Stop the bloodbaths!

By Nikos Raptis, ZNet
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-11/24raptis.cfm

The (latest and current) bloodbaths are: 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Madrid bombing, London bombings, Lebanon, Gaza (again), ...

The killing of Americans, British, Spaniards, and other Westerners by non-Americans is called "terrorism".

The killing of non-Americans by Americans, British, and other Westerners is called "war on terror".

Bush (the Second) stated that the non-Americans (mostly the Arab Muslims) started the bloodbaths because they hate the Americans for being free, democratic, etc.

Assuming that humans are rational, there is no doubt that they wish that the bloodbaths should stop. Also, being rational, they wish to stop the killing without using violence.

George W. Bush (and his collaborators) claim that the only way to stop the bloodbaths perpetrated by the "terrorists" is through violence (even preemptive violence).

The "terrorists" claim that as long as the American Government (et al) are murdering their children they are obliged to retaliate by kill ordinary Americans (and their "willing" collaborators).

But, does the American Government kill Arab children, etc? And, if it does, are the ordinary Americans aware of these killings. An effort to answer both questions was made in previous (ZNet) Commentaries starting with the one of December 13, 2001. The answer to both questions, then, was that: Yes! They are aware. The results of the US congressional elections confirm that this claim is correct. The US elites and their collaborators (Israelis, British, Australians, etc) kill innocent people and the ordinary Americans are aware of it.

So, how do we (all the peoples of the World) put an end to the bloodbaths?

Let us start with the (ordinary) Americans: "If there was ever a time for [the US] to look closely at itself in the mirror, now is the time... Shame on us if we don't have a very aggressive debate about what we should be... We need to take responsibility as a people..." Who uttered these words is irrelevant. If an individual states that 2 plus 3 equals 5 the truth of the statement supercedes the education, the profession, etc of the individual.

The above quoted statement, after replacing [the US] with the correct original word "Louisiana", belongs to Mitch Landrieu, the lieutenant governor of Louisiana and the occasion was a meeting funded by the United Engineering Foundation and organized and hosted by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and several other universities in the region to discuss the rebuilding of New Orleans.

What would the ordinary Americans see in the mirror, if they were to decide to look in it? They would see a people that did not react MASSIVELY:

- When Madeleine Albright, after killing half a million Iraqi infants (through Clinton's embargo), said: "We think it was worth it."

- When Barbara Bush, mother of George W. Bush, said that the New Orleans blacks were lucky to be in the luxury of the "Louisiana Superdome", after Katrina drove them away from their miserable homes.

- When the son of Barbara said that only 35,000 Iraqi civilians were killed (obviously, an insignificant number) and that the number of 650,000 of Johns Hopkins University was inaccurate.

One could argue that the ordinary Americans did react massively with their votes on November 7. Or, even, that Johns Hopkins is an American university that had the moral power to come up with the above number. The answer to this is that the reaction of the ordinary Americans has to be deep. Very deep! Not the rather shallow (if not irrelevant) "traditional" electoral process, no matter how praiseworthy the Johns Hopkins report.

But let us now turn to the other side, the (so-called) "terrorists". There are two kinds of them. To the first kind belong those that hit towers, bomb subways, etc. To the second kind belong those that resist a foreign force that invades and occupies their country. Therefore, the term "terrorists" does not apply to them. For example, in (the brutal) reality of Iraq they should be considered Resistance Fighters (comparable to the Resistance Fighters against he Nazis during the Second World War).

Historically it has been proven that the first kind, who indiscriminately kill civilians, etc, are nothing but "assistants" to the murderous dominant powers. If there was no 9/11, Bush (the second) would have been non-existent, Ashcroft would not have released his religiously psychotic "patriotisms", Rumsfeld would have impressed with his virile postures no one but the ladies of his local Christian congregation, Rove, etc, etc.

So, if the first kind of reaction (through indiscriminant killing) is not only immoral but also helps the murderous dominant powers, then what can those harmed by them do? The only answer is found in the overwhelming power that resides in the number (the massive number) of the women and the men of the world.

The ordinary Americans have this power and they have the moral duty to use it in order to bring about a deep, a very deep, change. This duty becomes even more imperative due to the fact that they are free to exercise it. A freedom that in reality does not exist in other "democracies".

This very deep change will be accomplished by bringing to justice the war criminals: Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rice, and the rest of the murderous individuals who were responsible for the killing, raping, and torturing of hundreds of thousands of humans.

What is important is not which will be the tribunal that will judge them, or how this is going to be accomplished, or if there are legal "tools" available. What is of paramount importance is that the American women and men should make known to the war criminals that they DEMAND their punishment. The use of terms as the International Criminal Court (of Rome), the Geneva Accords, etc only weaken the effort. There is a single word that describes in the most powerful and most accurate way the (moral) intentions of the women and men not only of America but of the entire word. The word is: NUREMBERG! This should be the motto for all of us. Nuremberg for all the war criminals and their minions.

The first step has already been taken!

A few days ago (on November 14, 2006), German and American lawyers "asked a German prosecutor to investigate Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on allegations of war crimes..." [International Herald Tribune, Nov. 15, '06]. It is up to ALL of us to elevate this moral struggle to a higher level and not let it become only "a lingering irritant" for Rumsfeld, "who is soon to lose the legal protection of his cabinet post...should he decide to travel overseas as a private citizen..." [IHT, page 8]

However, this effort should aim even higher than Nuremberg. The American people and the rest of the world should find the moral courage to face the fundamental problem between them:

- The American people should apologize to the world for the grave crimes that the American Governments have been committing against the peoples of the world (at least) for the last 60 years, in the name of the American people.

- The peoples of he world who have been harmed by the American Governments should accept this apology and should declare that they will stop exercising active Resistance by violent means against the Americans and their collaborators.

Thus, without "terrorism" as a weapon in the hands of Bush (and any future Bush) to terrorize the ordinary Americans this could become a more peaceful and moral world. [Note 1: To be really successful, an effort to stop the bloodshed should take into account the following tragic and unbelievable fact: "By the beginning of the 1990s the income of those in the top 20 percent worldwide was almost 60 times as much as the income of those in the bottom 20 percent". (This according to the Worldwatch Institute). However, I am told that the correct number is close to 600 or 700 times!]

[Note 2: The Katrina case of New Orleans is equally instructive as the numbers in the above Note 1. An estimated 460,000 pre-Katrina residents have not returned. "Nearly 79,000 families have applied to the $7.5 million program to rebuild Louisiana. Only 1,721 have been told how much grant money they will receive. And just 22 have received access to the cash, which was provided by federal taxpayers..." (New York Times, Nov. 11, '06). Meanwhile, $ 32.5 million were spent to restore the Louisiana Superdome (of Barbara Bush fame). Finally, it is reasonable to wonder if, as an adult, Rumsfeld has ever thought how much human misery could have been eliminated with the money he spends for a single week in Iraq? End of Notes.]