Well, Richard North continues to do a brilliant job of quizzing the photos of the Qana incident.

Meantime at the superbly written Augean Stables I came across a lot of great stuff, especially their demi-fisking of a Kossite contributor who has a stupid bone to pick with Dr North. The best part is that you don't actually have to read the Daily Kos to get with the latest in Left-speak, in this case the parable of the flowers and the weeds.

I loved this bit in particular:

'smintheus informs us that the rest of North’s work is “writing obsessively about inconsequential details.” This comment reveals quite nicely what happens when someone with a predisposition to reject the argument, reads uncomfortable material (like me reading tax forms)'.

You know, I rarely type this, but LOL! That's exactly what it is. The problem with the left is that they're defrauding reality, and they hate to be reminded of the fact. Of course on the right the problem is handling being correct, which is very hard to do constructively or with dignity. How exactly can one make 'liar, liar etc' sound respectful and constructive without finally sighing and saying 'oh, ok, I give in, black is white etc, whaaatever'. 'Tis a conundrum.

Update: I was pleased to find Mark Steyn taking this line on the Qana happening:

'I don’t claim to know what really happened at this season’s “massacre” – at Qana – but I do know this: it’s not what the western media reported.'

Pilate asked 'What is truth'.

Richerd A.E. North asks 'What is the truth' concerning the Qana outrage.

The 'the' here is a vital one. Pilate would have been a perfect post-modern, little bothered by matters of detail, obsessed with the effects of actions rather than their particularities and moral mechanics. He would have really taken to the idea of disproportionality: after all, what's the bottom line? How many have the Hezbullah actually killed?

Read Richard's latest post. It's a defence of asking questions, of weighing evidence.
Seeing all of the pictures together in the way Euref has assembled them stimulates the mind to think about how the scene unfolded.

From much experience we know how startlingly sympathetic much of the press is to anti-Israel terrorists like Hezbullah and Hamas. It's clear looking at the photos that they are not photos of a rescue and recovery operation, but a particularly macabre and prolonged photo opportunity for an international press baying for a ceasefire.

They of course think they are doing us good; more to the point doing the Lebanese good; but it's clear from the photos there must have been a kind of patience being exercised by all concerned while the photo ops were teed up. It's this which fertilises the suspicions. The man we see again and again is said to be Abu Shadi Jradi. This man is consistently referred to as a civil defence official by all the news reports I've seen. But what, I ask, is a 'civil defence official' in this part of Lebanon except a Hezbullah man? Why is it only he and another man of similarly authoritative appearance, mr 'white t-shirt', who are seen prominently with the bodies? Is it that they are feared or that they are trusted exclusively?

Another question (and there are many). Richard North has been informed that there is no secret regarding timestamps to photos but that reporters came from all over the world and thus their cameras were operating on different time settings. Maybe so, but this just raises the question as to how all these journalists were able to set themselves up in time to capture all these urgent scenes. No one got an exclusive, it seems, because there was zero spontaneity. They were in the hands of the local "Civil Defence Authority" aka Hezbullah.

Many have pointed out (another latest updated sceptical post) the apparent rigor mortis in some of the bodies, the lack of wounds consistent with an airstrike and building collapse, the time gap between the time the Israelis said they struck and the building collapsed. These are all good points, but I think that the extent to which the media universally got the story in a uniform way through uniform images- the clear evidence of a 'civil defence force' with everything under control except for the lifeless little bodies- makes clear to me that this news was managed. Therefore Qana can't have happened as we have been led to believe, because, as 9/11's desperation showed, as any calamitous event shows, no one can manage a true disaster- least of all the incompetents of an Islamofascist regime.

Sorry I didn't have time to post here today- but I usually have something I'd like to share with interested readers. Today it's this excellent article from a former Indian Government official on Israel's position vis a vis Hezbullah and the rest. He's both urgent in tone and knows whereof he speaks. Read it here. Taste:

"Israel is a very small country with a very small population. It has no military depth. It has to follow a policy of instant and forceful retaliation against terrorists and States such as Iran and Syria using terrorism as a weapon to make its population bleed. Israel has to retaliate instantly or perish. This has to be kept in mind while judging Israel's action in taking its fight against terrorism to the Lebanese territory. Israel had no other option, but to do what it has done."

Great article from David Warren on the Mid East situation.

Also (but you may have read it already) Melanie Phillips cuts deep, cuts true.

Can't really blame Paul Reynolds for waffling on 'in a good cause', as it were, since the BBC is more determined than a thousand Koffi Annans to see Israel acquiesce to a ceasefire that will save Hezbullah from its deserved drubbing.

Yet waffle on he does in pursuit of the idee fixee.

Meanwhile Richard from Euref brings us down to earth:

'France has decided to forego the privilege of intervening on Hezbollah’s side and announced that calls for an international force were “premature”. Germany has agreed to send some troops but only if definitely asked by both Israel and Hezbollah.

The great European foreign policy panjandrum, Javier Solana, has announced that “several European states” were ready to provide “all possible assistance” but did not specify who they were and what that assistance might consist of.'

Every sensible person wants Israel to finish the job they started- crushing Hezbullah and changing the ME balance of power vitally for the better. I hope Richard's right and the shambolic UN can kid nobody that they have a serious force available, least of all the Israelis.

Beeb autocorrects; kind of. (as do I)

Some readers might know of my more than passing interest in East Africa. For a long time this has caused me to take the threat of Islamism there quite seriously. In the battle of wills it's the one with most ambition, the most active one, which wins. Whatever you think of the half-baked analyses of radical Islam, there's no doubt about their own belief in the importance of their activities.

I recently noted the advance of Islamists in Somalia- a consolidation of their power really, since Islamists have been active there from the 90's. Now the more Islamic warlords have beaten off the less Islamic ones. And how has this been achieved? Well, in a recent news article on the subject, the Beeb wanted us to accept that

(UPDATE .... whoops- sorry to those who visited- looks like a draft slipped through by accident; I was looking for the link to support my memory of the Beeb's inadequacy, but I couldn't find it- the BBC's new search system is considerably less logical and friendly to critical enquirers. Still, I'll finish the point I began...)

They wanted us to accept that the Somali Islamic courts movement was founded on the support of "local businessmen". Yeah right I thought, and proceeded to post about Eritrea and the Horn of Africa. Now lo, but the BBC "finds out" (after the horse has bolted) that the Islamic courts seems to have support out of Saudi Arabia and, yes, Eritrea. The point is made here and here- in the kind of articles one goes to for reference rather than to form one's immediate judgement.

This situation brings me to another speculation. I remember thinking how odd the wars between Ethiopia and Eritrea have been. I have never seen a good reason for them. It might make a lot more sense when you consider that Ethiopia is the historic barrier to Islamist designs on East Africa. To find Islamists nibbling away at it to create an eastern Islamic corridor would not be at all surprising...

Amusing error of the day.

The usual lazy waffle over at the Observer, but this time with a humorous twist. The Guardianistas are vaguely conscious they need to talk about media bias, but don't realise they're it.

Cue waffle waffle waffle and then this- heh-

"The BBC is particularly sensitive to accusations of impartiality, however."

Accusing the BBC of impartiality- how ridiculous!

Allah at Hotair delivers a great thumbnail sketch of why Hezbullah have acted the way they have at the time that they have.

Where'd Aunty's Bush gaffes go?

The time was where barely a month went past without a Bush gaffe heavily publicised on the BBC. Those however were the heady days when media 'giants' like the Guardian thought they could influence the US general election by writing condescending messages of 'we know best, rebels', recommending the Boston Brahmin to the benighted untouchables of Clark county.

This week there have been two Bush 'gaffes' and it seems there's not much enthusiasm for them at the BBC anymore. Yes they covered the so-called gaffe of Bush's accidentally recorded conversation with Tony Blair- the 'Yo, Blair... if if the Syrians would only tell Hezbullah to stop this shit' conversation- but somehow without the gusto of yore. They preferred to leave it to others. Then there's the latest, the Merkel big brother massage, which seems somehow off the radar at the moment.

I would say there's more to this than just being stung by their lack of ability to harm Bush in the past, the sense that really not every right-minded person agrees that Bush's so-called gaffes indicate a man out of his depth, a hick in power. I think it's that often Bush's gaffes show how straight he is, how actually focussed he is on the things that matter such that trivia and etiquette sometimes escape him [and actually I don't think he cares awfully when they do]. Surely no-one articulated better than Bush the common man's intuition about Syria's role with Hezbullah and the rocket attacks. This is not simplistic; rather it is so well grounded it tends, like historical facts, to lack nuance. No, no, it couldn't be: Bush's gaffes help Bush. The horror, the horror.

Then there is the Merkel massage, where the lady is very comically surprised. It's a lot more tasteful and friendly than Berlusconi's attempt to machismo is way to re-relection. In fact it's so much more natural it makes you think that Bush is a person capable of restoring some humanity to politics, as well as honour. The Beeb, having been too leaden to effectively lampoon him, are now too po-faced to entertain his energetic presence. Funny that. Heaven forbid his approval ratings rise again like the phoenix.

Speaking of returning honour and humanity to politics, here's what Jacques Chirac's been up to recently- along with Vilepin that is, a fetching Muttley to Chirac's Dick Dastardly. Get that pigeon!

Update: Blame Bush investigates French initiative.

And Meanwhile... Another story that the BBC is having too busy a news weekend to mention.

Given the internationalist pretensions of the BBC, you wouldn't think a Tory councillor who had under 18 porn on his comp would merit twice the pages from a BBC search as a man who sucked on the teats of a program designed to relieve a nation's poor and young, which instead became an arm of Iraqi diplomcy and an Iraqi dictator's cash cow. Yes, we're talking Oil for Food. But so it is.

Tilting the pitch against Israel.

In so many ways the BBC have taken to misrepresenting the situation of Israel. It persistently sees israel as just a common or garden warmaker, whose warrior spirit has as its object the civilian nation of Palestinians and now Lebanese.

The headline to this article is truly foul, when looked at in the cold light of day: "Israel kills Lebanese civilians".

What country gets such media treatment that casualties of a conflict which it didn't start and hopes not to continue are regarded as its national fault?

The BBC persistently fail to menton that the hostage-taking was a deliberate infringement of terrirorial sovereignty by Hezbullah, and that it has been accompanied by an ever-present barrage of rocket attacks on Israel. This is the true cause of the current actions taken by Israel. They have stepped up nothing, contrary to BBC claims, but have had their will to self-defence tested ever more sorely by terrorists with backing from regional powerhouses like Syria and Iran.

Israel is said to have "launched a campaign". Well, that is stretching language to breaking point, as if Israel's position left it any choice. Luxury car firms and pampered western politicians 'launch campaigns'. Victims of violence and bullying don't. Apparently, according to the laughable Beeb, "Hezbollah has responded with rocket attacks". What, trying to cover up the history of Hezbullah rocket attacks, again!?When will the BBC get tired of that old Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum nursery rhyme they revert to whenever it's terrorists that are obviously guilty of targeting and harrassing Israel?

To get a flavour of what the BBC are overlooking, read this transciption of some of Ehud Olmert's recent comments, which comes via EU Ref.

That's it; I'm back. Not only from Budapest but from keyboard purdah. I bought a dirt cheap keyboard and a not as cheap splitter and voila, I can once more vent my spleen and other things.

And funnily enough I'm moved to talk about football again, and the BBC.

I was on the train last Sunday when the World Cup was being played out. I didn't fancy the Italians versus the French much anyway; one of those occasions where you wish that both sides could lose. And to my pleasure and illumination, to an extent they have.

The Italians, having used a bunch of very experienced players to elbow their way off with the prize once again, have just announced that that same set of players (give or take a few) were part of the biggest corruption scandal ever to hit football. The last few seasons, it seems, were fixed.

Mind you, I did used to wonder myself, as a Westham fan, whether we didn't occasionally throw a few games. A 4-0 abject defeat to Notts Forest many moons ago in an FA Cup Semi springs to mind, not to mention losing 4-0 to Newcastle in 1987 (or was it 86? Difficult to remember through the mists of years and tears back to my young self).

Still West Ham are just that way: always erratic, not worth betting on as a fan, anyway.

The Beeb though set this in a quite farcical context, comparing this massive and systematised fraud with all manner of relative nonentities- while never actually explaining in detail the nature of the fraud. The truth is that football, while never very clean, is now organisedly corrupt. I wouldn't be surprised to find that World Cup matches had been fixed this time round- this time more than ever before, I'd say. I watched a number of matches on the grounds that it helps me relax and only happens once every four years, and I've never seen so many bad referee's decisions that effectively cost matches. It's not just the bad decisions, its the bad application of bad laws (tackling from behind, contact in the air, challenging goalies, raised feet, offside, advantage- you name it, referees with their technocratic swagger can get it wrong these days). Brazil-Ghana with its two offside Brazilian goals and numerous decisions favourable to the yellow shirts made me despair somewhat-- but then all the matches I saw did that, including needless to say the Rooney-Portugal affair.

What I am waiting for, still, is for England to be able to take that free-kick they were given when Rooney was being manhandled (it that's the word) by three wretched Portuguese. The Ref blew his whistle and then didn't stop play, allowing the harrassment to continue- and then he over-noticed Rooney's crafty footgrind into the groin to the point that Rooney had to go. It was a classic case of the sheriff, having lost control, punishing the vigilante. And I'm all in favour of vigilanteism where the technocrats have 'command' (so to speak), so I was, as they say, 'gutted'.

The thing is that the whole event was so scripted it's as if give or take a couple of dummies who don't know their place in the scheme of things (like Rooney), everyone was doing what they were paid to do- not so much play football but fail at the appropriate places and times. Zidane's headbutt actually made me laugh; who can think of a better explanation than that Zidane was paid to do it like some WWWF wrestler?

What I am saying is not restricted to the traditional idea of the crude attempts of the Grobbelaars of this world to make a few bucks: I am saying that the monetisation of a game whose participants never had too much integrity (and didn't need to have, really) has created layer upon layer of grubby control placed upon the free play of football- which is, after all, just a game and unable to bear the stress of the grown-up kids with their money manias.

One final thing: all the focus has been on the referees so far, regarding the verdicts. I absolutely don't believe that it is restricted to referees and senior management. The players too must have some degree of involvement. At the very least one can see the money they demand as an incentive to play as a kind of extortion.

Such a sketchy blogger recently.

I'm blogging this from Budapest, where I have gone for a quick getaway. The weather is amazing, thanks. My laptop remains unfixed but internet cafes are so cheap here the only thing holding me back is the need to enjoy this city before I leave. The Jewish quarter is crumbling but reviving itself year by year it seems (I came last summer and I feel convinced it is developing), with the largest Synagogue in Europe. That's the area where I am right now, salivating gently at the thought of my evening meal, and whether it's to be Jewish in character or not. I will fix the laptop situation, and a will not be permanently absent. Budapest is great. Prague is better. Thank you, and good evening.

...And meanwhile, the aforeblogged Mr Fawkes has been sending out tottie reporters. What on earth! I could add to my tourist update by stating that anything London parties can do, Budapest can do better. At the spa on St Margaret's island yesterday, for instance. (see earlier comment for Prague comparison- though there are no spas there)

But back in the real world (ie. the geeky newsy bloggy one), I was fascinated by this story about the London bombers. Could be that Al Qaeda's not so much a nightmare but more a reality, after all.

See you soon.

You can tell it is a big story because Nick Robinson is ignoring it - the Beeb knows this could be fatal for Prezza.

Guido Fawkes

It's a sideshow, I know, but I was struck by the following two articles and have been meaning to share them for a good few days now. I'll generally read anything by PJ O'Rourke, even when it's about Airbus as in this case.

Airbus is one of those typical head in the clouds European Grand Projets- which is not to say it's useless, just hobbled rather by the nature of the grand political design instead of liberated by free cooperation on technical matters.

ps. Still trying to deal with my keyboard situation; an accident with tea I'm afraid. The laptop's a bit old and round here I haven't yet found a motherboard suitable to replace it. I still have many things I'd like to talk about, but my opportunities to write using a keyboard are bit limited.

Had an accident with my keyboard, which is a pity as I had a lot to say. Now operating on alien territory where I don't even know how to open two pages at once. If you want a good read on the subject of the Palestinian beach bombing, follow my link in the sidebar to Tom Gross, and check out his latest dispatches. Fascinating stuff. I'll be back asap, meanwhile.

One shouldn't mock at senior citizens but I do find the
BBC'sJohn Simpson's contributions ever more out of touch. The headline which drew me in to his latest suggested that the killings at Haditha could change the future of the war in Iraq.

It's the Left's own very personal turning point. Never mind the killing of Zarkarwi (let's forget that, soonest). The US, apparently, is 'braced' for the Haditha effect. Well actually, the US is long past 'braced'. If Simpson spent an iota of time on the Internet he would be aware that John 'Haditha' Murtha has been under pressure ever since his comments regarding Haditha. America was 'braced' back then. Michelle Malkin and others have been 'bracing', mitigating, and judging the prejudgers ever since, and to great effect, I would say.

The folly of Simpson is clear in his final line, which you sense all his journalistic juices and prejudices have been yearning for:

'Just as they did in Vietnam.'

(ok, it's not 'just like Vietnam!!!', it's the 'measured', 'balanced' BBC version.)

Meanwhile, BITRW, incidents like this one, killing and capturing terrorists without civilian casualties:

'Several women and children were present at the raid sites, officials said. None was harmed, and all were returned to their homes once the troops ensured the area was secure, they added.' (hat tip to Instapundit)

A Football Story...

Apologies for the last couple of days being without posts. There are a couple of excuses but the summary point is that I was having fun, outside mainly.

Part of this has to do with the fact that I've been entertaining family and doing my tour-guide impression on the streets and trams of Prague, and part of it is to do with football; part is owing to the delicious weather at the moment, and some more to do with trying to maintain a social existence. Oh, and I mustn't omit, work too!

Yesterday I set off with a segment of my family round Prague, and we ended the day at cellar level in a traditional Prague pub- a bad choice for dinner as the national side were about to kick off. Knowing the menu to be totally obscure- all boar's knee and sow's ear-lobe- I asked for an English menu. Sadly with all the misty-eyed patriotism it seemed, errm, that they couldn't find it, so we struggled. As did the Czech football team.

We ate while craning our necks to see the big screen in one direction, and in the other trying to gain the waiter's attention for our small requirements, in between mouthfuls. By the time we left the match was almost over. Drama galore in Germany and the Czesi one-nil down and ten men strong. We strolled to the old town square. A roar erupted from its packed historic centre, but it was a small eruption which soon subsided and never quite rose to the pitch occupied by Czech national fervour. 2-0.

Oops. But the story that has helped me over the brotherly sympathy I tend to have for disappointed Czechs is that a courageous Ghanaian player made a tiny little gesture in the heart of Euroland. Making good a promise he waved an Israeli flag on the occasion of their first goal, identifying with the people among whom he makes his professional living. Good match.

Two Bits from Europe.

It's a struggle out there. I have a friend married to a Belgian, so I get a few updates about the country. Did you know there are only just over 500 homeschooled children in Belgium? Paul Belien and wife have been doing their best, but the Belgian State's distrust of homeschoolers is startling, as their latest troubles prove.

Fjordman, who comes from... well it's fairly clear roughly where, meditates on the ideological origins of Europe's malaise in Gramsci. He takes a global view though, and his perspective ends up focussing on North America, as the grand ideological battle ground.

The BBC's Rush to Judgements.

As Andrew noted on Biased BBC, the BBC offered widespread coverage to the immediate assumption of Israeli responsibility for the deaths on a Gaza beach on Friday.

The BBC have naturally reported the subsequent Israeli rebuttals. There is a subtle difference though in reporting claims that the deaths were 'not Israel's fault', as the BBC headlines, rather than as the Washington Post reports, not their 'responsibility', but I could let that pass. I could point out though that 'responsibility' is strictly accurate: Israel is not saying that the deaths were a regrettable side effect of an action that could be justified, but that they weren't involved. This is different from, say, a terror organisation admitting responsibility but claiming that the deaths were the fault of their belligerent opponents rather than themselves. It's a somewhat fine distinction, but such is language, and such is the news. I appreciate that with the BBC's global role they would seek a form of 'Easy English', the better to spread their gospel, no doubt, but the distinctions must be, not just observed, but promulgated.

[Update 14/6: Unsurprisingly, the BBC article has now been edited to include the term 'not responsible', along with other edits. That's how it works, folks]

Anyway, more serious is the typical BBC cutting down of a public and official statement to a set of empty soundbytes, when a perfectly clear and good quote is ignored. The WaPo reports:

'"We checked each and every shell that was fired from the sea, the air and from the artillery on the land and we found out that we can track each and every one according to a timetable and according to the accuracy of where they hit the ground.

"We are very sorry for the deaths of the seven Palestinians, but that
does not mean that we are responsible,"'

The BBC message is by comparison garbled by the range of pressure groups they quote first, from the totally unbiased Human Rights Watch to Kofi Annan to the Palestinian 'authority'. Finally we get to the Israelis and their bald denial accompanied by the innuendo that 'they did not say what might have caused the blast.' and another fine bulky quote from those military experts at Human Rights Watch.

I am not sure, but if the Israelis were not involved I see no reason for them to try to unravel the secrets of the latest blockbuster from Pallywood's snuff industry. The BBC would had done much better by quoting the Israelis and their detailed explanation- but instead they preferred 'balance' after their own fashion. I would support any real investigative journalism that factually contradicted the Israeli statement, but I cannot condone this journalism by insinuation and biased quotage from people who already have more than their say on things they are not in a position to know.

And by the way, the BBC have helpfully pointed out that this biased and slanted story is their world number one today, which just goes to show that, as Gerald Ratner might metaphorically say, crap 'sells'. It would be interesting to see if it actually did.