today, iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad will speak before the u.n. general assembly. yesterday, a crowd of protesters gathered to protest his presence. one guy held a sign which read "the torch has been passed from one genocidal leader to another. (there is a picture of hitler next to ahmadinejad) don't let iran get the bomb!" ok, bathroom break.
i'm back. let's evaluate this. i'll start with the first sentence. "the torch has been passed from one genocidal leader to another." well yes, the torch has been passed, but to certain other white, western, imperial leaders, not to ahmadinejad. the u.s. is currently prosecuting two wars of aggression, the "ultimate crime" according to nuremberg, and to our own common sense, which is two more wars than those being fought by iran. so, is it just possible that george bush is the one really holding the torch? was ronald reagan holding the torch when he invaded grenada, armed the contras, and funded right wing death squads in central america? was the first bush holding the torch when he bombed panama, and initiated the first slaughter in iraq? was clinton holding the torch when he devastated yugoslavia? it appears nixon had a firm hold on said torch when he dropped tons and tons of bombs on vietnam, laos, and cambodia. yes, the torch has been passed, but sadly, we are the ones holding it. in fact, we have had the torch for hundreds of years. hitler's mistake was trying to get it out of our hands, which pissed us off. as carlin says "hitler was trying to take over the world. bullshit, that's our fucking job!"
how about the second part of that sentence..."from one genocidal leader to another." now, ahmadinejad might not be the greatest guy out there, but who exactly is he practicing genocide against? what countries has he invaded, what oppressed minorities within iran are being rounded up and murdered, who are his forces dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium on? is he responsible for the death of 20 million russians, 6 million jews, and millions of others? is he responsible for the murder of a million iraqis, 2 million vietnamese, 600,000 cambodians, 2 million koreans, and hundreds of thousands of others in chile, el salvador, indonesia, guatemala, cuba, and elsewhere. by the way, that elsewhere includes iran. in 1953, the cia helped to overthrow a democratically elected government in iran. this coup led to the brutal shah taking power. so, the u.s. is even responsible for more death within iran than ahmadinejad, never mind throughout the rest of the world.
the use of the word "genocide" is kind of funny. if you notice, our military actions and mass killings of people all over the world are never described in this way. rather, "we" make "mistakes," or we "attempt to build democracy in places where it is not wanted," or we get "faulty intelligence," or we "accidently bomb civilians." therefore, no matter how many millions die from our bombs, we are never guilty of something called "genocide." however, if a leader from another country merely says things we don't like, than he may become a "genocidal" leader. ahmadinejad has said a couple of things that may indicate some anti-semitism on his part, but this doesn't make him any more guilty of genocide than archie bunker. it is actions that constitute genocide, not words, and when it comes to actions, you know who is number one.
ok, how about the second part of the sign..."don't let iran get the bomb." why is it that we can't let iran "get" the bomb" when it's ok for the u.s. to "have" hundreds of nuclear weapons. furthermore, it seems to be ok for the u.s. to use thousands of "regular bombs" without drawing a word of protest from the same people who are so infuriated with iran. also, it seems to be fine that israel has several nuclear weapons. they don't seem to mind israel bombing lebanon. nor do they seem to be losing much sleep over the arsenals of india, pakistan, britian, france, germany, and other military powers. it seems to me, our main concern should be the countries that already have "the bomb." and you would think that if people were concerned about "the bomb," that they would be protesting outside the pentagon, since the u.s. is the only country that has ever actually used "the bomb." but of course, this was not "genocide," but rather, we bombed hiroshima and nagasaki to "save lives" and "shorten the war."
a quick word on a couple of other signs at the protest. one read "save israel." ok, but while we are busy saving israel, who is going to save palestine? israel is the strongest military power in the middle east, propped up by hundreds of millions of dollars of u.s. military aid. if anyone needs saving, it is the countries that surround israel.
another sign read "never again." in this day and age, it seems to me that an iraqi should be the one holding this sign. again, why would a country that is trying to "get" a bomb (if this is true) attack a country that has several "bombs?" in actuality, it is israel that has attacked other countries, including lebanon twice in the last 30 years, and it is israel that is currently oppressing a people because of their race/ethnicity. so, if we are really concerned about the phrase "never again," perhaps we can start by opposing the u.s. war machine, as well as israeli militarism.
yeah, that's how i read that picture. it may not surprise you, but none of these points were made in the paper which showed this picture.
oh, the wonders of a free press.
No comments:
Post a Comment