Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
Comment-1
October 01, 2010 | Comment-2 October 28, 2010
I
have to respond to this “holy” bit of bullshit: “Iranians
defended themselves nobly and their moral resistance against the
coalition of global tyrants deserves to be called a holy defense.”
Are
you a journalist or the PR spokesman of the beleaguered
state?
Have
you seen any war? War casualties?
No
modern war is holy, for its victims are always non-combatant
civilians - not to mention the butchery the modern uniforms do to
each other even when they are paid to wear it in the name of duty. To
defend oneself from aggression is an evil existential necessity, an
existential right to self-defence that
cannot be legislated away. But the exercise of that inalienable right
in modernity almost always entails inflicting the most extreme forms
of violence upon the enemy. The sorts of barbarisms that one is
forced to exercise, and to experience, even in self-defence, can in
no way be termed “holy”, except in [Orwellian] Newspeak.
Only the dead have seen the end of war (I think it's Plato's
rendering – but also entirely self-evident). Perhaps that's why
the dead are also the only ones at peace and deemed to be in “heaven”
in all war mobilizations.
The
living suffer through it both during, and afterwards. And a nuclear
war, a DU decimation, being bombed into stone-age,
will continue to inflict immeasurable
suffering for eons to come – as in Iraq – even after the
canons have gone silent. And that is the potential cataclysm facing
Iran today. A self-defence against it – borrowing from your
description of the previous war – will only be called “holy”
in Newspeak, and all sides will indulge in it. But those suffering
the aggression are not made automatically holy just because they are
the victims! To be holy – i.e., in Realityspeak I imagine it
means to be moral, fair, and just to most people – one has to
act moral, fair and just in all circumstance. The test of it is
daily, constant.
On
that yardstick of non Newspeak, can you list what moral acts were
undertaken by Iran in its self-defence which saw a million Muslims
slaughtered on either side by Muslims, because of which one might
non-propagandistically term that longest war holy?
A
victimhood and holy-ness always seem to go
together – just look at the pious
Jews living it out daily in Zionistan.
The
glorification of modern war as “holy” is exclusively the
craftsmanship of war propagandists who are
tasked to mobilize their people, on either side, whether
ideologically as the aggressors often are,
or with a paycheck as their paid shills and mercenaries always are.
To wit: the War on Terror – now that's a “holy” war
isn't it? Honest journalists are not state propagandists. They must
expose its abhorrences, even despite self-defence being an
inalienable existential imperative. So I ask you again, what was
bloody “holy” in that grotesque internecine
violence of brother killing brother and children sent to the
front-lines as the jihadis awaiting heaven;
entirely set up to partake of that holy evil by the same Hectoring
Hegemons who are now ready to do it themselves directly to your
country once again?
When
well-intentioned journalists join in that effort of war
glorification, they are called “embedded” journalists, or
aren't you familiar with that term? The embedding is evidently
ubiquitous, and occurs in all state-sponsorship. Awards received from
state-power seem to have the uncanny power to corrupt and co-opt any
commonsense. I admire that you and the majority of Iranian people and
its leaders are not suffering from “Occidentosis”
– the plague from the West which was prevalent during the
Shah's insufferable regime, and which apparently still afflicts the
tiny minority of Iranian “House
Negroes” calling for “green revolution”
and “regime
change” – any longer. But to replace that
with severe myopia is perhaps even more pathetic (and tragic).
Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
October
01, 2010
Comment
submitted for: 'A
defense which deserves being called Holy by Kourosh Ziabari'
October
28, 2010
Just
for completeness of the tortuous empiricism noted in my comment above
that “No modern war is holy, for its victims are always
non-combatant civilians”, I quote the Israeli Military from
their testimony in Rachel Corrie's court
hearing:
'“During
war there are no civilians,” that’s what “Yossi,”
an Israeli military (IDF) training unit leader simply stated during a
round of questioning on day two of the Rachel Corrie trials, held in
Haifa’s District Court earlier this week. “When you write
a [protocol] manual, that manual is for war,” he added.' --
Source:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/09/201098123618465366.html
While
the world is expressing its usual 15-seconds of shock at this cold
admission, the world is also full of idle spectators'
ooos, aahs, and
boos as the case may be. This is a case of the latter. That statement
however is empirical – and only the Chutzpah of the 'chosen
peoples' permitted them to brazenly admit in court what is already
known to everyone that “During war there are no
civilians,” for they know that this isn't the Military
Tribunal at Nuremberg, nor Adolf Eichmann's
Trial in Jerusalem. The judge, jury, and executioners are all the
same presiding over their own murderers – not victors over the
vanquished.
But
the empirical facts don't need the admission of the guilty, nor the
verdict of the victor's court, to become fact.
The
United States has itself killed hundreds of thousands of civilians,
millions if we start counting from World War II and include the
Allied fire-bombings of Japan and Germany culminating in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, and tens of millions if we include all wars during the
past 100 years, including the Iran-Iraq war, and now the 'War
on Terror', count-em – the dead are mostly
innocent civilians. The wars themselves, all of them as a
dispassionate study indicates, were set-up by third parties who first
created the antagonists, and then got them to kill each other
according to pre-planned agendas. Inextricably caught in those
man-made evil agendas, the poor victims are not made holy, nor their
efforts to survive become holy.
The
fact that this Iranian journalist has tried to whitewash the
destruction of an entire generation of his own Iranian peoples as
“holy”, and has not responded to my critique above, has
left me no choice but to firmly conclude that he is indeed a state
propagandist who, as Hitler had stated of every journalist in Mein
Kampf (Vol. 1, Chapter X,
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt
), is “fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the truth”
– nothing more. What a shame....
Iran
can perhaps survive its many traitors and uncle
toms – all the flag-waiving regime-changers
– but surely not its handful of fools in key places (nor its
propagandists who believe their own lies).
Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
October
28, 2010
Comment-2
submitted for: 'A
defense which deserves being called Holy by Kourosh Ziabari'
Source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/10/zahirs-response-to-irans-holy-defense.html
First Published October 1, 2010 | Links fix November 5, 2016
Zahir's
Response to 'A defense which deserves being called “Holy”
by Iranian Journalist Kourosh Ziabari'