Middle-East: What-They-Say

Iraq Tunnel Seeks Light from Iran, Syria

2006-11-21T03:11:00.000-08:00

Iraq increasingly finds itself in a dark tunnel - with no lights from any end. And without that much-needed light, policy-makers are at a loss on which direction to go forward.

No weapons of mass destructions were found in Iraq, but that was the reason to bring US-led forces in Iraq. They toppled Saddam's forces. Saddam was found, so what if no WMD was found, regime change was the goal and a death penalty to Saddam thereby followed. Remember Aesop’s Fable 'the wolf and the lamb'. The wolf was drinking water at a spring on a hillside, when looking up he spotted a lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought the wolf, "if only I can find some excuse, any excuse to seize it". Excuses like muddling world peace was made and presented to invade Iraq, when the rest of the world felt better alternative solutions existed. Coalition forces, following the moral of the wolf and the lamb of Aesop's fable, attacked 'lamb' Iraq unilaterally in their mission of regime change.

But Iraq and more than 26 million Iraqis were not easy supper as coalition forces increasingly discover. The dark tunnel over Iraq only gets darker everyday, no lights emanate from any end from present-day Iraq.

In another news, just a piece of another news for present-day Iraq, but shocking otherwise, 150 researchers, scientists and staff members from a Government-supported ministry of higher education institute got kidnapped yesterday in broad day light. It makes one wonder about presence of any governance or any organized occupation forces in Iraq. A spokesman stated "We don't know if it's terrorists, militias or even government forces." So possibility of Government forces, so long speculated is not ruled out.

Frustrations obviously is rampant amidst US policy-makers, it's having its stress on US-Iraq relations and on allied forces on ground who now conduct operations in civilian areas from air and ground level killing more civilians. There's speculation that a part of the violence and death may be caused by alliance forces as well - as they control the city in the night. That's the level of mistrust in present day Iraq.

It's unclear to the most of the world on who is fighting whom in Iraq. The same ambiguity persists among US forces, in poorly-trained and equipped Iraqi forces and more so amongst the many fractions of Shia and Sunnis militant organization all over the country. So many people have been killed and that too without any identity that makes estimates vary from 150,000 to more than 600,000. One Saddam faces death penalty, what allied forces didn't bargain for is twelve thousands Al-Qaeda terrorists to take his place.

The killers don't even bother on who is being killed as long as next day headlines in global media read so many killed in Iraq in various blasts and violence and car-bombs and suicide attacks. Iraqi government does not agree with allied forces operations, allied forces don't trust Shia-dominated Government and its friends of dubious reputations...the tunnel indeed gets darker with no apparent way out without a fresh perspective.

Frustrated Blair, on his way out, now calls for sharing responsibility with Syria and Iran, tamed-Bush after recent election drawbacks are likely to follow suit. Amidst all these darkness and violence and deaths, Blair did his best on what he does best - delivering excellent oratory skills in his new 'whole middle-east strategy'. Sometime back we had a similar one from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as innocent Lebanese were facing the might of Israel military - about birth pangs of a new Middle East. Members from the so-called axis of evil - Iran and Syria are now called for sharing the muddle of blood, and to keep an option of exit for allied forces where blames can be passed on to Iraq, Iraqi people, Iraq's neighbours for not taking up their due responsibilities when US did his best in what it does best - Bush-democratization by destabilization and destruction.

Vietnam resulted in the loss of 2 million Vietnamese, and 58000 US soldiers. Iraq is nowhere close there yet - with US losses of around 3000 whereas Iraqi losses vary widely, but lower than a million. Why US forces had to go to Vietnam in the first place? No satisfactory answers have emerged in last thirty+ years. No satisfactory answer comes now in repeating the question for Iraq.

The nations of the world, its societies and people are not easy meals. It takes centuries for societies to form its fabric and establish its norms. Any external disturbance of those norms therefore is unlikely to stabilize that society, unless adequate precautions are taken in understanding that society and its finer threads. Democracy is a result of evolution of any society, and that evolution comes from within, then only it becomes the best form of
governance. When that democracy is propagated as a recipe of regime change irrespective of the associated costs like democracy by destabilization and/or destruction, it's bound to fail.

A recent study by UN examined the increasing rift between Muslim-world and that of the west, and identified that primary reasons for the rift is not religion, as popularly perceived. The primary reasons originate from lack of political understanding of each other's requirement. One may wonder whether it's indeed lack of political understanding, or it's more of economic gains in oil-rich Middle East in the pretext of politically miscalculated agenda that's driving this rift.

No solutions come for Palestine in-spite of everyone acknowledging the need to solve it. It obviously raises questions on genuineness of that acknowledgement. Israel has acquired the moral right to reoccupy and bomb this holy land as and when it perceives threats from Palestine. The west and Israel didn't acknowledge democratically elected radical elements in the government bodies in Lebanon and Palestine, so they imposed global cut-off to the aids to Palestine Government, and thereby further stifled the moderate voices in those governments. Radicals like Hezbollah, who anyway emerged as the winner from recently concluded 34-day Israel-Lebanon war, funded $300 million in rebuilding Lebanon, and now emerges stronger only to pull the carpet from the moderate government of present Prime Minister Senora.

Arab nations too, frustrated at US double standards towards Israel and rest of middle-east, have recently decided to end their blockade of aids to Palestine Government. US wanted economic sanction to work against Iraq, it didn't; it wanted economic sanction to work against North Korea, it didn't. Because the objective of any economic sanction should not be to make the citizens suffer due to the dangerous games played by their dictators. Sanctions did achieve what it was not meant for without achieving what it was meant for. So sanctions expectedly fail. That demands US to act unilaterally with bullets
to bring the power of ballots. Israel too following Bush-policy so far felt emboldened and increasingly used bullets to do the trick in Lebanon and Palestine, but so far they didn't. Israel, relying on US financially and diplomatically, to bail it out for its actions against human rights in occupied territories, try and pay-it-back to Bush-administration through its blind allegiance to US - be it by voting for US in UN referendum on Cuba or calling Iraq war a success.

The clouds of uncertainties have already engulfed Iraq, and that darkness is spreading fast into Lebanon, Palestine, and elsewhere in Middle East. The past approach has not worked; there probably never was any approach. Expectedly, it worsened the situation. If there was any body that gained from all these fiascos, and made smart use of it, it's only Iran. Allied forces ignored Iran in a costly mistake, and now when they acknowledge that mistake, Iran has moved forward with its nuclear ambitions. One need not be a Middle East expert to foresee the increased bargaining power Iran would command now, and the
loss of faces that allied forces would like to save with diplomatic jargons.

It's high time the world realizes and allows stakeholders in Middle Eeast to have their say on what type of a future Middle East they would love to see. It's their blood that is bleeding in all the experimental half-baked strategies that Bush-Blair era pushed over these nations and its people so far. The duo has taken enough pain by dreaming for others - let others dream now for themselves over the bloody mess the dreams of the duo achieved so far. The increasing sectarian difference within Middle East, and the rise of Iran as another regional power may make the last and only viable option of a peaceful Middle East impossible for decades to come, unless any immediate future roadmap involving all the stakeholders is chalked out, where the best role that allied forces can take up is that of a constructive facilitator.

So long the role of Bush-administration has been that of a destructive de-stabilizer - a fresh look with that of a facilitator than that of a direct negotiator and/or an active player is what is needed now to find that light over the dark tunnel of Iraq. However that's not the language that's coming out from the White House as of now. And with two years to go for President Bush - time increasingly is running out for the present weakened US-administration.

Monopoly is bad, in Geo-Politics too.

2006-08-02T03:57:00.000-07:00

(The article was published in OpEdNews under same title)

In the History of corporate and management practices, we have seen again and again that Monopoly is bad. It's bad for the customers, it's bad for the industry as innovations stop and industry stagnates, and it's bad for the monopolistic entity too as eventually the degenerated firm faces competition that it no more can take on.

The world has sort of learned modern business-management practices from Corporate America. And there are enough examples in corporate History on how a monopolistic situation resulted into losses for all stake-holders. Monopoly is bad for all, but it's worse for the customers.

And it only shows when corporate America and businesses globally have reformed and re-engineered over years to reflect the need of the hour and to meet global competition better; our policy makers globally have done little towards that.

However global policy-makers have that 'know-it-all' attitude; and they are late-learners. One may argue whether they learn at all. They are assured of their salaries from our taxes and 'fiat' money, so they lack that urge to make that competitive survival and profit.

Present turmoil globally shows that global policy-makers have not learned from the History of Corporate entities. We talk about reforms in UN, whereas need of the hour is an overall geo-political reform. However it's easier said than done.

Monopoly is bad for all - even for the monopolistic company in the medium-to-long term. Any monopolistic company would love to retain its monopoly over the industry; the urge to do so is natural for that monopolistic entity. Without industry watch-dogs, Microsoft could have thwarted many other competitions to retain its undisputed monopoly globally for many more years. We may not have had a Google under such a scenario.

However unlike in business entities where Government set-up watch dogs to safeguard collective interest of all stakeholders in an industry, there's no watchdog in global power-politics to safe-guard collective interest of its citizens.

And it's the collective failure of all of us in this world that has resulted in this apparent lack of direction of human civilization in its present form.

Expectedly and naturally, the only monopoly of global geo-politics would eventually degenerate economically and geo-politically, internally and externally. More important is at what cost, and who bears that cost?

Unfortunately the cost is potentially as huge as degeneration of human civilization globally.

Has it started happening already? Are the signs too palpable to point at that degeneration of the monopoly, internally and externally; and therefore degenaration of that overall industry, that of our civilization?

An internal look at the fiscal indiscipline, the gross indebtedness of US Government and overall America, the possibility of a collapse of the Social Security System, the patch-up job post Hurricane Katrina point out at some of these internal degenerations within that monopolistic entity.

Present middle-east crisis in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine; and crises elsewhere may be early tell-tale signs of degeneration of that monopoly externally. Global power-politics is starving for far too long without the much needed competitive forces, and its innovations.

Monopoly slowly results in degeneration of that entity, and in the absence of other entities failure to shoulder some responsibility for the industry, it results in the degeneration of the industry itself.

We are at a critical juncture of human civilization at this point.

Unfortunately in geo-politics, stakes are too high. It's about Human Civilization and about all the nation-states in this world. It's about all the people and the children of this world. Here degeneration means degeneration of our collective human civilization.

Unlike the case of Microsoft which eventually is facing competition (and is therefore on its toes now) from the likes of Google; USA still does not face any competition from any in global geo-politics, or even in its economic and military prowess. And it's natural for US to try all means to retain and further strengthen that monopoly without any presence of any global watch-dogs which would ask it to adapt policies that would encourage potential fair competition for the benefit of all stake-holders.

Today we must ask ourselves (Americans and non-Americans) why the rest of the world failed to come up with that potential fair competitor, that balancing force needed so that policy makers innovated to meet future global challenges better.

We won't have a quick answer. Whatever be the answer, it no doubt would be a complex one. And whatever be the solution, it too would be a difficult one.

Buckminster Fuller is one of the greatest inventors and thinkers of the twentieth century. In an article 'How to Know Your Life Purpose plus How You Can Make a BIG Difference', he stated 'Deming (the Management Guru and the Quality Guru) taught a number of things, which are very different to standard American management principles. Normal management blames the worker for lack of quality. Instead Deming taught that in most business situations - 94% of the problems are due to systems, not people. Deming said "Don't blame the people. Change the SYSTEM."

Buckminster Fuller said much the same thing. He said to change the environment. Leave the people alone. You CAN'T change people! You CAN change the environment. You CAN change systems!'

We can debate on the effectiveness of the policy that US adapted since 9/11, does it aim at changing the system or the people.

© Ranjit Goswami. Ranjit is a Research Scholar with Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India; and is the author of the book ‘Wondering Man & The Internet’. He can be reached at ranjit.goswami@gmail.com

I don't understand

2006-08-02T03:34:00.000-07:00

(This was published in OpEdNews 'I don't understand: a view of the mideast from India')

I don't understand why Israel and its neighbors are engaged in a war. I don't understand why, the rest of the world watches the destructions and sufferings live all over, and still does not act. I don't understand how two countries, with around 5% of global population block UN call of ceasefire against the will of the vast majority of the world. I don't understand why these two countries policy-makers don't want a ceasefire immediately when majority of their citizens want it.

I don't understand the democratic set-up of UN Security Council and its purpose when it preaches for democracy and human rights everywhere.

And I also I don't understand why many expect Hezbollah not to hide like cowards behind innocent Lebanese civilians and children in this war, thereby inflicting a higher civilian casualty in Lebanon.

Let's get it straight. I don't understand does not mean I support these actions. I don't understand many things of this world. I don't understand human logic behind many of our actions and inactions in present advanced human civilizations.

I will cover couple of them here.

I don't know the rules of a war, or the rules of a fair right war. We all know 'All's fair in love and war'. I don't believe in that.

But it's there.

Does any sensible person expect in present world that Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, to state to Israel (and to its proxy supporter, the only super power of the world) following:

'Hezbollah forces and arsenal would be deployed at so-and-so place in South Lebanon (or in North Israel) on this date and time; and let's fight it out with 'might is right' principle to decide who between us is right.'

Let's even go back before the war started and look at the events that triggered this war. I don't know about the appeals made from Lebanese Government, Palestinian Government, or from their proxy Governments in the form of Hezbollah or Hamas to Israeli Government (or in the form of a lawsuit similar to the one that made Guantanamo tribunals unlawful in US in Israeli Supreme Court) about the plight of more than two-thousand prisoners without charges, many for years, out of a total of nearly ten-thousand prisoners from these neighboring nations in Israeli prisons (‘Who are the Mid-East prisoners’).

And I don't know the responses from Israel against those appeals, if the appeals were made using right diplomatic channels. Common sense tells me minimum 1% of those prisoners without charges to be innocent. That's a minimum twenty prisoners languishing in Israeli prisons without any accountability of the authority.

We won't get into the debate of who and why should be called a terrorist organizations. I am from India and we Indians know what terrorism for common man means to some extent.

Let's change the above scenario and take a hypothetical 'Utopian' one for better clarity. Assume for the best of the causes, a non-power takes on the only super-power in a battle of truth and humanity where both sides have their principles to fight.

Would a few of us still expect mutual announcement and agreement of a battle-ground and time for this just fight of this non-power? Would you expect that this just non-power clearly demarks its military before it takes on the super-power?

I won't.

Because in the case of the non-power clearly demarking its military power, there is no war. US bombers (read Israeli bombers supplied by US) come and bomb that area within seconds of that fight so that each soldier of the non-power is killed, not once and twice, but a minimum few times. And the world again realizes that one shouldn't take on the super power.

The war gets over in few seconds. Would any power in this world take on the might of the super power in such a right just war knowing the obvious? No one obviously would.

That brings us to the conclusion that in any of these present wars, and more so in future wars now-onwards involving the super-power and a non-power; we will have more civilian deaths and casualties. Let's embrace ourselves with that unfortunate eventuality.

So the problem is not with Hezbollah (or Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Yugoslavia or North Korea or Vietnam or Al-Qaeda), when they hide behind civilians. It's expected from them just as it's expected from the super power to use the bombers to clear the battle-ground area from any traces of the enemy.

That does not mean again that there is/was no problem with these organizations or nations. But the problem why the rules of any US-led war against any other non-power have changed is because of obvious imbalances of global power.

My knowledge of History is poor. It's always difficult to get the right version in History.

From The Hebrew Bible, we know that David did take on Goliath in a single combat. That was before the air power and the missiles age. And the Jew won that battle against that monster.

Let's move little ahead in History since the application of Gun Powder became more rampant in modern war-fare, and then came the bombs from the air.

In 'Battle of Waterloo', Wikipedia states 'This was part of Napoleon's strategy to split the much larger allied force into pieces that he could outnumber if he was allowed to attack them separately.' So even in 1815, when the word terrorism was not so commonly used, when air-power was not imagined and when the fight was not even between ants and elephants; any sensible fighter followed these war-strategies.

The Jews also won our hearts when they suffered so much in the 2nd world war for no fault of theirs. I don't think they declared any war against any other during 2nd world war. But they suffered, and suffered the most.

How sadly History repeats itself, only some roles get changed this time.

In those days people didn't fight to lose. Today's suicide bombers fight to lose. And still they fight to inflict the maximum damage on their opponents. It's again debatable on who their opponents actually are (if there are any at all other than humanity) and whom they target to be their opponents. It's always been the common man.

Knowing all these, I don't understand why few of us expect Hezbollah (or any terrorist organization, or any comparative ant in any just or unjust war with an elephant) to take on the Goliath head on.

Knowing all these I don't understand why a democratic, progressive country needs the cowardice act of another in defending its acts of killing innocent civilians and children.

So far more than an average twenty to one ratio is maintained for lives lost as innocent Lebanese Civilians against Israeli military personnel, and a ten to one ratio is maintained for lives lost in Lebanon versus lives lost in Israel. I don't understand how to interpret these statistics. I do understand two wrongs don't make a thing right. The Lebanese, the Israelis are first human beings and then they are Lebanese and Israelis. The ratios of Lebanese to Israeli deaths look similar to their mutual prisoners' taking.

It's unfortunate that we use statistics of human deaths and sufferings to measure right proportionality of our right to mutually destroy each other.

I don't know the reasons why we do it. Life is simple and beautiful. Some rulers bring hard choices in life so that they can rule. We can very well live without those hard choices.

When we listen to Lennon's Imagine, we all identify with that dream. I don't understand why our present world is so different.

I said in the beginning I don't understand many other things. Like the value of dollar, the true identity of American Liberty in the 21st century, why America ships precision bombs to Israel and donates money for Lebanese charity simultaneously. Any sensible man would first put the fire off, and then do the damage-control; but the present super power teaches the rest of the world that one should trigger a fire, continuously add fuel to the fire and even help in providing some damage control for the victims of that fire.

Problem is while playing with fire; we wouldn't know when the fire eventually gets out of human control. Sooner or later one day it's bound to happen, now or later for Middle-East and in future, at some moment for broader human civilization if we don't correct ourselves.

Unfortunately recent American policies have played with similar fire with the rest of the world for far too long and far too far to maintain its super power in an otherwise powerless world. And the reactive forces against 9/11 still continue, strengthening every passing day. Rest of the world is badly waiting to see some pro-active steps from this once-admired, great super power.

And I still don't understand why there is a war in the Middle-East, and why so many civilians and children are paying a deadly price of this war for no fault of theirs in the 21st century of humanity. It's someone's war thrust on them on their legitimate ground. We have laws to safeguard us against industrial pollution and against unlawful profiteering in our back doors by corporate entities. We don't have any safeguards when our Government and global watch-dogs allow our front doors and living rooms to be used as a battle ground for their just wars.

I don't understand this.

© Ranjit Goswami. Ranjit is a Research Scholar with Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India; and is the author of the book ‘Wondering Man & The Internet’. He can be reached at ranjit.goswami@gmail.com

Middle-East Conflict: What They Say and What They Mean

2006-07-27T06:28:00.000-07:00

(An abridged version of this was published in OpEdNews)

‘Us and them’ of Pink Floyd is being played aloud non-stop from Israeli bombers, tanks and Hezbollah rockets continues in its 16th day in the Middle-East. The leaders of the self-righteous warring sides and their global counterparts, global leaders directly as participants in this proxy-war or indirectly as observers came out with various statements in these sixteen days. And in its 16th day, more than 392[1] Lebanese civilians and more than 18[2] Israeli civilians were killed in this battle of words and battle of middle-east, including children and many more injured, fatally too. Many dreams have been shattered and many homes and hospitals and religion places and schools have been destroyed.

I am a civilian. Consider myself to be a global civilian. I understand that the concept is utopian, fragile. Following is my interpretation of these battle of words, on what our local fighting leaders said, what our global leaders stated and what as an ordinary global civilian I understood on this 16th day of ongoing fight. It that started with Israel's military operation against Hezbollah as a reply to the capture of two Israeli soldiers by the Lebanese militia on 12 July.

‘Rice says that these are the birth-pangs of the new middle-east. She is wrong; these are the pains of a disgusting rape.’[3] Few others see it as a bloody abortion as well.
Many fear the new-born would be a still born. I fear that the new born would be a eunuch. In the sense that it would be neither a democracy nor a terrorist country, but being both simultaneously.
‘We regret the killings of the civilians’ meaning ‘let the killing of the civilians go on’ till one of the self-righteous rights in this war decides enough killing has taken place.

I agree with pro-Israeli lobby only halfly:

My points are:

1. Around ten thousand prisoners of Arab, Palestinian and Lebanese background are languishing in Israeli cells. 2384 of them are without charges (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5211930.stm). So if Israel didn't want to talk about and discuss about those 9000 people, what does others do? Either leave it to God, Western powers, or to their powerless Governments? Hezbollah opted for little adventures.
2. I think in history we read that back in 16th to 18th century, there used to be battle ground where self-righteous rights used to fight it out with their military people. We can't expect that in 21st century, battles take place in that manner where warring fractions assemble all their forces in one place to be bombed by superior air power. More so when the war is between the super power and a non-power.

3. Israel declared war on Hezbollah because it captured two of its soldiers. Now Israel kills four UN (and 400 Lebanese civilians)soldiers. Does these four nations wage a war against Israel because Israel killed their soldiers?

4. If UNIFIL failed in maintaining peace in Lebanon, what is US forces doing in Iraq? US forces in Iraq must be worse than the UNIFIL force who had less authority and power, and thereby more humanity.

5. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas don't acknowledge the state of Israel. They even claimed to wipe them off. Very wrong. But they never did it (or couldnot do it). Whereas Israel and its backers are literally wiping off a nation.

6. A few drunk-drivers after killing some innocent would mourn, regret; a few rapists would feel same; a few murderer would feel same too. And big murderers would state feeling same as well as continue that murder. To Mr. Carey, words matter - to me (and broadly to the rest of the world) actions matter.

7. May I please ask one example of success where precision bombers were used succesfully and precisely? We saw in Yugoslavia, Iraq amd Afganistan killing many more innocent lives. There is report of DU (banned WMD and nuclear substance) by US forces in Iraq. Mr. Carey must be taking pride in that.

8. I believe Mr. Bush and Mr. Laden, Mr. Blair and Saddam, and Nasarallah and Mr. Olmert should be put behind Guantanamo in three different cells to fight out three duets of self-righteous rights. You see, I do agree with one side of his story. Let them fight duet with WMDs, precision bombers, rockets, missiles, whatever.

In above case, the rest of the world is at least a better place.

Mr. Carey - you are a military analyst. How would you like any fight, whatever noble that is, when you see your families and their houses are being continuously being bombed (or comes under rocket attacks) for no fault of yours. The problem with few Americans, unfortunately is because they have too long bombed others in others lands and have never been bombed in their own land (barring 9/11) that they don’t understand human suffering and destructions. I said a few Americans like Mr. Carey; broad majority may not be like that.

We are getting lost in a labyrinth of reasoning and counter-reasoning on who is right and who is wrong. Let’s get it straight…

What they say ……………………………… What they mean

‘We are concerned…’………………………………..’Let the killing go on’

‘We regret the killings of civilians…’………………..’We’ll kill more civilians’

‘Birth-pangs of a new middle-east…’…..……………’Pains of a Disgusting rape’

‘Birth-pangs of a new middle-east…’…..……………’For a still born baby’

‘Birth-pangs of a new middle-east…’……………….’oh..err..a new-born eunuch of Bush-sustainability and terrorism’

‘We want a sustainable peace…’………………..’We will make the whole world look like present Lebanon, an unsustainable one with our Bush-democratization by destabilization. Middle-east would return to a sustainable peace when that itself becomes the definition of peace for the world’.

‘We will finish our job…’……………………….’We will kill more innocents’

‘We’ll enter the beyond Haifa stage’…………….’We’ll escalate the war and killing of civilians’

‘We won’t accept a humiliating ceasefire…’……….’We prefer killing humanity than a ceasefire’

‘Iran and Syria in the axis of evil’……………………’Iran and Syria in Middle-East don’t consider President Bush to be global president and Prime Minister Tony Blair to be global prime minister’.

‘Hezbollah says they’ll wipe off Israel...’..................’We don’t say we’ll wipe off Lebanon, we… er… rather do it’.

'Israel has a right to defend...'...............'Israel has a right to kill innocent civilians'

What the rest of the world say…………………………

‘Let US president Bush take the first cell in Guantanamo Bay with Bin Laden, let British Prime Minister Tony Blair take 2nd cell with Saddam Hussain, and let Hezbollah chief Nasrallah take the 3rd cell with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert. After taking away all other sane people of the world away from Guantanamo Bay, let these six chose their arsenal – from WMDs to precision guided bombs to missile to rockets to anything in world they desire in their last fight. Let these three pairs fight their differences out within their cells in Guantanamo Bay applying any weapons of their choice to minimize human casualty.’

What the rest of the world mean……………………………………………

‘We are concerned… but we don’t want to see any of you alive again…’

[1] ‘Lebanon: number of civilian deaths are likely to be higher – Red Cross’ Reuters AlertNet dated 26th July http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/9e60709f8b5739c9ebc3fb1dfabc39d5.htm
[2] ‘Israel suffers losses, debates touch choices’ Chicago Tribune dated 26th July http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/world/15130416.htm
[3] ‘The Real Solution…’ by Ayse Karabat in The New Anatonian http://www.thenewanatolian.com/opinion-11654.html