by Robert M. Traxler
Who bombed the Christian hospital in Gaza? The world is lining up condemning Israel for the destruction of the hospital. As this column has maintained for over a decade, the first casualty of war is always the truth.
We can believe the left- or right-wing press as you wish, but the truth can always be found in the photos of the crime and not the words of the pundits. An old adage in felony investigation is that eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable evidence. The crime scene will tell the truth and eyewitnesses tend to see what they wish to see.
In the light of an unbiased investigation, we need to look at the crime scene. First, the photos show no “bomb crater;” not conclusive evidence in itself, but couple it with the widespread fire damage to the parking lot, it is not indicative of a bomb blast, but more indicative of a fuel air blast, like one found in exploding rocket fuel. Second, a bomb blast has a tendency to be more up than out.
Add in the fact that the damage to the hospital was mostly from fire (looking at the photos) and not as several the reports stated, and reasonable doubt develops into the aerial bomb theory. The reports maintained the that hospital was destroyed with 500 dead; the evidence disproves the reports.
The photos, at least of the pro-Palestine press, show the likelihood of the errant missile fuel explosion as opposed to a bomb blast, but it simply does not matter to the majority of the world, indeed the world press that is anti-semitic. A good historical example of a bias press was the Katyn Massacre in Poland during World War II. Some 3500 Polish military and civilian leaders were shot in the head and buried in the forest. For decades the Nazis were blamed, even though the evidence pointed to the Soviet socialists. We believe what we wish to, not what the facts dictate.
A factor that we also need to examine is that a sick or wounded person requires three to five times the assets of a healthy person. In the cold cruel calculation that is war, the hospital was and is a drain on the Palestinian/Hamas supply system. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) would be ill advised to destroy the hospital. If we just examine the evidence, it points to an accident of war on the part of a group allied with Hamas, and not the IDF. Again, it does matter to the American left and the rest of the anti-semitic world, who will always blame Israel.
The right wing of our nation is now calling for progressive college students protesting Israel to be arrested or removed from college. I say not no, but hell no; cancel culture is wrong left or right, we have free speech, or we should have free speech as contained in the Bill of Rights. I do not like their rhetoric, but they have the constitutional right to be wrong and publicly say it.
I only wish our socialist/progressive citizens would practice what they preach and denounce the cancel culture. My opinion.
Thank You -for defending freedom of voice, would like to think freedom of thought is paired with this. If we neglect our principles, we have no foundation.
Mr. Baloney,
Thanks for the comment. It is unconstitutional and just wrong for the government to control our speech, Conservative or Progressive, even if they use the private sector media to do it.
Sir,
I struggle to follow the assertions, will you elaborate as to which methods specifically “the government” controls our speech, and if you like, which branch or entity exactly?
I want to believe you understand the distinction that is legally protected political speech vs the commonly held belief that anyone can or should be able to say anything, anytime, anywhere. It is worth keeping in mind that specific types of assaultive verbal expression in certain situations are considered prosecutable abuse in our state.
As for freedom of the press, does media (regardless of format, reach, or ownership) have a right to limit or control what they publish or distribute? Should these media outlets be required to give voice to multiple or opposing viewpoints, and if so can this even be policed objectively? This would seem impossible, especially in these times of lightning fast dissemination of information.
It is my understanding that decades ago this was the case to a degree. Unfortunately, this requirement towards checking bias and giving space to opposing viewpoints was dissolved during the Reagan era. That change in law has apparently led to the rise of outlets such as R Limbaugh, fox-news, msnbc, cnn’s-shift to the left, and many other unbalanced sources of information under the guise of reporting “news”.
I would like to think everyone could recognize that this type of appeal to and even downright worship of bias has inflamed civil discourse to dangerous levels. I would argue that this has dis- and misinformed generations to the detriment of society on several fronts and has in turn propagated undue ignorance.
It is evident and likely unavoidable, that certain pitfalls are inevitable with true freedom of speech and press. Thus my tie in with freedom of thought, It is up to each and every one of us to do the difficult task of questioning what we hear, read, or consume in any form. It is worthwhile to try and determine what a specific entity’s motivations are, even if impossible at times. Specifically who and/or how are they benefiting from something. Often when one party is making assertions about another, they are inaccurate, or incomplete. It is my belief that we also must work at the even taller order of recognizing and attempting to keep our own biases in check.
If you are referring to the outrage over bias from the entity formerly known as twitter, it was a publicly owned company, directed like most other corporations. Safe to say we all know E Musk bought it and took it private. Perhaps he desires to honestly cultivate an unbiased, true- free speech environment. I remain skeptical, as bias in another direction is evident, and abusive culture is rampant.
Perhaps you allude to the efforts at combating what was perceived to be mis- and disinformation regarding covid knowledge. I suppose that brings this full circle back to the tragic dissolution of truth and honesty during wartime that you appropriately broached. I fully realize that it is not traditional warfare. However, I remember former president D Trump “declaring war on covid” (officially declared as a national emergency). At this point I am unable to view this in any light other than the “fog of war”. We desire and expect certainty, at times it just is not possible.
As for my personal bias, I can expound slightly. When D Trump “descended his tower” and announced his intentions to lead us, I had two primary and unrelenting thoughts or opinions if you will. The first was an urgent plea, “lord, keep that man away from THE football” Ill assume you understand the reference to the specific item.
My second intuitive belief was that if successful in his personal goal, it could very well lead to the implosion or dissolution of the GOP. The recent inability to function has shown this possible. At a minimum, it is nothing of its former self, realizing this is the objective of some.
I regret the length of this response, however intricate elaboration is often necessary, in order to fully convey the nuance of one’s viewpoint and the reality of something. It’s likely no coincidence some of the most inflammatory environments and individuals limit the length of speech and depth of comprehension.
Your reference to the “football”, you are comfortable with Joe Biden having access to it???
Everything he has touched has turned to s#@t, and WWIII is looming because our enemies view our leadership as weak. And our southern border is being invaded by who knows who! I don’t recognize my country anymore with lax law enforcement or none at all, anti-Semetic views and protests, and government paralysis. All under Joe Biden’s watch – Democrats, thank you for voting for this dementia patient!
B Man,
Its as if you have demonstrated a perfect example of what I was getting at. Thank You.
As far as the oversimplified dismissal, in that everything that is reported or perceived to be wrong with our country somehow rests on the shoulders of one individual, regardless of the position. I find it laughable, disgraceful, and immature.
With regards to the current occupant in the position of our president, I believe his best and potentially most capable days are unfortunately behind him.
As for his decisions on combat fronts, he appears to respect and consider the experience and expertise of those in lesser, supporting positions with whom specific knowledge and experience lay. As opposed to proclamations that he alone possesses the capacity to make the correct decisions. It has been my experience that one of the best qualities of leadership, is knowing how to consult with those whom posses greater knowledge and experience on specific topics. This tends to put most everyone more at ease as to whether or not the best decisions for all involved are being made.
Thanks, your questioning has been enlightening!
Tony Baloney,
Sir, The executive branch pressured social media to ban free speech during COVID-19, also the “anti bullying” movement had social media and traditional media ban “incorrect” speech, like men can not give birth. The mantra was you have no right to say things that are incorrect. Thanks for the comment.
All right, I will take that as an indication that I need to study this free speech ban aspect further.
I can’t help but think a majority of this is sensationalism with the intent of driving viewership and controlling the views of voters. Some of it is so absurd it borders on satire. I honestly don’t give it much weight.
Again, it has been my experience that when one group is defining, labeling or forwarding assertions about another, they are often off the mark. Fear, whether real or manufactured, seems to be the constant motivator.
I appreciate your responses, and your experienced viewpoint.
Mr. Traxler,
So if you are a defender of free speech, how do you feel about book bans? Especially those which go against the thinking of most right wingers, such as books that discuss LGQT+ topics. Just curious. Thank you.
Sorry, should say “feel about book bans.”
A Reader,
Book bans are wrong, to include the bans on the classics by the progressive movement as we find in many libraries, colleges and universities. We should control age inappropriate content in grade schools, lots of years for children to be children; but for older students, let them read period literature without censorship. Thanks for the comment.
Thank you for the reply. I agree 100%