GarfieldJL Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 So now Israel's lying about being at fault? No, they just tend to take responsibility until they learn it wasn't their fault so it doesn't turn into a three-ring circus in the UN which it usually does anyways... Hardly, because while the shell apparently did land in a home, it looks more like the shell didn't explode when it was supposed to and not a deliberate targetting of civilians that is being implied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adavardes Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Hardly, because while the shell apparently did land in a home, it looks more like the shell didn't explode when it was supposed to and not a deliberate targetting of civilians that is being implied. Oh, so the use of White Phosphorus in any situation is an okay tactic, and the fact that it went off when it wasn't supposed to makes the use more valid. Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Oh, so the use of White Phosphorus in any situation is an okay tactic, and the fact that it went off when it wasn't supposed to makes the use more valid. It was to provide Israeli troops with cover, not shell the Palestinians for the fun of it. It's a balancing act between trying to protect civilians and protect your troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 It was to provide Israeli troops with cover, not shell the Palestinians for the fun of it. It's a balancing act between trying to protect civilians and protect your troops. except you can't prove the first point and all available evidence points towards israel being the aggressor despite your excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 except you can't prove the first point and all available evidence points towards israel being the aggressor despite your excuses. No, the Fox News article indicates the shell was probably an accident, and the BBC, Guardian, etc. sources have a history of using doctored photos, staged scenes, etc. to bash the Israelis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 well that's certainly definitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 No, the Fox News article indicates the shell was probably an accident, and the BBC, Guardian, etc. sources have a history of using doctored photos, staged scenes, etc. to bash the Israelis. May I ask how you 'accidentally' shoot off a white phosphorus device at not 1 but 2 different targets? Israel violated Protocol III of the Geneva Conventions by doing that. The WP injuries are corroborated by multiple sources--sorry, there's no wiggle room on the 'X source made it up' on this one. Too many people saw what Israel did, and too many have WP injuries for Israel to deny its actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 May I ask how you 'accidentally' shoot off a white phosphorus device at not 1 but 2 different targets? Israel violated Protocol III of the Geneva Conventions by doing that. The WP injuries are corroborated by multiple sources--sorry, there's no wiggle room on the 'X source made it up' on this one. Too many people saw what Israel did, and too many have WP injuries for Israel to deny its actions. Actually it's relatively easy and quite a few other countries would have had a lot more of these accidents. Anyways a lot of these shells that are used to provide smoke screens were probably set on fuses so they go off in the air and thus react to the oxygen in the air instead of people. There likely was a malfunction which is possible and it went off late, or they miscalculated the firing solution. Israel really has no motive to arbitrarily targetting civilians and plenty of motive to try to minimize civilian deaths in their military operations. If this was deliberate, there would have been more than just two incidents. The smoke screen was to protect Israeli troops it could have just as easily had been a friendly fire incident. They weren't arbitrarily firing shells in to try to hurt children, despite what the English speaking version of Al Jazeerez (that is quite literally what people have called the BBC), would like people to believe. I'm saying Jae, that the World Press, BBC, etc. have absolutely no credibility when it comes to Israel. They all literally have a history of reporting propaganda from the terrorist groups as what happened. Furthermore, most news organizations rip their news stories directly from the AP and Reuters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Actually it's relatively easy and quite a few other countries would have had a lot more of these accidents. Anyways a lot of these shells that are used to provide smoke screens were probably set on fuses so they go off in the air and thus react to the oxygen in the air instead of people. There likely was a malfunction which is possible and it went off late, or they miscalculated the firing solution. Israel really has no motive to arbitrarily targetting civilians and plenty of motive to try to minimize civilian deaths in their military operations.They have the clearest motive; Israel has been attacked by Palestinians (Which, FYI, Israel kicked them all out in '48) since it's inception. Israeli deaths from Palestinian retaliation has obviously annoyed Israel to the point of genocide. They weren't arbitrarily firing shells in to try to hurt children, despite what the English speaking version of Al Jazeerez (that is quite literally what people have called the BBC), would like people to believe.Okay, says who? Since I doubt you live in the UK, I believe that your opinion is with merit. Oh, and it's Al Jazeera, that's like saying Ahmadinejad as Ahmadinepeanutbetutterandjellyjad. I'm saying Jae, that the World Press, BBC, etc. have absolutely no credibility when it comes to Israel. They all literally have a history of reporting propaganda from the terrorist groups as what happened. Furthermore, most news organizations rip their news stories directly from the AP and Reuters.Okay, so really no media source can be trusted, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 They have the clearest motive; Israel has been attacked by Palestinians (Which, FYI, Israel kicked them all out in '48) since it's inception. Israeli deaths from Palestinian retaliation has obviously annoyed Israel to the point of genocide. Actually the Palestinians were in regions like West Bank ended up losing their land when Syria, Jordan, and Egypt claimed that land as their own after Israel managed to hold off several Middle Eastern countries at the same time. wikipedia The Arabs that stayed in Israel instead of fleeing are Israeli citizens. Okay, says who? Since I doubt you live in the UK, I believe that your opinion is with merit. Oh, and it's Al Jazeera, that's like saying Ahmadinejad as Ahmadinepeanutbetutterandjellyjad. Okay so I mispelled it on accident, big deal. The reason I know about the BBC's reputation is because I did a report concerning media coverage of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict. Okay, so really no media source can be trusted, right? Most media sources are not trustworthy when it comes to anything relating to Israel. There are a few that are trustworthy, but not many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Actually the Palestinians were in regions like West Bank ended up losing their land when Syria, Jordan, and Egypt claimed that land as their own after Israel managed to hold off several Middle Eastern countries at the same time.No, I was referring to the fact that when Israel was given initial territory, there were already people living there. They were all uprooted, which is why Palestinians are referred to all too well as refugees. Okay so I mispelled it on accident, big deal. The reason I know about the BBC's reputation is because I did a report concerning media coverage of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict.So really your claim that BBC is compared with Al-Jazeera is opinionated, right? Most media sources are not trustworthy when it comes to anything relating to Israel. There are a few that are trustworthy, but not many.Care to list a few? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 No, I was referring to the fact that when Israel was given initial territory, there were already people living there. They were all uprooted, which is why Palestinians are referred to all too well as refugees. And as I said that isn't true, the Arabs that fled Israel in the 1948 war are not citizens, but the ones that stayed in Israel at the formation of the country are citizens. The Arab countries took over the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and took it away from the Palestinians. Israel didn't take West Bank until the end of the Six Day War, and that was for use as a buffer zone. So really your claim that BBC is compared with Al-Jazeera is opinionated, right? No, I'm referring to the Balen Report, which the BBC is trying to keep from being released. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1575543.ece Care to list a few? Fox News is one, though it's best if you have both CNN and Fox News both report the same story so to try to filter out any opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I'd refused to get involved in Hot Topics anymore, but... They weren't arbitrarily firing shells in to try to hurt children, despite what the English speaking version of Al Jazeerez (that is quite literally what people have called the BBC), would like people to believe. That's right, because we're all extremist loving, Israel hating lefties over here in good Old Blighty. FYI, there's already an English version of Al Jazeera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Straight question, requesting a straight answer: What does the (mainstream) media have to do with any of this when jmac has provided you sources that come from the IDF or another Israeli? The fact that there have been incidents in the past where Israel immediately took responsibility for something and it turned out that when the evidence was finally gone over, it was anywhere from highly unlikely to next to no possible way they could have been responsible. If they just came out saying, "We didn't do it!" all the time everybody would think they did and were just covering it up, which would make the situation worse for them. Fact is, the IDF said that they were using the shells containing the Phosphorous to create a smoke screen to shroud their armored vehicles. That requires quite a bit of precision. There are also some other indications from at least one source that jmac provided that indicates this doesn't sound like a deliberate targetting of civilians. Furthermore, Israel had no motive to target civilians with shells especially with their armored vehicles in the vicinity. It could have ended up just as easily where they hit one of their own vehicles with a shell. They are also trying to undermine Hamas, a cause them to lose support of the Palestinians, and killing children doesn't help them in that objective. They really don't want dead youngsters on the evening news, it ticks off the general public in Israel. They don't want to give the propagandists any ammunition. Or are you just attempting to derail the thread? I'd recommend () you stop that. It's pretty irrelevant to the topic we're trying to peacefully discuss. I'm not derailing anything, I'm showing that there is a pattern. We saw it in 2000 and 2006 for starters, I could go back and find stuff in the 1990s too. No, I was referring to the fact that when Israel was given initial territory, there were already people living there. They were all uprooted, which is why Palestinians are referred to all too well as refugees. To add to what I said earlier: What happened was that when Israel became a country it was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. The Israelis managed to hold onto their territory and fight off five countries at the same time, but these countries also invaded places like Gaza Strip (Egypt), West Bank (Jordan), and the Golan Heights (Syria and Lebanon), territory that was supposed to be the Palestinians' for their country of Palestine. Those countries then refused to return the land they took from the Palestinians. Israel did not take West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights until the Six Day War which happened in 1967 if I remember correctly, but the point is it occurred well after Israel became a country. Years later Israel returned the majority of the land they took from Egypt and the two countries signed a peace agreement which they have both honored to this day, which shows Israel is interested in peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 I'd refused to get involved in Hot Topics anymore, but... That's right, because we're all extremist loving, Israel hating lefties over here in good Old Blighty. FYI, there's already an English version of Al Jazeera. and they all sound british anyway FOREIGNERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 That's right, because we're all extremist loving, Israel hating lefties over here in good Old Blighty. FYI, there's already an English version of Al Jazeera. I was referring to the BBC, not the British populace. And if there is nothing going on why have they refused to release the Balen Report after a court ordered them to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 And if there is nothing going on why have they refused to release the Balen Report after a court ordered them to do so? You clearly haven't been following the situation, because the BBC won a High Court battle to prevent the release of the document. They don't have to release anything. BBC Statement, I'm not providing another source, as they all report the same thing - that the BBC won the appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Well I didn't hear about it then, but I'm not letting them off the hook, because if there was nothing in there that is embarassing they would have released it by now. The BBC would welcome the court's ruling because they can now don't have to divulge information if it puts their credibility in question. Well guess the US isn't the only country where Journalism has officially died. The BBC's decision to spend an estimated £200,000 of licence feepayers' money to keep the Balen Report secret has been widely condemned. The corporation was accused of hypocrisy because it has regularly used freedom of information legislation to break news stories. The attempt to force the BBC to publish the report - compiled in 2004 by its editorial adviser Malcolm Balen - was led by lawyer Steven Sugar, who represented himself in court. The ruling will disappoint the Jewish community which would have wanted to know whether the 20,000-word document had found any evidence of anti-Israeli bias in news programming. -- Daily Mail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 *posts article from a competing news organization which contains speculation and meaningless figures* well i guess that matter's settled garfield. anyway, if you don't count the artillery and naval bombardment that's been going on throughout the "ceasefire", israel has just launched another attack on gaza. here's a nice bbc story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7853803.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 anyway, if you don't count the artillery and naval bombardment that's been going on throughout the "ceasefire", israel has just launched another attack on gaza. here's a nice bbc story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7853803.stm Unbelievable. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 Unbelievable. _EW_ nonsense! it's perfectly believable! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_TgttR9V0k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 nonsense! it's perfectly believable! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_TgttR9V0k Point, but it is freaking annoying. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Well I didn't hear about it thenPerhaps because the conservative media "accidentally" left that rather important piece of information out when they reported on the case? If they keep the outrage of their conservative, pro-Israeli viewers/readers going, conservative media stands to gain in terms of viewer/reader numbers. There are plenty of other countries over in the Middle East besides the Brits. Canadians, French, Germans, Greeks, Spaniards, Americans, you name it, they've reported on it. You can't tell me that every single one of those agencies is sitting at a table to make up a story so they can spread anti-Israeli hate. It's far more likely that they're going to try to scoop each other to get the breaking story rather than cooperate on some kind of anti-Israeli agenda. The terrible plight of the Palestinians, frankly, is a compelling story of mass suffering, and so it's naturally going to get more press attention than the latest society page news or soccer scores in Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavlos Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 -- Daily Mail The Daily Mail?! Oh dear, you should really do more research into the way the media works in this country before using certain... disreputable news sources. The Mail never has been and never will be anything other than sensationalism dressed up as a broadsheet; rather like its left-wing cousin, the Indie, but at least that started with the high-minded intent of becoming the new paper of record... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 The Daily Mail?! Oh dear, you should really do more research into the way the media works in this country before using certain... disreputable news sources. The Mail never has been and never will be anything other than sensationalism dressed up as a broadsheet; rather like its left-wing cousin, the Indie, but at least that started with the high-minded intent of becoming the new paper of record... Indeed. There's a reason it's frequently referred to as the Daily Ban This Sick Filth. Well guess the US isn't the only country where Journalism has officially died. It's ironic in the extreme that you claim Journalism has died in this country (because, of course, you seem to be an expert) and then choose the worst source imaginable as a counter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.