The Middle East part 2

[Bernadotte 0]

Original - http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog....hop.jpg

Reuter's propaganda version - http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog....p06.jpg

The two images actually have very little overlap; were shot from different angles; and probably at different times.

The one on the right may have been retouched, but who cares; it's not much worse than the original.

[Nemesis6 0]

May have? It has.

Guess I got the pictures mixed up. Even though tabs in Firefox make it easier, I still have to bring my feeble mind to organize them properly!

[deanosbeano 0]

Well it is wrong that news people edit picture in that way, but worse than that is when people misquote or omit parts of a sentence,in order to sensationalise and or mislead.the ironic thing is the peron who, brought up the picture edit ,is the one person most guilty of ,trying to mislead and or sensationalise here in this forums.i was tempted to make my ownl little gif. not before and after pics but .doctored quote and real quote, but there was so many i would have been banned.pot and kettle come to mind.oh how wonderful life must be when you can be both righteous and misleading.

oh well.

Hypocrisy anyone ?

[mp_phonix 0]

How many Arabs have to die for you to call it a massacre?

Didn't you call the killing of 30 Israelis at a Netanya restaurant in 2002 a massacre?

Didn't you call the killing of 21 Israelis in Maxim's Restaurant in Haifa in 2003 a massacre?

Didn't you call the killing of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics a massacre?

Then why is it that the killing of 52 Arabs in Jenin was not a massacre?

Racism, anyone?  

I'm gonna nail you for that one.

Bring a Quote me showing me calling those event a Massacre.

The Israel Defense minister Amir Perez said that the military operation in South Lebanon will be extended if a cease fire will not be aggread on in the next days.

[Bernadotte 0]

I'm gonna nail you for that one.

Who am I?  Jesus?  

Bring a Quote  me showing me calling those event a Massacre.

When I said "you" I referred to the Israeli people, not necessarily you specifically.  So, does that mean you personally do not regard any of those killings to be a massacre?  Even the link to the Munich Olympics killing of 11 Israelis contains the word "massacre".

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

@ Ares1978 and Bernadotte:

Thanks for that info, I don't know Beirut that well, I only looked at both pictures and saw that they weren't the same, wouldn't have been able to match them up to the same area as Bernadotte did.

And I agree with Bernadotte: the edited picture doesn't look much worse than the real deal. I also agree with deanosbeano - news agencies shouldn't release edited pictures. But then again, a trained eye easily spots that it's kinda odd for the smoke to be that way, under those circumstances, I guess...

[xawery 0]

You have to be absolutely blind NOT to notice that the picture has been touched up. The responsible photographer has been fired, and rightly so (he admitted to having ´retouched´ the photo, but he claims he did not intend to mislead and that his workplace was dark   ). What is more worrying is the fact that the editors did not notice that the photograph has been tampered with.

Still, is this relevant? The edited picture doesn´t really paint a different image than the original one. There´s tons of other evidence of the destruction wrought upon Lebanon by Israeli aircrafts and artillery. Naturally, some people try to imply that because this photograph was touched up, obviously ALL images released by AP have been tampered with and do not represent the actual situation in Lebanon. Again, a perfect example of secundum quid. I´m serious people, read up on your logic - it will prevent you from making the same mistakes over and over again.

On a different note - the oil spill caused by the bombing of the Jiyyeh power plant has spread to the shores of Syria. The amount of damage caused to wildlife is rather self-explanatory...

[Bernadotte 0]

On a different note - the oil spill caused by the bombing of the Jiyyeh power plant has spread to the shores of Syria. The amount of damage caused to wildlife is rather self-explanatory...

Lebanon should rebuild all those power plants along its eastern rivers which are a major source of freshwater for Israel. Perhaps that will protect them from future attacks.

[Ares1978 0]

Still, is this relevant? The edited picture doesn´t really paint a different image than the original one.

As relevant as the use of dysphemisms in the media in general (or euphemisms for that matter), but that's a matter of personal preference and personally, I prefer my facts cold and hard, not "improved" by some maggot with an agenda.

[mp_phonix 0]

eastern rivers which are a major source of freshwater for israel

Not really.

[Bernadotte 0]

eastern rivers which are a major source of freshwater for israel

Not really.

Not really?

A third of your country's water comes from the Sea of Galilee, which is fed by the Jordan River, which is fed by the Hasbani River in Lebanon (plus 2 springs in the Golan Heights).

Keep trying!!  

[Stealth3 0]

Lebanon should sue Israel because of that.

1. Israel was never at war with the state of Lebanon.

2. The power plant had nothing to do with Hezbolah.

3. It caused huge damage.

The fact that the two states are not officially at war should win the case for Lebanon. Not that it will happen, because we know who Israel is, they should at least try.

If the cops blow up my building adjacent to the building they were trying to blow up, I have the right to sue.

The damage here is not temporary, but permanent.

[xawery 0]

Still, is this relevant? The edited picture doesn´t really paint a different image than the original one.

As relevant as the use of dysphemisms in the media in general (or euphemisms for that matter), but that's a matter of personal preference and personally, I prefer my facts cold and hard, not "improved" by some maggot with an agenda.

Obviously, and I agree with you on that Ares. Personally, I prefer facts to be facts, full stop. Touching up photographs is a flagrant transgression of the rules of good journalism.

However, my questioning of the relevance of this incident wasn´t primarily based on the fact that the original photograph differed very little from the edit. What I meant was that there is no proof of this being common practice in AP. What is more, I can´t really understand what the photgrapher´s goal may have been. His edit of the photograph didn´t significantly alter the connotations of the image. It´s not like the original photo depicted a peaceful and prosperous part of Beirut. Why would he want to touch up the photograph then, and in such an amateurish manner to boot? I am actually inclined to believe him: he did a crap job. It´s just like Denoir once said: whenever some behaviour can be explained either in terms of malice or incompetence, it´s usually incompetence.

Anyway, I think we´re wasting too much time on this issue. A photographer fucked up, but that doesn´t make the situation in Lebanon is any less dreary. The oil spill is turning out to be a significant environmental problem. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands civilians displaced. The whole country is in shambles - the infrastructure is destroyed, humanitarian aid cannot reach the needy. And for what? Hezbollah is not being dealt a blow, the civilians are. You cannot destroy a guerilla force with airstrikes.

Let´s not forget the Israeli victims. Katyusha´s may be innacurate, but it´s the randomness of the strikes that holds the civilian populace in a constant grip of uncertainty. One moment you´re crossing the street, the other your body is riddled with shrapnel. The Israeli death toll may be significantly lower than the Lebanese one, but that doesn´t make the civilian deaths any less significant. It should be noted though that Hezbollah has not targeted civilians until Israel began the massive bombardments on Lebanon. Additionally, people who remain indoors are relatively safe from the katyusha´s - the Lebanese have nowhere to hide from Israeli bunkerbusters.

In short, the whole operation (Samson´s Pillars, or Pillars of Samson, if I´m not mistaken?), is a win-win situation for Hezbollah. Airstrikes won´t eliminate it. If Israel realises this and decides to withdraw, Hezbollah can claim victory. If Israel chooses to continue the bombardments, Hezbollah´s popularity will grow - after all, it´s the only organisation actively opposing ´Israeli aggression´. What is more, the pro-Western elite will eb damaged, because it has been proven to be impotent in the face of an attack. Should Israel decide to commit ground troops to the offensive, they will find themselves in the same situation as 6 years ago - stuck in a guerilla conflict they cannot hope to win. At least not in the short term, and not without heavy casualties. As we know, the Israeli public opinion is not willing to accept casualties. In sum, Israel is stuck in a lose-lose situation. And I haven´t evem factored in the opinion of the international community into this... Even the US will not be able to unconditionally support Israel if things like Qana II keep happening.

[Nemesis6 0]

Quote[/b] ]Then why is it that the killing of 52 Arabs in Jenin was not a massacre?

I love it when people say stupid things like that, because it gives me the oppertunity to say things like this:

Quote[/b] ]"Palestinian hospital sources in Jenin put the total number of dead at 52. Last week's Human Rights Watch report also said 52 Palestinians died. Israel says 46 Palestinians died. Israel says that 46 Palestinians died, all but three of whom were combatants. Palestinian medical sources have confirmed that at least one of these civilians died after Israel withdrew from Jenin on April 12, as a result of a booby-trapped bomb that Palestinian fighters had planted accidentally going off."

[billybob2002 0]

How many Arabs have to die for you to call it a massacre?

Didn't you call the killing of 30 Israelis at a Netanya restaurant in 2002 a massacre?

Didn't you call the killing of 21 Israelis in Maxim's Restaurant in Haifa in 2003 a massacre?

Didn't you call the killing of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics a massacre?

Then why is it that the killing of 52 Arabs in Jenin was not a massacre?

Racism, anyone?

Why don't you break down the 52 Arabs killed in Jenin? According to Human Rights Watch (you like them, right?), majority of the Arabs, 27, killed were militants or suspected militants. Additionally, more IDF soldiers were killed then civilians. If it was massarce, wouldn't the number of dead IDF soldiers would be much lower then the civilian death toll?

The United Nations and human rights groups, HRW and AI, concluded there was no massarce in Jenin. There might have been unlawful killings but not a massarce

Racism? No.

Did you watch the video?  This is not about what the different sides try to do.  This is about what the pro-Israeli side succeeds at doing; what the US media allows them to do; and what the rest of the world's media does not.  Sure you can argue that Arab media allows the Palestinian propagandists lots of freedom, but Arab tax dollars did not buy the bombs and missiles that killed nearly 1000 Lebanese civilians this past month.

I like to be fair and balance. You can't have one argument dominant other arguments. The video talked about Israeli manipulation and I wanted to show that Arabs do it too.

Again, what does that have to do with successful media manipulation?

It goes with my argument that Arabs try to manipulate too. If it wasn't for the "right-wingers" who exposed the doctored picture (just like the leftists with exposing Israeli manipulation), the picture would had been a successful manipulation by Arabs. They are not organized as the Israeli but it is there.

Again, where's your evidence that they knew, but suppressed the actual number of casualties.  They had to excavate that cellar with their bare hands.  It took them days.  And when they finished, the real deathtoll came out.

What were the initial deathtoll estimates for the WTC attacks?  Twenty thousand, then ten thousand, then five and finally under three thousand.  Have you accused the US authorities of trying to make the deathtoll greater than it actually was?  Of course not.  This is an accusation you reserve for Arabs, I guess.

I like how you use the race card at the end! Anyway, I admit I seriously missed up on that one. Actually, it was one day that it took them revise the number. Just forget about that one. Oh, don't try to use the race card again on me.

Please show me your evidence that it was downplayed.

Hardly no new reporting in the national news and the fact some papers wouldn't mention that he said "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel/" They might mention he was "angry at Israel" but don't mention the other part. He was a shooter who happened to be a Muslim and that is all. Look at the reporting by the Washington Post for example of downplaying the shooting has just a guy shooting Jews.

[Nemesis6 0]

Speaking of watching videos, a guy here actually sent me a PM telling me to watch the bullshit conspiracy film "Loose Change" by the evil, disgusting creep Alex Dylan with "no preconcieved view".

[Bernadotte 0]

Why don't you break down the 52 Arabs killed in Jenin? According to Human Rights Watch (you like them, right?), majority of the Arabs, 27, killed were militants or suspected militants. Additionally, more IDF soldiers were killed then civilians. If it was massarce, wouldn't the number of dead IDF soldiers would be much lower then the civilian death toll?

You apparently believe that the IDF can execute on sight any Palestinian in the West Bank who picks up a weapon even if they do so in defense in Area A where the Palestinians were given full military control.  I disagree.

You apparently believe that only unarmed people can be massacred.  I disagree.  

You apparently believe that a massacre is not possible without a lop-sided score, like at some sporting event.  I disagree.

The United Nations and human rights groups, HRW and AI, concluded there was no massarce in Jenin. There might have been unlawful killings but not a massarce.

Racism? No.

I didn't ask the UN how many Arabs must be killed to constitute a massacre.  I asked you.  And since you've not denied that the Haifa restaurant and Munich Olympics killing were massacres, where fewer unarmed innocent civilians died than in Jenin (using your reference), then you clearly need to see more Arabs die than Jews before calling it a massacre.

Racism?  Obviously.

Again, what does that have to do with successful media manipulation?

It goes with my argument that Arabs try to manipulate too. If it wasn't for the "right-wingers" who exposed the doctored picture (just like the leftists with exposing Israeli manipulation), the picture would had been a successful manipulation by Arabs. They are not organized as the Israeli but it is there.

Are you saying it's ok then?  Those examples of Israeli media manipulation given in the video are acceptable to you because some Arab photographer added a few more clouds of smoke to what was already there?  ...Awesome double standard.

Again, where's your evidence that they knew, but suppressed the actual number of casualties.  They had to excavate that cellar with their bare hands.  It took them days.  And when they finished, the real deathtoll came out.

What were the initial deathtoll estimates for the WTC attacks?  Twenty thousand, then ten thousand, then five and finally under three thousand.  Have you accused the US authorities of trying to make the deathtoll greater than it actually was?  Of course not.  This is an accusation you reserve for Arabs, I guess.

I like how you use the race card at the end! Anyway, I admit I seriously missed up on that one. Actually, it was one day that it took them revise the number. Just forget about that one. Oh, don't try to use the race card again on me.

Mistakes happen.  But when was the last time you "seriously messed up" in favour of Arabs?  

Please show me your evidence that it was downplayed.

Hardly no new reporting in the national news and the fact some papers wouldn't mention that he said "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel/" They might mention he was "angry at Israel" but don't mention the other part. He was a shooter who happened to be a Muslim and that is all. Look at the reporting by the Washington Post for example of downplaying the shooting has just a guy shooting Jews.

I got the full story over here in Central Europe.  Why do you suppose the American media hid the fact that Naveed Haq was as much a Semite as his victims, hmm?  

I love it when people say stupid things like that, because it gives me the oppertunity to say things like this:

Quote[/b] ] blah... blah.... blah.....

How do you expect me to show that you are lying again if you don't include a reference link?  

[billybob2002 0]

I didn't ask the UN how many Arabs must be killed to constitute a massacre.  I asked you.  And since you've not denied that the Haifa restaurant and Munich Olympics killing were massacres, where fewer unarmed innocent civilians died than in Jenin (using your reference), then you clearly need to see more Arabs die than Jews before calling it a massacre.

Racism?  Obviously.

I don't see it has a massacre because it wasn't a deliberate mass killing of civilians. The United Nations concluded there was no massacre. The HRW and AI, human rights groups that don't hold a favorable view of Israel, also concluded that there was no massacre.

Racism? No.

Are you saying it's ok then?  Those examples of Israeli media manipulation given in the video are acceptable to you because some Arab photographer added a few more clouds of smoke to what was already there?  ...Awesome double standard.

No, I'm use to the manipulation and what not in the national media by various "interest" groups (including the media itself). I just simply look for various other news sources.

I got the full story over here in Central Europe.  Why do you suppose the American media hid the fact that Naveed Haq was as much a Semite as his victims, hmm?

I think he isn't a semite because he is Pakistani.

[Bernadotte 0]

I don't see it has a massacre because it wasn't a deliberate mass killing of civilians.

What government's military will ever admit to the "deliberate mass killing" of civilians?  And when such incidents do occur they will certainly get covered up like at Haditha.  By the way, do you consider the killing of those 24 Arabs in Haditha a massacre?

Nonetheless, I will forgive the Palestinians who may have used the same dictionary definition for "massacre" that I use, which says the killings must be indiscriminate, but not necessarily deliberate.  And I certainly won't regard it as a significant attempt at media manipulation as you have chosen to do.

I got the full story over here in Central Europe.  Why do you suppose the American media hid the fact that Naveed Haq was as much a Semite as his victims, hmm?

I think he isn't a semite because he is Pakistani.

Then why do you think American media downplayed that he is Muslim?

[Garcia 0]

According to the definition of a massacre that I've got in my Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, a massacre is: The killing of a large number of people, especially in a cruel way

According to that definition, there is no need for the killing to be deliberate, and it's still a massacre, even though the ones who is doing the killing sustain many losses themself (as long as the people getting massacred isn't the ones inflicting the losses I guess, cause then it would be a violent conflict between 2 parts which ended in heavy losses on both sides).

That is about the same as I meant a massacre was, before I looked it up now, just to see a definition.

[Bernadotte 0]

I hope Mel Gibson reads this:

Quote[/b] ]The bipartisan pro-Israel lobby has, in recent years, been further strengthened by the fervour of millions of right-wing evangelical Christians, at least some of whom believe that the Middle East conflict is the fulfilment of the Bible’s prophecy of Armageddon.

Last month the Reverend John Hagee, a Pentecostal television evangelist from Texas, convened a meeting in Washington of 3,500 members of Christians Unified for Israel. The organisation is dedicated to building support for Israel, even in states where there are few Jewish voters.

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican presidential hopeful, attended the rally, as did Senator Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania, Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, and Daniel Ayalon, the Israeli Ambassador.

Mr Hagee called the Israeli attacks on Lebanon a “miracle of God†and suggested that a ceasefire would violate “God’s foreign policy statement†towards Jews. The evangelist is a leading figure in the so-called Christian-Zionist movement, rooted in a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations, which predicts a final battle between good and evil in Israel, where two billion people will die before Christ’s return ushers in a 1,000-year period of grace.

“The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching . . . Rejoice and be exceeding glad — the best is yet to be,†Mr Hagee has written in a book that has sold 700,000 copies.

President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr Hagee and his supporters for “spreading the hope of God’s love and the universal gift of freedomâ€. He is said to have added: “God bless and stand by the people of Israel and God bless the United States.â€

The support for Israel of 50 million American evangelicals chimes with the reality of the Administration’s foreign policy, which refuses to tolerate terrorist organisations — or the Middle Eastern regimes linked to them. Dennis Ross, a Middle East envoy in the administrations of the first President Bush and Bill Clinton, said recently that evangelical supporters of Israel were now an “important part of the landscapeâ€.

-- Times UK

Important part of the landscape??  Given that American evangelicals out number American Jews by about 6 to 1, they have become the landscape.  ...Not to mention that a much larger percentage of Evangelicals than Jews blindly support Israel.

[billybob2002 0]

What government's military will ever admit to the "deliberate mass killing" of civilians?  And when such incidents do occur they will certainly get covered up like at Haditha.  By the way, do you consider the killing of those 24 Arabs in Haditha a massacre?

Nonetheless, I will forgive the Palestinians who may have used the same dictionary definition for "massacre" that I use, which says the killings must be indiscriminate, but not necessarily deliberate.  And I certainly won't regard it as a significant attempt at media manipulation as you have chosen to do.

Something happened in Haditha and I will wait for the Haditha investigation to be completed before declaring something.

Anyway, again, the United Nations found no proof of a massacre in Jenin. Additionally, two major human rights groups, HRW and AI, that criticizes Israel found no proof of a massacre. No manipulation but just fact. However, if you consider Israel controls the UN, HRW, and AI......

Then why do you think American media downplayed that he is Muslim?

Don't know why. I see it has the same with the Wichita Murders, two people that brutually murdered multiple persons, and that case didn't get much national attention. If you know the murders, you wonder why the murders didn't get that much attention due to the whole story of the murders. Maybe it didn't get much attention because the murders are black and the victims are white. I don't know.

I guess it could cause tension in the community (like if the Wichita murders recieved national attention). However, Jews are still more likely then Muslims to be attacked due to their religion.

[Bernadotte 0]

Before:

Both sides of the conflict try to manipulate the US media to portray one side more favorable then the other. For example, the Palestinians tried to make what happened in Jenin a big massarce of Palestinian civilians...

After:

I certainly won't regard it as a significant attempt at media manipulation as you have chosen to do.

No manipulation but just fact.

Do I detect some progress?

However, Jews are still more likely then Muslims to be attacked due to their religion.

Jewish Americans are definitely the victims of hate crimes more often than Muslim Americans, and it's not just because they outnumber Muslims by around 2 to 1.  However, I do not believe it is mostly due to their religion.

If Israel was a Mormon state killing thousands of Palestinians under brutal occupation and now bombing Lebanon to dust then I believe American Mormons would be attacked much more often.  And most of those attackers probably wouldn't have a clue what the Mormon faith was about.

It's much more political than religious.  ...Unless you believe that being an atheist could actually save an American Jew from a hate crime.

[Nemesis6 0]

The Palestinians are not under a "brutal occupation" and Israel isn't "Bombing Lebanon to dust". I'm not gonna argue this because it's merely how you see it and how you see it is wrong.

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Palestinians are not under a "brutal occupation"

you once told somebody never to pretend the knew how israelis react or felt,i think a palestinian would say the same to you,if one was reading your opinion on how israel treats them during the occupation.

in addition altho i had the common decency to reply to your query some pages back ,i am still awaiting your answers to my questions.

Also i find it hard to believe that almost every source you deliver here,is that of misreporting by euro tv and journalists,yet you yourself are renowned here for doing the same.

what i would like to know over and above questions already asjked, is when is it right to misrepresent or misquote in your opinion ?