Little Green Footballs

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Why we need the MSM

The Beeb has two important stories from the Middle East on its website today.

The first is about the horror of involuntary human shields.

The second is a tragic love story.

Neither of which are going to get mentioned on LGF unless the right-wing spin machine comes up with a convicing way of distorting these stories.

Thank fuck for the Beeb.

36 comments:

Odinist said...

You express horror over the supposed human shields used by the IDF, but what about the human shields used by hezbollah? Shouldn't that get the same attention?

I think your hatred of Charles Johnson gets in the way of logical thought at times...

Anonymous said...

I bet you if Israel finds out this report is indeed true. They will discipline the soldiers. On the other hand groups like Hamas and Hezbollah wouldn't be disciplined for using Human Shields. They would be praised by many and most would see nothing wrong with it. Big difference wouldn't you agree?

Anonymous said...

Also regarding the second story "Tragic love story"

You seem to want to blame Israel fir these two love birds having problems. But I would also like to point out the story says the following:
"Then they tried living in the occupied West Bank, but some Palestinians made life difficult for them."

So it sounds like the Palestinians weren't to excited about this relationship as well. Am I right?

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that so many of the neo-cons have called for the death of journalists. And all we have to do is look across the ocean and see what is happening in Russia to see what sort of world they seemingly want to live in.

Bruce H. said...

Human Rights Watch reported during and after the war that Israels indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in Lebanon was more responsible for the high civilian death toll than any alleged Hezbollahs use of human shields:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13902.htm

Israeli military officials confirm that as well:

IDF commander - We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon
Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html

12/09/2006

By Meron Rappaport

"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets.

In addition, soldiers in IDF artillery units testified that the army used phosphorous shells during the war, widely forbidden by international law. According to their claims, the vast majority of said explosive ordinance was fired in the final 10 days of the war...

Anonymous said...

I bet you if Israel finds out this report is indeed true. They will discipline the soldiers.

HA HA HA HA HA HA

Yeah. Like they "disciplined" all the soldiers planting cluster bombs in southern Lebanon.

So it sounds like the Palestinians weren't to excited about this relationship as well. Am I right?

Yep. We all know that the fact that blacks approve of interracial marriage as much as whites do means that the deck is stacked equally on both sides when it comes to racism.

Just piss off yah neocon scum.

yodaking said...

the issue of cluster bombs/phosphorous is out of context.

yes, it is against the rules to use in civilian areas...the problem was Hezbollah purposely waged war in civlian areas.

Thus you have a catch 22 don't you?

Anonymous said...

So it sounds like the Palestinians weren't to excited about this relationship as well. Am I right?

The Israelis wouldn't allow Romeo into their country to begin with, if you'd read the article. Though I'm sure the couple would have "enjoyed" complete ostracism at the least in Israel.

Anonymous said...

"Thus you have a catch 22 don't you?"

Not really. Just don't use cluster munitions on civilian areas....or just ban their use completely....like most civilised nations.

yodaking said...

like most civilised nations.....

Most civilized nations don't have multiple terrorist organizations devoted to their destruction...or have you not read the hezbollah or hamas charters?

or the goal of Al Quiada for that matter?

dawud al-gharib said...

So, yodaking, it's necessary to pursue and attack your enemy if he places his military bases in civilian areas, is that your rationale? Funny, that's what Hezbollah argued when they sent bombs into military camps in Israel... and one thing that was hushed up was how many of those military camps were actually hit, and the fact that the Israelis were uncomfortable about the level of knowledge of Israeli bases [not to mention supposedly encrypted and sophisticated military radio communications]

but if your rationale is that it's fine to hit civilians if you're intending to kill soldiers, what's your issue with suicide bombers who blow up buses to kill a few soldiers (and kill civilians as well)?

Either you have a moral position - killing civilians who don't pick up weapons against you is wrong - or you don't.

I do, and you don't.

I mourn the loss of women and children in Israel and in Palestine. You glorify and defend it. Let others decide which is the position that human beings should hold.

GirlieMan said...

To anonymous (brave poster you are!) who wrote:

"You seem to want to blame Israel fir these two love birds having problems. But I would also like to point out the story says the following:
"Then they tried living in the occupied West Bank, but some Palestinians made life difficult for them."

"So it sounds like the Palestinians weren't to excited about this relationship as well. Am I right?"

Well, at least they were allowed to enter Palestine. Israel would not even allow the husband to enter.

I do think that the couple might have an easier time of it in Israel than in Palestine, as there are many open minded people in Israel. The problem is not the Israeli people, but the Israeli State. Big difference.

Anonymous said...

"Most civilized nations don't have multiple terrorist organizations devoted to their destruction...or have you not read the hezbollah or hamas charters?

or the goal of Al Quiada for that matter?"

So that excuses the use of thousands of cluster munitions on civilian areas does it? It seems odd that the line of 'the IDF is the most moral army in the world' gets changed to 'well we must drop cluster munitions on civilian area because hezbollah might be there' whenever large amounts of civilians are killed and are probably still at risk of being killed from undetonated Israeli presents.

What makes the IDF different that they get a free pass on the gratuitous use of weapons that most civilised nations have either banned or refused to use? The fact that they're fighting a terrorist group? Are the coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan going to start cluster bombing villages because Al-Qaeda want to destroy the West? Is that the war you want? The masterminds of Lidice would be proud.

If the IDF commanders were using cluster munitions to 'get' Hezbollah how come the majority of them were fired on Lebanon in the last couple of days of battle, when the politicians and military knew a cease-fire was iminent. When Hezbollah guerillas had already withdrawn? When the IDF knew that most border towns and villages were populated by civilians that were unable to escape?

I don't expect an answer by the way Yodaking, because you belong to a group that cares less about the innocent dead of the recent war in Lebanon than Hezbollah or the IDF.....the behind the screen online warrior brigade....the brave and the cheeto encrusted cheerleaders....

GirlieMan said...

Odinist said...

" You express horror over the supposed human shields used by the IDF, but what about the human shields used by hezbollah? Shouldn't that get the same attention?"

So Hezbollah should be held to the same standard as Israel, or, as you seem to suggest, Israel should take its cue from Hezbollah? Hezbollah is regarded as an organization that promotes terrorism. If Israel behaves in the same manner as Hezbollah, then Israel should face the same universal condemnation as Hezbollah. The two do not cancel out -- both organizations become intolerable in a civilized world.

Your argument is really like saying that since the mafia executes people illegally without a trial, then we should not get upset if the police do it too.

Israel, of course, has signed the Geneva convention, and I don't know of exceptions based on "they do it too" type of arguments.

Bruce H. said...

What Israel did last year in Lebanon was nothing compared to what they did there in 1982. Some 19,000 were killed in Israelis invasion and bombing of Lebanon that year, and again about 90% of them civilians. Last year they were acting under relative restraint knowing that the eyes of the world can see them much better with the internet and thousands of satellite channels covering the whole globe.

In 1982 they carpet bombed heavily populated civilian areas of Beirut to weed out a few 'terrorists'. THis prompted even pro-Israeli journalist Thomas Friedman who was covering the war there to call the bombing "random and indescriminate" and stuck to it at the near cost of his job at the NYT. The images of a burning Beirut and graphic images of burning corpses (as a result of Israels use of phosphourus bombs then as well) were covered by Arab TV extensively back then. This is what prompted Bin Laden to say as far back as then, that as Israels main supplier of weapons and bombs, that "Americas towers will burn" too.

Israel is no less moral than the terrorist groups it claims to attack in 'self-defense' while pulling the cover over the eyes of the American media as to why the terrorists commit the acts they do, and it works. On Sept 11, Americans were asking "why do they hate us"?

Terrorism serves Israeli policies quite well, its the only way they can claim the lands of "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank) in defiance of international law and get away with it. So they actively encourage terrorism, and a way to do that is to cause outrage in their enemies camps by inflicting heavy civilian casualties upon them. Its their modus operandi since the Irgun and Stern gangs terrorized the Arabs since the 1940's and continues to this day. Only they are much more adept than the Arabs in manipulating the media and skewing perceptions to ensure they are able to continue their polices and get away with it.

The Sphinx said...

I want to challenge this assumption that Hezbollah is ultimately evil for hiding in civilian areas. Because logically speaking, this isn't an issue to be talking about.

Now let's take a look at Lebanon's geography, shall we? Nothing but cities and open grasslands. Hezbollah, an armed wing only capable of fighting on terrain, had to choose between those two options.

Let's think about those two options for a moment:
Open Grassland: An awful option, regarding the logistics of weapons, ammunition, food and medical supplies. Not to mention the high visibility to the enemy. Which makes fighting from open grassland a very, very bad idea.
Cities: Perfect for maintaining a low profile, transporting supplies and weapons, and also for quick escapes. Not to mention that it makes it harder for the enemy to spot their units and destroy them. Which is what warfare strategy is about after all.

Sadly enough, Israel doesn't give two craps about civilians, so it starts massacring them too and completely destroying their homes, because they MIGHT have had weapons stored there. Maybe.. Nobody knows, but it's best to be sure, right?

*spits*

Now if you're still complaining that Hezbollah is immoral for "hiding" in civilian areas, think about two things now:

1) A military wing would never put itself in the risk of being completely destroyed, just for the other side to say: "Oh look, they're not such slimeballs after all..". It doesn't mean jack-shit.
2) If you're so picky on morality, then first start complaining about why Israel systematically bombed the North of Lebanon, which had zero Hezbollah presence to start with. Condemn that maniacal destruction first, then start talking about morality.

cokane said...

none of this comparison the Hezbollah matters, because Hezbollah is not a state government! I won't deny they have some control over the south of Lebanon, but they're not a state! State governments need to be held to a higher standard of morality, because when they don't you get genocide, and history has shown this.

I don't expect the cowering authoritarians from LGF to get this. The closest most of them have been to combat is struggling to open the tough plastic on their starwars action figures.

Pim's Ghost said...

Always back to the "Palestinian issue". Almost as consuming to some as hatred for Charles Johnson.

And did I just read someone commenting on the "bravery" of someone posting ANONYMOUSLY?!? Oh, PLEASE!

Anonymous said...

"Always back to the "Palestinian issue"

The main post was about Palestine so expect comments to reflect that eh? Or is that too hard to figure out for you? I suppose on LGF the comments would've turned to vicious infighting and backstabbing by this point.

"And did I just read someone commenting on the "bravery" of someone posting ANONYMOUSLY?!? Oh, PLEASE!"

Odd name Pim's Ghost, you may not have noticed this but the vast majority of people post anon, not all of them however are bigoted genocidalists....there's a certain type of bravery that encourages cretins like that.

deano88 said...

Let's get one thing clear: All over the world armies and the military infrastructure are "embedded" within civillian society.

Lets' say taht America and the UK went to war tomorrow, do you seriously believe that either sides army would place their troops, supplies and equipment in open fields away from civillian structures ready for the other side to take out in minutes with cruise missiles and Apache gunships?

Do you think Scotland could possibly defend itself from attacks by England WITHOUT hiding their troops and arms in heavily populated inner city areas?

Hezbollah's tactics were no different to what any other country, society or army would do in the same position.

Anonymous said...

Hezbollah's tactics were no different to what any other country, society or army would do in the same position.

Nope. The US Navy has a HUGE naval base right on Staten Island.

Hezbollah's sin in the eyes of the gang at LGF is the fact that they won. They beat the IDF with 3000 light infantry and some old Soviet rockets.

Since Arabs are an inferior race to the gang at LGF, there must be some, some reason why that happened because it can't be the fact that the Lebanese were defending their country and the Israelis were draftees who didn't want to be there.

Anonymous said...

BTW, note today.

Chuckie cites the Washington Post's hit piece on Maryscott O'Connor (who would probably wipe the floor with Chuckie in a fistfight).

But trying the same tacticts that work on a "centrist" (calling them crazy) isn't going to work on actual leftists (who expect to be called crazy).

I only disagree with Maryscott O'Connor on one thing in her interview. Charles Johnson isn't the ideological mirror image of her. He's the ideologically mirror image of Kos. All Chuckie really wants is his seat at the table. I bet you could even get him to become a fake liberal again if someone in the "MSM" were nice to him.

Anonymous said...

So Israel needs to start behaving like a "civilized nation." But Hezbollah is just doing what any nation would have to do to survive.

The double standard here could choke a moose. Ends justify the means so long as you're fighting Jews.

The Staten Island analogy is a non-starter. Military bases in the US ARE separated from civilian areas. Try walking onto a base without ID. The military makes it pretty clear where you can and cannot go.

Yes, bases are CONTIGUOUS with civilian populations, but that's inevitable. If there isn't a population center near a base when it is built, one will spring up around it as part of the local economy.

_You're_ _apologizing_ _for_ _terrorism._ You guys are no different from the extremists at LGF whom you criticize. You just have your polarity reversed from right to left. Welcome to life through the looking glass.

Anonymous said...

"So Israel needs to start behaving like a "civilized nation." But Hezbollah is just doing what any nation would have to do to survive."

1. Israel needs to start behaving like a civilized nation, yes.

2. Hezbollah is not a nation.

3. They reacted in the way most organised groups would in the circumstance.

The main point here, which I don't expect you to address, is that using cluster munitions and phosphorous on civilian areas is wrong and inexcusable. Kneejerk defences of Israels use of these weapons by saying 'Hezbollah are hiding in civilian area' is beyond stupid. Where do you expect an urban based terror group to be?

Israel should not be given a free pass because they are fighting a terrorist force. Their response to Hezbollah's attacks was to destroy the Lebanese infrastructure and cluster bomb villages and towns. As a commentator earlier mentioned, the perpetrators of Lidice would be proud of this type of collective punishment.

So much for the Cedar Revolution.

Luke Young said...

"_You're_ _apologizing_ _for_ _terrorism._"

You're apologizing for a state that drops cluster munitions on civilian areas on the off chance there 'MAYBE' terrorists there.

Anonymous said...

"2. Hezbollah is not a nation."

No. But they're not a terrorist group either. They're the army of the Shiite population of Lebanon.

The group they most resemble is the Kurdish Pergmesha (which the Turks certainly consider a terrorist group), the military wing of one particular ethnic group in a failed state.

Fortunately for Lebanon they stepped up and defended the whole country (including the Christians, whom the Israelis also bombed). Looking at what the Israelis did in Southern Lebanon with their cluster bombs, is there any doubt about what they would have done had they not lost the war last Summer?

No, I don't support most of Hezbollah's political program. They've got some unsavory ties and an unsavory past. But in this case, they were doing what any Lebanese patriot should have been doing.

They saved Lebanon from being dismebmered the way Iraq is being dismembered.

Anonymous said...

Ends justify the means so long as you're fighting Jews.

Actually you've got it reversed. Do you think the United States would have stood by and let Israel lace the entire southern part of a European country with cluster bombs?

The only reason you're defending it is because the people who got their country vandalized are Arabs and not Christian Europeans. What's more, the only reason this story drew any media attention at all is because the Israelis went after Christians as well as Muslims. I'm still trying to figure out why they bombed the pro-Israel parts of Lebanon.

Anyway, if the British had done to the Irish what the Israelis did to the Lebanese there would have been an outcry in the United States so loud it would have defeaned us all. But as long as you're doing it to Arabs (even westernized Arabs like the Lebanese) then fine. The ends justify the means.

Stop apologizing for terrorists like Dan Halutz and Ehud Olmert. Then we'll talk.

dawud al-gharib said...

seems yodaking and his allied friends have difficulty with parsing a few simple words:

Either you have a moral position - killing civilians who don't pick up weapons against you is wrong - or you don't.

I do, and you don't.

I mourn the loss of women and children in Israel and in Palestine. You glorify and defend it. Let others decide which is the position that human beings should hold.


Make what sense of that you will, your arguments as they seem to run onwards, ignore the very simple question there of whether you consider killing civilians justified in the ends of fighting an enemy. If you do, then the rest follows, that you approve of killing Beirutis and people living in apartment blocks in the south of Lebanon as well as dropping cluster bombs all over Lebanon - or phosphorus in Falluja, wherever else - but equally that you have no valid moral distinction from others, such as Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, that make the same argument, only that you have more weapons, a state behind you, and political justification - did a democracy vote for this to happen? then it's the will of the people to kill women and children, and it's alright, no? ...

Anonymous said...

I'm not defending Israel's use of cluster bombs. It was unconscionable and has been universally condemned. There's nothing to add.

What I'm astonished at is the rationalizations being made here for Hezbollah, an organization constituted for the elimination of Israel (among other aims). I'm reading a lot of "Personally, I'm opposed to the terrorism, BUT..." sort of justifications here.

The argument that Hezbollah doesn't have to play by the rules because they're "not a nation" is absurd. That's a license for brigandage.


This response was too good to be true:

The only reason you're defending it is because the people who got their country vandalized are Arabs and not Christian Europeans.

So, I'm defending Israel (which I'm not, actually, although I steadfastly defend its right to exist), because I hate Arabs and only care about Christian Europeans. ("Christian" here, eing almost but not quite otiose, since everyone knows there are many Christian Lebanese -- though less than there used to be.) Apparently you could divine my racial prejudices from the fact that I condemn the terrorism on both sides and called the posters here on their double standard. Amazing mind-reading abilities you've got there.

Anonymous said...

"I'm not defending Israel's use of cluster bombs. It was unconscionable and has been universally condemned. There's nothing to add."

Umm not by Chuckles or his band of merry swivelled eyed loons....and this is LGFW by the way. See the link?

Anonymous said...

"The argument that Hezbollah doesn't have to play by the rules because they're "not a nation" is absurd. That's a license for brigandage."

Umm have they signed the Geneva convention? Because last time I checked I didn't see their name there. They're a terrorist organisation, they play by their own rules and are justifiably condemned for it. They are not a nation so why should they act like one? Should the IRA be treated on an equal footing with the government of the Republic of Ireland?

Israel is a nation state which should aspire to universal human rights. Flattening your neighbours isn't a great way of going about it.

"I'm not defending Israel's use of cluster bombs."

You weren't condemning it either, you were too busy contructing an anti-semitic strawman.

dawud al-gharib said...

anonymous - you can do better, make up some stupid nic so we can mock it, too - you could also do better for an argument.

we're defending Hezbollah? Not me, just the illogic of allowing people to be bombed for it. It wasn't just cluster bombs, it was (American-made and sold in the heat of war) laser-guided missiles which slammed into apartment buildings in Beirut, slaughtering 100s.
Sickening? Yeah, but equally sickening was the defense.

How many did Hizbollah kill with all their rockets, and if you allow that they were not the laser-guided kind and that Israel did not try to make clear when civilians were bombed whether they were military-linked or were living in compounds next to military bases - then Hizbollah still slaughtered less than Israel, so we're talking disproportionality.

Even if Hizbollah calls for Israel's destruction (which I don't, I like a lot of the Israelis I know, although I don't care for their state ideology or oppressive behavior towards the Palestinians) - and if you know the reality of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and the encouragement of psychotics like Gemayel, I don't think that it's strange that Hizbollah emerged. A group, incidentally, which only ever used suicide bombings against soldiers, and has shown far more discrimination in it's targets than the IDF to date.

Anonymous said...

I'm the antisemite? You're going to have to spell that one out.

I'm the one criticizing the double standard in several of the comments here. Just to remind everyone again, here's the double standard: there are several here claiming that Hezbollah's immoral acts in the '06 conflict simply reflect what they needed to do to survive, were what any "country, society, or army" would do in similar situations, were acts of patriotism, etc. On the other hand, Israel claimed its attack on the south Lebanese infrastructure was nothing more than what it judged necessary for its survival, yet that is rejected out of hand.

And somehow I'm the antisemite? Go figure.

Dawud, the fact that Hezbollah killed fewer civilians is a measure only of their technology, not intent. If a man with poor aim and only one bullet misses when he shoots at me, I'm not going to stop to shake his hand and invite him for dinner.

Anonymous said...

"I'm the antisemite? You're going to have to spell that one out."

No, you were creating an anti-semitic strawman argument. You wrote "Ends justify the means so long as you're fighting Jews." That's not suggesting that you are an anti-Semite, simply that you were setting up whoever you were arguing against as an anti-Semite before you actually engaged the argument.

And somehow I'm the antisemite? Go figure.

No you're somebody who doesn't read English to well.

Dawud, the fact that Hezbollah killed fewer civilians is a measure only of their technology, not intent. If a man with poor aim and only one bullet misses when he shoots at me, I'm not going to stop to shake his hand and invite him for dinner.

A skewed analogy. If Israel was the man being shot at, on recent events, his reaction would be far from simply shooting back. It would be to wipe out the man's family, his friends and neighbours and flatten his house and village and use munitions that will continue killing for sometime to come. As was pointed out earlier, it's a question of proportion.

Anonymous said...

No [sic] you're somebody who doesn't read English to [sic] well.

Ahhh, irony. It's a beautiful thing!

Luke Young said...

Surely it would only be ironic, if he'd misread your statement? By simply making grammatical errors he's not falling into the same trap you did? Reading and writing are different things.

You've still to explain where somebody called you an antisemite.