U.S. Convoy Bombed In Gaza

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
I know! It was Israel!

It wouldn't be the first time you've deliberately attacked us.

[Edan]

Whoever did this plagerized an episode of The Agency in which a CIA car is bombed in the Gaza strip. They should be punished for copyright infringment!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Yeah, but that before George "bring it on" Bush was President!

So in your view, Reagan was a gutless pansy?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO
Yeah Horse, That policy of wanting people to be free and opposing terrorism is sure to bring the world down.

"Free" is the word we use, but isn't the truth more akin to "governed by US-friendly rulers with enough political control to assure their maintenance of power?"

The US has never given a rat's ass about the "freedom" of people forced to live under oppressive, dictatorial, pro-US regimes. The only time the US even pays lip service to "condemning" such "allies" is if their behavior becomes so flagrant that it's obvious to anyone but a power-crazed dictator that it's a threat to the regimes stability.

When the US talks about wanting "freedom" in the rest of the world, it has no credibility whatsoever. The closest to freedom is "freedom for our elites to make whatever kinds of deals they want with US interests, regardless of the benefit to us."

With respect to terrorism, there's only shades of difference between various paramilitary organizations of nations we have historically supported, insurgent organizations such as the Contras which carry out attacks on nations we oppose, and the slightly more virulent *******s of the Islamic middle east. Car bombings haven't been in style for our past "friends" but summary executions, terror and "disappearing" are all familiar methods. What the US wants more than an end to "terrorism" is an end to resistance to US influence and the imposition or maintenance of US friendly governments, except whatever "resistance" is decided to be allowable under the political rules of our friendly, pro-US governments.

It's one thing to be an empire, it's a bit much for the US to be an empire, deny it, and claim everything you do is based on noble humanitarian goals.

[chequita guevara]

Why does it seem more sensible when MtG says it?

[Kropotkin]

Oh no, americans died! That makes the conflict so much more serious than before!

[Edan]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


So in your view, Reagan was a gutless pansy?

Only during nap time.

[Dinner]

CNN is reporting that the blast was most likely done by Hamas or Islamic Jihad because the US has been training & equiping Palestinian police for counter terrorism opporations. Naturally, Hamas and IJ don't like that. The other main possibility is that Arafat gave the nod on this because the main Palestinian Security Chief for the Gaza Strip is not an Arafat man and Arafat has been trying to come up with excuses to replace him with an Arafat lackey.

[Dinner]

BTW there seems to be some factual errors in the intial report. The pictures I saw showed a white Chevy Suburban which was bombed not a grey Jeep Cherikee. If reporters can't even get the basics right then how badly are they screwing up on the complicated stuff?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


"Free" is the word we use, but isn't the truth more akin to "governed by US-friendly rulers with enough political control to assure their maintenance of power?"

The US has never given a rat's ass about the "freedom" of people forced to live under oppressive, dictatorial, pro-US regimes. The only time the US even pays lip service to "condemning" such "allies" is if their behavior becomes so flagrant that it's obvious to anyone but a power-crazed dictator that it's a threat to the regimes stability.

Let see, we discouraged Iranian generals from leading a coup that would have reversed the Iranian revolution. We encouraged the fall of Marcos. We pushed the military rulers of Haiti out. We encouraged democratization in right wing regimes in south america.

Well i suppose every instance where we've pushed for democratic change in a friendly regime can be explained away as somehow fitting other strategic interests of ours. And contrasted with some support we gave for a dictatorship somewhere.

Im not going to defend all our cold war era behavior. Even post 9/11, when many of us who hadnt realized it before, came to see that we have a Strategic Interest in democratization, there are aspects of our behvior that can be criticized - for example our support for the government of Uzbekistan, and our "constructive engagement" with Saudi Arabia. But to say that "The US has never given a rat's ass about the "freedom" of people forced to live under oppressive, dictatorial, pro-US regimes." is just over the top rhetoric, that doesnt recognize the subtleties and tradeoffs in a dangerous world.

and the following "What the US wants more than an end to "terrorism" is an end to resistance to US influence and the imposition or maintenance of US friendly governments, except whatever "resistance" is decided to be allowable under the political rules of our friendly, pro-US governments." is wrong.

I am old enough to have lived through the contra controversy. When will Iran have congressional hearings digging into support govt support for Hezbollah? When will the parliament of Syria cut off funding for Hamas? Even without going into detail on the actions of individual groups friendly to us with the homicides we're discussing, this overlooks the fierce controversy here.

It also overlooks the changes in recent years. For example US aid to Columbia is conditional on cracking down on right wing paramilitaries, and the AUC is considered a terrorist group.

So MtG, what do you think? Do you think the people who blew up the convoy in Gaza are really concerned about Guatamalan death squads? Do you think they really want democracy in Palestine, and are offended that we dont support it? Do you think they want an end to Israeli occupation? Why then attack US officials who were there either to hand out scholarships, or to monitor the road map peace process - at the request of the Palestinian authority? How does that serve to end occupation?

[lord of the mark]

BBC

'Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has condemned "this ugly crime targeting American observers as they were on a mission for security and peace".

He has set up a commission of inquiry into the incident.
...

The United Nations envoy to the Middle East Terje Roed-Larsen has called on the Palestinians to capture those behind the attack.

Describing the event as an "ominous widening of the conflict" Mr Roed-Larsen said it "underscores the vital need for the Palestinian Authority to revamp and strengthen its security forces so such terror attacks do not occur".

The EU's foreign policy chief Javier Solana is said to have told Mr Arafat that "condemnations and excuses will not do". '

Evidently posters here consider Roed-Larsen, Solana, and even Arafat lackeys of American imperialism. What a bizarre world we live in.

[Ned]

I wonder whether Arafat will allow the FBI free reign to find out who really is behind this? If he says no, we will know who is responsible, will we not?

[Gatekeeper]

**shrug** It seems Americans can't win when it comes to the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. The only consolation in that is that we wouldn't be the first to find that out the hard way.

Gatekeeper

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Oh no, americans died! That makes the conflict so much more serious than before!

Americans are much more important than anyone else. You really need to get with the times here. I mean apparently the terrorist think so.

[DanielXY]

*Police knocks on door*
"Yeah?"
"Can we search your house?"
"Hell no!"
"See! I told you he was behind it!"