|
|
|
 Bob Sez - 10/19/01
By Bob Senitram
Published each Friday
Song In My Head:
"War! Whoooo!
What is it good for?
Absolutely Nuthin'"
- The Temptations -
Last week, I mentioned that I would try to figure out why other countries hate the U.S. so much. In order to do
this we have to try not to think like as American, but just think. We need to examine the circumstances that lead
to the fanatical frame of mind by our national enemies.
It's easiest to think that the terrorists are just crazy and leave it at that. But each mad-man needs a large group
of people to follow them. Insanity does not come in that large of numbers. They need some normal people, and that's
the part that's really scarry.
It seems that many people convinced that the United States is like a criminal that has never been brought to justice.
This injustice leads to anger, which just takes a small nudge to become fanatic behavior.
The propaganda tape recently released by Osama Bin Laden, may give us clues to the type of information that is
used to push normal angry people "over the edge." In addition to the emotional hatred toward non-Muslims
and western civilization, he mentions that the U.S. is guilty of war crimes and cites the killing of civilians
in the Gulf War, the bombing of Japan in World War II, and our support of Israel.
All these are very well thought out points. Logically, we see one situation that might be an American war crime,
followed by a definite American war crime, and then a faulty political policy. All this is mixed up and delivered
to create the appearance that we are guilty of multiple international crimes. I can see how someone from another
country can easily be swayed against America.
I'll examine each point in more detail:
The Iraqi civilians killed by the United States, is a reference to the civilian air raid shelter that was bombed
toward the end of the Gulf War air campaign. It was known that it was a civilian shelter; however, the U.S. had
intelligence reports of military communication equipment, and high-ranking Iraqi officials going in and out of
the shelter. It was suspected that this was actually a military installation disguised as a civilian shelter. As
a result, it was bombed.
Was this justified? I don't know.
It depends on the evidence that the U.S. can produce to show that this appeared to be a military and not a civilian
installation. According to the Nuremberg Principles signed by the US on August 8, 1945, "…wanton destruction
of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity…" is defined as a war crime.
I believe according to this definition, we would have to prove that we had evidence that showed no civilians were
there, or that bombing the shelter was a military necessity at that time.
The treaty also states that, Leaders and organizers are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution
of a war crime. So those responsible could be taken to an international court where the evidence would be examined.
Similar to what we did with Melosevic.
This is where Middle Eastern Cultures react in a way that doesn't make sense. They shoot the gun and point the
finger and say, "You are just as bad as we are, therefore…blah, blah, blah…" and they try to justify
violence. Why don't they put the persons responsible on trial in an international court.
Perhaps they are afraid of having their claims examined in closely. Maybe they are intimidated to appeal to an
international court. Maybe they hate western civilization so much they refuse to use conventional methods. Maybe
it's easier to just hate and shoot and bomb.
The Japan reference leaves no debate. The "PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR
IN CASE OF WAR," passed by the League of Nations in 1948, clearly defined the deliberate bombing civilian
targets as a war crime. Also, in the "Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial Bombardment of Civilian
Populations, on September 1, 1939," he states, "…armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances,
undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities…"
Guilty as charged…enough said about that.
Notice Osama didn't mention the Vietnam War, Slavery, or our own terrorist acts by the CIA to destroy sugar crops
and kill Fidel Castro in Cuba. These were very bad, yet no mention.
Why?
I think it is because the U.S. already admitted these were mistakes. If you try to point a finger at someone who
already admitted they were wrong, no one will listen. Therefore, by trying to ignore errors, we only fuel a fire
somewhere.
If the U.S. apologized to Japan, and paid reparations, for the damage and the crime we committed, then other countries
would have one less thing to hold against us. In one of Bush's speeches he mentioned that the U.S. is taking the
"high road" by fighting terrorists, but I would like to see us take the high road by taking responsibility
for our mistakes.
Now comes Israel.
The League of Nations passed a resolution in the 20's that tried to grant Israel statehood. At that time, the Jewish
population in Palestine was very low, because most the people migrated to European countries. The formation of
an Israeli State was pushed by Great Britain under the pretense that the Jerusalem was historically and culturally
significant to the Jewish community; therefore, they would give the Jewish community the land.
That's like the United Nations deciding to give Texas back to Mexico because the land is historically and culturally
significant to the Mexican people. If they did, I don't think the U.S. Congress would just shrug their shoulders
and say, "Ok."
After World War II, sympathy for the persecuted Jewish People, led the United Nations to pass the Resolution to
create an Israeli state. Every Middle Eastern Country voted against the resolution.
Put simply, Western countries decided to give land that belonged to Middle Eastern States to another European populace.
In other words, the land wasn't really theirs to give. Perhaps the big mess could have been avoided if the U.N.
worked out the differences with the countries of that region. Instead they just decided that "majority rules."
With the amount of military might the Western Countries represented, who cared about right or wrong.
As it turned out, a lot of people cared.
The very next day Middle Eastern Countries started attacking Israel and haven't stopped since. So much for "majority
rules," har-har.
Note that the resolution that gave Israel their land states that they have to occupy the area in a way that doesn't
offend or inhibit the rights of Palestinians. Other than taking the land, I don't really think they've been true
to that treaty.
Now the U.S. has been providing all sorts of political and monetary help to Israel while they bomb Palestinian
grade schools and shoot children.
Then they act like…"What else could we do? Those rocks really hurt."
Well, it's not like rubber bullets haven't been invented. All they have to do is put 'em in the guns. They're there
for the taking.
I think any state that instructs troops and bombers to kill children on a regular basis is committing a horrible
crime against humanity, that can only be equaled by the Nazi Holocaust. I guess you could say Israel has become
their own enemy.
What does all this mean? Well for one thing, I think supporting or even recognizing Israel as a state is like supporting
Milosevic. It's just wrong.
Perhaps someday nations will learn to manage freedom with justice, rather than power.
And now you know.
COMING NEXT: A little
bit-o'-this, a little bit-o'-that.
webmaster@weirdcrap.every1.net
|
|
|
