What have I lied about?
Are you drunk or just daft?
What, in anything I have posted, is a lie?
Last edited by pgardn; 07-21-2014 at 12:18 AM.
I don't love terrorists or side with them but I also don't drink koolaid. Israel isn't 100 percent innocent. They have blood on their hands just as much as Palestine does. You can't just say it's all Palestine's fault.
The reason why 9/11 happened is because America is always in other countries' business. You can't expect to knock down a million bee hives without getting stung by one. Blowback is real
I agree with you except for saying Israel has as much blood on their hands.
I do not accept someone dying while defending anything the same.
Maybe so, but we do have the highest Jewish population in the world. That's something to think of as well.
9/11 was more than that according to the perps.
They claimed a complete rejection of Western ideals. Women's rights, religious freedom, alcohol, keep going...
It was fundamentalist backlash. And 9/11 was not the first attempt. Go back to the Clinton administration and look at the garage bombings. The beast really got going when USSR invaded Afghanistan.
I really don't like to sound like a know it all but does anyone read anymore? These issues conservatives seem to want in black and white are more complex. Then we got Boots who invests with the same companies he rails against. Amazing stuff.
"9/11 was more than that according to the perps."
OBL said he hit WTC because of US military boots occupying, defiling sacred Saudi sands (after the Gulf war), and because of US support of Israel against Muslims.
Palestinians, and Muslims elsewhere, cheering the WTC attack is completely understandable.
The group said much more than that.
Read about ultimate goals of which 9/11 was to be one in a series.
Islamic world.
OBL was not going to recruit well using just the above. It's a completely back to basics philosophy. Railing against communism as well.
Last edited by pgardn; 07-21-2014 at 09:40 AM.
You're delusional. If you can't tell the difference between terrorists who bomb themselves on civillians in order to kill as many innocent people as possible,
And a country that's trying to defend their people who get shot at daily by rockets and still send postcards from the sky s to warn Gaza civillians before attacking Hamas weapon supllies with air force, ( http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/13/wo...east-tensions/ )
then something's wrong with your judging. go check yourself.
"If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war. if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel."
It's hilarious that you guys think the coverage is slanted in Israels favor. If anything it's the exact opposite. New York Times is the worst.
Read the European papers. Except for perhaps Germany, they are very tough on Israel.
Something important is missing from the New York Times's coverage of the war in Gaza: photographs of terrorist attacks on Israel, and pictures of Hamas fighters, tunnels, weaponry, and use of human shields.
New York Times
It appears the Times is silently but happily complying with a Hamas demand that the only pictures from Gaza are of civilians and never of fighters. The most influential news organization in the world is thus manufacturing an utterly false portrait of the battle—precisely the portrait that Hamas finds most helpful: embattled, victimized Gaza civilians under attack by a cruel Israeli military.
A review of the Times's photography in Gaza reveals a stark contrast in how the two sides are portrayed. Nearly every picture from Israel depicts tanks, soldiers, or attack helicopters. And every picture of Gaza depicts either bloodied civilians, destroyed buildings, overflowing hospitals, or other images of civilian anguish. It is as one-sided and misleading a depiction of the Gaza battle as one can imagine.
Today's Times photo essay contains seven images: three of Gaza civilians in distress; one of a smoke plume rising over Gaza; and three of the IDF, including tanks and attack helicopters. The message is simple and clear: the IDF is attacking Gaza and harming Palestinian civilians. There are no images of Israelis under rocket attack, no images of grieving Israeli families and damaged Israeli buildings, no images of Hamas fighters or rocket attacks on Israel, no images of the RPG's and machine guns recovered from attempted Hamas tunnel infiltrations into Israel.
A second report yesterday, ostensibly about Hamas tunnel attacks on Israel, bizarrely contained not a single picture related to those attacks. The three pictures it contained presented the same one-sided narrative of Israelis as attackers, Palestinians as victims. One picture showed an IDF artillery gun firing into Gaza; a second showed Palestinian mourners at a funeral; a third showed Palestinians waiting in line for food rations.
Indeed, a check of the Twitter feed of the Times’s photographer in Gaza shows not a single image that portrays Hamas in a negative light. It's nothing but civilian victims of the IDF.
Likewise, the Twitter feed of Anne Barnard, the Beirut bureau chief for the Times currently "reporting" from Gaza, is almost entirely devoted to one thing: anecdotes, pictures, and stories about civilian casualties. Perusing her feed, one would think there are simply no terrorists in Gaza who started this war, who are perpetuating it, who are intentionally attacking Israel from neighborhoods and apartment buildings and thereby guaranteeing the very civilian casualties Barnard appears so heartbroken over.
Maybe all of this is an illustration of just how biased against Israel the Times has become—so biased that Times photographers and editors are simply blind to any image that doesn’t conform to their view of the war.
Or maybe, in the interest of the safety and access of their journalists, the Times is complying with Hamas instructions. As reported by MEMRI, Hamas published media guidelines instructing Gazans to always refer to the dead as "innocent civilians" and to never post pictures of terrorists on social media. Hamas is currently preventing foreign journalists from leaving the Strip, in effect holding them hostage. These journalists must be terrified—and they also must know that the best way to ensure their safety is to never run afoul of the terrorists in whose hands their fates lie.
Seems you forgot to link your source.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...nt_796823.html
Nothing as biased as someone who solely points out to credited the messenger.
You'll notice CC tends to "forget" to link his content when it comes from a right wing rag like the Weekly Standard. Not so much, if it comes from less biased source.
Israel started that War.....preemptive strikes
Why did you call them PREemptive?
Because if I called it unjustified attack, we would do the same ole song & dance. Who ever shoots first, starts the War. The strike was critical as it nearly destroyed the entire Egyptian air force.
Jews pulling a classic Jew maneuver lied, changed their story and then came up with a creative label that sugarcoated their actions.
"Though Israel had struck first, Israel initially claimed that it was attacked first. Later it claimed that its attack was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion of Israel by the Arab countries"
So tell me your view of the PLO in this.
lol bombin a hospital
shooting a clown who was searchin for his family when his house was bomb, dude got up and was shot again..
lol israels....if you want to be hard kents why not go after the germans or someone on equal fighting power?
Ten Israeli human rights organisations have written to the attorney general to raise concerns about grave violations of international law in the conflict. They questioned the legality of Sunday's operation in Shujai'iya, "in particular, the potential violation of the fundamental principles of the laws of war, specifically the principle of distinguishing between combatants and civilians".
From the Guardian...
Does Hamas allow alternative views in Gaza? Don't think so.
Very_Limited wants some sort of parity in the number of deaths in Gaza.
Nazis have a love for humanity, it's touching.
U wot mate?
This thread is about the disparity in news reporting
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
