Friday, January 13, 2012

HAMLET LIVES: Are we too civilized to fight a war, let alone WIN ONE?


Yesterday we were treated to the spectacle of the Pentagon going after US Marines for pissing on those people whose purpose was to help, protect, and advance the pilots of the planes that murdered 3,000 Americans.
This included the intrepid and unafraid Leon Panetta who wanted to ‘bring to justice’ those Marines, who I ASSURE YOU, were doing nothing different that what happened on Guadalcanal, Buna, Bouganville, Tarawa, Saipan, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima.
Leon, THEY ARE JUSTICE. They are the legal arm of the US reaching out to ensure people who want to do more of the same to other American families as was done on 9/11, that it never happens again. And they are doubling down on the point.
Today…..
Telegraph UK wonders if it moral to kill Iranian nuclear scientists

The covert war behind the latest assassination in Tehran raises moral concerns.

Physics is an unhealthy line of work in today’s Iran. A few days ago, 32-year-old Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan died in his car, after two motorcyclists attached a magnetic shaped charge to the door. You can see Roshan among the men in white coats, beaming modestly behind President Ahmadinejad, in a photo taken a few months ago.
Roshan was not the first and nor will he be the last casualty of a covert war designed either to dissuade Iran from acquiring a bomb, or to prompt retaliatory mis-steps that will trigger an all-out onslaught by Israel or the US against multiple Iranian nuclear facilities.
The identity of the assassins is inherently unknowable – though a good guess would be the dissident Mujahedin-e-Khalq group on behalf of Mossad. The CIA’s weak human intelligence presence inside Iran makes Secretary Clinton’s categorical denial of American involvement plausible.
Why it is happening is far easier to fathom. Israel, although not the world’s sole assassin, has historical form in this area. In 1963, Mossad embarked on Operation Damocles to menace and murder former Nazi rocket scientists, who, according to a defecting Austrian, were helping Nasser develop rockets that could be equipped with radiological warheads. They received parcel bombs through the post, while their families back in Germany and Austria were threatened with violence. More recently, in 1990, Mossad shot dead the Canadian Gerald Bull outside his Brussels apartment. Bull was helping Saddam Hussein improve Scud missiles while developing a long-range “supergun” as a sideline.
A similar logic, of degrading one’s enemy’s scientific and technical human capacity, was evident from the targeted assassination campaign which Israel waged against key Hamas and Hizbollah figures. The victims included Hamas’s Yehiya “The Engineer” Ayyash, whose head was blown off in 1996 by what he thought was his mobile phone, and Imad Mugniyah of Hizbollah, pieces of whom were scraped up from the street in 2008 after he was killed leaving a party at the Iranian embassy in Damascus. Both of these men had a lethal expertise which would be difficult to replace.
If we decide that stopping the Iranian nuclear weapons program short of war by killing a FEW people is immoral, will we decide that overtly and ‘honestly’ killing a LOT OF PEOPLE in an open war IS MORAL?
Here is the moral cowardice in the Telegraph’s argument that these murders are immoral….
The Israelis believe that anyone who knowingly participates in developing weapons of mass destruction or terrorism should be aware that these are not risk-free activities. Iranian scientists know full well that electronic switches are used in nuclear triggers, and that enriching uranium beyond a certain percentage is not for the production of medical isotopes. And they accept the considerable financial rewards involved. If there are questions about the morality of killing such men, there are questions about the morality of their work in the first place.
No, that is a red herring argument. Israel’s position I assure you, is that those who PERFORM this work for a STATE one of whose avowed purposes since birth, by the words of EVERY LEADER, and many other officials of the state, is the eradication of Israel, and by the cat’s paw of the state, to get the jews themselves, are immoral.
Their system aggressively pursues a HOLOCAUST for religious reasons, and racist reasons (in this case they are one), and NOTHING COULD BE MORE MORAL THAN KILLING THOSE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS.
Israel did NOT attempt to kill Pakistani scientists, did they?
In a few words…. 
THEY ARE THE ULTIMATE BAD GUYS.
THEY DIE.
ISRAEL LIVES.
That is a moral good.
The end.
If the Telegraph UK want to engage in equivocation about killing the guy who poured acid in daddy’s ear, they are finished as arbiters of moral action.
Go jerk off in private

3 comments:

Ciccio said...

There are of course a few simple logical explanations for this video.
1. The Taliban were in danger of spontaneous combustion owing to their rapid arrival in hell.
2. The Taliban were wounded and the G.I.'s were using the only available near-sterile substance to clean their wounds.
3. The soldiers had to urinate and were following the official policy of not pissing in the direction of Mecca, unfortunately the Taliban were in the way.

I shall be very interested to hear what Karzai, the Taliban and the rest of that mob have to say as soon as they comment on the murder,mutilation and desecration of the bodies of innocent men, women and children killed by howling mobs of Taliban.
As for British opinions, I will file them with the latest report from Chatham House, the leading British think-tank.In their latest report they have found that Somali piracy has impacted the economy of central Somalia substantially, they do not recommend a military solution as it would plunge the region back into poverty and they suggest a negotiated solution on land.

Anonymous said...

"Telegraph UK wonders if it moral to kill Iranian nuclear scientists"
Oh really?

There cannot be anything moral in the killing of individuals, but there is nothing moral in war either, and the West is at war, even though the "enlightened" ones, who negate history as well as reality may have a different opinion.

The video shows men at war, and war cannot be fought through cameras and in the Internet.

cjk said...

The only moral concerns raised in my mind is concern over the inability or blind ignorance of large segments of our populations to grasp the far greater magnitude of good accomplished by mercilessly destroying immutably, EVIL organizations.

It's like morally condemning the North for the Civil War because of Sherman's March.
Actually it's worse than that.