We should always remember that there’s a big difference between a lobby and a Lobby. A lobby is a group that tries to influence government policy. A Lobby controls policy by being all-powerful, secretive, nefarious, dastardly, all-powerful and un-American.
They think they’re fooling us, but you can always tell a lobby from a Lobby*.
*unless the American press is intimidated into dropping the capital “L”**.
**or by the horns and tail…
Just remember Jack, the very fact that the US only gave lip service to AIPAC and Israeli wishes to have Jersualem be the official capital of Israel just shows that they control us, totally and completely. And the fact that virtually every university in the country has an active, vocal anti-Israel contingent (if not factulay), and that Walt and Mearsheimer and their errors were major news for some time and Jimmy Carter and his lies were major news just shows that the Jews control the US media and nobody can talk about such things.
In fact, I think that we should take Saint Carter’s words into consideration here and remember that he said that he wrote a book in order to spark debate and when Dershowitz responded and challenged him to a debate that just proved that people were trying to stifle debate.
Just for laughs, I read some of the comments to that Salon article.
Whoo-boy, some people are seriously paranoid and delusional. :eek:
Lionel Hutz: We’ve got lots of supposition and hearsay. Those are… kinds of evidence.
This is true.
Also the fact that nobody in the administration came out and said that Israel made them do it just proves that Israel made them do it.
Otherwise they would have admitted that Israel made them do it, thereby proving it.
Thiis sort of comment is unnecessary in this forum.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
This is also not helpful.
Back off.
[ /Moderating ]
Point taken.
I would still contend, however, that if one finds an argument which has major premises like ‘you can’t trust Dennis Ross, after all he’s a Jew and a crazy Zionist and he wants to bomb Iran!’ that are later revealed to be rather far off the mark, that the entire argument then deserves much greater scrutiny.
Let’s see, my stated position is - and I quote:
" **US media is commercial and can be leant on commerically. It has been and now commonly makes editorial choices that
There is some difficulty in seeing “US media commonly favor Israel” as ‘retreating’ from that position.
Secondly there have been no false statements, on my part. “Cannot” is inexact, but in fact serves well enough. As with Bryan’s quoted story, the stories you linked are edited in a way to favor the presentation of Israel. E.g of the 2 quotes I extracted from the BBC, only the facts of 1 appear in any of your 3 stories.
Did anyone mention:
“Jews” ; or
“control” ?
As to why and how - D D addresses that sufficiently
Well strictly speaking …
Obviously. It’s not just evil Jews controlling the US media, it’s evil Financial Jews. Er, I mean Zionists. Evil Financial Zionists. Nobody said the word “Jews”. So we can all assume that Sevastopol and Dick are talking about the legion of Israeli Zoroastrians who control the US media via economic domination.
Damn those Zoroastrians!!!*
…something must be done. *
Your claiming it is so does not constitute evidence.
The story you cited as proof of an “embargo” has in fact been covered just as comprehensively in American news media as in the BBC example you cited. You seem to place great weight on the BBC story containing an allusion to the terrorist allegedly seeking revenge for terrorist acts committed against Israel, a motivation supposedly not alluded to in American media. Whether or not this is the case, it would constitute at best a minor facet of the story. Dipshits who commit terrorist acts in the Mideast are always gloating about having “revenge” for prior acts, as if anyone but psychopathic morons is keeping score. I suppose some such morons might consider a revenge motive as “justification” for the accused Israeli’s acts, so the BBC story arguably portrays him in a more favorable light than the American accounts I linked to, where he is portrayed as a violent, bigoted extremist.
So - your example of American news media “embargoing” the story on orders from their Secret Masters is pathetic.
Better luck next time.
To hell with the media.
I can’t even control the damned cat. Would anyone like a slightly used quilt that he confused with the litter box?
I R in yur countre, controllin yur doodz!
The relevant text:
Omitted from US coverage. A ‘minor facet’?
Looters, often termed ‘Settlers’, are the issue. How to sanction them? The US stories omit key elements going to the character of such an individual. These are editorial decisions which bias the public debate by omission of relevant facts.
As it turns out, an invisible facet, since it wasn’t omitted from U.S. coverage (I didn’t see it originally in my U.S. links, but lo and behold):
“Teitel is accused of murdering two Palestinians in separate attacks in 1997 while he was visiting Israel and, according to the police, acting out of revenge for Palestinian suicide attacks.” (bolding added for reading comprehension purposes).
So - ABC news, for one, identifies Teitel as an Israeli settler who originally emigrated from the U.S. with smuggled arms, and who allegedly had a revenge motive.
Your accusation of a U.S. media “embargo” on this story is even more pathetic than it originally seemed.
Well, one issue. Another issue, at least ijn this thread, would be the abuse of the language that you are employing to make snide and dishonestly implied comments.
I have been opposed to Israeli settlement of the West Bank since 1969 or so, but I do not go around picking hateful words and using them in ways that are not only misleading, but outside any meaning that they hold in the English language.
I am sure thaty you have some convoluted explanation by which you rationalize your identification of the settlers with “looters,” but all that usage does in this forum is identify you as a polemicist who has no intention of engaging in a civil or informed discussion.
Just to add a few bits to that otherwise excellent post Tom, I’d like to point out that even Israel’s most strident anti-settlement organizations have found that the clear majority of land that the settlements are built on was never privately owned by the Palestinians. Moreover, the Ottoman land codes are quite a bit more complicated than Dick and Sevastopol would claim by talking about how all the land is/was/whatever “Palestinian/Arab/Muslim Land”.
What’s more, even Hamas itself states that the area is a Waqf due to taking it by force.
[
While it goes without saying (although it’ll probably unfortunately need to be said), all settlement construction must stop, and the very instant that a credible partner for peace arises among Palestinian leadership (and Fatah may yet fill that role) that Israel should aggressively negotiate for a compromise that ensures equitable land, water, agricultural and economic rights, along with peace and security, for both peoples.
All that being said, thanks for pointing out the nonsense about “looters should be shot on sight!” in a manner more… diplomatic than I’d have managed.
Well, if media editors control what their media outlets promulgate, and they routinely suppress stories that cast Israel in a bad light, who’s controlling the editors?
And if you prefer, I’ll read your argument as about how “Israel” (not “Jews”) controls the American media. It’s still unsupported.
As far as I can tell, he’s talking about a political appointee. Even granting for the sake of argument that Israel was instrumental in getting him tossed, what’s the connection to CNN and American media generally?