Alarming News

July 31, 2006

You will be appalled but you will not be surprised

Click and make sure everyone you know clicks too.

Via Ace.

Posted by Karol at 03:06 AM |
Technorati Tags:

The appalling thing is the massacre of children by Israeli bombing in the first place.

Posted by: Dan at July 31, 2006 at 9:01 am

That’s not appalling, that’s unfortunate. It’s obvious to anyone that Israel wasn’t aiming at civilians and it was a tragic mistake. Just wondering, though, what would it take for you to take Israel’s side in this conflict. Do the terrorists have to kill like 2 Israelis for every one Arab in order for you to feel any sympathy?

Posted by: Karol at July 31, 2006 at 10:11 am

Would you then define the accident of the Israel attack on the USS Liberty as unfortunate then since it was a “tragic mistake” ?

Posted by: Von Bek at July 31, 2006 at 10:21 am

Why don’t you guys just stop pussyfooting around: are you trying to say that Israel purposely killed civilians? If yes, go ahead and say it. Stop talking around it. Say that you think Israel purposely targetted these people, that their apology is bullshit, that the fact that they’ve halted the bombings for 48 hours is irrelevant, that you really think Israel was trying to kill children. Please, I want to know exactly what I’m dealing with here.

Posted by: Karol at July 31, 2006 at 10:29 am

Karol you can’t win with these people and you will only end up with high blood pressure trying.

Posted by: Lisa at July 31, 2006 at 10:35 am

No, I don’t think Israel specifically targeted civilians (though I do think they targeted the USS Liberty back in the day in an attempt to drag us into the conflict). You want to know what you are dealing with; someone who puts his own nation above others and frankly one who is appalled at notions of attacks on our servicemen from an ally.
But do I find civilian deaths in war appalling ? Of course I do. I am from the South and frankly I’d love to see the city of New York melt down that damn statue of General Sherman at 59th and 5th. I do not think civilians should ever be a target and, sadly, they seem to the leading target in this age of terror.
And I thought Israel had resumed strikes based on the newswires.

Posted by: Von Bek at July 31, 2006 at 10:37 am

So, Lisa, you do not find the attack on the USS Liberty appalling ?

Posted by: Von Bek at July 31, 2006 at 10:40 am

they are the target because Palestine has NO army – which no doubt Von Bek will explain away as the fault of the Israelis, right Von Bek?
Start now…

Posted by: Ari at July 31, 2006 at 10:55 am

You know, Von Bek, fine, I’ll engage about something that happened a coupla dozen years ago, fine. Here it is from Wikipedia:
Both the Israeli and American governments have conducted multiple inquiries into the incident, and have issued reports concluding that the attack was a tragic mistake, caused by confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty. These conclusions have been challenged from several fronts, most notably by an organization of several Liberty survivors, as well as by some key former high-ranking officials who were in office at the time in the United States government, including the Secretary of State, The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of the NSA, and the senior legal counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of of Inquiry into the incident. The matter is officially closed for purposes of Israeli-American relations, but remains controversial in the public debate.
Israel’s official position remains to this day that the attack was an accident, claiming that it was assured by the United States that no U.S. ships were in the area. Israel has also claimed that its air and naval forces mistakenly identified Liberty as the Egyptian vessel El Quseir. Proponents of the accident explanation add that mistakes were inevitable in the tense atmosphere of the Six-Day War, and that no concrete motive existed for Israel to initiate a surprise attack against a country that was quickly becoming its most powerful and important ally.
If you have any further questions/concerns/problems, please take it up with your own government. It makes zero sense for Israel to have targeted the ship. You say they wanted to pull the US into the conflict? Oh yeah? On the Arab side? Because how does it make sense to attack an American ship and then think they will help you?
Anyway, I now consider that matter closed, until my government tells me otherwise.
So, Israel today: targeting civilians or just dealing with the reality of an enemy that hides among women and children?

Posted by: Karol at July 31, 2006 at 10:58 am

I think war is something to be avoided at all costs because of the destruction of life and property that goes along with war. I would prefer a ceasefire until cooler heads prevail.
I do not think that Israel targeted civilians in that particular attack. But the Israeli government has decided to escalate a border raid into a major war and prosecuted a bombing campaign in a way that would inevitably lead to large civilian casualties.

Posted by: Dan at July 31, 2006 at 11:04 am

More proof that MSM are the lowest form of life on this earth.
Reminds me when Peter Arnett of CNN would participate in Iraq’s staging of grief events during the first Gulf War. He would do interviews of grieving mothers day after day in front of bombed out buildings.
The problem for CNN was that a European news service reporter would film Peter leading a caravan of Iraqi limos to a deserted bombed out building. Peter and the Iraqi women would get out of the limos. He would then coach them for a while and then interview the women who would start wailing on camera. It was amazing how every grieving mother in Iraq spoke perfect English.
The European reporter would film these CNN staged incidents a number of times, but it never seemed to embarrass Arnett or CNN. These European reports were carried on CSPAN but were suppressed by all other US media.
Unfortunately we did not have bloggers then to expose the atrocities committed by MSM.

Posted by: Jake at July 31, 2006 at 11:07 am

Glad Karol considers the matter solved and has trust in the federal government to do the right thing at all times. I don’t and neither do a lot of the survivors. See the excellent website for a different point of view. I think the Israelis wanted to fool the Americans into thinking it was an Arab attack to increase our support for the Israeli side of the war.
As for Ari and Karol’s last question, I will repeat myself. “No, I don’t think Israel specifically targeted civilians.” Does that need to be clarified ?

Posted by: Von Bek at July 31, 2006 at 11:18 am

All of the things going on TODAY in the region and y’all are debating the USS Liberty incident? What’s next, the Exodus? How dare those Israelites take all that gold from the Pharoah? Especially after he so graciously set them free. How about Bar Kokhba

Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at July 31, 2006 at 11:19 am

Von Bek,
This is what I really don’t understand and perhaps you have a good answer. You see, If I were a Lebanese women living in Southern Lebanon and had babies I would have left for northern Lebanon 2 weeks ago.
I would have carried my babies on my back and would have done anything to lead them to safer ground. So why were these women and children still there?

Posted by: Lisa at July 31, 2006 at 11:20 am

Now that is an out of left field question that I can be proud of !
Probably because they live in what remains a traditional culture with home and family roots firmly planted in the area.

Posted by: Von Bek at July 31, 2006 at 11:24 am

Ahem… Jake… your name reminds me of someone I sent an email to. Miss you!
And Von Bek, if Hamas et al were not intermixed with the population it would be one thing. Since you find history lessons so fun, indulge me this one, would you? I bet you think that targeting the U.S. barracks in Lebanon was “fair” because those affected were enlisted, right?
Now, don’t you think Israel would LOVE to target something like that instead of neighborhoods (no, you don’t, but pretend you don’t love Arab terrorists so). Now, can you look on a map for me and find me an army barracks belonging to Hamas? To Nasrallah’s “men”? To any damn enlisted compound? No you can’t – because those lowlives do not bother with armies or with bases. They operate out of mosques and markets. Precisely because it makes those highly evolved, such as yourself, argue these ridiculous points on their behalfs.

Posted by: Ari at July 31, 2006 at 11:26 am

Well Chris I’d say bringing up the Exodus would be as relevant as say using the Bible to create a nation state in the 1940s. Which is to say very.

Posted by: Von Bek at July 31, 2006 at 11:28 am

To answer your question Lisa:
“We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us” -Golda Meir former PM of Israel

Posted by: A at July 31, 2006 at 11:34 am

I want a good answer Von Bek? I would do anything to keep my children out of harms way?
Many (and I mean many) northern Israelis have left for safer ground (safe for now) in central and southern Israel. Are Northern Israelis without tradition and without roots planted in the area????
Can anyone else back me up here.

Posted by: Lisa at July 31, 2006 at 11:36 am

Well said A!!!

Posted by: Lisa at July 31, 2006 at 11:38 am

Ari, again read my comments. I said that I believe Israel was targeting terrorists and something went wrong. That happens in war. That does not mean that I have to like it.
Do I think the bombing of our Marines in Lebanon was fair? No. Are there moral differences between attacking soldiers and civilians? Yes.
Do I think it fair ? No. I believe in rules of war which this clearly violated. I think barbarians, like Hamas, would accept that.

Posted by: Von Bek at July 31, 2006 at 11:38 am

Relevant, eh? I can’t seem to find where the 1947 UN Partition Plan even mentions the Bible. Maybe you are old enough to remember when it happened.

Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at July 31, 2006 at 11:39 am

I love this. Running around twisting everyone’s tails like Stonewall in the Valley back in ‘62.
Sorry to disappoint you, Lisa. My own take is that Israel is more of a modern society than Lebanon. You surely recognize differences between the two peoples.

Posted by: Von Bek at July 31, 2006 at 11:44 am

So being a “modern” mom makes you want to protect your children more?
Am I not explaining myself clearly? Do the rest of the commenters think i’m twisting around his words?

Posted by: Lisa at July 31, 2006 at 11:55 am

Chris, I will concede the point on the UN, godless even then, but I will point out that Israel’s decleration of independence of 5-14-48 clearly invokes the tradition of the Book of Books. I think that Zionism has a basis in religious tradition. While this is not the only factor, it is a major one for many of Israel’s supporters.

Posted by: Von Bek at July 31, 2006 at 11:58 am

No but I think a modern society is more mobile. You also seem to think that all cultural, religious and ethical traditions are created equal. I do not. If you asked me if the Jewish people were more concerned with life than the Islamic one, I would say yes. But then I think the people of the Jewish faith walk closer to God than members of the Islamic faith.

Posted by: Von Bek at July 31, 2006 at 12:01 pm

One of the problems Lebanese women have is that as soon the women and children evacuate a neighborhood, the terrorists move their rocket launchers into an area that is not evacuated.

Posted by: Jake at July 31, 2006 at 12:01 pm

I am working on it. You can not send just any old email to one of New York’s greatest writers.

Posted by: Jake at July 31, 2006 at 12:04 pm

Thanks Jake. That is a good answer.

Posted by: Lisa at July 31, 2006 at 12:07 pm

Jake rocks the house harder than a dozen katyushkas ;) Love the Jake.

Posted by: Ari at July 31, 2006 at 12:19 pm

Lisa: There are also stories (some confirmed and many more unconfirmed) that Hezbollah simply holds civilians in an area at gunpoint for the express purpose of using them as a shield.
As for Qana, anyone else have a suspicion that Hezbollah blew up the building several hours after the Israeli strike to generate the very reaction that we’ve seen over the past day?
In any event, regardless of whether the Israeli bombings in which civilans are killed are morally “wrong” or “right” (or as is perhaps most likely, neither), I wonder if they’re actually working. Is Israel really going to be safer after all this if it can’t wipe out Hezbollah? Are the attacks ultimately leaving Isreal more vulnerable to non-Hezbollah forces for the foreseeable future? I fear that this is the case…

Posted by: Alceste at July 31, 2006 at 12:23 pm

Thanks Alceste, more good answers.

Posted by: Lisa at July 31, 2006 at 12:47 pm

Yes, I’m late to the party yet again.
Why is no one asking about the Lebanese government’s responsibility (at least that portion which is not Hezbollah)? This could all have been avoided if they forced the fighters in the south to disarm.
It’s not like they haven’t had a year to take care of this. Not to mention the almighty UN resolution. If you believe government negligence played any part in the Katrina disaster, then Lebanese negligence led to these civilian deaths.

Posted by: Nikhil Bhat at July 31, 2006 at 2:39 pm

I think the pictures were apalling. I do not think Israel killed those people intentionally but a lot of people did get killed. Someone made a mistake and that’s gonna happen. Unfortunately in a war mistakes often prove to be very devastating. Also this footage/disaster shows us if Israel really had wanted to level Lebanon, Beirut or the occupied territories and kill everyone they could do it.
I support Israel 100% even if I question their tactics or motivation that’s the beuty of Democracy and Israel is one of them (and with the U.K. our only real Ally is Israel)
Just for the record I was against this war in Lebanon before I was for it.

Posted by: Dan the Democrat at July 31, 2006 at 5:24 pm

Love the Sherman comment, that was a little deep.
In summation how many Japanese died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima to save US lives.

Posted by: Dan the Democrat at July 31, 2006 at 5:28 pm

Speaking of suspicions, the IDF has them too…

Posted by: Alceste at July 31, 2006 at 6:03 pm

Speaking of suspicions, the IDF has them too…
Oops – broken tag on IDF

Posted by: Alceste at July 31, 2006 at 6:04 pm

What can I say? I really don’t like Sherman. I think he was very selfish in his patronage as a general (by screwing over solid generals like John McClernand, Pap Thomas and Fighting Joe Hooker for politically correct incompetents like Judson Kilpatrick-easily my least favortie general of the war-and Oliver Otis Howard).

Posted by: Von Bek at July 31, 2006 at 6:17 pm

I heard on the radio someone questioning why people would remain in a building for hours after it was hit by rockets. Also, the ages of the victims — women and children but no adult or young males. Some are speculating those killed were killed by Hezzbolla detonating the building.

Posted by: sam at July 31, 2006 at 7:55 pm

I think it’s pretty clear the IAF blew up that building and made an error but again war is a dirty business. Staging the recovery of the dead for media purposes is some morbid shit and not all that suprising. You can probably thank the US and UK media for that one though I’m sure they paid well for the pictures.

Posted by: Dan the Democrat at August 1, 2006 at 10:35 am
Post a comment