Speaking 1000 Words

by Ryan on July 27, 2006

in Politics

This picture just says everything about the fighting in the Mideast right now and the broader War on Terror. Instead of Palestine, you could put Hezbollah, or Saddam, or the Taliban, or Bin Ladin. Instead of Israel you could put any of the civilized nations of the world.

Though I have seen this all over the web, I got it from Michelle Malkin’s blog.

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

tim pedersen July 30, 2006 at 2:44 pm

June 20, 2006: Israeli aircraft fired at least one missile at a car in an attempted extrajudicial assassination attempt on a road between Jabalya and Gaza City. The missile missed the car. Instead it killed three Palestinian children and wounded 15.

June 13, 2006: Israeli aircraft fired missiles at a van in another attempted extrajudicial assassination. The successive barrages killed nine innocent Palestinians.

June 9, 2006: Israel shelled a beach in Beit Lahiya killing eight civilians and injuring 32.

That’s just a brief trip down Memory Lane, and we trip over the bodies of twenty dead and forty-seven wounded, all of them Palestinians, most of them women and children.

Reply

rightonoz July 30, 2006 at 7:31 pm

In PART I do agree with Tim.

While Isreal has every right to defend itself and make terrorists pay a disproportionate price, at times there SEEMS (but in truth we will never know the full story)to be a lack of consideration for the innocents killed through the bad luck of having the terrorists moving amongst them. MANY Palestinians/Lebonese do not support the terror but are powerless to stop terrorists using them as shields and hiding amongst them.

Interesting news down here in Oz over the weekend. Let me start by stating that we do not believe that reporting the truth is ‘giving comfort and aid to the enemy’. If we cannot allow our actions to stand the scrutiny of the public except in extreme cases fo security then we are losing the battle.

During the invasion of Iraq the Australia (and the UK) had veto rights on Coalition actions. This veto was used in a number of instances by the senior Australian officer.

The following quote is from The Australian (one of the more balanced papers)

(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19947658-31477,00.html)

“In one instance, Major General McNarn vetoed a US plan to drop a range of huge non-precision bombs on Baghdad, causing one angry US Air Force general to call the Australian a “pencil dick”.

However, US military command accepted Major General McNarn’s objection and the US plans were scrapped.

The revelation of how Australia actively and successfully used its veto power in the 2003 invasion of Iraq is contained in a new book on the US-Australian alliance, The Partnership, by The Weekend Australian’s foreign editor, Greg Sheridan.

The book reveals that Australia, as a member of the so-called coalition of the willing in Iraq, was given a power known as a “red card” that allowed Major General McNarn to veto US military actions, including individual targets and the types of weapons used.

Australia’s proactive use of the veto power – on strategic, military and ethical grounds – helped the Americans produce a more effective and ethical targeting policy during the war.”

also

“The book also reveals how close and frank the bilateral relationship became in the months leading up to and during the war in Iraq.

It includes an account of a conversation between Mr Downer and Mr Bush in April 2003 in which the President likened North Korea’s erratic leader, Kim Jong-il, to “a child who throws his food on the floor and expects all the adults to rush over and pick it up”.”

At the same meeting, Mr Bush warned Mr Downer that Australia was likely to suffer casualties on the ground in Iraq, but he expressed unqualified admiration for the “brave, skilled fighters” of Australia’s elite SAS. ”

While giving some comfort that our involvement did not step outside our strong ethical boundaries this article (and I must get to read the entire book) shows that it was indeed a coalition and not a case of the US steamrolling everyone else along through the conflict as reported by the left wing press.

Reply

rightonoz July 30, 2006 at 7:45 pm

Sorry, must add,

In the article it mentions war crimes.

Australia is a supporter of the World Court and along with most countries, with the notable exception of the US has accepted that it’s forces and leaders are potentially subject to being charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Read the article in this light as Brigadier McNarn had to base his decisions on both his and our government being held responsible for any war crimes charges arising from the invasion. US forces and leaders are immune from this under the agreement forced upon the UN by the US (Sorry guys this is one instance where I disagree strongly with the US position)and only subject to internal US charges.

In my comment on Tim’s post I should have said I agree with the points being raised for discussion. I do NOT agree that they are necessarily a statement of fact – just that I (and many others) have concerns and do not wish to give ANY government carte blanc to ignore it’s responsibilities to protect potentially innocent civilians. – I know many are supporters of the terrorists, just as many oppose them.

Reply

Ryan July 30, 2006 at 9:30 pm

My purpose for posting this picture is to make a point about moral relativism. I believe that as far as the Palestinians go, this was more of the case in the Arafat years than the Hamas years, but time will tell.

That being said…the UN is grouping the freely elected democratic government and people of Israel, who ordered their people out of the border towns and Haifa when the bombing started, to Hezbollah, a guerrilla group using terrorist tactics by KNOWINGLY firing missiles from inhabited towns and making targets out of civilians as a sick attempt to draw world sympathy for their cause.

I believe that countries like Israel who stand for their people are NOT the same as destabilizing internal groups that put the people they “support” in front of a veritable firing squad on purpose.

I believe that this gives Israel the moral high ground in this conflict. If Hezbollah wants more Lebanese people to survive this conflict, then maybe they should stop using the Lebanese people as their human shields and allow the freely elected government of Lebanon to enforce UN Resolution 1559.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: