Could we please listen to our British allies?
Posted by Charles II on August 10, 2007
As I noted regarding Barack Obama’s idea that we can just do a quick air strike or commando raid in Pakistan to get Al Qaida, life is not quite that simple.
Declan Walsh and Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian:
Tension between British and American commanders in southern Afghanistan erupted into the open yesterday as a senior UK military officer said he had asked the US to withdraw its special forces from a volatile area that was crucial in the battle against the Taliban.
British and Nato defence officials have consistently expressed concern about US tactics, notably air strikes, which kill civilians, sabotaging the battle for “hearts and minds” and infuriating Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president….
Oh… and the poppy crop is even larger than last year’s record.
42 Responses to “Could we please listen to our British allies?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Mercury Rising 鳯女 
b. izzy said
lay off obama…he just restated what the policy regarding bin Laden was under Bill Clinton and the current nitwit running the show…newsflash…maybe we ought to kill the bastards who knocked down the Towers….you heard it here first…obamas willingness to to speak straight to this issue will resonate with lots of Progressives just like me….you can be for social justice and organized labor and still actually want to take out bin Laden…what the fuck do you think FDR, Truman and Kennedy would have done???
Charles said
What do I think FDR, HST, and JFK would have done?
I think they would have done what was best for the nation.
Not what felt good.
I’ve done some long, detailed posts about how intervention in Pakistan could very easily end up with nuclear weapons in the hands of Al Qaida.
Would that be good for the nation?
One other point. You state that Obama re-stated what was Bill Clinton’s policy. There’s a significant difference. When Bill Clinton attempted to take out bin Laden, bin Laden was in Afghanistan, a relatively small, very weak nation that was not an ally. Pakistan is a large, developed, and nuclear-armed nation that is currently an ally.
shrimplate said
It’s the nukes. Pakistan is already on the brink of tipping into the complete control by militant Islamists who, like their apocalyptical christian brethren here in the States, may not hesitate to use these horrible weapons on civilian populations.
b. izzy said
getting bin Laden is whats best for the nation…if you’re worried about militant Islamists in Pakistan leaving bin Laden in tact doesnt seem to help that problem….it is a red herring to suggest that killing or capturing bin Laden will drive Pakistan into the hands of the Islamists…an active al Quaeda in western Pakistan does more to drive Pakistan into theocracy than virtually anything else….
there is a just causus belli in this case and we should act…nukes are a problem just as they were when JFK acted in the Cuban Missile Crisis….the risk was much greater then..the USSR had the ability to scorch the continental US….Pakistan has no such capability and even if they did a nuclear Islamist Pakistan is less dangerous than a terrorist organization without borders and population like al Quaeda who is not subject to the MAD doctrine.
FDR noted the we are not a warlike nation…that is as it should be…but when we are attacked and we have the right and duty to defend ourselves there should be nowhere on the planet our enemies are safe…it is not about feeling good….that comment is both childish and insulting…it is about justice, the right of self defense and putting country before party….Obama spoke a plain and simple truth..we fucked up by invading Iraq and letting Osama off the hook…we ought to go get him…I have great confidence that Barack has the sophistication to properly assess the political consequences of any strike against bin Laden.
It is a disaster to cede the security of this country to neocon republicans…the truth remains that many centrists still dont trust Democrats to defend the country…Obama might be the one Dem with the credentials to change that…he can tell shit from shinola…said no to invading Iraq and yes to tagging al Quaeda…smart guy..he’s right on health care, right on the middle class and right on foreign policy…he’s got my vote…
MEC said
“we ought to kill the bastards who knocked down the Towers”
Dude, in case you missed it at the time, the bastards who knocked down the Towers are already dead. They died when the plane hit, eh?
b. izzy said
“Dude, in case you missed it at the time, the bastards who knocked down the Towers are already dead. They died when the plane hit, eh?”
I’m dumber for having read your post….I’ll now spend some time contemplating how anyone who could post something so palpably stupid is able to figure out how to use a computer.
Charles said
b izzy says, “it is a red herring to suggest that killing or capturing bin Laden will drive Pakistan into the hands of the Islamists…”
You know, B. I did two long and detailed posts on why I believe that Pakistan’s stability would be seriously undermined by poorly-targeted strikes. We have two other examples, Iraq and Afghanistan (see the article above) that show us how poorly-targeted strikes turn populations against us. I have said that Special Forces staffed by Pashtuns could do what we cannot.
I get kind of tired of people who think that an unsupported opinion has any value versus the supported opinion of someone who has been studied and written about international issues for a very long time. At the least, could you please read the following two posts and comments?
Bhutto’s return
Direct intervention means destabilization
And please do not attempt to insult MEC’s intelligence. It only subtracts from your limited reputation.
b. izzy said
Dont be tired of people who have a different opinion than you do Charles…its so Bush…and thanks for the links…though sourcing the Guardian as “support” for anything relating to the Middle East suggests an intellectual path with a predetermined outcome….
anyhow, for starters, do you even know what kind of strike Obama had in mind for al Quaeda in Pakistan?…of course you don’t….what if it was special forces staffed by Pashtuns just as you recommended…he made it clear he would cooperate with Perez and would only act if Musharraf couldn’t…I’m comfortable he’s as smart as you think you are
that however, begs the question…you stated
“You can’t win political conflicts if your motives are wrong. Our motives in the conflict with Al Qaida have been wrong from the beginning. We have not made a genuine commitment to ameliorate the huge injustices from which the Muslim world suffers and which feed Al Qaida.
Obama doesn’t get it. Hillary doesn’t get it. Does anyone get it?”….apparently only enlightened thinkers such as you and the Pan Arabists over at the Guardian
….the only injustice al quaeda is concerned about involves religious purity and conversion….al quaeda is a wahabbist religious movement…not unlike christian dominionists and radicalized greater israel orthodox jews…what all have in common is that they remain 1st century fundamentalist miscreants whose beliefs are completely uncontaminated by evidence.
….there is no real negotiation possible with any of these groups since all rest assured that God is firmly on their side and has commanded them to subjugate unbelievers to their religious will….the only rational policy is to isolate these groups in the political and cultural sphere and eliminate the more violent elements who intentionally target civilians and secular governments to achieve their theocratic goals…..
in our country, it means removing apocalyptic christians from power who divine their foreign and domestic policy from the bible or speaking directly to jesus…in Israel/Palestine it means removing the radical religious elements on both sides to arrive at a just two state solution…and as for al quaeda, it means capturing or killing their leadership.
OBAMA GETS IT….having a simple and morally unambiguous policy does not mean that the execution of that policy will be achieved without cognizance of the political and military implications…FDR and Truman were unambiguous about Fascism and utilized unprecedented military force to eliminate it..nonetheless they were politically astute enough to institute a Marshall Plan to permanently solve the issue in Europe and Asia.
..as to insulting MEC’s intelligence…if he doesn’t believe that the attack on the World Trade Center extended beyond the scope of the 19 hijackers then what would you have me do?..ask for a subscription to his newsletter or point out the obvious
…and with respect to “my limited reputation” here at Mercury Rising…you have me confused with someone who gives a fuck about what you think my reputation is..
Charles said
Well, you’re right on the last point, B. You’re a person with a crude mouth and very little concern for being thought of as more than a troll.
1. Attacking The Guardian as a news source is a classic rherorical diversion. I have read hundreds or more likely thousands of articles on the specific issue of conflict in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, from a wide variety of sources. You would know that if you had gone back into my references. You, on the other hand, present opinions without any sources at all.
2. The point of focusing on injustices in the Muslim world is not to placate bin Laden. He recruits people based on injustices that they feel they have suffered. Injustices like Abu Ghraib. Injustices like the abandonment of Afghanistan after we used them to defeat the Soviets. Injustices like the settlements on Palestinian lands. These provide the fuel; bin Laden just strikes the match. Until we begin reducing the amount of fuel, bin Laden will be able to light the entire region on fire.
3. The injustices in the rural regions of Pakistan are significant and completely unnecessary. Poverty, lack of development, and discrimination are elements. I mentioned the fact that Punjabis and Sindhs hold a disproportionate number of posts at the upper levels of the army, while Pashtuns get to do a disproportionate amount of the fighting. Mussharaf has made himself unpopular. But he is increasingly perceived as an agent of the US, and that means that anger which should be directed against him is directed against us. That makes bin Laden a Pashtun ally.
4. Your statement that “the only rational policy is to isolate these groups in the political and cultural sphere and eliminate the more violent elements who intentionally target civilians and [our allied] governments” could have come straight out of a Vietnam-era briefing. Back then, senior military leaders imagined that Communism was a monolithic cult, which could only be defeated by killing them all. War never defeated communism; in fact we lost in Vietnam and were effectively defeated in Korea, just as we are being defeated in Iraq. Military means were useful for deterrence and for shaping events. But diplomacy and its own internal contradictions that defeated communism.
I’ve given you far more time and courtesy than you deserve. If you’re not here to learn and not here to teach, you belong elsewhere. I would prefer that you work this out yourself.
One final point. If you thought you were doing Barack Obama any favors, you’re not. Ironically, he is a man who understands the need to be polite, the need to argue substance rather than throw insults. He’d be completely, absolutely, totally appalled by your behavior.
b. izzy said
Politics aint beanbag Charles….you would be better served by focusing on the argument rather than moderating my behavior like some schoolmarm…you seem to be employing the “classic” rhetorical diversion of argument ad hominem
you have simply not addressed the key point in my argument which was that al quaeda is a religious movement….there is no redress for wahhabist fundamentalism…..except, of course, killing jews which works well for these assholes…which is not to say that killing arabs isnt a fine solution for the red heifer crowd in israel…address fundamentalism and this becomes managable….you might consider sourcing The Age of Reason..it worked for Paine and Jefferson
your analogy to Communism is tepid..I never said we should kill them all…I just said we should capture or kill al quaeda’ leadership..specifically those who planned and executed 9-11..if your solution is, in place of this, to redress Israeli settlements then no amount of “sourcing and referencing” will save you from having your head stuck up your ass.
I read Mercury Rising religiously….I will continue to do so despite your admonitions that we must all teach or learn according to Charles or risk being branded a “troll”.
I am a proud progressive Democrat from Chicago whose grandfather was the first president of the Fixture Hangers Union which became the IBEW…my family has been working for organized labor and democratic causes for almost 90 years…..for me its only bee 40 years…if you knew anything about Democratic politics in Chicago you’s probably know that Barack Obama has heard much coarser opinions than mine up close and personal..and thats from the guys who support him!!!!
The betting line says you’d last about 10 minutes at a southside Democratic precinct meeting..Obama’s been there and he’s not appalled by people who speak truth to power….you shouldnt be either unless you feel you’ve cornered the market on the truth.
whig said
B. Izzy, I cannot distinguish you from a Republican.
Charles said
I’m with whig, B. I believe–and hope– you aren’t a Democrat.
And I don’t really care if you are a reader. A blog is not the public square. It is a community whose active membership is decided by the blog owners. Posters can be restricted in a number of ways.
Being libertarian-leaning, I’d rather have open debate. But, to put it simply, there are too many a-holes and too little time. You aren’t contributing any ideas and any time I spend replying to you has clearly been wasted.
As for Al Qaida, here’s a hint: the Amish are also fundamentalists. How come Lancaster County isn’t teeming with terrorists? You may think you are in the possession of grand ideas, but they’re so shallow one couldn’t even skip stones over them.
b. izzy said
“B. Izzy, I cannot distinguish you from a Republican.”
Let me help you out
I support a womans right to choose,a national living wage, progressive tax reform that undoes the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate tax reform, universal health care,the unfettered right of labor to organize and collectively bargain, gay marriage, full gay rights in the military and open immigration with full prosecution of business owners that hire human beings at slave wages……
I want religion out of government at all levels…a complete elimination of federal dollars for faith based programs and any religious school voucher programs….
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and opposed the invasion of Iraq…I believe we should bring al quaeda to justice….that hardly makes me a Republican…ever heard of the “Fighting Dems”…lots of them just got elected to Congress..they and every other Democrat I know or care to associate with share the same positions
Charles….I’d encourage you to read The End of Faith by Sam Harris and God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens…then you might feel more comfortable engaging in a meaningful discussion of the role of fundamentalism in the political sphere…you’ve shown not even the most basic grasp of the subject….the Amish don’t seek converts or the imposition of their worldview in politics…which distinguishes them from the brand of fundamentalism addressed by most credible scholars and the crux of the issue I’ve raised.
As to you and your blog…run it the way you see fit…things over at Kos and AlFrankenWeb are a little less thin skinned and more vigourous….might be why there is more active and robust discussions and certainly more posters
Charles said
Clearly you don’t post at Kos, B. They would have troll-rated [*] you very quickly. I note there is no entry there for the pseud you’re using here.
So there’s another thing I don’t believe about you.
______________
Excerpt from Hunter’s DKos piece on trolls:
When you Troll Rate something, as a trusted user, you are stating that the comment should be made invisible to all site users. You’re saying that the comment is so bad — so disruptive or damaging to the community — that it isn’t worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie. …[Trolling includes] Personal attacks on other site users, including following them from thread to thread. …“Concern Trolls”. Marginally more clever, they pretend at being progressive Democrats, but at every turn seem to suggest the most obviously damaging or boneheaded or offensive thing they can. These are easier to catch than you might imagine: since it hardly matters whether someone is an obvious concern troll or just an unmitigated idiot, sometimes it doesn’t pay to think about it too hard.
b. izzy said
reading is fundamental…never said i posted at KOS…just said it was a more robust and active site than yours….have posted several hundred times at Al Frankens site….screen name is calilama and i’ve never managed to be banned despite several real donnybrooks….started using b.izzy for new postings about 3 months ago to honor my garandfather Isadore, the union organizer mentioned in my previous posts here at Mercury.
i’m trying hard but i must tell you that i still dont really give a shit whether you think i’m a troll or not…liberal blogs are growing at a remarkable pace and are a serious offset to the wingnuts that control talk radio…i suppose you can gestapo your blog the way rush and sean gestapo their callers but as i said thats your business…….
fwiw, heres the rule i adhere to…i dont post anything that i wouldnt say to you face to face….i doubt you’d call me a liar to my face especially since we are of like mind on the vast majority of issues….theres plenty of room in our party for disagreement on how to deal with bin Laden…we might at least agree that nothing we could dream up would be as big as a clusterfuck as the Republicans have created…they made an Islamic republic out of Iraq..something Osama could have never done.
whig said
B. Izzy, this isn’t my blog. I’m just a commenter here like you. I don’t believe you are anything but a Republican troll, pretending to be a Democrat.
b. izzy said
“B. Izzy, this isn’t my blog. I’m just a commenter here like you. I don’t believe you are anything but a Republican troll, pretending to be a Democrat.”
Great…let see how this started and maybe it might persuade you that not all Dems think exactly the way you might….
..several posts ago someone opined how disgusting it was that so many people called air america to voice their support for obamas view on bin Laden in Pakistan..think about that for a second whig..does it suggest that maybe lots of Dems who listen to AA might support the exact same policy Bill Clinton maintained with respect to bin Laden…it shouldnt even be shocking that Obama enunciated the policy….maybe you are out of step with the rest of the democratic party..if i could have got through i would have voiced the same support on air..i did leave a message of support for obamas position on the caller line for Hartmans show
i listen to Hartman and Rhodes everyday..in fact Randi turned me on to this site
if i were a republican though i’d be pushing hillary since she might be the only candidate to galvanize the right wing…i think obama would mop the floor with anybody they throw up….anyhow whig i’m trying to tone down my personal attacks so i can achieve civility but you should know that i am thinking of you going and performing a sex act on yourself…:)
whig said
Enjoy your sexual fantasies of me, I guess. I don’t have much to say to that.
Phoenix Woman said
Is b.izzy an example of that high moral standing Republicans so like to tout? What is it with the Republican hypocrites, anyway? Sex is all they can think about — well, that, and seeing how hard they can hurt other people.
Charles said
You’re a better Christian than I am, whig. I don’t have enough patience for people with nothing to say and lots of time to say it.
If I haven’t said it before, I appreciate your posting to the site. One mellow member of the MercRising community makes up for 10 a-holes.
whig said
I don’t believe in comparing Christianity, Charles. We all walk our own paths, and I respect anyone who is seeking to do good.
I’m glad not to be considered a pest, after all. I talk a lot, but not everyone appreciates what I have to say.
whig said
Wrong faith can be corrected by mere explanation and new understanding. Wrong works can only be undone by great difficulty.
whig said
(And always feel free to tell me I’m wrong.)
Charles said
I will so feel, whig. But you’re right about deeds being difficult to undo, while what goes on in our thoughts and emotions needs to be observed, understood, and gradually transformed through understanding. Likewise, nice thoughts with no deeds to back them up, are pretty worthless.
To try to bring that back to the thread topic, I hope that we continue to think about Pakistan and bin Laden, but not act until we have thought through the possible consequences of our actions in terms of unraveling the society and potentially facilitating the transfer of nuclear weapons to al Qaida.
b. izzy said
boy, you guys could use a sense of humor…how telling someone to go f%ck themselves turns into a sexual fantasy says more about people projecting than my ill fated attempt at a joke…guess the :) emoticon wasnt a big enough signal for you…i also allow for the possibility that what i said just wasnt funny..would definetly not be the first time
“Is b.izzy an example of that high moral standing Republicans so like to tout? What is it with the Republican hypocrites, anyway? Sex is all they can think about — well, that, and seeing how hard they can hurt other people.”
Now I’m just convinced you people are just thick…..i’m not a republican and i think sex and swearing have little to do with morality….some of the most moral people i know swear like truck drivers and have pretty healthy sex lives.
..the only people i am interested in hurting are those who kill innocent civilians….and subjecting them to the criminal justice system would be sufficient for me…
fwiw…we all get judged on the “good works” we do….and the best place to do meaningful good works is through the government.
quick question??..at what point to republican trolls posing as democrats start using their super secret powers to trick all you rocket scientists into giving up your evil socialist democratic party views…..i’m used to conservative posters hanging it out there and engaging the liberals they so despise…in fact, you cant find a single republican posing as a democrat anywhere on the several hundred discussion threads over at Frankens website…wonder why?
if i post consistently progressive views (and i consider my views on neutralizing bin Laden progressive but fair game for those other progressives who fear instability in Pakistan) what does that do to accomplish my supposed efforts to turn you all into drooling neocons????
do i become a frequent poster and then maybe a contributor and then one day announce to the board that I found Jesus and the RNC and pray that all of you follow me to paradise???
when i see the logic employed here i come to understand why we lose so many elections to repubs who have nothing to offer people except theocracy, misguided war and the destruction of the middle class.
Charles said
B. Izzy says, “..the only people i am interested in hurting are those who kill innocent civilians….”
Unless, of course, those who are planning to kill innocent civilians through poorly-planned air strikes and cross-border incursions by people who don’t speak the language and don’t understand the local political situation happen to be US leaders, in which case, who cares about the innocent civilians.
Whether one is pro or con to that proposition, is the entire substance of the discussion on this thread.
It is also a key substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats: whether one believes that military force is the primary means of changing a population’s political beliefs, or whether diplomacy should have the pre-eminent role, with military force reserved for blowing things up and killing people.
b. izzy said
“B. Izzy says, “..the only people i am interested in hurting are those who kill innocent civilians….”
Unless, of course, those who are planning to kill innocent civilians through poorly-planned air strikes and cross-border incursions by people who don’t speak the language and don’t understand the local political situation happen to be US leaders, in which case, who cares about the innocent civilians.
Whether one is pro or con to that proposition, is the entire substance of the discussion on this thread.
It is also a key substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats: whether one believes that military force is the primary means of changing a population’s political beliefs, or whether diplomacy should have the pre-eminent role, with military force reserved for blowing things up and killing people.”
The Bush administration has the blood of innocents on its hands..both Iraqi and the 3600 American soldiers who died for a policy mistake…the repubs will be brought to justice through the elective process and hopefully where they violated the law with impeachment and criminal prosecution….
…you’ve raised an important question here…the use of military force….it should be the last resort when all diplomacy has failed….chickenhawks seem more likely to use it having never experienced the horror of war….count Bush and his cronies among that group….i think reagan ruined this country for generations but i will give him credit for 1 and only 1 thing…when our marines were killed in lebanon he got us out immediately being prescient enough to recognize a civil war…which brings us back to bin Laden….
a poorly planned strike resulting in civilian losses in Pakistan even if it nailed osama might be a bad thing…a successful surgical strike with no civilian casualties could only be a good thing….on this it does not matter if you are republican or democrat….osama declared war upon us (for whatever reason)and took the lives of innocent non-combatants…he needs to be defeated
I am not for war but i am for truth and i believe this to be true…..war was a legitimate means to birth our Republic, end slavery, and defeat fascism. There is no getting around this….
we are in one now with al quaeda and we need to be very smart to win….force is part of the equation..we differ on where and how it should be applied…
we do agree on what else is necessary…..reducing the support of radical movements by redressing the root causes….
i often laugh when repubs insist reagan defeated communism…the rolling stones and blue jeans brought down the communists…think the same thing would happen to the mullahs as well
whig said
B. Izzy, you are for war. Stop dissembling.
Charles said
B. Izzy says, “a successful surgical strike with no civilian casualties could only be a good thing….”
Do you believe that such things ever happen? I started this thread because the British have been asking American special forces to get out of the Helmand area because they have been calling air strikes onto civilians..
If you genuinely believe that “a poorly planned strike resulting in civilian losses in Pakistan even if it nailed osama might be a bad thing…”, then you have no business saying the hard words against MEC and myself that you have used.
b. izzy said
Whig….I am not dissembling…I am for war in certain circumstances….lose any family in the Holocaust?…I did and if FDR had not declared war you’d be speaking German and I and any other subhuman ethnics (Jews) would be wiped from the face of the earth….I’m also glad Licoln waged war to free the slaves….should I not be and if you are just be direct and say whether or not you were for these wars or not?
I am not for invading Pakistan..it would be a disaster but that is far different than a limited attempt to eliminate Osama
Charles…successful surgical strikes happen without civilian causualties…..not enough to suit my sensibilities but they clearly happen….Bill Clinton missed Obama at a training camp by a couple of hours with a missle strike…it was a military target and there would not have been a single civilian casualty if he had caught them there….the IDF has killed Hamas leadership in motor vehicles with missle strikes in the middle of crowded urban streets without any other casualties (I AM NOT DEFENDING IDF TACTICS….THEY HURT MORE THAN THEY HELP OFTEN BUT MILITARILY THEY CAN BE VERY PRECISE)…it can and does happen
the point is that if bin Laden is operating within a military enclave or travelling with limited personell somewhere in Pakistan and we get actionable intelligence then we should go for it if Perez cant or wont….I would prefer Pakistani forces to arrest Osama and deliver him to us for a trial with full rights accorded to him as a defendant…it would send a message to the world that we arent like al quaeda….it is a much more powerful mesage than blowing him up….I thought Clinton trying and convicting the 1993 Trade Center bombers was incredibly important and effective…that aside, Osama is still planning more attacks and I’d prefer to be proactive rather than watching more of my fellow citizens jumping from burning buildings
look…i appreciate you guys engaging me on this topic and not banning me…i apologize if my language and tonality offended any of you…the written word sometimes does a poor job of expressing the spirit of whats intended…its been duly noted and i wont be as vituperative or vulgar….
whig said
Did he just call Jews “subhuman ethnics”?
whig said
Oh, and “Bill Clinton missed Obama” — priceless.
Charles said
Whig asks, “Did he just call Jews “subhuman ethnics”?”
I think that was self-deprecating gallows humor, Whig, since he included himself among that group. I think a charitable interpretation is in order.
Charles said
B. Izzy says, “…i apologize if my language and tonality offended any of you…the written word sometimes does a poor job of expressing the spirit of whats intended…its been duly noted and i wont be as vituperative or vulgar….”
Well, it did offend. I hope that means that you actually do apologize, since conditional apologies don’t mean much.
I appreciate the promise to stay off of personal attacks and avoid vulgarity, especially when referring to members of the community.
B. says, “Bill Clinton missed Obama at a training camp by a couple of hours with a missle strike…it was a military target and there would not have been a single civilian casualty if he had caught them there…”
Whig noted the subsitition of Obama for Osama. I am biting my tongue and trying to stick to the debate at hand:
And yet, the strikes in Afghanistan, despite being in a remote region and despite being specifically on training camps, killed a number of non-Al Qaeda. Very, very rarely are such ideal conditions achieved, and they will not be achieved in Pakistan.
“the IDF has killed Hamas leadership in motor vehicles with missle strikes in the middle of crowded urban streets without any other casualties.”
Much more often, they have killed them with casualties, including children. Twenty seven pilots who were part of the targeted assassinations have refused to fly any more missions, saying, “We, veteran pilots and active pilots alike…are opposed to carrying out illegal and immoral attacks, of the type carried out by Israel in the territories.”
If the pilots themselves call them “illegal” and “immoral,” why are we even discussing following Israel’s lead?
Amnesty International has condemned the targeted killings, noting that for 100 alleged terrorists, scores of civilians were killed and many more injured. Israel claims to have improved the precision of its strikes to the point they only kill one civilian for every 25 alleged terrorists, but since there’s no independent oversight, who knows? What we do know is that when armies are told that civilian casualties are unacceptable, civilians are suddenly transformed in military reports into combatants.
Even when they are old women and little children.
b. izzy said
my apology was meant to be unconditional…Obama is not Osama and if you had an edit feature i could figure out that would have been edited…btw…..i’m jewish as if “izzy” requires an additional explanation….
proud of the Israeli military who refuses to put innocents at risk….hope for some moderation from all sides so we can get peace finally
whig said
Innocents like Rachel Corrie or do you consider her a combatant?
Charles said
Or innocents like the three members of the UN team killed in Lebanon either deliberately or by extraordinarily imprecise precision attacks?
I used to think Israel tried to prevent civilian casualties. That incident with the UN was one of a number in the last five years that made me re-think that impression.
Phoenix Woman said
And may I say that I’m really tired of seeing proschlockateurs trying to avoid responsibility for their own words and actions by labeling them “humor” after the fact?
b. izzy said
I’ve accepted responsibility for my comments with an apology…my explanation for part of those comments was that I was attempting to make a “go fuck yourself” joke…that explanation was just that..an explanation…not an attempt to ameliorate my sincere expressed contrition….
calling me a “proschlockateur” seems hypocritical for people who subscribe to the admonition that trolling includes personal attacks on other site users….maybe you can dish it out but can’t take it….Rove just slinked out of the white house cause he had the same problem
anyhow, its your blog…grateful to participate under whatever rules you eventually settle on.
Whig…Rachel Corrie was a non combatant…it was a terrible and tragic incident…I am sad for her just as I am sad for the innocent Israelis killed on bus’ or in clubs and pizza parlors for no good reason….
i am no more willing to excuse Israeli killings of civilians than I am willing to excuse Palestinian….though,logic tells me that if Israel wished to intentionally target civilians {as Hamas by their own admission does} there would not be a living soul in Gaza or the West Bank….
hope there is a 2 state solution within reach
Charles said
The Rachel Corrie killing was an accident? I don’t think so.
The full set of photos, from which the above is drawn, is on the web
whig said
“Go fuck yourself” isn’t a joke. It’s just obnoxious.
Charles said
It’s come to my attention that due to additional abusive posts by the person posting as B. Izzy, one of my co-bloggers decided to ban him. I don’t disagree with the decision. People come here to have fun and exchange information, not to deal with trolling. Since anyone can get a blog, it’s hardly silencing people to move them off of this particular lilypad of the web.
However, I want to make sure that the substance of what B. Izzy said, minus the abuse, is presented. His basic source is http://www.honestreporting.com, which notes a number of inconsistencies and corrections issued by papers in reporting this story. HonestReporting.com is a pro-Israel lobbying group that David Leigh of the Guardian says is associated with a group that are “widely regarded as right-wing extremists.”
This doesn’t invalidate the basic point of HonestReporting.com, that the killing of Rachel Corrie remains disputed. Of course it’s disputed. But honestreporting.com is not what one would look to for an objective analysis. It is, alas, exactly what a troll would reach for.
I do think that the photos, which include one immediately after Rachel Corrie was struck, show that the view from the cab of the bulldozer is not particularly obscured. And there are eyewitness reports at that link that strongly suggest that the killing of Rachel Corrie was intentional.
A better source, however, is Human Rights Watch, which had no direct stake in the outcome. They add these important facts:
1. The soldiers knew the protestors by sight and had animus against them; “one of the soldiers in the tank even called to Corrie by name, shouting obscenities in broken English”
2. “Human Rights Watch interviewed separately three eyewitnesses to Corrie’s death and visited the site. All witnesses gave consistent testimony.”
3. The military report did not interview eyewitnesses, and contained major errors of fact.
4. “The claim of the “operational investigation” that Corrie was not killed by a bulldozer is directly contradicted by the findings of the final autopsy report…”
5. “The possibility that the bulldozer operator could not see Corrie cannot be ruled out…” so an impartial investigation is needed.
6. The military police did another investigation, which they withheld from the family and from the US government. The people who were interviewed found the investigators to be indifferent or even hostile.
7. Corrie was only one of a number of peace activists killed in a manner that appears to be either reckless disregard or outright murder.
HRW concludes: “Human Rights Watch’s own research indicates that the impartiality and professionalism of the Israeli investigation into Corrie’s death are highly questionable. ”
People can draw their own conclusions about who is telling the truth and who is not. One may reasonably infer that governments which suppress investigations are probably doing so because they know they’re guilty.
People are welcome to disagree. I am all too well aware that we have incomplete information, that we are subject to our internal biases, that we hate to be wrong and can be tempted into stretching a point.
But I agree with my co-blogger’s verdict that B. Izzy stepped over the line from disagreeing to simply being disagreeable. Once or twice, not a problem. But c’mon. We’re here to enjoy.