see more Political Pictures

Was doing my evening reading on CNN and saw this story:

School Shooting In Finland

How incredibly sad: for the people who died and their friends and families, for the shooter (you HAVE to be pretty messed up to think to do such a thing and it is horrible that people GET that messed up) and for the human race in general. So sad that we feel the need to kill one and other.

And I expect that this will incite EU politicos, yet again, to try and blame video games for this sort of occurrence. Look elsewhere, folks. Look to individual pathology, look to governmental involvement in wars, look to bullying behaviour being overlooked in schools and workplaces. Unfortunately, look to human nature.

So sad.

From Time

From Little Green Footballs:

A little explanation of the Abdel Qader business card. This fellow is the focal point of an ongoing discussion on the ‘Net about propaganda. It would appear that he has a tendency to show up where there are dead civilians in Lebanon. Often, in numerous poses, with the same body (a wee child) whilst his clothing changes in between each shot (again, holding the same wee child). This has created one hell of an uproar in the Blogosphere and even has gotten commentary from the mainstream media (defensive).

Now whether or not this fellow is engaged in blatant propaganda (and my gut tells me he is) I find it despicable the lack of respect for the dead. Their own dead. Paraded about for photographers. I suppose I could be taken to task for being “squeamish”. No, that’s not it. Yes, it is awful to see war dead and especially children but I am quite aware of what war entails (which makes me wonder what so many others who are so horrified were expecting?) and I am mad as hell about this use of their own dead as propaganda. It seems so terribly cheap, so callous and so obviously used to incite.

But perhaps they are smart for it seems to be having the desired effect which is to outrage many. I still cannot figure out why “many” needed the graphical display to understand that war is awful and that people die in a war, not always the combatants either.

From an article in The Guardian Unlimited:

“But, in another sign of international division, Philippe Douste-Blazy, France’s foreign minister, praised Iran as “a great country, a great people, and a great civilisation which is respected and which plays a stabilising role in the region”.”

I hardly know what to say to that one. “stabilising force in the region”? As usual in so many of these things, I’m sure that there are a great many decent people in Iran just like in any other country but I cannot buy into, at all, anything remotely “stabilising” about the behaviour of the government there nor the beliefs and behaviours of certain religious communities within and whose influence is felt from without.
Too, whilst I’m sure that not all of the French would agree with their foreign minister, I have to wonder how many do. This is a trend that I find most disturbing.

Terrorism, no matter what guise it dons, is still terrorism. Whether it be practised against external governments or peoples or internally it is still a behaviour that is destructive and, worse yet, terribly difficult to contend with with respect to achieving stability or peace. Terrorists have a penchant for the “all or nothing” position. “Our way or the highway” type thinking. Couple that with the methods of terrorism (sneak attacks, suicide attacks etc.) and it’s a recipe for disaster.

As we are learning.

I think we fail when we try to see everything in black and white and by “we” I think we’re all guilty of that to one degree or another. To fail to understand the mindset held by many terrorists is to perpetuate these events. What is the solution? I have no idea.

And that’s the really, really scary bit. I don’t know that anyone does.

I wonder at the reactions of some to the current war. They are horrified, shocked, angry etc. All perfectly reasonable reactions to war, in my opinion. But…I wonder what they expected? What do they think war is all about?

Too, this “disproportionate” business…what is proportionate in war? To understand that we need to understand the goal of war, I suppose. So far as I know, it’s to win. To come out ahead, to triumph over one’s enemies. I don’t think this is a particularly new concept.

What puzzles me about this now is that people are acting as if what is happening is something new, something more heinous than ever before, something that is particular to this war.

It is not.

I wonder, too, how many of the people (Americans) who are shocked and dismayed and angry over the war in Lebanon/Israel feel about the war in Iraq? Is that somehow different? I have heard Americans say that it is. I’m trying to work my head around that. The answer, I guess, is simple enough. When “you” believe it’s the right thing to do, then go for it, hell with the consequences. When “you” believe it’s wrong, everything then takes on a negative, sinister, “out of proportion” aspect.

This would define hypocrisy to me. I honestly do not see any difference between Lebanon and Iraq.

Is it that some of the people who are so outraged are too young to remember past wars? Or is it that past wars have built up a loathing in them to the point that any war is going to be unacceptable?

I pray it is the latter and that we, as a planet, are inspired to strive to prevent all wars. However, I don’t see that happening any time soon. Hasn’t happened in the course of our long history and I don’t see it happening now.

Too many people are “right”.

Even when they are wrong.

Weather
I’m told that we live in a bubble here. No, not the kind of bubble where we are unaware of what goes on around us, but a meteorological bubble. Down here in southern Germany right up on the Lake of Constance apparently the geography causes a phenomena which results in a microcosm. Our weather can vastly differ from that around us and often does. Like now.

Stuttgart (approx. 80 miles/126km from here) is flooded from heavy rains. Have we seen a drop? Nope. Watching the weather satellite for the past week (in vain hope of cooling rain) has proved an exercise in frustration. Nearly daily we see signifcant cells forming to the north, south, east and west. They fizzle when they get here.

Of course this is nice in the winter when everyone around is cold and snowy and we’re “moderate”. We rarely get much below freezing and snow, while it happens, doesn’t often amount to much of anything. In the three winters I’ve been here we’ve really only had one significant snow. Oh would I like to see some snow right about now. I love snow! I love the cold, fresh air of winter. Bring it on!
From what the weather reports are saying, we’re supposed to actually get storms today/tonight and a break from the horrible heat. I guess that’s a bit subjective (whinge, bitch, moan) but I’ll take what we can get. It’s down to 84f in here which is a change from the 91f it peaked at yesterday and that’s with turning off the leaky a/c overnight so as not to find water al over the floor. For some reason this a/c despite its system of draining water into a container, leaks. It’s not consistent, but when it does it, it’s about a quart or two all over the floor. Himself rearranged it so that the drain tube no longer goes into the built-in reservoir but now drains into a bucket. That has improved but not abolished the problem.

Anyway, it’s “only” 72f at 0800 but it was much cooler sleeping last night after having a breeze kick up around midnight. I slept well for about 5 hours which is a record since this damnable heat started. The forecast (may it hold) calls for a *high* tomorrow of 70f. Hopefully we get some rain. We need it so badly.
News

This morning’s headlines bring reports of Israel calling up an additional 30k reservists but a remark that they are not going to expand their objective. Not quite sure what that means. Otherwise seems to be the same as it has been. Ground fighting on the Lebanese border, rockets being lobbed back and forth. People dying. Y’know…war. Didn’t see anything more on either the U.N. outpost or from the lunatic Islamic fundamentalists. It’s early yet. Plenty of time for waging war left in the day.

Misc.

About two-thirds done on an acrylic scarf. Turning out decently and I’ll feel all noble about having gotten a bit more of the ill-advised purchase of acrylic used up.

Well off to get some coffee and the obligatory half-litre of water so as to get a start on the day. Need to do marketing today and I hope Himself is up before 1700 so we can get it done before the heat sets in and also not have just the leavings. I am craving veggies and salad. Would love, love, love some ranch dressing but having discovered Reichnau (I think that’s right and am too lazy to go check) which is something like Green Goddess, only not, I’m content.

Found this regarding the U.N. post hit by Israeli fire recently.

Aside from more commentary about what was known shortly after it happened, haven’t seen anything further.

Too tired to write much else aside from a blessed wind has come up here just at midnight. It’s not particularly cool (still 75f outside) but at least the air is moving and it is clearing out the stagnent hot air that has built up. The temperature in here has actually gone down to 86f.

Break out the sweaters, lest we take a chill.

Yesterday brought a bitter fight to our household which really has given me something to think about. In a discussion about the war between Israel & Hezbollah my husband apparently misunderstood some things I said and came to the conclusion that I support this war.

Well no. I don’t support ANY war. I’ve always been anti-war and about the only change to that is now I can see where there are times when it is necessary. Deplorable, awful, sad, etc. but necessary. To my thinking this isn’t equal to “support”.

But the really disturbing bit was that he could, after knowing me since the mid-90s believe that I could suddenly change that much.

What was said? I opined that it is understandable what Israel is doing. That they have the right, need and duty to defend themselves as does any sovereign nation.

He is taking the position that invading another country is bad. I agree! But where we differed (heatedly and nastily) is that he doesn’t consider snagging soldiers as hostages on another country’s soil to be “invasion”. I do.

With all that was said back and forth (and it was very, very ugly) I was reminded of none other than me…30 some odd years ago. It was all so black and white back then. So clear, so simple and so easily supported or rejected.

Not so anymore. Not so for me anyway.

I am quite upset about this and had a difficult time sleeping (compounded by this bloody-won’t-cease heat) what with thinking about how communication, tolerance, attempting to understand and inability to say things like “Y’know, I don’t think I understand what you mean. Could you rephrase or elaborate?” Or “Yeah, I guess that was a bit harsh. I’m sorry that I let rip like that.” can escalate, even between nations or parties.

So the lines are drawn here. What remains to be seen is if we can come to some accord. I’m trying to remember what it was like to have the, well, luxury of black and white thinking and I’m trying to forgive what he intimated.

I can only imagine how this must feel at the level of the Mideast situation.

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, ‘n’ how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, ‘n’ how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they’re forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, ‘n’ how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, ‘n’ how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

How many years can a mountain exist
Before it’s washed to the sea?
Yes, ‘n’ how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, ‘n’ how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn’t see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

Seen on the various ‘Net newssites…Saddam Hussein is back in court today (after his hunger strike was stopped via tube feeding) and he requests that if he is convicted, he wants to be shot (as opposed to hanged).

Okay by me.

Can you tell I’m looking about for humour a LOT lately? Needed, very needed.

Blatantly stolen from Ranting of a Sandmonkey

Ouuuuccccch.

I have no idea what the rules are about wholesale quoting like I’m about to do and, if I’m in the wrong, I’ll yank it but I wanted to keep this for posterity.

From The Australian:

Mark Steyn: If only they had refused to indulge Arafat

The myth that the Muslim world’s problems are directly linked to the Palestinian question has gone up in flames, argues Mark Steyn

July 26, 2006

A FEW years back, when folks talked airily about “the Middle East peace process” and “a two-state solution”, I used to say that the trouble was the Palestinians saw a two-state solution as an interim stage en route to a one-state solution. I underestimated Islamist depravity. As we now see in Gaza and southern Lebanon, any two-state solution would be an interim stage en route to a no-state solution.

In one of the most admirably straightforward of Islamist declarations, Hussein Massawi, the Hezbollah leader behind the slaughter of US and French forces 20 years ago, put it this way: “We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”

Swell. But suppose he got his way, what then? Suppose every last Jew in Israel were dead or fled, what would rise in place of the Zionist entity? It would be something like the Hamas-Hezbollah terror squats in Gaza and Lebanon writ large. Hamas won a landslide in the Palestinian elections, and Hezbollah similarly won formal control of key Lebanese cabinet ministries. But they’re not Mussolini: they have no interest in making the trains run on time. And, to be honest, who can blame them?

If you’re a big-time terrorist mastermind, it’s frankly a bit of a bore to find yourself deputy under-secretary at the ministry of pensions, particularly when you’re no good at it, and no matter how lavishly the European Union throws money at you, there never seems to be any in the kitty when it comes to making the payroll. So, like a business that has over-diversified, Hamas and Hezbollah retreated to their core activity: Jew-killing.

In Causeries du Lundi, Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve recalls a Parisian dramatist watching the revolutionary mob rampaging through the street below and beaming: “See my pageant passing!” That’s how opportunist Arabs and indulgent Europeans looked on the intifada and the terrorists and the schoolgirl suicide bombers: as a kind of uber-authentic piece of performance art with which to torment the Jews and the Americans. They never paused to ask themselves: Hey, what if it doesn’t stop there?

Well, about 30 years too late, they’re asking it now. For the first quarter-century of Israel’s existence, the Arab states fought more or less conventional wars against the Zionists and kept losing. So then they figured it was easier to anoint a terrorist movement and in 1974 declared Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation to be the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people”, which is quite a claim for an organisation then barely a decade old. Amazingly, the Arab League persuaded the UN, the EU, Bill Clinton and everyone else to go along with it and to treat the old monster as a head of state who lacked only a state to head.

It’s true that many nationalist movements have found it convenient to adopt the guise of terrorists.

But, as the Palestinian movement descended from airline hijackings to the intifada to self-detonating in pizza parlours, it never occurred to its glamorous patrons to wonder if maybe this was, in fact, a terrorist movement conveniently adopting the guise of nationalism.

In 1971, in the lobby of the Cairo Sheraton, Palestinian terrorists shot Wasfi al-Tal, the prime minister of Jordan, at point-blank range. As he fell to the floor dying, one of his killers began drinking the blood gushing from his wounds. Doesn’t that strike you as a little, um, overwrought? Three decades later, when bombs went off in Bali, killing hundreds of tourists plus local waiters and barmen, Bruce Haigh, a former Aussie diplomat in Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, had no doubt where to put the blame. As he told Australia’s Nine Network: “The root cause of this issue has been America’s backing of Israel on Palestine.”

Suppose this were true: that terrorists blew up Australian honeymooners and Scandinavian stoners in Balinese nightclubs because of “the Palestinian question”. Doesn’t this suggest that these people are, at a certain level, nuts? After all, there are plenty of Irish Republican Army sympathisers across the world (try making the Ulster Unionist case in a Boston bar), yet they never thought to protest against British rule in Northern Ireland by blowing up, say, German tourists in Thailand.

Yet the more the thin skein of Palestinian grievance was stretched to justify atrocities halfway around the world, the more the Arab League big-shot emirs and EU foreign ministers looked down from their windows and cooed, “See my parade passing!”

They’ve now belatedly realised they’re at that stage in the creature feature where the monster has mutated into something bigger and crazier. Until the remarkably kinda-robust statement by the Group of Eight and the unprecedented denunciation of Hezbollah by the Arab League, the rule in any conflict in which Israel is involved - Israel v PLO, Israel v Lebanon, Israel v (Your Team Here) - is that the Jews are to blame. But Saudi-Egyptian-Jordanian opportunism on Palestine has caught up with them: it has finally dawned on them that a strategy of consciously avoiding resolution of the Palestinian question has helped deliver Gaza and Lebanon and Syria into the hands of a regime that’s a far bigger threat to the Arab world than the Zionist entity.

Cairo and co grew so accustomed to whining about the Palestinian pseudo-crisis decade in, decade out, that it never occurred to them that they might face a real crisis one day: a Middle East dominated by an apocalyptic Iran and its local enforcers, in which Arab self-rule turns out to have been a mere interlude between the Ottoman sultans and the eternal eclipse of a Persian nuclear umbrella.

The Zionists got out of Gaza and it’s now Talibanistan redux. The Zionists got out of Lebanon and the most powerful force in the country (with an ever-growing demographic advantage) are Iran’s Shia enforcers. There haven’t been any Zionists anywhere near Damascus in 60 years and Syria is in effect Iran’s first Sunni Arab prison bitch. For the other regimes in the region, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria are dead states that have risen as vampires.

Meanwhile, Kofi Annan in a remarkable display of urgency (at least when compared with Sudan, Rwanda, Congo and others) is proposing apropos Israel and Hezbollah that UN peacekeepers go in to keep the peace not between two sovereign states but between a sovereign state and a usurper terrorist gang. Contemptible as he is, the secretary-general shows a shrewd understanding of the way the world is heading: already, non-state actors have more sophisticated rocketry than many EU nations; and if Iran has its way, its proxies will be implied nuclear powers. Maybe we should put them on the UN Security Council.

So, what is in reality Israel’s first non-Arab war is a glimpse of the world the day after tomorrow: the EU and the Arab League won’t quite spell it out but, to modify that Le Monde headline, they are all Jews now.

Mark Steyn, a Canadian and US columnist, is a regular contributor to The Australian’s opinion page. He will address the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney on August 14 and the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne on August 17.

URL to the article in full, just in case I have committed a heinous sin and must delete the whole thing.

This from Chayyei Sarah via Allison Kaplan-Sommer’s excellent site:

Hezballah: poke-poke-poke

Israel: Cut it out!

Hezballah: poke-poke-poke

Israel: I’m serious, cut it out!

Hezballah: poke-poke-poke

[Israel slaps Hezballah]

Hezballah to Lebanon: Mom! He hit me!

Lebanon: Stop whining. I have other things to deal with.

Hezballah: poke-poke-poke

[Israel slaps Hezballah again]

Hezballah: You wanna piece of me? Come and get it.

America: Stop that fighting back there! Hezballah, try to stop poking, OK? You’re bothering your mum. And you, Israel, keep your hands to yourself.

Israel: Yes, dad.

Hezballah: poke-poke-poke

[Israel slaps Hezballah again]

Hezballah: Mom! He hit me again!

Lebanon [distracted]: mm hmm

Hezballah: poke-poke-poke

[Israel punches Hezballah in the face, drawing blood]

Hezballah, touching his nose and then staring at the blood: Oh Sh*t! What did you do that for?

I think that sounds about right.

From this link we see the above statement. Okay, folks, this is something that has irritated me since the 60s. This tap-dancing around using the word “war”. Are we all fooled? Nope. It’s pretty obvious that when there are two or more factions killing one and other with full intention of winning that we have…a war.

From the article:

“Israel is still not legally at war with Lebanon, even though it is conducting large-scale ground operations on Lebanese territory, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz said yesterday.

According to Mazuz, the correct definition of Israel’s current offensive is “military operations” not war, as he defined it in a previous opinion 10 days ago.

“The attorney general’s position regarding the definition of these operations has not changed,” the Justice Ministry told Haaretz. “The Israel Defense Forces’ operations in Lebanon are covered by the relevant principles of international law, and the operations are carried out under the close supervision of the military prosecution.”

Okay, here it appears that the word “legally” is the key. Here’s where my ignorance once again kicks in. What does “legally” have to do with it? Is there some sort of benefit from refusing to call war…war? Can parties be sued if it’s a legally declared war?

I have a feeling this is something that would make better sense if I had all the information, so I will try to find it.

And I’ll continue to knit. I’ve tossed aside and will THROW-FREAKING-OUT the chenille. No matter what I do with it it looks as though a drunken monkey did the work. I can knit perfectly fine with just about any other fibre I’ve laid hands to but not this dreck. So, now delving into the bulky acrylic (sigh) to get it destashed and into yet another scarf. Hopefully I’ll be able to lay hands on some good stuff for holiday gifts next month.

Back to reading and knitting and trying to ignore the fact that it’s already 90f (only, hah, 86f in here).

I’m still trying to understand why Koffi Annan would say such a thing, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE. This gentleman is a professional diplomat and that remark last night was out of line. I can’t sort out, yet, if it was intentional or not and I think it bears serious investigation, indeed. I am just astounded that Mr. Annan would say such a thing so early on. The only explanation that I can see is that he knows something the rest of us don’t and, if so, he’d better start talking. Otherwise he has indulged in highly unprofessional behaviour.

Further I’m trying to sort out why Israel would intentionally flatten U.N. observers. They would have to know that given the climate such an action would be used fully against them in the court of world opinion. I don’t think that they are stupid and surely not *that* stupid. Or that bloodthirsty. What would they gain?

That’s something I think we should all think about. Yes, even you, Mr. Annan.

I just got finished reading this article in which the following was stated:

The law of war requires you to distinguish between soldiers and civilians, so when you are using an outdated, unreliable weapon in a populated area, it is likely that the attack violates international humanitarian law

Bonnie Docherty
Human Rights Watch

I am nearly hopping up and down in my chair here (which would be a bad thing given the extreme heat…meh) over this one. Law of War? Does this woman actually think that the Hizboallah pays the first bit of attention to such niceties as the “Law of War”? Well, obviously she thinks that it should be adhered to and, in principle, I would agree but this aspect (Geneva Conventions, Laws of War, all things meant to keep war within “civilised boundaries…hah, as if) is gone. It’s done. It’s an ex-policy/concept. It isn’t happening any more and to expect that it will is to completely not understand the “evolution” (devolution?) of war.

I would love to sit down with Ms. Docherty and discuss this. We are dealing with terrorism. We are dealing with peoples who have absolutely NO intention of “fighting fair”. Indeed by their own actions have shown that “fighting fair” is the last thing they want to do. Their intent is to instill terror, to erode and destroy those they perceive as enemies and they have utterly, absolutely NO interest in such an approach. To expect those dealing with terrorists to adhere to the conventions of war is to hobble them terribly.

This is of course, terrible. It makes these conflicts, wars all the more horrific but there you have it. That “they” have a “bigger stick” is essentially what war is all about. By the time things get to the point of war, it is down to “the stick”.

Who was adhering to the “law of war” when airplanes were flown into the WTC? Who was adhering to the “law of war” when nightclubs all over the world are being blown up by suicide bombers? Who was adhering to the “law of war” when civilians are exploded into bits by the same?

Right. “Law of War” indeed.