Chris At Home

On the Lebanese scene, through the careful manipulation of evidence, the theater of war has turned into a crime scene. Every action that Israel takes in Lebanon - with its densely populated villages that Israel must operate in because that's the only way that we can uproot the terrorists in them - creates an opportunity for the other side to use public diplomacy with global ramifications. Thus, instead of the war being about Israel's right of self-defense, Hizballah was able to turn it around so that the issue on the international agenda became Israel's destruction of Lebanon and Israel as the cause of world instability. The victim becomes the criminal.

For example, Nasrallah ordered his men to remove their uniforms and blend in and continue to fight from within the civilian population. In this way, when Israel attacks Hizballah, the scene is one of Israel moving against what appears to be civilians, even though rockets fired from these villages are striking Israel. Attacks on what looks like civilian targets can then be called "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes." In addition, by blending in with civilians, it's easier to fight the Israelis who exercise self-restraint when fighting near civilians.
...
Lebanon is a testing ground - like Spain in 1936 - for weapons, tactics, and doctrine of how Iran is going to fight the war when it comes to confront the West. We have to alert people not only to the fact that there are 13,000 missiles threatening Israel's very existence, but that these missiles do not belong to a terrorist organization - this is a front-line position of Iran. Not surprisingly, the head of Hizballah, Hassan Nasrallah, reportedly found refuge in the Iranian embassy in Beirut when his underground headquarters came under Israel Air Force bombardment.

A poll published on Friday in the Yedioth Ahrnonoth daily shows that 63 percent of Israelis feel that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert failed in managing the war in Lebanon and should resign.

Only 29 percent believe the prime minister is fit to continue leading the country.

About 74 percent of those polled said Defense Minister Amir Peretz mishandled the war and should resign his post. A mere 20 percent said Peretz should keep his post.

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Dan Halutz faired slightly better than his superiors with 54 percent saying he should resign over the army's failure to knockout Hizbullah, while 38 percent said he should keep his post.

Asked if Olmert and Netanyahu were the only two contestants in the election race, 45 percent said they'd vote for the latter and 24 percent for the former.

The poll showed that if elections were held today Netanyahu would earn the support of 22 percent of voters, followed by Avigdor Lieberman with 18 percent and Shimon Peres with 12 percent

It is generally accepted conventional wisdom that cluster munitions are acceptable area munitions against area targets such as troop and enemy vehicle or supply concentrations and certain kinds of entrenched positions. They are recognized as being dangerous to use in areas where civilians may fall victim to the immediate widespread blast pattern, or may return to encounter unexploded submunitions before engineering units can dispose of them. It is also not advisable to use cluster munitions in areas where you expect that your own troops may advance, as these same submunitions could cause casualties to friendly troops.

"According to the information obtained by the Iranian Resistance at least 15 P-2 centrifuges have been assembled so far and are being tested," Mohammad Mohaddessin, director of international relations for the NCRI, told a news conference.

"Our intelligence shows that in the next year they would have hundreds of P-2 centrifuges," he added.

In his 1983 "Star Wars" speech, Ronald Reagan famously asked, "What if free people could live secure in the knowledge . . . that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil?"

Fast forward to this summer. On July 4 North Korea test-fired a long-range ballistic missile believed capable of reaching the continental U.S. The launch was a flop--the Taepodong 2 fizzled before it got off the ground--but to echo Reagan's question, what if? What would have happened if Pyongyang's missile had been heading toward Los Angeles? Could we have shot it down? "I'm confident that we could have," states Lt. Gen. Henry "Trey" Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency. "If that missile had proceeded to threaten Hawaii or the continental United States, then we would have had the ability to shoot it down. I'm confident the system would have worked."

With increasing signs that several fellow Security Council members may stall a US push to sanction Iran for its nuclear enrichment program, administration officials indicated yesterday they are prepared to form an independent coalition to freeze Iranian assets and restrict trade.

The strategy, analysts say, reflects not only longstanding US frustration with the Security Council's inaction on Iran, but also the current weakness of Washington's position because of its controversial role in a series of conflicts in the Middle East, most recently in Lebanon.

Despite assurances from Russia and China in July that they would support initial sanctions against Iran if it failed to suspend aspects of its nuclear program, Russia seemed to backtrack this week after Tehran agreed to continue talks, but refused to halt enrichment. A Security Council resolution gives the Islamic republic until Aug. 31 to stop uranium enrichment or face penalties.

The United Nations is not a serious place. It is a place where people pretend. It is a place where people pretend to address the serious issues of the day when they have no desire to do so nor seriously engage any process that would begin to solve them. It is a place where people pretend that what they do or say matters one whit to the gimlet eyed thugs whose murderous designs on the rest of humanity are downplayed and even rationalized. And it is a place where people pretend that all of this is so despite knowing full well that it is not.

Adults do not pretend. Adults deal with the world as it is not as they would like it to be. In this, the UN then has become a playground, a fantasyland for childish notions of “peace” and “stability.” It has become the number one enabler of genocidal maniacs, brutish aggressors, and fanatics with an eye on Armageddon. And since the consequences of facing down the evil is too painful, they pretend the evil doesn’t exist.
...
We have reached a point where the UN no longer serves the interest of the United States in any meaningful way – at least not in any way that we would miss. If others wish to continue to play pretend with the fate of the planet, let them. For our part, we should withdraw from the United Nations unless and until they reform themselves so that they can seriously address the problems that now threaten our civilization.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the heavy-water plant, which Tehran says will be used for peaceful purposes. But the United States and European allies fear the heavy-water production also could eventually be used to produce plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

Point 2 is that the King of Norway is 60th in line of succession. Now 60th is pretty far down, but Norway has been trying to take over England since the year 787! Is there a political thriller plot in there somewhere: The Lindisfarne Legacy? ... For Norway-like plots involving currently non-functioning thrones, the heir to the Romanian throne is at #82, the heir to the Serbian throne is at #89, and one pretender to the Russian throne is at #107.)

Over the course of several hours of discussions, touching on a variety of events over many decades, she made it extremely clear that a "human rights problem" (past or present) exists for her only if America can be blamed for it. Quite simply, she has no interest in it if she can't blame America for it -- whether plausibly or, in many cases, utterly implausibly. She blames America first, last, and always. Not exclusively though. She also loathes the state of Israel, and expressed disgust at the existence of a Jewish state -- in any borders.

Last Tuesday, after a 90-minute meeting with John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, to discuss the challenges of extremism and foreign policy, I emerged and was immediately asked by the media whether I agreed that what British Muslims needed were Islamic holidays and sharia (Islamic law). I thought I had walked into some parallel universe.
...
So too, unfortunately, did the comments of some of the “Muslim leaders” who demanded sharia for British Muslims rather than the existing legal system. The call for special public holidays for Muslims was unnecessary, impracticable and divisive. Most employers already allow their staff to take such days out of their annual leave. And what about special holidays for Sikhs, Hindus, Jews? If we amended our laws to accommodate all such requests, then all the king’s horses and all the king’s men wouldn’t be able to put our workplaces and communities back together again.

When it comes to sharia, Muhammad ibn Adam, the respected Islamic scholar, says: “It is necessary by sharia to abide by the laws of the country one lives in, regardless of the nature of the law, as long as the law doesn’t demand something that is against Islam.” It is narrated in the Koran that the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no 2796 & Sunan Tirmidhi).

Folks in the '50s were paranoid for no reason, since Communism was later revealed as a practical joke played by mischievous Russians. So our current "concern" over "terrorists" who blow up "buildings" must likewise be a spasm of nervous Nellie panic brought on by regimes that seek to rule through fear.

Of course, one could make the case that the greatest threats to the freedoms of the West are posed by the head-choppers, plane-exploders, their many merry supporters, and the nuke-seeking state that supports them.

But don't expect the artists to make the case. They saw what happened to that Theo Van Gogh fellow. Pay no attention to that imam behind the curtain. Here's the ghost of Eisenhower. Booga-booga!

The artists seem more concerned with a culture that won't let gays marry than one that won't let them live.

And I know that when I weigh the possibility that such an attack- that might, say, kill 100- would prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from dying who otherwise would- I am exhibiting a calculating cold heart diametrically opposed to everything I stand for as a human being. A human being, who, just so you know, is opposed to most wars and to capital punishment.

But in light of the very real potential of the next two American elections to solidify our growing American persona as a warlike, polluter-friendly nation with repressive domestic tendencies and inadequate health care for so many tens of millions, let me ask you this. Even if only from the standpoint of a purely intellectual exercise in alternative future history:

If you knew us getting hit again would launch a chain of transformative, cascading events that would enable a better nation where millions who would have died will live longer, would such a calculus have any moral validity?