Skip to main content
Makes you want to weep, but not for the "reasons" they give:



Guardian Unlimited | World dispatch | Battle for truth in Jenin



Professor Derrick Pounder, a forensic pathologist at Dundee University, visited Jenin hospital on behalf of Amnesty to examine some of the bodies that had been recovered. But what surprised him most was the absence of severely injured patients, since the hospital is less than a kilometre from the camp.



"In a conflict of this type in a densely populated are, where the Israeli army lost a substantial number of men, it is inconceivable that there were not also large numbers of severely injured," he said.



Normally, he would have expected to find three people severely injured for every one killed. Even if one accepts the Israeli claim that "only" 40 Palestinians died, there ought to be another 120 lying badly wounded, in hospital. But they are nowhere to be found.



"We draw the conclusion that they were allowed to die where they were," Professor Pounder said. Turning to the Israeli claim that all those killed were "terrorists", he said that the 21 bodies recovered at the time of his visit were a mixture of Palestinian civilians and fighters. They included three women.
I remember the quiet horror from 9/11, when everyone began to realize that there weren't going to be "thousands" of wounded flooding the hospitals. The ratio of dead to injured was slewed completed toward the dead.



The good professor also discounts disciplined troops exercising fire control. Obviously he believes that all soldiers engage in "spray and pray." Maybe he didn't notice the change when the US Army took the full-auto setting off the M-16. And doesn't Israel buy US-made weapons? I'm pretty sure I've heard some bitching and moaning about that....



Last, how does one tell a terrorist body from a civilian body, and what's the difference if it's a woman? I seem to recall several female suicide-homicide bombers as of late. Does he assume that a fighter will always have a gun in his cold, dead hand? I guess no one is supposed to pick up the weapons of the fallen.



I find myself exceedingly happy that "Professor" Pounder teaches elsewhere, though I'm afraid his standards of "evidence" are finding wide acceptance.



Everywhere but in a courtroom, that is.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 comment
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more