Month: May 2007

The present unrest in Gaza is finally making news in the U.S.. Palestinian factions from the two sides, Hamas and Fatah, are ratcheting up tit-for-tat killings in what may well end up as a similar conflict to the Sunni/Shia violence presently ongoing in Iraq.

Still, it takes the heat off the Israelis. After all, one can hardly hold peace talks with a disenfranchised people in the middle of a civil war.

And isn’t that exactly what Western governments intended back in April 2006, after elections brought Hamas to power and funding to the Palestinian Authority was stopped by the US/EU, the World Bank, and Israel? The money Israel refused to hand over, some $50-$55million per month, was Palestinian money, not Israeli.

We elect our politicians because we consider them competent to organize international affairs – at least, we should – so is it unreasonable to assume, given the scenario of an oppressed people, inadequately housed, many poverty-stricken, with no hope of any improvement to their quality of life, that financially strangling those people and driving them further into the slough of desperation already their yoke, would cause a backlash similar to that created by the Americans and British in Iraq?

Are we to believe the politicians who took those decisions had no idea of the consequences? Or were they fully aware, yet have knowingly stood back and allowed it to happen?

Even after Hamas and Fatah had agreed to form a Unity Government, nothing changed. No money began to flow.

“Recognize Israel’s right to exist, or continue to starve,” was the ongoing cry from the Western world and Israel.

Sparrow Chat has already reported on the reasons Western nations may wish to promote unrest in Palestine.

There is no misguided sense of righteousness driving our politicians to look, cold-eyed, at dead Palestinian women and children while their purse-strings remain firmly secured.

It has much more to do with political power, greed, and the subjugation of a people.

Filed under: Political slaughter

Congratulations to Illinois baby Bubba Ludwig. No, it’s not his birthday. In fact, Baby Bubba is only ten months old. Nevertheless, father Howard Ludwig wishes to ensure his son is well prepared for life in the big bad world. He’s just bought little Bubba his first gun license, complete with Bubba’s toothless grinning face and a squiggle representing his signature.

Not to be outdone, Grandpa Ludwig has presented Bubba with his first gun.

Illinois State Police, who authorized the permit, say it was all strictly according to the law. Apparently, there is no minimum age limit for obtaining a gun license in Illinois, which incidentally is reputed to have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

Heaven help us all.

America – you deserved Columbine, and Red Lake, and Virginia Tech, and all the other sordid school shootings and massacres regularly occurring just so you can fantasize about your macho image and your John Wayne persona. Sadly, all the youngsters slaughtered while you pursue your putrid ideals do not deserve it, but you don’t care because you are just sick.

Howard Ludwig says baby Bubba won’t get his hands on the gun Grandpa Ludwig gave him, until he’s fourteen.

Let me see, Eric Harris was eighteen and Dylan Klebold, seventeen. Jeffrey Weisse was seventeen. Seung-Hui Cho was a mere twenty-three.

Fourteen is such a responsible age.

Howard Ludwig told the Chicago-Sun Times:

“I’m glad he was able to get his FOID card. It makes an adorable addition to his baby book.”

Mister Ludwig, forgive me for saying so, but I consider you an ass-hole.

Filed under: Games kiddies play

Condoleeza Rice’s recent visit to Russia has ended in failure. It’s not surprising when you consider that nothing Rice has done since her promotion to Secretary of State has ended any other way. In fact, the same could be said for the whole administration, including the president. Most American presidents, on leaving office, leave a legacy of sorts. Apart from play the role of a modern Emperor Nero, what has George W Bush or his administration achieved in two terms?

Rice’s visit to Russia, billed as a “diplomatic visit”, was more of a farce. ‘Diplomacy’ is not in her dictionary. If she was puzzled by Putin’s apparent coldness towards her country, when she informed him the U.S. intends to pursue the sighting of its missiles in Poland and Czechoslovakia, she might consider this:

Imagine if the boot were on the other foot and Russia had formed an alliance with Canada. Consider a situation where Canada agreed to deploy Russian missiles on its border with the U.S.. The Russian foreign secretary makes a “diplomatic visit” to the American president and tells him the Russian missiles “are nothing to worry about.”

How would the American people expect their president to respond?

Filed under: Diplomacy of aggression