After decades of denial, official honors for terror bombers of Lavon Affair infamy
The other day in another article, someone wrote in a comment “They never taught me about the Lavon affair in sunday school” … First, a bit of background from Wikipedia:
The aim of the 1954 Israeli Mossad project, codenamed Operation Suzannah was to bomb United States installations in Egypt, such as the United States Information Service offices, and blame Arabs, hoping it would harm Egyptian-American ties. It became known as the Lavon Affair or the Unfortunate Affair (Hebrew: äòñ÷ äáéù pronounce: haesek habish), after the Israeli defense minister Pinchas Lavon who was forced to resign because of the incident.
Israeli Mossad agents from “Unit 131″ planted bombs in several buildings, including a United States diplomatic facility, and intentionally left behind evidence implicating Arabs as the culprits. The conspiracy was intended to disrupt U.S. relations with Egypt but one of the bombs detonated prematurely and the Egyptian police swiftly found one of the terrorists. This arrest quickly led to the capture of eleven of the thirteen members of the spy ring. Some of the spies were Israeli, while others were Egyptian Jews recruited by Mossad. Two of the conspirators were sentenced to death and executed. Six others were sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
[…] The legacy of the Lavon Affair was especially unpleasant for Egyptian Jews and for Jews living in other Arab countries. They faced suspicion as a potential Fifth column and even persecution (including having their banks accounts frozen). […] The Lavon Affair also generated deep suspicion of Israeli intelligence practices and encouraged speculation and conspiracy theories that terrorist attacks against Arab and American targets could be the result of Israeli false flag intelligence operations or agent provocateurs working on behalf of Israeli intelligence, a belief that is still popular (especially in Arab countries).”
[…] Israel responded to the scandal with claims in the media that there was no spy ring, that it was all a hoax perpetrated by ‘anti-Semites’. But as the public trial progressed, it was evident that Israel had indeed been behind the bombing.”
The question of who had prior knowledge was to plague the Israeli political establishment and Ben Gurion in particular for years to come. The Lavon Affair and its investigation commission eventually led to the fall of the government and brought about Ben Gurion’s resignation in 1963.
Now, Ha’aretz reports that despite years of official denial, Israel has finally decided to openly honor these people who committed the terrorist bombings of public civilian spaces such as libraries and post offices. One of the terrorists is quoted in the article as saying “We are happy we’ve got our honour back”
Official ceremonies were held, and in Ha’aretz, President Moshe Katsav was quoted as saying “Although it is still a sensitive situation, we decided now to express our respect for these heroes.”
Ha’aretz did refer to the acts as “attacks” and referred to “the bombers” but the word terror didn’t come up. The Jerusalem Post also couldn’t bring themselves to call the act of conspiring to plant bombs in crowded post offices, libraries and movie theaters “terrorism”, referring to them euphemistically as ‘sabotage operations‘. However it does add the detail “It was not till March 1975 that Israel acknowledged that the network had been trained in Israel by the IDF.”
In Al Jazeera, the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu al-Ghait was quoted as saying “This is a decision that calls for astonishment” and he added “These individuals can be labelled as terrorists as far as international standards go and this is all the more surprising that they are Egyptian Jews.”
Further reading: The Lavon Affair at the Dept. for Zionist Education of the Jewish Agency for Israel
“But Israeli hoped the attacks, which caused no casualties, would be blamed on local insurgents.
Besides the fact that Israel was at war with Egypt
Besides the fact that no one died
Besides the fact that this is a one off affair (unless Brown believes that Israel is blowing up their own buses to justify West Bank settlements, etc)
It still provides Brown with an opportunity to do his: “I can call Israeli’s terrorists” dance on this site.
I suppose I should be honored that John Brown is quoting me from a posting in the comments section, I just wish he wouldn’t ignore me when I call his bluff.
Regardless, although I am a right-leaning Zionist, you can’t just write this one off Shtreimel. The points you brought up are valid, but what if foreign nationals had died? Do you seriously think this is the only such incident we know of? It isn’t.
My point in my earlier posting was not to give ammo to israel bashers, but to point out the need for a more sophisticated and honest accounting of Israel’s history. Not apologetics but honest critical info. as Israel matures.
The afterglow of 1967 has long been gone but our community still seems to think that if we just rehash the same old Zionist propoganda from the previous decades that all is fine. It’s not. Less and less young people are identifying with Israel precisely because they hear about incidents like the Lavon affair and do not get the proper context for them, or they just get the same old blind allegiance crap.
http://www.endpage.com/Archive…
Egyptian Jewry – Why it Declined?
Sausage…the article/contents is disturbing, and shouldn’t be written off. But Brown’s messages come across crystal clear, and I find them more disturbing than the links he provides.
At least one U.S. institution was attackedin Egypt by Israelis. Had any Americans died would we still be trying to hem and haw out of it? I do find alot of what Brown’s messages disturbing because I think he many times draws incorrect conclusions from facts and connects dots in rather creative ways. Here he is not far from the mark. This is a very murky situation and knee-jerk rallying around the flag may not be the best route for those of us who proudly call ourselves Zionists to take.
What’s the problem here?
If they were at war and they did what thy were doing to defend us – what’s wrong?
Next time John Brown is being attacked we wont save him. OK John? Is that what you would like?
“Besides the fact that this is a one off affair”
ever heard of the USS Liberty?
shtriemel wrote: “Besides the fact that no one died”
Does the fact that they failed and got caught before more people were killed mitigate the gravity of the crime? I don’t think it does.
shtriemel wrote: “Besides the fact that this is a one off affair”
If someone conspired to take part in the Sbarro’s bombing but that was a one off affair, and they never committed any other crime.. would that be an acceptable excuse for you ?
Besides there are other events such as the framing of Libya for the bombing of a West Berlin nightclub in 1986, described by former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky in his books. But in the end, that’s another topic for another day.
Joe Schmo wrote: “If they were at war and they did what thy were doing to defend us – what’s wrong? ”
I don’t know where you live Joe, but I’m an American. When people set off bombs in American facilities that doesn’t count as “defending us” .. in fact, it falls into the opposite category – “attacking us”
The USS Liberty is different; besides a few conspiracy theorists, all evidence suggests that the bombing was an accident. The leader of the planes who shot at the USS Liberty, who about 2 years ago signed the Pilot’s Letter of refusal to serve in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, even acknowledges it (if he’s not credible, I don’t know who is).
As for the Lavon affair, I have a question, similar to what people asked about Nixon after Watergate: what did the higher tiers in the Israeli government know and when did they know it? From the description of the event, it seems like a clandestine operation from a few top people in Mossad, during a war (with a not so nice head of state by the way).
One thing, John Brown, you make it seem like this event caused an antagonism between Egypt and Egyptian Jews (and Arabs against Jews in general). I’m not sure if that was your intent, but it’s important to remember that Arab racism against Jews stretches back centuries. This event is an excuse for Arab anti-semitism, not a cause.
I’m sorry John, I was talking about defending Jews.
Americans were not hurt nor targeted to be hurt.
How could you, a Jew, not understand Jews defending themselves. After reading the link you provided:
http://www.jafi.org.il/educati…
You are worried about America? What was America doing having “relations” with Egypt was fighting with Israel?
Israel has every right to defend itself.
If a country allies themselves with another country that is against Israel, Israel has every right and obligation to defend us even against that country.
We had a phase we went through, in which everyone did not understand us and did bad things to us just because we were different and they always would continue to do so forever and therefore anything imaginable was on the table for self-defense.
It ended when we left High School.
What if, in an attempt to create Israeli distrust for the US (not very difficult since most Americans do not give Israel nearly as much thought as they unconciously give it money, and are usually imagined to harbor meth-blasted swastika graffitists in every trailer park), Chinese agents attacked Israeli institutions in America, making it look like native rednecks did it?
(as to the insane garbage that the Liberty was an accident, well, that’s an entirely reasonable idea as long as you never research it and always give more credence to McNamara and Hasbarah, who had no reason to lie, than to American servicemen with no reason to lie. The Liberty was not “bombed.” The Liberty was attacked repeatedly until it was nearly sunk, after her colors had remained in view for the entire attack [this detail, perhaps irrationally, will piss off vets more than others], and she had to be towed away.
Except of course for the reason that all of us are anti-Semites and just dying to spread lies about a totally innocent nation that has never done anything wrong.
By the way, did you know that the Liberty accident was part of a larger pattern of accidents, in which Israel always makes a dangerous show of strength whenever American servicemen get too close? Eg, in hte disastrous attempted conquest of Lebanon, Israeli tanks smashed their way through a Marine camp regularly until a Marine captain clambered up one of their turrets and demanded they stop with his pistol drawn. Another accident, and one that was repeated several times until brute force stopped it.
What is it with the dirty murderous Nazis in our armed services? Why won’t they stop telling lies they have no reason to tell?)
Joe Schmo wrote : “If a country allies themselves with another country that is against Israel, Israel has every right and obligation to defend us even against that country”
So wait, let me get get your clarification – you’re saying that targetting civilians by planting bombs in non-military targets such as movie theaters, post offices and libraries can be considered defensive ?
From the jafi.org.il URL you cited:
“They first blew up some post offices and a few days later, the American libraries in Cairo and Alexandria. […] Philip Nathanson was caught soon after when, on the way to blow up a cinema in Alexandria, the bomb he was carrying in his pocket ignited and then exploded. “
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarg h.
should read:
“…McNamara and Hasbarah, who had every reason to lie…”
yes, we’re imbiciles, but we’d rather have the odd typo than righteousness through perpetual inherent victimhood.
Joe Schmo wrote: “Americans were not hurt nor targeted to be hurt. ”
uh Joe, the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry is : “The aim of the 1954 Israeli Mossad project, codenamed Operation Suzannah was to bomb United States installations in Egypt, such as the United States Information Service offices, and blame Arabs, hoping it would harm Egyptian-American ties. ”
Who do you think works in the US Information Service (who ran the American libraries of Cairo and Alexandria) if not Americans ? It was part of the State Department !
John: what he means is, you know, its ok that if people are targeted for murder, as long as they don’t actually get murdered…
the Liberty is a seperate animal from the Lavon affair. And some of us who have also researched it know how much BS and lies abound on the anti-zionist websites that love to bash israel over it.
I suppose people will believe what they want to believe. YMMV.
http://www.tnr.com/072301/oren…
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar…
No one answered my question about the Lavon affair . . . and by reading it from Wikipedia, it seems that I was right: the actions of a few self-righteous individuals (ie Lavon) in Mossad. To blame the entire Israeli government isn’t even accurate. I mean, unless someone could produce for me something else which states, as I asked before, what people in higher tiers of the government knew and when did they know it, to blame the entire government is illogical, and could speak to inherent biases, biases that will never be overcome, no matter what evidence to the contrary.
k&y I’d love to know where you get your information from. McNamara and Hasbarah have as much reason to lie than the American servicemen have reason to believe any crackpot story they want. And you didn’t even address the head pilot I mentioned. If you wish to say he wants to lie to protect the Israeli government, I find that hard to believe, considering he signed the Pilot’s refusal letter.
If you don’t want to believe an historian like Michael Oren, be my guest. But don’t answer his stuff with just conspiracy theories. You won’t win anyone over.
Jared Goldberg wrote: “To blame the entire Israeli government isn’t even accurate.”
If it was just a few ‘bad apples’ in the Mossad then how did the IDF come to train the cells ? How come military intelligence unit 131 recruited the Egyptians and not Mossad ?
Jared Goldberg continued: “by reading it from Wikipedia, it seems that I was right: the actions of a few self-righteous individuals (ie Lavon) in Mossad”
Lavon wasn’t some ‘individual’ in Mossad – he was the Defense Minister, one of the highest cabinet members.
“…we were soldiers in active service who were dispatched by the State of Israel. We went through the officers’ course, were mobilized and were sent to carry out a mission in enemy territoryâ€
— Robert Dasa, one of the convicted bombers, quoted in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Jared – when the Jeruslem Post writes the following in the article I cited, what does it mean to you:
“It took a long time for Israel to acknowledge that it had recruited and trained a group of young Egyptian-born Jews to carry out sabotage operations in Cairo and Alexandria in the misguided belief that such actions would prevent the British from leaving the Suez Canal zone.”
The point is that Egypt was at war with Israel. Israel is and was surrounded by hostile enemies. So yes Israel should defend themselves in any way.
Civilians? What about the Jewish civilians inside Israel who will defend them?!
Our Rabbis tell us that he who is merciful to the wicked is ultimately wicked to the merciful.
I’m sorry if that rubs you wrong. One thing I can tell you: Thank G-d you are not the one defending me!
I suppose the “our rabbis’ you speak of consists of you and the mouse in your pocket. My Rabbi probably wouldn’t refer to speaking against the bombing of an American installation as “merciful to the wicked.”
Look, I’m not defending the Lavon affair; it was a cruel and yes, terroristic thing to do. But, no one has answered my question: who in higher tiers in the Israeli government knew about it and when did they know?
Jared – how is the Defense Minister not “in the higher tiers”
When I say the Rabbis I refer to Hazal who lived during the times of the Mishna and Talmud.
This is a much more general question than the details of this Lavon affair. Do I know the real specifics? No. In this case cauld have they acted smarter? Maybe.
The question is: is there something “bad” about taking action against a country that is your enemy even if there is a theoretical possibility that people might get hurt (certainly if people don’t need to get hurt why hurt them) if your life depends on it.
I say there is nothing bad about that.
Joe Schmo
The problem with your reasoning is that it (in my opinion) rests on a number of false premises
1) America was never Israel’s enemy
2) America was never going to attack Israel
3) The ‘possibility’ that people ‘might’ get hurt by bombing civilian targets was not a possibility, but practically a certainty
4) The only people who would be hurt by bombing the targets they chose were innocent civilians
5) Nobody’s life depended on it and no lives were saved
“as much reason reason…than any story…” perhaps that’s a worse gaffe than what we did.
Want real popular American anti-Semitism?
Keep up this logic: the American servicemen who were attacked are raving neo-Nazis who indulge in conspiracy theories (regarding the event they witnessed, and witnessed real well because they were freaking there), they all are just telling the same story out of a sincere desire to kill innocent people and not because they saw it with their own eyes, whereupon the accused government and its friends and functionaries are the model of objectivity, especially in finding themselves innocent.
Did you not pay any attention to the Vietnam fallout? Have you never heard of Dolchstosslegende? Keep pissing on American vets, that’ll definitely make you a hit in the “red states.”
yeesh.
Oren’s account will not stand up to the real ones, ie those from the victims, and appears to depend on (1) smearing his enemies as anti-Semites and (2) expecting us to believe newly declassified documents, the testimony of the accused, which has had years to set up its latest (later?) defense, especially over various contradictions (Egyptian pilots suspected when the crew knew Egyptian gad lost its air force) and patterns (we’re guilty, but hey, we’re not that guilty).
We will never convince any regilious people, shall we say. It’s not a matter of facts. In fact, we weren’t even responded to properly: far from bringing up the Liberty, we brought up a pattern of dangerously “tough talk” seen in the Liberty but also in the tank rampages in Lebanon (again, bring us a signed pardon from G-d, and we’ll still buy the word of the Marine who were there), which apparently doesn’t count.
Joe said:
The question is: is there something “bad” about taking action against a country that is your enemy even if there is a theoretical possibility that people might get hurt (certainly if people don’t need to get hurt why hurt them) if your life depends on it.
Is there something dishonest with framing a fundamental question so that you’re goimng to come out 100% clean?
What really happened here was not this garbage about helpless little mice courageously and miraculously defending themselves from the cat, who isn’t even hungry!! This is about a country at a point where it has a kind of “defense surplus,” which it wants to spend on an extra thing, a very tricky thing involving deceit and possibly deaths of the citizens of a nominally friendly state, and which it tried because it thought it might be a worthwhile risk. It’s entirely comparable to various American terrorist acts seeking to deceive people.
“The ‘possibility’ that people ‘might’ get hurt by bombing civilian targets was not a possibility, but practically a certainty”
How many people were wounded?
How many people were killed?
k&y,
Are you trying to be overly complex and convulted? Or do you need to brush up on your English writing skills?
Honestly, I can’t understand 90% of what you’re trying to express.
Oren’s account will not stand up to the real ones, ie those from the victims, and appears to depend on (1) smearing his enemies as anti-Semites and (2) expecting us to believe newly declassified documents, the testimony of the accused, which has had years to set up its latest (later?) defense, especially over various contradictions (Egyptian pilots suspected when the crew knew Egyptian gad lost its air force) and patterns (we’re guilty, but hey, we’re not that guilty).
1. As in most combat actions (or with witnesses to crimes) many people see many things due to the stress of combat, adrenalin etc. And those same people don’t see many thjings – i.e. the big picture that is reconstructed with docs, tapes, etc. If you want to try and besmerch Oren’s credibility, go ahead. Make sure you have your tin foil hat on when you do, the black UN helicopters are up there spying on you.
2. Regarding newly classified documents. Um yes, you are expected to believe them because that is generally how historians tell their story – they examine source docs and draw conclusions. If you are implying the docs are forged, fake, etc., see above comment regarding tin foil hat. The docs are public material now for all to see.
3. Regarding a pattern – I’m sorry, which other American ships were attacked by Israel again?
guess the first numeral and “voluntarily ban” us for a week!!
à 0 — as regards incoherence: what makes you think we understand half of what we’re writing?
1– “practically a certainty” is not even touched by asking for numbers of actual casualties. It is an unworthy attack. What would touch the charge is discussing the certainty, looking at the extraordinary skill of the Israeli intelligence service, the knowledge they must’ve had of repercussions if one of their American friends were hurt, etc.
2– What was it that removed the Israeli government from possible consequences if they came up with any but a story that totally exonerated them? This mighty Israeli government, which is not safe no matter how much land it conquers? It was granted an amnesty by the pissed-off “anti-Semitic” vets they maimed? Speaking of how crazy the stupid unwashed Goyim who desire only to kill random innocent neighbors are: keep it up, man, and it’ll be us saving you from what will come your own paranoia. Maybe if you demanded compensation from the victims for their perfidious lie-spreading: after all, here we have people spreading anti-Semitic lies for no reason other than their inborn irrational hatred. So what if they’re verterans attacked by the IDF? Go after them!
And you gotta use Reynold’s wrap because tin foil *burns* when the Yuggoth broadcast comes on. You’d think somebody would tell you that when you’re starting out.
3– We have now mentioned something twice which apparently won’t show up on other people’s browsers! We won’t say what it is again. There is an excellent old book, Military Incompetence, of course about American “milincomp”, by a certain professor who strikes us as highly unlikely to lie out of unmitigated Arabism about Israel. It’s worth looking at on its own, of course. Suffice it to say that it is similarly dishonest to insist on proving a pattern of multiple Liberty incidents when we clearly conjectured a totally different and much broader pattern, illustrating it with another incident you seem unable to read about, and of course tying it to this bit (although here Israel is making a show of strength to the State department and not the military) . So that’s three things, only one of which is a Liberty incident, and all reflect (as we originally charged) not Israeli naval trigger-readiness but a general “tough-talking” behavior which can sometimes get out of control.
(sorry about lack of clarity on first numeral, this was what we found.)
(Military Incompetence really is a fascinating book, if any of you are into the American military and some of its stranger adventures: certainly there are what might be called “American Liberty incidents,” which is part of why we aren’t buying this standard blamelessness thing. Not post-Zionist or anything at all.)
K & Y, please take your meds and come back when you can form coherent sentences. And whipe the spittle from the corners of your mouth, it’s rather unsightly. Bye Bye.
I think by “pattern” it was suggested that the planes flew “patterns” of attack, that is, taking a certain flight-path as to allow repeated firings (rather than a fly-over-once-and-shoot ), as opposed to a repeated sequence of events separated by some amount of time.
I wouldn’t put this past Israel. I wouldn’t put this past the USA. I wouldn’t put it past Hitler to burn the Reichstag, either.
John lets go though your points – I will answer after each point:
“1) America was never Israel’s enemy ”
Countries are not people they don’t have enemies they have self-interests. America is a good country but their self-interest does not always coincide with israel’s. It might sometimes coincide with a country who wants Israel destroyed. In this case America was in Egypt, having relations with them, even though Egypt was against israel.
Just like you can’t blame Iran who disliked America during the Iraq-Iran was …
Similarly America had nice relations with the Soviet Union when our brothers and sisters were locked behind the iron curtain.
I can list many other conflicts that America got involved in for their self-interest. I know that you are well aware and there is no point in elaborating on that.
If America’s self-interest causes them to take actions against Israel-Israel has a right to also act with self-interest.
“2) America was never going to attack Israel ”
Same answer as above.
“3) The ‘possibility’ that people ‘might’ get hurt by bombing civilian targets was not a possibility, but practically a certainty ”
You might be right in this case. I don’t know. Sometimes they purposely place bombs in empty buildings or at times when it is closed. Often they would call and let them know ahead of time so that the building can be cleared.
In either case they still have to worry about their own self-interest and my answer above still applies.
“4) The only people who would be hurt by bombing the targets they chose were innocent civilians ”
The distinction between civilians and army personel to me is not a good one. Civilians is just a word for the same army people when they are not wearing their uniforms. If the “civilians” support the cause of the army, they pay for guns for the army and they send their children and themselves to the army how are they different?
Furthermore in this case – what are American “civilians” doing in Egypt in an American installation?! Are they not supporting Egypt? They are the army in civilian’s clothing!
“5) Nobody’s life depended on it and no lives were saved”
The weaker Egypt is the less they can attack israel. There were wars before and after the 50’s where Egypt attacked Israel.
That is what I mean by saving lives.
we give you a way to get rid of us (temporarily, and only in the comments) and you’d rather talk about spittle?
That thing at the beginning was Aleph-null, the infinity of expressible numbers (or something like that), and nobody got it.
The weaker Egypt is the less they can attack [I]srael. There were wars before and after the 50’s where Egypt attacked Israel.
This has already been answered–by terrorism. “Give us your heavy jet bombers and we’ll give you our baskets with a bit of dynamite in them.” The age of overt empire is over and Israel is desperately hanging on, but this attempt to use terrorism to generate stability has to be seen as a really bad idea. Terrorism generates unrest. It never gets people to give up.
And if arguments per above defense of Lavon operation were applied to Palestinian ops in Israel..?
From my perspective as an American non-Jew:
The Lavan affair alone, and/or the later actions of minority hard-liners in other incidents akin to the Liberty (not that I really believe that it was deliberate) is not a good reason for Americans to hate Israel. The acknowledgement and praise of the terrorists and/or criminals involved by the President of your country is a pretty damn good reason to hate Israel since he’s effectively officially endorsed their acts. However, instead of hating Israel, I’ll just hope you get a better President ( not like ours, please ). One who doesn’t act to infuriate the US who’s military aid is responsible for something like 4% of Israeli defense spending per year.
Joe Schmoe, I think that the world would be a better, safer place if people who morally rationalize terrorism against an ally as a defensive act were removed from it. In other words, I hope and pray that you die, preferrably in a terrorist bombing for maximum irony. It’s zionist hard-liner assholes like you who are partially responsible for making Americans suspicious every time something like the Liberty happens. I’ll grant you that the other reason is that we have a minority of anti-semite haters who rise to the occasion, but such fears would not gain traction without people like you.
ok, that was a bit harsh. JS, I’m not actually hoping or praying for your death.
What can I tell you Aaron I’m just telling you the way I feel.
As others have noted the label “terrorist” that you use doesn’t have much meaning. One person’s terrorist is another’s “freedom fighter”- isn’t that what many of the people on this site would call the suicide bombers?
You have to judge each case and decide who is right because unfortunately the labels terrorist and civilians are just labels and don’t talk to the point.
I don’t care if other American Non-Jews (or for that matter Jews) don’t like what I say.
The only thing important is the truth.
And if I were you I would watch my step.
“and those who curse you will be cursed [Genesis 12:3]”
The distinction between civilians and army personel to me is not a good one. Civilians is just a word for the same army people when they are not wearing their uniforms. If the “civilians” support the cause of the army, they pay for guns for the army and they send their children and themselves to the army how are they different?
This notion, like the notions of some expressed above (notably Joe Schmo, e.g. “he who is merciful to the wicked is ultimately wicked to the merciful”) are dangerous to Israel, the United States and the rest of the world.
When terrorists blow up busses, cafes, trains and world trade centers they are ultimately following the same ethical path as the above sentiments. They have come to the conclusion that it is acceptable to kill civilians because ultimately the civilians are a part of whichever governmental or other structure they are engaged against. This conclusion has been reached and acted upon by Hezbollah, the IRA, the ETA and al-Quaeda. Arguably, it has also been acted upon by the United States and Israel.
There is a sense in which this conclusion is true. Many if not all of the regimes that oppress people are only possible with civilian support and money. But this is a truth which ultimately renders the world unlivable if it translates to a world where it is acceptable to blow up a civilian structure in order to achieve an end, even the defense of one’s own people.
If you do not believe me, I understand. But next time a terrorist kills civilians of your own country, take a deep breath and try to tell yourself “They did that because they are at war with us, and they have a right to defend themselves. Ultimately all citizens of my country support the war against them, thus blowing up a library filled with civilians is a legitimate military action.”
Get back to me an tell me how it goes.
The only thing important is the truth.
Foucault pointed out that truth, rather than being universal, is a weapon always ready to be deployed by a partisan who is clearly on one side or the other.
So the question is: who’s truth, joker? Yours or mine? =P
illovich,
you wrote: “So the question is: who’s truth, joker? Yours or mine? =P”-
Good question -Mine. 😉
With your statement you can push away anything. Another time I can explain to you why what I say is the truth.
no, please enlighten us now!
Sausage,
This post is too far down the screen and might be in the archives soon. I would be glad to explain it towards the top if that question is posted and there is opportunity.
Look at these crimes. Why build a Temple when you’ll have to attone with 1.000.000 lambs for each Arab killed to have the Temple built in the first place.
Only Jesus’ blood can attone for the sins of the world. Wash not blood with blood. Attone not blood with blood.
Juan here has got to be the most optimistic person on the face of the fucking earth.
I apologize. That was a stupid thing to say.