Oh, dear. Apparently, I've been a bad boy:
The use of blood libel techniques aka accusing those pesky Jews of doing something righteous upstanding citizens would never do is raising its ugly head, primarily in Muslim countries but also amongst their useful idiots in the west.
Hmmmmmmm ... accusing someone of "doing something righteous upstanding citizens would never do?" Oh, you mean like the entire wankersphere going totally fucking apeshit over the idea of Hezbollah using missiles packed with ball bearings?" You mean like that?
To paraphrase the article Backseat Blogger is pitching, "Would it be more palatable of [sic] those civilians were killed with missiles that didn't contain ball bearings?"
Just curious.
WAXING PHILOSOPHICAL: There's an old lawyer joke that I've used on a number of occasions, in which the defense attorney claims, "Your Honour, my client couldn't possibly have committed the murder because he wasn't there. But even if he was, he didn't do it. And if he did it, it was an accident. Besides, that son of a bitch had it coming to him."
Consider the excerpt from "Confederate Yankee" that Backseat Blogger seems so enamored of:
White phosphorus munitions are a normal part of the inventory for NATO forces, among others, and there is nothing illegal in their use. Some have complained that white phosphorus weapons are illegally being used against civilians. Would it be more palatable of these civilians were killed with other munitions?
The simple fact of the matter is that Hezbollah, by purposefully integrating their positions into civilian neighborhoods, place the lives of Lebanon’s civilians in danger. Lebanese Shiites that support Hezbollah and allow Hezbollah to build bunkers, storehouses, and sniper nests in their homes should not be surprised or appalled when the Israeli military targets that position.
The arguments are recycled, the evidence contrived; there is no credible evidence that chemical or white phosphorus weapons are being used to target Lebanese civilians, and it is telling that the media are all too willing to be led down this same path of lies again.
Shorter version: "Israel never used phosphorus munitions. But even if they did, they're perfectly legal." Sound vaguely familiar? But it doesn't end there.
Note this particularly dishonest apologetic:
The simple fact of the matter is that Hezbollah, by purposefully integrating their positions into civilian neighborhoods, place the lives of Lebanon’s civilians in danger.
As I made abundantly clear back here to those who are still minimally sentient, it is against the rules of war to target even clearly military targets with incendiary weapons if those targets are in areas that would put civilians at risk. So the whole excuse about Hezbollah hiding in the midst of civilians is a complete non-starter when it comes to justifying the use of incendiaries.
"Israel never used incendiaries. And if they did, they used them only against military targets. Buf if they did use them against civilians, it's because those civilians had it coming to them."
Some arguments never change, do they?
3 comments:
Hmmm - lessee credible sources: AP journalist that has been in the region, versus "Confederate Yankee" - a blogger who is like a member of the 101st fighting keyboarders...let's not confuse opinions with facts.
As for most of the apologetics of both BackSeat Blogger and Confederate Yankee, it's better known as Blaming the Victim.
I realize it's depressingly predictable for me to regularly link to TBogg but, as the first line of this new posting of his says, timing is everything.
Sometimes, the gods are good to me. Although I'm still waiting for Jessica Alba under the Christmas tree. So they're not that good.
Some people are killed by ball bearings. Some are killed by napalm. Neither is pleasant. Neither is right. And both are just as dead.
Post a Comment