The Middle East part 2

[theavonlady 2]

Just as a one out of a zillion example, who's the liar/coniver in the following example:

Dissembling Demolitions.

I'm not sure this is such a great example.

CAMERA's complaint is that the captions of these Palestinian homes demolished by the IDF failed to mention that they were unoccupied, although the stories generally did.

So what?  

Why don't you read? Then you'll know what. It's just a typical example. Try being minimally honest.

[theavonlady 2]

Why don't you quote moderate Arab opinion then?

LOL...  As if...

You don't even accept my moderate Israeli sources.

Try me. Again you avoid responding to the point being made.

[Bernadotte 0]

Why don't you quote moderate Arab opinion then?

LOL...  As if...

You don't even accept my moderate Israeli sources.

Try me. Again you avoid responding to the point being made.

Did you take a stupid pill today?  Or did you just completely miss the following:

...I never quote Arab media sources.

[Bernadotte 0]

Just as a one out of a zillion example, who's the liar/coniver in the following example:

Dissembling Demolitions.

I'm not sure this is such a great example.

CAMERA's complaint is that the captions of these Palestinian homes demolished by the IDF failed to mention that they were unoccupied, although the stories generally did.

So what?  

Why don't you read? Then you'll know what. It's just a typical example. Try being minimally honest.

How dishonest and desperate of you to delete over half of my post from your reply.

I preferred it when you simply ran and hid from my opinions rather than edit them into something you can attack.

[theavonlady 2]

How dishonest and desperate of you to delete over half of my post from your reply.

Not at all. Your reply showed that you didn't even bother understanding what the report was about.

Here! I'll make you a happy pappy and quote you in full, since you didn't catch my drift the first time:

Quote[/b] ]I'm not sure this is such a great example.

CAMERA's complaint is that the captions of these Palestinian homes demolished by the IDF failed to mention that they were unoccupied, although the stories generally did.

So what?

The last paragraph's of the CAMERA article explain why this is another case of anti-Israel bias propped up by all the major international wire agencies and fanned throughout the world press:

Quote[/b] ]According to Danny Seaman, director of the Government Press Office, Palestinian photographers stage photographs and are handsomely compensated by foreign agencies. “The IDF announces that it is going in to demolish an empty house, but somehow afterwards you see a picture of a crying child sitting on the rubble. There is an economic level to that. The Palestinian photographers receive from the foreign agencies 300 dollars for good pictures,†he claimed in an Oct. 11, 2002 Kol Ha’Ir interview translated by Israel News Agency. Seaman did not provide evidence.

If true, the motivation of the Palestinian photographers taking such deceptive photos is clear. More troubling are the actions and motives of the international news agencies which solicit and distribute misleading or blatantly false photos and captions.

Can you find me some equivalent anti-Palestinian deception as promoted by the same media and press agencies?

Quote[/b] ]By suggesting that it's important for the reader to know they were vacant, CAMERA asserts that the IDF have been cast in a bad light unfairly if the reader is left thinking that the IDF demolished occupied dwellings.

But... but... the IDF demolish occupied dwellings all the time.  And had these dwellings been occupied the IDF would have demolished them all the same, no?

Yes and they wouldn't have hid it and, of course the press would have a field day, as they do with the posed pictures presented in the CAMERA article.

The purpose of the CAMERA article is not to claim that Israel does not demolish buildings that are still in use.

The purpose of the CAMERA article is to show you another standard case of media manipulation by "reputed" news agencies.

Can you find me one picture where the IDF had a photographer take a picture of a destroyed building, with all building's people intentionally cleared out of the camera's view and then have these "acclaimed" news agencies pawn off this picture to the world as if the IDF destroys only not-in-use buildings?

Start searching.

Quote[/b] ]My point is that it is CAMERA who is making the IDF look bad by linking the unoccupied/occupied question with the IDF looking good or bad.

The focus of the article is the visual fabrication of events, as perpetrated by major international news sources, considered credible, impeccable and reliable by all the other ostriches here.

Since you personally NEVER quote Arab media, you may with to reconsider ever referencing AP, Reuters, AFP, etc., again. There may not be a major difference.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]According to Danny Seaman, director of the Government Press Office, Palestinian photographers stage photographs and are handsomely compensated by foreign agencies. “The IDF announces that it is going in to demolish an empty house, but somehow afterwards you see a picture of a crying child sitting on the rubble. There is an economic level to that. The Palestinian photographers receive from the foreign agencies 300 dollars for good pictures,†he claimed in an Oct. 11, 2002 Kol Ha’Ir interview translated by Israel News Agency. <span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>Seaman did not provide evidence.

If true</span>, the motivation of the Palestinian photographers taking such deceptive photos is clear. More troubling are the actions and motives of the international news agencies which solicit and distribute misleading or blatantly false photos and captions.

Of course, you just assumed it to be true and went on your merry way condemning AP, Reuters, etc.  A few hours ago you were thanking AP.  CAMERA didn't even assume that the Israeli government press officer's accusations were necessarily true, so why should we?

[theavonlady 2]

<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>Seaman did not provide evidence.

If true</span>

Once again, you've missed the point of the article.

Whether money was received by the photographers or not is not the purpose of the CAMERA article, which indeed is candid enough to use the words you so kindly put in big bold print.

In fact, if intentional on your part, your employment of using that bold print and larger size font is another form of manipulation, in many ways similar to what the CAMERA article is pointing out about the mass media's posed pictures. But surely, that was never your intent.

By the way, what's better? That the newswire cameramen got paid for their manipulative photos or that they did it free of charge? I'll let you choose.

[turms 0]

So it doesnt matter if the article is based on truth?

Does Avon really believe that there is a huge conspiracy against Israel in the international newsagencies? Are the articles that you post better, dispite the fact that they are based on personal beliefs and assumptions?

[Bernadotte 0]

The focus of the article is the visual fabrication of events, as perpetrated by major international news sources, considered credible, impeccable and reliable by all the other ostriches here.

Obviously!  All media services do it, without exception.  Believe me.  

Btw, there's no such thing as Santa Claus either.

But to what evil malicious end did they do it in this case, if it was not intended to make Israel look bad?  

And on the other hand, if you believe it was intended to make the Israel look bad then why should knocking down seemingly occupied dwellings make Israel look bad?  They do it all the time.

[theavonlady 2]

So it doesnt matter if the article is based on truth?

That's one big coffee you had there!

What article? Where did I say that the truth doesn't matter?

The article states that Danny Seaman, director of the Israel Government Press Office, presented no evidence for his verbal allegation when interviewed by Israeli paper Kol Hair.

The CAMERA article is not hiding that fact. Furthermore, not providing evidence during an interview with a newspaper does not make the article false.

It's you now who is falsifying what the CAMERA article is stating.

Maybe you need another coffee.

Quote[/b] ]Does Avon really believe that there is a huge conspiracy against Israel in the international newsagencies?

Why don't you explain to the folks at home why the same news sources, which you yourself claim are reliable and accurate, perpetrate these deceptive images which are then distributed worldwide?

Yes Bernadotte will laugh but I will provide here once again a link to Honest Reporting and their weblog Media Backspin.

Please show me all the mistakes they're making and the equivalent mistakes with a pro-Israel slant that the same major news source make. Go ahead. Show me.

Quote[/b] ]Are the articles that you post better, dispite the fact that they are based on personal beliefs and assumptions?

I would be more than happy if you could prove me wrong.

Let's take the last Reuters and photo in the CAMERA article:

Reuters image and caption

As CAMERA says on the above:

The catch? The Sheikh Omar family who owned the demolished house said they do not have children of that age and do not recognize the pictured children. Reuters told the Jerusalem Post that the children are relatives of the Sheikh Omar family but had not been living in the house (“Isawiya house demolition sparks anger,†Feb. 2, 2000.)

So, whose kids are these? No Sheik Omar's the house's owner. Even Reuters switched the story when they related it to the Jerusalem Post.

Who put the kids there? Whose toys are those? Who gave the toys to the kids? How does Reuters say one thing in the officially released caption and then relate another story to the Jerusalem Post, with both stories being denied by the Arab family involved?

Sloppy journalism or politicized fiction for international digestion?

Maybe some day you'll wake up.

[ralphwiggum 6]

i'm getting really unhappy about all the name calling here.

[theavonlady 2]

The focus of the article is the visual fabrication of events, as perpetrated by major international news sources, considered credible, impeccable and reliable by all the other ostriches here.

Obviously!  All media services do it, without exception.  Believe me.

OK.

Quote[/b] ]Btw, there's no such thing as Santa Claus either.

There is, too!

And they're all fonies. What a similarity!

Quote[/b] ]But to what evil malicious end did they do it in this case, if it was not intended to make Israel look bad?

Pro Arab bias? Payment, as implied (but, yes, not proven - at least in this article)? Anti-semtism? Sells the news better?

Why don't you ask Reuters.

Quote[/b] ]And on the other hand, if you believe it was intended to make the Israel look bad then why should knocking down seemingly occupied dwellings make Israel look bad?

Because it can make Israel look worse, if you can get away with it.

Give them a finger, they take a hand.

Quote[/b] ]They do it all the time.

Now that you mention it, why don't you remind everybody why they do it "all the time"?

You yourself already tried to pull this manipulation a few pages back. I had to pull out the quotes from the same article that explained what was going on in the Rafiach area where the buildings were destroyed. You, apparently couldn't be bothered.

Again, how typical. And how similarly manipulative to the newswire agencies being discussed here.

Why don't you fess up to your motives that justify such manipulations on your part?

[theavonlady 2]

i'm getting really unhappy about all the name calling here.

I will not tease fatty.

I will not tease fatty.

I will not tease fatty.

I will not tease fatty.

I will not tease fatty.

I will not.................

[Placebo 29]

I'm unpininning these two threads, consider it a final step before they're closed completely and we decide to stop all such debates if necessary. Behaviour in these threads is at times disgraceful, if you can't keep it civil then don't post.

[Bernadotte 0]

You yourself already tried to pull this manipulation a few pages back. I had to pull out the quotes from the same article that explained what was going on in the Rafiach area where the buildings were destroyed. You, apparently couldn't be bothered.

Again, how typical. And how similarly manipulative to the newswire agencies being discussed here.

Why don't you fess up to your motives that justify such manipulations on your part?

No manipulation, dear.  I did respond.  You seem to have missed it.  These things happen.  

(...how's that Placebo? )

[Placebo 29]

(...how's that Placebo? )

You're clearly on your way to becoming an ambassador of the forums, keep it up

[qUiLL 0]

my suggestion for cooling-off: grab the nearest flammable object and smoke it! oh wait, that would be biased because gas station attendants reading this would get blown up and they tend to be arab! :-D

in all seriousness though, put your vigor and passion for whatever your cause is into an olde-fashioned (i love how all these places try to make it seem like they are older by spelling "old", "olde") game of ofp! nothing beats that!

(note to all gaming newbs: NO, I DONT WANT TO PLAY COUNTER-STRIKE ;-))

another thought: why does it seem like i am the only one with a june 2001 registration date? not even any of the mods seem to have anything earlier than that...speaking of which...why am i not a mod? :-D

[theavonlady 2]

You yourself already tried to pull this manipulation a few pages back. I had to pull out the quotes from the same article that explained what was going on in the Rafiach area where the buildings were destroyed. You, apparently couldn't be bothered.

Again, how typical. And how similarly manipulative to the newswire agencies being discussed here.

Why don't you fess up to your motives that justify such manipulations on your part?

No manipulation, dear.  I did respond.  You seem to have missed it.  These things happen.

Dahlink........................................

I never said you didn't "respond". I said that when you posted this, you conveniently left out the text from the same article you yourself linked to, that explains and, IMO - not yours, justified Israel's actions.

/forum hug

[Acecombat 0]

And imams do no worse to crowds of hundreds of thousands?

How about 2 million? Here's another one:

Top Saudi Cleric Assails Terrorists

A great headline and wondeful news, until you get all the way down to the third paragraph:

Quote[/b] ]"Is it holy war to shed Muslim blood? Is it holy war to shed the blood of non-Muslims given sanctuary in Muslim lands? Is it holy war to destroy the possessions of Muslims?" he <Sheik Abdul Aziz al-Sheik, telling 2 million pilgrims in Mecca> asked.

Notice a "slight" discrepency between the article's title and the paragraph's text above? Let me help you: if you're not a Muslim or under Muslim protection, killing you or destroying your posessions in not terrorism.

And we have the Associated Press to thank in helping us to assuage our baseless Islamaphobia.

Ah poor avon once again on her mission to prove that Islam is a barbaric religion and against jews bla blah ...

Seriously avon are you a islamic scholar or something?

Since you were adept enough to ASSUME something out of the paragraphs context without ANY solid evidence backing your stupid assumptions

I dont usually bother correcting you but this is too much this time.

This is what was said:

"Is it holy war to shed Muslim blood? Is it holy war to shed the blood of non-Muslims given sanctuary in Muslim lands? Is it holy war to destroy the possessions of Muslims?" he <Sheik Abdul Aziz al-Sheik, telling 2 million pilgrims in Mecca>

DID it say anywhere that killing nonmuslims is not terrorism? You are VERY good at manipulaing sentences and using them for your own VILE purposes.

ISLAM doesnt allow you to spill the blood of a NON MUSLIM nomatter WHEREEVER he is or who he works under or over. Until unless your attacked by him or hes a threat to your existence you WILL NOT ATTACK anyone be he a MUSLIM or a NON-MUSLIM until unless your in the battlefield/in a war.

Its a pity not many muslims are on this forum to correct your baseless anti-islamic propaganda machine from where you spew out these crappy assumptions 24/7.

Bernadotte is right these sort of comments from you truly reflect your mentality.

[qUiLL 0]

ahhh people. i wish you could all see things from my point of view. but then again, isnt that what everyone wants?

[red oct 2]

ahhh people. i wish you could all see things from my point of view. but then again, isnt that what everyone wants?

fill us in, whats your p.o.v?

[Pipski 0]

God, but this thread IS a depressing read. Some days you look at it and just despair for the future of the whole human race, really you do. Reminds all of us what `irreconcilable' really means. Surely all the semantic arguments, accusations of this, that and the other, backhanded compliments etc. are better done by PM so the thread just debates the actual news and events?

[qUiLL 0]

my pov is to stop being ignorant, just both admit that both sides have done wrong, forget about past relations and all live happily ever after

actually my point in that post wasnt point of view, it was that everyones point of view is different and everyones perception of what is "right" is different. but we are only human...

[red oct 2]

i can certianly agree to that as well to Pipskis post. maybe its best to just bury this thread for good? imo, this thread only accomplished in making it all personal w/ bitter feelings toward one another.

[Bernadotte 0]

Sometimes I wonder if things would have been different if the Internet had existed during the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany.  Certainly the web would have been used to spread a lot of propaganda, just like today, but it also would have helped to cut through a lot of it.

Back in the 1930s there probably would have been 3 types of participants:

- People who spread a one-sided view (on either side);

- People who try to sort it out and understand what it really happening; and

- People who think that we'll all just get along better if we shut down the debate.

I'll try a different anology.

This is not a simple math problem.  It's more like trying to predict the weather with vastly different methods.

- The scientists say it will rain Monday based on millions of variables and measurements;

- The historians say it will rain Tuesday because it rained on that same day in 1939; and

- The theologians say it will rain Wednesday because God promised it would rain on that day.

My advice to anyone who would prefer not to be a weatherman is to sit back and try to enjoy the debate because one thing is quite certain.  Whenever it actually does start to rain, it will also rain on you.