Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Bombings unleash the politics of hypocrisy

Vincent Browne:

Three months ago, local doctors in Fallujah, Iraq, reported that more than 800 civilians had been killed in a concerted American and British military assault on the city.

That estimate is now thought to have been too high and the reported civilian death toll is put at something over 600.

Half of the dead are reported to have been children.

The major assault on the town took place before women and children were allowed to leave.

I refer to this, not to suggest that a crime against humanity provides any justification for the slaughter of more than 50 civilians in London last Thursday morning, nor to suggest that the Fallujah massacre was the motivation for the London attack. I don't believe it was.

Rather my point is that condemnations of the slaughter of innocent civilians should apply to the slaughter of all innocent civilians.

Tony Blair's condemnations of the London killings is a piece of awful hypocrisy, given his complicity in what happened in Fallujah.

But, of course, Blair's hypocrisy does not stop there.

He bears culpability for the deaths of thousands of people, including the killings of British and American soldiers in Iraq, because of his complicity in the unlawful invasion of that country on the basis of a deceit.

Blair and his ally George Bush have no credibility in condemning any killings. He and Bush invite ridicule in promising retribution for the London killings. Indeed, more than ridicule, they invite retribution on themselves.

As was the case during the Northern Troubles, comment that might be regarded as justifying atrocity is censored.

Anything other than outright, unqualified condemnation of particular atrocities is demanded, uncluttered by reference to other atrocities.

Breakers of this code are classified as sneaking regarders of terrorism, as well as facing the usual taunts of anti-Americanism.

In saying that I regard the London killings as crimes against humanity, unjustified by any cause, I feel that, to some degree, I am capitulating to this intellectual terrorism, even though that is my conviction.

That ‘ terrorism' word causes me difficulty. How is it terrorism to set off small bombs on a London underground train and not terrorism to drop massive bombs from aeroplanes over cities and towns? Are the people in the towns and cities being bombed any less terrorised than the passengers in the London trains? Is it morally OK to massacre civilians from the air and a crime against humanity to massacre civilians in far smaller numbers on the ground?

In the last week, the killing of well over 100 people in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been reported. Almost certainly, many more were killed. Since 1998, millions of people have died in that country because of war.

My point is not that the former colonial powers are to blame for those deaths (although there is some basis for attributing responsibility to them), nor that the Americans who supported a dictator there for decades were responsible (although that, too, was a contributory factor).

Nor am I saying that the United Nations or the western powers - or the west in general - is to blame for failing to intervene to resolve the conflict (although there are elements of truth to that as well).

My point is that the war in that country was made possible by massive shipments of arms into the region from Britain, the US and other countries - including Israel, some of the Balkan states, Ukraine and the Czech Republic.

Those shipments could have been prevented, had there been the will to do so. Were those who ordered or facilitated or permitted those shipments terrorists?

The panoply of world leaders on stage in Gleneagles over the last few days contained several mass murderers. For a start, of course, there was George Bush and Tony Blair. Also Vladimir Putin.

To be fair to Putin, he had a good point when he said last Thursday that the west clung to "double standards in the assessment of bloody crimes".

He was referring to the way Europe and the United States regard attacks by Chechens on civilian targets in Russia as part of a local separatist struggle, rather than terrorism.

But how can the butcher of Grozny complain about terrorism, the mass murderer of thousands in Chechnya complain about double standards?

It is also hard to take a French president complaining about terrorism.

France armed, supplied and then protected the genocidal Hutu regime in Rwanda before and during the genocide in 1994, and then intervened, saving the mass killers from retribution and justice!

And our own crowd - couldn't they just shut up?

What credibility does our government have in condemning terrorism when we facilitated - and continue to facilitate - the infliction of terror on the people of Iraq by allowing American warplanes to pit-stop at Shannon?

Is it impossible to be against all killings: against the London killings, the Fallujah killings, the other Iraqi killings, the African killings, the Afghan killings, the Chechnya killings, the Moscow killings, the Twin Towers killings, the Madrid killings?

Is it impossible to regard as crimes against humanity what the Germans did in World War II and in the Holocaust, what the Japanese did during that war in Asia, what the Americans did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what the British did at Dresden, what Stalin did to the kulaks in Russia, what Mao did in China?

Is it possible to be against all terrorism and all mass murder and not be classified as a sneaking-regarder of terrorism and mass murder?

Leaked UK Memo Indicts Blair's Iraq Folly

Blair planned Iraq war from start

London Bombings: Blair's Nauseating Hypocrisy

Terrorism and Hypocrisy in London

12 Comments:

At 2:51 PM, Anonymous anselm said...

Diarmid,
As a strong defender of George W. Bush, I laughed out loud when I read today's post. I laughed because there is no 'politics of hypocrisy' in Blair or Bush's condemnation of the London bombings. The only hypocrisy that I see in the world is from those that prefer to align themselves with Islamic terrorists while demanding that society be realigned to suit their own perverse liberal agenda (the general lefty population).

In case 'you' obtain your news from left-wing or liberal Eurosnobs, may I suggest the following presentation of facts.
http://tinyurl.com/7qyhp
or how about this:
http://tinyurl.com/c5jkk

There is NO comparison between the Irish situation and global terrorism. Those that make that comparison are spitting on the graves of the million plus Irish that died for liberty and freedom from religious hatred.

If you are against foreign occupation of a soverign nation then I propose that you start condemning the foreign insurgents who are trying to destroy the growing democracy in Iraq.

I remember a Canadian who went over to Iraq shortly before the war. When he wanted the locals to show their solidarity and parade against the war, the Iraqis told him no. The Canadian asked, "don't you want to stop the bombs?"
The Iraqis said no. They wanted the bombs because the bombs meant freedom was coming.

 
At 3:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

War in Error: 1956 and 2003 - ?

The Neocons' Man in Iraq

Is it an unwinnable 'Republican war'?

 
At 4:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a strong defender of George W. Bush, I laughed out loud when I read today's post.

Any 'defender' of Bush Jnr (strong or otherwise) would have to be well used to laughing !

..those that prefer to align themselves with Islamic terrorists..

Speaking for myself , I do not "align " myself with "Islamic terrorists" . Or British or American 'terrorists' .

"..million plus Irish that died for liberty and freedom from religious hatred."

"..religious hatred... " ?
Are you of the opinion that "the Irish situation... " is a "religious" war ?

If you are against foreign occupation of a soverign nation then I propose that you start condemning the foreign insurgents who are trying to destroy the growing democracy in Iraq.

Warped !
Are the British and American troops , amongst others , not MORE foreign than the Muslims engaged in that conflict ?

I remember a Canadian who went over to Iraq shortly before the war. When he wanted the locals to show their solidarity and parade against the war, the Iraqis told him no. The Canadian asked, "don't you want to stop the bombs?"
The Iraqis said no. They wanted the bombs because the bombs meant freedom was coming.


Much the same as Irish people actually gave British troops cups of tea and other foodstuffs when said Army first arrived in the Occupied Six Counties . But that only lasted for a few weeks !

Sharon.

 
At 5:20 PM, Anonymous anselm said...

Sharon,

I do not consider the Irish situation to be a 'religious' war but many people do. But, as you know, there is a religious component.

If you are asking, I try my best to explain to others that the indigenous Irish are mostly Catholic while the 'loyalists'(cough) are mostly protestant. How's that? Did I pass the test?

Last week, on a Canadian blog, I encountered an Ian Paisley sort, named (oddly enough) Ian, that has similar views to yours except he 'hates' Catholics. On the same day that I was admonishing you for your views, I was admonishing him for comparing the Islamic bombers with the Irish Catholics.

Also, speaking of being warped, please read this and tell me that you are not one of those Islamic apologists.
http://tinyurl.com/d74os


God Bless George W. Bush!

PS: I hope Bush invades Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, North Korea and any other country in the world that 'starves' or kills its people. Whether lefty Blair plays along matters not to me. For once, the British may have done the right thing in Iraq.

:0

 
At 2:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not consider the Irish situation to be a 'religious' war but many people do. But, as you know, there is a religious component.

The "religious component .. " was introduced by the British to enable Westminster to present the conflict as 'religious' and allow them to present themselves as 'neutral peacekeepers' . A ploy that is , apparently , still working for them ...

Did I pass the test?

"...test.. " , 'Anselm' ?
There is'nt any 'test' . But if there was , you would have failed it in your previous posts !

Last week, on a Canadian blog, I encountered an Ian Paisley sort, named (oddly enough) Ian, that has similar views to yours except he 'hates' Catholics.

And whom do you believe I "hate... " ?
I think part of your problem , 'Anselm' , is that you "hate" the Irish .
I say that because you have never actually stated that you don't . And that seems to be the 'yardstick' you yourself use .

God Bless George W. Bush!

PS: I hope Bush invades Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, North Korea and any other country in the world that 'starves' or kills its people. Whether lefty Blair plays along matters not to me. For once, the British may have done the right thing in Iraq.


...you seem to believe that I wrote that in a previous post ... ? Otherwise , why 'quote' it 'back' to me ?
What are you up to with the above quote - 'inventing' a line of defence for yourself by accusing me of saying something which I never did say ... ?

Sharon.

 
At 11:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are they killing us?

Money quote:"The longer we stay in Iraq, the greater the number of suicide attacks we can expect. The sooner we get our troops out, the sooner terrorism over there and over here will end."

 
At 12:51 PM, Anonymous anselm said...

Sharon,
I don't know what to make of your comments except that I think you may be silly.

Are you asking me to state without reservations that I love the Irish in order to avoid 'your' perception that I may hate the Irish?

I've failed the Irish test, have I? Pity.

What am I to do?

Help me dear Sharon.......

 
At 7:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharon,
I don't know what to make of your comments except that I think you may be silly.

Are you asking me to state without reservations that I love the Irish in order to avoid 'your' perception that I may hate the Irish?

I've failed the Irish test, have I? Pity.

What am I to do?

Help me dear Sharon.......


You poor man !

You need professional help , 'Anselm' ; I know nothing about psychoneurosis , but please do get checked-out before you do yourself any more harm . You would be 'silly' not to .

Sharon .

 
At 11:17 PM, Anonymous anselm said...

Sharon,
You truly are odd.
"...I know nothing about psychoneurosis , but please do get checked-out before you do yourself any more harm.."

If you know nothing about 'something,' why are you suggesting that 'something' to me?

God Bless Ireland.

Diarmid,
I believe Richard Delevan has a good response to Vincent Browne: The answer is no.
http://tinyurl.com/brzlf

 
At 2:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharon,
You truly are odd.
"...I know nothing about psychoneurosis , but please do get checked-out before you do yourself any more harm.."

If you know nothing about 'something,' why are you suggesting that 'something' to me?

God Bless Ireland.


'Anselm' -

You have just exhibited a classis symptom of psychoneurosis : that is , to turn on your friends , who only have your best concerns at heart , rather than tackle your sickness . You may be too far gone for help , in which case the quality of your posts may improve .
Well , they could hardly get worse.... !

God Bless Ireland.

You could try and help us , too , 'Anselm' : or at least try and understand our position re the British presence in our country . But your Bush Jnr friend would'nt like that - why , in no time at all , you would find yourself dismissed as a 'fellow-traveller of terrorists' . And if Bush Jnr says it , then it must be true !
Now - away with you , man , and get your condition checked by an expert .

Sharon.

 
At 8:03 PM, Anonymous anselm said...

Sharon,

Enjoy your holiday in Waterford.

:0

 
At 2:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharon,

Enjoy your holiday in Waterford.


Thank You : I certainly will .
But I will still check-in here to keep an eye on your 'scribblings' , 'Anselm' .
You have shown you cannot be trusted unless supervised..... :)

Sharon.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home