Mother-in-law made to pay (pounds) 35,000 for inflicting four wretched months - Britain - Times Online
An Indian arranged marriage goes wrong, and the daughter in law successfully sues the mother-in-law from hell under legislation designed to cover stalkers. I can't think of equivalent legislation in Australian jurisdictions that could work here.
From the article:
Ms Singh was 22 and a manager in her family’s clothing business when she married Hardeep Bhakar, then 25, from Ilford, East London, on November 1, 2002. Their families had been introduced by a matchmaker. She had expected to live with her husband’s family after the marriage.
But she soon began to have doubts about her new home, which she shared with Hardeep and his two brothers as well as Mrs Bhakar and her husband, Prithvipal Singh Bhakar. Ms Singh and Mrs Bhakar were often alone in the house together while the men were out.
Mrs Bhakar attempted to exhaust and humiliate her daughter-in-law, requiring her to clean toilets without a brush and clean the floor without a mop. Her hands became infected. Ms Singh’s visits home were restricted and she was not allowed to attend her uncle’s funeral or make regular visits to the Sikh temple. Her mobile phone was confiscated and she was allowed to make and receive only one closely monitored call a week to her family.
Sounds a lot like a pandora's box of litigation being opened, all the same.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
The Tablet on the Middle East
The Tablet
The opinion piece above is entitled "Disporportionately deadly" and states the reasons why the writer believes Israel, which he supports generally, should be condemned for an excessive response to Lebanon/Hezbollah.
The article is reasonably well written, and covers a lot of ground about what all the players may want to achieve.
I would criticise the article on some important counts, however:
1. Most importantly, while emphasizing that the laws of war incorporate the concept of proportionality, the article fails to note that the same laws prohibit use of civilians as a shield. This is quite a glaring omission in the circumstances.
To be more accurate in targeting Hezbollah assets on the ground, given that they are apparently hidden within civilian buildings, an invasion far into Lebanon would be necessary, which (in this particular case) carries the added risk of involvement of Syrian and Lebanese (as opposed to Hezbollah)
troops, as well as street to street ambushes and fighting. While not flattening as many residential buildings as bombing from the air, this style of fighting is not exactly going to leave the neighbourhood pretty. (And, I wonder, while it might result in a lower level of destruction in any particular street, would it be over a wider area?)
2. The article says of the response of Bush, Blair and (Canadian PM) Harper:
It is conceivable that one or more of them believes, along with tens of millions of evangelical Christians, that another war between Israel and its neighbours is a necessary precursor to the second coming of Christ.
Raising this seems rather unnecessary if you are unable to find any statement by any of the 3 that they believe this.
I note that has been much speculation by Bush opponents over the years that he probably believes this, especially with his ties to some evangelical Christians who do take the "end times" stuff very seriously. (Let me be clear: it is absurd and offensive for those nutters who believe this is the start of the "end times" to cheer on conflict in the Middle East.)
However, I have not been able to find any quote from Bush's mouth that confirms that he personally believes this. (A generic statement that he believes it is "God's will" that there be peace in the Middle East is not going to cut it. Correct me if I am wrong about this; it seems to me he must have been asked the question directly sometime in his political career, but I haven't found it on the internet yet.)
To worry unduly about Bush's personal belief about this has always struck me as a case of "guilt by association", and an example of many on the Left's general dislike of conservative Christianity getting carried away.
Besides, the number of people involved in executive power in the US system surely makes it extremely unlikely that any President with a belief in his personal apocalyptic role is going to get far with launching the missiles.
Whether you can have the same expectation from an out and out theocracy is another question.
3. The article also says:
President Bush and his advisers have several reasons for wanting a conflict with Iran. They have a score to settle concerning the 52 Americans who were held hostage for 444 days after the Islamic revolution of 1979. They are concerned about Iranian influence in Iraq and - at a time when China and Russia are emerging as serious competitors - have an eye on Iran's immense oil reserves also. A confrontation with Iran could also boost the Republican Party's prospects in the mid-term congressional elections in just three months.
Hmm. It could also be that they have a legitimate concern about another nuclear power in the Middle East with a recurring dream of removing Israel.
4. His final paragraph:
If we accept Israel's response and then tolerate it, we would be devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens. We would also undermine the laws of war, which exist to prevent unnecessary human suffering without regard to national, religious or ethnic differences. Israel has a right to defend itself, but always within recognised and reasonable limits. Those limits have been breached. Friends of the Jewish state should not pretend otherwise.
Again, it would be good to see a statement that fighters who hide assets and themselves within civilian buildings (and then provoke a conflict) are also "devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens."
For the record: Israeli targeting of some infrastructure appears to me to be of no military or even "political" use in the conflict, and should be criticised. (Power stations seems the most likely example - as no one seems to suggest that Hezbollah has a manufacturing base in Lebanon, and I don't know how having the power on would help them launch missiles.) Some infrastructure attacks may have a military point: preventing Hezbollah movement and resupply being the obvious one. There are some claims of escaping civilians being deliberately targeted. If it can be shown to have been deliberate, that is a war crime no doubt. It's just that I find it hard to believe this is a matter of Israeli policy, and in most cases would suspect mistake more often than war crime.
The whole problem is, without more detail, I have a hard time judging what attacks are justified or not. Judging from media reports alone is also tricky; a devastated Beirut suburb looks bad; it is bad. But it was always on the cards that this would happen if Israel wanted to stop the attacks. That's the evil of this asymmetric war stuff. It's dirty and nasty.
Hopefully, both sides will stop soon, and that is probably in Israel's interest too.
The opinion piece above is entitled "Disporportionately deadly" and states the reasons why the writer believes Israel, which he supports generally, should be condemned for an excessive response to Lebanon/Hezbollah.
The article is reasonably well written, and covers a lot of ground about what all the players may want to achieve.
I would criticise the article on some important counts, however:
1. Most importantly, while emphasizing that the laws of war incorporate the concept of proportionality, the article fails to note that the same laws prohibit use of civilians as a shield. This is quite a glaring omission in the circumstances.
To be more accurate in targeting Hezbollah assets on the ground, given that they are apparently hidden within civilian buildings, an invasion far into Lebanon would be necessary, which (in this particular case) carries the added risk of involvement of Syrian and Lebanese (as opposed to Hezbollah)
troops, as well as street to street ambushes and fighting. While not flattening as many residential buildings as bombing from the air, this style of fighting is not exactly going to leave the neighbourhood pretty. (And, I wonder, while it might result in a lower level of destruction in any particular street, would it be over a wider area?)
2. The article says of the response of Bush, Blair and (Canadian PM) Harper:
It is conceivable that one or more of them believes, along with tens of millions of evangelical Christians, that another war between Israel and its neighbours is a necessary precursor to the second coming of Christ.
Raising this seems rather unnecessary if you are unable to find any statement by any of the 3 that they believe this.
I note that has been much speculation by Bush opponents over the years that he probably believes this, especially with his ties to some evangelical Christians who do take the "end times" stuff very seriously. (Let me be clear: it is absurd and offensive for those nutters who believe this is the start of the "end times" to cheer on conflict in the Middle East.)
However, I have not been able to find any quote from Bush's mouth that confirms that he personally believes this. (A generic statement that he believes it is "God's will" that there be peace in the Middle East is not going to cut it. Correct me if I am wrong about this; it seems to me he must have been asked the question directly sometime in his political career, but I haven't found it on the internet yet.)
To worry unduly about Bush's personal belief about this has always struck me as a case of "guilt by association", and an example of many on the Left's general dislike of conservative Christianity getting carried away.
Besides, the number of people involved in executive power in the US system surely makes it extremely unlikely that any President with a belief in his personal apocalyptic role is going to get far with launching the missiles.
Whether you can have the same expectation from an out and out theocracy is another question.
3. The article also says:
President Bush and his advisers have several reasons for wanting a conflict with Iran. They have a score to settle concerning the 52 Americans who were held hostage for 444 days after the Islamic revolution of 1979. They are concerned about Iranian influence in Iraq and - at a time when China and Russia are emerging as serious competitors - have an eye on Iran's immense oil reserves also. A confrontation with Iran could also boost the Republican Party's prospects in the mid-term congressional elections in just three months.
Hmm. It could also be that they have a legitimate concern about another nuclear power in the Middle East with a recurring dream of removing Israel.
4. His final paragraph:
If we accept Israel's response and then tolerate it, we would be devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens. We would also undermine the laws of war, which exist to prevent unnecessary human suffering without regard to national, religious or ethnic differences. Israel has a right to defend itself, but always within recognised and reasonable limits. Those limits have been breached. Friends of the Jewish state should not pretend otherwise.
Again, it would be good to see a statement that fighters who hide assets and themselves within civilian buildings (and then provoke a conflict) are also "devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens."
For the record: Israeli targeting of some infrastructure appears to me to be of no military or even "political" use in the conflict, and should be criticised. (Power stations seems the most likely example - as no one seems to suggest that Hezbollah has a manufacturing base in Lebanon, and I don't know how having the power on would help them launch missiles.) Some infrastructure attacks may have a military point: preventing Hezbollah movement and resupply being the obvious one. There are some claims of escaping civilians being deliberately targeted. If it can be shown to have been deliberate, that is a war crime no doubt. It's just that I find it hard to believe this is a matter of Israeli policy, and in most cases would suspect mistake more often than war crime.
The whole problem is, without more detail, I have a hard time judging what attacks are justified or not. Judging from media reports alone is also tricky; a devastated Beirut suburb looks bad; it is bad. But it was always on the cards that this would happen if Israel wanted to stop the attacks. That's the evil of this asymmetric war stuff. It's dirty and nasty.
Hopefully, both sides will stop soon, and that is probably in Israel's interest too.
Why does Koizumi bother?
CNN.com - Polls: Japanese oppose shrine trip - Jul 23, 2006
With the recent revelation that the late Japanese Emperor Hirohito gave up visiting Yasukuni Shrine due to it adding war criminals to the list of the honored, and this article indicating that only 33% of Japanese actually clearly approve of the visits, you have to wonder why Prime Minisiter Koizumi bothers to insist that he still visit.
I suppose it could simply be all about saving face now. A sudden stop would seem an implied admission that he was wrong in the past.
Like whale hunting, which seems to also have no significant support in the Japanese public, this a bit of Japanese political behaviour which is strange to Western eyes.
At least the polls give some vague hope that the next PM will stop the visits.
With the recent revelation that the late Japanese Emperor Hirohito gave up visiting Yasukuni Shrine due to it adding war criminals to the list of the honored, and this article indicating that only 33% of Japanese actually clearly approve of the visits, you have to wonder why Prime Minisiter Koizumi bothers to insist that he still visit.
I suppose it could simply be all about saving face now. A sudden stop would seem an implied admission that he was wrong in the past.
Like whale hunting, which seems to also have no significant support in the Japanese public, this a bit of Japanese political behaviour which is strange to Western eyes.
At least the polls give some vague hope that the next PM will stop the visits.
Always time for more micro black hole talk
Seed: What if Black Holes Didn't Exist?
The article above gives a short explanation of an idea of a couple of physicists that black holes may not exist at all. There would still be things called "dark energy stars," which might act like astronomical black holes. One important difference would be (according to the Wikipedia entry on this theory) that they would not evaporate via Hawking Radiation.
I suspect this may be relevant to the issue of safety of micro "black holes" that might be created at the CERN particle accelerator, but whether it is good news or bad news in that regard is beyond me.
The article above gives a short explanation of an idea of a couple of physicists that black holes may not exist at all. There would still be things called "dark energy stars," which might act like astronomical black holes. One important difference would be (according to the Wikipedia entry on this theory) that they would not evaporate via Hawking Radiation.
I suspect this may be relevant to the issue of safety of micro "black holes" that might be created at the CERN particle accelerator, but whether it is good news or bad news in that regard is beyond me.
Something positive for a change
Irshad Manji: Faithful consider liberal reforms | Opinion | The Australian
Interesting story about an important move to liberalise some parts of Islam in Pakistan (and elsewhere.)
Unfortunately, some movement in the other direction goes on in regional government in Indonesia. SBS's Dateline did a story on this recently. As George Negus was away at the time, I could bear watching it.
Interesting story about an important move to liberalise some parts of Islam in Pakistan (and elsewhere.)
Unfortunately, some movement in the other direction goes on in regional government in Indonesia. SBS's Dateline did a story on this recently. As George Negus was away at the time, I could bear watching it.
Sounds unreasonable
Iran: Israel doomed to 'destruction' | Jerusalem Post:
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared Sunday that Israel had "pushed the button of its own destruction" by launching its military campaign against the Iranian-backed Hizbullah militia in Lebanon.
Ahmadinejad didn't elaborate, but suggested Islamic nations and others could somehow isolate Israel and its main backers led by the United States. On Saturday, the chairman of Iran's armed forced joint chiefs, Maj.-Gen. Sayyed Hassan Firuzabadi, said Iran would never join the current Middle East fighting....
In Teheran, the government has sanctioned billboards showing Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and a message that it is the duty of Muslims to "wipe out" Israel.
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared Sunday that Israel had "pushed the button of its own destruction" by launching its military campaign against the Iranian-backed Hizbullah militia in Lebanon.
Ahmadinejad didn't elaborate, but suggested Islamic nations and others could somehow isolate Israel and its main backers led by the United States. On Saturday, the chairman of Iran's armed forced joint chiefs, Maj.-Gen. Sayyed Hassan Firuzabadi, said Iran would never join the current Middle East fighting....
In Teheran, the government has sanctioned billboards showing Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and a message that it is the duty of Muslims to "wipe out" Israel.
Sounds reasonable
NewsDaily: TopNews -- Israel may accept a political Hezbollah
"To the extent that it remains a political group, it will be acceptable to Israel," Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said. "A political group means a party that is engaged in the political system in Lebanon, but without terrorism capabilities and fighting capabilities. That will be acceptable to Israel."
"To the extent that it remains a political group, it will be acceptable to Israel," Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said. "A political group means a party that is engaged in the political system in Lebanon, but without terrorism capabilities and fighting capabilities. That will be acceptable to Israel."
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Fisk alert
A farewell to Beirut - In Depth - theage.com.au
The Age runs a Robert Fisk story from The Independent.
Certainly, Beirut sounds like it's been an unlucky city for centuries.
Just don't expect any subtle analysis of the current crisis, though. As a piece of current journalism/commentary, it suffers from Fisk-ness to a high degree.
The Age runs a Robert Fisk story from The Independent.
Certainly, Beirut sounds like it's been an unlucky city for centuries.
Just don't expect any subtle analysis of the current crisis, though. As a piece of current journalism/commentary, it suffers from Fisk-ness to a high degree.
Just in case you need more background
Proxy war | Features | The Australian
There's certainly no lack of commentary and articles giving background on the Middle East crisis, but the one above in today's Australia seemed a particularly good one to me, and filled in a few gaps in my previous knowledge.
There's certainly no lack of commentary and articles giving background on the Middle East crisis, but the one above in today's Australia seemed a particularly good one to me, and filled in a few gaps in my previous knowledge.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
No Sense Left
Early reviews for M Night Shayamalan's latest film, "Lady in the Water" are very bad. Sure, the Sixth Sense was creepy, but as all critics have noted, his films have been on a rapid decline in quality ever since, and this one looks like it has sent his reputation into freefall.
(This reminds me, on cable here some months ago there was what seemed intended to be a "mockumentary" about him. It was awful. )
Anyway, one of the reviews has this very funny paragraph:
If the film weren’t already feeble enough, Shyamalan insists on upgrading his signature cameo performances in his own films to that of featured supporting player. Shyamalan plays a novelist who lives with his "sister" in Cleveland’s apartment complex. Forget that M. Night Shyamalan’s acting skills couldn’t get him cast in a high school production of "Our Town." Watching a skilled acting craftsman like Paul Giamatti delivering lines to Shyamalan is like watching Robert Duvall talk to his cat about politics. It’s the one thing in the movie that sent shivers down my spine.
(This reminds me, on cable here some months ago there was what seemed intended to be a "mockumentary" about him. It was awful. )
Anyway, one of the reviews has this very funny paragraph:
If the film weren’t already feeble enough, Shyamalan insists on upgrading his signature cameo performances in his own films to that of featured supporting player. Shyamalan plays a novelist who lives with his "sister" in Cleveland’s apartment complex. Forget that M. Night Shyamalan’s acting skills couldn’t get him cast in a high school production of "Our Town." Watching a skilled acting craftsman like Paul Giamatti delivering lines to Shyamalan is like watching Robert Duvall talk to his cat about politics. It’s the one thing in the movie that sent shivers down my spine.
Sheridan's odd plan for peace
Israel has right motive but the wrong target | Greg Sheridan | The Australian
Greg Sheridan, somewhat to my surprise, clearly criticises Israel for blowing up bits of Lebanon, not just the Hezbollah units.
However, he ends on this note:
An Israeli strike against Syria's armed forces would have shown Assad he had to pay a price for Hezbollah's activities. Striking Lebanon, which is weak and cannot fight back, causes Assad, and the rulers in Tehran, no pain at all.
Not that I know how strong Syria is militarily, but wouldn't an attack on it have been something like throwing petrol on a flame to put it out?
Greg Sheridan, somewhat to my surprise, clearly criticises Israel for blowing up bits of Lebanon, not just the Hezbollah units.
However, he ends on this note:
An Israeli strike against Syria's armed forces would have shown Assad he had to pay a price for Hezbollah's activities. Striking Lebanon, which is weak and cannot fight back, causes Assad, and the rulers in Tehran, no pain at all.
Not that I know how strong Syria is militarily, but wouldn't an attack on it have been something like throwing petrol on a flame to put it out?
A useful short history of Hezbollah
Hezbollah Evolution Opposition Proves Constant | The Jewish Exponent
It's from a Jewish source, but the tone it uses would suggest it's basically accurate.
What surprised me was the amount of funding from Iran for civilian services: $60 million a year. A radical organisation can sure curry a lot of favour with the locals with funding like that. This presumably led to its electoral success:
Running in June 2005 elections, Hezbollah won 23 seats in Lebanon's 128-member Parliament, and holds the Energy Ministry. Some hoped that political power would moderate the group and compel it to act more responsibly, but there has been little indication of a change in Hezbollah's outlook or behavior.
This involvement with government certainly complicates the moral issues over what are legitimate targets and what aren't.
It's from a Jewish source, but the tone it uses would suggest it's basically accurate.
What surprised me was the amount of funding from Iran for civilian services: $60 million a year. A radical organisation can sure curry a lot of favour with the locals with funding like that. This presumably led to its electoral success:
Running in June 2005 elections, Hezbollah won 23 seats in Lebanon's 128-member Parliament, and holds the Energy Ministry. Some hoped that political power would moderate the group and compel it to act more responsibly, but there has been little indication of a change in Hezbollah's outlook or behavior.
This involvement with government certainly complicates the moral issues over what are legitimate targets and what aren't.
Another Slate article worth reading
What is Hezbollah up to? By Fred Kaplan
One thing I wonder about - where do they hide all of those rockets in Southern Lebanon?
One thing I wonder about - where do they hide all of those rockets in Southern Lebanon?
Danny Katz on the Middle East
Caught in the crossfire of blame - Danny Katz - Opinion - theage.com.au
Maybe some will think he shouldn't be trying to be a bit funny about the Middle East conflict, but it works OK for me.
Maybe some will think he shouldn't be trying to be a bit funny about the Middle East conflict, but it works OK for me.
So much for the "Pretty Woman" image
Angst of city's sex workers - National - smh.com.au
Well, it's been a long time coming, but I can finally feel some vindication for my dislike of the movie "Pretty Woman". Apart from being incredibly "slight" but puzzlingly popular (and the unfortunate truth that when I see Julia Roberts on the screen my eyes and mind are always drawn to the fact that she has an enormous mouth,) my main objection was that it implausibly made street prostitution look like a decent enough profession. (She was working the street, wasn't she? Maybe I am wrong there.) Sure, prostitutes with a heart of gold must exist, but I tend to rally against anything that portrays the profession (street or in-house) in such a way that may make it look even slightly more attractive to some down and out girl as way to make money.
Anyway, this SMH story paints an even gloomier picture of the background of a Sydney street prostitute than I would have guessed:
In face-to-face interviews, three-quarters of the women revealed they had been sexually abused as children and 80 per cent had been raped and/or physically assaulted as adults. Almost 70 per cent had been threatened with a weapon or held captive. More than 80 per cent of the women were heroin addicts. Cocaine and cannabis use were also common.
Many of the women used drugs because it numbed their feelings and they "did not have to think". A similar proportion did sex work to pay for drugs.
That two-thirds did not suffer post-traumatic stress was testimony to their resilience, Ms Roxburgh said, particularly since most of them had left home before the age of 16. NSW is the only state that permits sex workers to solicit on the streets.
Well, it's been a long time coming, but I can finally feel some vindication for my dislike of the movie "Pretty Woman". Apart from being incredibly "slight" but puzzlingly popular (and the unfortunate truth that when I see Julia Roberts on the screen my eyes and mind are always drawn to the fact that she has an enormous mouth,) my main objection was that it implausibly made street prostitution look like a decent enough profession. (She was working the street, wasn't she? Maybe I am wrong there.) Sure, prostitutes with a heart of gold must exist, but I tend to rally against anything that portrays the profession (street or in-house) in such a way that may make it look even slightly more attractive to some down and out girl as way to make money.
Anyway, this SMH story paints an even gloomier picture of the background of a Sydney street prostitute than I would have guessed:
In face-to-face interviews, three-quarters of the women revealed they had been sexually abused as children and 80 per cent had been raped and/or physically assaulted as adults. Almost 70 per cent had been threatened with a weapon or held captive. More than 80 per cent of the women were heroin addicts. Cocaine and cannabis use were also common.
Many of the women used drugs because it numbed their feelings and they "did not have to think". A similar proportion did sex work to pay for drugs.
That two-thirds did not suffer post-traumatic stress was testimony to their resilience, Ms Roxburgh said, particularly since most of them had left home before the age of 16. NSW is the only state that permits sex workers to solicit on the streets.
Poor Phil
Still no easy - legal - way to go - Opinion - smh.com.au
Philip Nitschke, the doctor who really, really, respects the right of anyone to kill themselves, even if it is just because they don't like being old, complains that he just can't get anywhere with re-introducing euthanasia legislation in Australia. Whose fault is this? A secret coalition of fundamentalists, of course:
In "Voting for Jesus", a recent article in Quarterly Essay, Amanda Lohrey identifies a fundamentalist, all-denomination Christian lobby that would have been unimaginable half a century ago.
As an activist of 40 years on a range of issues, I have never been confronted with such an anonymous opponent.
When the former prime minister Gough Whitlam warned me several years ago that no politician could afford to be railed at from the pulpit at preselection time I didn't appreciate the full meaning of his advice. I do now.
Maybe the most outspoken critics of euthanasia identify as religious, but I find it hard to believe that there aren't a fair number of the secular, agnostic, or only nominally religious who have doubts about euthanasia, and in particular find Nitschke's broad brush attitude to suicide off putting.
Philip Nitschke, the doctor who really, really, respects the right of anyone to kill themselves, even if it is just because they don't like being old, complains that he just can't get anywhere with re-introducing euthanasia legislation in Australia. Whose fault is this? A secret coalition of fundamentalists, of course:
In "Voting for Jesus", a recent article in Quarterly Essay, Amanda Lohrey identifies a fundamentalist, all-denomination Christian lobby that would have been unimaginable half a century ago.
As an activist of 40 years on a range of issues, I have never been confronted with such an anonymous opponent.
When the former prime minister Gough Whitlam warned me several years ago that no politician could afford to be railed at from the pulpit at preselection time I didn't appreciate the full meaning of his advice. I do now.
Maybe the most outspoken critics of euthanasia identify as religious, but I find it hard to believe that there aren't a fair number of the secular, agnostic, or only nominally religious who have doubts about euthanasia, and in particular find Nitschke's broad brush attitude to suicide off putting.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Mysterious weapons, or stupid rumour
IslamOnline.net- Muslim Affairs - Asia - Politics & Economy
Sorry, no time for positive posts yet...
The above story starts with this:
As I write this, doctors in the Gaza Strip are telling me they are puzzled by the condition of the Palestinian dead. X-rays of the bodies of those strafed by the F-16 fighter jets and Apache attack helicopters show no indication of shrapnel shards. Instead, limbs have been severed and corpses burned to a crisp.
I am told that there is no technology available to determine what has caused this. Even the wounded are making the desperately under-equipped medical staff scratch their heads. Their injuries are not responding to conventional treatment.
And there the mystery is left, as the article goes on in more conventional (pro Palestinian) fashion.
The Palestinian News Network says this:
Dr. Al Sakka told Voice of Palestine Radio that the Israeli army is using new types of non-conventional weapons against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip during the recent attacks. He said, “They are targeting the Palestinian body with unconventional weapons and with that comes a phenomena we have not seen before in any Israeli bombardment we have lived through for many years.”
He continued, “The hospital is central and sees almost all cases of injuries and deaths as a result of Israeli against the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip. These Israeli bombings are entering the body and fragmenting, causing internal combustion leading to up to fourth degree internal burns, exposing the bone, and affecting the tissue and skin.”
The doctor added, “These tissues die, they do not survive, which obliges us to perform arm or leg amputations, and there are fragments which penetrate the body and do not show up on X-rays. When entering the body they spark like a combustion firearm, but not chemically. They seem radioactive.”
He confirmed that there were dozens of wounded legs and arms. Many of them had been burned from the inside, and distorted to the point that they cannot return to life again.
I remain very sceptical. At the (I think slight) risk of being proved wrong, this just seems to be an example of the conspiratorial anti-semitic rumour mill of Palestine.
UPDATE: Little Green Footballs has a post with a translation of a statement by a loopy French MP. This part is relevant to my post:
According to the same testimonials, the Israeli army would be using fragmentation bombs, and “vacuum packed” bombs that result in destruction by implosion. The bodies then look like totally dislocated puppets, like rag dolls.
Just wait til they let loose the Ark of the Covenant. (Note: am satirising stupid rumours, not death of children.)
UPDATE: comment from Kieran is correct: I was unfamiliar with the term "vacuum bomb" , but Wikipedia confirms it is a nick name for a thermobaric weapon (which I think is far more commonly known as a fuel-air explosive weapon.) That'll teach me not to Google or Wiki search a term before I post.
Sorry, no time for positive posts yet...
The above story starts with this:
As I write this, doctors in the Gaza Strip are telling me they are puzzled by the condition of the Palestinian dead. X-rays of the bodies of those strafed by the F-16 fighter jets and Apache attack helicopters show no indication of shrapnel shards. Instead, limbs have been severed and corpses burned to a crisp.
I am told that there is no technology available to determine what has caused this. Even the wounded are making the desperately under-equipped medical staff scratch their heads. Their injuries are not responding to conventional treatment.
And there the mystery is left, as the article goes on in more conventional (pro Palestinian) fashion.
The Palestinian News Network says this:
Dr. Al Sakka told Voice of Palestine Radio that the Israeli army is using new types of non-conventional weapons against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip during the recent attacks. He said, “They are targeting the Palestinian body with unconventional weapons and with that comes a phenomena we have not seen before in any Israeli bombardment we have lived through for many years.”
He continued, “The hospital is central and sees almost all cases of injuries and deaths as a result of Israeli against the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip. These Israeli bombings are entering the body and fragmenting, causing internal combustion leading to up to fourth degree internal burns, exposing the bone, and affecting the tissue and skin.”
The doctor added, “These tissues die, they do not survive, which obliges us to perform arm or leg amputations, and there are fragments which penetrate the body and do not show up on X-rays. When entering the body they spark like a combustion firearm, but not chemically. They seem radioactive.”
He confirmed that there were dozens of wounded legs and arms. Many of them had been burned from the inside, and distorted to the point that they cannot return to life again.
I remain very sceptical. At the (I think slight) risk of being proved wrong, this just seems to be an example of the conspiratorial anti-semitic rumour mill of Palestine.
UPDATE: Little Green Footballs has a post with a translation of a statement by a loopy French MP. This part is relevant to my post:
According to the same testimonials, the Israeli army would be using fragmentation bombs, and “vacuum packed” bombs that result in destruction by implosion. The bodies then look like totally dislocated puppets, like rag dolls.
Just wait til they let loose the Ark of the Covenant. (Note: am satirising stupid rumours, not death of children.)
UPDATE: comment from Kieran is correct: I was unfamiliar with the term "vacuum bomb" , but Wikipedia confirms it is a nick name for a thermobaric weapon (which I think is far more commonly known as a fuel-air explosive weapon.) That'll teach me not to Google or Wiki search a term before I post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)