Sunday, January 18, 2009
Yet another "ceasefire" in which only Jews Die
Israeli politicians, is upon us. After being announced, the Hamas
responded to it by firing off a new barrage of rockets, with Sderot again
being targeted today, and terrorists have been shooting at Israeli
soldiers all day. As always, "ceasefire" means the barbarians shoot at
the jews while the Jews do not shoot back. Meanwhile, as Israel sits back
and refuses to shoot back, the savages have a reprieve to restock their
armories and warehouses of rockets. And Gilad Shalit continues to suffer
from Israeli governmental appeasement and stupidity.
2. Here's a thought. In light of that US Airways plane that made an
emergency landing on water. You realize what this means? Why, if Teddy
Kennedy had been flying a US Airways jet, he could have been President!
3. White Phosphorus Lies by the usual Anti-Semitic NGOs:
4. Want empirical proof of the existence of a deity? Well read this:
Eye for an Eye: Arab Attacker Killed by his Own Rock (ricocheting off car)
The Left will proclaim it another Israeli war crime!
5. More great material from Ben Dror Yemini:
6. Don't Blame Israel - Toronto Sun
The invective of certain world leaders has grown louder as the Israeli
invasion of Gaza continues.
They've been joined by voices here at home eager to pin the blame for the
tragic loss of life on Israel.
Fortunately, most Canadians have little difficulty understanding why
Israel has resorted to such harsh actions.
For years, that country has been pummelled by rockets that place
one-eighth of its population at mortal risk.
Cries for Israel to back off and calls for an immediate ceasefire ignore
the fact that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, the violence only
increased. Or that Hamas used a previous six-month truce to double the
range of its rockets.
While the bloodshed of innocent civilians is deplorable, we cannot forget
that the Palestinians who chose Hamas in a democratic election weren't
unaware of that organization's intent to destroy Israel and its
predilection for terrorist tactics to achieve that aim.
Hamas hides amongst its own people to launch its implements of death
toward Israel, then screams murder when Israel retaliates to protect its
Yet, this bloodshed is Israel's fault, according to fanatics such as
Ontario CUPE president Sid Ryan, who is calling for a ban on visiting
Israeli academics in response to a Dec. 29 bombing that damaged a
university in Gaza. If it was used as an arms storehouse, Ryan should aim
his vitriol at the academics who run that institution.
The moderator of the United Church of Canada called for an immediate
ceasefire, in a statement suggesting Israel is chiefly to blame. "Peace
cannot be achieved through violence," said the Right Rev. David Giuliano.
The Right Reverend should tell that to Hamas, which could employ the
non-violent methods of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi to win
sympathy for the legitimate grievances of its people.
The cowardly terrorist tactics of Hamas show it is interested neither in
peace nor improving the lot of Palestinians.
The world should direct its enmity accordingly.
7. You may recall that during the war in Iraq, the British medical
journal Lancet when on a jihad on behalf of the Baathists and against the
British-American operations, and invented lunatic science fiction figures
about the number of Iraqis killed by Allied troops.
Well, the Lancet is back, with new science fiction to serve the jihad,
this time about casualties in Gaza:
Here is what we had to say about the Lancet earlier, in March 2007:
Lancing the Lies at The Lancet
The Lancet is a British medical journal, considered the leading such
journal in Britain. Unfortunately, instead of pursuing serious research
in medicine, in recent years the Lancet has become one of the main organs
of anti-Israel and anti-American leftism in the UK. Dr Richard Horton,
editor of the The Lancet, is a leftist moonbat. Some other British medical
journals are little better.
The Lancet has run at least 130 articles bewailing the health conditions
of the poor Palestinians, yet never has denounced Palestinian terrorism as
being the cause of those woes. It regularly denounces Israel for checking
Palestinian ambulances, naturally never mentioning how often those
ambulances carry bombs and murderers. CAMERA has exposed the anti-Israel
bias prevalent in The Lancet. It regularly makes moral equivalence
judgments about Palestinian mass murder of Jews and Israel defending its
civilians. It falsely claims that Israel intentionally targets "innocent
civilians" and makes countless political assertions that have nothing to
do with health. The Israel Hasbara Committee has also attacked bias in
The Lancet and other British medicial journals.
Perhaps the most outrageous example of the Lancet junking its scholarly
standards and research agenda in the name of promoting politically correct
wackiness was its decision to publish an article claiming that 650,000
Iraqis, or 2.5% of the entire Iraqi population, died as a result of the
US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the toppling of Saddam Hussein. That
article was "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional
cluster sample survey", by Burnham G, Lafta R, Doocy S, Roberts L. The
Lancet - Vol. 368, Issue 9545, 21 October 2006, Pages 1421-1428. It
immediately drew enormous criticism and was denounced as fraud and
quackery all over the globe. The 650,000 number was pure "advocacy
statistics", meaning advocacy lying with fraudulent statistics. Such
advocacy statistic lies are familiar, from the 10% of the population being
gay to the 600 billion Africans who died in the slave trade.
Even leftist antiwar activist groups, like "Iraqi Body Count", put the
real number of dead Iraqis as no more than 50,000. Others have also come
up with estimates nowhere near that in The Lancet, and some put them below
20,000. Michael Fumento, the leading science journalist in teh US,
dismissed The Lancet piece as naked propaganda. And naturally, The Lancet
had no interest in the number of Iraqi lives that the war SAVED! I
counted 138,000 web pages that refer to fraud in The Lancet's article on
Iraq. Now even the distinguished Times of London has joined the fray and
denounced The Lancet's fraudulent claims. While the entire article is
worth reading, here are some of the best points:
'Several academics have tried to find out how the Lancet study was
conducted; none regards their queries as having been addressed
satisfactorily. Researchers contacted by The Times talk of unreturned
e-mails or phone calls, or of being sent information that raises fresh
'One critic is Professor Michael Spagat, an economist from Royal Holloway
College, University of London...
'Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of
mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph,
the use of the word .casualties. to mean deaths rather than deaths plus
injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen...
'.The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate
supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,. contends Professor
Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. .They published a
sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but
respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the
procedures that they stated.. The paper had .no scientific standing.. Did
he rule out the possibility of fraud? .No..'
8. On the anti-Semitic pro-terror Counterpunch web site, Ben Gurion
University's Neve Gordon (chairman, political science department),
continues his PR campaign on behalf of the Hamas:
'Regardless of how lethal Israel's military attacks are now, the idea is
to intimidate the Palestinian population by underscoring that the violence
can always become more deadly and brutal. This guarantees that violence,
both when it is and when it is not deployed, remains an ever-looming
'The message to the Israelis is a moral one. The subtext is that the
Israeli military could indiscriminately unleash its vast arsenal of
violence, but chooses not to, because its forces, unlike Hamas, respect
'This latter claim appears to have considerable resonance among Israelis,
and, yet, it is based on a moral fallacy. The fact that one could be more
brutal but chooses to use restraint does not in any way entail that one is
moral.... Ultimately, the moral claims the Israeli government uses to
support its actions during this war are empty. They actually reveal
Israel's unwillingness to confront the original source of the current
violence, which is not Hamas, but rather the occupation of the Gaza Strip,
West Bank and East Jerusalem.'
9. Full piece here: