Kudos to South African President Jacob Zuma for attempting to broker a ceasefire in Libya. Zuma has embarked on his second tour of duty in Libya. The mission? To get Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to say and do the requisite things that’ll pacify NATO’s (aka the USA’s) new allies, also known as The Rebels.
The African Union, which harbors many a mini-warlord, is toiling to get the Über dogs of war of “NATO” (read America) to stop leveling Libya.
Zuma is an interesting guy, as our friend Dr. Dan Roodt, founder of the Pro-Afrikaans Action Group (PRAAG), has pointed out.
If indeed we’re subsidizing “freedom” for the Libyans, and are fighting their battles—then we’ve also increased their impotence and diminished their initiative. Subsidize individuals because you believe they are helpless—and you’ll get more learned helplessness. Besides, what are these Libyans? Wards of the crumbling American Empire? Whatever happened to fighting your own revolutions?
Speaking in Tripoli, Zuma divulged that he and “the tyrant” (the MailOnline’s locution—and idea of impartial reporting) “discussed the necessity of giving the Libyan people the opportunity to solve their problem on their own.”
It is the habit on the Memorial Day weekend to thank uniformed men for their sacrifice. Sorry! None of this meaningless jabbering. I thank all the Ramos’s and Compeans of this nation, who stand on this country’s soil and defend their countrymen from the detritus of mankind.
My sympathies go out to Americans who fight phantoms in far-flung destinations. I’m sorry they’ve been snookered into living, dying and killing for a lie. But I will not honor that lie, or those who give their lives for it, and take the lives of others in America’s many recreational wars. I mourn for them, as I have from day one, but I can’t honor them.
I am sorry for those who’ve enlisted thinking they’d fight for their countrymen and were subjected to one backdoor draft after another in the cause of illegal, unjust wars. My heart hurts for you, but I won’t worship at Moloch’s feet to make you feel better.
I honor those sad, sad draftees to Vietnam and to WW II. The first valiant batch had no option; the same goes for the last, which fought a just war. I grew up in Israel, so I honor those men who stopped Arab armies from overrunning our homes. In 1973, we came especially close to annihilation.
UPDATED I: THE SIX-DAY WAR: Another just war. I was one of the many small kids you see in a bunker in the footage here. From that shelter, to the sounds of artillery on the Jordanian border (back then every Israeli resided on some hostile border) we listened to the infamous (lying) Cairo Broadcast, a snippet from which you can read below.
“The existence of Israel has continued too long. We welcome the Israeli aggression. We welcome the battle we have long awaited. The peak hour has come. The battle has come in which we shall destroy Israel.”
UPDATE II: DYING FOR NOTHING. “Eight US soldiers killed in Afghan blasts,” via Jihad Watch. US General David Petraeus, more appropriately once dubbed General Betrayus,” has offered assurances that recent casualties are “because of the ‘progress’ made in ‘important areas’ since last year.”
Evidence to contradict his theory (mounting body count) is brought as evidence for his theory (we’re “winning”). How can the good general lose a debate?
Here’s what Betrayus will never say: Afghans (who’re mostly Muslim) have more of an affinity for the Taliban than for the Wilsonians who’re attempting to westernize them. This is why it is not uncommon to hear of an Afghan policeman opening fire on his American “colleagues” during a joint operation. Just the other day, on April 27 to be precise, as Times Of India tells it, “nine Americans—eight troops and a contractor—were killed by an Afghan officer who opened fire at a Kabul military training centre.”
“NATO is deprived of all morals and all civilisation.” So said the Libyan government spokesperson Moussa Ibrahim, with whom I wholeheartedly agree. Two weeks ago the US and allies killed Col Gaddafi’s son and a couple of his grandchildren. Today we were licking our chops for more blood. Via BBC:
Nato air strikes have again hit the compound of Col Muammar Gaddafi, hours after Libyan state TV showed footage purportedly of the leader in Tripoli.
Libyan government officials said the attack in the early hours of Thursday killed three people, although this cannot be independently verified.
Correspondents said three rockets hit the base and caused extensive damage.
A video of Col Gaddafi aired Wednesday was the leader’s first appearance since his son was killed two weeks ago. Smoke rose from the Gaddafi compound, Bab al-Azaziya, and ambulances raced through the city as the last missile struck early on Thursday, reports said.
UPDATE (May 13): To “Compassionate Fascist”: There is nothing like asserting that the massacre that never happened would have happened had you not killed-off the people whom you claim were about to kill had you not killed them.
Is this not what is called a negative proof?RationalWiki explains: “A logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
“If the only evidence for something’s existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God’s existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.”
Incredibly, some Republican Party media megaphones have been making the case that Bush deserves credit for the actions of Obama in eliminating Osama bin Laden. There is something particularity rank about this tack. It is one thing to credit the operatives in the field, but quite another to commend a far-removed gas bag like Genghis Bush with the kill. That is if you support what some are calling an extra-judicial killing. A Gallup survey indicates that “More than 9 in 10 Americans approve of the U.S. military action that killed Osama bin Laden on Sunday.”
What will it take for certain Republicans to give credit where credit is due? Would BHO need to switch parties (a minor ideological conversion, really).
The same Gallup poll shows, however, that, “Thirty-five percent say he deserves a great deal of credit and another 36% say he deserves ‘a moderate amount’ of credit. More than a quarter say he does not deserve much or any credit at all.”
This is probably a function of the general antipathy toward Obama’s policies, and not an objective assessment of the operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Rest assured that if something had gone wrong, the sitting president would have been blamed. “Former President Jimmy Carter knows about that,” notes the Huffington Post. “In 1980, Carter approved a plan to rescue the American hostages in Iran that ended in failure and left eight American servicemen dead. The botched mission was cited as one factor in Carter’s defeat when he ran for re-election.”
The attempt to drag Bush into this says something about the convergence of the two parties on matters of foreign policy. Obama has “embraced his inner neocon.” As a consequence, Republicans have few bones to pick with the president on the foreign policy front. What remains in their bag of political tricks is to make hay of his exotic origins (birth certificate), or to claim that his predecessor paved the way for (what they perceive to be) his recent success.
In any event, Bush’s military signature is the Daisy Cutter.
