Friday, August 11, 2006

Must Reads of the Day - J :)

L dot editors' brief comments on the news of the day are particularly good today.

From a Lucianne.com feature, Lucianne.com Must Reads of the Day (Links to news items at linked L dot page.):

Friday, August 11, 2006 [/] Lucianne.com Must Reads of the Day

* 'Mass Murder' Foiled :A terror plot is exposed

by the policies many American liberals oppose [/] Stick to your guns, Ninnys. Nothing to lose but your lives

* Report: Plotters told 'do your attacks now'

'Officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Britain asked that no information be released' - Maybe the Brits didn't say it loud enough?

* Sheehan offers refuge to war deserters

Now there is a clear choice. Fight a war or spend the weekend with Cindy Sheehan. Which way to Baghdad?

* Bush's Fortitude on the Middle East - Ed Koch

Steady Eddie compares Dubya to Harry Truman

* Reutersgate strikes other news outlets

Replace 'strikes' with 'finally revealed'

* Bad Timing

'What the Democratic Party needs more than anything for the way forward is adult supervision'

* In Case You Missed:

Here's a concise little film of this week's phone fraud flap In case you were lucky enough to be on vacation

HAVE YOU SEEN THESE MEN?

These are the Egyptian 'students' who failed to show up at Montana State University
as part of a student exchange program. They could be coming to an airplane seat near you. [My ellipses and emphasis]


(It may be my imagination, but I seem to see in the photos of the "Montana State Eleven" the same fixated stare of "dead men walking" as I have seen in the photos of the "Nine-Eleven Nineteen". Possibly, it is just the way passport photos are posed in the Middle East. We have recently learned that some there have their own customs regarding the composition of war "news" photos and videos. Lord willing, I will check this out and post links.)

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Who Is Raúl Castro?

I report and link. You decide. J :)

From a National Review Online article, Who Is Raúl Castro?:

August 10, 2006, 3:17 a.m. [/] Who Is Raúl Castro? [/] A tyrant only a brother could love. [/] By Ion Mihai Pacepa

Fidel Castro may be on his deathbed. Or he’s already gone. Unfortunately, in the Communist countries of Latin heritage, the tyrants came in pairs — buy one, get one free. Communist Romania got Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. Cuba got Fidel and Raúl Castro. On Christmas Day 1989 the Romanians rid themselves of both Ceausescus, and twelve years later Romania joined NATO. Cuba will soon be left with one Castro, who is heir to the throne.

So who is Raúl Castro? While Western experts speculate that he may plan on shifting Cuba toward collective leadership and democracy, that’s nothing but wishful thinking. To be sure, I wish they were right, but Raúl has transformed a paradise on earth into a shambles, and there is good reason to believe that he will turn Cuba into an even worse tyranny.

I met Raúl many times, both in Cuba and in Romania. He had coordinating responsibility for the Cuban intelligence service (the Dirección General de Inteligencia, or DGI), and in the early 1970s he entered into a drug venture with my former service (the Departamentul de Informatii Externe ,or DIE). Whenever he was not in Havana or Moscow, he was in Bucharest. We worked, talked, fished, and snorkeled together. We challenged each other at the firing range; he was an excellent shot. Together we raced our identical Alfa Romeo cars. I saw nothing in him suggesting he might ever want to democratize Cuba.

Raúl was always under the influence — of alcohol and self-importance. My Cuban intelligence counterpart in those days, Sergio del Valle, who was Raúl’s closest associate going back to their early days in the Sierra Maestra, used to call his boss “Raúl the Terrible” in a semi-serious allusion to the first Russian to crown himself tsar. Raúl was Cuba’s uncrowned tsar — his official title was “Maximum General.” Fidel gave the speeches, hour after hour. Raúl ran Cuba’s economy, her foreign policy, her foreign trade, her justice system, her jails, her tourism — even her hotels and her beaches.

Raúl is generally perceived as a colorless minister of defense, but he has also been the brutal head of one of Communism’s most criminal institutions: the Cuban political police. I met him in that capacity. He was cruel and ruthless. Fidel may have conceived the terror that has kept Cuba in the Communist fold, but Raúl has been the butcher. He has been instrumental in the killing and terrorizing of thousands of Cubans, and there is no question in my mind but that he would fight tooth and nail to preserve his powers. Otherwise, sooner or later Raúl would have to account for his crimes, and I do not know him to be suicidal.

Before meeting Raúl in the flesh, I had gotten a general picture of him from Nikita Khrushchev and General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, the creator of Communist Romania’s intelligence structure, and by this time head of the Soviet foreign intelligence service, the PGU (Pervoye Glavnoye Upravleniye). That was in 1959. Both Soviets had arrived in Bucharest on October 26 for what was billed as a “six-day vacation in Romania.” Never before had Khrushchev taken such a long vacation abroad, but neither was his visit to Romania a vacation. He was there to discuss the on-going Cuban revolution with the current Romanian leader, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, until then the only Communist tyrant ruling a country of Latin heritage.

Khrushchev dreamed of going down in history as the Soviet leader who had installed Communism on the American continent, and he was prepared to go to any lengths to see that dream come true. But Khrushchev did not trust Fidel, believing he was a stranger to Marxism. The leaders of Cuba’s Communist party were convinced that Fidel was a dangerous adventurer, and the Soviet party bureaucracy was also reluctant to endorse him.

Khrushchev did trust Raúl, though. According to Sakharovsky, who had secretly brought Raúl to Moscow in the mid-1950s, it had been love at first sight. Both Nikita and Raúl loved vodka. Both were fascinated with Marxism. Both hated school, religion, and discipline. Both considered themselves military experts. Both were obsessed with espionage and counterespionage. And both liked to sleep with their boots on. Sakharovsky considered the “warm relationship” between the two men to have convinced Khrushchev to throw himself entirely into the Cuban revolution.

At Khrushchev’s order, Sakharovsky had given Raúl an intelligence adviser: Nikolay Leonov, the PGU’s best expert on Latin America. Leonov (today a retired KGB lieutenant general and member of the Duma) provided Raúl with intelligence on the military forces of the then Cuban dictator, Batista, and helped Raúl plan his guerrilla war. In June 1957, Leonov gave him documents and photographs showing that Washington was providing weapons and logistical support to Batista, and he suggested that Raúl take a few dozen Americans hostage to force Eisenhower to withdraw from the conflict. Raúl did so. On June 26, 1958, his guerrilleros kidnapped fifty American and Canadian military and civilian personnel working in Cuba. Fearing for the lives of the hostages, Batista declared a cease-fire. That enabled the Soviets to bring new weapons into Cuba.

The course of the Cuban revolution was changed forever. The era of political kidnappings was also introduced. [/] On the night of December 31, 1958, Batista fled Cuba, and the Castro brothers took over the country. During the following month, Raúl organized the execution of hundreds of police and military officials of the Batista regime. The prisoners were shot and the corpses buried in mass graves outside of Santiago de Cuba.

A year later, Soviet deputy premier Anastas Mikoyan landed in Havana. He was welcomed by Fidel, Raúl, and the country’s new KGB adviser, Aleksandr Shitov. The latter’s task was to help Raúl create a Cuban KGB and a Soviet-style army. In 1962 Khrushchev took the unprecedented step of appointing Shitov as ambassador to Cuba. Soon, Moscow started secretly building rocket bases in Cuba. [/] Khrushchev, Raúl, and Shitov — not Fidel — pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war.

In April 1971 I visited Cuba as a member of a Romanian government delegation attending a ten-year celebration of Castro’s victory at the Bay of Pigs. A couple of days after the ceremony, Raúl invited me to go ocean fishing on his boat, together with Sergio del Valle. The other guest was a Soviet civilian who introduced himself as Aleksandr Alekseyev. “That’s Shitov,” del Valle whispered into my ear. “He’s now Allende’s advisor.” (The Marxist Salvador Allende had been elected president of Chile the previous November.) There, on that boat, it hit me more clearly than ever before that it was Raúl, not Fidel, who was holding the reins of the Cuban revolutionary wagon.

In 1972 I prepared an official Ceausescu visit to Havana, and I was also at his right hand during it. Fidel was the figurehead, Raúl the factotum. The Cuban first lady was not Fidel’s wife, but Raúl’s. Elena Ceausescu wrinkled up her nose at that, but eventually the two first ladies hit it off splendidly. Both Elena and Vilma Espin Guilloys were school dropouts, both pretended to be chemists, both had acquired phony doctoral degrees, both had joined the Communist party before it had come to power in their countries, both became members of the Council of State, and both were presidents of their countries’ Federation of Women organizations.

During that visit, the Castro brothers and Ceausescu laid the foundation for a bilateral drug venture. They wanted to flood the world with drugs. “Drugs could do a lot more damage to imperialism than nuclear weapons could,” Fidel pontificated. “Drugs will erode capitalism from the inside,” Raúl agreed. I never heard the word “money” pronounced, but I was already administering the money Romania was making from its own drug trafficking. All of it was going into Ceausescu’s personal bank account. By 1978, when I left Romania for good, that account, called AT-78, held a balance of some $400 million — in spite of the substantial dents Elena made in it when she bought furs and jewelry for herself.

In 2005, Fidel was furious when Forbes Magazine estimated his fortune at $500 million. This year, the magazine upped his worth to $900 million. Particularly in view of Cuba’s penury, this amount is surely more than enough for Raúl to bribe his political cronies and buy any new allies he needs.

In 1973 I spent a “working vacation” in Havana. Raúl gave me a tour of a huge factory manufacturing double-walled suitcases and other concealment devices for secretly transporting arms and explosives for terrorist purposes. By then Raúl’s DGI was working around the clock to expand Cuba’s political influence in South America and the Third World. In particular, they were striving to consolidate the Sandinistas’ power in Nicaragua, to foment a bloody war in El Salvador, and to help the Soviet/Cuban-backed MPLA (Movement for the Liberation of Angola) to rise to power in Angola. Raúl’s DGI and his military also had advisers and instructors in Palestine Liberation Organization bases and had established close cooperation with Libya, South Yemen, and the Polisario Front for the Liberation of Western Sahara. In the mid-1970s my DIE was working jointly with Raúl’s DGI to support the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a Marxist, anti-American insurgency organization whose task was to spread Communism to South America.

In December 1974 Raúl came to Bucharest to request intelligence and political support for his new National Liberation Directorate (DNL), a party/intelligence group tasked to coordinate Cuba’s guerrilla and terrorist training camps and to prop up national liberation movements and anti-American governments such as those of Nicaragua and Grenada. He got both.

Of course I no longer have inside access to information about Raúl’s export of terrorism and revolution, but I note that in 2001 his FARC took credit for 197 killings in Colombia. On April 11, 2002, the same FARC kidnapped 13 Colombian lawmakers from a government building in Cali and held Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt hostage. On February 13, 2003, FARC shot down a CIA plane carrying out electronic intelligence-gathering in southern Colombia, taking three CIA officers hostage. Now Raúl’s FARC is seeking to overthrow the pro-American government of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, whose father was assassinated by FARC in 1983. I also note that the Communist president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who idolizes the Castro brothers, has threatened to stop exporting oil to the U.S. and intends to start a conventional war against neighboring Colombia, the main U.S. ally in the region.

Neither within Cuba nor in the outside world does anyone have a clear picture of Fidel’s health — physical or political. Yet perhaps there is something else going on there that Raúl may have learned from his KGB masters. Leonid Brezhnev died on November 10, 1982, but the KGB chairman, Yury Andropov, managed for a few days to keep his death secret from the public, to gain time for maneuvering himself into the driver’s seat. Once settled into the Kremlin, the cynical Andropov hastened to portray himself to the West as a “moderate” Communist and a sensitive, warm, Western-oriented man who allegedly enjoyed an occasional drink of scotch, liked to read English novels, and loved listening to American jazz and the music of Beethoven. Andropov was none of the above.

Raúl may try to also portray himself as a peaceloving angel. But Andropov’s age of secrecy is gone. I pray that others who know Raúl as well as I knew Ceausescu will come forward and disrobe the Cuban tyrant, allowing the world to see him naked, the way he truly is: an assassin and international terrorist who made a fortune from the illegal sale of arms, drugs, and human beings.

— Lieutenant General Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking official ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. On Christmas Day of 1989, Ceausescu and his wife were sentenced to death at the end of a trial where most of the accusations had come almost word-for-word out of Pacepa’s book Red Horizons. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Insane Robot Wins Conn. Primary

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a Satirist article, Insane robot wins Conn. Primary:

Insane robot wins Conn. Primary [/] Posted in Satirist by Sean Wed 9 Aug 2006 @ 11:25 am

Autorantic Virtual Moonbat at victory rally August 8 [/] In a dramatic upset, the Autorantic Virtual Moonbat defeated Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman in last night’s Democratic primary election.

The Autorantic Virtual Moonbat, or A.V.M., is an unthinking Leftist automaton programmed to spout vile insults and random nonsensical allegations against a long list of enemies. Before entering politics in 2004, the A.V.M. worked as a photo editor for Reuters.

In a nine-hour acceptance speech touching upon diverse issues, the A.V.M. said, at one point, “I’m certain, when the Taliban say ‘protecting marriage,’ they really mean ‘guns’!!! It’s like 1960 all over again!!! The truth is at transgenderedwiccansforoutreachefforts.org! Shrub only wants Belfast for the oil!!! I reject meat and pollution! Like I’ve said a million times before, the Repugnantans stole the so-called election by whipping the lesbian voters in Nagasaki, just like Bob Novak helped OUR high PRIEST to steal the ecosystem from the Hispanic forests (while the International Monetary Fund sat on the sidelines, for that matter)!!!! I hate you!! Since 1992, 18,210 innocent bunny RABBITS have been murdered in Louisiana!!!! No child left behind, INDEED. What about jobs!!!!? What about public radio!!? What about reparations and energy crystals for the tens OF trillions of vegetarian species who are enslaved in Antarctica every SINGLE day by our smirking chimp and his congregation of neocon bagmen!!!!?”

Lieberman, the last surviving member of the “relatively sane wing” of the national party, had pinned his re-election hopes on a large turnout of pro-American primary voters, despite numerous pre-election polls indicating that these voters would not be voting in his party’s primary. [/] Conceding gracefully, Lieberman said, “Jeez. What the … ?” [My ellipses and emphasis]

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Anti-Israel Photo-Fraud Widespread?

I report. And provide links. You decide. - J :)

From a Zombie Time .com article, Reuters Commits Four Types of Fraud:

Reuters Commits Four Types of Fraud [/] An overview of the photo hoaxes committed by Reuters, discovered so far

The recent discovery that the Reuters news agency released a digitally manipulated photograph as an authentic image of the bombing in Beirut has drawn attention to the important topic of bias in the media. But lost in the frenzy over one particular image is an even more devastating fact: that over the last week Reuters has been caught red-handed in an astonishing variety of journalistic frauds in the photo coverage of the war in Lebanon.

This page serves as an overview of the various types of hoaxes, lies and other deceptions perpetrated by Reuters in recent days, since the details of the scandal are getting overwhelmed by a torrent of shallow mainstream media coverage that can easily confuse or mislead the viewer. Almost all of the investigative work has been done by cutting-edge blogs, but the proliferation of exposés might overwhelm the casual Web-surfer, who might be getting the various related scandals mixed up. In this essay I hope to straighten it all out.

It's important to understand that there is not just a single fraudulent Reuters photograph, nor even only one kind of fraudulent photograph. There are in fact dozens of photographs whose authenticity has been questioned, and they fall into four distinct categories.

The four types of photographic fraud perpetrated by Reuters photographers and editors are:

1. Digitally manipulating images after the photographs have been taken.

2. Photographing scenes staged by Hezbollah and presenting the images as if they were of authentic spontaneous news events.

3. Photographers themselves staging scenes or moving objects, and presenting photos of the set-ups as if they were naturally occurring.

4. Giving false or misleading captions to otherwise real photos that were taken at a different time or place.

All of these forms of fraud have the same intent: to serve as propaganda for Hezbollah, and to make the Israeli attacks look as brutal as possible. And, taken together, they raise a very serious question: can any of the coverage by the entrenched media be trusted?

Let's examine each type of fraud, with the photographic evidence itself:

[…] What to make of all this? As is demonstrated on this page, Reuters has committed not just one instance of fraud, and not just one type of fraud, but four distinct categories of fraud.

Now, of course there is a real war going on, and there is real damage, and authentically tragic scenes. No one is denying that. So, with all the actual honest footage of unstaged war imagery floating around, why is Reuters resorting to supplementing its coverage with obviously fake photos? Several theories have been posited in opinion pieces since the scandal broke. Here's a summary of the various possibilities.

Theory A: The Reuters editorial staff is sympathetic to the aims of Hezbollah, and is using propagandistic images exaggerating Israeli violence to increase world pressure on Israel to stop its attacks, thereby giving Hezbollah a chance to regroup, and claim moral superiority. […]

Theory B: The stringers employed by Reuters are sympathetic to Hezbollah, and successfully duped the Reuters editors into publishing propaganda.

To accept Theory B, you'd have to conclude that the Reuters editorial staff are cataclysmically incompetent, and were unable to notice numerous frauds so obvious that "untrained bloggers" could easily spot them.

Theory C: The stringers employed by Reuters simply wanted to make a name for themselves, and resorted to fraud to obtain the most spectacular images, regardless of their political outlook.

Again, Theory C requires an almost unbelievable level of incompetence on the part of the Reuters editorial staff. This theory is also doubtful because the propagandistic nature of the photos and captions is almost always anti-Israel.

Theory D: Reuters photographers and editors are intimidated by Hezbollah, and publish Hezbollah's propaganda out of fear for their lives.

This is an intriguing theory. There have been reports coming out of Lebanon that reporters are indeed being bullied and intimidated. A new report reveals that Hezbollah has copies of all journalists' passports and that they threaten those who tell the truth. Michael Totten reported last year how he was at first charmed by the Hezbollah media representative -- a relationship which suddenly turned to fear when he was bullied and threatened once Hezbollah realized he wasn't going to repeat their lies. And CNN's Nic Robertson shockingly admitted that his own news reports were stage-managed by Hezbollah in an interview on July 23. In it, Robertson said, […]

[…] This scandal casts doubt not just on Reuters' coverage of the current war in Lebanon -- it casts doubt on all media coverage of this war, and of all wars in the past. How long has such chicanery been going on? Could it be that the public for the first time is learning that the media is not as impartial as it has always claimed?

The Scandal Widens to Other News Services [/] As can be gleaned from the examples above, Reuters is not the only news service involved in some of these bogus photo reports coming out of Lebanon. Photographers from Associated Press and Agence France Presse, in particular, have been present at some of the staged scenes as well, and AP's captions have repeatedly drawn criticism from several bloggers. Now the New York Times enters the fray, with a transparent hoax being featured prominently on its site. On August 8, Gateway Pundit unveiled the ruse:

[…] Additional Links [/] Thomas Lifson at Real Clear Politics also has a good essay summarizing some of the ever-widening aspects of the scandal.

Media Matters embarrasses itself trying to defend the authenticity of all the Reuters photographs coming out of Lebanon, falsely claiming that Reuters' denial of the accuracy of its Qana time-stamps somehow defuses the entire issue.

If you know of any other noteworthy examples of Reuters fraud in its coverage of the war in Lebanon, or if you have comments or corrections about this page, send an email to zombietime here. [My ellipses and emphasis]


From the Thomas Lifson article linked above:

Karl Marx was right about one thing: history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. You can ask Dan Rather.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Pictures of Children's Bodies: A Commodity? - J :)

At the root is that death – or pictures of death - have become a commodity. For Hezbolla, they can be traded for political leverage, for the photo-journalists – those who are not working for Hezbolla – a good "snap" of a dead baby brings the prospect of financial reward, fame and even awards. And, at the top of the heap are the editors and the likes of Shane Richmond, in their air-conditioned offices, thousands of miles away from the action, who see the "pics" merely as illustrations for their productions.

Not a pretty sight - this knackered blogger making the case. These people have become so degraded, so devoid of humanity and so divorced from civilised mores that pictures of death are assessed on their artistic merit, their emotional power and relevance. Their source and method of procurement are quite irrelevant as long as they are "suitable for purpose". One can almost imagine a scene where pictures are swapped like cigarette cards of old… "I'll give you two dead girls for your dead baby, and throw in a dead old man to make up the balance".

It is that amoral, soulless commercialisation of the images of death that gives Hezbolla its propaganda power. As long as it knows that the Western media is in the market for this commodity, and it suits its own propaganda purposes, it will ensure a continued supply. And that is another reason why Qana is so important. In that benighted Lebanese village, death was a tradable commodity in an obscene marketplace. And the media did not seem to think that there was anything wrong.


From a E.U. Referendum Blog article, Death is a commodity. More below:

Tuesday, August 08, 2006 [/] Death is a commodity [/] Qana – the director's cut see here.

EU Referendum on the BeebWith the blogosphere crowing over its two easy victories over the MSM - or, to be more specific, Reuters - I share my colleague's somewhat jaundiced view of current developments. This may have something to do with the fact that I have been at this "story" for eight days continuously now, averaging something less than five hours sleep a night. [/] But it may also be a reaction to having to deal with – as my colleague decorously puts it - Shane Richmond's self-satisfied posturing.

[…] Shane Richmond - never mind the quality, feel the width. But the proximate cause of my jaundiced demeanour, which is now bubbling over into anger, was an interview on the programme with the vacuous Shane Richmond. His underlying premise was exactly the same as he had articulated in his own blog:

…is the child dead? was the child killed by Israeli bombs? If so, the picture illustrates the story. If the picture does not alter the truth of the story, we're not being disingenuous. And the truth of the story is this: Israeli bombs killed several civilians in Qana, many of whom were children.


I got from his other comments what I though was a softening of the line, in that there was a half-admission that the photographs had been staged. But his central message remains, that it does not matter as long as the result accurately represents the reality that children died as a result of the bombing.

What that means, therefore, is that Richmond is asserting that publishing pictures of Hezbolla agents, parading the bodies of dead children in front of complicit photo-journalists for propaganda purposes, is perfectly acceptable as long as the result also matches what his paper wants to convey.

And that is why the crowing of the blogsphere is potentially dangerous. Not for nothing, more than a week after the first doubts about Qana have emerged, is the BBC prepared to entertain the issue. Although it has addressed the Qana issue, it was a brief exposition and the main focus was on "Reutersgate", which is reflected in the minimal publicity given to the issue in the wider media. If this goes on, then Reuters will become the fall-guy for a problem that, as my colleague rightly points out, is far wider and more serious than doctoring a few photographs.

At the root is that death – or pictures of death - have become a commodity. For Hezbolla, they can be traded for political leverage, for the photo-journalists – those who are not working for Hezbolla – a good "snap" of a dead baby brings the prospect of financial reward, fame and even awards. And, at the top of the heap are the editors and the likes of Shane Richmond, in their air-conditioned offices, thousands of miles away from the action, who see the "pics" merely as illustrations for their productions.

Not a pretty sight - this knackered blogger making the case. These people have become so degraded, so devoid of humanity and so divorced from civilised mores that pictures of death are assessed on their artistic merit, their emotional power and relevance. Their source and method of procurement are quite irrelevant as long as they are "suitable for purpose". One can almost imagine a scene where pictures are swapped like cigarette cards of old… "I'll give you two dead girls for your dead baby, and throw in a dead old man to make up the balance".

It is that amoral, soulless commercialisation of the images of death that gives Hezbolla its propaganda power. As long as it knows that the Western media is in the market for this commodity, and it suits its own propaganda purposes, it will ensure a continued supply. And that is another reason why Qana is so important. In that benighted Lebanese village, death was a tradable commodity in an obscene marketplace. And the media did not seem to think that there was anything wrong. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Monday, August 07, 2006

45% of New Hampshire Democrats Dislike Hillary - J :)

“Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.”

[…] Because we’re not talking about “soft” negatives like, say, “out of touch” or “arrogant.” [/] We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.” [/] Satanic. [/] And: “Political wh***.”


From a Boston Herald .com article, N.H. Dems lambaste Clinton:

Hatin’ on Hillary: N.H. Dems lambaste Clinton [/] By Brett Arends [/] Boston Herald Business Columnist [/] Monday, August 7, 2006 - Updated: 09:36 AM EST

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he’s never seen anything like it. [/] “Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.” [/] No prizes for guessing which presidential front-runner drew these remarks in focus groups.

But these weren’t Republicans talking about Hillary Clinton. They weren’t even independents. [/] These were ordinary, grass-roots Democrats. People who identified themselves as “likely” voters in the pivotal state’s Democratic primary. And, behind closed doors, this is what nearly half of them are saying.

“I was amazed,” says Bennett. “I thought there might be some negatives, but I didn’t know it would be as strong as this. It’s stunning, the similarities between the Republicans and the Democrats, the comments they have about her.”

Bennett runs American Research Group Inc., a highly regarded, independent polling company based in Manchester, N.H. He’s been conducting voter surveys there since 1976. The polls are financed by subscribers and corporate sponsors. [/] He has so far recruited 410 likely voters in the 2008 Democratic primary, and sat down with them privately in small groups to find out what they really think about the candidates and the issues.

His conclusion? “Forty-five percent of the Democrats are just as negative about her as Republicans are. More Republicans dislike her, but the Democrats dislike her in the same way.”

Hillary’s growing brain trust in the party’s upper reaches already knows she has high “negatives” among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message. [/] But they should get out of D.C., New York and L.A. more often, and visit grassroots members.

[…] Because we’re not talking about “soft” negatives like, say, “out of touch” or “arrogant.” [/] We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.” [/] Satanic. [/] And: “Political wh***.”

(Note: I don’t usually like reporting such personal remarks, but in this case you can hardly understand the situation without them. I have no strong personal feelings about the senator.)

There are caveats. Any survey can be inaccurate or misleading. And 55 percent of ARG’s sample was either neutral or positive about Sen. Clinton. Thirty-two percent currently say they plan to vote for her in the primary.

But Bennett says he’s never before seen so many N.H. voters show so much hatred toward a member of their own party. He’s never even seen anything close.

He believes top national Democrats are missing this grassroots intensity. Instead, he suspects, they are blinded by poll numbers, which give Hillary a big early lead based on her name recognition.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, agrees.

“There is far more anti-Hillary sentiment in the Democratic Party than the pollsters understand,” he says. In the race for the nomination, “she is ripe for plucking,” he says.

[…] It’s hard to see any Democrat winning the White House without carrying the state in the presidential election. And it’s hard, right now, to see Hillary carrying the state. [My ellipses and emphasis]

The Corpses of Cana: The Director's Cut - J :)

(N.B. "Cana" is the Christian spelling. "Qana" the Arabic. "Kana" the Israeli. I do not believe that we are required to change our spelling or pronunciation or word choice on the basis of multicultural sensitivity. See Samuel Johnson, the author of the first English dictionary, on the use of "Scotch" rather than "Scots".)

Against all that, does it matter that we were sold a lie? Ironically - and unintentionally - The Independent headline articulates the question: "How can we stand by and allow this to go on"? But I suspect they were not thinking what we are thinking.


From a E.U. Referendum Blog article, Qana - the director's cut, more below (Note: Linked photographs are GRAPHIC.):

Saturday, August 05, 2006 [/] Qana - the director's cut

I have called this post, "the director's cut", as that is what it is. The narrative here is of how the combination of Hezbollah's media management and modern photo-journalism has turned the recording of a tragic event into theatre, in the best tradition of Michael Moore.

As best we can, we have pieced together the jumble of evidence which surrounded the production of the iconic photographs which were published around the world, and put them in perspective. Many of the photographs have been used before, some are new to this site and others are video "grabs". But it is not the pictures, per se, that tell the story, so much as their ordering and analysis. Make of this what you will, but I can assure you that you are not supposed to see them in this light.

The "story" - for that is what it is - starts here, in the wreckage of the buiding at Qana which is performing the temporary and unwholesome function of a morgue. It is from here, that the bodies are extracted, the essential props of this theatre. And standing on the left of the frame is one of the two star characters of our story, Mr "White Tee-Shirt". With equal accuracy, though, we could call him Mr Hezbollah, for reasons which will become apparent.

[…] Anyhow, it is now clear that the body of the "girl in orange" is not what is wanted. It is unceremoniously dumped outside, and is later stretchered off to the waiting fleet of ambulances. This is what happens to most of the bodies, which are carried up "stretcher alley" by diverse parties of stretcher bearers through the day. As with other casualties, the wrapping is conveniently left open to allow photographers to take pictures as the stretcher passes.

However, there then seems to be something of a commotion. Not one but two bodies of girls have been found. From this Newsnight video grab we see them being manhandled out to the opening of the wrecked building. At this stage, the bodies are not treated with any care or dignity as they are handed to "White Tee-shirt". But it seems evident that he has found what he wanted. And, although, on film he speaks loudly and gesticulates, there is no display of anything that could be interpreted as emotion.

Now, entering stage-right is the second of our star characters, "Green Helmet". Without any ado, he makes a grab for the first of the girl's bodies, which is surrendered by a deferant "White Tee-shirt". In the next frame (not shown) Mr "Green Helmet" cradles the body in his arms, as if to carry it.

[…] Anyhow, in the next frame, we begin to see the game plan. "Green Helmet" is making a "camera run", carrying the highly photogenic corpse of a little girl, holding it is arms to maximise the shock value and the emotional impact. At this stage, though, he is walking up to "Stretcher Alley" and is reserving his expression. This is sombre but not demonstrably dramatic. Several "snappers" go through the motions and take his picture but the results are little used.

In this frame, though, "Green Helmet" is going up "Stretcher Alley" in full view of the waiting media. Framed against the rubble, with the girl's body in his arms, he displays an intensity of emotion that we have not seen in him before. The combination makes for the iconic shot which is published throughout the world and, ironically, is now available printed on a white tee-shirt.

Out of shot, the route is marked out by Red Cross workers and others, redolent of mashalls on a race route. It has the feel of a highly organised film set, which is precisely what it is. And, in this frame, "Green Helmet" co-ops one worker into the theatre to provide the media with another photo opportunity. Whatever the message though, it is not real. The uniformed worker is merely a prop. "Green Helmet" does not need guidance - he has been up and down this route ceaselessly.

The corpse having served it purpose, "Green Helmet" has no further use for it. He dumps it on a guerney, leaving it in the care of the worker we have called "the man in black". There are other photo-opportunities in the making and, to "Green Helmet", these are his priority. He is off, without even waiting to see the corpse properly secured.

While "Green Helmet" and "White Tee-shirt" could have left together (the corpses were available together at the wreckage), and even carried the two corpses on a single stretcher, properly covered in respect for the dead. But that was never the game plan. With "Green Helmet" having done his camera run, it is now the turn of his partner to show off the trophies. We see him striding out carrying his photogenic corpse, surrounded by snappers and TV cameramen, who are obviously ready and waiting for him.

This and the previous shot, taken as "screen grabs" from a France 2 news broadcast, are hardly iconic material. But, as he approaches the media scrum, "White Tee-shirt" is assuming an anguished expression which intensifies with every stride. His mouth opens and he starts to shout passionately, as he steps onwards, his swiftening stride conveying a sense of urgency. Yet, the urgency is false. He has waited for "Green Helmet" to complete his run before even starting out.

Well into his stride now and emoting freely, "White Tee-shirt is producing iconic material, eagerly captured by the snappers. This picture here makes the Daily Telegraph and many other dailies. Again, the combination of the photgenic corpse and the "raw emotion" make the picture irresistable. It is a stunning performance, even if the result lacks the essential touch of the background wreckage.

Now the strategy becomes clear. Round the corner and on top of the rise formed by "Stretcher Alley" is the "fiercely competitive" media, coralled like sheep in a pen, waiting for the next photo-opportunity to be presented to them. And Hezbollah is about to lay on the performance of a lifetime, a human interest story starring "Green Helmet and "White Tee-shirt" in a bravura display of raw emotion.

But everything is coming right. Without moving from their positions, all the snappers have to do is let the stars come to them. Now the angles are right, the pair complement each other and the expressions are spot on. With an imaginative caption "man screaming for help...", it goes straight on the front page of The Guardian. This is award-winning stuff, except the prize should really go to Hezbollah.

[…] And at last the body of the poor mite that was once a pretty child is laid rest temporarily in the back of the ambulance. Even then, her mortal remains are publicity fodder, providing a poignant reminder of the tragedy, without the artifice of poses. This is the only natural pose in the whole sequence, but it lacks the drama the editors need. The picture ends up as a filler for internet archives.

[…] While the dead rest at last, we now see why "White Tee-shirt" was so anxious to get away. He has to return home to be interviewed by a France 2 reporter. He starts by showing the reporter round the house, well furnished and far from modest. This is no poverty-stricken man, embittered by deprivation. Even by European or American standards, the house is well-furnished and comfortable.

But what is so evident are the pictures of Sheik Hassan Nasrallah - even a calendar. This is not a dwelling - it is a shrine to Hezbollah, the party of God. But "White Tee-shirt" is not Hezbollah, oh, no! That is what he tells the young reporter, saying that it is the Israeli aggression that is radicalising Muslims and driving them into the arms of Hezbollah.

Make up your own mind. Is this a Hezbollah member, or a mere supporter? This is a Hezbollah stronghold, a town from which the IDF claim over 150 missiles have been fired. And our "White Tee-shirt" has a house full of Hezbollah material and is not a member - was not all day driving that agenda forward? Was he simply an ordinary joe, overcome with emotion at the death and destruction around him, of which he was entirely innocent?

These issues are, of course, not addressed by the media, either on the ground or back in the comfortable, air conditioned editorial offices, thousands of miles from the action. There, pictures of death are a commodity. It doesn't matter under what circumstances they were gained, and to what purpose the actors paraded their emotions. Another forest-load of dead trees conveyed the story and a few dead children were exploited to provide pictures and add drama.

Against all that, does it matter that we were sold a lie? Ironically - and unintentionally - The Independent headline articulates the question: "How can we stand by and allow this to go on"? But I suspect they were not thinking what we are thinking. [My ellipses and emphasis]

What Part of 'War' Don't We Understand? - J :)

There is no longer any doubt what is driving the conflict in the Middle East: it is the Syrian-Iranian strategy of using proxies to strike at the US and extend Iran's fanatical influence over the region. The only question is whether we can stop tying our brains into knots and stop turning the other cheek long enough to strike back and topple these two regimes.


From a Real Clear Politics .com article, What Part of 'War' Don't We Understand? -- more below:

July 19, 2006 [/] What Part of 'War' Don't We Understand? [/] By Robert Tracinski

[…] A few of us have been saying for years that the War on Terrorism is not just about Israel by itself or Iraq by itself--that it is a "regional war," as Michael Ledeen has put it, in which the US and its allies are being attacked by an "Islamist Axis" connecting Iran to its network of terrorist proxies across the Middle East. [/] Now this is everybody's headline.

Last week, for example, a headline in the New York Times admitted "Crisis Is Regional, Not Just Israel vs. Palestinians." This week, Newsweek devoted its cover story to Iran's role as the instigator "feeding the fire" of the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. [/]

Condoleezza Rice summed it up when she concluded that the terrorists "have showed their hand. And they've showed that their sponsors are in Tehran and in Damascus. Things are clarified right now." And the real news about President Bush's open mic night at the G-8 summit is not his use of a common vulgarity, but an exchange between Bush and Tony Blair regarding Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

BLAIR: What does he think? He thinks that if Lebanon turns out fine, if you get a solution in Israel-Palestine, if Iraq ends in the right way--

BUSH: Yeah, he's through.

BLAIR: He's had it. That's what this whole thing's about. It's the same thing with Iran.


There's been a lot of talk about the cleverness of the Iranians and about what master chess players they are to outmaneuver the Bush administration. But their strategy turns out to be utterly transparent.

So why is no one prepared to do anything to stop it?

Bush followed his exchange with Blair by adding, "I felt like telling Kofi [Annan] to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen." As we all know, the most fearsome response to an act of war is a phone call from a UN bureaucrat.

A similar paralysis is even holding back some of the most seemingly belligerent commentators. The Wall Street Journal, for example, characterizes the Hezbollah provocation as "Iran's First Strike" against the US--then counsels that we should let Israel do our fighting for us while we seek sanctions against Iran at the UN Security Council. Similarly, Michael Oren advocates an Israeli strike against the Syrian military--but only to force the Syrian regime to make a bargain, keeping itself in power by withdrawing support for Hezbollah.

None of these actions matches the problem. If the problem is that the Syrian and Iranian regimes seek to preserve themselves and extend their influence by supporting terrorists across the Middle East, then the solution is to end those regimes--and we should devise a military response directed at that goal.

Syria and Iran cannot be pressured, deterred, or contained, because supporting terrorists is their means of survival. This has been the Iranian and Syrian strategy since 2003: support the insurgency in Iraq, support Hezbollah and Hamas in the Palestinian territories--and keep everything in such turmoil that America will be afraid to take further action, for fear that things will get even worse. But past military action has led to chaos only because we have always left intact the terror-sponsoring regimes in Syria and Iran.

Consider the incentives we have created for these two regimes: the more trouble they cause for us--the less likely we are to attack them. The more they attack us, the more secure they are from our retaliation. This is the opposite of a rational strategy.

What makes this possible is the crippling effect of two fundamental errors in our thinking: myopic short-range Pragmatism and crippling altruistic self-doubt.

Pragmatism doesn't just mean being practical; it's a philosophy which holds that there are no over-arching ideas and principles that can guide our action. The best expression I have ever read of the fractured thinking method of Pragmatism is in the current Newsweek cover story. After showing that Iran is the force behind every major conflict in the Middle East, the authors admonish us: "The Iranian challenge is not a Gordian knot that can be sliced through in one bold stroke. It's a bag full of knots, each of which has to be untied and, if possible, untangled from the rest."

Part of the reason America hesitates to act is because generations of Pragmatists have tried to turn our brains into bags full of knots--making it harder for us to see the big picture and the bold strokes that are actually necessary to defeat our enemies.

Just as powerful is the warped logic of the "suicide bomb morality" of altruism, which identifies self-sacrifice as the essence of virtue. In any conflict, the good guys are expected to prove that they are good by backing down and sacrificing their interests--while nothing is expected of the bad guys, precisely because they are evil. That's why a Los Angeles Times op-ed demanded that Israel "has to be the most responsible party" by declaring an immediate ceasefire. Why should Israel be the first to back down from the fight? The author answers: "What, after all, can we expect from Hamas or Hezbollah?"

Notice the warped psychology this fosters: the onus is always on the good guys to turn the other check and submit to evil. This is a moral outlook that empowers the evil because they are evil and restrains the good because they are good. Should we then be surprised to see the evil emboldened to greater acts of destruction?

There is no longer any doubt what is driving the conflict in the Middle East: it is the Syrian-Iranian strategy of using proxies to strike at the US and extend Iran's fanatical influence over the region. The only question is whether we can stop tying our brains into knots and stop turning the other cheek long enough to strike back and topple these two regimes.

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Kana "Massacre" Rather Obvious Fake - J :)

From an Israel National News .com article, Evidence Mounts that Kana "Massacre" Was a Fake :

Evidence Mounts that Kana "Massacre" Was a Fake [/] 16:05 Aug 03, '06 / 9 Av 5766 [/] by Hillel Fendel

The world awoke Sunday to the news that an Israeli airstrike killed 57 Lebanese civilians, leading Israel to stop airstrikes for 2 days - but evidence indicates the "massacre" may have been a fraud.

[…] The central piece of evidence leading to this conclusion is the fact, mentioned by IDF officials from the very beginning, that the building collapsed a full seven hours after the Israel Air Force bombing. Why, then, would the residents inside not have been evacuated in the meantime? As Brig.-Gen. Amir Eshel of the Israeli Air Force told reporters Sunday night, “It is difficult for me to believe that they waited eight hours to evacuate it.” Without additional evidence, Eshel merely left open the possibility that Hizbullah terrorists, or explosives they left behind, caused the explosion.

"Indeed," writes Robert Spencer for FrontPageMagazine, "it strains credulity that not only did these Lebanese civilians remain in a house that had been bombed for eight hours, but peacefully went to sleep in it after the bombing – since the victims were all apparently sleeping, despite continuing Israeli air bombardment in the area, when the building collapsed."

Gen. Eshel also said that the building was used by Hizbullah to store explosives. This was supported by a letter by Dr. Mounir Herzallah, a southern Lebanese Shiite, who wrote that Hizbullah terrorists came to his town, dug a munitions depot and then built a school and a residence directly over it.

In addition, as Reuven Koret writes for IsraelInsider, the bombing of the area occurred in three waves. The first bombs, according to CNN correspondent Brent Sadler, did not hit the building in question, but rather landed "20 or 30 meters" away. The second strike hit targets further away, and the third strike, around 7:30 in the morning, landed over 400 meters away. The first reports of a collapsed building arrived a half-hour later. [(seven hours after the first and closest strike)]

Another CNN correspondent, Ben Wedeman, noted that there was a larger crater next to the building. He observed that the roof of the building was intact and that the building appeared not to have collapsed as a result of the Israeli strike.

Thus, the building was used to store explosives, was apparently not destroyed by the bombing, and sheltered dozens of women and children throughout a night of bombing. The identity of the victims was also not clear, except that they were not the original occupants of the building; a National Public Radio correspondent reported that they had left. "The victims were non-residents who chose to shelter in the building that night," Koret writes, and who were "'too poor' to leave the town, one resident told CNN's Wedeman. Who were these people?"

Hear Koret speak about the Hizbullah manipulation on IsraelNationalRadio.com.

As an aside, the hospital in Tyre, Lebanon, and Human Rights Watch both reported today that 28 people were killed in the Kafr Kana bombing, and not twice that number, as originally reported.

Other facts brought by Koret and Spencer:

* Sometime after dawn a call went out to journalists and rescue workers to come to the scene. Though Hizbullah has been claiming that civilians could not freely flee the scene due to Israeli destruction of bridges and roads, the journalists and rescue teams from nearby Tyre had no problem getting there.

* Lebanese rescue teams did not start evacuating the building until after the camera crews came. The absence of a real rescue effort was explained by saying that equipment was lacking. There were no scenes of live or injured people being extracted.

* There was little blood, CNN's Wedeman noted, concluding that the victims appeared to have died while they were sleeping - despite the thunderous Israeli air attacks. Rescue workers equipped with cameras were removing the bodies from one opening in the collapsed structure, and journalists were not allowed near it.

* Rescue workers carrying the victims on stretchers occasionally flipped up the blankets so that cameras could show the faces and bodies of the dead. But, Koret noted, the ashen-gray faces of the victims gave cause to think that the bodies looked like they had been dead for days.

* Photos of the rescue operation transmitted all over the world are "extremely suspicious," Spencer writes, citing work by EU Referendum showing numerous anomalies in the photos. "Most notably," he writes, "the dating of the various photos suggests that the same bodies were paraded before reporters on different occasions, each time as if they had just been pulled from the rubble. [In addition], some workers are wearing different gear in different photos, yet clearly carrying the same corpse."

* The Christian Lebanese (French-language) website LIBANOSCOPIE has charged that Hizbullah staged the entire incident in order to stimulate calls for a ceasefire, thereby staving off its destruction by Israel and Lebanese plans to rid themselves of this terrorist plague.

Spencer concludes, "Americans and Westerners are not used to dealing with carefully orchestrated and large-scale deception of this kind. It is time that it be recognized as a weapon of warfare, and an extremely potent one at that." [My ellipses and emphasis]

The "Dry Bones" Speak - J :)

The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. (Ezekiel 37:1-3 KJV)


From a Dry Bones Blog post, Kill the Jews!:

[…] The world is being drowned in an incredible flood of anti-Semitism. It's as if some demonic force is at work. As if we were in a planet-wide battle between the cosmic forces of good and evil. It's practically supernatural. [/] So if we're going to discuss the supernatural I propose that we examine the following weirdness:

[…] When the war broke out, religious Jews began reciting Psalm 83.
A rabbi, being interviewed on an Israeli TV news show called on viewers to read Psalm 83. [/] The Chief Rabbinate's governing council in Jerusalem announced that at 6:00 p.m. (Israel time) every day, Psalm 83 is to be recited simultaneously by Jewish communities all over the world. [/] Turns out that Psalm 83 calls out for Divine help to fight off an attempt to wipe Israel off the map. [/] Here's the text of Psalm 83.

So what's weird? [/] Archaeologists have just announced the amazing discovery of an ancient book of psalms by a construction worker who was digging in a bog in Ireland two weeks ago. The book, which was buried and lay hidden under centuries of mud, has been dated to the years 800-1000. Trinity College manuscripts expert Bernard Meehan said it was the first discovery of an Irish early medieval document in two centuries...

Oh, and the book was found "frozen open" to Psalm 83... With all other pages stuck shut. [/] More from CNN [/] Comments? […] [My ellipses and emphasis]


Some additional information from the CNN article just linked:

"This is really a miracle find," said Pat Wallace, director of the National Museum of Ireland, which has the book stored in refrigeration. Researchers will conduct years of painstaking analysis before putting the book on public display. [/] "There's two sets of odds that make this discovery really way out," Wallace said. "First of all, it's unlikely that something this fragile could survive buried in a bog at all, and then for it to be unearthed and spotted before it was destroyed is incalculably more amazing."

He said an engineer was digging up bogland last week to create commercial potting soil somewhere in Ireland's midlands when "just beyond the bucket of his bulldozer, he spotted something." Wallace would not specify where the book was found because a team of archaeologists is still exploring the site. [/] "The owner of the bog has had dealings with us in past and is very much in favor of archaeological discovery and reporting it," Wallace said. [/] Crucially, he said, the bog owner covered up the book with damp soil. Had it been left exposed overnight, he said, "it could have dried out and just vanished, blown away." [/] The book was found open to a page describing, in Latin script, Psalm 83, in which God hears complaints of other nations' attempts to wipe out the name of Israel. […] [My ellipses and emphasis]


The bones are dry, that is, dead, until the time the prophecy is fulfilled. But the Book is not dry. Inasmuch as it is living:

For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12 ASV)

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Great Joy in Little Havana - J :)

Update: There are thousands of Cuban-Americans out on the streets of Miami right now, all of them celebrating the possible demise of fidel castro. All of them cheering and carrying Cuban flags alongside Old Glory. You can here the shouts of "Libertad! Libertad! Libertad!' in the background on the news reports. It is, indeed, a joyous occassion. But I'd like all of you to know that behind each celebratory scream, behind every smile, behind every feeling of unbridled joy and desperate happiness, there are 47 years of tears. Forty seven years of frustration. Of anger. Of pain. Of loss. Of separated families and drowned brothers and sisters. These celebrations have been paid for in blood. And they are more than well deserved.

Viva Cuba libre coño!


As reported on the blogosphere at Babalu Blog .com:

August 01, 2006 [/] Take a deep breath

Im on about an hour's sleep. Spent the night in front of TVs and the computer with radio stations blaring in the background. Our phones, the landline and three cellphones, havent stopped ringing yet. I'm still unable to make a connection with contacts in Cuba, either via telephone or internet.

We probably wont see much news about fidel castro - save for the standard MSM fluff pieces on his life and how he saved Cuba with free healthcare and education and all that - coming out of the island for a few days. There were reports that some Cubans had taken to the streets in Havana but these are all unconfirmed and possibly incorrect.

Let's all keep in mind that this "transition" has not taken place overnight. The Cuban government have slowly been weening the Cuban people of fidel castro for weeks now, publishing numerous articles and editorials in Granma, Prensa Latina, and all other government news sources, getting the public ready for the change in leadership.

Id like to ask, once again, if there are any folks out there who have contacted family or friends in Cuba to email me and let me know what theyve reported. All names will be kept confidential.

I should note, for those of you that arent very familiar with fidel castro's deaths, that this is the first time where actual reports on castro's health were made publicly to the Cuban people via Cuban media. Thus, sparking even more speculation as to the fate of the bearded bastard.

If you guys think last nights imromptu celebrations caused by the news of the relinquishing of power were big, just wait until the news that the old goat is dead top be confirmed. Even clocks will stop in Miami that day.

Posted by Val Prieto at 07:20 AM | Habla (3) | Leenkaso (0)

July 31, 2006 [/] fidel castro Death Watch, Take 2846 [/] BREAKING NEWS:

Local news is reporting that fidel castro has "temporarily" handed power of the communist nation over to his brother Raul. Details are sketchy at the moment, but reports are that he was suffering from "intestinal ailments."

Maybe Presidents Bush's visit to Miami today gave the bearded bastard a bad case of runs. Whatever the outcome, lets all hope castro is presently wallowing in severe pain.

Remember folks, in the event that the dictator has finally begun to sing El Manisero, the public will not be informed until all elements of the government are in place to keep the Cuban people under strict and total control.

Ill be posting updates as news develops.

Update: All local stations are dispatching reporters to Little Havana as we speak. It is being reported that after the surgery, fidel castro would be out of commission for two months. Anyone that has had an elderly family member in the hospital knows that their frailty can and does lead to complications. Again, let's all hope that the complications are many and their outcomes fatal.

Update: Lots of talking heads on local tv now, lots of speculations and what ifs being tossed around. I feel I must urge everyone to take this news - however absolutely grand it is - with a grain of salt. castro has "died" many times before, only to then reappear like genital herpes. Let's all keep the champagne chilled, but let's not be popping any corks just yet.

Update: People have taken to the streets in Little Havana in Miami. Calle Ocho is packed with Cubans celebrating the news. Our phones here havent stopped ringing and we're unable to communicate with anyone in Cuba. Versailles Restaturant is packed with folks honking, screaming and waving flags. My wife insists that castro is dead.

On a personal note, I truly hope the bearded dictator bleeds, as Henry put it to me just now, like a stuck pig and that today, July 31, 2006 is the beginning of Cuba's future.

This may not turn out ultimately to be the occassion for me to write 'The Post", but at least I know now that day is getting closer rather quickly. Id like to ask you all out there to collect your thoughts about the death of the tyrant and what it means to you, to your loved ones and to Cuba. Write them down and send them to me. On the day that bastard finally kicks the damned bucket, Id like to post all of these so that everyone that comes here on that wonderful day gets the truth straight from all of you.

The Mrs. has just made a colada of cafe as I know I'll be here all night. There will be no sleep in Miami tonight.

Update: Good friend and blogger Enrique Rubio will be on Notiuno radio in a few minutes from Puerto Rico discussing this breaking news. You can listen live here.

Update: One guy at Calle Ocho being interviewed by local news said everything that needs to be said: "While we celebrate here, I urge the Cuban people in Cuba to take to the streets. This is the opportune moment. Now is the time."

Update: We have been unable to contact anyone on the island as yet. if any readers out there have communicated with their families or loved ones in Cuba, please shoot me an email and let me know what youve been told. Ill withhold all names for their safety.

Update: Congreswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is urging all Cubans in Miami with boats to NOT attempt to go to Cuba to bring family members over or for any other purpose. All vessels will be intercepted at sea.

Update: Bird Road in Miami is now reportedly closed because of the impromptu celebrations. WFOR has streaming video of the celebrations in Miami here.

Update: There are thousands of Cuban-Americans out on the streets of Miami right now, all of them celebrating the possible demise of fidel castro. All of them cheering and carrying Cuban flags alongside Old Glory. You can here the shouts of "Libertad! Libertad! Libertad!' in the background on the news reports. It is, indeed, a joyous occassion. But I'd like all of you to know that behind each celebratory scream, behind every smile, behind every feeling of unbridled joy and desperate happiness, there are 47 years of tears. Forty seven years of frustration. Of anger. Of pain. Of loss. Of separated families and drowned brothers and sisters. These celebrations have been paid for in blood. And they are more than well deserved.

Viva Cuba libre coño!

[…] Delicious Irony Update: Aint it unbelievably ironic that today, of all days, President George W. Bush was in Miami, in Little Havana, and stopped to enjoy un cafecito cubano? Today. Of all days. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Monday, July 31, 2006

"Making" the "News" for Hezbollah -J :)

WARNING: Photographs at the link are graphic. They depict the extended desecration of the bodies of dead children for terrorist propaganda purposes.

(Links may also be found at Lucianne.com and Rush Limbaugh's site.)

From a EU Referendum Blog illustrated post, Milking it?:

Monday, July 31, 2006 [/] Milking it?

For an update on this post, see here.

Certainly, the photographs are distressing, and indeed they are meant to be. As this piece tells us:

Until recent years, images of civilian casualties in wars often took days to appear in newspapers, but now they can be captured and transmitted around the world to newspaper Web sites, where they are posted immediately, adding to the shock value that sketchy words by reporters often cannot capture. This happened again Sunday morning in the case of the Israeli air strike on the Lebanese village of Qana that left dozens dead, reportedly at least half of them children sleeping in their beds overnight.

The photos, taken by The Associated Press, Reuters, and others, showed bodies in the rubble, or being taken away; survivors digging or wailing


But the photographers, it seems, are not too fussy about how they go about "adding to the shock value". These two sequences illustrate the extent to which photographers on the scene are prepared to ensure that the "shock value" is maximised.

In this first of the two sequences, we see a shot by Reuters and taken by Adnan Hajj, timed at 2:21 pm. It has the caption:

Rescuers pull the body of a toddler victim of an Israeli air raid on Qana that killed more than 60 people, the majority of them women and children, in south Lebanon, July 30, 2006.


Note the "rescue worker" in the foreground, complete with olive green military-style helmet and fluorescent jacket, with what appears to be a flack jacket underneath. His glasses, "designer stubble", blue tee-shirt and jeans make him quite a distinctive figure. Note also, he has a radio in his jacker pocket and he has bare hands, things which becomes relevant later.

The next shot in this sequence is credited to AP's Kevin Frayer. Timed at 4.09 pm, it shows the same "rescue" worker, and has this caption:

Lebanese Red Cross and Civil Defense workers carry the body of a small child covered in dust from the rubble of his home that was hit in an Israeli missile strike in the village of Qana, east of the port city of Tyre, Lebanon, Sunday. Lebanese Red Cross officials said 56 people died in the Israeli assault on the village, including 34 children. Rescuers dug through the debris to remove dozens of bodies.


This is horrific, but a scrutiny of the framing does suggest that the subject is offering the victim to the photographer.

Just in case you missed it, however, we get another view, courtesy of Reuter's Adnan Hajj, with a time given of 4:30 pm - some 20 minutes after the first shot. The caption reads:

A rescuer carries the body of a toddler victim of an Israeli air raid on Qana that killed more than 60 people, the majority of them women and children, in south Lebanon, July 30, 2006.


Interestingly, in this sequence, the pocket radio is missing. And, although the positioning of the child looks the same, the angle of the shot looks to be about ninety degrees from the first, but in each case, the "worker" is facing towards the camera. The shots are clearly posed.

But now, timed at 12:45 pm, an hour and twenty minutes before the child's body is pictured being pulled from the ruins, we get a picture from AP's Kevin Frayer of the same child's body being paraded by our ubiquitous helmeted rescue worker.

Lebanese Red Cross and Civil Defense workers carry the body of a small child covered in dust from the rubble of his home that was hit in an Israeli missile strike in the village of Qana, east of the port city of Tyre, Lebanon, Sunday, July 30, 2006. Lebanese Red Cross officials said 56 people died in the Israeli assault on the village, including 34 children. Rescuers dug through the debris to remove dozens of bodies.


At 12.53 pm, after an interval of eight minutes, Frayer photographs the child's body again, from a different angle. The caption is the same. This time, though, our helmeted worker is showing some distress, which was absent in the previous photograph.

The photographs show the characters moving down the hill, with little distance between the scenes, which suggest that they have been taken sequentially and spontaneously. But they have not. The eight minute interval has allowed a crowd to gather around "green helmet". Furthermore, "orange jacket" has switched from left to right. Note also the tee-shirted man in the centre of the picture.

Then, timed at 1:01 pm, eight minutes on, we get another picture from Frayer. Once again, the caption is the same but this time the child's body is being paraded aloft by our ubiquitous helmeted rescue worker, but the tee-shirted character had moved from centre to right and is taking his turn to displaying his emotion to the camera. The UN soldier in the background has turned away, confirming a time lapse. The scene is clearly staged, as have been those preceding it.

Next, we have the second of the two sequences, the first shot of which, timed at 7.21 am shows a dead girl in an ambulance. Taken by AP, the caption reads:

Among others, the body of a child recovered under the rubble of a demolished building that was struck by Israeli war plane missiles at the village of Qana near the southern Lebanon city of Tyre, is placed in an ambulance Sunday July 30.


In the next frame, we have the same girl, this time apparently being placed in the ambulance. Also taken by AP,this time by Mohammed Zaatari the caption here reads:

A Lebanese rescuer carries the body of a young girl recovered from under the rubble of a demolished building that was struck by Israeli warplane missiles at the village of Qana, near the southern city of Tyre, Lebanon, Sunday, July 30, 2006. Dozens of civilians, including many children, were killed Sunday in an Israeli airstrike that flattened houses in this southern Lebanon village - the deadliest attack in 19 days of fighting.


Intriguingly, though, the dateline given is 10.25 am, three hours after she has already been photographed in the ambulance.

Also from AP's Nasser Nasser, we see the same worker, showing obvious distress, carrying the same girl. But now he is wearing his fluorescent jacket and helmet and has acquired latex gloves. He has also got his radio back. The photograph is timed at 10.44 am and the caption reads:

A civil defense worker carries the body of Lebanese child recovered from the rubble of a demolished building that was struck by an Israeli airstrike at the village of Qana near the southern Lebanon city of Tyre, Sunday, July 30, 2006. Israeli missiles struck this southern Lebanese village early Sunday, flattening houses on top of sleeping residents. The Lebanese Red Cross said the airstrike, in which at least 34 children were killed, pushed the overall Lebanese death toll to more than 500.


Here we are now, same "worker" and same girl, but this time it is done for the benefit of EPA, the photographer, Mohamed Messara, the worker rushing towards a uniformed Red Cross worker. This caption (without a time) reads:

A rescue worker carries the body of a Lebanese girl after an Israeli air strike on the village of Qana, east of the southern port city of Tyre, on Sunday 30 July 2006. At least 51 people were killed, many of them children, and several others wounded in the raid Sunday, witnesses and rescue workers said.


But now, for the benefit of AFP, the photgraph taken by Nicolas Asfouri, we have the same unfortunate child being handled by another worker, the original worker showing in the background, having passed the casualty on. The timing of the photograph is 7.16 pm (now apparently corrected to 6:46 am) and the caption reads:

A rescue worker puts the body of a dead girl on a gurney after Israeli air strikes on the southern Lebanese village of Qana. Israel agreed to temporarily halt air strikes in south Lebanon a day after 52 people were killed, many of them sleeping children, when Israeli warplanes bombarded the Lebanese village of Qana, triggering global outrage and warnings of retribution for alleged "war crimes".


Remember, however, earlier in the sequence, the girl is being carried to the ambulance, by the other worker, sans jacket, helmet and gloves.

Finally, in this sequence, we get another shot from AP's Nasser Nasser, again without a timing but with this caption:

A civil defence worker carries a body of a young Lebanese child recovered from the rubble of a demolished building that was struck by Israeli war plane missiles at the village of Qana near the southern Lebanon city of Tyre, Sunday, July 30, 2006.


Whatever else, the event in Qana was a human tragedy. But the photographs do not show it honestly. Rather, they have been staged for effect, exploiting the victims in an unwholesome manner. In so doing, they are no longer news photographs - they are propaganda. And, whoever said the camera cannot lie forgot that photographers can and do. Those lies have spread throughout the world by now and will be in this morning's newspapers, accepted as real by the millions who view them.

The profession of photo-journalism thereby is sadly diminished by them, and the trust in those who took them and in those who carried them is misplaced. Truly, we are dealing with loathesome creatures. [My ellipses and emphasis]

And Now, The Good News

Let us give thanks to the Father of mercies, the God of all comfort.

From a Real Clear Politics .com article, And Now, The Good News
(Linked by Lucianne.com (L dot) Daily Must Reads. Referenced source of concepts used in article: Thomas Barnett.):

July 31, 2006 [/] And Now, The Good News [/] By Michael Barone

The world seems aswirl. Where do we stand today?

Let's use the analysis of bestselling author Thomas Barnett, who divides the world into a functioning "Core" (North America, Europe, East Asia, rising China and India) and a nonfunctional "Gap" (the Middle East, most of Africa, part of the Andean chain in South America). Barnett argues that our task is to expand the economically interconnected core and establish what he calls connectivity to shrink the gap.

How are we doing? Actually, not badly. Let's look at the hot spots.

First, the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon. It looks as if the Israelis are encountering more military resistance than expected, and it's not clear that they can wipe out Hezbollah as an effective force. Nor is it clear that the United States can install some combination of European and Lebanese military force to control southern Lebanon. But if -- a big "if" -- the Israelis succeed and Hezbollah is reduced to impotence, that would amount to a significant shrinking of the gap. If not, we're back where we started.

Second, the collapse last week of the Doha round of trade negotiations. They might be revived later, but in the meantime we've missed a chance to open up North America and Europe to agricultural exports from Third World countries that desperately need dollars and euros. That's a shame. But the zone of free trade continues to expand as the United States, during this administration, negotiates one free-trade agreement after another -- Oman and Jordan, Central America and Australia, Peru and Colombia. All are increasing connectivity and shrinking the gap.

Third, immigration. The bill sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, with border security and free-market guest-worker provisions, has some small chance of passing the Senate and House. A law that regularizes illegal immigrants would close the internal gap we have with 12 million illegals.

Fourth, Latin America. Venezuela's oil-rich demagogue Hugo Chavez continues to pal around with dictators and tries to stir up trouble. But Latin American voters have been rejecting Chavezism. The victories of anti-Chavez candidates in Peru, Colombia and Mexico in the past few months show that irresponsible demagogy is not popular in the region. Connectivity is increasing, not decreasing, to our south.

Fifth, China and India, with one third of the world's population, continue to have scorching economic growth -- 11 percent in China, 8 percent in India. And they're growing increasingly interconnected with the thriving economies of the core. Hundreds of millions of people are rising out of poverty, and despite high oil prices, we have solid economic growth in North America and Latin America and even some growth in sclerotic Europe. The world economy has never been in better shape.

The cloud. Do we still face problems?

Sure. Iran, to name one -- though its ally Hezbollah seems to have overreached. North Korea, to name another. Baghdad is a mess with sectarian violence. Islamist terrorists continue to plan mayhem against us, and in Europe, Muslim immigrants threaten to impose their values on free and liberal societies. But as we ponder these problems, we need to take a deep breath and reflect on the larger picture, as Thomas Barnett does in his blog (www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog):

"Plenty of people look at the world today and see only decline and violence and chaos since 9/11. I am amazed at how little the Functioning Core of globalization has suffered since that date: no real violence or threats of same amidst our ranks, slow but steady political integration that's still not keeping up with the economic bonds that are booming, spotty but emerging sense of shared security values, and the usual pinpricks of harm inflicted by terror and God, but all in all, nothing really bad despite all this 'tumult' centered in the Middle East and the rising price of oil."


Even so, most Americans continue to moan and groan about our situation, and to yearn for the holiday from history we seemed to be enjoying in the 1990s. As Barnett argues, "Time is on our side, as are all the major dynamics that count -- energy, investments, demographics, sheer firepower, enduring ingenuity, strength of our societies, our enduring resilience." With fits and starts, the core is expanding, connectivity is increasing, and the gap is closing. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Thursday, July 27, 2006

"Peace Now" Lesson Learned??? - J :)

Esther 8:11 KJV Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey,

From a New York Daily News article, Peace, the formidable foe:

Peace, the formidable foe [/] Thursday, July 27th, 2006

In every generation they will come to kill us, the Torah instructs.

And the Chosen People too often choose not to believe it.

So now with the greatest army in their chosen land, Jews live in underground shelters, rocketed by those they chose to ignore in the name of Peace Now.

All they got was war now, and the nation will survive, once again. The question is, will the peaceniks survive and live again to help destroy their one and only Jewish state?

If they don’t get the message that everything they have done has led them to this, the next time might be the last time for Israel.

Now, fortunately, for the first time, Israel has an American President who backs its efforts in the war against terrorism. George W. Bush, unlike his daddy, unlike every American President since the rebirth of Israel in 1948, is not preventing Israel from attempting to destroy its Arab enemies.

The Arabs give no credit for this; they blame the U.S. not only for "creating Israel," but for enabling the Jewish state to keep the Palestinians in an "apartheid" state.

It’s all baloney. America did absolutely nothing to create Israel — Harry Truman recognized it, but immediately placed an embargo on it, while the British continually armed the Arabs.

From then on, in every event — the War of Independence of 1948; the Sinai campaign; Six-Day War; the Yom Kippur War; the Lebanon war in 1982, and the intifadehs of 1989 and 2000. Each time, the U.S. stopped Israel from completing a victory. The result: Israel never lost a war, Israel never won a war.

The turning point was the Oslo Accords in 1993, resulting in the great handshake at the White House garden, when Bill Clinton happily got Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to make "peace" with then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

This was the politics of hope at its apex. It was the beginning of the end for peace. All it did was embolden the Palestinians, who understood that Israel was willing to surrender its true hegemony over them, in return for nothing but promises that proved less than the talk of love from the mouth of a hooker.

Finally, in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, without conditions, left Lebanon, both betraying the Southern Lebanese Army and leaving Hezbollah with its rocket capability.

This surrender to terrorism was widely praised by the Israeli Labor Party, led by Shimon Peres and Amir Peretz, who is now the Israeli minister of defense.

The irony is great. Those like Peres and Peretz, who organized the Peace Now movement to move Israel out of Lebanon, now want the nation to destroy Hezbollah.

Well, maybe something good will happen. Maybe the peaceniks will understand that appeasement never worked, never will.

Only if the Jews, at long last, believe that the Torah had it right: In every generation, they will come to kill us. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Exterminate the Vermin???

From my MS Notebook .LOG file of notable quotations:

8:15 AM 7/26/2006 [/] In recent days I have visited embittered residents of the north [of Israel], and the message I have been hearing has been unilateral: We are prepared to withstand these difficult times, provided the government carries out the destruction of Hizbullah to the very end. - Ephraim Sneh, M.K., ynet [My emphasis.]

The dragging on of the Terror War is the worst possible future for all concerned.

In war, there is no substitute for victory.

And, in war, nothing succeeds like excess.

More from Mr. Sneh, member of the Israeli legislature, and a former commander of Israeli occupation forces in southern Lebanon:

From a ynetnews.com article, Go all the way:

14:03 , 07.23.06 [/] War in North [/] Go all the way [/] If the IDF doesn't finish the job now, residents of the north will have suffered in vain [/] [by] Ephraim Sneh

Hizbullah was created by Iran as part of the ayatollahs' overall strategy. The organization has two principle purposes: One, to take control of Lebanon in order to turn it into an Islamic republic supported by Iran. And two: To right Israel and to present a strategic threat to this country and to Israeli society. Iran wants to "blanket" Israel with missiles and rockets, from Gaza in the south the West Bank in the center of the country, and from Lebanon in the south.

When Iranian President Ahmadinejad speaks about destroying Israel, he means exactly that. And before he obtains nuclear weapons, he is trying to hammer and weaken Israeli society with various types of rockets and missiles. Therefore, the war against Hizbullah is part of the wider war between Israel and the evil, hate-filled regime in Tehran that openly aspires to destroy Israel.

Complete the mission

It is clear why Israel cannot cease its fire in Lebanon before its mission is complete. The mission is to destroy Hizbullah's infrastructure in Lebanon and to push the organization away from the Galilee once-and-for-all. If we complete this mission, it will be our first victory over Iran and will constitute an unmistakable message that we have no intention to shy away from Iran's nuclear and terrorist threat.

It will also be a lesson to other Western democracies, who are afraid to take on Tehran, about what needs to be done vis-Ã -vis Iran.

For six years Iran has stockpiled rockets and missiles in south Lebanon and managed to create a balance of fear with Israel. The threat of hundreds of rockets on Israeli settlements has forced Israel to restrain itself in the face of repeated provocations along the Lebanese border. I believe the high price a ground war with Hizbullah would surely exact from IDF soldiers deterred previous Israeli governments from taking such action.

Strong home front

The decision not to hold back after the kidnapping of two soldiers and the killing of their comrades was the correct decision. There is no way to root out Hizbullah by stopping the operation with some political agreement that could restore the status quo in south Lebanon. Were that to happen, the suffering of residents in northern Israel would have been in vain.

In recent days I have visited embittered residents of the north, and the message I have been hearing has been unilateral: We are prepared to withstand these difficult times, provided the government carries out the destruction of Hizbullah to the very end.

Told you so

And on a personal note: In 2000 I warned against a unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, because of the vacuum that would be created by an IDF pullout. I said that Hizbullah would take over the area in all its force, and would deploy opposite our settlements in the north.

This is exactly what happened. Now, the IDF is correcting the mistake. I warned that the message we would be sending to the Arab world would be that it is more worthwhile to draw Israeli blood than to negotiate with us. This also came to pass.

Four months after the pullout from Lebanon the second intifada broke out. We lost more than 1,000. I hope we have learned the bitter lesson.

MK Ephraim Sneh is the leader of the Labor Party Knesset faction and was the commander of IDF forces in south Lebanon during Operation Peace for Galilee [My ellipses and emphasis]

Innocent Civilian Victims???

From my MS Notebook .LOG file of notable quotations:

6:29 AM 7/23/2006 [/] We need a new vocabulary to reflect the realities of modern warfare. A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: "the continuum of civilianality." Though cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished. - Alan Dershowitz

Dershowitz is a Harvard law professor, not a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but rather one of the chief victims of isolation in the Vast Left Wing Bubble.

However, he stumbles into the truth about the "innocent civilian victims" of those who are providentially authorized to bear the sword, such as the armed forces of Israel.

(I am reminded of one of the greatest book titles of the last century, "Confessions of a Guilty Bystander". (By Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk and best selling author.))

More about Dershowitz's useful concept of "the continuum of civilianality" is linked and partially copied with comments from my favorite blog below.

From a Captain's Quarters blog post, A 'Continuum Of Civilianality'?:

July 22, 2006 [/] A 'Continuum Of Civilianality'?

Alan Dershowitz has made a career out of his contrarian rhetoric. Usually a firebrand liberal, he caused a huge controversy -- and enjoyed it -- when he suggested after 9/11 that torture may have some necessity in the fight against Islamofascist terrorists. He continued challenging conventional wisdom today in a Los Angeles Times column that called into question the status of civilians in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories:

THE NEWS IS filled these days with reports of civilian casualties, comparative civilian body counts and criticism of Israel, along with Hezbollah, for causing the deaths, injuries and "collective punishment" of civilians. But just who is a "civilian" in the age of terrorism, when militants don't wear uniforms, don't belong to regular armies and easily blend into civilian populations?

We need a new vocabulary to reflect the realities of modern warfare. A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: "the continuum of civilianality." Though cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished.

There is a vast difference — both moral and legal — between a 2-year-old who is killed by an enemy rocket and a 30-year-old civilian who has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets. Both are technically civilians, but the former is far more innocent than the latter. There is also a difference between a civilian who merely favors or even votes for a terrorist group and one who provides financial or other material support for terrorism.

Finally, there is a difference between civilians who are held hostage against their will by terrorists who use them as involuntary human shields, and civilians who voluntarily place themselves in harm's way in order to protect terrorists from enemy fire.


I suspect that Professor Dershowitz will have some problems with his usual philosophical and political allies with this argument, although he certainly makes a good point. Most wars do not have bright delineation between civilians and combatants. In Eastern Europe, partisans abounded throughout the areas dominated by the Nazis, some of whom did a lot of damage to German military personnel. Their standard response was to conduct reprisals to the civilians they claimed supported the partisans, usually on a 10-1 basis for German casualties. The nadir of this policy came in the Czechoslovakian village of Lidice after the assassination of Reinhold "Hangman" Heydrich, the original author of the Final Solution and a brutal SS leader. The Nazis killed all of the men in the village, sent most of the women into labor camps, dispersed the children, and razed the town to the dust.

However, Dershowitz is not discussing reprisals against unarmed civilians, which are rightly war crimes. He wants a distinction made between civilians killed in the course of battles as to their involvement with the engagement, especially in terms of terrorist attacks. That sounds good in theory, and one could easily apply the same concept in Iraq -- where many of those killed during battles harbored insurgents, if not actively assisted them in targeting Americans or other Iraqis. One could also apply the same thought process in Afghanistan, and pretty much any place where terrorists stage attacks that get military responses.

In practice, however, it becomes much more difficult to do. One cannot interrogate dead people, and the bombs tend to destroy most of the evidence along with the civilians. Witnesses, such as neighbors and family, tend to see their loved ones as complete victims. It would be hard to imagine a Lebanese woman telling CNN that her dead husband often helped Hezbollah move arms or ammunition and therefore his death was justified.

Dershowitz obviously understands this. What he wants is the media to recognize the "continuum of civilianality" when reporting on war in general, and the Israeli conflicts specifically. I would find it helpful if the media remembered that the reason Israel attacks residential areas is because Hezbollah hides its operations in those areas to keep Israel from attacking them. That doesn't reflect on the status of the civilians in the area; it puts the blame on the casualties on the correct party -- the ones who base their attacks and hide their command and control positions among civilians.

His point about the complicity of civilians in these attacks should be well taken, although I doubt they will get much support. The better policy would be to focus on which party of the war attempts to minimize civilian casualties, and which sidem deliberately targets them for their own political purposes. The media should report more on which side wears uniforms and acts distinctly from civilian populations, and which side wears mufti and deliberately uses civilian populations as shields against counterattacks. That way when civilian deaths get discussed, we can have some moral clarity on which side gets the blame for it.

Posted by Captain Ed at July 22, 2006 10:04 PM [My ellipses and emphasis]