The Jewish problem

[Fairweather]

The US corporate media, including the NYT, has no credibility w.r.t. the palestine isssue.

 

How convenient for you. Are you claiming they have misquoted Bill Clinton? Lemme guess; you believe the NYT is a Jewish mouthpiece?

[j_b]

Pervasive corruption means they can deal with it? LOL

[j_b]

The NYT has a clear pro-Israel bias. Like the rest of the corporate media in the US.

 

Isn't it interesting that on this issue and pretty much this issue only, Fairweather is pro-UN, pro-NYT, and pro-Bill Clinton? How convenient. I guess that is one instance when the "big bad world government" doesn't bother our very own jack-booted thug. What an opportunist.

[Fairweather]

Since the UN is currently very anti-Israel and the NYT remains left of center--today calling the bombing of Nizar Rayan's house a "political assassination"--I think it's pretty clear that you are the inconsistent one here. If you honestly believe these two institutions are pro-Israel, then you truly do live in a fantasy. Kill yourself. Seriously.

[j_b]

The NYT is right wing on most economic and foreign policy issues. Today the body of the UN wants Israel to abide by UN resolutions but the UN partioned Palestine without palestinian approval. But thanks for pointing out that the entire world except for rightwing americans sees the israel-Palestine issue very differently than you do.

[Fairweather]

The NYT is right wing on most economic and foreign policy issues. Today the body of the UN wants Israel to abide by UN resolutions but the UN partioned Palestine without palestinian approval.

 

There may have been a palestine, but never a Palestine. ?Comprendes? The UN of today in no way resembles the UN of 1947. Wednesday they tried to force a resolution condemning the Israeli air assault without even mentioning Hamas rocket/missile attacks! Fortunately, Israel still has a friend in the United States and this travesty of a resolution was shot down. Do you really believe the UN is pro-Israel today?

[j_b]

Yes, the UN is pro-Israel, which doesn't mean it condones the murder of thousands of civilians by israeli forces. I hope for you that you can tell the difference.

[Hugh Conway]

Israeli girls are hot and dirty.

 

I don't see a problem at all

 

I'm not buying that till I see some naked pictures.

 

You couldn't handle naked pictures

[Fairweather]

Yes, the UN is pro-Israel, which doesn't mean it condones the murder of thousands of civilians by israeli forces. I hope for you that you can tell the difference.

 

Looks like about 75% of the 360 deaths are combatants/Hamas males. 25% civilian; regrettable, but hardly thousands. The Hamas target of the New Year's Day 2000-pounder sent his own fucking 16 year old son to die as a suicide bomber years earlier. Forgive me, but it's hard to mourn the death of his remaining sons.

 

Nice fella:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/20091218131371179.html

Edited January 3, 2009 by Fairweather

[j_b]

Right, all males including traffic cops are combatants according to the 101st keyboard brigade. There has been thousands of civilians casualties among palestinians since 2000. But responding ad-infinitum to continual lies by omission gets tiresome.

[pc313]

On New Years Eve a spokesman for Hamas was on CNN and said over 2000 civilian had died by the unprovoked attack by Isreal as the Red Cross had it at 63 dead,even their own news footage showed Hamas rocket lauchers in the background of the died being carried away.

[Fairweather]

j_b: you should really come to terms with your hatred of the Jewish people.

[pc313]

Israel can deal with it's own corruption. By many accounts, Arafat died with over $1B net worth. Money that was donated by the international community to help palestinians, not line his pockets.

 

So true!

[j_b]

Liar. As I said, the only one here who advocates violence against semitic people is you Fairweather.

[pc313]

Isreal has not played fair over the years,for half of them believe that God gave all that land to them,and the other half just want peace,in the 67 war they took and held a lot of land thats been returned since,but not all of it and the Settlements were veiwed as illegal by the UN.

[Bug]

Fairweather, you made some great points but then digressed into angry attacks. Your links are good. I read them. There is more to it than just those links alone. Calling those of us who question the media, "Jew haters" when you have been questioning the liberal media all along just does not make sense.

Yes the media has been liberal.

Recently with the purchases made by Murdock, Fox news popped up, "all bullshit all the time" and the other news conglomerates he bought into have veered decidedly right. Still a little left of center but nowhere near as left as Fox is right IMO.

And yes Rupert Murdock is a hard core Israel supporter and so was the liberal media.

This has never been a secret in political campaigns at levels all the way down to our local elections.

Your points made in the past about the liberal media have not been without merit. Where you repeatedly lose me is your personal attacks based on very black and white declarations. The world is just not that simple. And yes, you have been attacked unjustly at times too.

Discussions like this have the potential of bringing us all closer to agreement. But more often it just helps us round out our knowledge.

That is a personal choice.

[j_b]

Come on. Cherry picking and spinning facts isn't making "great points". Moreover, here are the conclusions of a study done by FAIR in 1998 (thus even before the press showed how much they were willing to help Bush force his policies on Americans), which essentially shows that the "librul media" bit is conservative propaganda:

 

"The larger "liberal media" myth has been maintained, in part, by the well-funded flow of conservative rhetoric that selectively highlights journalists' personal views while downplaying news content. It also has been maintained by diverting the spotlight away from economic issues and placing it instead on social issues. In reality, though, most members of the powerful Washington press corps identify themselves as centrist in both of these areas. It is true, as conservative critics have publicized, that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "left" orientation when it comes to social issues. However, it is also true that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "right" orientation when it comes to economic issues. Indeed, these economic policy views are often to the right of public opinion. When our attention is drawn to this fact, one of the central elements of the conservative critique of the media is exposed to be merely sleight of hand.

 

This illusion has not been exposed here merely to replace it with an equally false mirror image of the conservative critique. Painting journalists as the core of the "conservative media" does not do justice to the complexity of the situation. Like many profit-sector professionals journalists tend to hold "liberal" social views and "conservative" economic views. Most of all, though, they can be broadly described as centrists. This adherence to the middle is consistent with news outlets that tend to repeat conventional wisdom and ignore serious alternative analyses. This too often leaves citizens with policy "debates" grounded in the shared assumptions of those in positions of power.

 

Which brings us back to the conservative critique. It is based on the propositions that: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the general public, and (2) that these views influence the news content that they produce. Having now exposed the first point for the myth that it is, we are left with the issue of personal views influencing news content.

 

There are two important responses to this claim. First, it is sources, not journalists, who are allowed to express their views in the conventional model of "objective" journalism. Therefore, we learn much more about the political orientation of news content by looking at sourcing patterns rather than journalists' personal views. As this survey shows, it is government officials and business representatives to whom journalists "nearly always" turn when covering economic policy. Labor representatives and consumer advocates were at the bottom of the list. This is consistent with earlier research on sources. For example, analysts from the centrist Brookings Institution and right-wing think thanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are those most quoted in mainstream news accounts; left-wing think tanks are often invisible. When it comes to sources, "liberal bias" is nowhere to be found.

 

Second, we must not forget that journalists do not work in a vacuum. It is crucial to remember the important role of institutional context in setting the broad parameters for the news process. Businesses are not in the habit of producing products that contradict their fundamental economic interests. The large corporations that are the major commercial media in this country—not surprisingly—tend to favor style and substance which is consonant with their corporate interests; as do their corporate advertisers.

 

It is here, at the structural level, that the fundamental ground rules of news production are set. Of course, working journalists sometimes succeed in temporarily challenging some of those rules and boundaries. But ultimately, if they are to succeed and advance in the profession for any length of time, they must adapt to the ground rules set by others—regardless of their own personal views."

 

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

[j_b]

and a Human Rights Watch report on Gaza as of 12/30/08:

 

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/israelhamas-civilians-must-not-be-targets

[j_b]

On New Years Eve a spokesman for Hamas was on CNN and said over 2000 civilian had died by the unprovoked attack by Isreal as the Red Cross had it at 63 dead,even their own news footage showed Hamas rocket lauchers in the background of the died being carried away.

 

It sounds like there is confusion about the period of time discussed because 2000 is more or less the number of palestian civilian casualties since the beginning of the new millenium.

[Fairweather]

Above, you referred to the "murder" of thousands, but now you say "casualties". Apparently, you don't understand the difference, or are once again trying to leave your lies the cover of semantics. Weak tactics and arguments from a weak mind.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Fairweather

[j_b]

In Fairweather's orwellian reality the killing of innocent civilians isn't murder, but of course I'd be the one playing semantics. Jackass.

 

Here's is a short blurb by the editor of Editor & Publisher about the coverage of Israel-Palestine within the last week by the New York Times:

 

"Israel launched its much-anticipated invasion of Gaza this afternoon.

 

After more than eight days of Israeli bombing and Hamas rocket launching in Gaza, The New York Times had produced exactly one editorial, not a single commentary by any of its columnists, and only one op-ed (favoring Israel). The editorial, several days ago, did argue against the wisdom of a ground invasion - - but even though that invasion had become ever more likely all week the paper did not return to this subject."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/israel-launches-invasion_b_154988.html

[Gary_Yngve]

I may be wrong, or it may be my Western media sources, but it seems to me that every time Israel throws a few missiles or launches a couple of airstrikes across the border, it was preceded by an attack from outside its borders, i.e., Hamas, or Fatah or the PLO in earlier times. I cannot recall a time when the IDF launched a pre-emptive attack, except in 1967, and that was in response to Egypt expelling the UN peacekeeping force immediately before the Six-Day War broke out.

 

Also the bombing of the Iranian nuclear plant.

 

Then there was the revengeful Wrath of God, though some would argue that those folks were assassinated because they remained to be threats.

[billcoe]

 

Also the bombing of the Iranian nuclear plant.

 

Iran's tomorrows news Gary. You mean Iraq? They did the reactor in 1981 in Iraq. First operational combat sortie with F-16s ever I believe.

[Gary_Yngve]

Iraqi, my bad. Yeah, that was a wild mission. Pretty crazy that they evaded radar detection by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Iraq!

Edited January 3, 2009 by Gary_Yngve

[STP]

If I understand correctly, we have applied in Iraq what we have learned from the Israelis regarding urban warfare. I suggest that the Middle East is just another petri dish for development of techniques that can be put into practice if the need should arise closer to home. Some of the other areas of application would include enhanced psychological techniques of coersion and neutralization, non-lethal crowd control, border checkpoints, identification technology, etc.

 

We have already trained military personnel in these techniques, some of who will transition into the law enforcement field. The 'enemy' can as easily transform from Arab Muslims to domestic dissidents. But of course it'll never happen in America. We're much too enlightened.

 

And get this, not just the practical aspects but the theoretical as well. Some quotes:

 

He said: ‘this space that you look at, this room that you look at, is nothing but your interpretation of it. […] The question is how do you interpret the alley? […] We interpreted the alley as a place forbidden to walk through and the door as a place forbidden to pass through, and the window as a place forbidden to look through, because a weapon awaits us in the alley, and a booby trap awaits us behind the doors. This is because the enemy interprets space in a traditional, classical manner, and I do not want to obey this interpretation and fall into his traps. […] I want to surprise him! This is the essence of war. I need to win […] This is why that we opted for the methodology of moving through walls. . . . Like a worm that eats its way forward, emerging at points and then disappearing. […] I said to my troops, “Friends! […] If until now you were used to move along roads and sidewalks, forget it! From now on we all walk through walls!”’

 

‘In Nablus the IDF understood urban fighting as a spatial problem. [...] Travelling through walls is a simple mechanical solution that connects theory and practice.’

 

‘we employ critical theory primarily in order to critique the military institution itself – its fixed and heavy conceptual foundations. Theory is important for us in order to articulate the gap between the existing paradigm and where we want to go. Without theory we could not make sense of the different events that happen around us and that would otherwise seem disconnected. […]

 

And when the military ‘talks’ (as every military does) to the enemy, theory could be understood as a particularly intimidating weapon of ‘shock and awe’, the message being: ‘You will never even understand that which kills you.’

--- The Art of War

 

Well, you get the drift. And so it goes...

 

BTW, I found this great video:

 

[video:youtube]vuyRCfhCZT0