[Old Man G Funk]

Thanks, and nukulur is a neo texan bushoite word I presume?

You catch on quick.

 

[fluff]

I thought he was describing the Shabra and Shatila masacres in 1982...not sure.

The shelling of the UN compound at Qana in 1996.

 

[rockwool]

about "mainstream media".
i live in peru. i dont watch much local tv/news. it just feeds my misanthropy, and makes me wonder why god wastes so many good lightinings on trees...

the few local news i watch can be considered factual statements reports and impartial or, if anything, a bit pro-arab and anti-us.. (the national median/average being quite towards anti-us, anti-israel, i suspect way more than northern europe). so by my background, you can say people around here hate the US and israel by proxy.

i get most of my news from cnn, the international version for the most (i can say its pro-israel). the spanish version is considerably more symphatetic to the arab perspective. i watch bbc ocassionaly.

but i get the most information by reading, i read the nyt, and the only 2 local papers worth a reading (can say they are pro-us), one of them carries a editorial and world pages from the wsj.
sometimes i read haaretz, lately i´ve been reading a few lebanese newspapers...

about the middle east i´ve read a good chunk of the jewish virtual library (you can say its biased, but at least tends to be factual and well documented). i´ve read a few differente pro-palestinian seemingly serious sites, but besides the sympathy i have for their suffering, most of those sites are appeal to shock and are hardly worth of a read from an educational pov. wikipedia has been a good resource too...
i read a lot... my job gets very slow at times, so reading is a good passtime.

sorry but i dont know any recomendable documentary.

Good!
I've read Haaretz articles and have got a positive view of them. BBC also positive, coverage and a lot of good documentarys, except for that mulata sitting in the studio (don't remember her name).
CNN, CBS, MSNBC, FOX and the other US newes channels are really pro Israel in their reporting. How that came to be I didn't know and understand until I watched Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land.
These channels are not objective in their reporting, but I consider it important to watch them too, so that I can understand how some people have come to have such a separated view of how I see the world.
A point I want to make is, if you watch the propaganda of a sertain side, you should endure some of the opposite sides propaganda aswell. That is, if you want to have a balanced perspective of what is covered. I have the impression that that is something you do want.

These are some of the people interviewed in the documentary. Think you will find them credible and hopefully want to watch it.
Noam Chomsky, prof, linguistics, MIT, USA
Gila Svirsky, Cooalition of Women for a Just Peace, Israel
Alisa Solomon, journalist, The Village Voice, USA
Neve Gordon, prof, politics and government, Ben Gurion Univ, Israel
Rabbi Michael Lerner, founder and editor, Tikkun magazine, USA
Robert Jensen, prof, journalism, Univ. of Texas-Austin, USA
Robert Fisk, journalist, The Independent, UK
Seth Ackerman, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, USA
Major Stav Adivi, reserves, IDF, Israel
Hanan Ashrawi, Palestininan Legislative Council, West Bank
Karen Pfeifer, prof, The Middle East Reaserch & Information Project, USA
Rabbi Arik Ascherman, Rabbis for Human Rights, Israel

Quite a few Jews among them as you see. Please watch it.

 

[rockwool]

You catch on quick.

Yassir, thank you sir.

The shelling of the UN compound at Qana in 1996.

K

 

[Changleen]

changleen..
let put up this scenario.
lets say 10 times more people died, and the infraestructure cost was 10 times higher.
assuming rational actors, from now on, do you think hezbollah will be equally trigger happy? would the general lebanese population be equally sympathetic and permisive towards hezbollah´s trigger happiness?

Up to this point I will answer 'Yes' on all points. Have you seen the multiple headlines along the lines of "Hezbollah rides wave of popularity across Middle East"?

and more importantly, would a new non-extremist lebanese government be equally permisive to hezbollah actions in the south???
what about is the damage was 20-fold??

Depends who they are 'allied' to (i.e. who gives em the most cash) - Personally If I was in charge of Lebabnon's regular army I'd be ordering them to fight back.

you can argue it just fuels anger against israel that will eventually turn into violence.

And I'd be dead right.

i know is icky, and its pretty sad to talk about stuff like this so coldly, but do you think there is a limit to how much damage inflicted into a population turns into violence against???
is it unlimited? or at some point resignation kicks in???

You might get to the resignation factor once you've killed 80%+ of teh locals but by then the resentment factor amongst the rest of the Arab world, and probably most of Europe would be massive. In this situation, you are simply not going to bomb the other side into submission. It's just not going to happen.

 

[Changleen]

Y'all should watch Rockwool's documantary, even if you only watch the first 20 minutes. The discussion of the situation in Gaza and the West bank is very interesting.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

You might get to the resignation factor once you've killed 80%+ of teh locals but by then the resentment factor amongst the rest of the Arab world, and probably most of Europe would be massive. In this situation, you are simply not going to bomb the other side into submission. It's just not going to happen.

the resignation threshold for egypt and jordan was much lower than 80%+.
think about all the people who died in wars between israel and egypt before 1978.

i´d say its a safe bet if i speculate a similar rate of deaths would have continued if camp david, the six day way and the yom kippur war had NOT happened.
that rate of death would eventually catch up with the initially number of dead people due to the 67-73 wars where egypt was pushed until submission.

now, you could argue a non-militar solution would be better.
but then, you have a side whose main, non negotiable, goal is the eventual anhilation of the jewish state... kinda hard to make a compromise with that.
and its not about just what they say, or reducing their statements as bluffs. their actions, disregard to previous agreements and unability to fall under one authority shows they mean business..

 

[Changleen]

the resignation threshold for egypt and jordan was much lower than 80%+.
think about all the people who died in wars between israel and egypt before 1978.

Yeah but in those cases it was the governments who were surrendering. It's a bit different when the government can't surrender on behalf of Hezbollah.

now, you could argue a non-militar solution would be better.
but then, you have a side whose main, non negotiable, goal is the eventual anhilation of the jewish state... kinda hard to make a compromise with that.

I don't really believe Israel has exactly altruistic intentions towards the Palestinians and Arabs.

and its not about just what they say, or reducing their statements as bluffs. their actions, disregard to previous agreements ... shows they mean business..

That statement goes 10 times over for Israel...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

ok, am watching the documentary...

it starts by stating the military occupation of the west bank. yet so far it fails to mention the roots of the military occupation of the west bank can be traced back to the 1948 israeli independence war, post the arab table-kicking of the 47 UN partition plan, and where the proposed palestinian state was absorbed by jordan and egypt, who happened to be countries who started a decades long war against israel. without remarking the historical context is, in terms of educative narration, like portraying the germany partition without a word about wwii and the marshall plan as allied gratuite land-hungry neocolonialism.

then goes the checkpoints. in a way, is valid complaining. yet is a complain about necesary meassures in a place where people like to blow up themselves.
i lived thru curfues, military roadblocks.. yes it sucks. yet i rather go thru them than having cars blowing up, and then getting caught in the middle between the military and terrorists.
plus, like stuff like that wasnt completely normal in the US. yes the US, your us-mexico border is way worse than that, you can have a very solid humanitarian claim to cross, yet you wont. you can rip your arm of in the border while in mexico with a hospital minutes away in the US side... and you wont get in.

i believe there are valid points to complain, but failing to put those actions in persepective and in context... it a little intelectually dishonest. checkpoints are not there for the sake of having them.
having checkpoints in boston isnt the same as having checkpoints in sudan.
trying to pass a sudan checkpoint, and the rejection the concept it may cause in an average suburban middle class bostonian, as a valid case for its removal is a bit of emotional manipulation.

i´ll keep watching...

 

[Changleen]

i believe there are valid points to complain, but failing to put those actions in persepective and in context... it a little intelectually dishonest.

Exactly like the US media, which fails to even mention that this stuff is happening.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Yeah but in those cases it was the governments who were surrendering. It's a bit different when the government can't surrender on behalf of Hezbollah.

the concept of submission still remains.
plus you have the deterrent any minimally rational actor would face when trying to attack.
if terrorism wasnt indirectly ampared as its now, i believe its value as a military strategy will diminish substantially.

I don't really believe Israel has exactly altruistic intentions towards the Palestinians and Arabs.

doesnt matter.
as long as people stop killing each other, they can wish to each other whatever they want.
plus that is not ground to dismiss the obvious problem of making compromises with a group whose main objective is you destroy you.

That statement goes 10 times over for Israel...

israeli actions arent gratious, and the whole thing related to the initial argument is different.
first, the continuous palestinian violence is a sample of that "we wont give up until we accomplish out mission of wiping israel of the map".
israeli violence is for the most part relatiation.
if you were right (and israel was what you suggest), then arab anhiliation would come as a direct result of stopping arab violence. yet you can see with egypt and jordan, from a halt of arab violence peace ensues. and from the other side, from the gaza pullout (an israeli sign of peace), more violence ensued. both things counter your suggestion.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Exactly like the US media, which fails to even mention that this stuff is happening.

they do mention that happens.

i also watch US media.

in fact, you can even say palestinian suffering is among the most portrayed suffering of the world, specially when compared to sub-saharan africa, china, south america, etc, etc.... (for both numbers of people, and level of suffering).

 

[fluff]

Alexis_DH, it is not possible for Israel to shell the Lebanese into a position where their support for Hezbollah diminishes and they elect a moderate government. The government they have now is much better than the next one will be is Israel continue this course of action.

Why do I say that? History. Did carpet bombing ever cause a people to start a civil war? No, because it actually unites them rather than divides them. I always find it strange that the British celebrated the "Spirit of the Blitz" and how everyone pulled together when the Germans were bombing the crap out of the UK, yet somehow expected the German people to react differently when we bombed the crap out of them.

If Israel want to turn the Lebanon into another implacable foe then they are going the right way about it.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Alexis_DH, it is not possible for Israel to shell the Lebanese into a position where their support for Hezbollah diminishes and they elect a moderate government. The government they have now is much better than the next one will be is Israel continue this course of action.

Why do I say that? History. Did carpet bombing ever cause a people to start a civil war? No, because it actually unites them rather than divides them. I always find it strange that the British celebrated the "Spirit of the Blitz" and how everyone pulled together when the Germans were bombing the crap out of the UK, yet somehow expected the German people to react differently when we bombed the crap out of them.

If Israel want to turn the Lebanon into another implacable foe then they are going the right way about it.

you are right here. a common enemy tends to unite people and is not always possible to change convictions thru violence.

but i dont think a near-future change in the convictions of hezbollah is possible either.
really, i try to see this in pragmatic terms. its obviouly a clash of wills. but i believe almost any improvement over the current war of attrition os better than nothing.

with this in mind, i believe changing somebody elses convictions is even harder than achieving peace. thus this is what i think.
what i think you can do, is start by achieving temporary peace. i really dont care much if people hate each other as long as they dont kill each other, thats a fine start to me.
egyptians dislike israel and are vocal about it sometimes. as long as there is no war, thats good enough.

now, in order to achieve this temporary peace, the only realistic way i see (according to how the middle east had achieved peace before) is thru pavlovian-like conditioning. kinda like israel did with jordan and egypt. once you have temporary peace (either by submission, or by making the other side fearful of retaliation)... then, with time, maybe a change in the mindset of both sides might come, maybe not. but as long as people dont kill each other, i´d take that.

we can recall history once again, japan and germany got bombed into submission. once you stop, at least temporarily, people from killing each other, it may be easier for wounds to heal and hates to fade, and hopefully the hate that fueled itself would fade until temporary peace turns into lasting peace.
in a way, is a chicken and egg situation.

peace thru submission was easier to achive than a change in the japanese mindset.
of course peace thru a change of mindset would be ideal. but unfortunately, in the case of the islamic terrorists, nazi germany, castro cuba, hirohito japan... hoping that is pure wishful thinking.

 

[fluff]

we can recall history once again, japan and germany got bombed into submission

Whilst you could argue that Japan were bombed into submission (and you should bear in mind that they were already seeking terms for surrender) it is utterly untrue to say that about Germany. The German surrender was only forced by occupation of Berlin.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Whilst you could argue that Japan were bombed into submission (and you should bear in mind that they were already seeking terms for surrender) it is utterly untrue to say that about Germany. The German surrender was only forced by occupation of Berlin.

well, what had to happen before, in order for the russians to get to berlin???
and then, occupying berlin is a form of submission too.

 

[fluff]

well, what had to happen before, in order for the russians to get to berlin???
and then, occupying berlin is a form of submission too.

Well, unless the Russians just strolled across from Russia to Berlin following some heavy bombing I think it is very safe to say that it was a lot more than just dropping ordnance on German cities.

Are you aware of the number of Russian casualties?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Well, unless the Russians just strolled across from Russia to Berlin following some heavy bombing I think it is very safe to say that it was a lot more than just dropping ordnance on German cities.

Are you aware of the number of Russian casualties?

of course. those guys won the war by sheer numbers....

and dont get semantically pedant on me... of course you know "bombed" can be replaced by "hit", "kicked", "howitzered", "pwn3d", "any military invasion against in order to achieve submission" for the meaning of the expression to make sense...

 

[fluff]

of course. those guys won the war by sheer numbers....

and dont get semantically pedant on me... of course you know "bombed" can be replaced by "hit", "kicked", "howitzered", "pwn3d", "any military invasion against in order to achieve submission" for the meaning of the expression to make sense...

The key word there is invasion. I was not getting into semantics, my original point was that bombardment simply unites people, it does not make them submit. I thought that you had implied that Germany was bombed into submission via aerial bombardment, they weren't, hence the huge Russian casualties.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

The key word there is invasion. I was not getting into semantics, my original point was that bombardment simply unites people, it does not make them submit. I thought that you had implied that Germany was bombed into submission via aerial bombardment, they weren't, hence the huge Russian casualties.

yes, bombing, howitzering, shelling, rolling tanks in... any military action falls under...

the thing is that retaliation creates a conditioning.
sometimes the fear of retaliation (which presently isnt much, since terrorism is granted a lot of indirect coverage by ROE and geneva conventions) is enough to keep violence from happening.
without deterrents, a group is more likely to engange in violence.

 

[Changleen]

yes, bombing, howitzering, shelling, rolling tanks in... any military action falls under...

the thing is that retaliation creates a conditioning.
sometimes the fear of retaliation (which presently isnt much, since terrorism is granted a lot of indirect coverage by ROE and geneva conventions) is enough to keep violence from happening.
without deterrents, a group is more likely to engange in violence.

So, how come, after 4 generations of violence, including the pounding that was the 6 day war, 10ish years of intafadah and Israeli 'punishments' is the fighting still go on then? Surely someone would have learned by now?

 

[Changleen]

they do mention that happens.

Maybe, occasionally. I've never seen them genuinely show it or explain what it actually means like European media. Seriously, have you? You know it is in a different league.

in fact, you can even say palestinian suffering is among the most portrayed suffering of the world, specially when compared to sub-saharan africa, china, south america, etc, etc.... (for both numbers of people, and level of suffering).

Covered, not acurately protrayed. There's a big difference.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

So, how come, after 4 generations of violence, including the pounding that was the 6 day war, 10ish years of intafadah and Israeli 'punishments' is the fighting still go on then? Surely someone would have learned by now?

its been an attrition war.
egypt and israel had a long one too. and it wasnt the attrition war what brought peace in the south. it was a heck of a smacking twice in 6 years to bring some sense into the egyptians....

Maybe, occasionally. I've never seen them genuinely show it or explain what it actually means like European media. Seriously, have you? You know it is in a different league.
Covered, not acurately protrayed. There's a big difference.

yeah, i´ve noticed. euro feeds tend to be more humane, more appealing, more centered around the human suffering and destruction. is widely covered.
but for example, if you give similar coverage to the farc fighters wounded in combat and their kids and how they live in the jungle (arbitrary example) without emphasis in the context.. that wouldnt be accurate, and in fact would be a bit biased....

like you say, "they dont genuilely show what it actually means". i believe that too. because they dont take much time (obvious time constrains) to explain what has happened there and why there are roadblocks, why there are curfews and stuff like that....

what does "accurate" mean to you??' what is lacking, in your opinion, in the us feeds, say cnn??

 

[rockwool]

Y'all should watch Rockwool's documantary, even if you only watch the first 20 minutes. The discussion of the situation in Gaza and the West bank is very interesting.

It was Kevin who posted that link.

a group whose main objective is you destroy you.

the continuous palestinian violence

is a sample of that "we wont give up until we accomplish out mission of wiping israel of the map".

israeli violence is for the most part relatiation.

stopping arab violence.

halt of arab violence

the gaza pullout (an israeli sign of peace)

Luckily, propaganda is only some thing the Arabs are capable of. A proof of that is their, from brainwashing, infected minds that show their love of killing and misstreating their stronger brother.

Palestinians are resisting an occupation. Anybody would do what ever is in their power, so that they could live in freedom. You would to.

in fact, you can even say palestinian suffering is among the most portrayed suffering of the world, specially when compared to sub-saharan africa, china, south america, etc, etc.... (for both numbers of people, and level of suffering).

Yeah, but it's not only THAT you portray it but HOW, as you saw good examples of in the documentary (BBC vs US media). If five boys get killed by a land mine on a road they use for going to school, you can go to the IDF press officer and ask him some Q's or you can have an "on the scene" report that make it out that "it was their own stupid fault".

egyptians dislike israel and are vocal about it sometimes. as long as there is no war, thats good enough.

now, in order to achieve this temporary peace, the only realistic way i see (according to how the middle east had achieved peace before) is thru pavlovian-like conditioning. kinda like israel did with jordan and egypt. once you have temporary peace (either by submission, or by making the other side fearful of retaliation)... then, with time, maybe a change in the mindset of both sides might come, maybe not. but as long as people dont kill each other, i´d take that.

we can recall history once again, japan and germany got bombed into submission. once you stop, at least temporarily, people from killing each other, it may be easier for wounds to heal and hates to fade, and hopefully the hate that fueled itself would fade until temporary peace turns into lasting peace.
in a way, is a chicken and egg situation.

peace thru submission was easier to achive than a change in the japanese mindset.
of course peace thru a change of mindset would be ideal. but unfortunately, in the case of the islamic terrorists, nazi germany, castro cuba, hirohito japan... hoping that is pure wishful thinking.

You continously point out hate as beeing one sided. There's great racism among Jews aswell, even internal fascism, where many consider sefardim's to be second class Jews to the aschkenazi's..
Scary!

Claearly 39 years of terrible occupaton has proven that the Palestinians will not accept beeing terrorized to submission just like the Israelis in their turn won't have it from its neighbouring Arab countries.

Man, you don't stop people from killing one an other by killing even more your selfe. You don't send out the fire brigade to put out fires with flame throwers eather, do you?

Japan or Germany was never occupied for 39 years with the intention to be colonies. You would have resistances fighting there still to this day!
Change of mindset of the Cubans towards having a US backed puppet government again? That was clearly shown in May 2004? during a massive (probably the biggest ever) demonstration, where 9 million (out of a population of 11mil) Cubans took it to the streets to show that they didn't want any US presence or influence over their country.

and then, occupying berlin is a form of submission too.

That is wrong. The USSR only had military presence in Eastern Germany and the other eastern states as an insurance that it would not have to suffer any more occupations on its own soil. Forces that tried to occupy them would have to fight their most battles in Eastern Europe. They was pretty scared of having to endure a new Napoleonic/Nazi agression aswell as after the revolution when they for several years, had their civil "red and white" war, where the whites were assisted by many divissions sent by the UK/French/US (maybe more countries).

of course. those guys won the war by sheer numbers....

Hitlers bad strategic tactics played a good part too..

the thing is that retaliation creates a conditioning.
sometimes the fear of retaliation (which presently isnt much, since terrorism is granted a lot of indirect coverage by ROE and geneva conventions) is enough to keep violence from happening.
without deterrents, a group is more likely to engange in violence.

How can you retaliate when you are the agressor, the occupier, the neo colonisateur, when you have hundreds of Libanese jailed of which many are not convicted or even trieled!!!
Obviously this can continue even though Israel is "restrained" by ROE and GC. Maybe got some thing to do with higher vetoing powers. Not sure though.

 

[rockwool]

its been an attrition war.
egypt and israel had a long one too. and it wasnt the attrition war what brought peace in the south. it was a heck of a smacking twice in 6 years to bring some sense into the egyptians....

True, partialy, with the previously mentioned US payoffs.
The differance is that Egypt was the agressor back then. Today in Palestine and Lebanon it's Israel.

but for example, if you give similar coverage to the farc fighters wounded in combat and their kids and how they live in the jungle (arbitrary example) without emphasis in the context.. that wouldnt be accurate, and in fact would be a bit biased....

what does "accurate" mean to you??' what is lacking, in your opinion, in the us feeds, say cnn??

Portraying that a large number of Colombians are suffering under the current and past administrations, and there for have taken up a fight, is showing a biased picture of that conflict?

As with the different guerilla groups in Colombia not getting their word out in western media, the same goes for the Palestinians. It is all too often that only one side gets their view told unbiased, or for that matter at all.
Israeli consules "having breakfast, lunch and dinner with journalists" and telling them what frases to use, handing them "ready stories" that go to print unverified etc. shows that objective journalism is lacking.

 

[MikeD]

Israeli consules "having breakfast, lunch and dinner with journalists" and telling them what frases to use, handing them "ready stories" that go to print unverified etc. shows that objective journalism is lacking.

So which Israeli consul handed the photo of masses of Lebanese coffins to the New York Times today? Which diplomat identified the corpses in the coffins as 'civilian?'

The endless whining about media bias is disheartening, and no one ever takes resposnibility for their own actions. Of course the media is biased...but it's biased mostly towards pandering for profits, not advancing a particular agenda for its own sake. It reflects what it thinks will sell to its target audience, whether it's Fox News or Al-Jazeera.

(Personally, I find journalistic solace only in the Economist and the Christian Science Monitor, probably because I'm their target audience...)

In any case, the Muslims, at least those with power and guns, don't want peace...they want the destruction of Israel. They've proven it time and again by shrugging off peace arrangements and committing offensive acts to provoke a reaction about which they can later cry to the world. Arafat made sure the conflict never ended, and the extremist factions carry on that legacy, while their 'extreme' views become more and more the norm.

Muslim governments nearby do nothing material to stop them. And Israel cares more about its own psyche than it does about truly breaking the cycle of violence. However, if no one attacked it, Israel wouldn't have a single troop outside what it considers to be its borders, and would have begun giving up parts of the West Bank. I don't care how much Chomsky you've read.

MD

 

[Silver]

The endless whining about media bias is disheartening, and no one ever takes resposnibility for their own actions. Of course the media is biased...but it's biased mostly towards pandering for profits, not advancing a particular agenda for its own sake.

It's amazing how the talking heads on the cable news networks suddenly have the ability to ask tough questions when the Syrian ambassador is on the show.

One wonders where that tenacity is everytime there is a White House briefing, but I digress.

 

[MikeD]

It's amazing how the talking heads on the cable news networks suddenly have the ability to ask tough questions when the Syrian ambassador is on the show.

One wonders where that tenacity is everytime there is a White House briefing, but I digress.

Well, the White House briefings are also self-screened to a degree...but yeah, the major news players are always there regardless. Again, I think it goes back to giving consumers the product they want.

 

[rockwool]

So which Israeli consul handed the photo of masses of Lebanese coffins to the New York Times today? Which diplomat identified the corpses in the coffins as 'civilian?'

The endless whining about media bias is disheartening, and no one ever takes resposnibility for their own actions. Of course the media is biased...but it's biased mostly towards pandering for profits, not advancing a particular agenda for its own sake. It reflects what it thinks will sell to its target audience, whether it's Fox News or Al-Jazeera.

(Personally, I find journalistic solace only in the Economist and the Christian Science Monitor, probably because I'm their target audience...)

In any case, the Muslims, at least those with power and guns, don't want peace...they want the destruction of Israel. They've proven it time and again by shrugging off peace arrangements and committing offensive acts to provoke a reaction about which they can later cry to the world. Arafat made sure the conflict never ended, and the extremist factions carry on that legacy, while their 'extreme' views become more and more the norm.

Muslim governments nearby do nothing material to stop them. And Israel cares more about its own psyche than it does about truly breaking the cycle of violence. However, if no one attacked it, Israel wouldn't have a single troop outside what it considers to be its borders, and would have begun giving up parts of the West Bank. I don't care how much Chomsky you've read.

MD

Seriously, you should watch the documentary to have that shown to you in a good way. It's 80min long and realy easy watched.
If you want to get deeper knowledge in how media works (US media in particular) down load Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky. The latter one will show you the difference in written article meters between the well know masacre in Cambodia and the not so known in Indonesia. It will show that media wrote about Cambodia because it was in USA's intrest to show how cruel communism is. The military dictatorship in Indonesia, that was supported by the US, massacred a couple trehundred thousand people but was in comparison hardly mentioned, just because it was a US friendly country.

Media is definately about making money, but the papers that are into making headlines like "killer dog attacked school yard" and such is, at least in Sweden, only/mainly the afternoon press. Personaly, I think that is deliberate shlt journalism to get a big percentege of the people to think about other stuff than the daily things that truly affect our lives, so that the big boys can operate whit less protests from the stupified crowd.
Morning press is more serious, but still try to manipulate by writing more sentimental and with less facts than the business press. All papers have a outspoken political stand (like: "we're an independant socialdemocratic paper blablabla") and writes its articles biased towards how they consider the world is/hsould be.
All press make big fuss about beeing independant. It used to mean that they weren't taking any financial help from a specific party, which was pretty common in the days, but that doesn't guarantee unbiased journalism, as they like to claim. The only thing that that guarantees is that if you're a billionere you can own a paper of your own, and thus own the power to affect peoples minds.
Take into consideration that 85-90% (don't remember exact #) of the media is owned by 5 (five!) media conglomerates. One thing that is almost porhibited to mention, if you don't want to be called an anti semite, is that Jews own a lot of media.

Only know the Christian Science Monitor by name, but I find papers like the Economist very valuable to read because they show you the buisness behind, for instance a war, in actual dollars and are full of facts so that brokers can make as good choises as possible about where to palce the money.

Saying that muslims with guns don't want peace is a dangerous simplification and sounds like the black and white way the neo cons portray the world.
Those peace arangements have been "winner takes what he wants and leaves the scrap" kind of type.
The Palestinians had the belief in th e70's that the world would see what missery they lived in and would then have acted in their favor. Today not even the thickest most ignorant guy in Ramallah can think that. Something would have happened a long time ago then.
In a extreme enviroment extremity is bound to blossom.

I find it very obvious that the Israelis want to annex the West Bank into a Greater Israel. They actually have a word for a Palestinian diaspora (forgot it) and want to make living so unlivable that the Palestinians actually pack their **** and leave. The word "transfer" rings in my head, think that is the propper Israeli term. So they won't leave the W/B unless told by the whole world including the US. What they say about preventing terrorism by occupation is pure bs. Gaza was also in the plan for Greater Israel but they gave it away because they palestinians there had too much resistance and fight in them. Considering their plans, the Gaza pullout is a smoke screen tactic.

 

[rockwool]

It's amazing how the talking heads on the cable news networks suddenly have the ability to ask tough questions when the Syrian ambassador is on the show.

One wonders where that tenacity is everytime there is a White House briefing, but I digress.

That is a good observation. Think it was on CNN a few years ago some guy interviewed Hanan Ashrawi. He was asking questions that well over boarded to stupidly biased but she kept her cool and answered all of them really well and informative. As the show ended the interviewer noticably embarrased said somthing like "I had to come down hard on you so to show that I didn't stand on your side.."

Again, I think it goes back to giving consumers the product they want.

No, it's to keep us away from the light. The masses want a fair and just world but today don't have a belief that that is possible. If the media start portraying the world as it is the world will revolt.

"We describe it as defence against terrorism. Not as brutal military occupation which is evoking resistance. If the US policy shifts, coverage will shift." -Noam Chomsky

Mike, you gotta hand it to him. Chomsky knows media like nobody else..

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Palestinians are resisting an occupation. Anybody would do what ever is in their power, so that they could live in freedom. You would to.

ok, i´ve said this many times.
you DONT keep the right to "rightfully resist an occupation" IF you started a war. jordan (defacto controller of the west bank) started the 67 war.

Japan or Germany was never occupied for 39 years with the intention to be colonies. You would have resistances fighting there still to this day!

there could, but that wouldnt make it right.
imagine today if "resistance fighters" popped in pomeria.... would it be valid, in a legal kinda way?? of course not.
thats a right you give up when you start a war.
for how long? well, there is no law or custom saying "it has to be under X years". it can be permanent for all customary practices allow. (with a few limitations, all very long to explain and none relevant to the middle east)

Change of mindset Cubans towards having a US backed puppet government again? That was clearly shown in May 2004? during a massive (probably the biggest ever) demonstration, where 9 million (out of a population of 11mil) Cubans took it to the streets to show that they didn't want any US presence or influence over their country.

dude, let keep israel aside in this one.
do you know how "demonstrations" work in cuba?

That is wrong. The USSR only had military presence in Eastern Germany and the other eastern states as an insurance that it would not have to suffer any more occupations on its own soil. Forces that tried to occupy them would have to fight their most battles in Eastern Europe.

ok, and that is regarded was valid form of occupation, and is regarded today, post-facto, as a valid action of self-defense...
see any similarity against that and israel?

How can you retaliate when you are the agressor, the occupier, the neo colonisateur, when you have hundreds of Libanese jailed of which many are not convicted or even trieled!!!
Obviously this can continue even though Israel is "restrained" by ROE and GC. Maybe got some thing to do with higher vetoing powers. Not sure though.

israel´s occupation of the west bank is NOT the result of an aggresion war. i want you to repeat that, or tell me why is the occupation of the west bank the result of an aggressive war.

israel is NOT the agressor. israel DID NOT start a war that lasts until today. israel did NOT occupy the west bank as a result of an aggresive war it started.

just becuase you think it is, or becuase you think history traces back to only the last 10 years doesnt mean it is.

how hard is to understand that many stuff happening today are direct consequences of the 67 war (and previously 48) both NOT started by israel?

 

[MikeD]

Saying that muslims with guns don't want peace is a dangerous simplification and sounds like the black and white way the neo cons portray the world.
Those peace arangements have been "winner takes what he wants and leaves the scrap" kind of type.

No, it's not a black and white way to see the world...saying "all Muslims want to destroy Israel" is a black and white way to see the world. Pointing out that those with guns and the ability to use them (whether in the minority or majority of the world's Muslim population) don't want peace is really more of an observation than an opinion.

It's very easy for even a small minority with guns to continue making provocative moves, like kidnapping Israelis or launching rockets, so long as they're equipped...and tolerated by or outgunning the society in which they operate.

Thus, being no expert on the variety of opinions in the Arab world (which certainly does not represent one monolithic sentiment vis-a-vis Israel or any other issue), I will only state the obvious...some Muslims, armed and willing, do NOT want peace and will not let it occur. They're doing a good job of preventing it.

It's a trend that began with Arafat, who fell in love with the conflict and the station it provided him more than he loved the idea of peace...he wanted to issue communiques, be flown around the world, and play the grandstanding revolutionary, all of which would disappear if peace were brokered.

This trend continues in the militants for whom this conflict is self-sustaining, and who have (as I've said over and over again) a vested interest in keeping the conflict going and lots of dead Muslims on TV.

Your critiques of Israel's withdrawls from Gaza and the West Bank simply don't hold water for me...I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Israel, as dirty as its past may be (as most countries' pasts are), has made the only genuine overtures to peace in the region, short of denying its own sovereignty.

MD

 

[Silver]

It's a trend that began with Arafat, who fell in love with the conflict and the station it provided him more than he loved the idea of peace...he wanted to issue communiques, be flown around the world, and play the grandstanding revolutionary, all of which would disappear if peace were brokered.

I pretty much agree with your whole post, and since I think others have covered the places where Israel is culpable, I don't think it worth rehashing.

The thing that really irks me about this war is that it just doesn't make any sense from Israel's point of view. I totally understand how Hezbollah makes gains here, but I don't see the upside for Israel. The Economist seems to think that the Israeli response is caused mainly by the fact that Olmert wasn't a general and is afraid of being called a pussy. I shudder to think that is the case...but not knowing the nuances of Israeli politics, I don't have a better answer.

You finally have a Lebanon that is leaning the way we (Israel and the US) wants it, and then you go and blow up a ton of stuff that Hezbollah doesn't control. Dropping bombs on the airport? I can't think of a better way to score points to Hezbollah and drive moderate Lebanese into the arms of Syria.

What was one of the things Arafat did to bolster his reputation? He spent some time in Lebanon, fighting the Israeli occupation. I wonder if anyone is paying attention to that little slice of history...

 

[MikeD]

I'm astonished that Israel thinks it can make gains against Hizbullah this way...but I guess its other option is to play the victim. Which might be more effective in isolating Hizbullah and other extremists, but which Israel simply will NEVER do.

MD

 

[Silver]

I'm astonished that Israel thinks it can make gains against Hizbullah this way...but I guess its other option is to play the victim. Which might be more effective in isolating Hizbullah and other extremists, but which Israel simply will NEVER do.

MD

The third way I can see is Israel not responding with force against Lebanese civilians, but instead keeping pressure on Hezbollah through the means they have been doing and asking the US to lean on Lebanon's government to help out. That's assuming, of course, that the US State Department is worth much...which is a huge assumption.

Thank god these retards weren't in charge during the Cold War, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As it is, that's impossible now. Like the D&D dorks say, "The die has been cast..."

 

[Toshi]

two interesting tales of american citizens evacuated from beirut:

http://www.klinewoods.com/?p=42

http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=514007

 

[rockwool]

ok, i´ve said this many times.
you DONT keep the right to "rightfully resist an occupation" IF you started a war. jordan (defacto controller of the west bank) started the 67 war.

Don't that sound stupid in your ears, that a neighbouring colonial power starts a fight but you're the one to get penalized?

there could, but that wouldnt make it right.
imagine today if "resistance fighters" popped in pomeria.... would it be valid, in a legal kinda way?? of course not.
thats a right you give up when you start a war.
for how long? well, there is no law or custom saying "it has to be under X years". it can be permanent for all customary practices allow. (with a few limitations, all very long to explain and none relevant to the middle east)

Wouldn't it? If they're to beaten down psychologicaly do to sircumstances in life, like haveing beeing oppressed so hard they couldn't rise earlier, either as a people nor as individuals, do they loose the right to not be colonized by the sheer time that has passed? And the Greeks that rose against the Ottoman emprire in 1821 and still hadn't liberated all lost land until the final war of 1922-23, did thay actually not have a right to be free from colonization just because Konstantinopel fell in 1495?
What about the Yougoslavs, they wanted countries of their own, so they split?

"it can be permanent for all customary practices allow"
The law isn't fault less is it, specially in this case its obvious. Won't people in like 200 years look at 2006 and say "damn, how could those morons think that their societys were fully developed and righteus" just like we look at the 18th century systems?

Don't loose you're selfe in the law. There is a greater right and wrong. If you listen to your heart it should say "you can't stop the killing by even more killing". Legal technicalities is what crooks hide behind. Look at Ollie North...guilty as sin.

 

[rockwool]

dude, let keep israel aside in this one.
do you know how "demonstrations" work in cuba?

Yeah, they send the military out to go knoking on every door to tell te people to go out and shout "I don't want US supremacy, I don't want to own my own home, I want to rent it, I want to be illiterate and too poor to see a doctor again, I want no influence over the collective farm I work on, bomb me to your form of democracy cus it's better than ours"

ok, and that is regarded was valid form of occupation, and is regarded today, post-facto, as a valid action of self-defense...
see any similarity against that and israel?

No, I see differances. When the war ended the Russians didn't continue the slaughter. They did have military presence in the country but they kept to their camps and they never miss treated the German population in any way like the Israelis have.
The same goes for the US and UK troops in West Germany. No Germans came to harm anywere. No German infrastructure eather for that matter.

israel´s occupation of the west bank is NOT the result of an aggresion war. i want you to repeat that, or tell me why is the occupation of the west bank the result of an aggressive war.

israel is NOT the agressor. israel DID NOT start a war that lasts until today. israel did NOT occupy the west bank as a result of an aggresive war it started.

just becuase you think it is, or becuase you think history traces back to only the last 10 years doesnt mean it is.

how hard is to understand that many stuff happening today are direct consequences of the 67 war (and previously 48) both NOT started by israel?

1948, 1967 and 1973, got it!
The war of 67 ended in 6days man. Ever since, Israel has been occupying with intent to incorporate the Palestinian enclaves into a greater Israel. They have been conducting a constant military campaign, disguised as defence, to make the daily life for all Palestinians so unbarable that they decide to moove.
This is clearly shown by their actons.
I don't judge a person for what he says he is. I judge him by his actions because people talk a lot of good about them selfes but do bad actions.

You're right, them three wars were not started by the Israelis, nor the Palestinians, anyhow 40 years have passed and Israel stand safe from an attack. Both from Egypt and Syria. It long do that the strong part takes an action to solve this situation, because the way they have been conducting them selves during those years have made it worse for people of both parties.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Don't that sound stupid in your ears, that a neighbouring colonial power starts a fight but you're the one to get penalized?

interesting, now tell me... why then should israel bear that price????

Wouldn't it? If they're to beaten down psychologicaly do to sircumstances in life, like haveing beeing oppressed so hard they couldn't rise earlier, either as a people nor as individuals, do they loose the right to not be colonized by the sheer time that has passed? And the Greeks that rose against the Ottoman emprire in 1821 and still hadn't liberated all lost land until the final war of 1922-23, did thay actually not have a right to be free from colonization just because Konstantinopel fell in 1495?
What about the Yougoslavs, they wanted countries of their own, so they split?

that doesnt mean the israelis are the ones who should pay the price. israel was all fine with the partition. what happened between states from there on, as a result of an offensive war waged AGAINST israel shouldnt be paid by israel.

Don't loose you're selfe in the law. There is a greater right and wrong. If you listen to your heart it should say "you can't stop the killing by even more killing". Legal technicalities is what crooks hide behind. Look at Ollie North...guilty as sin.

who defines the greater "right and wrong"????

what is this greater "right and wrong"???
you (palestinian got a part in the war too) go berserk on your neighbor, destroy all his stuff.. he kicks you out of his house, and when he makes you pay for the damage to you start yelling and going berserk again???? is that your greater right?

 

[Changleen]

British Government splits with US position:

Britain dramatically broke ranks with United States President George Bush on Saturday night over the Lebanon crisis, publicly criticising Israel's military tactics and urging America to "understand" the price being paid by ordinary Lebanese civilians.

The remarks, made in Beirut by the British Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells, were the first public criticism by this country of Israel's military campaign, and placed it at odds with Washington's strong support.

The Observer can also reveal that British Prime Minister Tony Blair voiced deep concern about the escalating violence during a private telephone conversation with the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, last week. But sources close to Blair said Olmert had replied that Israel faced a dire security threat from the Hezbollah militia and was determined to do everything necessary to defeat it.

Britain's shift came as Israeli tanks and warplanes pounded targets across the border in southern Lebanon on Saturday ahead of an imminently expected ground offensive to clear out nearby Hezbollah positions, which have been firing dozens of rockets onto towns and cities inside Israel.

Downing Street sources said on Saturday night that Blair still believed Israel had every right to respond to the missile threat, and held the Shia militia responsible for provoking the crisis by abducting two Israeli soldiers and firing rockets into Israel. But they said they had no quarrel with Howells's scathing denunciation of Israel's military tactics.

Speaking to a BBC reporter before travelling on for talks in Israel, where he will also visit the missile-hit areas of Haifa and meet his Israeli opposite number, Howells said: "The destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children and so many people: these have not been surgical strikes. If they are chasing Hezbollah, then go for Hezbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation." The minister added: "I very much hope that the Americans understand what's happening to Lebanon."