The Age: ADF: Westmoreland was right!

Afghanistan not mission impossible

An interesting article by a former very high up Australian Army officer, which can be summed up by this line: “What do we – the coalition, not just Australia – need to do to “win” in Afghanistan? Iraq can be our guide.”

Oh, of course, because Iraq is a picture of happiness… But don’t worry, Ret. Major-General Jim Molan explains, because: “We are really in only the second year and, just as we did not get serious about the Iraq war until its fifth year, we are not yet serious about the Afghan war.“

I get it now! My mistake, when we were illegally invading, displacing 4.5 million people and killing somewhere between 600,000 and 1 million civilians, we weren’t really serious about the war! Of course! We only got serious when a further 30,000 troops were sent once ethnic cleansing had been completed, and the famed mixed neighbourhood of Iraq had ceased to exist. Just as we weren’t serious when some 20,000 civilians were killed in the first six months of the (legal) invasion of Afghanistan.

Despite this being the 7th year of the invasion, Moran says its only really the second, and as “the average length of a counter-insurgency is nine years” then we’ve got a long time to go.

All up, this makes Moran sound not just worryingly delusional, but like Westmoreland. All we need is more troops. We’re being undermined, troops are hamstrung. We need more troops. Even the bluring of starting dates mirrors Viet Nam (44? 45? 57? 61? 64? 68? When did it really start? When was the US involved? What? That early?).

Perhaps Afghanistan can be turned into a democracy (although never a Western democracy), but denying and trivialising both of the horrors of Iraq and Afghanistan and condescention by us is not the way to go about it.

 

Reuters: Meaningless drivel from Israel

Palestinians welcome Israeli interest in Saudi plan

Right… So “Palestinians hope Israeli calls for the revival of a Saudi peace initiative” could lead to something. Fair enough I guess, but given that the “Saudi plan calls for full Arab recognition of Israel if it gives up “all of the territories” occupied in the 1967″ – ie. implementation of UN Security Council resolution 242 – I doubt anything will happen. 242 was passed in what? 1967? One of the few UNSC resolutions calling on Israel to stop violating International Law not vetoed by the US.

Why does this crap still make the news? Israel has no intention of peace. It will not even halt settlements on illegally occupied land. It will not even allow full citizenship rights for Arabs. It is a violent, racist, illegal (settlements), authoritarian, non-democratic, proto-fascist state.

Israel can make peace and follow the law all by itself. Until it decides to do so, the words ‘peace’ ‘Israel’ and ‘plan’ in the same sentence have no meaning.

 

Haaretz: Poland safe as pact is signed with Germany

Foreign Ministry mulling non-aggression treaty with Lebanon

Now, there’s nothing wrong with Israel signing treaties with Lebanon, indeed treaties are badly needed to address the problems of constant attacks and the occupation of the Sheeba farms, but a ‘non-aggression treaty’? Is this an admission of guilt by Israel? I see no mention of reparations for the decades of war. Are we therefore to believe that aggression is mutual and equal? Despite three Israeli invasions and a few bombings and thousands of civillians killed in 30 years, not to mention the constant border violations on a daily basis by Israeli planes. Israel doesn’t need a pact to secure non-aggression on the Lebanese border, it needs to stop being aggressive.

 

US: Develop nukes, be rewarded!

The Age: North Korea may lose terror label

and News.com.au: US, india sign historic nuclear deal

Are both reporting from Washington (at least The Age names their Washington correspondent) that acquiring nuclear weapons will bring tangible rewards to your government. Now, perhaps in light of their attacks on or ambivalence to nuclear treaties (the NPT and CTBT) this is not surprising, but it certainly is worrying. Particularly if you are Iran.

There is no evidence that Iran is persuing a nuclear weapons program – despite the fact they’d be insane not to, when two nuclear powers routinely threaten them – and indeed plenty of evidence to the contrary. Yet Iran continues to be threatened with war. Meanwhile two countries who have acquired nukes through questionable means, with highly questionable governments (paricularly in the case of North Korea) are being rewards – seemingly for their possessing of nuclear deterrents. India continues to be one of the most unstable and bellicose nuclear powers -behind only Israel and Pakistan. North Korea, while they should be engaged, are certainly a far worse regime than Iran. Its just MAD…

Yet, despite Iran’s co-operation with the IAEA, having not started a war in 2000 years, and the current (abhorrent) crackpot regime being somewhat better than the previous (US-backed) Shah it is Iran who is targeted.
Next time you read about Iran’s nuclear program, remember – they don’t have nukes yet, otherwise they’d be rewarded.

 

The Age: History Repeats! Again! and again…

Afghanistan ‘in dire peril’

Seven years (and three days) after the initial invasion of Afghanistan, with no clear goals beyond trying to get rid of the Taliban, which a semi-indigenous political movement, thus very hard to eliminate. People are slowly, very slowly realising what most sane people said at the time – Afghanistan cannot be occupied – particularly not with such unclear aims, and wanton killing of civilians. Indeed as Bush said, the “oppressed people of Afghanistan … know the generosity of America”. While the Age article seems heavy on reporting and light on comment (in a strange a reversal of pro-war reports from Afghanistan – usually on Aussie troops), sanity is starting to see the light of day. Other ill-planned, failed Afghan invasions, include three Anglo-Afghan wars over 80 years from about 1840, the Soviets in the 1980s (Just three more years before our troops match their 10 years), endlessly complex wars between the “Northern Alliance” and the Taliban. We were never going to do any good.

Worryingly, at the end of the article, both Presidential candidates pledge more troops – showing a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

 

News Limited: PANIC! Sex-fiends everywhere! Possibly unconnected!

Children grabbed, chased by men in park
TWO children escape a terrifying abduction bid, and a teenager is sexually assaulted in the street.

Now, this is a pretty terrifying type story, which warrants attention. I’m also rather pleased that sexual assault is being reported on, as street harassment and assault are all to common – as the excellent Hollaback Australia attests to. However, the assault and the harassment are two seperate incidents, and therefore need two seperate headlines. News.com.au is deliberately linking these stories to create alarm and continue the ever-present theme of moral panic and “sexual predators”. In Australia sex crime offenders are being relegated to third class citizens, their right to privacy and a fair trial is increasingly under threat, there are registers upon registers which are increasingly easy to get your name attached to. The news even reports on suburbs holding public meetings to kick people out and so forth. It must be remembered that these people have rights – and no one waives all of their rights by committing a crime. Your child is also 4-5 times more likely to be abducted or assaulted by someone they know – so the focus on, and panic about, “sexual preditors” also does very little to actaully protect children.

It pedals panic, which News.com.au hopes will generate more readers.

There’s also a simple test to check if this is the case – read the above headline and byline as one, what’s your first respone? and what do you feel? Its not good is it, it also seems like its the one perpetrator. Then treat them are two seperate stories they are, and gauge your initial reaction, and knowledge of events – Which makes you feel better and less panicked?

 

Channel Ten: We’ll advertise, whether you know it or not!

Chomsky and Herman included advertising in their media analysis Manufactoring Consent because of the influence over programming that withdrawl of funding can bring, thus restricting public debate, and the discussion of alternative ideas. Of course, an easier way to manufacture consent is to simply implant ideas into people’s heads without them knowing. Which is what Channel Ten likes doing. Yet they “will not be punished because … [it] is not considered an offence”. Oh, I’m sorry, implanting thoughts into people’s brains without them having the slightest idea is “not considered an offence” by the (largely self-regulated) regulators. Great. Long live free capitalism.

(The Above opinion of All Lies to Me may or may not be the actual opinion of the author, we have no way of knowing).

 

CNN: We’re down with the gangstas

Teachers packing heat at school

Well, I can’t really complain about the story itself, except to say that I’m damned pleased that I’ve finished high school already, and did so in Australia, and also that there is no way – even before the guns – that anyone is going to learn productively in an environment like that. However, I’m not overly enamoured with their headline, are they trying to be funny? Making light of a terrible story of social disintegration. Are they trying to soften that blow and put a positive spin on it? Has the work experience kid taken over from the sub-editor? Is it to ensure it gets on the ‘most read’ list above other stories? (Such as blatant Israeli lies; about violations of those quaint old things called the Geneva Conventions). Anyway, poor kids, and poor quality sub editors…

 

The Age: Murderous blockade of Gaza

Peace ships break through Israel’s blockade of Gaza
That is a bloody good story. Well written, truthful, and kinda nice. That one of the blokes was from Melbourne is no doubt why it was printed, but it also good to see Jeff Halper getting a shout out, being a damned fine journalist. It also refreshing to see Fatah’s coup attempt refered to as just that. Too often it is ‘factional fighting’ or ‘Palestinian in-fighting’ which fails to recognise the seriousness of the coup attempt (which was carried out with US arms – funny how weapons can make it through the blockade).

 

The Age: Islamic men with guns dislike Israel, are therefore anti-Semetic

Move to block Hezbollah’s ‘terror TV’

Now, I rather like the separation of Church and State. I find it somewhat indispensable to democracy. However, others may not. Hizbollah and Hamas both make bloody good cases that in fact church and state can go together – because their primary goals are the freedom of their people from oppression, not imposing a ‘caliphate’. In the whole article by The Age, I see no actual evidence that al-Mansar is anti-semitic, except one allegation – by a member of a right-wing Zionist group. The article’s ‘evidence’ seems to be solely that Hizbollah is a terrorist group which opposes Israel, and so must be anti-Semitic – and this is never questioned. But is it true? When was the last time Hizbollah carried out offensive operations outside of Lebanon (baring the recent war)? Can’t answer? Because its over 15 years ago since their bombing of the Argentine Israeli embassy or what not. Since then, every Hizbollah action has been in accordance with international law, and their right to oppose illegal occupations of their land (by Israel). Their rockets which rained down on Northern Israeli cities were a war crime – targeting civilians – yet they pale in comparison to the destruction of the entire nation that Israel wrought on Lebanon. The kidnapping that sparked the affair? The Israel soldiers violated the border (thus their kidnapping was not a crime or terrorism). Hizbollah hates Israel not because it is Jewish, but because of two wars, countless bombings, routine border violations, thousands of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails, constant interference, and thousands of dead Lebanese because of Israeli aggression. That sounds a pretty good reason to oppose something to me – and the law agrees. Hizbollah is not a terrorist group, it is a Shiite resistance group that was formed in the early eighties because of Israeli aggression, it has not carried out terrorist operations in a long time, it is also now a legitimate political party, a provider of welfare, education and yes, television. It doesn’t have the ideals I’d like to see, but its not an anti-semitic devil – it even broadcasts in a Semitic language.