Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Ricordare Falluja

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/421014.html
Wed., April 28, 2004 Iyyar 7, 5764
Remember Falluja
By Orit Shohat
During the first two weeks of this month, the American army committed war
crimes in Falluja on a scale unprecedented for this war. According to the
relatively few media reports of what took place there, some 600 Iraqis were
killed during these two weeks, among them some 450 elderly people, women and
children.
The sight of decapitated children, the rows of dead women and the shocking
pictures of the soccer stadium that was turned into a temporary grave for
hundreds of the slain - all were broadcast to the world only by the Al
Jazeera network. During the operation in Falluja, according to the
organization Doctors Without Borders, U.S. Marines even occupied the
hospitals and prevented hundreds of the wounded from receiving medical
treatment. Snipers fired from the rooftops at anyone who tried to approach.
This was a retaliatory operation, carried out by the Marines, accompanied by
F-16 fighter planes and assault helicopters, under the code name "Vigilant
Resolve." It was revenge for the killing of four American security guards on
March 31. But while the killing of the guards, whose bodies were dragged
through the streets of the city and then hung from a bridge, received wide
media coverage, and thus prepared hearts and minds for the military revenge,
the hundreds of victims of the American retaliation were practically a
military secret.
The only conclusion that has been drawn thus far from the indiscriminate
killing in Falluja is the expulsion of Al Jazeera from the city. Since the
start of the war, the Americans have persecuted the network's journalists -
not because they report lies, but because they are virtually the only ones
who manage to report the truth. The Bush administration, in cooperation with
the American media, is trying to hide the sights of war from the world, and
particularly from American voters.
This week, for the first time, the Americans permitted pictures to be
published of the coffins of dead American soldiers being sent back home.
Until this week, such pictures were forbidden. Therefore, it is no wonder
Bush's poll results are better than ever, even though the number of
Americans killed in Iraq in April has reached 115.
Is the occupation of Iraq hindering terrorism, or inflaming it? Will the
number of dead soldiers - in contrast to the number of Iraqi victims -
prompt a reassessment? It is clear that the American war crimes will not
reach the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Today, America sets
the world's moral standards. It alone decides who will be judged, who is a
terrorist, what is legitimate resistance to occupation, who is a religious
fanatic, and who is a legitimate target for assassination. That is how four
Iraqi children, who laughed at the sight of a dead American soldier, merited
being killed on the spot.
Ariel Sharon's government can thus cite a great authority for its own
actions, and there are no visible limits to its plan to create a new
security order in the Gaza Strip and in the territories in general. To the
Israeli government, not crossing the red lines that America sets for its
friends is more important than resolving the conflict with the Palestinians.
The ethical dilemmas in Israel over the targeted killings must make the
American government laugh. After Falluja, Israel Defense Forces commanders
can feel easier with their consciences - and especially with the consciences
of those who refuse to carry out such operations. The one-ton bomb that was
dropped on an apartment building in Gaza in order to assassinate Salah
Shehadeh, which also killed 14 civilians, is almost like throwing candy
compared to the number of bombs the Americans dropped on the houses of the
residents of crowded Falluja. And there, too, incidentally, the Marines'
commander said they did their best in order to avoid hurting civilians. "We
brought to this action our experience from World War II, Korea, Vietnam ...
The operation in Falluja will be remembered and studied for many years to
come," he said.
What can the perplexed Israeli learn from this cynical comparison? Ariel
Sharon can feel that he was simply persecuted in the Sabra and Chatila
affair. Those who like to say that "the whole world is against us" will
choose to talk about the double standards applied to America and Israel with
regard to, for instance, Israel's destruction of the Jenin refugee camp. But
anyone who has absolute, rather than relative, moral standards can conclude
that we should not be learning from the Americans - not with regard to the
consumption of junk food, not in the area of human rights, and not even in
the area of democracy and freedom of expression.
The practical difference ought to be obvious. America is a superpower, which
can evidently do what it pleases, and it can withdraw from the war in Iraq
whenever it wants. Israel has no place to which to withdraw. It must remain
here, in proximity to its neighbors - its partners in the land, the climate
and the fate of its children. Therefore, every retaliation, revenge
operation and assassination that we carry out has historical consequences
going far beyond those of the cruel assault on Falluja. Operation Vigilant
Resolve, in contrast, will become no more than a footnote in American
military history - and perhaps a few Marines will even write a book about
it.

them some 450 elderly people, women and children.
Cioe' qualcuno ha sparato dei numeri a casaccio, come per il grande
massacro di Nablus dove da migliaia di morti si e' scoperto che erano
poche decine.
-Stefano

 -Stefano
-- 
the beholder
metti un [POLPO] nel subject se e' la prima email che mi scrivi =)

 decine di morti non sono un massacro?
No, quando vi e' uno scontro tra terroristi e militari all'interno di un
centro abitato.
-Stefano

 -Stefano
bene! siamo d'accordo sul fatto che si tratti di un massacro!
il tuo uso della doppia negazione come affermazione e' elegante e 
leggendo meglio il post precedente mi rendo conto che la domanda era 
forse superflua: gia' tu affermi che si tratta di un massacro
[> *snip* come per il grande massacro di Nablus *snip* ]
[> -Stefano                                            ]
avendo anche sicuramente preso in considerazione il dizionario della 
lingua italiana che ci ricorda come _massacro_ sia un "eccidio feroce di 
animali o di persone"; quindi, anche volendo considerare 
eufemisticamente come animali i terroristi [o i soldati] quali uomini 
privi di umanita' conveniamo sul fatto che decine di morti siano un 
massacro, come da te affermato.


 massacro, come da te affermato.
Non può essere un massacro (nel senso che intendi tu, cioè di innocenti 
o di indifesi) perché le "vittime" non sono animali o umani indifesi, ma 
soggetti che volontariamente hanno combattuto o combattono contro chi li 
sta uccidendo, che a sua volta richia di essere ucciso da loro.
Per il resto, sicuramente qualche danno collaterale c'è stato è ci sarà, 
ma non sta agli USA scegliere dove i miliziani decidono di asserragliarsi.
Se lo fanno dentro ad un asilo e dentro ad una città, la colpa delle 
vittime innocenti che ci vanno di mezzo è di chi ha deciso di combattere 
  usandoli come scudi di comodo e mezzi politici.
Mirco

sul fatto che decine di morti siano un massacro, come da te affermato.
Affermato solo nella tua fantasia :)
*LOL*
-Stefano

 Doppia negazione? :)))  Ma te la sei sognata la notte? :)
Una risposta negativa ad una domanda negativa e' _Assolutamente_ 
un'affermazione! Innegabile.
Io ho chiesto se _non_ fosse un massacro, tu hai risposto no, affermando 
  che si tratta di tale =)
[> *snip* come per il grande massacro di Nablus *snip* ]
[> -Stefano                                            ]
beh... opinione tua =)
Non starai forse affermando che questa discussione e' nata da un tuo 
errore di sintassi?
*LOL*


errore di sintassi?
Nessun errore di sintassi da parte mia.
-Stefano