Lebanon deaths morally not same as Israelis - Bolton

#1
Well at least the scumbag is honest.
Truly and utterly flabbergasted and this administration prides its self on its Christianity.
Let's not forget that what started this was Hezbollah attacking the Israeli Military not civilians.

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - US Ambassador John Bolton said there was no moral equivalence between the civilian casualties from the Israeli raids in Lebanon and those killed in Israel from "malicious terrorist acts".

Asked to comment on the deaths in an Israeli air strike of eight Canadian citizens in southern Lebanon Sunday, he said: "it is a matter of great concern to us ...that these civilian deaths are occurring. It's a tragedy."

"I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts," he added, while defending as "self-defense" Israel's military action, which has had "the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths".

The eight dead Canadians were a Lebanese-Canadian couple, their four children, his mother and an uncle, said relatives in Montreal.

The Montreal pharmacist and his family had arrived in Lebanon 10 days earlier for a vacation in his parents' home village and to introduce his children to relatives, they said.

Three of his Lebanese relatives died too, a family member told AFP.

"It's simply not the same thing to say that it's the same act to deliberately target innocent civilians, to desire their deaths, to fire rockets and use explosive devices or kidnapping versus the sad and highly unfortunate consequences of self-defense," Bolton noted.
 
#2
Cretin.

At least the neo-con grip on this administration is slacking viz Bush's off-script comments this week, but they will still try and force a last hurrah. Wonder how hard Bolton is working to stop Syria being helpful today?
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
He cannot argue otherwise without also saying that there is a moral equivilence between Iraqi civilians killed by American troops by mistake when fighting insurgents and the killing of Iraqi civilans by those same insurgents
 
#4
Bouillabaisse said:
He cannot argue otherwise without also saying that there is a moral equivilence between Iraqi civilians killed by American troops by mistake when fighting insurgents and the killing of Iraqi civilans by those same insurgents
Just a question but what does dropping a bomb and killing port workers have to do with fighting insurgents?
Especially when Hezbollah were in no where near the port in question?
 
#5
I think what he is trying to say is that there is a difference [morally] between deliberatly killing civilians and killing them by mistake. Whether we agree or not (and I do) is beside the point. The question is why is the fact that the Americans are saying this taking any of you fine gentlemen by surprise?
 
#6
castlereagh said:
Well at least the scumbag is honest.
Let's not forget that what started this was Hezbollah attacking the Israeli Military not civilians.
You are quite wrong. What started this was GOD telling the Jews the "Holy Land" was theirs. This was compounded by the British (and others) agreeing to give it back to the Jews. All this despite the fact that someone else already lived there.

Interestingly, the first time around, the people who lived there were NOT muslims.

Look on a proper map of the world (One on which the Empire is shaded red) and you will find a small country called Palestine and no such place as Israel.
 
#8
Bouillabaisse said:
He cannot argue otherwise without also saying that there is a moral equivilence between Iraqi civilians killed by American troops by mistake when fighting insurgents and the killing of Iraqi civilans by those same insurgents
That is very true Bouillabaisse. However, I feel you have placed the cart before the horse. I don't think he is having to make this statement to avoid dodging the similarity with Iraq - he actually believes it. He and his ilk truely believe that arabs are untermenschen and their lives are incomparable to good christian/jewish white folk. It is this VERY attitude that breeds the resentment against the US and Israel and spawns terrorism. John Bolton and his neo-con pals are part of the problem not the solution.
 
#9
Lasalle said:
Your right Keyboardwarrior we should give it back to the Canaanites.
Are there any left? Do they actually want it back or are they all living quite nicely as illegal immigrants/asylum seekers in some random city in England.
 
#10
What he said was:

US Ambassador John Bolton said there was no moral equivalence between the civilian casualties from the Israeli raids in Lebanon and those killed in Israel from "malicious terrorist acts".

Not:

"Lebanon deaths morally not same as Israelis"

Are you all journalists?
 
#11
Lasalle said:
I think what he is trying to say is that there is a difference [morally] between deliberatly killing civilians and killing them by mistake. Whether we agree or not (and I do) is beside the point. The question is why is the fact that the Americans are saying this taking any of you fine gentlemen by surprise?
It takes a very clever massaging of the English language to claim that a 500lb bomb dropped into a residential area is "killing [civilians] by mistake." I was watching BBC news a wee bit earlier. One of the reporters was in a 'safe' Christian residential area of East Beirut when a bomb hit about 100 yds away. It had taken out a truck with drilling rig on top, which the reporter assumed may well have looked like a rocket launcher from the air. So what's the mistake? OK to bomb a 'friendly' residential area and blame it on bad intel?

Israel has the right to defend itself. It does not have the right to dismantle another state's infrastructure out of spite.
 
#12
Lasalle said:
What he said was:

US Ambassador John Bolton said there was no moral equivalence between the civilian casualties from the Israeli raids in Lebanon and those killed in Israel from "malicious terrorist acts".

Not:

"Lebanon deaths morally not same as Israelis"

Are you all journalists?
"I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts," he added, while defending as "self-defense" Israel's military action, which has had "the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths".

"It's simply not the same thing to say that it's the same act to deliberately target innocent civilians, to desire their deaths, to fire rockets and use explosive devices or kidnapping versus the sad and highly unfortunate consequences of self-defense"

The implication of his statement is that deaths from malicious terrorist acts are more regrettable than those from acts of self defence. He stated that the Israelis are performing acts of self defence, and that the Lebanese are performing acts of terrorism. Therefore, the implication is that Lebanese deaths are not the same as Israeli deaths.

At worst, his statement is criminally inflammable.
At best, his statement is crass and imbecilic.
 
#13
Oh don't get me wrong –I think Israel is going down the wrong road here. I thought the thread title was Castlereagh's not AFP's. I think AFP are guilty of a none-too-subtle massaging of the English language.
 
#14
The Majority of TV Christian Evangelists in the States broadcast everyday on the fact that God gave Jews the land of Israel, QED attempts to attack / steal the Land of Israel is an attack upon God, where as smiting the Philistines (for that is approx where Lebanon is) is simply following Gods will - its in the Bible ask the Padre. Do remember these TV Evangelists have the highest audience ratings in the States, they are the people that elected George W because he is one of them as are many serving members of the US Army and the US Govt. including Bolton.
 
#16
Hey hey USA who did Israel whack today?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1691327.htm

Israeli air raids kill 57, foreigners flee Lebanon

Israeli air strikes on Lebanon killed 56 civilians and a Hizbollah fighter on Wednesday, the deadliest toll of the eight-day-old war, as thousands of villagers fled north and more foreigners were evacuated.

Israeli troops crossed the border to raid Hizbollah posts and Hizbollah television said three Israeli soldiers were killed and 10 wounded in clashes with the Shiite Muslim guerrillas.

Israeli medics said earlier two Israeli soldiers had been wounded in the fighting. The army had no immediate comment. Security sources in Lebanon said the clashes occurred during one of three cross-border incursions by Israeli forces.

More Hizbollah rockets fell on the Israeli city of Haifa and one hit an empty seafront restaurant. A few people were hurt.

Hizbollah said it had also rocketed an Israeli air force base at Ramat David, about 35 kilometres inside Israel, and the town of Nahariya. The Israeli army said no base was hit.

Despite international diplomatic efforts, there was no sign Israel or its Lebanese Shiite foes were ready to heed the Beirut government's pleas for an immediate halt to a war that has cost at least 292 lives in Lebanon and 25 in Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the bombardment would last "as long as necessary" to free two soldiers captured by Hizbollah guerrillas on July 12 and ensure the Shiite Muslim group is disarmed.

Hizbollah, backed by Syria and Iran, wants to swap the two Israeli soldiers for Lebanese and Palestinians in Israeli jails.

At least 17 Lebanese, including several children, were killed and 30 wounded in an Israeli air strike that destroyed houses in the southern village of Srifa, residents said.

Israel also bombed the runway at Beirut international airport, which has been closed since Thursday. The runway and fuel tanks have been hit several times.
OK, allowing for the inevitable propaganda and lack of ICRC verification , I guess killing several dozen civilians to get a Hizbollah gunman is "self-defence". This is originally a Reuters feed and there are some confusing reports in it to my mind.

Israel: We do not want to involve Syria in conflict

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Wednesday that Israel does not want to involve Syria or Iran in its current conflict with Lebanon.

"We will leave Iran to the world community, and Syria as well," Peres told Army Radio. "It's very important to understand that we are not instilling world order."
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-07/19/content_644556.htm

Meanwhile.....

http://cbs5.com/topstories/topstories_story_200093826.html

Israel declared Tuesday it was ready to fight Hezbollah guerrillas for several more weeks, raising doubts about international efforts to broker an immediate cease-fire. The fighting has killed nearly 300 people and displaced 500,000.

"It will take us time to destroy what is left," Brig. Gen. Alon Friedman, a senior army commander, told Israeli Army Radio on Wednesday.
Destroy what exactly? Reduce Lebanon to anarchy again , then scream at the US for more money to "Defend ourselves against Hizbollah"?
 
#17
Another Bolton-Con gem that seemed to escape wider reporting....

http://cbs5.com/topstories/topstories_story_200093826.html

The fighting dealt a blow to diplomatic efforts to broker a cease-fire and to send a new international force to bolster the 2,000-member U.N. force in south Lebanon appeared stalled.

"The U.N. envoys are expected to return this week and report back on the proposals for a ceasefire and the regional views of a U.N. stabilization force proposed by the Secretary General and Prime Minister Tony Blair," said CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk, "a proposal which has already met with some resistance by U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, who said earlier in the week that the mechanisms were already in place under U.N. resolutions to disarm Lebanese militias."
:cry:
 
#18
PompeySailor said:
The implication of his statement is that deaths from malicious terrorist acts are more regrettable than those from acts of self defence. He stated that the Israelis are performing acts of self defence, and that the Lebanese are performing acts of terrorism. Therefore, the implication is that Lebanese deaths are not the same as Israeli deaths.

At worst, his statement is criminally inflammable.
At best, his statement is crass and imbecilic.
No - Bolton calls the deaths "tragic and unfortunate" which I would infer as meaning that they were equally regrettable. What he said was that they were not morally equivalent. Meaning that the terrorists [whether Lebanese or not] have more moral responsibility for the deaths they cause than the Israelis.

If he had said what you thought he said then, maybe, it would be inflammable and imbecilic. But he didn't.


If we are confused and polarised form the safety of wherever each of us are then what hope for the people who actually live there?
 
#19
From the other source I read this piece (off line and in Arabic) Bolton when discussing "malicious terrorist acts" was referring to Hezbollah.
Now as I stated in my original post Hezbollah stuck at a military target, Israel responded by striking at every thing civilian not Hezbollah.
Hezbollah struck back, (not condoning it) but many Lebanese were actually angry that Hezbollah at first were not striking back repeatedly at Haifa.
Hezbollah have supposedly lost less than 10 fighters.

Also considering the fact that Israel is now striking at private industry e.g. plastic factories, dairy factories and is bombing even Christian towns in the south. It seems pretty clear that the Israeli campaign specifically extends to Lebanese civilians.

On the biblical element, yes the Jews may have been God's chosen people and God may have given them Promise Land but I am pretty sure that remit did not extend into lands of Phoenicia or Sidonians as the OT would have it.

Armchair - you forgot the most crucial part of the American Christian Evangelists beliefs. These lovely millenialists believe that it is vital for the state of Israel to exist and for all Jews to be there so the God's kingdom on earth can begin. Also If I recall correctly these apocalypse junkies also believe that Israel and all Jews have to turn to Christianity during this period and if they don't they will die in the fiery pits of hell. All based on a freaked out reading of the Bible.

But my vote would be return the biblical lands to the Canaanites (problem is though, they may have been wiped out!)

edited for clarity
 
#20
Lasalle said:
PompeySailor said:
At worst, his statement is criminally inflammable.
At best, his statement is crass and imbecilic.
No - Bolton calls the deaths "tragic and unfortunate" which I would infer as meaning that they were equally regrettable. What he said was that they were not morally equivalent. Meaning that the terrorists [whether Lebanese or not] have more moral responsibility for the deaths they cause than the Israelis.

If he had said what you thought he said then, maybe, it would be inflammable and imbecilic. But he didn't.
The Lebanese deaths are "tragic and unfortunate" but apparently not 'criminal' which is implicit in the claim that Israeli deaths are "malicious terrorist acts." If he meant that they were "equally regrettable", then it would have been very simple to say so - which he didn't - he went out of his way to massage the words to imply they were not.

In reality the difference between the two groups is simple; Hizbollah is killing Israeli civilians with military weopans fired indescriminantly, whereas the IDF is firing artillery and dropping ordinance semi-descriminantly. Morally they are indestinguishable - unless you are a neo-con trying to justify murder.

Attacking rocket launch sites is defending Israel, attacking civilian residential areas and infrastructure is criminal, immoral and unnecessary acts of irresponsible aggression - some would all it a terrorist act in its own right.
 

Similar threads

Top