From The New Republic
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020401&s=notebook040102shooting
If it’s true, then more likely it’s just standard manipulation of the foreign press by the Palestine Authority.
Possibly staging a murder of one of their own people can be construed as “standard manipulation of the foreign press”? Jesus Christ.
Nonetheless, I think december’s point is not what the Palestinian Authority might have done, but how the Western media has lapped it up.
I guess it wouldn’t surprise me.
Following the news over the last 18 months I was really starting to feel that the Palestinians had a right to fight here.
After the last suicide bombing that killed 20 diners in a restaurant though, I have to wonder what the Palestinians really want. They had a workable plan going that might have gone somewhere, then this happens, and the Isrealis retailiate, then Arafat gets on TV and says that the Isrealis start more violence everytime there is a peace initiative!? Because they really don’t want peace? next is he gonna accuse Isreal of sending in that suicide bomber?
There really can be no winners here, but the plan put forth by Prince Abdullah is the best thing to happen there since the inception of Isreal as a state. It would seem like a good time for Arafat to rein in his suicide bombers and see where it goes.
Ouch! My eyes hurt! Let me find my sunglasses and I’ll be back later.
It is standard to manipulate the press.
The whole intifada demonstrations scenario is based on it.
You send a couple of kids with slings and stones to attack soldiers, maybe with a sniper in the rear. Sufficiently threatened or provoked a soldier will shoot, preferably one of the kids.
And, hey presto, you can proclaim that those nasty Israeli shoot unarmed children.
This is not really new News I say a website that was put up sometime after this incident maybe a couple of months that showed why it was almost imposible that the IDF had fired the shots that killed the boy. Now I am not a forensic scientist by any means but as an engineer by trade and with more than my fair share of weapons training the evidence was enough to convince me…I think I’ll try to go find that website. I just wish the Israelis could get a fair shake every once in a while.
How can that be, when the Jews own the media?
I saw a documentary about a year ago where the Israeli authorities conducted an investigation into the incident. Because the wall at which the father and son were crouching at was completely destroyed, they actually rebuilt a wall for a prop inorder to re-enact the scene. Conclusion was that Israeli soldiers were in no position to be able to shoot the boy.
Um, may I be the first to invoke King, the Kennedys, and Jimmy Hoffa?
Worse still, we are speculating on an incident that spawned in a war zone where all parties are weaker militarily than they are in the propaganda and lobbying departments.
One of the hallmarks of the Arab-Israeli dispute, and the greater Islam-Everyone Else dispute, is a complete inability to take responsibility for one’s own actions. When a prominent figurehead in the region dies, the very next question one may as well ask is, “but how are Israel and America responsible for that person’s death?” You’ll have your answer before the day is out. You think I’m kidding?
Similarly, no despicable act on the part of the Israelis (or the Americans) ever occurs without complete justification in the form of retaliation or collateral damage. It seems to me that another logical step would be to turn the conspiracy theorists loose on any incident which appears too damaging.
You’re never going to get a straight answer on this story, because if we even begin to approach the truth, someone will step forward to muddy the waters again with further allegations.
We now know for certain that nobody danced a jig at Compiegne. But how many nations had to be destroyed to prove it?
You lost me here. As I recall, many nations were ** saved** including the vanquished.
They were destroyed in the saving process, maybe?
Like, bombed to bits?
I was trying very hard to make a good point without directly invoking our friend Godwin.
When Germany overran France, Hitler was captured on film giving a joyous little hop and slapping his knee. Some enterprising newsreel editor looped the film frames to make it appear as if Hitler were dancing a goofy little jig. It became one of the more enduring film clips of the war, and it was not until long afterward that it became widely known that the footage was a fake.
(Oddly, I cannot find the actual footage or the frames used to create it. I figured this would be rather easy to link, but hell if I know where it is these days.)
There are still plenty of people out there today who will argue that Hitler did do the two-step. After all, they’ve seen it on TV.
The point I was trying to make is that this is a war, and wartime reporting is sometimes indistinguishable from flat-out dishonest propaganda. Because it is a war, and it is still being fought, the propagandists are going to do whatever is necessary to sway the incident their way. Only when things have cooled down will we have a chance to discover what really happened, and since this particular fight shows indications of continuing until the combatants are replaced by radioactive cockroaches, I think the matter will likely never be resolved.
I will concede that not many nations were totally destroyed in the Second World War. But all of Nazi Europe and the Japanese empire had to be badly defeated before the truth of Hitler’s dance could be safely told. I’m advising all of you to look past the propaganda and see the war from which the propaganda spawned.
I love all the different CO LO RS
and S IZ ES
Don’t you?
Talking 'bout propaganda.
I always found this one quite funny
The pieces are coming together - this story ties in perfectly with that interception of an Iran-backed shipment of grassy knolls.
The real story here is the importance placed upon this particular incident by the OP. The concentration on this particular incident is of itself an example of propaganda by the technique of shining a spotlight on one battle so people will not notice the war.
The text of the post is:
“the Israeli’s did not actually shoot the boy”
and the unstated subtextual inference is:
“Israeli’s do not commit unjustified acts of violence against Palestinians”
Of course, the inference does not follow logically nor is it backed up by reality. You hardly have to look too hard to find evidence that extreme Israeli violence against Palestinians is an every day reality.
And the highlighting of Palestinian manipulation of the media by some posters is of itself interesting. Because while Palestinians undoubtedly do manipulate the media, seeking to highlight that fact as if the same cannot be said of every single entity on earth that is seeking to influence the public agenda, (Israel itself being a shining example), is evidence of stupidity, naivety or an agenda of one’s own.
No, I think the not-so-“unstated subtextual inference” (i.e., what the OP and others in the thread are really trying to say) is that the Palestinian Authority comprises a bunch of cold-blooded thugs whose trademark “standard manipulation of the foreign press” includes murdering their own people.
In other words, we’re either Zionist conspirators or stooges of same. Nice. :rolleyes:
The ship in question carried several tons of weapons presumably intended to kill several hundred thousand Israelis. By lumping this story in with the “grassy knoll”, are you saying that you don’t think the interdiction of Karine A took place? Or simply that more Israelis being killed somehow strikes your funny bone?
I was implying that there’s more than a whiff of conspiracy theory in the OP. Nothing more.