Letters to the Editor
cardshark
Published Letters: 146 Editor's Choice: 18
-
None of the naysayers publish the contents, or their own interpretation of the Canadian email
[Read the article: The "hiding among civilians" myth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In case any of you were wondering, here's what the email says:
"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."
Why would it be a "tactical necessity" to bomb/shell near the area, unless Hezbollah had set up shop there? Hmmm?
What other interpretation is there for this?
The UN spokesman neither denies the contents, nor offers an explanation of his own.
I quote:
A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction.
"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.
"Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."
Notice that he doesn't explain the email at all. He seems to prefer to ignore it. It is a very straightforward interpretation of the email that Hezbollah activity near the site created the "tactical necessity" for Israeli counter-activity.
Or perhaps he was saying there was a "tactical necessity" to bomb the UN observers so the evil Jews could have the run of the place.
The idiocy of the letter writers here continues to amaze.
-
Don't mischaracterize my position KStone
[Read the article: The "hiding among civilians" myth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quote:
Since you're a prolific letter writer here that must mean your idiocy is off the charts, eh? Btw, the anti-semitism charge nonsense everytime one of your talking points fails is getting beyond absurd. It's venturing into parody.
I only make that charge when someone compares Israel to the Nazis, or Hitler, or says that Israel is "indiscriminately targeting" civilians or nonsense like that.
Being critical of Israel doesn't make you anti-semitic, and in fact, KStone, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall ever having leveled that charge against you in particular, even though we constantly argue with each other (although you have called me a bigot). Why? Because as much as I disagree with you, at least you don't make outrageous inflammatory statements like that.
In point of fact, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the charge of anti-semitism is thrown around far too much in the LW section.
But if you say that what Israel is doing is worse than, or just as bad as the Holocaust, then yeah, you're an anti-semite.
Now, as to your "rebuttal" to my letter, well, you didn't dispute anything I said. Instead you said that I was putting "ridiculous spin" on it.
Your lackluster attempt at defending yourself?:
Um, he doesn't need to deny or confirm anything because he's making the relevant point. Namely that there was no reported Hezbollah activity near the UN post during the period it was being bombed
Pardon me, but the email strongly suggests that this is a falsehood. If it were true, why not clear it up by explaining what the email writer meant? It's pretty hard to imagine a context where the following does not mean that Israel was responding to militants in the area:
The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity.
While it is technically correct that this email did not report Hezbollah activity, it hints at it strongly, the veiled nature of the message itself saying volumes about the politics of the situation. Saying "he doesn't need to deny or confirm anything" is just a way of weaseling out of the issue.