Cheezy's Blog - Scratch & Sniff

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Edge of Darkness

This is just about the scariest thing I've ever read. I warn you that it's not pleasant, but I urge you to read it too. And then - please - tell me why it won't happen.

posted by Cheezy at 2:50 PM

29 Comments:

  • Well, it might happen. It might be Israel's "fault" for responding to an attack (boohoo, they didn't expect such an intense response to their killing and kidnapping of soldiers) or it could be the inevitable result of Iran's support for Hez (no proof? LOL) and their course toward nukes. Some peeps don't seem to mind the idea of Iran having nukes. Now, maybe the right thing to do is wait until one of Iran's nukes is five minutes from hitting London or NYC before deciding to do something about it. Could be.

    By Blogger Paula, at 3:55 PM  

  • Nope, you didn't reassure me, Paula :-(

    By Blogger Cheezy, at 4:07 PM  

  • By the way, I found your "(boohoo" bit quite interesting, Paula. Because yeah, there's certainly a fair bit of boohoo going on in Lebanon at the moment, you're so right. Kids don't tend to enjoy getting their limbs blown off or having their parents don't come home... There's a bit of boohoo when that happens, for sure.

    Still, I guess that the (now) blind, one-legged 10 year old girl that I saw on the news last night should never have kidnapped those 2 Israeli soldiers... Yeah, that'll learn her.

    So yeah ~ boohoo indeed. Let's sit back in our comfy western office chair and say boohoo. Right-on girl.

    By Blogger Cheezy, at 4:17 PM  

  • Of course it would be Israel's fault. Cuz "they" said it would be. Course, even if Iran or some other upfucked Muslim theocratic government fires the first one it will still ALWAYS be Israel's fault. Because Israel has the fourth largest artmy in the world, Israel is the US' proxy aggressor in the Middle East, Israel is engaged in a land grab, Israel has no claim to any land in the Middle East, Israel is an illegitimate government, Israel is engaged in genocide, most notably infanticide, Israel has no business trying to defend herself against "freedom fighters", Israel has committed terrorist atrocities, Israel.........

    By Blogger Mark, at 4:20 PM  

  • Y'see folks, it's happening already... :-/

    By Blogger Cheezy, at 4:24 PM  

  • By that I mean, two of my valued American readers have taken the time to post on this topic so far, and neither of them has attempted to poo-poo the idea that their government will use the current conflagration as a pretext to crush Iran with nuclear weapons...

    Is it time to shit bricks yet?

    By Blogger Cheezy, at 4:30 PM  

  • This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Cheezy, at 4:31 PM  

  • After years of hearing peeps tell Israelis they must tolerate attacks on civilians where their kids are mangled and killed, yeah, maybe I've lost a bit of sympathy. That isn't to say I have none, but war is ugly--should it be uglier for Israelis or non-Israelis? We can disagree over that. You're also sitting in a comfy chair not having to worry (too much) about getting blown up by a suicide bomber when you go to the market.

    Sorry I can't reassure you. The scenario presented in the article didn't seem that nuts to me. Maybe we did tell Israel to go for it after the next provocation (if there hadn't been one, then who knows). Maybe we did so in order to have a reason to whomp Iran, or maybe something else. I read that the U.S. has killed a whole bunch of Taliban in Afghanistan these last two weeks, but that's barely gotten a mention.

    By Blogger Paula, at 5:29 PM  

  • "After years of hearing peeps tell Israelis they must tolerate attacks on civilians where their kids are mangled and killed, yeah, maybe I've lost a bit of sympathy."

    Do you want to dig out any blogs or old emails where people have told you that, Paula? I'd be interested in reading them. (It's sounds nuts to me. I've never advocated that and think that anything one does is crazy).


    "You're also sitting in a comfy chair not having to worry (too much) about getting blown up by a suicide bomber when you go to the market."

    Actually, after leaving my comfy office chair I have to board the transportation system that's potential terrorist target #1 in this country. But this isn't a strictly relevant comment in regards to me, because I don't make dissmissive 'boohoo' noises about any innocent people being killed or mutilated in needless wars, be they hindu, jew, muslim or christian. Whereas you did.

    By Blogger Cheezy, at 6:03 PM  

  • PS: That last bit probably came out a little harshly, Paula. You sound like a nice lady - but I just think that 'boohoo' comment is an example of what can happen to your humanity, even subconsciously, when one all too easily joins a 'side' in a conflict like this. It becomes 'us and them' very quickly and the 'them' are only worth a boohoo.

    I guess my overall point is to ask who this boohoo is for. It can't be for Hezbollah. Don't cry for them. The bombing of civilians in Lebanon is the greatest thing to happen to their long-term prosperity since Israel fucked over Beirut in '82.

    By Blogger Cheezy, at 6:42 PM  

  • PPS: Anyway, it's official then. You think the scenario a likely one... :-(

    By Blogger Cheezy, at 6:43 PM  

  • 1. When peeps tell Israel they mustn't crack down on terrorists, target bombmakers, etc., that is telling them they must tolerate the attacks.

    2. I am in a comfy chair saying boohoo to Hez and the Lebanese who support them (including the Leb gov't.). You are in a comfy chair saying the Israeli retaliation is too much. We both aren't THERE is my point.

    3. I agree this escalated conflict may be "good" for the Hez leaders and possibly Iran. Kinda negates the cui bono aspect of the article you linked though.

    4. Just cuz I said the scenario presented in that article isn't nuts doesn't mean I think it's likely. I think it's a possibility. There are others, such as no one has a plan or knows WTF they're doing.

    By Blogger Paula, at 7:16 PM  

  • The US won't use the nuke unless it seriously believes it's under direct threat. Even if Iran developed nukes it couldn't get them mucher further than... Israel?

    Will the US use this as an excuse to 'pacify' the 'rouge' states of Syria and Iran? Possibly but unlikely considering the tide of public opinion at home is turning against the Iraq debacle.

    This is Israel saber-rattling. I'm certainly not anti-semitic but I think the whole zionist thing is a fucking powder keg waiting to go off and it's out (UK and US's fault).

    Israel is surrounded by hostile forces. True. It is small. True. It is out-numbered. Trun. It is also fucking bank-rolled and equipped by the most militarily powerful nation on earth and, like the nerdy kid who is temporarily best friends with the school bully, is using that association to terrorise his neighbours.

    The US can't codemn Israel too much as it steered its foreign policy and paid for its munitions. The US is not going to let Israel draw it into another fucking war though.

    If this had happened 3 years ago things might have been different but not now.

    As for that article? Fucking horse shit! The Jews haven't been blamed for shit other than throwing its weight around.

    One point. Why would the US use its nukes when Israel has its own?

    By Blogger Stef, at 10:11 PM  

  • I of course meant "rogue states" not "rouge states", they're something entirely different!

    By Blogger Stef, at 10:12 PM  

  • Of course this won't happen because for this scenario you would need a state with leaders who react with crude and unproportionate force to any provocation and a superpower with a zealously religious leader who is a bit nutty and supports Israel regardless of its unappropriate actions. Oh Bugga!!

    By Blogger Lucy, at 11:16 PM  

  • "One point. Why would the US use its nukes when Israel has its own?"

    Okay, here goes:

    Believe it or not, and I don't give a good goddamn what reaction this gets cuz it will be one I entirely expect, anywsay, Jews, (and by extension the government of Israel) values life too much to ever use nuclear weapons on her neighbors. One of the major tenets of Judaism is the sanctity of life. There is a reason the IDF is called the IDF: The emphasis has always been on DEFENSE. Further, the close proximity of Israel to her neighbors in the Middle East means that should Israel ever use nuclear weapons, it would spell the end of the state of Israel as well. Israel has them as a deterrant.

    Some questions for you Cheezy: Have you ever lived in a Muslim country or traveled to the Middle East and specifically Israel?

    What, exactly, is the extent of your education with regard to that part of the world, Judaism and Islam and the history that preceded the founding of the state of Israel?

    How did you come by your knowledge?

    By Blogger Mark, at 2:23 AM  

  • First of all, noone 'asks' for anything. We all are responsible for our own actions and I don't need to be a political expert to know that much. Using such blunt force is bullying and disgrace at it's best...urr ahem...I mean WORST! This kind of shit isn't even war. It's just out right murder and blowing things up. TOTALLY WRONG. If the US ever did such a thing again, it'd be the stupidest descision ever and I don't think anyone'd be buying any of it. That would be like asking people to line up naked women and babies, waiting for incineration, all over again. I simply don't see it happening. Not on that scale.
    Whoever thinks it benefits anyone to blindly mass murder humanity should go stand in the line of fire themselves. God I could go on...

    By Blogger Kat, at 3:11 AM  

  • Mark, I didn't actuall think Israel would use its nukes either. My point was that the US wouldn't either.

    "One of the major tenets of Judaism is the sanctity of life"
    It's also one of the central tenets of Islam and I've worked in a muslim school before you say anything in retort to that.

    By Blogger Stef, at 6:31 AM  

  • It's only Israel's backing by the US that's allowing it to get away with what it's doing now.

    Yes it's defensive. Sort of in some fucked up kiddie murdering, UN bombing kind of way, but...

    For 30 years the UK was bombed by the Irish including mortar attacks. Did we start bombing Dublin because it harboured a few terrorists? No. That would have been wrong, overly aggressive and too many innocents would have died.

    The Israelis are really holding the sanctity of their own life really dear but don't tell me they give a fuck about the muslims the other side of the border, most of whom have never done them any harm.

    By Blogger Stef, at 6:35 AM  

  • Paula:

    "1. When peeps tell Israel they mustn't crack down on terrorists, target bombmakers, etc., that is telling them they must tolerate the attacks."

    Nope, you've missed the point. (Deliberately, perhaps?) Anyway, the charge against Israel is that it's a disproportionate response - no one's saying that they should sit back and put up with it. (well, no one that I've heard from). Remember what we chatted about at Ruth's? I said that there are a number of options available to Israel, not just the two that you seemed to think there were (i.e. 1. Do nothing, 2. Bomb the shit out of hundreds of civilians).

    "2. I am in a comfy chair saying boohoo to Hez and the Lebanese who support them (including the Leb gov't.). You are in a comfy chair saying the Israeli retaliation is too much. We both aren't THERE is my point."

    That's undoubtedly true, but it wasn't my original point in bringing up the 'comfy chair' thing in the first place. Mine was that I think we should be careful with our language during wartime. I have confidence that you weren't deliberately being callous or unfeeling towards the hundreds of innocent people dying at the moment, but it could have potentially come across that way.

    "3. I agree this escalated conflict may be "good" for the Hez leaders and possibly Iran. Kinda negates the cui bono aspect of the article you linked though."

    Yeah, I realise that. I wasn't linking that article as an "I think this will happen" kinda thing. I was wanting to see what others thought about it. But this is interesting - you're freely admitted that the bombing of civilians in Lebanon may be to the benefit of Hezbollah and Iranian extremism. Yet you still have no problem with it? I fucking hate Hezbollah - so I'm against the bombing.

    "4. Just cuz I said the scenario presented in that article isn't nuts doesn't mean I think it's likely. I think it's a possibility. There are others, such as no one has a plan or knows WTF they're doing."

    Here we agree!

    Mark:

    I appreciate your interest in my life. It's flattering, really.

    For what it's worth, I've never lived in a Muslim country or visited Israel. In my education I did study the Middle East extensively (particularly in the Strategic Studies paper at the University of Auckland 1994-95 - Professor Steve Hoadley). Since then I've read a lot about history of the region, and kept up to date with current events there.

    You may choose to regard or disregard my opinions because of my experience (or lack thereof), just as you see fit.

    I could ask you the same questions of course, but personally, I'm more interested in what you've got to say than in where you've lived or went to school.

    After all, even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day!

    Stef:

    "For 30 years the UK was bombed by the Irish including mortar attacks. Did we start bombing Dublin because it harboured a few terrorists? No. That would have been wrong, overly aggressive and too many innocents would have died."

    Great point, mate.

    By Blogger Cheezy, at 8:55 AM  

  • "I could ask you the same questions of course, but personally, I'm more interested in what you've got to say than in where you've lived or went to school."

    Yeah, next time I need legal advice, I'll ask my garbage man.

    I'm outta here.

    By Blogger Mark, at 1:20 PM  

  • Oh tragic. This blog is going to be so much the poorer without his insightful and apposite analysis...

    By Blogger Stef, at 1:32 PM  

  • Cheezy, you keep missing MY points and no one's mind is going to be changed here, so I'll say bye to this discussion now.

    By Blogger Paula, at 2:00 PM  

  • Mark: Damn, first Edward Said dies and now you desert my blog. That's two experts on Middle East politics we now have to do without...:-(

    And hey, some bin-men are quite smart. Judge not lest ye be etc...

    Paula: That's cool, but I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind about anything. The whole point of my original post was to try and elicit various people's opinions on the likelihood of the scenario described in the link. I found it quite interesting, personally - but I'm sorry if it frustrated some others.

    By Blogger Cheezy, at 2:48 PM  

  • Not about nukes, but I read this comment on another blog, and I agree with it:

    TROOPS were taken…and in exchange innocent civilians are being murdered…pay attention here because someone needs to explain to you that what Israel is doing is terrorism.Don’t take my word for it… let me define the word for you.

    Terrorism(N):The caculated use of violence(or threat of violence) against CIVILIANS in order to attain goals that are political or religious or idealogical in nature;This is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

    Collective punishment is something I would expect from the SS, but not from any nation with claims to decency or civility.

    The fact that people support retaliation on this scale just blows me away.

    By Blogger Ruth, at 8:53 PM  

  • It blows me away too, but this is the way the world has gone in the last five years... Unfortunately, extremism on one side breeds extremism on the other and, for reasons best known to themselves, some people feel that they've gotta pick a side, and then support it wholeheartedly - just like Dubya told us all those years ago "Your either with us or against us", that kind of bollocks.

    After you've made that ideological leap, you're always going to look upon the innocent deaths on one side of the conflict with much more sympathy than you look upon the innocent deaths on the other side of the conflict. And it seems that, thereafter, you have little comprehension of either the compassion or the rationality that you've lost.

    By Blogger Cheezy, at 10:21 PM  

  • They just shut the other eye.Another blogger I read http://billmon.org, says this:

    I've felt many emotions about the Israelis before. I've admired them for their accomplishments -- building a flourishing state out of almost nothing. I've hated them for their systematic dispossession of the Palestinians -- even as they smugly congratulated themselves for being the Middle East's only "democracy." I've pitied them for the cruel fate history inflicted on the Jewish diaspora, respected them for their boldness and daring, honored them for their cultural and intellectual achievements. But the one thing I've never felt, at least up until now, is contempt.

    Same with me - and good lord - now I've pissed off half my blogroll - but too bad!!

    By Blogger Ruth, at 2:01 AM  

  • Perhaps... but 'popularity'?... Overrated, I reckon!

    By Blogger Cheezy, at 3:32 PM  

  • Neither side is acting morally or ethically therefore neither side deserves support.

    As Ruth said, when killing civilians becomes irrlevant or part of the objective then you are no better than the terrorists.

    By Blogger Stef, at 10:16 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home