Thursday, August 17, 2006
The reason this is not getting the coverage is because it can not be blamed on Israel. This was Sri Lanka. Consequently there is no UN resolutions, no demands for cease fires, no graphic pictures of bodies being shown day and night on the MSM networks. Why are the human rights groups not calling for investigations and labelling it a war crime?
The answer is that the world MSM media is totally morally corrupt. If Israel kills a civillian human shield by accident while defending itself, the venomous anti Israel rhetoric appears instantly.
This single Sri Lankan attack killed more children than any single Israeli attack killed people in the current Lebanese conflict. The Sri Lankan government reported that the orphanage was in fact a training and transit camp for the LTE's cadres. My point is not that this was justified or unjustified as I don't know enough about it, but rather that the MSM coverage is completely different to the coverage that Israel has received.
Further to this point, there is currently a genocide occuring in Sudan where hundreds of thousands have been killed over the last year. Where is the MSM, where is the outrage, where are the UN committees and resolutions? If this carnage got a fraction of the coverage that Israel got, Nato would be pressurised into doing something. The media simply doesn't care.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
"An hour ago, a horrific massacre took place in Houla village as a result of the intentional Israeli bombardment that resulted in more than 40 martyrs," Siniora told an Arab foreign ministers meeting in Beirut.
This was carried by reuters, the Washington Post, the Daily Telegraph, CNN, BBC etc
When it was blatently clear that there was only a single person killed, he retracted his statement to say:
“The massacre in Houla, it turned out that there was one person killed,” Mr Siniora said.
“They thought that the whole building smashed on the heads of about 40 people … thank God they have been saved.”
Of course there is no detail of how they were "saved" nor is anyone asking where are the "saved" people and how were they "saved." Where are the reporters on the ground, the ambulances etc? In the lack of the evidence of them being saved we can only assume they were never there to start with.
Nevertheless Sionara has achieved his goal and the damage is done. People remember the claim not the footnote retraction that half the media don't even bother to print.
If the supposedly moderate democratic PM of Lebanon who just wants peace can make such an outrageous claim without any evidence, how can any numbers of casualties being touted in Lebanon be believed?
Monday, August 07, 2006
In this conflict Hezbollah dresses in civilian clothing and attacks from within civilian areas. Does that make someone who stores and hides rockets for Hezbollah a civilian or a combatant? I would argue that they are a combatant. When that person, be they a grandmother or a 12 year old, is killed there is no doubt that the Lebanese doctors et al would describe them as civilian.
What is interesting is that despite the above "grey area" the media simply repeat the Lebanese line as fact without verification and without mentioning Israel's count. Despite this, Israel has stated that 400 Hezbollah fighters have been killed. Note this is not even taking into account the "grey area" of "granny rocket hiders", only actual fighters - typically males in their twenties that were killed in actual conflict ie bearing arms. We know this as Israel is making the names public by reading them on air in Arabic, and so it is a far more reliable source of numbers than what the Lebanese are claiming without any proof. The Australian newspaper reports "Israel has begun to broadcast in Arabic the names of about 400 Hezbollah fighters it claims to have killed, presumably obtained from identity tags." http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20041082-601,00.html
Leaving aside the "grey area" civilians which are highly likely not to be in a list broadcast by Israel, this means that of the 700 or so casualties that eg CNN is reporting more than half are militants not civilians. The phrase therefore "most of them civilians" is untrue.
Every media outlet just assumes that most are civilians and accept it as fact. History has shown that the Arab nations and spokesman have consistently blatantly lied about casualty numbers and Israeli early figures are far closer to the mark. Remember the "thousands massacred at Jenin" which turned out to be "23 Israeli soldiers and 52 Palestinians, 22 of whom were unarmed civilians, the rest being Palestinian militants. This was generally the figures agreed to by numerous investigations including the UN, HRW and Amnesty. All the while Israel denied the claims of a massacre but the mainstream media were clamoring over themselves to print the Palestinian claims.
Who can forget "Comical Ali" the media propagandist from Iraq that was claiming huge US casualties while Baghdad was falling?
More recently of course is the Qana incident in which the media quickly accepted Lebanese claims as fact that 56 were killed and still print that figure despite even the Lebanese Red Cross and others confirming that there were half that killed.
Examples of the biased media relating to accepting the Lebanese numbers as fact are everywhere: CNN
"So far the conflict has killed 92 people in Israel, including 35 civilians; in Lebanon, security forces put the death toll at 716, most of them civilians."
BBC have found 200 more than CNN!
"More than 900 Lebanese, most of them civilians have been killed in the conflict, the Lebanese government says. More than 80 Israelis, most of them soldiers, have also been killed."
How can Reuters be trusted with their reports when they have admitted that photos that they have published have been doctored?
Furthermore it should be noted that while Hezbollah is a militia that comprises of professional soldiers (there is no "draft"), Israel's army is made up of civilian conscripts the vast majority are reservists that by law are required to become soldiers when called upon to defend the country. One could almost argue that most Israeli army casualties are more "civilian" than Hezbolla's civilian dressed fighters.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
After all the discussion about fake and staged images, I noticed in the completely once sided ITV report on the ambulances being targetted that one of the "red cross" workers has an uncanny resemblance to "Green Helmet".
See the first 10 seconds of the video
Is this possible? If so I would say that this absolutely clinches it that Green Helmet specifically stages scenes. At Riehl world
the point is made that "ITV admits that no reporter had access to the vehicle, the video and subsequent images taken from it were from "an amateur local cameraman" from Southern Beirut. Seems it was too dangerous for the journo's."
Why is "Green Helmet" at the scene dressed as a red cross worker when in all other shots to date he has been dressed as, well, "Green Helmet"?
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
In an post on counterterrorismblog.org, Olivier Guitta writes
In fact, the very well informed Kuwaiti daily Al Seyassah reported that Hezbollah shot eighteen people last week. These people were suspected of being collaborators to Israel (sounds awfully like what's been happening in the Palestinian territories in the past years). The executed were accused of helping Israeli airforce to pinpoint where Hezbollah fighters were hiding by tracing signs with phosphorescent paint. Numerous witnesses to the execution were German citizens who were being evacuated by boat through Tyre.
Why is this not reported in the main media? Where is human rights watch? Sounds like a massacre to me. Where is amnesty screaming out about the massacre. Why isn't the Guardian and the NY Times at least apologising for the massacre and blaming Israel for it?
The silence is "deadening"
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
If only that were the case then of course the world liberal press would then consider the Israeli response proportionate!
Of course the idea is that if you get attacked with a hail of rockets but are prudent and lucky enough to try and minimise your casualties a great defence and deterrent would then to proportionately only attack a tiny number of your enemy because doubtless that would scare them from attacking again. Is this a strategy that would have worked when say Britain bombed Germany in WW2? Surely the American response to a Japanese attack on their military that led to hundreds of thousands of American troops attacking the Germans was disproportionate? Surely stopping the slaughter in Bosnia by NATO bombs was disproportionate - surely the media should have claimed they should not have done so?
In war the aim is not to try and match up your army to be fair. It is to defeat the aggressor by using the best weapons for the task.
Where is the condemnation from Anan and the UN when Israeli citizens are killed in Haifa? Where is Anan's observation that it "appears to be deliberate"?
There is no proportionality in war. If someone starts a war by attacking you, you have a duty to defeat them in a way to ensure they do not have the capacity or courage to try it again. Civillian casualties should be minimized wherever possible. If Israel disregarded civillian life, they would not warn civillians days in advance about forthcoming attacks. They would have wholesale bombing raids that would have killed thousands of civillians in the first few hours.