Slow on the uptake
Nick Robinson on the Qana massacre and Blair’s response:
Will it, once again, have taken a tragedy to inject real urgency into the search for peace?
Tragedy? Hasn’t he watched the news in the last two weeks?
Posted on July 30th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
| See also • HRW - The ‘Hoax’ That Wasn’t: The July 23 Qana Ambulance Attack • Elsewhere • Spread The Word |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under T.W.A.T. |
Public warning:
The next journalist, politician or gobshite to use the word “tragedy” in ref to the shortening of 600+ innocent lives at the hand of people who knew what they were damn doing will receive the full force of my non-violent pent up anger.
Grrr! (I bet they’re scared).
The tusnami was a tragedy. This is a crime.
Just to be clear, do you blame Hezbollah for using civilians as a shield or do you blame Israel for trying to attack them using weapons unsuited to attacking individuals using humans as shields?
Both, naturally. It’s what the phrase ‘between a rock and a hard place’ was invented. My concern is for civilians trapped between two sets of killers.
While what Hezbollah are doing is clearly a war crime - see Juan Cole. However the latest reports seem to be suggesting that Israeli claims that they are using civilians as a shield is nonsense. The idea has more to do with Israeli propaganda than the facts. Hezbollah’s military keeps as far away from civilians as they can for their own security reasons.
The mainstream medias coverage is all in all pretyty sickeningly pro-Israeli. Their position towards 10 Downing St is generally prone.
People like Amnesty International and the international courts are pretty clear, even if Hezbollah were deliberately ‘using civilians as a shield’ (aka living somewhere)Gavin this is no excuse for Israels behaviour. None at all. To suggest so is ******** outrageous.
I can never make out why, if you know they are using the civilians as a shield to make you look bad, you go on and bomb them anyway.
> The mainstream medias coverage is all in all pretyty (sic) sickeningly pro-Israeli.
Curious. I’ve just read this on a blog elsewhere:
“Israel is under attack yet again. And the attackers, who have vowed to wipe it off the face of the map, can do so with impunity because they hide behind civilians knowing full well that their violation of the rules of war will never be told because their allies in the media will cover for them.
“Its a propaganda war and CNN, Reuters and AP have taken sides”
Which of you is correct, I wonder?