Not Ready for Prime Time
--nothing
Can we film the operation
Is the head dead yet
You know the boys in the newsroom
Got a running bet
--Dirty Laundry, Don Henley
So, why should I waste my beautiful mind
on something like that?
--Barbara Bush
_____________________
Can we film the operation
Is the head dead yet
You know the boys in the newsroom
Got a running bet
--Dirty Laundry, Don Henley
So, why should I waste my beautiful mind
on something like that?
--Barbara Bush
_____________________
Per The Photo today of the 7-year-old son of the Islamic State member gleefully holding up the severed head of the Syrian gloatingly posted to his father's Twitter account, there's not much to say.
Who can call this "Photo of the Year"? Why do we give this insanity any press? "Warning -- Graphic Photo!" as we salaciously anticipate our own voyeuristic John the Baptist moment. Yet, the press did not gift us with the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl ... why is that? After all, his murderers kindly provided footage, too.
In the past, the press made decisions based upon more than desperation for readership. Eddie Adams' photo, "General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon" showed the human tragedy that is war, but the frame did not rely on showing the soon-bloody head. By freezing the moment of impending doom, one did not have the benefit of release.
Today's photo depicts a vulgar, bestial, monstrous action, and a gleeful boy joining in the celebration. Are we surprised? Do we really not know what the Western world confronts in the name of IS activities?
What is special, newsworthy or shocking about this photo? This is child porn of a most chilling form. We ban such things in our nation, yet consume it with gusto under the rubric ... I do not know what rubric; perhaps you can tell me.
Is there nothing sacred?
Labels: Australian citizen son of Islamic terrorist, child pornography, Dry Bones Blog, Islamic terrorism, seven year old holding severed Syrian head, violence of Islam
posted by Lisa at 9:59 PM
17 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I consider the cartoon used at the end of this post to be problematic for two reasons.
First, HAMAS is not equivalent to ISIS, and to use the cartoon suggests a (false) equivalency. Secondly, the cartoon would delight any Israeli apologist. Alan Dershowitz recently made this claim in a Washington Times Op-Ed:
The Hamas “dead baby” strategy - to cause as many civilian casualties as possible by firing its deadly rockets from schools and densely populated areas.
The cartoon is essentially a parroting of that questionable claim, and I am disappointed that you didn't realize that. In the unlikely even that you somehow do believe that Hamas is largely responsible for the grotesque number of Palestinian civilian (and especially child) deaths in the recent Israeli assault, please do provide some credible evidence.
PW,
I not only recognize the implications of the graphics, but your patronization, as well.
You recognize the implications of the graphic, yet chose to use it? So you are comfortable both with the implied false equivalence and parroting of the dubious Dershowitz claim?
I challenged you to produce evidence to support the latter, evidence that much of the world (including the U.N.) has failed to see, and you responded with a reference to the tone of my comment. I'm quite sure that readers of this blog would prefer that you respond to the substantive question that I posed.
Mr. Warfield,
Your previous [removed] comment displays your bias well:
I see now that the post was made by "Lisa", and not Ranger.
My criticisms still stand, though the likely explanation for the transgressions are now more obvious.
You presume there was a transgression; there was none. Your statement implies the writer is wayward or misinformed; she is not. Neither you nor anyone sets her agenda.
There is no confusion in the piece. Nor is there any regarding your bias.
RAW's agenda is not to comport with your (or anyone else's) beliefs. Over the years it has become clear to us that our brand of liberalism skews from the majority of those who so identify.
Lisa,
That you are unwilling or unable to defend the substance of your work, and instead choose to launch ad hominem attacks on a reader who has challenged it substantially, is both revealing and sad.
Furthermore, it is deeply ironic that you would imagine a bias in those who recognize the unequivocal fact that ISIS and Hamas are not equivalent.
I have mentioned to RAW that I come from an old Virginia family on my mother's side. Not sure if I ever mentioned that my father was a 1st generation American of Armenian descent (Hence "avedis"). I am well aware of the ethos of the genocide survivor as both of my paternal grandparents were such survivors - both the only members of their families to make it out of the Ottoman Empire circa 1915-1916. My grandfather actually lived with us, in our home, after my grandmother died in '67 or '68 and until his death when I was in highschool sometime in the...well a while ago. I heard all the stories and was constantly admonished to "never forget".
This whole mess in the M.E. stirs some deep feelings in me. For one, Syria is the first place my grandparents found refuge. There are (or were until recently) Armenian Christian communities dating back to 1915 in Syria. Some survivors of the genocide in historic Armenia stayed there and were able to thrive. Now ISIS is finishing the job the Turks started 100 years ago. Saddam’s Iraq was also such a place. Now that is gone too. I am appalled that “liberals” like H. R. C want(ed) to support the overthrow of the Syrian govt in favor of a bunch of Islamic rebels (only the “moderate” one’s, yeah sure). F’ing ivy league dingbats.
That said, I have a hard time buying into the justification for what Israel is doing in Gaza and most definitely in the West Bank settlements. All I hear is justification for killing women and children; any way you cut it. I don’t believe there is any sufficient justification for that. Nor does it make sense from a strategic perspective. Violence and killing only breeds more of the same. Those who fight monsters and all of that.
Back in the day I considered fighting in Nagorno Karabhak until I found out doing so would land me on the state dept terrorist list. Still, I would not have participated in the killing of Azerbaijani women and children. Wrong is wrong and stupid is stupid no matter how you dress it up.
avedis
avedis,
Yes, killing is wrong ... and we do it every day of the week (and always have, and always will, until the Rapture, if you're of that frame of mind.)
You say, "All I hear is justification for killing women and children; any way you cut it. I don’t believe there is any sufficient justification for that."
C'mon, avedis -- and what about Israeli women and children? Who cries crocodile tears for them? Would the U.S. put up with being rocketed daily and living gamely with suicide bombers in its midst? I doubt it.
I'm not going into the history with people who have the smarts to interact on RAW.
Three things are obvious to me:
[1] ~80 of liberals are anti-Semites (the gift that keeps on giving)
[2] Israel is the only nation in that entire hornet's nest that is the Middle East that shares our Western mindset
[3] The Palestinians have never had an honest broker, and they continue to be gamed by all the usual players. Tragically, it doesn't have to be like this, but this is where ignorance and intractable hatred gets you.
My position is clear. Everyone gets to study history and arrive at his own conclusions.
Mr. Warfield,
If you follow this blog, you know that I use literary quotations and graphics in a highly allusive manner; every referent need not be perfectly aligned in order to contribute to the whole.
You do not like what I wrote; that is your prerogative. I was clear.
If you don't understand something, you get to study it and I'm sure will arrive at an answer.
[1] ~80 of liberals are anti-Semites (the gift that keeps on giving)
I buy that. I grew up in a very "WASPy" community and even though I have blue eyes and mostly WASP features I can tell you that I was never accepted into the club b/c of my other half (to my DAR mother's horror at her mistake). I heard a lot of anti-Semitic crap from both the blue blood conservatives and the liberal minded patrons of charity. My father hung out with the Jews and Armenians on the other side of town.
[2] Israel is the only nation in that entire hornet's nest that is the Middle East that shares our Western mindset
This I don't think is quite true. Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are relatively open as is Turkey. Iraq wasn't even too bad in that regard until we broke it.
[3] The Palestinians have never had an honest broker, and they continue to be gamed by all the usual players. Tragically, it doesn't have to be like this, but this is where ignorance and intractable hatred gets you
True. I agree, but still I don't see where they have been dealt with honestly/fairly either.
I also agree that Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, rockets, etc..
So here's a bigger question; what's Israel's end game. Kill them ruthlessly until they stop hating and attacking us? Do you really see that working?
If not?
I still see justification for killing women and children. Hopefully we can disagree on that point and still remain friends. Smart people can and do disagree at times.
avedis
"I still see justification for killing women and children."
Meaning from you.
avedis
...what about Israeli women and children? Who cries crocodile tears for them? Would the U.S. put up with being rocketed daily and living gamely with suicide bombers in its midst?
Truly remarkable. For some context, here are some facts:
Number of Israelis killed by rockets launched from Gaza since 2001: 28, as in twenty-eight. (Their names, and the list of official Israeli sources can be found through a link that I will be happy to provide if requested.)
Number of Palestinians killed in just this one, recent assault on Gaza? Roughly 1,950 – many hundreds of whom were civilians, including over 200 children. (There are many sources for these numbers.)
And yet Lisa, to her credit in terms of transparency, shows her extraordinary bias by asking who will cry for Israeli women and children.
For the record, I am Jewish, have been to Israel, and have relatives there as well.
Anti-semiticsm has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation that is taking place on this blog. Both avedis and I have espoused positions that much of the world shares, and frankly, I would very surprised if Ranger actually shared Lisa's extreme views on this topic.
PW writes,
"I would very surprised if Ranger actually shared Lisa's extreme views on this topic" --
That is irrelevant to my post, no?
Especially as my post is about a grotesque photo of a grotesque act, and you have chosen to avoid that topic, and instead to shift the focus to your particular bias.
"This topic" is YOUR topic -- not the writer's topic.
Lisa,
Contrary to your claims otherwise, you chose to make a direct connection between Hamas and ISIS in your original post, going so far as to link to the cartoon in answer to your own question What is special, newsworthy or shocking about this photo?
You also featured a cartoon that parrots claims which are not only dubious, but hypocritical as well (i.e. Israeli soldiers have been documented to have used Palestinian women and children as shields).
You brought both of those topics into your post, so it is preposterous to suggest that I somehow changed the subject.
I challenged you on those issues, and in response you have launched ad hominem attacks, used red herrings such as the tone of my (substantial) comments, and failed to produce a single shred of evidence to support your positions.
You certainly do have the right to express your opinions freely, but, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously observed, not to your own facts.
You have repeatedly claimed that I am biased, and yet my perspective is shared by the vast majority of observers around the world, while yours is shared only by hard-line Israelis and their most ardent supporters.
More importantly, I have backed up my views with facts, while you have utterly failed to do so.
PW,
You say "to-MA-to", I say, "to-MAH-to". Read us, or not.
The writer's point remains unchanged:
To use children most vilely in the service of warfare or terrorism, or the propagandizing of such is heinous beyond words.
"Civilization" is not a title which may be conferred upon the lives of such people.
You again refer to your and Ranger as if your views are aligned on this topic, yet I don't recall him regurgitating simplistic Israeli hasbara.
Your deep concern for the welfare of children who are caught up in battles would be more convincing if you were remotely objective. From Haaretz (March, 2009):
Israel Defense Forces soldiers used an 11-year-old Palestinian boy as a human shield during the war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, a group of UN human rights experts said Monday.
IDF troops ordered the boy to walk in front of soldiers being fired on in the Gaza neighborhood of Tel al-Hawa and enter buildings before them, said the UN secretary-general's envoy for protecting children in armed conflict.
Radhika Coomaraswamy said the incident on Jan. 15, after Israeli tanks had rolled into the neighborhood, was a violation of Israeli and international law.
It was included in a 43-page report published Monday, and was just one of many verified human rights atrocities during the three-week war between Israel and Hamas that ended Jan. 18, she said.
Coomaraswamy accused Israeli soldiers of shooting Palestinian children, bulldozing a home with a woman and child still inside, and shelling a building they had ordered civilians into a day earlier.
In 2005, the IDF admitted to using human shields 1,200 times (that's twelve hundred. Here's the report from YNET (10/11/05):
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz on Tuesday demanded that the High Court review a ruling it issued last Thursday in which it declared that the 'human shield' procedure employed by the IDF when detaining Palestinian terror suspects is illegal and violates international law.
Sources at the Ministry of Defense said that Mofaz’ comments are not an attempt to subvert the Court’s decision, adding that the defense minister intends to use democratic means to revoke the ruling.
According to defense officials, the Israel Defense Forces made use of the ‘human shield’ procedure on 1,200 occasions over the last five years.
This is from a 2004 BBC article (including a photo) documenting the Israeli use of a 13yo boy as a human shield, tying him to the hood of a Jeep in an effort to discourage stone throwing:
Rabbis for Human Rights say that Mohammed Badwan was tied by police to a jeep during a recent demonstration in the West Bank village of Bidou.
The police apparently hoped this would stop Palestinians from throwing stones during a protest against Israel's West Bank barrier.
Rabbis for Human Rights director Rabbi Arik Ascherman was detained by police when he tried to intervene to help Mohammed.
"It is very sad to see that we have come to this position. There is disbelief," Rabbi Ascherman said.
I could go on, of course, but I'm quite sure that readers have already grasped the central point, which is that apparently seen through your eyes, only non-Israelis are capable of committing brutal acts on children.
Post a Comment
<< Home