Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Syria Accuses America, North Korea Threatens South Korea: Nothing New Here

It's important to establish dialog, I've read. It's probably true: sometimes.

North and South Korea Engage in Dialog

Leaders of North and South Korea dialoged recently:
  • North Korea:
    Don't allow your citizens to
    • Write leaflets that aren't complimentary of Dear Leader and our government
    • Send them into our territory
  • South Korea:
South Korea's government stopped making anti-North Korea propaganda, but South Korea also has something called freedom of speech, which allows citizens to be annoying.

I don't think that North Korean leaders were soothed by a South Korean general talking about a pre-emptive strike against North Korea's nuclear facilities, or by the escape of a North Korean soldier into South Korea.

The soldier says that he started thinking about what to do with his life, looked at North Korea, looked at South Korea, and defected.

North Korea reacted to the general's idea with the sort of calm, thoughtful, statement we've come to expect. The North Korean military released this statement, through the official Korean Central News Agency: "the puppet authorities had better remember that the advanced pre-emptive strike of our own style will reduce everything opposed to the nation and reunification to debris, not just setting them on fire."

The CNN article that gave that quote didn't say, but my guess is that the puppet master of the "puppet authorities" is imperialistic, militaristic, America.

Syria: Americans Attack Farm, Kill Completely Innocent People

Syria's version of reality is that Americans illegally attached a totally innocent farm, killing:
  • Four members of one family
  • One guard at the farm
  • The guard's wife
  • Some guy who was fishing nearby
Last year, Syria claimed, at various times, that Israeli jets made an unprovoked attack on
  • An unused military building
  • An agricultural research station.
  • Nothing but sand
  • Nothing at all: There was no attack
This time around, Syria showed reporters a grainy video and a few bits and pieces of people to prove their point.

The American version of the event isn't all that different. Quite unofficially, the account is that an Iraqi called "Abu Ghadiya" was the target. His family apparently has been smuggling money, weapons and foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq.

The Syrian foreign minister said: "This is lies from the United States," (CNN) which shouldn't surprise anybody.

Killing Innocent People? Hiding Behind Innocent People?

I don't doubt that innocent people could have been killed in the attack. On the other hand, I do doubt, very much, that American officers sent helicopters and soldiers to shoot up an innocent, harmless, farm on a whim.

The American raid has already caused a diplomatic ruckus, since it seems to have been staged in Iraq, on a Syrian target.

An Iraqi spokesman said that he didn't want the incident to affect Syrian-Iraqi relations. He also said that 13 Iraqi policemen had been killed recently: in Iraq, by terrorists based in Syria.

That "farm" could really have been a farm, with a family living on it. It could also have been a base for smugglers.

Hiding behind innocents seems to be a regional tradition. Palestinian 'national liberation movements' have an established habit of hiding military equipment in people's houses, and using the residences as launching platforms. Then, when the Israeli military deals with the threat, the Jews are called terrorists. And, as a sort of bonus, the 'national liberation movements' have holy martyrs.

I think its disgusting, but I've been told that other cultures have alternative ways of dealing with the world.

I also think that, if Syria wants fewer 'innocent farms' to be attacked, Syria should stop providing land for terrorist bases.

Posts about last year's Israeli attack and its aftermath:
In the News:

No comments:

Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store


Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.