BarbaraUK
Drama Llama
Surrounded by my yarn stash on the NE coast of England...............!! Refupea 1702
Posts: 5,961
Location: England UK
Jun 27, 2014 12:47:11 GMT
|
Post by BarbaraUK on Jul 27, 2014 20:43:55 GMT
Now I hear that a 'Humanitarian Flotilla' is going to try and make it to Gaza under the 'protection of the Turkish Navy'. This is going to be a cluster f---. Or, as they say in Israel 'oy vey!' Just a point about this. This has been tried before once at least in March 2013. The result of that was the following:- Reference a Q&A article here. So yes, it could turn nasty again.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 27, 2014 20:50:22 GMT
Now I hear that a 'Humanitarian Flotilla' is going to try and make it to Gaza under the 'protection of the Turkish Navy'. This is going to be a cluster f---. Or, as they say in Israel 'oy vey!' Just a point about this. This has been tried before once at least in March 2013. The result of that was the following:- Reference a Q&A article here. So yes, it could turn nasty again. Oh yeah, I'm well aware of what happened last time. I'm sure it won't go quite the same way again this time, but whoever it is that plans to do this has to know that Israel will not let their ship sail on by.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 27, 2014 20:58:58 GMT
So, what I conclude from reading this thread is: Israel never uses propaganda, never kills innocent people, and is mostly blameless. All Palestinians support Hamas, and are guilty for supporting hamas and deserve to be killed, because they live to support the killing of Israelis. Israel, all good, Palestinians, all bad. Yes, that is exactly what you should conclude. Because that is exactly what we have been saying for 18 pages now.
|
|
|
Post by krazykatlady on Jul 27, 2014 21:05:40 GMT
off topic here (thanks for all the insight by the way) but I-95 you are back to your regular name when I'm viewing on my computer but on my phone, using the Proboards app, you still appear as Imagine747
|
|
Theresa/TSC
Junior Member
Married to MrNiceGuy
Posts: 77
Jul 14, 2014 1:43:44 GMT
|
Post by Theresa/TSC on Jul 27, 2014 21:34:44 GMT
I just wanted to say thank you to everyone that has helped educate me today. I haven't gotten through all 18 pages of comments yet but want to add a note while it's on my mind. We were discussing this war (sorry, it can't be called a conflict in my book when thousands are dying) today in Sunday School and it was made clear that I live in a bubble here in the USA. While I will continue to pray for the people, the "leaders" just got bumped up to the top of my prayer list. LucyG, I'm quoting your entire comments from Page 2 on my FB page to help educate others in my circle.
|
|
BarbaraUK
Drama Llama
Surrounded by my yarn stash on the NE coast of England...............!! Refupea 1702
Posts: 5,961
Location: England UK
Jun 27, 2014 12:47:11 GMT
|
Post by BarbaraUK on Jul 27, 2014 21:57:32 GMT
During the Bosnian war was the press and millions of citizens worldwide critiquing every move the Bosnians or Croatians made? We got news reports but for the most part the rest of the world was not arguing over who shot at whom, and whether it was fair or not. There were some horrific atrocities committed in that war, but for most of us it was a blip on the radar. Were American and British troops dogged every step they took in Iraq and did the world see graphic photos of every civilian we killed there? Did we get daily armchair quarterbacking on whether they hit a civilian building as they fought in the streets of Baghdad? Allied forces in Iraq killed more than 100,000 civilians. So why is our tiny little corner of the world so polarizing? Why is the humanitarian issue so much more important here than it is in Syria, or Rawanda, or any of the other countries you listed? Honestly, did you get blow by blow daily reports on civilian deaths in Afghanistan? We sure didn't, unless it was a particularly horrific day of death. I bet you could pull a dozen sentient people off the street in the US or UK and ask them how many civilians Israel has killed and they'd probably have a good idea. Then ask them how many died today in Iraq and they wouldn't have a clue (it was 48, just in case weren't all up to speed on that) Don't know about the rest of the world but actually, yes - the UK media were following every move the Bosnians or Croatians made with both live and filmed reports and there were many daily discussions about the rights and wrongs. It was an extremely important conflict, especially to mainland Europe, and was followed minute by minute - even to examining bullet holes in buildings and showing some of the atrocities committed in that conflict and we followed the war crimes trials afterwards. That conflict started just about in the same place as the spark that lit the fuse of WW1 so of course Europeans were following it in detail! Not sure what was shown on TV regarding Iraq in the USA but again, yes, the situation was followed very closely by the British media all the way through - again by both live and filmed reporting. Reports from the area are still broadcast today.Not speaking for mainland Europe because I don't speak the many, many languages required to read their online news every day. However, I would assume it was followed in detail because of countries having troops there and also strong feelings about the Iraqi conflict. We did see graphic photographs and film day after day of the civilian casualties there, continuing for months - although I concede probably not every civilian! And yes, we had discussions on every news programme for the entire time the conflict lasted about the 'collateral damage' of the military actions, as the US termed it, including after the 'shock and awe' strategy in Baghdad! Not all taking part in these discussions, including foreign nationals, supported Britain's role in the Iraqi conflict and weren't slow to say so; but the good, bad and ugly were broadcast and reported in newspapers. It was also frequently talked about by Brits at home etc. So yes, I would honestly say that those situations were followed with the same intensity as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict right now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:34:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 22:37:19 GMT
During the Bosnian war was the press and millions of citizens worldwide critiquing every move the Bosnians or Croatians made? We got news reports but for the most part the rest of the world was not arguing over who shot at whom, and whether it was fair or not. There were some horrific atrocities committed in that war, but for most of us it was a blip on the radar. Were American and British troops dogged every step they took in Iraq and did the world see graphic photos of every civilian we killed there? Did we get daily armchair quarterbacking on whether they hit a civilian building as they fought in the streets of Baghdad? Allied forces in Iraq killed more than 100,000 civilians. So why is our tiny little corner of the world so polarizing? Why is the humanitarian issue so much more important here than it is in Syria, or Rawanda, or any of the other countries you listed? Honestly, did you get blow by blow daily reports on civilian deaths in Afghanistan? We sure didn't, unless it was a particularly horrific day of death. I bet you could pull a dozen sentient people off the street in the US or UK and ask them how many civilians Israel has killed and they'd probably have a good idea. Then ask them how many died today in Iraq and they wouldn't have a clue (it was 48, just in case weren't all up to speed on that) Don't know about the rest of the world but actually, yes - the UK media were following every move the Bosnians or Croatians made with both live and filmed reports and there were many daily discussions about the rights and wrongs. It was an extremely important conflict, especially to mainland Europe, and was followed minute by minute - even to examining bullet holes in buildings and showing some of the atrocities committed in that conflict and we followed the war crimes trials afterwards. That conflict started just about in the same place as the spark that lit the fuse of WW1 so of course Europeans were following it in detail! Not sure what was shown on TV regarding Iraq in the USA but again, yes, the situation was followed very closely by the British media all the way through - again by both live and filmed reporting. Reports from the area are still broadcast today.Not speaking for mainland Europe because I don't speak the many, many languages required to read their online news every day. However, I would assume it was followed in detail because of countries having troops there and also strong feelings about the Iraqi conflict. We did see graphic photographs and film day after day of the civilian casualties there, continuing for months - although I concede probably not every civilian! And yes, we had discussions on every news programme for the entire time the conflict lasted about the 'collateral damage' of the military actions, as the US termed it, including after the 'shock and awe' strategy in Baghdad! Not all taking part in these discussions, including foreign nationals, supported Britain's role in the Iraqi conflict and weren't slow to say so; but the good, bad and ugly were broadcast and reported in newspapers. It was also frequently talked about by Brits at home etc. So yes, I would honestly say that those situations were followed with the same intensity as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict right now. And to add to what Barbara has already posted it was still being reported on the progress being made with regards to the displaced persons in those former Yugoslavian countries 20 years after the war had finished. link
|
|
|
Post by jamieson on Jul 27, 2014 23:19:40 GMT
So, what I conclude from reading this thread is: Israel never uses propaganda, never kills innocent people, and is mostly blameless. All Palestinians support Hamas, and are guilty for supporting hamas and deserve to be killed, because they live to support the killing of Israelis. Israel, all good, Palestinians, all bad. Yes, that is exactly what you should conclude. Because that is exactly what we have been saying for 18 pages now. link I just don't agree, but thank you for the multiple eyerolls.
|
|
BarbaraUK
Drama Llama
Surrounded by my yarn stash on the NE coast of England...............!! Refupea 1702
Posts: 5,961
Location: England UK
Jun 27, 2014 12:47:11 GMT
|
Post by BarbaraUK on Jul 27, 2014 23:40:34 GMT
I cannot think of another war, anywhere in the world, where one side, in this case Israel, is expected to behave as no other army in the world is expected to conduct themselves. I know of no other army in the world that has to deal with the under-the-microscope, play by play commentary from the rest of the world. During the Bosnian war was the press and millions of citizens worldwide critiquing every move the Bosnians or Croatians made? We got news reports but for the most part the rest of the world was not arguing over who shot at whom, and whether it was fair or not. There were some horrific atrocities committed in that war, but for most of us it was a blip on the radar. Were American and British troops dogged every step they took in Iraq and did the world see graphic photos of every civilian we killed there? Did we get daily armchair quarterbacking on whether they hit a civilian building as they fought in the streets of Baghdad? Allied forces in Iraq killed more than 100,000 civilians. So why is our tiny little corner of the world so polarizing? Why is the humanitarian issue so much more important here than it is in Syria, or Rawanda, or any of the other countries you listed? Honestly, did you get blow by blow daily reports on civilian deaths in Afghanistan? We sure didn't, unless it was a particularly horrific day of death. It isn't. In the UK we got constant graphic coverage of the humanitarian and political crisis in Rwanda regarding the genocide in all its gory detail and the country is still reported on today. This month our media have been reporting Rwanda 20 years on. Syria is, again, reported on in great detail in the UK every day both with live and film reporting from inside Syria and in all it's gory detail in all our media from both a humanitarian and political point of view. We also report on the humanitarian aspect from the refugee camps in Turkey and from the crossing points on the borders of the two countries. Again the answer is yes, details of civilian deaths were reported as well as military ones. We had troops in Afghanistan and again followed in great detail everything happening there both military (even after the British troops withdrew in March 2014) and regarding the politics of the country and we still do, including the humanitarian side of things. Honestly, the Brits have a long history of reporting comprehensively on world affairs covering all sides and the reporting being done now around Israel is just a follow-up to regular reporting from that area in the past and is really no more intense than it has been for other countries, crises and times.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:34:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 0:47:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 28, 2014 2:26:01 GMT
Nobody is denying there's a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. What we disagree on is who is responsible. Israel is getting media attention for using self defense because innocent Palestinians are caught in the crossfire. Many feel the media needs show more of the real reason so many Palestinians are suffering- Hamas firing rockets from civilian locations and turning neighborhoods into military warehouses, the rumors of Hamas leaders rounding up Palestinians who refuse to cooperate with Hamas, sacrificing innocent civilians to serve as martyrs, and sabotaging humanitarian relief efforts to make Israel look bad.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:34:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 3:26:18 GMT
If these news journalists (I still think they're nothing but puppets) really cared so much about the humanitarian crisis, why aren't they reporting on the cost of all of these tunnels...and instead of spending a million dollars per tunnel actually do something good for the people in Gaza with that money?
|
|
mapchic
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Jun 26, 2014 0:16:00 GMT
|
Post by mapchic on Jul 28, 2014 4:20:16 GMT
I went out of town for the weekend and playing catch up... To be fair that is from the Telegraph which is a conservative UK news outlet. The thing is.... many Americans don't really *get* the UK media. Because we have a tradition of (attempted) journalistic impartiality the partisan nature of journalists like Jon Snow can be taken at face value here whereas in the UK they are far more known to have a partisan perspective. I am not taking a view in this discussion but do have an observation regarding this statement. The UK do have an unrivalled reputation for totally unbiased and impartial news reporting in the main. The newspaper you quote is one of the most respected publications and the BBC World Service is listened to by many millions of people across the world for this very reason. I suggest that you have made a very sweeping biased statement here without having a lot of experience of UK news reporting on a regular basis, living with it rather than reading online on an irregular basis. You are right - you have just proved that American citizens don't 'get' the UK media. We report both sides and allow people to make up their own minds without adding politics into the mix for the main news from around the world. Well... you would suggest wrong. I lived in London and read UK papers regularly. Granted, I was studying Economics at the LSE so my primary paper at the time was the FT (the pink paper!) even though my leanings are Austrian and they are Keynsian. Even so, I know that as a conservative I read the Telegraph when I want to agree with the paper, and the Guardian when I want to have my POV challenged. Here's a fun test - google Liberal UK newspaper and the third entry listed (the first paper) is The Guardian. Do the same with Conservative UK newspaper and there is The Telegraph. Saying that UK newspapers have a political POV is hardly an out of line observation. Just looking at quality broadsheets one can pretty clearly see that the Guardian leans left while the Telegraph leans right. You can also look at the Wikipedia list of newspapers in the United Kingdom where the orientation of each paper is clearly listed. This brings to mind the great quote from 'Yes, Minister' (a great British political sitcom) There is a different newspaper culture in the UK in no small part because there are more national papers where the US newspapers are geographically focused. They New York Times and Washington Post try to be national - but they are still primarily papers for their own cities. I do think in the last 20 years American papers have been less focused on impartiality and the tradition of journalistic fair mindedness in our papers is going more towards the UK style newspaper culture. Additionally, I was speaking specifically to the tradition of UK papers having a set editorial political position. Not of the BBC. I would agree that the BBC has a long and distinguished tradition of impartiality. However it has been quite tarnished in recent years - criticism of the BBC about this is hardly unheard of.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:34:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 8:23:08 GMT
I went out of town for the weekend and playing catch up... I am not taking a view in this discussion but do have an observation regarding this statement. The UK do have an unrivalled reputation for totally unbiased and impartial news reporting in the main. The newspaper you quote is one of the most respected publications and the BBC World Service is listened to by many millions of people across the world for this very reason. I suggest that you have made a very sweeping biased statement here without having a lot of experience of UK news reporting on a regular basis, living with it rather than reading online on an irregular basis. You are right - you have just proved that American citizens don't 'get' the UK media. We report both sides and allow people to make up their own minds without adding politics into the mix for the main news from around the world. Well... you would suggest wrong. I lived in London and read UK papers regularly. Granted, I was studying Economics at the LSE so my primary paper at the time was the FT (the pink paper!) even though my leanings are Austrian and they are Keynsian. Even so, I know that as a conservative I read the Telegraph when I want to agree with the paper, and the Guardian when I want to have my POV challenged. You lived in London some years ago if I recall correctly, as a student. Yet you seem to think that you know better than someone who has lived here all their life and are currently in a far better position to comment on the British press whatever out political leanings are. Whilst I agree that the LSE has a reasonable ranking among World University ranking tables (69th) it has also had it's reputation tarnished in recent years when it came to light that they accepted a very substantial donation from the Gaddafi of Libya.
Here's a fun test - google Liberal UK newspaper and the third entry listed (the first paper) is The Guardian. Do the same with Conservative UK newspaper and there is The Telegraph. I agree it was a fun test. I don't make a habit of getting serious and factual info from Yahoo!
Saying that UK newspapers have a political POV is hardly an out of line observation. Just looking at quality broadsheets one can pretty clearly see that the Guardian leans left while the Telegraph leans right. You can also look at the Wikipedia list of newspapers in the United Kingdom where the orientation of each paper is clearly listed. This brings to mind the great quote from 'Yes, Minister' (a great British political sitcom) So you base your opinion of the UK newspapers on a satirical British comedy series made in the 80's. That would be like non Americans basing their opinions on the series of "Friends"! Whilst I agree that UK newspapers do have a political "leaning" as far as domestic politics go.That opinion would be based on ones own domestic political belief though. They are however, quite neutral as far as world events are reported. As an aside I wouldn't put the Guardian or the Observer in the category of what you class as liberal. Unless you're comparing your definition of Liberal as our Labour which is further left than our Liberal definition.
There is a different newspaper culture in the UK in no small part because there are more national papers where the US newspapers are geographically focused. They New York Times and Washington Post try to be national - but they are still primarily papers for their own cities. I do think in the last 20 years American papers have been less focused on impartiality and the tradition of journalistic fair mindedness in our papers is going more towards the UK style newspaper culture. Additionally, I was speaking specifically to the tradition of UK papers having a set editorial political position. Not of the BBC. I would agree that the BBC has a long and distinguished tradition of impartiality. However it has been quite tarnished in recent years - criticism of the BBC about this is hardly unheard of. Most of the recent criticism of the BBC has been towards varying opinions on it's reporting of domestic events rather than world events. Not just on politics but also on being too "political correct" in other areas.The report on the Wiki link has both sides complaining so it's a matter of opinion of individual beliefs. The report referred to the 2004 conflict and quoting:-I found your post rather condescending if I'm being honest.
|
|
BarbaraUK
Drama Llama
Surrounded by my yarn stash on the NE coast of England...............!! Refupea 1702
Posts: 5,961
Location: England UK
Jun 27, 2014 12:47:11 GMT
|
Post by BarbaraUK on Jul 28, 2014 10:37:16 GMT
I went out of town for the weekend and playing catch up... Well... you would suggest wrong. I lived in London and read UK papers regularly. Granted, I was studying Economics at the LSE so my primary paper at the time was the FT (the pink paper!) even though my leanings are Austrian and they are Keynsian. Even so, I know that as a conservative I read the Telegraph when I want to agree with the paper, and the Guardian when I want to have my POV challenged. Here's a fun test - google Liberal UK newspaper and the third entry listed (the first paper) is The Guardian. Do the same with Conservative UK newspaper and there is The Telegraph. Saying that UK newspapers have a political POV is hardly an out of line observation. Just looking at quality broadsheets one can pretty clearly see that the Guardian leans left while the Telegraph leans right. You can also look at the Wikipedia list of newspapers in the United Kingdom where the orientation of each paper is clearly listed. This brings to mind the great quote from 'Yes, Minister' (a great British political sitcom) There is a different newspaper culture in the UK in no small part because there are more national papers where the US newspapers are geographically focused. They New York Times and Washington Post try to be national - but they are still primarily papers for their own cities. I do think in the last 20 years American papers have been less focused on impartiality and the tradition of journalistic fair mindedness in our papers is going more towards the UK style newspaper culture. Additionally, I was speaking specifically to the tradition of UK papers having a set editorial political position. Not of the BBC. I would agree that the BBC has a long and distinguished tradition of impartiality. However it has been quite tarnished in recent years - criticism of the BBC about this is hardly unheard of. I am astonished that you are using a quote from 'Yes Minister' as a serious point regarding the UK newspapers! Yes, it is a great British satirical series, and a very old one now and totally out of date being transmitted between 1980 and 1984, but it was intended for home consumption as a satirical political series taking the mickey out of government, political parties and perceived stereotypes. If so, you missed another later satirical quote - 'It was the best of times, It was the worse of times, It was The Independent' (the Independent is another main UK newspaper)! And that makes no more sense as a serious comment in a serious subject than the 'Yes Minister' quote does. I did not at any time say that the UK newspaper didn't have a set editorial position on domestic issues though this is now much more fluid and has changed with the times. However, your view is pretty much out of date on the whole as political events in recent years show. Once again, in my opinion, you are showing your limited understanding of the UK gained from the point of view of being a student here. Accusing the BBC of bias has been almost a political sport in this country since the BBC was first founded regarding domestic broadcasts, especially when we have a Conservative government. It is an easy target because it is funded by licence fees paid by the general public and therefore everyone expects it to report on everything from a point of view they hold, otherwise they accuse the corporation of biased reporting or not reporting something! Unlike the media in most countries, the BBC walk the perceived fair unbiased tightrope all the time! If it is a significant length of time since you attended the LSE you must be aware that you would at that time have been regarded as a supporter, or at least of holding the views, of the Opposition party that started the accusations of bias at that particular time! These accusations aimed at the BBC domestic service are rarely made by our politicians nowadays, now that political parties have got a slightly different make-up. BBC domestic services and BBC world services are totally different arms of the BBC. We also have another excellent news channel called Sky News if you cannot view the BBC without suspicion and that is totally independent of the BBC. If you want a another UK news source, Sky News is one for both domestic and international news and very bluntly broadcasts the news as it is. Thank you for the suggestion to google my national newspapers to find out where they are regarded politically but I really don't need to do that. I understand my national newspapers and where they are coming from - though it is worth repeating that the sources you quote are somewhat out of date as things are not quite so cut and dried now....witness some previous General Election coverage! I buy my choice of national newspaper. I have spent a fair amount of time in the US over the years (and not in Florida on holiday!) and have met some of your politicians and read your newspapers. However I would hesitate to make a comment on those same things based just on that.
|
|
BarbaraUK
Drama Llama
Surrounded by my yarn stash on the NE coast of England...............!! Refupea 1702
Posts: 5,961
Location: England UK
Jun 27, 2014 12:47:11 GMT
|
Post by BarbaraUK on Jul 28, 2014 11:02:54 GMT
If these news journalists (I still think they're nothing but puppets) really cared so much about the humanitarian crisis, why aren't they reporting on the cost of all of these tunnels...and instead of spending a million dollars per tunnel actually do something good for the people in Gaza with that money? The journalists - at least ours - do report on the tunnels, the cost of them, why they were done in the first place, what is happening now, how they affect Israel etc., etc.,.........! I googled for a long time yesterday, just out of interest, but still can't find anything that suggests US reporters are on the ground there with the international press so I can't speak for the reports you read. I am not stating that there aren't any US journalists on the ground in Gaza reporting first hand on the situation but I just couldn't find anything of that type so that I could read it from that point of view. However, being realistic, I really don't think Hamas would take kindly a suggestion from journalists, wherever they were from, that they defer to 'suggestions' of how to spend money. That is really an idealised view of what could happen!
|
|
BarbaraUK
Drama Llama
Surrounded by my yarn stash on the NE coast of England...............!! Refupea 1702
Posts: 5,961
Location: England UK
Jun 27, 2014 12:47:11 GMT
|
Post by BarbaraUK on Jul 28, 2014 11:49:37 GMT
Nobody is denying there's a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. What we disagree on is who is responsible. Israel is getting media attention for using self defense because innocent Palestinians are caught in the crossfire. Many feel the media needs show more of the real reason so many Palestinians are suffering- Hamas firing rockets from civilian locations and turning neighborhoods into military warehouses, the rumors of Hamas leaders rounding up Palestinians who refuse to cooperate with Hamas, sacrificing innocent civilians to serve as martyrs, and sabotaging humanitarian relief efforts to make Israel look bad. Well, with that statement we do agree on something!!! Yes, Israel is getting media attention but no news reporter here ignores where Hamas stores their rockets, what they use the tunnels for, what effects that has on the population....and on Israel... etc. We have had some hard hitting interviews with Hamas leaders as well as talking to Israeli leaders and the Hamas interviews have been broadcast without fear or favour. Just for info - the EU (which includes the UK) is among about 7 countries at the UN that officially designated Hamas as a terrorist organisation quite a time ago. None of the reports supports Hamas in any way, shape or form or condemns Israel. Even Hamas don't read it as support if you hear the interviews with them here!! Please try to separate our reporting on the humanitarian crisis and supporting Hamas. Most international people would not even dream of putting such a meaning on the reporting of the humanitarian crisis. If it meant that, we would be very open about supporting Hamas and not do it through such a deceitful way. We may criticise both parties to this at times because it cannot be denied that Israel have not always acted correctly but that does not mean that we are condemning or not supporting Israel. That is a very simplistic approach to the whole problem! Whether it is liked or not, not all Palestinians are guilty of being members of Hamas or agreeing with their views and it is the effects on many innocent people in this humanitarian crisis that is being reported on. That's all, no ulterior motive!!
|
|
mapchic
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Jun 26, 2014 0:16:00 GMT
|
Post by mapchic on Jul 28, 2014 11:52:07 GMT
I wasn't. I was being silly making that quote. Trying to lighten the mood by quoting an old sitcom.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:34:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 12:22:17 GMT
Nobody is denying there's a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. What we disagree on is who is responsible. Israel is getting media attention for using self defense because innocent Palestinians are caught in the crossfire. Many feel the media needs show more of the real reason so many Palestinians are suffering- Hamas firing rockets from civilian locations and turning neighborhoods into military warehouses, the rumors of Hamas leaders rounding up Palestinians who refuse to cooperate with Hamas, sacrificing innocent civilians to serve as martyrs, and sabotaging humanitarian relief efforts to make Israel look bad. This, all of it. My heart goes out to the Palestinians, but I support Israel's right to defend itself. It was Hamas who rejected all of the latest cease-fire negotiations, not Israel.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 28, 2014 13:28:26 GMT
It's strange that if the image had been legitimate then one would expect the original to have come up somewhere on google with at least a report on it from someone other than Liveleeks. I would question that Hamas are putting pressure on journalists as has been suggested. I can't speak for any other country's journalists but I know here in the UK the journalists are VERY protective of, and will defend, their right to a free press and rightly so. There was a fierce outcry when the editors from The News of the World( owned by Rupert Murdoch News International) jeopardized that right by their actions a couple of years ago. There are some very experienced UK journalists reporting from Gaza, experienced in the sense that they are veterans of reporting from world wide areas of conflict. At no time has it been suggested that they have been censored by any terrorist group anywhere.I'm not suggesting that that particular journalist had not been threatened, he quite possibly could have, we have to take his word for it but I don't agree that it's a common occurrence or that it has happened to any other journalist. ETA - I've had a little google search of Harry Fear and it revealed, in my opinion, a disturbing lack of judgement in his beliefs. I have little time for a journalist or anyone else that would defend the right of a person to write this when the counter terrorist intelligence force in this country are doing their uptmost to protect us from terrorists including home grown terrorists that are influenced by what they read on social media. defending this persons right to voice this and not be prosecuted for a grossly offensive communication ( which is what he was charged with) two days after the lives of 6 British Military was lost in Afghanistan is, at least to me, abhorrent. So I'll take whatever Harry Fear says with a pinch of salt. There are several reasons I find the photo credible, and when taken down fast enough, you won't find the original in Google cache. I must admit to some surprise that you would question whether Hamas is putting pressure on journalists. They are not a nice organization who plays by the rules. In that one article I linked to, there was this quote, which considering who we are talking about, I find wholly credible: Sorry I brought up Harry Fear. I don't know who he is except that he seemed better able to stand up to the pressure than others, according to that article.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:34:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 13:37:05 GMT
If these news journalists (I still think they're nothing but puppets) really cared so much about the humanitarian crisis, why aren't they reporting on the cost of all of these tunnels...and instead of spending a million dollars per tunnel actually do something good for the people in Gaza with that money? The journalists - at least ours - do report on the tunnels, the cost of them, why they were done in the first place, what is happening now, how they affect Israel etc., etc.,.........! I googled for a long time yesterday, just out of interest, but still can't find anything that suggests US reporters are on the ground there with the international press so I can't speak for the reports you read. I am not stating that there aren't any US journalists on the ground in Gaza reporting first hand on the situation but I just couldn't find anything of that type so that I could read it from that point of view. However, being realistic, I really don't think Hamas would take kindly a suggestion from journalists, wherever they were from, that they defer to 'suggestions' of how to spend money. That is really an idealised view of what could happen! Why were these tunnels "done in the first place"? (my answer...because Israel stopped all of their rockets from above with the Iron Dome, that Hamas had to find a new way to kill Israelis) I'd be very interested to hear what you think and what any of your esteemed reporters say about why the tunnels are even there in the first place.
And in regards to my suggestion on how to spend money...clearly I'm trying to make a point that Hamas (and many in Gaza...not all...but many) would rather spend money on tunnels with arms stretching over the border into Israel vs. spending that same money on ways to make life for those in Gaza better. I certainly don't think Gaza is going to read this post and say "Ahhhh...she's right...no more money for tunnels...let us instead use it to make the lives of every person living in Gaza better".
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 28, 2014 14:21:49 GMT
Please try to separate our reporting on the humanitarian crisis and supporting Hamas. Most international people would not even dream of putting such a meaning on the reporting of the humanitarian crisis. Barbara, I'm confused because I haven't seen anything linked here that was reporting on the humanitarian crises that had even a mention that the bombs were aimed at rocket launching sites hidden in heavily populated areas. And/or without calling Israel the "aggressor" (and much worse). In other words, some very key information which is omitted does make the reporting look very skewed in favor of Hamas. Now I realize you haven't done much of the linking, but if you could dispel my confusion, I'd appreciate it. Or, maybe I just missed it, which is entirely possible.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 28, 2014 14:46:04 GMT
Here's another " Open Letter" published in The Lancet that confirms the humanitarian crisis in Gaza www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2961044-8/fulltextThe Lancet is a reputable world wide recognized Medical publication. Here's what wikipedia describes is as, for anyone that hasn't heard of it. Why would so many medical Dr's and Scientific Academics put their name to it if they didn't believed there was a humanitarian crises in Gaza? I am well aware of the Lancet, but what you linked is nothing more than a political statement. One full of incendiary language.
|
|
BarbaraUK
Drama Llama
Surrounded by my yarn stash on the NE coast of England...............!! Refupea 1702
Posts: 5,961
Location: England UK
Jun 27, 2014 12:47:11 GMT
|
Post by BarbaraUK on Jul 28, 2014 14:59:38 GMT
I was purely and simply trying to answer your question regarding the news journalists reporting and saying that they do report on the tunnels, the cost of them, why they are there, what it means to Israel and all the rest.
There is absolutely no point in my answering any of your questions. You aren't interested in what I say, except to keep pouring scorn on everything said and being sarcastic - and you already answered the question you asked in the post - so you won't be receptive to anything I say. I can keep trying to reply to your questions until I'm blue in the face but you won't be really listening to the answers.
*Incidentally, just for information, a lot of those tunnels have been there since the time of Alexander the Great!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:34:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 15:35:29 GMT
Becky - No I don't think the ones featured in that report are more able than others to stand up to the pressure,not at all. As I said in an earlier post most of the UK reporters are highly experienced war reporters, well known for their role in that particular field and easily recognised and trusted by the UK public because they have covered far more dangerous wars and global conflict than what is going on in Gaza. Heck one of them was unlawfully killed in 2003 by US troops in Iraq while covering the Iraq war. Terry Lloyd Was this reported by your media? He isn't attached to the UK BBC but to the world service BBC here's the link to the video of the live report when it happened
|
|
BarbaraUK
Drama Llama
Surrounded by my yarn stash on the NE coast of England...............!! Refupea 1702
Posts: 5,961
Location: England UK
Jun 27, 2014 12:47:11 GMT
|
Post by BarbaraUK on Jul 28, 2014 15:54:57 GMT
Please try to separate our reporting on the humanitarian crisis and supporting Hamas. Most international people would not even dream of putting such a meaning on the reporting of the humanitarian crisis. Barbara, I'm confused because I haven't seen anything linked here that was reporting on the humanitarian crises that had even a mention that the bombs were aimed at rocket launching sites hidden in heavily populated areas. And/or without calling Israel the "aggressor" (and much worse). In other words, some very key information which is omitted does make the reporting look very skewed in favor of Hamas. Now I realize you haven't done much of the linking, but if you could dispel my confusion, I'd appreciate it. Or, maybe I just missed it, which is entirely possible. BeckyTech, I've been using mostly live news broadcasts when trying to explain my take on the reporting on the humanitarian crisis. Maybe not a great idea where links are concerned but will see what I can do about finding some links for you. Yes, they have shown the missiles coming in from Israel but they have also shown the places Hamas have piled weapons and asked some pretty tough questions of Hamas as to why they just don't stop and talk. Trying to be even handed for the domestic audience they are aimed at because we understand the system but it seems to be coming over a little differently to US citizens perhaps. There again, it would be absolutely impossible for me to listen to every news broadcast on every channel or read every UK newspaper so I could have missed some reporting. There is no way that the UK would support Hamas. We were among the first to designate them terrorists and the UK knows first hand about terrorism! You know BeckyTech, the Brits and the US are so different sometimes in the way we look at certain things that it is difficult to explain our way of doing things to Americans at times.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 28, 2014 16:11:26 GMT
Dottyscrapper said:
...and from the Lancet's own website... The Lancet journals are international medical journals that will consider any original contribution that advances or illuminates medical science or practice, or that educates or entertains the journals’ readers.
The bold is mine. How can a serious medical journal claim to be serious if one of its own goals is to entertain?
I'm not sure who thinks it's a prestigious medical journal after the Wakefield debacle. They published, and gave credibility to a study that was falsified, didn't meet the standard to even be called a study, and they didn't bother to check and see whether anyone else had been able to duplicate the claims that Wakefield made in the study. By validating Wakefield with the publishing of that article, the Lancet pretty much, single handedly, set autism research back by decades and hugely influenced people to stop vaccinating their children. They published the article in 1998, and despite knowing that the study was fraudulent, did not withdraw it until 2010 when it became obvious that Wakefield was to be stripped of his medical license and sent to prison. They lost all credibility with me, and a lot of other people, over that.
But back to the letter you linked. I read that letter somewhere else a few days ago and was struck by the absolute political bias of it, but I was not surprised that it ran in the Lancet, which has no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
But was the publication of that article/letter meant to be an example of unbiased reporting?
Actually, I'm confused as to what you are all saying about the British media and biased/unbiased reporting. Are you saying that you think most, if not all, of the reports on/in your most respected visual and print media sources are a mix of biased and unbiased reports, or are you saying that each report presents an unbiased report on the situation in Gaza? For instance, did you think that the Snow presentation was an example of unbiased reporting? Or did you mean that the Snow report was biased and sometime later there was a report by a different journalist, presenting a different POV? I'd like to get it straight in my own head as to which of those two scenarios you believe to be true.
|
|
lynm
Shy Member
Posts: 29
Location: London Town
Jun 26, 2014 11:09:28 GMT
|
Post by lynm on Jul 28, 2014 16:22:12 GMT
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza worsens and meanwhile in Tel Aviv..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7qFACSfd_knice people eh ? Maybe somebody on here would like to translate it for everyone else, or is this "fake" propaganda as well ? You see, the thing I have a problem with on here is this, everything that is posted on line or reported by the media (even by well respected news reporters, doctors etc) that is pro-Palestinian or about the humanitarian situation is slated as being either faked, propaganda, or is allegedly being censored (ie. reporters too scared to speak out) but everything posted on here Pro-Israeli is the God given truth ? Anyone with a different point of view is just vilified even to the veiled threats of anti-semitism. I have many Jewish friends who are frankly appalled at what is happening in Gaza, some even took part in the march on the Israeli embassy with me in London this weekend bearing placards "not in my name" . You also don't have to support Hamas to be pro-Palestinian.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 12:34:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 16:22:29 GMT
Becktech - I'm just speechless at the above. How on this earth can you refer to a report made by an international pool of medical Doctors working in Gaza on a humanitarian basis and printed in a reputable medical publications, a political statement? Would you also call this a political statement too Medecins Sans Frontieres ( Doctors without Borders)
I they're reporting this a week ago,lord knows what it's like there today.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 28, 2014 16:37:50 GMT
Dottyscrapper said:
Yes, that ran on TV here anyway. I don't speak Arabic so I don't know what he was saying. While I don't condone the attacking of any reporter, one needs to consider the circumstance. Here you have a reporter, decked out in a flak jacket, speaking Arabic, in an Israeli town that has been the recipient of thousands of rocket attacks from Gaza. In the current conflict it is one of the few places in Israel that has experienced civilian casualties, including one of the only civilian deaths. The residents of Ashkelon have spent more time in bomb shelters than just about any other city in Israel. Can you really blame a guy for losing it? Geez, he just pushed the guy and told him to go away.
|
|