To make it easier for commenters to demonise me properly, I've added an 'Israel' section to My Categories (that's where you go if you click on those 'TAGS' below), so if you want to see and quote back to me all the outrageous and offensive stuff I've been saying or endorsing on this subject (at least all the stuff that I can find, you're welcome to keep digging), here's where you can find it.Make the most of it.
And the cartoon? Oh, that's simply another gratuitous swip by cartoonists Cox and Forkum at misunderstood Hezbollah warriors who've bravely embedded both themselves and their rocket launchers amidst Lebanese civilians. What heroes.
TAGS: Israel, Blog, Cartoons
14 comments:
Sorry, who are these people who think the Hezbollah are "misunderstood" or "heroes"? The only person I've seen say anything like that on this blog was some Anonymous troll who seemed to be deliberatley attempting to wind you up. Everyone else I've read who has been against Israel's current course of action has made it clear that they are also against the Hezbollah's actions.
Incidentally, I see that cartoon as a swipe at both the Hezbollah and Israel -- if that wasn't the intent, it's a bit of a worry...
"Incidentally, I see that cartoon as a swipe at both the Hezbollah and Israel -- if that wasn't the intent, it's a bit of a worry..."
You aren't familiar with Cox and Forkum, are you Josh?
Not really, no. Just had a look at the link now -- "disingenuous" is the word that comes to mind.
It seems that the peeps who say Hezbollah are bad are compelled to finish off with some version of "but Israel is worse."
From my experience, the "peeps who say Hezbollah are bad" do so after their criticism of Israel leads them to be accused of supporting Hezbollah, and I've not seen "Israel are worse", rather "the two are as bad as each other" (which seems to be where these charges of "moral relativism" come from).
I should say that of course I'm aware that worldwide there are a large number of people who think the Hezbollah are glorious freedom fighters and Israel is pure evil -- I'm speaking in the context of the readers/commentors of this and other local blogs.
No, I mean the blogpeeps who say things like, "Well, of course Hezbollah are bad and I disagree with their tactics, but you have to understand how these people feel after having their land stolen by Israel and their people butchered for decades by these horrible Zionists."
Peter - look at what you are saying to people.You epitomise the very worst of the neocon mentality. This is copied from my blog as a reply to you.
As the only bloodthirsty warmonger on my blogroll maybe you could answer this question:
If what Islam does eg.Saddam's attacks on his own people, al Qaeda terrorist attacks etc. is so terrible, why do you want to emulate them so much?
Answer: Because you are a jihadist yourself.
There is a member of Libz on a very popular financial board I follow who is calling these civilian casualties "Islamic filth", scum and so forth, and I know where he got the rhetoric from. There are a couple of Americans, and Jews,along with NZers who comment on the board and everyone has been horrified and appalled at this hate speech and disregard for humanity.
THIS IS ONE OF YOUR SUPPORTERS, WHOM YOU EMPOWER. You should be ashamed.
You need to back up the truck my friend.
Also the fact that Muslims do not have a monopoly on killing innocent civilians shows the intellectuial bankruptcy of Cresswell's Israel worshipping position.
In fact the number of civilian deaths caused by Israel vs those caused by Hezbollah is currently running at a 10 to 1 ratio.
Evasion springs to mind - and this time he can't say it is me evading the facts. Open your other eye PC.
Spot the irony in the 'good Jewish name'...
Ruth suggested: "You epitomise the very worst of the neocon mentality ... bloodthirsty warmonger ... you are a jihadist yourself ... hate speech and disregard for humanity ... Israel worshipping ... Evasion."
You know, it would be easier to take you and your name-calling seriously, Ruth, if you could maybe provide some backup for some of the names, and at the very least learn to distinguish between the initiation of force (wrong)and the defence against that force (justified), and to judge the various perpetrators and cheerleaders and commentators accordingly.
It would be easier to take you seriously if you'd had the balls to answer before the question about what else the Israelis can possibly do to defend themselves from civilian-emebedded rocket attack -- from terrorist proxies suplied and run by a country that has declared it wants to wipe Israel of the map.
If you want to throw around charges such as "bloodthirsty warmonger" you'd be taken a lot more seriously by me if you could direct your mind to that conundrum, and therefrom perhaps to realise the difficult position in which Israel finds itself.
Frankly, you'd be taken a lot more seriously by me if you directed some of that oh-so-self righteous condemnation at the real warmongers, and the truly bloodthirsty: Hezbollah and Hamas -- who attack Israeli civilians from positions in which Lebanese and Palestinian civilians are put irrevocably in harm's way; Syria, who helps supply and train the terrorists; and Iran, whose war this is and who have the declared intention of wiping Israel off the map.
Until you do, any chance of discussing with you the strategic or tactical or even moral issues involved here you is rendered pointless by the enormous mote you're wearing in your eye.
"In fact the number of civilian deaths caused by Israel vs those caused by Hezbollah is currently running at a 10 to 1 ratio."
This isn't the World Cup, Ruth, ion which justice is chosen by the number of casualities.
In any case, those casualties inflicted by Hezbollah -- who initiated these attacks -- aren't so low because they sit at home and stroke puppies and only fire the occasional rocket for kicks; it's because that's the very best they can do. Even in their chosen profession of bloodthirsty warmongers, that's the very best they can manage.
It's certainly not for want of trying.
Give them or their superiors a nuclear warhead and they'd be only too happy to turn that score around. In fact, if the US and Israel were to adopt your own chosen strategy -- ie., close your eyes and just hope the bloodthirsty warmongers go away -- that's exactly what will happen, and then you'll be able to celebrate your moral superiority and your strategic acumen with a large mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.
And maybe then you'll know who to condemen
What irony? Not all Jews are racist assholes who support genocide my dear.
Cresswell has been well and truly trumped here - by objective, rational NZers and the global community. He is a NEOCON - and always has been. And I'm really disappointed about that because I used to like him very much.
"Not all Jews are racist assholes who support genocide my dear"
The only people who say they are write for newspapers who sympathise with the Iranian state view of the world.
How can moral equivalency be justified when Hizbullah celebrates the civilian casualties on its side, and the lack of military casualties?
One can debate about whether Israel has taken too much action, and whether it can practically wipe out Hizbullah (I don't think it can), but they are not moral equivalents. If Israel wanted to wipe out Arab capitals it COULD, but funnily enough it doesn't want to. Arab states from 1948 to 1967 could have set up a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, but were committed to wiping out Israel (to create a Palestinian state which was hardly going to be a bullwark of freedom and democracy).
Since then, funnily enough Israel has signed peace treaties with two Arab states because they recognised its right to exist, and agreed on borders (albeit demanding the Palestinian issue be resolved too). Iran and Syria don't.
PC has never said civilian casualties are Islamic filth, anyone with half a brain knows they are not guilty, and many of them aren't Muslims either. The casualties in Lebanon are no different from those in Afghanistan when the US responded to 9/11.
There is good reason to think twice before waging war, but if failure to do so resolves one who has attacked you to persist in attacking - then a state is failing in its duty to defend itself. The debate is whether Israel has done too much, not enough or whatever - it shouldn't be about whether it is right or not to respond - unless you are marching along Queen Street calling for Hizbullah to win and burn Israel - nice ones that lot.
Why do any of you try to debate the likes of Ruth?
She and her kind are the enemy of all freedom loving people just as much as the Hisbollix facists are
Libertyscott: 'Arab states from 1948-1967 could have set up a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, but were committed to wiping out Israel'.
Exactly. I believe it suited the surrounding Arab states to have the Palestinians 'state-less', in order to create an ongoing festering wound in Israel's side.
That was my impression when I lived there in '84 and it hasn't changed.
Ruth .. you're obsessed with 'neo-cons'! Is there a post anywhere in the blogosphere in which you haven't mentioned the N-word at least once? Oy vey! :)
Post a Comment