That’s Entertainment: the seamless web of war and propaganda and media
I’ve been thinking and writing about the war in Lebanon lately almost to the exclusion of other topics. In this I’m not alone; much of the media and the blogosphere is focused on the conflict, and rightly so.
And much of this discussion and thought isn’t just about the war itself–strategy and battles and goals–but on the coverage of the action.
At first this fact puzzled me a bit, including my own emphasis on the media coverage–after all, isn’t the conflict and what’s behind it far more important than how the MSM chooses to frame it? The answer is yes, it should be–but the latter isn’t just an unimportant side issue, either. It is absolutely essential to the war itself and can be instrumental in determining its outcome.
Morale, will, the perception of how essential it is to win a certain war and the justness of the cause–all have been part of war since time immemorial. Leaders have always had to inspire their armies; and now, in democracies, they have to inspire their people as well.
Before the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, and certainly prior to the 60s, the media used to be both less ubiquitous and more supportive of government efforts. During the Vietnam War, the media found its power as an antiwar force and a gadfly (see this for my views on the matter).
And since then, the media has never looked back. The irony is that the war in Vietnam probably was far more tangential to our interests than the present wars in Iraq or Lebanon, which are vital. But the media, like a junkie on a high, keeps going back for a fix of action and sensation and visual effect and almost kneejerk criticism of the US and Israel, without realizing the destructive potential of its own actions.
And those elements–the pursuit of sensation and effect–have become, I believe, at least as potent a motivator for the media’s actions as any possible political bias of journalists. Perhaps even more.
On this point, Betsy Newmark cites an article by Noah Pollak that appeared today in National Review, “Video Made the Terrorist Star.” In the piece, Pollak comments on the decline of “serious journalism,” which was embedded in context and history and facts, and the ascendance of journalism as entertainment, designed to entertain and stimulate, looking for interesting “stories” and personal dramas.
Pollak doesn’t even see journalists as especially biased, but rather as ignorant of the consequences of their actions, and intent on telling telegenic stories. And in doing so they have become, as he points out, codependent enablers of terrorists themselves.
In a far less important arena, I’ve noticed the same thing in coverage of sports events such as the Olympics. Over the years, fewer and fewer minutes were spent just showing us the unadorned action, and more and more time was devoted to fancy features about the personal lives of the athletes, usually highlighting tearjerker soap-opera type details designed to make it seem all the more “up close and personal.” Pretty soon the sport became almost tangential to the story.
Well, it doesn’t matter much with the Olympics, does it? I liked them better the old way, but who cares, really?
But war is different, and it matters, terribly. Because the truth is that the stupidity and short-sightedness of the media has worked to change the face of war. When, as Pollak puts it, “Hezbollah does not have a military strategy; it has a media strategy that so far has been chillingly effective,” we understand that his words are true: Hezbollah doesn’t need a military strategy. Military strategy has become increasingly irrelevant in today’s modern, limited wars, every sensational detail of which is beamed around the globe at lightening speed.
Of course, if Israel ever decided to pursue a goal of all-out, total, war, the issue might become irrelevant. Israel could utterly destroy Hezbollah and Lebanon and even Iran if it so desired. But that has not happened so far, and Hezbollah and Lebanon and Iran are well aware–despite their demonizing of Israel as Satanic–that it’s unlikely to happen.
So the media, pursuing its own selfish ends, has become the handmaiden of terrorists. And, in its shortsighted pursuit of sensation and “stories,” the media could well be a participant in sowing the seeds of its own destruction, since the protection of a free press is not exactly the goal of Islamic jihadis.
Ironic, indeed.
Hezbollah, and their cousins, the Palestinians, are certainly winning the propaganda war. Just look at the daily front pages of the NYT, or at CNN, and you see over and over the same kind of photos – and almost never photos of bombed buildings or casualties in Haifa.
I agree that perception is almost everything and I suppose that, as a therapist, you try to turn the Queen Mary-sized ship of perception, with all its tremendous momentum, on a new course every day with your patients.
Undermining homefront will and misdirecting and confusing homefront perceptions are so effective for an enemy and damn cheap too.
Where I disagree with you is in your belief that the media, the mainstream media in particular, are clueless about the damage they are doing and what the result will be.
My belief is that MSM reporters, editors and producers know quite well what they are doing. After all, they have a whole universe of stories and images to choose from and a whole range of ways to report on what they finally select. They choose to cover certain stories in certain ways and choose to not cover or leave other stories on the cutting room floor.
Obviously how they choose and how they report are governed by the evaluative filters that they have developed i.e. this is newsworthy, that is not, this is credible, that is not. Though the rhetoric of “journalists” would have us believe that they strive for fairness and objectivity, I submit that their filters are not, lets objectively cover this issue and select balanced coverage on this basis, but, rather, what story and what type of coverage fits in with my worldview.; who are the villains and who the good guys, what are the issues that I think are important, who, as I see things, are the people who should be trusted and relied on, who have got things right.
Since most media types have passed through our wonderful leftist-dominated educational system and then gone into our leftist-dominated media/entertainment world, what do you expect them to select and then portray as the news? They do not report anything like the totality of what they see and instead of as objectively as possible presenting a reasonably full spectrum of news so that we, as consumers, can make up our own minds, they shape the news to fit the worldview that they have acquired. In the words of Talmon’s book, “Totalitarian Democracy,” they, at some level, believe they have to “force us to be free” by, in effect, grabbing our heads in their hands and forcing us to look in the direction they want and at the things they want in the way they want. All the while, I might add, touting their “objectivity.”
Whenever I think of the NYT’s phrase “All The News That’s Fit To Print”, I marvel at the arrogance of the thinking behind it…as if a small group of editors *knew* what was “good for us”. Having spent a short time at the WaPo, I can vouch for the notion that the paper exists to *garner eyeballs for ads*, not necessarily to report the “news”. I worked on the ad side of the house…and it was interesting to see the reporters’ view of what we did; we were, after all, involved with “trade”, while they were in the holy business of “shaping the public mind”, and never the twain shall meet.
Except, of course, when it made a difference to an advertiser what was written—then ethics went out the window, because after all, “trade” paid the bills.
I mostly agree with snowonpine – I think they are very knowledgable to what thier actions bring. I just think they tend to only care about one narrow consequence and none of the others (much as many of the current environmentalist propose energy solutions to reduce carbon emissions and never care what other emissions it increases, many times the other waste are WAY worse).
The one quibble I have is the line “and what type of coverage fits in with my worldview” – I really do not think they do this implicitly. They *do* see thierselfs as unbiased champions of truth and are trying to be that.
I mean, lets face it, if the idea that Republicans (and especially GWB) were so evil that it was simply an axiom you are not trying to warp something into your worldview – you are just telling it like it is.
In the end, I think this is worse. It’s why they get so horridly angry (not just defensive, but true anger) when someone accuses them of being biased. Israel *is* the evil agressor, the “insurgents” in Iraq are doing the asolute most correct thing, firearms are Evil(TM), or any other strongly held idea the media tends to collectivly share. To report otherwise is twisting the truth to fit an agenda and any self respecting reporter would *never* do that. They are simply counteracting our twisting of the world to get the truth out.
Long Live Pallywood!
Wow, that’s a creepy post. Hard to believe you were a liberal once.
“The media are among the most powerful institutions on Earth, because they’re not only among the wealthiest but they’re the way the whole world views us, and we view each other.”
— Amy Goodman, from the documentary “Independent Media in a Time of War”
If you consider neo-neocon’s post insightful, you owe it to yourself to watch the documentary (30 minutes).
“How has the US media covered the conflict in the Middle East? We play an excerpt of the documentary ‘Peace Propaganda and the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.’ The film was directed by Bathsheba Ratzkoff and Sut Jhally of the Media Education Foundation.”
Ditto.
During the battle for Hue, in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive, Walter Cronkite interviewed the Marine officier in charge.
The Marine mentioned that the fighting was almost over and they were mopping up isolated pockets, or something similar to that.
The interview had the sounds of heavy fighting dubbed in. It gave the impression that the Marine officier was a lying moron. Quite a few Vietnam Marines still hate Cronkite for that (the interviewed officier is not one of them; guess he figures it was simply edited in later).
I’ve been thinking about the radically different perceptions of who are the good guys and who the bad in this conflict, not to mention other similar conflicts.
Those on the right side of the aisle are seeing a battle between civilization and barbarity, and it’s blindingly obvious that civilization must win.
But that’s not the battle that those on the left are watching. To them, it’s the classic struggle between The Man and the rebel. And in that conflict, the rebel must win.
Which, to me, is a fairly adolescent way of looking at the world. But when you think about it, most if not all of the narratives in today’s media (and for the last 40 years) that deal with conflict frame the conflict as The Man vs. the rebel, oppressor vs. oppressed, The Establishment vs. Progress, with the latter winning every time.
How many recent TV shows or movies have depicted the struggle between civilization and barbarity at all? Is the little guy ever wrong? I know that in real life he often is, but in fictionland, that scenario never plays out.
I’d love to see a movie wherein it seems like it’s your basic Establishment vs. Rebel story, and then have it turn out that the rebel was wrong wrong wrong.
Now that would be entertainment.
The left lives in a hopelessly black-and-white world. They’ve just replaced the fundies’ “good versus evil” with their new concept: “victims” versus “oppressor.”
If you are not a victim, then you must be an oppressor. In order to avoid being shunned as an oppressor, you must find some way to prove you’re a victim. This explains a lot about the left.
And it also explains a lot about their alliance with Islam. Nobody proclaims themselves victims louder or more vehemently than the Muslims, even as they are robbing, raping, and pillaging throughout East Africa. Why, the very word itself, “Muslim,” is Arabic for “one who submits.” Can’t get more downtrodden and victimized than that.
This post of bookworm might interest you. My comment there also applies to this post of yours, Neo.
http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2006/07/30/being-too-powerful-to-win-a-war/
I happened upon your site via google – I arrived at an article from 2005. So I jumped ahead to the present to read your abashed admission that you had gotten it all wrong.
No such luck. I don’t know, I just don’t get it. You write really well, you seem smart… Perhaps you just don’t understand death.
Huh?
Eric, that is the sum total of your contribution? Around here we at least try to pay lip service to the topic of Neo’s post, I think you may have planned a devastating drive by and only shot your self in the foot.
I have to agree: the post is creepy and neo doesnt understand death. Jeepers, dont you neocons get it?
No such luck. I don’t know, I just don’t get it. You write really well, you seem smart… Perhaps you just don’t understand death
Eric- perhaps you don’t understand obtuseness, but you happen to be generating it at this very moment..
08/03/06 AP: Military says soldier committed suicide
08/03/06 AP: 6 Marines charged in Iraq assault
08/03/06 timesonline: Running the gauntlet in a land of militias
08/03/06 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Spc. Hai Ming Hsia, 37
08/03/06 DoD Identifies Marine Casualty Cpl. Joseph A. Tomci, 21
08/03/06 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Sgt. Dustin D. Laird, 23
08/03/06 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Sgt. Ryan D. Jopek, 20
08/03/06 Reuters: Roadside bomb wounds 2
08/03/06 NYTimes: U.S. Troops Kill 2 Iraqis on Way to Anti-Israel Protest
08/03/06 AP: Wounded journalist Kimberly Dozier released from hospital
08/03/06 Centcom: TWO MARINES DIE IN SEPARATE INCIDENTS
08/03/06 NYTimes: In Iraq, It’s Hard to Trust Anyone in Uniform
08/03/06 Reuters: US Gen. Abizaid says civil war possible in Iraq
08/03/06 Reuters: Food contractor kidnapped
08/03/06 Reuters: Bodies found in Dujail and Samarra
08/03/06 Reuters: Tortured body retrieved from a river in Numaniya
08/03/06 Reuters: Former Baath party member killed in Kut
08/03/06 Wajihiya: Three killed in attack on police officer’s house
08/03/06 Reuters: Two civilians wounded by roadside bomb in Baghdad
08/03/06 Reuters: Three Iraqi soldiers wounded by roadside bomb
08/03/06 Reuters: Gunmen kill 3 in attack on wedding party in Mussayab
08/03/06 AP: At least 9 dead in Baghdad bombing
08/03/06 AP: Martin soldier dies in Iraq Spc. Dustin Laird, 24
08/03/06 AP: British diplomat warns of Iraq civil war
08/03/06 AFP: Eighteen bodies found in the Tigris river showing signs of torture
08/03/06 wausaudailyherald: Central Wis. soldier pleads guilty in Iraq bribery case
08/03/06 AFP: Dozens killed in night battles south of Baghdad (Part 2)
08/03/06 wausaudailyherald: Merrill soldier killed in Iraq
Brad, eric, what is it we’re supposed to get?
Personally I dispute that neo-cons are actually neo-cons. Yet when being a liberal becomes an unbearable identity people have to chose some other identity, a different lable. Personally, I think that by far most neo-cons are actually neo-liberals. They still hold liberal values, in fact their disillusionment is because they’ve had to face the fact that “liberals” no longer hold liberal values.
First is this… respecting differences. Agree this is a liberal value? Well, neo-neocon is certainly an intelligent woman who writes well. She just happens to disagree with you. Why does explaining that require you to find a reason that her opinions aren’t legitimate? Not just different from yours… illegitimate.
Look at your own prejudices, eric. It confuses you that someone who is apparently *smart* doesn’t hold the views which, by definition, intelligent people hold. This is elitism. Elitism is not a liberal virtue, yet it’s common. If people don’t agree with you it must be because they aren’t very smart or educated.
Not understand death? How so? Brad and eric, you seem to know just what the other is getting at with this… I don’t. My best guess is that you’re assuming that anyone who undestands death will be a pacifist. Am I close? If so, I wonder if you understand pacifism.
Nor is pacifism a classical liberal virtue. Pacifism lite… other wise known as Isolationism, is also not a liberal virtue… it’s traditionally a conservative one. Interventionism is, at it’s very heart, liberal. The belief that other human beings deserve liberty is a result of a social revolution and it was a liberal movement. That I care about the lives of people who are not in my “tribe” is a triumph of classical liberal thinking.
For the death thing… there was a time when people understood that life without human dignity was unacceptable. I believe this was the beginning of the enlightenment, of concepts of liberty and equality. Live free, as a man, or die securing that for others.
But now, death is the only horror. Even those who demanded that we do something about the taliban’s tyranny… who actually knew before 9-11 what was happening there and knew how horrific it was… suddenly living under islamic extremism isn’t so bad.
Explain that.
Quite simply, Hezbollah is winning the propaganda war because they are in the right. If two of your soldiers are captured on a border that you share with a hostile country (hezbollah even claims the israeli soldiers were inside lebanese territory), that is no justification for waging weeks of bitterly aggressive war, dropping thousands of bombs and firing thousands of artillery shells, killing hundreds of people. This is just so absurd, any right-thinking person who is not steeped in Jewish/Israeli nationalism has to come down on the side of the lebanese/hezbollah. I dont like hezbollah at all, but they are in the right.
Synova wrote: Even those who demanded that we do something about the taliban’s tyranny… who actually knew before 9-11 what was happening there and knew how horrific it was… suddenly living under islamic extremism isn’t so bad.
Synova: It was the US which armed the Islamic extremists (when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan)! Did the US ever think of the horrors they were subjecting Afghan people to for the future, by arming these thugs? That’s where the Taliban came from. Likewise, Israel initially helped Hamas’s rise to power because Israel wanted to undermine Arafat and Fatah.
If there’s something called “myopic vision”, I don’t know what else is a better example of that!
Synova wrote: For the death thing… there was a time when people understood that life without human dignity was unacceptable.
Maybe the Palestinians understand that? Maybe that’s the reason they don’t want to live as permamently colonized people? Maybe that’s the reason why they have rejected Oslo, because Oslo promised them nothing more than Bantustans? Think about it, Synova. Learn to question your own assumptions.
Anonymous,
“The media are among the most powerful institutions on Earth, because they’re not only among the wealthiest but they’re the way the whole world views us, and we view each other.”
You do realize that your quote actually supports in part Neo’s point, right?
Lenny,
“Quite simply, Hezbollah is winning the propaganda war because they are in the right.”
Really? Let’s examine this.
If two of your soldiers are captured on a border that you share with a hostile country
A) They were not captured, but kidnapped, as they were in Israel and there was NOT a war going on. Captured is what happens when there is actually a war one. Oh, and, don’t forget the 8 murdered Israeli soldiers.
B) There were no hostilities going on in between Israel and Lebanon before the Hezzie attack.
(hezbollah even claims the israeli soldiers were inside lebanese territory),
And we know they would not lie. I guess Israel dragged those 8 bodies back across the border, then.
“that is no justification for waging weeks of bitterly aggressive war,
Define “bitterly aggressive” and compare and contrast it with a “cheerily aggressive” war of which you approved.
dropping thousands of bombs and firing thousands of artillery shells, killing hundreds of people.”
No? Well, how about firing hundreds (or is it thousands, now) of rockets indiscriminately into Israeli territory, killing and wounding hundreds.
This is just so absurd,
I think we can agree on something, then.
any right-thinking person who is not steeped in Jewish/Israeli nationalism
I give you serious props for not trotting out “Zionism”.
has to come down on the side of the lebanese/hezbollah.
Ok, so if they are one in the same enough to be slashed together, then Israel is justified attacking Lebanon infrastructure, right?
I dont like hezbollah at all,
That’s obvious. Tell me, how do you feel about Jews?
but they are in the right.
Well, you have convinced me.
“Synova: It was the US which armed the Islamic extremists (when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan)!”
Rick, the US armed and supported the Mujahaden of Afghanistan who were the natives fighting the Soviet invasion. The Islamists like Bin Ladin came later for jihad, but the Afghans kind of thought of them as tools only good for funding.
“Did the US ever think of the horrors they were subjecting Afghan people to for the future, by arming these thugs?
I think the US, and the Afghans, were too busy living with the horrors of Soviet occupation and aggression to think much about it. Oh, and again, we weren’t arming the Islamists. They had their own cash, remember?
Oh, and do remember that we gave millions, or was it billions, of dollars in aid to the Soviets during WWII to fight Hitler. The Soviets were quite the “thugs” themselves who spread horrors that the Taliban could only dream of (again, this might explain why the Afghans wanted them out). Was that right or wrong?
“That’s where the Taliban came from.”
No, the Taliban were just one faction in Afghanistan out of many that came to power because the US STOPPED involving itself once the Soviets left. Oh, and you think maybe the devastation the Soviets left perhaps helped the Taliban fill the power vacuum? I notice you don’t seem to find it in your heart to find fault with what they did.
Likewise, Israel initially helped Hamas’s rise to power because Israel wanted to undermine Arafat and Fatah.
And why would Israel feel the need to undermine a man and group that was dedicated, body and soul to its destruction, and murdered civilians as a matter of policy? Oh, I forgot, it was Israeli civilians, which do not count.
If there’s something called “myopic vision”, I don’t know what else is a better example of that!
How about your post?
Death is easy to understand – just put ball bearings in missles and aim them, to the tune of 2500+, at Israeli cities and towns, you know, as in civilian centers? What the fuck don’t you understand, Eric?
Goesh,
But those are JEWISH civilian centers. Jews are by definition the oppressors, so they quite logically cannot be the victims. I would have thought that was obvious. Sheesh.
“The media are among the most powerful institutions on Earth, because they’re not only among the wealthiest but they’re the way the whole world views us, and we view each other.”
You do realize that your quote actually supports in part Neo’s point, right?
Yes. Please do watch the documentary.
I’m not so sure Hezbollah is winning the propaganda war. Sure, the MSM has sworn fealty to them; whether it’s for the ratings-generating death porn or for fear for the lives of their terrorist-embedded reporters is immaterial at this point.
But they are just the purveyors of propaganda, not the targets of it. The real measure of whether they are winning is whether the public in democratic countries are believing the propaganda, and from both the ratings, and the ever-mounting shrillness of their remaining supporters, this seems to be far from the case.
The MSM is trying to relive their halcyon days, when they tricked America into giving up in Vietnam. Ever since the 9-11 hijackers proved that even peaceful, enlightened liberals will be murdered en masse by terrorists, though, the people of the US have been instinctively rejecting any propaganda that has even the hint of suggesting that peace is the only way.
The journalists of the MSM may think they are scoring victories over Israel, but they are really just digging themselves into deeper holes.
We neocons aren’t neo-liberals; we’re classical liberals, in the tradition of Voltaire, FDR, and John F. Kennedy. We have just been excommunicated from the Church of The New Multiculturalist Liberalism, by the neo-liberal “progressives” for our heretical belief that democracy is worth defending with violence, and that whites, Christians, and especially Jews are not innately evil.
We call ourselves neocons because, as the liberals’ former front-line defenders against conservative and reactionary slurs, we have grown used to wearing the insults hurled at us with pride, even learning to see the humor in their misapplication. We retain that habit, even though our former friends are now hurling the slurs.
Some of us even name our blogs after those slurs. Zionaussie, Neo-neocon, This Blog Is Full Of Crap, the list goes on. It’s just our way of saying, “Sticks and stones may break our bones, but words will never hurt us.”
It’s odd how those who dismiss peace movements as utopian, don’t hesitate to proffer the most absurdly dreamy reasons for going to war:
“to stamp out terrorism”, “install democracy”, “eliminate fascism”, and most entertainingly, to “rid the world of evil-doers”.
Quite simply, Hezbollah is winning the propaganda war because they are in the right.
As a stateless, terrorist organization, Hezbollah’s existence is illegal. It doesn’t matter who did or said what. Their actions and their existence are always, by definition, ‘wrong’.
“If freedom of speech means anything at all, it is the freedom to say things that people do not want to hear.” – George Orwell
“I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders.” – Indrek Wichman, MSU Engineering Prof, in letter that put him on CAIR watch list.
“No Jew ever blew himself up in a German restaurant.” – Wafa Sultan, Arab American psychologist, secular free woman.
There is a silver lining in the fact that the Hizballah terrorists are receiving such biased reportage in the American MSM – at least on this side of the pond. Some on the left side of the political spectrum here in Israel are somewhat shocked at just how biased it is. This war is very different in their eyes – in that we did not have any soldiers on Lebanese territory, and Hizballah started the war with us. They also see the obvious difference between our army aiming at terrorist infrastructure and regretting civilian casualites when they occur, and the terrorists aiming their rockets at civilians to begin with. In short, they believe that Israel is 100% justified – and they can’t believe that the rest of the world sees it the other way around. A lot of people are smelling the coffee around here – similar, in a way, to what happened in America after 9/11. I think it will have a very positive effect in Israel.
Oh yes – the old ‘liberal’ media crap again.
My god – if there is one thing that is ridiculously easy to refute, it’s that.
Neo does write well – but if you think that’s intelligent you have to be a real headcase.
I’ve always wondered, though, even ‘puzzled’, about what you on the pro-war, racist, imperialist side would regard as ‘balanced’ media coverage.
It’s a fact that the U.S media is pro-Israel, pro-war and right wing.
These positions are far more represented than the others. That’s an undisputable fact that can easily be assertained from any number of studies you can find on the internet.
So what – Neo et all – would you change in the current MSM in America?
It’s odd how those who dismiss peace movements as utopian, don’t hesitate to proffer the most absurdly dreamy reasons for going to war
If you haven’t yet, you’ve gotta read Naomi Klein’s cover story in Harper’s, Baghdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia. It’s hilarious and depressing at the same time, not unlike this forum.
While we’re on the topic of ‘stupidity’ – Hezbollah doesn’t need a ‘military strategy’ or it doesn’t have one?
And what makes you say this Neo? Because Israel makes itself look bad?
Hezbollah isn’t killing Lebanese civilians – Israel is.
That is a fact.
Those ‘tough’ questions are just what most of the planet are thinking – what is the point of all this?
Israel has all the airtime in the world in America to makes it’s case(it doesn’t really have one but if you want to talk about propaganda there it is – and how pathetically transparent it is maybe not for those with an IQ over 4).
Oh the sheer stupidity….
“to stamp out terrorism”, “install democracy”, “eliminate fascism”, and most entertainingly, to “rid the world of evil-doers”.
Right, Rick, because none of those things have ever been accomplished before.
Of course, you will probably go the absolutist route and say, “Well, sure, we got rid of Hitler, and IL Duce and Imperial Japan, and now all those former fascist countries are democracies, but fascism exists SOMEWHERE in the world, so we failed.”
That about sum up your rebuttal?
I’ve always wondered, though, even ‘puzzled’, about what you on the pro-war, racist, imperialist side would regard as ‘balanced’ media coverage.”
Dan? Dan Rather? Is that you?!?
Hezbollah isn’t killing Lebanese civilians – Israel is.
That is a fact.
This one completely, obviously blatant lie says it all. I did not need to read the rest of your post. Come to think of it, I think I can ignore anything else you say as a waste of my time.
Wow, out of patience today…
Ha. Only a true psychopath would call that a “blatant lie”.
Tell me one more time for the record, Dreary –
Israel isn’t killing Lebanese civlians.
Go on champ – lets all have a good laugh!
“Tell me one more time for the record, Dreary – Israel isn’t killing Lebanese civlians.”
Why? You think the fact that we know Hezbollah is killing civilians means we must believe Israel isn’t?
Don’t project your own binary world view on us.
Don’t bother Tatter,
Yhamir obviously can’t substantiate the lies, so he/she is trying to change the subject.
Someone get the Troll club.
“Why? You think the fact that we know Hezbollah is killing civilians means we must believe Israel isn’t?”
????????
Oh dear…..
What’s the subject Weary?
Let’s chat old boy….
What’s the subject Weary?
Let’s chat old boy….
No thanks. I’d rather do something more productive, like count the grains of sand on the beach, or watch paint dry, or talk to a tree stump.
Hezbollah isn’t killing Lebanese civilians – Israel is.
Hezbollah is shooting at Israel from hospitals and schools. If civilians object to Hezbollah’s attempts to use them as human shields, members of Hezbollah shoot them.
Hezbollah also plans to kill, as spies, any Lebanese who have questioned their authority. Hezbollah is winning hearts and minds by pointing guns at them.
Of course, you can cheer the ‘cleverness’ of these tactics and you can root for your terrorist team but in the long run, allowing terrorists to gain political control ultimately destroys the society. That’s why most nations avoid using Hezbollahs tactics; it’s why terrorist organizations are not treated as legal entities.
Terrorism wins battles but destroys the social structure. Look at the Palestinians.
Good idea – you and the stump
are just about intellectual equivalents.
My money is on the stump, though….
Yhamir–
Mel Gibson, is that you?
lenny–
The Party of God kidnapped and KILLED Israeli soldiers. If the Hez doesn’t like war, they should make war upon their neighbor. If the Lebs don’t like war, they should secure their southern border.
Case closed.
above should read “If the Hez doesn’t like war, they should not make war upon their neighbor.”
“Hezbollah is shooting at Israel from hospitals and schools. If civilians object to Hezbollah’s attempts to use them as human shields, members of Hezbollah shoot them.”
Hez is shooting from bombed out infrastructure, yes. What evidence are you citing to say Hezbollah shoots civilians who object to being human shields?
By the way – interesting not about ‘human shields’ – the term was coined at first from the IDF in Jenin – who would grab a Palestinian civlian and use him/her as a shield while they conducted house to house raids. The IDF have recently come under UN scrutiny for doing it again in Gaza.
Ironic isn’t it? Oh those clever Israelis. Not only do they steal land – they steal catchy phrases too – buggers…
Hezbollah are definitely winning hearts and minds by their fighting prowess, and thanks to Israeli stupidity. Again, if you have some sources for your claims, I’d luv to see them.
Terrorism, my child, is a tactic employed by all. You don’t win hearts and minds by pointing guns and people.
Think hard, it’ll come….
J – either way your dumb.
blah-de-blah
I really hope Israel loses- they started this war by being jews
maryatexitzero wrote: “Of course, you can cheer the ‘cleverness’ of these tactics and you can root for your terrorist team but in the long run, allowing terrorists to gain political control ultimately destroys the society. That’s why most nations avoid using Hezbollahs tactics; it’s why terrorist organizations are not treated as legal entities.
I agree with this. Force and violence exercised by individuals and outside of democratic norms is detrimental to the health of any society.
By the exact same token, however, Israel should also stop its illegal acts, such as the detentions without trial of thousands of prisoners that it is carrying out, and for which it’s been roundly condemned by Amnesty International.
Amnesty International website says:
http://mail.google.com/mail/?view=page&name=js&ver=c75fbd20b1855c02
“ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: Administrative detention: Despair, uncertainty and lack of due process
“Thousands of people have been detained under administrative detention orders in Israel and the Occupied Territories. In practice, this means the detainee spends months and sometimes years in prison without having been tried and without knowing the details of the charges against him. […]
“Amnesty International believes that the practice of administrative detention in Israel and the Occupied Territories violates fundamental human rights.”
— Amnesty International website
http://mail.google.com/mail/?view=page&name=js&ver=c75fbd20b1855c02
Good idea – you and the stump
are just about intellectual equivalents.
Down, Troll, DOWN! Sit. Good boy.
Mr. Rick is right. If there were no jews, there would be no wars and no war crimes committed.
Securing their southern border is what they were doing.
As I’ve posted below for your viewing pleasure – Israel has been violating Lebanese sovereignty just about everyday after the 2000 withdrawal.
Conducting acts of terrorism in Lebanon and infiltrating Lebanese society through covert operations to destabilize Lebanon. These are acts of war too, no doubt.
And 30 odd years of Israeli terrorism conducted against Lebanon – I think having a militia on the border with Israel is sound policy. Israel wants resolution 1559 implemented now – it took 20 years for it to abide by the UN requiring it to withdraw from Lebanon.
Israel started the war. It was Israel’s choice to escalate.
No doubt.
Like swatting flies..
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE150031997?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%255CISRAEL%255COCCUPIED+TERRITORIES
maryatexitzero wrote: “Of course, you can cheer the ‘cleverness’ of these tactics and you can root for your terrorist team but in the long run, allowing terrorists to gain political control ultimately destroys the society. That’s why most nations avoid using Hezbollahs tactics; it’s why terrorist organizations are not treated as legal entities.
I agree with this. Force and violence exercised by individuals and outside of democratic norms is detrimental to the health of any society.
By the exact same token, however, Israel should also stop its illegal acts, such as the detentions without trial of thousands of prisoners that it is carrying out, and for which it’s been roundly condemned by Amnesty International.
Amnesty International website says:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE150031997?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%255CISRAEL%255COCCUPIED+TERRITORIES
“ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: Administrative detention: Despair, uncertainty and lack of due process
“Thousands of people have been detained under administrative detention orders in Israel and the Occupied Territories. In practice, this means the detainee spends months and sometimes years in prison without having been tried and without knowing the details of the charges against him. […]
“Amnesty International believes that the practice of administrative detention in Israel and the Occupied Territories violates fundamental human rights.”
— Amnesty International website
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE150031997?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%255CISRAEL%255COCCUPIED+TERRITORIES
Yhamir – Since I’m too lazy to find the scores of links proving the Hezbollah wins through intimidation, I’ll just quote from my own post:
How Hezbollah wins hearts and minds..
…By pointing guns at them. Tony Badran of Across the Bay and Caveman explain:
Hizbullah attempted to enter Mari not to defend it from attackers, but so they could fire rockets from the village toward Israel. Hizbullah’s intention was to bring Israeli reprisals on the town, ostensibly to destroy or damage it significantly, and to cause greater civilian suffering. Hizbullah’s MO and tactics are well-known in the south. However, Druse typically defend their own villages, and in the case of Mari (a place I have been to several times, many of whose residents I know personally), the residents have desperately tried to keep Hizbullah fighters out of their area.
If people don’t cooperate, they’re shot as “spies”
Several suspected spies were shot dead in the southern Lebanese port of Tyre, witness said on Thursday.
Passengers on board an evacuation ship told medical doctor Boris Buck from the German city of Munich that they had seen members of the Lebanese Shi’ite Hezbollah group or their sympathisers killing 18 Lebanese people during the night.…
..I think my biggest problem with framing the conflict in the Middle East as the “Israeli/Palestinian” conflict is that it forces people to compare the two cultures. Israel is fighting a bunch of AK-47 toting-thugs whose tactics make the Crips and Bloods look like statesmen.
The “Israel/Palestinian” meme is as lame as the idea that we’re fighting an ‘ideological war’ with terrorism. Is the LAPD fighting an ideological war with local gangs? No. They’re just enforcing the law. Sometimes their tactics are too brutal, sometimes they’re too lax. That doesn’t change the law, or the need to enforce it.
Israel and the West in general started losing the propaganda war when we started seeing it as an ideological conflict. Fighting terrorist organizations is just law enforcement. We can criticize the tactics used, but we should never lose sight of the fact that terrorism’s infrastructure needs to be dismantled.
Mary,
I appreciate the effort, but you are dealing with a liar in denial. Why bother?
I appreciate the effort, but you are dealing with a liar in denial. Why bother?
It was just some cutting and pasting 🙂
..anyway, non-trolls might read it too..
It was just some cutting and pasting
..anyway, non-trolls might read it too..
Huh, that’s a good point.
Touche’.
My bad. Proceed.
If anyone calls Yhamir a Kappo, I’m going to get drunk and say things about jews I really don’t mean. You jews here know who you are too!
Having such great success portraying William Wallace, I was going to do a movie and be Judah Macabeus but since you jews have decided to fight back against hezbollah and start another war, it’s off!
Mel,
I loved Braveheart, but I thought The Patriot took too many historical liberties and was at times formulaic.
Oh, and, I was not too big a fan of the anti-Jew rant. I think some people here thought it was your best work, though.
Isn’t this hypocritical in view of the criticism being made of Hizbollah for similar tactics?
Pentagon defends use of civilian clothes by U.S. forces
Associated Press
April 5, 2003
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=131181
Washington – The Pentagon on Friday defended the use of some civilian
clothes by U.S. special operations forces, a tactic used to help them
blend in with the local population.
Full text: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=131181
Civilian deaths are not a problem and not an issue then, are they Perry? It then shouldn’t be a problem for any Western force to set up mortars and artillery, etc beside schools and hospitals and markets and use the same for stockpiling weapons either, right? If you can’t distinguish covert operations by very small forces behind clear cut enemy lines v muslim terrorist tactics of using civilians for cover as a main combat tactic, then quit wasting our time. You will have a more receptive audience via al jazeera sites, and don’t let the door hit you on the butt on your way out.
It is neither noble nor the act of a villain to hide behind women and children when egaged with the enemy. It is necessity of engagement and a mathamatical reality that some civilians killed would be incapable of benefitting from the results of victory, hence they serve a useful purpose and are honored for that. The body of a civilian often saves a fighter and allows him to continue the battle. Civilians are useful to identify enemy positions too simply because many enemies will not fire in the direction of civilians, hence a fighter can usually safely assume that enemies are to the front by the lack of their fire coming in. Fidel is well and in good recovery if any here are wondering.
“Quite simply, Hezbollah is winning the propaganda war because they are in the right. If two of your soldiers are captured on a border that you share with a hostile country (hezbollah even claims the israeli soldiers were inside lebanese territory), that is no justification for waging weeks of bitterly aggressive war, dropping thousands of bombs and firing thousands of artillery shells, killing hundreds of people. ”
Exactly what any rational person should be saying! Thanks Lenny
Fidel is well and in good recovery if any here are wondering. One way or another, soon, he is dead meat.
Gee whiz, Pete! I thought the UN said the hezzies were to be disarmed! What’s going on here? Why aren’t they minding the UN? You really don’t think the hezzies are winning, do you Pete? Is that what’s really bothering you here? I seem to recall some previous rocket launches from the hezzies in Lebanon, and yes, some retalitory strikes. Awww come on, Pete, it bothers you to see little Israel kicking muslim ass again, doesn’t it? That’s the rub, ain’t it? Sure it is….the hezzies are reasonable people, those 241 Marines deserved to die in their barracks and Bill Buckley deserved to be, ah, ‘captured’ and tortured to death by them, after all , they are just a social service type bunch of guys out to win the hearts and minds of Christians and Druze, right Pete? You’re just another muslim apologist and I think a closet jew hater to boot. Why don’t you get drunk and really tell us your true feelings, like ol’ Mel Gibson did? And nope, I’m not a Jew, just an American ally who appreciates the Administration standing by Israel and letting them deal a devastating blow to the terrorist bastards. The US should have carpet bombed the Bekkah valley with napalm years ago, but, we can’t look back, can we, Petey? Hmmm?
Andre Glucksman explained why the use of terrorist tactics is considered by most of civilization to be abhorrent:
…what do extremist ideologies like the communism or Nazism of yesteryear and the Islamism of today have in common? After all, they support ostensibly very different ideals – the superior race, mankind united in socialism, the community of Muslim believers (the Umma). Tomorrow, it could be altogether different ideals: some theological, some scientific, others racist. But the common characteristic is nihilism.”
The root element is the attitude that anything goes, particularly when with regard to ordinary people: I can do whatever I want, without scruples. Goehring put it like this: my consciousness is Adolf Hitler. Bolsheviks said: man is made of iron. And the Islamists whom I visited in Algeria said that you have the right to kill little Muslim children, in order to save them.”
Human civilization survives because most people are able to suppress their appetite for extreme, random violence (or belligerent hubris) ..
…”..because Man is human: therefore, he can be civilised, even if he can’t read or write, because he can master this hubris. Wherever you go, this belligerent hubris is considered lethal. In the huts of the Amazon, young men are taught to conquer this capacity for excessive violence. You can fight together, but you cannot fight in any way that comes to hand, and you don’t set out to fight just anyone. The same idea occurs in the teachings of the Greeks, the paidera. All European education is based on the same principle.
Indeed, all civilisations have two essential taboos in common: the taboo on ‘total sexuality’, the incest taboo, different in individual cases, but ubiquitous, and the taboo on violence. You are not allowed to succumb to ‘absolute violence’. You have to master that hubris in one way or another. In every civilisation you can find the mastering of these two absolute, destructive impulses.”
Our society survives because we can be reasonably assured that we won’t be constantly assualted by random violence. We can walk on our streets without constantly fearing that our neighbors or our leaders will suddenly decide to shoot us and/or us us as a shield.
If that happened on a regular basis, trust would cease to exist and our society would cease to function. That’s why terroristic violence is taboo in most cultures.
Arguing in favor of terrorist tactics is like arguing in favor of cannibalism or incest. You may, personally, favor those things, but they aren’t a healthy basis for a society.
Declaring and then waging war against your neighbor is not a cultural taboo. Neither is declaring war, then using assassination or un-uniformed soldiers as a weapon. If we fight this war like Redcoats, we’re bound to lose.
As a newcomer to the thread, I haven’t yet read any of the comments. But neo’s post begins:
“I’ve been thinking and writing about the war in Lebanon lately almost to the exclusion of other topics. In this I’m not alone; much of the media and the blogosphere is focused on the conflict, and rightly so.”
I beg to disagree. I think the world’s focus belongs on the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy, Iraq (and the implosion thereof). Pace and Abazaid say there’s a danger of Iraq slipping into civil war. Oh, really? Thanks for that revelation, guys.
Mary wrote: Israel and the West in general started losing the propaganda war when we started seeing it as an ideological conflict. Fighting terrorist organizations is just law enforcement. We can criticize the tactics used, but we should never lose sight of the fact that terrorism’s infrastructure needs to be dismantled.
Law enforcement?! Not kidding – whose law?
Oh know -lets not lose sight of the fact that terrorists must drink, breathe, and eat – we’ll just destroy everything and then things will be just dandy.
Oh, you sure can bring in some real winner’s Neo….
By the way – I went through your ‘source’ – all 6 different links that brought me to some odd newssource that I’ve never heard of.
Weak.
But I’ll tell you what – you site one even half descent MSM source that’s running that story and I’ll take back the fact that I think your full of crap.
Maybe.
Yhmair–
The Hezb’Allah doesn’t recognize the right of Israel to exist. Their goal is the death of every Jew living in Israel.
The Hezb’Allah doesn’t have the right to kill and kidnap Jews and not expect retaliation.
The Lebanese don’t have the right to let the A-Team of terrorism, the Hezbollah, to operate within its borders, just like Afghanistan did not have the right to do the same thing with al Queda.
And lastly, if one knows Israel and the United States don’t mess around, why provoke these nations? Even if you are right and the Hezb’Allah and their Leb friends are morally superior (they aren’t) their brainpower has much to be desired. Why antagonize someone that can send you to the stone age?
Not kidding – whose law?
Our laws.
But I’ll tell you what – you site one even half descent MSM source that’s running that story and I’ll take back the fact that I think your full of crap.
Is there a reason why anyone would consider your judgement to be valid or relevant?
“The US should have carpet bombed the Bekkah valley with napalm years ago, but, we can’t look back, can we, Petey? Hmmm?”
Golly gee shucks Goeshy. Talk about your racist. Goeshy boy displays his racism for calling for the deaths of his imaginary enemies. On the other hand most arabs and persians simply want Israel out of the region they do not want them dead. Isn’t that right Goeshy. Your just on a killing spree aren’t you naughty little Goeshy child.
“On the other hand most arabs and persians simply want Israel out of the region.”
And how do they propose to do this if they don’t want them dead? I don’t think the Almighty Strongly Written Message from someone like Jacques Chirac will make the Jews leave Israel.
Note that Islam is a religion, not a race. Islam has over a billion adherents, and Blacks and whites are members of it. Why they want to kill a tiny 14 million Jews who only want to be left alone is a grand testament to Islam’s medieval vision of the world.
Bowden wrote: “On the other hand most arabs and persians simply want Israel out of the region.”
And how do they propose to do this if they don’t want them dead?
What about a secular, democratic, single-state Israel-Palestine where both Arabs and Jews have equal citizenship rights? The territory of such a state could include present-day Israel and the Occupied Territories. Thus you have Israel, in its *present* form (i.e. as a “Jewish” state) out of the region, but it does not involve the expulsion of Jews — both Jews and Palestinian Arabs become equal citizens in a single state (with the right to return of Palestinians guaranteed). In fact, that seems to be the only workable solution at this point. The present state of things cannot persist forever as it leads to permanent conflict, and teh two-state solution is clearly unworkable.
Dave, you have to convince people not to kill Jews. Equal citizenship rights? Muslims can and do live peaceful and prosperous lives within Israel… so you’re saying voting rights can’t be worked out without blowing up people who are out shopping?
People killing bus passengers or blowing up families at sidewalk cafes are NOT after peaceful co-existance with voting rights!
Nevermind the fact that “voting” as a concept hardly exists in most of the middle east. So all these people willing to die for equality and voting… what are they doing in Egypt or Libya or Saudi about that? We’re told over and over that the Iraqi people simply CAN’T adjust to living in a democracy, yet Palestinians are going to stop hating Jews if only those mean Jews will let them be full citizens in a democracy?
Dave–
A single-state solution in Palestine means every Jew in Israel dies. The Islamofascists have tried it before.
Actually Dave – before Zionist imperialist started the move to colonize and conquer Palestine Jews and Muslims lived together quite comfortably.
Not that facts will ever get in the way of the usual boring, hysterical, fear-mongering bullshit….