What Happened Exactly?
If you read any of what I write with any degree of interest, you know I’m a big fan of historical events and most importantly of properly understanding that history. That includes making sure the account is honest. It’s all going to be colored by the views of the authors. The adage “history is written by the winners” exists for a reason. Still, I like to think that we can try to be as honest as possible when it comes to documenting those events, regardless of our bias. In other words, there will always be bias, but it shouldn’t obfuscate the truth.
Take the recent and perhaps unfinished conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Already, the spinners of facts have begun revising and editing it, all with the proper use of language and with no blatant outright lies of course, to write how this event occurred, what happened and what the outcome is.
First, it’s important to remember who started this. Now let’s not get all philosophical and start with the “does anyone really know who started it” crap. This particular instance was started by Hezbollah. They attacked an Israeli outpost on Israeli land and killed between five and eight soldiers. The total has not been verified in the accounts I’ve seen. They also kidnapped two. This all occurred almost on the heels of Hamas attacking in southern Israel through a tunnel and kidnapping one Israeli solider. None have been release, by the way, nor do we know if they’re even alive.
What we do know is that the bulk of the coverage painted Israel as an aggressor state bent on killing innocents. The slant ran from the regulars like Reuters and the New York Times all the way up to former President Jimmy Carter. Let's examine some of the former President's most telling remarks when asked about the recent conflict between Israel and Lebanon.
I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.
Considering Hezbollah was spread across all of Lebanon, from the suburbs of Beirut to the Bekaa Valley to the Israeli border, and considering Israel found dead Iranian Pasdaran among the fighters they'd killed, I think they were very justified in their massive bombing attempt. Carter's a nice old man and he's made a name for himself with really great organizations like Habitat for Humanity, but politically he's as naive as he ever was. Recall that he was genuinely stunned and caught unawares when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. This man defined clueless in that era and still does.
And Israel is holding terrorist killers. It's not holding a few people that "looked Arab" or "political prisoners". It's holding terrorists. When terrorists kidnap Israeli soldiers after killing others and violating Israel's sovereign territory to do that, I do in fact consider Israel justified and Carter's moral equivalency attempt makes me sick.
That reminds me of another point I wanted to comment on, and I know it's seen a bit of play in the blogosphere. The whole "disproportionate response" bs I saw on the nightly news and in the news dailies really reeked of low quality propaganda. In fact, pro-Hezbollah propaganda has been streaming from the likes of mainstream publications like the LA Times. Just because one side can kick the rear in of the other doesn't mean they should "equalize" their level of fighting. War is about destroying the other side's ability to fight and in some cases about the extermination of your enemy. Amazingly, this has been the case throughout the ages. Somehow, when it's a Lefty darling like Hezbollah, the one attacked is being "disproportionate". In case those same journalists missed it, Israel has made a habit, going back to '48, of kicking in the teeth of whomever was mentally retarded enough to attack them. This was not new news, but it was new spin.
Another thing missing in almost every piece of coverage I've seen has been how many Hezbollah were confirmed or projected to be killed. You usually only heard of Israeli soldiers and Lebanese civillians and how many were dead. The mainstream media has experience with this, however, in that they do pretty much the same when they cover the US Army and Marine's presence in Iraq. Well, at least one blogger had semi-official numbers. The Lebanese appear to have around 850 dead civillians, although it's hard to get a direct tally since Hezbollah doesn't wear uniforms. In addition, Israeli casualties have been 157, of which 118 were soldiers. For Hezbollah, there are over 600 confirmed dead by the IDF and 800-1200 estimated additional casualties. The IDF has a habit of being extremely conservative in its numbers, as it's mindful of mistakes being used against it. The U.S. got into the same habit after Vietnam.
So that's a lot of Hezbollah dead and good riddance to them, but you won't hear about them on any 60 Minutes piece anytime soon. And hence that should give you a little better picture of the conflict. Likely, with the falling out of the international peace keepers as France is already faltering, and the refusal of Hezbollah to even consider abiding by this fake "ceasefire" (you can't have a ceasefire when only one side stops firing), I suggest everyone should get ready for round 2.
They should also take some of the facts to mind of all that's happened there to date and keep them in perspective as the slanted coverage continues. I for one will be watching to see how things are reported and how much longer the mainstream can portray a bunch of terrorists with American blood on their hands as "the good guys" and get away with it. Should prove an interesting statement on our culture, shouldn't it?
If you read any of what I write with any degree of interest, you know I’m a big fan of historical events and most importantly of properly understanding that history. That includes making sure the account is honest. It’s all going to be colored by the views of the authors. The adage “history is written by the winners” exists for a reason. Still, I like to think that we can try to be as honest as possible when it comes to documenting those events, regardless of our bias. In other words, there will always be bias, but it shouldn’t obfuscate the truth.
Take the recent and perhaps unfinished conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Already, the spinners of facts have begun revising and editing it, all with the proper use of language and with no blatant outright lies of course, to write how this event occurred, what happened and what the outcome is.
First, it’s important to remember who started this. Now let’s not get all philosophical and start with the “does anyone really know who started it” crap. This particular instance was started by Hezbollah. They attacked an Israeli outpost on Israeli land and killed between five and eight soldiers. The total has not been verified in the accounts I’ve seen. They also kidnapped two. This all occurred almost on the heels of Hamas attacking in southern Israel through a tunnel and kidnapping one Israeli solider. None have been release, by the way, nor do we know if they’re even alive.
What we do know is that the bulk of the coverage painted Israel as an aggressor state bent on killing innocents. The slant ran from the regulars like Reuters and the New York Times all the way up to former President Jimmy Carter. Let's examine some of the former President's most telling remarks when asked about the recent conflict between Israel and Lebanon.
I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.
Considering Hezbollah was spread across all of Lebanon, from the suburbs of Beirut to the Bekaa Valley to the Israeli border, and considering Israel found dead Iranian Pasdaran among the fighters they'd killed, I think they were very justified in their massive bombing attempt. Carter's a nice old man and he's made a name for himself with really great organizations like Habitat for Humanity, but politically he's as naive as he ever was. Recall that he was genuinely stunned and caught unawares when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. This man defined clueless in that era and still does.
And Israel is holding terrorist killers. It's not holding a few people that "looked Arab" or "political prisoners". It's holding terrorists. When terrorists kidnap Israeli soldiers after killing others and violating Israel's sovereign territory to do that, I do in fact consider Israel justified and Carter's moral equivalency attempt makes me sick.
That reminds me of another point I wanted to comment on, and I know it's seen a bit of play in the blogosphere. The whole "disproportionate response" bs I saw on the nightly news and in the news dailies really reeked of low quality propaganda. In fact, pro-Hezbollah propaganda has been streaming from the likes of mainstream publications like the LA Times. Just because one side can kick the rear in of the other doesn't mean they should "equalize" their level of fighting. War is about destroying the other side's ability to fight and in some cases about the extermination of your enemy. Amazingly, this has been the case throughout the ages. Somehow, when it's a Lefty darling like Hezbollah, the one attacked is being "disproportionate". In case those same journalists missed it, Israel has made a habit, going back to '48, of kicking in the teeth of whomever was mentally retarded enough to attack them. This was not new news, but it was new spin.
Another thing missing in almost every piece of coverage I've seen has been how many Hezbollah were confirmed or projected to be killed. You usually only heard of Israeli soldiers and Lebanese civillians and how many were dead. The mainstream media has experience with this, however, in that they do pretty much the same when they cover the US Army and Marine's presence in Iraq. Well, at least one blogger had semi-official numbers. The Lebanese appear to have around 850 dead civillians, although it's hard to get a direct tally since Hezbollah doesn't wear uniforms. In addition, Israeli casualties have been 157, of which 118 were soldiers. For Hezbollah, there are over 600 confirmed dead by the IDF and 800-1200 estimated additional casualties. The IDF has a habit of being extremely conservative in its numbers, as it's mindful of mistakes being used against it. The U.S. got into the same habit after Vietnam.
So that's a lot of Hezbollah dead and good riddance to them, but you won't hear about them on any 60 Minutes piece anytime soon. And hence that should give you a little better picture of the conflict. Likely, with the falling out of the international peace keepers as France is already faltering, and the refusal of Hezbollah to even consider abiding by this fake "ceasefire" (you can't have a ceasefire when only one side stops firing), I suggest everyone should get ready for round 2.
They should also take some of the facts to mind of all that's happened there to date and keep them in perspective as the slanted coverage continues. I for one will be watching to see how things are reported and how much longer the mainstream can portray a bunch of terrorists with American blood on their hands as "the good guys" and get away with it. Should prove an interesting statement on our culture, shouldn't it?
posted by Rob Beck | 5:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home