Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: l'Irak ci va diventare moralmente codardi

Dedicato ai minimizzatori, gli stessi che difendono sempre e comunque le 
operazioni americane in Irak e quelle israeliane nei territori occupati, 
senza mai mettere in conto le vittime civili, anche quando si arriva al 
genocidio.
1) la discrepanza tra the Lancet e Iraq Body count.
Dice quest'ultimo:
"We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be 
an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or 
recording. It is no part of our practice, at least as far as our 
published totals are concerned, to make any prediction or projection 
about what the "unseen" number of deaths might have been. This total can 
only be established to our satisfaction by a comprehensive count carried 
out by the Iraqi government, or other organisation with national or 
transnational authority."
Queste autorita' non collaborano, al contrario. Vedi il seguente appello 
delle ONG a Kofi Annan a proposito di Falluja:
"Le Ong parlano chiaramente di genocidio...Nel documento le Ong 
raccontano come ibombardamenti abbiano fatto crollare le case sui loro 
abitanti, rimasti ad agonizzare sotto le macerie senza soccorsi.  Al 
mancato via
libera, da parte del comando americano, alle organizzazioni umanitarie 
per entrare nella città, corrisponde la complicità del ministero della 
Sanità iracheno: «sta mentendo al mondo e alla popolazione irachena sul 
numero delle vittime - molto superiore a quanto ammesso - e ha 
minacciato il personale dell'ospedale, intimando loro di non parlare su 
ciò che hanno visto».
 
2) Lo studio di  di the Lancet, 100.000 vittime probabili,  e' stata 
sottoscritta sul Guardian   da un ex-ispettore delle Nazioni UNite in 
Irak, Scott Ritter:
The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all 
 More than 100,000 Iraqis have died - and where is our shame and rage? 
  Scott Ritter
Monday November 1, 2004
The Guardian 
  The full scale of the human cost already paid for the war on Iraq is 
only now becoming clear. Last week's estimate by investigators, using 
credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of 
them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion is a 
profound moral indictment of our countries. The US and British 
governments quickly moved to cast doubt on the Lancet medical journal 
findings, citing other studies. These mainly media-based reports put the 
number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for 
such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits 
to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.
 Civilian deaths have always been a tragic reality of modern war. But 
the conflict in Iraq was supposed to be different - US and British 
forces were dispatched to liberate the Iraqi people, not impose their 
own tyranny of violence.
 Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, one is struck by the constant, 
almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and marines speak 
of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that turned out to 
be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the aftermath of 
the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery and air 
power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress 
insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous "shock and 
awe" bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd 
Infantry Division's "Thunder Run", an armoured thrust in Baghdad that 
slaughtered everyone in its path.
It is true that, with only a few exceptions, civilians who died as a 
result of ground combat were not deliberately targeted, but were caught 
up in the machinery of modern warfare. But when the same claim is made 
about civilians killed in aerial attacks (the Lancet study estimates 
that most of civilian deaths were the result of air attacks), the 
comparison quickly falls apart. Helicopter engagements apart, most 
aerial bombardment is deliberate and pre-planned. US and British 
military officials like to brag about the accuracy of the "precision" 
munitions used in these strikes, claiming this makes the kind of modern 
warfare practised by the coalition in Iraq the most humanitarian in 
history.
 But there is nothing humanitarian about explosives once they detonate 
near civilians, or about a bomb guided to the wrong target. Dozens of 
civilians were killed during the vain effort to eliminate Saddam Hussein 
with "pinpoint" air strikes, and hundreds have perished in the campaign 
to eliminate alleged terrorist targets in Falluja. A "smart bomb" is 
only as good as the data used to direct it. And the abysmal quality of 
the intelligence used has made the smartest of bombs just as dumb and 
indiscriminate as those, for example, dropped during the second world 
war.
 The fact that most bombing missions in Iraq today are pre-planned, with 
targets allegedly carefully vetted, further indicts those who wage this 
war in the name of freedom. If these targets are so precise, then those 
selecting them cannot escape the fact that they are deliberately 
targeting innocent civilians at the same time as they seek to destroy 
their intended foe. Some would dismiss these civilians as "collateral 
damage". But we must keep in mind that the British and US governments 
made a deliberate decision to enter into a conflict of their choosing, 
not one that was thrust upon them. We invaded Iraq to free Iraqis from a 
dictator who, by some accounts, oversaw the killing of about 300,000 of 
his subjects - although no one has been able to verify more than a small 
fraction of the figure. If it is correct, it took Saddam decades to 
reach such a horrific statistic. The US and UK have, it seems, reached a 
third of that total in just 18 months.
 Meanwhile, the latest scandal over missing nuclear-related high 
explosives in Iraq (traced and controlled under the UN inspections 
regime) only underscores the utter deceitfulness of the Bush-Blair 
argument for the war. Having claimed the uncertainty surrounding Iraq's 
WMD capability constituted a threat that could not go unchallenged in a 
post-9/11 world, one would have expected the two leaders to insist on a 
military course of action that brought under immediate coalition control 
any aspect of potential WMD capability, especially relating to any 
possible nuclear threat. That the US military did not have a dedicated 
force to locate and neutralise these explosives underscores the fact 
that both Bush and Blair knew that there was no threat from Iraq, 
nuclear or otherwise.
 Of course, the US and Britain have a history of turning a blind eye to 
Iraqi suffering when it suits their political purposes. During the 
1990s, hundreds of thousands are estimated by the UN to have died as a 
result of sanctions. Throughout that time, the US and the UK maintained 
the fiction that this was the fault of Saddam Hussein, who refused to 
give up his WMD. We now know that Saddam had disarmed and those deaths 
were the responsibility of the US and Britain, which refused to lift 
sanctions.
 There are many culpable individuals and organisations history will hold 
to account for the war - from deceitful politicians and journalists to 
acquiescent military professionals and silent citizens of the world's 
democracies. As the evidence has piled up confirming what I and others 
had reported - that Iraq was already disarmed by the late 1990s - my 
personal vote for one of the most culpable individuals would go to Hans 
Blix, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in the run-up to war. He 
had the power if not to prevent, at least to forestall a war with Iraq. 
Blix knew that Iraq was disarmed, but in his mealy-mouthed testimony to 
the UN security council helped provide fodder for war. His failure to 
stand up to the lies used by Bush and Blair to sell the Iraq war must 
brand him a moral and intellectual coward.
 But we all are moral cowards when it comes to Iraq. Our collective 
inability to summon the requisite shame and rage when confronted by an 
estimate of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians in the prosecution of an 
illegal and unjust war not only condemns us, but adds credibility to 
those who oppose us. The fact that a criminal such as Osama bin Laden 
can broadcast a videotape on the eve of the US presidential election in 
which his message is viewed by many around the world as a sober argument 
in support of his cause is the harshest indictment of the failure of the 
US and Britain to implement sound policy in the aftermath of 9/11. The 
death of 3,000 civilians on that horrible day represented a tragedy of 
huge proportions. Our continued indifference to a war that has 
slaughtered so many Iraqi civilians, and will continue to kill more, is 
in many ways an even greater tragedy: not only in terms of scale, but 
also because these deaths were inflicted by our own hand in the course 
of an action that has no defence.
 · Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 
and 1998 and is the author of Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass 
Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America
 
WSRi...@aol.com

Irak, Scott Ritter:
Il coglione!  Figuriamoci che valore ha la sua sottoscrizione se non
quella di far perdere ancora di piu' credibilita' allo stesso :)
-Stefano

,


Peggio che un codardo morale, ti sei dimostrato un apologeta 
dell'assassinio e della strage, vero discendente della Banda Stern con 
simpatie filonazifasciste...
*Plonk*
A.

vero discendente della Banda Stern con simpatie filonazifasciste...
...disse il bue all'asino... :)
-Stefano

 simpatie filonazifasciste...
Puoi verificare anche ciò che dice a proposito della pedofilia.
E' istruttivo.

 Banda Stern con simpatie filonazifasciste...
Ma non sai nemmeno cos'era la Stern.
-- 
Nadja Jacur
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 Nadja Jacur
Si? ;-)
Avraham Stern
(1907-1942)
Avraham Stern was born in Poland  to a learned Zionist family. He  moved 
to Eretz Yisrael [Palestine] in 1925 and studied briefly at the  
Gymnasia in Jerusalem  before entering the Hebrew University. An 
outstanding student of the  humanities, Stern won a scholarship to study 
classical languages and  literature at the University of Florence. He 
returned to Eretz  Yisrael in 1929 and joined the Haganah,  and not long 
after left his studies to devote his energies entirely  to fighting for 
Jewish independence.
In 1931, a group of Haganah fighters, rejecting  what they deemed was 
moderation and restraint in the fight for Jewish  independence, broke 
away from the Haganah and formed an armed  resistance movement of their 
own, known as the Irgun.  Stern, whose views had become much more 
militant following the Arab  riots of 1929, became an active member of 
the Irgun. He took on  the underground name of łYair,˛ in tribute to the 
commander of  the zealots at Masada,  Eliezer Ben Yair.
Stern, who viewed the British,  more then the Arabs, as the primary 
enemy of the Jews and the  principal obstacle to Jewish independence, 
called strongly for an  armed struggle against the British. With David 
Raziel, he compiled a manual on the use of the revolver, the  first of 
its kind in Hebrew. He also wrote the poem łAnonymous  Soldiers˛ (1933) 
which became the anthem first of the Irgun, and  later, of Lehi. A 
collection of  Stern's underground poetry was published posthumously.
In 1937, following the Arab riots, the Irgun  split, with many of its 
members returning to the Haganah. Stern and  others who refused to 
accept Haganah leadership remained in the Irgun  under the command of 
Jabotinsky  and continued their militant activities. Stern went to 
Poland to  establish Irgun training courses there and to obtain arms. 
Returning  to Eretz Yisrael, he was imprisoned by the British from 
August, 1939  to June, 1940.
Stern insisted that the struggle against the  British remain independent 
of any political linkage, even to Jabotinsky's Revisionist party. He 
also vehemently opposed tempering  the resistance in any way, and thus, 
in August, 1940, when the Irgun  decided to suspend their attacks on the 
British during World  War II, Stern formed a radical splinter opposition 
group, known  as Lehi, an acronym for łLohamei  Herut Yisrael.˛ He 
maintained that, even in the face of the Nazi  threat, it was the 
British who posed the major threat to the Jews;  doubting the Allies 
could win the war, he even advocated an alliance  with Nazi Germany and 
Fascist Italy, believing these ties would  assist the nationalist effort 
in Eretz Yisrael.
Stern's extremism, coupled with several robberies  committed by members 
of his group, earned Lehi the resentment of many  Jews in Eretz Yisrael, 
as well as the British. By 1942 the British  had offered a reward for 
Stern's capture. On February 12, 1942, the  British discovered and 
forced their way into Stern's hiding place in  Tel Aviv, and killed him 
immediately. The building is now a museum of  the Lehi movement.
 
Source: The  Pedagogic Center, The Department for Jewish Zionist 
Education, The  Jewish Agency for Israel, (c) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 
Director:  Dr. Motti Friedman, Webmaster: Esther Carciente. Photo 
courtesy of  the Jabotinsky  Institute, which takes no responsibility 
for the text.

 Ma non sai nemmeno cos'era la Stern.
Ho letto il reply di Amalric.
Guarda bene, m sa che hai qualcosa nella foglia di alocasia®.

 Avraham Stern
Wow! Sa scopiazzare da questo sito! :)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/stern.html
-Stefano

 Guarda bene, m sa che hai qualcosa nella foglia di alocasia®.
Aber, figlio mio, tu hai una strana abilita': quella di passare per
cretino "aggratis" con due sole righe.
Ti spiego perche', naturalmente (con altre perone cio' sarebbe
umiliante, ma tu non te ne renderai conto nemmeno, son sicura).
Dunque, in sintesi.
1) Un fesso a caso sproloquia a schiovere sulla banda stern. Chiunque
abbia un minimo di infarinatura relativa all'argomento si rende conto
che parla "per sentito dire".
2) Un'israeliena a caso che passa di li lo stuzzica con mezza riga.
3) Il demente copia e incolla una mezza biografia liofilizzata di stern
e si umilia nel tentativo di ridurre l'affaire "banda stern" in una 50a
di righe.
4) Ovviamente l'ometto di sopra ha fatto la figura del boccalone, dello
sprovveduto e dell'ignorante (un cut-paste, Aber, te ne rendi conto
anche tu) in un'unica agile mossa.
5) Spunti tu, l'unico bipede o quasi in grado du non cogliere cosa sia
realmente successo.
Gran Goal, sul serio.


 []
Questo e' un cut-paste di un striminzita biografia di Avraham Stern con
peduncoli annessi. Dimostra che sai usare google (complimenti, non e' da
tutti) e al contemo prova che 50 righe sull'argomento sono per te
esaustive.
In conclusione, ti ringrazio per aver confermato le mie supposizioni.
Ossequi.


 cretino "aggratis" con due sole righe.
Buon per me: in questo caso, e in altri su IDL, riesci a passare da cretina
sia postando un sermone come questo, che evitando accuratamente di replare
su argomenti difficili, tipo gli eroici soldati di IDF che prendono a calci
le teste di palestinesi e si vendono pure le foto.
Applausi.

 Applausi.
Tutte le volte non e' necessario, Aber.


 palestinese...
E gnè, Nadir.
Potrei risponderti chi ti abbia mai accusato alcunché di simile, ma dai
l'impressione di essere un po' tonta, nel qual caso, la risposta è inutile.

 l'impressione di essere un po' tonta, nel qual caso, la risposta è inutile.
Se vuoi ti spiego, Aber: 7-8 righe, ma ti avverto, ci farai ancora la
figura del pirla. Contento tu...


 ROTFL, calmati: non e' da te sbarellare anche la grammatica.
Mode svicolata correttore ortografico on.
Ciao.

 Ciao.
Ciao, piccolo. :-)
(PS: Lo sai da te cos'e' l'ortografia e cos'e' la grammatica. Non
infierisco).
:-*


 :-*
Sai anche cos'è un typo, se è per questo.
Ma apprezzo comunque il tentativo di metterci una pezza.
Da ciascuno secondo le sue possibilità.

 Da ciascuno secondo le sue possibilità.
Non svicolare con me, Aber: sai che non funziona.
