Fallujah is a city of some 300,000 people. I hear via CNN that it is thought that about one third of the population is still in the city, or about 100,000 souls. It is estimated that the insurgents number maybe 3,000.
The "insurgents" live and work among the people of Fallujah, ensuring that, as the Americans attack, many unarmed women and children will be killed. From the perspective of the insurgents, that's a moral issue for the insurgents.
The moral issue for the Americans is that we will do the killing. The children, the women, the old men – in short, anyone who gets in the way. The insurgents and the Americans have informally agreed upon a pact that permits as many innocent, unarmed civilians to be killed as is necessary to fulfill the goals of either one of the contracting parties.
The intentional killing of unarmed civilians was the great crime that the Americans helped bring against the Germans after WWII. Millions of Jews intentionally murdered in "gassing chambers." We excused our own intentional killing of unarmed civilians at such historic sites as Nagasaki and Hamburg with the notion that we killed them for a "greater good."
That is what we have in Fallujah. We will kill as many unarmed civilians as is necessary to defeat the insurgency for the "greater good" of Iraq, the Middle East, and America. So, while it is wrong to intentionally kill unarmed civilians under normal circumstances, it is okay if you kill them for a "greater good."
Professors and other intellectuals will observe that, if I have no solution to the problem, I should not talk about it. Putting aside for the moment the question of weather that observation makes sense – we have no solution to the problem of God, for example, but we talk about Her without let. Meanwhile, Holocaust revisionists do have a suggestion about how to go about finding a solution.
Create an open debate on American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. There will have to be a public debate over what we claim was the moral justification for the creation of a Jewish state on Arab land through the use of force, and the moral justification for supporting the US alliance with Israel against the Palestinians.
The moral justification for the creation of Israel was the "Holocaust," a story that is rotten in its heart of hearts – the homicidal gas chamber claim. Even Israeli writers allude to the fact that, without the moral justification of the "Holocaust" (the gas chambers), there would be no Israel. Without Israel, there would be no US alliance with Israel (duh!), and therefore no growing enmity between Muslim, Christian, and Jewish fanatics.
This line of thinking is commonplace among Holocaust revisionists, but fresh and radical to those in the press and the professorial class. They make up the front line protecting the Holocaust story from "light," protecting the fraud and corruption of the gas chamber story from a free and public inquiry. The professors certainly, and some part of the press probably, understand that an open debate on the Holocaust would undermine the "moral justification" of creating by fiat and force a Jewish state on land belong to Arabs – or those who were living on it.
There is a bloody thread that leads directly from the institutionalization of the gas chamber story at the post-WWII war-crimes trials, the endorsement of the creation of Israel by Harry Truman, to the Jewish/Arab wars in Palestine, and on to 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and this week to Fallujah. Still, we can't talk about it. To talk about it would suggest that we hate all Jews. It's better to go on killing Arabs than it is to question the value, to Americans, of the US alliance with Israel. Jews are important folk. Arabs are wogs.
Where are the professors, where are the students who are willing to question the moral justification for the creation of a Jewish state on Arab land, using a historical fraud to morally justify it? If only there were a public debate on this matter, revisionists could be proven wrong. For the professors, there is nothing to fear but fear itself (to coin a phrase).
On CNN this morning it was reported that in the night, as the American attack on Fallujah began, a series of great cries were coming forth from the center of the city. Hundreds, maybe several thousand, manly voices were crying out in Arabic: "God is great. God is great." The reporter estimated he was some two kilometers away from where the insurgents were massed. They are being killed even as I write this. "God is great. God is great."
Thought, as it usually does, took flight. It was 1950. We were on a troop ship steaming north along the west coast of South Korea past a run of beautiful, small, wooded islands. It was November and the sky was dark. Some of us were at the gunnel watching the passing scene. Copies of a one-page newsletter circulated among us. It reported that the Chinese had moved south across the Yalu river and that some units were mounted.
I could hardly believe my good luck. I was twenty years old. It was possible that in a few days I would have the chance to witness a charge by horse cavalry. I had never dreamed that I would have such luck. I explained the situation excitedly to the guys around me. One was an older man. Maybe thirty. I realize now that he was old enough to have been in WWII, but at the time it didn't occur to me.
He said: "You think you want to see it, but you don't want to see it."
"Are you kidding? A horse cavalry charge? Who wouldn't want to see that? They went out a hundred years ago. This might be the last time that it will ever happen."
"Smith," he said quietly. "You don't want to see it."
At the time I didn't get it. I got it later. I never did see the Chinese horse cavalry. But I did see a good number of Chinese.
Today, young Arab insurgents brimming with enthusiasm and courage, are crying out "God is great. God is great." I do not expect any of them will see God. They will die, of course, but I fear they will be disappointed with the rest of it.