Hvis man vil ha dokumentasjon for i hvilken ekstrem grad verden av i dag ledes
av en blanding av politiske nuller og forbrytere skal man lese nedenstående,
som jeg har sakset fra www.politiken.dk. Bare det språket som her benyttes av
disse lederne viser en grotesk, pervers og forbrytersk tilsløring av
virkeligheten.
Terje Rød Larsen er mer kritisk, men hans ordbruk røper også en fatal mangel
på mot og formuleringsevne. Å tale om disse groteske overgrepene fra Israel
som "moralsk forkastelig" er helt ute av proporsjoner med det som etter
øyenvitneskildringene har foregått. Det høres ut som om det her var foregått
et par voldtekter og så ikke mer.
Og legg merke til: Ikke ett av vitnene kommer klart til orde. Alene det er
forbrytersk.
Presis det samme kan man fø. si om dekningen av Russland terrorkrig i
Tjetjenia. Men Putin er presis som Sharon en alliert i "kampen mot
terrorismen". Det er bare å vise til "Ground Zero" så er hva som helst
tillatt, fordi noen tusen døde USA-borgere eller noen få israelere jo åpenbart
er tusener av ganger mer verd enn millioner av andre nasjonaliteter. Her er
hele nasjonalreligiøsitetens idioti klart stillet til skue for alle som vil
se.
Om dette et par glimrende humoristiske innlegg fra Independent av Mark Steel
med perler som denne: "As they're fans of the Old Testament, they must wonder
why the writers of the Bible didn't take a similar approach. So the story of
David and Goliath would end with Goliath treading on every settlement in
Judah, justified by a spokesman saying "Let me show you the young Philistine
mother hit by a stone thrown by Mr David. And if the Lord wants us to withdraw
our giants, why doesn't he condemn the use of slings and pebbles?"" og denne:
"In a typical article in one Sunday paper, an American writer lamented how he
had "thought twice" about becoming a father in this "post September 11th
world". Funny how it didn't bother him that he was bringing a child into a
post-napalming-Cambodia world or a post-Chile-coup world or a post-Contra
world."
Karsten Johansen
Bush: Sharon er en fredens mand
Selv om USA's udenrigsminister Colin Powell måtte vende tomhændet hjem fra
Mellemøsten, roses hans mission af USA og EU. Efter Powells briefing gik
præsident BUsh så langt som til at betegne Sharon som "fredens mand" og sagde,
at han er tilfreds med tempoet i den israelske tilbagetrækning fra
palæstinensiske byer.
»Israel begyndte tilbagetrækningen fra mindre byer på Vestbredden hurtigt
efter vores opfordring. Historien vil vise, at de har efterlevet opfordringen.
Sharon gav mig en tidsplan, og han opfylder denne tidsplan«, sagde Bush, efter
at han var blevet orienteret af Powell om udenrigsministerens forsøg på at
standse blodsudgydelserne i Mellemøsten.
Powell understregede efter sin hjemkomst, at våbenhvile ikke kan komme på
tale, så længe byerne fastholdes i det israelske jerngreb. Den amerikanske
udenrigsminister greb dog også lejligheden til igen at kritisere
palæstinensernes leder, Yassir Arafat, for ikke at stoppe de militante
grupper.
Allerede inden han forlod Mellemøsten, sagde Colin Powell på det afsluttende
pressemøde, at han regner med at vende tilbage til området for at fortsætte
bestræbelserne på at slutte fred. En ledende medarbejder i det amerikanske
udenrigsministerium sagde onsdag til Reuters, at det kan ske allerede om
to-tre uger.
Succes, succes, succes
Israelske tropper blev på Vestbredden, og militante palæstinenserne fortsatte
deres selvmordsangreb under Powells 10 dage lange besøg i området. Hans succes
er således svær at få øje på.
Alligevel har den amerikanske udenrigsminister høstet ros for sit arbejde.
Libanons premierminister, Rafiq Hariri, der onsdag besøgte Det Hvide Hus,
kaldte Powells mission for 'en begyndelse af processen'. Hariri håber, at »USA
fortsat vil forsøge at skabe fred i Mellemøsten« og tilføjede, at hvis det
ikke lykkes, kan regionen »se frem til en masse problemer«.
Den spanske udenrigsminister Josep Pique betegner Powells Mellemøst-mission en
'enorm succes': »... vi vil opleve, at det snart giver resultater«, lyder
vurderingen fra EU's aktuelle formandsland. EU's udenrigskoordinator, Javier
Solana, ligger på linje med sin landsmand.
»Han har gjort, hvad han var i stand til at gøre på dette tidspunkt. Vi
vidste, at han ikke kunne udrette mirakler på denne korte tid«, sagde Solana.
---------------------------
Take me to the Promised Land (the long way)
If we're going to part the Red Sea, it would be silly not to stop for a day in
the middle to look at the view
By Mark Steel (Independent)
18 April 2002
At a time when many people complain that politicians are obsessed with spin,
it's so refreshing to hear Israeli spokesmen, who refuse to make the slightest
concession to PR whatsoever. Asked for their attitude towards the shooting of
a baby by an Israeli soldier, instead of any waffle about regrets or needing
to see the evidence, they'd say "What was the baby doing there? It was
crawling in direct contravention of the curfew, it was shouting insults such
as 'ber berder gabababab' at innocent civilians. Instead of accusing Israel of
over-reacting, why don't you ask the dead baby whether it condemns suicide
bombing?"
As they're fans of the Old Testament, they must wonder why the writers of the
Bible didn't take a similar approach. So the story of David and Goliath would
end with Goliath treading on every settlement in Judah, justified by a
spokesman saying "Let me show you the young Philistine mother hit by a stone
thrown by Mr David. And if the Lord wants us to withdraw our giants, why
doesn't he condemn the use of slings and pebbles?"
Colin Powell could learn from this forthright approach. Attacked for taking so
long to get to Israel, he could have said that if he was going all the way to
the Middle East, it would be rude not to pop in on friends in nearby Morocco
and make a week of it. Again, he was simply following Biblical tradition, as
the original version tells of how Moses said to his people, "Follow me unto
the Promised Land. But on the way we might as well stop off in Galilee to see
Terry and Eileen. And if we're going to part the Red Sea, it would be silly
not to stop for a day in the middle to look at the view and buy some
souvenirs."
It's not easy to see why he bothered going at all. Sharon has responded to his
demands in the same way a teenage boy reacts when his parents are screaming at
him to get up. "Alriiiiight. In a minute. I'm coming, just stop going on about
it."
Nonetheless, even the softest parent can usually extract something more than a
promise to be ready in a week. Which is why Powell, not usually the most timid
figure, answered questions at the press conference with the air of a schoolkid
who hasn't been listening to the teacher. "Er, ceasefire," he said sheepishly
at one point, so that it looked as if the question was "Powell, have you been
paying attention? All right then, what was the last thing I said?"
To be fair he did eventually manage a whole sentence, "The specific term
'cease-fire' has not quite the same significance as what actually happens."
All week the world was waiting for his statement and there it is. He'd have
been more use if he'd said, "Oo dear, still, they'll never get on, the Jews
and the Arabs, it's gone on for years. It's like my mum says, never talk about
politics or religion, it always ends in a row."
So it seems there's nothing America can do. Or, to summarise, they're
preparing to go to war with a country because it's rumoured, with no evidence,
they're building weapons of mass destruction. But they can't possibly withhold
a cent of the $2.7bn they send a year to a country that secretly built nuclear
weapons and illegally occupies whole settlements and slaughters the
inhabitants. They have no choice but to invade a country for refusing to allow
uninhibited access to inspectors in all areas, but can't hold back as much as
an air rifle to a state that won't allow the Red Cross into a battlefield. And
a country must be invaded for ignoring UN resolutions but another country
ignores UN resolutions and is referred to in every sentence as a friend.
Maybe it's a mathematical thing, the only UN resolutions that count are the
ones divisible by seven, or the prime number ones. In other words they can do
what they like. Israel might as well invade Kuwait for a laugh.
And with every statement comes the call for Arafat to condemn suicide
bombings, as if they only happen because he orders them. I suppose he rules
Palestinians with such authority that when he commands someone to blow
themselves up, they think, "Well, I'd better do as he says, because if I
disobey Arafat I'll be in terrible trouble."
Arafat, as all the players out there know, is despised by Hamas and the groups
who support the suicide bombings. He's seen as out of touch with current
events, and must be even more so now he's trapped in his compound without
access to a television. He probably doesn't even know that Beckham's broken
his toe. So it would make as much sense to surround any random figure and
insist they bring a halt to the violence by condemning suicide bombings –
Charlie Dimmock, perhaps, or the cast of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Followed by
an official spokesman in dark glasses snarling "You ask us to condemn the
invasion of the London Palladium, but can you imagine the terror that could be
caused by a flying talking car?"
Don't ask for the evidence, just nuke Baghdad
'There will probably be an announcement soon that our steel industry was
harbouring al-Qa'ida'
Mark Steel
14 March 2002
The American military has become like one of these couples that always goes on
holiday to the same resort. They're sat in the Pentagon muttering: "We always
bomb the same place, every year. This year we looked through the brochures and
thought of bombing somewhere new, like Yemen or North Korea, but in the end we
thought we'd play safe and stick with Iraq as usual."
Because Saddam has acquired "weapons of mass destruction". Just now, at
exactly the same time as the American military is on a roll and can justify
anything it wants by pointing to Ground Zero. What a coincidence. And we know
this is true because "there is evidence". Well that pretty much wraps the case
up, then.
Some politically correct types might ask what the evidence is, but that's the
sort of bureaucracy that snarls up any legal system. The evidence is bound to
be as damning as that produced by Nato chief George Robertson when he held up
an Iraqi canister and announced it would be lethal if Saddam filled it with
deadly anthrax. Just as a bottle of lemonade would be lethal if you filled it
with deadly anthrax, which is why the axis of evil should include Iraq, Iran
and the Schweppes bottling plant in Sidcup.
What slightly confuses me is this. In 1991, following a 10-year war in which
Saddam had been allowed, indeed encouraged, by the Americans to build up his
military strength, the most destructive weapon he came up with was the Scud.
Which is probably safe to let off in your garden as long as you make sure it
stays upright and don't light it while it's in your hand. But since then Iraq
has been observed day and night, pelted with cruise missiles and subjected to
sanctions that prevent almost all imports. Even ping-pong balls are banned,
presumably in case they're filled up with deadly anthrax.
Yet despite this, the place has got itself a pile of weapons of mass
destruction. Saddam doesn't need to rule Iraq, he could play Las Vegas as the
greatest magician in history. The climax of his show would be to invite
someone on to the stage and say: "We've never met before, have we? Now I'd
just like you to tell the audience if there's anything destructive here,
anything at all." Then – kazoom – and out of a puff of smoke pops a beautiful
assistant astride a silo full of nuclear warheads. Then David Blaine and Uri
Geller say: "How the bloody hell has he managed that?"
It's also claimed that Iraq may have been connected to the attack on New York.
For this is now the excuse for every act of American aggression. There will
probably be an announcement soon that the British steel industry was
harbouring al-Qa'ida terrorists.
Each new stage of the war against terrorism makes it clearer that the real aim
has little to do with the twin towers and is a bid for what the American
military describes as "full spectrum dominance". Partly, this entails revenge
against anyone who's caused the US embarrassment, starting with the most
recent and going back, making the named targets so far Iraq, Somalia, Iran and
North Korea. Blair ought to be careful. Historically speaking, after that it
goes Japan, Spain, the Confederacy, Mexico and then Britain.
But still Americans write in to newspapers such as this one, whining about any
criticism of their government's warmongering. They're like a superpower
version of Harry Enfield's Kevin the Teenager. Someone only has to suggest
that maybe they shouldn't threaten to frazzle half the planet and they're
screaming: "Oh it's so unfair. We're not allowed to do anything."
Almost every week sees a new "post 11/9 film" in which American soldiers blast
their way heroically through a sinister land to deliver democracy to
ungrateful savages. Mel Gibson's next effort will be to play Henry Kissinger
parachuting into Santiago to help General Pinochet to stop the Chilean
parliament drowning a litter of kittens.
In a typical article in one Sunday paper, an American writer lamented how he
had "thought twice" about becoming a father in this "post September 11th
world". Funny how it didn't bother him that he was bringing a child into a
post-napalming-Cambodia world or a post-Chile-coup world or a post-Contra
world. To the inevitable accusation that this makes me "anti-American", I
would point out that three of my greatest living heroes are Muhammad Ali,
Richard Pryor and Bart Simpson. To suggest that anyone who questions the
American military is "anti-American" is like suggesting that someone who
voices concerns about the techniques of Harold Shipman holds an "instinctive
hatred of doctors".
But no matter how barmy they get, there will be Tony Blair, shoulder to
shoulder. Some people are suggesting that, by remaining faithful to George
Bush, our Prime Minister has won some influence over him. This is true. Blair
licks his arse so thoroughly that George now listens to Tony's opinion as to
whether he should lick his right buttock first or his left.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST