Tuesday, August 08, 2006

All quiet on the left front.

Hizbollah fire wounds 3 UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. Can't remember reading anything about this in the Irish Newspapers. Can you?

I have to wonder does the fact that Hezbollah rockets are not as good as Israeli missles make them better in the eyes of some people. The differance between the two attacks on UN posts is only that the Israelis had better fire power.

10 comments:

EWI said...

Please. Mortar rounds and other ordnance from Israeli sources lands in and around UN positions all the time, and likewise doesn't warrant prominence in the news (look yup the UNIFIL daily reports if you don't believe me).

Frankly, I find your assertion that "The differance between the two attacks on UN posts is only that the Israelis had better fire power." is deeply offensive. The Israelis have admitted to deliberately targetting the UN post, terming it a 'mistake'*. Your post is, I regret to say, nonsense.

(* Tom Clonan dealt in the Irish Times as to why this is an extremely unlikely story, more realistically being part of a 25-year history of similar Israeli 'mistakes', some of which killed Irish soldiers)

simon said...

ahh EWI please read what I wrote.

Unless you are presuming I thought Hezbollahs attack was a mistake. (maybe you are the making the presumtions i.e. presuming that Hezbollah wouldn't attack a UN position). Where am I suggesting that Israel hitting the UN was a mistake.

The differance between the two attacks on UN posts is only that the Israelis had better fire power.
I thought that point was quiet clear about the fact that they both did the exact same thing. Save with different levels of "success" due to available fire power.

Your post is, I regret to say, nonsense.
Regret to say. ehh. Stop trying to be a smary git be honest. You were glad to say the post was nonsense.

EWI said...

Unless you are presuming I thought Hezbollahs attack was a mistake. (maybe you are the making the presumtions i.e. presuming that Hezbollah wouldn't attack a UN position). Where am I suggesting that Israel hitting the UN was a mistake.

(Can you please re-phrase?)

Regret to say. ehh. Stop trying to be a smary git be honest. You were glad to say the post was nonsense.

No, I really do "regret to say", because this lazyness is what seems to pass for "fact-checking the MSM" [tm] on the rightwing Irish blogs.

Do you admit that the premise of the post is clearly wrong, and will you post a correction to that effect?

Niall said...

I'm of the opinion that we should probably hold a government to standards higher than that of a terrorist organisation. I mean, I expect Tony Blair to behave slightly better than the RIRA.

Simon said...

Which part do you want me to correct the part where I didn't see any news about the Hezbollah attack on the UN. Or the part where I said the differance between Hezbollah targeting the UN and Israel targeting the UN is fire power.

I'm of the opinion that we should probably hold a government to standards higher than that of a terrorist organisation.
Indeed we should but neither should we be anyway accepting of what the terrorist organisations do.

CK said...

Obviously this has lead onto a broader discussion here but the answer to your original question Simon is that there is a simple reality that Israel killing 4 peacekeepers through airstrikes is a significant news worthy story as opposed to Hizbollah injuring 3 peacekeepers with mortars.

Its not that Hizbollahs weaker firepower is earning it a special concession in the eye of the media, the ability of some of their rockets to reach further into Israel and the threats Hizbollah have made to attack cities is being reported as well of course as the death and carnage they are causing.

Death sells.

EWI said...

Which part do you want me to correct the part where I didn't see any news about the Hezbollah attack on the UN. Or the part where I said the differance between Hezbollah targeting the UN and Israel targeting the UN is fire power.

How about the part (in fact, the entirety of the post) where you seem to be implying that there's some sort of media bias? I say again - there have been several incidents involving UNIFIL taking fire, and indeed casualties - but it not making the headlines. It's all there in the daily UNIFIL press releases, available online.

Simon said...

Implying. now is my crime now is it.

You also said that
I find your assertion that "The differance between the two attacks on UN posts is only that the Israelis had better fire power." is deeply offensive. .

Care to clarify that statement. Considering that you don't like Israel I can only conclude your offence comes from me suggesting that Hezbollah delibertly target.

I say again - there have been several incidents involving UNIFIL taking fire, and indeed casualties

And would you think that if Israel hit the compound a week after hitting the other causing injuries it would not be covered? Also would you not think that if the hezbollah attack had the same fire power as the Israelis that the same damage would be done? Which brings back my question of Is proportionate response measured on a moral or a numerical level.?

EWI said...

Implying. now is my crime now is it.

Well, did you or didn't you?

You also said that
I find your assertion that "The differance between the two attacks on UN posts is only that the Israelis had better fire power." is deeply offensive. .

Care to clarify that statement. Considering that you don't like Israel I can only conclude your offence comes from me suggesting that Hezbollah delibertly target.


Israel deliberately targetted the post, a fact that not even the IDF have denied. Hence Dr. Clonan's article on why the "we mistook it for Hezbollah" defence is laughable. The other numerous instances of incidental fire hitting UNIFIL is outrageous too, but nowhere in the same league.

I say again - there have been several incidents involving UNIFIL taking fire, and indeed casualties

And would you think that if Israel hit the compound a week after hitting the other causing injuries it would not be covered?


I have no idea what you're trying to say here, sorry.

Also would you not think that if the hezbollah attack had the same fire power as the Israelis that the same damage would be done? Which brings back my question of Is proportionate response measured on a moral or a numerical level.?

An ordinary person in the street can well tell that what Israel did is not "proprtional". But I'm not surprised that a rat like Waghorne - to take one example among several allegedly 'serious' bloggers - doesn't appear to have a problem with any of this.

Simon said...

Well, did you or didn't you? Well in fairness if you read the title you should be able to answer that question.

Israel deliberately targetted the post, a fact that not even the IDF have denied. Hence Dr. Clonan's article on why the "we mistook it for Hezbollah" defence is laughable. The other numerous instances of incidental fire hitting UNIFIL is outrageous too, but nowhere in the same league.
By any chance are you a politican EWI. You have totally avoid my question and then start argueing points that I did not even make.

So I ask you again to clarify your statement. "The differance between the two attacks on UN posts is only that the Israelis had better fire power." is deeply offensive. ."

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, sorry.
If the roles were reversed would the story have been covered.

An ordinary person in the street can well tell that what Israel did is not "proprtional". Never said if it was or wasn't (indeed I probably have said it wasn't somewhere) My general question was. If 10 Hezbollah rockets do the damage of 1 Israeli rockets. is the portional response. 10 israeli rockets or 1. Or is it none.

"But I'm not surprised that a rat like Waghorne"
EWI what is it with you and richard. He has not been mentioned "ANYWHERE" on this post. I brought nothing up about him or his views on the Israel conflict or indeed repectable bloggers. Yet you felt you need to bring him into the debate for what reason I do not know.

Look EWI debating this issue with you is useless you are debating me on points that I am not making. You are presuming what my stand is on the issue based on your own prejuices of what some on the right should think. Maybe you should stop getting angry at everything and actually listen to what people say for a change. Maybe you will find that not everyone is george bush.

CK sorry for missing your comment others ranting have taken my attention. You may well be right that Death Sells is the motivation behind the papers quietness.

It is just the timing that surprises me. With interest around attacks on the UN being the big story of the time. You would think all stories relating to attacks on the UN. Would be news. My point about the firepower is that if Hezbollah had something more powerful then a mortor. Like for instance the exact same missiles as the israels. They would have killed people

Like after the airplane terror alerts any person going physco on a plane is news. Any other week it would be no where near the news.