But that is what it is. Israel is responding in force. They have been trying diplomatic solutions for the last year or so. Now they're pulling the plug and taking out all-stops.
Hamas/Palestine might be more inclined to listen to diplomacy if Israel gave them back their border, their airspace and their access to the sea. Oh, and actually allowed food and medicines into the region.
I cannot think of any other motive that they would attack Gaza, it surely cannot be just for pure greed, that's not an Israeli thing to do. They are handling the problem in their way.
Israel is greedy - they broke out on their own in '48 because they didn't want to share the land with anyone else.
And anytime anyone does anything to help anyone else in the region, Israel goes on full alert and screams 'Anti-semitism!'.
Hamas/Palestine might be more inclined to listen to diplomacy if Israel gave them back their border, their airspace and their access to the sea. Oh, and actually allowed food and medicines into the region.QFT.
Israel is greedy - they broke out on their own in '48 because they didn't want to share the land with anyone else.Meh. I have to reconcile this with the fact that they gave back much of the territory they captured during the Six Days' War.
Not saying you're wrong, only that it's difficult for me to take things at face value.
And anytime anyone does anything to help anyone else in the region, Israel goes on full alert and screams 'Anti-semitism!'.Funny how we talk about two-state solutions, fly their leaders here to broker peace, etc yet we only send money and weapons to Israel. Can't imagine that has anything to do with how Americans are viewed in the Arab world.
Meh. I have to reconcile this with the fact that they gave back much of the territory they captured during the Six Days' War.
Not saying you're wrong, only that it's difficult for me to take things at face value.
I agree, but I like to think that if everyone had gone along with it in the first place the past 60 years in the region might have been a little quieter (ok, so not that much, but it might have been better).
Funny how we talk about two-state solutions, fly their leaders here to broker peace, etc yet we only send money and weapons to Israel. Can't imagine that has anything to do with how Americans are viewed in the Arab world.
I know, it's a mystery... :)
Funny how we talk about two-state solutions, fly their leaders here to broker peace, etc yet we only send money and weapons to Israel. Can't imagine that has anything to do with how Americans are viewed in the Arab world.
Yeah, I agree that our continued support of Israel has proven to be more trouble than it's worth. They've shown themselves to be no better than Hamas. We should have pulled our support before 9/11, though. To do so now would seem like we're giving in to terrorists.
Funny how we talk about two-state solutions, fly their leaders here to broker peace, etc yet we only send money and weapons to Israel. Can't imagine that has anything to do with how Americans are viewed in the Arab world.
It'd be kind of nice if we didn't send guns to either of them (and if other countries wouldn't send guns, either), and only gave humanitarian aid as needed. However, handing guns to both sides is like handing arsenals to the Crips and Bloods and letting all hell break loose on the streets when they decided to shoot the snot out of each other. Come to think of it, it rather is like one huge gang war, except it's over more land and with much bigger guns and assorted other 'toys'.
I am not as well versed in the history of Palestine and Israel as anyone else but I have come to learn something about international and war crimes, etc.
As far as I am concerned, Gaza and West Bank belong to Palestine which I believe is less than the original agreement in the Oslo accords. I may be wrong so don't bang the hammer on my head. Anyway, the way I see it, since Gaza and West Bank belong to Palestine, Israel has no right to set up their settlements within those areas. Though they call it a different name it is clearly settlement colonialism. Wouldn't that tick Palestinians off?
Or better yet when Israelis bouldoze tenement houses belonging to Palestinians to build these settlements. Wouldn't that tick them off too? Oh and what about the fact that the Israeli gives Palestinians hell when they try to cross the checkpoints into Jerusalem, etc? Oh and what about them denying a woman with cerebal palsy to get a tampon from her purse as she was waiting to board her flight home?
I would think that would tick people off. I've seen it before. They grow tired and they become angry and they think that the best way is to lash out with violence since clearly international law isn't going to help them.
Of course the US turns a blind eye since we pretty much have a vested interest in Israel and for pete's sake we train their military. This sudden disapproval of Israel bombing UN buildings is met with a skeptic eye to me. After all we clearly didn't have any regard for the UN regarding the invasion of Iraq and heck we were bound to obey all articles of the UN charter since Article 6 of our Constitution clearly states that any treaties we sign becomes part of the supreme law of the land.
Of course I am still collecting more information but I very little sympathy for Israel when they complain about the militants bombing them. Hmm, perhaps their leaders should think about what they are doing eh?
Article - Bin Laden tape urges war on Israel, taunts Bush (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28652698/)
Remember when I said there are no white flags in this war?
Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden urged Muslims to launch a jihad against Israel and condemned Arab governments as allies of the Jewish state in a new message aimed at harnessing anger in the Mideast over the Gaza offensive.
Bin Laden spoke in an audiotape posted Wednesday on Islamic militant Web sites where al-Qaida usually issues its messages. It was his first tape since May and came nearly three weeks after Israel started its campaign against Gaza's militant Hamas rulers.
The al-Qaida leader also vowed that the terror network would open "new fronts" against the United States and its allies beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.
Cites world economic problems
The al-Qaida leader also said the world economic crisis was a sign that the United States' power was falling apart, boasting that "the Islamic nation's jihad is one of the main causes of these destructive results for our enemies."
Pointing to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, bin Laden said al-Qaida was prepared to fight "for seven more years, and seven more after that, then seven more."
"We are on the way to opening new fronts," he said, urging Muslims to "join hands with the mujahedeen to continue the jihad against the enemy, to continue bleeding them on these two fronts and on the others that are open to you."
"The question is, can America continue the war against us for several more decades? The reports and signs show us otherwise," he said. He said Bush had left his successor "with a heavy inheritance," forcing Obama to choose between withdrawing from the wars or continuing.
"If he withdraws from the war, it is a military defeat. If he continues, he drowns in economic crisis," bin Laden said.
It was the first time bin Laden have spoken of Obama, though he did not mention him by name. Bin Laden's top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri has previously spoken against Obama, warning Muslims he will not bring major change in U.S. policies.
Was Bush and Israel right?
Thanks Achilles.
As to Yar-el's post regarding Osama, I believe he is correct in stating that we are placed in a catch-22 situation. If we withdraw from Iraq, etc, then we admit to military defeat but if we don't, we suffer economically even though history has shown that wars have been a capitalizing agent at least for industrial peoples.
Our involvement in the Middle East has been perpetuated by our economic pursuits which we have acquired in Iraq through economic colonization. In essence, the very thing that made us a great super power has brought us down. You would think that for a nation that proclaims a staunch support of democracy, foreign policy would be dictated by that support. Instead we have supported totalitarian and terrorist regimes. Yes we supported Osama bin Laden and we put Saddam in power.
As to Bush and Israel being right, well, Israel is in the wrong now and has been the last decade or so for the points I mentioned in a previous post. As for Bush, he was dead on wrong considering that he went for a Gulf of Tonkin and decided to invade Iraq.
Thanks Achilles.You're welcome.
If we withdraw from Iraq, etc, then we admit to military defeat If you make a decision, and then later realize that it was a bad one, is it admitting defeat?
When we entered Iraq, we did so under the pretenses of toppling a dictator who had WMDs poised to use against the U.S.
We invaded the country. We toppled the dictator. We discovered no WMDs.
Why is it "defeat" if we leave? I'm not trying to be snide. I genuinely don't understand the argument.
but if we don't, we suffer economically even though history has shown that wars have been a capitalizing agent at least for industrial peoples.Agreed.
Our involvement in the Middle East has been perpetuated by our economic pursuits which we have acquired in Iraq through economic colonization. In essence, the very thing that made us a great super power has brought us down. You would think that for a nation that proclaims a staunch support of democracy, foreign policy would be dictated by that support. Instead we have supported totalitarian and terrorist regimes. Yes we supported Osama bin Laden and we put Saddam in power.And that's just two in the Middle East that spring to mind. If we meandered over to Africa or South America, we'd find lots more.
As to Bush and Israel being right, well, Israel is in the wrong now and has been the last decade or so for the points I mentioned in a previous post. As for Bush, he was dead on wrong considering that he went for a Gulf of Tonkin and decided to invade Iraq.Kudos for the "Presidents from Texas" tie-in :D
If we withdraw from Iraq, etc, then we admit to military defeat
I too am confused by this statement.
A good reason why the world has a distaste for us is that we are terrible at admitting defeat, or admitting we could have been wrong on something. We must be right no matter what, regardless of the many consequences that can follow.
That is fine if you don't care what the other 6.5 billion people on the planet think of you, but not so great when you are trying to look good in the World.
And don't give me semantics. Bush himself at his latest press conferences has admitted that the search for WMD's was a disappointment, or just a downright failure of the administration. The only weapons we found were weapons we personally gave to them in the Cold War, and weapons the Russan's had handed out.
This entire conflict was a making of our own. Why not admit that we royally screwed up? Humility and self-reflection is something we Americans really need to learn before we lose the world standing to a humanitarian disaster like China.
Not directed at you, just trying to fill all my bases.
If we withdraw from Iraq, etc, then we admit to military defeat
With all due respect, I really don't think that this is an important factor any more. It wouldn't be the first time that thousands of our servicemen have been sacrificed on the altar of executive and legislative stupidity. The fact that there is not and never was a clearly-defined military objective in Iraq set us up for defeat from the outset. One would think that the Vietnam War would have taught this lesson already, but I guess not. Of course, given that we have accomplished next to nothing, the best course of action would have been to not invade in the first place, or to go in, topple Saddam and then leave.
We couldn't extract anything resembling a victory from Iraq if we stayed there for the next 20 years. All that remaining there is going to accomplish is more deaths; both theirs and ours. It's pointless to continue and it's long since time to pull out.
One would think that the Vietnam War would have taught this lesson already, but I guess not.I could understand this reasoning if anyone who was responsible for this war had been involved with that one.
Unfortunately, they all dodged in one fashion or another minus the one guy they refused to listen to.
I could understand this reasoning if anyone who was responsible for this war had been involved with that one.
Can one not learn from another's mistakes as well as their own? Or am I misunderstanding you here?
Unfortunately, they all dodged in one fashion or another minus the one guy they refused to listen to.
You wouldn't mind elaborating on this, would you?
Can one not learn from another's mistakes as well as their own?If one were sufficiently intelligent, yes. The fact that the decision makers didn't take heed (per your earlier post) would indicate to some that said decision makers were not sufficiently intelligent. That's my take on it anyway.
My comment was the long way 'round of accusing Bush and his cronies of being a bunch of chickenhawks.
You wouldn't mind elaborating on this, would you?None of the decision makers behind the invasion of Iraq (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz) served in Vietnam. Bush was in the Air National Guard, Cheney had 5 or 6 draft deferments, and Rumsfeld was a flight instructor for the Navy for a few years way back in the 1950's.
On the other hand, Colin Powell served two tours in Vietnam and is widely believed to have been pushed out of Bush's Cabinet due to his dissent re: the Iraq plan (take that for what you will).
So the one guy that actually had some chance of knowing what he was talking about was the one guy that they didn't listen to.
OK, now I remember all of this. Thanks. And I think that your points are valid.
Personally, I've always thought that it was Powell who should have been SecDef, even before Rumsfeld turned out to be such a disaster. It is his area of expertise, after all.
OK, now I remember all of this. Thanks. And I think that your points are valid.My pleasure.
Personally, I've always thought that it was Powell who should have been SecDef, even before Rumsfeld turned out to be such a disaster. It is his area of expertise, after all.Powell wasn't part of the club
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6289/theclubjg6.jpg)
Source (
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)
Israel shells UN Headquarters (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7829912.stm)
What the hell do they expect to come of such an action? For once, I find myself agreeing with Gordon Brown - it's Indefensible. If they keep acting like that, I can see someone else is going to get involved - either for better or worse.
I'm surprised nothing has been done already by the 'more powerful' nations, aside from the bleating from the politicians. It seems like countries are so scared of making a wrong step that they don't make any steps at all. Dealing with it by... not dealing with it. Kind of exposes the lack of power the more developed nations have really, similarly to Russia's provocations during the conflicts in Georgia. Not that it's an easy conflict to take sides in - Hamas aren't much better in their attitude than the Israelis. Still.
Not that it's an easy conflict to take sides in - Hamas aren't much better in their attitude than the Israelis. Still.
Who said anything about taking sides? Both of them need to be slapped down, hard, by a few of the G8 nations, and told to stop fighting needlessly over a stupid city. Supporting either side is utter nonsense: the truth is, support from every other nation, especially the US, needs to be withdrawn, tactical military measures to stop the fighting at both sources needs to take place, and this needs to return to a diplomatic solution, preferably with both Israel and Hamas getting a proverbial slap upside the head for behaving like toddlers with guns, and killing random civilians to achieve miltary goals.
No side is justified in this, and no side deserves biased support.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stmBoy), the IDF sure sounds splendid, eh?
Isn't there some European power that has the gall to boycott Israeli goods or some other form of punishment? Right now, I can see why Ahmadinejad is so pissy towards Israel.
Israel Declares Ceasefire. (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7835794.stm)
Something tells me it ain't gonna last.
Israel Declares Ceasefire. (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7835794.stm)
Something tells me it ain't gonna last.I'll give them a month. Their ceasefires never truly last, IMO.
I'll give them a month. Their ceasefires never truly last, IMO.
No way it lasts even that long. Hamas will fire more rockets next week or so and then Israel will retaliate.
_EW_
I'd even wager a few hours before it's in tatters.
B
Isn't there some European power that has the gall to boycott Israeli goods or some other form of punishment?
Perhaps Germany? :dev8:
Israel Declares Ceasefire. (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7835794.stm)
Something tells me it ain't gonna last.Hamas Declares Ceasefire. (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7836205.stm)
We'll see. I guess it depends on whether or not Israel agrees to the conditions.
Perhaps Germany? :dev8:
I'd say France, probably, but they and both England and Germany are quite upset with the Israelis right now. But, it would be quite ironic if it were Germany...
I thought the EU as a whole had imposed economic sanctions on Israel.
edit: PS @ CommanderQ, politically it wouldn't be England, it'd be the UK. After, big Gordon himself is Scottish. Hate to sound like a pedant, but still. Has to be done D:
Boy, the IDF sure sounds splendid, eh?
Isn't there some European power that has the gall to boycott Israeli goods or some other form of punishment? Right now, I can see why Ahmadinejad is so pissy towards Israel.
And right now I can see why Israel threw the English speaking version of Al-Jazerez out of their country.
CNN got caught again using photographs that were staged to drum up the idea that Israel was deliberately targetting women and children.
Seriously, maybe you don't mind rockets raining down on your head, but Israel has a right to defend itself. If you want to lay blame, lay blame at Hamas, Syria, and Iran.
And right now I can see why Israel threw the English speaking version of Al-Jazerez out of their country.It's Al-Jazeera, kthxbai. Additionally, the fact that Israel banned that network makes them seem even more totalitarian.
CNN got caught again using photographs that were staged to drum up the idea that Israel was deliberately targetting women and children.Okay...
Seriously, maybe you don't mind rockets raining down on your head, but Israel has a right to defend itself. If you want to lay blame, lay blame at Hamas, Syria, and Iran.Alright, that sounds cool.
Let's let Israel use white phosphorous as a "smokescreen" against civilians.
Let's let Israel barge into 139 square mile strip of land with a population of almost 1.5 million.
Let's let Israel target schools, hospitals and other public centers being used by Hamas, with Israel's knowledge that innocents were in the area.
As far as I'm concerned, I think that Israel has the right to push any ethnic group out of "their" land, due to citations from their own sacred documents. Hey, I sure don't want to be labeled an anti-Semite, right?
Total Israeli Causalities: 13
Total Gazan Casualties: ~1,300
Alright, that sounds cool.
Let's let Israel use white phosphorous as a "smokescreen" against civilians.
Let's let Israel barge into 139 square mile strip of land with a population of almost 1.5 million.
Let's let Israel target schools, hospitals and other public centers being used by Hamas, with Israel's knowledge that innocents were in the area.
Don't forget their shelling of the United Nations headquarters in the region.
Source?
Wait for it....
littlegreenfootballs (
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32393_A_Staged_Scene_in_a_Gaza_Hospital) which was one of the same bloggers that caught reuters using bogus pictures in 2006.
Maybe Martin can explain how a missile hits a roof and kills two boys but does no more damage to the roof than what a pickaxe could do in five minutes — and how the furniture didn’t get disturbed.
-- Hot Air (
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/09/cnn-republishes-fake-atrocity-video/)
Then there is this
http://kydem.blogspot.com/2009/01/cnn-now-worse-than-fox-airs-staged.html)
A high-profile Norwegian doctor who has said the September 11 terrorists were justified in their attack is now treating patients in Gaza and is being accused of presenting "hard-core propaganda" to TV interviewers in his telling of the conflict between Hamas and Israel.
Dr. Mads Gilbert has become an unofficial advocate of the Palestinian cause, his critics say.
-- Fox News (
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477881,00.html)
And really PastramiX, the fact that these Hamas members have been extremely inaccurate (or there has been an act of God protecting the Israelis) and that the Israelis actually take steps to protect their civilians isn't a valid argument that Israel is being heavy handed. Hamas has a history of hiding behind civilians and shooting off rockets from civilian locations.
Well, well. CNN has removed the video from the page linked above, with no explanation or retraction. CNN side of the Blog's charges. (
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/gaza.video.accusations/#cnnSTCVideo)
*has his quotes taken out of context*
*is mads gilbert*
"The attack on New York did not come as a surprise with the politics the West has followed the last decades. I am upset by the terrorist attack, but I am at least as upset over the suffering that the US has caused. It is in this context that 5000 dead has to be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, the oppressed has a moral right to attack the U.S. with the weapons they may create as well. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis."
hmm yes that is clearly pro-terrorism and not anti-hypocrisy and anti-war
and you still can't explain away israel shelling or bombing civilian targets including hospitals, schools, and the ****ing un headquarters the bottom line is the governments for both sides have forsaken their responsibilities to the people of their respective countries because of their hate for the other side and their desire for power. neither has any sort of moral high ground they're both advocates of murder.
CNN side of the Blog's charges. (
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/gaza.video.accusations/#cnnSTCVideo)
It isn't just one blog, and I really couldn't care less what CNN's defense is, it's in fact quite familiar to the song and dance Dan Rather and CBS News gave in 2004.
It would also be believable if not for the fact their accusers include the same bloggers that caught them using doctored photos in 2006.
and you still can't explain away israel shelling or bombing civilian targets including hospitals, schools, and the ****ing un headquarters the bottom line is the governments for both sides have forsaken their responsibilities to the people of their respective countries because of their hate for the other side and their desire for power. neither has any sort of moral high ground they're both advocates of murder.
they're both advocates of murder.
advocates. of. murder.
QFT.
It isn't just one blog, and I really couldn't care less what CNN's defense is, it's in fact quite familiar to the song and dance Dan Rather and CBS News gave in 2004.
It would also be believable if not for the fact their accusers include the same bloggers that caught them using doctored photos in 2006.i must admit you have class my friend. thousands of innocent civilians are dead and you turn the debate towards "no the media lied only hundreds of innocent civilians are dead liberal anti-semitic plot"
*has his quotes taken out of context*
*is mads gilbert*
"The attack on New York did not come as a surprise with the politics the West has followed the last decades. I am upset by the terrorist attack, but I am at least as upset over the suffering that the US has caused. It is in this context that 5000 dead has to be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, the oppressed has a moral right to attack the U.S. with the weapons they may create as well. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis."
hmm yes that is clearly pro-terrorism and not anti-hypocrisy and anti-war
Source please, and I'd like a video source plz.
and you still can't explain away israel shelling or bombing civilian targets including hospitals, schools, and the ****ing un headquarters the bottom line is the governments for both sides have forsaken their responsibilities to the people of their respective countries because of their hate for the other side and their desire for power. neither has any sort of moral high ground they're both advocates of murder.
Oh but it does, because Hamas was using those sites as launching platforms just like Hezbollah did in Lebanon, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the United Nations knew that school was being used in such a manner. Just like their Secretary General got caught by the Canadians in 2006 of leaving those UN workers at that outpost after they reported that Hezbollah was using the place as a rocket launching site.
Or are you saying that Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves?
Furthermore these news agencies have a track record of using bogus material to try to condemn Israel.
ERIC BURNS, FOX NEWS HOST: Here is a picture released by the Reuters news agency this week of what looks like the aftermath of an attack on Beirut. Here on the right is what the picture looked like before a Reuters cameraman decided to get creative with it. Reuters has since retracted not only this photo, but 919 additional pictures taken by this same photographer. -- Fox News Watch (
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208160,00.html)
Source please, and I'd like a video source plz.he gave a statement to a newspaper, there isn't a video source, although i'm amused you're using his comments to discredit him and you a) have no idea what he said; and b) don't even know he gave it to a newspaper.
http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/01/06/nyheter/gaza/tromso/leger/politikk/4252092/)
Oh but it does, because Hamas was using those sites as launching platforms just like Hezbollah did in Lebanon, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the United Nations knew that school was being used in such a manner. Just like their Secretary General got caught by the Canadians in 2006 of leaving those UN workers at that outpost after they reported that Hezbollah was using the place as a rocket launching site.
Or are you saying that Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves?uhhh maybe you just didn't read the thread but israel broke the ceasefire this time around* and even if this whole thing was defense on the part of the israelis, they still don't have the right to murder civilians.
and one photographer working for the ap taking pictures of a separate event doesn't automatically mean every news organization is anti-israel.
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfFMZ7Y-s_c)
littlegreenfootballs (
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32393_A_Staged_Scene_in_a_Gaza_Hospital) which was one of the same bloggers that caught reuters using bogus pictures in 2006.
-- Hot Air (
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/09/cnn-republishes-fake-atrocity-video/)
Then there is this
http://kydem.blogspot.com/2009/01/cnn-now-worse-than-fox-airs-staged.html)
-- Fox News (
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477881,00.html)
And really PastramiX, the fact that these Hamas members have been extremely inaccurate (or there has been an act of God protecting the Israelis) and that the Israelis actually take steps to protect their civilians isn't a valid argument that Israel is being heavy handed. Hamas has a history of hiding behind civilians and shooting off rockets from civilian locations.whew.
For a second there, I was afraid that you were going to come back at me with conservative blogs and FauxNews instead of real news sources. Oh wait.
littlegreenfootballs (
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32393_A_Staged_Scene_in_a_Gaza_Hospital)
Hot Air (
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/09/cnn-republishes-fake-atrocity-video/)
Fox News (
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477881,00.html)
-- Fox News Watch (
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208160,00.html)
Translation:
*Conservatively biased sources, most of which are blogs*
:words:
How about you show me sources from all ends of the spectrum that somehow prove to me that killing innocent children is okay. Thanks in advance.
whew.
For a second there, I was afraid that you were going to come back at me with conservative blogs and FauxNews instead of real news sources. Oh wait.
Fox News is a legitimate news source as Jae Onasi has proven in the past.
Your "legitimate news sources" are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism
These bloggers were the same ones that caught your "legitimate news sources" at using doctored photos in 2006.
he gave a statement to a newspaper, there isn't a video source, although i'm amused you're using his comments to discredit him and you a) have no idea what he said; and b) don't even know he gave it to a newspaper.
I don't really care who or what he gave it to, I'm going to ask who translated it?
uhhh maybe you just didn't read the thread but israel broke the ceasefire this time around* and even if this whole thing was defense on the part of the israelis, they still don't have the right to murder civilians.
So you're saying the Israelis can't open fire on an installation firing rockets at Israeli civilians because Hamas deliberately uses buildings where civilians are located to fire their rockets?
and one photographer working for the ap taking pictures of a separate event doesn't automatically mean every news organization is anti-israel.
Glad you brought up the bogus pictures used by the AP, I hadn't gotten to them yet I'd just been talking about Reuters. You may need to look at what you just said, because you just proved my point about the media's lack of credibility. With exception of Fox News, most media outlets take whatever the AP says as the gospel truth and rip news stories directly from the AP.
Fox News is a legitimate news source as Jae Onasi has proven in the past.
The "legitimate news sources" are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism
I think we should all take a moment and reflect on these two statements.
FoxNews is a legitimate news source (because Jae said so). Legitimate news sources practice dishonest journalism. mkay, thanks.
I don't really care who or what he gave it to, I'm going to ask who translated it?you can run it through your choice of online translators, find someone who speaks norwegian or any other method of translation.
So you're saying the Israelis can't open fire on an installation firing rockets at Israeli civilians because Hamas deliberately uses buildings where civilians are located to fire their rockets?well, yes. and i'm also saying they can't open fire at buildings owned by neutral parties or buildings used for the treatment of injured people aka hospitals and refugee camps. and you completely ignored the video i posted that refuted your argument that israel is acting in defense.
Glad you brought up the bogus pictures used by the AP, I hadn't gotten to them yet I'd just been talking about Reuters. You may need to look at what you just said, because you just proved my point about the media's lack of credibility. With exception of Fox News, most media outlets take whatever the AP says as the gospel truth and rip news stories directly from the AP.my point still stands. you can't prove the media (with the exception of a source that you agree with) is biased against israel by citing single cases of bias. especially when retractions are issued.
I think we should all take a moment and reflect on these two statements.
FoxNews is a legitimate news source (because Jae said so). Legitimate news sources practice dishonest journalism. mkay, thanks.
Ah thanks for catching that typo of mine, I meant to say.
EDITTED to fix quote:
2. Your "legitimate news sources" are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism
Ah thanks for catching that typo of mine, I meant to say.
EDITTED to fix quote:Which only leaves all the other logical fallacies and the fact that you're wrong. Let me know when you get around to "editing to fix" those too.