Comment

Martyrdom & the 'Medieval Mind'

2nd October 2006:

     How many times does the Western Media insist upon calling Islamic Jihadist Martyrdom Soldiers as "Suicide Bombers". None of these young men and women want to kill themselves. This isn't suicide. These people believe they are at War. They believe they have been attacked and they are forced into desperate measures to defend themselves. Far fetched? Maybe. But consider the facts. The USA is the world's only superpower. It has a military budget many times that of the next twenty countries on the Planet. It can fly a Cruise Missile into any house, anywhere on the Planet whenever it wants, and make up a reason for this later. Famous Left Wing British MP Tony Benn once said "I see no moral difference between a Stealth Bomber and a Suicide bomber".

     So why the desperate measures? Because this is a David versus Goliath contest with no happy ending. There is no Hollywood victory for this underdog. Goliath wins again and again. Goliath rolls tanks into your country (if your lucky) or your refugee camp if you are a Palestinian. You family will be humiliated daily. Your son, daughter, wife, friends, whoever, can be abducted at any time. They will be denied their human rights, detained and tortured. They will be lucky to emerge alive. That is IF you see your oppressor. Many do not. Many meet their end at the hands of a Laser Guided Bomb. Many will never see it coming. Just another broken body to be plucked from the rubble of their home. You'll see the pictures on CNN before turning over to watch a soap opera.

     Small wonder they hate us. Them and their brothers who live next door to you. Small wonder that they are willing to give up their lives in this war. When you have had every one of your family taken, when every shred of dignity had been removed, when you believe your religion has been insulted and defamed, when you believe your people are being ground into dust, when you believe all of this YOU TOO will do ANYTHING. So, do you believe this is unique to Islam? Do you think that this is some result of the "medieval mind" as some have put it? Are these people just the result of some strange foreign culture that we will never be reconciled with?

     If you want to know the truth then pick up a book called "The Final Flight of the Luftwaffe". This deals with the last days of the German Airforce at the end of World War Two. In truth hundreds of fine young German boys lined up to go on suicide missions to defend their homeland. Was this some act of extreme Nazism? It is too easy to dismiss this as the crazed acts of a few Hitlerites. The fact is that many of these young men actually survived the war. Their testimony bears weight to the idea that they did this for their country, their people, their wives, children, family. It wasn't done for fascism.

     So, if nice western, white-skinned, Anglo-Saxon, blue-eyed, blond-haired, catholic boys are reduced into 'suicide' missions, what does that tell us? Their mission was to ram hundreds of American daylight bombers over Germany. They largely ran out of aircraft and fuel before the plan was enacted en-masse. However, a few souls did perish on these missions. Is this an uncomfortable fact? It is hard to accept that WE can do this. It is easy to dismiss this as something for the 'inscrutable' Japanese or other bizarre foreigners. Such tales of deliberate self-sacrifice were also very common in the Stalin's Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War. Ramming enemy planes or ploughing your aircraft into columns of enemy tanks was not uncommon. This wasn't communist zeal, these young boys believed they were in a desperate life or death struggle - a struggle for the existence of their people against the Nazi onslaught. The war in the East was one of annihilation. Hitler believed the Slavic races were beneath contempt and had to be crushed to create his 'living space'. So, if Germans and other nice European people are capable of believing this and performing this kind of self -sacrifice why do we insist in kidding ourselves that the Jihadists are any different? To believe so is utter racism.

     As an almost daily occurrence you can switch on the TV in the West and see the great and good debating the 'problem' of Islamic extremism'. In this discussion there is never any debate about Christian Extremism. We talk about the Islam as if it is unique in this period of space and time for its ability to provoke 'extremism'. Of course there are no Christian 'suicide bombers'. Are there? The power behind George Bush, that bought him to power, in two Elections, is the mid-western Bible Belt. The folks on the more liberal coasts, both east and west, did not vote for him.

     What is commonly known about the Bible Belters is the growing Evangelical movement, of which the President would include himself as a born again Christian, is that they are medieval in outlook. These are the same Evangelical Christian movements who believe in Creationism - the literal truth of the Biblical Genesis Creation story, defying all scientific evidence in the process. Far worse the President has rubbed shoulders with various Armageddionists and 'Christians for Zionism" movements. These new extremists believe that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is a divine right and is part of Biblical Prophecy and destiny. It will lead to the 'end of days' and their "rapture". In this doomsday scenario all the born again Christians will be sucked into Heaven.

     These jolly folks are the power behind the President. The President of a Country with a vast arsenal of Nuclear Weapons. People who believe that the end of the world is a GOOD thing for THEM.

    So tell me again - why are we scared of Islamic extremists?

To learn more about the topics raised in this essay please review the books sections for:

Hugo Chavez at the UN

21st September 2006:

     In an episode that will be remembered for years to come, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President, stood up at the UN and waved a book at the audience. The book was Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance". The fact that any World Leader should stand up at the United Nations General Assembly, with this book in his hands, is evidence of how far the world has come. Once it was Khrushchev and his shoe. Then there was Yasser Arafat and his rifle & olive branch. Now it is a book. Not just any book. It is for good reason that Noam Chomsky has been called the "greatest intellectual of our times".

     Chavez said of Chomsky's work "It's an excellent book to help us understand what's been happening in the World throughout the 20th Century and what's happening now." He went on his speech to say that "...it smells of sulphur still today..." referring to George Bush's speech to the General Assembly a few hours before. He spoke of Dubya as "...the devil came here, talking as if he owned the World." Everyone knew exactly what he meant. Chavez earned himself chuckles from delegates as he crossed himself during the Devil reference. At the end of the speech he received a standing ovation that went on for so long that the Chair had to call an early halt in order to progress with proceedings. If only Dubya could command that sort of respect and devotion. Chavez's speech had made direct reference to Washington's support for Terrorist organisations in Central America and for sponsoring Coups against Democratically elected leaders with whom they disagreed. This includes himself. All facts now beyond dispute.

     John Bolton, US Ambassador to the UN, said of the speech "Too bad President Chavez doesn't extend the same freedom of speech and the press to the people of Venezuela." The American public were made aware of the events in the UN by Fox News, with the tag line "Is Chavez Mad?". Well, we weren't to expect any objectivity from them. But what about Mr Bolton? The US Ambassador to the UN is referring to the real suppression of certain Media owners in Venezuela. In that he is correct.

     However, that is not the full story. The reason why Chavez is so hopping mad is that Washington backed a Coup against him. The Coup was supported and launched by the rich and powerful media tycoons who were disappointed that Democracy had chosen a Leader who was of the poor rather than from the power elite.

     The Media in Venezuela was in the hands of a powerful minority that did not represent the majority view of the citizens. One such person was Gustavo Cisnero, the head of 'Venevision', who now tours the US telling everyone that Chavez doesn't allow a free press. Chavez accuses Cisnero of taking part in the Coup against him. He further alleges that Venezuelan private Newspapers and TV Stations depicted Chavez as a "tyrant who massacred people". During the Coup these news outlets were accused of pumping out anti-Chavez propaganda in an attempt to convince the Venezuelan public that " the tyrant was defeated... overthrown... toppled" whereas, in reality the Coup was an utter flop as the people didn't support it. It is of little surprise that such vestured interests no longer flourish under Chavez. Small wonder they hate him.

     According to Chavez the President of Spain, Luis Zapatero, was glowing in his praise of the Venezuelan freedom of the press.

To read an interview with Hugo Chavez go to:- http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/19/1336214

To learn more about the topics raised in this essay please have a look at the following DVD's and Books:

Noam Chomsky & the Lebanon Invasion

1st September 2006:

     On August 8th Noam Chomsky et al put their names to a "Statement of Solidarity" with the peoples of the Lebanon. In it they stated that the US-back Israeli assault was "disproportionate" and a "war crime" based upon International Law. The usual fare. The accusation (repeated by Chomsky elsewhere) is that the attack was pre-planned months in advance. The kidnapping of two soldiers was just the excuse the Israelis were looking for to kick off the enterprise. Tit-for-tat kidnapping is a part of life in the area. Indeed it went unreported, by the media in the West, that Israel had kidnapped two Gaza Civilians - the Muamar brothers - on June 24th. That is one day before the attack on Lebanon began.

     The misery for Lebanon comes after a short spell of euphoria as they gained both democracy and independence from Syria. The Chomsky Statement mentions how Lebanon's 'short peace' has come to and end but draws no further conclusion. This would appear to be unusual for Noam Chomsky and made me do some further research. (Signatories for the Statement include John Pilger and Gore Vidal.)

     If we turn to his Al-Adab posting on August 19th Chomsky does expand upon his thoughts. Most of that article deals with the history of recent conflict and peace-deals which, although useful background, do not shed much light as to the timing of recent events. He makes a firm link between the attack and recent events in the Iran, Gaza Strip and other occupied territories. However, his conclusion that this is to suppress the Palestinians by isolating them and destroying their supporters isn't the whole truth. The problem with this assertion is in the way that Israel attacked the Lebanon. They didn't attack just the Hezbollah targets in the south. They attacked ECONOMIC targets in the North - everything from Tissue-making Factories to an International Airport. Major Roads and other transport infrastructure were destroyed. Readers of history will know that this has NEVER won over the hearts and minds of the population. It doesn't convince the citizens to rise up and turn against the domestic powers. Entirely the opposite. The British people didn't over-throw Churchill during the London Blitz. There was no over-throw of Hitler during the bombing of Berlin.

      So, what's going on? Why destroy irrelevant economic targets with the full knowledge that it will encourage support for Hezbollah both within the Lebanon and abroad?

     Surely the real reason for all of this is that Israel feels threatened by a resurgent Lebanon. The Lebanon could easily be the Italy of the Middle-East with healthy Tourism, Agricultural and Manufacturing sectors. Such success within Israel's sphere of influence would be intolerable to Tel Aviv. It threatens their hegemony. Imagine the Lebanon buying up top-of-the-range European Fighter-Bombers. Imagine the money that would start flooding into the coffers of Hamas with financial backing like that. Far worse would be the terrible example this would set to the rest of the middle-east. A successful Middle Eastern Economic Tiger? Not on their doorstep. Surely all Arabs are meant to be shiftless incompetents? Such appalling stereotypes have allowed western opinion to be swayed towards the terrible racism on the neo-conservatives. You can do anything to a country on the basis that it is a "failed state".

     Hence it is in our interests to ensure that they all keep failing. It is in the interests of our security to do so. The weaker they are, the stronger we are.

For more on Noam Chomsky's views on the Lebanon go to: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060819.htm