Now, I am not going to tell you what these photos represent.
Can anyone guess?
I'll give you a hint - they are from the Gaza 'situation'
One of them shows an attack on Israel.
Two of them show an attack on Gaza.
Can you tell which is which?
If you can't, all I can say is you must have the Moral Compass of MTFC.
I was pointed in the direction of these photos by FreemanMoxy on a CiF blog about GIYUS and the Israeli spin machine.
His original comment was thrown into the black hole of Orwellian nothingness that is deletion hell but he re-posted the info in another form :
'FreemanMoxy
09 Jan 09, 1:33pm (about 2 hours ago)
Oh what a suprise, the mods have removed the link.
The author Ken MacLeod is not as gutless. Visit his blog, The Early Days of a Better Nation.'
The first time I visited Auschwitz I took photos and posted them back home.
My father gave them to a friend who had lived there for 3 years and never been back to Poland since then.
He cried at the memory.
I had been reticent about taking these photos in the first place but felt that The Whole World should see them.
The photos of Gaza are the same - and these ones show things from both sides.
Look - if you dare!
Update : If you want to see how much hardware is going into Israel for the expansion of the war on Iran, look no further.
And in case you repeat the mantra 'They were only defending themselves' then do listen to Mark Regev admitting that no Hamas rockets fell during the ceasefire.
Gerald Kaufmann MP said it very well when he said 'My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians.'
10 comments:
Is one Israeli photograph worth one thousand deaths in Gaza and Lebanon?
Well, Maureen Lippman seemed to think so.
Those pictures are horrific. But then, all war is horrific - except to those who haven't experienced it directly and who lack the imagination to comprehend what its victims go through. Sadly, that includes all too many of the effete US and European populations.
Have a look at the discussions on Stephen Law's blog [link via my Arena] on whether or not Israel is a "victim".
Did you notice that the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has said:
"We are dealing with brutal terrorist organizations devoid of the compassion and tolerance which characterize us."
The best description I can think of for this statement is Chutzpah With Knobs On.
'The best description I can think of for this statement is Chutzpah With Knobs On.'
I agree.
However, you can't use the C word as it is deemed anti-semitic - unless you are Jewish.
I shall use what words I like, when I deem it appropriate, regardless of how offensive some others may find it.
I am not a 'Politically Correct' person. I have spent the bulk of my life actively campaigning for more justice and greater fairness in society, neither of which can be achieved without free speech.
The whole concept of banning certain expressions of opinion because they are 'hurtful' and may offend some individuals and groups is anti-democratic and warped.
Its inevitable result is to drive unpopular and 'unacceptable' opinions underground, where they fester and become still more poisonous because they are not challenged and discredited in open debate.
In the 1970s there used to be an annual debate at the annual meeting of the NCCL [now Liberty] as to whether public premises such as town halls should be hired out to the National Front and other right wing groups. The "no platform for racists and fascists" brigade of course turned up in force intent on defeating the proposition, but my attitude was always the same: let them hold their meeting, and immediately arrest any speaker who incites violence or a breach of the law. I am glad to say that in those days my point of view usually won, though I don't suppose it would now.
So if I want to say "Chutzpah with Knobs On" I shall say "Chutzpah With Knobs On" - which, to spell it out, means blatant cheekiness amounting to deliberate lying.
Hopefully we still live in a just-about-free-enough country for this not to be an illegal expression of opinion.
Good on you, Anti.
'Hopefully we still live in a just-about-free-enough country for this not to be an illegal expression of opinion.'
At the moment yes.
But, I refer you to a comment Craig's blog :
'Hasn't Denis McShane been trying to get a specific offence of 'AntiSemitism' introduced in law and applying to any criticism of the Israeli Government?'
Calling Gordon Brown MTFC is anti-Scottish and anti-British [as well as anti-Moses].
Most probably if they win the next election - which heaven forbid - the ZanuLabour government will introduce a law making any criticism of their policies and themselves illegal.
As for Mr Olmert and his ilk, Fascism by any other name......
And see Wook's highly insightful comment in Anticant's Arena.
In law proportionality does not mean that the stronger belligerent can only inflict equal damage on the weaker one.
It means that "The harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_%28law%29#International_humanitarian_law)
It basically means you must attack military and not civilian targets. It does not mean that all civilian deaths are illegal or that you have to keep a tit for tat tally.
Post a Comment