The Great Equalizer: Lessons From Iraq and Lebanon: Gabriel Kolko reflects on the consequences of easily and cheaply available missiles and nuclear weapons. Its a changed world.

"American experts believe that the Iranians compelled [Hezbollah] to keep in reserve the far more powerful and longer range cruise missiles they already possess. Iran itself possesses large quantities of these missiles and American experts believe they may very well be capable of destroying aircraft carrier battle groups. All attempts to devise defenses against these rockets, even the most primitive, have been expensive failures, and anti-missile technology everywhere has remained, after decades of effort and billions of dollars, unreliable."

"The U.S. war in Iraq is a political disaster against the guerrillas -- a half trillion dollars spent there and in Afghanistan have left America on the verge of defeat in both places. The "shock and awe" military strategy has utterly failed save to produce contracts for weapons makers -- indeed, it has also contributed heavily to de facto U.S. economic bankruptcy.

"The Bush Administration has deeply alienated more of America's nominal allies than any government in modern times. The Iraq war and subsequent conflict in Lebanon have left its Middle East policy in shambles and made Iranian strategic predominance even more likely, all of which was predicted before the Iraq invasion. Its coalitions, as Thomas Ricks shows in his wordy but utterly convincing and critical book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, are finished. Its sublime confidence and reliance on the power of its awesome weaponry is a crucial cause of its failure, although we cannot minimize its preemptory hubris and nationalist myopia. The United States, whose costliest political and military adventures since 1950 have ended in failure, now must face the fact that the technology for confronting its power is rapidly becoming widespread and cheap. It is within the reach of not merely states but of relatively small groups of people. Destructive power is now virtually "democratized.""

Perhaps Mr Howard might be asked to comment on the contention that the 'coalition with the US' is finished, and why that is so? Or if is is not finished, does it go all the way to Iran?

The Great Equalizer: Lessons From Iraq and Lebanon: Gabriel Kolko reflects on the consequences of easily and cheaply available missiles and nuclear weapons. Its a changed world.

"American experts believe that the Iranians compelled [Hezbollah] to keep in reserve the far more powerful and longer range cruise missiles they already possess. Iran itself possesses large quantities of these missiles and American experts believe they may very well be capable of destroying aircraft carrier battle groups. All attempts to devise defenses against these rockets, even the most primitive, have been expensive failures, and anti-missile technology everywhere has remained, after decades of effort and billions of dollars, unreliable."

"The U.S. war in Iraq is a political disaster against the guerrillas -- a half trillion dollars spent there and in Afghanistan have left America on the verge of defeat in both places. The "shock and awe" military strategy has utterly failed save to produce contracts for weapons makers -- indeed, it has also contributed heavily to de facto U.S. economic bankruptcy.

"The Bush Administration has deeply alienated more of America's nominal allies than any government in modern times. The Iraq war and subsequent conflict in Lebanon have left its Middle East policy in shambles and made Iranian strategic predominance even more likely, all of which was predicted before the Iraq invasion. Its coalitions, as Thomas Ricks shows in his wordy but utterly convincing and critical book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, are finished. Its sublime confidence and reliance on the power of its awesome weaponry is a crucial cause of its failure, although we cannot minimize its preemptory hubris and nationalist myopia. The United States, whose costliest political and military adventures since 1950 have ended in failure, now must face the fact that the technology for confronting its power is rapidly becoming widespread and cheap. It is within the reach of not merely states but of relatively small groups of people. Destructive power is now virtually "democratized.""

Perhaps Mr Howard might be asked to comment on the contention that the 'coalition with the US' is finished, and why that is so? Or if is is not finished, does it go all the way to Iran?

Iranian President Ahmadinejad did not say the Holocaust was a myth or call for the annihilation of Israel: Mistranslations have been repeatedly circulated in the corporate media, obviously in order to raise the possibility of war with Iran. Its remarkable the extent to which this propaganda is circulated and the complacency with which it is regarded. Most sane people agree that a war on Iran would be a bigger disaster than the Iraq war.

However, former CIA analyst Ray Close makes an argument that in spite of the obvious and great dangers, Bush will be driven to attack Iran before the end of his term.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad did not say the Holocaust was a myth or call for the annihilation of Israel: Mistranslations have been repeatedly circulated in the corporate media, obviously in order to raise the possibility of war with Iran. Its remarkable the extent to which this propaganda is circulated and the complacency with which it is regarded. Most sane people agree that a war on Iran would be a bigger disaster than the Iraq war.

However, former CIA analyst Ray Close makes an argument that in spite of the obvious and great dangers, Bush will be driven to attack Iran before the end of his term.

Noam Chomsky: You ask the questions: Interesting chat where Chomsky gives concise answers to various questions from around the globe. Predictably, a couple of doofus ask about Faurisson and Pol Pot.

"Do you regret mocking the accounts of refugees fleeing Pol Pot's Cambodia? LIJIA FREEMAN, NEW YORK

"CHOMSKY: The closest approximation to this ludicrous charge is that Edward Herman and I cited the best-informed sources then available on Cambodia, State Department intelligence and François Ponchaud, who made the familiar point that testimony of refugees must be treated with caution. I certainly do not regret that. The record of deceit on this topic is huge. It has all been refuted, point by point, many times. This is one illustration of an interesting feature of intellectual culture. Periodically, there are atrocities that we can blame on official enemies - what Herman calls "nefarious atrocities", unlike those for which we share responsibility and can therefore easily mitigate or terminate. The latter are regularly downplayed or suppressed. The nefarious atrocities regularly elicit religious fervour, dramatic posturing, baseless claims to inflate them as much as possible - and fury if anyone does not blindly join the parade, but seeks to determine the truth, cites the most reputable authorities, and exposes the innumerable fabrications. The common reaction to such treachery is an impressive torrent of deceit. There is an instructive record, quite well documented in many cases. The reasons are not hard to explain. The topic should be pursued systematically, but that is unlikely, obviously."

The idea that Chomsky supports Pol Pot, or Mao or Stalin is transparently ludicrous, but a massive effort has gone on for decades now to attempt to pin this charge on him. Its a minor tragedy therefore that people have been misled and dont realise that Chomsky is a friend of the people.

Noam Chomsky: You ask the questions: Interesting chat where Chomsky gives concise answers to various questions from around the globe. Predictably, a couple of doofus ask about Faurisson and Pol Pot.

"Do you regret mocking the accounts of refugees fleeing Pol Pot's Cambodia? LIJIA FREEMAN, NEW YORK

"CHOMSKY: The closest approximation to this ludicrous charge is that Edward Herman and I cited the best-informed sources then available on Cambodia, State Department intelligence and François Ponchaud, who made the familiar point that testimony of refugees must be treated with caution. I certainly do not regret that. The record of deceit on this topic is huge. It has all been refuted, point by point, many times. This is one illustration of an interesting feature of intellectual culture. Periodically, there are atrocities that we can blame on official enemies - what Herman calls "nefarious atrocities", unlike those for which we share responsibility and can therefore easily mitigate or terminate. The latter are regularly downplayed or suppressed. The nefarious atrocities regularly elicit religious fervour, dramatic posturing, baseless claims to inflate them as much as possible - and fury if anyone does not blindly join the parade, but seeks to determine the truth, cites the most reputable authorities, and exposes the innumerable fabrications. The common reaction to such treachery is an impressive torrent of deceit. There is an instructive record, quite well documented in many cases. The reasons are not hard to explain. The topic should be pursued systematically, but that is unlikely, obviously."

The idea that Chomsky supports Pol Pot, or Mao or Stalin is transparently ludicrous, but a massive effort has gone on for decades now to attempt to pin this charge on him. Its a minor tragedy therefore that people have been misled and dont realise that Chomsky is a friend of the people.

ESR Says Linux Followers Should Compromise: "There's no window that will close in 2008. Linux is unstoppable.

- It's growing exponentially
- The applications are becoming compelling
- It's growth is down-turn immune
- Can't be stopped with money

"Linux is growing exponentially, not just the user base, but applications. As the market has proven many times, it's the applications that count in the end."

"The standard killers that cool technologies face in trying to overturn an entrenched dominate player don't apply to Linux. Microsoft can't buy Linux out. They can't sue Linux to death. They can't under-cut prices and force Linux into bankruptcy."

Free Software and Richard Stallman's Free Software Movement is a genuine global phenomenon. It is the best example I can think of of the unambiguous success of more or less pure communist and anarchist principles.

'From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.' It would be hard to imagine a purer example. Every individual can take from the project whatever he needs (eg, an operating system or applications), completely free of any charge, obligation or control; and each individual can contribute whatever he desires, including no contribution.

It is also more or less pure anarchism: there is no centralised or heirachical control of any kind; or inherent controlling mechanism by which any person or organisation could impose control over the whole. The entire massive project operates on a purely voluntary 'ad-hoc' basis.

ESR Says Linux Followers Should Compromise: "There's no window that will close in 2008. Linux is unstoppable.

- It's growing exponentially
- The applications are becoming compelling
- It's growth is down-turn immune
- Can't be stopped with money

"Linux is growing exponentially, not just the user base, but applications. As the market has proven many times, it's the applications that count in the end."

"The standard killers that cool technologies face in trying to overturn an entrenched dominate player don't apply to Linux. Microsoft can't buy Linux out. They can't sue Linux to death. They can't under-cut prices and force Linux into bankruptcy."

Free Software and Richard Stallman's Free Software Movement is a genuine global phenomenon. It is the best example I can think of of the unambiguous success of more or less pure communist and anarchist principles.

'From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.' It would be hard to imagine a purer example. Every individual can take from the project whatever he needs (eg, an operating system or applications), completely free of any charge, obligation or control; and each individual can contribute whatever he desires, including no contribution.

It is also more or less pure anarchism: there is no centralised or heirachical control of any kind; or inherent controlling mechanism by which any person or organisation could impose control over the whole. The entire massive project operates on a purely voluntary 'ad-hoc' basis.

Uri Avnery: The occupation is ruining the army: "A PERSONAL flashback: in the middle of the 1948 war I had an unpleasant experience. After a day of heavy fighting, I was sleeping soundly in a field near the Arab village Suafir (now Sapir). All around me were sleeping the other soldiers of my company, Samson's Foxes. Suddenly I was woken up by a tremendous explosion. An Egyptian plane had dropped a bomb on us. Killed: none. Wounded: 1.

"How's that? Very simple: we were all lying in our personal foxholes, which we had dug, in spite of our fatigue, before going to sleep. It was self-evident to us that when we arrived anywhere, the first thing to do was dig in. Sometimes we changed locations three times a day, and every time we dug foxholes. We knew that our lives depended on it.

"Not anymore. In one of the most deadly incidents in the Second Lebanon War, 12 members of a company were killed by a rocket near Kfar Giladi, while sitting around in an open field. The soldiers later complained that they had not been led to a shelter. Have today's soldiers never heard of a foxhole? Have they been issued with personal shovels at all?

"Inside Lebanon, why did the soldiers congregate in the rooms of houses, where they were hit by anti-tank missiles, instead of digging foxholes?

"It seems that the army has been weaned from this practice. No wonder: an army that is dealing with "terrorists" in the West Bank and Gaza does not need to take any special precautions. After all, no air force drops bombs on them, no artillery shells them. They need no special protection."

A relation of mine who fought in the 9th AIF Division called it a 'slit trench' - a ubiquitous feature of army life. It only needed to be a few inches deep, just so that when you lay in it your body was below or level with the ground. This would make you essentially immune to any bomb or artillery shell except a direct hit on you personally or in your trench (unlikely). But if you are above ground, then you are obviously vulnerable to shrapnel which blasts sideways from the point of the explosion.

Uri Avnery: The occupation is ruining the army: "A PERSONAL flashback: in the middle of the 1948 war I had an unpleasant experience. After a day of heavy fighting, I was sleeping soundly in a field near the Arab village Suafir (now Sapir). All around me were sleeping the other soldiers of my company, Samson's Foxes. Suddenly I was woken up by a tremendous explosion. An Egyptian plane had dropped a bomb on us. Killed: none. Wounded: 1.

"How's that? Very simple: we were all lying in our personal foxholes, which we had dug, in spite of our fatigue, before going to sleep. It was self-evident to us that when we arrived anywhere, the first thing to do was dig in. Sometimes we changed locations three times a day, and every time we dug foxholes. We knew that our lives depended on it.

"Not anymore. In one of the most deadly incidents in the Second Lebanon War, 12 members of a company were killed by a rocket near Kfar Giladi, while sitting around in an open field. The soldiers later complained that they had not been led to a shelter. Have today's soldiers never heard of a foxhole? Have they been issued with personal shovels at all?

"Inside Lebanon, why did the soldiers congregate in the rooms of houses, where they were hit by anti-tank missiles, instead of digging foxholes?

"It seems that the army has been weaned from this practice. No wonder: an army that is dealing with "terrorists" in the West Bank and Gaza does not need to take any special precautions. After all, no air force drops bombs on them, no artillery shells them. They need no special protection."

A relation of mine who fought in the 9th AIF Division called it a 'slit trench' - a ubiquitous feature of army life. It only needed to be a few inches deep, just so that when you lay in it your body was below or level with the ground. This would make you essentially immune to any bomb or artillery shell except a direct hit on you personally or in your trench (unlikely). But if you are above ground, then you are obviously vulnerable to shrapnel which blasts sideways from the point of the explosion.

Biblical sexism: Interesting argument that biblical texts were altered to diminish the role of women in the early church.

Biblical sexism: Interesting argument that biblical texts were altered to diminish the role of women in the early church.

Windpower alone, in theory, could cut emissions dramatically: "Approximately three-fourths of U.S. electricity is generated by burning coal, oil, or natural gas. Accordingly, switching that same portion of U.S. electricity generation to nonpolluting sources such as wind turbines, while simultaneously ensuring that our ever-expanding arrays of lights, computers, and appliances are increasingly energy efficient, would eliminate 38 percent of the country's CO2 emissions and bring us halfway to the goal of cutting emissions by 75 percent.

"To achieve that power switch entirely through wind power, I calculate, would require 400,000 windmills rated at 2.5 megawatts each. To be sure, this is a hypothetical figure, since it ignores such real-world issues as limits on power transmission and the intermittency of wind, but it's a useful benchmark just the same."

"An industry rule of thumb is that to maintain adequate exposure to the wind, each big turbine needs space around it of about 60 acres. Since 640 acres make a square mile, those 400,000 turbines would need 37,500 square miles, or roughly all the land in Indiana or Maine.

"On the other hand, the land actually occupied by the turbines—their "footprint"—would be far, far smaller. For example, each 3.6-megawatt Cape Wind turbine proposed for Nantucket Sound will rest on a platform roughly 22 feet in diameter, implying a surface area of 380 square feet—the size of a typical one-bedroom apartment in New York City. Scaling that up by 400,000 suggests that just six square miles of land—less than the area of a single big Wyoming strip mine—could house the bases for all of the windmills needed to banish coal, oil, and gas from the U.S. electricity sector."

If we could just banish the influence of the fossil fuel lobby and short term corporate profit from political processes the solutions are in sight....

Big Gav has another good long post on energy and politics. Be sure to check it out and visit Gav's site regularly.

UPDATE: Tom Gray in comments endorses the argument in the above post and provides links to some interesting sites.

Windpower alone, in theory, could cut emissions dramatically: "Approximately three-fourths of U.S. electricity is generated by burning coal, oil, or natural gas. Accordingly, switching that same portion of U.S. electricity generation to nonpolluting sources such as wind turbines, while simultaneously ensuring that our ever-expanding arrays of lights, computers, and appliances are increasingly energy efficient, would eliminate 38 percent of the country's CO2 emissions and bring us halfway to the goal of cutting emissions by 75 percent.

"To achieve that power switch entirely through wind power, I calculate, would require 400,000 windmills rated at 2.5 megawatts each. To be sure, this is a hypothetical figure, since it ignores such real-world issues as limits on power transmission and the intermittency of wind, but it's a useful benchmark just the same."

"An industry rule of thumb is that to maintain adequate exposure to the wind, each big turbine needs space around it of about 60 acres. Since 640 acres make a square mile, those 400,000 turbines would need 37,500 square miles, or roughly all the land in Indiana or Maine.

"On the other hand, the land actually occupied by the turbines—their "footprint"—would be far, far smaller. For example, each 3.6-megawatt Cape Wind turbine proposed for Nantucket Sound will rest on a platform roughly 22 feet in diameter, implying a surface area of 380 square feet—the size of a typical one-bedroom apartment in New York City. Scaling that up by 400,000 suggests that just six square miles of land—less than the area of a single big Wyoming strip mine—could house the bases for all of the windmills needed to banish coal, oil, and gas from the U.S. electricity sector."

If we could just banish the influence of the fossil fuel lobby and short term corporate profit from political processes the solutions are in sight....

Big Gav has another good long post on energy and politics. Be sure to check it out and visit Gav's site regularly.

UPDATE: Tom Gray in comments endorses the argument in the above post and provides links to some interesting sites.

Heavy criticism of Israel that seems to be more common on the web: "Is it possible that this perverse combination of a persecution complex and a superiority complex, all based on the idea of a ‘Jewish race’, is behind the peculiar attitude of world Jewry towards Israel and the violent racism of the Jewish state? Does the evil in Israel and its supporters come out of a culturally transmitted series of ideas that come out of Judaism itself? That’s the kind of big crackpot theory I normally don’t put much truck in, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain the actions of Israel and its Jewish apologists without some cultural/religious root causes."

What Xymphora is looking for here is probably Israel Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: the Weight of Three Thousand Years", which can be found online at:

http://www.geocities.com/israel_shahak/book1.htm

An alternative, anti-zionist view of Judaism, which might be called 'Reformed' or 'Authentic' Judaism, can be found here:

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/

I agree that both Zionism and the current policies of the Israeli government can be strongly criticised, but I would caution that Xymphora could be more restrained in the remarks on Jews and Israelis. What we have seen is a great tragedy, which is almost on the point of repeating itself.

Heavy criticism of Israel that seems to be more common on the web: "Is it possible that this perverse combination of a persecution complex and a superiority complex, all based on the idea of a ‘Jewish race’, is behind the peculiar attitude of world Jewry towards Israel and the violent racism of the Jewish state? Does the evil in Israel and its supporters come out of a culturally transmitted series of ideas that come out of Judaism itself? That’s the kind of big crackpot theory I normally don’t put much truck in, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain the actions of Israel and its Jewish apologists without some cultural/religious root causes."

What Xymphora is looking for here is probably Israel Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: the Weight of Three Thousand Years", which can be found online at:

http://www.geocities.com/israel_shahak/book1.htm

An alternative, anti-zionist view of Judaism, which might be called 'Reformed' or 'Authentic' Judaism, can be found here:

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/

I agree that both Zionism and the current policies of the Israeli government can be strongly criticised, but I would caution that Xymphora could be more restrained in the remarks on Jews and Israelis. What we have seen is a great tragedy, which is almost on the point of repeating itself.

Iranian President Opens Up: Interview is almost as interesting for the foolish performance of Mike Wallace as it is for the Iranian President's comments.

Iranian President Opens Up: Interview is almost as interesting for the foolish performance of Mike Wallace as it is for the Iranian President's comments.

The Anti-Empire Report: William Blum also expresses scepticism about the London 'terror bomb plot' and discusses some other, similar incidents.

HL Mencken made the memorable remark: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed--and hence clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

When first encountered, this remark might be regarded as a witty quip with a grain of truth, but of course not to be taken literally. However, with a bit more experience, one begins to wonder. Look at the scares of our times: the Great Red scare, the McCarthyite witchhunt, the Vietnam domino madness, the phony 'war on terra' - not to mention the drug war, the 'rising tide of crime', the threat of the boat people etc. We are looking at a regular method of government, systematically pursued again and again.

When Bush, Blair and Howard launched their 'war on terror' following 9/11 (enthusiastically embraced by all the usual culprits such as Peter Costello as a 'long war' or '50 year war') they were not breaking new ground or acting unusually. The invasion of Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11); the attack on civil liberties; the frightening of the population; the big lies about 'why they hate us'; the attack on Islamic civilisation; the denial that Western interest in the Gulf had anything to do with oil: - all simply part of a systematic method of governance. Perhaps its been an unpleasant surprise what a disaster the invasion of Iraq has proved to be (a bit like Crassus invading Mesopotamia?) but otherwise the whole thing is nothing but business-as-usual from a well-tested playbook.

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - HL Mencken

The Anti-Empire Report: William Blum also expresses scepticism about the London 'terror bomb plot' and discusses some other, similar incidents.

HL Mencken made the memorable remark: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed--and hence clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

When first encountered, this remark might be regarded as a witty quip with a grain of truth, but of course not to be taken literally. However, with a bit more experience, one begins to wonder. Look at the scares of our times: the Great Red scare, the McCarthyite witchhunt, the Vietnam domino madness, the phony 'war on terra' - not to mention the drug war, the 'rising tide of crime', the threat of the boat people etc. We are looking at a regular method of government, systematically pursued again and again.

When Bush, Blair and Howard launched their 'war on terror' following 9/11 (enthusiastically embraced by all the usual culprits such as Peter Costello as a 'long war' or '50 year war') they were not breaking new ground or acting unusually. The invasion of Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11); the attack on civil liberties; the frightening of the population; the big lies about 'why they hate us'; the attack on Islamic civilisation; the denial that Western interest in the Gulf had anything to do with oil: - all simply part of a systematic method of governance. Perhaps its been an unpleasant surprise what a disaster the invasion of Iraq has proved to be (a bit like Crassus invading Mesopotamia?) but otherwise the whole thing is nothing but business-as-usual from a well-tested playbook.

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - HL Mencken

Poll: Iraqi attitudes to US: "The percentage of Iraqis who said they would not want to have Americans as neighbors rose from 87 percent in 2004 to 90 percent in 2006. When asked what they thought were the three main reasons why the United States invaded Iraq, 76 percent gave 'to control Iraqi oil' as their first choice."

No, that could not be, surely? The US is in Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction, or get Saddam for 9/11, or build democracy, isnt it? That is what our leaders told us. Pm Howard told us the weapons were the 'single reason' for the war. Resign, Prime Minister. Your position is totally discredited. The war is a disaster.

Every day he remains in office now the Prime Minister has to live a lie: Iraq was attacked because of the weapons, oil had nothing to do with it, what we have done is moral and legal, terrorist attacks are because they 'hate our freedoms' not because of our wars and occupations of their lands.

"In 2004, 27 percent of the 2,325 Iraqi adults surveyed strongly agreed that Iraq would be a better place if religion and politics were separated. In 2006, 41 percent of 2,701 adults surveyed strongly agreed."

Poll: Iraqi attitudes to US: "The percentage of Iraqis who said they would not want to have Americans as neighbors rose from 87 percent in 2004 to 90 percent in 2006. When asked what they thought were the three main reasons why the United States invaded Iraq, 76 percent gave 'to control Iraqi oil' as their first choice."

No, that could not be, surely? The US is in Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction, or get Saddam for 9/11, or build democracy, isnt it? That is what our leaders told us. Pm Howard told us the weapons were the 'single reason' for the war. Resign, Prime Minister. Your position is totally discredited. The war is a disaster.

Every day he remains in office now the Prime Minister has to live a lie: Iraq was attacked because of the weapons, oil had nothing to do with it, what we have done is moral and legal, terrorist attacks are because they 'hate our freedoms' not because of our wars and occupations of their lands.

"In 2004, 27 percent of the 2,325 Iraqi adults surveyed strongly agreed that Iraq would be a better place if religion and politics were separated. In 2006, 41 percent of 2,701 adults surveyed strongly agreed."

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.