Indymedia UK showed the greatest reluctance to show images from Israel's holocaust of Lebanon in the early days of the war. However, now, Blair's 'shepherds' (see the recent protest last Sat) are screaming that the world must stand behind Blair's UN 'ceasefire', and are happy to use the previously missing images to force that single meme into people's brains.

Those that actually try to follow the facts have been horrified to discover that the terms of said 'ceasefire' are identical in nature to those used previously to justify the invasion of Iraq, and the Kosovo war. The 'ceasefire' is designed to give Blair the means to move the Holocaust from being solely an Israeli affair to a Holocaust carried out by the US, UK, France and Germany, and then to have that Holocaust immediately spread to Syria, and from Syria to Iran, of course.

I have pointed out over and over again that the history of the build up to WW2 was comprised of many such 'ceasefires', each cementing the current gains of the nazis, and laying the grounds for their next conquest.

Anti-Blair protestors screaming in unison for that which Blair himself requires for his genocide to accelerate? Yes, once again, that accurately describes the situation, and the exact reason why controlling the 'stop-the-war' movement was so important to Blair.

In this current strategy, Blair wins either way. If his disgusting attempt to war against Syria and Iran via an evil list of 'ceasefire' conditions is thwarted, the Israeli Holocaust of Lebanon and Gaza carries on ramping up, until better Iranian weapons are authorised for use by the TRUE Lebanese army, Israel loses the air war as it is losing the ground war, and the US officially come to the aid of their zionist masters, immediately spreading the war into Syria.

If, on the other hand, morons allow the passage of Blair's recipe for WW3, otherwise know as his 'ceasefire' conditions, Blair will quickly use the actions of the True Lebanese army as an excuse for the UK and US, under so-called UN authority, to attack Syria and Iran (as Blair has PROMISED to do in his recent speeches).

So now you know why resources previously using every excuse under the sun not to show the suffering of the people of Lebanon are now so keen to do just this.

YOU SHOULD NOW UNDERSTAND A GREATER TRUTH. At a time of spreading wars, when a monster like Blair sets another nation alight, it is an impossible task to douse that flame while the monster remains in power. Simple minded crap like CEASEFIRE is utterly meaningless. Therefore, that which gets described as a 'ceasefire' is just another name for spreading the war. When you use the word 'ceasefire' (at the behest of Blair's agents), you simply mean pour more petrol onto the fire.

Stopping the evil of Israel is not the point. Stopping the evil of the leaders of the West that utilise Israel is the point. Germany, France, Australia, Canada, Poland, Netherlands, US and the UK all have depraved leadership of the most sickening nature. The rotten core of our civilisation ensures that the other nations are rapidly rotting too. The non-West part of the world hardly counts past Russia and China, and these two second-rate super-powers are happy to continue to sit back and grow more powerful as quickly as they can.

Blair's alliance may seem unbeatable, but never forget that is is powered by the active and passive support of the people of each of the nations it encompasses. In each of those nations, the people (knowingly or not) have the option of removing power from their leader. We bear greatest responsibility, for without Blair, the snake would be headless, and thus no danger to anyone.

BLAIR GOES, WE SURVIVE. BLAIR STAYS, BILLIONS WILL DIE.

Funny thing is, today, even Blair is saying this clearly in his speeches. This is not unexpected to me, but I know it has shocked many of you. When Blair states that EVERY muslim is a potential enemy, and that he will continue dealing with this 'fact' with his genocide of Syria and Iran, you had better believe it.

I know one shouldn't feed the trolls but this is simply not true:

Indymedia UK showed the greatest reluctance to show images from Israel's holocaust of Lebanon in the early days of the war. However, now, Blair's 'shepherds' (see the recent protest last Sat) are screaming that the world must stand behind Blair's UN 'ceasefire', and are happy to use the previously missing images to force that single meme into people's brains.

Read the article about last Saturdays demo, the analysis part towards the end — where is there support here for "Blair's UN 'ceasefire'"?

Look at the images in this article published on 25th July 2006.

Notice the linking of the word war criminals in the current top feature to an article which contains this:

Those Western heads of State and heads of government who overtly support Israel's air raids and illegal occupation of Lebanon, are complicit in "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity." This pertains specifically to those Western political leaders who, at the outset of the war, turned down the "cease fire" proposal, which would have led to a halt to the Israeli aerial bombardments, largely directed against the civilian population.

Why was the above article posted today? Simply because of a call from Cyprus Indymedia for it to be carried around the network. It's that simple.

Are images of dead, mutilated, dying, mangled, bereved people simply sensationalizatin of the conflict? I say yes they are. The subjects of these images are rarely 'competant' to give permision to use the images-often they are dead-their bodies therefore belonging to the state they fall in.

But, a picture tells a thousand words, puts across what the best written and edited article cannot.

Everyone remembers the pictures of the berlin wall coming down with the frantic clamouring of the citizens of east germany to destroy this physical reminder of war, fear and oppresion and particulary of the border patrols standing to the side with their guns pointed to the ground. Images like that can and do mobilise people to rise up.

Perhaps I need to rethink my stance, I don't know. What I do know, however, is that war is rarely right and even when it is right, the rights are outnumbered by wrongs(and disregard of 'rights')