Activism in regards to the Gaza question (1 Viewer)

[Trefoil]

Sam is right: violence is wrong.

That is why I support Israel withdrawing and ceasing fire, and the Turkish and Egyptian peacekeeping forces entering to keep the peace instead of this bullshit one-sided Arab League drafted UN resolution. No more Hamas extremism, and no more Israelis in Gaza.

 

[Lentern]

Not at all. We should openly condemn Hamas for attacking civilian targets proportionally to the damage they have caused. That should be fair. But what's more important than just a condemnation is an agreement that it should stop immediately.


In good conscience we shouldn't condemn uninvolved parties where there is no evidence to support such claims. Until now analysts have confirmed that the Hamas rockets were made in Gaza using such materials as fertiliser and other materials commonly found therein. That has been confirmed by Israeli intelligence. If it can be proved that Syria helped in some way they should be condemned. By the same token in fairness, the United States should be condemned for arming Israel. Israel would by extension also be condemned for it's use of incendiary weapons on civilian targets.

All that can be included to the OP as soon as we both can agree.

No evidence? Syria's support for Hamas is not a secret. I am not condoning what Israel have done but you expect Israel to liste if everytime there is a conflict you side with the Arabs and say Israel should have known better?

 

[sam04u]

Sam is right: violence is wrong.

That is why I support Israel withdrawing and ceasing fire, and the Turkish and Egyptian peacekeeping forces entering to keep the peace.

Am I still asleep and dreaming?

No more Hamas extremism, and no more Israelis in Gaza.

My goodness we've reached an agreement. Thank you kindly good sir.

You've made my day. Can we reach an agreement on one more thing? An end to the blockade on Gaza?

No evidence? Syria's support for Hamas is not a secret.

The support is no secret. But perhaps I was wrong to infer you suggested they were arming Hamas. My understanding is if the latter can be proven and warrants a condemnation it would have to be both ways.

 

[NotNeb]

because the anti-Israel groups yell the loudest[/quote

Yeah man. That's the reason why the media covers the anti-Israel side more in this current situation. You've got it down pat. :rofl:

 

[Trefoil]

Yeah man. That's the reason why the media covers the anti-Israel side more in this current situation. You've got it down pat. :rofl:

The media covers it because it's an issue ripe with polarisation and shock. They know it'll sell. They aren't even generally taking sides (for every article I see that has mild anti-Israel undertones, I see one against Hamas, and one without a value judgement).

You're absolutely delusional if you're using media coverage as an indicator of international popular opinion.

Certainly, international popular opinion supports some form of cease-fire. Do not delude yourself into thinking that means popular opinion supports Hamas, or a cease-fire that supports Hamas.

 

[NotNeb]

No, I'm not delusional at all. Give me an instance (or many instances) of where the media represents an issue against public opinion, and I'll give you ten to the contrary. They polarise their coverage so it will sell, which is exactly what you said. Currently, very few are supportive of Israel's actions, and the media covers it in that way.

That is what I've observed anyway.

 

[sam04u]

Give me an instance (or many instances) of where the media represents an issue against public opinion.

Come on Neb. You're completely wrong on this.

The Iraq war was 10 times as unpopular as this war yet due to the effectiveness of U.S propoganda it was reported by the media against public opinion. So much so infact that many world leaders were fooled by the propoganda. I mean that literally, world leaders who have access to information we never will, were taken in by the propoganda.

Yet still many people marched on the streets, a million marched in London apparently, with people laying infront of cars and what not. Yet the propoganda campaign was completely in favour of the U.S

Even now, what's going on with the Iraq war? The U.S has effectively shaped popular opinion in that field, whereby even with recent developments it's being pushed into the background as something unfavourable, but nothing is being done to end it. Infact the current administration is not even being held accountable further than an election for that action. And the anti-war candidate Obama picked the same defence secretary as that of Bush and hasn't taken considerable steps for a withdrawal.

The U.S even started a propoganda campaign against Iran which almost came to fruition except when they realised the military was what would be the problem rather than the propoganda war. Slowly but surely Bush's credibility was damaged but he won a second election at the height of the anti-war sentiment, so that in itself is telling.

 

[NotNeb]

Wot? How was the media in favour of the Iraq war? There were lots of positive articles when Saddam was captured and on select times, but other than that I don't remember a lot of positive stuff regarding that.

 

[Iron]

Shutup Sam. As far as anyone knows, the administration, as well as the President, genuinely believed that Iraq possessed WMDs. A lot of good people had faith that the government had good intelligence; they didnt and it has been a fucking disaster for everyone

 

[RogueAcademic]

Is that a challenge? Lets see if I can't try to do that.

Just out of interest, how old are you?

 

[sam04u]

Wot? How was the media in favour of the Iraq war? There were lots of positive articles when Saddam was captured and on select times, but other than that I don't remember a lot of positive stuff regarding that.

It wasn't that long ago man. As they were constructing the casus belli, Mohammed El Baradei was pushed into the background. Imbeciles like John Bolton with his cup of water were pushed to the foreground. Bush uttered the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" about a hundred times. They refered to the insurgents as "Al Qaeda responsible for 9/11" with "1 million armed SADDAM LOYALISTS" and rubbish scholars who made claims such as "the Iraqis will welcome us"

I can barely remember any figures which were given media time that refuted those claims on a regular basis. It was a period of neoconservative dominance on the media.


But lets take in a fact. The British and the U.S are not getting the same reports we are in no respect. Apparently the reporting in Britain and U.S is no where near as good as it is here in Australia. And that seems to be echoed by Rudd's statements which were more in line with the international community.

 

[sam04u]

Just out of interest, how old are you?

21.

@Iron
y hello there cutie pie.

 

[RogueAcademic]

21.

I see.

Do you have any family in Israel or Palestine?

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

It wasn't that long ago man. As they were constructing the casus belli, Mohammed El Baradei was pushed into the background. Imbeciles like John Bolton with his cup of water were pushed to the foreground. Bush uttered the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" about a hundred times. They refered to the insurgents as "Al Qaeda responsible for 9/11" with "1 million armed SADDAM LOYALISTS" and rubbish scholars who made claims such as "the Iraqis will welcome us"

I can barely remember any figures which were given media time that refuted those claims on a regular basis. It was a period of neoconservative dominance on the media.


But lets take in a fact. The British and the U.S are not getting the same reports we are in no respect. Apparently the reporting in Britain and U.S is no where near as good as it is here in Australia. And that seems to be echoed by Rudd's statements which were more in line with the international community.

yeah yeah maybe i was wrong in that situation. i can't remember it

i'm right this time though

 

[sam04u]

I see.

Do you have any family in Israel or Palestine?

No I do not.

 

[RogueAcademic]

No I do not.

ok.

By the way, did you see this in the news a couple of days ago:

PETA's push to rename fish 'sea kittens' | National News | News.com.au

 

[Trefoil]

Shutup Sam. As far as anyone knows, the administration, as well as the President, genuinely believed that Iraq possessed WMDs. A lot of good people had faith that the government had good intelligence; they didnt and it has been a fucking disaster for everyone

I wouldn't say that. Iraq's better off without a brutal dictator and I challenge anybody to say, now that he's been removed, that Iraq would be better off under his iron fist.

It is, of course, not a justification for the initial invasion, or we'd be off bombing the fuck out of Kim Jong-Il right now, but since we're there, I really am not going to shed any tears because a dictator was removed and the people of Iraq given a chance at democracy and freedom.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

I wouldn't say that. Iraq's better off without a brutal dictator and I challenge anybody to say, now that he's been removed, that Iraq would be better off under his iron fist.

Iraq would have been better off with Saddam Hussein in control, for the period of 2003-2009. Iraq is more brutal under US administration, than under Saddam's administration directly prior to the invasion. Of course, if he had genocided another bunch of Kurds, this would have been different.

You'll misinterpret that as usual. lol

 

[JaredR]

I laughed at the censorship of media line. How funny, one would think it was censored to favour Hamas and the terrorists.

 

[sam04u]

I laughed at the censorship of media line. How funny, one would think it was censored to favour Hamas and the terrorists.

Right, calling them terrorists makes you right. Seriously JaredR, take your rabid support for zionism and leave this thread.

Also, moving this to L&O makes no sense. It has nothing to do with this subforum. It's about Politics it is also in regards to a Current Affair. But whatever.