War on Terror
The war on terror is an important part of the broader scheme of domination and assimilation, but not limited to it. In recent years the mission statements of DTS political leaders have become much more openly aggressive, once again claiming Western values to be universal and to be enforced globally, with the core propaganda themes being freedom, democracy and human rights.
But NATO is involved in a lot of things, including in Afghanistan, but NATO needs to respond to the Iraqi's request. This is about the spread of freedom and liberty. That's what NATO has stood up for from the very beginning. It is consistent with NATO's values. Many of the members of NATO would not be free and at liberty themselves had it not been for the sacrifices of others, including sacrifices of the United States. And I think what the President will challenge NATO to do is, in much the way that he challenged the G8 and much the way that he will talk to the E.U., that this is an historic opportunity to continue the forward march of freedom and liberty. And NATO needs to play a role in that.
This statement is interesting because, during the Cold War, NATO was usually presented in defensive terms standing against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Treaty Organization. Without any even remote threat to European military security, there is no justification for any European military but as a tool of intervention, aggression and occupation. The bombing and partial occupation of Yugoslavia were the first official NATO aggression, showing its will to use economic and military violence to dictate and control relations within Europe, and also as a means of expansion and oppression outside Europe. NATO forces are active under the GWoT and the occupation of Afghanistan. NATO infrastructure and especially Germany and Italy are major communication hubs for the occupation of Iraq.
The curtain before the international order was moved aside and what has remained of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of weak or highly dependent states is largely reduced to mockery. Many countries have to deal with continuous interference and intervention into their national and regional affairs and are increasingly being put under direct foreign rule.
"There is no neutral ground. All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization," Bush said.
Indeed, all governments that support the war on terror are complicit with the DTS and their plans for world domination.
The war on terror means further militarisation of international relations as well as increasing authority and role of enforcement. This includes expansion of DTS police and undercover operations, export of techniques and technology of control and repression, and broad justification for state terror. One of the major goals of the campaign is to declare as terrorism every armed resistence of non-state nations and groups, to be criminalized and persecuted, so that the unity of people in struggle can be broken by fear. Once divided into a 'legitimate' peaceful and 'terrorist' armed struggle, not defined by common cause but the chosen means of resistance, the people will be even more defenseless and the internalization of defeat will spread further.
'Suicide attacks' are not about lunatics or fanatics committing barbaric acts of terrorism, but a deliberate and conscious strategy coming from decades of resistance at a particular phase of the struggles for liberation. It is important to recognize the propagandistic use of the term 'suicide'. Those who execute the attacks are not doing so to commit suicide, but quite the opposite because of a strong commitment for the cause they believe in. It is the ultimate personal sacrifice a person can make to give his/her life struggling for their people and we should honor it as such. Therefor i prefer to accept the terms 'martyr' and 'martyr attack'.
The use of martyr attacks has to do with desperation. If you are forced to live under occupation and witness the most outrageous crimes, humiliations and injustices day after day and year after year without being able to stop it from happening, desperation and the struggle for hope and dignity clearly are a major element of life. And we can be sure the Palestinian armed struggle would prefer to use helicopters and tanks, airplanes and missiles to fight the occupation, instead of stones or relatively unsophisticated weaponry and martyr operations. But unfortunately they are not in a position to do so.
As the first Palestinian Intifada [Stone Intifada 1987-1994] was manifested with broad participation of the Palestinian people, the second Intifada immediately turned into a military confrontation between the resistance groups and the occupation forces.
Atef Odwan, political sciences professor at the Islamic University in Gaza...
"Both Intifadas manifested themselves in broad popular participation. The big difference between the two is that the second has turned into a military action in response to the incessant Israeli assassinations."
"Contrary to the first Intifada, Palestinian factions resorted during Al-Aqsa Intifada to martyr operations against the occupation forces and Israeli settlers, while such a technique was scarcely used at the first."
Al-Aqsa Intifada has also seen a remarkable coordination among all Palestinian resistance groups, contrary to the first Intifada during which tensions were running high.
On the other extreme, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat has opted for the peace process and negotiating table cliche, deserting decades of military struggle against the Israeli occupation.
Another key hallmark carried by Al-Aqsa Intifada is the pivotal role played by Palestinian women in resisting the occupation.
Women who sacrificed themselves in a string of bombings against Israeli interests have hit headlines over the past four years.
Palestinian mothers also showed unprecedented strength, watching sons pay with their souls to resist the Israeli occupation.
Palestinians were reduced to a small portion of their homeland and systematically forced into exile, poverty and dependence. Communities suffer tremendous loss of life and resources and are forced to live under constant harassment and terror from occupying settlers and troops. Many of the Israelis reside in stolen houses, farm on stolen land and drink misappropriated water. Most of them benefit from the occupation one way or another. Israelis are not generally innocent civilians, but part of the annexing and occupying society, which makes the Zionist project possible by supporting or not resisting it.
Year after year many Palestinians are being murdered by Israelis and no Palestinian under occupation can feel safe for their families, friends or themselves. Attacking Israeli civilians is a strategy which holds the Israeli society responsible for the actions of its leaders. It tries to make clear to the Israeli people that they cannot feel safe for themselves and their loved ones as long as they continue the occupation. But we saw the Israeli society again reaffirming that it is neither willing nor able to make peace with its neighbors.
The following numbers are compiled by B'tselem 'The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories', and cover the time from since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa intifada September 29, 2000 until March 31, 2005.
|Palestinians killed by Israelis||3255|
|Israelis killed by Palestinians||958|
According to the above numbers, 3.4 times as many Palestinians have been killed and 5.66 times as many Palestinian minors. Israeli assassination attacks resulted in 469 Palestinians killed, of which 181 were the official target and 288 'collateral' killings. Within the occupied territories, 437 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, half of which were troops. Within the territory claimed as Israel, 521 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, of which 438 were civilians.
And those numbers don't even talk about Palestinians being denied access to a hospital, their workplace and school, family and friends by occupation forces at the numerous checkpoints. Or about Palestinians getting sick from contaminated drinking water and denied access to medicine, or land confiscations, house demolitions and forced displacement, uprooting of fruit and olive trees and denying farmers access to their fields, or about military courts and imprisonment, beatings and torture of Palestinians.
It is clear that the occupation is the reason for resistance and that the Palestinian struggle is both legitimate and necessary for their survival as a people. They are heavily outgunned and defenseless against air and ground assaults, and unable to drive out the occupation troops by force. While it is legitimate to resist occupation, the occupying forces and society cannot claim self-defence against resistance to its aggression. This is not to say that moral concerns are not important, nor that killing civilians is no concern. Just that the occupation is violence against a whole people who try to defend themselves and fight back as best as they can.
Modern warfare and counter-insurgency is all about terrorizing people into capitulation and submission and therefor civilians are the prime target. How can we demand, that those, who try to defend themselves against overwhelming force and ruthless violence by an aggressor, refrain from using any means and tactics they decide?
... I think it is principally impossible to condemn the people, who sacrificed their lives for the freedom and independence of their own nation. ...
A bloody and terrible war is fought in Chechnya, and it got initiated by the Kremlin in order to eliminate the whole Chechens ethnos. The nation offers as hard a resistance as it can. No one has the right to forbid the nation, which fights to defend its own rights for existence, to choose the methods and means for defending their own lives.