Dr. Sanity

Dr Sanity makes a good point that the liberal humanist world does not recognize the depth of the evil of Islamofascists. The Danish cartoon episode should have opened their eyes once and for all: these people want to kill people who use words and images to criticize them. This is incredibly primitive thinking. Islam is sick.

But right now, the world is wondering why the far more advanced countries like the U.S. and Israel are using such strident language, targeting civilians, raping and killing innocents (in Iraq), sadistically sexually torturing prisoners of war (Abu Ghraib), etc... and not doing anything about it! And they have every right to ask these questions. They are looking at the truth -- at reality -- and seeing civilized nations acting in barbaric ways. We have to look too! And not just keep blaming our enemies.
Kohut/Kernberg | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 2:39 pm | #

George Orwell and Franz Kafka were the two great prophets of our age, and they are very lucky to be asleep now, while we have to witness the horror of a world that doesn't see a tragedy when terrorists blow up an Israeli bus, or market, or cafe, killing many dozens or hundreds; but 60 villagers in Qana? The globe is on fire with outrage at the CARNAGE!
M.Capulus | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 2:39 pm | #

P.S. Which was very likely staged. See LGF or Michelle Malkin.
M.Capulus | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 2:40 pm | #

I'm with you Dr. Sanity. I cannot join the IDF or American armed forces, but this little lady can damn sure keep up the war of ideas and words and funding! Truth will always win, despite the frothing propaganda of the MSM.
Veritas Regina | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 2:53 pm | #

We are winning the physical battle but losing the ideological one.

There's no point arguing with guys who have absurd beliefs and who can just rationalize away every objection to those beliefs with some you-just-don't-underSTAAAAAAAAAAND bullshit.

I was blindsided two weeks ago by a friend who said that he didn't support Israel. I agreed, but only on the grounds that they should have dealt with the Hezbollah/PLO/Hamas thing years ago, instead of procrastinating long enough that they're paying the price for it now; but he said his main objection was that too many civilians are getting killed on both sides: "I thought the Israelis, at least, would be able to aim better." (Well, civilians die. That's war. If a war started in Arizona I'd run the risk of dying too.)

What kills me is the way he said it; it was as though he were blaming the Israelis for the whole mess, not giving them the benefit of the doubt. And this is a guy who's supposedly "ashamed" that his grandfather was in the Nazi Party. But then again, this is a guy who has considered moving to Europe because there are no Republicans there.
Michael Andreyakovich | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 3:13 pm | #

I keep getting the impression that we are winning the war on terror but losing the war on leftism.
Michael Andreyakovich | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 3:14 pm | #

KK's a "But"-monkey.
The Dude | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 3:54 pm | #

On the previous thread I said "I'd be willing to bet she's [Doc] getting prettly good chuckle out of his comments. Any takers?"

All bets are off....
The Dude | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 3:58 pm | #

"DOES TRUTH EVEN MATTER ANY MORE?"

Not in the world of PC, moral relatvists and the media ideologues that believe it is up to them to support and propagate that agenda.

In fact, those who deny the truth and the value of truth as a value, are condemned to assume the values of our adversaries.

Fortunately, as you note, truth and reality will win out. Civilization progresses- it is only our adversaries and their supporters that want to gp backwards, and no amount of media bias, PC and moral relativism can change that.
sigmund, carl and alfred | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 4:08 pm | #

Dude--usually I am amused by this kind of pathology. It's why I don't get burned out dealing with borderlines and narcissists all day. But this latest is about as much fun as the time one of my patients faked her own suicide to get back at me; having one of her friends call me in the middle of the night to let me know that she was dead. Except, she wasn't, but I didn't find that out until some number of anguished hours spent on my part. I was young and I cared. I still care today, but I have fewer illusions about rescuing people who don't want to be rescued.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 4:24 pm | #

Hey Doc, maybe this will cheer ya up a bit. Rick Moran has an interesting and hilarious round-up of the cheerleading going on among the left for the evil agents attempting to wipe Israel off the map.
The Dude | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 4:27 pm | #

"The question is, what is killing them? Where is the responsibility?"

No one has suggested that Israel wants to kill children. I (and others) have merely stated the fact that Israel IS killing children, although certainly with Hezbollah's help. This is a fact.

As to who is responsible, well this conservative believes that we are all responsible for our actions. And so Hezbollah is responsible for hiding behind civilians and shooting at Israel, and Israel is responsible for shooting back when there are children in the line of fire.

Again, this is just factual data, along with a little ethical reasoning.

If you think that two wrongs make a right (ie, because Hezbollah hid behind civilians, it is acceptable for Israel to shoot those civilians in trying to shoot Hezbollah), then you have a different moral compass than I do.

The doc went on to say:

"If you can convince people that objective reality is an illusion; that A does not equal A; that black is white; and that good is bad; if you can make them accept that everything is subjective and relative..."

And this is the reason I've posted here. There's a lot of rationalization going on, calling black, white and up, down. There are those who are saying that it is okay to break our laws in ways that result in the deaths of innocent civilians and that this is a GOOD thing!!

I'll say it again and again, I will stand opposed to any that break our laws in ways that lead to the deaths of innocent bystanders, especially children. Hezbollah, Israel, US, anyone. Each and every time.

That is NOT relativism. That is decidedly taking a position. It would be those who argue that sometimes it IS acceptable to kill children (if the cause is just) who are the moral relativists.

This seems to be an upside down world I've stepped into here...
Dan Trabue | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 4:43 pm | #

It is never "acceptable" to kill innocent children. Nevertheless, it happens all the time. I can hear you now: if only there were no wars, then no innocents would be killed...blah blah blah. Yeah. Go tell it to the suicide bombers and the other moral relativists. Israel did and is doing everything it could to prevent the deaths of innocents. Hezbollah OTOH does all it can to make sure they are killed. It is HEZBOLLAH who argues that it is acceptable, you idiot. I am so sick of people like you. You have even managed to convince yourself that you are taking a position. Yes, you are. And you should be ashamed of yourself for it. Instead, you see yourself as virtuous. Get lost and don't bother to come back to my blog please. The world that is upside down is in your own brain.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 4:52 pm | #

I tend to agree with the perception that while we will win this conflict physically, we will lose the battle of ideologies.

Which would suck. We're trying to AVOID living in a brutal totalitarian world where one has no rights, no freedom and no hope. If we lose the ideological war, that's the door prize, so to speak.

But on the other hand its a given that individuals tend to become more conservative as they age. The Boomers are just beginning to become grumpy old people... its quite likely that in ten years or so, when the majority of boomers have turned to the dark side, that this war of ideologies will end in a victory for us. "Us" of course being individuals fond of simple things like common sense and flat taxes...

Granted, if the gradual increase of conservatism within the largest generation to date DOESN'T have that much of an effect on the general cultural mindset within America and the West, we won't see people in mass numbers turning away from these brainless, thoughtless, gutless social and individual "philosophies" until we all live in a Totalitarian state with no will, no rights and no freedom.

Which would REALLY suck...

So yeah, championing basic human decency, morality, ethical behavior, common sense and all the gooey goody goodness related to the above is a "Good Thing" (tm).

And guns. Don't forget to champion the guns.

Viva La Resistance!
Meg Black | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 5:01 pm | #

Dr. Sanity, you have to be capable of "negative capability" as Keats called it, and Bion saw as the task of the analyst. Believing that both Israel and Hezbollah are at fault is not moral relativism, it is a fact with complex ramifications that must be thought through.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 5:06 pm | #

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Neg...tive_Capability
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 5:08 pm | #

Islamists engage in the deliberate Weaponization of Children, and the international Left falls for it every time:

http://americandigest.org/mt-arc...ives/ 006433.php
Gagdad Bob | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 5:09 pm | #

"Believing that both Israel and Hezbollah are at fault is not moral relativism, it is a fact with complex ramifications that must be thought through."

God you lefties are the most deluded people(?) this world has ever known.

By the way "Anonymous", didn't the Doc 86 yer ass outta here? You dare lecture her on moral relativism? Could you possibly be any more of a pompous twit than you reveal?

Probably so.

Now scram.
The Dude | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 5:18 pm | #

Cheer up, Doc. I think we'll win in the long run, but adversity will have to make men of us all first. Sorry about "men", but "people" or "humans" or other more pc-words more or less convey the opposite meaning.
armchair pessimist | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 5:33 pm | #

In Dan's world, Israel would win the moral points for not firing at positions that have Hezbollah hiding behind civilians.

Great, Dan, maybe we can put those moral points on Israels gravestone, because you have just taken away their ability to fight back.

The blood of the civilians in on Hezbollahs hands, not Israels. Stop being their mouthpiece. Tool.
DG | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 5:47 pm | #

Consider both of these - written before Qana. The first is very long, but worthwhile. The second says much the same thing, but an easier and shorter read.

http://tinyurl.com/flzg7

http://tinyurl.com/lycya
suek | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 5:57 pm | #

Here's another article that refers specifically to the possibility of fraud at Qana...

http://tinyurl.com/zzwgp
suek | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 6:00 pm | #

B"H

The Dr. asks...
"...is the only important thing that you are able to put out your narrative first?"

Powerline has an interersting perspective on how the Islamofascist RABID RESPONSE TEAM goes into effect, seamingly almost BEFORE the "tragedy" occurs!!!
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/ 014843.php
ytba | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 6:20 pm | #

Where did the Placentinians and the Leftists learn to lie so well?

"The PLO enrolls in Media Manipulation 101

Former PLO leader Yassir Arafat had always been a great admirer of Ho Chi Minh. In his 9/23/2005 analysis of Arafat, whom he refers to as “the godfather of 20th century terrorism,” David Meir-Levi recounted:

Ho’s success with leftwing sympathizers in the United States and Europe had Arafat green with envy. “Progressive” activists on American campuses, under the tutelage of North Vietnamese operatives, had succeeded in re-framing the Viet Nam war from a Communist conquest of the South into a struggle for national liberation.

In an earlier 1997 article, “Arafat’s Peace Process,” Yossef Bodansky tells the story of Palestinian terrorist Abu Iyad. Iyad’s book, Palestinian Without a Motherland, relayed the saga of his journey with a high-level PLO delegation to Hanoi in early 1970 to meet with a Politburo team to learn how North Vietnam could help the Palestinian struggle:

The Vietnamese recounted their success in manipulating the American and Western media to the point of having a direct impact on the US ability to wage war against North Vietnam and the Viet Cong."

These techniques have also been adopted by the spokesworms for terrorists who defficate their "thoughts" here. No need stroking their egos by mentioning who they are, most sane people can spot them, especially when they have the resources to see how deceptive and shallow they are.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 6:31 pm | #

and the link for my last,

"The PLO enrolls in Media Manipulation 101"

http://www.americanthinker.com/a...=5708& search=HO
ytba | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 6:40 pm | #

Listen to these "fighting keyboardists" declare how they are "fighting on the rhetorical battlefield." What a goddamned crock. You people are just trying to stir up more hatred amongst people who already feel the same as you. Oh, I think a Purple Heart is in order, some commentors said some things you didn't like and hurt your feelings! You people and your jingoist nonsense are shameful.
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 6:58 pm | #

Gutless Anonymous: "You people are just trying to stir up more hatred amongst" "You people and your jingoist nonsense are shameful."

At first glance I figured you for a nutbag muzzie. Then I saw the stereotypical "jingoist" used. Now I know who you are and what you are. Go away and play and let us deal with reality.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 7:18 pm | #

The US, Britain, etc., would never dream of targeting civilians? We try harder than ever to avoid it. But WWII involved plenty of it, and it's not as if Winston Churchill among others didn't stop to think about it. It was terrorism, as Paul Johnson wrote in Modern Times. Britan staged a small raid on Berlin in order to prove to Germans that the RAF could reach that far. Hitler launched rocket attacks on London. We were fighting the Nazis, and civilization hardly blinked in fighting for its own life. And why would Truman have sacrificed up to 10 million American men in a land war to conquer Japan rather than kill some hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians?
ForNow | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 7:25 pm | #

Nice cartoon, Dr. S.. And, since one good toon deserves anoother...
http://www.pritchettcartoons.com...s.com/ hamas.htm

That is for those who don't know what the true fruits of "diplomacy" really are.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 7:27 pm | #

I didn't write that correctly. I don't mean that Britain's only attack on German civilians was one little air raid. I meant to describe an escalation leading to where the US & Britain were bombing the crap out of German cities.
ForNow | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 7:27 pm | #

Bravo, Sanity. Some semblence of sanity is what is missing from this whole concoction of terrorist lies. You've shot down some of them.

For some good news which the MSM doesn't know about, try this speculation at The American Thinker:
-----
http://www.americanthinker.com/ c...omments_id=5717
jgr | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 7:28 pm | #

darwin, just because you consider "jingoist" to be stereotypical doesn't mean it's untrue. You people actually sit here and argue that the Middle Eastern situation is not complicated, and you insist Americans must support Israel at all costs while ignoring the fact that that's what brought about 9/11, etc. You don't have a goddamned clue who I am, nor do you want to "deal with reality." You want to sit here and talk with other douchebags about how much smarter you are than other people. Sorry, loser, if you don't want to hear opposing points of view, then maybe you oughtta get off the Internet.

P.S. Ohhh, you call yourself "darwin." You're so much BRAVER than me. I'm sure you'll get a Medal of Honor or something from this bogus army of "bloggers."
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 7:43 pm | #

to - "ForNow"

Another reason Truman proceeded with the A-Bomb rout was because he was concerned that the Leftists of his day would sabotage the war effort because of the "unacceptable" casualties. (sound familiar).

An incomplete victory would leaving the regime that started the war in place, and almost guarantee a rematch at some future date. Truman's goal was TOTAL victory, and regime change, because that would give the best chance for peace in the future.
(courtesy of a PBS special on the subject I saw recently)
ytba | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 7:44 pm | #

KK,

"But right now, the world is wondering why the far more advanced countries like the U.S. and Israel are using such strident language, targeting civilians, raping and killing innocents (in Iraq), sadistically sexually torturing prisoners of war (Abu Ghraib), etc... and not doing anything about it!"

Hmm...

"Strident Language"... when, exactly, did that become a crime against humanity? The usual, more "diplomatic language" had a tendency to water things down so much that nobody even takes notice. The language is INTENDED to get attention!

"targeting civilians"... explain to me, again, where the US, or even Israeli, military undertook an attack intending to kill innocents? Not an attack against enemies illegally, cynically, and depravedly using civilians as cover, but an attack aimed directly at civilians?

"raping and killing innocents (in Iraq)"... last I saw, that one was under investigation and prosecution. Whether this is systemic (happens all the time) or the occasional bad apple like you'll never entirely purge an organization of remains to be seen.

"sadistically sexually torturing prisoners of war (Abu Ghraib)"... IIRC that was under internal investigation, albeit in the Pentagon's usual ponderous, bureaucratic way, even before the pictures hit the papers. Since then we've prosecuted those directly involved, investigated the circumstances, and revised the Army field manual on interrogations. I haven't seen if they tightened up supervison of prison guards, but given what else they've done it's a fair assumption.

Guantanamo wasn't mentioned, but it'll probably come up. Keep in mind that, while their exact legal status is still under review, Gitmo's denizens are being held there for the same reason enemy prisoners are held in any war: so they aren't fighting you. Considering that if most of them could get informants killed if they got a message out, I can't fault our government for controlling their communications with the outside either.

In any case, I'd hardly call it "doing nothing." We're solving the problems as we learn of them in the usual manner of a government bureaucracy.

Dan,

"There are those who are saying that it is okay to break our laws in ways that result in the deaths of innocent civilians and that this is a GOOD thing!!"

If you're talking about the laws of war, there's no breaking going on here. If someone intentionally places military targets near civilians for the purpose of deterring attack, then THEY are responsible for the deaths of those civilians. To allow otherwise would make the use of human shields THE tactic of choice. Likewise, a morality that prohibits self defense because doing so will harm innocents only guarantees victory will go to the most depraved -- if you can make yourself impossible to retaliate against without harming innocents, and your opponent refuses to take any action that may result in civilian deaths, then you have just made yourself invincible. Hezbollah does not give a damn about your moral scruples; if the tactic works to deter retaliation, or provides them with martyrs they can parade on TV to garner the world's sympathy, then they will use it. Your way offers no options except to surrender -- they will never leave their human shields.

armchair pessimist,

"I think we'll win in the long run, but adversity will have to make men of us all first. Sorry about "men", but "people" or "humans" or other more pc-words more or less convey the opposite meaning."

How about "adults?"

anonymous (sorry if I'm addressing to different anonymi here),

The problem with "negative capability" is that, unless it's paired with a willingness to accept an analysis as "good enough" to make policy based on, it's a recipe for paralysis. Fine for poets and pure analysts without responsibility for action, but this is not an untimed chess match -- one needs to take action before the situation worsens and changes, and probably changes to invalidate your analysis anyway.

As for "fighting keyboardists" -- while I'll agree that we're probably preaching to the crowd here and changing damn few minds here (folks, any ideas here on how to spread the debate?), one should also remember that we're engaged in a Fourth Generation War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Fou..._Generation_War

The weak point of a Western nation is the population. They will never defeat us in traditional military terms (defeat/surrender of the defending army and capture of the seat of power), so the way to victory is to convice the population that the war is not worth fighting (either the specific aims are unworthy, or our civilization itself is not worth defending), cannot be won (and is thus only a waste of life and treasure), or is not even real in the first place (i.e. the threat is a mirage created to sustain political power). Arguably the preferred long-term victory for the West will come in this form as well, with Islamofascism discredited and reviled even in its birthplace and a more tolerant interpretation of Islam ascendant. Assuming such a thing is possible; if not, the fate of the Muslim world gets far more bleak.
Matt | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 7:55 pm | #

One of the characteristics of the Noble Savage is guilelessness---an inability to lie, mostly from lacking the sophistication to lie.

Noble Savages are not respected as people, and not taken seriously as enemies.

What this boils down to: Arab Islamists like Hizballa and Hamas have to be telling the truth because they are dumb camel thieves who could not possibly effectively lie to sophisticated liberal Westerners......

And the favorite leftist brickbat in describing the Right is "racist."

I don't think there are enough straitjackets and enough psychotropic meds on the planet for that kind of insanity.
RS | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 8:05 pm | #

> But right now, the world is wondering why the far more advanced countries like the U.S. and Israel are using such strident language, targeting civilians, raping and killing innocents (in Iraq), sadistically sexually torturing prisoners of war (Abu Ghraib), etc... and not doing anything about it!

K/K, you are a f***ing ASS.

"Not doing anything about it"? Last time **I** heard Lynnde England &co were doing time in a federal penitentiary.

What were you expecting, for them to be castrated (or equivalent) and beheaded?

"raping and killing innocents (in Iraq)"...
With this, of course, you're presuming guilt, when most of the claimants have seriously questionable reliability and highly doubtful claims, despite the blatantly **IFO** fact that they are also members of a religion that openly claims that it is acceptable to lie to anyone not of their faith, in support of that faith. Let's FORGET due process, let's IGNORE the fact that said claims are being investigated... let's just conflate them to being Revelealed Truth, why don't we?

**Idiot**
Oh Bloody Hell | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 8:25 pm | #

> No one has suggested that Israel wants to kill children. I (and others) have merely stated the fact that Israel IS killing children, although certainly with Hezbollah's help. This is a fact.

No, HEZBOLLAH is USING children as a TOOL to get FOOLS like YOU to FORCE **ISRAEL** not to use the FORCE needed to DESTROY them.

You see, Dan -- you had it right -- you just have your head up your ideological ASS so that you can't tell the difference between killing because you MUST and killing because you DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

I grant, in that deep, dark recess where your head is, it's a little tough to see the incredibly flinkin' obvious -- but trust us. Saying it the way YOU do makes you sound totally retarded.

But keep working at it -- someday, you *might* just get that thing unstuck and join the sensible part of humanity that doesn't aim for its own destruction....
Oh Bloody Hell | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 8:32 pm | #

No. Truth does not matter.

What matters at this point is who scares the shit out out of whom.

The U.N. is worse than a joke. The U.N. has become the plaything of those who have learned how to scare people into submission.

Time to pull out.
Randall | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 8:42 pm | #

My spirits have been eroding all day today; it's mainly due to the realization of the magnitude of complicity the media has in propping up the jihadis. Hizbollah snaps their fingers, and the media comes leaping to take the bait. Just think of how much easier this fight would be if the MSM actually practiced journalism intead of pontificating about it.

Actually, "bait" isn't the correct word; that implies a measure of deceipt and I don't think anyone's being fooled.

I can understand that there are complex forces working on the Muslim world, even if they produce an irrational result such as jihadism. What's harder for me to get is the hatred of liberal democracy so apparent in the media's lack of objectivity.
Jeff | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 8:51 pm | #

Gutless Anonymous: "you insist Americans must support Israel at all costs while ignoring the fact that that's what brought about 9/11"

If supporting Israel is what brought about 9/11, then we have an even greater duty to ensure the scum that contemplate such evil are eradicated, and bolster our support for Israel even more.

Your talk is cheap and reeks of cowardice and submission. Tis you that have lost.

P.S. Make no mistake, I DO know exactly who and what you are.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 9:07 pm | #

"Get lost and don't bother to come back to my blog please."

I will gladly leave per your request, Madame Doctor. May I say goodbye, first (and respond to a couple of misleading statements)? This is my last post here.

You said:
"Tell me again how morally equivalent the two sides are, and I will spit in your face."

No one espousing my position here has said that the two sides are morally equivalent. At least not me.

What I've said repeatedly is that it is not okay for Israel or for Hezbollah or anyone else to break laws and take actions that lead to innocent deaths. It is wrong. Evil, if you prefer a religious tone.

"But Hezbollah did it first" is a grade school defense of immoral character and we're all adults here.

Matt said:
"If you're talking about the laws of war, there's no breaking going on here. If someone intentionally places military targets near civilians for the purpose of deterring attack, then THEY are responsible for the deaths of those civilians."

Not quite. Hezbollah would be guilty of endangering civilians by their actions, yes. But them being guilty of that crime does not suddenly make it illegal for Israel to commit the crime of bombing civilians.

Rant all you want folk, all I'm calling for is obeying laws and not killing children. It feels ludicrous to me to come to a supposedly conservative group of people and have to defend law and order and children's lives.

If you're prone to belief in God, pray about this. If not, think about the position you're advocating, don't rely on your own emotions to sway your opinion but look at the laws that exist, the logic behind what you're advocating, the ethics and morality behind what you're advocating and ask yourself, Is this really what I believe?

Peace.

[And if you embrace war crimes over peace, keep in mind that those of us who reject war crimes WILL be there to prosecute you.]
Dan Trabue | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 9:12 pm | #

"it is not okay for Israel or for Hezbollah or anyone else to break laws and take actions that lead to innocent deaths." -- (D.Trabue)

What's the sound of Dan Trabbue's bubble bursting?

...according to the International Red Cross...

"...NOT ALL CIVILIAN DEATHS ARE UNLAWFUL DURING. IHL [international humanitarian law] does NOT outlaw armed conflict, but instead attempts to balance a nation's acknowledged legal right to attack legitimate military targets during war with the right of the civilian population to be protected from the effects of the hostilities. In other words, given the nature of warfare, IHL anticipates a certain amount of "collateral damage," which sometimes, regrettably, may include civilian casualties."
http://www.redcross.org/ services...,0_448_,00.html

The following is by a professor of International Law, and it outlines the crimes of the so-called "Palestinians," and why Israel's targeting of those terrorists and the inevitable accidental killing of some of their civilians in the process is NOT a violation of the law.
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/...ug02/ beres1.htm
"Israel [and any other nation under attack] has both the right and the obligation under international law to protect its citizens from criminal acts of terrorism.
....
Bound by the Laws of War of international law, these terrorists - whenever they choose to commit PERFIDY [the name for the using civilians as shields, and other specified tactics so common to the cowardly Arab "figter."] - will be legally responsible for all harms done to Arab civilians."
[the emphases are mine]

So, the only ones "embracing" war crimes here are Mr.T and all apollogists for the terrorist, and the Western enablers like France, who call Iran a "stabilizing force", and Nephapithicas UNensis - subspecies nefariensis (i.e., Kofi Annan) and so many others too numerous to mention

.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 9:52 pm | #

to Jeff, 07.31.06 - 8:51 pm | #

Buck up, Jeff. It's stuff you need to know so you can think and act intelligently, and bring others to do so. If you get depressed to find how pervasive the enemies of truth have become, and give up, then they are that much closer to winning. We need every ablebodied mind. And that means you, too.

I've been following this for 6 years now, and the good news is that the numbers of people aware of how sleazy the MSM are continually growing. I base that on what I see to be the increasing number of those who post intelligently about it, as well as the number of bloggers on the "right" side of this issue. Hang in there, and influence as many people as you can. The most important thing is to be scrupulously honest, and as thorough as possible.

We'll succeed. We have to.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 10:08 pm | #

anonymous 7:43

You don't have a goddamned clue who I am

I guess not, since you chose to remain "anonymous".

This is a world war, you moron, and you better choose sides and do it right now.

From your comments, it seems you've already chosen. Too bad for you.
rickl | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 10:11 pm | #

"Not quite. Hezbollah would be guilty of endangering civilians by their actions, yes. But them being guilty of that crime does not suddenly make it illegal for Israel to commit the crime of bombing civilians."

Absolutely dead wrong, Dan. Israel commits no crime by bombing a building from which it has received fire. When normally-protected facilities (hospitals, mosques, schools, civilian apartment blocks, etc.) are used to launch attacks, store weapons, or otherwise perform military functions, they lose their protections under the Law of Land Warfare. The same applies to civilians being used as "human shields". The responsibility for their safety lies entirely with the party which placed them in jeopardy in the first place.

When I was in the Army (1977-2003), the Military Law classes we received periodically on this were crystal clear: no advantage is to be legally obtained by placing civilians or protected facilities at risk. The commander faced with a protected facility/person being used for military purposes may choose not to attack, for any one or several of a variety of reasons, but he is legally permitted to do so.

Remember something about Hizballah: it's not like the U.S. Army, with distinct bases and well-defined facilities. It has a few of these, yes, but mostly its members live with their families cheek-by-jowl with other Lebanese. So, identifying Hizballah "facilities" is not like identifying Ft. Benning or the Norfolk Navy Base. It's tough, detailed, exacting work, and the Israelies try their hardest to get it right. If occasionally they fail (and I don't think they did in the case of Qana; see the surveillance videos), it's not through lack of effort. Hizballah, on the other hand, doesn't even try to identify military targets. A few katyushas in the vicinity of Haifa is precise enough. So, this is not a "two wrongs" analogy. When this Israelis kill civilians, they do it by mistake after trying hard to avoid it, a morally responsible and defensible position. Hizballah kills civilians indiscriminately, a position only definsible if you believe that Hizballah is truly doing "God's work", and the end therefore justifies the means.
waltj | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 11:03 pm | #

I guess Dan is gone.

We learn so much from people like him. I won't repeat Orwell's comment about his ilk. Most readers will know it.

He asserts he will oppose...each and every time. (see 4:43PM) Such nonsense is hurts the mind. First, one cannot know what meets his test. The topic is 'does truth matter?' Not much right now.

Unless Dan controls the earth or a magic clooning machine he will never keep up with all the things he will oppose each and every time.

And how will he oppose? Use bad words? UN resolutions? Consult MacBeth's witches for spells to rectify? He seems to love law yet does not know that there is no accepted law for irregular war. And much in the Geneva Conventions is not hard and fast about regular war.

No. Dan is stuck. For this braveheart to oppose evil he will actually have to do something.

Then he will find what is nice isn't effective and what is effective isn't nice. And both produce unexpected and unintended consequences.
K | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 11:52 pm | #

Arab "Love" Of Children

...takes many forms

Murder:
REMEMBER BESLAN???!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Bes..._hostage_crisis
____Improperly Attired
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/ 1874471.stm
____honor killings
http://www.sullivan-county.com/w...w/ cul_death.htm

Unscroupulous cynical abuse:
"during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. ... an Iranian law laid down that children as young as 12 could be used to clear mine fields. Before every mission, a plastic key would be hung around each of the children’s necks. It was supposed to open for them the gates to paradise."
http://www.trans-int.com/news/ar...gh- Germany.html

"Kids - the main force of the Palestinian Front"
http://www.israel-wat.com/x1_eng.htm
"'Paradise Camps' Teach Palestinian

"Children To Be Suicide Bombers"
http://www.cnsnews.com/ ForeignBu...r20010723d.html

Glorify Suicide Martyrdom
"TODDLER TERRORISTS-IN-TRAINING"
http://michellemalkin.com/archiv...ives/ 000486.htm

Slavery:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs....og/? entry=20678
http://www.camelraces.com/

Pederasty:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/arti...ble.asp? ID=5704
http://www.answers.com/topic/ped...e-islamic- world
http://reactor-core.org/islamic- ...osexuality.html

All forms of hate:
http://www.pmw.org.il/

oh, yeah! They DO sooooo love children. NOT!
ytba | Email | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 12:25 am | #

A word of encouragement: if the war of ideas was being won by the left, then Air America and other liberal talk radio shows (are there any others?) would dominate the medium. The reality, of course, is that conservative shows overwhelmingly rule the roost. Think Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, Ingraham, Medved, O'Reilly, Prager, Levin, Hewitt, Liddy, Ferguson, Larson, Beck, Elder, Bennett, etc. Last I heard, the flagship liberal voice in the marketplace of ideas -- Air America -- is only around because a couple of rich benefactors keep them afloat. Their ratings are in the toilet. The other liberal voice on radio -- NPR -- is subsidized by the taxpayers. Liberal talk radio is on welfare.

The MSM push their left-wing slant into every story, so what we see on "news" broadcasts and read in newspapers distorts reality toward the left world view. It helps to keep this in perspective.
GnuCarSmell | Email | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 12:49 am | #

Dan has a problem.

The same problem Kerry had in the last election, actually.

He knows what the problem is, but he doesn't have even the vaguest hint of a realistic, believable solution.

You know, the kind of solution that has worked in a similar circumstance before.

And a solution other than "die for your beliefs - and let them die with you."

So, Mr. Dan (rhetorical question, given the circumstances), were you mad power elite dictator of Israel, what would you do after 1800 rockets were fired at your civilians and members of your armed forces were taken hostage during an incursion into your territory?

Silence plops across the room...

Like Kerry's "Iraq Plan" (i.e. "Bad Things Wouldn't Happen If I Were President, You Have My Word On It").

Oh, and just in case anyone missed the simpler point of the Geneva Conventions' declaration that no advantage is to be gained by hiding behind civilians (as so kindly pointed out by Waltj):

If you REWARD the act of hiding behind civilians by NOT firing on that position, you GUARANTEE more civilian deaths in the future (even if only your own) because you will have MORE and MORE such actions.

Simple economics (and human behavior) - if you reward something, you get more of it.

The best (and in fact only) way to ensure that civilians are protected is to NOT ALLOW them to be used as shields. If the strategy doesn't work, there's no point in using it.

Unfortunately, our vaunted press corpse sabotages that goal (and places civilians at greater risk) by giving Hizb'Allah propaganda rewards for that behavior. Thanks, guys, once again you place the innocent at risk to sell papers. Very noble of you.

In short, the root cause of terrorism is its success.
Merovign | Email | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 1:45 am | #

I will call the Doc on one thing that Dan got right (though it doesn't help him like he thought it does):

Dan isn't a moral relativist: he's a moral absolutist - equal in fanaticism (and consequences) if not mouth-foaming rage and personal violence to the Islamists who strap bombs to their own children.

To Dan, his moral system is more important than anything. Like, for example, more important than Israeli children, or you.

He "opposes" anyone who would break any law that results in harm to innocents, especially children. But he doesn't take into account that the Real World Doesn't Work That Way, and any philosophy that depends on universal agreement is doomed from the start (though as we've seen, it can do tremendous damage before it dies).

I can actually understand where Dan is coming from - it's just a bad place. He can't and won't listen to reason, because his "values" are more important to him than reality.

Absolute moral virtue is a way of AVOIDING moral decisions - as I always say when I "lecture" on self-defense: "You don't always get to choose whether someone dies; sometimes you only get to choose who."

Like Jean Paul Marat in his metaphorical bath, screaming that the September Massacre wasn't his fault - his intentions, his values were pure.

In short, you can't have world peace, want something else.

Like, for example, a convincing reduction in the forces that continually target the innocent - and an incentive for them to leave the innocents out of it, by making sure that their defeat is overwhelming BECAUSE we disapprove of their grotesque tactics.
Merovign | Email | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 2:05 am | #

I agree with GnuCarSmell that the Faux Liberals are not "winning the war of ideas". The assertion that they are is only another Fliberal meme-postulate, which they resort to without evidence, in the face of contrary evidence, and in the desparate hope that they are winning this war and can win it by merely stating that they have won it - a clear and characteristic product of their Fantasyworld, and equally worthless in the real world, or at least a gigantic weakness. The real world does not respond to mere postulates, no matter how often or resolutely repeated.

I have therefore also been exceedingly bouyed by the increasingly swift and correct response of conservative talk shows, et al, which have called the Qana event for what it is: nothing more than a p.r. ploy resulting from and in service of the pathognomonic [definitive of a disease] m.o. of Islamofascists. Apart from the use of terrror, that's all they really have - a vile p.r. tactic - in rather vague hopes of rallying their soul-mates, Fliberals of the World. I think they have just about exhausted their market. [Unite!]

The quick and correct analysis of the Qana event is somewhat of a new thing, based itself upon the speed of information transfer and the build-up of rational entities to process and analyze such events - talk shows, blogs, on-line news entities, etc.. [As evidenced in particular by this blog directly above.]

The build up of "conservative", rational entities has occurred while the Fliberal establishments have objectively decayed and continue to approach National Enquirer status.

The Qana event was predictable and inevitable, and such events will be repeated. The Israelis anticipated this event and enacted the exactly correct practical and psychological response, setting up Hizbollah and the MSM to fail again. And they will fail in like manner again and again in this p.r. game, as they already have in regard to the Qana event, at least in my estimation.

Both Hizbollah and the MSM, otoh, have no new tricks to enact and so will simply repeat the only tactics they have, which will make their perversities only more and more clear to more and more people of common sense and self-interest - and even more definitively perverse and ineffectual to those already aware of these tricks. I know that I am now finally completely inured to these tricks and have seen through them before they even occurred. Imo, events show that the World at large is starting to wake up to the Islamofascist threat to it.

At the same time, those who favor and back the Bush Doctrine m.o. in fighting the wot, which is basically a fight for survival and freedom against their opposites, are opposed by no credible alternative to the Bush Doctrine, which is a mirror to that of the Israelis.

Surrender and apeasement leading to surrender and death or enslavement is instead the only alternative we hear. Is a majority going to accept that? Or do we even need a majority but rather only a dedicated contingent of, say, 20% in order to win [survive and stay free]? The Iraelis fight against numeric odds of at least 15 to 1. They haven't lost a war yet.

Nor is the idea that we might win the physical war but lose the war of ideas a credible one, but rather only another propagandistic meme-postulate. It is more likely the reverse, that winning the physical war will ensure a victory in the realm of ideas. Does anyone have an example to the contrary? Might makes right, but right also makes might.

Judged by the ethic of survival and the survival of freedom, we are right. The death-worshippers are not, and even intend and wish for their own death as an ethic, which is not a winning position as judged in contrast by the drive to and ethic of survival instead.

Imo, the Israelis will win, we will win, Classical Liberals will win, and the force of free-thought over thought control will win. In the realm of ideas the MSM and the Fliberals will go down in their own suicidal flames. But it will be a battle for perhaps some considerable time against the death-worshipping forces of Evil. No one ever said it would be easy, and it never has been. As Tony Blair said a few years ago, this war has been thrust upon us as our destiny. I would add that we should enjoy it. I personally lust for the battle.

One other factor which I see as favorable to the right in the war of ideas is that while the Fliberals have been irrationally and miopically targeting Bush, people like Dr. Sanity have started to rationally target the Fliberals. The latter have been oblivious to this eventuation, as per usual. Fliberals have never heard of blind spots or critical weaknesses. They cannot even understand the concepts. Neanderthals would be more credible opponents, imo.
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 3:43 am | #

As a free thinking individual you define goodness by what your gut and conscience tells you it is. Once you choose to yield more power and influence by alliegience to a group, you unavoidably have to compromise how you really feel in order to fit the groups ever changing parameters. The danger is that given enough time and evolution of the group, it will inevitably dictate to you what you think.
We're seeing it right now in the middle east. Muslims who on the day Hezbollah attacked Israel by far expressed an initial gut reaction that it was obviously wrong. Then within just a few days and the manipulation of group authorities, we see an incredible transformation of opinion on the Arab street.
We see the same thing with the leftist in this country. They were singing God bless America in the capitol on Sept 12th and have done nothing but try their best to sabotage America since then. Notice how you rarely see liberals critisise each other. Its not because they dont have disagreements. Its because of their toxic level of group alliegence that defines their very identity. The group, by attacking G W Bush at home, serves to protect their psyche from the horrible reality of this Islamic enemy. An enemy that they profess to want fairness for yet he incredibly still wants to cut their heads off. They have no idea how to confront an enemy that has zero concern about their mantra of world inequality.
Maybe instead of calling this the war on terror we should rename it "war on mob induced worldwide neurosis".
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 8:09 am | #

Dan simply doesn't understand the Law of Land Warfare and procedes to an erronious conclusion there(Israel is as guilty of war crimes as Hezbollah).

He conflates warfare with civilian policing and procedes to an erronious conclusion that way(that armies are bound by the same rules using justifiable force as Police Officers).

So, anything said that is based on his untrue assertions is fatally flawed to begin with. Trying to throw in the "Conservative beliefs of personal responsibility" to achieve some sort of moral validity in attacking the victim, which is Israel, is repugnant.
SGT Ted | Email | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 1:44 pm | #

Merovign, you did a better job with that than I could have. I have made the same argument to people before, but not as clearly, and I thank you.
Assistant Village Idiot | Email | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 5:42 pm | #

> Not quite. Hezbollah would be guilty of endangering civilians by their actions, yes. But them being guilty of that crime does not suddenly make it illegal[sic] for Israel to commit the crime of bombing civilians.

No, the Crime comes when you keep people there at gunpoint despite the fact that any intelligent civilian would clearly be FLEEING.

You notice, perhaps, the lack of flight from these areas?

The net result of your "moral equivalence" -- and YES IT IS THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES OR WAYS YOU MINDLESSLY CLAIM OTHERWISE -- is that Israel is utterly helpless to defend itself against aggressors willing to surround themselves with innocent civilian bodies.

Even the cops here in the USA are not bound as tightly as you suggest -- while they certainly go out of their way to avoid the death of citizens when going after crooks (much as the Israelis), they certainly have caused them on occasion when a shootout or car chase occurs.

When you have a collection of murderous thugs on a rampage, it's more important to STOP them than it is to protect civilians -- because otherwise they will remain free to murder at will, and innocents will die ANYWAY -- and utterly without purpose.

When you have a collection of murderous thugs on a rampage, it's more important to STOP them than it is to protect civilians -- because otherwise they will remain free to murder at will.

And if firing rockets and mortars into Israeli cities and towns isn't a murderous rampage that threatens civilians, then WHAT IS?

Further, you grant tremendous importance to the deaths of innocent civilians in Lebanon -- themselves at least PARTLY complicit in the actions of Hezbollah (they DID vote them into some positions in the Lebanese government) -- all the while totally ignoring that to **NOT** DO THIS MEANS THAT *innocent* ISRAELIs will certainly die.

In other words, you say that the lives of these Lebanese citizens are more important than the lives of Israeli citizens -- because ONE -OR- THE OTHER *IS* GOING TO DIE.

The deaths of ONE of those two may STOP the bloodshed.

The deaths of the OTHER will certainly NOT.

*THAT* is your moral choice, Mr. Trabue.

"-WHICH- will die?"

Not the one you want, which is:
"No innocents dying" vs. "Innocents dying".

Even Ed Koch, lifelong Democrat, can figure this out:
http://nypress.com/19/30/news&co...mns/ opinion.cfm

Why can't you?
Oh Bloody Hell | Email | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 8:42 pm | #

Nice work, ytba.
Oh Bloody Hell | Email | Homepage | 08.01.06 - 8:46 pm | #

Oh Bloody Hell - "Nice work, ytba."

Thanks.

You too. Your 08.01.06 - 8:42 pm is very clear. But still the Leftists either don't see your logic, or worse, they see it and don't care.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 08.06.06 - 11:33 pm | #

The main weapon used in the fight against truth has been various types of attack on it by academic post modernism. Sadly, this has now seeped into the media. I recomend all of you to read "Understanding Post Modernism" Scepticism to Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault - it is a general readership book with enough meat for the more philosophically read. I am trying to use the book at a local high school as part of a critical thinking program and have no sucess so far - it is seen as threatening to the orthodoxy that is ruining our schools.
Daniel W. Covey | Email | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 2:28 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan.com