License To Kill – But Why?

August 11, 2006 at 10:55 am | Posted in blair, bush, civilian massacre, collateral damage, filthy lucre, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Lebanon, mammon, Palestine, race, religion, Seymour Hersh, war | Leave a comment

Bloodshed is bad but it’s even worse when it is purportedly done for religion and race.The war against the Lebanese is obviously both racial and religious. Lebanon has nothing like a real army. The Hezbollah ‘villain’ is a shia religious organisation made up of haters of Israel but they happen to be Lebanese and live, vote, and even hold a minority of parliamentary seats in Lebanon. The “Party of God” came into being for self defense sometime after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Hamas, on the other hand is a suni religious organisation. It is claimed that Hamas learned how to use suicide bombers from Hezbollah. The Israelis are of course simultaneously continuing their incursions into Palestine (though this is far less reported on than the war in Lebanon).

The world and the media have been surprised by the Israeli inability to quickly destroy Hezbollah. The continuing horrors of civilians being massacred in Lebanon has supposedly put both Blair and Bush in a bit of a tight spot. But, I have my doubts on that reading of the situation. It almost seems that they want such horrors to occur that the world will heave a sigh of relief and not worry too much about the fine print of the resulting ceasefire!

For, it seems that a tacit goal of the present campaign is to win for Israel a neutral zone covering large parts of Palestine and Lebanon. That is to say that Israel wants complete control over swathes of these two countries. The current negotiation really involves who will provide security in these “buffer areas” of Lebanon/Palestine. And that’s why I think the ‘security council resolution’ (itself not even really demanding a ceasefire) never made it out of the security council.

Public outcry from around the world has had no effect on those in a position to stop this war. The stakes are perhaps too high. In any case neither Bush nor Blair are going to be around for very much longer as heads of state. So, they have nothing to lose. The real question is, what do they have to gain?

I see two strong contenders. 1. A diversion from the horrible quagmire that they have been wallowing in in Iraq. 2. An opportunity to get Iran involved in the imbroglio – the first salvo on that front was the lopsided attempt to shut down Iran’s nuclear activities. Now, the ‘war on terror’ gets to carry the baton.

In the meantime Israelis, Palestinians and Lebanese pay the ultimate price.

There was never a hope of ‘success’ in Iraq for it was always a no-win situation. A strong, democratically elected government there would have to have been shiite and therefore trouble (from a neocon perspective). Under the eye of the world, the chances of setting up another puppet government in Iraq is slender. Don’t forget that both the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein were puppets set up, trained and funded by U.K.-U.S. as a bulwark against the Soviet Union during the cold war. the main possibility of doing the puppet act and getting away with it only arises if an Iraqi civil war takes place…hmmm

I also wonder to what extent ‘filthy lucre’ (or “mammon” as the bible also calls it) is involved, for with the predictable rise in oil prices, whether or not the long term goals are achieved, in the short run Bush and his coterie will make a killing

The Perpetrators have nothing to lose; the horrors of war? That’s all just a bit of necessary, and therefore unavoidable, collateral damage.

(check out the interview with Seymour Hersh (click on the title) that came out 2 days after I posted this blog)

Advertisements

Religious Disinterest

June 26, 2006 at 12:54 pm | Posted in Christian, Hindu, intolerance, Muslim, religion | 2 Comments

As a youth I used to think that everyone was interested in religion. I mean this very generally – all around my friends, classmates, acquaintances had to be involved in some religious activity at least once a week.
Hindu’s would do pooja,
Muslims would pray facing Mecca, and visit the mosque,
Christians would go to church
and in the villages,
people would consult the spiritist/healer/soothsayer.


It took a while for me to realise that these activities had little (if anything) to do with how people behaved towards one another.

It took very much longer for me to admit to myself that how i practiced “religion” did not help me to become a ‘better sort of person’.

In fact my denial of this fact continued for a number of years.

I had to come back to India, where our billion people and mountainous problems of daily life finally brought home to me the fact that what I had thought to be true religion was in fact nothing but.

My friend’s father helped to crystalise this truth for me very simply when one day he casually remarked that “the great religions are supposed to be pointing us towards God. But all they do is to grab a hold of us and point us towards religion”.

If my religion can’t make me a more loving person then it is pointless. Perhaps the fault lies not with religion but with my failure to become a more loving person regardless…

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.