Lebanese Devastated In All Sorts of Ways

[AnOhioan]

BEIRUT, Jul 23 (IPS) - Much of Beirut is a devastated city, infrastructure in many areas lies in a shambles after the Israeli bombing. But the Lebanese are also just feeling devastated.

"Does our country not have the right to move forward like other democracies," says Nidal Mothman, a 35-year-old taxi driver in downtown Beirut. "We hate the American government for giving the green light for the Israelis to bomb us back to the stone age."

Mothman, like so many Lebanese in the capital city, is seething with anger over what he called "indiscriminate" Israeli aggression towards their country.

Snip


"We are angry at Hezbollah for starting this catastrophe, but even more angry at the Israelis for destroying all of Lebanon," (Suthir Amalat) said. "And America, who we thought was our friend, clearly now supports the Israeli destruction of our country." div]

More at http://www.alternet.org/story/39439/

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. All of Lebanon? Doesn't seem so

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/world/middleeast/25beirut.html?hp&ex=1153886400&en=be1c981b68a49147&ei=5094&partner=homepage

In the days since Israeli planes began to bomb Lebanon, this seaside capital has been almost physically split in two, with its largely Shiite flank mutilated by Israeli airstrikes and most of the rest of the city remaining relatively unscathed, if quieter and emptier than usual.

[madrchsod]

3. well that`s interesting

would you say the same thing if it happened to washington dc and all the bridges and roads but one to our capital? fuel shortage,cell towers,tv towers and other infrastructure destroyed? i guess it depends on what "side of town" one lives on...

[Fredda Weinberg]

4. If a part of DC were shelling NY? You bet

I'm just amused how the goal posts keep getting moved every time I point out the hyperbolic nature of the accusation.

[Igel]

2. And yet much isn't destroyed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/world/middleeast/25beirut.html?hp&ex=1153886400&en=be1c981b68a49147&ei=5094&partner=homepage

"Destroying all of Lebanon" is a bit of hyperbole. Even some areas sharply affected by the Israelis are amenable to a quick fix--restore runways, restore electricity-generating capacity, fix a road ...

Others are levelled. Hezbollah gives guided tours of the devastated areas. Devastation sells. Showing pictures of people watching the devastation on tv while drinking lattes and eating pastries doesn't sell, even if the peopple are sitting in the same city that some claim is without water, power, sewer service, and is a mound of rubble.

In this case, the divide sells because it shows an economic disparity, former ethnic disagreements, and how now everybody's pulling together in such a way as to make Israel more hated. That's the story they want to present. Falsifying what people have gotten from numerous other stories is incidental.

[K8-EEE]

5. Oh, Wow, You Mean It's Not 100% Destroyed?

They left some of it standing? Wow that's nice of them :sarcasm:

[Igel]

11. There was an attack in a Christian part of Beirut.

They hit a truck. It's one of the few attacks in the Christian sectors. They've either clearly at installations, such as runways (with few permanent inhabitants) or fuel depots. The latter can be nasty, but seldom have people living within a hundred or two hundred meters of them.

The number of strikes in the Sunni/Druse sections have also been restricted.

Most of the north and east of the country, the non-Shi'ite areas, are minimally affected.

The pattern of damage is really quite clear. The devastation is bad, and the civilian casualties are bad. But not all of the country is like that--in fact, it's obvious this is the case. And yet Siniora has to say that the country's entirely destroyed, and people have to pretend to believe him because he's a politician. He's probably saying that from his office in downtown Beirut, mostly untouched, before he drops off some suits to be cleaned, picks up some takeaway food, and goes home to watch the war on tv.

[jonnyblitz]

6. I am sure the New York TImes is not biased towards Israel

or anything. :sarcasm:

[Lurking Dem]

7. What are you insinuating?

[jonnyblitz]

8. what are YOU insinuating?

snicker.

[Lurking Dem]

9. I asked first.

[Igel]

12. It's possible to be biased towards

Israel--I'm not sure the NYT is on all points, though--and still report what's actually happening on the ground.

Knowing the bias lets you know to be suspicious; it doesn't provide grounds for dismissal of the claims.

Take this article in conjunction with the vast majority of the reporting. It means that when you read reports about Beirut saying "Shi'ite suburbs" and "southern suburbs", the reports mean precisely what they say. Reuters, AFP, and all the rest are accurate; the generalization that many take away from their reporting is false. When you see lots of footage of destruction, all it means is that lots of footage of destruction was filmed, and is deemed airworthy. The rest of the city is certainly affected, but not rubble. "Rebuilding" those parts is unnecessary, although certainly there were some targets in non-Shi'ite areas.

[xchrom]

10. the u.s. has certainly created more enemies for itself.

condi's lame diplomacy only underscores our reluctance to engage in the middle east -- with bushco driving the bus.