Contents
Source — www.novayagazeta.ru
A new ideology dominates the world, and the name of this ideology is liberal fundamentalism. Liberal fundamentalism denies the state the right to wage war and arrest people, but believes that the state should provide everyone with money, housing and education. Liberal fundamentalism calls any Western state a dictatorship, and any terrorist a victim of a Western state.
Liberal fundamentalism denies the right to violence for Israel and recognizes it for the Palestinians. A liberal fundamentalist loudly denounces the US killing civilians in Iraq, but if you remind him that in Iraq civilians are killed primarily by militants, he will look at you as if you did something indecent or farted.
The liberal fundamentalist does not believe a single word of the state and believes any word of a terrorist.
How did it happen that the monopoly on «Western values» was appropriated by those who hate the open society and pander to terrorists? How did it happen that “European values” meant something that would have seemed stupidity and demagogy to Europe in the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries? And how will this end for an open society?
Lori Berenson
In 1998 Amnesty International recognized one Lori Berenson as a political prisoner.
Laurie Berenson was an American left-wing activist who came to Peru in 1995 and began going to parliament and interviewing deputies there. These interviews, by a strange coincidence, never appeared anywhere. Laurie Berenson went to parliament with photographer Nancy Gilvonio, who, again by a strange coincidence, was the wife of Nestor Carpa, the second-oldest leader of the terrorist group Tupac Amaru Movement.
Together with Nancy, she was arrested. The American woman’s house turned out to be the headquarters of the terrorists who were preparing to take over the parliament. They found plans for the Parliament, a police uniform and a whole arsenal of weapons, including 3 bars of dynamite. During the assault, three terrorists were killed, and fourteen were captured alive. When Berenson was presented to the public, she screamed loudly, clenching her fists: «Tupac Amaru» are not terrorists — they are revolutionaries.
Lori Berenson was judged by a hooded judge, because the Tupac Amaru Movement had a habit at the time of shooting judges who convicted them. At the trial, Laurie Berenson stated that she did not know anything. What, her photographer is Karpa’s wife? Yes, she had no idea! What, her house is the headquarters of the terrorists? What are you talking about, she doesn’t know! Where are her reports? So she cooked them, cooked them, but the bloody Peruvian regime stole all her notes.
Lori Berenson’s assurances did not seem convincing either to the Peruvian court or to the American Congress, which did not stand up for her compatriot. However, they seem to be convincing to Amnesty International. The fighters for human rights were not stopped even by the fact that when in December 1996 the “Movement to them. Tupac Amaru» was seized by the Japanese embassy, then in the list of members of the movement whose release the terrorists demanded, the name of Laurie Berenson was in third place.
Moazzam Begg
Moazzam Begg, an Englishman of Pakistani origin, a member of Al-Qaeda, moved to Afghanistan in 2001. As Begg himself wrote, «I wanted to live in an Islamic state, free from corruption and despotism.» Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban seemed to Begg just like that, a truly free and beautiful place.
Before moving to Afghanistan, Begg, by his own admission, had been trained in at least three terrorist camps. He also traveled to Bosnia and ran a bookstore in London selling books on jihad. The most popular book in the shop was Defense of the Islamic Land, written by al-Qaeda co-founder Abdullah Azzam.
After the Americans entered Afghanistan, Begg fled with bin Laden to Toro Boro and then moved to Pakistan. He was arrested because a bank transfer in the name of Moazzam Begg was found in the al-Qaeda training camp in Derunt.
Begg spent several years in Guantanamo and was released in 2005. After that, he became one of the superstars of Amnesty International. With Amnesty money, he traveled around Europe with lectures about how he was tortured by bloody American executioners.
Amnesty International was not embarrassed by the fact that, simultaneously with human rights activities, Begg continued to engage in direct propaganda of terrorism. As president of the Islamic Society (all of whose previous presidents were imprisoned for terrorism), he organized lectures by Anwar al-Awlaki in the UK (via video broadcast, of course, because in the event of a physical appearance on the territory of the United Kingdom, al-Awlaki would have been arrested).
Amnesty International was not embarrassed by the fact that Begg’s stories about the unbearable torture at Guantanamo match exactly the instructions of the so-called. Manchester Manual of al-Qaeda and correspond to the practice of «takqiyya», that is, deliberate lies to the infidels, which an Islamic fundamentalist cannot, but must resort to.
Amnesty was not embarrassed by the fact that these stories are contrary to common sense. If a man with Begg’s biography was really tortured, he would have been sentenced to three life terms.
But when Amnesty International employee Gita Sangal publicly reminded that Begg was actually a member of al-Qaeda, she was fired. The human rights community declared Geeta Sangal persona non grata, and unlike Moazzam Begg, she was unable to find support from any human rights lawyer.
Kolombîya
Alvaro Uribe was elected President of Colombia in 2002.
By this time, Colombia was a failed state (“incapacitated state.” — Approx. ed.). At least 10% of the country was controlled by left-wing rebels, behind whom stood decades of institutionalized violence. Pablo Escobar, the future founder of the Medellin Cartel, almost fell victim to the rebels who massacred his hometown of Titiribi at the age of seven.
It was the left-wing rebels, the Chusmeros, who started the habit called the «Colombian tie» — this is when a person’s neck was cut and the tongue was pulled out through the throat. The Corte de Florero, or Flower Vase, was also popular — this is when the ot.e.e.e.legs of a person were stuck into his cut open stomach. In the 50s, the Chusmeros killed 300 people.
The answer to the left terror, given the impotence of the government, was the terror of the right; in different provinces, people united in semi-autonomous self-defense units. By the beginning of the 20st century, Autodefencas Unidas de Colombia consisted of more than 19 thousand fighters. The left was financed from drug trafficking. The right ones too. When Pablo Escobar needed to destroy his court files stored in the Supreme Court, he simply paid the rebels from M-1985, and in 300 they seized and then burned down the courthouse with XNUMX hostages.
There were also drug cartels. There were also kidnappers who stole the richest, incl. especially drug dealers.
A charismatic workaholic and ascetic, Uribe did the impossible: he resurrected a ruined state. In two years, from 2002 to 2004, the number of terrorist attacks and kidnappings in Colombia fell by half, the number of murders — by 27%.
By the beginning of Uribe’s presidency, 1300 humanitarian and non-profit organizations were active in Colombia. Many of them provided assistance to left-wing rebels; in 2003, President Uribe for the first time allowed himself to call a cat a cat and called on «defenders of terrorism» to «stop cowardly hiding their ideas behind human rights.»
What started here! Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch bombarded the United States and Europe with petitions calling for a boycott of Colombia and its “policies that deepen the human rights crisis in the country” (Amnesty International) and “refrain from supporting legislation that would allow the military to carry out lawless arrests and searches” (HRW).
In May 2004, President Uribe specifically accused foreign human rights activists from Peace Brigades International and Fellowship Of Reconciliation, who supported the «Peace Commune» in San Jose de Apartado, of aiding FARC drug terrorists.
The screech of human rights organizations about this broke all records; when, a month later, the same FARC massacred 34 peasants in La Gabarra, Amnesty International remained modestly silent.
Six years have passed; FARC’s second-in-command terrorist, Daniel Sierra Martinez alias Sameer, defected to the government and told Wall Street Journal’s Mary O’Grady of the invaluable service the Peace Commune in San Jose de Apartado, along with Peace Brigades International and Fellowship, was doing to the drug-terrorists. Of Reconciliation.
According to Martinez, the propaganda in the Peace Commune was handled just as well as Hamas: under the pretext of «peace», the commune refused to allow government troops into its territory, but always provided FARC asylum, if a terrorist was killed, he was always exposed as civilians.
Mungiki
In 2009, the founder of Wikileaks, the eccentric Australian computer genius Julian Assange, received an Amnesty International Award for his role in investigating extrajudicial killings in Kenya, where in 2008 death squads killed about 500 people there.
Receiving the award, Assange called the report on these massacres «a sign of the strength and growth of Kenyan civil society.» “The exposure of these murders,” Assange said, “is made possible by the tremendous work of organizations like the Oscar Foundation.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Assange forgot to mention one important detail. Those killed were members of the Mungiki. This is a satanic sect that only members of the Kikuyu tribe can belong to.
The sect denies Christianity and demands a return to traditional African values. It is difficult to say what exactly the members of the sect believe in, because the punishment for divulging a secret is death. In any case, they are known to drink human blood and sacrifice two-year-old children. Mungiki was engaged in merciless racketeering and sheer terror — in June 2007 alone, as part of its campaign of terror, the sect killed over 100 people.
Julian Assange spent several years in Kenya and could not help but know that the Kenyan authorities directly accused the Oscar Foundation of being a front for Mungiki.
Wateya van hemûyan çi ye?
How to understand all this? Could it be that hidden Mungiki supporters are actually sitting in Amnesty International and sacrificing two-year-old children at night?
Unlikely. Firstly, only Kikuyu can be members of Mungiki. Second, members of a satanic cult cannot be members of al-Qaeda at the same time.
Maybe Amnesty International and other human rights organizations are just blissful ones who cannot endure even the slightest violence? Unlikely. Because although human rights activists actively criticize those who exterminate cannibals and terrorists, they are in no hurry to come to the al-Qaeda training camp and preach non-violence there.
Where does this intellectual cowardice come from, this extraordinary incapacity for moral arithmetic?
HRW
Francis of Assisi took a vow of eternal poverty and preached to the birds. But already under his successor, the Franciscan order became one of the richest and not at all disinterested institutions in Europe. With the human rights movement by the end of the XNUMXth century, the same thing happened as with the Franciscan order.
The oldest and most famous of the human rights organizations, Human Rights Watches, was created by Robert Bernstein in 1978 to monitor how the USSR was implementing the Helsinki Accords. But in 1992, the USSR collapsed, and HRW remained alive. Moreover, she only grew up; its budget is tens of millions of dollars, offices are located in 90 countries.
And on October 19, 2009, there was a huge scandal: the octogenarian founder of HRW appeared in The New York Times with an article in which he reproached HRW for betraying the principles and consistent support of Hamas and Hezbollah, while constantly biased and unfair treatment of Israel.
The two tricks that HRW uses to constantly criticize Israel are very simple. The first is the refusal to study the causes of the conflict. “We don’t study the causes of the conflict,” says HRW, “we study how the parties to the conflict respect human rights.”
Great! Imagine that you are a woman who was attacked by a maniac in the forest, and you managed to shoot him. From the point of view of human rights activists from HRW, you will be to blame.
The «we don’t investigate the cause» position deliberately puts the terrorist aggressor, which has fewer resources, in an advantageous position compared to the state that responds to terror.
The second method is even simpler — it is distortion, silence and lies. For example, in a 2007 report, HRW stated that Hezbollah was not in the habit of «using the population as human shields» and at the same time stated that it had evidence that the Israeli army «deliberately targeted civilians.» When the Palestinian suicide bombing epidemic peaked in 2002, HRW published press releases about Israeli human rights abuses. It took HRW another 5 months to release a report on suicide bombings, and 5 years to release a report on Israeli attacks from Gaza.
In 2009, HRW traveled to Saudi Arabia, where it raised money for anti-Israeli reports. The situation with human rights in Saudi Arabia is somewhat worse than in Israel. In addition, Saudi Arabia is the largest sponsor of terrorism. But HRW didn’t mind.
The same position is taken by HRW in Sri Lanka, where government troops are fighting against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a brutal terrorist organization that has killed tens of thousands of people and uses Tamils as human shields. Any attempt by government troops to attack, HRW immediately announces that government troops are targeting civilians.
Amnesty International
The second oldest and most famous human rights organization is Amnesty International. It was founded in 1961 by lawyer Peter Benenson; the reason for the founding was an article about two Portuguese students who were thrown into prison for seven years because they «drank a toast to freedom.» Amnesty ensured that prisoners of conscience in Europe were released and that political prisoners received a fair trial.
But by the beginning of the 90s, prisoners of conscience in Europe had disappeared, and meanwhile the size of Amnesty (as well as the Franciscan order) only increased: 2,2 million members in 150 countries. The question arose: where to find prisoners of conscience whose rights must be protected? Of course, Amnesty campaigned both for women’s rights and against global warming, but still, you see, this is not the same: the main demand of conscientious people will always be for prisoners of conscience, and preferably in Europe or America: in the Congo it’s like it is far and uninteresting.
And Amnesty found its prisoners of conscience: in Guantanamo Bay. Already from 1986 to 2000, the country with the largest number of Amnesty reports was the United States, with 136 reports, followed by Israel. Nice states like Uganda or Congo were not among the top XNUMX violators of human rights.
And after the United States declared “war on terror”, Amnesty also announced its campaign: Counter terror with justice (“To counter terrorism by law.” — Approx. ed.). And as you understand, the main villain in this campaign was not the terrorists. And those who fight terrorism. Whoever fights more is the greater villain.
Of the twenty stories in this section (as of December 20, 2010), one concerns Turkey, one concerns Libya, one concerns Yemen (Amnesty requires Yemen to stop sacrificing human rights as they confront Al-Qa’ida), another concerns Pakistan (Amnesty outraged that the Pakistani authorities do not protect human rights in areas occupied by the Taliban, although it is very difficult to see how they can do this, because if the Pakistani military launches an offensive against the Taliban, they will be required to stop sacrificing human rights as they confront Al-Qa ‘ida). Two more are dedicated to Great Britain, and the remaining 14 are dedicated to Guantanamo Bay, the CIA and the United States.
It is difficult to fight against terror. To do this, you need to crawl on your belly through the mountains, jump with a parachute, risk your life. It is good and easy to fight for justice for terrorists: for this it is enough to send out press releases that “daily injustice” (“daily lawlessness”) is going on in Guantanamo and that “president Obama’s administration has failed to match its words with concrete action when it comes to accountability and remedy for human rights violations committed in the name of «countering terrorism» «).
Amnesty explains its policy as follows: we write about developed countries more often, because the state of affairs in them is a guideline for all of humanity. I’m afraid the real explanation is different. Criticizing the US is much safer than criticizing real cannibals. And sponsors for criticizing the United States are much easier to find.
There is a simple human logic: the wolfhound is right, the cannibal is wrong. There is the logic of human rights activists: the wolfhound is wrong because he violated the rights of the cannibal. And we will not ask the cannibal.
The ideology of international bureaucracy
Such a critical attitude to one’s own civilization has not always existed in the history of the West. In the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries, Europe conquered the world and did not at all worry about the rights of peoples violated by it. When Cortes saw the bloody sacrifices of the Aztecs, he did not fall into tenderness about the «unique local customs» that must be preserved. When the British abolished the custom of burning widows in India, it did not occur to them that they were violating the rights of these widows who wished to follow their husbands.
The time when this attitude appeared and, moreover, became almost a common discourse for the intellectual elite of the West, can be called quite accurately: this is the 30s, the time when Stalin financed the Comintern and made plans to conquer the whole world. It was then that “useful idiots” (in Lenin’s words) appeared in large numbers in the West, who possessed one strange quality: diligently criticizing the “bloody bourgeois regime”, for some reason they did not notice the GulaAG at point-blank range.
This strange intellectual craze continued, for example, during the Vietnam War. The leftist elite went out of their way to denounce the «atrocities of the American military.» The little fact that the war was started not by the Americans, but by the Communists, and that for the Viet Cong, sheer terror was just a tactic, the left somehow did not notice.
A classic example of this is the famous photograph taken by photographer Eddie Adams. It shows Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc Lon firing a bullet at a bound Viet Cong Nguyen Van Lem. The photo went around the world as a symbol of the brutality of the imperialists. True, Eddie Adams later said that the Viet Cong was killed, pulled out of the house, where he had massacred an entire family just minutes before, but this was no longer important for the left.
The modern human rights movement in the West has ideologically grown out of the extreme left.
And if historically the far left were pawns in the hands of totalitarian regimes, now liberal fundamentalism has become a pawn in the hands of terrorists and cannibals.
The ideals of FARC, al-Qaeda or African cannibals are very different from each other. Some want to build communism, others want the kingdom of Allah, others want to return to traditional values in the form of witchcraft and cannibalism. They have only one thing in common: hatred for a normal Western state. This hatred is shared by a significant portion of liberal fundamentalists with terrorists.
“So, really, why worry? — you ask. “If the “fighters for peace” and “useful idiots” could not defeat the West when powerful totalitarian secret services stood behind them, can they do it now?”
The problem is that even half a century ago, «fighters for peace» were mostly idealists, who were used as needed by totalitarian regimes. Now the «struggle for human rights» has become the philosophy of a whole class — the class of the international bureaucracy.
«Oil for food»
Here, get acquainted, the noble fighter for human rights Denis Holiday, the head of the UN humanitarian mission in Iraq, and then a member of the «Freedom Flotilla», who tried to break the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. After the UN canceled the oil-for-food program, Mr. Holiday resigned, publicly declaring that the UN and George W. Bush were engaged in genocide against the «innocent people of Iraq.»
After that, Mr. Holiday made a film about the 500 Iraqi children who died because of the Nazi Bush. When journalist David Edwards asked human rights activist Denis Holiday if Iraqi officials were stealing the medicines, Holiday was even indignant: «there’s no basis for that assertion at all.»
When journalist David Edwards asked why, at a time when Iraqi children were dying without medicines, tens of thousands of tons of undistributed medicines had accumulated in UN warehouses supervised by Holiday, Holiday answered without batting an eyelid that these medicines should be given in a complex: “The warehouses have stores that cannot be used because they are waiting for other components that are blocked by the Sanctions Committee.»
Holiday was not the only bureaucrat at the UN unhappy with the abolition of the oil-for-food program. His successor, Hans von Sproneck, also resigned, exclaiming publicly, «How long longer will Iraqi civilians be punished for something they didn’t do?» Two days after von Sproneck’s resignation, the head of the World Food Program in Iran followed suit.
Strange affair. From the point of view of common sense, the responsibility for violence and poverty lies with those who cause violence and poverty. In Iraq it was Saddam Hussein. But the humanitarian bureaucrats from the UN acted differently: they blamed the whole world for what was happening in Iraq, and not the bloody dictator, while they themselves, together with the bloody dictator, sawed money under the Oil for Food program.
And here is such a small problem: in order for money to be cut, the people must suffer.
Famine in Ethiopia
The famine in Ethiopia in the mid-80s caused an extraordinary activity of humanitarian organizations. In 1985 alone, the Live Aid concert, which featured Bob Dylan, Madonna, Queen, Led Zeppelin, raised $249 million to help famine-stricken Ethiopia. The concert was hosted by Bob Geldof, a former rock singer turned even more famous entrepreneur specializing in aiding famine-stricken Africa. Hundreds of millions more were raised by Christian Aid.
Millions did not help anything: over a million people died of starvation. And in March 2010, a scandal erupted: the former Ethiopian rebel Aregavi Berhe, having quarreled with the former head of the rebels, and now the head of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, told the BBC that 95% of humanitarian aid went to the purchase of weapons.
His statement caused an uproar. Bob Geldof stated that «there is not an iota of truth» in Berhe’s words. Max Peberdy, spokesman for Christian Aid, said there was no way the aid could have been stolen, and even painted in paint how he bought grain from merchants for cash.
In response, one of the militants who sold grain from Peberdi told how he pretended to be a Muslim merchant. The militant’s name was Gebremedin Araya. According to Araya, there were sandbags under the sacks of grain, and the cash that Araya received for the grain was immediately transferred to the purchase of weapons.
The problem of famine in Ethiopia was not only that more than a million people died from it. But that both the government and the rebels deliberately relocated people in order to squeeze more money out of the NGOs under the pretense of their suffering. Getting money from NGOs was not a consequence, but the purpose of this deliberately staged famine.
The same is happening in the Gaza Strip. Hamas (and before it the PLO — the Palestine Liberation Organization) keeps the population in poverty in order to use this poverty as a moral lever to extort money from humanitarian and bureaucratic organizations. As a result, Hamas and NGOs become the pump that pumps money from the world into the Gaza Strip, and the poverty of its population is the atmospheric pressure that makes the pump work.
It is clear that in this state of affairs, HRW and other NGOs will always be on the side of Hamas.
After all, if Mr. Holiday and Co. offer humanitarian assistance to the people of Israel, their services will not be accepted. The protection of the people of Israel is provided by the State of Israel, not by human rights activists. And the state of Israel is not interested in turning its people into homeless people, with the help of whose misfortunes the political elite will extort and cut money.
Part of the establishment
This is perhaps the most dangerous. Liberal fundamentalists, just like climate alarmists, position themselves as anti-establishment. In fact, they have long been an integrated part of the establishment, with its most malignant part being the international bureaucracy.
We often scold the state and the bureaucracy. But the state, whatever it is, is interested in protecting its citizens and solving their problems. The international bureaucracy is not responsible to anyone.
We are told that humanitarian organizations help where there is hunger and violence. But in practice, exactly the opposite happens: where humanitarian organizations go, hunger and violence last forever.
Therefore, governments trying to deal with terrorists, as in Colombia, are invariably the main targets of criticism from human rights defenders.
And, on the contrary, the most terrible regimes, such as those in the Gaza Strip or in Ethiopia, become allies of NGOs, which are not able to organize the economy in their country, but are capable of organizing violence and famine in order to receive money from the international community.
The fight for human rights has given rise to a new kind of terrorism: terrorists who, like Hamas, do not so much seek to destroy other people’s children as they seek to ensure that an Israeli retaliatory strike destroys many more Palestinian children. The struggle for human rights has led to a new kind of pseudo-state: these are terrible enclaves ruled by monstrous regimes that would not survive in a normal world and would be conquered or destroyed. But money from NGOs and a ban on war against such enclaves allows them to keep their population in inhuman conditions, and their elite to enjoy absolute power.
Xelasî
The basic thesis of the human rights movement is very simple. We must protect human rights, whoever he may be. I must say that this thesis is inherently flawed. It contradicts the basic axiom of human behavior: evil must be punished. A person must make a choice.
It contradicts everything that myths and literature teach us about the hero, good and evil. In terms of human rights, Hercules is not a hero, but a war criminal. He did not respect the rights of the Lernean Hydra and the rights of King Diomedes, who fed people to his horses.
From a human rights perspective, Odysseus is a war criminal; without trial, he killed Polyphemus, moreover, invading his, Polyphemus, territory. Theseus, Perseus, Siegfried, Yoshitsune — they are all criminals. Gilgamesh should be tried in The Hague, and Prince Hamlet, who killed his stepfather without trial, should be blacklisted by Amnesty International.
All those whom mankind calls heroes, human rights activists should consider war criminals. The protection of human rights puts an end to the very concept of war, because war is when people are killed without trial. It is, of course, good to renounce war, but what if your opponent does not renounce it? If my memory serves me right, it was not the American martyrs on Arab Boeings that crashed into the Kaaba, it was a little the other way around.
If CNN had existed during World War II, the Allies would never have won against Hitler. “After the Dresden bombings, Goebbels would not have left the screens with the corpses of the Dresden children in his arms,” Garry Kasparov remarked sarcastically to me in a private conversation.
If any war is recognized as a violation of human rights, this leads to a surprising consequence: the defending side becomes guilty. After all, you see, this is logical: if you do not respond to the attack, then there will be no war. This means that it is not those who attacked who are to blame, but those who decide to defend themselves.
Liberal fundamentalists have good intentions. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We lived for 70 years in a country that also had good intentions. This country built communism and promised everyone free education and free medicine. But in reality, free medicine turned into a barn instead of a hospital. Some wonderful principles in reality turn into their opposite. The principle “we must protect the rights of every person” is one of them.
But this is not enough. Obviously, if there was no trial of this or that person, or it seems to us that his rights were not properly observed, then in relation to this person we should be guided by common sense. It wasn’t there. The protection of human rights actually turns into the protection of the rights of a terrorist. Human rights activists are not guided by common sense or reality. From their point of view, everything that a terrorist says is obviously true, and everything that the state says is a lie. As a result, terrorists create entire divisions to lie to human rights activists. Moreover, they change tactics. If earlier terrorists used their own women and children as human shields, now they deliberately call fire on them. Now the goal of Hamas, placing its rockets on the roofs of schools and apartment buildings, is to have the Israelis kill as many civilians as possible by retaliating against the firing point.
Why do human rights NGOs believe every terrorist claim? Why do they believe al-Qaeda member Moazzam Begg when he is obviously lying? Because the human rights movement has become the ideology of the international bureaucracy. In the Gaza Strip, five-year-olds are learning to march with machine guns; they are shown cartoons about how to kill Jews. Hamas keeps the population of the sector in complete dependence; any business is taxed in favor of Hamas, during Operation Cast Lead, Hamas members did not knock out a single Israeli tank, did not shoot down a single helicopter, but they used this time to arrest and execute over a hundred members of Fatah. They took the time to torture these people at their headquarters, set up in a hospital in Rafah, from where they expelled the sick and wounded.
Hamas demands the destruction of the State of Israel and all Jews and says that if Israel does not agree, it means that it is not inclined to compromise. Why are human rights defenders usually on the side of Hamas and not on the side of Israel? Because they, together with Hamas, master the money.
The protection of human rights, having become a commonly used discourse, came into a surprising contradiction with common sense. Books and films teach us one thing, news another. We are told in the news that «Harry Potter killed Lord Voldemort without trial» and that «Thousands of people died and dozens of suicides and catastrophes occurred during the course of Potter’s war with Voldemort.» I don’t think it’s necessary to mention that Voldemort is responsible for the catastrophes.
Terrorism is a new kind of barbarism. The barbarian only respects strength, so civilization must be stronger than the barbarian. If she’s just richer or safer, it doesn’t mean anything. Civilization must be stronger.
We are told: «We must protect the rights of any person, because if today the government violates the rights of Anwar al-Awlaki, then tomorrow it will violate your rights.» But, gentlemen, this is demagoguery! «Today he dances jazz, and tomorrow he will sell his homeland.» If Harry Potter destroyed Lord Voldemort without a trial, this does not mean that tomorrow he will incinerate Hermione Granger without trial and investigation.
We are told: «Every person, even a very bad one, has the right to a trial.» But in a situation where a trial is impossible, this turns into impunity for terrorists. Woe to the world, in which instead of heroes fighting evil, only human rights activists fighting heroes will remain. “Compromising with evil is a crime,” Thomas Mann said of fascism. I will add: defending the rights of Lord Voldemort is nonsense.
Wolfhound is right. Cannibal — no.