Shields of battle

Does Hezbollah use civilians as human shields, as Israel charges?

It's one of the central questions in this conflict -- and yet I have yet to see any serious investigation of it in the MSM. It's taken as a given. Meanwhile, the right points to photos of Hezbollah flags planted in civilian areas or near that bombed out UN installation where four observers, including one Canadian, were killed last week.

So far Salon magazine (free with one day pass) has produced the only real journalism I have read on the subject.

My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.

For their part, the Israelis seem to think that if they keep pounding civilians, they'll get some fighters, too. The almost nightly airstrikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut could be seen as making some sense, as the Israelis appear convinced there are command and control bunkers underneath the continually smoldering rubble. There were some civilian casualties the first few nights in places like Haret Hreik, but people quickly left the area to the Hezbollah fighters with their radios and motorbikes.

But other attacks seem gratuitous, fishing expeditions, or simply intended to punish anything and anyone even vaguely connected to Hezbollah. Lighthouses, grain elevators, milk factories, bridges in the north used by refugees, apartment buildings partially occupied by members of Hezbollah's political wing -- all have been reduced to rubble.

In the south, where Shiites dominate, just about everyone supports Hezbollah. Does mere support for Hezbollah, or even participation in Hezbollah activities, mean your house and family are fair game? Do you need to fire rockets from your front yard? Or is it enough to be a political activist?

The Israelis are consistent: They bomb everyone and everything remotely associated with Hezbollah, including noncombatants. In effect, that means punishing Lebanon. The nation is 40 percent Shiite, and of that 40 percent, tens of thousands are employed by Hezbollah's social services, political operations, schools, and other nonmilitary functions. The "terrorist" organization Hezbollah is Lebanon's second-biggest employer.

<SNIP>

Perhaps once a year, Hezbollah will hold a military parade in the south, in which its weapons and fighters appear. Media access to these parades is tightly limited and controlled. Unlike the fighters in the half dozen other countries where I have covered insurgencies, Hezbollah fighters do not like to show off for the cameras. In Iraq, with some risk taking, you can meet with and even watch the resistance guys in action. (At least you could during my last time there.) In Afghanistan, you can lunch with Taliban fighters if you're willing to walk a day or so in the mountains. In Gaza and the West Bank, the Fatah or Hamas fighter is almost ubiquitous with his mask, gun and sloganeering to convince the Western journalist of the justice of his cause.

The Hezbollah guys, on the other hand, know that letting their fighters near outsiders of any kind -- journalists or Lebanese, even Hezbollah supporters -- is stupid. In three trips over the last week to the south, where I came near enough to the fighting to hear Israeli artillery, and not just airstrikes, I saw exactly no fighters. Guys with radios with the look of Hezbollah always found me. But no fighters on corners, no invitations to watch them shoot rockets at the Zionist enemy, nothing that can be used to track them.

<SNIP>

Israel, however, has chosen to treat the political members of Hezbollah as if they were fighters. And by targeting the civilian wing of the group, which supplies much of the humanitarian aid and social protection for the poorest people in the south, they are targeting civilians.

Earlier in the week, I stood next to a giant crater that had smashed through the highway between Tyre and Sidon -- the only route of escape for most of the people in the far south. Overhead, Israeli fighters and drones circled above the city and its outlying areas and regular blasts of bombs and naval artillery could be heard.

The crater served as a nice place to check up on the refugees, who were forced by the crater to slow down long enough to be asked questions. They barely stopped, their faces wrenched in near panic. The main wave of refugees out of the south had come the previous two days, so these were the hard-luck cases, the people who had been really close to the fighting and who needed two days just to get to Tyre, or who had had to make the tough decision whether to flee or stay put, with neither choice looking good.

The roads in the south are full of the cars of people who chose wrong -- burned-out chassis, broken glass, some cars driven straight into posts or ditches. Other seem to have broken down or run out of gas on the long dirt detours around the blown-out highway and bridge network the Israeli air force had spent days methodically destroying even as it warned people to flee.

<SNIP>

So the analysts talking on cable news about Hezbollah "hiding within the civilian population" clearly have spent little time if any in the south Lebanon war zone and don't know what they're talking about. Hezbollah doesn't trust the civilian population and has worked very hard to evacuate as much of it as possible from the battlefield. And this is why they fight so well -- with no one to spy on them, they have lots of chances to take the Israel Defense Forces by surprise, as they have by continuing to fire rockets and punish every Israeli ground incursion.

And the civilians? They see themselves as targeted regardless of their affiliation.

Dawgie puts it rather succinctly here.

By the way not much has been written about how Israel may be using Palestinians as human shields.

Obviously, as shields, no matter which side may be using them, they aren't very effective. Too many people are dead and there seems to be no end to the bloodshed.

Comments

[sooey]

that israel claims hezbollah uses civilians as human shields and bombs them anyway says everything we need to know about israel.

[johnnykap]

Wow. These articles sympathetic to the terrorist Hezbollah cause are unreal. And they get such prominent exposure right here.

Too many people are dead and there's no end in site to the bloodshed. Actually, there is. The bloodshed will cease when Hezbollah is no longer capable of indiscriminantly launching rockets at Israeli civilians. It should not and must not cease until then. Kofi Annan should step up and take responsibility for causing the whole mess. After all, he is the primary agent responsible for enforcing Res 1559, which was fully complied with by Israel. This is yet another reason not to take the UN seriously. They don't even enforce their own resolutions!!! And Kofi wonders why his requests for a "sustainable" ceasefire get ignored.

I can't help but laugh whenever I read about "proportionate" responses, etc. Imagine fighting WW2 proportionately.

It's also funny how doubt is expressed about whether Hezbollah is using citizens as shields. Such open-minded and fair journalism. We wouldn't want to pick sides, now, would we?

Well, I'm picking sides.

[Jay Currie]

Oh, human sheilds can be very effective...the photo op in Qana bought Hezbollah a somewhat limited 48 hour air cessation. It may well have been faked, but, hey, whatever works.

http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/photo-op/

[Bill-Muskoka]

Hmmmm...Is there a full moon out tonight?

[Ti-Guy]

"Hmmmm...Is there a full moon out tonight?"

No full-moon. AIPAC's just doubling it's shill fund. I don't think two shills with the name first initial are supposed on the same blog at the same time, however.

JK and JC...check your contracts.

[stephen.reeves]

From some one who visited Hez land a few months back
"everything can explode at every moment"

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001132.html

[stephen.reeves]

Notice how it was an Israeli human rights group that accused the Israelis of using Palestianians as Human Shields.
Now I am waiting for a Hez human rights group to do the same about their fighters, would'nt you guys agree????

[V.K.J]

johnnykap and Jay Currie remind me of an old Doonesbury cartoon about two American soldiers fighting in a Latin American country where the right-wing government had death squads. The young, green soldier fires his machine gun through a doorway, then stands there and says: "I did it! I killed a commie!" The old, experienced one says: "I think you killed two; she looks pregnant to me."

[sooey]

yeah, stephen. those israeli human rights groups are everywhere and nowhere.

[OJ]

hello azerbic, my name is Owen, you write an interesting blog.

actually there is considerable evidence from the UN that Hezbollah mixes in with civilians.

UN Jan Egeland on the ground in Lebanon labelled Hezbollah as "cowards" recently for mixing in with civilians. he also criticized israel labelling much of their bombing campaign to be in violation of international law.

If this link doesn't work just google her name.

keep up the interesting blog.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19904504-23109,00.html

[Omri]

If it's only a "myth", why did Jan Egeland complain about Hezbollah's (in his words) "cowardly blending" among civilians?

[Jay Currie]

Boy ti-guy, even for you that smear was pretty lame. And, just wondering, if you are going to smear why don't you use your own name?

[johnnykap]

VKJ, interesting analogy you used about how killing a pregnant woman is killing two people. Doesn't that undercut your abortion promoting ideology that says a fetus isn't a person? Just wondering. And in case the loss of innocent civilian life proves to be too upsetting to your delicate sensibilities, just think of them all as extremely late term abortions and I'm sure you'll start to feel a lot better.

Ti-girl, Mr. Currie's analysis of your post is correct. It is rather lame, even by your standards. I promise to immediately check my contract if you promise to check the spelling on "it's" vs "its" in your future posts. Thank you in advance for complying.

[Todd]

Andy Kap sez:

"Imagine fighting WW2 proportionately."

They called it "firebombing Dresden" and "nuking Hiroshima".

Hizbollah isn't the Wehrmacht.

AK also said:

"It's also funny how doubt is expressed
about whether Hezbollah is using citizens as shields. Such open-minded and fair journalism. We wouldn't want to pick sides, now, would we?"

Aside from the truism that journalism cannot be somehow exempt from the slightest speck of human subjectivity, the article gives what look like facts (and for facts, see the initial phrase of this sentence); try imagining they could be right and see what happens.

"Well, I'm picking sides."

What, you mean you hadn't?

[Ti-Guy]

"Boy ti-guy, even for you that smear was pretty lame."

It was a "measured response" proportionate with respect to the initial salvo.

...or something. By the way, doesn't Hezbollah have Saddam's WMD's? I heard that somewhere...

[JimBobby]

Whooee! I reckon there's sum numbnutses here who don't figger Lebanese civilians lives is worth anything. If they are human shields an' the Israelis kill 'em, what's that sayin' 'bout both sides? The hezballers mebbe expect the Israelis t' be civilized enuff that they don't kill innocent babies. The Israelis figger anybuddy who din't read the leaflets an' sumhow figger a way outta the war zone must be a willin' accomplice an' deserves t' die.

Human shields only work if everybuddy agrees they're human. By bombin' an' killin' so many t' get t' so few, Israel sez they ain't real civilians, they ain't human shields, they ain't human. When it gets shoved in their faces that these are babies they're killin', they give the excuse that they regret the unfortunate accident. It weren't any accident. They jest don't care if they kill babies an' by standin' up fer 'em, there's boogers here who's standin' up fer baby-killin'.

Everybuddy's learned over the past couplafew decades that usin' massive air power an' long-range artillery can't defeat a guerilla force. Everybuddy knows that bombin' babies won't stop the hezballers. Everybuddy knows that killin' babies'll only drive more moderates inta the radical camp.

Polarization is what all warrin' sides want. They wanna see who's with 'em an' who ain't. If yer standin' with either side, yer a supporter o' terrism. Hezballers is terrists. They don't deny it, so far as I know. The IAF and IDF is terrists, too, but they deny it with phony claims of "accidents" an' fightin' fer their survival.

The overkill by Israel is designed t' bring more players inta the game. How long does Israel think Syria an' Iran'll stand fer baby-killin'. Shee-it! Even lotsa Israelis is startin' t' march fer peace. Israel needs Syria and/or Iran t' get involved soon so's the lines in the sand'll be clear an' the Merkins an' their lapdogs'll jump in full force.

The hezballers want the same thing. It ain't hezballers callin' fer a cease fire. Both sides wanna make it a bigger war an' they both wanna drag others inta the fray. They din't have much trouble draggin' Bush an' his sycophants in an' they're doin' their damndest t' drag Syria an' Iran in.

If Israel can get some real armies an' air forces t' fight, they might win. If they jest keep bombin' hunnerts o' civilians t' get a piddly few hezballers, they can't win but they can get other players fightin'.

A lastin' peace ain't gonna happen in the Mideast. Makin' a lastin' peace one o' the conditions fer a cease fire is makin' an impossible condition. By insistin' on an impossible condition, Bush/Rice/Harper/Blair make sure the killin' continues. An' lookit the job they done o' bringin' peace t' Iraq an' Afghanistan.

Here's a thought... out in Sasky, they got a child-molester who's holdin' two kiddies. If they was t' kill that sumbitch, he wouldn't molest anymore kiddies. So, if they find out where he's hidin', d'ya figger they oughta blow that town offa the map so's they can stop the peterfile?

When the IRA was plantin' bombs an' killin' London folks, did the UK bomb Dublin? 'Course not. Lotsa Irish supported the IRA. Sinn Fein had representation in gummint. What's different in Lebanon?

Yores trooly,
JimBobby

[sooey]

gawd. i hear ya, JimBobby - saskatchewan. paedophiles and not much else that i can see. and the paedophiles are so easy to spot. you'd think they'd go someplace with trees, at least.

[Dr.Dawg]

Hi, all:

Antonia is referring to the quote from Israel's Justice Minister Haim Ramon, which I reproduced without comment here:

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2006/07/lebanese-civilians-quote-of-day.html

I have posted since, and just don't want any confusion, since my last article is anything but "succinct." : )

[Ricky Pucheu]

If you seriously believe Hezbollah isn't hiding among the civilian population of Lebanon I have a bridge that goes from San Francisco to Oakland that I'll sell you dirt cheap.

[Antonia Z.]

My good friend Stephen D. (and Dee-Dee woof! woof!) took the trouble of writing me a long -- too long -- email about this issue. I am posting it here because it would take up too much room in the blog's main section. The reason I am not posting his last name is because a close relative of his is well-known and he prefers that people consider his views his own. If you knew who I meant, you would understand. Here is his email, in full. It's worth reading.
-- Antonia
------------------------------------------
Hi Antonia,

I started by just making a simple comment on the article you sent and it
turned into a rant of “War and Peace” like proportions sorry. You don’t
have to read it but after all this typing I had to do something with it.

Thanks,
S

DeeDee says woof woof woof

This article is the real story and will no doubt be buried by western media.
There are always excuses that are never really analyzed used for absolving
America and Israel when they kill innocent people or illogical replies to
questions about the things that motivate an attack. It’s the old "Why do
they hate us so much? It’s because we are free." Or they deflect
responsibility to others saying the innocents were collateral damage used as
shields or it’s the UN’s fault. The US and Israel have the best
intelligence in the world. They know what they are shooting at and the
risks of innocent people being harmed by attacks. They choose the target
and attack it and they kill these people. One simple question shows who
killed and is directly responsible for civilian deaths. If your forces had
not attacked this target located in a heavily populated residential
neighbourhood would the deaths of these innocent civilians occurred?

Has Israel declared war on Lebanon? Are these people Israel claims to be
their only intended target declared terrorists? Don’t America and Israel
treat these terrorists as criminals not soldiers or and declare criminals
are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention? So this is not
was but police action. Do Israel or America allow their police forces to
consider innocent people who may be harmed high speed chases in a school
zone or firing at suspected criminals standing among a crowd of innocent
bystanders? How would Americans or any country react if their police force
killed 5 times more innocent bystanders than criminals when trying to catch
criminals.

.Do police ever try to negotiate or at least talk to bad guys using innocent
people as shields to avoid innocents being harmed in a non violent
resolution or just send in the swat team to use maximum force with guns
blazing in the general area the suspects were last seen?. Is it ok for
cops to just shoot and say it was the criminal’s fault because he was
standing next to a school bus full of kids. “We didn’t aim at the kids but
when bullets start flying they go all over the place and even though we knew
that a lot of innocent kids would die, it was not a good enough reason to
hold our fire. Of course they would never allow this to happen to their own
people but it seems they is absolutely no compulsion or remorse to do this
to others especially if they happen to be.

Don't people ever think about how illogical and obviously intentionally
misleading these justifications are?
First the legal analysis.

A democracy is supposed to create laws that reflect the moral values and
concept of liberties and rights of its citizens based on the philosophies of
justice, equality, and integrity. Written law and the decisions based on
legal precedence are very deliberately and openly debated by the justice
system and often by the public. Logic, human rights and collective welfare
are the criteria applied to legal decisions. The USA is promoted as the
model of democracy and the ultimate society superior to all others for the
justice, liberty and values that govern the country. Believing they are
superior and even blessed by God and he (or she) is on their side making
American society a divine creation. Like missionaries attempt to convert
(even by force) other societies which are see as pagan or inferior. The
societies and the people in them are less human on some evolutionary scale
and given less value, ignored , or considered evil.

Talk is cheap so lets look at America as citizen of the world using their
own laws and concepts of justice, liberty, human rights. How would they be
viewed in one of their own courtrooms. Ok so these concepts should be valid
when considering international relations. I mean if democracy, freedom,
justice and human rights are what America is all about and good enough for
the Citizens of America, It seems to me that they are good enough to be
applied on a world level. The rest of the world is constantly being told
“that is the reason America is the greatest country in the world."

Would the following be legal in America?

1, ISRAEL TODAY. A gang from East LA kidnap or kill a cop from Beverly
Hills. It has happened often and there are countless incidents where
innocent Beverly Hills residents are mugged, robbed or even murdered by east
LA gangs. The Beverly Hills residents are really fed up with this
situation. They say the East LA residents and even local civic government
is not controlling or even supporting what some of the gang’s public
statements defending their actions claim is “a class war between rich and
poor”.

The mayor and council of Beverly Hills increase the size of the BHPD by
5,000%, all of which are trained as SWAT teams, buy armored vehicles
surround east LA, turn off their water and electricity, send SWAT teams to
destroy police stations and just shoot their guns and plant bombs at
anything that looks like a gang member’s house or car even if not verified
and regardless of any the public collateral destruction

Most of the rest of California is horrified by Beverly Hills, but Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger who has many friends in Beverly Hills and supports his
buddies and refuses to intervene. The Governator is busy is presently
doing the same thing to Watts using the justification that the mayor there
was suspected of abuse and the false rumor of having equipped their police
force with one or 2 homade tanks like far inferior to the 200 Beverly Hills
has just purchased using state money provided by the governor’s office

2. America’s response to 911. If some rich guy from 5th avenue in NYC or
his family is the victim of a crime by a black man from Newark, does he have
the right to track him to his new home in Boston kill him or anyone else who
might unfortunately be in the way of the rich guy in his search?

3. Is revenge an acceptable legal defense for any violent criminal act in
any legal jurisdiction in the US?

4. US withdrawal from the World court. Can any individual in the US say
to any Federal, state or local court that they are exempt from prosecution
and reject any requirement that they or their agents can be held responsible
for any criminal activity?

5. US policy concerning the UN, real view on the principals of democracy
and basic human rights. If a senator is opposed to a law which was
democratically accepted by the senate, is he considered justified in saying
that the senate is useless and should be abolished? While the decision may
have been in the best interest of the entire country, it may have negative
consequences for his state reducing state’s advantages over the rest of the
country. Even though the vote was democratic and legal can this one state
and its citizens withhold all federal tax contributions in an effort to
pressure or coerce the senate to follow the wishes of one senator? Would it
be considered democratic or even legal for some senators or even any
registered voter have the advantage of their vote counting for more than
other votes?

6. US divine right to pre-emptive military action. Would any court accept
a defense by a defendant claiming he acted in self defense when he went to
somebody’s house and shot the occupant because he felt that the victim was a
threat to his security. The defendant explained that the reason he felt
threatened was the fact that the victim did not like the defendant and even
though the defendant had an extensive gun collection and state of the art
security system he got worried when he had heard rumors from the town
gossip which he never verified despite several people saying the opposite
and later proved to be completely false, that the victim was thinking about
purchasing a revolver.

8. Geneva convention and due process. If a transvestite assaults a police
officer during a riot while he was in drag, is he no longer protected by the
US constitution and loose the right to due process and the presumption of
innocence? Can he be held indefinitely held without charge, access to a
lawyer, or the right to a public trial before an unbiased judge or a jury of
his peers?

9. War on terror. Which creates more terror in terms of numbers of people
affected and intensity making the experience longer in duration and
profoundly affecting the victims? Terrorist A. Unannounced random acts of
violence by suicidal fanatics who must operate while avoiding the most
sophisticated, financially supported well equipped, and organized security
forces in the world dedicated to stopping them. This terror is limited to
one or 2 home made explosive devices local attacks of a limited scale and
soft targets are the only option to have even a slim chance of success. If
caught the terrorist are subject to extreme punishment and persecution.
Terrorist B. An invincible all powerful national force with unlimited
access to funds and possess the most advanced and destructive weapons on the
planet with sophisticated systems for intelligence, observation,
communication and supreme psychological, chemical, and biological warfare
capabilities. The victim can not in any way stop the attacks and the rest
of the world will not help them. The attacks are coordinated. using
thousands of people professionally trained for the action, firing thousands
of explosive devices and millions of projectiles over wide areas like cities
or even whole nations. Any target is available and chosen for major
impact. Military targets are often poor choices as history shows and
destruction of infrastructure (water, electricity and transportation) is
easier and more effective as well as being indiscriminate as to who is
victimized, designed to break the back of a nation and their support of the
military and abandon any attempt to resist the aggressor. This type of
attack creates devastation to the entire population on a number of levels.
The victims are and not only harmed by direct harm from the weapons at the
time of the incident but must bear the long lasting (years) hardships
risking their health, education, economy, government and communication.
This terrorist often announces his attack indicating the volume weapons and
their destructive capacity are immense in an attempt to sew fear and awe
into their victims. Terrorist B also acts with impunity and faces no legal
or moral for consequences regardless of who or how many victims have been
harmed. So who wins the gold medal for terrorism, is it A or B? Who are
you more terrified by?

Ok I finally have one disagreement with the article. It says only Israel
and the US officially accept what is happening in Lebanon. To my complete
sorrow and disgust Canada is clearly an overlooked yet undeniable addition
to the list. Stephen Harper in a few scant months is on the verge of
destroying goodwill that was developed over centuries resulting in
Canada’s international reputation being universally being respected and
Canadians being not only accepted but welcome in any part of the world
regardless of political, ethnic or religious considerations. We were
honest, non violent, peace keepers friends to all and everybody loved us.
The maple leaf was something to be proud of and even used by others to take
advantage of our international status. Harper began his crusade at the
point in Canada’s international popularity was peaking and pride at being a
Canadian was revealed by many poles to be at an all time high. Mr. Harper
clearly showed where his allegiance lies and his priorities regarding
Canada’s international relations.

He said Canadians should feel shame for not joining and supporting America
in building their international empire. Our moral values, sense of justice,
respect of human rights, international law and our level of communication
with the rest of the world without prejudice or influence should be ignored.
Our friendship with the US was more important than any of this and
regardless of our values and doing what we (and the rest of the world) is
the right and human thing we are supposed to blindly accept and support
America regardless of their motive or resulting negative impact on other
nations. Justice, truth, freedom, honor, independence and dedication to
peace could not be applied to America and what they did with the rest of the
world. So if “our best friend” wants to go and beat up some poor guy who
works at a convenience store forcing the clerk to always not charge our pal
for cigarettes when he goes there. . We are supposed to help him do it and
give him an alibi if he gets caught.

Well we didn’t fall for the shame crap since we have some ability to think.
When shame didn’t work it was our pocket books that were at risk because our
“friend” would use his financial power to punish us for being independent
and we might end up being told “you will never eat lunch in this town
again”. The economic threat was reinforced by a very suspicious coincidence
of threats by official American representatives to our country and by
refusing to honor financial obligations required by contracts they had with
us. A few people were scared by the possible financial harm. The threat
was not really real. First they need us more than we need them, Canadians
do not consider money as the sole criteria for decision making and amassing
unlimited personal wealth is what defines Canadians. When Harper realized
his attempt to deliver Canada to the Whitehouse using threats or shame he
said oops and quickly retracted his words doing everything he could to
make everyone forget his true intentions and his unwavering commitment to
foreign interests.

Harper was forced to wait for an opportunity. Some time later the media and
some government bureaucrats began making sensational accusations of Liberal
corruption using on a financial scale which was so large that nothing in
Canadian history could even be close to comparing. Attempting to be
transparent and show integrity (the please everybody style of Martin) the
truth would show no systematic or official corruption and the liberals would
be vindicated.

How Carl Rove runs Canada

A carbon copy of Carl Rove’s well documented game plan republican fortunes
have used to manipulate public opinion and destroy all political opposition
to Whitehouse imperial aspirations. Using sensational numbers, a few mid
level bureaucrats with an axe to grind to make unsubstantiated claims of
corruption (later shown to be false or based on here say or rumor), use of
highly recognizable public figures and Roves abilities to control the media
to focus on events or issues that are specifically favorable to one party
without any serious journalistic investigation or attempt to present a
balanced view. Sensational and condeming claims made the front page and
the 6 pm news but when revealed to be false or there was no evidence
confirming or supporting the rumors the truth was buried on the middle of
the paper. Like Rove the issue was transformed into an attack on a whole
party’s moral and patriotic character and every liberal was guilty by
association.

Harper presenting himself as pure honest and dedicated to open transparent
government who would be dedicated to Canadian interests and return
confidence in our government promising political accountability would be
one of his priorities. Well timed assertions of moral superiority and
reference to patriotic to religious affiliations (even if totally
fabricated,. misleading or the contrary to actual historical record) are
designed to paint some kind of divine and pure image and criticism
would be religious blasphemy or unpatriotic or even treason.

The plan worked flawlessly in The US and to a lesser extent in Canada as it
achieved (so far) only a minority government. Although Harper is not
supposed to have much power and cannot govern without support of political
party opposed to national interest dedicated to the interest of only one
region seeing Canada as an enemy at worst or reject all allegiance to at
best who they.

The style and direction Harper has imposed in Ottawa is identical to what
has been created in Washington. Examples include restricting the freedom of
the press by preventing covering events which could demonstrate the negative
results of policies and undermine public support. Limiting any scrutiny of
his actions or policies by restricting all media contact and only issues he
chooses will be allowed all questions must be submitted for his approval
prior to any interview. A gag order on all members of the cabinet and inner
circle of advisors the PM’s office operates in complete secrecy. Harper has
completely reversed Canada’s foreign policy despite the fact he has no
mandate to do so by the electorate and even acting against the will of a
vast majority of Canadians.

Like George Bush our PM when forced to immediately respond or make
statements related to major incidents makes general illogical or misleading
statements to defend his policies and actions and attempts to deflect
responsibility and blame towards foes or scapegoats.
The death of an unarmed Canadian peacekeeper with a UN observer team by
Israel military action under very suspicious circumstances that appear to
indicate the act being intentional rather than the official accidental
excuse. Without any investigation the PM says Israel is innocent and
implies that it is the UN who is responsible despite the fact Israel had
clearly been informed of the location and should have avoided the action.
Harper then says that his final conclusion on the incident will be based on
what the Israeli forces tell him in an investigation. Asking the shooter to
investigate a shooting incident is not only unethical it smacks of
complicity.

Instead of showing concern about the killing of several innocent Canadians
who are supposed to be the people he has been elected to protect and serve,
Harper spends most of his energy defending Israel who’s actions have been
condemned by the entire world except America who obviously dictates Canadian
foreign policy .

Since my teens I have always felt fortunate to be a Canadian citizen and
believe this country is the most caring to its citizens and one of the most
humanistic and honest countries in its relations with other nations. An
independent people dedicated to peace and improving the welfare of all as
citizens of the world. Well I don’t feel like that any more and our once
untarnished image is becoming one that draws anger and even hate. Harper
will undoubtedly begin to sow the seeds of fear in Canadians and will
reinforce it by policies against a whole race that have that have resorted
to violence as a reply to foreign oppression. It won’t take long for their
actions to be directed to Canada and the cycle of fear and violence will be
locked into the Canadian minds. The perfect condition for Harper or really
his master to seize unlimited control and power in the guise of protecting
the terrified electorate. Otherwise known as “War on Terror 101”

Stephen Harper has finally succeeded to make me ashamed to be Canadian. I
am even ashamed Hi Antonia,

I started by just making a simple comment on the article you sent and it
turned into a rant of “War and Peace” like proportions sorry. You don’t
have to read it but after all this typing I had to do something with it.

Thanks,
S

DeeDee says woof woof woof

This article is the real story and will no doubt be buried by western media.
There are always excuses that are never really analyzed used for absolving
America and Israel when they kill innocent people or illogical replies to
questions about the things that motivate an attack. It’s the old "Why do
they hate us so much? It’s because we are free." Or they deflect
responsibility to others saying the innocents were collateral damage used as
shields or it’s the UN’s fault. The US and Israel have the best
intelligence in the world. They know what they are shooting at and the
risks of innocent people being harmed by attacks. They choose the target
and attack it and they kill these people. One simple question shows who
killed and is directly responsible for civilian deaths. If your forces had
not attacked this target located in a heavily populated residential
neighbourhood would the deaths of these innocent civilians occurred?

Has Israel declared war on Lebanon? Are these people Israel claims to be
their only intended target declared terrorists? Don’t America and Israel
treat these terrorists as criminals not soldiers or and declare criminals
are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention? So this is not
was but police action. Do Israel or America allow their police forces to
consider innocent people who may be harmed high speed chases in a school
zone or firing at suspected criminals standing among a crowd of innocent
bystanders? How would Americans or any country react if their police force
killed 5 times more innocent bystanders than criminals when trying to catch
criminals.

.Do police ever try to negotiate or at least talk to bad guys using innocent
people as shields to avoid innocents being harmed in a non violent
resolution or just send in the swat team to use maximum force with guns
blazing in the general area the suspects were last seen?. Is it ok for
cops to just shoot and say it was the criminal’s fault because he was
standing next to a school bus full of kids. “We didn’t aim at the kids but
when bullets start flying they go all over the place and even though we knew
that a lot of innocent kids would die, it was not a good enough reason to
hold our fire. Of course they would never allow this to happen to their own
people but it seems they is absolutely no compulsion or remorse to do this
to others especially if they happen to be.

Don't people ever think about how illogical and obviously intentionally
misleading these justifications are?
First the legal analysis.

A democracy is supposed to create laws that reflect the moral values and
concept of liberties and rights of its citizens based on the philosophies of
justice, equality, and integrity. Written law and the decisions based on
legal precedence are very deliberately and openly debated by the justice
system and often by the public. Logic, human rights and collective welfare
are the criteria applied to legal decisions. The USA is promoted as the
model of democracy and the ultimate society superior to all others for the
justice, liberty and values that govern the country. Believing they are
superior and even blessed by God and he (or she) is on their side making
American society a divine creation. Like missionaries attempt to convert
(even by force) other societies which are see as pagan or inferior. The
societies and the people in them are less human on some evolutionary scale
and given less value, ignored , or considered evil.

Talk is cheap so lets look at America as citizen of the world using their
own laws and concepts of justice, liberty, human rights. How would they be
viewed in one of their own courtrooms. Ok so these concepts should be valid
when considering international relations. I mean if democracy, freedom,
justice and human rights are what America is all about and good enough for
the Citizens of America, It seems to me that they are good enough to be
applied on a world level. The rest of the world is constantly being told
“that is the reason America is the greatest country in the world."

Would the following be legal in America?

1, ISRAEL TODAY. A gang from East LA kidnap or kill a cop from Beverly
Hills. It has happened often and there are countless incidents where
innocent Beverly Hills residents are mugged, robbed or even murdered by east
LA gangs. The Beverly Hills residents are really fed up with this
situation. They say the East LA residents and even local civic government
is not controlling or even supporting what some of the gang’s public
statements defending their actions claim is “a class war between rich and
poor”.

The mayor and council of Beverly Hills increase the size of the BHPD by
5,000%, all of which are trained as SWAT teams, buy armored vehicles
surround east LA, turn off their water and electricity, send SWAT teams to
destroy police stations and just shoot their guns and plant bombs at
anything that looks like a gang member’s house or car even if not verified
and regardless of any the public collateral destruction

Most of the rest of California is horrified by Beverly Hills, but Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger who has many friends in Beverly Hills and supports his
buddies and refuses to intervene. The Governator is busy is presently
doing the same thing to Watts using the justification that the mayor there
was suspected of abuse and the false rumor of having equipped their police
force with one or 2 homade tanks like far inferior to the 200 Beverly Hills
has just purchased using state money provided by the governor’s office

2. America’s response to 911. If some rich guy from 5th avenue in NYC or
his family is the victim of a crime by a black man from Newark, does he have
the right to track him to his new home in Boston kill him or anyone else who
might unfortunately be in the way of the rich guy in his search?

3. Is revenge an acceptable legal defense for any violent criminal act in
any legal jurisdiction in the US?

4. US withdrawal from the World court. Can any individual in the US say
to any Federal, state or local court that they are exempt from prosecution
and reject any requirement that they or their agents can be held responsible
for any criminal activity?

5. US policy concerning the UN, real view on the principals of democracy
and basic human rights. If a senator is opposed to a law which was
democratically accepted by the senate, is he considered justified in saying
that the senate is useless and should be abolished? While the decision may
have been in the best interest of the entire country, it may have negative
consequences for his state reducing state’s advantages over the rest of the
country. Even though the vote was democratic and legal can this one state
and its citizens withhold all federal tax contributions in an effort to
pressure or coerce the senate to follow the wishes of one senator? Would it
be considered democratic or even legal for some senators or even any
registered voter have the advantage of their vote counting for more than
other votes?

6. US divine right to pre-emptive military action. Would any court accept
a defense by a defendant claiming he acted in self defense when he went to
somebody’s house and shot the occupant because he felt that the victim was a
threat to his security. The defendant explained that the reason he felt
threatened was the fact that the victim did not like the defendant and even
though the defendant had an extensive gun collection and state of the art
security system he got worried when he had heard rumors from the town
gossip which he never verified despite several people saying the opposite
and later proved to be completely false, that the victim was thinking about
purchasing a revolver.

8. Geneva convention and due process. If a transvestite assaults a police
officer during a riot while he was in drag, is he no longer protected by the
US constitution and loose the right to due process and the presumption of
innocence? Can he be held indefinitely held without charge, access to a
lawyer, or the right to a public trial before an unbiased judge or a jury of
his peers?

9. War on terror. Which creates more terror in terms of numbers of people
affected and intensity making the experience longer in duration and
profoundly affecting the victims? Terrorist A. Unannounced random acts of
violence by suicidal fanatics who must operate while avoiding the most
sophisticated, financially supported well equipped, and organized security
forces in the world dedicated to stopping them. This terror is limited to
one or 2 home made explosive devices local attacks of a limited scale and
soft targets are the only option to have even a slim chance of success. If
caught the terrorist are subject to extreme punishment and persecution.
Terrorist B. An invincible all powerful national force with unlimited
access to funds and possess the most advanced and destructive weapons on the
planet with sophisticated systems for intelligence, observation,
communication and supreme psychological, chemical, and biological warfare
capabilities. The victim can not in any way stop the attacks and the rest
of the world will not help them. The attacks are coordinated. using
thousands of people professionally trained for the action, firing thousands
of explosive devices and millions of projectiles over wide areas like cities
or even whole nations. Any target is available and chosen for major
impact. Military targets are often poor choices as history shows and
destruction of infrastructure (water, electricity and transportation) is
easier and more effective as well as being indiscriminate as to who is
victimized, designed to break the back of a nation and their support of the
military and abandon any attempt to resist the aggressor. This type of
attack creates devastation to the entire population on a number of levels.
The victims are and not only harmed by direct harm from the weapons at the
time of the incident but must bear the long lasting (years) hardships
risking their health, education, economy, government and communication.
This terrorist often announces his attack indicating the volume weapons and
their destructive capacity are immense in an attempt to sew fear and awe
into their victims. Terrorist B also acts with impunity and faces no legal
or moral for consequences regardless of who or how many victims have been
harmed. So who wins the gold medal for terrorism, is it A or B? Who are
you more terrified by?

Ok I finally have one disagreement with the article. It says only Israel
and the US officially accept what is happening in Lebanon. To my complete
sorrow and disgust Canada is clearly an overlooked yet undeniable addition
to the list. Stephen Harper in a few scant months is on the verge of
destroying goodwill that was developed over centuries resulting in
Canada’s international reputation being universally being respected and
Canadians being not only accepted but welcome in any part of the world
regardless of political, ethnic or religious considerations. We were
honest, non violent, peace keepers friends to all and everybody loved us.
The maple leaf was something to be proud of and even used by others to take
advantage of our international status. Harper began his crusade at the
point in Canada’s international popularity was peaking and pride at being a
Canadian was revealed by many poles to be at an all time high. Mr. Harper
clearly showed where his allegiance lies and his priorities regarding
Canada’s international relations.

He said Canadians should feel shame for not joining and supporting America
in building their international empire. Our moral values, sense of justice,
respect of human rights, international law and our level of communication
with the rest of the world without prejudice or influence should be ignored.
Our friendship with the US was more important than any of this and
regardless of our values and doing what we (and the rest of the world) is
the right and human thing we are supposed to blindly accept and support
America regardless of their motive or resulting negative impact on other
nations. Justice, truth, freedom, honor, independence and dedication to
peace could not be applied to America and what they did with the rest of the
world. So if “our best friend” wants to go and beat up some poor guy who
works at a convenience store forcing the clerk to always not charge our pal
for cigarettes when he goes there. . We are supposed to help him do it and
give him an alibi if he gets caught.

Well we didn’t fall for the shame crap since we have some ability to think.
When shame didn’t work it was our pocket books that were at risk because our
“friend” would use his financial power to punish us for being independent
and we might end up being told “you will never eat lunch in this town
again”. The economic threat was reinforced by a very suspicious coincidence
of threats by official American representatives to our country and by
refusing to honor financial obligations required by contracts they had with
us. A few people were scared by the possible financial harm. The threat
was not really real. First they need us more than we need them, Canadians
do not consider money as the sole criteria for decision making and amassing
unlimited personal wealth is what defines Canadians. When Harper realized
his attempt to deliver Canada to the Whitehouse using threats or shame he
said oops and quickly retracted his words doing everything he could to
make everyone forget his true intentions and his unwavering commitment to
foreign interests.

Harper was forced to wait for an opportunity. Some time later the media and
some government bureaucrats began making sensational accusations of Liberal
corruption using on a financial scale which was so large that nothing in
Canadian history could even be close to comparing. Attempting to be
transparent and show integrity (the please everybody style of Martin) the
truth would show no systematic or official corruption and the liberals would
be vindicated.

How Carl Rove runs Canada

A carbon copy of Carl Rove’s well documented game plan republican fortunes
have used to manipulate public opinion and destroy all political opposition
to Whitehouse imperial aspirations. Using sensational numbers, a few mid
level bureaucrats with an axe to grind to make unsubstantiated claims of
corruption (later shown to be false or based on here say or rumor), use of
highly recognizable public figures and Roves abilities to control the media
to focus on events or issues that are specifically favorable to one party
without any serious journalistic investigation or attempt to present a
balanced view. Sensational and condeming claims made the front page and
the 6 pm news but when revealed to be false or there was no evidence
confirming or supporting the rumors the truth was buried on the middle of
the paper. Like Rove the issue was transformed into an attack on a whole
party’s moral and patriotic character and every liberal was guilty by
association.

Harper presenting himself as pure honest and dedicated to open transparent
government who would be dedicated to Canadian interests and return
confidence in our government promising political accountability would be
one of his priorities. Well timed assertions of moral superiority and
reference to patriotic to religious affiliations (even if totally
fabricated,. misleading or the contrary to actual historical record) are
designed to paint some kind of divine and pure image and criticism
would be religious blasphemy or unpatriotic or even treason.

The plan worked flawlessly in The US and to a lesser extent in Canada as it
achieved (so far) only a minority government. Although Harper is not
supposed to have much power and cannot govern without support of political
party opposed to national interest dedicated to the interest of only one
region seeing Canada as an enemy at worst or reject all allegiance to at
best who they.

The style and direction Harper has imposed in Ottawa is identical to what
has been created in Washington. Examples include restricting the freedom of
the press by preventing covering events which could demonstrate the negative
results of policies and undermine public support. Limiting any scrutiny of
his actions or policies by restricting all media contact and only issues he
chooses will be allowed all questions must be submitted for his approval
prior to any interview. A gag order on all members of the cabinet and inner
circle of advisors the PM’s office operates in complete secrecy. Harper has
completely reversed Canada’s foreign policy despite the fact he has no
mandate to do so by the electorate and even acting against the will of a
vast majority of Canadians.

Like George Bush our PM when forced to immediately respond or make
statements related to major incidents makes general illogical or misleading
statements to defend his policies and actions and attempts to deflect
responsibility and blame towards foes or scapegoats.
The death of an unarmed Canadian peacekeeper with a UN observer team by
Israel military action under very suspicious circumstances that appear to
indicate the act being intentional rather than the official accidental
excuse. Without any investigation the PM says Israel is innocent and
implies that it is the UN who is responsible despite the fact Israel had
clearly been informed of the location and should have avoided the action.
Harper then says that his final conclusion on the incident will be based on
what the Israeli forces tell him in an investigation. Asking the shooter to
investigate a shooting incident is not only unethical it smacks of
complicity.

Instead of showing concern about the killing of several innocent Canadians
who are supposed to be the people he has been elected to protect and serve,
Harper spends most of his energy defending Israel who’s actions have been
condemned by the entire world except America who obviously dictates Canadian
foreign policy .

Since my teens I have always felt fortunate to be a Canadian citizen and
believe this country is the most caring to its citizens and one of the most
humanistic and honest countries in its relations with other nations. An
independent people dedicated to peace and improving the welfare of all as
citizens of the world. Well I don’t feel like that any more and our once
untarnished image is becoming one that draws anger and even hate. Harper
will undoubtedly begin to sow the seeds of fear in Canadians and will
reinforce it by policies against a whole race that have that have resorted
to violence as a reply to foreign oppression. It won’t take long for their
actions to be directed to Canada and the cycle of fear and violence will be
locked into the Canadian minds. The perfect condition for Harper or really
his master to seize unlimited control and power in the guise of protecting
the terrified electorate. Otherwise known as “War on Terror 101”

Stephen Harper has finally succeeded to make me ashamed to be Canadian. In
fact that smiley face pretending to be our PM has become so adept at
instilling shame on us suckers I have become ashamed of my first name.
its Stephen.