"i got a right to defend myself... everytime i start a fight"

old general custer was a firm believer in his nation's right to "defend itself"--in fact that's exactly what he was doing on june 26, 1876 when he invaded a sovereign nation's land and attacked a peaceful village that had done nothing to either him or his nation .

unfortunately, gold had been discovered on the lakota indians land and white men wanted it. that meant the indians were either to accept the ridiculously low offer the Us government made them for that land , surrender their arms and their horses to the Us army, and live on whatever piece of worthless dirt the Us decided to give them , or be declared "hostiles" by the Us government and hunted down by the army .

of course most of the remaining plains indians who still had their freedom -- the lakota , the northern arapaho and northern cheyenne , refused this ultimatum .

a military expedition was dispatched by the Us to deal with these "hostiles".

on june 26, 1876 general george custer and about 270 of his men foolishly attacked a village of some 5000 indians who were peacefully minding their own business on their own land and were in no mood for ultimatums from invaders .

custer and all his soldiers were killed because they crossed into a sovereign land and attacked a free people who were guilty of the crime of peacefully minding their own business .

curiously though , this incident is known to this day as "custer's last stand" --as if old georgie was the innocent victim of a crime instead of its willing perpetrator .

back in 1876 when news of the seventh calvary and custer's demise reached the press , a shocked outrage at the audacity of the "bloodthirsty redskins" swept the americans.

nevermind the fact that custer was killed while in the act of attempted genocide --the americans were furious and vowed the indians would pay.

a new and larger army was sent into indian territory and hounded and harrassed and attacked the indians mercilessly --never letting them rest , never allowing them a moments peace until finally , in the winter of 1877 --their winter supplies of food , their clothing , shelters --and their survival equipment--their life support infrastructure-- all destroyed by the Us armies , the indians were forced by cold and starvation to surrender.




seems the world never tires of the game of calvary and indians...

michael chossudovsky over at global research.ca while dissecting the Un security council "resolution" on lebanon as basically a pro-israeli piece of crap , ALSO makes note that the "kidnapped israeli soldiers" that this brutal israeli war on lebanon was supposedly in response to-- were on the wrong side of the border--the israeli soldiers were captured in lebanon--so it was the lebanese who were defending themselves--and not the israelis as the western media sheep have bleated on and on ad nauseum about these past 3 weeks

August 7, 2006

Editorial Note

The draft text turns realities upside down. It essentially presents Hezbollah as the agressor responsible for escalation and civilian deaths, while upholding Israel's legitimate right to self-defense:

"...the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons,"

It focusses on the abducted soldiers, when it is known and documented that the soldiers were not abducted but arrested inside Lebanese territory. It accepts Israel's casus belli at face value, namely that the abduction of these soldiers was the sole cause, when it is known and documented by defense analyists that a war of this magnitude takes months if not more than a year to prepare.

The Draft does not raise the issue of the illegal occupation of Lebanon and does raise the issue of the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Southern Lebanon.

The Draft Resolution calls for the stationing of an international force, pursuant to a Security Council Resolution.
Which countries will send troops? Troops from a NATO country cannot under any circumstances play a "neutral stabilizing" role in Lebanon. NATO's involvement would be dictated by the precise terms of the "NATO-Israel partnership" reached in February 2005 . A NATO "stabilization force", pursuant to a UN Security Council Resolution would side with Israel against Lebanon.

The NATO-Israel partnership establishes NATO's "responsibilities" in relation to its ally Israel: Israel is under attack and has "the legitimate right to defend itself". The terms of the NATO-Israel agreement as defined in the February 2005 consultations in Tel Aviv, specifically point to "the fight against terrorism".

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 7 August 2006