are the US media to biased toward Israel ? (video)

[XT]

@Alessan

I need a drink.

Yeah, me too. It seems the revisionists have seriously gotten their hooks in. There is so much wrong with Randomer13’s little screed there I wouldn’t even know where to begin…

-XT

[Malthus]

@Shodan

Actually, I thought the lies in the first paragraph made it clear that it was approving of terrorism only by Palestinians. So do most of his other posts, so maybe I have the advantage of context for the person you quoted.

Regards,
Shodan

Well, I’m more used to those on the anti-Israel side of debate saying stuff like "of course I disagree with terrorism, that’s morally wrong, but …

1. … Israel is the real terrorist";

2. … one must look for and address the root causes of terrorism, rather than [anything Israel does]"; or

3. … if only one would listen to the wisdom of the UN / Europeans / NGOs, there would not be any terrorism …".

I’m not so used to someone comming right out and saying [in my paraphrase] ‘actually, I think terrorism has worked well and is a morally justified strategy’. Some may be thinking it (I’m willing to believe only a rare few), but no-one actually comes right out and says it.

The converse would be someone on the pro-Israeli side saying ‘actually, we ought to just ethnically cleanse the Palistinians (or Lebanese or whoever)’. Some extremists may be thinking it (again, I’m willing to believe only a rare few, and I really haven’t seen any on this board who would even begin to qualify), but no-one I would have thought would come right out and say it.

[FinnAgain]

@Shodan

Actually, I thought FinnAgain gave a rather cogent analysis of the first part of the video. Did you read it? If you did, could you comment?

Then we could have, like, a debate.

Thanks… and of course, there will most likely be no response.

@Alessan

I need a drink.

It’s like playing whack-a-mole, isn’t it?

Picking up the mallet again…

@Randomer13

This isn’t a conspiracy theory, this is anti semetism,

If you say so…

@Randomer13

if millions of refugees came to florida, called it their promissed land, set up camp then decided to boot everyone out and call it their own. Then… their could be a problem. However for some unkown reason doing this in Palestine is acceptable,

It’s “acceptable” because that’s not what happened in 1948 and you’re inventing a seperate reality.

@Randomer13

he reason for this? Zionists in high positions.

Don’t forget that they control international banking, the media, and hollywood. And the Illuminati.

@Randomer13

Now it’s the media who are controlled by pro- zionist governments or by pro- zionists themselves who throw out propaganda that hails freedom fighters like those of Hezbollah as terrorists when their operations are strictly military against military targets (as was the kidnapping of the isreali soldiers).

:rolleyes:
Yeah… since Lebanon has been out from Israeli control since 2000, and since they’re murdering Israeli civilians in support for a claim to Syrian and not Lebanese land, they’re obviously freedom fighters. Yeah…

And, of course, all those Katushas raining down on Israeli civilians, those are, um, strictly military targets? Seriously, do you think that making stuff up like that will fool anybody who reads the news?

@Randomer13

Because whether we know it or not (and all of us here seem to me like very intelligent people) have been made by the media to be unable to tell the difference between the real terrorists like Al- Qaeda and those fighting for what is rightfully theirs.

Yeah, like Shabaa Farms, which isn’t Lebanese and never was. Are you using a different dictionary than the rest of us?

[BrainGlutton]

@Malthus

The converse would be someone on the pro-Israeli side saying ‘actually, we ought to just ethnically cleanse the Palistinians (or Lebanese or whoever)’. Some extremists may be thinking it (again, I’m willing to believe only a rare few, and I really haven’t seen any on this board who would even begin to qualify), but no-one I would have thought would come right out and say it.

Believe it or not . . .

[Weirddave]

@BrainGlutton

Believe it or not . . .

There is a big difference between ethnic cleansing and suggesting that Israel pay to resettle the Palestinians in Jordan, and you know it too. Any other links that don’t actually say what you imply they say that you want to present?

[FinnAgain]

Actually ethnic cleansing can sometimes refer to simple relocation if the goal is to rid a region of an ethnicity.

It does, usually, carry a connotation of killings, though.

[BrainGlutton]

@Weirddave

There is a big difference between ethnic cleansing and suggesting that Israel pay to resettle the Palestinians in Jordan, and you know it too. Any other links that don’t actually say what you imply they say that you want to present?

No, there isn’t any difference at all. Ethnic cleansing is not a synonym for genocide. Ethnic cleansing means removing all persons of the target group – dead or alive – from the territory in question. Forcing all the Palestinians to leave the West Bank – and that’s what Quartz was suggesting, paying for their resettlement being an afterthought – would be ethnic cleansing.

[Weirddave]

@BrainGlutton

No, there isn’t any difference at all. Ethnic cleansing is not a synonym for genocide. Ethnic cleansing means removing all persons of the target group – dead or alive – from the territory in question. Forcing all the Palestinians to leave the West Bank – and that’s what Quartz was suggesting, paying for their resettlement being an afterthought – would be ethnic cleansing.

Sure, in theory, but when the targeted people don’t want to go, what are you left with? Can you give me one example, in practice, where an entire people just up and left voluntarily for somewhere else under similar circumstances?

Personally, I think it’s a great idea-if the Palestinians agree to it, which they never will.

[BrainGlutton]

@Weirddave

Sure, in theory, but when the targeted people don’t want to go, what are you left with? Can you give me one example, in practice, where an entire people just up and left voluntarily for somewhere else under similar circumstances?

Personally, I think it’s a great idea-if the Palestinians agree to it, which they never will.

In any case, Quartz was suggesting they be forced, not invited, to leave. And later in the same thread suggested that could be accomplished “without bloodshed,” which is preposterous.

[Sevastopol]

@Jackmannii

@Sevastopol

…the support of the American people rests on successful PR. As is plainly evident, them don’t want no facts. And the Israelis have successful USA PR in spades.

Successful public relations in an open society with a free press ultimately depends on facts that favors one’s cause.

Good for you. Standing up for the powers of discernment and critical reasoning of the wide American public, the gift to apprehend the true and bare facts behind essays at fear and persuasion, howsoever professional such an essay may be. Those are qualities that have come in for some disparagement of late and deserve a champion.

Just as continued terrorist violence is self-defeating … blaming “PR” for one’s troubles is self-defeating. All the organizations and vast resources available to Israel’s enemies have been unable to turn “PR” to their advantage.

Organizations? Vast resources?

At some point it would be productive to stop blaming ineffectiveness in public relations on the Evil Jewish Lobby™ and examine instead whether something in one’s cause needs fixing.

There’s a trademark there, you’d best be sure it’s not the Jewish Evil Lobby to which you refer.

@Malthus

…
I’m not so used to someone comming right out and saying [in my paraphrase] ‘actually, I think terrorism has worked well and is a morally justified strategy’. Some may be thinking it (I’m willing to believe only a rare few), but no-one actually comes right out and says it.
…

I have noted the relevant text in bold.

[Randomer13]

I’m not excusing terrorism, every man or woman who blows themselves up in civilian targets or blows up inncocents intentionally is a terrorists and that’s why there are terrorists on both sides. Their are terrorist zionists who are under the cover of bieng in the military and their are terrorist muslims who are under the cover of their religious belief (however much they have perverted or abused their own teachings, or misinterpreted them intentionally). However that does not mean that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. Simply they are fighting to regain their land and their prisoners and if you recall although they took prisoners of war that is all they did, they conducted a military operation against military targets, to which their enemies replied with dozens of rockets that achieved nothing but the slaughter of civilians. Hezbollah returned rockets of which most landed on military areas. Hezbollah killed 90% military, Isreal killed over 90% civilians. Who is the terrorist? You do not need CNN or SKY news to tell you this.

Now if so many of my points are wrong at least point them out, as far as I am concerned you cannot point them out, there is nothing right about Isreal bieng 100% occupied land. My argument is not leave the terrorists find the root of the problem, no kill the terrorists destroy their networks rightly so. Their is no excuse to their terrorism but military operation within Isreal in my opinion can be excused as much as anyone else fighting for what is thiers. Don’t ask me for all you know I could be talking a load of crap. Why not go research not one, but both sides of history, and decide morally. Is it right for me to steal the land of others no matter what the excuse? Just as much as you should ask is it right for me to be a terrorist no matter what the excuse? Both in my opinion are answered in the negative.

Just my views guys.

[Randomer13]

@Weirddave

Sure, in theory, but when the targeted people don’t want to go, what are you left with? Can you give me one example, in practice, where an entire people just up and left voluntarily for somewhere else under similar circumstances?

Personally, I think it’s a great idea-if the Palestinians agree to it, which they never will.

Well if the palestinians didn’t agree to it… then why not go where they are welcome to put up their own country? Why palestine? Could this by any chance have anything whatso ever with the fact that they are promised a land called Zion?

Oh and by the way you seem to forget that their are as many jews in New york as thier are in Isreal of course they could have gone to another place if not a number of places. Would you think it was a great idea if I said it would be good if all those displaced palestinians went back to thier own country? Also people seem to forget that the Jews in palestine were living freely with the palestinians. This is not about the fact that their was no space to house them but rather that the zionists wanted to set up the state of Isreal.

[FinnAgain]

@Randomer13

every man or woman who blows themselves up in civilian targets or blows up inncocents intentionally is a terrorists

Wrong.
Those who specifically target civilians (Hezbollah) are terrorists. Those who target valid military objectives that are hidden among civilians are not.

@Randomer13

Simply they are fighting to regain their land

I already pointed out that Shabaa Farms is not, and never was, Lebanese.

@Randomer13

and their prisoners and if you recall although they took prisoners of war that is all they did, they conducted a military operation against military targets,

I already pointed out that they also simultaneously launched rocket attacks against civilians, and then launched civilian targeted rocket attacks after that.

@Randomer13

to which their enemies replied with dozens of rockets that achieved nothing but the slaughter of civilians.

Only if you’re using another definition of “nothing”.

@Randomer13

Hezbollah returned rockets of which most landed on military areas.

That is a lie, and ignores the fact that Hezbollah ‘covered’ its abduction of IDF soldiers by simultaneously hitting civilian targets.

@Randomer13

Hezbollah killed 90% military, Isreal killed over 90% civilians.

Gee… I wonder whose forces were hiding among civilians, preventing them from leaving villages, and using them as human shields?

You are also making up those percentages. Did you really think that those of us who read the news would be fooled by you? And while you’re at it, how, exactly, do you know which Lebanese not wearing a uniform were Hezbollah, and which were civilians? You don’t, do you? So not only is your claim about the ratio of casualties for the Israelis bull, but you’re just imagining things and claiming them to be factual for the Lebanese casualties.

@Randomer13

Who is the terrorist?

Those who deliberately target civilians, not military objectives.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of making things up.

@Randomer13

Now if so many of my points are wrong at least point them out

I already did, but you pretended not to see my post. I suspect you’ll do the same thing again.

@Randomer13

as far as I am concerned you cannot point them out

You are lying.

@Randomer13

there is nothing right about Isreal bieng 100% occupied land.

Largely because you are again lying, and Israel most certainly is not on anything approaching 100% “occupied” land.

@Randomer13

Just my views guys.

You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

@Randomer13

Well if the palestinians didn’t agree to it… then why not go where they are welcome to put up their own country?

So the Palestinians didn’t agree that the Jews could have lands that the Palestinians had no legal claim over? I don’t agree that you should be allowed to live where you’re living now. Move.

@Randomer13

Why palestine?

One, there was no sovereign nation of Palestine, it was a region under Turkish rule. Two, because thousands upon thousands of Jews were already legally living there on land that they had legally bought. Three, because the partition plan was drawn up along already existing ethnic majority lines and those Palestinians who stayed became citizens of Israel and kept their property.

@Randomer13

Could this by any chance have anything whatso ever with the fact that they are promised a land called Zion?

No chance what-so-ever. Study early Zionism and its secular nature.

@Randomer13

Would you think it was a great idea if I said it would be good if all those displaced palestinians went back to thier own country?

You think Egypt and Jordan want them?

@Randomer13

This is not about the fact that their was no space to house them but rather that the zionists wanted to set up the state of Isreal.

For the most part on land that they already owned, despite your lies to the contrary.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@FinnAgain

Actually ethnic cleansing can sometimes refer to simple relocation if the goal is to rid a region of an ethnicity.

It does, usually, carry a connotation of killings, though.

It can, but do you think a populace would stop there? I’d like to think so, but I’m afraid it wouldn’t.

[Monty]

@Randomer13

Their are terrorist zionists who are under the cover of bieng in the military and their are terrorist muslims who are under the cover of their religious belief (however much they have perverted or abused their own teachings, or misinterpreted them intentionally).

The rest of your posting wasn’t exactly what one could (legitimately) call coherent, so I’m just going to focus on this part. My question for you is: HUH?

[Jackmannii]

@Sevastopol

Good for you. Standing up for the powers of discernment and critical reasoning of the wide American public, the gift to apprehend the true and bare facts behind essays at fear and persuasion

Yes, we have a pretty good idea at what lies behind terrorism.

Organizations? Vast resources?

You have linked to the websites of anti-Israel organizations, so you should have a good understanding of the myriad groups lobbying Americans leaders and citizens (all one has to do is Google under something like “Israel” and “U.S. aid” and they’ll pop up all over the place. It also takes a fair bit of dough to finance anti-Israel banner ads in the New York Times.

As to vast resources, does “oil” ring any bells? You think funds derived from oil revenues and Western fears of being deprived of sources of oil don’t have any impact on opinions and news coverage?

[Shodan]

@BrainGlutton

No, there isn’t any difference at all. Ethnic cleansing is not a synonym for genocide. Ethnic cleansing means removing all persons of the target group – dead or alive – from the territory in question. Forcing all the Palestinians to leave the West Bank – and that’s what Quartz was suggesting, paying for their resettlement being an afterthought – would be ethnic cleansing.

Which, as far as I can tell, means that those who say that they don’t necessarily want to kill all the Israelis, just end the existence of Israel as a nation, are advocating ethnic cleansing as well. But I think the “dead or alive” is usually implied, if not explicit.
Thus I tend to agree with you when you say this:

In any case, Quartz was suggesting they be forced, not invited, to leave. And later in the same thread suggested that could be accomplished “without bloodshed,” which is preposterous.

@Malthus

I’m not so used to someone comming right out and saying [in my paraphrase] ‘actually, I think terrorism has worked well and is a morally justified strategy’. Some may be thinking it (I’m willing to believe only a rare few), but no-one actually comes right out and says it.

The ones who think this and come right out and say are Hizbollah and the other terrorists. And my experience is that those who come right out and say it are a lot more common on the anti-Israeli side - isn’t the destruction of Israel in Hizbollah’s charter?

@FinnAgain

@Shodan

Actually, I thought FinnAgain gave a rather cogent analysis of the first part of the video.

Thanks… and of course, there will most likely be no response.

You are probably right that the points you made will not be addressed.

So the only response you can expect is my reiteration that I am carefully reading and greatly enjoying what you have to say recently about the late war. Good stuff, and well done.

Regards,
Shodan

[Sevastopol]

@Jackmannii

Yes, we have a pretty good idea at what lies behind terrorism.

US $$$

You have linked to the websites of anti-Israel organizations,

You’ve mistaken me for someone else.

so you should have a good understanding of the myriad groups lobbying Americans leaders and citizens (all one has to do is Google under something like “Israel” and “U.S. aid” and they’ll pop up all over the place. It also takes a fair bit of dough to finance anti-Israel banner ads in the New York Times.

As to vast resources, does “oil” ring any bells? You think funds derived from oil revenues and Western fears of being deprived of sources of oil don’t have any impact on opinions and news coverage?

Not vis a vis Israel, no.

[Malthus]

@BrainGlutton

Believe it or not . . .

Yeah, but that post appears to have been made back in 2004. My memory for what people say here in this forum doesn’t necessarily stretch back that far.

However, I will admit that this is a post supporting ethnic cleansing, albeit not of the murderous variety I was thinking of.

[Malthus]

@Sevastopol

I have noted the relevant text in bold.

Okay, my question is this: are you of the opinion that my paraphrase was an unfair characterization of your post?

Post:

If the Palestinians went Ghandi, the Israelis would simply continue to slice off as much Palestine as they’d guzzle. Moreover, the support of the American people rests on successful PR. As is plainly evident, them don’t want no facts. And the Israelis have successful USA PR in spades.

Yet oddly enough the Palestinan Olympic kidnappings were a major PR coup. While unsavoury, it took the Palestinian cause from unknown to something world fora have been alive to ever since.

So ‘straightening up’ won’t work, because PR in the US will never go their way, no matter what. It will take what it will take.

Paraphrase:

I’m not so used to someone comming right out and saying [in my paraphrase] ‘actually, I think terrorism has worked well and is a morally justified strategy’.

Question: fair or unfair characterization?