Tutu leads UN probe into Beit Hanoun killings - 28 May 08

[Desolyt]

So sad

[markjh1035]

Desmond Tutu. The real leader of the worlds Christians, we fully support this most courages man.

He truly shows us that with Jesus we can have peace and brotherhood.

Jews throw down your weapons, pick up the cross and then you will have peace.

[oldklash]

i dont understand why we always talkn badly about the history of hitler regim or the nazis but why we didnt talk about israel genocide and those fuck n bastard..????

[kam3Oen]

Savages will always support other savages.

[killmall]

it sucks it wasn't the entire gaza...There all terrorists....Why should Israel use missles its a waste just use napalm and wipe out all the scum

[mariusgangsta1990]

Just wait till we get to you, you degenerated Zionist. Yes, you Zionists will get enough of that napalm. There is nothing better that sticks to your flesh and roasts you alive to make you rethink your current political system! Palestine for ever!

[jayezzo]

Israel is noting but an illegal state of Zionist's criminals

[cyberdaemon]

Damn war!

[billygd44]

fuck u all

[alexr0p]

Christine Chinkin also added: "I don't think that the idea of a technical mistake takes away from the initial responsibility of the action of firing where civilian casualties are clearly foreseeable ... it has to be foreseeable when you give yourself such a small margin that any error has the potential to lead to civilian casualties."

[alexr0p]

Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, who travelled with Tutu in his team, said it was her preliminary assessment that the incident was still a breach of international law.

"Firing in a way that cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants is clearly a violation of international humanitarian law," she said.

[alexr0p]

Israel must abide by International Law and UN Resolutions, remove its military occupation, allow the establishment of a Palestinian State on all the West Bank and Gaza, allow the refugees back to their homes, cities, towns. Or Apply the South Africa Solution: establish a real democracy in a single state for both Jews and Palestinians where every one can live in total equality.

[alexr0p]

Gaza Strip's population is now about 1.5 million inhabitants. Of those, about 1.2 million are refugees forced out of their homes and dispossessed by Israel in 1948. Israel further Occupied the rest of Palestine 1967. Those same dispossessed refugees are fighting back a vicious and extremely violent Israeli military occupation that continues to steal Palestinian land and impose an inhumane siege on Gaza. not to mention the West Bank which is not better off with over 700 checkpoints.

[jackehammond]

Folks,

A question to all member: If you lived in Gaza and you saw Hamas fighters setting up a mortar or a rocket launcher near your home what would you do?

Jack E. Hammond

.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i would want to stop the situation in the most productive way, which means understanding why the rocket is being fired and doing everything i can to prevent what is creating the motivation for firing rockets at me. this means ending the occupation and allowing peace the chance to do something that continued US/israeli expansion has continually failed to do.

[try2loveall]

If I want peace I would have a difficult time trying to decide how to turn them in and get my loved ones out of the area before a counter strike. I would also fear for all of our lives, because doing so would also put us at risk. Something for the peace movement to consider.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i agree, circumstances are not the same in palestine as they are in the US. non-violent efforts are met with bloody force via the use of high-tech military equipment against civilians and lightly armed (in comparison) palestinian forces. palestinians face the risk of death in order to promote their rights, in the US there are far less risks; given these circumstances, i think the state of apathy in the US is truly criminal, many citizens are throwing away the privilege to adovocate their rights.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the circumstance of occupation makes violence grow on both sides. to solve the problem people cannot unrealistically demand that palestinians renounce violence while the occupation continues, fooling themselves into believing that the vicious US/israeli aggressor would suddenly allow independence and stop their onslaught after decades of rejecting peace by committing aggression and expansion. the root cause of the conflict (the occupation) must be ended for non-violence to begin development.

[wb678]

You know you've hit rock bottom when Africans feel pity for you.

[alexr0p]

Oh really? Why is that? are you suggesting they are less than everyone else? That is a sick remark!

[jackehammond]

Dear Member,

The term that put the Palestinians in their warfare with Israel beyond the pale is by their own mouths and proclamations: ANY MEANS NECESSARY AND WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS.

[wb678]

No but Africa is in pretty bad shape and even they feel sorry for Gaza.

Nothing about race here.

[try2loveall]

I did not read what you did, evidentally. What I read implies that the most that when the most devestated part of the earth feels pity for you, you have got some real problems.

[pathanzamir]

Mr.Tutu we have no unity our Arab Rulers are busy in spending their money and enjoying their life. We have no incharge Abbas can not be successor of Late Arafat he is agent of America and Mr.Haniya can not comprimise with Israel. If you are really interested let know people fact about Palestine then Ok other wise you can go back and leave us on our fate. ALLAH is enough for us

[jackehammond]

NS> "Those in control of territory must endeavor to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objects; Avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas; Take the other necessary precautions to protect civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations." (Art 58 1949 Geneva Convention)

[jklasdfjdfksl]

a requirement to endeavor to protect civilians does not excuse the numerous blatant violations by US/israel of the geneva conventions and the UN charter. these are well known, with or without your disingenous misleading quotes that misrepresent the spirit and the letter of the geneva conventions.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

your selective quotes do not excuse the severe violations committed by israel as a state. this section of 1949 geneva conventions does not render the other protections it gives to civilians meaningless. US/israel and well recognized as war criminals and states that do not respect even the basic cornerstones of the modern system of international law. the real problem here is enforcement, US/israel can be appeased no longer/

[alexr0p]

Serious questions arise over the proportionality of Israel's military response and its failure to distinguish between military and civilian targets. It is highly arguable that Israel has violated the most fundamental rules of international humanitarian law, which constitute war crimes in terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and article 85 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

[try2loveall]

I agree. But therin lies another probem, what to do when they hide themselves among civilians. What if those civilians knowingly hide radicals? I don't propose enhilation of an entire neighborhood; however, I understand how an enemies' choice to hide among civilians would complicate the situation. Then again maybe they are not even aware that the radicals exist within the sardine packed communities. It makes me ill that children die because their neighbor is crazy. I am sick of watching wicked

[alexr0p]

These crimes include direct attacks against civilians and civilian objects, and attacks which fail to distinguish between military targets and civilians and civilian objects (articles 48, 51 (4) and 52 (1) of Protocol I); the excessive use of force arising from disproportionate attacks on civilians and civilian objects (articles 51 (4) and 51 (5) of Protocol I); and the spreading of terror among the civilian population (article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and article 51 (2) of Protocol I)

[jackehammond]

Dear Member,

This is a very twisting of international law. If Israel wanted to spread terror they would just unleash artillery barrages against Mosque on Friday and schools when they are in class. Those parts you quoted are when attacks on made on unoffending civilians and for the purpose of killing unoffending civilians with no military targets or persons near. The German's in WW2 tried to use the same logic and used Red Cross insignia on float planes claiming they were rescue aircraft.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

this is precisely the situation of beit hanoun, there were no military targets, just civilians. this is a regular US/israeli tactic, including firing missiles at apartment complexes or dense neighborhoods where militants came from to punish the community and spread fear. extrajudicial assasinations are not justified against militants either, US/israel regularly does this without any regard to civilian lives or international law.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

those acts you speak of happen on a regular basis, US/israel see this as a "public relations issue" and would like to keep it under the radar as much as possible, which renders your hypothetical unworkable.

[jackehammond]

Dear Members,

If I were Israel I would request a Security Council resolution that Israels actions in response to rocket attack and raids be put to the International Court at the Hague. But with one stipulation. That all the members of the SC agree to abide by the same ruling if it is their territory involved in like atttacks and actions. I can guarantee you that most likely all the SC members with veto powers would immediately veto such a resolution. Wonder why? Wonder Why.

Jack E. H.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

its not hard to wonder why, the UN should not be run like a political state with priviliged members if it is to be effective, this encourages retarted and backwards behavior embraced by western tradition; US/israel would not have been appeased and the brutality could have been stopped long ago.

[jackehammond]

Dear Member,

How do you want the UN run? Let us see. By population with each nation having votes equal to its nations population: ie that means that China and India have the majority votes. By wealth? That means NATO, Japan and the US. By how poor a nation is? That means the wealthiest nations will leave the UN. No Security Council and each nation having one vote? That means Africa will control the UN. Any ideas? Maye each Moslem nation having three votes each?

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i would want a UN that is less like a global republic with a privileged class, but keeping the moral force that comes out of the general assembly and the participation of the entire world, without a chance to veto any progress.

there are reforms that can be taken without degrading into the hypotheticals you propose. the world is not that fragmented, ie. most of the world is usually in accord with issues, that are undermined by the veto of a selfish nation.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the destructive self-interest you mention is fostered by the ability to veto progress, taking away the veto would make the global community more coherent. selfishness in the international system if produced by having advantaged classes seeking their own advantage and refusing to abide by the orders, which alienates other members. taking away the veto power would promote solidarity, not sel-interest.

[jackehammond]

Dear Member,

Have you ever read George Orwell? You ought to. You sound like he did before he returned from the Spanish Civil War. It opened his eyes to a lot of things. He talked a lot like you did before he went to the Spanish Civil War.

Jack E. Hammond

.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

never have, but have heard of his work and i know the basic story of 1984; im not familiar whith his views after the spanish civil war and my study log is pretty cramped, but hopefully i can get to it sometime soon

[try2loveall]

people use their spilled blood as a reason to fuel hate and murder. Neither side is innocent. That is the sad, sad truth we face. Again I wonder if extremists, on both sides, will continue to represent and exploit the masses engulfed in a true war of terror.

[somethingawful01]

The only reason why Israel does these things is because they have the backing of the US. Israel has no economy and has nothing that would make it an independent state. Everything is based on money that comes flooding in from far right (Nazi) US. Rather than build a viable future for itself Israel has entrenched itself in the idea that it is fighting for survival which means that once the US no longer supports it it will cease to exist as it has no way of making money on its own.

[jackehammond]

Dear Member,

If the US withdrew all financial support for Israel and its veto what do you think would happen? Be very careful for what you wish for. The Arab world has had this habit of letting passion trump reason and paid a dear price for this ideal. Even its best friends have comments on this.

Jack E. Hammond

[jklasdfjdfksl]

israel would be force to accept the peace they have been rejecting continously with the US diplomatic support. without the "tough guy on the block" (US), we would see peace. your claims that arabs do not follow reason are outdated racist statments produced from a colonial past which sought to justify the exploitation and atrocities of imperialism.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the arabs, palestinians, hezbollah, and iran, have presented continuous reasonable peace proposals and unilateral ceasefires; US/israel have vetoed and increased their atrocities in order to expand US/israeli influence in the region.

[FrankCoffman]

jklasdfjdfksl,

You have a simplistic black-and-explanation for everything. You think that Hezbollah has made "reasonable peace proposals"? HA. Hezbollah is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. So is Hamas. So, don't whitewash what they really stand for.

Yes, some Palestinians have been reasonable sometimes. But do you think that Palestinian suicide bombers, who are considered heroic martyrs among Palestinians, are "reasonable"? You ignore the atrocities committed by Palestinians.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

hamas enacted a unilateral ceasefire for a year and a half after winning election and arab peace initiatives were launched. iran, hezbollah, and all other relevanta arab parties agreed to respect a decision for peace by the palestinians, including recognizing israels borders; they are not committed to the destruction of israel, but they are committed to palestinian liberation the crimes committed by advanced US/israel weaponry are much more deadly and atrocious than suicide bombings.

[FrankCoffman]

jklasdfjdfksi,

"A unilateral ceasefire"? Oh, you mean when Hamas and its allies were shooting rockets into Israel?

You mean when Nasrallah was calling for attacks on Israel?

You mean when Hezbollah raided across the border 2 years ago, killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers?

You mean suicide bombers who snuck into Israel and blew up innocent civilians?

If you call that a "ceasefire," then what do you call a war?

Israel conducts targeted counter-attacks. Hamas attacks indiscriminately.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

no, im talking about the unilateral ceasefire carried out by hamas for a year and a half after they were elected when all factions under their control were not firing rockets. there were virtually no casualties on the israeli side, while palestinian casualties skyrocket, provoking the some of the retaliatory measures taken as the situation degraded by US/israel attacking the peace. those kidnappings were a response to US/israeli kidnappings of palestinian civilians prior to that event.

[jackehammond]

Dear Member,

The cease fire that Hamas offered was (and they even used Mohammends own words) a truce for a short period of time and in which Hamas stated that they would be able to operate like a nation and have open borders, airports and seaports. Basically to bring in all the weapons they wish including long range artillery rockets with chemical warheads. Israel would have been totally out of their minds to agree to such a deal.

Jack E. Hammond, USA

[jklasdfjdfksl]

hamas was the majority party in palestine at the time, and despite US/israeli suspiscions and their boycott of democracy when it does not work in their interests, hamas proved more humane in governance than US/israeli leadership who began to support slaughter and division because of suspiscion and the threat that peace would pose to the expansion of their interests.

[try2loveall]

I cannot help but wince when I see stories like these. I see no justification for Israel's actions. It may have been an accident caused by defective equipment, that is something that only a few people really know. The investigation will probably not find the answers that the victims seek, but it will bring more attention to their plight. I wish for sanity to prevail in the region and wonder if extremists will continue to exploit the suffering of truly innocent people.

[AliVanOranje]

God bless you, MR Tutu !!!

[try2loveall]

I appreciate your view.

[AliVanOranje]

thanks dear :)

[jackehammond]

Dear Bishop Tutu,

What does international law actually state.

Jack E. Hammond, USA

The Fourth Geneva Convention Part 3, Article 1, Section 28. reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render

certain points or areas immune from military operations."

[jklasdfjdfksl]

please, do not pretend that international law supports the israeli side; it is a ridiculous argument to make and shows a lack of morality and basic decency by those making the argument. israel has been continuously guilty of collective punishment, international terrorism, war aggression, using cluster munitions in civilian areas, attacking civilian infrastructure, illegal occupation, etc., etc, etc.;

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the only thing standing in the way of punishing and stopping israel is US veto power and their criminal threats at aggression for anyone who disagrees. US/israel claim the right to be above international law. when it does not serve US/israeli power/profit interest to restrain themselves from war aggression and slaughter of innocents, international law is ignored by these criminal states.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the nazi analogy fits better with US war aggression, it should not be appeased by western europe, or the US monster will soon act with no bounds but profit/power interest and "might makes right".

[jackehammond]

4th Geneva Convention Part 3, Article 1, Section 28. It reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

[jklasdfjdfksl]

that quote means nothing unless you contextualize the meanining and explain the relevant background meanings.

[FrankCoffman]

jkladfjdfksi,

Making exaggerated statements doesn't help to understand the situation. If you think the U.S. is profiting from its policies in Iraq or elsewhere, you are sadly mistaken. There is no gain or benefit for the U.S.

To the contrary, the Iraq war, as well as the aid packages for Israel and Egypt, cost the United States tends of billions of dollars every year. There is no profit motive in any of this. You don't grasp what's going on.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

there is a huge profit motive, once you look past government expenditures and look to the private economic reality of the US. private capital owners, like halliburton and mobil exxon, are recording record profits while the taxpayers foot the bill that the governmentruns up on behalf of private interests over the bodies of innocents.

[FrankCoffman]

jklasdfjdfksi,

Profit isn't the motive behind American policies. The Bush administration is guilty of serious misjudgments. But their policy isn't guided by corporate profits.

Sure, Halliburton is making money, but Halliburton doesn't control the government. The U.S. didn't get involved in Iraq to help Halliburton. Oil companies such as Exxon don't profit from the Iraq war.

Your conspiracy theory is simplistic and misinformed. Bush's policies are mistakes of judgment, not a big plot.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

to pretend that economic elites in the US having influence on the political system is a "conspiracy theory" is to bury your head in the sand and ignore reality. bush's cabinet is a ceo cabinet who are well aware of what they were doing and the interests they were advancing, they took the risks of increasing terrorism to advance "american interest". the bush administration, and mccain, have now directly admitted the war was to advance "american interests" in oil, it is not a conspiracy theory.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

profit for US companies is not the only reason the war was launched, there were strategic goals in further gaining influence over strategic reserves of oil, which is a method of control over the global economy through energy. the US has become more aggressive in forcing their control and influence since the end of the cold war, they feel there is nothing to hold them back because they live by and only listen to brute force.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i agree that bush's policies were misguided, the US is quickly becoming the worlds punching bag. you cannot write off the real reasons the US went to war, they are as clear as day and a long part of euro/US tradition. imperial interests are not "conspiracy theories", but they sadly are still part of modern reality, thanks to the "US interests" (in controlling and profiting from the materials others need to survive) that the US feels it has the right to advance at any cost.

[FrankCoffman]

jklasdfjdfksi,

You make a lot of assumptions about Bush's motives, but you have no proof. There's no plot by CEOs. Condoleeza Rice and other cabinet members aren't CEOs.

Several people who left the Bush administration have been critical of his policies. His former press secretary has written a very critical book.

But none of these people support your theory of "imperial interests" or corporate domination.

The U.S. doesn't benefit from the Iraq war. The war is a costly drain.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

it is a "ceo cabinet" made up of ex-ceo's who have large ties to the business community,including lots of ties to big-oil. corporate democrcats like obama and clinton also have extensive ties to the business community and are promoted by them, including the media. and as ive said, the oil motive is not and assumption or speculation or a "conspiracy theory"; this is what obvious from the start and what the bush administration, along with mccain and others, have ADMITTED and embraced.

[FrankCoffman]

jklasdfjdfksi,

No, Bush's cabinet and policymakers aren't CEOs. Condoleeza Rice is NOT a CEO or an ex-CEO. You think that CEOs all agree and that they get together to tell the U.S. gov't what to do. That's your fantasy.

You have a simplistic notion of CEOs as evil. You think big oil CEOs wanted the war in Iraq. Not true. Big oil companies don't stand to make money from the war.

You're just making a lot of assumptions. You don't have any evidence that oil companies are behind the war.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i think it would be helpful to get past the idea that CEO's seeking profit/power interest has to be some kind of "conspiracy theory". corporations by default have the charachteristics of a sociopath, they seek advantage off of everyone in society and feel no responsibility to those they harm. and yes, big buisness is capable of influencing the political process; this is a well-known hallmark of capitalist society and is not a "conspiracy theory", it gave rise to fascism and world war II

[FrankCoffman]

jklasdfjdfksi,

You operate on dogmatic Marxist concepts, rather than real world knowledge. In reality, corporations don't act like sociopaths. Corporations contribute to charities, offer various benefits to their employees and do many positive things.

Further, corporations are necessary to a productive economy. Who do you think made the computer you're using? A bunch of Marxist hippies? Uh, no.

Who do you think built YouTube? Fidel Castro? Uh, no.

Corporations didn't cause WWII.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

a corporation will contribute to charities or spend a few million on commercials advertising their respect for renewable energy. these are largely public relations campaigns carried out for the soul puropose of keeping business profitable and quelling the anger of those they are harming and dominating economically. the falling of unions and increasing capital power (leaving workers benefits in the hands of owners) has led to decreasing living standards and a declining middle class

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the development of computer technology and the advent of the internet were both funded and developed by the state-sector; they only became privatized after the venture became profitable, the taxpayers were footed with the research bill and economic elites were given the profits our "public servents" in government. the capitalist futureland with flying cars pulling up to floating mcdonalds will never happen; the system is morally and environmentally unsustainable.

[FrankCoffman]

jk,

Yes, the US government helped to develop the Internet. But the Internet wouldn't be what it is today without the private sector.

The government didn't develop personal computers. The government didn't invent YouTube, Google, etc.

To be true to your anti-corporate ideology, you should get rid of all the corporate products that you use. You shouldn't be using a computer, the Internet, YouTube, TV, etc. These things were created by big bad corporations.

Go to the woods and live on roots.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i recognize what is practically possible and what is not. because i belive that something has gone wrong does not force me to abandon all hope and head for the woods. that fact that a circumstance exists does not exclude possibilities for change. my criticisms are based on how i believe US society should be improved. the fact that corporations have gained enormous power in the economic sphere (concentrated capital) does not make it right, desireable, or unchangeable.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

US political/economic elites had been planning to attack iraq for over 10 years; there are even documents where dick cheney was advocating a nuclear strike on baghdad around the time of the first US war on iraq. this plan was part of the motivation for the clinton administration to block UN moves to lift the sanctions on iraq because they had complied with the UN resolution on destroying WMDs. the US murdered hundreds of thousands of iraqis in the 90's, many children, by blocking the UN.

[FrankCoffman]

jklasdfjdkl,

You use cliches and artificial notions like "US political/economic elites," as if that exists as a tangible thing. That's just your ideological construct.

You claim that these "elites had been planning to attack Iraq for over 10 years." I suppose you can dig up a couple of qutotations, and then claim that these quotes represent the thinking of the so-called "elites." You like to over-simplify everything into dogmatic notions and cliches that you throw out as if they are facts.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i was talking about documented record and actions of US regimes after then end of the soviet union by US political/economic elites, i mean those in the corridors of high power in US government and major players in the economy (ex. GE). these are not artificial ideological constructs, they exist in reality

[jklasdfjdfksl]

what represents the motives of the people in control of the executive political system who are in control of the military and the use of force in the US are statements admitting the iraq war was to protect US oil interests in iraq, after fabricating lies to the american people. "elites" are the representatives in the US government who feel accountable to capital and not citizens; and turn democracy into auctions and public relations advertising campaigns.

[FrankCoffman]

jk,

Who "admitted that the Iraq war was to protect US oil interests in Iraq"?

I fail to see how US oil interests have been protected. The US doesn't own Iraq's oil.

The US BUYS oil -- just like other countries do. We don't steal oil or control other countries' oil. We buy oil at world prices. 

What are "US oil interests"? You use a cliche that you don't even know what it means. American oil interests are the same as any other country that buys and uses oil. There's no big bad plot.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

ive stated this around three times already, the bush administration and politicians such as john mccain have come out and said that the war needs to continue in order to promote US "oil/energy interests", it is now a regular talking point coming out of the white house and is being used in political campaigns. many were fooled by the talk of WMD's, the justification switched to "democracy promotion" after the war was launched, now a clearer version of the truth is coming after the US is invested.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

US oil interests are in having oil reserves controled by client states that will not keep the wealth produced by the oil in the hands of a limted number of local elites, while the rest of the capital can be freed up for profit by US companies or multinationals with the capital to develop. the US does not want oil to be used in a way that can hurt the economic interests of US-based capital (like gazprom pressuring europe), economies need energy to function (this means oil in our circumstance)

[jklasdfjdfksl]

iraq stopped being a client state when it invaded kuwait without US authorization and began to intefere with US-based capital interests; saddam hussein was used before by the US to attack iran who threatened US interests with indepence and control over their oil; once saddam stopped following orders, he became an enemy. by installing a client state government (depends on US for survival), the benefit for US-based capital's and iraq's client state status can be assured

[jackehammond]

Dear Member,

When did Iraq ever take orders from the US. In the 1980-89 Iran-Iraq War the Gulf States got worried about Iran's promise to overthrow the unIslamic governments (ie Sunni) and asked the US to do something. The US provided Iraq with satellite photos. That was it. Iraq had no use for US weapons and the Russias, French and Chinese were supplying everything they needed. And if the US was worried about oil it could have made a deal with Saddam as easily as it could Kuwait, etc.

JEH

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the US provided diplomatic support and weapons support for iraq and approved all of its actions, including saddam hussein's worst atrocities. iraq became a sheild for US interests in the gulf region because of the fear that independence from US-based interests would spread in the region. because iraq was recieving weapons from other countries does not erase the US support, which continued until the invasion of kuwait, because it was unauthroized by the US.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the threat in iraq invading kuwait was a threat to the overall structure of US rule through the "free market" system. iraq began to encroach on entrenched US interests in being a perferenced oil partner in the gulf region. once this happened, iraq was no longer fighting against the newly liberated iran, it was becoming an enemy because its actions did not coincide with US interests and threatened the status quo of "default to US interests". the US was prompted to preserve obedience with force.

[FrankCoffman]

jk,

You use cliches like "US political/economic elites." Do you mean Bill and Hillary Clinton? Is that the big bad elite that you're talking about?

You claim that General Electric is part of this elite that runs US foreign policy. Give me some proof that GE has ever influenced US foreign policy. What proof do you have that GE is involved in making foreign policy?

Please give me an example of a foreign policy that GE has advocated or promoted. If you can't, you're just blowing smoke.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i do not know why you insist on calling the descriptive term i have chosen a "cliche", are you suggesting that concentrations of power do not exist in the hands of capital holders and government officials, or are you still badgering at the unfounded talking point that a capitalist entity seeking its own interest is a "big bad conspiracy" ? please give me an example of a society without some kind of leading class in the economic/political realms, otherwise criticism and improvement is necessary.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

US democracy is not structured with perfect seperation between the public and private sector. corporations, and "individuals" affiliated with them who majorily benefit from them (investment firms and other large capital holders, "elites" if you will), have rights to translate their capital into political influence; this is done through lobbying, contributions, cronyism, capital influence, etc.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

once a selfish entity is given access to political clout determined by capital holdings, they can use their wealth to push for policies that will increase the growth of their capital (new investment opportunities in iraq, tax breaks and subsidies to control capital at home) and protect their capital dominance (tax bailouts for speculators and companies). wealth can translate into favorable policies for economic elites and great influence over politicians (ex. clintons)

[jklasdfjdfksl]

you get a political system that determines democratic influence by capital power. without popular pressure and involvement, the political system becomes an advocate for economic elites (concentrated capital holders, like GE, who benefit from goverment actions that produce weapons deals and "free trade" investment opportunities with client states). the system produces a shared interest between economic and political elites.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

if your looking for specific examples of business influencing governmetn as "proof", you can find it almost anywhere,anytime, and on both sides of the two party divide. ex. clinton passing nafta and promoting WTO involvement which strengthens US economic elites (like GM) but harms citizens and promotes immoral manufacturing. bush I profiting from his policies by promoting weapons deals through the carlyle group.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

when a situation like defenseless third world markets is opened, or wars created, GE (weapons manufacturer), mobil, etc. profits increase. i am not privy to cheney energy meeting and the contemplations of lawmakers, and im sure there is no "big bad conspiracy", promotion of elite interest is just buisness as usual when democracy is put up for sale.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

do you really believe that bush wanted to promote democracy in iraq and started a brutal and criminal war because of the compassion in his heart, his yearning for the third world to learn freedom from the barrel of a gun? what other explanations do you advance for an unparralled capitalist superpower that spent the better half of the 20th century in a struggle for global dominance suddenly swinging its club at iraq?

[jklasdfjdfksl]

was this a spontaneous outburst by the bush administration, ignoring the benefit the corporations would recieve and only thinking about a misled policy of democracy promotion? i think  your explanation makes little sense once you leave the realm or rhetoric and enter reality.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

it does not take a smoking gun document to reveal a good approximation of the truth here, it is as clear as day when contextualized in reality and viewed with a little common sense.

[jackehammond]

Dear Member,

Here is where I waste my time. From a dollar stand point the US is a big weapons exporter. But from actual numbers of weapons, with the exception of other NATO nations and Japan it is small potatoes. US weapons are just to expensive. Find any defense almanac of other nations weapons, and you will notice most of them buy there weapons from France, Russia, China and Pakistan. As to oil companies, almost all oil prices are set by the actual country pumping the oil not an oil firm.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

if a state plays the role in setting the oil market prices, then having a friendly client state in power is still very important; a huge threat to US economic interests would be an iraq that is able to develop its oil without US profit interests draining and controlling the process and then iraq using its oil as influence, as russia does to europe.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i understand that there is a varied weapons market, but this does not mean that the US weapons industry does not seek business in its regional satalies in the third world. the US often supplies its clients well, regardless of how "developed" the country is (ex. columbia), it just loads up the bill on the national debt

[jklasdfjdfksl]

again, just because i choose a certain term to explain something does not mean they are "just an ideological construct" and "do not exist as a tangible thing". real and concrete information supports the plan to attack iraq for US interests in oil; including admissions by the bush adminstration, many of whom were in power during bush I and have documented plans to conquer baghdad.

[try2loveall]

Who wispers in their ears? Who said the best laid plans for profit always prevail?

[try2loveall]

You are right there are many reasons, one of them does involve our long held tradition of exploitation. America wouldn't be what it is today without the long standing practice. To exploit neccesitates conspiricy's use.

[try2loveall]

I respect your point of view; however the military industrial complex exists, and industries have lobbiests who do help shape policies in our great nation. I wish that our corporations would have no say in government policies but they do. They have all the rights afforded to an individual under the law. They shape forien policy every day. The representation they present has caused as much, or more damage to our identiy world-wide, as our president.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i agree, the US political system becomes geared towards the interests of narrow concentrations of capital by default; the only way to combat that is popular movements getting organized (like the american workers movement in the 19th century that faced bloody oppression and the civil rights movements , for blacks and others, in the 1960's); an end to corporate personhood would be a great start, none of the major and the media even consider this an issue, they blame deflect blame on immigrants.

[try2loveall]

Amen to that!Those who weren't killed were jailed durring WW1 by our president for being unpatriotic(sound familiar?)Ironic a foundation for human rights was named for him.Wilson did have good points, I guess.The more that people like you and I discuss these issues in a public forum, the better.I think that it is sad, the number of ciizens who do not value history, they are not able to see events as the progressions they are.

[jackehammond]

Dear Member,

International Laws on war do not rely on the legality of a cause, etc. International Law extends to ALL no matter if they are the so called "oppressor" or "occupation power". And up until President Reagan stuck his nose in over Beirut in the 1980s if an enemy used urban areas (ie cities and towns) and human shields it did not matter to the attacking force. The deaths and blood of innocents were on the hands of those using the cities and civilian.

Jack E. Hammond, USA

[jklasdfjdfksl]

you should know that special obligations are owed to those who are occupied, the responsibilities are changed for an occupying power. this is not a legal situation of war, it takes on legal structures made specifically for occupying oppressors. this is part of internatinal law that i was refering to, US/israel have continually violated their obligations, including continued orders to withdraw and end their aggression.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

and as we know, clearing out civilians has never stopped US/israel from brutal war aggression and terrorism against civilians. in the 2006 US/israeli aggression war, civilians were evacuated from much of southern lebanon so hezbollah could engage US/israel, who claimed their objective was to fight hezbollah. US/israel immediately began to bomb civilian infrastructure, civilians targets, ambulances, and drop cluster bombs into civilian areas; all flagrant violations of international law.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the blood in on the hands of the war criminals, who use terrorism without regard to civilian life as a daily tactic. illegal assasination and US/israeli terrorism is a daily reality that sends deadly munitions into civilian areas without immediate provocation. the israeli raids on densly populated gaza are taken with the knowledge that civilians will be killed in order to advance the political goals of US/israel.

[jackehammond]

"This is so little in the spirit of surrender as to seem like mockery of triumph. If steps were taken to curb them, they had only themselves to blame. War is not a game where there is everything to win and nothing to loose. Those who appeal to the law of force should not complain if the decision is final." (Joshua L. Chamberlain as governor of Maine when the defeated South yelped about the purposed 13th and 14th Amendment to the

Constitution and wanted to return to the STAUS QUO).

[jklasdfjdfksl]

quoting american elites from the time of the civil war, who believe the US has the natural right to expand as far as their might takes them, is blatantly out of context and useless rubbish for the purposes of talking about current international law. as i told you before, US/israel's relationship with palestine is legally recognized as an occupation, it is not the same as a war situation. there are special responsibilities on US/israel, including withdraw.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

US/israel have also violated the applicable rules with great frequency, it is well documented. and randomly stating part of the geneva conventions does nothing to advance your point. selectively picking one sentence of the conventions without context and explanation is misleading at best. the fact of the matter is, that the UN and human rights groups have repeatedly condemned US/israel actions as blatant crimes agains humanity and war crimes; the US veto should be discarded.

[internationallawman]

You are full of crap. Using human shields and being someone's "enemy" while living in a city are two entirely different things. It is the IDF who are notorious for using human shields in the occupied territories. Bombing an apartment block to get a couple of guys means targetting civilians, which is terrorism, a war crime, and, if you do it enough, a crime against humanity.

In 1967 Israel decided to criminally annex land gained in armed conflict, the war crime from which the rest follow.

[jackehammond]

Dear Member,

I love the comments from people who will not sign their full name, etc. Saying something is a war crime or crime against humanity does not make it so. I have quoted you the exact laws by international treaty. And I can guarantee you that any Arab nations military would do the same thing Israel is doing (only much more) if it faced the same situation.

Jack E. Hammond

.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

if you are so familiar with the "exact laws by international treaty", then you should know of the notorious violations of which i have stated, that have been repeatedly condemned by human rights groups and the UN. all you have done is stated one sentence without further explanation and useless quotes, i fail to see how you have asserted anything.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

your speculations about how arab states would act do not excuse the brutal acts of US/israel and the many violations of international law they have perpetrated without thinking twice, it only reveals your bias.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

here is more from the same section, governing occupied territories, that you thought fit to ignore: Art. 31. No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

Art. 32. The High Contracting Parties SPECIFICALLY agree that they are prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality WHETHER APPLIED BY CIVILIAN OR MILITARY AGENTS.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

these famalies killed in beit hanoun are not proper military targets and have committed no crimes; their murder is a blatant violation of the geneva conventions. your statement of an isolated part of that section without context was an attempt to lie and misrepresent information, with the vile purpose of justifying extrajudicial killing and US/israeli terrorism and collective punishment.

[alexr0p]

Jackehammond I find it odd that someone who talks of legality and international law would use the same lame excuse used by the rulers of defunct Apartheid South Africa. They always used the barbaric pretext of what other African dictators would do when facing the same situation, which of course did not exonerate apartheid from its crime nor shall it exonerate Israel or yourself for supporting it.

[jackehammond]

Dear Member,

There is a saying from a Russian who survived the horrors of Stalin's concentration camps when someone stated they were the same as South Africa's white rule. He stated those that can not tell the difference -- or accept a difference -- of levels of evil, actually cause evil. It is no different than the Italians claiming they had a right to invade Ethiopia because the British had their empire including India. The German's and Japanese later made the same claims.

JEH

[alexr0p]

I don't wanna burst your buble again Jackehammond but, according to International law, this does not justify the Israeli Occupation Forces shirking their obligation to distinguish between civilians and those taking part in the hostilities, and do all they can to avoid harming civilians disproportionately.

[jackehammond]

Dear Member,

I am going to burst your bubble. If the US and the UK had been held to the standards that you demand of Israel, the US and the UK would never have defeated Germany and Japan. International Law on warfare is not a suicide pact nor is it meant to give the weaker side in a conflict an advantage. Also, at an Arab League meeting in Cairo in 1998 "ALL" the members raised the Black Flag concerning international law in relation to Israel. That made them OUT LAW. Know what thet means.

[alexr0p]

If you may recall, the Geneva convention was adopted after World War II and the defeat of Germany and Japan. Israel is signatory to the convention and should abide and be made to abide by the same. Calling that a suicide pact does not exonerate Israel from its obligations.

[jackehammond]

Dear Member (what ever you real name is),

With one exception that is covered by the so called Laws of Nations (which proceeds any written Laws of Warfare). It is called Reciprocity in Warfare. Basically if one side does not obey the laws of warfare or raises the black flag then the other side is not obligated under them. A good example would be if another nation/group exploded a nuclear weapon over a US city. Then all bets are off.

Jack E. Hammond

.

[jackehammond]

Dear Member (WEYNI?)

After WW2 the original preWW1 Hague Treaty has some additions made. It even included the part about unrestricted submarine warfare and bombing of cities. But in WW2 both the Germans and Japanese ignored these rules and so all sides began unrestricted submarine warfare and bombing of cities. Again, reciprocity in warfare. While there were war crimes trials no one was put on trial for that charge (with one exception but that German admiral was found not-guilty).

JEH

[jackehammond]

Dear Member (WEYNI),

Now the last part: The Black Flag. In warfare when one side was not going to observe the laws of war they raised the black flag. That made that side OUT LAW. They could not appeal or demand the protection of the laws of warfare. That is what the Arab League did in 1998 in Cairo in relation to laws of warfare and the Palestinians and Israel at the Palestinians request. So in reality the Palestinians can not appeal to International Law.

JEH

.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

US/israel had been showing no respect for the laws of war and the UN charter regarding the use of force long before 1998, including violating legal determinations that the occupation was illegal and must be promptly ended, as well as settlements. the right of self determination from occupation is a major purpose of the UN charter and the UN is suppossed to be the conduit for solving these issues, not unilateral US/israeli aggression

[jackehammond]

"Those in control of territory must endeavor to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objects; Avoid locating military objectives within or

near densely populated areas; Take the other necessary precautions to protect civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations." (Art 58 Geneva Convention)

[jackehammond]

"The Germans had a perfect right to bomb London. London was defended by guns and aeroplanes, and it was the chief center of the production of war munitions. We were, therefore deluding ourselves in talking about

London being an undefended city and about the Germans in attacking it being guilty of an act unworthy of a civilized nation." (Lord Montagu of Beulieu to the House of Lords late 1917)

[alexr0p]

I'd hate to intercede in the middle of your triumphal speech Jackehammond, but please don't forget the simple fact that Gaza has no military and is not defended by guns, aeroplanes or any other such thing. Gaza is definitely not a chief center for the production of war munitions. Stop deluding yourself.

[jackehammond]

Folks,

You know this is a hoot! In February 1982 the Syrian Army surrounded a whole city and shelled it for two weeks killing an estimated 28,000 people. And there is not want photo of that massive atrocity. And this happens and everyone in the Arab world is up in arms. The lesson: If Arabs kill ten thousand Arabs in cold blood who cares. If Israel launches a counter strike against rockets and kills less than a dozen it is a war crime!

Jack E. Hammond

.

[ambientdiscord]

Israel is not "counterstriking" they simply do revenge bombings for what terrorists do to them regardless of weather or not they have any idea where the attack came from.

also, in actuality, AlJazeera just about a month or 2 ago did a big story about the event you are referring to.

Israel isnt making friends by randomly bombing residential areas, it creates sympathy for the terrorists.

[try2loveall]

I am interested in delving through the proof behind your accusation. I do concur that the issue has been polarized in the Arab community, with ethnicity as the prime vehicle. However we should not dismiss wrongs perpetrated today with history. Don't you think that is a major hold up in that region today?

[bulluni]

I agree International. The Israelis never accept responsibility it is as if the world owes them their lives and dignity for what the Nazis have done almost 70 years ago....Justice for all not just a select few...

[bulluni]

Are you fucking stupid? What do you mean PR when ISRAELI rockets rain down on CHILDREN while they are sleeping?

[OperationOpera]

This is Hamas's dream! They love this type of PR. Its the reason they allow their citizens to be human sheilds in the first place. I feel so badly for the innocents. Israel is guilty, but so is Hamas.

[012angels]

You're sick! It's amazing how twisted the thinking is that wants to blame the victim and absolve the criminal ISRAEL.

[internationallawman]

When the truth is good PR for those whom you consider your enemies, it is time to rethink your position.

[Rychardepowell]

This is what Israel do every day and it must be stop! Free Palestine from the Zionist Terrorist! The world is waiting for Peace & a world with out Israel!

[Kirbytime]

Mr. Tutu is a very brave man for his actions. It is one thing for him to have been an anti-apartheid activist in South Africa, but now he shows his true compassion for the oppressed when he sympathizes with the Palestinian cause.

[lastnymleft]

Kirbytime: He's not that brave. Having received a Nobel Peace Prize affords you a certain untouchability. Given that he has the capability enabled by that 'untouchability', it is his moral responsibility to do what he can. It's good to see him accept that responsibility.

[prisha91755]

SHAME ON YOU, ISRAEL... Shame on your cowardly acts.

[Stealth3]

and on the US for supporting those cowardly acts and for continuing to support criminals.

[cyberdaemon]

damn right!

[prisha91755]

I totally agree!

[Killa8]

They are heartless

[redflags123]

The savagery and inhumanity into which we as a species have descended is almost incomprehensible. Almost.

Humanity is doomed if it does not put an end to violence as a means of settling disputes.

Capitalism means war.

[cycimian]

redflags123 its easy to talk all passive. These are human beings. And it can Happen anywhere now thanks to Bushit.

[lastnymleft]

redflags123: No, it's *corporatism* that 'means war', not capitalism. Corporatism being a merger between Big Business, and Big Government. Read General Smedley Butler.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's possible to pull back from corporatism to capitalism. Rejecting corporatism in favor of socialism or communism is a bad move because they are all forms of collectivism. We need to fight top-down oligarchical collectivism with bottom-up grassroots individualism. Ergo, Ron Paul.

[jerkinp]

There is no point in investigating this. Even if evidence is found that Israel did violate some humanitarian law any sanctions placed will be vetoed by the United States of America.

Good old America so call defender of Human Rights whose leader had to pass a law to protect himself from being charged of war crimes...

[aaweis22]

israelis r blood thirsty!! they can't live without an innocents blood!! fact.

[megatron0357]

We need to tap into that frustration and make positive changes on the ground. I pray we find a way. Organize people. educate others. organize again. It will take a long time and alot of effort but in the end with God's help we can make a positive difference. PEACE (positive energy always combats evil) ALWAYS

[try2loveall]

Thank you

[megatron0357]

Way help one another. What is the solution to all of this. Well it is going to be hard for us who are not in these "circles" to make change but history proves that it takes a massive coordinated effort of many people from many different positions to unite and sustain a campaingn to change the outcome. Only then can we force any significant economic and political clout to make positive moves on the situation. The people on the ground on both sides are SICK and TIRED of the situation. Somehow

[megatron0357]

SOmething has to give. This cannot continue. I believe there are several strategic reasons why such crimes continue. Most of them have to do with maintaining the status quo. There are powerful forces on both sides who are profiting off of the pain and suffering of the people (on both sides). To change the paradigm would change their positions of influence. I believe ultra ortodox jews, zionist movements (christian & jew) and exremist Islamic groups feed off of one another and in some sic

[lbpeacemaker]

Israel thinks they own the world.

They make me sick.

Their taking over Brooklyn too.

[Ottman2007]

stupid wahhabi don't do crap to help.They take foreign trips and have sex with European women.

Jihad my ass,how come no Wahabbbi joins the struggle in Gaza?????????????

[redflags123]

Maybe the reason they were attacked was precisely because the IDF KNEW that they were sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle. The Israelis don't shoot 'innocents'; only enemies, real or imaginary.

Lately, it seems, it doesn't take much to get on the long list of potential 'terrorist' to be strafed at the earliest opportunity.

[metamorphises]

Israel has already said it was a mistake.

-----------

Israel makes too many "mistakes".

[redflags123]

Yeah, and they'll continue to say that 'till hell freezes over. But that don't make it a fact.

[metamorphises]

Allah'u Akbar. man why does this continue. man its soooo sad.