Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debunking the Palestine Lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mr Fizzywig
    replied
    No other country is the world could do this and get away with out a single official word of critisism from America, the reason for this is pretty obvious. Political and strategic considerations are placed in higher importance than that of the genocide being carried out on the people of Gaza. In private even the American executive branch is deeply troubled by what Israel is doing but are practically and politically powerless to critisise let alone intervene. And so the world watches in disgust as one nation slowly obliterates another coldly, callously and very determinedly. How dare Gaza demand its own borders are opened, that it is allowed to receive humanitarian aid to rebuild, that it can get in enough food to remove itself from enforced starvation. And how unfair of us to critisise a nation who feels that commiting genocide is a reasonable political and military response to aggression comparable to being spat on by a child.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr Fizzywig
    replied
    UN figures indicate that 73% of the Palestinian victims, 1,354 people, were civilians.
    Of that number, at least 429 were children.

    I think this speaks for itself

    Leave a comment:


  • DanInAceh
    replied
    Originally posted by fastpitch17 View Post
    Yes ISIS. Coming to an Ache soon. Ache better get independence soon. All the Indonesians who hopefully have their citizenship taken away will need a place to go. Your social media observations are a good example of the mindlessness that is present in those that have never been able to sit down and think for themselves.
    I doubt that Aceh would be fertile ground for ISIS, chiefly because the basis for Acehnese separatism is ethnic identity rather than religious identity. Note that the Acehnese are not seeking to resurrect the Caliphate or even to have pure shari'a (Qanun Aceh is based on their traditions rather than simply shari'a, though it is often informed by shari'a as well).

    Note also that the Acehnese rejected previous terror groups; GAM denounced Jemaah Islamiyah when the latter attempted to set up a training camp in Aceh. Part of that could be the view that they're competition, but I suppose the larger reason is their desire to be seen as legitimate rather than terrorists.

    Also, I doubt that the Acehnese would expel the foreigners. They are actually a hospitable people, it's just that they have a raging hard-on for resisting colonial authority.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mister Bule
    replied
    All Palestinian civilian casualties in this conflict result ultimately from Gaza terrorists' aggression against Israel, and Hamas's use of human shields — the most important plank of Hamas's war-fighting policy.
    No, they result ultimately from the fact of Israeli military forces personally blowing them to shit with munitions and equipment funded or supplied directly by the United States. This "it is Hamas who is pulling the trigger on the Palestinians" or "it is the Palestinians who are pulling the trigger on themselves" B/S has become a mind-numbing mantra from Israel's apologists, but let me tell you something: you (Michael2014) say this is the "truth" and I and a good damn swath of the rest of the world say you're talking from the place you shit from. We haven't bought it, we ain't buying it , and we ain't gonna buy it any time soon, so sell it to yourselves. Brainwash yourselves until the cows come home, it's not gonna work on us.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanInAceh
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael2014 View Post
    That article was pure hasbara ("explanation," a.k.a propaganda). An attempt to wash the hands of Israel's military, which prides itself on being so very moral and ethical, is completely nullified by even a cursory glance at the results of its modern and humane practices. Honestly, stuff like this reads like Voltaire's Candide, only it's not satire. These people legitimately believe this crap. The fact that you similarly believe this crap suggests that you're possessed of extraordinary naivete.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanInAceh
    replied
    Originally posted by sul1995 View Post
    More in-depth reading, article by Michael Walzer, professor emeritus of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ical-war-hamas
    That was a satisfying article, though I do have one quibble.

    "[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Publico Text]We should choose Israel[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helvetica Neue]—[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Publico Text]because Israel is a democracy where it is possible to imagine the political defeat of the rightwing nationalists who are now in charge; it is possible to imagine a government that would work toward Palestinian statehood[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helvetica Neue]—[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Publico Text]Israel has had governments of that sort in the past, under the leadership of Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Olmert."

    It is possible to imagine that, I agree, but it is not possible for the Palestinian citizens and "non-citizens" (East Jerusalem), many of whom do not have the right to vote. To call Israel a democracy is accurate if we are speaking in the same terms of calling America a democracy prior to suffrage. It certainly has the most POTENTIAL of any state in the Middle East. I would like to "choose Israel," but I have to agree with the other side of his assessment. That other side, the reality that Likud has designs over much, much more territory, is also a manifestation of the nationalist (Zionist) sentiment of many, if not most, Israelis. I appreciate the fact that such discourse can happen in Israel and rarely elsewhere in the Middle East. Sadly, I think this article does prove what the Palestinians already know: that most Israelis secretly (or perhaps now openly) want what Meir Kahane wanted.

    The problem remains intractable, something we shouldn't bother to address at all. [/FONT][/COLOR]

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael2014
    replied
    Originally posted by sul1995 View Post
    More in-depth reading, article by Michael Walzer, professor emeritus of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ical-war-hamas
    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/45...ian-casualties

    Try this link for another review

    Leave a comment:


  • sul1995
    replied
    Originally posted by fastpitch17 View Post
    For those who just don't understand why civilians get killed. Ask Hamas. http://www.businessinsider.co.id/ham.../#.U-GA_9oaySM
    More in-depth reading, article by Michael Walzer, professor emeritus of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ical-war-hamas

    Leave a comment:


  • fastpitch17
    replied
    For those who just don't understand why civilians get killed. Ask Hamas.
    http://www.businessinsider.co.id/ham.../#.U-GA_9oaySM

    Leave a comment:


  • fastpitch17
    replied
    Originally posted by DanInAceh View Post
    To further expand on this delightful yet obvious topic, most terrorists in the world today are Muslims.

    Edit: also note that Muslims often vehemently deny that Muslims can be terrorists. "Al-Qaeda is a CIA plot." I recently encountered Indonesians on social media who were spreading "evidence" that ISIS is, get this, a joint Iranian, American and Zionist plot to discredit Sunni Muslims. I shit you not, that is how strong the level of denial can be. Jukung's level of denial is not that bad, but it's bad enough.
    Yes ISIS. Coming to an Ache soon. Ache better get independence soon. All the Indonesians who hopefully have their citizenship taken away will need a place to go. Your social media observations are a good example of the mindlessness that is present in those that have never been able to sit down and think for themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • fastpitch17
    replied
    Originally posted by DanInAceh View Post
    wtf does that have to do with anything? We were speaking about Jewish influence in AMERICAN media, you know, where CNN is hq'd. Clearly everything I said pertained to the United States and maybe Canada, and of course Israel. That's about it.
    The thing is. There is always someone influencing the media. Some even more then others. Some even have state directed influences. I believe CNN is a poor example. They haven't had a very good rating with all the flubs they have put out there in the past few years. Viewership is down considerably. Hey, maybe it's down because of the Jewish influence. Probably not though. I think Dan, that if there is a Jew in any high position you will figure everything is biased towards their thinking. Remove all the Jews and you will more then likely have more Christian people in power. Then you would say the same thing but replace The word Jew with Christian. A CEO can certainly define the path they want to take a business but for a news media, you would need to reach into the ranks of editors and executive editors. They define how the reporting is done. Of course, they MUST all be Jews.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanInAceh
    replied
    To further expand on this delightful yet obvious topic, most terrorists in the world today are Muslims. There, I said it. I've been saying it for years. We have an abundance of terrorists among our number, along with sympathizers. We have, as I have noted time and time again, a problem among the Muslims concerning religiously inspired violence. Am I an "Islamophobe?" No, I am pointing out something factual as a means to confront it and, hopefully, to fully address the problem.

    Ditto for this crap. Honestly, if people can't talk about what is PLAIN AS DAY I don't know where this world is headed. We can play ostrich all day long, or we can address these problems frankly in order to find a more equitable solution to our problems. All of this apologia and denial and tu quoque is just lame.

    Edit: also note that Muslims often vehemently deny that Muslims can be terrorists. "Al-Qaeda is a CIA plot." I recently encountered Indonesians on social media who were spreading "evidence" that ISIS is, get this, a joint Iranian, American and Zionist plot to discredit Sunni Muslims. I shit you not, that is how strong the level of denial can be. Jukung's level of denial is not that bad, but it's bad enough.
    Last edited by DanInAceh; 06-08-14, 04:32.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanInAceh
    replied
    Originally posted by jukung11 View Post
    Yes, it is generally considered anti-semitic because the fact that someone is jewish is highlighted as an [COLOR=#222222][FONT=Verdana]influencing[/FONT][/COLOR] factor as to what is presented is a prejudice that assumes that you are getting a biased view controlled by that persons religion. Almost everyone else, including most other executives (not just a few movie executives) are christian. No one highlights or accuses them that the fact that they are christian somehow has them influence or control the media.

    The fact that scoot assumed that if jews were employed at high levels of a media company they were going to use their position to influence the coverage of Israel (a jewish and muslim country) is the definition of a prejudiced assumption. Or it was a similar assumption, that if a media company doesn't project the images or reports in the way that scoot thinks they should be, it must be because a jew is controlling it. That is the definition of prejudiced assumptions. If a person can't see that is a prejudiced assumption and holds those prejudices, it is generally a pointless to argue about it and a waste of my time.
    Israel defines itself as "the Jewish state," not the "Jewish and Muslim and Christian state." This is evidenced by the fact that halakha is occasionally used as Israel's law, giving Israel some theocratic elements that Israelis themselves rarely like to admit to foreigners. For many this is an embarrassment, as most Israelis probably do legitimately feel like Israel is (or really, should be) a secular state.

    To ignore the reality that our ideologies expose our loyalties is just... ridiculous. It would be like saying that having a staunch conservative as the head of a newspaper does not influence the direction of that newspaper. People regularly assume that someone's politics influence their reporting, and this bias is widely noted. It's a surprise to no one. Similarly, it should be a surprise to no one that Jews, particularly those with leanings towards Jewish nationalism (known more commonly as "Zionism") have a decidedly pro-Israel outlook. Clearly, not all Jews are Zionists. The two are not mutually inclusive. However, to ignore the reality that the vast majority of Jews are, in fact, Zionists is just to court ignorance. Jews are usually wildly supportive of their colonial project, the realization of either a Biblical narrative or some garbage ahistorical narrative about the region.

    To dismiss Scooter because he pointed out the obvious, to tar him as an anti-Semite is hugely convenient for Jews and their boosters. Too bad it's getting really, really old. I mean, honestly, does the term even have meaning any more? It's a case of the boy who cried wolf, nobody cares any more. You can call us anti-Semites til the cows come home, doesn't change the fact that Jewish influence in media, finance and politics is very real. Is it control? No, only an actual anti-Semite suggests as such. But to say that they influence it? That's a surprise to no one above the age of 5.

    Originally posted by jukung11 View Post
    Why not assume the media coverage is more influenced because 95% of all executives and all positions of power are white men (christian and jewish)? Why not assume that there must be a white guy influencing the media to give biased coverage against arabs. I guess highlighting the fact that if they are white and/or christian and assuming they are biased by that fact is not as popular with some bule.

    I see can see what my girlfriend had to go through being Chinese Indonesian. Same prejudices, different name.
    Do "white people" (as an aside, in the U.S. Arabs are considered "white" in our Census data) have antagonism with Arabs? We can certainly point to Christians, Muslims and Jews having antagonism, with Jews and Muslims being the most antagonistic to one another. Is that a "white" thing, like at all? No, it's decidedly a consequence of Israel's creation and religion. Has nothing to do with 'white people,' so summoning up white people as a factor is just absurd. Do Christians or Muslims give biased reporting? Absolutely. No question. I made that very clear in my earlier posts. However, all of that is mere tu quoque, an attempt to distract people from the reality that what we are speaking of, American media, is chiefly the province of Jews and pretty much no one else. "White people" don't have a vested interest in making Arabs look bad. Christians may, depending on how Zionist they are, but that all goes back to the original point which was that... Jews are undeniably influential in America media.

    And we're back to the Chinese thing. Boy, what delicious parallels we can draw from that. Oh, poor Chinese Indonesians, they're only the MOST SUCCESSFUL ETHNIC GROUP IN ALL OF INDONESIA. Those poor dears. They both have to put up with so very much. Look at me, I'm practically beside myself in tears for these poor, oppressed populations. Bitch please. I similarly pointed out the influence of that population, similarly got called a "racist" and similarly pointed out the obvious. Nobody says that it's racist to point out that black athletes dominate the NBA, it's merely a fact. Point out that most of the owners of NBA teams are Jewish? Holy shit! Anti-Semite! Burn the witch! Do you see the difference? Can you understand how it's getting old for us gentiles? A group cannot both be the most successful group and the most oppressed group at the same time, but boy do we ever have to hear about it in those terms. I can fathom that a group can be victims of their own success, but to deny the obvious just drives a wild hair up my ass.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mister Bule
    replied
    Originally posted by DanInAceh View Post
    Jews are so ubiquitous that I would wager there are more Jews presented as characters on TV programs ( despite being a mere 2% of our population) than blacks and Hispanics COMBINED, not to mention the fact that the actors themselves are far, far more likely to be Jewish than any other group. Honestly, this is a truly tiresome thing to discuss because it's so ridiculously blatant that no one can deny it with a straight face. It would be like saying that the NBA isn't majority black, it would defy reality.
    And Americans are so inured to their presence that they barely notice. I'm sure that millions of Gentile Americans watched 'Seinfeld" for years without even thinking about the characters being Jewish unless there were specific and unmistakable references to Judaism in the script. Even then some of them would probably have been clueless. Not that it really matters if Americans are laughing at the foibles of Jews or African Americans or any other group. I can't help thinking of the scene in the movie "Airplane" when an attendant offers a passenger an exceedingly slim volume called "Famous Jewish Sports Heroes", among a choice of other reading materials.

    I did not comment about this part of Jukung's post because, (a) it is, as you've said, so obvious (b) it is outside the more limited scope of my personal focus on this topic, and (c) as you also mentioned, one tends to be jumped on as anti-Semitic just for mentioning it, but yes, it is an incontrovertible fact that Jews do run the entertainment industry in America and have since the early days of Hollywood.

    Leave a comment:


  • jukung11
    replied
    Originally posted by DanInAceh View Post
    Note that people who remark on this are regularly tarred as anti-Semites. I mentioned the bit about the NBA (clearly a sign of black power?) because it's precisely what Spike Lee said and he got tarred as an anti-Semite.
    Yes, it is generally considered anti-semitic because the fact that someone is jewish is highlighted as an [COLOR=#222222][FONT=Verdana]influencing[/FONT][/COLOR] factor as to what is presented is a prejudice that assumes that you are getting a biased view controlled by that persons religion. Almost everyone else, including most other executives (not just a few movie executives) are christian. No one highlights or accuses them that the fact that they are christian somehow has them influence or control the media.

    The fact that scoot assumed that if jews were employed at high levels of a media company they were going to use their position to influence the coverage of Israel (a jewish and muslim country) is the definition of a prejudiced assumption. Or it was a similar assumption, that if a media company doesn't project the images or reports in the way that scoot thinks they should be, it must be because a jew is controlling it. That is the definition of prejudiced assumptions. If a person can't see that is a prejudiced assumption and holds those prejudices, it is generally a pointless to argue about it and a waste of my time.

    Why not assume the media coverage is more influenced because 95% of all executives and all positions of power are white men (christian and jewish)? Why not assume that there must be a white guy influencing the media to give biased coverage against arabs. I guess highlighting the fact that if they are white and/or christian and assuming they are biased by that fact is not as popular with some bule.

    I see can see what my girlfriend had to go through being Chinese Indonesian. Same prejudices, different name.
    Last edited by jukung11; 05-08-14, 23:09.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X