Comments on: we western europeans

By: angela

angela — Fri, 11 May 2007 18:41:46 +0000

The Kosovan war / genocide was not the largest since the 2nd World War — Biafra suffered 3.5 million deaths of Igbo’s by forced starvation of which the Financial Minister of Nigeria satated’starvation is a legitimate tool of war’.
The Nigerians also killed by force 300,000 Biafran soldiers and civilians.

By: Ivan

Ivan — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 06:36:07 +0000

I’m a Serb and have muslim and Western friends. We all get along quite ok.
But there’s one thing that disturbs me about them, you people and actually most people around the (Western) world:
Everybody keeps repeating that the Serbs massmurdered people.
Somehow every dead albanian, muslim or croat is photographed a million times, while serbian deaths seem to be completely unimportant.
there are sources that say that 120000 muslims and 90000 serbs died in Bosnia. Why have the Western media never shown anything about that?
Did those 90000 serbs collectively commit suicide or were they killed by the other parties?
It really seems as if a Serbian life is worth less than any other…
If you think the Kosovo war was for humanitarian reasons then explain why dozens of other countries aren’t bombed. Sudan Rwanda etc…with much, much more casualties.
I learned 1 thing: no american war is fought for humanitarian reasons. That’s just propaganda. And if there are no genocides or weapons of mass destruction, they will make them up, but in the end they will always have it their way.
So actually Saddam and milosevic should have killed themselves as soon as they found out the us wanted to get rid of them.
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/html/0614_jwr.html
http://www.iacenter.org

By: Ivan

Ivan — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 06:35:43 +0000

By: K.

K. — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 05:34:15 +0000

Nice one. However I do not agree with the comparison. It just needs a little bit more of reading through history books than that. The bloodshed in the Balkans is just the consequence of the bad foreign politics of GB and the rest of Europe in the past. But if I think of it, it’s not just the Balkans. All the wars anywhere in the world can be tracked back in time to some wrongdoing of an European state. Israel and Palestine, civil wars in Africa, Asia, Latin America…all of them are products MADE IN EUROPE. Maybe U.S.A is just following the tradition.

By: Morten KH

Morten KH — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:16:48 +0000

I just loved this one.. Brilliant!

By: phil jones

phil jones — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:04:25 +0000

Hmm. Re-reading my posting above, the word “tolerable” sounds a bit dodgy. I meant, of course, that it was not any kind of “existential” threat to Israel, not that it was somehow morally OK.

By: Saurabh Kulkarni

Saurabh Kulkarni — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:48:45 +0000

Nice work Hugh! I am always inspired by the way you write and draw toons! Keep inspiring me..
– Saurabh

By: AGRADA

AGRADA — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:51:25 +0000

Ok, I’m Muslim and one of my best friends is Jew, I realized that both religions ISLAM AND JUDAISM are so close , except that muslims believe in Jesus the christ, in the other hand Jews consider Jesus the Christ as a false prophet.
But. My other friend Believes that BEER IS GOD. (I Like this )

By: phil jones

phil jones — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:35:32 +0000

The problem is, you have to do some cold blooded calculations, rather than get carried away in self-indulgent outrage at teh “evil terrists“
The truth is that Hezbollah firing unaimed rockets into Israel poses zero threat to the country. Sure, they’ll kill civilians, which is a nasty thing to do, but the amount of hurt they’ll inflict on the Israeli people is, frankly, tolerable. (Unlike the Serbian militias in Kosovo, which posed a plausible threat of genocide; even so Forsyth is right that the NATO bombardment of Serbian civilians was a wholly unjustified crime.)
If Israel had magnanimously ignored the rocket attacks, Hezbollah would have gained little sympathy in Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world, and would have gradually lost popular support.
Instead, Israel made a botched attempt at a war to destroy Hezbollah; killed something like ten times as many innocent Lebanese civilians as Hezbollah had killed innocent Israeli civilians — which seriously hurt its reputation as the good guy ; *failed* disasterously to damage Hezbollah’s capability — which seriously hurt its reputation as a fearsome, competent military force ; and has now retreated, amid a surge of pro-Hezbollah feeling in Lebanon and the rest of the middle-east, requiring that thousands of European and UN troops are dragged into the south of Lebanon to keep the peace.
Israel did not even go to war because of rocket attacks. (If you’ve forgotten, go check the sequence of events.) Israel went to war so that its scoundrel of a prime-minister could make some patriotic capital by rescuing two Israeli soldiers. It was a war, very much of choice, driven by political posturing.
By contrast, Britain actually showed the world how to beat terrorism this year. By smart police work, and good co-operation with both the muslim community at home, and internationally with the police of Pakistan. Ultimately, this, not chest-thumping and telegenic random invasions of other countries is what’s going to make the world safer. It saves lives, nails the guilty and does little collateral damage to either civilians or our reputation.

By: Luka

Luka — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 03:54:27 +0000

Oh … this one’s lovely. Right down my alley. Just posted a three-pic piece on this down my blog (plug plug plug ethical question on using hatred as plug plug).
It’s hard talking about human nature, hypocrisy, moral relativism, etc. etc. … the debate gets so open and bloody. I think all responses are “disproportionate.“
Why? Because — when something goes right, we boast it’s all down to us. When something goes wrong, however, we always pin the blame on someone else. And that somebody (be it Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Serbs, Fluffy Bunnies, Easter Eggs or the Linux Penguin) gets it rammed down their throat as hard as possible. Why?
Because we’re HURT — we’re not only hurt physically, but morally, emotionally, etc. etc. — our outrage is out of proportion to the actual damage, but our response IS usually actual damage. So you get a vicious circle of violence.
Whoopee! Eh what?

By: DeeK

DeeK — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 02:05:43 +0000

Great post! Balanced and well thought out. The ‘international community’ is a failure when it comes to logic, fairness and truthful analysis. Keep up the good work.
Surf’s up,
Dennis

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 00:12:18 +0000

At the base of any conflict is tribalism and one tribe’s inherent quest to hold dominion over another. It has always been so and will always remain so.
We humans do not learn to coexist. We learn to tolerate. For a while only.
Then we get bored, factuous, intolerant and belligerent again and bring out the bazookas and recruit innocents and send them to early and completely unecessary deaths as suicide bombers for what?
Nothing changes. The need for us humans to dominate another will never be resolved. War and regional conflict will remain inevitable for all time.
Why can’t Israel and Palestine simply accept each other as neighbours and get on with living eating, praying and procreating? They would and want to.
But that’d be too easy a resoltion. Someone wants to foster and maintain instability. Why?

By: oliver franks

oliver franks — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:29:53 +0000

Thanks Scott, I should have said ‘peacefully co-existing by comparison with today’. I didn’t intend that the relationship sound so idyllic.
I was refferring to Berman’s point rasied in the Amis article about the rise in anti-semitism along with Totalitarianism in Arab countries post WW2. Berman mentions the wave of Nazi intellectuals who fled to Egypt and their influence there and on Qutb. Although they were treated as 2nd class citizens the Jews were not as villified in that area as they are now until that period, and I don’t think there was much talk of genocide.

By: Scott Caplan

Scott Caplan — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:06:51 +0000

Just a factual note on the last comment. Jews and Arabs had not been peacefully coexisting until after World War II. At the very latest, you could say that the current hostilities have their roots in the late 19th century. Before that, Jews were minority populations in Arab and other Muslim-controlled countries, a status which usually made the Jews’ lives peaceful as long as they submitted to their Muslim rulers. As to how much like second-class citizens they were treated, that varied greatly through history and location (as might be expected).

By: oliver Franks

oliver Franks — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:10:05 +0000

Thanks for putting that article up, I had never thought of Israel’s reaction in comparison to Serbia.
Furthermore the wave of anti-americanism which accuse the US of Islamaphobia always conveniently forgets the bombing of Serbia. Anti-semitism is still very much alive, and as Hugh points out in his cartoon (I think), arguably has been exported into the middle east (where Jews and Arabs had been peacefully co-existing) from Europe after the 2nd world war.
Israel must defend itself, but other than continued hostilites in the region, what is the real solution? Can you change the mind of the ant-semites? I doubt it. There are people alive today who were so effectively brainwashed by the Nazis they are still anti-semitic.
So do we need further military action in the region, is Israel’s reaction disproportioniate in that it is too small? After all, Hezbollah have claimed a victory. That’s an uncomfortable question, and to answer yes would almost certainly transgress international law.
Meanwhile the terrorists hide behind the hemskirts of civilians and wishy washy liberalism, happily murdering away, preparing the next generation, eroding our confidence in ourselves and our faith in humanity. Our press coverage becomes less clear sighted as the beginnings of the conflict diminish on the horizon and the death count rises…