanon, while they strengthened the arguments of Israel's critics, did not yet shift the international balance of opinion. As recently as the early 1990s, most people in the world were only vaguely aware of the "West Bank" and what was happening there. Even those who pressed the Palestinians' case in international forums conceded that almost no one was listening. Israel could still do as it wished.

"But today everything is different. We can see, in retrospect, that the victory of Israel in June 1967 and its continuing occupation of the territories it conquered then have been the Jewish state's very own nakba: a moral and political catastrophe. Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza have magnified and publicized the country's shortcomings and displayed them to a watching world. Curfews, checkpoints, bulldozers, public humiliations, home destructions, land seizures, shootings, "targeted assassinations," the separation fence: All of these routines of occupation and repression were once familiar only to an informed minority of specialists and activists. Today they can be watched, in real time, by anyone with a computer or a satellite dish - which means that Israel's behavior is under daily scrutiny by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The result has been a complete transformation in the international view of Israel.... It has become commonplace to compare Israel at best to an occupying colonizer, at worst to the South Africa of race laws and Bantustans."

"the long cultivated persecution mania - "everyone's out to get us" - no longer elicits sympathy. Instead it attracts some very unappetizing comparisons: At a recent international meeting I heard one speaker, by analogy with Helmut Schmidt's famous dismissal of the Soviet Union as "Upper Volta with Missiles," describe Israel as "Serbia with nukes."

Israel: an adolescent with nukes: "By the age of 58 a country - like a man - should have achieved a certain maturity. After nearly six decades of existence we know, for good and for bad, who we are, what we have done and how we appear to others, warts and all. We acknowledge, however reluctantly and privately, our mistakes and our shortcomings. And though we still harbor the occasional illusion about ourselves and our prospects, we are wise enough to recognize that these are indeed for the most part just that: illusions. In short, we are adults.

"But the State of Israel remains curiously (and among Western-style democracies, uniquely) immature. The social transformations of the country - and its many economic achievements - have not brought the political wisdom that usually accompanies age. Seen from the outside, Israel still comports itself like an adolescent: consumed by a brittle confidence in its own uniqueness; certain that no one 'understands' it and everyone is 'against' it; full of wounded self-esteem, quick to take offense and quick to give it. Like many adolescents Israel is convinced - and makes a point of aggressively and repeatedly asserting - that it can do as it wishes, that its actions carry no consequences and that it is immortal."

"Even the inauguration of the illegal settlements and the disastrous invasion of Lebanon, while they strengthened the arguments of Israel's critics, did not yet shift the international balance of opinion. As recently as the early 1990s, most people in the world were only vaguely aware of the "West Bank" and what was happening there. Even those who pressed the Palestinians' case in international forums conceded that almost no one was listening. Israel could still do as it wished.

"But today everything is different. We can see, in retrospect, that the victory of Israel in June 1967 and its continuing occupation of the territories it conquered then have been the Jewish state's very own nakba: a moral and political catastrophe. Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza have magnified and publicized the country's shortcomings and displayed them to a watching world. Curfews, checkpoints, bulldozers, public humiliations, home destructions, land seizures, shootings, "targeted assassinations," the separation fence: All of these routines of occupation and repression were once familiar only to an informed minority of specialists and activists. Today they can be watched, in real time, by anyone with a computer or a satellite dish - which means that Israel's behavior is under daily scrutiny by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The result has been a complete transformation in the international view of Israel.... It has become commonplace to compare Israel at best to an occupying colonizer, at worst to the South Africa of race laws and Bantustans."

"the long cultivated persecution mania - "everyone's out to get us" - no longer elicits sympathy. Instead it attracts some very unappetizing comparisons: At a recent international meeting I heard one speaker, by analogy with Helmut Schmidt's famous dismissal of the Soviet Union as "Upper Volta with Missiles," describe Israel as "Serbia with nukes."

Counter-terrorism experts: US losing 'war on terror'.: "Asked whether the United States is 'winning the war on terror,' 84 percent said no and 13 percent answered yes. Asked whether the war in Iraq is helping or hurting the global antiterrorism campaign, 87 percent answered that it was undermining those efforts."

You have to wonder about the 13% who said the US is 'winning'. Presumably they think terrorism is decreasing; resentment against the US falling away; and positive approval ratings for Bush and the US in Islamic countries is on the rise.

Counter-terrorism experts: US losing 'war on terror'.: "Asked whether the United States is 'winning the war on terror,' 84 percent said no and 13 percent answered yes. Asked whether the war in Iraq is helping or hurting the global antiterrorism campaign, 87 percent answered that it was undermining those efforts."

You have to wonder about the 13% who said the US is 'winning'. Presumably they think terrorism is decreasing; resentment against the US falling away; and positive approval ratings for Bush and the US in Islamic countries is on the rise.

The American Political Tradition: "Kinzer does not buy into the myth of an American Century in which the forces of freedom fought those of totalitarianism. His alternative version of that century, running from the 1890s to the present day, recounts the generally sorry record of US efforts to subvert and overthrow foreign governments that failed to meet with American approval. His new book catalogues fourteen such episodes, beginning with the 'revolution' concocted by wealthy American planters in 1893 to depose Hawaii's Queen Liliuokalani and culminating with George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq 110 years later."

"Overthrow makes it abundantly clear that far from being some innovation devised in the aftermath of 9/11, 'regime change' has long been a mainstay of American statecraft.

"When targeting some offending potentate for retirement, Kinzer notes, Washington has seldom if ever acted for altruistic reasons. 'Every time the United States has set out to overthrow a foreign government, its leaders have insisted that they are acting not to expand American power but to help people who are suffering.' In reality, however, the suffering of the oppressed has never figured as more than an afterthought. 'What distinguishes Americans from citizens of past empires,' writes Kinzer, 'is their eagerness to persuade themselves that they are acting out of humanitarian motives.' But Kinzer recognizes this as poppycock; like any great power, the United States has set its policy according to self-interest. Whether in Latin America, the Asia-Pacific or the Persian Gulf, the United States has seen regime change as a means for improving economic access, shoring up political stability and enhancing American control."

Its amazing the extent to which Americans, and even some non-Americans, are prepared to believe that the US 'acts out of humanitarian motives', and not self interest. The rules of human nature and history have been repealed, and suddenly, for the first time, in this one case alone, a power acts for humanitarian motives and not self-interest.

The American Political Tradition: "Kinzer does not buy into the myth of an American Century in which the forces of freedom fought those of totalitarianism. His alternative version of that century, running from the 1890s to the present day, recounts the generally sorry record of US efforts to subvert and overthrow foreign governments that failed to meet with American approval. His new book catalogues fourteen such episodes, beginning with the 'revolution' concocted by wealthy American planters in 1893 to depose Hawaii's Queen Liliuokalani and culminating with George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq 110 years later."

"Overthrow makes it abundantly clear that far from being some innovation devised in the aftermath of 9/11, 'regime change' has long been a mainstay of American statecraft.

"When targeting some offending potentate for retirement, Kinzer notes, Washington has seldom if ever acted for altruistic reasons. 'Every time the United States has set out to overthrow a foreign government, its leaders have insisted that they are acting not to expand American power but to help people who are suffering.' In reality, however, the suffering of the oppressed has never figured as more than an afterthought. 'What distinguishes Americans from citizens of past empires,' writes Kinzer, 'is their eagerness to persuade themselves that they are acting out of humanitarian motives.' But Kinzer recognizes this as poppycock; like any great power, the United States has set its policy according to self-interest. Whether in Latin America, the Asia-Pacific or the Persian Gulf, the United States has seen regime change as a means for improving economic access, shoring up political stability and enhancing American control."

Its amazing the extent to which Americans, and even some non-Americans, are prepared to believe that the US 'acts out of humanitarian motives', and not self interest. The rules of human nature and history have been repealed, and suddenly, for the first time, in this one case alone, a power acts for humanitarian motives and not self-interest.

Observer Foreign Editor makes a fool of himself with 'superb demolition' of Chomsky: I think it is a good thing when journalists or editors try to 'take on' Chomsky: they almost invariably makes fools of themselves and advance Chomsky's credibility.

Comments to the article contain a range of for and against. One of my favourites is:

"In particular, the complaint about Chomsky creating 'a moral - or rather immoral - equivalence between the US and the greatest criminals in history' is crashingly stupid, because the Chomsky quote that is supposed to illustrate this explicitly says exactly the opposite."

The only way for the establishment to deal with Chomsky is through complete silence - no mention or discussion ever, because to mention or debate him can only backfire. This tactic worked for a long time through the 70s, 80s and 90s, but with the advent of the internet the control of discourse has broken down and even newspapers have been forced to address the topic and the complaints from their readers and ex-readers.

Observer Foreign Editor makes a fool of himself with 'superb demolition' of Chomsky: I think it is a good thing when journalists or editors try to 'take on' Chomsky: they almost invariably makes fools of themselves and advance Chomsky's credibility.

Comments to the article contain a range of for and against. One of my favourites is:

"In particular, the complaint about Chomsky creating 'a moral - or rather immoral - equivalence between the US and the greatest criminals in history' is crashingly stupid, because the Chomsky quote that is supposed to illustrate this explicitly says exactly the opposite."

The only way for the establishment to deal with Chomsky is through complete silence - no mention or discussion ever, because to mention or debate him can only backfire. This tactic worked for a long time through the 70s, 80s and 90s, but with the advent of the internet the control of discourse has broken down and even newspapers have been forced to address the topic and the complaints from their readers and ex-readers.

Chomsky interviewed by a Norwegian, classic Chomsky:

Danish cartoons and freedom of speech: "While defending the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten’s legal right to publish the cartoons (“The New York Times should have the right to publish anti-Semitic Nazi caricatures on the front page.”) he argues that the Jyllandsposten’s decision to publish had nothing to do with press freedom whatsoever. “This is just ordinary racism under cover of freedom of expression,” he says, before attacking the European press in general. “In Europe freedom of speech and freedom of the press are barely protected, in fact barely understood.” Chomsky refers to the Blair government’s attempt to push a law making it a crime to glorify terrorism. “When a Muslim cleric was imprisoned recently on charges of having glorified terrorism, the London Guardian had a lead editorial praising the judicial decision because people shouldn’t be permitted to spew hatred and to glorify violent acts, they should be stopped. Under that law virtually all the British press and publishers should be closed down. Do they incite hatred and violence? Yes. Do they support invading Iraq? Yes. That is supporting hatred and violence,” he says before concluding: “Nobody cares about freedom of speech. What they care about is using state power to shut down the kind of speech they don’t like. Even Stalin would have agreed with that.”"

Bush and Iran: "The Bush administration has engaged in a policy of aggressive militarism and threat. There has been a vast increase in our offensive military capacity, even moving on towards the militarisation of space. All this generates countermeasures. The Russians have sharply increased military spending on offensive military capacity, China is doing the same and Iran may be developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Every one of these steps increases the threat of even accidental nuclear war. Offensive nuclear armed missiles are on computer-controlled alert. We know that our own control systems are inaccurate, the Russians are much worse. As the threat increases, as the preparation for war increases, the threat of accidental war increases."

"That is going to go a long way towards solving the problem of nuclear war. There is only one problem, the US won’t accept it. The treaty did come to a vote, at the UN, it was November 2004, the vote was 147 to one, with two abstentions: Israel, which flexibly goes along with the US, and Britain, which was more interesting. The British Ambassador explained, he said Britain is in favour of the treaty, but can’t vote for this version, because it divides the international community – namely 147 to one. In other words for Britain it’s more important to shine the shoes of their master than to save the human species from destruction, which is basically what it comes down to. If there are no controls over fissile material production the chances of human survival are negligible. That’s were it stands. Actually there is one country in the world, one that has said it accepts ElBaradei’s proposal. That’s Iran. I’m sure it wasn’t published in Norway, it certainly wasn’t published here."

Bush in Iraq: Question: I spent some time with the US marines outside Falluja, and met a soldier who was totally against the war

Chomsky: Do you know any army in history where the soldiers didn’t say that? If you had interviewed German soldiers in Norway during the Second World War, what do you think they would have said? It’s not the fault of the soldier, that’s why they didn’t try soldiers at Nuremberg. They tried Von Ribbentrop and they hanged him, for one reason, because he supported the pre-emptive war against Norway. What does that imply?

"The US has created a military catastrophe in Iraq which I think is without historic parallel, I can’t think of any. I mean, Germany had less problems running occupied Europe than the US has running Iraq, which is mind-boggling. Germany was at war, resistance in Iraq has no support from outside to speak of, it’s marginal. The partisans in Europe would have been wiped out in no time if they didn’t have British and American support."

"the nightmare in Washington, is an independent, loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world’s oil. That’s almost the worst nightmare they can think of. There is a worse one. This loose alliance might decide to turn towards to the East. To turn towards the Asian energy system which is developing basically around China, it’s the core of it. China, Russia and maybe India will go along, it’s not clear, in working on an energy security grid, if they can draw Iran into it, which is possible. By geographic accident most Middle East oil happens to be in Shia areas, and if that moves along, it is for the US an utter disaster. But you can’t talk about this in the West, for we are not allowed to admit that oil had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq. We are supposed to believe that the US and Britain would have liberated Iraq even if its main export was pickles. And that most of the oil was in the South Pacific. That’s a kind of doctrine that has to be adhered to by Western intellectuals kind of North Korean style, the Dear Leader said so, so it’s true. If anybody had one brain cell functioning, they’d know that establishing a major base in the centre of the world’s energy system was the prime reason for the invasion."

Chomsky interviewed by a Norwegian, classic Chomsky:

Danish cartoons and freedom of speech: "While defending the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten’s legal right to publish the cartoons (“The New York Times should have the right to publish anti-Semitic Nazi caricatures on the front page.”) he argues that the Jyllandsposten’s decision to publish had nothing to do with press freedom whatsoever. “This is just ordinary racism under cover of freedom of expression,” he says, before attacking the European press in general. “In Europe freedom of speech and freedom of the press are barely protected, in fact barely understood.” Chomsky refers to the Blair government’s attempt to push a law making it a crime to glorify terrorism. “When a Muslim cleric was imprisoned recently on charges of having glorified terrorism, the London Guardian had a lead editorial praising the judicial decision because people shouldn’t be permitted to spew hatred and to glorify violent acts, they should be stopped. Under that law virtually all the British press and publishers should be closed down. Do they incite hatred and violence? Yes. Do they support invading Iraq? Yes. That is supporting hatred and violence,” he says before concluding: “Nobody cares about freedom of speech. What they care about is using state power to shut down the kind of speech they don’t like. Even Stalin would have agreed with that.”"

Bush and Iran: "The Bush administration has engaged in a policy of aggressive militarism and threat. There has been a vast increase in our offensive military capacity, even moving on towards the militarisation of space. All this generates countermeasures. The Russians have sharply increased military spending on offensive military capacity, China is doing the same and Iran may be developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Every one of these steps increases the threat of even accidental nuclear war. Offensive nuclear armed missiles are on computer-controlled alert. We know that our own control systems are inaccurate, the Russians are much worse. As the threat increases, as the preparation for war increases, the threat of accidental war increases."

"That is going to go a long way towards solving the problem of nuclear war. There is only one problem, the US won’t accept it. The treaty did come to a vote, at the UN, it was November 2004, the vote was 147 to one, with two abstentions: Israel, which flexibly goes along with the US, and Britain, which was more interesting. The British Ambassador explained, he said Britain is in favour of the treaty, but can’t vote for this version, because it divides the international community – namely 147 to one. In other words for Britain it’s more important to shine the shoes of their master than to save the human species from destruction, which is basically what it comes down to. If there are no controls over fissile material production the chances of human survival are negligible. That’s were it stands. Actually there is one country in the world, one that has said it accepts ElBaradei’s proposal. That’s Iran. I’m sure it wasn’t published in Norway, it certainly wasn’t published here."

Bush in Iraq: Question: I spent some time with the US marines outside Falluja, and met a soldier who was totally against the war

Chomsky: Do you know any army in history where the soldiers didn’t say that? If you had interviewed German soldiers in Norway during the Second World War, what do you think they would have said? It’s not the fault of the soldier, that’s why they didn’t try soldiers at Nuremberg. They tried Von Ribbentrop and they hanged him, for one reason, because he supported the pre-emptive war against Norway. What does that imply?

"The US has created a military catastrophe in Iraq which I think is without historic parallel, I can’t think of any. I mean, Germany had less problems running occupied Europe than the US has running Iraq, which is mind-boggling. Germany was at war, resistance in Iraq has no support from outside to speak of, it’s marginal. The partisans in Europe would have been wiped out in no time if they didn’t have British and American support."

"the nightmare in Washington, is an independent, loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world’s oil. That’s almost the worst nightmare they can think of. There is a worse one. This loose alliance might decide to turn towards to the East. To turn towards the Asian energy system which is developing basically around China, it’s the core of it. China, Russia and maybe India will go along, it’s not clear, in working on an energy security grid, if they can draw Iran into it, which is possible. By geographic accident most Middle East oil happens to be in Shia areas, and if that moves along, it is for the US an utter disaster. But you can’t talk about this in the West, for we are not allowed to admit that oil had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq. We are supposed to believe that the US and Britain would have liberated Iraq even if its main export was pickles. And that most of the oil was in the South Pacific. That’s a kind of doctrine that has to be adhered to by Western intellectuals kind of North Korean style, the Dear Leader said so, so it’s true. If anybody had one brain cell functioning, they’d know that establishing a major base in the centre of the world’s energy system was the prime reason for the invasion."

Australia already being poisoned by nuclear waste: "When asked in the Australian Senate about whether or not the US would be using DU in its bombing of Australian sites, Defence Minister Senator Hill said, 'In relation to Depleted Uranium used by our allies we have said that, if they believe it is the most appropriate element to use in their particular munitions in certain circumstances, we do not think it is appropriate for us to press a different view upon them.' Senator Hill has since retired from Australian politics and has taken up residence as the Australian UN Ambassador in New York."

Note the utterly servile manner of this expression, in effect: 'if they (ie, US) believe it is ok to do it, who are we to question.'

"According to Leuren Moret, it is simply no longer possible to go to Afghanistan or the Middle East without being contaminated. How long before that is also true of Australia?"

Australia already being poisoned by nuclear waste: "When asked in the Australian Senate about whether or not the US would be using DU in its bombing of Australian sites, Defence Minister Senator Hill said, 'In relation to Depleted Uranium used by our allies we have said that, if they believe it is the most appropriate element to use in their particular munitions in certain circumstances, we do not think it is appropriate for us to press a different view upon them.' Senator Hill has since retired from Australian politics and has taken up residence as the Australian UN Ambassador in New York."

Note the utterly servile manner of this expression, in effect: 'if they (ie, US) believe it is ok to do it, who are we to question.'

"According to Leuren Moret, it is simply no longer possible to go to Afghanistan or the Middle East without being contaminated. How long before that is also true of Australia?"

The Iraq War in Context: A Strategy Paper Calling for the Immediate Withdrawal of U.S. Troops: "'The United States will not hesitate to strike preemptively against enemies, and will never again allow its military supremacy to be challenged.'
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

Our nation is chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model for the world.
President George W. Bush

The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq…What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong.
Gwynne Dyer

We had to create a false rational for going in [to Iraq] to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one month before the war, and Senator Lugar asked me: 'General Zinni, do you feel the threat from Saddam Hussein is imminent?' I said: 'No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of those.'
General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Retired)"

The Iraq War in Context: A Strategy Paper Calling for the Immediate Withdrawal of U.S. Troops: "'The United States will not hesitate to strike preemptively against enemies, and will never again allow its military supremacy to be challenged.'
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

Our nation is chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model for the world.
President George W. Bush

The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq…What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong.
Gwynne Dyer

We had to create a false rational for going in [to Iraq] to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one month before the war, and Senator Lugar asked me: 'General Zinni, do you feel the threat from Saddam Hussein is imminent?' I said: 'No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of those.'
General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Retired)"

Gawenda: America's liberals need to loosen up: Do we really need to have Rovian extreme right-wing propaganda printed as 'opinion' in an Australian newspaper? Or is this to be the new official policy and rhetoric of the Howard Government?

"This liberal base of the [Democrat] party is essentially animated by a deep and abiding hatred of George Bush and everything he stands for and has done."

If that were all critics of Bush and his policies were motivated or 'animated' by then it would not be worth taking seriously. But of course it is not the case. This is a rhetorical device which sets out to make any or preferably all criticism of Bush and his policies illegitimate by a simple device: people who criticise Bush are motivated by hate; that is an illegitimate response to the government; all criticism can therefore be dismissed. I suspect you will see this device employed over and over again.

"Liberals - and, by implication, the moderate left in Europe and Australia - do not have a coherent position on the security challenges facing the US and the world since September 11.... Bush, and conservatives in general, at least have a coherent story to tell about the world in the wake of the September 11 attacks. America, which represents good, is in an epic struggle against evil, and liberals and leftists in general are constantly trying to undermine the "moral clarity" of America, rein in American power and make Americans question their faith in their country's exceptionalism."

"Liberals end up sounding wholly negative, motivated purely by anti-Americanism and hatred of Bush, more outraged by Bush and his Administration than by indiscriminate terrorist violence, the oppression of women and the religious intolerance and anti-democratic ideology of America's, and liberal democracy's, enemies."

Bush's aggression has killed 10,000 people in Afghanistan and 100,000 people in Iraq already by 2004, which is many more than were killed on 9/11. And presumably few or none of these people killed had anything to do 9/11. In the process of doing this the Administration has violated international law and the US constitution, and taken distinct steps towards a police state, including establishing and legitimising the use of torture, concentration camps, detention without trial and extra-judicial killings. The motive for all these actions is essentially wealth and power, ie control of Mideast energy reserves and power and wealth for US corporations and the US ruling elite. Terrorism (just as with WMDs) is simply a convenient pretext. There were of course no WMDs, which was apparent before the aggression against Iraq; and the invasion of Iraq has led to a predictable jump in 'terrorist' activity.

It is the duty of a citizen of the US or an allied country to oppose these actions and seek to change policy. If the writer cannot or will not see these facts and duties and instead acts as a propagandist for the government, that merely reflects on him. He is a crucial tool in the great machine, and bears his share of personal responsibility for the tragedy and suffering.

Gawenda: America's liberals need to loosen up: Do we really need to have Rovian extreme right-wing propaganda printed as 'opinion' in an Australian newspaper? Or is this to be the new official policy and rhetoric of the Howard Government?

"This liberal base of the [Democrat] party is essentially animated by a deep and abiding hatred of George Bush and everything he stands for and has done."

If that were all critics of Bush and his policies were motivated or 'animated' by then it would not be worth taking seriously. But of course it is not the case. This is a rhetorical device which sets out to make any or preferably all criticism of Bush and his policies illegitimate by a simple device: people who criticise Bush are motivated by hate; that is an illegitimate response to the government; all criticism can therefore be dismissed. I suspect you will see this device employed over and over again.

"Liberals - and, by implication, the moderate left in Europe and Australia - do not have a coherent position on the security challenges facing the US and the world since September 11.... Bush, and conservatives in general, at least have a coherent story to tell about the world in the wake of the September 11 attacks. America, which represents good, is in an epic struggle against evil, and liberals and leftists in general are constantly trying to undermine the "moral clarity" of America, rein in American power and make Americans question their faith in their country's exceptionalism."

"Liberals end up sounding wholly negative, motivated purely by anti-Americanism and hatred of Bush, more outraged by Bush and his Administration than by indiscriminate terrorist violence, the oppression of women and the religious intolerance and anti-democratic ideology of America's, and liberal democracy's, enemies."

Bush's aggression has killed 10,000 people in Afghanistan and 100,000 people in Iraq already by 2004, which is many more than were killed on 9/11. And presumably few or none of these people killed had anything to do 9/11. In the process of doing this the Administration has violated international law and the US constitution, and taken distinct steps towards a police state, including establishing and legitimising the use of torture, concentration camps, detention without trial and extra-judicial killings. The motive for all these actions is essentially wealth and power, ie control of Mideast energy reserves and power and wealth for US corporations and the US ruling elite. Terrorism (just as with WMDs) is simply a convenient pretext. There were of course no WMDs, which was apparent before the aggression against Iraq; and the invasion of Iraq has led to a predictable jump in 'terrorist' activity.

It is the duty of a citizen of the US or an allied country to oppose these actions and seek to change policy. If the writer cannot or will not see these facts and duties and instead acts as a propagandist for the government, that merely reflects on him. He is a crucial tool in the great machine, and bears his share of personal responsibility for the tragedy and suffering.

Why respond to Malkin & Coulter?: Hume's ghost explains why

Why respond to Malkin & Coulter?: Hume's ghost explains why

US tortures mentally ill man: "'This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.'"

Was this before or after the torture, one might ask.

"Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations ... And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques."

US tortures mentally ill man: "'This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.'"

Was this before or after the torture, one might ask.

"Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations ... And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques."