Since the destruction of the mosque in Samarra
sectarian warfare has broken out in every Iraqi city
where there is a mixed population.
ETHNIC CLEANSING ARAB GENOCIDE
In many cases the minority is too small to stand and fight.
Sunnis have been fleeing Basra after a series of killings.
Christians are being eliminated in Mosul in the north.
Shias are being killed or driven out of
cities and towns north of Baghdad.
It doesn't get much more doublethink Orwellian than giving a filthy thing like genocide the newspeak name "ethnic cleansing":
Iraq disintegrating into ethnic cleansing (an exodus of people fleeing for their lives as sectarian assassins and death squads hunt them down). Independent, May 21, 2006
Using the word "ethinic cleansing" in the above article, instead of "genocide" for what is happening in Iraq, is to figuratively and literally "whitewash" the fact that United Nations forces are enabling and participating in killing Arabs simply because they are Arabs - although different sects are targeted from month to month - sometimes it's Kurds, then it's Shiates, then Sunnites etc etc, which also makes it confusing for Western citizens, whose troops are there assissting in the genocide of Arabs, to keep track of who's who. We're constantly told "OSADDAM BIN LADEN" (or Osaddam binvisible) did it, or some other indistinquishable Arab name, no matter where in the world terror happens.
I've always had problems explaining the hell that is going on in Iraq. See IRAQ AFGHANI PHONY WAR. I knew it wasn't a "war", but instead an "invasion", which then became an "occupation" but that doesn't really apply because major bombing and destruction and killing of human beings is still going on on a massive scale. The country, like Afghanistan, is being bombed back to the Stone Age - including the destruction and theft of its artifacts, created before Iraq was Iraq or Iran was Iran or Afghan was Afghan or England and America and Europe were even here. See BAGHDAD PLUNDERED.
Then the idea that the war in Iraq is really a "genocide" was brought home to me just this week when I discovered an interview of Peter Gourevitch, author of the must-read book on the Rwanda genocide entitled WE WISH TO INFORM YOU THAT TOMORROW WE WILL BE KILLED WITH OUR FAMILIES from which I have previously quoted in the RWANDA'S GOOD MAN KAGAME article.
Discovering Gourevitich's interview came atop my on-going reading of THE FATE OF AFRICA which covers the past fifty years of African history, which is made up of the powers-that-be (the United Nations, aka Big Brother) endlessly manipulating hatred between ethnic groups, then arming one side against the other, then switching sides and doing it all over again. It put everything into perspective for me. I now recognize that what is presently going on in Iraq and Afghanistan was done in every country in Africa, and also in Tibet and Chechnya, and in Yugoslavia and ongoingly in Palestine, as just a few other examples.
All the best,
Jackie Jura, 2006
In the following excerpt from a PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) interview Gourevitch explains the difference between "war" and "genocide":
Question: ...What's the distinction to you between civil war and genocide?
"In a civil war, you have essentially two combatant forces. Sometimes they are fighting against one another. Sometimes civilians get involved as militia men or so. In a genocide, there is no political objective ... the idea is to eliminate what is perceived as a blood line. It means anybody who carries that blood must be eliminated. So it doesn't matter if you're a baby. In a civil war, a baby is not a serious enemy element. Here, it is, because 60 years from now, that baby could be an adult. Grandmothers on their last legs are considered to be eliminated. Pregnant women. 'You must be careful,' the Rwandans who were committing the genocide said, 'to disembowel them and make sure the fetus in their womb was dead.' That's what genocide is about."
Question: Tell me more about the differences.
"In early April of 1994, much of the reporting said, 'The civil war has been renewed in Rwanda.' But a civil war involves two or more armies fighting one another--a rebel army and a government army. And it means that soldiers fight soldiers. The objective is to defeat the other party. Quite often, because these are wars that are civil wars, they involved civilian populations being attacked.
"But a genocide is a completely different thing. You often ignore the enemy army to go after the people that you have decided to call the enemy. So you've decided that the Tutsis are the enemy. And that means that instead of going to the front to fight the enemy, you go to a Tutsi's home to kill his children and his old mother, because the idea is to eliminate a blood line.
"And furthermore, when one talks about civil war, one's talking about the internal affairs of a state, how foreign policy people look at such a thing. When one talks about civil war, foreign policy people will say, 'Well, that's the internal affair of a foreign state. We don't get involved in other people's civil wars.' But we've pledged to get involved in genocides, of course. So when you call it a civil war, it's a way quite often of ignoring that, in fact, what's happening is a systematic attempt to eliminate this blood line, an act of genocide, and one concerted and organized to involve the entire population...."
Interview With Philip Gourevitch. Frontline, PBS
Conversation with Philip Gourevitch. Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley
Humanitarian aid can't reach Lebanon (roads demolished, bridges destroyed, 900 dead-3,000 wounded-million displaced). BBC, Aug 3, 2006. Go to 7.Systems & 12.Minipax (War)
(victorious Allies redrew political map of Arab world in a mannner which suited themselves best)
A concise history of Lebanon & Israel using cluster bombs on Lebanon (kill long after being fired) & Civilians under fire in Lebanon ("normal war is between soldiers"). BBC, Jul 25, 2006
~ an independent researcher monitoring local, national and international events ~