Sunday, 27 July 2014

Dahiya doctrine

The Dahiya doctrine is a military strategy put forth by the Israeli general Gadi Eizenkot that pertains to asymmetric warfare in an urban setting, in which the army deliberately targets civilian infrastructure, as a means of inducing suffering for the civilian population, thereby establishing deterrence.[1] The doctrine is named after a southern suburb in Beirut with large apartment buildings which were flattened by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the 2006 Lebanon War.[2] Israel has been accused of implementing the strategy during the Gaza War.

Thursday, 17 July 2014

NYT headline on Gaza killings hits new low

Jonathan Cook from Nazareth

17 July 2014

Remember the appalling New York Times headline of July 10 over a story about a family of nine Palestinians killed by an Israeli strike as they watched the World Cup on the beach: “Missile at beachside Gaza cafe finds patrons poised for World Cup.” Could you imagine a more obfuscatory and misleading headline? Like the missile made the decision about where to strike on its own. I thought that was about as low as the NYT would sink.

But I was wrong. They have come up with an even more dissembling headline, one clearly crafted to avoid highlighting the embarrassing fact that Israel slaughtered four boys yesterday who were playing football in clear view on the beach.

The first subeditor does a reasonable job: “Four young boys killed playing on a Gaza beach”. It’s not exactly clear who did the killing, but at least it gives an idea of the story.

But then, it seems, the senior editors stepped in and demanded the headline be rewritten. Not to make the headline better or clearer, mind you. Simply to strip it of any relevance to the story; in fact, to strip it of any obvious meaning at all. Here it is: “Boys Drawn to Gaza Beach, and Into Center of Mideast Strife.”

No missile strike, no blast, no deaths and injuries, no Israeli responsibility to be found in the headline. All of it whitewashed by that weasel word “strife”.

And look at the enormous burden being placed on the verb “drawn”. It leaves the reader wondering not why Israel targeted four children but why they were “drawn” to the beach in the first place. And further, why they were drawn – rather than thrust by Israel – into the “center of strife”. The clear implication is that they were pawns, lured to the beach and exploited for some nefarious end. Who could have done such luring and to what purpose?

The NYT editors are world-class wordsmiths. They understand the power of words and they are experts at using them to achieve the desired effect. There is nothing accidental about this headline. It is as precisely targeted as the Israeli missile that ended those four young boys’ lives.

(h/t Abid Aslam)
- See more at:

Monday, 14 July 2014

BBC normalising terror

What Palestinians are experiencing in Gaza is not a big deal.

That's what you learn from the BBC:

"For Palestinians the uncertainty continues."

"There's a lot of frustration here [in a school where they're sheltering from the bombing]."

That is, Palestinians don't experience terror, just "uncertainty" and "frustration".

This racist dehumanising of Palestinians is actually worse than that of Israeli politicians (e.g., "dogs", Moshe Dayan, "roaches", Rafael Eitan, "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to make them die of hunger," Dov Weisglass).

At least the Zionists are honest in their hate.

The BBC does not hate Palestinians; they just normalise it on Israel's behalf.

Sunday, 13 July 2014

Jeremy Bowen carefully steers viewers' attention away from Israel's lies.

Jeremy Bowen: "When Israel says they're responding for attacks on their civilians, so Hamas is responsbile, no Palestinian listens."

It is crytal clear to Bowen that it's not a case that no Palestinian "listens" to Israel but that no Palestinian believes Israel.

This is crystal clear because, just seconds earlier in his report, a Palestinian is making that clear (disbelieving Israel because he has listened but does not believe).

Since this must be clear to Bowen, it raises the question of how/why Bowen deliberately distorts Palestinians' disbelief of Israel into an unwillingness to listen.

This distortion requires significant skill; it's not something a journalist can do accidentally. Bowen's motive is clearly not to raise the question of why would Palestinians not believe Israel because that would raise the question, Does Israel lie?

So Bowen's journalistic practice in this instance is one of mendacity - carefully steering viewers away from the crux issue (Israel's lies).


Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Why no opprobrium from feminists for women who collude with sexism?

Consider this video:

It's safe to assume that the video asserts a causal link between (Indian) films and violence against women. (If you don't assume that, then the video-makers are stupid for packing the video with so much Indian film footage; but let's assume they're not stupid.)

There has been much outraged debate over the decades about the sexual objectification of women.

Now, of course, it's natural and proper (and obvious and easy) to condemn the men who perpetrate violence against women.

But what is always curiously missing from the feminist side of the debate is any opprobrium for the women (betraying their sisters) who collude in that industry.



Friday, 4 April 2014

CIA knows what happened to Malaysia plane

From another unknown source, but in a similar vein:

Posted by David Macilwain [User Info] [Email User] on April 4, 2014, 1:08 pm, in reply to "Re: CIA knows what happened to Malaysia plane: Analyst"

All very interesting Fred - though the videos mean I only saw some of it, and not the last report yet. I got this 'report' from someone yesterday with no accreditation of any sort, but think it's worth reading, if only for the mention of Diego Garcia. ( and I should say that I've said from the day this started that the Yanks in Pine Gap would know exactly what happened to this flight - and of course our media hasn't even mentioned them!

The story goes like this:

The Americans are withdrawing from Afghanistan; one of their command and control systems (used for controlling pilotless drones) was hijacked by the Taliban when an American transport convoy was moving down from one of the hill-top bases. The Taliban ambushed the convoy and killed 2 American Seal personnel, seized the equipment/weapons, including the command and control system which weighed about 20 tons and packed into 6 crates. This happened about a month ago in Feb 2014.

What the Taliban wants is money. They want to sell the system to the Russians or the Chinese. The Russians are too busy in Ukraine. The Chinese are hungry for the system's technology. Just imagine if the Chinese master the technology behind the command and control system, all the American drones will become useless. So the Chinese sent 8 top defense scientists to check the system and agreed to pay millions for it.

Sometime in early Mar 2014 the 8 scientists and the 6 crates made their way to Malaysia thinking that it was the best covert way to avoid detection. The cargo was then kept in the Embassy under diplomatic protection. Meanwhile the Americans have engaged the assistance of Israeli intelligence and together they are determined to intercept and recapture the cargo.

The Chinese calculated that it would be safer to transport it via civilian aircraft so as to avoid suspicion. After all the direct flight from KL to Beijing takes only 4 and half hours and the Americans will not hijack or harm a civilian airliner. So MH370 is the perfect carrier.

There were 5 American and Israeli agents onboard who were familiar with Boeing aircraft operation. The 2 "Iranians" with stolen passports could be among them.

When MH370 was about to leave Malaysian air space and report in to Vietnamese air control an American AWAC jammed their signal, disabled the pilot control system and switched over to remote control mode. That was when the plane lost altitude momentarily.

How the AWAC can do it ? Remember 911 incident ? After the 911 incident all Boeing aircraft (and possibly all Airbus) are installed with a remote control system to counter terrorist hijacking. Since then all Boeing aircraft can be remote controlled by a ground control tower. The same remote control system used to control the pilotless spy aircraft and drones.

The 5 American/Israeli agents soon took over the plane, switched off the transponder and other communication systems, changed course and flew westwards. They dared not fly east to Philippines or Guam because the whole South China Sea air space was covered by Chinese surveillance radar and satellites.

The Malaysian, Thai and Indian military radar actually detected the unidentified aircraft but none reacted professionally.

The plane flew over North Sumatra, Anambas, South India and landed at the Maldives (some villagers saw the aircraft landing), refuelled and continued its flight to Diego Garcia, the American Air Base in the middle of Indian Ocean. The cargo and the black box were removed. The passengers were silenced by natural means, lack of oxygen. MH370 with dead passengers took off again using remote control and crashed into South Indian Ocean to make it look that the plane eventually ran out of fuel and crashed.

The Americans have put up a good show. First diverting all the attention and search effort to the South China Sea while the plane made its way to the Indian Ocean. Then they came out with some conflicting statements and evidence to confuse everyone.

The amount of effort put up by China, in terms of the number of search aircraft, ships and satellites, searching first the South China Sea, then the Malacca Straits and the Indian Ocean is unprecedented. This shows that China is very concerned, not so much because of the many Chinese civilian passengers, but mainly for the high value cargo and the 8 defense scientists.

Thursday, 20 February 2014

The intellectual retard, Roger Scruton.

Roger Scruton (‘philosopher’) was on tonight’s BBC Question Time. The subject of British maths education came up (because the PISA tables have, once again, exposed us as performing abysmally).

He argued that part of the problem was the indolence of young people, e.g. (spouting the usual cliché) not choosing the hard degree subjects like Maths but opting instead for Media Studies.

Another pseudo-intellectual, James Delingpole, also likes to deride that subject.

But here’s what’s laughable about these ignorant snobs (apart from their complete lack of self-awareness): Media Studies is simply the modern version of their own disciplines – Philosophy and English Literature.

In all such subjects, you just waffle about what others have created in whatever medium: books, newspapers, film, etc. In fact, Media Studies is more demanding: you must also create new material, not simply ‘critique’ others’ work.

In fact, the only way to inject some respectability into ‘waffle’ subjects is to make them more scientific. That is exactly Assange’s mission with journalism: make the same information available to everyone so that your own interpretation of it can be subject to peer review. And that (scientifically) is exactly how Media Lens operates: arguments must be robust and based on facts.

Scruton’s area of ‘expertise’ is ‘aesthetics’. Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so he can never go wrong – which is convenient because he’s always wrong when he speaks on any subject outside himself. Since the aesthetic quotient of anything is purely subjective, whenever you write about it, you’re really just writing about yourself. That is, it’s a narcissistic exercise.

And that’s what pro-establishment prostitutes typically are: narcissists.


Saturday, 1 February 2014

'Tough Young Teachers', and British Education Idiocy.

In the last episode of Tough Young Teachers, we saw that the one who had been shining (outshining the others) so far, Nicholas Church, the maths teacher, was now beginning to struggle with pupil behaviour in much the same way as the others.

Indeed, he wholeheartedly agreed with Meryl Noronah’s remark to him: “Welcome to my world.”

And, like her, he too was now stressing out about observations and feedback from senior “leaders” (i.e. wankers).

One reason why this breed ('senior leaders') of ‘educators’ are wankers is because they are oblivious of their own incompetence and hypocrisy.

On the one hand:

In their backseat driver capacity (and anyone can be a backseat driver – that’s why the label is one of contempt), they pontificate to teachers that they should employ strategies to better ‘engage’ pupils, which amounts to ‘be more of a children’s entertainer (a la Johnny Ball) than a mere teacher of pupils.’

And young inexperienced teachers take this advice seriously. Thus, Nicholas Church gutsily attempted some game in which pupils had to choose correct answers from laminated tiles he had placed on the floor.

Of course, the task was pure bullshit (as at least one pupil pointed out), not least because it’s far more sensible simply to use pen and paper (than photocopying, laminating, floor-space and needless wandering of pupils around the classroom). But to his credit, and because he is still too young and naïve to recognise the idiocy that dominates British education culture, Mr Church was bravely trying to embrace and implement conventional ‘wisdom’ (i.e. idiocy).

Then the Deputy Head Wanker took him apart – enunciating (speculating, actually, because he does not actually know anything) how it would have worked seamlessly had he done it the way he was now advising.

We have seen quite a lot of this Deputy Head Wanker and his ilk (e.g. the Head Wanker) by now, indulging their fetish for ‘observing and advising’, i.e. poncing with clipboards followed by fatuous speculating about alternative imagined scenarios.

And on the other hand:

This shameless breed of narcissists never offer to demonstrate the outstanding teaching that they perpetually beseech others to attain - making them cowards as well as hypocrites. And they never describe multiple past lessons of their own which were judged ‘outstanding’ and explain what their classroom practices were that enabled those lessons to be qualified as such.

It was recently confirmed, again, (by the latest PISA tables) that Britain is performing miserably compared to many countries, e.g. East European, Scandinavian, Far Eastern.

The reason why is simple: the idiotic culture that pervades British Education.

The East Europeans (e.g. Poles), Scandinavians (e.g. Finns) and Orientals (e.g. Singaporeans) are not obsessed with attempting to inject children’s entertainment into the curriculum; and they treat teaching as a very straightforward process rather than pretending that it is highly skilled with ‘outstanding’ practitioners who are fit to advise others on mastering this delicate craft.