THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006


Over at Webdiary I note that the liar and deceiver Will Howard is trying to deny that Israeli Zionofascist troops in the Gaza, West Bank and other occupied territories have targeted children.[1]

There is abundant evidence available that shows that children have been targeted both indiscriminately and deliberately by Israeli terrorists operating in the various occupied territories for years.[2] Some have even been shot in the head by Israeli terrorist snipers – you can’t get any more deliberate than that.

Will Howard is a liar and deceiver; always has been and always will be. Judging from the email I get, most people at Webdiary and elsewhere on the net are now fully aware of this disgusting person’s lies and deceits in his efforts to deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible of Israeli atrocities and war crimes.

[1] Will Howard, ‘Fact Checking’, Comment at Webdiary, 29 November 2006. Available online: Accessed 29 November 2006.
[2] For just a few documented incidents see the following:


Anonymous said...

Damian, the word Will used was not "children" (which one presumes could include anyone not an adult, that is, under 18 years) but "toddler". *

Toddler implies a very young child. Wikipedia, for example, suggests a toddler is a child between the ages of one and three. Various dictionaries define it as a child between the age of one and "about three".

I submit that "children" and "toddler" have very different meanings. The Victorian Children's Court, for example, would not even conisder a toddler a 'child' under its jurisdiction, dealing as it does with persons aged 10 to 17 at the time of the crime. [Source: The VCC Website].

Essentially, a toddler may be a child but not all children are toddlers.

The post you link to on Webdiary specifically refers to "toddlers" - twice, in fact. It does not mention the word "child" or "children" and by using this word in the place of the one Will has employed you are changing the nature of his comment. No one can stop you arguing against him but you should reproduce what he said faithfully before you criticise it, IMHO.

Your post also links to a site that documents various sources pointing to children and, yes, some toddlers who have been killed by Israeli actions. There is a difference, though, between killing a toddler and targetting a toddler.

If, for example, a soldier is shooting at a terrorist and hits a toddler in error, it is obvious the toddler was not targetted. If the soldier was aware the toddler was in the same house when he fired and could be injured or killed by his shot yet he still aims for the terrorist inside, it is also obvious that the toddler is not being targetted.

Indeed, I think the only case where it can be argued that a toddler was targetted is where it is clear that the intent of the soldier is to injure or kill the toddler. In this case - and even if the soldier misses his target and the toddler is unhurt - you could say that the toddler has been "targetted".

Targetting is a deliberate act by a person. Injuring or killing a toddler in error or as part of an attempt to injure or kill another non-toddler is not, IMHO, enough to suggest that a toddler has been targetted. That they were injured or killed is a tragedy but it does not prove intent.

I don't have the time (sadly) to sift through all the links on the page you linked to. It would be silly of me to deny that a toddler has ever been targetted by a soldier as it surely falls within the range of the possible. But it would be equally silly to assert that it is a reality without evidence that this was the case.

Finally, lest I be accused of taking a side on the issue, I hope you can see that I have commented only on:

(a) your reproduction of Will's comment and the change from the word "toddler" to "children" which, for me, changes the effect of his claim;

(b) the implications of the word "targetted" as opposed to other words like killed, accidently shot or 'collateral damage' which might be employed to give context to the death of a person in a war zone.

I know you hate to answer questions people put in comments, but perhaps I can ask these two questions:

1/ Do you see any difference in using the word toddler and using the word children - that is, are they synonomous to you?

2/ Can you provide a specific link to an event where a toddler was deliberately and specifically targetted by the Israelis?

I reckon the second one is a long shot to be answered but I can only try, right? :)

Damian Lataan said...

I wonder how many people are interested in this kind of distractive and pedantic garbage. Whether or not I find the words ‘toddler’ and ‘children’ synonymous is not in the least bit important. I should imagine that the parents of these children, regardless of their age, wouldn’t have the slightest interest in any of it.

The fact is IDF terrorists in the occupied territories have deliberately targeted and opened fire upon civilians of all ages including ‘toddlers’ and ‘children’. If the IDF terrorists were not on lands that did not belong to them in the first place then perhaps neither ‘toddlers’ nor ‘children’ would be killed.

Will Howard, regardless of your futile attempt to defend him, remains an appalling liar and a deceiver.

Other readers may like to check out for themselves the documented evidence of indiscriminate violence committed by IDF terrorists against children and innocent civilians here:

Damian Lataan said...

With some of the pictures shown at this site (which I warn are very graphic) it is very difficult to determine whether they are ‘toddlers’ or ‘children’. Some may have just passed their third birthday – but who knows, except their parents.