Non-Terrorist Bomb Devastates Beirut Neighborhood Around Iranian Embassy

Two suicide bombers just attacked the Iranian embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, located in the well-to-do neighborhood of Bir Hassan, a Hezbollah stronghold. (Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia cum political party/social movement is of course supported by Iran, including with arms.) One bomber rode a motorcycle, the other drove a four-wheel-drive vehicle, according to the Financial Times. They managed to murder at least 23 people, including the Iranian cultural attache, and at least 150 people were wounded. Needless to say, almost all were Lebanese bystanders.

Al-Qaeda's Lebanese franchise, a gang that dubs itself the “Abdullah Azzam Brigades,” claimed responsibility for the attack. They're angry that Iran and Hezbollah are fighting on the side of the Assad regime in Syria. The “Brigades'” “religious guide,” some Holy Fanatic going by the name Sheikh Sirajeddine Zuraiqat, used Twitter to announce that “It was a double martyrdom operation by two of the Sunni heroes of Lebanon.”

Give 'em a medal.

Love the irony of some primitive fundamentalist who dreams of a return to the 9^th century using modern technology to spread his noxious propaganda.

By the way, Saudi Arabia is sponsoring the Sunni Jihadists fighting against Assad, who also behead people and try and impose their sick “religion” on areas in Syria in which they operate. They've already been killing members of the indigenous Syrian rebel militias to establish dominance.

Yet Saudi Arabia is not slammed as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Nor is it on the U.S. State Department's list of “terror” nations.

Cuba is, though. Guess why. Not because Cuba actually backs any armed non-state organizations.

Iran blamed the bombings on Israel, apparently to avoid raising the level of tension. Lebanese politicians- Sunni, Shia, and Christian- uniformly denounced the bombings, which threaten to destabilize Lebanon and start a new civil war.

So, a bombing that targets a diplomatic facility, that deliberately attacks civilians, and that is done for a political motive to achieve a political end- fits the official U.S. “definition” of terrorism. Must be terrorism, right?

Nah. Iran is a U.S. enemy. So that isn't terrorism.

For that matter, the CIA bombing of an Islamic cleric's house in Beirut in 1985 wasn't “terrorism” either, by definition. That bombing didn't kill the target, but did kill over 80 unlucky Lebanese and wounded 200, while destroying two apartment buildings and a movie house. (Hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, right?) [See for example 1985 Beirut car bombing at wikipedia.org, and CIA uses car bomb in attempt to assassinate kill Sheik Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.

In fact, Lebanon has been subject to many bombings like this. And aerial bombs too- dropped by Israel. And battleship shelling – ordered by Reagan in revenge for the “terrorist” bombing of a barracks in Lebanon of invaing U.S. Marines.

The Boston Marathon bombing- now THAT'S terrorism! (3 dead, 246 or so injured.)

Or some dumb jackass trying to blow up his underwear on a plane- that's terrorism.

Nelson Mandela was until fairly recently a terrorist in the U.S.' book. Officially.

You see, “terrorism” as used in the U.S. establishment's vernacular, is nothing but a propaganda term. It has no coherent objective definition. It is used the way “communism” was used for over 70 years, as a political epithet, a term of damnation. “Terrorism” is what Official Enemies do to US, and only that. Its usage is straight out of 1984, a propaganda word designed up whip up fear and hatred in the home population.

Why It's Hopeless to Hope for Effective Action on Climate Change

All these predictions typically state that something horrible will happen by 2050, or “by the end of the century,” i.e. 2100! Well, the politicians look at that and figure, I'll be dead before then. So why should they stick their hand in a political buzzsaw? For what? They'll just be hamstrung or ousted from power if they try and impose disruptive remedies- and any effective remedy is unavoidably going to be disruptive of the existing socio-economic order.

They aren't leaders, after all, despite that mendacious designation for them. They're rulers. Same as corporate bosses are BOSSES, not “leaders,” as their egotistical self-designation has it. (You never see the word “boss” in the U.S. media except like this: “union bosses.” Only unions have bosses. There are no bosses in business. Just intrepid, inspiring “leaders.”)

What a crock.