http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4894148.stm
'How predictions for Iraq came true
By John Simpson
BBC World Affairs Editor
It was a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq, three years ago. I was interviewing the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in the ballroom of a big hotel in Cairo. Shrewd, amusing, bulky in his superb white robes, he described to me all the disasters he was certain would follow the invasion.
The US and British troops would be bogged down in Iraq for years. There would be civil war between Sunnis and Shias. The real beneficiary would be the government in Iran.
"And what do the Americans say when you tell them this," I asked? "They don't even listen," he said.
Over the last three years, from a ringside seat here in Baghdad, I have watched his predictions come true, stage by stage.'
I haven't seen John Chimpson recently. He seems to be semi-retired or something. I certainly did not see him today on BBC news, reporting from a very quiet and busy Baghdad where everybody Iraqi was voting. Again. In another PROPER election. In peace. In a country which controls its own borders, is not run by murderous Ba'athist thugs nor even more murderous Al Qaeda scumbags, and is quietly turning into a huge, rather pleasant, well-organised democracy, as planned and executed by the United States under the leadership of George W Bush.
Darn it, where is Chimpy McReporter when you need him? He is so fat, I rather predict he is in the nearest kebab shop, eating the extra large one. Yep, when you're wrong, you hide, and overeat.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
A hundred years ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7844916.stm
'Exactly 100 years after two robbers went on a shooting rampage in a London suburb, the dead victims are being officially remembered. But the shocking details of the "Tottenham Outrage" still offer parallels with current events.
It sounds like a scene from a Hollywood movie - two outlaws rampaging through the streets chased by police and public, while firing more than 400 rounds of ammunition at their pursuers.
Throw in concerns about politically-motivated terrorists, uncontrolled immigration and police tactics not keeping pace with the villains' methods, and you have a thoroughly modern seeming incident.
But this was 23 January 1909. The two robbers killed a police officer and a 10-year-old boy in Tottenham, north London, as they tried to escape with the £80 wages they had snatched from a rubber factory.'
This could not happen today.
'As well as representing a shift in the history of criminality in the UK, the episode was remarkable for the response of the officers and passers-by, says local historian Martin Belam.
"You also have to think about how brave the police were. The two robbers were shooting to kill, over 20 people were injured. They were constantly firing back into the crowd.
"Ordinary citizens joined in the chase in a display of civic values I'm not sure you would get today."'
Thats why. Armed citizens defended their community with gusto. Now we are pathetic sheep, at the mercy of knife and gun wielding thugs. Fantastic.
'Exactly 100 years after two robbers went on a shooting rampage in a London suburb, the dead victims are being officially remembered. But the shocking details of the "Tottenham Outrage" still offer parallels with current events.
It sounds like a scene from a Hollywood movie - two outlaws rampaging through the streets chased by police and public, while firing more than 400 rounds of ammunition at their pursuers.
Throw in concerns about politically-motivated terrorists, uncontrolled immigration and police tactics not keeping pace with the villains' methods, and you have a thoroughly modern seeming incident.
But this was 23 January 1909. The two robbers killed a police officer and a 10-year-old boy in Tottenham, north London, as they tried to escape with the £80 wages they had snatched from a rubber factory.'
This could not happen today.
'As well as representing a shift in the history of criminality in the UK, the episode was remarkable for the response of the officers and passers-by, says local historian Martin Belam.
"You also have to think about how brave the police were. The two robbers were shooting to kill, over 20 people were injured. They were constantly firing back into the crowd.
"Ordinary citizens joined in the chase in a display of civic values I'm not sure you would get today."'
Thats why. Armed citizens defended their community with gusto. Now we are pathetic sheep, at the mercy of knife and gun wielding thugs. Fantastic.
Aux Barricades
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3661576,00.html
'Pro-Israel rally crashed in Sweden
Protestors gathered to support Israel were pelted with eggs and bottles, then dispersed by police
A pro-Israel rally in Malmo, Sweden was torn apart Sunday by pro-Palestinian residents who arrived on the scene with eggs, bottles, and tear gas grenades which they threw at Israel's supporters. Police dispersed the entire crowd.
"At some point, about a half an hour after the protest began, pro-Palestinian protestors began to throw eggs, bottles, and even a tear gas grenade," Elad Meier, a Bnei Akiva and Jewish Agency envoy to Sweden, recounted.
Meier added that the lawless protestors disconnected the speakers brought to the square by the Jewish community while its leader was speaking. The act brought the pro-Israel rally to an end, as others could not speak.'
It begins. We will not submit.
'Pro-Israel rally crashed in Sweden
Protestors gathered to support Israel were pelted with eggs and bottles, then dispersed by police
A pro-Israel rally in Malmo, Sweden was torn apart Sunday by pro-Palestinian residents who arrived on the scene with eggs, bottles, and tear gas grenades which they threw at Israel's supporters. Police dispersed the entire crowd.
"At some point, about a half an hour after the protest began, pro-Palestinian protestors began to throw eggs, bottles, and even a tear gas grenade," Elad Meier, a Bnei Akiva and Jewish Agency envoy to Sweden, recounted.
Meier added that the lawless protestors disconnected the speakers brought to the square by the Jewish community while its leader was speaking. The act brought the pro-Israel rally to an end, as others could not speak.'
It begins. We will not submit.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Your President?
'Restoring our place in the world community, one missile at a time'
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/281656.php
As Glenn Reynolds would say, who are the Rubes? Who got the President they wanted in 2008? If you voted for 'peace', President Obama ain't your man.
Good.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/281656.php
As Glenn Reynolds would say, who are the Rubes? Who got the President they wanted in 2008? If you voted for 'peace', President Obama ain't your man.
Good.
The gloves are off
'Rivals break with BBC in Gaza row
ITV, Channel 4 and Five are to show a charity appeal for Gaza amid a row over the BBC's decision not to run the film.
Ministers urged the BBC to recognise "immense human suffering" and show the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal.
At least 200 people protested in London at the BBC's decision. The corporation fears compromising its impartiality in covering the Israeli offensive in Gaza.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7848673.stm
I make no claims to impartiality. I support Israel against its enemies.
Why can't the BBC play this charity appeal? Because most of the groups who are conducting it are not impartial either. They are plainly, unequivocally pro-palestinian. They have claimed in the past to be anti-war, pro-peace, and hidden at least to some extent their bias. But in the last battle fought between Israel and Hamas, they have shown their true colours. Much of the money now being collected will inevitably fall into the hands of Hamas. Most of the organisations involved in this appeal are perfectly at ease with that fact. Many secretly want Hamas to rearm and take the fight to Israel. These organisations are largely peopled with palestinian-lovers. You only needed to listen to their screeching and moaning during the conflict about the terrible humanitarian disaster which they fantasised.
Why does any of this matter? Because the ground has shifted. The BBC understands that this appeal is not politically neutral. It understands that it takes no note of Israeli suffering, only arab suffering. It also knows that the 'humanitarian disaster' is no such thing. Over and over again the BBC showed and described 70 and 80 truck convoys entering the Gaza strip during the battle, and also reported on the three hour daily truces during which people could fetch food, water and fuel. The money donated during this appeal will not go to feed starving people- there aren't any. It will go to buying new Qassams and Grads, and rebuilding the infrastructure of a terrorist regime.
According to lefties I've spoken to, we in the west are not allowed to fight our enemies. Because of our inherent oppressiveness and colonial original sin, we must just submit. Well, let me tell you, the will is building amongst millions in the free world to take on our enemies, fight them, and defeat them. If need be, annihilate them. And what of those amongst us who constantly militate for the victory of our enemies? What indeed.
ITV, Channel 4 and Five are to show a charity appeal for Gaza amid a row over the BBC's decision not to run the film.
Ministers urged the BBC to recognise "immense human suffering" and show the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal.
At least 200 people protested in London at the BBC's decision. The corporation fears compromising its impartiality in covering the Israeli offensive in Gaza.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7848673.stm
I make no claims to impartiality. I support Israel against its enemies.
Why can't the BBC play this charity appeal? Because most of the groups who are conducting it are not impartial either. They are plainly, unequivocally pro-palestinian. They have claimed in the past to be anti-war, pro-peace, and hidden at least to some extent their bias. But in the last battle fought between Israel and Hamas, they have shown their true colours. Much of the money now being collected will inevitably fall into the hands of Hamas. Most of the organisations involved in this appeal are perfectly at ease with that fact. Many secretly want Hamas to rearm and take the fight to Israel. These organisations are largely peopled with palestinian-lovers. You only needed to listen to their screeching and moaning during the conflict about the terrible humanitarian disaster which they fantasised.
Why does any of this matter? Because the ground has shifted. The BBC understands that this appeal is not politically neutral. It understands that it takes no note of Israeli suffering, only arab suffering. It also knows that the 'humanitarian disaster' is no such thing. Over and over again the BBC showed and described 70 and 80 truck convoys entering the Gaza strip during the battle, and also reported on the three hour daily truces during which people could fetch food, water and fuel. The money donated during this appeal will not go to feed starving people- there aren't any. It will go to buying new Qassams and Grads, and rebuilding the infrastructure of a terrorist regime.
According to lefties I've spoken to, we in the west are not allowed to fight our enemies. Because of our inherent oppressiveness and colonial original sin, we must just submit. Well, let me tell you, the will is building amongst millions in the free world to take on our enemies, fight them, and defeat them. If need be, annihilate them. And what of those amongst us who constantly militate for the victory of our enemies? What indeed.
Government rides to the rescue
'But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs countered: "There was a lot of agreement in that room about the notion that we're facing an economic crisis unlike we've seen in quite some time ... that we must act quickly to stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people's pockets."'
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm
When did that EVER happen? Apart from when governments just get the hell out of the way, don't increase the hazards and overheads, and lower taxes, when do governments EVER 'stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people's pockets'. Do these fuckwits not know any 20th century history at all?
Socialists WANT this pipe dream to be true. They want government to magic everything better, they want to develop the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling state which directs businesses in how and when and what to produce, and who to employ and for how long and in what conditions. Thats definitely what they want. But every single time theyve got it, it has done the diametric opposite of 'stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people's pockets'.
The Soviet Union crumbled because the arse fell out of the Russian economy. After a while, the cumulative effect of economic collapse was demoralisation, political discontent and the failure of crucial systems. Is there a risk that the US will go the same way? Only Robert Gibbs and the other Dem morons would doubt it.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm
When did that EVER happen? Apart from when governments just get the hell out of the way, don't increase the hazards and overheads, and lower taxes, when do governments EVER 'stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people's pockets'. Do these fuckwits not know any 20th century history at all?
Socialists WANT this pipe dream to be true. They want government to magic everything better, they want to develop the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling state which directs businesses in how and when and what to produce, and who to employ and for how long and in what conditions. Thats definitely what they want. But every single time theyve got it, it has done the diametric opposite of 'stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people's pockets'.
The Soviet Union crumbled because the arse fell out of the Russian economy. After a while, the cumulative effect of economic collapse was demoralisation, political discontent and the failure of crucial systems. Is there a risk that the US will go the same way? Only Robert Gibbs and the other Dem morons would doubt it.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Geez, he's stoooooooooopid
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/01/obamas_oath_faithfully_misspok.html
'Roberts, one of former President George W. Bush's appointees on the high court, led the way. But, when he reached the phrase, "that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States,'' Roberts at first omitted the word "faithfully'' - he re-inserted it after "president of the United States.''
Obama paused, not taking the miscue at first.
So Roberts repeated the phrase correctly, inserting "faithfully" in the right order: "faithfully execute the office of president of the United States."
Yet Obama then repeated Roberts' original misstatement - "the office of president of the United States faithfully."'
Now, it would be very tempting to mock Mr Obama as an oaf who can't put a few words together in a simple phrase without screwing it up, calling into question his IQ, and laughing uproariously at this hick from Illinios. What sort of people would we be if we did that?
'Roberts, one of former President George W. Bush's appointees on the high court, led the way. But, when he reached the phrase, "that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States,'' Roberts at first omitted the word "faithfully'' - he re-inserted it after "president of the United States.''
Obama paused, not taking the miscue at first.
So Roberts repeated the phrase correctly, inserting "faithfully" in the right order: "faithfully execute the office of president of the United States."
Yet Obama then repeated Roberts' original misstatement - "the office of president of the United States faithfully."'
Now, it would be very tempting to mock Mr Obama as an oaf who can't put a few words together in a simple phrase without screwing it up, calling into question his IQ, and laughing uproariously at this hick from Illinios. What sort of people would we be if we did that?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Tanks and beliefs
Why Israel Can’t Make Peace With Hamas
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14goldberg-1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Very interesting and insightful piece in of all things the New York Times.
At the end, though, we find this mystifying assertion:
'There is a fixed idea among some Israeli leaders that Hamas can be bombed into moderation. This is a false and dangerous notion. It is true that Hamas can be deterred militarily for a time, but tanks cannot defeat deeply felt belief.
The reverse is also true: Hamas cannot be cajoled into moderation. Neither position credits Hamas with sincerity, or seriousness.'
There is a mix of ideas there, many dubious in nature. Is there a fixed idea among Israeli leaders that Hamas can be bombed to moderation, or to oblivion? Even if the 'bombed to moderation' idea is held by actual Israeli leaders, is it so obviously false? I'm not so sure. The Soviets and the British and the Americans had a fixed idea that the Germans could be bombed, blasted, machine-gunned into moderation. That worked out pretty well, by the time hundreds of thousands had gone to meet their long-term host down under. Even in the last sixty years, many many groups of homicidal thugs have been smashed to pieces, killed, wiped out (Sierra Leone anyone?). What makes Hamas so different, one wonders? 'Tanks cannot defeat deeply held beliefs'? What a crock. Tell that to the people of Tibet, who watch as every passing year, their religion and culture are systematically destroyed by the people with the tanks, ie the Chinese. Tell that to the people of northern Ceylon, who are now going to be ruled by Sinhalese whether they like it or not, and whether their religion and culture are respected or not.
Bismarks comment about 'God is on the side with the most divisions' is a swipe at the sentimentalists and those who believe that evil can never triumph over good. If we want to protect our values and our ideas, we have to have tanks, aircraft carriers and missiles and use them against murderous thugs who hate our values and ideas. The US just got done doing a whole load of that in Iraq, and Israel has just got through three weeks of doing that in Gaza.
I think what Mr Goldberg is saying is not that you CAN'T defeat deeply held belief with tanks; but that you musn't. Its a liberal cri-de-coeur, an insistence that we behave in a 'civilised' way. His further statement about Hamas's imperviousness to verbal blandishments is honest and truthful, but then he goes on to spoil that. 'Neither position credits Hamas with sincerity, or seriousness.' So, let me work out what he's saying: the idea that Hamas can be bombed to moderation does not credit Hamas with sincerity or seriousness. What bollocks. It is precisely because the Knesset believe that Hamas are sincere and serious that they are willing to expend huge sums of money, political capital and the lives of its precious IDF soldiers in the attempt to destroy it utterly. Its either that, or wait while Hamas produce tens of thousands of young fanatic wannabee shahids in Gazas schools, arm them with effective modern weapons, and launch them upon southern Israel.
Only the most laggardly and stupid government would allow that to gestate on its borders. And Israel has some pretty good leaders, even now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14goldberg-1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Very interesting and insightful piece in of all things the New York Times.
At the end, though, we find this mystifying assertion:
'There is a fixed idea among some Israeli leaders that Hamas can be bombed into moderation. This is a false and dangerous notion. It is true that Hamas can be deterred militarily for a time, but tanks cannot defeat deeply felt belief.
The reverse is also true: Hamas cannot be cajoled into moderation. Neither position credits Hamas with sincerity, or seriousness.'
There is a mix of ideas there, many dubious in nature. Is there a fixed idea among Israeli leaders that Hamas can be bombed to moderation, or to oblivion? Even if the 'bombed to moderation' idea is held by actual Israeli leaders, is it so obviously false? I'm not so sure. The Soviets and the British and the Americans had a fixed idea that the Germans could be bombed, blasted, machine-gunned into moderation. That worked out pretty well, by the time hundreds of thousands had gone to meet their long-term host down under. Even in the last sixty years, many many groups of homicidal thugs have been smashed to pieces, killed, wiped out (Sierra Leone anyone?). What makes Hamas so different, one wonders? 'Tanks cannot defeat deeply held beliefs'? What a crock. Tell that to the people of Tibet, who watch as every passing year, their religion and culture are systematically destroyed by the people with the tanks, ie the Chinese. Tell that to the people of northern Ceylon, who are now going to be ruled by Sinhalese whether they like it or not, and whether their religion and culture are respected or not.
Bismarks comment about 'God is on the side with the most divisions' is a swipe at the sentimentalists and those who believe that evil can never triumph over good. If we want to protect our values and our ideas, we have to have tanks, aircraft carriers and missiles and use them against murderous thugs who hate our values and ideas. The US just got done doing a whole load of that in Iraq, and Israel has just got through three weeks of doing that in Gaza.
I think what Mr Goldberg is saying is not that you CAN'T defeat deeply held belief with tanks; but that you musn't. Its a liberal cri-de-coeur, an insistence that we behave in a 'civilised' way. His further statement about Hamas's imperviousness to verbal blandishments is honest and truthful, but then he goes on to spoil that. 'Neither position credits Hamas with sincerity, or seriousness.' So, let me work out what he's saying: the idea that Hamas can be bombed to moderation does not credit Hamas with sincerity or seriousness. What bollocks. It is precisely because the Knesset believe that Hamas are sincere and serious that they are willing to expend huge sums of money, political capital and the lives of its precious IDF soldiers in the attempt to destroy it utterly. Its either that, or wait while Hamas produce tens of thousands of young fanatic wannabee shahids in Gazas schools, arm them with effective modern weapons, and launch them upon southern Israel.
Only the most laggardly and stupid government would allow that to gestate on its borders. And Israel has some pretty good leaders, even now.
Going nowhere fast
'Friedman frequently uses a rhetorical technique that goes something like this: “I was in Dubai with the general counsel of BP last year, watching 500 Balinese textile workers get on a train, when suddenly I said to myself, ‘We need better headlights for our tri-plane.’” And off he goes.'
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2U2YjFiOTgzZWVmOGEyMzVhNjU4NTFmM2VlNmQ0NDE=
Its called the Grandad Simpson school of public discourse.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2U2YjFiOTgzZWVmOGEyMzVhNjU4NTFmM2VlNmQ0NDE=
Its called the Grandad Simpson school of public discourse.
Self-congratulatory Media
Balancing act in an asymmetric war, by Chris Curtis, Broadcast Magazine, 16th Jan 2009.
I read through this piece expecting to find mealy- mouthed justification and plain lying, and I was not disappointed.
'BBC World News editor John Williams says the ban on journalists travelling into Gaza has made reports from around the region all the more important' Er, that doesn't make any sense. If the story is in Gaza, how does a piece from Ankara shed light on it? Making even less sense are his quoted words "Because we have bureau in Gaza, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Cairo and Beirut, we can put the pieces of the jigsaw together". I thought you said you couldn't get into Gaza, and now you say you've got a whole bloody bureau there? So lets see, there was no ban on journalists travelling into Iraq, yet the BBC coverage from there was appalling- scanty, biased and highly selective. Yet Gaza has a permanent bureau. How many 'bureau' staff do you need to cover one tiny strip of land so narrow you can see all the way across it?
'...Channel 4 News foreign editor Ben de Pear: "I've been surprised by the extent to which Israel has attempted to control the story, but Gaza is a chaotic place and it hasn't been as watertight as it wanted". There's one in the eye for those evil Israelis huh? Sadly Bendy doesn't mention any actual things that Israel did in 'attempting to control the story'. I hear and read that a lot, but nobody has mentioned any actual things done by Israel. They excluded the international journos from Gaza, but how many would have actually walked into that maelstrom of missiles, mortars and jdams? Not only that, but EVERY SINGLE BBC piece included the exclusion 'warning' at the beginning.
There is this hilarious bit of flummery at the end- 'Perhaps the best way to ensure impartiality is to be criticised for bias in equal measure by both sides'. Really? That rule would stand up to zero critical thought. Impartiality would mean reporting what happened, regardless of whose 'narrative' it suited. It would mean gathering the facts, and then relaying them to the audience, in as straightforward way as possible. But British politics (and let it never be forgotten that the BBC is a state broadcaster) means that telling the unalloyed truth about what goes on in Israel and its environs would send the muslims in Britain into paroxysms of anti-British hate. British muslims are very very easy to piss off, have no self-control or desire for self-control, and allow themselves to be used by extremists all the time to blackmail our politicians and civil society. Straight reporting of the facts about palestinian arab stupidity and self-destruction would 'enflame community relations', so it doesn't happen.
I watched many news bulletins during the three weeks of military ops, and not once did I hear anybody on the BBC refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation, despite the fact that the US, Britain, Canada and the EU all have Hamas on their list of proscribed terrorist organisations. If I go out and collect money on the street corner for Hamas, I can go to prison. Yet this article calls them 'an irregular band of guerilla fighters with inferior firepower and medical infrastructure.' You know, a bit like Robin Hood. Enormous quantities of relevant facts were omitted from broadcast after broadcast about these merry men. Many times it was mentioned that Hamas won an election in Gaza; never mentioned was the disgusting little war which followed the election, where Fatah operatives and politicians were murdered in the street, thrown from buildings and tortured to death. Also strangely absent is any mention of the NEXT election, which everybody in the media know will never occur because there is now no opposition of any kind to Hamas in Gaza.
Over and over again, TV broadcasts presented the same rigid set of 'facts': the palestinian casualty count, the proportion (pure guesswork) of civilian casualties, the number of days the Israelis had been bombarding, a run-through of which cities had anti-Israel marches and some boilerplate about 'terrible destruction'. And of course, that they couldn't report from inside Gaza because of the dastardly Israelis.
Missing from these reports? Every kind of historical context, military assessment and political analysis. In the same way that stories about the IRA and northern Ireland never mentioned the REASON why Catholic ulstermen wanted to kill and maim Protestant ulstermen (and vice versa), we pick up the story as if it just started last weekend. The story doesn't even reach back as far as the Israeli withdrawal from Gush Khatif and the rest of the strip. I remember only one broadcast that mentioned this extremely pertinent fact. Every broadcast from the BBC belittled Qassams and BM-21s, making out that they were annoying firecrackers. Wouldn't we all love to see every BBC newsreader have to put up with incoming Qassams for three years. There was virtually no reporting of the military situation- no effort to analyze the tactics being used by both sides, no effort to devine intent or mission goals. Thats probably because as soon as you start analysing Hamas's tactics, things start getting disgusting. Who stores their explosives unders schools, mosques and family homes, other than vile barbarians? Can you imagine if it was the Israelis doing that?
There was no political analysis of why Hamas had provoked this confrontation with Israel. No BBC person I saw at any stage seemed interested in that vital issue. Forget for a moment the issue of land rights: what about simple rational calculation of interest? How could it possibly be rational to provoke Israel to tear apart the Gaza strip to destroy Hamas, when the human catastrophe would be inevitable? Never heard a peep. Presumably the BBC has bought into the idea that sacrificing Gazan civilian lives on the altar of Hamas propaganda is worth it in the long haul. Utterly disgusting.
The penultimate paragraph says 'The consensus among broadcasters is that the industry worked hard to produce strong, balanced coverage of a politically and emotionally sensitive conflict'. Can't... express... feelings... words... won't... come...
I read through this piece expecting to find mealy- mouthed justification and plain lying, and I was not disappointed.
'BBC World News editor John Williams says the ban on journalists travelling into Gaza has made reports from around the region all the more important' Er, that doesn't make any sense. If the story is in Gaza, how does a piece from Ankara shed light on it? Making even less sense are his quoted words "Because we have bureau in Gaza, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Cairo and Beirut, we can put the pieces of the jigsaw together". I thought you said you couldn't get into Gaza, and now you say you've got a whole bloody bureau there? So lets see, there was no ban on journalists travelling into Iraq, yet the BBC coverage from there was appalling- scanty, biased and highly selective. Yet Gaza has a permanent bureau. How many 'bureau' staff do you need to cover one tiny strip of land so narrow you can see all the way across it?
'...Channel 4 News foreign editor Ben de Pear: "I've been surprised by the extent to which Israel has attempted to control the story, but Gaza is a chaotic place and it hasn't been as watertight as it wanted". There's one in the eye for those evil Israelis huh? Sadly Bendy doesn't mention any actual things that Israel did in 'attempting to control the story'. I hear and read that a lot, but nobody has mentioned any actual things done by Israel. They excluded the international journos from Gaza, but how many would have actually walked into that maelstrom of missiles, mortars and jdams? Not only that, but EVERY SINGLE BBC piece included the exclusion 'warning' at the beginning.
There is this hilarious bit of flummery at the end- 'Perhaps the best way to ensure impartiality is to be criticised for bias in equal measure by both sides'. Really? That rule would stand up to zero critical thought. Impartiality would mean reporting what happened, regardless of whose 'narrative' it suited. It would mean gathering the facts, and then relaying them to the audience, in as straightforward way as possible. But British politics (and let it never be forgotten that the BBC is a state broadcaster) means that telling the unalloyed truth about what goes on in Israel and its environs would send the muslims in Britain into paroxysms of anti-British hate. British muslims are very very easy to piss off, have no self-control or desire for self-control, and allow themselves to be used by extremists all the time to blackmail our politicians and civil society. Straight reporting of the facts about palestinian arab stupidity and self-destruction would 'enflame community relations', so it doesn't happen.
I watched many news bulletins during the three weeks of military ops, and not once did I hear anybody on the BBC refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation, despite the fact that the US, Britain, Canada and the EU all have Hamas on their list of proscribed terrorist organisations. If I go out and collect money on the street corner for Hamas, I can go to prison. Yet this article calls them 'an irregular band of guerilla fighters with inferior firepower and medical infrastructure.' You know, a bit like Robin Hood. Enormous quantities of relevant facts were omitted from broadcast after broadcast about these merry men. Many times it was mentioned that Hamas won an election in Gaza; never mentioned was the disgusting little war which followed the election, where Fatah operatives and politicians were murdered in the street, thrown from buildings and tortured to death. Also strangely absent is any mention of the NEXT election, which everybody in the media know will never occur because there is now no opposition of any kind to Hamas in Gaza.
Over and over again, TV broadcasts presented the same rigid set of 'facts': the palestinian casualty count, the proportion (pure guesswork) of civilian casualties, the number of days the Israelis had been bombarding, a run-through of which cities had anti-Israel marches and some boilerplate about 'terrible destruction'. And of course, that they couldn't report from inside Gaza because of the dastardly Israelis.
Missing from these reports? Every kind of historical context, military assessment and political analysis. In the same way that stories about the IRA and northern Ireland never mentioned the REASON why Catholic ulstermen wanted to kill and maim Protestant ulstermen (and vice versa), we pick up the story as if it just started last weekend. The story doesn't even reach back as far as the Israeli withdrawal from Gush Khatif and the rest of the strip. I remember only one broadcast that mentioned this extremely pertinent fact. Every broadcast from the BBC belittled Qassams and BM-21s, making out that they were annoying firecrackers. Wouldn't we all love to see every BBC newsreader have to put up with incoming Qassams for three years. There was virtually no reporting of the military situation- no effort to analyze the tactics being used by both sides, no effort to devine intent or mission goals. Thats probably because as soon as you start analysing Hamas's tactics, things start getting disgusting. Who stores their explosives unders schools, mosques and family homes, other than vile barbarians? Can you imagine if it was the Israelis doing that?
There was no political analysis of why Hamas had provoked this confrontation with Israel. No BBC person I saw at any stage seemed interested in that vital issue. Forget for a moment the issue of land rights: what about simple rational calculation of interest? How could it possibly be rational to provoke Israel to tear apart the Gaza strip to destroy Hamas, when the human catastrophe would be inevitable? Never heard a peep. Presumably the BBC has bought into the idea that sacrificing Gazan civilian lives on the altar of Hamas propaganda is worth it in the long haul. Utterly disgusting.
The penultimate paragraph says 'The consensus among broadcasters is that the industry worked hard to produce strong, balanced coverage of a politically and emotionally sensitive conflict'. Can't... express... feelings... words... won't... come...
The work is unfinished
'A spokesman for Hamas' military wing, Abu Ubaida, said its rocket capabilities had not been affected by the conflict.
"We hereby stress that our rockets are being developed and are piling up, and that the enemy will receive more rockets and God willing, our rockets will hit more targets," he said in a news conference broadcast live on Hamas' al-Aqsa TV.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7836869.stm
I hoped, as did millions around the world, that Israel would carry on until Hamas was a dark smudge on the ground. Hard to do, but essential. How many parallels will Hamas draw with Hezbollah in 2006? A lot. How many parallels will Israeli voters make with the same event? We'll see.
I'm thinking Netanyahu will be the next Israeli PM.
"We hereby stress that our rockets are being developed and are piling up, and that the enemy will receive more rockets and God willing, our rockets will hit more targets," he said in a news conference broadcast live on Hamas' al-Aqsa TV.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7836869.stm
I hoped, as did millions around the world, that Israel would carry on until Hamas was a dark smudge on the ground. Hard to do, but essential. How many parallels will Hamas draw with Hezbollah in 2006? A lot. How many parallels will Israeli voters make with the same event? We'll see.
I'm thinking Netanyahu will be the next Israeli PM.
How Hamas are You?
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24921007-5001030,00.html
'12-40: Shalom, Schlomo! What are you doing completing a quiz during the Sabbath? For shame.
41-80: You have the potential to be a loyal and valuable Hamas supporter, yet you exhibit worrying signs of reasonableness and sanity.
81-120: Congratulations, honorary Hamas operative! Your solidarity with the struggle is duly noted. Now, let's see if this modest, home-made Semtex vest fits you.'
This is a web quiz I can get on board with. Thank God a few people in the world still have a bracing sense of humour. Much Kudos to Tim Blair.
'12-40: Shalom, Schlomo! What are you doing completing a quiz during the Sabbath? For shame.
41-80: You have the potential to be a loyal and valuable Hamas supporter, yet you exhibit worrying signs of reasonableness and sanity.
81-120: Congratulations, honorary Hamas operative! Your solidarity with the struggle is duly noted. Now, let's see if this modest, home-made Semtex vest fits you.'
This is a web quiz I can get on board with. Thank God a few people in the world still have a bracing sense of humour. Much Kudos to Tim Blair.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Just askin'
HRT 'can shrink women's brains'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7825116.stm
What about watching 'Sex and the City' and shoe shopping?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7825116.stm
What about watching 'Sex and the City' and shoe shopping?
NSS Goes Global
'Admit It: The Surge Worked
By Peter Beinart
Sunday, January 18, 2009; Page B07
It's no longer a close call: President Bush was right about the surge. According to Michael O'Hanlon and Jason Campbell of the Brookings Institution, the number of Iraqi war dead was 500 in November of 2008, compared with 3,475 in November of 2006. That same month, 69 Americans died in Iraq; in November 2008, 12 did.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR2009011603719.html [Hat Tip: Instapundit]
In other news, shit smells bad, smoking is not all that good for you, and poking yourself in the eye sorta hurts.
Peter Beinart may wonder in the odd moment why nobody else is discussing the surge. Thats because we listened to the soldiers and General Petraeus. Peter Beinart, moron.
By Peter Beinart
Sunday, January 18, 2009; Page B07
It's no longer a close call: President Bush was right about the surge. According to Michael O'Hanlon and Jason Campbell of the Brookings Institution, the number of Iraqi war dead was 500 in November of 2008, compared with 3,475 in November of 2006. That same month, 69 Americans died in Iraq; in November 2008, 12 did.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR2009011603719.html [Hat Tip: Instapundit]
In other news, shit smells bad, smoking is not all that good for you, and poking yourself in the eye sorta hurts.
Peter Beinart may wonder in the odd moment why nobody else is discussing the surge. Thats because we listened to the soldiers and General Petraeus. Peter Beinart, moron.
Israel and Pakistan: A question of legitimacy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/gaza-israel-petitions
'The massacres in Gaza are the latest phase of a war that Israel has been waging against the people of Palestine for more than 60 years. The goal of this war has never changed: to use overwhelming military power to eradicate the Palestinians as a political force, one capable of resisting Israel's ongoing appropriation of their land and resources. Israel's war against the Palestinians has turned Gaza and the West Bank into a pair of gigantic political prisons. There is nothing symmetrical about this war in terms of principles, tactics or consequences. Israel is responsible for launching and intensifying it, and for ending the most recent lull in hostilities.
Israel must lose. It is not enough to call for another ceasefire, or more humanitarian assistance. It is not enough to urge the renewal of dialogue and to acknowledge the concerns and suffering of both sides. If we believe in the principle of democratic self-determination, if we affirm the right to resist military aggression and colonial occupation, then we are obliged to take sides... against Israel, and with the people of Gaza and the West Bank.
We must do what we can to stop Israel from winning its war. Israel must accept that its security depends on justice and peaceful coexistence with its neighbours, and not upon the criminal use of force.
We believe Israel should immediately and unconditionally end its assault on Gaza, end the occupation of the West Bank, and abandon all claims to possess or control territory beyond its 1967 borders. We call on the British government and the British people to take all feasible steps to oblige Israel to comply with these demands, starting with a programme of boycott, divestment and sanctions.'
Signed by a bunch of humanities lecturers.
Can there be anything under the sun less potent and more self-defeating than these humanities lecturers and their footling letter? Far from rallying around the palestinian arab cause, more and more people round the globe are drifting away from it. Specifically, many of the nations that surround Israel are now either ambiguous about them, or becoming decidedly tired of the frozen-in-time platitudes of the sixty year intifada.
Quick question for the humanities guys (and gals, if you can call them that): the military question has been posed to the Israelis about twelve times over the last sixty years, and on every single occasion they have answered with victory. What possible point is there to call for them to lose when they just won't?
Packing a rucksack, flying to Israel and trying to murder Israelis might make a difference. Collecting money and buying guns and missiles for the intifada might make a difference. Spying and passing information to the intifada guys might make some slight difference. But writing a letter to the Guardian, which already despises Israel and wishes its destruction isn't going to make the slightest difference.
These are the main arguments, so far as I can discern them: Israel is the new South Africa, an apartheid state. Israel is the new Nazi Germany, because of its 'holocaust' against the palestinians. Israel is an illigitimate imposition upon muslim lands by America and Britain. Israel is not defending itself, it is attacking the palestinians and trying to exterminate them.
If you want a REAL parallel in history for Israel, the best one is Pakistan. Pakistan never existed before in the history of mankind - it was an invention of the dastardly British empire. Check if you don't believe me. For some reason, the British decided to create a muslim homeland, and cut it from whole Indian cloth. Its borders were completely arbitrary, and removed an enormous area of fertile land from ancient India. The creation of Pakistan generated hundreds of thousands of muslim refugees heading north west, and hundreds of thousands of Hindu refugees heading south east. Pakistan and India fought a series of wars, in which many many thousands died, mostly in the first, bloodiest encounter. So far so similar.
The differences start quite soon after the wars of creation, however. Crucially, the UN had nothing to say about the many hundreds of thousands of refugees between Pakistan and India; thats why we don't still talk about Pakistani refugees or Indian refugees, but we do talk about palestinian refugees. We just talk about Pakistanis and Indians. See how that works? The UN froze the Palestinian refugees in time, after they walked out (or were chased out) in 1948. There are still refugee camps in Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon, SIXTY YEARS LATER, still paid for by the UN, still under the nominal control of UNWRA. How NOT to solve a problem.
The palestinian 'refugees' are used as a permanent reason for Israel not to exist. So despite the fact that Pakistan is less legitimate in every way than Israel, given that the former was created by the dastardly British; Israel, which was created by the United Nations General Assembly by a democratic vote, is now the one whose legitimacy as a nation is constantly denied.
During the war of Pakistans creation, many many thousands of Hindus were murdered as they tried to flee to India. During the war of Israels creation, fought the same year (1948), a few hundred palestinian arabs were murdered during the exchanges of population. Guess which country is constantly harangued by its 2009 critics for those six decades old dastardly deeds? I'll give you a clue. Nobody gives a shiny shit about nameless Hindus, just like they don't give a SS about nameless Congolese.
The original 1947 UN borders of Israel gave the Jews 55% of the territory of Mandate Palestine, and did not include Jerusalem at all. The latter was intended to be controlled by the UN as an 'international' zone. It would have been a very odd shaped country, and in no sense defensible militarily. But the Jews accepted it! There was great singing and rejoicing among Jews when the UN voted Israel into existence, even though it was such a piffling little thing. But instead of accepting this tiny, non-problematic Israel, the arabs decided to wipe it out. But they couldn't, and Israel grew quite dramatically, and gained at least somewhat defensible borders. Do you see how the arabs are serially responsible for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
On the other hand, the Indians, while abhorring what was done to their nation by the British in snatching a great swathe of territory to create a completely artificial muslim state where none had existed before, did not spend the next sixty years denying Pakistans existence, campaigning amongst witless British lecturers to support them in the destruction of the illigitimate pakistani entity and inventing all kinds of ludicrous 'crimes' with which to libel them. Perhaps they should have. Maybe Israel would have an easier time defending itself on the world stage if there was a direct muslim equivalent (which there is) constantly being debated.
Maybe there is declining support for the pali cause because the arguments they present are so overwhelmingly weak; they don't stand up to the merest scrutiny by vaguely objective people. Israel is a legitimate state. Pakistan may not be.
'The massacres in Gaza are the latest phase of a war that Israel has been waging against the people of Palestine for more than 60 years. The goal of this war has never changed: to use overwhelming military power to eradicate the Palestinians as a political force, one capable of resisting Israel's ongoing appropriation of their land and resources. Israel's war against the Palestinians has turned Gaza and the West Bank into a pair of gigantic political prisons. There is nothing symmetrical about this war in terms of principles, tactics or consequences. Israel is responsible for launching and intensifying it, and for ending the most recent lull in hostilities.
Israel must lose. It is not enough to call for another ceasefire, or more humanitarian assistance. It is not enough to urge the renewal of dialogue and to acknowledge the concerns and suffering of both sides. If we believe in the principle of democratic self-determination, if we affirm the right to resist military aggression and colonial occupation, then we are obliged to take sides... against Israel, and with the people of Gaza and the West Bank.
We must do what we can to stop Israel from winning its war. Israel must accept that its security depends on justice and peaceful coexistence with its neighbours, and not upon the criminal use of force.
We believe Israel should immediately and unconditionally end its assault on Gaza, end the occupation of the West Bank, and abandon all claims to possess or control territory beyond its 1967 borders. We call on the British government and the British people to take all feasible steps to oblige Israel to comply with these demands, starting with a programme of boycott, divestment and sanctions.'
Signed by a bunch of humanities lecturers.
Can there be anything under the sun less potent and more self-defeating than these humanities lecturers and their footling letter? Far from rallying around the palestinian arab cause, more and more people round the globe are drifting away from it. Specifically, many of the nations that surround Israel are now either ambiguous about them, or becoming decidedly tired of the frozen-in-time platitudes of the sixty year intifada.
Quick question for the humanities guys (and gals, if you can call them that): the military question has been posed to the Israelis about twelve times over the last sixty years, and on every single occasion they have answered with victory. What possible point is there to call for them to lose when they just won't?
Packing a rucksack, flying to Israel and trying to murder Israelis might make a difference. Collecting money and buying guns and missiles for the intifada might make a difference. Spying and passing information to the intifada guys might make some slight difference. But writing a letter to the Guardian, which already despises Israel and wishes its destruction isn't going to make the slightest difference.
These are the main arguments, so far as I can discern them: Israel is the new South Africa, an apartheid state. Israel is the new Nazi Germany, because of its 'holocaust' against the palestinians. Israel is an illigitimate imposition upon muslim lands by America and Britain. Israel is not defending itself, it is attacking the palestinians and trying to exterminate them.
If you want a REAL parallel in history for Israel, the best one is Pakistan. Pakistan never existed before in the history of mankind - it was an invention of the dastardly British empire. Check if you don't believe me. For some reason, the British decided to create a muslim homeland, and cut it from whole Indian cloth. Its borders were completely arbitrary, and removed an enormous area of fertile land from ancient India. The creation of Pakistan generated hundreds of thousands of muslim refugees heading north west, and hundreds of thousands of Hindu refugees heading south east. Pakistan and India fought a series of wars, in which many many thousands died, mostly in the first, bloodiest encounter. So far so similar.
The differences start quite soon after the wars of creation, however. Crucially, the UN had nothing to say about the many hundreds of thousands of refugees between Pakistan and India; thats why we don't still talk about Pakistani refugees or Indian refugees, but we do talk about palestinian refugees. We just talk about Pakistanis and Indians. See how that works? The UN froze the Palestinian refugees in time, after they walked out (or were chased out) in 1948. There are still refugee camps in Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon, SIXTY YEARS LATER, still paid for by the UN, still under the nominal control of UNWRA. How NOT to solve a problem.
The palestinian 'refugees' are used as a permanent reason for Israel not to exist. So despite the fact that Pakistan is less legitimate in every way than Israel, given that the former was created by the dastardly British; Israel, which was created by the United Nations General Assembly by a democratic vote, is now the one whose legitimacy as a nation is constantly denied.
During the war of Pakistans creation, many many thousands of Hindus were murdered as they tried to flee to India. During the war of Israels creation, fought the same year (1948), a few hundred palestinian arabs were murdered during the exchanges of population. Guess which country is constantly harangued by its 2009 critics for those six decades old dastardly deeds? I'll give you a clue. Nobody gives a shiny shit about nameless Hindus, just like they don't give a SS about nameless Congolese.
The original 1947 UN borders of Israel gave the Jews 55% of the territory of Mandate Palestine, and did not include Jerusalem at all. The latter was intended to be controlled by the UN as an 'international' zone. It would have been a very odd shaped country, and in no sense defensible militarily. But the Jews accepted it! There was great singing and rejoicing among Jews when the UN voted Israel into existence, even though it was such a piffling little thing. But instead of accepting this tiny, non-problematic Israel, the arabs decided to wipe it out. But they couldn't, and Israel grew quite dramatically, and gained at least somewhat defensible borders. Do you see how the arabs are serially responsible for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
On the other hand, the Indians, while abhorring what was done to their nation by the British in snatching a great swathe of territory to create a completely artificial muslim state where none had existed before, did not spend the next sixty years denying Pakistans existence, campaigning amongst witless British lecturers to support them in the destruction of the illigitimate pakistani entity and inventing all kinds of ludicrous 'crimes' with which to libel them. Perhaps they should have. Maybe Israel would have an easier time defending itself on the world stage if there was a direct muslim equivalent (which there is) constantly being debated.
Maybe there is declining support for the pali cause because the arguments they present are so overwhelmingly weak; they don't stand up to the merest scrutiny by vaguely objective people. Israel is a legitimate state. Pakistan may not be.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Hear the roar of the lefty gatekeepers
Rick Sanchez of CNN brought forcefully to mind a number of tactical issues which the democrats have 'learned' over the last ten years- since the Clinton White House went into terminal meltdown over Monica Lewinsky. These tactical issues are mostly to do with media.
The first is, as soon as any non-democrat controlled media comes into existence, spend every minute in every possible forum painting it as black as possible. So, Fox news is not just centrist/conservative. No No. It is a raging torrent of fascist propaganda and foaming-at-the-mouth xenophobia. It is the mouthpiece for the KKK, the John Birch Society, and the guy down your block who wants to murder any latinos who won't go back to Mexico.
Secondly, any democrat who does something scurrilous in public office, their private life, or business will not be identified as a democrat. All Republicans who do something bad will be identified prominently as a Republican.
Thirdly, the gatekeepers of democrat orthodoxy will not let any mere blogger or home-grown journo like Joe the Journalist participate in the media game. Unless the dem gatekeepers have exclusive access, how can they ever hope to complete their task of restructuring our conception of reality so we will accept abject failure as success? Defeat as victory? Hate as love? Restriction as freedom? Immorality as moral? Self-loathing as self-criticism? Dependency as true independence?
Fourthly, their are no holds barred in the hiding of evidence which does not support our goals. There is no sin of omission in the dem media playbook.
Lastly, there are no ideology-free zones. Every event in every place in the world at any time is a good opportunity to vilify, castigate and lie about Republicans/patriotic Americans. The Iraq war is the most recent and most extreme example, but there have been countless going back to the mid-sixties. Extreme mockery and sarcasm are good weapons when trying to persuade the viewership of the malign intentions and behaviour of Republicans. The 'cynicism' of Jon Stewart and Michael Moore stand in here for all the aforementioned.
My question would be, when is the fight-back? When are conservatives in the vaguely free world going to actually get to grips with their lefty (mostly communist) enemies? I would strongly encourage them not to leave it much longer, or they will represent only a tiny minority anywhere in the world.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
I get it
'Entropa portrays Bulgaria as a toilet, Romania as a Dracula theme-park and France as a country on strike....
The Netherlands is shown as series of minarets submerged by a flood - a possible reference to the nation's simmering religious tensions.
Germany is shown as a network of motorways vaguely resembling a swastika, while the UK - criticised by some for being one of EU's most eurosceptic members - is absent from Europe altogether....
The 16-square-metre (172-square-foot) work was installed at the weekend to mark the start of the six-month Czech presidency of the EU.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7827738.stm
That is just fantastic. Isn't that called speaking truth to power, or is that only something 'shocking' lefty artists are allowed to do?
The Netherlands is shown as series of minarets submerged by a flood - a possible reference to the nation's simmering religious tensions.
Germany is shown as a network of motorways vaguely resembling a swastika, while the UK - criticised by some for being one of EU's most eurosceptic members - is absent from Europe altogether....
The 16-square-metre (172-square-foot) work was installed at the weekend to mark the start of the six-month Czech presidency of the EU.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7827738.stm
That is just fantastic. Isn't that called speaking truth to power, or is that only something 'shocking' lefty artists are allowed to do?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
BS on Gitmo
'Obama to act early on Guantanamo
Barack Obama will issue an executive order within days of entering the White House to close the Guantanamo detention centre, senior advisers have confirmed.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7825902.stm
But whats this?
'...experts say it is likely to take many months, perhaps as long as a year, to empty the prison that has drawn international criticism since it received its first prisoners seven years ago this week. One transition official said the new administration expected that it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13gitmo.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
A week is a long time in politics. A year is... longer. I'm going to make a prediction. In a year, Gitmo will still be open, and all the lefty wankers who have been screeching about it for the last six years will have triangulated their positions. Because St Obama will be in charge, Gitmo will become strangely benign, a holding pen rather than a torturers hide-away. The cushyness of the place will be revealed lovingly by the New York Times and Washington Post, including the haute cuisine food and the free korans.
Gitmo is a symbol- a symbol of the deranged response the left took to the events set in motion by 9/11, and Americas fight-back against a determined foe. Apparently, America is not allowed to fight its enemies, and if it does, it has to keep to an enormous set of rules dictated to it by the ACLU, the Council for American-Islamic Relations and the bien-pensants of San Francisco. If men in t-shirts and jeans attack it, hiding behind the locals and attacking mostly civilian targets, we are to treat them... well, how are we to treat them? According to the Geneva Convention, they have broken the laws of War and are therefore not protected by the convention. In normal wars, they would be shot or hung.
Instead, America invented Gitmo. Vile criminal terrorists are held there for indefinite periods, quizzed and shaken up with psych warfare techniques, and eventually released with no charges. They are so so lucky. Many of them wander back to the battlefields of south Asia to resume their disgusting deeds.
The people who should be angry, in a world that made sense, would be the people whose relatives are murdered by these Gitmo inmates. Especially the ones whose precious family members died at the hands of released Gitmo inmates.
Mr Obama has committed himself to really fighting the war in Afghanistan. Good. But what will he do with the inevitable surge of individuals caught on the battlefield out of uniform, hiding their weapons, using civilians as cover? Take them all back to the US to be tried? Shoot them on the battlefield, as combatant nations have done in every previous conflict? Or has he got some humane method of incarceration and punishment yet to be revealed?
If he comes up with something more humane than Gitmo, I'll eat my Biro.
Barack Obama will issue an executive order within days of entering the White House to close the Guantanamo detention centre, senior advisers have confirmed.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7825902.stm
But whats this?
'...experts say it is likely to take many months, perhaps as long as a year, to empty the prison that has drawn international criticism since it received its first prisoners seven years ago this week. One transition official said the new administration expected that it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13gitmo.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
A week is a long time in politics. A year is... longer. I'm going to make a prediction. In a year, Gitmo will still be open, and all the lefty wankers who have been screeching about it for the last six years will have triangulated their positions. Because St Obama will be in charge, Gitmo will become strangely benign, a holding pen rather than a torturers hide-away. The cushyness of the place will be revealed lovingly by the New York Times and Washington Post, including the haute cuisine food and the free korans.
Gitmo is a symbol- a symbol of the deranged response the left took to the events set in motion by 9/11, and Americas fight-back against a determined foe. Apparently, America is not allowed to fight its enemies, and if it does, it has to keep to an enormous set of rules dictated to it by the ACLU, the Council for American-Islamic Relations and the bien-pensants of San Francisco. If men in t-shirts and jeans attack it, hiding behind the locals and attacking mostly civilian targets, we are to treat them... well, how are we to treat them? According to the Geneva Convention, they have broken the laws of War and are therefore not protected by the convention. In normal wars, they would be shot or hung.
Instead, America invented Gitmo. Vile criminal terrorists are held there for indefinite periods, quizzed and shaken up with psych warfare techniques, and eventually released with no charges. They are so so lucky. Many of them wander back to the battlefields of south Asia to resume their disgusting deeds.
The people who should be angry, in a world that made sense, would be the people whose relatives are murdered by these Gitmo inmates. Especially the ones whose precious family members died at the hands of released Gitmo inmates.
Mr Obama has committed himself to really fighting the war in Afghanistan. Good. But what will he do with the inevitable surge of individuals caught on the battlefield out of uniform, hiding their weapons, using civilians as cover? Take them all back to the US to be tried? Shoot them on the battlefield, as combatant nations have done in every previous conflict? Or has he got some humane method of incarceration and punishment yet to be revealed?
If he comes up with something more humane than Gitmo, I'll eat my Biro.
On second thoughts...
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/01/12/joe-the-plumber-meets-chairman-mao-in-gaza/
Anton: [from the Comments. I know, I lied, I'm sorry]
'I think that the real problem that the MSM types have is that the IDEA that anyone else can access the information flow is a threat. I veiw [sic] it this way; They have for years been the only ones with access to the “information bank” they doled out what type, and how much, of the total information that came to them. Now it seems that anybody with the money and the balls to go into a combat area can provide news.
This is a threat to their carefully constructed narrative. Michael Yon and Michael Totten have been doing this for several years now, but compared to TV their coverage has relatively less exposure. Joe is well-known (in a way that neither of the Michaels are) so he is an instant draw. The MSM feel the need to denigrate him so as to try to dissuade viewers from tuning in. They are afraid that people will like him and Rivera and Olbermann will be history.'
I would replace the words 'carefully constructed narrative' with 'rigid control of access to the oracle'. We have a situation now where motivated individuals are going out, doing journalism, writing it on blogs/websites, and picking up tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of readers. They are cutting out the gatekeepers: the news editors and editorial committees. If they are doing the job well, there is every prospect of them collectively eliminating the news editors and editorial committees altogether over time. If you work for one of the media churches, this is a pretty scary prospect. I hate to admit it, but I think this may be primary motive behind the vicious denunciations of Joe the Journalist.
Imagine: you could be a journalist, get rich AND piss off Reuters and AFP. Now stop shoving, there's enough gravy for everybody.
Anton: [from the Comments. I know, I lied, I'm sorry]
'I think that the real problem that the MSM types have is that the IDEA that anyone else can access the information flow is a threat. I veiw [sic] it this way; They have for years been the only ones with access to the “information bank” they doled out what type, and how much, of the total information that came to them. Now it seems that anybody with the money and the balls to go into a combat area can provide news.
This is a threat to their carefully constructed narrative. Michael Yon and Michael Totten have been doing this for several years now, but compared to TV their coverage has relatively less exposure. Joe is well-known (in a way that neither of the Michaels are) so he is an instant draw. The MSM feel the need to denigrate him so as to try to dissuade viewers from tuning in. They are afraid that people will like him and Rivera and Olbermann will be history.'
I would replace the words 'carefully constructed narrative' with 'rigid control of access to the oracle'. We have a situation now where motivated individuals are going out, doing journalism, writing it on blogs/websites, and picking up tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of readers. They are cutting out the gatekeepers: the news editors and editorial committees. If they are doing the job well, there is every prospect of them collectively eliminating the news editors and editorial committees altogether over time. If you work for one of the media churches, this is a pretty scary prospect. I hate to admit it, but I think this may be primary motive behind the vicious denunciations of Joe the Journalist.
Imagine: you could be a journalist, get rich AND piss off Reuters and AFP. Now stop shoving, there's enough gravy for everybody.
Right wing celebrity in a lefty age
'As I write this, comments on the various Pajamas Media posts, including mine, on Joe the Plumber’s journey to Israel for PJTV are approaching one thousand - or perhaps they have already passed that figure.'
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/01/12/joe-the-plumber-meets-chairman-mao-in-gaza/
Why can't the lefties just bask in all their good fortune, and quit hassling over a few bits and pieces that just didn't go their way?
Here is the overall situation for the left as I see it:
- George W Bush is just about to leave office
- The first black POTUS, a democrat with lefty leanings, is about to take office
- Both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US Congress have democrat majorities
- About 90% of the staff in the US mainstream media are democrats and lefties, often the same people
- The right in the US seems leaderless, idea less, stumbling and morally bankrupt
So why do you suppose they are dog piling on Joe the Plumber, a straight-talking, no-nonsense old-school American who dared to ask the Anointed One a question he wasn't ready to answer, resulting in a minor disaster for Obama? The latters' attempt at an answer came perilously close to advocating socialism, something which less than five percent of Americans endorse, and which hundreds of millions hate.
So after his big question, Joe the Plumber became a right-wing celebrity pin-up. He wrote a book, is going on a book tour, and is currently in Israel doing some pick-up reporting on the situation there.
So why has he become the object of extreme bile and loathing for the lefties? Just what is there about this guy that gets under their skin so much, at a time when they should all be out every night getting pissed in celebration?
I suspect its because he crashes through the zeitgeist, refuses to bow down before its little gods, has a firm moral compass, and doesn't give off any whiff of subservience or apology. He is a real man in an age of metro sexual girlymen. He does a real job with real dirt and sweat. He looks people in the eye, and assumes that he is neither superior nor inferior. He is not particularly academic, but has a firm grip on the important issues that affect him.
But the clincher for me is his affection for Israel. He is happy to let us know that he is on Israels side. For someone with THAT prejudice to go to Gaza and report is a disaster. The lefties thought they had that shindig all sown up. They have an almost choke-hold on the media outlets currently reporting from Gaza, so the TV screens and computer monitors and newspaper pages are heaving with very thinly veiled palestinian propaganda. The idea that someone, somewhere might be putting out an Israeli-friendly stream of stories makes these spoilt children immensely angry. Just go read the comments Mr Simon is talking about. I would put a few in this post, but I actually can't bear to read them again.
One day, lefties might grow up and count their blessings. But if Sean Penn is anything to go by, they won't.
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/01/12/joe-the-plumber-meets-chairman-mao-in-gaza/
Why can't the lefties just bask in all their good fortune, and quit hassling over a few bits and pieces that just didn't go their way?
Here is the overall situation for the left as I see it:
- George W Bush is just about to leave office
- The first black POTUS, a democrat with lefty leanings, is about to take office
- Both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US Congress have democrat majorities
- About 90% of the staff in the US mainstream media are democrats and lefties, often the same people
- The right in the US seems leaderless, idea less, stumbling and morally bankrupt
So why do you suppose they are dog piling on Joe the Plumber, a straight-talking, no-nonsense old-school American who dared to ask the Anointed One a question he wasn't ready to answer, resulting in a minor disaster for Obama? The latters' attempt at an answer came perilously close to advocating socialism, something which less than five percent of Americans endorse, and which hundreds of millions hate.
So after his big question, Joe the Plumber became a right-wing celebrity pin-up. He wrote a book, is going on a book tour, and is currently in Israel doing some pick-up reporting on the situation there.
So why has he become the object of extreme bile and loathing for the lefties? Just what is there about this guy that gets under their skin so much, at a time when they should all be out every night getting pissed in celebration?
I suspect its because he crashes through the zeitgeist, refuses to bow down before its little gods, has a firm moral compass, and doesn't give off any whiff of subservience or apology. He is a real man in an age of metro sexual girlymen. He does a real job with real dirt and sweat. He looks people in the eye, and assumes that he is neither superior nor inferior. He is not particularly academic, but has a firm grip on the important issues that affect him.
But the clincher for me is his affection for Israel. He is happy to let us know that he is on Israels side. For someone with THAT prejudice to go to Gaza and report is a disaster. The lefties thought they had that shindig all sown up. They have an almost choke-hold on the media outlets currently reporting from Gaza, so the TV screens and computer monitors and newspaper pages are heaving with very thinly veiled palestinian propaganda. The idea that someone, somewhere might be putting out an Israeli-friendly stream of stories makes these spoilt children immensely angry. Just go read the comments Mr Simon is talking about. I would put a few in this post, but I actually can't bear to read them again.
One day, lefties might grow up and count their blessings. But if Sean Penn is anything to go by, they won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)