Mark, it was your comment that maybe you'd feel differently if you were Jewish that got me. To me, that implied you thought Dan felt the way he did because he was Jewish. If you say you didn't mean to imply that, I believe you. But was it really such an insanely unreasonable inference on my part? I don't see why.

Then, because I mentioned you by name with regard to the first thing, you're assuming that I was referring to you personally about the rest, but I clearly wasn't. It was a generalized statement about some discussions I've seen, and of course my version of the other people's remarks was exaggeratedly simplistic - I was making a point.

I can see from your near-hysterical reaction that I've expressed myself more provocatively than I thought, and endangered this otherwise admirably civilized thread, so I'll bow out now. Sorry to all for the kerfuffle.


[This message has been edited by Rose Kelleher (edited August 07, 2006).]

Okay Rose, maybe I did react a bit OTT and my apologies for that (though I certainly didn't mean to come across as 'hysterical'); too many CAPS and exclamation marks I guess.

I qualified my "maybe I'd feel different if I were Jewish" remark in the same sentence:

"...though a number of British Jews (Jonathan Miller among them) recently signed a petition which was strongly critical of Israeli tactics."

So I clearly recognise that being Jewish doesn't necessarily mean you have to love Israel (right or wrong), or even at all for that matter. I think Dan and Seree love Israel. That's not a bad thing, rather the opposite. And even if I can't empathise, I can respect a person's love of their country/homeland/motherland/fatherland/uncleland or whatever you want to call it. I can respect that passion all the more when it's backed by a real engagement with that country's history, politics etc. as Dan's and Seree's is. But I still have my own perspective. And there we are.

To Mark:

quote:

Oh well, that means they must know what they're talking about then. And of course Bush is a retired military man too (so we can forgive him his swaggering about in USAF gear); he obviously knows what he's talking about, unlike that wimp Kerry who was never out in the field

If they are three and four star generals you damned right I believe they know what they are talking about. Why did Kerry "cook" his story?

And how about that Reuters photographer who got caught photoshopping a raid on Beirut(sp?) adding extra bomb damage to the image to further his "agenda".

IF he did, he probably did it for much the same reasons any ambitious soldier/politician might (I am no defender of Kerry, who toed the war-line). But compared to Bush's series of mammoth clam-bakes Kerry's offerings (imaginary or not) are mere garnishes. Kerry didn't manage to rig the poll results or fib his country into a war, to take just two trifling examples. For every death K MIGHT be responsible for, Bush has thousands on his hands, and he still tries to claim the whole godforsaken mess was justified. THAT is serious cooking!

And now we are definitely off-thread. Let's just agree to differ.

[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited August 07, 2006).]

Here's a link for those who haven't heard about the Reuter's issue:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008761

So much for the "pro-Israel" press.

In other media manipulation news, Prime Minister Fouad Seniora maintains that a massacre still happened at Houla, although it consisted of a single death:

The Qana massacre is down from a total in the 50s in some reports, to a still tragic 28.

I know I'll be called heartless for dwelling on these numbers, but as others have pointed out, the Lebanese "government" [sic], and Hezbollah, have been heavily trumpeting Israel's human rights abuses throughout these actions. The magnification of such abuses, in concert with the Lebanese sympathy campaign, whether waged by the "government" or by Hezbollah, must introduce a grain of salt into our unquestioning acceptance of the figures.

Dan

Edited to say.... Kevin, I believe Mr. Seniora, by your standards, is an effective government spokesperson, in that he has gone so far as to allow his true, authentic emotions not only to show, but even to supercede the actual facts. Thank God bureaucrats hadn't vetted his pronouncements!

[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited August 07, 2006).]

He got an exaggerated report and responded with grief, then got a correction and responded with relief and joy. Yep, those look like actual human emotions to me.

If 28 people are killed in one bombing, it's completly credible if someone tells you the same were killed in another bombing.

This is the first I've heard of the second bombing, and am glad to hear that initial reports were incorrect and only one person was killed. Likewise, I'm also happy to hear that only 28 people died in Qana, not 36 or 50. Still not good that anyone was killed, but less is certainly better.

As a bit of advice, the pro-Israel side, yourself included, Dan, would win more friends and influence more people with similar cries of relief and joy about humans not having been killed, as opposed to unseemly little nanny-nanny-boo-boo superiority dances over people getting their initial body counts wrong.

Are you happier about people not being killed or are you happier about winning a debate point?

It's infinitely more significant that one non-combatant gets to wake up tomorrow, try to get on with his life, and have a future, than any "debate point" I may putatively score, Kevin.

It's also very important for numbers to be used responsibly, particularly when combatants demand particular action by the world community, based on "massacres" perpetrated by the enemy.

I disagree with you regarding Siniora's efficacy as a spokesperson. I think one has to bend over backwards to paint him as anything other than untrustworthy.

When you prepare a press release, the old saying goes, the three most important things are accuracy, accuracy, and accuracy. Siniora gave no reason for his gaffe, and then repeated the disinformation by referring to the single death as a "massacre" again. So next time he decries a "massacre," am I to believe him? He's not my friend from 6B, he's a prime minister, and he is expected to get information straight before hurling accusations.

It points to a penchant for exaggeration, and so it also bears on the question of "martyrdom," as Siniora and Nasrallah both put it.

To wit: when Hezbollah believes that the deaths of civilians among whom they hide are desireable outcomes, is it likely or unlikely that there will be more civilians killed in already very powerful strikes (which, I do understand, would result in some such deaths, regardless)? I think it is more likely that more will die, when the PM of Lebanon, as well as Hezbollah spokespeople, regard these victims as desireable pawns in an international media game.

I hope this clarifies the discussion, if in fact clarity is a desireable trait in a discussion which has strong emotional content. I believe it is.

Dan

[quote]Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"These clips do flesh out a bit the reality of fighting a group which uses the local civilian infrastructure and population as cover."

Has anyone doubted that Hezbollah is fighting a guerilla war, as they have in the past? Has anyone doubted that the same kind of war prevails in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I don't doubt that this "reality" is primed to break out elsewhere in the region.

As I have said previously, the response by bombing is also barbaric. Strategic bombing is designed to break the will of the populace by killing it. I ask the simple question, how often does bombing fulfill its purpose?

Currently, we are dropping twice as many bombs on Iraq as we did during "Shock and Awe." Currently, we are bombing at the same rate in Afghanistan. Currently, Israel is bombing Lebanon to rubble. Currently, Hezbollah, is firing two hundred rockets a day into Israel.

No matter how much one rationalizes these actions, they still appear to me to be the acts of lunatics.

Bob

As far as I am concerned anybody who for any reason at all uses explosives on humans is a terrorist. Anyone who defends them is a sympathiser and supporter of terrorists. The scale is immaterial.

Nothing in history should move us if this can't.

I know that's not a very useful intervention.

[This message has been edited by Janet Kenny (edited August 08, 2006).]

If your reasoning is correct, Janet, and a valid definition of "terrorist" then Nazi Germany was not a terrorist organization for their barbaric and long-lasting treatment of Jews, Gays, Gypsies, etc etc and the United States Army was a terrorist organization for putting an end to WWII by the sheer act of dropping 2 bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a few short minutes and anything and everything which came before that painful and agonized act was as immaterial as your "scale."

Is killing wrong or is using explosives wrong? I'm pretty sure both are equally heinous - especially if one can hide their head and pretend it all happens in a vacuum.

Life, however, and love and hate and war and death do NOT happen in a vacuum.

If a policeman kills a man whom he has caught in the act of kidnapping, raping and attempting to murder a child, is he a murderer, a terrorist and an animal, or is he a hero who was doing his job and doing it well? Do we vilify him or do we thank him?

By your very narrow definition, all soldiers of all races and religions and creeds in all countries in all of the world are terrorists or potential terrorists....and all non-soldiers who kidnap journalists and behead them on the Internet are not.

Yes, terrorists sometimes drop bombs as an act of terror....and sometimes non-terrorists do - but for other reasons. It's not one of those silly questions on an IQ test. "If some terrorists drop bombs, and some soldiers drop bombs, it follows that all soldiers are terrorists." It assumes that there is no rational or reason which ever takes place behind the bombings.

It's not so cut and dried and simple as "anyone who does" and "anyone who sympathizes" is Answer A, always Janet. There are always Answers B, C, and D, as well as E. which is generally None of the Above. It's been my experience that Answer E is usually the correct one.

Broad generalizations and casual observations put on paper just makes things worse.

Apparently history can move us without teaching us anything.

Lo



[This message has been edited by Lo (edited August 08, 2006).]