MaiLuk Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Yeah i suppose your right. Could have nothing to do with arabs being at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 An annoyance? You get your news from strange sources. How so? Looking at the raw data -- six casualties in 6 years, I would call that an annoyance too. More people die from bee stings than that. And I also call bees an annoyance as I am not a botanist. Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 I don't know about being right. Sure seems to me like Saddam held Iraq together better than Bush. By all accounts the religious and regional divides in Iraq weren't that serious before the invasion. It even had the makings of a modern secular state. Of course Saddam was a tough guy. He killed thousands of pro-Iranian Kurds and crazy Shi-ites. Don't tell me that breaks your heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evel_Penivel Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Not only Reuters but the AP and AFP are sweating the big drop just now. The same photographer who doctored the photos for Reuters also took pictures at Qana. Now all the big news agencies are having to check the irregularities bloggers have found in the pictures of rescue workers pulling bodies of children from the ruins. None of the groups - Reuters, AP or AFP - had their own photographers on site, but relied on freelancers with ties to Hezbollah. What amazes me is that Reuters editors didn't notice the photos from Beirut had obviously been PhotoShopped in an extremely amateurish fashion. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html#n Evil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Pretty soon we won't know what to believe. Thank goodness for FOX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 FOX? they honestly think Bush won the elections... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 I found the all the major media in the USA is a bunch of filtered bull sh#t. The media outside the USA is a little better. It seems that in the EU they are a *** little *** better on reporting USA news and events. Same with the media in Asia. If I want a slim view of the news, I look at several sources and then take it with a "large grain of salt". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AF16 Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Many supporters of Israel would not, of course, accept the idea that there is any sort of bias towards Israel in the media. On the contrary, Tom Gross, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post, recently accused the BBC of conducting a â??campaign to demonise Israelâ?Â. Yet a recent independent report commissioned by the BBC does not bear out the idea of systematic bias against Israel. In fact, a quantitative analysis of BBC coverage concluded that Israeli spokesmen got more airtime than Palestinians and that â??the death of an Israeli killed by the Palestinian side was more likely to be reported than the death of a Palestinian killed by the Israeli sideâ?Â. What is true of the â??anti-Israeliâ? BBC is even more true of the American media. Those who still doubt that the western media take Israeli deaths more seriously than Arab deaths might conduct a simple thought experiment. What would the westâ??s reaction have been by now if there were credible reports that hundreds of Israeli children had been killed by Hizbollah; and if hundreds of thousands of Israelis had been turned into refugees? The argument of anti-Israeli bias, however, rests on much more than counting minutes of airtime. Some say that by simply reporting deaths on both sides the media is guilty of â??moral equivalenceâ?Â. There is a difference between Hizbollah and Hamas â?? who are deliberately targeting Israeli citizens â?? and an Israeli army that is responding to attacks and does its utmost to avoid civilian casualties. However, the â??moral equivalenceâ? argument leads to some fairly contorted conclusions. The parents of a Lebanese child might find it hard to accept that their childâ??s death was not â??morally equivalentâ? to the death of an Israeli child. Even if outsiders accept that Israel deserves more latitude because it is a democracy fighting a ruthless enemy, that latitude is not infinite. It clearly begins to run out when civilian deaths on the Lebanese side of the conflict seem to be occurring at more than 20 times the rate of civilian deaths on the Israeli side. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/851b592c-263b-11db-afa1-0000779e2340.html No, get out of here !!! I could have sworn ... Well I'll be darn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pasathai1 Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 hope this does not offent anyone, but "The wholesale destruction of all of Lebanon by Israel " leave it to the jews to get it wholesale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 55555555. Ya see, I am a firm believer that if more folks laughed at themselves, the world would be a far, far friendlier place. I hear the new Sasha Baron Cohen ("Ali G", but of course who is really Jewish) movie is sooo way "over the top" with Jewish, redneck, and just-about-anyone-else jokes that it may not even be released! Too bad, for the above reasons. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.