Sunday, July 30, 2006

A Little Sunday School

From the Bible (NASB translation):
There are six things which the Lord hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.

-- Proverbs 6:16 - 19
From the BBC:
Early on Sunday morning, as BBC correspondents arrived at the site of the deadliest Israeli strike so far in this conflict, frantic efforts to find survivors were already under way.

Displaced families had been sheltering in the basement of a house in Qana, which was crushed a
fter a direct hit.

The Israeli strike killed at least 54 people, more than half of them children.

The BBC's Jim Muir said that for some of the rescuers, experienced as they were, the emotional impact of finding so many dead children in the ruins was too much.

"As I arrived, they were carrying out on a stretcher the limp body of a young boy of about 10. Many other children were pulled out of the rubble lifeless," our correspondent said.

"That's a Red Cross rescue worker sitting here in the sunshine just sobbing - he's so overcome with emotion here," he added.


Many people renewed the call for an immediate cease-fire:
The UN secretary general has called on Security Council members to take urgent action after 54 Lebanese civilians were killed in an Israeli attack on Sunday.

Kofi Anna
n spoke at an emergency meeting on the "tragic" events in Qana.

He asked council members to put aside differences and call for an immediate ceasefire - which is opposed by the US.

More than 30 children died in the Qana attack - the deadliest Israeli raid since hostilities began on 12 July when two Israeli soldiers were seized.


The strike has drawn strong international condemnation and, correspondents say, given a new urgency to diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis.

Washington continues to oppose calling for an immediate ceasefire at the UN.

President George W Bush said the US wanted "to develop a resolution that will enable the region to have a sustainable peace, a peace that lasts, a peace that will enable mothers
and fathers to raise their children in a hopeful world".

The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has expressed regret at the killing of civilians i
n Qana, but said he would not call an end to the bombardment of Lebanon.

He is reported to have told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Israel needs 10-14 days to press its offensive.
I wonder if our American Likudniks felt betrayed at all when the Izzies announced that maybe they would suspend aerial attacks for a couple of days after all? Of course, talk is cheap, and that hasn't quite happened yet.

"Haughty eyes ...
















... a lying tongue ...































... and hands that shed innocent blood."

Any questions?

9 comments:

TW said...

To set a frame of reference, do you know of any wars where innocent blood wasn't spilled?

I didn't interpret the photos you posted to necessarily be how you captioned them. Have you seen the photos at this site:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html

I guess one might rationalize that it's just a Hezbollah SUV.

Also, what has Bolton been lying about?

BTW, I haven't finished with our previous discussion. I just haven't had time to write a decent response to your last reply. I'll get back to you eventually on the matter.

Bartleby said...

To set a frame of reference, do you know of any wars where innocent blood wasn't spilled?

Do you know of any wars that I've been cheerleading for?

Bartleby: This sandwich full of rotten meat tastes horrible!

TW: Do you know of any spoiled sandwiches that don't taste horrible?

You're right, of course ... all wars spill innocent blood. That's why we should stay the hell out of them.

It isn't that hard, really. Just stay out of optional wars -- which is what every U.S. war since the Revolution has been.

God says He hates hands that spill innocent blood. TW says, don't be silly, God -- don't you know that all wars spill innocent blood? It occurs to me that what God might say now is, OK, TW, finish the syllogism: God hates all w-rs. (Hint: the missing letter is a vowel.)


Bolton: "What we're trying to do here is put together the elements for a sustained solution to the problem, at least between Lebanon and Israel, to strengthen the government of Lebanon, to eliminate the Hezbollah terrorist threat which threatens both innocent civilians of Lebanon as well as Israel, and not to rush into anything precipitously," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told "FOX News Sunday."

"The worst result here would be a partial solution that returns us to this kind of problem again in a matter of weeks or months. We've got to think of the longer term here. There may be an opportunity. We need to go about it in a sustained fashion," Bolton added.

Rice will not meet with the leaders of the terror group or its sponsor Syria despite a message Sunday morning from Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Meqdad that said Damascus is ready for dialogue with the United States.

Bolton said such a meeting would serve no purpose.

"I mean Syria doesn't need dialogue to know what they need to do. They need to lean on Hezbollah to get them to release the two captured Israeli soldiers and stop the launch of rockets against innocent Israeli civilians," Bolton said.

Bartleby said...

Sorry -- I forgot the photo link you provided. Yep, I guess that explains why the Izzies are using their F-16s to attack ambulances. I guess that's why the electricity had to be bombed out. Yep, that explains it all, all right ...

Bartleby said...

Again, on the Herald-Sun photos you linked: The Poor Man links some interesting comments. And one thing that's not commented on there: a short-range AA gun is the epitome of defensive weaponry. It definitely can't threaten any aircraft that aren't where they shouldn't be anyway, hmmmmmm?

TW said...

Doesn't UN Security Council Resolution 1559 call for the disarming of Hezbollah? While the weapon itself may not be impressive in the grand scheme of things, it can shoot down a multi-million dollar aircraft.

In most wars you aren't always on the offense. As powerful as the U.S. is we have defensive weapons as well. Defensive weapons are used to defeat your opponent's offensive attempts. Thwarting your enemies' advances is part and parcel of winning a war. The fact that it is primarily a "defensive" weapon means nothing. I'll guarantee you that it can be used as an offensive weapon as well.

I find it rather curious that out on the internet supposedly sane people are standing up and making excuses for an Iranian sponsored terrorist organization that until 9/11 had killed more Americans than any other. They're doing it in a manner that seems like they hold the terrorist organization in some sort of perverted high esteem. Like they were a virtuous and moral entity deserving of every consideration. They also seem to forget that Hezbollah initiated this whole mess.

Bartleby said...

Doesn't UN Security Council Resolution 1559 call for the disarming of Hezbollah?

Sigh ... here we go again. Is this the U.N. that's so worthless? Is this resolution of theirs anything like the ones that call for Israel to get the hell out of the "occupied territories?" I know some of these resolutions are just toilet paper, and some are Holy Writ ... it's just so confusing, trying to keep track of which is which.

While the weapon itself may not be impressive in the grand scheme of things, it can shoot down a multi-million dollar aircraft.

In most wars you aren't always on the offense. As powerful as the U.S. is we have defensive weapons as well. Defensive weapons are used to defeat your opponent's offensive attempts. Thwarting your enemies' advances is part and parcel of winning a war. The fact that it is primarily a "defensive" weapon means nothing. I'll guarantee you that it can be used as an offensive weapon as well.


I must be getting confused again. Let's see ... what sort of multimillion-dollar aircraft is it that's threatened by a short-range AA gun? Oh, yes, that's right ... the kind that's bombing the hell out of Lebanon, where the gun is, right? I mean, half the country's been turned into rubble by air attacks ... and yes, it does seem really sinister that the Hezzies have an AA piece out. Must be they're going to fire that thing right into Tel Aviv, conquering poor little Israel thereby. (Oh, that's right, it's only good against low-flying aircraft, directly overhead or close to it, so ... never mind Tel Aviv, I guess.) Still, it's a ferocious offensive weapon, all right!

I find it rather curious that out on the internet supposedly sane people are standing up and making excuses for an Iranian sponsored terrorist organization that until 9/11 had killed more Americans than any other. They're doing it in a manner that seems like they hold the terrorist organization in some sort of perverted high esteem. Like they were a virtuous and moral entity deserving of every consideration. They also seem to forget that Hezbollah initiated this whole mess.

I'm assuming that I'm one of the "they" who have offended you. Find me something favorable that I've written about Hezbollah. The Hezzies (some of them, at least) are indeed terrorists. Shooting unguided rockets into Israel, where they are apt to hit civilians (if anyone) is wrong, wrong, wrong. I condemn it, and those who do it.

The Isrelis (some of them) are also terrorists. Shooting precision-guided rockets down at Lebanon, some of which have obviously deliberately targeted civilians, is wrong, wrong, wrong -- as is all the semi-precision artillery work.

Hezbollah has its roots in terror and murder.

Israel has its roots in terror and murder. (Check out "Irgun," "Stern Gang," "King David Hotel," etc. on Wikipedia.)

So, you want moral equivalence? I'll agree. The Hezzies and the Izzies are morally equivalent.

Why, then, do I spend more of my time criticizing the Izzies? Very simple. Uncle Sap isn't reaching into my pocket to write a $3 billion-plus check to the Hezzies, each and every year. But I can't say the same about the Izzies. Uncle didn't get busy and ship a whole raft of bombs to the Hezzies. (Wouldn't have done them any good anyway; they don't have a whole fleet of General Dynamics and Boeing products to drop them from.) The Hezzies haven't bought the entire U.S. Congress, as the Izzies have. The Hezzies don't have 90% of the mainstream American media cheering for them, as the Izzies have.

Who "started" it? To quote Rhett Butler: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. As far as I can tell, there's been a very long list of wrongs and outrages done by each side to the other. One could argue that the postwar West "started it," by deciding, in a fit of misplaced Holocaust guilt and Great Power expansiveness, to drop a brand-new "Jewish homeland" right where some other people were already living, and tell those other people, tough beans. But, as I say, I'm an American. I live half the world away, and there's no sane reason why I should be concerned with what the Hezzies and Izzies do to each other. Except that my glorious leaders have arranged it so that I have to care anyway.

Sure I have a solution: even at this late date. Get out of Iraq, yesterday. Get out of Afghanistan, today. Get out of Kuwait, Qatar, et cetera, ad nauseam first thing tomorrow. No more "aid" (money or arms) for anybody in the Middle East. And mind our own damn business for a change.

TW said...

I just mentioned Resolution 1559 to illustrate what a joke the UN is. I'm not sure why anyone would want to abide by their tainted and prejudiced resolutions.

It's probably of little use for us to debate military equipment. Below are a few more links that might explain Israel's fighters being over Lebanese territory. I'd hazard a guess that most countries would repond similarly if they possessed the technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyHQFyO_fu4&search=Hezbollah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5vPGWARHvo&search=Hezbollah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10OiwLfvU5U&search=Hezbollah

Like I said, I find it more curious than offensive that some seem to spend an inordinate amount of time as apologists for Hezbollah while piling on the Israelis. The "they" only includes you if that is in fact your modus operandi.

As far as Jewish homeland being dumped in an area already occupied? That's another heavy discussion altogether. I do believe the Jews have a rather ancient history in that area though. Let's just say what's done is done and to some degree irreversible. Kind of like us and the American Indians.

As far as the Israeli's receiving tons of our bucks, well, I think Hezbollah and the Palistinians are getting a significant quantity as well. Is Hezbollah not firmly entrenched in both the Lebanese and Palestinian governments?

You last paragraph is hard to argue with. That is, until they come for us. Then we could sit around and lament that we did nothing to curtail the rapidly expanding influence of radical Islam. Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it ya know, but maybe I take Islamofascism too seriously.

I hope you aren't too disturbed by our conversation. That's exactly the way I'm looking at it. A conversation between 2 friends that see some things a little differently. I'm not trying to provoke your ire. I just wanted to make that clear at this juncture.

Bartleby said...

As far as Jewish homeland being dumped in an area already occupied? That's another heavy discussion altogether. I do believe the Jews have a rather ancient history in that area though. Let's just say what's done is done and to some degree irreversible. Kind of like us and the American Indians.

Well, just who are "the Jews," anyway? Or, to put it a different way: Does a Parisian, or a Muscovite, or a New Yorker who happens to be Jewish have a better claim on a particular piece of real estate than the guy who actually lives there? Maybe Achmed and his father and his father before that have been scratching at that same piece of dirt for a lot of years -- and they get kicked out and told they have no "right of return" -- and yet I could become a Jewish proselyte tomorrow and have an instant "right of return." If I were Achmed, I'd be kind of hot about that ... and I suspect you might be, too.

But as you say, there's a kind of adverse-possession thing going on now, and I have no desire to right all these wrongs, whether they're 60 or 600 or 2000 years old.

Which brings me to your kind hope that I'm not "disturbed about our conversation." I am disturbed, but not by our conversation. I am disturbed -- well, not "disturbed" exactly, more like enraged -- about how it is that the political class that sits parasitically over we Americans and pretty much everyone else in the modern world and spends truly vast amounts of our wealth (literally blowing it up!) and gets a whole lot of us killed, and many more yet maimed, over what is basically a blood sport for them. They kill some of us, wound many more of us, impoverish every one of us, and play us all for fools ... and yes, I'll admit it, sometimes it makes me nuts. It really chaps me to see how easily most of us are played for fools. Why, you'd think we came up in the government schools or something.

So all right, I've just ripped open my chest and let my heart fall right out there on the table for your inspection. Sorry about the mess. I'll just stuff it back in place now. Please hand me the staple gun ... thanks.

Carry on, sir.

TW said...

I'm really not in too much disagreement with anything you've said in your last post.

The only thing I might add is that the world has always been and probably always will be inhabited with people that want to run your life the way they see as fit, take your possessions, or kill you because they cannot tolerate what you believe in. Most that are intent on doing these things have no qualms as to how they will do it.

In my opinion we are left with no other choice but to be prepared for every eventuality and not to tarry so long in lamenting our lot in this life that it becomes detrimental to our very existence.

I guess it's time to move on. I'm sure we'll retrace this ground again sometime.