Back Fire vs. Backfire

this is so typical of the british press– either don’t mention israel, or show it as vulnerable and weak as possible. what better way to slam israel than showing one of its soldiers cowering from a blast that completely envelops him. why do you post this propaganda?

This war is no accident. And for all the civilians involved (and it is overwhelmingly civilians who are experiencing what this particular magazine cover depicts), this war is no war. It is a direct attack on their right to be alive. But back to accidents: too many plans drawn up, too many weapons in place, too much rhetoric at the ready to wave away the continuing murder of actual people, the bombing of their towns and cities, the destruction of their infrastructure, for anyone to be calling it an accident. As to the soldier in the photograph: I do hope he (she? I don’t know) does the right thing by putting down his weapons and refusing to participate.

To me the soldier’s saying “Oh my god what have I done?”

These photos serve as a strong, if somewhat obvious, symbol for ‘blowback’ and I agree that’s why they keep showing up everywhere. The times photo is particularly amazing in that the two plumes of flame are emerging from the tank in exactly opposite directions… The scene is earilly illuminated as if to suggest one can only see the ‘true’ landscape of the region bathed in artillery fire…In both photos the soldiers are holding their heads in a posture I might call ‘existential surrender…’ Incidentally it also looks just like when pious Jews are ‘davining’ ie praying…The dusty explosion also serves as a good metaphor for the conflict, as if its just a sandstorm rising up from the desert on its own…

I agree this war is no “accident.” Israel had plans drawn up for the invasion before the kidnappings.
(And, I suspect, with Washington’s approval.*)
The image suggests “blowback” to me, and a justifiable “defensiveness” in the posture of the soldier, although it is a natural position after discharge of rocket launches: the noise, the shockwave. It is a good, symbolic image, but doesn’t match the title on the cover.
*It was fascinating, but not surprising, that the Israelis withheld firing while Secy. Rice was arriving in Lebanon for talks. Wasn’t Israel the first country she called, right after the 9/11 attacks?

This could be any soldier, anywhere, anytime. Just looking at the picture, I considered whether it might be Irag, Afghanistan, Palestine… but I assumed it must refer to the war that’s most newsworthy now. He’s dressed about the same as Hezbollah fighters I’ve seen pictures of, though; does the caption identify him as Israeli?
I don’t understand how this can be labelled anti-Israel propaganda, but then maybe they have more volunteers than they have real propaganda to counter.

First thing that popped into my mind; Gahan Wilson’s cartoon from the late ’60s or early ’70s, I think I won”
Our troops in Vietnam loved it. They weren’t winning, either…

That probably a Israeli soldier manning one of those mobile 155mms you see so much in the news (u.S. made, BTW). I think that the swrily dust mixes well with the title giving it an ironic twist. Because no plan, no matter how elaborate, survives contact with the enemy.
Q? for the Israeli soldier, is the real enemy Hizbollah or is it you?

The BAG’s comments of “going badly for Israel,” “Israeli isolation,” and “Israeli vulnerability” in relation to this or any image boggle the mind. That’s because all three phrases have a decidedly biased weight to them.
First, some facts: This is a photo of a well-armed, well-trained, well-funded soldier, supported by his own country and eqipped to the teeth by the United States taxpayers. This is *not* a picture of an unarmed, untrained, bottom-of-the-food-chain civilian just trying to live (or save) his life.
Lesson: Military personnel and civilian populations should *never* be confused as one and the same. The military does not = all of Israel, which is what The BAG’s phrasing suggests.
This soldier gets paid to do this very work, to be isolated and vulnerable and, quite possibly, to die (or be kidnapped). That is the job of a soldier. Why exactly should I be sympathetic with this particular soldier? Seems he is in a much better position at the moment than most people in the region, since he has his government’s backing, as well as food, clothing, shelter, weapons, and protection.
Furthermore, Israel itself is not isolated or vulnerable, except in its own imagination. The United States has rammed a stick in the spokes of progress toward an immediate cease-fire, which would have taken this soldier out of harm’s way sooner rather than later. You can’t ask for a better buddy than one who will stop the world for you. So again, why should I have sympathy for the soldier? No cease-fire means keep fighting, boys.
I don’t see this cover as a positive portrayal of the military actions taken by Israel. I think what The Economist is daring to imply is that Israel fucked up royally. At least that’s what the image and title both suggest to me: Israel’s military leaders were unprepared to encounter the resistance they are encountering from Hezbollah, and *that* is a gross military miscalculation which Israel (and anyone in the way) is paying for. Hence, the “accidental” part of the title; the photo shows the “war” part.
Maybe The BAG meant all of these things. His words, however, conveyed something else. The Economist cover seems much more judgmental than ambiguous — of Israel’s military actions to be sure.
We all have our biases, but I’m not willing to help romanticize anyone’s, here or anywhere.

I think this thread is an object lesson in projection, is what I think.

I don’t see this figure as inherently symbolic of Israel per se. The lack of facial features makes it both universal and dehumanized. The uniform may be Israeli, but there isn’t enough in the way of insignia or other identification to make it read as anything other than generic. To my eye, this image reads as fragile body caught up in the violence of war. In that light, it could apply just as easily to members of Hezbollah, or even the civilians whose homes and families are being destroyed.

Indeed this is quite obviously, even moreso than the usual BAG debates, an object lesson in personal projections.
I read this somewhat the way rporter does. While it’s laughable that this war is “accidental,” (both Hezbollah and Israel seemed to have been planning for it for quite some time) the image itself does portray the suffering of individuals caught up in a war. In the sense that all war, any war, is a human tragedy, picking sides (or being born on a particular side and not having the courage to develop an independent moral conscience) and blaming others and shouting becomes only so much bluster and noise. This soldier, be he “aggressor” Israeli or “hero” Israeli, is a human whose true face has been obscured by war, surrounded by noise and dust and heat and violence.
If it weren’t for the disingenous “accidental war” caption, I would consider this one of the Economist’s best covers ever.

cfinstr, why not speak it so they can understand, be proud of those words. they are nothing to hide, right? at least translate for them. don’t you want them to read it? or does incomprehensibility equal strong argument to you?
O, and guess what? there is nothing in Mexico’s air that gives those born there moral authority to hate Israel’s enemies, right? confusing logic, there, hombre. and i don’t appreciate it that you give Mexico a nasty air when you use your birth there to justify killing other people who are not related to Mexico’s past, cause, or in any way to her situation. What the hell is that? You do our people no service…if you are really Mexican. (and don’t you mean “Menudo?”)
finally, i don’t care what ten cent phrases you or anyone else uses. making a choice to kill people when the choice exists to avoid killing them is WRONG. i don’t care what symbol you have on your heart or on your sleeve or in your family album. Murdering humans (whom you don’t need to strike at in order to survive the moment) is wrong. If you want to call that “moral equivalence,” have fun with adjectives. if you want to call it “fred,” consider me kickin’ it with betty and la familia.
te watcho,

Hay mi madre….
I think that the world is a tad more complicated than that. I would not brand it Imperialist, at least no yet. al-Qaeda target is Saudi Arabia, they want to control the country while Syria simply wants to needle Israel into giving them back the Golam Heights. Iran, marriage of convinience with Syria, while playing the forgotten superpower game of warfare by proxy. This is not about religion, although all sides decry their religion as right. Religion is merely the shell in which mundane political ambitions are wraped up in and sold.
Don’t belive the Hype is a sequel….
And as a Puerto Rican, I damn well aquainted with Imperialism, I live under it thumb every single day.
Israel is making a serious mistake here, using raw firepower where deft political/diplomatic manuvering with swift covert military operations would be best. Their is no excuse for collective punishment, not now, not ever….

The picture effectively illustrates the hornet’s nest that Israel has disturbed, disrupting the imagined cake-walk.
“by the way, there’s nothing accidental about the timing: Iran and Syria are using Hezbollah to get pressure off Iran’s nuclear program (and Assad’s problems).”
…I find it laughable that this is the official talking point. The idea that Iran got up this war to take attention away from itself is ridiculous to me. For one, it’s no secret that Iran is a supporter of Hezbollah. They would be attracting attention rather than the opposite.
I find it more believable that Israel and the U.S. were nervous that Iran might cooperate on the Nuclear Issue, and there is ample evidence that this is/was the case, and decided to “get their war on” while the getting was good.
Same goes for Hamas. Israel is far more comfortable Not having a partner in peace and won’t accept a legitimate two state solution, to say nothing of a one state solution that threatens their system of apartheid and demographic majority.
If anyone needed to distract the world it was the U.S. considering the growing Civil War in Iraq and growing chaos in Afghanistan.
Who insisted that Syria quit Lebanon? The whole “who benefits” question cuts both ways.
I am dismayed by the sudden overwhelming chorus proclaiming The Shia as the new enemy. Could things get more Orwellian? After years of repeating a mantra about the “evil Sunnis” we now hear only about how the Shiites are the true enemy.
Iran is not the sole Shiite power. No one seems to understand the Iraqi roots of Islamic Jihad which spawned Hezbollah. Pretending that Syria and Iran have total control of Hezbollah is just plain wrong.
The Neocons are hellbent for war on Iran and are grasping for any justification to make it happen before Mid Term Elections or at least before 2008. Israel is looking at the same deadlines nervously waiting to see if they will have the same free hand they’ve enjoyed lately. Problem is the Democrats aren’t going to derail Israeli plans any more than the Republicans.
Assymetrical reporting in favor of Israel is unbelievable here in the U.S. Casualty reports talk about those “killed in Israel” without separating out the military deaths (the majority) until much further down in the articles. The fact is that most of those military deaths occurred in Lebanon and not in Israel so the wording is skewed as well.
Also, claims that Hezbollah is hiding among civians is largely a myth being used to justify the slaughter of civilians.
Now that they’ve scared off the UN Observers the slaughter can be ramped up a notch.
As idiot Charlie Rose tried to say last night, “Maybe we should just let “them” (those crazy muslims) sort it out.” This is in fact what is happening. Since we can’t play both sides of the Iran Iraq War off against each other anymore (and remember Israel was a key player in getting weapons to Iran during the whole Iran Contra Affair while the US was sharing materiel and intel with Iraq) we’ve just plunged the whole middle east into chaos in hopes of killing off enough of the population to reduce the threat to “us”.
I don’t believe that the civil war in Iraq and chaos in Afghanistan is evidence of failed Neocon policy. It may well be that this was the desired result all along.

Shaun > “this image depicts Israel in a sympathetic light” = [a. psychology, the attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others]
> “there’s nothing accidental about the timing Iran and Syria are using Hezbollah” is a popular simplistic generalization which contains both truth, lies, deception, illusion, projection and constant repetition for political purposes. Keeping it simple, good guys vs evil doers is the trick.
A few facts we may agree upon, Iran supplies weapons, training and political support along with Syria to Hezbollah. A brief history of this groups rise and popularity from 1982 stems from its resistance to Israel’s occupation is one worthy of further study.
In the last election it received over 30 % of the popular vote I think, present opinions suggest Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has doubled his popularity within Lebanon.
From a general observation I suggest that Nasrallah *takes orders from no one*, has miscalculated Israel’s response. In the past prisoners and dead bodies were tactics used for exchange by both sides. I don’t know what Mahmoud Alamadinejad is thinking about regarding this slaughter but his mental state bears great similarly to the madness of the decisions taken by GWB since 911. It is my contention they share equal degrees of occassionaly sanity and are extremely bellose. Both are failed political leaders, have talked about or projected military force as befitting fools.
When I review the cold war history of US & USSR within our hemisphere, I offer Fidel Castro as a comparison to Nasrallah, both are loose cannons and non compliant in making strategic decisions contrary to their sponsoring state. Fidel was reigned in by his Kremlin backers but naturally held responsible for every act real or imagined, of popular protest or insurrection in Latin and South America, by the USA from 1960 to the present, where he is supposedly directing Chavez. Hes up for regime change as well accordinging to recent State Dept policies and funding. So we’ve come to the fork in the road again, I do envy but fear your certainty in these matters and where such thinking might lead.

Someone mentioned cannonfire, where I found this little item:
“GIYUS is an acronym for Give Israel Your United Support, an “Israel First” web site promoting the use of a tool called “Megaphone.” This application facilitates the sharing of pro-Israel articles and alerts users to online polls on the Israeli invasion. This software is part of a larger plan by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to mobilize 100,000 propagandists. So far, GIYUS has attracted fewer than a thousand participants. …”

I intended to ignore cfinstr, but I’m just curious…
“We see them posting and publically speaking on Al Jazeera.”
Do you watch al-Jazeera? Do you understand Arabic?

ummabdulla, I read translations of the virulent tripe put out on the airwaves by the followers of the pedophile false prophet, moHAM-ID. I avoid the “consumption of pure hatred” that al jazeera puts out to its listeners because there is only one purpose to be served by such tripe… It pushed the purposefully uneducated or the purposefully twisted imperialist islamic peoples to send their children to murder non-islamic people…..
Sort of like the Pakistani muslim who murdered a Jewish woman in Seattle yesterday and went about that Jewish establishment systematically shooting ONLY WOMEN, including a pregnant woman, (and then when the cops arrive he “peacefrully surrenders” .. ) it shows just how cowardly the islamic imperialists, abroad and in America already, are.
People need to learn and recognize the evil of the pedophile’s political movement disguised as a “religion”, islam….. The perfect “religion” for imperialist invaders, rapists, murderers, and child molestors….
Hey abby…. have YOU read “satanic Verses”? perhaps you need “EduKate’n” Humm?

And how long have you been “readytoblowagasket”….
I guess the apologists for evil do not like reading truths about the pedophile profit and his pseudo-religion…
Sad that the truth bothers the socialist inclined…..
You can call me an extremist, however, unlike imperialist islamics you will not find me or those who recognize the evil of islam here in America and abroad killing and bombing any houses of worship and their congregations… or any arabs, muslims, mullahs or imams. Strange how you cannot say that about that college muslim on the east coast who drove his vehicle into a crowd o finfidels because he wanted to kill in the name of the satanic false god allah (the moon god),….. and you cannot say that about the muslim who shot up an El Al (Israeli National Air Carrier) Ticket Counter in Los Angeles California a few years ago, ….. And you cannot say that about the east coast muslim snipers of a couple of years ago,…… and you cannot say the same about the Pakistani muslim who YESTERDAY murdered a defnseless Jewish woman and hunted down and shot a number of others, including a pregnant Jewish lady…..
You see, imperialist islam is not only on the move oversease, but it is taking its toll here in “Fortress America” (Reminds me of the old “Fortress Britian” concept of World War II) The imperilaist islamic murderers are on the move world wide…..
I guess by your definition, speaking an uncomfortable (for a socialist head in the sand ostrich) truth is being “EXTREMIST”.
Truth should not be tempered because that would simply mean that it is no longer a TRUTH but simply the mealy mouthed runimations of a mental midget… a politically correct puppet. In other words a “tempered truth” is no different than a LIE. Is that what you advocate?
I have seen and heard many socialists advocate such deception out of a need for self preservation. You see, once the ordinary person recognizes that they are being “SNOOKERED” they start “PAYING ATTENTION”. A population that PAYS ATTENTION is quite inconvenient for those who seek to enslave it, such as Socialists…. Is that the genesis of your discomfort? If so, that is not a surprise.
Relax “readytoblow… ” , more people are waking up to the uncomfortable truth about imperialist islam every day. WIth such recognition of evil comes hope for the future.
Regagrds….

JT
Its an exercise in futily. Islam is eveil. Period. Those of us who refuse to see it are well, wrong. Period. Never mind that terrorist acts where invented by Europeans in the wake of post-Napoleonic Restoration, or that it is a tactic, not reserved for or exclusively used by Islamic fundamentalist, but other groups as well. Or that right-wing Christian goverments in Guatemala, Argentina and Chile killed thousands of their own people. That one of the last facist goverments was that of Francisco Franco and that he did it all glove in hand with the Spanish Catholic Church or that the Pope sold out Liberation Theologist in Central America to lie in bed with Reagan to help liberate Poland.
No, by all means, forget the Reconquista and the Crusades and the Conquistadors. Forget all the lessons of history. Concetrate on the eveil that is Islam, this misbigotten false religion. They deserve death, pure and simple…..
Hijo mio, te guardo un sitio en el infierno, porque de seguro le haras compañia al diablo!

cfinstr,
The opening question was not randomly placed in the first position, please attempt to answer it, otherwise its pigs, pedophilia and repetition of points you’ve already stated. These I am happy to address once we are able to define the nature of our beast before we go chasing after your beasts, so
What is your definition of Imperialism ?

Rafael
no entiendes, o estas engañando? Puedes guardar un lugar en el infierno? Debes de conocer el jefe para tener ese tipo de poder.
Yo espero dar servicio a Jesús el Cristo. Si tu quieres ayudar a tu jefe, el diablo dios te ha dado el poder para escoger hacer maldades. Sigue como vas. Estoy seguro que tu y tu jefe tendrán un buen tiempo en el infierno. Que Dios te perdone.
Now to the English. Imperialist islam is evil because without reason it murders anyone who is not muslim.
You claim, Rafael, that terrorist acts were invented by Europeans “in the wake of post Napoleonic Restoration….” As I recall my smattering of European history, that would have been in or about the 1820’s….
Rafael, I guess then that it would surprise you to know that terrorist acts were commonly practices by islamic imperialists as long ago as the 11th Century A.D. The islamic sect known as the Hashshashin (this word, derived from the word “Hashish,” which the Hash-Ishiim reputedly used to drug their victims, translates directly to the word “assassin” in the English language) employed systematic murder for a cause they believed to be righteous. For two hundred years, they resisted efforts to suppress their religious beliefs and developed ritualized murder into a fine art taught through generations.
Look it up…
Rafael, almost every human organization has “fouled up” (to be polite)… The significant thing today is that … TODAY, we do not need to forget the depravity and errors that have taken place historically, however, that does NOT mean that we should use those past failures of mankind to make excuses for the current murderers of today. The single largest source of murder of the ordinary civilian is imperialist islam. I am sure even you cannot miss that fact.
And if you want to kill imperialist islmaics, it is your business and the business of the law… I do not advocate illegal activities. If you want to do that then it is on your head.
Funny how the posturing socialists always ascribe their own deparved nature on others… Regards Rafael…

Imperialism is the policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a nation’s dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the nation considers itself part of the empire.
imperialist islam does that by placing its practitioners into foreign lands and initially insinuating into the society by teaching their “Sunday School islam” to suck in the ignorant. That is one reason why islamic practitioners often argue that if you cannot read the arabic then you really cannot have a basis for understanding or criticizing islam. Actually a lame attempt at islamic “scholars” defending the indefensible.
The islamic imperialists are among us and in every land. If you do not see it then you are lost.

Jeez, I take a couple days off and miss everything…
JT, you wrote: “Shaun > ‘this image depicts Israel in a sympathetic light’ = [a. psychology, the attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others” Actually, I think you’re reacting to percieved advocacy on my part but actually all I was saying is I think the Economist intends to depict the Israeli soldier in a helpless, besieged light, that is, the image evokes ’sympathy’ from the viewer. I don’t think that’s my ‘psychology’ acting up, I think that’s what most people here think…I’m not sure I get your point either: are you saying visual interpretation is always subjective? I don’t agree with that premise if you are. Framing the image is always a political act…
I don’t mind the comparison of Nasrallah to Castro (though I don’t think Nasrallah has the charisma, but we’ll see) except that you should follow that through to its full implications: Castro had his own agenda but was nothing without the Soviets and his key moment on the world stage was played as a pawn of Krushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviets put nukes in Cuba at a time of their choosing ahead of US elections, as detente against the US, in order to make a bid for Berlin, etc. Whatever the reasons, they were all Soviet ones, part of a much bigger game being played with Kennedy/the US… Similarly, despite whatever heroic history of Hezbollah’s roots you may wish to subscribe to, it only matters right now because of Iranian funding, weapons and machinations. I won’t say its impossible this war is coincidental with the Iranian Nuclear debacle but doesn’t it seem a bit naive to assume so?
Finally, your comparison of the ‘madness’ of King George to Ahmadinejad is pure provocation. Bush is right wing religious to be sure but so is much of the US and the world–I’m sorry you find reality so vulgar, though don’t you guys sometimes get right-wingers even up there on the outskirts of history? At least Bush can be voted out and he was never a terrorist who claims to see green light coming out of his head, denies the holocaust and is planning genocide against an entire country. Dude, try not to say things that make you sound like a left-wing caricature…

“At least Bush can be voted out and he was never a terrorist who claims to see green light coming out of his head, denies the holocaust and is planning genocide against an entire country.”
Can Bush be voted out? As far as I can tell he lost two elections but he’s still in the Oval Office.
Bush is a terrorist who claims that God speaks to him, no green light that he’s mentioned. He’s adept at denying the holocaust he’s unleashed in the Middle East and Central Asia and regularly not only plans genocide but actually attempts to execute those plans.
ummm….purgatory? Guess that beats hell or an imaginary paradise.

Great socialist comedy Chris. LOL Bush is a lot of things, and not all of them flattering. A terrorist…. I guess if you are a socialist or a muslim with a diametrically opposed agenda you see him as a satan….
Reminds me how I and a growing number see the pedophile profit mo-HAM-ID….. (No the “profit” name is not a typo…. is alludes to the numberous fighting campaigns that the child molester of Aisha engaged in during life for the simple acquisition of PROFIT) See, the term more accurately describes mo-HAM-ID
Regards….

I find it very interesting that the photo chosen for this cover is readily interpreted in vastly different ways. I can see both.
For those familiar with munitions, it looks like standard procedure, evoking the swirling grit and chaos of doing ones job. For those unfamiliar with munitions, it opens a wide door of interpretation, evoking defensiveness, regret, maybe even fear.
My thought then is: who is this cover image for?? Given the pairing with the headline, it seems the Economist is trying to stimulate the latter reader, and is leading them with the headline.
The cover is misleading, then, because some/many/most readers do not have the military experience to accurately identify the situation, AND per the headline–as others have pointed out–this war is not even close to accidental.
For myself (non-miltary background), the first thought I had was that the soldiers legs and lower body were disappearing in the cloud of dust. So, …by firing ones weapons, one loses one’s legs? Eh–so I am a little pessimistic and morbid about the outcome…

Can we vote cfinstr off the island, yet?

jt: Please don’t go. I love your ‘backatcha’s.’

jt from BC, I was discussing the imperialist islamic powers and their morphing from the time of the pedophile profit, mo-HAM-ID. I did not intend to simply bandy about the finer points of your loathing of America.
I suspect that, given your last clause ….
‘Peanut this is my last attempt I will be vacating the island barring “a eureka moment” for I’m not overly optimistic that even my question is understood.’
and the fact that I am not arguing about…….
‘I understood that we were we discussing *empires or hegemonic powers* not religious belief systems.
” islam”, defined in the dictionary where you located the definition of empire as widely understood refers to* a monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God*.’
As I view islam, given its historical periodically interrupted imperialist expansion, there is more of a POLITICAL IMPERATIVE to islam than there is a religious imperative. islam simply uses the “opiate of the masses” (in this case the verneer of a “religion” ot conscript its guided bombs and willing murderous accomplices. In so doing islam also simultaneously employs its Taquiyya doctrine against the feeble minded socialists who are used to mis-labeling things for their own purposes so—- those socialists are easy prey for the deception practiced upon them by islam.
You include this patronizing statement, which obviously is intended to be a backhanded way of insinuating that I do not have the mental acuity to discern precisely what it is that you are endeavoring to convey to me….
‘Your whimsical chronological and historical jaunt was neither informative or helpful in addressing the question: that the US Empire has hegemonic powers greater than any previous empire in history .’
You know, I do not necessarily take issue with the thrust of your quoted statement. As such, I see no useful purpose to be served by wasting time in seriously disputing that while The United States of America “has hegemonic powers” the more interesting matter to contemplate is to what extent has the political movement which masquarades as a religion, islam, amassed a more pervasive and potentially enslaving network of operatives worldwide that will take action to de-facto enslave non-muslims or, alternatively to murder non-muslims and thus end millenia of critical thought.
If that subject does not interest you then so be it. I surmise that you gleen a visceral joy from attacking America, at least more than trying to gain a more honest view of the world.
Regards.

cfinstr,
It is imperative to understand and take responsible *for our own history* before embarking on regime change in defiance of International Law or changing the world to fit into our model, either by casting stones or using more lethal means, materially or verbally. As a Canadian I am not pleased with our increasing support of activities I associate with US hegenomy. It may be necessary to with hold a portion of my taxes used for destructive purposes in foreign lands, this will not absolve but mitigate some personal responsible I feel, commensurate with my knowledge of history.

SHAUN, my apologies for not replying sooner
> “Actually, I think you’re reacting to perceived advocacy on my part but actually all I was saying is I think the Economist intends to depict the Israeli soldier in a helpless, besieged light, that is, the image evokes ’sympathy’ from the viewer.”
< I think your advocacy position is perceived by you and not the Economist we may purse this further if you wish
> “I think that’s what most people here think”
< I have reread the thread that observation can not be substantiated
> “I’m not sure I get your point either”
< given the wide range of interpretation here its apparent that observations are related to individual beliefs, experiences and historical awareness, AOG observes a sense of just released power hurled at one's enemy, no one can disagree with *that neutral based remark* I see a soldier and hope he has ear protectors and protection for his lungs and is following orders, hopefully surviving along with those he is endeavoring to kill, are but a few of the things I read into this photo, yes in brief I am saying our responses are subjective and in the end we do the final framing.
> “comparison of Nasrallah to Castro (though I don’t think Nasrallah has the charisma, but we’ll see”
< Yes I agree in fact I'm trying to think of a few contemporaries who have sustained such charisma as Castro. Nasrallh's rise to prominence like Castro was initiated through combat and resistance and both have survived many attempts of assassination by foreign nations, whether covert or openly stated. But compared to Fidel hes only been about his task one third of the time, so your correct in assuming its early yet to fully equate the two leaders at this moment assuming Israel continues to be as ineffective as the mafia and others employed by the US to get their man.
> “Castro had his own agenda”
< Yes I am aware that every leader has one, considering the adversarial stance of the US, choosing being a pawn certainly limited his opportunities but guaranteed his countries survival. If we are to carry the chess analogy forward from 1990 -2006 without foreign support and the longest running economic blockade in history an unbiased observer might notice that this pawn has become a queen albeit a black one and ranked Cuba # 6 as an outpost of terror (many consider US policies responsible for his continued presence).In any event after all the statements you made I am confused by your conclusion, "what ever the reasons" and then later,
> “Whatever the reasons, they were all Soviet ones”
< a basic knowledge of this period raises questions and offers a more nuanced reality with the continuing release of classified documents both from the US and USSR regarding the missils crisis of 1962
As for to Cuba, Fidel Castro achieved one critical goal an assurance that the US would not invade and Kennedy got what he wanted: "Kennedy responded by publicly accepting the first deal and sending Robert Kennedy to the Soviet embassy to accept the second in private that the fifteen Jupiter missiles near İzmir, Turkey would be removed six months later. Kennedy also requested that Khrushchev *keep this second compromise out of the public domain so that he did not appear weak before the upcoming election* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
> “At least Bush can be voted out and he was never a terrorist”
Chris has answered you last question more directly than I can with, ” ummm….purgatory? Guess that beats hell or an imaginary paradise
> “Dude, try not to say things that make you sound like a left-wing caricature…”
< If I believed statements like this helped frame or advanced the debate I would have a field day starting with your first sentence.
PS, it appears the Supreme Court has dealt with my Gitmo question, so I don’t require a answer from you regarding our discussion of some time back until you disappeared.