nine-eleven versus nine-one-o-one

"Health Ministry Statistics say that the incidence of abnormal births has increased 400-fold since 1991. The Iraqis also say that, all told, 1.7m children have died because of the various effects of UN sanctions."
- The Economist, September 14th 2002, p 39

Notice the date: a year after 9/11, the Economist decides to publish a piece of the utmost interest in a casual and disinterested manner. What has been brewing under Bill Clinton, John Major and Tony Blair between 1991 and 2001 appears as though it had been the work of the previous year. Furthermore, the article occupies only three-quarters of the page, whereas the Economist constantly prints surveys of a dozen pages and briefings of three to four pages. Why this extreme economy? The Economist was a rabid supporter of the 'war' against Iraq: its willful neglect of the subject wears the aspect of a fig-leaf. Moreover, by placing the article in an issue before 9/11 in a style suitable to the gravity of the subject, the newspaper would have thrown light on why 9/11 occurred: 2,700 Americans died because nearly 2 million Iraqi children were killed. While we hear constantly about 9/11, we never hear about '91/'01 – nine-eleven versus nine-one-o-one.

of genocidaires and democracts

Rober Mugabe goes to Europe, and Angela Merkel lectures him - and Gordon Brown refuses to attend because he's there.

Yet both Merkel and Brown fell over themselves to meet the mass murderer George Bush. And Brown was perfectly happy to work alongside Tony Blair, genocidaire extraordinaire.

A strange world, indeed.

Carthago delenda est (article)

Carthago delenda est

(click above for article)


"Carthago Delenda Est" – these were the words uttered by Cato repeatedly to persuade his peers to destroy Carthage. The Third Punic War gives the lie to the thesis, touted by McCain and Tony Blair, that "democracies never go to war against each other". The League of Democracies is just an idea for the democracies to remove all checks on their powers.

Excerpt:


Now, why is it that democracies want to spread democracy, but autocracies don't want to spread autocracy?

It's something in the DNA, of course. I have argued that the flipside of "freedom" has been "slavery", which was widely practiced in the west, but not elsewhere . Western civilisation has been a civilisation of domination. Another Englishman made statements similar to Messrs Skidelsky, Blair and McCain. He said: "Surrounded by congregated multitudes, I now imagine that . . . I behold the nations of the earth recovering that liberty which they so long had lost; and that the people of this island are . . . disseminating the blessings of civilization and freedom among cities, kingdoms and nations. " Now, who could have uttered such an unholy wish, so redolent of George Bush, Tony Blair, the neo-cons, and other assorted ruffians?

the cheek(s) of Cherie Blair

:The Daily Star: Internet Edition



Cherie Blair (that's wife of war criminal, Tony) has been here in Bangladesh. Contrary to popular expectations, she was not lynched in this predominantly Muslim country. On the contrary, she was extended every fawning courtesy, and even invited to the state guest house.

But you'll never guess what she's been blabbering about! Human rights and the rule of law!

When you've stopped guffawing, reflect on the cheek (all four of them) of this woman: having helped her husband murder over a million Iraqis, she has the cheek (all of them) to come gallivanting here and lecturing us on the rule of law – and human rights!

Why was she not lynched? Why was she lionized instead?

Investigations are pending: all we can say is, there's always the next time!