# Gaza attacks.



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

What are all your opinions on the subject of Israel's attack on Palestinians?

I shall give mine later.


----------



## phoenixshade (Dec 9, 2008)

Speaking of a can of worms!!!

My opinion is that there is NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER for the level of the response on Israel's part. I'm sorry, but when the casualty ratios are approaching 100:1, there's only one side that can rightly be called "terrorists."

Oh, and while we're on the subject- since UN Resolution violations were the supposed reason for my country's invasion of Iraq, I'm wondering when we will likewise proceed to remedy Israel's violation (36 years running) of *UN Security Council Resolution 242*. The semantic dispute over the lack of the definite article "the" in Operative Clause 1 (which calls for "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict," i.e. the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) reminds me a bit of a former president's confusion over the definition of the word "is."

... I can smell the flames already ...


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

You'll almost certainly be called an anti-semite by someone. From my experience with this subject, you cannot criticize the _government_ of Israel and it's actions without being accused of a racial slur.

To be fair, you are 'anti-American' if you criticize them either. Same with Australia, though I haven't seen it with the UK.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> To be fair, you are 'anti-American' if you criticize them either.


Or a communist. Or a traitor if you happen to be American yourself.

As for Israel vs the Palestinians - I can't imagine that Israel would bomb the living daylights out of it's own citizens if there happened to be some terrorists among them. You shouldn't kill hundreds of people in the hope that the few that you are after will be among the victims. Unless you think that the life of a Palestinian is less valuable than that of an Israeli of course.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Unless you think that the life of a Palestinian is less valuable than that of an Israeli of course.


Which, without any doubt, some Israeli's believe.



> Israel would bomb the living daylights out of it's own citizens if there happened to be some terrorists among them.


When did this happen? :S I missed that.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

i heard that hamas had fired 6000 rockets into israel during a truce and the israelies decided to retaliate.
?
i never am sure whom to believe over in the middle east.


----------



## Atabey (Oct 8, 2008)

david johnson said:


> i heard that hamas had fired 6000 rockets into israel during a truce and the israelies decided to retaliate.
> ?
> i never am sure whom to believe over in the middle east.


Only one man from Israel died in truce out of an Hamas attack.That is why people are talking about a loss ratio of a 300:1.I find the second part of your post to be quite accurate.

There is a huge massacre going on.It is getting closer and closer to become a genocide. EU must intervene if the U.S.A. and thus UN decides to remain silent.

On a little side note:although common people like us have every right to complain about Israel's massacre of civilians in the name of humanity,i think radical Islamic groups like Hamas,Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda do not.They are masters of killing civilians for their causes.When was the last time one of those attacked a military target?


----------



## Atabey (Oct 8, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> Which, without any doubt, some Israeli's believe.


Some?...Any Israeli who call himself or herself a devout practitioner of Judaism is bound to believe it.Tanakh descirbes them as "Chosen people".I do not see any thought of equality among "Chosen people" and the others,in this phrase..


----------



## phoenixshade (Dec 9, 2008)

david johnson said:


> i heard that hamas had fired 6000 rockets into israel during a truce and the israelies decided to retaliate.


One has to wonder where the American media gets these numbers. Whether they are exaggerated or not, however, there is no denying how few people were killed by these rockets, as opposed to how many were killed by Israeli military operations.



> i never am sure whom to believe over in the middle east.


When in doubt, look to the international press. *Le Monde* is good if you read French. (You could try the Google "translate this page" feature, but the rendition into English is often poor, and sometimes gets the whole sense of a sentence, paragraph, or entire article very wrong.) Hell, even the *BBC* is more unbiased than American sources when it comes to reporting on Israel/Palestine. For the take of the Arabic world, there's also an English language version of *Al Jazeera*, who got quite a bit of bad press in America, but compare their coverage of international events to American, European and Asian sources of the same and see whose news is the most biased.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> i heard that hamas had fired 6000 rockets into israel during a truce and the israelies decided to retaliate.


23 Israelis have dies from Hamas rocketfire since 2001. Over 5000 Palestinians have died in the same time frame.



> U.S.A.


If course the US will remain silent, in August 2007 they agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding with Israel pledging another US30 billion in financial aid.

The US has and Israel has claimed, a decade ago, that they are cutting down econimic aid to Israel (and aid, by which US does not minotor how Israel spends the money, i.e. military). While this is true, there has also been a dramatic increase in military (financial still) aid. US$27 billion last decade and another US$30 next decade.



> radical Islamic groups like Hamas,Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda do not.


You have to remember, palestine has no access to _any_ form of 'high-tech' equipment. Gaza is a prison, and they ellected the only government that could possibly do anything. If they elected a government that only talked with Israel, the result would be Israeli bombardment until Israel gets what it wants. I do not advocate killing of any life (military or not), but it isn't an equal playing field, and thus they can;t be judged equally. Plus, every Israeli is military or ex-military. 



> Some?...Any Israeli who call himself or herself a devout practitioner of Judaism is bound to believe it.Tanakh descirbes them as "Chosen people".I do not see any thought of equality among "Chosen people" and the others,in this phrase..


Okay most.  But if you watch some documentaries, there are a lot of Israelis who condemn their government. Plus, Israel is a very secular state.



> When in doubt, look to the international press.


Australian press is often... worse than the US. On foriegn matters, I find Chinese newpapers quite unbiased.

I know this isn't really OT, but I'd like to also point out that Ahmadinejad never called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map' (which suggests destruction and violance), that English idiom simply doesn't exist in Persion. He called for the illigitimate state of israel to be disbanded. While I sympathise that Israel is illigitimate, to disband the Israelis that grew up there is also unfair. The situation is... ridiculously confusing. Currently it's grossly unfair on Palestine, but if you do anything to fix it, many Israelis are unfair.


----------



## Lang (Sep 30, 2008)

I have found this http://electronicintifada.net/ to be a good site putting the Palestinian point of view.


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

flamable discussion.

well.. this is a topic that never dies, and will never go away I expect. It really is the direct and unsurprising result of the League of Nations chopping up the area - combined with tribalistic attitudes and religious zealots on both sides. There is *plenty* of blame to go around. The Palestinians are moronic and aggressive terrorists and the Israelis are heavy handed self-important goons. Settlements. Bombings. Slurs and conflict that is never ending.

In this case - it seems to me that the Palestinians have earned the current situation. They have launched a fairly steady rain of rockets for months - and are now crying 'foul' at the significant response. The annoying Palestinian activity is unsurprising. The Israeli response is unsurprising. The entire situation is unsurprising. This has been going on for far longer than the 40+ years I have watched it... and when land-grabbing and religion are involved, everyone can look forward to another few hundred years of never ending conflict. Putting up a 100 meter tall wall with an alligator filled moat on both sides between the two would make little difference. 

I think the Israelis should really give up the gaza strip and the Palestinians should put their peckers back in their pockets. The positions assumed on both sides often strike me as childish and petty.. other than that, I have no opinion on the matter. I wish they would come to resolution, but I have just about lost all hope that will ever happen. Craziness.


----------



## phoenixshade (Dec 9, 2008)

Speaking of unbiased press, there's this little tidbit...

The ABC (American Broacasting Company, a.k.a. Disney) News program Good Morning America this morning, in their coverage of the situation in the Gaza Strip, chose to show footage of an EMPTY high school classroom that had apparently had ONE WALL damaged by a rocket fired from Gaza.

Yet, just a few days ago, that same network chose to scarcely mention the bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza, and when they did so, there were no accompanying images and the building was qualified as a "Hamas target."

With "fair and balanced" reporting like this, who needs Fox??


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

The entire position that rocket attacks are generating an 'unbalanced' response is seriously flawed I think. This or that rocket only did minor damage... what of it? Oh.. here comes another rocket, but it did not kill very many, or perhaps anyone - so it is somehow ok? Rocket attacks into foreign territory, it seems to me - deserve whatever response the defender feels inclined to make. The palestinians fire away here and there and then jump up and down - wildly flailing their arms at how they are abused and misunderstood victims of an unjustified response. Seriously now.

of course the rockets are in retaliation of isaelis killing some palestinians... which is a response to something else hamas did... which was caused by the yet something else a couple years ago... caused by someone stealing figs or pitching a tent on land they did not own, etc etc.. ad nauseum.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> The Palestinians are moronic and aggressive terrorists and the Israelis are heavy handed self-important goons.


I find it hard to believe that 23 deaths from unguided rocket attacks is aggressive. I find 5000 deaths and 390 deaths in 4 days in retaliation for 1 death to be very aggressive and also likened to terrorist activities.



> They have launched a fairly steady rain of rockets for months - and are now crying 'foul' at the significant response.


Which resulted in only 1 death.



> of course the rockets are in retaliation of isaelis killing some palestinians... which is a response to something else hamas did... which was caused by the yet something else a couple years ago... caused by someone stealing figs or pitching a tent on land they did not own, etc etc.. ad nauseum.


Actually it all stems from Britain and the UN installing an illegitimate state on top of current Arab homes and land.



> Putting up a 100 meter tall wall with an alligator filled moat on both sides between the two would make little difference.


You realise that Israel has put up a wall to imprison Palistine and greatly restrict the country. This wall isn't a wall that merely devides gaza and the rest of Israel (for example) it weaves in and out of various Palestinian towns to divide them from each other.



> The positions assumed on both sides often strike me as childish and petty


So if you were imprisoned in your town, medical supplies were denied, food is denied, aide is denied, (sometimes your home is destroyed), you are rarely allowed out and certainly not allowed back in, 80% of the population is in deep poverty, peaceful protests are attacks by the IDF, freedom of movement is completely restricted, how would you react?

Palestine isn't reacting to a killing, they are reacting to imprisonment in their own country by an illegitimate state forced upon them. They are forced to recognize a state that stole their land and imprisons them.



> Rocket attacks into foreign territory, it seems to me - deserve whatever response the defender feels inclined to make.


This would be a valid claim if it were not for the fact that Israel is the aggressor _not_ the defender.



> The palestinians fire away here and there and then jump up and down - wildly flailing their arms at how they are abused and misunderstood victims of an unjustified response. Seriously now.


This is a very poor representation of the situation, Palestine is oppressed by human rights abuse after another; war crimes after another, yet if they do anything (23 deaths) they are 'wildly flailing their arms at how they are abused and misunderstood victims of an unjustified response'.



> pitching a tent on land


This over simplification of a situation only aims to defuse a valid argument with a fallacy. Britain gave 50% of Palestinian owned land to the Jews (later to become Israelis), the Palestinians didn't get to sell them that 50%, it was taken off them (only 3% of land was sold to the soon-to-be Israelis) - all with the help of the UN which later discredited their original position. The General Assembly, under UN charter does not even have the power to create a state, yet here we are.


----------



## phoenixshade (Dec 9, 2008)

SPR said:


> Rocket attacks into foreign territory, it seems to me - deserve whatever response the defender feels inclined to make.


Including killing 400 men, women, and children who had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with said rocket attacks, apparently.

Let's follow your reasoning down another hypothetical path. If an Iraqi citizen is upset that the United States unilaterally invaded his country and destroyed their infrastructure, it is perfectly OK if that Iraqi feels "inclined" to mail bombs at random to US citizens in America, perhaps to you or your children. In fact, revenge should be the whole of the law. Right?


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> I find it hard to believe that 23 deaths from unguided rocket attacks is aggressive.


Well there it is in a nutshell - and is a position I never understood. You may disagree if it was your neighborhood. I know I would.

regardless - it is nearly pointless to hash out all of this. It will change nothing. I am starting to suspect that both sides wouldnt know what to do with peace even if they were given a detailed map on how to achieve it.

back to music for me... enjoy your discussion friends...


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Well there it is in a nutshell - and is a position I never understood.


So you think that 23 deaths is 7 years is aggressive? Find me a nation that has killed less and is kept prisoner in there own home. That isn't it in a nutshell - at all. Which proves that you are deliberately, and completely ignoring the principal part of my argument.

Let's minimise the situation, if you were kidnapped and tortured endlessly, would you find it immoral to kill your capter if it was your only visible way out?

To say that 23 deaths is a nutshell is dishonest. Surely you understand that that was over 7 years (which is muhc less than anything Israel, the US, Australia, Canada, and Britain have done) is not as aggressive as Israel's 5000 in the same period. How is 5000 deaths defending yourself from 23 deaths?



> You may disagree if it was your neighborhood. I know I would.


So if you were Palestine what would you do?

You have ignored the bulk of what everyone has said and you are deliberately avoiding the issue and taking one tiny fragment of the larger picture out of context to make it look silly. That is a fallacy.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

phoenixshade said:


> One has to wonder where the American media gets these numbers. Whether they are exaggerated or not, however, there is no denying how few people were killed by these rockets, as opposed to how many were killed by Israeli military operations.
> 
> When in doubt, look to the international press. *Le Monde* is good if you read French. (You could try the Google "translate this page" feature, but the rendition into English is often poor, and sometimes gets the whole sense of a sentence, paragraph, or entire article very wrong.) Hell, even the *BBC* is more unbiased than American sources when it comes to reporting on Israel/Palestine. For the take of the Arabic world, there's also an English language version of *Al Jazeera*, who got quite a bit of bad press in America, but compare their coverage of international events to American, European and Asian sources of the same and see whose news is the most biased.


i do read french. i distrust the publications you mention to be less biased than what i can already find.

dj


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

'So you think that 23 deaths is 7 years is aggressive?'

depends upon their cause. these were from rocket attacks. is launching several rocket attacks an aggressive behavior?
that's probably the real question.

dj


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> depends upon their cause. these were from rocket attacks. is launching several rocket attacks an aggressive behavior?


Well, if you take that question on it's own without the context yes.

If Australia launched rockets into New Zealand tomorrow, it would be ridiculously aggressive. For a people to defend themselves in war, the only way they can...less so.

How about we provide Hamas with state-of-the-are weapons and machinery, that way they won't have to resort to the crude weapons that they have that could endanger civilians. Oh wait, Israel uses these guided missiles but still manages to kill hundreds of civilians.

I am not condoning violence of any sort, but what else can Palestine do, they are painted into a prison torture by vicious dogs.

Munich:



> Ali: Eventually the Arab States will rise against Israel. They don't like Palestinians, but they hate the Jews more. It won't be like 1967, the rest of the world we see by then what the Israelis do to us. They won't help when Egypt and syria attack, even Jordan. Israel will cease to exist.
> ...
> What?
> ...
> ...


Noam Chomsky:


> _[Q: do you think the Palestinian suicide bombers are freedom fighters or terrorists?]_ They're terrorists - they're both, actually. They're trying to fight for freedom, but doing it in a totally unacceptable immoral way. Of course they're terrorists. And there's been Palestinian terrorism all the way through. I have always opposed it, I oppose it now. But it's very small as compared with the US-backed Israeli terrorism. Quite typically, violence reflects the means of violence. It's not unusual. State terror is almost always much more extreme than retail terror, and this is no exception.





> [Israel's military occupation is] in gross violation of international law and has been from the outset. And that much, at least, is fully recognized, even by the United States, which has overwhelming and, as I said, unilateral responsibility for these crimes. So George Bush No. 1, when he was the U.N. ambassador, back in 1971, he officially reiterated Washington's condemnation of Israel's actions in the occupied territories. He happened to be referring specifically to occupied Jerusalem. In his words, actions in violation of the provisions of international law governing the obligations of an occupying power, namely Israel. He criticized Israel's failure "to acknowledge its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as its actions which are contrary to the letter and spirit of this Convention." [...] However, by that time, late 1971, a divergence was developing, between official policy and practice. The fact of the matter is that by then, by late 1971, the United States was already providing the means to implement the violations that Ambassador Bush deplored. [...] on December 5th [2001], there had been an important international conference, called in Switzerland, on the 4th Geneva Convention. Switzerland is the state that's responsible for monitoring and controlling the implementation of them. The European Union all attended, even Britain, which is virtually a U.S. attack dog these days. They attended. A hundred and fourteen countries all together, the parties to the Geneva Convention. They had an official declaration, which condemned the settlements in the occupied territories as illegal, urged Israel to end its breaches of the Geneva Convention, some "grave breaches," including willful killing, torture, unlawful deportation, unlawful depriving of the rights of fair and regular trial, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. Grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, that's a serious term, that means serious war crimes. The United States is one of the high contracting parties to the Geneva Convention, therefore it is obligated, by its domestic law and highest commitments, to prosecute the perpetrators of grave breaches of the conventions. That includes its own leaders. Until the United States prosecutes its own leaders, it is guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, that means war crimes. And it's worth remembering the context. It is not any old convention. These are the conventions established to criminalize the practices of the Nazis, right after the Second World War. What was the U.S. reaction to the meeting in Geneva? The U.S. boycotted the meeting [..] and that has the usual consequence, it means the meeting is null and void, silence in the media.





> Before there were any suicide bombers, it was also reported by the same sources that Saddam Hussein was giving $10,000 to the families of anyone who was killed by Israeli atrocities, and there were plenty of them. Well, should he've been doing that? So let's take the first month of the current intifada. I'm just relying now on IDF sources. What they say is, that in the first few days of the intifada, the Israeli army fired a million bullets. One of the high military officers said 'that means one bullet for every child'. Within the first month of the intifada, they killed about 70 people. Using U.S. helicopters, and in fact Clinton shipped new helicopters to Israel as soon as they started using them against civilians. That's just the first month. And it goes on, no suicide bombers. At the time, it was reported that Saddam Hussein was giving $10,000 to every family. Well, is that supporting terror? It seems to me, sending helicopters to Israel when they're using them to attack apartment complexes, that's supporting terror.





> The US and Israel have demanded further that Palestinians not only recognize Israel's rights as a state in the international system, but that they also recognize Israel's abstract "right to exist," a concept that has no place in international law or diplomacy, and a right claimed by no one. In effect, the US and Israel are demanding that Palestinians not only recognize Israel in the normal fashion of interstate relations, but also formally accept the legitimacy of their expulsion from their own land. They cannot be expected to accept that, just as Mexico does not grant the US the "right to exist" on half of Mexico's territory, gained by conquest.





> The whole question of recognizing the right of a state to exist was invented solely for Israel. People, on the other hand, have a right to exist. So the people who live on the land - Israelis and Palestinians - have a right to live in security and peace.





> Personally I'm very much opposed to Hamas' policies in almost every respect. However, we should recognize that the policies of Hamas are more forthcoming and more conducive to a peaceful settlement than those of the United States or Israel... So, for example, Hamas has called for a long-term indefinite truce on the international border. There is a long-standing international consensus that goes back over thirty years that there should be a two-state political settlement on the international border, the pre-June 1967 border, with minor and mutual modifications. That's the official phrase. Hamas is willing to accept that as a long-term truce. The United States and Israel are unwilling even to consider it... The demand on Hamas by the United States and the European Union and Israel [...] is first that they recognize the State of Israel. Actually, that they recognize its right to exist. Well, Israel and the U.S. certainly don't recognize the right of Palestine to exist, nor recognize any state of Palestine. In fact, they have been acting consistently to undermine any such possibility. The second condition is that Hamas must renounce violence. Israel and the United States certainly do not renounce violence. The third condition is that Hamas accept international agreements. The United States and Israel reject international agreements. So, though the policies of Hamas are, again in my view, unacceptable, they happen to be closer to the international consensus on a political peaceful settlement than those of their antagonists, and it's a reflection of the power of the imperial states - the United States and Europe - that they are able to shift the framework, so that the problem appears to be Hamas' policies, and not the more extreme policies of the United States and Israel... And we must remember that in their case it's not just policies. It's not words - it's actions.





> Virtually all informed observers agree that a fair and equitable resolution of the plight of the Palestinians would considerably weaken the anger and hatred of Israel and the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds - and far beyond, as international polls reveal. Such an agreement is surely within reach, if the US and Israel depart from their long-standing rejectionism.





> The Report calls for direct talks for Palestinians who "accept Israel's right to exist" (an absurd demand) but does not restrict Israelis to those who accept the right of a Palestinian state to exist, which would, for example, exclude Israel's Prime Minister Olmert, who received a rousing ovation in Congress when he declared that Israel's historic right to the land from Jordan to the sea is beyond question.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

'I am not condoning violence of any sort, but what else can Palestine do, they are painted into a prison torture by vicious dogs.'

i wonder if the ghandi method would work?


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

How would creating civil unrest amongst your own people, striking in a place with an average of 26% unemployment (Gaza up to 45%) and when Israel does not actually require you to work at all. It wouldn't effect the situation for the positive at all, on the contrary it would make it easier for Israel to eradicate Palestine completely.


----------



## phoenixshade (Dec 9, 2008)

david johnson said:


> i distrust the publications you mention to be less biased than what i can already find.


Please, enlighten me... what sources would these be? And what is the basis of your "distrust" of the ones I suggested?

I have the sneaking suspicion that it has more to do with how much they support or oppose your preferred political stance than with accurate portrayal of reality...



david johnson said:


> i wonder if the ghandi method would work?


As one who has taken up a more than casual interest in history in general and British history in particular, I can categorically answer that question:

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

Ghandi's method worked in India for a number of reasons, not the least being that he came at the _end_ of a *long process* (over a century) moving India towards self-government- a process that, I must add, was not always non-violent. Look up the *Sepoy Mutiny*, for example.

British subjects on the whole no longer had any interest in maintaining an empire. Two world wars had brought an end to Britain's domination of the seas. Plus, for reasons I won't go into here, India was becoming an economic liability. Not to mention the increasing tensions between Muslems and Hindus.

And another big difference: during the Victorian era, Britons felt a well-intended (if arrogant and condescending) moral obligation towards the "inferior races" to bring to them the benefits of civilization, a theme exemplified for example in Rudyard Kipling's poem "*The White Man's Burden*." They didn't want to eradicate their imperial subjects, but to "improve" them.

None of these prerequisite factors are in place in the Palestine/Israel conflict.

It's easy for someone who takes for granted a peaceful Western existence - whose only reference point on oppression is limited to having to wait in line at the bank or not having enough choices in subscription television services - to play at armchair diplomacy and to provide seemingly simple "solutions" to problems far removed. It's much harder to question a status quo that you've been trained from a young age to accept as "benevolent."

Not that a 5-minute video can be called an "education," but if you want to get some idea of what life in Gaza is like, *try here*. If you don't look at a single other link that I provided above, at least watch this one. I promise there are no dead bodies here (although you should see those too, if only to counter the endless stream of propaganda flowing over your television)... just interviews with people- many of them children- who have to live this reality.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

phoenixshade said:


> ...you should see those too, if only to counter the endless stream of propaganda flowing over your television)...


When we talk of 'propaganda flowing over your television' (presumably, as opposed to _'my'_ television), we have crossed the line between issue-based discourse and _getting personal_, which might a standard ploy in many forums, but it happens to be a Terms of Service violation _here_. I, of course, expected such an outcome once this radioactive topic was opened for discussion.

I almost hesitate to contribute to this particular discussion- but I'll make a point (very brief, I promise) and step quietly away.

*When the streets of Gaza were the scene of rifle-discharging, flag-waving, cheering celebrations for the carnage of 9-11, it kind of screwed the pooch for my future ability to sustain sympathy for the plight of the denizens of that domain.* That is all.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> When the streets of Gaza were the scene of rifle-discharging, flag-waving, cheering celebrations for the carnage of 9-11, it kind of screwed the pooch for my future ability to sustain sympathy for the plight of the denizens of that domain. That is all.


So you have numbers on how many there were? Or are the number much like the amount of people that were at the topling of Hussein's statue? You have to remember, the US (and expecially the twin towers) are representative of the oppression they are under. 9/11 is no worse than anything the US has done...

Also, so you think that 5000 people deserve to die you had nothing-what-so-ever to do with 9/11? What about the 1-2 million who have died in Iraq? Did they deserve to die because people of similar coloured skin toppled the twin towers?




> When we talk of 'propaganda flowing over your television' (presumably, as opposed to _'my'_ television), we have crossed the line between issue-based discourse and _getting personal_, which might a standard ploy in many forums, but it happens to be a Terms of Service violation _here_. I, of course, expected such an outcome once this radioactive topic was opened for discussion.


Now. This. Is. Laughable.

My television is a piece of technology, it broadcasts the same television my neighbour receives. It isn't made by me, it isn't human, and I don't control what is on it. Unless your television is a body part or an idea of your own, we are not getting personal. Please stop getting on your 12 foot high horse. It is based on the obvious assumption (that end up being true) that you watch media from your television that is broadcast to all homes nearby (and sometimes across the US), it is by no means personal to you. If you think it is, sue ABC (et al) for privacy invasion.

Now, since your television picks up the same broadcast that phoenixshade's television picks up, your television picks up the same propaganda that his does.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Yagan Kiely said:


> My television is a piece of technology, it broadcasts [sic] the same television my neighbour receives. It isn't made by me, it isn't human, and *I don't control what is on it.* [emphasis mine]


_____________Oh, NO!_____________

May I get you a remote control with channel-skewing capabilities as a holiday gift?!


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Why are you deliberately trying to misinterpretation what I say? Is it feel good to pretend as if you won a point or something?

In case you... somehow.... didn't understand, you do not control what is broadcast to you, you only control which logo is accompanying the propaganda.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Yagan Kiely said:


> Why are you deliberately trying to misinterpretation [sic] what I say?


Well, there _were_ a couple of underlying points, but (for the sake of brevity) the key one is this--

There's a difference between _declaring_ that a statement is risible and *demonstrating* that a statement is risible.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

Please, enlighten me... what sources would these be? And what is the basis of your "distrust" of the ones I suggested?

you don't know what you mentioned yourself?

I have the sneaking suspicion that it has more to do with how much they support or oppose your preferred political stance than with accurate portrayal of reality...

your suspicions may sneak all they wish. all news appears to be slanted...believe the facts, not the comments or even the editing.

dj


----------



## phoenixshade (Dec 9, 2008)

*Propaganda on your television*



Chi_town/Philly said:


> When we talk of 'propaganda flowing over your television' (presumably, as opposed to _'my'_ television), we have crossed the line between issue-based discourse and _getting personal_, which might a standard ploy in many forums, but it happens to be a Terms of Service violation _here_.


*sigh* Nice of you to ignore the vast body of my post and to focus on a single PARENTHETICAL phrase (it was LITERALLY in parentheses) to accuse me of "getting personal." Wow, what a stretch! Fine, let's substitute the word "American" for the word "your" in that phrase. All better now? Although, I must point out that if one chooses to watch Fox News, the word "your" is completely appropriate, and is not so much an attack on that person as on his or her choice of media outlet.



> When the streets of Gaza were the scene of rifle-discharging, flag-waving, cheering celebrations for the carnage of 9-11, it kind of screwed the pooch for my future ability to sustain sympathy for the plight of the denizens of that domain.


First and foremost, the Palestinian National Authority immediately issued a statement condemning the attacks of 9/11. Furthermore, a German public broadcasting news source reported that the shots were manipulated, and that people seen in the footage (mostly children) were offered cake in return for their participation, based on interviews with several people who took part, and whom she named in her article.

So your statement is essentially saying is that when you watched the "propaganda streaming over *your* television," it convinced you. Thank you for illustrating my point so succinctly; I doubt I could have contrived a better example.


----------



## phoenixshade (Dec 9, 2008)

david johnson said:


> you don't know what you mentioned yourself?


Oh, come now, David... you know fully well when I asked which sources those would be, I was referring to the "trustworthy" ones that "you can find yourself."



> all news appears to be slanted...believe the facts, not the comments or even the editing.


I agree wholeheartedly. Now if you would, kindly tell me where I can get those facts _without_ any comments or editing. I presume that would be from the "trustworthy" sources that, when I earlier asked the same question, you dodged giving a straight answer.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

It is interesting that the whole world condemns these attacks except for the USA who just happen to be Isreal's main arms contractor....


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Well, and Australia. But we are America's b***h.



> Isreal's main arms contractor....


America also allows an extraordinary amount of the money it gives Israel (30 billion next decade), to be spent on Israeli made weapons on top of US weapons.



> Furthermore, a German public broadcasting news source reported that the shots were manipulated, and that people seen in the footage (mostly children) were offered cake in return for their participation, based on interviews with several people who took part, and whom she named in her article.


Would it be possible to dig that article up for me!?


----------



## phoenixshade (Dec 9, 2008)

*Palestinian Celebrations of 9/11? I Think Not!*



Yagan Kiely said:


> Would it be possible to dig that article up for me!?


Certainly!

Unfortunately, the original article, written by Annette Krüger-Spitta for ARD's magazine _Panorama_ on September 20, 2001, seems to be no longer archived on their website. However, it is referenced in an article written the following day for *SpiegelOnline* (in German), a respected news weekly.

_EDIT - The *original German *_*Panorama article*_ (Google translation) is indeed still archived. Skip to the last few paragraphs (starting with _Bei genauer Betrachtung des vollständigen..._) for the reports of staged footage._

Krüger-Spitta also had access to the full footage Reuters and the AP. She noted that inspection of the untelevised portion showed quiet streets around the celebration, and an unidentified man in a white T-shirt inciting the children and fetching new people repeatedly. The woman who is prominently featured for her cheering (Nowel Abdel Fatah) stated afterwards that she was offered cake if she celebrated on camera, and that she was frightened when she saw the pictures on television used in the context of the attacks.

Palestinian and Arabic news media were quick to denounce the chiefly American coverage, and noted that the few celebrations that did occur were sporadic outbursts of small groups that were not representative of the general public opinion. Many Palestinians openly condemned the attacks, but for some strange reason, none of this footage ever made it to American television.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

phoenixshade said:


> Fine, let's substitute the word "American" for the word "your" in that phrase. All better now?


Yeah... it would be... except for the fact that I've also read statements like "if _you_ want to get an idea" (the implication is we don't already have one*) and "_you_ should see this link" (the italics, of course, are mine), and they make me believe that I didn't really mischaracterize the apparent prevailing attitude, after all.

However, if we assert that American News outlets present some manner of monochrome pro-Israeli propaganda, and we can instead count on Al-Jazeera as a source of objective information on such issues, then that is revelatory in a manner that requires no further comment from me (except, of course, to perhaps provide occasion for one last quip... has Al-Jiz had any _really good_ features on the 'Blood Libel' and 'The Protocols of the Learnèd Elders of Zion' lately??)

My occasionally puckish sense of humor has allowed me to cope with this incendiary thread thus far. However, I think I'll step away from the muck now. Even if I force a submission, the time that I'll have to spend cleaning up afterwards just- isn't- worth- it.

*of course, you can reply that you believe that your information outlet choices have helped lead you to the correct conclusions on these matters. Well, regardless of whether or not you believe truth is on your side in this case, it still seems overweeningly condescending, all the same.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

"Yeah... it would be... except for the fact that I've also read statements like "if you want to get an idea" (the implication is we don't already have one*) and "you should see this link" (the italics, of course, are mine), and they make me believe that I didn't really mischaracterize the apparent prevailing attitude, after all." This is getting ridiculous. And sad. How much more pointless and misguided diversions do you* want to give us? Try actually arguing against the content rather than the single word 'you'.



> My occasionally puckish sense of humor has allowed me to cope with this incendiary thread thus far.


Currently, your entire argument is that the word 'you' is a personal attack.

*I apologise for using the word 'you' when in reference to the person posting under the alias of 'Chi_town/Philly'. It is a disgustingly insulting curse word that attacks *censored* intimately I know. Again I'm sorry...



> and we can instead count on Al-Jazeera as a source of objective information on such issues


When did we say that we use Al-Jazeera as a source of objective material? We use many sources. Not-just-one.

Fox however is proven to be bias. The owner admits it.



> Well, regardless of whether or not you believe truth is on your side in this case, it still seems overweeningly condescending, all the same.


Since when is having an informed opinion condescending.

We can't use the word 'you', we can't have an informed opinion. Tell us, what can we have?


----------



## phoenixshade (Dec 9, 2008)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> Yeah... it would be... except for the fact that I've also read statements like "if _you_ want to get an idea" (the implication is we don't already have one*) and "_you_ should see this link" (the italics, of course, are mine), and they make me believe that I didn't really mischaracterize the apparent prevailing attitude, after all.


Well, anyone who would boldly state an absolute lack of sympathy for residents of Gaza obviously _doesn't_ have any idea what the average Palestinian faces in his daily existence. When people form strong knee-jerk opinions based on extremely one-sided information, what you call "overweening condescension" is not only justified, it is practically _mandated_.



> However, if we assert that American News outlets present some manner of monochrome pro-Israeli propaganda, and we can instead count on Al-Jazeera as a source of objective information on such issues, then that is revelatory in a manner that requires no further comment from me


Al-Jezeera was only ONE of the outlets I suggested, and at that with the caveat that this was to present the Arab point of view. You will note that the other news outlets I've linked- both in that and in subsequent posts- are European. I don't link American news outlets for the simple reason that the vast majority here are already all too familiar with those, and the fortunate few who are not would probably gain nothing from the exposure, except perhaps the eye-opening firsthand experience of just how one-sided it is.



> (except, of course, to perhaps provide occasion for one last quip... has Al-Jiz had any _really good_ features on the 'Blood Libel' and 'The Protocols of the Learnèd Elders of Zion' lately??


I'd hardly expect a news agency that deals primarily with, you know, *current* events to retread ground that was thoroughly debunked a century ago. It would be a little like breaking the news that "Steam Power Cuts Trans-Atlantic Journey to 27 Days."

On the other hand, I don't see many Western sources expounding upon the history of the World Zionist Organization, either. Prior to their insistence on relocating Muslem inhabitants with the goal of creating a Jewish state, tens of thousands of Jews lived peacefully in Palestine under the Islamic Ottoman Empire (contrary to the myth that there has been enmity between the religions for a millennium.)


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

phoenixshade said:


> Oh, come now, David... you know fully well when I asked which sources those would be, I was referring to the "trustworthy" ones that "you can find yourself."
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly. Now if you would, kindly tell me where I can get those facts _without_ any comments or editing. I presume that would be from the "trustworthy" sources that, when I earlier asked the same question, you dodged giving a straight answer.


no dodge. i do not do that. i doubt there are unslanted reports except on some local outlets.

dj


----------

