Why are the Palestinians upset that Israel blew up the Hamas guy?
He was parapalegic. He wasn’t getting any healthier. I suspect women weren’t flocking to him.
And Israel martyred him.
So if they really believe the line they’re feeding to gullible 14 year old boys, why aren’t they holding celebrations saying, “Thanks to Israel, the founder of Hamas is now cavorting in a land of milk and honey with 72 virgins! Bless you, Israel! You could have let him have a slow, lingering unmartyred death, but no! You were thoughtful and dropped bombs!”
But instead they’re all upset. Doesn’t make sense. Not if they really believe in the glories of the hereafter, instead of just using it to sending credulous and insecure teens to their deaths.
And the UN wants to condemn Israel for blowing up a man complicit in the murders of hundreds of Israelis. I’m curious: Was there a condemnation of Palestinians for cynically manipulating a 14 year old? A ten year old? Just wondering.
PAD
• 
From James B:
“Heh…as a comedian once put it… why couldn’t we situate Israel in, say, Idaho? Lots of land, not many people… not surrounded by enemies… “
Why didn’t the Egyptians or Syrians give the Palestinians some land in either of their countries after they lost their war with Israel? It sure would have been a shorter move than relocating Israel to the middle of the US.
The Palestinians have been used as an excuse to destroy Israel for so long, they are actually beginning to believe that killing themselves is the ways to an end. Only, it’s not the “leaders” that are killing themselves. They’re managing to talk their youth (and future) into killing themselves.
Look back at all of the peace talks. There have been several different US Presidents, several different Israel Prime Ministers, and Yassir Arrafat. Hummmm…. If there is a major problem, should you start looking at the obvious to fix things?
As for the others, it is a dangerous concept, but there is such a thing as “guilt by association.”
1) Not a legal concept, at least in civilized nations.
2) Some of the dead were guilty primarily of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Since when is that a capital crime? Or is it crime enough for you that these people were trying to go about their lives as best they could, living between the anvil and the hammer?
Some of the dead were guilty primarily of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I’ve read comments from people I consider friends (knowing them only online) that think that Israel should be carpet bombing when the Palestinians have one of those street funerals.
I think it’s a case of the ends justify the means, in that it would get rid of future and likely potential suicide bombers on the spot, before they can do damage.
I’m not sure it’s something I could pull the trigger on, but I can understand the logic behind it.
Anyways.
I went to a book signing a few months back with the author Joel Rosenberg (the political thriller writer, not fantasy one), and he was basically describing Arafat as the Known Quantity.
You know who he is, what he is capable of. The same would apply to the now-deceased founder of Hamas.
Yet, what do we know about Yassin’s replacement?
Or would could replace Arafat?
That’s the troubling part – what you don’t know.
“Perhaps, but they wouldn`t execute people standing next to him, especially without bothering with a trial”
Especially nowadays I am not so sure. A super power that is treating human beings like in Guantanamo Bay is also capable of other things when it is about “The War on Terror”.
The mother of all the ways of terrorism today is the affair Israel-Palestine. With the support of the most powerful country of the world, USA, the radical wing of Israel have the license to kill everybody they wants.
It’s simple. No peace, (palestine and israeli) terrorism forever.
I don’t hate the Israel people. A lot of friends of mine are jews, but they are not the same people of the “Schlinder’s List”.
Always the U.S. mass media show the jews like victims, but the situation of lot of people is worst today. Why U.S.A. don’t attack the genocide governements in Africa o don’t condemn the explotation of slave children in the industries in Asia (with funds of the transnational companies)? Why the U.S.A. goverment promote the violation of the human rights of lot of inmigrants inside the U.S.A. borders, making them “citizens of second of third category”, without any possibility to make a better future, to progress?
I think Mr. David that your actual condition (you are only human, no more no less) of writer any form of fiction don’t let you see the world is more than your confortable life in U.S.A. If more and more of the U.S.A. citizens take a little time to purchase a little more INFORMATION (and with INFORMATION I don’t refer to CNN, the biggest maker of lies and desinformation), to make a reflexion and discussion of the caotical world situation, you will become agents of change.
You can change the world Mr. David, you and your people.
The next time you vote, don’t elect a liar, drunk, drug-addict, fanatic and ignorant like Mr. George W. Bush.
You will make a better world with that. The presidential election in U.S.A. always affects the entire world, including us, the habitants of the fourth world…
Israel or Palestine? Obligue them to sign a peace treaty now!!!!!!
And you will don’t have another 11/09…
Thanks…
Fernando,
Unfortunately all of our media outlets are owned by huge corporations more interested in money and their own propoganda than giving a balanced view. We have a difficult time even finding out the truth about our own government, much less international news.
fernando says:
“Why the U.S.A. goverment promote the violation of the human rights of lot of inmigrants inside the U.S.A. borders, making them “citizens of second of third category”, without any possibility to make a better future, to progress?”
Actually, sir, many many of them do indeed make a better future for themselves and their children. That’s why, and I’m surprised this did not occur to you, they keep coming here. As opposed to, say, Peru. trust me, these are NOT stupid people, they wouldn’t be coming here if they hadn’t seen family members who had already made it.
Furthermore, you make the classic mistake of assuming that people disagree with you because they have not tapped into the fountain of knowledge that you yourself seem to have discovered. Maybe, just maybe, they ALSO have access to the facts and just came to a different conclusion that you did.
Off topic–I am impressed how PAD’s popularity is a world wide thing. I might have thought that much of what makes his writing so great would be hard to translate into other cultures, the way so much anime humor sails right over our heads.
Why didn’t the Egyptians or Syrians give the Palestinians some land in either of their countries after they lost their war with Israel?
They did, after a fashion, in that the Gaza Strip and Golan Heights were Egyptian and Syrian territory, respectively, from 1949 until Israel conquered them in the 1967 war, and the West Bank was Jordanian. Eventually, the Arab nations agreed to give up their claims to these lands and let them be a Palestinian homeland. Of course, it’s easier to give up something when you don’t control it anymore.
It is a fair question, though. Of the Arab nations, Jordan was the only one that gave citizenship to Palestinian refugees (and got a Palestinian uprising as thanks…) That might be justified 50 years ago on the grounds that they would soon be able to go home, but generations later, it is hard to reconsile with the severity of anti-Israel rhetoric. Likewise, it is difficult to accept criticism of Israel’s abuse of Palestinian’s rights, when many Arab governments do far worse to their own people.
None of this justifies the mistreatment the Palestinians have received. It isn’t OK for them to be abused or ignored just because the other Arab nations have ignored or abused them too. They have been thuroughly screwed by BOTH sides, and by those among their own who perpetuate the violence with pointless acts of mass-murder. Hamas is the worst enemy the Palestinians have right now.
I think it’s a case of the ends justify the means, in that it would get rid of future and likely potential suicide bombers on the spot, before they can do damage.
The problem with the ends justifying the means is that nobody is prescient. If we knew for sure that killing 4 innocent people along with a terrorist leader would prevent hundreds from being killed, that might be justified. But we DON’T know that, we can’t know that, and, if anything, history shows that this kind of retaliation only encourages further terrorist attacks.
The other problem is that Israeli forces have killed 3 times as many innocent people trying to stop terrorism than the terrorists themselves kill. It is possible that the Israeli military action has prevented so many terrorist attacks that the numbers even out, but it would be a tough case to make. Even a teleological utilitarian would have trouble justifying killing 1000 to save 400.
WHen someone has done the equivalent of pleading “Guilty” in public, not much of a trial is required.
That’s not how things work in a democracy. In US capital cases, even someone who pleads guilty gets a trial and mandatory appeals.
Starwolf: WHen someone has done the equivalent of pleading “Guilty” in public, not much of a trial is required. Just sentencing
David Hunt: Actually, in the U.S., a trial IS still required. Public confessions are wonderful evidence to have so they can be presented at trial, but they don’t obviate the need for one. A defendant could, while at trial, even state under oath that he had committed the very crime that he was accused of and still plead Not Guilty. He wouldn’t have much of a chance of being acquitted, but he could do that. I’m sure the lawyers who read Peter’s page could state better than I, but the only things I know of that obviate the need for a trial are guilty pleas…in court.
But killing that guy wasn’t about executing a sentence, anyway. It was about serving national interests.
Mr. David said:
>>”I think to become a martyr you have to “knowingly” put yourself in a life threatening situration. has apposed to been blindsided by a sneak missile attack.”
See, now I thought that, too. That was until I saw the article on the AOL newsfeed about a rally led by the new leadershop of Hamas, in which it was stated:
“Rantissi again vowed Hamas would hit Israel hard over Yassin’s slaying. “I remind you that … we do not forget the blood of our martyrs,” he told the crowd, in which many people held up portraits of the elderly, wheelchair-bound cleric.”
mar
Karen and Fernando,
First, our national media has bent over backwards to show the Palestinian side of this conflict. Right after 9/11, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour – who has been superbly covering Mideast news since the first Gulf War made her a “star” – cited the opinions of many in the Muslim world that American support for Israel played at least a part in the attacks. For saying this on national TV, she was quickly branded a “war šlûŧ” by a NY Post columnist. But she continues to bring up the complex issues, as do many in the media.
The Philadelphia Inquirer – where I have worked in varying capacities for the past six years – was recently denounced as anti-semitic by the Philadelphia Jewish community for what they perceived to be unbalanced reporting in favor of the Palestinians. Whether you agree with Amanpour or the Inquirer or not is beside the point. What is pertinent to this conversation is that there is plenty of information on the Palestinian point of view and the Israeli point of view. People just have to take the time to actually listen and sift through it. It is complex. What is not complex – and what PAD’s point is – is that the use by these “leaders” of Palestinian children is not only shameful, disgusting and sickening, and their anger that this “leader” has met a fate that Hamas invites children to embrace is beyond hypocritical. Words cannot describe my outrage.
But again, some would rather rail against our President – amazing how he can be called “a liar, drunk, drug-addict, fanatic and ignorant” yet it’s always “conservative Republicans” who are described as “mean-spirited”.
BTW, Karen, I agree that the mainstream media is biased and spews propaganda. Of course, what do you expect when 92 percent of reporters, editors and producers voted for Bill Clinton and Al Gore and The New York Times hasn’t endorsed a republican for president since Eisenhower? Hopefully, more conservatives will fill these positions and make the media more fair and balanced.
EClark1849: I asked him if there were a country BETTER suited to be a superpower than America. I think America has a lot of problems. Doesn’t mean I think there’s someplace better.
Um, Canada? (He says, facetiously) I’m not saying we’re a superpower, I’m saying that if we *were* one, we’d be no worse than the USA- and possibly better, since we have a long history of being more sensitive to international affairs. Of course, there’s no way to know for sure, as I think we’ve developed our national character *because* we aren’t a military juggernaut.
Honestly, I’ve gotta go with Bladestar on this one. The idea that any one country, be they a western democracy or an eastern tyranny, has cornered the market on global military power, quite frankly makes me nervous. The last time one nation had this much power and influence over the rest of the world was the Roman Empire, and we all know what happened there. Historically speaking we all have benefited from the legacy of Rome, and I’m sure that our distant descendants will benefit from the legacy of the USA- I’d just rather not live through the conquests, corruption, slow decline into decadence and finally the Dark Ages that are the fall of a Great Civilization.
What does this have to do with my point above? Well, if there is more than one great power in the world, there’s more than one chance for global civilization to survive when the collapse comes. (And it will come eventually. Probably not in our lifetime or that of our children or grandchildren, barring a rogue nuke or two, but it’ll come.) If there hadn’t been a Cnstantinople, we might’ve been stuck in the Dark Ages much longer than we were. So following the parallel, if the US is modern Rome, where is our modern Constantinople? I wouldn’t say Britain is, since Britain, it seems to me, is in the same position vis-a-vis the US as the Greeks were to Rome- precursors, later allies, but not successors. It’s not Canada, ’cause honestly, if y’all sank into barbarism, we’d be dragged down with you. Maybe an eastern nation? I don’t know, I’m just throwing ideas out here…
dave,
My guess is that it could be the Chinese–compare the large collective yawn Americans had over the Bush Mars proposal vs the pride the Chinese felt over the recent solo flight by a Chinese national. I don’t think Americans are willing to spend the money to make the next big advance in space exploration.
However it is folly to assume the Roman model is the one that will be followed–we are living in very different times. Technology changes all. If America falls it will be either by natural catastrophy (the asteroid hits Chicago) or as part of a global fall of civilization (Every islamofascist organization gets a suitcase nuke). While the idea that the USA is a modern day Rome, conquering nations and building reality show colosseums, it doesn’t hold up–the Romans would doubtlessly laugh at the way we give back the countries we defeat to the people who live there.
Jerome,
I was commenting about the lack of international coverage in our media. We do not know a lot about what happens overseas, unless you listen to a BBC or Canadian news broadcast. Our media runs with “if it bleeds it leads.” The bias in our media is certainly not liberal, except for a handful of outlets. I’ve just begun a book called “What Liberal Media”, and while I haven’t gotten very deep into it, many conservatives admit that in railing agaist the “liberal media” it is another propaganda weapon in the was of words. I used to live in Philly and read the Inquirer. I liked the paper, but very much lamented the day the Bulletin went under. A free press needs competition to get all the news out and with the media conglomerates we have today we are NOT getting the whole story.
“propaganda weapon in the WAR of words.” Not was.
Sorry.
Bill,
I disagree. I think we are going way too heavily into the capitalist way of life, just as the communists leaned way too heavily in the other direction. I believe our economy will collapse in the same way, especially as we continue to raise the deficit while cutting taxes. A country should live in some degree of moderation, and we aren’t. I also think that while we will hurt the world economy when we fall, they will recover and then demand payback for the way the World Bank has treated them.
I think that the Chinese are going to be the next world power, but it will take them a few more decades to “get their stuff together.” Right now, China seems to be transitioning from a socialist, rural agrarian society into a capitalistic, urban, industrial society. The new China is making money hand over fist, but is having to sacrifice some of the social services net that had existed under communism. And they do have a few things to learn about human rights (not a slam, Americans could always use a refresher on the fundamentals).
That being said, China is moving in the right direction. They spend 21%of their GDP on education. They still have methods of harnessing the popular goodwill of the Chinese people. And the Chinese actually seem to care about the peopel in the rest of the world. There isn’t a country in Africa (maybe Liberia)that doesn’t have a railroad or other work partially paid for by China, or a statue commemorating African-Chinese brotherhood.
They still have a little development to undergo, but in a few decades, they will make a fine world power.
Ben Hunt
First let me see thanks to Blackjack for responding tojonathan (the other one)in regards to the opinion that israel has justifiable hatred for the palestinians.Lets be honest i think shooting missiles at a paraplegic could come under the justifiable hatred banner.The guy aint axctly a moving target for petes sake.My main point is justifiable hatred like anything else is all relative.The bottom line is the endless cycle of car bombings,suicide bombers and assassination is not solving anything but resulting in more escalated acts of violence by both sides.At some point if both sides truly want peace they have to stop this .No im by no means a pacifist but i believe violence should be a last option and at some point the never ending bloodshed needs to stop
Why U.S.A. don’t attack the genocide governements in Africa
The situation in many parts of Africa is, imo, worse than the Israeli/Palestinian situation.
These are entire chunks of Africa, not a small area of land, that are controlled by warlords and such.
Much like Afghanistan, just with much less bloodshed atm.
But yes, we have tried. Somalia, 1992, for example.
We went to Kosovo, and today I read an article saying that the Serbian gov’t is giving Milosevic a salary while he’s on trial! For crying out loud!
Martyrdom came from being killed for stating and living by your (religious) beliefs (being a witness) and being unwilling to renounce them.
Who’s making them renounce their religious beliefs?
Beyond perhaps the “belief” that all Jews should be slaughtered like cattle.
See, the difference here is that nobody is making the Palestinians, or any Islamics for that matter, renounce their religion.
So they apparently have a slightly different meaning for the word “martyr” then.
They still have a little development to undergo, but in a few decades, they will make a fine world power.
It would be interested to see how China turns out in the annals of history. I don’t think I’ll live that long though. 🙂
Built on Communism, although a slightly different brand than the USSR.
They’re turning toward capitalism, but still carry much of the weight of what troubled the USSR, such as human rights (including allowing their people the freedom of speech and getting information), feeding and taking care of it’s own populace, and how much time they spend building their military (and threatening Taiwan).
Gideon Levi writes in the Israeli daily Haaretz today,
“Suddenly, Israelis are worried about the bitter fate of a Palestinian child. To judge by the public shock over Hussam Bilal Abdu, who was caught wearing an explosives belt at the Hawara checkpoint, it would seem that nothing of a humane nature is foreign to us, even when it pertains to an enemy and his children. But this is an infuriating show of concern. The fate of a Palestinian child only touches us when it suits us, when it serves our purposes and when our hands are not involved.
The hundreds of children who have been killed, the thousands who have been crippled, and the hundreds of thousands who live under conditions of siege and poverty, and are exposed every day to violence and humiliation – all this has failed to move the Israeli public. Just the child with the belt.
Why weren’t we shocked by the killing of Christine Sa’ada, who was shot dead in an IDF ambush while traveling in a car with her parents in Bethlehem, exactly a year ago today? Why was there no public outcry following the killing of Jamil and Ahmed Abu Aziz, two brothers who were riding their bicycles in Jenin in broad daylight when a tank fired a shell at them? How is their killing, which was documented on video, less cruel? Why didn’t we show pictures of Basil and Abir Abu Samra, who were killed together with their mother in their vineyard near Nablus, just as we displayed pictures of Hussam Abdu? Why have we never discussed the killing of children at the entrance to the Qalandiyah refugee camp, where a child is killed by Border Police or IDF fire every few weeks? Why is a putting an explosives belt on a child more shocking than firing a shell at him?”
for the full article, go to:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/409293.html
Some commentary from Israel on the assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin
Uri Avnery: “It is Worse than a Crime, it is Stupid!”
“This is worse than a crime, it is an act of stupidity!” commented Gush Shalom – Peace Bloc’s Uri Avnery on the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
“This is the beginning of a new chapter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It moves the conflict from the level of a solvable national conflict to the level of religious conflict, which by its very nature is insoluble.
“The fate of the State of Israel is now in the hands of group of persons whose outlook is primitive and whose perceptions are retarded. They are incapable of understanding the mental, emotional and political dimensions of the conflict. This is a group of bankrupt political and military leaders who have failed in all their actions. They try to cover up their failures by a
catastrophic escalation.
“This act will not only endanger the personal security of every Israeli, both in the country and around the world, but also the existential security of the State of Israel. It has grievously hurt the chances of putting and end to the Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Muslim conflicts.”
Avnery mentioned that in the early 1980s the occupation authorities encouraged the founders of Hamas, hoping that they would create a counter-weight to Yasser Arafat and the PLO. Even after the start of the first intifada, the army and the security services gave preferential treatment of Hamas. Sheikh Yassin was arrested only a year after the outbreak.
“There seems to be no limit to the stupidity of our political and military leaders. They endanger the future of the State of Israel.”
Translation of Gush Shalom press release:
The assassination of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, with its concomitant careless killing of passers-by, is a mad provocative act by a governnment which lost all restraint. It is the act of a pyromaniac fireman whose method of putting out the fire of terrorism is to pour barrels of gasoline upon it, an act which might cost the life of dozens or hundreds of Israeli citizens in the near future.
Prime Minster Sharon’s talk of “withdrawal from Gaza”, which had caught the headlines in the past months, is now revealed to be no more than meaningless chatter. Far from seriously meaning to evacuate even a bit of occupied territory, this bankrupt prime minister – faced with police investigations into a myriad of corruption concerning himself and his sons – seems
determined to bequeath to his country a legacy of eternal war with the Palestinians and the entire Arab and Muslim World. Every day that this man remains in power poses a grave danger to the future of Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Gush Shalom, the Israeli Peace Bloc, calls upon all sane and responsible forces left in the international community to intervene, urgently and
forcefully, to save our region at the edge of the abyss and halt the monstrous cycle of bloodshed which now threatens to engulf us.
Gush Shalom website – http://www.gush-shalom.org
Insert Venomous Rant here. When I’m awake I’ll comment.
Travis
I’m leaving the politics of this aside and looking at the actions of the respective parties (given that was the origin of the thread).
It seems when Israel goes after targets it believes to be terrorists it often seem to do so with very little concern for colatteral damage or for those in the immediate vicinity. Innocent people may die and Israel shrugs its shoulders and postulates that if the people were anywhere near then they were either collaborators or unlucky. It openly refutes any criticism from the international community of this method and tells anyone who disagrees to effectively mind their own business.
When Palestine bombers go after targets, they often deliberately choose public places in which to kill. They hope that the international community returns to help broker an agreement.
Maybe there is some moral high ground between those two modus operandi, but it’s hardly solid or anything to be proud of. Such disregard for innocent human life makes both sides guilty of having innocent blood on their hands.
Soldiers can be soldiers. Leaders can be martyrs. But all too often it’s the people in the streets who end up counting the cost so highly.
The only solution (in most cases) is for the international community to invite *anyone* to a negotiating table once a ceasefire from them has remained in effect for an agreed time. Of course, that’s much harder than it sounds and has often failed in that region and others.
John
I don’t konw if that has something to do with our common origin, but I agree with Fernando(hola, hermano, es un placer charlar con gente como t
Karen says;
” I believe our economy will collapse in the same way, especially as we continue to raise the deficit while cutting taxes. A country should live in some degree of moderation, and we aren’t. I also think that while we will hurt the world economy when we fall, they will recover and then demand payback for the way the World Bank has treated them.”
The countries that are sore at the World Bank are mad mostly because they have borrowed money and are not able to pay it back. Not exactly living in moderation.
I’m not worried about the collapse you envision for the same reason I think we are so strong in the first place: it is not a coincidence that the USA ended up so powerful. We are blessed with a land of great variety. Lots of minerals and other natural resources and places like Nebraska which, while living there must be a special kind of hëll, makes enough corn to feed the world.
Trust me, the economy will not collapse over tax cuts.
Thinking over the Chinese, it occurs to me that there are two major problems they MUST overcome if they are to make the big step into true world power status–they need a free press to fight corruption and drive politics forward for the benefit of more than the privilaged few and they have to raise the status of women. Any country that writes off half of its population will forever be a backwater, no matter how many bombs it has.
Bill:
I wish I could share your optimism over the eventual fate of the USA. While I think it would be wonderful if western civilization as we know it continued to flourish and evolve, I simply cannot muster the faith that next-to-nothing could bring down the States.
There are so many, many way in which even a prosperous civilization could be brought down- a rapid change in weather patterns, a pandemic (like the one scientists have been saying for years is due any day now), revolution from within, or even a President (not casting any stones here, I’m speaking hypothetically) who wants to hang on to power by any means necessary. These are the things that wake me in the wee small hours every so often.
You mentioned that the analogy of Rome is a poor one- you quite rightly state that the USA isn’t going about conquering nations wholesale, nor is it likely to start doing so in the forseeable future. I’d like to point out, though, that a military occupation is not the only form of conquest possible. Both economically and culturally the USA and western nations exert a tremendous amount of influence over the rest of the globe- and I’d posit that the collapse of the west in general (or the USA in particular) would be as devasting to the world of today as the collapse of Rome was to the nations of that era, despite the fact that they aren’t physically occupied.
As to the Chinese, I think you and the others who’ve brought them up have a very good point- they are certainly a nation and culture to be reckoned with in the world today (despite the fact that there’s considerable room for improvement) and there’s no arguing that they’re stable and not likely to disappear anytime soon. I think they’d be a good candidate for playing Constantinople’s role in the preservation of knowledge in the event of global collapse.
Karen,
You are writing a book? Congratulations! While you are doing so, perhaps we will continue our debate about the nation’s media political leanings sometime in the future. I have researched the topic as well, and between that, what I see daily and first-hand experience being in the newsroom at several papers, I have concluded that our mainstream media is as liberal as the grass is green.
Anyway, for now, the reason I responded to your response to fernando is it seemed as if you were agreeing with him that the reason PAD felt the way he did about the Hamas leader’s killing is because his point-of-reference is based on an “American” point-of-view. It’s like “If you, Mr. David, had enough INFORMATION you would not be so quick to condemn Hamas.”
First, I think that sells PAD well short. From what i know of him, I am quite certain he has viewed and read material sympathetic to the Palestinians’ plight. We have done stories in print and TV about it, you know. And quite frankly, I am tired of hearing about the overrated BBC.
Second, last I knew, we spend a lot of time and print talking about immigration issues and economic justice for those who come here and to a lesser degree the other issues he raised. Maybe Fernando SHOULD watch CNN a bit. Or if he hates the Clinton News Channel so much, Fox News Channel, Nightline, MSNBC, and A& E – among others – also discuss complex issues in depth. Third,nowhere in his column can I find any mention of PAD supporting ISRAEL or talking about whether he supported a Palestinian state or U.S. aid to Israel.
He is simply wondering why – if being a martyr as espoused by the hateful Hamas group is so wonderful that young CHILDREN should embrace it, then why all the fuss over sending a man who killed hundreds if not thousands of Jews to his 72 virgins?
They are hateful hypocrites who hate the jews more than they love their own children. That’s PAD’s point, which is one I share.
It is startling how much this thread has gotten off track from PAD
Actually, I think PAD’s original point was that if Hamas actually believes the bûllšhìŧ they feed the kids they recruit to blow themselves up in Allah’s Name, they should be celebrating their leader’s arrival in Paradise, not mourning his death. It’s kind of like when a Pope dies, and the entire Roman Catholic Church goes into a mourning period, when, if they really believed their own theology, they should be singing and dancing – their head guy just got his express ticket to Heaven punched, and gets to sit at God’s Table!
Bill said “The countries that are sore at the World Bank are mad mostly because they have borrowed money and are not able to pay it back. Not exactly living in moderation.”
They are angry about the conditions of the loans, not the problems in paying them back.
Jerome,
I am not writing a book, I am reading one by Eric Alterman called ” What Liberal Media”. For more info go to http://WWW.whatliberalmedia.com
I meant in my post that we have to work harder to get all the information because the major media does not necessarily dispense it to us. I am sure that PAD is coming from a more informed source and I was only complaing about our lack of resources. I am Jewish and have a heck of a lot more sympathy for Israel than the Palastinians. Terrorism is evil and until the Palastinians decide to leave it out of the equation, there can be no peace.
“It’s kind of like when a Pope dies, and the entire Roman Catholic Church goes into a mourning period, when, if they really believed their own theology, they should be singing and dancing – their head guy just got his express ticket to Heaven punched, and gets to sit at God’s Table!”
Nope, not even close. Even if one believes in the afterlife, it is totally understandable that we, the living, should mourn the loss of those who we love in this world. We cry because our own lives have been diminished by their leaving it.
Hamas is telling kids that death is a good thing–a great thing! Better for them, better for their families, it’s the best thing that they can do with their lives. But when one of these rat bášŧárdš gets offed suddenly death is a tragedy once again. Lying dickweeds.
What Liberal Media? is a very flawed book because its main premise is easily disproved: That having lots of money = being conservative. he assumes and never proves that BIG CORPORATIONS are automatically conservative.
When in fact, stats show that the big corporations that own most media outlets overwhelmingly donate to democratic causes.
for more information go to
http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/
Um … most owners of big media outlets donate overwhelmingly to BOTH sides so as to maintain access.
The people in charge of said corporations, however, hang out with conservatives a lot more than they do with liberals. Was Hearst liberal? Was Pulitzer? Is Rupert Murdoch?
As for columnists, since most people seem to find the NYT overwhelmingly liberal — geez, is Bill Safire? Tom Friedman? David Brooks? (Paul Krugman and some others, yes.)
I’ve only skimmed the thatliberalmedia.com site you mention, but so far it doesn’t seem to have much in the way of documentation, and certainly doesn’t seem to make the point you claim it’s making.
TWL
I just scanned through that website. The closest allegation I could find was a claim that “60 Minutes” had gone easy on Richard Clarke in an interview because his book was published by a subsidiary of CBS. I didn’t see any documentation to back this up, nor any real evidence that the “60 Minutes” crew “went easy” on Clarke (that last, after all, being an opinion, even if stated as authoritative fact by the author of the blog entry).
As Tim said, Rabid, most major corporations make large contributions to any politician who is, or might well be, in a position to advance their corporate interests. (And one would expect no less – remember, even the US Supreme Court, in tossing out an accusation of treason against a corporation early in this nation’s history, stated that a corporate entity cannot, by definition, possess a soul…)
The United States is a capitalist controlled nation. It only reacts when resources or monetary gain are at risk:
Panama Canal (The Panama Invasion)
Serbia-Kosovo
Iraq-Kuwait
The Colombian Oil Reserves (the so-called ongoing war on cartels)
I read a very enlightening book called “Who Rules America by G. William Domhoff that breaks down how the few have the power and how they continue to control it and how they help others in other nations maintain it.
If anyone has seen the documentary “The Panama Deception” it is an excellent example in how the media does not give the whole story. It’s not even about who’s liberal or conservative. It’s all about getting a story. And what a “story” they told.
When it comes to Israel and Palenstine who has the advantage? Israel by far. The money the power and the democracy. Maybe they should consider a new location. The problem with that is that is the US and Britain are far more interested in the Arab world BECAUSE of it’s resources.
It’s a bit sickening to hear someone suggest they shoot the Palestinian crowds to eliminate possible attacks. ARE YOU GOD? I don’t think so. Maybe we should drop a nuke on the whole area WOULD that satisfy your blood-thirstiness??????
Any kind of bloodshed is wrong no matter what side it comes from. It just seems quite a sad situation.
Look for the information. The truth really is out there.
William
Ted Turner is very liberal, and he founded CNN.
Here, this is a better website:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/
Two blatant examples of the blatant bias of The New York Times, which is not just any other paper but considered the nation’s “paper of record”.
1.)In the early 1970s, the current publisher of The New York Times, Arthur “pinch” Sulzberger, a college student and anti-war activist at the time, was asked by his father, the then-publisher of the Times, whom he would want to see shot if an American soldier came face-to-face waith a North Vietnamese soldier. “I would want to see the American guy get shot,” Pinch said, “It’s the other guy’s country”
Is it any wonder that he now issues editorials that demand Bush get approval from our “allies” (apparently only France and Germany count as important allies) before taking action against terrorists.
After all, it’s their country.
2.) The New York Times stylebook REQUIRED the word “unwinnable” be used in any sentence about the Vietnam War. Great balanced, objective reporting there! But who cares when you are determined to demoralize a nation and her troops.
And those are just two.
Jerome,
Are you trying to infer that Vietnam was winnable?
Jerome,
Your examples are from 3 decades ago. Things change.
“The United States is a capitalist controlled nation. It only reacts when resources or monetary gain are at risk:
Serbia-Kosovo”
What exactly did we get from Serbia-Kosovo? Other than avoid yet another mess in Europe’s back yard?
i dont understand is this some sort of joke? i just stumbled on this site – does peter david write star trek or something?!
never read such c&*p in all my life – hamas and all terrorist groups are obviously b&*^(rds – but that can never justify a nationstate reacting in such an arbitrary and venomous way. israels obviously entitled to defend itself and did so bravely in the 1968s and 70s, but this isnt war – its a terrorist situation and countries should act responsibily.
all that s*&t about muslim terrorists being pleased to die becasue of a belief in heaven is ignorant and facetious. a belief in the afterlife and a willigness to die for a cause does not mean they should be rejoicing when it happens. if that was true all religious funerals would be parties! dont get me wrong i’m not sticking up for terrorists of any creed but responsible people should keep things in perspective and see things sensibily
But, my trolling friend, it is my contention that all religious funerals should be parties! Don’t mourn the body’s death – oh, sure, feel sad that you’re deprived of this person’s company, but really, how many people rend their clothes and sorrow for years because an old friend moves away? Instead, celebrate the idea that your friend is now in Heaven/Paradise/Valhalla/the Hunting Grounds/the Elysian Fields/insert favorite afterlife here.
I’ve already issued instructions to my wife and friends that, when I die, they are to hold an old-fashioned Irish wake. I want everyone drinking, singing, remembering some of my more spectacularly bad puns, and generally celebrating the life I lived. And hey, if someone decides it needs to evolve (or devolve) into an orgy, so much the better! 🙂
if you look at it from one point of view peter, sure – the guy was a bášŧárd and he needed to die. and he knew that if the israelis came after him he’d turn into a martyr – plain and simple.
the fact is that these things need to be handled more tactfully instead of going in gung ho and guns raging to the point of overkill. you can easily snipe, and poison the man and he wont be that much of a problem. but lo and behold some tactless idiot in the israeli hierarchy ordered something like this.
yasir arafat was a very unpopular man in the occupied territories right until someone decided to put him under seige.
and guess what happened?
they turned him into a folk hero overnight – simply because – given the state of the palestinian social and economic conditions – it was psychologically feasible. people need a hero in hard times and he became it.
personally speaking the peace process died when rabin was assasinated, which in turn led to a binjamin netanyahu governement (lets face it – shimon peres is as charismatic of a leader as a bed post). i never felt and shall never believe that netenyahu was interested in peace.
there were problems during the time of arafat and rabin BUT the difference was that both were able to see eye to eye on most issues and both were tired of the cyclical violence that they had experienced over the past so many years.
now if youre talking about suicide bombers – given the pathetic state of the ‘peace process’ we have to angle ourselves to see both sides of the view. oh and i know im going to get burned on this board for this but i try to empathize as much with the palestinians as i do with the israelis.
Luigi Nova
muslims dont believe in the crucifiction of christ.
St. Afarian:
What do you mean by that?
I know many Muslims who would say that Christ was crucified.
Now, they would dispute whether that aact had anything at all to do with a divine plan to redeem humanity from sin, but when you say “don’t believe in” you need to clarify what you mean.
“…both were tired of the cyclical violence that they had experienced over the past so many years.”
And I shall never believe Arafat was “tired of the cycle of violence”. Not when he’s quoted as saying that peace for them means the destruction of Israel, in addition to doing nothing to stop the children from being indoctrinated into his “holy war”.
Hey wait, wasn’t there someone else in History who indoctrinated his country’s youth into hatred and destruction of Jews?
It’s a bit sickening to hear someone suggest they shoot the Palestinian crowds to eliminate possible attacks.
Well, you are familiar with the phrase “preemtive strike”, yes?
ARE YOU GOD?
In my own little world.
Maybe we should drop a nuke on the whole area WOULD that satisfy your blood-thirstiness??????
Well, I’ve suggested moving both groups and salting the earth. Let nobody live there.
I don’t think anybody is going to take me up on that though.
muslims dont believe in the crucifiction of christ.
I thought it was that don’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah, that he was only a Prophet (or something to that degree)
This goes along with the Christians saying Jesus was the Messiah, and the Jews are still waiting for theirs.