A child’s death is always a tragedy, but this SF Chron report about Qana sounds like a Hezbollah PR office press release:
The tiny, lifeless bodies were laid out in a row on a black straw sheet in the concrete courtyard of the Tyre Government Hospital. Twenty-one of them, all still in the pajamas they were wearing before two Israeli bombs tore through Ali Hashem’s home in this southern Lebanese village early Sunday.
Dozens of members of the Hashem and Chalhoub families had sought refuge in the unfinished house about 10 days ago, thinking it was safe. Only eight survived.
After several sob stories with Lebanese pointing out the obvious — which is that their infants aren’t terrorists — we get to the article’s real point — the Israelis are cold-blooded civilian killers, who’ve murdered before:
There have been almost daily tragedies involving civilians since Israel unleashed its fury against Lebanon for Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12. In the days and nights since, the civilian death toll has sharply increased; the Lebanese Health Ministry now estimates nearly 550 people have been killed in air strikes.
But Sunday’s bombardment and killing of at least 56 helpless civilians — 37 of them children — is resonating with the Lebanese in a way that others did not: It occurred in Qana, the site of a bloodbath 10 years ago that is annually remembered with bitterness.
Just over 100 civilians cowering in a U.N. shelter were killed in an Israeli strike on the town on April 18, 1996. The attack sparked widespread international outrage and resulted in the “April Understanding” — an agreement by Israel, Lebanon, France, Syria and the United States that Lebanese and Israeli civilians would not be targeted in Hezbollah’s drive to end Israel’s decadeslong occupation of southern Lebanon. Four years later, the Israelis withdrew.
The story then flips back to the horrors, the horrors! As I’ve said, it is a horror when children die. Funnily enough, the story makes no mention of how the children ended up in a combat zone. You have to go beyond this MSM forum, which I was able to do thanks to a link that jg gave me (which took me from Dr. Sanity; to NRO’s Corner; to Rampurple, a Lebanese blogger, who wrote the following):
The situation in Ain Ebel is unbearable. Thousands of civilians have fled to the village from nearby villages and more than 1000 rockets have hit the village, there is no more food neither clean water and diseases r spreading.
Now here comes the most sickening part:
Hezbollah has been firing rockets from the village since Day 1 hiding behind innocent people’s places and even CHURCHES. No one is allowed to argue with the Hezbollah gunmen who wont hesitate to shoot you and i ve heard about more than one shooting incident including young men from the village and Hezbollah.
Urgent appeals have been done through phone calls from terrified people who wouldnt give out their name fearing Hezbollah might harm or even eliminate them.
This is the true image of our brave Islamic Resistance, putting the civilians and their homes as body shields to the Israeli bombardements.
Let the message spread and let those criminals move out of the village once and for all.
Free Ain Ebel from the terrorists !
The tragedy of villages held hostage to Hezbollah terrorists is not an isolated story. I’ve blogged — indeed, hundreds have blogged — about the fact that Hezbollah has made a strategic decision to use children to shield its military operations. Indeed, even a maverick at the UN has expressed disgust with Hezbollah’s tactics. You’d never know it, though, to read the Chronicle story. Instead of blaming the terrorists who trap children in the line of fire, the story, without saying so in so many words, clearly likens the Jews to the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, or any other 20th Century totalitarian killers. I would say that the Chronicle should be ashamed of itself for printing that kind of thing, but the Chronicle has no shame.
Talking to Technorati: Hezbollah, Hizbollah, Qana, Human shields, Media, Media bias, San Francisco Chronicle
Filed under: Hezbollah, Israel, Media matters







Apparently, the New York Times has competition in terms of who can be the biggest terrorist shill in the US media……..
The anti-Israel and anti-American agitprop has been enormously successful over the last 30 years and there is no sign now that it will abate.
[...] [Read more and discuss…] [...]
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
One man’s rote and mindless phrase, with all the moral equivalence and emptiness it implies, is another man’s source of derision.
cashadvance123 Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 2:07 pm
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
Can that “freedom fighter” tripe! Who’s freedom are the Hezbollah fighting for?
Lebanon? Sorry Israeli pulled back to the intenationally recognized border two year ago.
Golan Heights? Sorry it was lost during the ‘67 war.
A free Shebaaa Farms? Sorry read Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) that it (Israel) “withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory”. The Council endorsed this conclusion in the statement of its President (S/PRST/2000/21) of 18 June 2000. Part of that statement read: “Therefore, any Lebanese “resistance” to “liberate” the area ]Shebaa Farms] from continued Israeli occupation cannot be considered legitimate.
And to the point of this post here is clear evidence of how Hezbollah has shaped and distorted the Qana story with the willing help of the media.
VDHanson cuts through the propaganda with this piece by Bruce Thornton (cited at M.Phillip’s Diary).
Thornton’s final phrase cited exposes the naked face of jihad, that is, age-old Arab imperialism.
excerpt…(link below)
‘As for the “occupation” and “nationalist aspirations,” these are smokescreens used to obscure this existential threat to Israel , the camouflage made necessary after three military attempts to destroy Israel ended in defeat and humiliation. And both excuses for violence against Israel depend on historical lies. When Rashid Khalid, a professor at Columbia and a notorious apologist for terrorism, writes in the Times that the “underlying problems” are “the denial of rights to Palestinians and the occupation of Arab lands,” he indulges a monstrous distortion of history.
How did Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem , documented in history as the traditional Jewish homeland and capital, become the “occupied West Bank ” and “Arab lands”? Through violent conquest, of course. The true “occupation” is the Muslim continuing occupation of lands that were Jewish and Christian for centuries…’
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton072506.html
When people say that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terroist, they somehow forgot to tell you that a katana in skilled hands is a lethal weapon and precision tool of cutting, but a katana in the hands of a bungler and idiot sadist is a tool of evil and chaos.
The difference is the skill level and the level of good vs evil. If you trust people to have ability and a brain, then you can trust them to make the distinction and use it well. If you don’t trust them, then you should not give them a katana to use, otherwise they might use it on you. Mixed metaphors.
When dealing with people you don’t trust, fellow Bookworm afficiondos, make sure the cash is paid in advance.
Well I can’t be too nice to someone who blogrolls LGF but thanks for pointing out that news story about the UN Chief. Feel fry to stop by and comment. It’s good to get a little perspective.
Here is a little perspective for you as well:
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/letter-from-american-in-ramallah/
No doubt this must have been a ruling by Rabbi Ben Ladeen
Yesha Rabbinical Council: During time of war, enemy has no innocents
The Yesha Rabbinical Council announced in response to an IDF attack in Kfar Qanna that “according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as ‘innocents’ of the enemy.”
All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation and are costing us in the blood of our soldiers and civilians,” the statement said. (Efrat Weiss)
The jury is out on Qana.
The jury may be out
But you’ll have to tell your story to the Judge
Not the immitation judge
The Judge that everybody loves
And if Allah grants you forgiveness
Then in reality you took care of your business
But regardless I know want to kill me
But I ain’t going out like that
Ya Feel Me
May Allah shower mercy and love for all who die in war, the innocent and the soldiers. They will never again see the morning sun, or feel the wind, or drink cold water. My God, the stupidity of man causes him to give up a lifetime for the emotionalism of the moment.
May Allah forgive them.
Don’t be stupid. Destroying our Lebanese bridges can’t be right, and can’t be for peace. All what Israelis are doing is gaining more hate from Lebanese, Arabs, and the whole world. All my country is demolished because of them!
Stupid stories like “Hizbollah is using children” is all blablabla! And excuses from Olmert saying that “Hizbollah were in the same building” (in Qana) is also wrong!
How can you see all this demolished country and say you’re against a ceasefire? You really don’t have a heart! South villages are COMPLETELY destroyed and Israel still can’t stop the missiles of Hezbollah! They really cannot stop them and the whole world is a witness to that!
22 days have passed and North Israel is still getting missiles… So? They say they distroyed all the infrastructure of Hezbollah? Well, this didn’t help much, did it?
All what I’m saying is that Hezbollah is too strong for Israel. In 1967, Israel attacked all its neighbours and they won the war in no more than 6 days! 22 days have passed now and they still didn’t mark any “goal” in Lebanon.
Think about it, think about the 1 million Lebanese which were forced to leave their villages in the south and which are now in Beirut and North Lebanon, with no real place to live… Their houses were destroyed and they certainly cannot go back there for at least several months…
Think about it and you will see that a ceasefire is the best solution for this huge problem Israel has created.
I think the tide of opinion definitly turned after Qana. The British press is now very anti Israel and even more anti our stupid puppy dog leader for towing the USA line.
Sadly the UK is now becoming party to this but against the general swell of public opinion.
There is a lot of talk in the media here of war crimes being committed (i.e. the Israeli bombing). I don’t know much about international “law of war” but I think this needs to be “tested” in a court. What does seem clear is that if any other country did what Israel is doing there would be a huge outcry and demands for war crimes trials.
Ludvig-
“All what I’m saying is that Hezbollah is too strong for Israel. In 1967, Israel attacked all its neighbours and they won the war in no more than 6 days! 22 days have passed now and they still didn’t mark any “goal” in Lebanon.”
In 1967, Israel’s only interest was in winning the war and they spent significantly less effort worrying about international condemnation or collateral damage.
“Think about it and you will see that a ceasefire is the best solution for this huge problem Israel has created.
No but as a Lebanese, why don’t you instead demand that Hezbollah quit firing rockets at Israel and give back the soldiers they kidnapped (a formal apology would be nice too.) It is Hezbollah that incited Israel’s response so your demands on Israel are misplaced. Israel is bombing Lebanon to irradicate Hezbollah, not the Lebanese. So every time I think about it, my support for Israel and her actions just continues to increase.
I agree with Kristina.
Israel’s action against Hezbollah is completely disproportionate to Hizbollah’s action. Hizbollah captured two soldiers, the Israeli’s are targeting innocent civilians. Targeting of civilians cannot be excused, and it is the very definition of terrorism.
Kevin, the Israeli government said publicly that the war on Lebanon (which they stupidly call the war on Hezbollah) was planned since the government of Sharon (ironically, his health really deteriorated right after the beginning of the war). So stop saying that Israel is doing this babarian war just because Hezbollah captured 2 soldiers.
You know what? As a Lebanese, I was first completely against the capture of the 2 soldiers. And I believed naivly that what Israel is doing is a retaliation. No my dear! Destroying the infrastructure which we spent years and years and years to construct is not the way NEITHER to retaliate for the capture of 2 soldiers NEITHER to irradicate Hezbollah.
These war crimes simply cannot be justified. Yes, they are war crimes! Israel has already killed 1000 innocents (and don’t tell me there are no innocents in the ennemy’s land) and the damages caused to the infrastructure is much higher than billions of dollars!
How can the world watch this monstrous attack silently? I really don’t know!
Ravana-
“Israeli’s are targeting innocent civilians”
Says who? I say that Hezbollah’s strategy is to hides and attack from amongst civilians (who often happen to support Hezbollah–at least until the fighting starts then begins the wailing and gnashing of teeth over civilian casualties.) I think if Israel was intentionally targeting innocent civilians, that there would be a swath of incinerated land between Israel and Lebanon that was wide enough that Hezbollah’s rockets couldn’t reach Israel. I’m interested in hearing your proof that Israel is intentionally targeting innocent civilians.
Ludvig-
“the Israeli government said publicly that the war on Lebanon (which they stupidly call the war on Hezbollah) was planned since the government of Sharon”
Please give credible sources for this claim as I’m skeptical.
“How can the world watch this monstrous attack silently?”
I have to be honest with you, I’m not silent–I’m cheering on the sidelines for Israel’s resolve and actions and I am also sorry for the loss of live of any REAL innocents (I’m assuming your definition of innocent and mine are likely different.) I only find myself wishing that America would support her kidnapped citizens with an equal resolve and force but diplomacy usually reduces these incidents to just “unfortunate situations.”
Kevin, there is indeed a large incinerated land between Israel and Lebanon and whole villages are completely destroyed. Don’t just watch the pro-Israeli TV channels… You have to see all the perspectives to get an idea about the truth.
Be a little bit more open-minded if that’s possible, because asking you to have a heart is certainly out of question.
Here Kevin, take this http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=540815
And next time, read the news, all the news, before trying to argue in politics.
Kristina,
The British press is NOW very anti-Israel? Please. The British press has been anti-Israel for years. In fact, I would say in order to get straight facts and balance, Europeans need to look to other sources for the news. And out of curiosity, how would you fight against a fanatical enemy at your border who has entrenched bunkers, tunnels, and tens of thousands of missiles aimed at your town, a desire to see you and your entire country exterminated, and a steady supply of supplies from psycopathic nations that stone women to death for “crimes against chastity” after being raped, who have nuclear ambitions, and who seek to rule the world?
It is unfortunate that civilians died. Regretably, civilians die in all wars. Hezbollah and Hamas hide and shoot behind civilians. They lift up bodies of dead kids and say, “See international media. Look what the Israelis did,” because they know folks like you will blame only Israel, and never them. They use kids as shields and shoot behind them.
BTW, I’d like to charge France, Russia and China with war crimes for arming Iran, Syria and Hezbollah by extension. Israel has no choice but to fight for survival but Israel fights your fight too Kristina. Israel is the frontlines in the war against Islamic radicalism and global domination fantasies which use terrorism as a tactic. Should Israel fall so too will capitualting, appeasing, rationalizing, cowardly Europe. Thanks to Israel, you don’t have to walk 20 paces behind in a burka.
I think all of you are doing an able job of stating your positions, some of which I agree with, some of which I don’t. The only statement that I wanted to step in and correct was Ludvig’s, when he said “Kevin, the Israeli government said publicly that the war on Lebanon (which they stupidly call the war on Hezbollah) was planned since the government of Sharon” I’d like to remind everyone that all nations plan wars against all real or potential enemies. War planning is part of what war departments do. I’m willing to be that, if we were ever to go to war against Mexico, we’d discover that we’ve had a series of viable war plans against that country since 1848!
Ludvig is sad, shallow shill of the left. He must be still trying to earn A’s from a lefty teacher. Ludvig are you sad to see Fidel Castro on his deathbed? Do you think “Jews” started this war? Do you plan to vote for Hillary? Read my blog at sadbastards.wordpress.com
Ludvig, there is no point in even having a moral debate with this Machiavellian Kevin. The botom line with him and Israel is might is right and if you don’t believe it ask the F-16 that is about to drop more bombs on Lebenon. Kevin why do you even bother to hide behind moral arguments when you know this to be true. I will prove my case in point, Kevin if Israel were to drop a nuke on Southern Lebenon right now would they be justified?….You will see Ludvig he will handle this question one of a couple ways either he will avoid my question altogether, wiggle his way out of answering the question by posing another question. Or he will admit to his Machavellian ways and speak from his dark heart and say yes. I will have more respect for him if he chooses the later….Well Kevin….?
Ludvig-
“And next time, read the news, all the news, before trying to argue in politics”
I read your report by Juan Cole and after reading a bit of his blog, I don’t consider him or his article to be a credible source (i.e. try again); I see that we differ on our definitions of what constitutes “news” as well.
“there is indeed a large incinerated land between Israel and Lebanon”
Well, apparently not large enough since Hezbollah is still capable of launching rockets that can hit Israel and I still assert that this is because Israel is going out of their way not to hit innocent civilians–otherwise, why don’t they just carpet bomb the whole area until no one is left alive? We’ll just have to agree to disagree but as long as Hezbollah continues firing rockets, I support Israel’s actions.
The Palestinians have always claimed that it was Israel’s occupation that was the impedement to peace so Israel forcefully remove settlers from Gaza and give it to the Palestinians and what does Israel get in return? Attacks from the Palestinians–thus proving the Palestinians lied. You claim that Hezbollah is not the cause of the current conflict, why not expel them from Lebanon and see if peace ensues. Quit going on-and-on about how this is Israel’s fault and instead prove your point by making Hezbollah disengage first. If you are correct, Israel will not quit the bombing whereas if I’m right, they will.
Rasheedmoore-
Sorry but I was responding to Ludvig when you posted.
“if Israel were to drop a nuke on Southern Lebenon right now would they be justified?”
No, because that would be the equivalent of the carpet bombing (the lack of which I was inquiring to Ludvig about.) As I previously stated, Israel is going out of her way to try to limit civilian casualties or else there would be a much higher death toll. The bottom line is that the Israeli army stands in front of her civilians whereas Hezbollah stands behind the civilians. If the Lebanese are content to act as human shields to predominantly foreign fighters, then unfortunately, civilian casualties will occur. This is no different than the misguided Americans that went to Iraq preceding the first gulf war to act as human shields for Saddam–if one is complacent in this manner, then they can’t complain about the outcome.
Finally, experience has proven time-and-time again that when someone holds a really weak position, the ad hominem argument is soon to follow; you may try debating without name calling.
Ludvig, there is no point in even having a moral debate with this Machiavellian Kevin.
Maybe I should challenge Kevin to a duel, first blood wins, over the title of ‘Machiavellian’. If you think Kevin’s underhanded…
I’ll save my energy and avoid a debate here, so I’ll just chime in with something. There is no right or wrong in war, there are only actions that end the war faster and actions that prolong the war. That is it.
The guy calling Kevin Machi, presents me with an enigma. What game is he playing given that he already put down his cards for Kevin to see? He cannot be proven right, simply because Kevin already knows the standard for right/wrong and can evade, so… what plans have Kevin’s opponent woven that is as spider weave?
Kristina, Ravana, Ludvig, and Rasheedmoore-
I would like to direct your attention to Johah Goldberg’s excellent piece at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWU3NGNlNWY0MWRkNGU1YTY1ZGJiYmUxZGI0YTNlZmU=
Specifically, his conclusion is right and to the point:
“But again, even if the deaths were the byproduct of Israel’s bombing, that hardly makes it an intentional massacre, and it hardly makes Israel the villain. Hezbollah deliberately places its weapons caches beneath schools and homes, in violation of the Geneva Conventions. It shoots its rockets from civilian population centers. If the rockets slaughter Israelis, Hezbollah wins. If Israel responds and kills civilians, Israel loses. And either way, you can be sure some sucker will blame Israel for the whole thing.”
Kristina, Ravana, Ludvig, and Rasheedmoore-
These names sound like they form an AD and D 3rd edition adventuring party, seriously.
Once a man has a point of view he’ll do all he can to find evidence to support it. For example, the leaders of Hezbollah are wrong and cowardly AND Israeli government are wrong and cowardly, as it’s always the common garden poor man that gets a bullet up the wazoo. However, since history is inevitably written by the victor and (presumably) none of us writing here is actually involved if any of you really and truly believe what you write why not go out, do something about it, and change history to your point of view. Any other action is just rather sad war and conflict porno. Peace for everyone. Be nice to believe in it wouldn’t it?
Kevin – So, your basic argument is that Hezbollah is morally worse than Israel, and therefore Israel’s bombing is justified?
What a crock of horse doo doo.
You wanted evidence that Israel is targetting civilians.
Human Rights Watch says Israel is firing cluster munitions at Lebanese residential neighborhoods in violation of international law.
You wanted evidence that Israel is targetting civilians.
Human Rights Watch says Israel is firing cluster munitions at Lebanese residential neighborhoods in violation of international law.
Cluster munitions are bombs that explode in the air and release a large number of smaller bombs, scores or sometimes hundreds, that spread out over a larger area. So instead of there being one large explosion in one location there are hundreds of smaller hand grenade size explosions scattered over a large area. Where as conventional munitions are meant to destroy things like buildings or tanks these cluster munitions are meant to kill as many people as possible over a wide area.
Also, the reporting from usually credible media sources support my view. Britain is traditional ally of Israel and the BBC would normally be biased towards Israel. Not in this case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5208110.stm
It’s no use citing the Human Rights Watch to me. The Human Rights Watch ranks up there with the UN in its unrelenting hostility to America and Israel. Were it more even-handed in its condemnations, and less credulous in its response to propaganda (such as its almost infantile response to the Gaza beach bombing), I might be inclined to take it seriously. As it is, I find it of much less interest than Israeli surveillance videos, which I’ve posted on my blog, that show Hezbollah fighters using civilian buildings as hiding places or missile launching sites. Those are facts, not fiction.
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
I don’t care what you call him. He is trying to kill me. I want to live.
Bookworm, you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. However, Your refusal to accept recognised and respected international organisations is symptomatic of arrogance.
The sad part is, you do not even seem to realise that this strategy in the long run will only make things worse for the US and Israel. For every, genuine Hezbollah they killed, many civilians have died. Those civilians have brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. They will hate Israel and join the fight. No amount of sophisticated weaponry and technology can prevent suicide boombers from eventually achieving their target in the long run.
The US and Israel have to succeed every time in preventing it. The terrorists have to succeed only once.
You cannot win an unconventional war by alienating the civilian population. It’s impossible.
Ravana-
“Human Rights Watch says Israel is firing cluster munitions at Lebanese residential neighborhoods in violation of international law.”
First, that would be in response to Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel from Lebanese residential neighborhoods–in violation of international law. Seems like Hezbollah started it. Stop the root cause (Hezbollah) and you stop the conflict.
But more importantly, I also agree with Bookworms assessment that Human Rights Watch doesn’t qualify as a credible source so I wouldn’t give creedence to the claim of cluster munitions.
Also, Ravana, I’m perplexed by your statement that “Those civilians have brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. They will hate Israel and join the fight.” They already hate Israel. As Inoted in a later point, because Israel and America are damned if they do and damned if they don’t (Muslims hate them regardless of whether they fight or not), I think Israel and America should fight, because that at least destroys seasoned fighters, destroy commanders and destroys militant infrastructures, including weapons. Also, the lesson of WWII is that even the most intractable totalitarian enemies, when their military resources are exhausted can be brought to heel and learn to renounce their hatred in favor of Democratic principles.
Ravanna, give US and Israel a chance. WE have done fairly well in destroying terrorism in the last few decades; and we’ve yet begun. MANY, many MORE terrorists are going to die. Please pass that message on.
Like Israel, Americans always finish what they begin..
the end of your terrorism.
Lulu – why are you making a personal attack on me? I am neither pro nor anti either side it this catastrophe – I was simply reporting things as I have seen them in the UK i.e. the change of public opinion which was initially very pro the Israeli action but which has changed since Qana.
You seem to have read my statement as “anti Israeli” and I can assure you I am not. I am NOT happy about what is happening, but Im not “happy” about Hezbollahs actions either.
In answer to your question about what would I “do” – well I don’t claim to have the answers to that one just the same as I wasn’t criticising the Isralei actions from a personal persepective.
Also, the reporting from usually credible media sources support my view. Britain is traditional ally of Israel and the BBC would normally be biased towards Israel. Not in this case.
The BBC isn’t biased towards Blair even though Blair’s government pays their bills, and people should expect the BBC to know who feeds them? THe Western Institutions are do decadent, corrupt, and inbred that they have no problems turning on the hand that feeds them. Why would the BBC be credible just because you think, falsely, that they were biased towards Israel? The argument is rather specious. It seems to argue that the BBC was credible when it was supporting Israel and now the BBC is credible because it is against Israel. That’s pretty convenient when the usual credible media never supports Israel at all.
Bookworm, you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. However, Your refusal to accept recognised and respected international organisations is symptomatic of arrogance.
I’d like to call Bookworm’s analytical style of thinking, the standard for critical judgement that most people should have. What it is symptomatic of, is that she can use deductive logic, instead of stumbling blind trying to decide what is what based upon the information others feed her.
You cannot win an unconventional war by alienating the civilian population. It’s impossible.
That’s what failures at the BBC have said. And being failures, listening to them is not a sign of impending victory. It may have been impossible for the Brits to win against the IRA because they alienated the Irish, with the BBC covering both sides, but that don’t mean there ain’t anyone better around. People tend to act like crabs in the bucket. Whenever a crab tries to surpass its genkai and get out of the bucket, the other crabs drag him back in.
As for Kristina, I’d like to know the specific quote where lulu made a personal attack. Given I’m sure others know the details of this thread far better than I.
“Like Israel, Americans always finish what they begin. The end of your terrorism.”
Firstly, America does not always finish what it begins. It didn’t in Vietnam, it did’t in Iraq the first time and Afhganistan, and in both those cases it came back to bight the US in the ass. Al Quaeda was born out of American military operations in Afghanistan, do not forget.
Secondly, when you say “your terrorism”, Jg, I assume you think I support Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. I don’t. I am not a Muslim. I am a Christian, if you really want to know, not that that colours my political beliefs in any way, except that I think that all lives are sacred, Muslims included.
Ymarsakar, listen to yourself. You praise Bookworm for her “deductive logic” (hah!) and then you go on to say, “That’s what failures at the BBC have said. And being failures, listening to them is not a sign of impending victory.” “Faliures”? “Deductive logic?” What “deductive logic”, led to your classification of the BBC as failures?
My reason for trusting the BBC in general (not in all circumstances), is because, in my eyes, they aren’t afraid to switch sides depending on the circumstances. And… why are we even just talking about the BBC? It is just one example among tons more media examples about Israel targetting civilians, from countries that are all tradtional supporters of Israel and the US.
As regards the IRA and Britain: neither side has lost. They have both compromised, and it is a win-win situation. Nobody is dying anymore, and Ireland in general has one of the highest economic growth rates in Europe. This has a rub off effect on Northern Ireland, which is still a part of the United Kingdom and still pay taxes to the central government, while having a degree of regional autonomy. This PEACE has been possible due to dialogue and compromise. Is this deductive and logical enough for you? Lost the war against the IRA?! What ARE you talking about?
The US on the other hand is losing the war in Iraq. They can’t finish what they started, because political support is waning back home, so they need to get out. When they get out, they are going to leave Iraq in a mess, and warring factions are probably going to run amok. The rule of law will not be established. Terrorist groups will flourish, and mark my words, it will come back to bite the US in the ass, just like Afghanistan and Vietnam did.
The fact is, US can’t get rid of all potential terrorists through purely military means. When Israel indiscriminately bombs Lebanon, Muslim civilians who aren’t that pissed off at the US become REALLY pissed off. Just because most Muslims don’t like the US that much, doesn’t mean they are going to blow themselves up over it. The number of fundamentalist Muslims are so so few, but it takes only a few though to make an impression like 9/11.
Bookworm thinks all Muslims hate the US and Israel and therefore it is effective to bomb them. She is grossly oversimplifying the problem. Trust me on this: a lot more future suicide bombers are being created due to the present bombing than are being killed by it. When your family, girlfriend or boyfirend has been killed by Israelis or the US, your despair and sorrow means that you would be more willing to end your own life in revenge. Surely, you can see this? And surely, you can see that you can’t ethnically cleanse all Muslims? Therefore, taking into account the Muslim civilian population’s viewpoint, is extremely crucial to winning. Winning in this situation is not just military, it has to be political victory as well.
I do not need to point out that the lack of understanding exhibited by the present American government about this matter (or about international matters in general) has resulted in a huge cost to the US. The simpleton’s viewpoint which tends to ignore the nuances of complicated international issues – best exhibited by the conversation Bush’s private comments to Blair at the G8 summit when the mike has inadvertently been left on – is getting the US into a quagmire.
Ravana, I hope you took joy in the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. America DID FINISH communism, which was the reason for the fight in Vietnam–in case you didn’t know. WE did finish–brought down Commmunism. We couldn’t save everyone from that evil, as Vietnam testifies. The greatness of a great people, my Americans, in our sacrifice.
Actually, Iraq is a success. And Afghanistan, too, which is a place where Islamic fundamentalists mauled a wartorn population deserving the aid that the world is now providing.
I’m glad you acknowledge the aid/work the civilized world is providing there in fighting barbarians. Don’t you?
Al Qaeda was born of the hatred that festers in parts of the Islamic world. A helpless world, as in Afghanistan, used by ruthless power seekers who glory in blood and death, especially those of Muslims. An inner hatred.
I don’t think Muslims have to hate the West. We need them as part of multi cultural world; see America as the example–unlike BRITAIN. (Londonistan, as Melanie Phillips argues). Civilized peoples reject the hate of the terrorist warlords who control too many Muslims. Do you, Ravana?
It comes down to this, Ravana– Varifrank challenges you, and Britain,
“In this world you are either Vichy or Free, Collaborator or Maqui. You decide. There is no third way. You serve, even by doing nothing, but by doing nothing you serve only the side that enslaves men and kills women and childen for sport. It is no more sophisticated than that, for that is what we fight for; the right not to be enslaved, the right not to be killed for praying to a God of our own choosing, the right for women to live as equals with men, the right to speak, to breath, to be…
Someday, the war will end and you will have to answer for your actions in this war. Did you fight for them? Or did you fight for us? You decide now how you want to answer that question in a generation.
Whos side were you on when the world was forced to choose between a world where all of mankind lives under the boot of slavery or a world where freedom, dignity and human liberty are sovereign right for all mankind?
Or did you just stand by and do nothing while your fellow human beings were allowed to be dragged away in the night and made into bars of soap and lampshades?
You decide. The world awaits.”
Your choice, Ravana.
(link to Varifrank : Shut up and Give)
http://varifrank.com/archives/2006/08/shut_up_and_giv_1.php#trackbacks
The BBC are failures in trifold. If they are propaganda apparatus for Blair and the British, they have failed. If they are instead, propaganda machines for the Left, independent of the government, they have failed there as well because others are better. If they are shills for foreign governments like the PLO and Israel, then they are failures there as well because none of their information is accurate if accuracy is their goal. And none of their information is as deceptive, if deception is their goal, as their competitors, the Palestinian media outlets.
Some enemies can be classified as a success, they need not be your allies, however they must be competent in achieving their goals. The BBC are not competent at achieving any of their self-stated goals and any of anyone else’s stated goals either.
Nobody’s crossed the finishing line in Iraq, yet.
Al Qaeda was around before Afghanistan because AL Qaeda was born from Saudi Arabia.
If you want to know about deductive logic, Ravana, look on my blog for the post Fundamental Truths.
My reason for trusting the BBC in general (not in all circumstances), is because, in my eyes, they aren’t afraid to switch sides depending on the circumstances.
They aren’t afraid to be manipulators for both sides? Really, some people just don’t stay bought, what dishonesty.
This PEACE has been possible due to dialogue and compromise. Is this deductive and logical enough for you? Lost the war against the IRA?! What ARE you talking about?
Since you haven’t read my post on deductive logic, then obviously you can’t do it yet. So it is not enough. Peace only comes when one side gives up. The IRA gave up, it is as simple as that. Peace did not come from dialogue or talks, much of the earlier dialogues got nowhere because both sides had not given up. Dialogue starts working when one side wants to give up, either unconditionally or conditionally give up specifics things in return for other things. When both sides think they can win it all, without giving up anything, negotiations never work. You’ve obviously never learned how to haggle in a marketplace without set coinage.
The US on the other hand is losing the war in Iraq.
That’s what you think, and unlike you, Bookworm and I have already explored the ramifications of your belief being true. Those ramifications are not consistent with current reality, therefore your belief is wrong, it is just your belief, nothing more. Much of what should be true, if the US was losing in Iraq, is not true. And that can only occur if the original proposition was incorrect.
The fact is, US can’t get rid of all potential terrorists through purely military means.
Ja, we can. Bookworm knows what I’m talking about, because she knows that President Bush and Israel has not really tried to exterminate terroists de facto, given the prison populations. It’s a little bit facetious to believe someone is incapable of something, when you have not yet even witnessed a first attempt.
Bookworm thinks all Muslims hate the US and Israel and therefore it is effective to bomb them.
I don’t think you understand what hate is over there in Arabia. Bookworm does. So therefore you guys are not talking about the same thing.
Therefore, taking into account the Muslim civilian population’s viewpoint, is extremely crucial to winning.
I am taking into account the Muslim viewpoint. That’s the whole point, and so is Bookworm when she talks about Muslim emotions. The difference is, we understand the Muslim perspective as being different than what you understand it to be. I had a link to blackfive, but I’m not at home right now so I can’t just provide it here. But Blackfive recently linked to an interview with a French guy over his videotaping of Palestinians. In summary, people blow themselves up in Gaza because they are teenagers that are sexually frustrated. Their religion has pitted them against their own desires and instincts, and the only way that they can be free of that internal guilt is to commit the ultimate sacrifice by suicide bombing, that way they enter heaven, get the virgins, and are absolved of all guilt and sin through their desire of women.
America will bring women’s lib to the Muslim world, and when women are free to expose their skin and have parties without male supervision, then the Muslim world will expend most of their energy chasing women around instead of going jihad on America. That’s more or less a central strategy. That’s not Israel’s central strategy, but that’s why Israel’s been fighting for decades now.
As for bombing. Because Arabs are sexually frustrated whether Israel bombs them or not, it doesn’t really matter. The Arab culture is the Arab culture whether you bomb them or not. They don’t really care that you killed anyone, because they are fine with people dieing, it allows them to go to jihad land. What they care about is how you humiliate them, and teenagers are easy to humiliate, especially if they are inexperienced and believe that their desire for women is a sin.
You haven’t really shown any nuance you know. The fact that you say you believe people are willing to kill themselves because they are angry at someone for killing their family members is an example of a non-nuanced position. How people react to grief and humiliation is not a linear progression.
Ravana, thefact that you had to ask “why we were” talking about a subject, shows that you clearly lack the ability and fortitude to separate nuance from non-nuance.
Jg, are you for real? I cannot even begin to attack your argument because you make none. Your post comprising of terms like “barbarians”, “civilized world”, “there is no third way” etc is pure pulpit rubbish and smacks of outdated ill-informed colonialism. You make no attempt to back up anything you are saying. You appear to see the world in black and white. Fortunately, it is not.
The US’s defeat in Vietnam did not hasten the fall of Communism. I am curious to know why you think it did.
Ymarsakar – you said: “In summary, people blow themselves up in Gaza because they are teenagers that are sexually frustrated.”
If you actually believe the things you have said in your last post, I think I am going to stop having this discussion with you. You are clearly out of your mind.
If you think that the war in Iraq is a success, you are in an extreme minority of the world’s population. And in fact, you would be a minority even in the US. The majority of Americans think that the war in Iraq has made the US less safe, the position that I have been taking all along. The rest of the world knew all along that the going into Iraq was a gross mistake, and I for one had serious doubts whether there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in the first place. There aren’t any WMD. And the American government said that there were, and this was their justification for the war. There are no WMD, so the American government lied, and so the war is unjust.
However, I have to admit, the hardline position against terrorists and (finally!) the classification of groups like the LTTE as terrorists have made me better off, but this is an unintentional consequence. The war has made Iraqis and Americans worse off.
Here’s an article from the American media. Enlighten yourself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html
As an aside, your deductive reasoning is flawed in the case of your argument against the BBC because all your three premises are flawed. You would have to start your reasoning from a premise accepted by me for your reasoning in turn to be accepted by me. I do not accept either of the alternative premises that you offer.
The BBC are not a propaganda apparatus for Blair and the British. The are not propaganda machines for the Left, independent of the government.They are not shills for foreign governments like the PLO and Israel. Deception is not their goal.
Ravana:
I’m not taking the time to address your whole email, just a point that struck me, which is that, as to the BBC, deception is not their goal. In fact, at the start of the Iraq war, the official position the BBC took wasn’t to report the news, but to stand against the war. (I can’t find the link right now. Can anyone help me with this?) This affects their credibility in their mind. As to the deception part, they were on the receiving end of a judicial tongue lashing a couple of years ago for intentionally lying about the news. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/28/hutton.blair/index.html)
Here’s a nice, long, well-documented article about most medias’, and especially the BBC’s, spectacularly dishonest and biased reporting about Israel: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/28/hutton.blair/index.html
Ravana, please, reasoned argument. You do deserve that chance. Do you have a reply, then, to my post?
If you actually believe the things you have said in your last post, I think I am going to stop having this discussion with you. You are clearly out of your mind.
I’ve already laid down the situation, Ravana, you just didn’t pay attention. Your logic starts with a NOT gate. If you don’t know what a NOT logic gate is, then here it is. A NOT logic gate makes a 1 into a 0 and a 0 into one. It is used in computers, computers that rely upon machine code otherwise known as binary code.
This means, that whatever is positive for me, is a negative for you. de facto. If you want to opinionate it as meaning I’m out of my mind, then you’re free to wrongly do that. Others will know what I’m talking about and take from it more than your accussations based upon amateur psychotherapy.
If you can’t tolerate, even comprehend, people who disagree with you, then that’s your problem, Ravana. Not mine or JG’s.
You appear to see the world in black and white. Fortunately, it is not.
Do you understand that there are more than one kind of number system? There is binary, decimal, Hexadecimal, octagimal, and various others. You can translate decimal to binary and back again, it’s easy. The world doesn’t have to be black white, the world just has to be able to translate black and white into colors. If you got a problem with someone’s 1 and 0 view of the world, then maybe you should criticize yourself for seeing anyone that disagrees with you fundamentally as being crazy. It’s either your way as 1 or craziness, 0, eh?
You would have to start your reasoning from a premise accepted by me for your reasoning in turn to be accepted by me.
So, I was right, it is either your way or the zero way? Regardless of that way, you’re also wrong because logic is about determining which premises and a priori propositions are correct. If I start my reasoning from a premise that you think is already true, then there is no way you could ever be wrong. You could change the fundamental laws of physics for god’s sake, just so your statement that “the sky is red” could be true.
THat’s not how I play. But I know that’s how you play, though. Deductive logic is not about reasoning based upon “accepted premises”. Deductive logic, its usability, comes from exploring ALL possible PREMISES and fundamental foundations, in order to verify which ones are more accurately reflected by reality and facts.
Determining whether the BBC is this way or that, requires that you assume the BBC is this way or that, then and only then asking yourself what should be true if the BBC was truely this way or that. That’s deductive logic used by someone who comprehends its usability.
If you don’t think deception is their goal, you should say what their goal is. Then I’ll tell you why you’re wrong by assuming what you say is true, and verifying its consistency via the world line.
There’s a lot of people emailing bookworm. That’s a litte bit… weird if I may say so. Does bookworm mean the email that wordpress sends her whenever a comment appears on her page, or a real email? Sorry book, I don’t pay attention to the BBC much, so I don’t have their links archived. I have Melannie Phillips to pay attention to the BBC for me.
Ymarsakar, you said:
“Determining whether the BBC is this way or that, requires that you assume the BBC is this way or that, then and only then asking yourself what should be true if the BBC was truely this way or that. That’s deductive logic used by someone who comprehends its usability.”
Perhaps, but the practical problem with this type of reasoning (for you at least) is that you decide that the BBC is this way or that and then look for evidence. You see something which could be correlated and you call it evidence, even if it is not. Then you announce that your initial position is correct based on this false reading of evidence. Correlation does not imply causality.
Actually, it’s the other way around. how things are or should be, is determined at the beginning. It can’t be made up on the spot.
You troubleshoot someone else’s deductive logic by assuming their beliefs and premises are true, and then following the chain to its logical conclusion. If there are inconsistencies, then you have troubleshooted a problem with someone else’s reasoning.
I’m not going to be the one announcing that your initial position was correct based upon this false reading of evidence. I’m going to be calling you on perpetuating false evidence, most probably.
I didn’t decide the BBC was too worth trusting or not, I just troubleshoot your reasoning. If it has a problem, that’s your responsibility to solve. You after all said this first,
My reason for trusting the BBC in general (not in all circumstances), is because, in my eyes, they aren’t afraid to switch sides depending on the circumstances.
The reasoning that you should or do trust the BBC because they switch sides was troubleshooted, analyzed, and distillated into its component parts by me.
People have a choice, either they can try it my way. Or they can try it your way. Your way being,
“You would have to start your reasoning from a premise accepted by me for your reasoning in turn to be accepted by me. I do not accept either of the alternative premises that you offer.”
You are clearly out of your mind.
If you think I’m out of my mind, then you should check out the commenters at blackfive.com and Jay’s comments here.
Your idea of what deductive reasoning is doesn’t correlate very well with Wikipedia’s explanation.
The basic problem with your argument is that none of the three “If” options you used to say that the BBC are failures are true.
You cannot win an unconventional war by alienating the civilian population. It’s impossible.
Team Fortress 2, you’ve quoted me verbatim.