I was live on tv 3 days ago. He stated this seveal times. His name is Ola Skuterud.
I have just read what “Ola Shuterud” said on a “net-meeting” 4-4-2002 and he stated this again.
Mr. Skuterud asserted that Israel claimed that they saw a 10 kg bomb inside an ambulance by means of a satellite?!! Does not compute. Are you sure you paraphrased Mr. Skuterud correctly?
If you read a “net-meeting,” you should be able to provide a link to it. Please do so.
It is definitely possible that the incident was a “dirty trick” by Mossad or Shin Bet. But evidence of that is what is necessary.
Sua
A quick search at Google reveals that Mr. Skuterud works for the International Federation of the Rec Cross/Red Crescent. There’s more about his and this organization here, at the website of the “Palistine Red Crescent Society.”
This all sounds good until you recall that the Red Cross/Red Crescent is the organization that denied membership to Magen David Adom, Israel’s red-cross-like relief agency. The American Red Cross has been working for months to get the International Red Cross to recongnize Magen David Adom… without success.
I don’t think we can consider Mr. Skuterud or the organizations with which he affiliates to be impartial sources of information in this matter.
Do you, POWER_station?
Sua, it appears that Mr. Skuterud’s comments suffer from a timing issue as regards this discussion.
Note that the detained ambulance incident occurred on April 4.
The Ha’aretz report notes that
Mr. Skuterud’s initial comments were “live on tv 3 days ago.”
It would appear that Israel has been making the claims that the ambulances have been used, prior to this incident, based on intelligence sources (that may include claims that satellite images–which, presumably, Israel will not release–have shown ambulances being loaded with weapons).
Prior to the incident reported yesterday, however, Mr. Skuterud’s comment that Israel had provided no evidence could have been legitimate.
quote:
Originally posted by december
Are you aware that Arafat’s headquarters were found to have a large abount of counterfeit Israeli money and also equipment for counterfeiting American money?
Are you aware that at least on Red Crescent ambulance was found to be transporting explosives?
Does your media point out that Arafat agreed to protect Israel in Oslo, but that he done the opposite?
Are you aware that Israel is being bombed regularly from the North?
Are you aware that a Palestinian gunman shot and killed a UN observer a week or so ago?
How many of the murdered Israeli civilians have been featured on TV or in newspapers and magazines, so one could sympathize and identify with them?
Power Station, are we to assume that your answers to # 1,3,4,5,6 are yes? Or will you duck them?
The question is not whether the Israelis have done simlilar things; they probably have. The question is whether European news media is presenting nasty things done by one side, but not the other.
I submit that the fact that most Americans view both sides as being less than lovely people, while most europeans see it as obviously one-sided suggest that it is more likely that European media, not American, is biased.
I also submit that the significant arab/muslim populations in Europe carry far more political power that the mutually negating Arab/Jewish populations in the US. Which doesn’t make the subsequent policies bad; but don’t act like the EU is some disinterested party only seeking the brotherhood of all mankind.
European media show the violence on both sides. I remeber that the picture of one the last suicide bombing was in blood red.
I say that European media are less biased than US media. Let’s take New York Times for example.
The muslim population haven’t much political power in Europe (not yet anyway). Many of them doesn’t vote and haven’t any powerfull lobbygroups (not as for example AIPAC in the US).
The population in Europe are however aware that the palestinians are (and have been) under occupation for decades and that they have little to compare with Israels military arsenal.
I will also say that I agree with them who regret giving Peres the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
Peres have fooled people to believe that he was a man of peace.
furt: *I also submit that the significant arab/muslim populations in Europe carry far more political power that the mutually negating Arab/Jewish populations in the US. *
“Mutually negating”??? Without getting into the thorny question of who’s more biased than whom and in which direction and how you prove it, I think that—although their population sizes may be roughly comparable—there’s no question that American Jews have a much stronger voice in US media than do Arab-Americans, or American Muslims of any kind for that matter.
Well, for what it’s worth, I’m with the 38% of Norwegians who think both sides should be smacked and have the Holy Land put on a high shelf out of their reach until they can learn to share it.
Let’s take it where? The NYT is not considered a Bush-friendly conservative rag. To the extent you might argue it is biased, it pretty clearly isn’t biased in the direction you think (i.e., pro-Bush and, by extension, pro-Israel). Though for the record I think the NYT’s coverage of the Middle East has been very even-handed.
And another thing –
You might (wrongly) think the majority of Americans are strictly pro-Israeli, but at least we’re not assaulting Muslims or trashing mosques. So if you think the Europeans are the all-fired voice of reason, you might have a word with the French citizens who are beating up Jews and destroying synagogues.
Wait a minute, Americans haven’t assauted Muslims, or trashed mobs?
In response to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is after all the topic of discussion – no, they have not. Whereas those unbiased Europeans have.
To repeat my main point:
Let’s say that this opinion comes from my impressions.
Haven’t US mainstream newspaper closer ties to their government than European newspapers ?
Here are a link, but it’s not in English:
Education: well, I think it’s on the same level as other European countries.
The Mid-east conflict have been in the media for several decades here as in other western countries.
Here’s someone who agrees with the difference noted by POWER_station, but havs a pro-US explanation.
See http://hoystory.blogspot.com/
Of course, Pipes is an American, so he probably has a pro-US bias.
On the contrary, I suspect that Europe has far more papers than the U.S. that are either
- the direct organ of the governement
or - tied directly to a political party so that they are the effective voice of government when that party is in power.
Certainly, there are papers in the U.S. that more generally favor either the Republican or Democrat policies, but there are no major papers that are actually tied to either party.
And, when you move from print to broadcast, (where most U.S. citizens get their news), the connections between any given news outlet and either the government or a political party are far less direct than occurs in a number of European nations.
I make no claim, here, to any innate “fairness” of U.S. outlets, but the statement I quoted is completely in error.
There has also been talk of making “Ducheland Uberalis” the national anthem of Europe again. Sorry, but Europe hasn’t exactly been known for its unbiased treatment of the Jews.
For that matter, what makes Europeans think they’re so enlightened?
See http://hoystory.blogspot.com/
Of course, Pipes is an American, so he probably has a pro-US bias. **
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what your point is here, but you must remember that FOX News are not seen upon as a serious news channel in European countries.
They aired Fox News here in Scandinavia right after WTC-terror on another channel, but it was takes of the channel in February.
I’ve seen the O’Reilly factor and he seams to me as a man that looks and behaves like Frank Burns in MASH.
furt: *The question is whether European news media is presenting nasty things done by one side, but not the other. *
Well, let’s look at the European news media, then. Checking out the Near East archive of Der Spiegel online for the past week, I see an article on accusations that Arafat paid Palestinian terrorists, three articles on synagogue bombings in Europe, and four on suicide bombings in Israel. In Le Monde, there have been five articles on anti-semitic activities in France, one on Palestinian terrorism in Israel, an opinion piece by the pro-Israel hawkish Thomas Friedman, and an article on complaints by French Jewish leaders that French television coverage is too much slanted towards Arafat.
I don’t think there’s any question that the European media tend to be much more critical of Israel than the American media do, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that they’re censoring their coverage of “nasty things” to exclude criticism of the Palestinians.
Power Station: Haven’t US mainstream newspaper closer ties to their government than European newspapers ?
No, I would think it would be the other way around. [In preview: just as tomndebb said.] However, many US newspapers have responded to owner demands for increased profitability by trimming reporting staffs, so there may be an increasing tendency to rely more on press releases from “official sources” (from any kind of organization, not just governmental ones) instead of independent investigation.
december: Pipes: “There’s probably a streak of that too. But the United States is unique in the world, not just in this case, but in all foreign policy, because we have a moral and humanitarian quality to our foreign policy.”
Is that the same “moral and humanitarian quality” that inspires us to reject international treaties on land mines, bioweapons, environmental protection, nuclear weapons, and international jurisprudence because they would inconveniently restrict our own freedom of action? You would think that if we were so much more “moral and humanitarian” than anybody else, we’d be getting better press.
I don’t really buy these self-pitying “poor little misunderstood superpower” rationales. In my opinion, though the US—like many other countries—considers itself to have a serious responsibility to promote the good of all, we are too apt to assume that it will automatically be best for everyone if we just pursue our own interests and ignore other nations’ objections. Considering oneself to be somehow above the rules doesn’t seem all that “moral and humanitarian” to me.
Kimstu, does this mean that you do not fully endorse Pipes’s POV? 