Hezbollah Fighters Did Not Systematically Embed Themselves With Civilians in Lebanon

A little while back, certain commentators were jumping all over a report released by Human Rights Watch (HRW) regarding the war in Lebanon last summer. According to reports:

"Human Rights Watch's report said it found numerous rockets fired by Hezbollah in which there was no apparent legitimate military target, indicating civilians were deliberately attacked.

The report also said Hezbollah's justifications that the rocket attacks were a response to Israeli fire into southern Lebanon and aimed at drawing Israel into a ground war had no legal basis under the rules of war.

"Hezbollah's explanations for why it fired rockets at Israel's civilian population utterly fail to justify these unlawful attacks," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "Hezbollah, like Israel, must respect the laws of war."

This was given as evidence, by the usual suspects (ie USS Neverdock), that Hezbollah was the only guilty party in the conduct of the war. Amongst the many other accusations of bloggers such as these, were claims that the reporting of civilian casualties in Lebanon was grossly exaggerated. Marc at USS Neverdock has gone so far as to call these claims 'lies'. Now a new report by HRW has exposed these counter-claims as lies themselves. According to The Guardian:

Israel was accused yesterday of firing indiscriminately during last year's 34-day war in Lebanon in a report by Human Rights Watch which challenged Israel's claim that the high number of civilian casualties resulted from Hizbullah shielding itself among the Lebanese population.

In a 249-page investigation, the New York-based group said its research showed that even though the militants were also guilty of serious violations of the laws of war, there was no evidence that they systematically fought from among civilians.

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, dismissed Israel's claim to have killed 600 Hizbullah fighters. He said the best estimate was that there were 250 Hizbullah fighters among the 1,109 Lebanese deaths. About 160 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed.

So, the levels of civilian deaths would appear to be accurate after all. Not only that, it would appear that the oft-repeated claims of elements of the mainstream media (that embedding themselves within the civilian population was part of a systematic policy) was entirely fabricated in order to support Israeli bombing raids. This report was itself buried on page 8 of the international edition of The Guardian (I would be interested to know where it was placed in the domestic edition).

Of course, we shouldn't expect this report to make an appearance on right-wing blogs, unless they attempt to discredit it. This is the problem with many right-wing commentators when they use human rights organisations' reports to support their arguments. They spend too often discrediting them, it seems hard to believe that they would then take the report as gospel just because it 'supports' their tenuous arguments. There will, no doubt, be further attacks on HRW on blogs like USS Neverdock which rather undermines their arguments when they use them as evidence. Who decides when a report by a human rights organisation is worthy or not? You either support their findings in their entirety, or you do not. You cannot pick and choose which ones are valid based on political prejudice. Those that do, can never be taken seriously as a political commentator. But then I guess these bloggers have no intention of being treated as serious commentators, they are merely interested in spreading one-sided propaganda.

The Merits of Debate in The World of Blogs

I have been pretty critical of right-wingers in the past on this blog, justifiably so in some cases. However, kudos must go to Martin Simms, a guy who has been engaged in debate with me over the appropriate response to the situation in Iran. Suffice it to say, he tends towards the pre-emptive strike end of the spectrum. Although the debate was heated, sometimes perhaps too heated, it ended on good terms. Martin ended the debate with the following words:

Thank you for a wonderful debate, it was both educational and inspirational. Take care...Martin Sims Homepage 04.09.07 - 12:29 am #

A gracious an satisfactory way to end a debate. Martin was also kind enough to send me an email about the debate. He wrote:

Your points are shared by many, as are mine, but it is only through debate that reasonable people can come to understand where those with differing opinions are coming from. I do not think you are ignorant or evil because of your point of view, and I certainly hope that you do not think that I am ignorant or evil because of my point of view. I learned from our discussion as I trust you did, and it is just such an expansion of vision that I am most interested in fostering in myself and others...

Now, putting politics aside for one moment, this is what I truly respect. Many bloggers out there are not keen on opening up to a public debate. There are those out there who seek to shut down debate as it would expose their rather tenuous grip on the subject matter. Coincidentally, at around the same time as this debate, I discovered that I had been banned from commenting on another site, USS Neverdock. I have sent many comments to Marc at Neverdock in order to make a few points about the many things he posts on his site. Disappointingly, instead of engaging in debate, he simply refuses to publish anything that contradicts his viewpoint. That this amounts to a certain degree of totalitarianism (something he claims to oppose), seems entirely lost on him.

I would have far greater respect for bloggers such as Marc if they spent the time to explain their views. The fact that they broadly ignore anything that opposes their world view speaks volumes about how fearful they are that their arguments will be exposed and ridiculed in public. Instead of exposing themselves to scrutiny, they prefer to avoid the possibility altogether by indulging in censorship. What are they so afraid of? Are there views so under-developed that they cannot defend them against such scrutiny?? I sympathise to a degree, it can be very tempting to delete comments that you cannot argue against, but to do so suggests a level of intellectual bankruptcy. I try to employ a policy of allowing all comments on my site, unless they go over a very distinct line. I have deleted and banned one commenter who made anti-Semitic remarks about September 11th. I have also deleted defamatory remarks that claim that I am anti-Semitic. As far as I am concerned, along as the commenter doesn't indulge in racism or anti-Semitism, I will not delete their posts, no matter how deranged their point of view. For me that is the only way civilisation can develop. To debate and to argue different perspectives. Anything else is giving in to the ideals of totalitarianism.

USS Neverdock - Tenuous Link of the Week

UK - Scouts banned from eating burgers and bangers

by Muslims.


"Clare Haines, a spokesman for the Scout Association, said: "It was really to do with religion that we were not able to provide sausages and burgers and all that kind of food.

"We have been very careful to make sure food is provided to everybody's tastes and beliefs, so no one feels left out. "


No, Clare, it has to do with one religion, Islam, which is imposing its will on western civilization. And thanks to people like you they are succeeding.

As for "one feels left out," what about the non Muslims who wanted a hot dog Clare? What about them? They are being denied because of jihadist appeasers like you.
Labels: Islam



Link posted by Marc @ 11:48 AM Main Page Digg This! Comments Trackback

Mmmm yeah, must be those pesky Muslims. Can't be anything to do with Jews or Hindus, could it? I mean, it's not as if they have any special dietary requirements, do they?

Email Your Examples of BBC Bias

Sometimes, a troll around the nutty blogs can be a great help. Mark at USS Neverdock (who still hasn't published my comments - little bit of censorship there, naughty, naughty) has the following comment on his blog:

From Eureferendum

Tory MP, Bob Spink, has seized the moment to table an early day motion (EDM) in the House of Commons, broadening out the debate to remind members that there are bigger issues at stake than the petty corruption of rigging phone-in contests and the like

Spink is asking for examples of BBC bias and he can contacted here

spinkr@parliament.uk


http://eureferendum.blogspot.com...on-of- beeb.html
will 07.19.07 - 2:26 pm #

So, the Conservatives are asking for examples of BBC bias are they? Well, I like to fulfil my duty to society so I will be emailing Mr Spink to give him a few examples, like this one and this one. I would heartily recommend taking Will's advice and emailing Mr Spink with as many examples of the BBC's right-wing bias as you can find. If you get a response, please forward it to me and, with your permission, I will post it here alongside any reply that I receive. Just in case you don't get the point, email him here:

spinkr@parliament.uk

A Few Brief Points......

Ten Percent has a post on the latest revelation regarding the Blair/Murdoch axis.

Is anyone else bored shitless of the whole self-righteous BBC bullshit being spouted by the media at the moment? Does anyone honestly believe that the Mail, Sun, ITV, Telegraph etc etc haven't done the same in the past???? Of course they have, in time they will be found out. For now, it's just another dull feeding frenzy stoked by dim-witted columnists and low grade bloggers.

USS Neverdock - A Trip Through The Archives

After re-discovering the delights of USS Neverdock, I couldn't help but have a quick look at some of the class moments from Mark's superb site. I didn't have to look too far back to witness the hilarity within. Take this example from today:

In case you think these deceptions are limited to recent events or the UK, the BBC's own people admit the BBC lies in its reporting from Iraq.

Yes, apparently they do. Just ask the Officer serving in Iraq who wrote and complained about the BBC's coverage of the war:

I am a serving British Army officer with operational experience in a number of theatres. I am concerned regarding the effect of your recent reports from Baghdad. I have been forwarded the correspondence between yourself and David Edwards of medialens.org, and would like to highlight that it is not merely medialens users, who are concerned about embedded coverage with the US Army. The intentions and continuing effects of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq have been questioned by too few people in the mainstream media and political parties, primarily only the Guardian and Independent, and the Liberal Democrats, respectively.

There is a widespread, and well-sourced, belief based on both experience and evidence, in both the British military and academia, that the US is not "just in Iraq to keep the peace, regardless of what the troops on the ground believe. It is in Iraq to establish a client state amenable to the requirements of US realpolitik in a key, oil-rich region. To doubt this is to be ignorant of the motives that have guided US foreign policy in the post-war period* and a mountain of evidence since 2003." (quote from medialens)

That the invasion was 'illegal, immoral and unwinnable', and the 'greatest foreign policy blunder since Suez' - to paraphrase the Liberal Democrats - is the overwhelming feeling of many of my peers, and they speak of loathsome six-month tours, during which they led patrols with dread and fear, reluctantly providing target practice for insurgents, senselessly haemorrhaging casualties, and squandering soldiers' lives, as part of Bush's vain attempt to delay the inevitable Anglo-US rout until after the next US election. Given a free choice most of us would never have invaded Iraq, and certainly would have withdrawn long ago. Hopefully, Tony Blairs's handover to Gordon Brown will herald a change of policy, and rapid withdrawal, but skewed pro-US coverage inhibits proper public debate, and is deeply unhealthy; lethally-so to many of us deployed to Iraq.

Somehow I don't think this is what Mark was getting at. Interestingly, I posted a comment with a link to this exchange which so far has failed to appear (what a surprise). However, as the above communication shows, he is quite right that the BBC's coverage is rather distorted. Hilariously, Mark adds:

The BBC is the worst propaganda machine since the Nazis and we are forced to pay for it.

Now, maybe my history is a bit rusty (I only have a BA Hons in the subject) but I seem to remember that the Nazis propaganda machine was pretty good. If it was the 'worst', one has to ask why they managed to get so many people onboard. Mind you, like the Nazi propaganda machine, the BBC is covering for a government that has indulged in the bloodshed of thousands............hey, maybe Mark is right, maybe this is a coded message to reveal his true anti-war leanings.

The most amusing passage is this one from the archives (via a link suggesting 'evidence' *smirk* of kleft-wing bias at the BBC), about The Power of Nightmares:

Peter Bergen reviews the Power of Nightmares in The Nation.


The kernel of Curtis's argument is that Western politicians claim "the greatest danger of all is international terrorism, a powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world, a threat that needs to be fought by a war on terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media."


Here are a few questions for Curtis, the BBC and anyone else who believes this dangerous propaganda:

Do you believe the sight of two commercial airliners, packed with innocent people, slamming into the Twin Towers was a "dark illusion"?

Are the now missing Twin Towers a "dark illusion" with the towers still standing?

Was the commercial airliner packed with innocent people that slammed into the Pentagon killing nearly 200 innocent people on the ground and all aboard, a "dark illusion"?

Is Richard Reid, the confessed shoebomber, who tried to blow up a packed commercial airliner over the Atlantic, a "dark illusion"?

[this continues in this manner, listing various terrorist atrocities with some obscure point about a "dark illusion"]

I could go on all day. [Fortunately he doesn't, perhaps to save any further embarrassment]

The only "dark illusion" here is the BBC masquerading as a "news organization" while it spreads Muslim propaganda.

Now, you are all intelligent people, I don't need to tell you what a load of horseshit this is. I don't need to tell you spectacularly Mark has failed to miss the point of that programme, so I'll let the loony's words speak for themselves.

USS Neverdock Back in Da House

Good news for lovers of wacky far-right, Muslim hating fascists.....Mark from USS Neverdock is blogging again. This is the loony who has the following passage from Justin Webb at the top of his page:

"America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge. I know that is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture..."

Conveniently, he omits the final paragraph from Webb's piece:

It is common to mock at American attempts to export Jeffersonian democracy, but after these two weeks the mocking should stop.

Oh dear, would rather undermine his 'BBC=left-wing media outlet' argument. He also runs the tagline:

Reporting on Terrorism, Terrorists, Islam, and biased media.

Yes, so concerned with terrorism is young Mark, he omits the recent case involving Robert Cottage and doesn't even mention the terrorist state that is Colombia. So, not really reporting on terrorism at all then. Do take the time to check out his site, it is truly barmy and shows just how extreme the enemy within really is.

Another Conspiracy Exposed

Back in October 2006, there was a great deal of fuss over a house belonging to British soldiers supposedly vandalised by 'Muslims'. The Sun made a great deal of the situation and many others followed suit. This in turn led to increasing tensions between the white and Muslim populations. It now transpires that the story was nothing more than fabrication. So much so, that The Sun actually issued a rather mealy mouthed apology on it's website (hat-tip Obsolete):

Following our report ‘Hounded out’ about a soldier's home in Datchet, Berks, being vandalised by Muslims, we have been asked to point out no threatening calls were logged at Combermere Barracks from Muslims and police have been unable to establish if any faith or religious group was responsible for the incident.

We are happy to make this clear.

Yes, happy to make it clear and yet it still appears on their website. A typical response by a right-wing rag. Damage done, what's next?? But, as I said, The Sun were not alone.

One of the advantages/disadvantages of keeping a blog, is that once you have published your comments, they sit there forever (or at least until you have the good sense to delete it). This is, of course, troublesome for many on the right as they often write reactionary posts without really thinking it through. Melanie Phillips, for example, was quick to jump on The Sun's bandwagon. Here is an extract from one article on her site, yet to be taken down or altered (I thought I should screen grab it before it changes):

Aaaahh, the 'wider silence'. Rather like the silence when a reactionary journalist has been caught out and refuses to acknowledge it. Marc at USS Neverdock also couldn't resist to wade in on this one:

The comments are well worth a read on that one.

Of course, there will be no apologies, no retractions. All there will be is more evidence of the lack of credibility and obsession with conspiracies that dominates those that sit on the right of the political spectrum.