pageok
pageok
pageok
All Your Fakes Are Belong to Us


(Civil comments only please)
John Burgess (mail) (www):
Pretty amusing!
8.24.2006 10:10pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Expose all fakes for great justice!
8.24.2006 10:35pm
liberty (mail) (www):
That was awesome.
8.24.2006 11:32pm
Peter Wimsey:
Unless you believe that no innocent civilians were killed in Lebanon, it's in pretty poor taste, I think.
8.24.2006 11:50pm
albarello (mail) (www):
You know, civility is a two-way thing, and I was relieved to see that the video was such a paragon of civility, it just invites civil comment in return. I can feel the civility radiating from it in waves of appropriateness and seriousness, gently convincing me to be civil in return. I'm surprised Randy even felt the need to ask for "civil comments only, please" after posting such a limpid piece of video civility. It should get a civic engagement award from the Elks or the Rotary Club or something.
8.25.2006 12:23am
Just a thought... (mail):
"Jawa" isn't a worde I might expect to encourage "civil" discourse (see, Cartmen of South Park, "You know, 'sand people', 'jawas').
8.25.2006 1:09am
Randy Barnett (mail) (www):
Just a thought. . .
Point well taken. And civilly made.
8.25.2006 1:37am
Grumbly (mail):
Unless you believe that no innocent civilians were killed in Lebanon, it's in pretty poor taste, I think.

Or if you believe that the blame for the deaths of those innocent civilians lies entirely with the same people faking these photos -- i.e., Hezbollah and its supporters.
8.25.2006 1:50am
triticale (mail) (www):
Peter, we know innocent civilians were killed in Lebanon. It was Hezbollah's policy to launch their attacks on innocent Israeli civilians from amidst innocent Lebanese civilians with the expectation that the collatoral damage from the appropriate response would produce responses like yours.
8.25.2006 2:00am
WB:
I'd forgotten how catchy that music is.
8.25.2006 5:34am
zooba:
Jawa is the new Macaca.
8.25.2006 5:47am
Joel B. (mail):
I saw this over at Ace. And it is excellent. For sure.
8.25.2006 6:27am
Robert Lutton:
I guess I wish that the msm would have checked on the claim that Iraq had WMD or that Bush's various economic plans made any sense. Check out Brad Delong's continuing saga on why economic reporting is so brain dead.
8.25.2006 8:19am
DNL (mail):
The video assumes way too much about the viewer -- as in, what the video is talking about. A video explaining the fakes and leaving Cats out of it would have been 100x more effective.
8.25.2006 8:50am
Humble Law Student (mail):
Just a thought,

Hate to ruin your self-righteous civility, but you are offbase. Jawas are from Star Wars. They are commonly referred to as "Sand People" throughout the movies. The Jawa in the clip was made to resemble them. The "Sand People" isn't (or at least isn't likely) a reference to Arabs or the like.
8.25.2006 9:09am
Adam K:
Jawas are from Star Wars. They are commonly referred to as "Sand People" throughout the movies. The Jawa in the clip was made to resemble them. The "Sand People" isn't (or at least isn't likely) a reference to Arabs or the like.

I'm sure he is well aware of where Jawas are from, and the origin of the reference only illustrates what he's talking about. What's the point of a Jawa's inclusion if not to make fun of Arabs as "sand people," eh?

Civility indeed.
8.25.2006 9:21am
A:
I don't understand the video.

Is it attacking Israel for trying to claim that the destruction they wrought on civilian areas was "faked" by Hezbollah?

Or is it attacking Hezbollah for orchestrating photographers to take compelling pictures of the destruction?

If it's the latter, I wonder what would happen if Hezbollah dared (gasp!) to hire actors and make a movie about the Lebanon genocide. Perhaps something similar to Schindler's list or one of the other holocaust movies. I think the world would emphatically say:

"No Arabs! Only Jews have that right!"
8.25.2006 9:30am
IANAL but I know Star Wars:
I can't believe the egregious ignorance I see rampant on these comments. It just disgusts me - how can any of you live with yourselves? It just goes to show how our system has been corrupted by base-minded power-mongers aiming to suborn what's left of our civil liberties. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, the Jawas are the little midget merchants whose faces we never see, and the "Sand People" are the big mummy-wrapped guys with metal pieces sticking out of their heads and goofy two-headed maces. I hope you realize you made George Lucas cry.
8.25.2006 9:36am
Adam K:
Yes, Jawas and Tusken Raiders are different. The point nevertheless remains.
8.25.2006 9:41am
A:
One other note. Randy, now you're just linking to youtube videos? Really dude.

Something tells me Gonzalez v. Raich had a different outcome in the house of Barnett.
8.25.2006 9:47am
Peter Wimsey:
Triticale, etc. - I'm well aware of Hzb's attacks from civilian areas, and I do think that Israel was justified in attacking these areas carefully, which it mostly did. Happy now?

Are you aware that many completely innocent civilians were killed in Lebanon who were simply caught in the crossfire? Or that, as Israel admits, it attacked Qana with no evidence that - as it initially claimed - Hzb fighters were in the building or that missiles were fired from the building? And that Israel admits that approximately 60 people, including many children, were killed in the building?

The point, again, is not that Israel is at fault for not always using surgical precision (although, to carry the analogy further, they should have at least operated on the right patient). The point is that this video, and other similar conspiracy theory tinged ideas, spreads the idea that there were *no* civilian casualties in Lebanon. The fact that people in lebanon may have arranged scenes to emphasize the civilian or children casualties is a very minor transgression, if a trangression at all, given the fact that innocent civilians and children were actually killed. And I find it rather dishonest to focus on the "staging" of photos without acknowledging that they do reflect the underlying reality, which even Israel does not deny.
8.25.2006 10:13am
johnt (mail):
What's there to say about a profession[?] that refuses to do what it's reason for being calls for.
8.25.2006 10:15am
John Burgess (mail) (www):
Peter Wimsey: You impute motive without evidence.

I'm well aware of the casualties on both sides. I'm equally aware, however, that even the use(misuse/abuse) of photography can be assymetric. For religious reasons, as an example, Israelis do not parade their dead before cameras. Israeli dead, therefore, are mostly invisible to global audiences. Hezbollah, Hamas, and many other terrorist groups do not hesistate to make emotional points that short-circuit the reasoning process.

No matter the number of victims, there will always be (in the media, anyway) more from one side than the other. The horror of violent death is equal, but the imagery in the public domain is not.

The video appears to have two purposes: to remind viewers that what they see is not necessarily the entire truth and to remind viewers that photojournalism is subject to intentional distortion if the photojournalists and their editors aren't truly professional.
8.25.2006 10:28am
Lively:
A.

If it's the latter, I wonder what would happen if Hezbollah dared (gasp!) to hire actors and make a movie about the Lebanon genocide. Perhaps something similar to Schindler's list or one of the other holocaust movies. I think the world would emphatically say:

"No Arabs! Only Jews have that right!"


Moral relativity is my pet peeve.

The photos in the youtube montage was held out to the world as real...taken in real time. It was reported as news. However, when the truth be told it was manipulative, false and propaganda.

Compare the fake photos to the movie Schindler you mentioned. We know we are watching a recreation! Although many of the events can be confirmed through historical accounts, there's no way to know the individual conversations that transacted during the movie. The audience knows this premise walking into the movie theater.
8.25.2006 10:31am
NY (mail):
Mr. Wimsey,
Most people would assume that civilian casualties are bound to occur wherever there's a war. I don't see where in the video it says that there were no civilian Lebanese casualties; I don't remember them mentioning Israeli civilian casualties either, does that imply there were none?

I think the makers emphasized MSM complicity and craven acquiescence in this nonsense more than anything else; I don't think I'm naive or anything, but that your news outlets and deranged Islamists did carry out attempts to stage images for your consumption, that doesn't worry you?

BTW That "Qana 60" has subsequently been revised, and I don't think the Israelis would "admit" to any number without verification. Or at least, their lawyers shouldn't have allowed them to say anything on it until independent verification.
8.25.2006 10:38am
Jack S. (mail) (www):
Point well taken vis-a-vis quality of the MSM journalists, but seems the sources thanked at the end of the video are just the pot calling the kettle black.
8.25.2006 10:52am
Ron (mail):
Point well taken vis-a-vis quality of the MSM journalists, but seems the sources thanked at the end of the video are just the pot calling the kettle black.

If they can bring down the likes of Dan Rather, it hardly matters.
8.25.2006 11:32am
jallgor (mail):
"Yes, Jawas and Tusken Raiders are different. The point nevertheless remains."

Wait, how does the point remain? Jawas are NOT referred to as Sand People in Starwars. The Sand People are an entirely different type of creature. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that they used a Jawa in this clip to insult Arabs. Randy take back your apology and go watch Episode IV again.

"yes, the Sand People scare easily but they'll be back . . . and in greater numbers."
8.25.2006 11:37am
Seth Edenbaum (mail) (www):
The author of this post makes arguments on Constitutional law relating both directly and indirectly to civil rights litigation over the past 60 years.
And this is an example of his mind at play?

A popular guerilla movement vs the one of the most powerful militaries in the world and an attack that was promised to " send Lebanon back 20 years,"
And you respond with this.
6 Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah. from 2000 to June. Others after the beginning- not before- the Israeli attack.
No history, no context and the logic of adolescent payback. wow
8.25.2006 11:43am
Houston Lawyer:
I see that we have cleared up the difference between Jawas and sand people. What is the source of the electronic voice? It sounds familiar.
8.25.2006 12:09pm
Jack S. (mail) (www):

If they can bring down the likes of Dan Rather, it hardly matters.


It most certainly does. Credibility is always at issue when trying to prove or disprove something.
8.25.2006 12:31pm
Hoosier:
jallgor is right: Jawas are harmless robot-reconditioners, whose business may require two sets of account ledgers. Tusken Raisers (Sand People) are nasty thugs.

Kinda like confusing the Cao Dai with the Viet Cong.

I think that those who have implied that they are interchangeable are guilty of the worst sort of colonialist/racist "disappearing" of difference in order to facilitate the imperialist discource of conquest by means of an essetialist manipulation.

(OK. I'm done. Ran out of adjectives.)
8.25.2006 12:51pm
noahpraetorius (mail):
Seth, self-admitted troll, trots out the same "facts" every time he posts and now bizarrely connects the content of this post to other content on constitutional jurisprudence! Wow indeed.

The pro-HzB crowd here prefers "fake but [presumed] accurate" to real journalism. But there is no point in arguing with them...
8.25.2006 1:17pm
Irensaga (mail):
The video, and the evil voice are from the awful English translation of the introductory clip in the 1989 Japanese video game "Zero Wing." The video clip is something of an internet phenomenon. The original phrase is "All your base are belong to us."

Wikipedia's explanation found here.

FYI, the phrase is also a cheat code for instant-winning missions on the computer game Starcraft.

And by the way, the Jawa isn't supposed to be an "Arab terrorist." The Jawa represents the mysterious and tireless bloggers who are hard at work outing the facile MSM.

Way to miss the point guys.
8.25.2006 1:49pm
Randy Barnett (mail) (www):
I stand uncorrected then. Thanks Irensaga. Shows I really do not know my sci-fi.
8.25.2006 1:56pm
te (mail):
Wow that is one of the most tastless, sophmoric pieces of garbage I have ever seen.

Of course Hizbollah does everything it can to attract attention to innocent civilian deaths - every government and organization uses such propaganda. (See George Bush standing on the rubble of the WTC for example)

You understand that thousands of people were killed right?

Is that fake?

Unbelievable.
8.25.2006 2:06pm
Just a thought... (mail):
Jallgor, IANAL, et. al.,

As Adam suggested, I'm indeed aware of the word "jawa"'s origin. I am also aware, and concede, ---sigh---, that "jawas" are not the "sand people" in the Star Wars movies nor would an avid fan make that mistake. I never suggested otherwise. My point, nevertheless, stands: the word is not uncommonly used to refer to Arabs in a despective manner and those (not unsubstantial) number of (imprecise) people use the word "jawa" because THEY believe it means "sand people", as my Cartman quote suggested. A simple Google search would have confirmed this.

On the other hand, whether you wish to use the word or not to refer to Arabs is entirely up to you. In my opinion, however, it would be uncivil to do so-- the imagination of George Lucas preserved or not.
8.25.2006 2:10pm
A:
Te,
I'm pretty sure this is meant to be an ironic anti-Israel video. It's making fun of Israel's claim that what they did to Lebanon was staged by Hezbollah.
He should have put pictures of the oil spill in there though.
A
8.25.2006 2:18pm
te (mail):
A - either way it's just disgusting.

What has happened to purportedly intelligent people - good god almighty a number of them attorneys who are presumably among the backbone of rational, civil society - peddling something like this?
8.25.2006 2:29pm
Just a thought... (mail):
My apologies if it was not entirely clear in my previous post that I am not suggesting that any of the commentators (or Professor Barnett) to whom I referred ever did or ever would want to use the word in any other manner than its Originalist meaning within the text of the George Lucas screenplays. Some people DO and I simply suggested that because of those less civil people, the use of the word, whether well-intentioned or not, might not create constructive dialogue in this context.
8.25.2006 2:43pm
A:
"attorneys who are presumably among the backbone of rational, civil society"

Are you being sarcastic?
8.25.2006 2:43pm
te (mail):
A - actually I am not.
8.25.2006 2:56pm
Bleepless (mail):
Getting back to the original topic, no civil comment is possible.
8.25.2006 3:49pm
noahpraetorius (mail):
Squealing leftards every one, going to Hell one by one. Joni Mitchell?
8.25.2006 4:10pm
jim hurt (mail):
As much as I am impressed with the ability of someone to put this video together, I am apalled by the subject matter. McClellan was right the media is the message.
8.25.2006 4:49pm
tsotha:

Of course Hizbollah does everything it can to attract attention to innocent civilian deaths - every government and organization uses such propaganda.


Yes, Te, but the difference here is Hizbollah caused those deaths by 1) starting the war and 2) fighting it in such a way that extra civilian deaths were inevitable. It's amazing there were so few.

But that's not the point of the video. The point is the news organizations aren't doing their job. We all expect biased news, but when they start passing obvious fakes off as reality they cross the line between a news organization and a rumor mill.
8.25.2006 5:12pm
A:
"Yes, Te, but the difference here is Hizbollah caused those deaths by 1) starting the war and 2) fighting it in such a way that extra civilian deaths were inevitable. It's amazing there were so few."

At least when Hezbollah kills civilians, they have the moral integrity to admit what they're doing.

But not Zionists! They want to (1) kill thousands of civilians, (2) destroy their homes, (3) destroy their beaches with oil which will take a decade to clean (4) deny responsibility for what they did AND AMAZINGLY (4) claim to be the victim!

Disgusting people.
8.25.2006 5:29pm
Another voice:
Certain of the commentators to this post seem to be misconstruing the point of the video, perhaps mischievously. Te's comparison to "George Bush standing on the rubble of the WTC" evidences this misunderstanding. In simple terms, all the still photographs contained in the video clip were disseminated and published in the MSM as accurate and true depictions of contemporary events. Each and every still was subsequently demonstrated to be staged, digitally altered or simply fake. IMHO, the video is a fairly effective indictment of the gullibility and / or culpability of certain sectors of the MSM.
8.25.2006 5:37pm
Davebo (mail):
Hey, when everything you dreamed of has turned to sh#t what choice do you have but to accentuate the trivial?


In simple terms, all the still photographs contained in the video clip were disseminated and published in the MSM as accurate and true depictions of contemporary events. Each and every still was subsequently demonstrated to be staged, digitally altered or simply fake.


Exactly! It was one flare, not three. Three flares totally changes the effect of the image. And the smoke wasn't that dark, or that much. Sure there was smoke, just not quite that dark or quite that much which totally changes what the picture conveys!

As I said, accentuate the trivial (or in many cases, irrelevant). What other choice does one in this position have?

Wait! Don't start filming yet! You can still see downtown San Diego in the background and we're supposed to be too far off shore for a helicopter flight.

Trivial? Yeah, it is too. So I would never equate Karl Rove with Hezzbollah PR men. But I get the feeling that many here, if they had a shred of intellectual honesty that is, would jump at the chance.
8.25.2006 6:06pm
r4d20 (mail):

Unless you believe that no innocent civilians were killed in Lebanon, it's in pretty poor taste, I think.



People die everyday. Get used to it.
All Men Must Die.
8.25.2006 6:16pm
te (mail):

the difference here is Hizbollah caused those deaths by 1) starting the war and 2) fighting it in such a way that extra civilian deaths were inevitable. It's amazing there were so few.

I imagine that Hzb would respond to point 1 by saying that they were only attacking a country which was occupying territory or that they were responding to some other slight. There's no point in opening up that pissing match.

As for point two, I guess that Hzb could have separated themselves as much as possible from the civilian population by placing their rocket launchers in clearly marked fields or something. Of course, they would have been killed. I also imagine that Hzb would be happy to decamp from some of the civilian areas in exchange for the sort of sophisitcated long range aircraft and artillery possessed by Israel. But, as Rumsfeld says, you go to war with the army you have.


But that's not the point of the video. The point is the news organizations aren't doing their job.

No the "point" of the video is to do whatever its creator can get away with to minimize the scale of the horror. It is a page out of the playbook of holocaust denyers and even the litigation strategy of tobacco companies. The propagandists know that they would destroy their credibility if they just flat out denied that any civilians were killed on the Lebanon side. So what they do is focus their efforts on creating discussions and focusing attention on the quite unsurprising fact that Hzb is engaging in propaganda - sometimes dishonestly. It is the same with people who deny the holocaust. Few would dare say that no jews/homosexuals/poles/gypsies were killed. No. Instead they focus obsessively on diagrams of gas chambers and estimates of how many people could be cremated per hour in an oven of a given size and then suggest that that the "numbers" are wildly overinflated. Then less subtle people will seize on this as evidence that that "all" of the holocaust claims must be overinflated. The same thing has happened several times in previous threads on VC re this. Several posters have made the astonishingly illogical argument that "If they (whoever "they" are) would stage photos they would do anything.

This is the 4th or 5th thread devoted to the guy in the green helmet, staged photos, etc. It is all part of an effort to avoid the obvious (Gee, there are lots of dead children and civilians) and focus on whatever can be cobbled together to hurt the credibility of "the other side."
8.25.2006 6:17pm
r4d20 (mail):

The JAWA comes from the JAWAREPORT - a stupid blog written by dirty animals. It has nothing to do with an ethnic slight against arabs.
8.25.2006 6:23pm
tsotha:
A,

I don't think it's so amazing the Israelis claim to be the victem, since the first blow was struck by Hizbollah. You keep glossing over that point. If Hizbollah wanted peace they could have done the easiest thing in the world... nothing.

They killed six Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two others. Do you not recognize this as an act of war?

Also, as Hizbollah conducted attacks from behind civilians they are culpable for the deaths of those civilians, both as a matter of international law and one of common sense. So, yes, it's perfectly reasonable and logical for Israel to deny responsibility for those deaths. Because they are not responsible.
8.25.2006 6:23pm
r4d20 (mail):

I guess that Hzb could have separated themselves as much as possible from the civilian population by placing their rocket launchers in clearly marked fields or something. Of course, they would have been killed.



Question: If I am ever caught up in a Columbine incident, will you defend my decision to hold a baby up in front of me as a human shield? I wouldn't HAVE to do it, if I didn't I might be hurt.
8.25.2006 6:32pm
A:
That's a nice fantasy Tsotha, but actually Israel attacked Lebanon first, back in the 60s and killed the civilians out of (1) frustration caused by being defeated militarily by Hezbollah, (2) jealousy of Lebanon and a desire to destroy their infrastructure and tourism industry, (3) probably a goal of taking Lebanese land one day - like they have done and continue to do with Palestinian land.

I don't know how deluded someone has to be to expect their victim to die quietly, without alerting the MSM.
8.25.2006 6:34pm
A:
I have engagements for the rest of the day and won't be able to reply to other comments. Enjoy your discussion.
8.25.2006 6:44pm
te (mail):

If I am ever caught up in a Columbine incident, will you defend my decision to hold a baby up in front of me as a human shield? I wouldn't HAVE to do it, if I didn't I might be hurt.

So you are equating Israel to a psychotic teenager on a killing spree at a high school? Interesting.

The more accurate comparison is probably to compare the IDF to the various SWAT teams and police officers outside the school. Would they be justified in opening full-auto fire on the building because the gunmen were inside. I don't think so.
8.25.2006 6:56pm
r4d20 (mail):

So you are equating Israel to a psychotic teenager on a killing spree at a high school? Interesting.


Nice try.

Actually, I am pointing out that it would be inexcusable to put an innocent between you and the bullets EVEN if you were totally inocent yourself and simply a victim of circumstances beyond your control - like you would be if you were caught in a shooting spree.

Hezbollah is hardly "innocent" - they contributed to this shooting spree - so they have even LESS excuse.
8.25.2006 7:18pm
te (mail):

Nice try.

Hezbollah is to innocent student at Columbine High School shooting as Israel is to ____________?


Actually, I am pointing out that it would be inexcusable to put an innocent between you and the bullets EVEN if you were totally inocent yourself

Is the news flash here that Hezbollah is a bunch of assholes? No dispute there.

The question is what do you do to counter a bunch of assholes without losing your humanity.
8.25.2006 7:28pm
Kevin L. Connors (mail) (www):
Equally fallacious. Military operations cannot be equated to police actions. But in this, and other armed conflicts around the world (at least those involving the US or Israel), that is what the pacifist left is trying to do.
8.25.2006 7:37pm
te (mail):

Military operations cannot be equated to police actions.

Consider these scenarios:

1) Gang of Israeli citizen goes nuts and kills 6 soldiers and kidnaps 2 others then flees into Lebanon.

2) Hizbullah gang (presumably not Israeli citizens) does same thing and then flees into Lebanon

Would these both be military actions to go after the gang? Or would the first be a police matter and the second a military matter?
8.25.2006 7:53pm
Another voice:
te writes:


No the "point" of the video is to do whatever its creator can get away with to minimize the scale of the horror. It is a page out of the playbook of holocaust denyers and even the litigation strategy of tobacco companies.


This rather turns reality on its head. The "point" of at least some of the original photographs was to exaggerate civilian casualties and Israeli actions well beyond reality (Jenin redux?). This allows critics of Israel such as President Chavez of Venezuela (and now apparently te) to demonize Israel and make the rather stunning leap of equivalence to Nazi Germany and holocaust deniers. In order to make this type of brazen claim, extreme evidence really helps. So a photograph of a Red Cross ambulance targeted by an Israeli missile really helps. And if it never happened, no problem -- you can just fake it. (Contrary to a previous poster, some of these fakes were far from trivial). No better way to demonstrate the "evil" of Israel than through showing a targeted attack on the Red Cross. And people who point out that these photographs are frauds, are equated by te and his ilk to holocaust deniers. Quite amazing.
8.25.2006 8:57pm
te (mail):

This allows critics of Israel such as President Chavez of Venezuela (and now apparently te)

Do you really have so little intellectual throw weight behind you arguments that the best you can come up with is to link me to Hugo Chavez.
And people who point out that these photographs are frauds, are equated by te and his ilk to holocaust deniers. Quite amazing.
8.25.2006 9:02pm
te (mail):
Sorry for the double post . .

And people who point out that these photographs are frauds, are equated by te and his ilk to holocaust deniers. Quite amazing.

I didn't call them frauds. I am just pointing out that they are using the same intellectually dishonest approach of avoiding reality pioneered by holocause deniers and the tobacco companies.

To make this as simple as I can - killing children is worse than lying - at least as far as I am concerned. Nobody has denied that children were killed (by both sides, by the way) in this latest little war. To focus obsessively about some lying or "staging" while completely ignoring dead children is a symptom of a moral outlook that is in the final stages of decay.
8.25.2006 9:06pm
A:
IN LIGHT OF THE ARTICLE BELOW, I RETRACT ALL MY PRIOR POSTS WHICH IN ANY WAY CRITICIZED ISRAEL!


Link to NY Times Story
8.25.2006 9:17pm
te (mail):
I wonder if the links to the doctored Hzb photos that were linked to above would amount to a "retransmission" of Hzb propaganda?
8.25.2006 9:35pm
A:

I wonder if the links to the doctored Hzb photos that were linked to above would amount to a "retransmission" of Hzb propaganda?


Seems possible. Some "freedoms" we have in this country these days. Time to contribute to the ACLU.
8.25.2006 9:48pm
Lively:
te:

To make this as simple as I can - killing children is worse than lying - at least as far as I am concerned. Nobody has denied that children were killed (by both sides, by the way) in this latest little war. To focus obsessively about some lying or "staging" while completely ignoring dead children is a symptom of a moral outlook that is in the final stages of decay.


Hey te! Hezbollah violated the Geneva Conventions when they operated from and among civilians homes. The Geneva provides that military are supposed to have separate base of operations away from civilians. They are to dress differently than civilians so that they can be identifiable by the party at war. Have you seen a Hezbollah uniform? Me neither. This is a legal blog. It only makes sense to point out that Hezbollah is responsible for these deaths.
8.25.2006 10:11pm
Another Voice:
te writes:

I didn't call them frauds. I am just pointing out that they are using the same intellectually dishonest approach of avoiding reality pioneered by holocause deniers and the tobacco companies.

To make this as simple as I can - killing children is worse than lying - at least as far as I am concerned. Nobody has denied that children were killed (by both sides, by the way) in this latest little war. To focus obsessively about some lying or "staging" while completely ignoring dead children is a symptom of a moral outlook that is in the final stages of decay.


This response seems not quite connected with my post - please re-read my last sentence. I never said that you called the photograph skeptics "frauds" -- I said that you equated the people who identified the fraudulent photographs to holocaust deniers. And you appear to repeat this libel in your response. Perhaps your view is that they are not the same as holocaust deniers but just use the same approach. If so, this is a distinction without a difference. In any case, you fall squarely under the ambit of Godwin's law.

Your straw man argument of "killing children is worse than lying" is rather silly. No-one has claimed any different and I am sure we can argue all day about who is primarily responsible for the civilian casualties. But is your view that because civilians were killed, it become irresponsible (or in your breathless prose "is a symptom of a moral outlook that is in the final stages of decay") to point out that casualties and damage were grossly exaggerated? Does this also mean that anyone who pointed out the error of the MSM's reporting of 100's killed in the Jenin "massacre" (the real death toll was 56 Palestinians, most of them combatants, and 23 Israeli soldiers) was suffering from moral decay?

I think you may have lost perspective here.
8.25.2006 10:19pm
Irensaga (mail):
I think what really ticks people off about this video is not so much that it makes light of a humanitarian crisis, but that it pretty much reflects how seriously most of us Americans feel about the war in Lebanon and that bugs quite a few of us.

Basically, it hits too close to home and everyone is rushing to distance themselves from it in the hopes of reassuring themselves that they actually give a damn.

So act outraged if you wish, but you're wasting your time.

We live in a state of media and information saturation. We receive a critical mass of data from every corner of the globe. The amount of human suffering pumped into our living rooms is unimaginable.

Human beings were not meant to have this much awareness of every spot of misery on the globe. The only possible option is to block out a great deal of it.

I've heard personal stories from the victims of Israeli airstrikes and the victims of Hezbollah rocket fire. It tears my heart out to hear these things.

But thing is, I simply don't have enough in me to commit to this crisis emotionally. It's not that I don't care, it's just that I've decided to devote my sphere of interest and compassion to where it will do the most good.

Lebanon is not one of those places.

So when all is said and done, the ugly truth of it is:

I care more about false reporting from the MSM than I do about the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon. That's closer to home and it impacts my own corner of humanity more than some Lebanese family losing their apartment.

So the fact is, I didn't even see a video about human suffering. I saw a video about dishonest and hypocritical news reporting. And that is all I saw. I felt the MSM deserved what it got in that video.

So I say again. You guys are missing the point. This video isn't about human suffering. Dead Lebanese are pretty-much irrelevant to the whole thing. It's about human hypocrisy. It's about pretending you care what happens to people when all you really care about is "making good political copy."

I'll admit my weakness here. I care more about lying reporters than I do about bombed-out Lebanese apartment buildings. Not because I "don't care." But because I do care deeply and I just don't have the capacity to emotionally connect with every scrap of human misery worldwide on a daily basis.

As such, I thought the video was timely, pointed, appropriate, richly deserved, and ... downright funny.

And I'm at peace with that.

To the indignant, the self-righteous, or the simply disturbed who have issued venom on this video - ask yourselves why this really made you so mad.

Are you truly emotionally connected with the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon (and I'm not saying it's impossible that you are), or are you simply trying to shore-up your own self-image as a "caring person?"

If you want to connect with humanity, I would suggest spending time at your local soup kitchen, or visiting mom and dad in the rest home. Because for most of you, there's really nothing you can do to help the Lebanese or the Israelis. Better to help the REAL people in your lives than the THEORETICAL people on your TV screen.
8.25.2006 10:49pm
r4d20 (mail):

I am just pointing out that they are using the same intellectually dishonest approach of avoiding reality pioneered by holocause deniers and the tobacco companies.




actually, a better analogy is with these guys

" One of the most important propaganda lies of the 1990s featured the Serb-run Trnopolje camp, visited by Britain's ITN reporters in August 1992. These reporters photographed the resident Fikret Alic, showing him emaciated and seemingly inside a concentration camp fence. ... But this hugely dishonest photo was featured everywhere in the West as proving a Serb-organized Auschwitz, was denounced by NATO high officials, and helped provide the moral basis for the creation of the ICTY and its clear focus on Serb evil."


It all depends on whose Ox is gored I guess.
8.25.2006 11:45pm
Randy Barnett (mail) (www):
I am going to close this thread. It is just too depressing to monitor.
8.25.2006 11:52pm