D

Dan Banquer

Full Audioholic
After watching the one sided coverage of ABC World News Tonight, ABC needs to be renamed to the Anti Semitic Broadcast Corp.
For many months the Palestinians in Gaza have been lobbing rockets and mortars into Israeli Territory. Somehow ABC and the most of the rest of the western media have decided not to report this.
Please note that by the rest of the worlds standards this is an act of war.
The coverage showed those "innocent" Palestinians watching artillery shells fly over them to their target, and gave brief mention to the Israeli soldier who was kidnapped by Hamas.
Ask your self this: If Canada or Mexico were lobbing rockets or mortars across the border just how long do you think we would put up with that? would it be months? weeks, days, or hours.
Duh!
d.b.
 
C

Craig234

Audioholic
One-sided

I'd say that you are the one who is one-sided.

If a more powerful neighbor had taken part of the US in 1948 for itself, if it kept large portions of the US under the sort of control Israel does with the Palastenians, if it regularly assassinated our leaders - in the last bombing the White House - how much would the US put up with that?

You already have the 'good guys' 'bad guys' made up and so you fit the situation to your views, where Israel is right and the Palastenians wrong.

There's a conflict. You can always find wrongs by one side in a conflict - you do so with the rocket launches into Israel.

If you only look at one side's wrongs, that's called 'bias'. You hardly present any sort of balanced picture in your post.

In short, you are the very sort of person who helps make the situation worse, IMO, with an uninformed vote of how billions are given to one side.

There are things both sides are wrong and right about. One-sided demonization is not going to help the situation.
 
Hi Ho

Hi Ho

Audioholic Samurai
I watch World News Tonight daily and they regularly have stories about both sides. The kidnapped Israeli soldier has been reported on every night since it happened. Do you expect any newscast to go into detail repeatedly when there is no new information?

EDIT: I'm watching the broadcast right now and now I really don't see what you're talking about. I'd hardly call the story a "brief mention" of the Israeli soldier. The whole piece was about him. I also wouldn't say that it protrayed the Palestinians as "innocent" and Israelis as "evil". I'd say it was a perfectly balance story.
 
Last edited:
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
Craig234 said:
I'd say that you are the one who is one-sided.

If a more powerful neighbor had taken part of the US in 1948 for itself, if it kept large portions of the US under the sort of control Israel does with the Palastenians, if it regularly assassinated our leaders - in the last bombing the White House - how much would the US put up with that?

You already have the 'good guys' 'bad guys' made up and so you fit the situation to your views, where Israel is right and the Palastenians wrong.

There's a conflict. You can always find wrongs by one side in a conflict - you do so with the rocket launches into Israel.

If you only look at one side's wrongs, that's called 'bias'. You hardly present any sort of balanced picture in your post.

In short, you are the very sort of person who helps make the situation worse, IMO, with an uninformed vote of how billions are given to one side.

There are things both sides are wrong and right about. One-sided demonization is not going to help the situation.
Bias schmias. Your statement about the historic events that occured in and around 1948 is dead wrong. Go back to your history books.

Don't you ever tire of insulting the people of this forum?! There is a means of discussing issues, a dialogue, that seems beyond your scope. If it doesn't include an arrogant ad hominum slap by you, it doesn't get posted by you. Does it, Craig234?

Say, what's that big ol' red chiclet doing next to your name? I guess that doesn't tell you anything about you, does it? (Other than, perhaps, that you crave attention.) I don't give out red ones in the steam vent....but you sure make it difficult not to. Hey, here's a suggestion. Why don't you run down to your favorite bookstore and get something by Dale Carnegie. Or a primer on logic. Or a modern history text.
 
jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
rjbudz said:
Bias schmias. Your statement about the historic events that occured in and around 1948 is dead wrong. Go back to your history books.

Don't you ever tire of insulting the people of this forum?! There is a means of discussing issues, a dialogue, that seems beyond your scope. If it doesn't include an arrogant ad hominum slap by you, it doesn't get posted by you. Does it, Craig234?

Say, what's that big ol' red chiclet doing next to your name? I guess that doesn't tell you anything about you, does it? (Other than, perhaps, that you crave attention.) I don't give out red ones in the steam vent....but you sure make it difficult not to. Hey, here's a suggestion. Why don't you run down to your favorite bookstore and get something by Dale Carnegie. Or a primer on logic. Or a modern history text.
RJ, you're getting grumpy. Lighten up.
 
ironlung

ironlung

Banned
Copy and paste from dictionary.com

ad hom·i·nem
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin : ad, to + hominem, accusative of hom, man.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ad homi·nem adv.
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley).




Just had to clear that up for myself.
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
jaxvon said:
RJ, you're getting grumpy. Lighten up.
LOL, thanks for the reminder, Jax. Will do. It comes with my advancing age, I think. :( I guess with me it's just like that old joke...'nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool'.
 
Resident Loser

Resident Loser

Senior Audioholic
Not fer nuttin'...

rjbudz said:
Bias schmias. Your statement about the historic events that occured in and around 1948 is dead wrong. Go back to your history books.
You,yourself, may want to reconsider your book suggestion...

Acquaint yourself with a few things:re the state of Israel...it goes 'way back to the rise of Zionism in the late 1800s...how they would have be quite content establishing a Jewish homeland in South America, evicting the Palestinians wasn't always the game plan...then you might want to familiarize yourself with the League of Nations, the Balfour Declaration and the British mandate/partition...and then maybe the 1947 Arab-Israeli war which resulted when Israel encroached on lands not part of the U.N. established borders for the new State of Israel...can you say "annex the Sudetenland"?

What Hitler did to the Jews?...How about the Egyptians, or the Romans...the Russians...they just seem to have a habit of p!$$ing people off...and trust me, given the opportunity, they'd do the same thing to the Palestinians if they thought they could get away with it...Cordoning-off areas and restricting movement sounds suspiciously like the "ghetto" to me, and what was that thing about requiring The Arab population to where armbands..."never again"? that is, of course, unless THEY decide to do it again...

There's tons of unbiased third party material on the subject available, some with maps that go far back and that refer to "Palestine" as inhabited by Palestinians. Try this, it's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

You might want to check some of the related articles on the same site...

jimHJJ(...note those two names I mentioned earlier...)

...Europe is responsible for all that has developed in the Middle East...you laid the groundwork for it...it was the ongoing repression of the European Jews THROUGHOUT Europe that begat the Zionist movement in the late 19th century.

Between 1845-1914 the Jewish population in Palestine grew from around 12,000 to 85,000 as a result of immigration FROM Europe. In 1896 due to the growing anti-Semitism in Europe, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, tried to find a political solution in his book "The Jewish State". In Switzerland, 1897, the first Zionist congress issued the Basle program which promoted the colonization of Palestine.In 1906 they decided the Jewish homeland should be Palestine rather than the other choice of Argentina, partly due to the proximity of the former to Europe.

In 1914, Britain at the outbreak of WWl, promised the independence of Arab lands then under Ottoman rule including Palestine, in return for Arab support against Turkey which had entered the war on the side of Germany. In 1916, the Sykes-Picot Agreement divided the Middle East into zones of influence; Lebanon and Syria assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain. Palestine was to be internationalized. The Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917 by the British government for the establishment of Palestine as a Jewish home state. This was partly done to pre-empt a similar plan under consideration in Germany...the British wanted dominance in the region to maintain control of the Suez Canal and to curry favor with international Jewery...funny thing is, Germany's motives were somewhat similar. They thought such a move would keep the potential manpower of Russia's Jews out of the Eastern Front. Talk about politics making for strange bedfellows. Realpolitik as I recall.

At the end of the war, Jews began to migrate to Palestine, which by that time was a British mandate approved by the League of Nations. The Jewish population increased dramatically during the 1930s when large numbers of Jews fled Europe as a result of Nazi persecution. As the population increased, so did the unrest within the Arab population...who, in 1936, held a six-month general strike to protest the confiscation of land and Jewish immigration. In 1945, Arabs opposed to further Jewish influx, organized the League of Arab States...it wasn't too long after this the real fun began and continues to this day...

So while Bin Laden may hate us for our current presence in Muslim holy places and our support of Israel, it's Europe that had sown the seeds for discontent long before we ever entered the picture.

Again, I'd like to point out that prior to1962, when we sold Hawk missles(supposedly defensive weapons) to them, the U. S. state department considered Israel a Zionist state as a result of their overstepping the bounds of the UN mandate that created Israel in 1948. This only transpired as a cold-war counter to the USSRs support of Egypt as a step for balance in the region in an attempt to keep the Suez canal open for international(particularly European) commerce.

So before you run amuck and continue to bellow about our contributions to global tensions, I'd suggest you take a good, long, hard look at your complicity in the situation.

jimHJJ(...you opened the can of worms, now we gotta' try to clean it up in our own sloppy style...)
__________________
Hello, I'm a misanthrope...don't ask me why, just take a good look around.

"Men would rather believe than know" -Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson

"The great masses of the people...will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one" -Adolph Hitler

"We are never deceived, we deceive ourselves" -Goethe


The previous was just some cut-and-paste from my older posts here and another site re: Israeli history...just pick out the salient points, I don't have the time to do a more cohesive re-edit...

You'll hafta' go back to ca. 540 BC when the Persians conquered the Babylonians (who had conquered the area) and then to 140 BC when a new Jewish state was formed by the Maccabbes which lasted to 63 BC when Rome conquered the area and renamed it Palestine, possibly related to the Biblical Philistines...

jimHJJ(...like Yogi Berra said: "You could look it up!"...)
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
Resident Loser said:
You,yourself, may want to reconsider your book suggestion...
Oh, I'm sure I could use a few hundred more good books on the subject, R.L. But my comment was quite specifically directed to Craig234's (U.S.) analogy of the Jews being "a more powerful neighbor had taken part of the US in 1948 for itself". That was far from a complete and truthful description of the specific events of 1948.
 
Resident Loser

Resident Loser

Senior Audioholic
Uh...yeah...

rjbudz said:
Oh, I'm sure I could use a few hundred more good books on the subject, R.L. But my comment was quite specifically directed to Craig234's (U.S.) analogy of the Jews being "a more powerful neighbor had taken part of the US in 1948 for itself". That was far from a complete and truthful description of the specific events of 1948.
...didja' miss these salient citations:

RL said:
maybe the 1947 Arab-Israeli war which resulted when Israel encroached on lands not part of the U.N. established borders for the new State of Israel...

...the U. S. state department considered Israel a Zionist state as a result of their overstepping the bounds of the UN mandate that created Israel in 1948...
In what way was Craig 234 mistaken or in need of summer school?

jimHJJ(...jus' wunnerin'...)
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top