Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Beirut destruction

Look what Lebanese government officials have told the LA Times (via USS Neverdock):
Although roads and bridges have been hit all over the capital, most of the damage in Beirut has been limited to a single square mile of the southern suburbs...
Is that the impression we were given by the MSM? I don't think so.

(And if those leaving comments in support of Orla Guerin's Bint Jbeil report are to be believed, the suburbs don't count anyway. By that reckoning - apart from some roads and bridges - Beirut was completely unscathed.)

3 Comments:

Blogger ceci n'est pas mon nom said...

It's not serious talking of (1) the 'impression we get': impressions are canonically subjective things, saying as much about who receives them as what may have provoked them, not at all open to independant verification. My impressions, for what they're worth, are the opposite of yours, but that regards only me. I certainly wasn't under the impression that Beirut had been destroyed: I think I read too carefully "the MSM" for that. (2) Moreover, is it intelligent to speak of 'The MSM', as if all recognised media and press outlets spoke with one voice, had a single agenda, peddled a unique line. And the LA Times, isn't that "MSM"?!

As for thr suburbs, I didn't say they didn't "count", whatever that means. I simply pointed out that the BBC reporter was speaking of the urban area, whereas the C4 journalist also mentioned the suburban districts. This simple distinction is as old as ... urbanism itself, but seems not to be one any of the people calling for Ms Guerin's head seem to understand.

I wondered why you spoke of "Busted", but fell short of accusing her of lying (unlike some of the more violent of the comments/links: "Bastard British Cunts" I read somewhere: howzat for gratitude for the special relationship?) It must be because you have no factual inaccuracy to justify such a claim, all you have is a difference of "impression". So much for the outrageous distortion ...

10:47 pm  
Blogger DFH said...

“It's not serious talking of (1) the 'impression we get': impressions are canonically subjective things, saying as much about who receives them as what may have provoked them, not at all open to independant (sic) verification. My impressions, for what they're worth, are the opposite of yours, but that regards only me.”

Post-modern relativist bullshit. I couldn’t give a flying fuck if you see Guerin’s report in a different way to me. Take a look round - do I look like some cunt who might be into Foucault? You're in right/wrong territory here. And you're wrong.

“I certainly wasn't under the impression that Beirut had been destroyed” Straw man alert! Where did I say that?

I reproduced the LA Times quote concerning the square mile of destruction because even I was surprised. If the MSM (a phrase which works fine for me thanks) can convince a cynic like me that the bombing of Beirut was worse than it really was, I can only wonder what credulous buffoons such as yourself were thinking when the news reports were being shown.

And as for the rest of your nonsense - do you really expect me to answer for comments made at sites that link to my blog? And what fucking business is it of yours if I title a post “Orla Guerin - Busted” or something else?

Guerin gave one 'impression' of Bint Jbeil, Alex Thomson gave another. Alex Thomson backed his up with more evidence, and that evidence proved that Guerin was full of shit.

Now fuck off.

1:23 am  
Anonymous Clematis Fraudster said...

'1) the 'impression we get': impressions are canonically subjective things, saying as much about who receives them as what may have provoked them, not at all open to independant verification.'

Your ("Ceci's") first sentence neatly sums up Orla Guerin's piece.

She says the town has been wiped out (she does, you know) and the rest of her report amounts to 'impressions' - 'impressions' of what local residents are saying and thinking; 'impressions' of what George Bush is thinking.

Any old moron can walk along a ruined street and inform us of his or her impressions of what Bush or Kofi Annan might be thinking. She could do the same in Haifa if she likes - there are plenty of bomb-sites there too.

Her piece is short on facts: there is no reference to why Israel might have targeted this town and certainly no 'independent verification' of what occurred there, who was living there or what they were doing there. It's like turning up at a crime scene after the bodies have been moved and then explaining who was murdered, why he or she was murdered, and the weapon that was used.

My 'impression' is that her report is a mix of triumphalism and disgust, based on her 'impressions' of Israel's motives and deeds.

You see, this report is all about Orla and her 'impressions' - just like her 'Israel stole 38 years from the Palestinians' line was an 'impression'.

She shows us one street in one town and, instead of providing some disinterested commentary on what happened there, she spouts bullshit about how Israel and the international community and the 'war on terror'. Her 'impressions' again.

Amazing too how she manages to depict Hezbollah as the victim and the victor. Her 'impressions' again.

Don't need her 'impressions'. If I want 'impressions' I shall read Bob Fisk. She should return to South Africa and leave the region - she is fucking appalling.

8:30 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home