I left this thought over at G's In The Middle Of America, but I thought it was too good to not share here. (I left it at this post.)
Cynthia McKinney lost her Democratic primary runoff against Hank Johnson, who is now the nominee and is in good position to win in the fall election. And that kind of has me a bit disappointed. I was hoping she would win.
You see I have had a saying for years that is most applicable, in this case:
Nobody is ever completely worthless. At very least, they can serve as a bad example.-Author Unknown
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Friday, August 11, 2006
France To Lead UN Peacekeeping Force In Lebanon?
There have been rumors circulating for a couple of weeks now about France possibly leading the UN force that will take positions in Southern Lebanon, to provide a buffer between Israel and Lebanon. Super Frenchie posted on this earlier in the week. But now Fox News is reporting this here.
I will go on record as saying that I am all for this, for two reasons.
1. It will give France a chance to silence critics on the weakness of the French government and the French people.
Many people still do believe that the French are a nation of cowards. I have never thought this, in spite of the fact that I have felt they did not understand the reasons for removing Saddam, were sound. This will give them chance to prove once and for all, this is but a stereotype that has little validity among educated and intelligent people.
2. It will give the French people, some of which who have been outspoken critics of the U.S., a better understanding of just how difficult maintaining a force in a predominantly Muslim country is.
If this does become a reality, do not expect or assume that the UN force will be safe from attacks from Hezbollah guerrillas. They will have to deal with the fallout of such things and will not be able to pin the difficulties on the shoulders of the United States. Hezbollah is no respecter of persons and being French does not matter to them. They do not care who you are, they do not play favorites.
So, to the French I say good luck, Godspeed, and our hopes and prayers are with you, if you decide to take this opportunity. I would also add, that this is your chance to demonstrate what you have been preaching to America for the last few years. It is your chance to shine and shine brightly.
But know and understand this, it won't be a cakewalk by any stretch of the imagination. And most of all, be prepared. Be prepared to accept the fact that for the first time in a long time, French soldiers may not make it home.
I will go on record as saying that I am all for this, for two reasons.
1. It will give France a chance to silence critics on the weakness of the French government and the French people.
Many people still do believe that the French are a nation of cowards. I have never thought this, in spite of the fact that I have felt they did not understand the reasons for removing Saddam, were sound. This will give them chance to prove once and for all, this is but a stereotype that has little validity among educated and intelligent people.
2. It will give the French people, some of which who have been outspoken critics of the U.S., a better understanding of just how difficult maintaining a force in a predominantly Muslim country is.
If this does become a reality, do not expect or assume that the UN force will be safe from attacks from Hezbollah guerrillas. They will have to deal with the fallout of such things and will not be able to pin the difficulties on the shoulders of the United States. Hezbollah is no respecter of persons and being French does not matter to them. They do not care who you are, they do not play favorites.
So, to the French I say good luck, Godspeed, and our hopes and prayers are with you, if you decide to take this opportunity. I would also add, that this is your chance to demonstrate what you have been preaching to America for the last few years. It is your chance to shine and shine brightly.
But know and understand this, it won't be a cakewalk by any stretch of the imagination. And most of all, be prepared. Be prepared to accept the fact that for the first time in a long time, French soldiers may not make it home.
How Was The Dastardly Plot Discovered?
From Time comes this story about how the plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights was discovered.
(Emphasis is mine)
Can you now see why it is of the utmost importance for Homeland Security agencies to have the ability to listen in, on suspected al-Qaida operatives?
Did they listen to your conversations to get this information? Do they care what you are having for dinner tonight or that you suspect that your spouse may be cheating on you?
No. They do not have time for that. So to keep making highly exaggerated claims that your privacy is being violated, is not only silly, it is highly counter-productive.
It's easy to sit back and live in a theoretical world, while ignoring the realities that exist. It's also easy to become critical, when you do not understand the full scope of what keeping you safe entails.
But to see the realities as I see them, means you need to have the ability to understand all of the nuances of how this death cult operates. You have to work hard to prevent, rather than wait for an event to occur and react to it. And to tie the hands that are diligently seeking to prevent, will only mean more plots like this one will slip through unnoticed, until it is way too late.
In the two or three days before the arrests, the cell was going operational, and authorities were pressed into action. MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.
(Emphasis is mine)
Can you now see why it is of the utmost importance for Homeland Security agencies to have the ability to listen in, on suspected al-Qaida operatives?
Did they listen to your conversations to get this information? Do they care what you are having for dinner tonight or that you suspect that your spouse may be cheating on you?
No. They do not have time for that. So to keep making highly exaggerated claims that your privacy is being violated, is not only silly, it is highly counter-productive.
It's easy to sit back and live in a theoretical world, while ignoring the realities that exist. It's also easy to become critical, when you do not understand the full scope of what keeping you safe entails.
But to see the realities as I see them, means you need to have the ability to understand all of the nuances of how this death cult operates. You have to work hard to prevent, rather than wait for an event to occur and react to it. And to tie the hands that are diligently seeking to prevent, will only mean more plots like this one will slip through unnoticed, until it is way too late.
Analyzing The Connecticut Senate Race
A staunch liberal was replaced on the Democratic ticket on Tuesday, by another staunch liberal. Lieberman, who votes against the President the lion's share of the time, was beaten out by a Kos-by Kid, who will probably do much of the same. I know, I know. Many refer to Joe Lieberman as a moderate, but when you factor in his voting record unweighted, he is a liberal.
Certainly, the big difference in this race has been no big secret. The war in Iraq was once again put on the ballot as a referendum by the left wing of the Democratic party. They played the same old hand they played in the 2004 election, using the same old strategy, except for one big difference. This time they won. But just exactly did they win?
You see, the only real difference in candidates was the stance on the war. Lieberman understands the nature of the enemy and what their objectives are, and Lamont does not. Lamont got talked into this race, partly because of his deep pockets and partly because no one else had the guts to go up against Joe Lieberman in the primary. Until this year, that was an unthinkable tale.
Lieberman was an icon in the Democratic Party. Who would have the charisma, the appeal, er uh, the money to match the war chest of a sitting incumbent that once was the party's nominee for Vice President? Enter Ned Lamont. Then, enter the Kos Krowd and the frothing at the mouth Deaniacs with their fundraising (such as it is).
This bunch spent a good deal of money to unseat someone, they didn't like. But now, they will now have to spend heavily again to beat Lieberman in the fall, in order to claim the seat they desperately want. (See why I distrust Dems with money even more than Republicans?) And even that's not a sure thing, when you consider the tight nature of this race (52%-48%), of which only registered Democrats could vote in.
It's a pretty safe bet, there will be a lot of secret GOP money pumped into the Lieberman campaign, from this point forward. The GOP candidate may not have much of a chance, at all. Not only that, Lieberman will certainly get a lot of Independent and GOP votes, based on the fact that he gets the big picture on the most important issue of our day, the war against Islamic fascism.
I see signs of desperation on the part of the anti-war wing. As I said earlier, they played this strategy in 04 and lost. But now there are signs that the war has not been resonating well with a lot of Americans. This may be their last big opportunity to reassert themselves back into power and they know it. As a result, we should all get ready for another fall election cycle with the likes of Cindy Sheehan and her cult followers saying: Bush lied, people died (and other cult-like chants).
I understand the nature of politics. The ultimate goal is always power (no matter what party is involved). But when you consider the methods used, you can certainly see that desperation at work in the left-wing, of the Democratic party. They have been out of power for almost six years now and they have spent the last four running an anti-Bush, anti-war campaign that hasn't worked yet. It may well work in a primary, but it's not likely to happen in this year's fall Senate race, at least not in Connecticut.
Maybe the Democrats should consider another strategy to get back into power. Maybe they should come up with some ideas.
Certainly, the big difference in this race has been no big secret. The war in Iraq was once again put on the ballot as a referendum by the left wing of the Democratic party. They played the same old hand they played in the 2004 election, using the same old strategy, except for one big difference. This time they won. But just exactly did they win?
You see, the only real difference in candidates was the stance on the war. Lieberman understands the nature of the enemy and what their objectives are, and Lamont does not. Lamont got talked into this race, partly because of his deep pockets and partly because no one else had the guts to go up against Joe Lieberman in the primary. Until this year, that was an unthinkable tale.
Lieberman was an icon in the Democratic Party. Who would have the charisma, the appeal, er uh, the money to match the war chest of a sitting incumbent that once was the party's nominee for Vice President? Enter Ned Lamont. Then, enter the Kos Krowd and the frothing at the mouth Deaniacs with their fundraising (such as it is).
This bunch spent a good deal of money to unseat someone, they didn't like. But now, they will now have to spend heavily again to beat Lieberman in the fall, in order to claim the seat they desperately want. (See why I distrust Dems with money even more than Republicans?) And even that's not a sure thing, when you consider the tight nature of this race (52%-48%), of which only registered Democrats could vote in.
It's a pretty safe bet, there will be a lot of secret GOP money pumped into the Lieberman campaign, from this point forward. The GOP candidate may not have much of a chance, at all. Not only that, Lieberman will certainly get a lot of Independent and GOP votes, based on the fact that he gets the big picture on the most important issue of our day, the war against Islamic fascism.
I see signs of desperation on the part of the anti-war wing. As I said earlier, they played this strategy in 04 and lost. But now there are signs that the war has not been resonating well with a lot of Americans. This may be their last big opportunity to reassert themselves back into power and they know it. As a result, we should all get ready for another fall election cycle with the likes of Cindy Sheehan and her cult followers saying: Bush lied, people died (and other cult-like chants).
I understand the nature of politics. The ultimate goal is always power (no matter what party is involved). But when you consider the methods used, you can certainly see that desperation at work in the left-wing, of the Democratic party. They have been out of power for almost six years now and they have spent the last four running an anti-Bush, anti-war campaign that hasn't worked yet. It may well work in a primary, but it's not likely to happen in this year's fall Senate race, at least not in Connecticut.
Maybe the Democrats should consider another strategy to get back into power. Maybe they should come up with some ideas.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Terror Averted. Feel Safe?
As most people know by now, a major terrorist attack was averted in Britain, one that involved the possible bombing and destruction of trans-Atlantic flights, while in the air. Thwarting something of this magnitude is always a welcome event, but it is an event that poses some interesting questions. Much of the questions we will never know the answers to, mainly because knowing them would compromise methods necessary to break up this heinous plots, like these.
Soon after the news was announced, the media began its customary onslaught of coverage; and most of the partisans have not surprised anyone, certainly not me.
There are those that are lauding the success and then, there are those that are blaming Bush, crying conspiracy, and/or blaming America in general (for everything wrong with the world). But beyond that, I hope there are some that sit on the fence (those that are confused but have potential to come to some stark realizations) that are noticing the recent events, and are beginning to see that these people are not going to quit. Whether we quit or whether we don't, they will still be at war with the west.
Let's look at this essay by Victor Davis Hanson, found at RCP, earlier today. Overall, it's a bit off topic. But this part is particularly important for the basis of my argument:
Did you get that?
It's easier to be critical of Israel, because Israelis do not issue fatwas. Christians sometimes threaten boycotts, but they do not issue fatwas either. For that matter, when did a Hindu, Buddhist, or a Hare Krishna issue one?
Not only is the Western media slanting things, some of them have been caught using tapes and photos from staged scenes. This tells me two things. There is not a lot of true freedom for the western media to operate without getting some "freelance journalist" (movie producer) to provide footage. That may account for some of it, but why do they not challenge and scrutinize the material given them by these sources? Or more likely, it could be the fact that there is a genuine fear that if they do not look favorably on the Muslim world, they will lose the flow of oil and they will have a death sentence pronounced against them by some radical and fanatical imam.
But whatever the reasonings, playing their game is not going to stop them. Negotiations are not going to stop them. Cease-fires, suspensions of activity, nothing will stop them. They may lay low for awhile. They may feign negotiations, like they did when Clinton tried to get Arafat and Barak to broker a deal for peace. (Many blame Clinton for not having a deal. That is not fair, he had Barak willing to give Arafat everything he wanted except Jerusalem, but Arafat did not want peace and rejected it.) But they always reject the deal in the end and they always start more hostilities.
So, what does all of this have to do with the story of averted terror?
With all of the coddlings the BBC and other British news agencies give to the Muslim world, it was not enough to dissuade 24 or more Muslims from hatching this plot and stand willing to carry it out. With all of the lip service given to the Muslim world by European governments and media, you'd think that they would be willing to direct all of their energies elsewhere. But they do not appear to be very charitable, at least not towards those that have bent over backward and allowed them to assimilate them into a free western society and to practice their religion, virtually unhindered.
Soon after the news was announced, the media began its customary onslaught of coverage; and most of the partisans have not surprised anyone, certainly not me.
There are those that are lauding the success and then, there are those that are blaming Bush, crying conspiracy, and/or blaming America in general (for everything wrong with the world). But beyond that, I hope there are some that sit on the fence (those that are confused but have potential to come to some stark realizations) that are noticing the recent events, and are beginning to see that these people are not going to quit. Whether we quit or whether we don't, they will still be at war with the west.
Let's look at this essay by Victor Davis Hanson, found at RCP, earlier today. Overall, it's a bit off topic. But this part is particularly important for the basis of my argument:
So, what then does matter to so many Westerners about this war?
Our fear, of course. We want to avoid messy complications like stirring up another 9/11 or Madrid bombing, spiking oil prices to over $80 a barrel, or treading on politically incorrect ground by criticizing the "other" of the former Third World.
The Western press -- usually so careful to condemn hate speech -- is utterly silent about Arab racism. But a European paper recently published a cartoon portraying Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as a Nazi, secure that no rabbi would issue threats that could cost the editors their heads.
Did you get that?
It's easier to be critical of Israel, because Israelis do not issue fatwas. Christians sometimes threaten boycotts, but they do not issue fatwas either. For that matter, when did a Hindu, Buddhist, or a Hare Krishna issue one?
Not only is the Western media slanting things, some of them have been caught using tapes and photos from staged scenes. This tells me two things. There is not a lot of true freedom for the western media to operate without getting some "freelance journalist" (movie producer) to provide footage. That may account for some of it, but why do they not challenge and scrutinize the material given them by these sources? Or more likely, it could be the fact that there is a genuine fear that if they do not look favorably on the Muslim world, they will lose the flow of oil and they will have a death sentence pronounced against them by some radical and fanatical imam.
But whatever the reasonings, playing their game is not going to stop them. Negotiations are not going to stop them. Cease-fires, suspensions of activity, nothing will stop them. They may lay low for awhile. They may feign negotiations, like they did when Clinton tried to get Arafat and Barak to broker a deal for peace. (Many blame Clinton for not having a deal. That is not fair, he had Barak willing to give Arafat everything he wanted except Jerusalem, but Arafat did not want peace and rejected it.) But they always reject the deal in the end and they always start more hostilities.
So, what does all of this have to do with the story of averted terror?
With all of the coddlings the BBC and other British news agencies give to the Muslim world, it was not enough to dissuade 24 or more Muslims from hatching this plot and stand willing to carry it out. With all of the lip service given to the Muslim world by European governments and media, you'd think that they would be willing to direct all of their energies elsewhere. But they do not appear to be very charitable, at least not towards those that have bent over backward and allowed them to assimilate them into a free western society and to practice their religion, virtually unhindered.
More Fake Photos Courtesy Of Hezbollah Productions
I have been very busy as of late, but AICS from The Logic Lifeline has been on the ball and covering what I have missed during my time of heavy activity.
Check out the latest on this here, here, here, here, and here.
Be sure to follow his links for more on each specific instance of attempted media manipulation.
So now, we have Reuters, AP, NYT, NPR, US News, and Time implicated in this display of bias and deception. If anyone still thinks that the MSM is a trusted source of information, I still have that mountain cabin in central Florida.
They may get it right from time to time. But after these recent discoveries by bloggers, we can know for a surety that everything they put out about this current Mideast conflict should be closely scrutinized. And not only in this case, but what about all of the sectarian violence pictures in Iraq? Maybe we should all look at this a little closer, too.
Check out the latest on this here, here, here, here, and here.
Be sure to follow his links for more on each specific instance of attempted media manipulation.
So now, we have Reuters, AP, NYT, NPR, US News, and Time implicated in this display of bias and deception. If anyone still thinks that the MSM is a trusted source of information, I still have that mountain cabin in central Florida.
They may get it right from time to time. But after these recent discoveries by bloggers, we can know for a surety that everything they put out about this current Mideast conflict should be closely scrutinized. And not only in this case, but what about all of the sectarian violence pictures in Iraq? Maybe we should all look at this a little closer, too.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Damned If They Do. Damned If They Don't.
From the LA Times comes this op-ed piece.
Bingo.
The Israelis cannot win, in the court of world opinion. They cannot depend on anyone else but themselves. World opinion right now is devoid of insight and understanding. So, for Israel to try and court the world's approval is certainly not in their best interests.
Certainly, Hezbollah is not going to stop just because the Israelis call off the charge. They don't want Israel to call it off.
Why? For many reasons that I could list. But the one that doesn't get a lot of mention, is recruitment. The more there is a cause, the more they can convince people to take up that cause. The more people that take up that cause, the more expendable fighters, in reserve for worldwide jihad. The pathology of the jihadist movement may be complex. But when you look at it closely, it is quite predictable.
The conventional wisdom holds that any military action is counterproductive. The doves point out that the Israeli counteroffensive has boosted Hezbollah's standing in the Arab world.
Well, sure. But Hezbollah's prestige was also boosted by Israel's 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon. If aggressive Israeli actions boost Hezbollah, and conciliatory Israeli actions boost Hezbollah, then maybe Israel's actions aren't really the prime mover here.
Bingo.
The Israelis cannot win, in the court of world opinion. They cannot depend on anyone else but themselves. World opinion right now is devoid of insight and understanding. So, for Israel to try and court the world's approval is certainly not in their best interests.
Certainly, Hezbollah is not going to stop just because the Israelis call off the charge. They don't want Israel to call it off.
Why? For many reasons that I could list. But the one that doesn't get a lot of mention, is recruitment. The more there is a cause, the more they can convince people to take up that cause. The more people that take up that cause, the more expendable fighters, in reserve for worldwide jihad. The pathology of the jihadist movement may be complex. But when you look at it closely, it is quite predictable.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Evidence Of Media Bias Piling Up: Reuters Admits To Doctoring Photo
From the Jerusalem Post and Y-Net comes this story. You can read it here and here, respectively.
You probably think that I am going to tell you that I told you so. If so, you would be correct. Consider yourself, told.
But not only that, I am also going to say that the Israelis are countering the misinformation with correct information, and doing a fine job of it. If you want to play a game with Israel, they are demonstrating that they can play back. Not only does this story not suprise a lot of people (including myself), but is shows that Israel is not going to stand back and allow the enemy of their existence to control the world media. The truth will always surface, eventually.
From the moment that Reuters first announced they would cease using the word "terrorist" in their news pieces, their bias became plain to me and countless others. Now we have been informed that a world respected news agency (that is responsible for a large market share of world news), is guilty of doctoring a photo. Can you say "memogate"?
In my opinion, this not only embarasses the agency beyond compare, it severely compromises my ability to have any confidence, in anything with Reuters' name. At very least it begs the question, "what else have they doctored or lied about?". Better yet, if Reuters does this how about the AP? Or others?
We expect this kind of thing out of Hezbollah and Pallywood, but not Reuters. As biased as they can be, who would have thought that they would stoop so low, as to embellish a story using such wanton and willful disregard, for accuracy? Who would have thought that they would manufacture deceit, by manipulating the story instead of just reporting it?
I would have. In fact, I have long before this episode. Can you say the same?
You probably think that I am going to tell you that I told you so. If so, you would be correct. Consider yourself, told.
But not only that, I am also going to say that the Israelis are countering the misinformation with correct information, and doing a fine job of it. If you want to play a game with Israel, they are demonstrating that they can play back. Not only does this story not suprise a lot of people (including myself), but is shows that Israel is not going to stand back and allow the enemy of their existence to control the world media. The truth will always surface, eventually.
From the moment that Reuters first announced they would cease using the word "terrorist" in their news pieces, their bias became plain to me and countless others. Now we have been informed that a world respected news agency (that is responsible for a large market share of world news), is guilty of doctoring a photo. Can you say "memogate"?
In my opinion, this not only embarasses the agency beyond compare, it severely compromises my ability to have any confidence, in anything with Reuters' name. At very least it begs the question, "what else have they doctored or lied about?". Better yet, if Reuters does this how about the AP? Or others?
We expect this kind of thing out of Hezbollah and Pallywood, but not Reuters. As biased as they can be, who would have thought that they would stoop so low, as to embellish a story using such wanton and willful disregard, for accuracy? Who would have thought that they would manufacture deceit, by manipulating the story instead of just reporting it?
I would have. In fact, I have long before this episode. Can you say the same?
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Playing Into Hezbollah's Hands
Has anyone noticed that (besides the hard left and those that seek western civilization's destruction) there is little being said about what was said to be a horrendous massacre in Qana, last weekend? Last weekend, the Qana story saturated the headlines. Today, it's back off of the front page and very few news outlets are giving it much attention.
Journalists Fail To Explain Qana by David Warren, helps us understand the reasoning behind this.
Hezbollah's Psych-Ops by Clifford May, helps shed even more light on the subject.
All this I understand. And I suppose that some of you that read PYY, do too. But what I do not understand is how educated journalists (some with advanced degrees) can allow themselves to be fooled by the calculated deceptions that Hezbollah, al Qaida, Iran, and other radical jihadist entities are bent on promoting, as facts.
Like any other degree program, a typical journalism degree does require some electives in social sciences. History being considered a social science, you'd think that some of them would have taken a class or two. Frankly, it amazes me that more journalists cannot put two and two together and recognize some things that are plain to so many people. Take the Soviet Union for example. They were masters at propaganda, they staged many things over the course of that empire's existence. The picture painted of Soviet life was that of law and order and the successes of communism, worldwide. We now know that it was anything but, successful or orderly.
Hezbollah has learned well from that model and is using the media to advance their lies and deception, today. Yet many in the MSM can barely recognize that they are being had. And when they do, they change the subject by changing the lead story. They re-focus the attention on something new, something more outrageous, or they just downplay it quietly, hoping that no one will notice.
So give Hezbollah and the entire jihadist movement some credit. They have done what many at one point in time, would never have believed could happen. They fused elements of Soviet ideology with Nazi ideology and have become masters of manipulation, through their staged scenes. They have developed an intense hatred of Jews, so much that they seek their annihilation from the planet; and have used old communist propaganda techniques to get their message out.
And until this past week, it was working pretty well. Until the stories about Pallywood surfaced, many people have been content to eat up whatever has been served to them. But now there's a wrench that has been thrown into all of this. But instead of dealing with the allegations, the MSM is more than content to move forward without offering any explanation.
In fact, it can be seem here at PYY, as well.
If I post an essay on why I think France is wrong in a specific instance, I have French readers pounding me for what they perceive is wrong information and flawed opinion. If I have posted the slightest error as far as the media is concerned, Mean Gene hammers me. But in this case I have noticed, the critics are silent. Opposing view comments have been sparse through all of this. I guess that means some of my critics just might agree with me on this.
(Hat Tip to RCP for both articles.)
Journalists Fail To Explain Qana by David Warren, helps us understand the reasoning behind this.
My reader may be wondering what happened to all the coverage from Qana. As usual, when the "liberal" media begin to realize they've been had, the story disappears. But it is never properly corrected. We get a few days of blazing headlines, and round-the-dial TV coverage of an "Israeli massacre", laden with innuendos, and then --the fade-out. This will not do.
What happened at Qana was, almost certainly, what happened at Jenin in 2002, what happened on a beach in Gaza a few weeks ago, and what has happened on innumerable other occasions. The Israelis are instantaneously accused and convicted of a monstrous and perhaps intentional act of butchery, by people quite incurious about the facts. Their pathological hatred of "Zionism" is all the proof they need. These are people who seldom bother to shed even crocodile tears when Jews are blown to pieces by suicide bombers, or rockets are fired indiscriminately into their homes; but become tremendously excited when the news breaks that some Israeli retaliation may have gone wrong.
Hezbollah's Psych-Ops by Clifford May, helps shed even more light on the subject.
Hezbollah and its foreign sponsors deserve credit: They understand the perverse psychology of the Middle East. They knew they could launch a war against Israel and then have Israel get the blame for the devastation that inevitably would follow.
They knew also that if Israel failed to respond forcefully to their ground and missile attacks, they could say Israel was cowardly. And if Israel did respond forcefully, they could say Israel was a bully, its response “disproportionate” – even while insisting that Israel was doing them no serious damage.
They knew they could target Israeli civilians and hide combatants and weapons behind Lebanese civilians -- in homes, hospitals, schools and mosques. Even so, whenever Lebanese women and children were killed, they could accuse Israel of “war crimes.”
Give Hezbollah, Syria and Iran credit for this, too: They understand the equally perverse psychology of Europe,
the U.N. and the “international community.” Two years ago, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 demanded that Hezbollah disarm. Hezbollah refused to comply. In response, the international community shrugged its collective shoulders.
All this I understand. And I suppose that some of you that read PYY, do too. But what I do not understand is how educated journalists (some with advanced degrees) can allow themselves to be fooled by the calculated deceptions that Hezbollah, al Qaida, Iran, and other radical jihadist entities are bent on promoting, as facts.
Like any other degree program, a typical journalism degree does require some electives in social sciences. History being considered a social science, you'd think that some of them would have taken a class or two. Frankly, it amazes me that more journalists cannot put two and two together and recognize some things that are plain to so many people. Take the Soviet Union for example. They were masters at propaganda, they staged many things over the course of that empire's existence. The picture painted of Soviet life was that of law and order and the successes of communism, worldwide. We now know that it was anything but, successful or orderly.
Hezbollah has learned well from that model and is using the media to advance their lies and deception, today. Yet many in the MSM can barely recognize that they are being had. And when they do, they change the subject by changing the lead story. They re-focus the attention on something new, something more outrageous, or they just downplay it quietly, hoping that no one will notice.
So give Hezbollah and the entire jihadist movement some credit. They have done what many at one point in time, would never have believed could happen. They fused elements of Soviet ideology with Nazi ideology and have become masters of manipulation, through their staged scenes. They have developed an intense hatred of Jews, so much that they seek their annihilation from the planet; and have used old communist propaganda techniques to get their message out.
And until this past week, it was working pretty well. Until the stories about Pallywood surfaced, many people have been content to eat up whatever has been served to them. But now there's a wrench that has been thrown into all of this. But instead of dealing with the allegations, the MSM is more than content to move forward without offering any explanation.
In fact, it can be seem here at PYY, as well.
If I post an essay on why I think France is wrong in a specific instance, I have French readers pounding me for what they perceive is wrong information and flawed opinion. If I have posted the slightest error as far as the media is concerned, Mean Gene hammers me. But in this case I have noticed, the critics are silent. Opposing view comments have been sparse through all of this. I guess that means some of my critics just might agree with me on this.
(Hat Tip to RCP for both articles.)
Friday, August 04, 2006
Some Iranian History To Ponder
Time management being what it is at this point in time, I haven't been able to do what I would like.
But, one thing I have been able to do was read this piece, by Dr. R.J. Rummel a Professor Emeritus in Poli-Sci. I have been reading his blog for some time now and am impressed with some of his writings. He has a blog entitled, Democratic Peace. I would recommend giving him a look sometime, if you want to learn more about political theory and its practical applications. He does a remarkable job of tying it all into to events in history, as well as current events.
In fact, I have enjoyed some of his work so much, I am blogrolling him.
As for the essay, Dr. Rummel relates some interesting points about the installation of the Shah as ruler of Iran, in 1953. You know the one, it's the same one that the CIA helped overthrow a stable democracy.
Well, read the article and see just how stable the democracy really was. I will say this much, this is one of the times that it was in the best interests of the free world to have the Shah in power, as well as the best interests of the Iranian people.
To understand how we got to this point in time with Iran, you have to understand the history. Since the Shah was deposed, Islamic terrorism has escalated at a rapid rate and is getting faster. Today jihad is being waged, but not all people recognize it. Need I say that the "so-called" statesmen of this world (and I mean that loosely, because I can find very few statesmen, anywhere) need to get serious and quit playing into the hands of the jihadists? Somebody needs to make some moves here. Iran needs to stand down and the world needs to make them do it. Nothing less will work.
Hat Tip: To Jason at Liberty and Culture, who turned me on to this site a good while back and pointed out this particular piece.
But, one thing I have been able to do was read this piece, by Dr. R.J. Rummel a Professor Emeritus in Poli-Sci. I have been reading his blog for some time now and am impressed with some of his writings. He has a blog entitled, Democratic Peace. I would recommend giving him a look sometime, if you want to learn more about political theory and its practical applications. He does a remarkable job of tying it all into to events in history, as well as current events.
In fact, I have enjoyed some of his work so much, I am blogrolling him.
As for the essay, Dr. Rummel relates some interesting points about the installation of the Shah as ruler of Iran, in 1953. You know the one, it's the same one that the CIA helped overthrow a stable democracy.
Well, read the article and see just how stable the democracy really was. I will say this much, this is one of the times that it was in the best interests of the free world to have the Shah in power, as well as the best interests of the Iranian people.
To understand how we got to this point in time with Iran, you have to understand the history. Since the Shah was deposed, Islamic terrorism has escalated at a rapid rate and is getting faster. Today jihad is being waged, but not all people recognize it. Need I say that the "so-called" statesmen of this world (and I mean that loosely, because I can find very few statesmen, anywhere) need to get serious and quit playing into the hands of the jihadists? Somebody needs to make some moves here. Iran needs to stand down and the world needs to make them do it. Nothing less will work.
Hat Tip: To Jason at Liberty and Culture, who turned me on to this site a good while back and pointed out this particular piece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)