March 28, 2004
TARGET-RICH ENVIRONMENT OVERLOOKED
Her injustice antennae twitching furiously, Kerry Nettle denounces the shameful Australian government:
The Australian Government's failure to condemn Israel's assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was shameful and out of step with international opinion, a rally in Sydney was told today.
Greens senator Kerry Nettle told the rally the federal government had failed its international duty by not immediately condemning Israel's attacks.
"It's a shameful act that the prime minister did not condemn these acts," Senator Nettle said.
Two hundred people enjoyed Nettle’s Hyde Park speech before being returned to their wards.
UPDATE. Alan Dershowitz thinks the likes of Nettle can go to hell:
Posted by Tim Blair at March 28, 2004 06:09 PMLast week's targeted killing of the wheelchair-bound head of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, by the Israel Defence Forces was a moral and lawful instance of pre-emptive self-defence.
Yassin was a combatant under any reasonable definition of that term, and combatants - including leaders - are appropriate military targets during a war of the kind Hamas has declared against Israel.
From his wheelchair, this blind bigot gave advance approval for acts of terrorism directed against Israeli civilians and Jews. Most recently, when Israel killed three Hamas militants who were on their way to launching an attack against Israelis, the Hamas website carried the following acknowledgement: "The three martyrs were on a holy mission when the Zionist US-made helicopters fired two missiles toward their vehicle."
Yet Hamas condemned the Israeli action that prevented an act of terrorism against innocent civilians. What else is a democracy supposed to do: wait until the terrorists strike?
you must be confused tim... the green's are only concerned with the environment...
Posted by: roscoe at March 28, 2004 at 06:22 PMWas he a muslim?
Yes.
Did he believe in Jihad?
Yes.
And did he die a Jihadist death? One that would give him, a warrior of Allah the most glory?
Umm. Yes.
Then Shut up. Shut uppppp! Shut! UP! SHut Up YoU TWiT Shut the hell up.
Posted by: IXLNXS at March 28, 2004 at 06:35 PM200 people? Wow... that's almost every Australian isn't it?
She's good!
Posted by: Kevin at March 28, 2004 at 06:53 PMThe Greens, of course, loudly condemn every Palestinian terror attack on Israel. Or maybe not?
I've got a bit of a thing for Kerry Nettle. She looks like one of those nerdy types who would go off in the sack.
Posted by: Mike Hunt at March 28, 2004 at 07:41 PMA spokesman for Australian Muslim leader Sheikh Taj Aldin Alhilali urged protesters to remain peaceful and asked that they not burn flags.
Wow. Maybe he should head the mainstream "anti-war" protests. It'd be suitably Orwellian.
Posted by: Andjam at March 28, 2004 at 07:48 PMI wonder precisely how many acts of Palestinian terror the Greens have deigned to condemn.
Posted by: Mike Jericho at March 28, 2004 at 08:24 PMI just had a look at dipshit's first speech. She hasn't changed her tune. At least the bitch is consistently wrong.
Read about stupid here
I dunno Kerry may have a point....let's put it to the test.
Step 1
We arrange that any member of the Nettle family be killed or maimed in the name of Dudu, Swahili god of anti-plants. Hates any flora really.... but I digress.
Step 2
We explain to the Lefties why any Nettle on the planet is abhorent and it would be in - say again - in vogue to destroy 'em.
It makes sense because millions of Rwandans, Russians and Iraqi's never made the cut because THEY were never in vogue.
Missed out on Leftie resolutions and condemnation - how awful..wait Saddam and Stalin had their support tut tut sily me.....
Step 3
After Kerry's poor family are being murdered in the name of Dudu, she will call the police.
We the AKN will stage a huge protest outside her house (fully supported by the LL - Lefties with Lobotomies or is it prescribed for all of...never mind).
We will tell the world's press that her attempts to bring in a 3rd party is very unhelpful ie we can't kill anyone while they're there.
Of course by this stage half of Europe will be funding us.........
Step 4
This is the tricky bit, the media will ask members of the LL why they support the AKN.
"What's it about?"
"It's about.....um....erm...an hour and a half then we all go home..."
Step 5
Destroyed Kerry on telly.....
"....and sniff.....sob.....I can't believe that the world would stand by when people with murder and anihilation as their stated goal ran amok..."
Interviewer : "Apparently they were motvated by people such as yourself Kerry, you know people who've read a book (can't recall name) and once bought a magazine but feel justified in determining world policy. Never mind eh? You survived...apparently they've saved you for a rainy day".
Posted by: Traps at March 28, 2004 at 08:48 PMThey must have been drawn by her obvious sex appeal; that moustache gives me a raging rajah.
Posted by: Habib at March 28, 2004 at 09:31 PMI don't know about that Mike Hunt, I reckon she'd be one of those don't-wash-with-soap types.
The sooner Australia rewrites the Constitution to relegate these balance-of-power minority parties into the irrelevancy they so richly deserve, the better.
My thought for the day (brought to you by Guiness and its fine Kilkenny brand) is to note that Islam's most famous quadriplegic is (sorry, was) a fundamentalist man of hate, whose confinement obviously manifested itself in the need to kill Jews. Meanwhile, the West brings us Stephen Hawking. Says it all really, doesn't it?
Posted by: Al Bundy at March 28, 2004 at 09:33 PMThis intro from AAP is a worry:
Australian Muslims today urged the federal government to condemn the assassination of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as hundreds rallied in Sydney to show their support for peace in the Middle East.
About 300 people gathered in Hyde Park to show support for the Palestinian cause and voice opposition to Israel's attacks in the occupied territories.
I've got some urging of my own to do. I urge all Australians to ring their local mosque and ask them exactly which side they are on. If they don't unconditionally condemn Hamas/Hezbollah/Al Aqsa Martyr's etc, then I propose a boat trip to Indonesia, to be with their own kind. Makes sense dunnit?
Posted by: Chief Bastard at March 28, 2004 at 09:47 PMWhile I care for the environment as much as ever, in recent years I have come to despise environmentalists. Greenpeace will never see another penny from me. The Greens will never see my vote, and will be as far down in my preferences as I can possibly manage.
The Greens, Commies, Fascists and Islamists - united enemies of civilisation.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 28, 2004 at 10:10 PMI never thought of that, Al Bundy. You could be right. She might be one of those greenie types who doesn't wash or shave and with a forest downstairs.
Posted by: Mike Hunt at March 28, 2004 at 10:14 PMWill the Greens and Austalian Muslims be urging the Federal Government to encourage the wearing of David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib badges?
Fashion enforced by the state could be this winter's new style.
In North America, there's a plant called a nettle. It grows on a tall stalk, with broad green leaves, and usually in stands; it's quite distinctive. It also sports little spikes on the underside of the leaves and on the stalks that contain a nasty irritant. If you brush against the plant with bare skin, you get blisters. Cattle will eat this stuff and get sick and/or die. Ranchers and dairy farmers don't like nettles, and remove them from grazing areas.
It sounds like the Australian variety is also Green and irritating, but also mobile, doesn't bathe, and grows a moustache. My only question is, is she built like a stalk?
Posted by: JeffS at March 29, 2004 at 01:30 AMAh'm jest a simple country lawyer from a simple country law school, so perhaps someone can explain this for me: when Israel kills a man who has without any doubt organized and ordered attacks that have killed hundreds of Jews, it's an atrocity in part because he's in a wheelchair.
But when Pali terrorists take over a cruise ship and dump an elderly wheelchair-bound passenger into the water, that seems to escape mass condemnation.
How come?
Posted by: Alex Bensky at March 29, 2004 at 01:51 AMAlex:
You must have missed the part about multi-culturism which states that all cultures are equal. And the corollary which states that Jewish culture is inferior because Jews are sub-human (pigs, monkeys, etc.) so their deaths don't count. Please pay closer attention in future.
Posted by: Dean Douthat at March 29, 2004 at 02:18 AMAlex, the answer's obvious.
Because Jews are evil, that's why.
(Actually that answers most questions for a certain type of mind.)
Posted by: Mike G at March 29, 2004 at 02:19 AMWhat else is a democracy supposed to do: wait until the terrorists strike?
Geez, Alan, surely you would know Jews are supposed to let themselves get killed. Don't you know anything?
Posted by: Damian P. at March 29, 2004 at 02:38 AMActually, the official definition of multi-culturism is:
One culture's tolerance of other cultures intolerance.
Posted by: JeffS at March 29, 2004 at 03:20 AMMy feeling is how did those idiots get into Australia?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10374_Australias_Fifth_Column#comments
Posted by: Joel at March 29, 2004 at 04:23 AMAnother nutcase. Nettle's bitterness and bile
come from her sexual frustration.
Does she ever smile? Seem to have a tiny sense
of humour behind the constant scowl?
I can picture her at school. The ugly wallflower,
a good student,but never as popular as the less
studious but very attractive girls.
This resentment carries on for life and leads
people like Nettle to always side with the underdog irrespective of right or wrong.
Thus,Western civilization,Jews,Illegal immigrants,
terrorists,America etc are all viewed from this reference point.
Now, can anyone picture Bob Brown's schooldays?
Another thought.
Let's subcontract the IDF to open negotiations
with our buck tooth bastard in Indo.
perhaps Bashir could push Yassin around in hell.
Posted by: fred at March 29, 2004 at 05:23 AMIn case we had doubts about Israel's "nobility" or "purity of arms", we had Mr Alan Dershowitz -(HARVARD LAW PROFFESSOR..,,,oooohhh) tell us it was legal to kill that sc*mb*g Yassine. I was content to think that it was just another ugly, scraggly haired terrorist who was sent to Allah in Arial's quest to find "a partner for peace". Phew I'm relieved. It was LEGAL!!
Posted by: carlos at March 29, 2004 at 08:00 AMDid you all see how our Imam Hilali was "speaking" to the crowd through the 8 year old girl at his side. He would bend down and narate what she had supposedly said. Mate, it was sick making and was done so as no one could say that he personaly had said anything contoversial.
This is the kind of slimy, coniving, completely disengenious tossers we are dealing with here. The likes of Nettle actualy think that the rest of us are going to be complicit or at least ignore the Islamist plans to erradicate us from the face of the planet. Like we are all going to help the Muslims to smooth our own dieing pillow!!
I don't believe a single word they say about being "peaceful" cause they dont walk the walk. The moment we let our guard down these same marchers would be trying to rip our throats out as we slept. Nettle has her truck with those that would cut her cunt out and chain her to a wall..amazing!
IXLPUTZ, and yet HAMAS was not celebrating his martyrhood. They were angry and scared. And apparently their threats of increased violence were pretty much empty and recruiting's so bad that they have to send mentally challenged kids to do the bombing. . .
It's almost like this whole maytr schtick is just a way of suckering young boys to their doom with promises of free virgins. Huh.
I'll let them know you've fallen for it, though. They like tricking people who have the mind of a twelve year old.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 29, 2004 at 09:56 AMDean and Mike:
Thanks. I forgot that when people feel oppressed and hopeless killing Jews is forgiveable. Besides, that's part of their culture, isn't it?
Posted by: Alex Bensky at March 29, 2004 at 10:56 AMAlso:
I read the linked article. It refers to Yassin as Hamas's founder and spiritual leader. There's no indication of any reason why Israel would kill him. I suppose readers are supposed to conclude it's just those cussedly mean Jews.
Posted by: Alex Bensky at March 29, 2004 at 11:02 AMAHMED YASSINs TOP 10
Hey guys you gotta check this out and piss you pants laughing.
Posted by: Dead Ed at March 29, 2004 at 11:40 AMBrisbane' ex Lord Mayor, Jim Soorley, decries the whacking of Yassin because he established a network of educational and charitable institutions. http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,9093105%255E27377,00.html
Nowhere does he mention that this picture of benolevence had children strapped with explosives to blow up other children.
I wonder what he is going to say when Rantisi, the paediatrician, gets whacked. Since he took over he's sent a retarded kid strapped up with his deadly present.
In another story of his in the same URL he likens as more dangerous than a plane load of terrorists the drivers of single occupant vehicles!!
The man is decidedly unhinged especially when he confesses to being such a terrorist himself. Assumption of guilt is the first stage in disarming the masses.
Posted by: amortiser at March 29, 2004 at 11:51 AMAll in all, I'm glad people like Alan Dershowitz are in the world. They are more than an a counterforce to the useful idiots permeating our civilization (for example. Kerry Nettle, among others). Alan Dershowitz and his like are a sane voice amongst torrents of psycobabble.
And that's good.
Posted by: JeffS at March 29, 2004 at 12:44 PMDreshowitz says that Israel killed Yassin to prevent further innocent civilians being killed.
Yet Hamas condemned the Israeli action that prevented an act of terrorism against innocent civilians.
The assasination of Yassin was justified as he is an active combatant in a war which Hamas is waging in an illegal fashion.
However, reports indicate that some seven civilians adjacent to Yassin were killed by the Hellfire missile when it detonated.
Missiles fired from an Israeli helicopter killed Yassin and seven others leaving a mosque.
The strike wounded 16 others, including two of Yassin's sons, hospital sources said.
There is no indication that these casualties were anything other than civilians attending a church service.
If Israel wants to pursue a policy of targetted assasinations against designated enemies of the state then fine. Declare and execute.
But the deliberate acceptance of collateral damagage to innocent civilians is not much better than blowing up a bus load of school children. Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 29, 2004 at 01:14 PM
Dreshowitz says that Israel killed Yassin to prevent further innocent civilians being killed.
Yet Hamas condemned the Israeli action that prevented an act of terrorism against innocent civilians.
The assasination of Yassin was justified as he is an active combatant in a war which Hamas is waging in an illegal fashion.
However, reports indicate that some seven civilians adjacent to Yassin were killed by the Hellfire missile when it detonated.
Missiles fired from an Israeli helicopter killed Yassin and seven others leaving a mosque.
The strike wounded 16 others, including two of Yassin's sons, hospital sources said.
There is no indication that these casualties were anything other than civilians attending a church service.
If Israel wants to pursue a policy of targetted assasinations against designated enemies of the state then fine. Declare and execute.
But Israel's deliberate acceptance of collateral damagage to innocent civilians is a sad lapse from it's declared policy of "purity of arms". Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 29, 2004 at 01:15 PM
Jack
You should know that 2 of those 7 were his bodygaurds. Who do you think hanged out with the Sheik? the Girl Scouts??
Jack:
You said:
But Israel's deliberate acceptance of collateral damagage to innocent civilians is a sad lapse from it's declared policy of "purity of arms".
Your link is an interesting one...but it's a personal statement by a rabbi not happy with the current state of affairs. His quote is appropriate, but not a complete answer.
So I Googled, and found The Spirit of The IDF: The Ethical Code of the Israel Defense Forces.
It's a code of conduct for the Isreali Defense Force. Ethical militaries have one. The section on "Purity of Arms" says:
Purity of Arms
The IDF serviceman will use force of arms only for the purpose of subduing the enemy to the necessary extent and will limit his use of force so as to prevent unnecessary harm to human life and limb, dignity and property.
The IDF servicemen's purity of arms is their selfcontrol in use of armed force. They will use their arms only for the purpose of achieving their mission, without inflicting unnecessary injury to human life or limb; dignity or property, of both soldiers and civilians, with special consideration for the defenseless, whether in wartime, or during routine security operations, or in the absence of combat, or times of peace.
The bold emphasis is mine.
The problem with any military ethical code is that it deals with a subject that challenges moral and ethical codes, "the application of military force". In other words, war.
The challenge is threefold.
First, you have to intellectually and emotionally accept that there is a war. This is not easy for trained soldiers, and very difficult for civilians. If it were easy, we wouldn't have the massive disagreement concerning world events today.
Second, if you have accepted the reality of being in a war, you have to be ready to take a human life. This act is more disliked than accepted by humanity, by the current standards of our civilization. Killing is repugnant to most people. But people are willing to accept the necessity, even support it, if they accept the cause. The human tendency is to delegate this task to the military.
Finally, you need soldiers who accept violence as a necessity, not normal behavior. They may be good at it, but they should not like it, nor be indifferent to it. In other words, you don't want sadists in uniform, nor people without a conscious.
This last item is hard to achieve. Usually the bad ones are weeded out by the selection and training system. The good ones are trained in how to apply violence, usually by a code of conduct and military regulations.
But there's a catch. There always is. No one code of conduct can cover any possible situation, especially in a chaotic environment known as war. Judgement is expected. That's why I emphasized "unnecessary" above. It's impossible to anticipate all possible contingencies, so the military is expected to exercise their judgement. There could be a review, and possible court martial, for questionable acts. It's happened before.
So what is "unnecessary"? I don't know what the IDF chain of command thought, but this is the way I see it:
1. Hamas routinely uses human shields against IDF attacks.
2. Many Palestinians accept the position as a human shield as a duty. Witness the enthusiasm the masses thronged around Rasitini soon after his elevation to Hamas leadership. They did so to protect him.
3. Yassir was a slow moving target in the open, with minimum people around him.
4. This was an excellent target with minimum casualties.
Now, the IDF had to know Yassir was in the mosque. They could have just put a bunker buster on that. They didn't. They use a precision munition to kill him.
In this case, "unnecessary" means a choice between minimum casualties and a clear target, and extensive casualties with no clear target.
No, I don't know if those casualties were anything other than civilians attending a church service. That's not the point, as cruel as that may sound.
The point is that the IDF clearly acted to complete their mission with unnecessary force. Read the rest of the IDF code. One of the first topics is "Perseverance in Mission":
The IDF serviceman will fight and conduct himself with courage in the face of all dangers and obstacles; he will persevere in his mission courageously, resolutely and thoughtfully even to the point of endangering his own life.
The perseverance of IDF servicemen in their mission is their capability and readiness to fight courageously in the face of danger and in most challenging situations; to strive unremittingly to achieve the military goal effectively, with full regard for the particular circumstances, notwithstanding any difficulty, stress or adversity or even mortal danger. They will do so with proper judgment and with due regard for risks.
Emphasis is mine.
My view from the sidelines, and half a world away, is that the IDF followed their code of conduct in spirit, if not intent. There has been no lapse. A trial might find differently -- but there would be more facts there. For example, in this war between Israel and Palestine, Hamas routinely violates the laws of war, deliberately, flagrantly, using their own people as human shields; that they volunteer is immaterial. The leadership is responsible to see that it doesn't happen.
How far along with accepting the war on terrorism I don't know -- that's up to you. But you might ask yourself, who at least has a code of conduct for their soldiers, stressing the use of unnecessary force? Does Hamas?
I'm on the side of the IDF on this one. At least they can be held legally accountable for their actions. Palestinians would celebrate if Hamas assassinated an Israeli leader.
Posted by: JeffS at March 29, 2004 at 02:43 PMSorry, I mess up the link:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/IDF_ethics.html
Posted by: JeffS at March 29, 2004 at 02:44 PMThis chick Nettle can be contacted at senator.nettle@aph.gov.au drop her a note she 'luvs it'.
Posted by: Bilal at March 29, 2004 at 03:30 PMHey, Bilal, tell you'll do it Leb style. Being muticultural, she really will luv it.
Posted by: Freddyboy at March 29, 2004 at 04:38 PMIf Yassin was such a terrible person, why did Israel not arrest him again? I never heard any journalist ask an Israeli Government spokesman that.
And why was it necessary to launch missiles? If death was the preferred option, why not use a sniper? To use other techniques is terrorism.
Posted by: fatfingers at March 29, 2004 at 07:35 PMGosh, fathead, I guess the Israelis didn't get the memo that you were to be consulted before taking out Yassin.
As for you, Jack (I almost typo'd "Hack," har har): "church service"? WTF are you talking about? Yassin was a Muslim; if anything his sycophants would be off to the mosque. Or are you implying that, since he was Hamas' "spiritual leader," that these so-called "civilians" were being ministered to by him? If so, anyone who thought him worthy of going to for spiritual guidance deserved to eat missile bits along with their dear leader. I'm not crying one tear for these poor, innocent "civilians."
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 29, 2004 at 08:23 PMJack:
It is Hamas that strives to continually surround their leaders with "human shields" and the IDF took an opportunity to strike when this "shield" was at or near its low point. There are numerous pictures of that waste of a wheelchair surrounded by packs of "shields", mostly children.
The Geneva Conventions specifically address use of civilians to shield military targets. They state that such "shielded" targets remain legitimate for attack and that blame for any collateral damage lies with the target, not the attacker. This obtains whether the "shields" were volunteers or coerced.
Posted by: Dean Douthatd at March 29, 2004 at 11:23 PMIf Yassin was such a terrible person, why did Israel not arrest him again? I never heard any journalist ask an Israeli Government spokesman that.
Oh, why didn't I think of that? [slaps head] "Yassin: Pure as the Driven Snow, Defender of the Oppressed".
And why was it necessary to launch missiles? If death was the preferred option, why not use a sniper? To use other techniques is terrorism
How do those ankles taste, Fatfingers? Why don't you peddle your definition of terrorism to the relatives of the victims of John Mohammed and Lee Malvo, you sick, twisted f*ck. I'm sure they would be happy to provide some feedback.
Posted by: Tongue Boy at March 30, 2004 at 12:27 AMHands up anyone who really believes Yassine was hit in order to prevent terrorist attacks.
(one child under 6, deaf mutes,...)
Ok then, hands up those who think assassinating Yassine was a deliberate act by Sharon to escalate the bitterness and reprisals (everyone except those in denial, or have been sleeping the last 2 years)
Posted by: carlos at March 30, 2004 at 07:45 AM
That's a lot of imaginary friends you have, Carlos. Must be your personal magnitism! Just think what you and your legions of invisible hand wavers can do for the polling community!
Posted by: Sortelli at March 30, 2004 at 05:35 PMWhy, yeah, Carlos, Sharon wanted more "bitterness and reprisals" because he wants all of his fellow Jews in Israel dead. Is that what you are getting at? Because otherwise what you said makes absolutely zero sense.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 31, 2004 at 01:27 PMAndrea, your usual sharp eye is missing here, your conclusion too histrionic. You know Sharon is no peacemaker and a lot more Israeli's have been killed and injured because of his hardline actions than before. He has apparently been successful in getting Israeli public opinion behind him because everyone is sick/tired of the bombings and feel justified in amongst other things; "the wall" (fence), encircling & isolating the Gaza strip (one of the densest populated and poorest areas in the world), now full of hate and fury. No Andrea, try again.
Posted by: carlos at April 1, 2004 at 07:58 AM