News- no, it's propoganda
 

(Moderator note) VIEWER WARNING ADVISED - (dead bodies)

Link

I feel ill.

There is of course also this


7 to 8 hours.

Sorry- but I hold Hezbollah responsible- in fact, given that it looks like any civilians had time to get out- and they did not and were instead killed makes me wonder just how far Hezbollah will go to win the PR war.

I'm in a publicly exposed carrel at the public library right now (on my own computer though) so given the moderator warning I'm not going to watch. Anybody willing to summarize?

It's pics of dead children. Very sad, but not inappropriate for a library.

Sorry- I did not think to give warning.

I edited my warning to include a description. Personally, seeing a pile of bodies is worse than 1000 pics of NSFW subjects.

Ok, nobody was around so I read the first link. If accurate (and I have no way of judging that) in the accounts of the timestamps it is an interesting analysis and the wires should be troubled by it.

Anderson Cooper did an interesting bit last week (I think, maybe the week before) where they showed a clip that someone had broadcast from inside southern Lebanon and then he showed the footage his crew had done of the same scene with context showing that it was a publicity stunt put on by Hezbollah (essentially it was showing the ambulance crews and stuff going out on call to much crowd adulation but the crowd had been gathered for the press and the ambulances were just driving around the block.

This is not to imply that propoganda doesn't come out of the other side, just that they haven't yet achieved Reagan-like subtlety in staging them.

a pile of bodies? All of two. Sad, depressing, but certainly not piles.

More that 2 dead bodies stacked together is defined as a pile by me.

Why are we discussing this? It is a disgusting picture and I don't want to see crap like this without warning. Period.

There were no pictures of two or more dead bodies- you are misrepresenting and lashing out at me. I fail to see how that is acceptable.

For the record-there is ONE body in each picture- no piles. As sad and as horrid as it is it reflects on the way this is being portrayed in the media and is worthy of discussion IMO- you don't want to look- fine. I APOLOGIZED for not marking it- but to misrepresent and snap at me seems a bit uncalled for,

The first picture in the first link has (portions of) four dead bodies in it.

Then it changed after I posted it-

I apologized- and while I can understand this upsetting people- I find the tone of the response unacceptable.

On edit- ah, that picture. Fair enough- but aside from that I do not feel the posts to me in regards to posting this were even remotely polite.

I am sorry if it upset anyone- but I am done being lashed out at- The STORY is far more upsetting than just the photos- but hey- I guess it's more fun to derail it into a "warning issue" thread- long after I apologized for any upset and failing to label it.

I might humbly suggest that this thread now return to issues of news vs. propaganda (not that I am one who never derails - I am oft guilty of running on tangents) and that arguing related to appropriateness, apologies, and actual number of bodies be discontinued, as the point of the thread isn't really about those things.

A thread was started. A moderator posted appropriate warnings. The original poster apologized for not tagging with a warning. Can we be over that now?

Propaganda is part of war. They are inseparable. I might suggest Israel make a campaign to get pictures of devatation and death from Helbollah rockets into the mainstream. Perhaps they are. I haven't looked. However, considering Hezbollah wants a high civilian body count as their goal is to kill any Jew, it might encourage them.

Sorry if I sound a bit harsh here, but I don't like to open a link in a thread without warning and see dead bodies - I don't CARE what term you or I or anyone else applies to said dead bodies. I'm sorry if you don't find my response acceptable. I would suggest you find a board where people are more accepting of your brand of posting, because obviously we don't meet your needs and are unlikely to change.

Someday you two will no longer be able to contain yourself and bring each other to thunderous orgasm and then be best friends for life.

Just for the record I did post on topic.

Gee Leo- I guess that is your answer.

Lisa would rather attack me even after I apologize and make it clear that she does not welcome me here-

It would be nice if someone would like to discuss the link-

LOL!

You're getting me back for my earlier "get a room" comment, aren't you?

Yes- you did- thank you.

Anything I could post after Alex's post on that particular subject would be anticlimactic. I will simply nod.

Yup, you're right again. And, you almost had the last word too! Oops. :D

I don't know what your problem is- really- but once again it is YOURS.

I failed to post a warning- it was an oversight- not a posting style. I apologized. I am not responsible for your lack of graciousness.

Don't like the topic- don't read it. Isn't that the common advice?

Alex- according to the news I was hearing they are saying that Israel does not want to do the same in kind- I guess I can see why- but one wonders how do they fight the PR war with what seems to be a media willing to mislead.

Here's a take on how Israel tries to work its image in the international press. Here's another on the Hezbollah PR effort.

Propoganda in photography is a serious issue because photographs simultaneously increase the emotional content of the information shown while simultaneously masking the fact that a photograph, almost by definition, lacks context. It is a still moment that only implies what happened just before, just after, and just ouside the frame.

People tend to forget that there is still an intermediary between themselves the events in a photograph, to a degree that is extremely difficult to achieve with the written word.

I would remind that not only is propoganda a part of every war but that all (good) photography is essentially propogandistic and distorting. This is not to say that all distortion is acceptable and if the timestamp information in the first link is correct then I would be very interested in hearing the response from Reuters and AFP about how they'll deal with it.

I don't give a crap whether it's "propaganda" or not. People are dying needlessly over self-righteous battle. I think both sides of the "war" need to look at that for a moment.

Self-righteous?

I think it makes a huge difference as to if the photos are intentionally designed to deceive.

Fun with context

Can you think of any other reason to carry two dead children around posing with them?

Putting together a portfolio for an Anne Geddes job application?

:eek: glerk- ew

Looks like their usual mode of operation

Hey Nephy, when is the last time you posted anywhere but in the Daily Grind with something to stir everyone up?

It's a valid topic- if you are stirred up you need to figure out why.

Not my job nor my problem.

It's everyone's problem when you do nothing but post contriversial things and then claim poor me when people call you on it. That is behavior of a troll.

Oh ya, and your non-replies are replies.

Okay, can we please stay on topic?

Sorry. I'll behave. :evil:

Or go back to work.

yup-

I found some of the comments in that article I posted very interesting- that residential areas have gone untouched by Israeli attacks- so Hezbollah comes in and fires rockets from there- seemingly in order to get Israel to launch against their position KNOWING civilians may be hurt or killed.

They are willing to murder their own people to destroy Israel and it seems like the people do nothing to stop them or protect themselves- yes, they leave where they can- but I would not put it past this group to not allow escape. Not if their deaths helps their PR campaign.

Yes. Two sides who think they both have the sole right to the land because they are "holy" or "God/Allah intended for them to have it". Although, they keep blasting holes in it, so I suppose there really is no denying that it's "hol(e)y". ;)

Personally, I wish an earthquake would occur that would sink that plot of dirt into the ocean (ideally with enough warning to vacate everyone first), in hopes it would resolve the centuries' old problem. But, nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if they started fighting over something else, just because they feel it's their "right" to do so.

I take it you dont see any of this as self-righteous?

I don't actually care if they're photographing the dead children in sixteen different locations. Journalistically responsible? Not at all. But really, I don't care.

What matters to me is that there are dead children and war is s h i t t y and I'd rather a gigantic wall be put around the holy lands so that nobody has the right to them anymore.

I'm not happy with Hezbollah for kidnapping those Israelis, but the Israelis captured Lebanese first. This is war; soldiers and civilians are captured. And it doesn't matter who does it first if you're both doing it: responding in kind doesn't make you better, it makes you equally bad.

Look at us: we've got civilians in Gitmo and I'm pissed with us, too. And I'd be pissed if somebody purposefully captured Americans to force an exchange, and I'd be pissed if the US attacked civilians in the country of the captors in response.

Basically: I'm pissed. And this is why I don't post in the political threads as much as I used to. Because blood pressure increases with every stupid violent country or every stupid politician or every stupid "surprise! dead bodies"-- and that's just not how I want to spend my time.

In 1948, Palestinian civilians fled the West Bank and Gaza to protect themselves...which Israel used as an excuse to seize those territories as part of the cease fire agreement. So is it any wonder why they've been a bit hesitant to flee since?

No- DP knew what I was asking. I wanted her to clarify- which she did.

I am aware they are holding prisoners, but I am not aware of Israeli incursions into Lebanon to capture Lebanese citizens....or did I miss something major?

I do not hold the Israelis at fault at all. They have agreed to cease fire after cease fire after cease fire and all it has done is given their terrorist eneimies time to restock their weapons. They agree to give 97% of the land demanded by Arafat, and Arafat refused.

If terrorists choose to hide behind women and children, it is the fault of the terrorists when the women and children die, not those who are trying to kill the terrorists.

I think public opinion may be shifting with the death of the nearly 40 children simply because Israel alleges a missle was fired half a mile away. Does that give those children a death sentence, because they were in the neighborhood where terrorist activity takes place? Essentially, that is the war Israel is waging. They are trying to create a deterrent by lashing out with cruel and horrible force (and yes, trying to degrade Hezbollah's military capabilities).

That Israel had to declare a 48-hour halt to the bombing illustrates that this particular attack had very bad PR results. It has put into detailed relief that Israel is using civilians just as surely as the terrorists are. In fact, the terrorists have called the shots and have changed the face of warfare ... now civilians are targets on both sides.

I can see where Israel, wanting to create such a deterrent, considers this horror to be a regrettable but legitimate tactic. For if you don't massacre civilians, where is the impetus for the weak body of civilians to risk their lives in trying to rid their countries of terrorist militias?

But it's just as I predicted ... Israel must either quit or become a greater destroyer than any of its enemies have ever been.




And unless there's more hysterical posts (omg GD and Alex) and less troll baiting, I'm going to be keeping tabs on this thread with an eye towards closing it.

I don't think we've ever closed a thread on the LoT. Don't make me moderate. I hate it.

Check the "random political thoughts" thread. Not part II, the one you closed.:p

But, WB was just complaining about having nothing to do!:p

Actually, I wanted to spank someone.

You can spank me ... for apparently having the most worthless memory.


(or just for the hell of it)

Thanks, iSm- you're a real pal!

;):D


Hey, at the movies today I noticed Boostrap Bill flogging his kid with an impressive device....wonder if they carry those at Wal Mart?

What do the Isrealis have against Lesbians?!?

ME, ME, ME. Pick me please!!!

And the dyslexia kicked right in on that one :eek:

Well, he has been hanging out with Davy and crew a loooong time.....

and Lebanon continues shelling Israel- do you think they will simply stop?

I was listening to a radio show this morning and heard this:

Newsperson: The US is calling for a complete cease-fire in the Middle East.
Host: Great. Including Iraq?
Newsperson: Ah, no.

Meanwhile, with most people concentrating on the war in Lebanon ... hardly any attention is paid to the blood bath in Baghdad ... where people have been being killed at the rate of a hundred per day ever since the U.S. launched its crackdown to take back the city.

Yeah, we're doing a bang-up job over there (and I'm not suggesting the hundred daily deaths are at the hands of U.S. servicemen). But a hundred daily deaths, in Baghdad alone, is violent death at twice the rate of Lebonese civilian war casualties.


F U C K! (you know, we libs really hate being so right)

Speaking of propaganda...

The Iraqi President has such an unfortunate name. Talabani. (I know he can't help that and he's not tied to the Taliban, but...) :D

As for the first link in the first post. It appears the author was confusing filing timestamps with photo timestamps. That is, assuming that the timestamp indicated when the photo was taken when it really indicates when the photo was published by the wire service.

I always thought so too. It would be funny if the Afghani President carried the name Bath

:)

One problem here is that it's very difficult for the US to intercede without us looking like complete hypocrites. When Israel pulled out of Lebanon last time, it was based on an agreement that Lebanon wouldn't let Hezbollah (or anyone) set up camp in the formerly occupied area and start shelling Israel again. Lebanon didn't (or weren't able) to keep their part of the bargain. The shelling resumed, and has gone on for years. The kidnapped soldiers were Israel's excuse, but realistically they could have used any number of incidents. Israel's argument that Lebanon is responsible for Hezbollah is equivalent to the argument that we used to say that the Afghani government was responsible for the terrorists living in that country.

It's chilling, isn't it, to think that we, then, are responsible for the worst acts committed by the United States, which is our legitimate government?

In fact, it's almost surprising that 9/11 doesn't have nine or eleven brother-incidents.

Actually, I'm not! I'm laughing hysterically at your new avatar!

:snap: If I were in LA, I'd kiss you! Of course, no thrill in that for you, but....

Why is a giant ham stuck in my butt so amusing? You are all sick. Sick I tell you!

I just saw a Jeb 2008 bumper sticker.

Neil Bush---2016


:)/;)

...and I would say that Hezbollah is doing plenty to kill Lebanon themselves.

My God, you're evil.

:p;)

***Jenna Bush--2024***


:D

She's the druggie, right? She has possibilities......

So was her dad at that age:evil:

Ironically enough, she's tooling about the same part of the country- is she just looking for a kegger, too?

Wait a sec- is Jenna George's little mutant, or Jeb's? They all look the same to me.

She's one of the first twins.

When will Kate Bush run?

I have one of her albums....no, that's not right. I have the She's having a baby soundtrack in which Kate Bush sings this womens work

talk about your derails:blush:

Back ON topic ;)

The body count #'s fall

HEZBOLLAH PLANTED DISABLED CHILDREN IN QANAH BUILDING TO DIE - 08-03-2006 , 05:10 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A French language Lebanese publication, citing an unnamed source in Hezbollah, has claimed that the organization placed a rocket launcher on the roof of the notorious building in Qana to provoke an Israeli attack and brought invalid children inside to serve as victims and blacken Israel's name.

The Lebanese magazine LIBANOSCOPIE, associated with Christian elements which support the anti-Syrian movement called the "March 14 Forces," report that Hizbullah masterminded a plan that would result in the killing of innocents in Qana, in an attempt to foil Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's "Seven Points Plan" calling for deployment of the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon and the disarming of Hizbullah. The magazine reported:

Meanwhile, the Lebanese Red Cross reported on Monday that only 28 bodies, 19 of them children, were removed from the rubble. The count is half that of the 50-60 bodies still being reported by news agencies, quoting Lebanese security officials.

"We have it from a credible source that Hezbollah, alarmed by Siniora's plan, has concocted an incident that would help thwart the negotiations.... Hezbollah gunmen placed a rocket launcher on the roof in Qana and brought disabled children inside, in a bid to provoke a response by the Israeli Air Force. In this way, they were planning to take advantage of the death of innocents and curtail the diplomatic initiative," the site stated.

link

The whole thing is just so sad. I fear that until one side completely defeats the other that war will continue..........................:(

I am not surprised. The goal is o gain international support against Israel and they would do anything to solidify it. I had heard reports that it was the same thing that happened with the UN "peace keeper" outpost that was hit.

What, Hizballah brought in disabled U.N. peacekeepers?


I'm gonna need something far more credible. It's true that the body count at Qana was overstated by 100%, but this bit about tieing paraplegic children to railroad tracks is going to need a bit more substantiation.

Not that I put it past Hizballah, but neither do I put past Israel what they have been accused of in this incident.


There's no way out of this, btw. Hizballah won't disarm, can't be trusted to keep any agreement they might give lip service to, and there's no way to defeat them militarily or route them out of Lebanon. For every bit of set-back they deal to Hizballah, 100 other muslims in the region turn militant against Israel for the atrocities they are believed by said muslims to be committing.


No win possible. Perhaps a temporary reprieve in Hizballah activities. Perhaps.


But the only peaceful and ultimate solution is for Israel to go away.


It will happen eventually. How many more must brutally die until then?

I am going to assault you and try to take your home away. If I am killed or imprisoned, my relatives and friends will continue. The only peaceful thing for you to do is to just give me your home. And even if you do, I will still want you dead, as I have sworn to kill you and all of your descendants.

A bit of a ridiculous example on the surface, but not that ridiculous.

And no, Hezbollah launched rockets from immediatel next to the UN post, as I understand it, in an attempt to bait Israel. Apparently it worked. Please understand this is what I had heard reported....I have no verification of it.

Um, you miss the Islamist goal, scaeagles. It's not to kill all jews throughout the earth wherever they may run to. It's to hold all "waqfs," all lands ever forceable conquered by muslims.

That includes Spain, but jews will still be safe in Brooklyn.



And if you built that house, Leo, in Anaheim near Harbor and Ball .... don't complain about the noisy fireworks. Get my drift?

The problem is, is land worth killing and being killed for? When faced with someone who say "yes, undoubtedly" at what point do you just walk away? Especially when, to start your renewed claim on the land you first took it away from them.

I think you are missing what members of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and Hamas have akll sworn to do - not only eradicate Israel, but to kill Jews. I, for one, do not think it stops if Islamofascists get the land they want, as was clearly evidenced by the Clinton brokering a deal where Israel would give up 97% of disputed lands. Arafat rejected it because he had to. Because those Islamic terrorists aren't interested in land. They are interested in killing Jews and the land gives them a reason to do it.

Or, put another way. Go back 60 years and say to the founders of the new Israel:

"You can have your promised land back but it will mean at least 75 years of near continuous bloodshed. Outright war every decade or so and near continuous guerilla warfare. Thousands of Israelites will be killed. Tens of thousands of Arabs. And at the end of that you'll be distrusted by much of the rest of the world and viewed as the aggressor and not the defender."

What kind of reasonable people would say "yeah, let's go for it"?

Then why is it they weren't killing Jews until the Jews laid claim to the land?

I don't disagree with the point you are making at all.

Wasn't that how WWII started, though (in part)? Germany only wanted the Sudetenland. Appeasement emboldened them. It is known that if Saddam had not been expelled from Kuwait he was going to Saudi Arabia next.

Raical Islamic terrorists are no about land. They are about killing Jews and focing everyone to convert to Islam. Giving in emboldens them.

But it is hard to know that since radical Islamism in its modern form has only existed in resistence to Jewish and Western encroachment into Muslim territories.

It is one thing to say that the core would continue fighting but would they still have the broad support necessary from the more mainstream people?

I'd have to research it a bit, but if I recall there were factions of radical Islam that came out of WWII that had always wanted the eradication of the Jews and used the creation of Israel as a rallying cry to unite Muslims to support their goal.

I'm admittedly a bit fuzzy on it.

Perhaps, but when it comes to Israel, we're talking about a situation where they've got at least a seed of a legitimate gripe. The former residents of the land agreed to sell some land to some Jews. They blink, and they Jews are declaring themselves an independent state. They complain (in the form of declaring war), and get spanked...and because their citizens decided to not stick around and get shelled in their homes, the international community decided to make the decission for them that they obviously didn't care about that land, and seized for Israel.

The existance of Israel in its current state is on shaky ethical grounds, so there's not good way to confront "the enemy" on that front without it turning into a tangled mess.

Yes, giving up Israel will not stop their designs on the rest of the world. But notice that we stopped Sadaam pretty easily and decisively when he blatantly stepped over the line with Kuwait. Should Islamists continue their designs at domination, and start attacking in areas where they do not have even the murky justification they have for attacking Israel, I don't think you'll find the world response quite so restrained.

So do you then believe that the major reason for 9/11 is our support of Israel? Perhaps you could include our miltary presence in Saudi Arabia.

Until Israel declared its independence, the Jews were actually living in the region quite peacefully, having legitametly purchsed land there.

That doesn't contradict my fuzzy historical memory, though.

Nor does it contradict Alex's supposition that the whacko minority wasn't really an issue until they declared statehood.

....and a good chunk of South Eastern Europe too; right up to the Gates of Vienna if my memory is accurate.

True (Speaking to GD's last comment)

ISM, do you think Spain should give up the land the Muslims want?

How about the re-grab some Mexicans want to do here in the US? I know of a few Native Americans that would be interested in some extra land for their casinos as well.....

Israel is a country, it exists and isn't going away. Much like us. So, Hezbollah and Hamas and all the other militants had better resign themselves to either a life of nothing but war, or peace. The third option is too terrible to consider, but it bears saying: Israel belongs to the nuclear club.

They've already resigned themselves to the war option. Now everybody else has to decide how to cope with that.

I'm not so sure about Spain, but note how it's the jews in this debate here that are arguing for Israel to pack up and leave.

I guess I'm not claiming any moral superiority to argue ... but there is this: beyond the uselessness of the fight, the endless violence and death, the near-fated ultimate outcome of defeat ... there's the fact that, as a jew, it breaks my heart to have Israel become so much like her vile enemies in trying to defeat her enemies.

Why not so sure about Spain? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm curious as to why you think Islamic terrorists will stop there, or that the land there is worth the fighting. If Israel ceased to exist, wouldn't it make sense that they would be emboldened to move on to other territories they feel they are entitled to?

As motivation it would be both, but I think primarily the latter. Our presence in Saudi Arabia is particularly galling to bin Laden.

The other option , though it will take longer is for Isreali palastinians to be fruitful and multiply. Make Love not War, etc.

Perhaps, but I find the whole "emboldened" argument to be such weaksauce ... even if it turns out to be true. In any given situation, there may be no good options ... with the best choice being to select the least worst.

Multiple Choice, scaeagles:

A. Surrender

B. Death

C. Become Your Enemy (or the equivalent)


Even if "A" emboldens your enemy, do you find "B" or "C" to be preferable?

What about Spain? In the last 500 years they haven't really done much to actually reclaim it. Why? Because while I am sure there have always been fundamentalists who think it should be of the highest priority to reclaim Spain and Bulgaria, they don't have the support of mainstream society.

The same is true today. Remove the mainstream societal support and while the fundamentalists will still be there they'll essentially be neutered. They may still do bad things but there is always a certain level of background noise from people doing bad things.

Israel is a constant thorn and there are legitimate complaints about how it came to be there and how it continues to exist. Not, in my opinion, legitimate enough to justify the violence but then that is why I haven't blown anybody up. Obviously others disagree.

But if Israel disappears, I don't really believe that Al Qaeda or Hezbollah or Hamas will find much support for taking the violence to Washington, or even Madrid.

When a crazy person yells at me for sitting on his park bench. I move to another park bench. When a crazy person comes to my door with a gun and tells me to leave. I leave (though I call the police, but I'm not going to kill anybody to stay in my house). If I lived in Israel, personally, my ability to stay there wouldn't be worth the violence.

Obviously most don't agree and as wendybeth says Israel is there and isn't going anywhere and so violence will continue until one side eradicates the other or so much time has passed that even human stupidity can't work up the energy of idiotic indignation.

So, I don't really have a problem with not calling for a cease fire. It wouldn't accomplish anything but prolonging the nearly inevitable. And I'm still willing to give Arizona as a replacement if they'll give up Israel. Except for the Navajo Nation corner, they've been through a lot already.

I disagree with the premise of your question. I disagree that Israel is becoming the enemy they are fighting against. Israel has shown they are willing to live at peace and even give concessions to do so. It is their enemy who will not do the same.

So becoming the enemy? I don't buy it. Terrorists purposefully target civilians and then hide among their own women and children, and all the while seem to gain the sympathy of the international community as the victims.

I don't see Israel as the bad guy, or even as becoming the bad guy. They did not bring war. War was brought to them.

If you choose A you will become C eventually anyway....might as well go directly to C and skip step A.

scaeagles, I am astounded with how obtuse you are about the practices of Israel. Go get yourself an education, boy. I do not have the wherewithal to school you myself, but you really are demonstrating too much ignorance to conduct a fair conversation on this subject.

Jeeez Louise.

sleepyjeff ... Huh? How do ya figure?

I think there are points on both sides of the argument in this thread. However, there's a point that keeps being brought up that irks me a bit, and that's the idea that this is about "The Jews". Sorry, but just because Israel is a Jewish state doesn't mean that The Jews are the aggressors, or even defenders. Israel is. And the point that radical Islam is against The Jews is just not valid. They're against people who aren't them. When Al Qaeda was battling the Russians in Afghanistan, there wasn't a Jew to be found. When Algerian terrorists set off bombs in France (which they've done for decades), it's not to get rid of Jews or Americans. The cynical side of me could see their actions as some sort of warped Manifest Destiny. But that doesn't mean I see it as a justification of their actions. I'm not a fan of this US administrations tactics against terrorism or Israel's most recent approach in dealing with its enemies. But someone sure needs to do something. And walking away or "surrender" isn't the solution.

Just my two cents.

Carry on.

Don't mince any words, ISM. I am so sorry that I wasn't blessed with your amazing intellect.

Be that as it may, I would not have desire to sit in on any schooling which you might come down from your perch of wisdom and knowledge to offer to me and others in the vast uneducated masses of those who might disagree with you.

Please feel free to avoid conducting conversations with me in the future. Something tells me my quality of life will not be any lower.

granted, mousepod. But perhaps the conflict is usually put in those terms, because - unlike with the Russians or the French - - the Arabs have been fighting the Jews for century upon century.

In fact, while the conflict in the middle east used to be quite sectarian and nationalist, things have shifted quite a bit since the death of Yassar Arafat and the demise of nationalist organizations like the PLO.

Hamas and Hizzballah, on the other hand, are quite Islamist - - as are their patrons, Syria and Iran. It represents quite an ominous twist, I fear.

And I daresay the enemy is thought of as "jews" ... as everything is conceived of in religious terms ... and we plunge barbarically backward in time, holy frelling DoubleYou Tea Aich

never mind

If you "surrender" to someone and they demand that you follow them, you pretty much become them I believe.

So I ask: Is it better to be your enemy on their terms or on your own terms?

As Mousepod pointed out, it's not just about the Jews. Israel is a non-Islamic presence and it wouldn't much matter if they were Jews, Spaniards or Martians- they want them out. No doubt this makes the Christians in the area a bit nervous, but they're buying the radical's line that it's an Arab thing and hoping they aren't next. (Look at what the Islamic Arabs have been doing to people in Africa). Now, Iran is certainly financing the militias- but what if the radicals are successful? It's going to be a major cluster**** of civil wars then, because let's face it- Iranians aren't Arabs, they are Persians, and both Persian and Arab sides see the other as less than perfect. Even within the Arab groups, there are sub-groups wasting each other because of perceived superiority. Israel is merely a rallying point at this time, and a diversion. If they weren't there to project against and use in an inflammatory manner, then the rads would just turn their attentions to the next group of undesireables. Israel is not the problem here, it's the radical Islamics.

Radicals always exist. Everywhere and in every culture.

Mainstream support of radicalism is what waxes and wanes. As iSm pointed out, these conflicts mostly started out as nationalistic (arguments over sovereignty and geography) and have turned religious as the secular government leadership has fallen aside. I would argue this is because the nationalistic argument and the fundamental religious argument have come into alignment, but remove that alignment and the radicals will once again be on the fringe. The mainstream may not entirely condone the methods but tolerate it because the goals are the same. As soon as the mainstream and the fringe have different goals, it'll break down.

I wish that were true, Alex, but I don't think so. The radicals have far too much momentum to simply stop after they achieve so limited a goal, and the nationalists will be excited by the success and want to carry it further. I point to the Russian Revolution as an example- it began with a radical fringe, swelled with the populist involvement, then was taken over once again by the radicals once the primary objective had been achieved. Same goes for the French Revolution. This is one of the reasons the American Revolution stands out amongst others- we did not (although we came close) fall to the fringe element.

Another example would involve the invocation of Godwin, so I will not go there.

Doesn't make the point any less valid.

To be honest, I don't know how to feel on this subject. I feel numb. I'm just stunned at all this killing. Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. Makes me sad. :(

WB brings up a very valid and oft overlooked point about Africa. What is the reasoning there, where the bloodshed has been far greater? There is international condemnation of it, no doubt, but where has the intervention been? 500,000 dead? I'll admit that it isn't all an Islamic thing, but much of it is Muslims killing Christians. While the tragedy of what is happening in Israel and Lebanon is very real, it is nothing close to what is happening/has happened in Africa.

Radical Islam does not go away if Israel simply ceases to exist, regardless of what the international community has to say about justification.

I have an answer for you regarding Africa, scaeagles, but maybe I should just keep it to myself.
;)

It would be far better for my soul to have "them" hammered into "me" over time in a post-surrender environment than to become "them" with IsraeliAmerican vigor moments after the opening bell.

Exactly my point. In a blink, Israel willingly becomes the terrorists and pays the PR price.

I'd be interested in hearnig. Seriously. Unless you're afraid you're too uneducated and might receive a rebuke.;)

Well, I know I'm not all that edumacated. No delusions there.

I think it's a race thing. Totally. I know I may get lambasted for that, but I think it's true. I think as enlightened as we seem to be, this country still has many problems. Race is one of them. If there was genocide going on in a white country where the people getting slaughtered looked like people in one's own suburb, the television coverage of the events would hit home to many more people. I'm not saying everyone in our country is racist, but I'd say a good portion of it is.

Sorry for the derail.

Which African conflict are we discussing? A lot of the conflict in Africa is traced back to tribal conflicts, pre-colonization.

I was talking about pretty much all of it. I was referring to the lack of focus the US media and politicians seem to have about the thousands and thousands of people dead from genocide, disease, famine... ie. Rawanda, Somalia.

It's all over, and in fact much of it is Muslim sect against Muslim sect.

A very recent article from Janes talking about what is happening in Somalia and the Sudan and how Bin Laden definitely has designs on large portions, if not all, of Africa.

The Sudanese conflicts are largely the Northen Islamic peoples against the Southern Christians.

There is Muslim/Christian conflict all over Nigeria (though there are arguments that this is primarily over resources and that the battle for those scarce resources are bringing people together by religion to fight for them).

And an interesting find on Ethiopia from Time.

While the roots of the conflicts are not always (or even usually) religious, Islamics leaders have oft been quick to latch onto the geopolitical situation and turn the ide into an effort to expand their influence through violence and intimidation.

eh, yes and no. To go back to your Spain example, Moorish-controlled Spain was historically one of the friendliest eras/areas for Jews to live in.

I would post a link to Charles Krauthammer, but it is a (free) subscription site, and I realize most don't like links to subscription sites. It discusses the efforts made by Israel to avoid civilian casualties, usually at an expense of their soldiers facing greater danger. The last four paragraphs from a recent column -

"On Wednesday CNN cameras showed destruction in Tyre. What does Israel have against Tyre and its inhabitants? Nothing. But the long-range Hezbollah rockets that have been raining terror on Haifa are based in Tyre. What is Israel to do? Leave untouched the launch sites that are deliberately placed in built-up areas?

Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that. Instead it attacked dual-use infrastructure -- bridges, roads, airport runways -- and blockaded Lebanon's ports to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah. Ten thousand Katyusha rockets are enough. Israel was not going to allow Hezbollah 10,000 more.

Israel's response to Hezbollah has been to use the most precise weaponry and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese civilians. Does anyone imagine that it could not have leveled south Lebanon, to say nothing of Beirut? Instead, in the bitter fight against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed.

Israel knows that these leaflets and warnings give the Hezbollah fighters time to escape and regroup. The advance notification as to where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to set up elaborate ambushes. The result? Unexpectedly high Israeli infantry casualties. Moral scrupulousness paid in blood. Israeli soldiers die so that Lebanese civilians will not, and who does the international community condemn for disregarding civilian life?"

iSm, I must say this remark seems beneath you. I'm stunned.
I know scaeagles does not need defending but... sheesh. :(

Okay, I've defended scaeagles and Nephy Love in the same week. I'm devolving into a neo-con.
:D

*grin* No- you are just a good person with a reasonable and polite personality with the ability to discuss and disagree without needing to insult the other "side" and you don't approve when others do.

Ok- in short- you're just cool. ;)

I would agree with you except it isn't "in a blink". Surely you can see the distinction between the two sides right now?

I don't disagre that Israel is a focal point now, but I also don't necessarily think that removing Israel entirely will significantly reduce support for radical Islam. Israel might be gone, but "the West" will remain as the boogeyman to be blamed for economic failures. And as long as governments can retain power by keeping the people relatively poor and focusing the blame elsewhere they will.

Yes, but I think you'd see a big difference in world response if they act as agressor towards someone other than Israel, against which they have a semi-legitimate gripe.

Where is the outrage in Africa with respect to the specific (and undoubtedly others) situations I mentioned? The world response has been pathetic.

Where is the outrage in Indonesia, where Al Qaida is very active? What was the world response to embassy bombings in Africa or the Kovar Towers in Saudi Arabia? Or the train bombings in Spain? There was no response, with the recognition that strongly worded condemnation is not a response. That means nothing to radical Islam. I would suggest they simply laugh at attempts at diplomacy when their goal is not to get along or live in peace.

I don't know. I mean, I'm sure there would be more world indignation, but the terrorism model changes things. I'm already uncomfortable with the steps we are allegedly taking to prevent terrorist attacks here. If we became the focus, I'm not sure "here" would be some place I'd want to stay. Islamic states will fund the terrorists, the west will retaliate by attacking the Islamic states, which will retaliate with direct attacks on the west.

Yes, it's total speculation. No this isn't an area I know much about. Yes, I'm sure my "re-education" will begin shortly. Doesn't change that I personally believe that much as Isreal is a thorn in the paw of Islam, the radicals draw strength from the have-nots, and removing the thorn won't remove the underlying problem.

Link- Israel deaths ignored

Reuters admits to using altered photograph (yes, they pulled it and apologized...)

What I found sad and ironic about yesterday's report on CNN is that the people that were killed in yesterday's Hezbollah attack on Haifa were Israeli Arabs. It was several minutes into the story before someone pointed out that the people racing to help the victims were shouting in Arabic. This is an ugly ugly war, and the propaganda machine only blurs it further.

Reuters dismisses photographer

additional link with photo at issue

The lie

The truth?

Will add link when I find it-

I am of the opinion that, practically speaking, no amount of retraction can undo the damage done by such things. It also makes me wonder how much more widespread journalistic (photo or or otherwise) fraud there is that we simply don't know about.

I hear (although I could not list any specific poll) that the general public has a low level of trust in the media in general. I guess it will continue to get lower and lower.

Geez, Reuter's didn't catch that obvious fake? You can see the blatant "copy/paste" pattern. I mean, if you're gonna fake it, at least don't do such a shoddy job.

Idiot! (the photog, not you Nephy.)

I know- I'm an Egyptian Demon Bitch;)

I saw before and after pictures of a city shot and didn't see the point of altering them. Instead of brownish smoke there was grey/blue smoke. Weird. I like Reuters zero tolerance rule about altering photos. But it does make me wonder how often this has been done...

Some of the alterations are so incredibly obvious that there is certainly at least one editor that should be fired. There is either gross negligence, gross incompetence, or complicity involved.

Totally. I have only seen one set of two photos. A bombed cityscape...

The flares one is not obvious. In addition to the smoke he also duplicated some of the buildings which makes everything look more destroyed as well.

Yes, it the smoke cloning was horribly obvious but I don't really blame the photo editor. One, he can't go about his job with the assumption that his own people are trying to fool him and who knows how many photographs he is having to deal with in how much time.

I really don't think outright photographic manipulation is common because the photographers know that getting caught will ruin their career (and zero tolerance really is the policy, photojournalists have lost their job for simple color correction). What is probably more common is actually staging the photo.

Can I ask what the job of photo editor is then? I'm not really trying to be rhetorical. Perhaps I don't understand. I would figure one of the tasks assocated with it is looking for obvious fraud such as this.

Yes it is, and I'm sure some junior editor is in serious hot water right now. But when you have sat on a flow of 25,000 photos over the last year (number made up), none of which were manipulated it is simply psychologically difficult to keep the proper level of skepticism.

The primary role of the photo editor is to 1) make sure the photo is topical and has journalistic interest, and 2) that it is is of sufficient quality for publication (in focus, reasonably color correct, horizon is level). In role #2, photo editors can approve certain modifications such as recropping, focusing, levelling, etc., but the photographers are not supposed to be making those decisions.

The various freelancers on the scene in Lebanon and Israel are each probably submitting hundreds or even thousands of photographs a day (they get paid for what is used, so throw it all at the wall) and the editor probably only has an an hour or two to go through them all, decide what will be uploaded to the wire and then get on to the next batch. He's probably primarily interested in technical details and I imagine it is easy to get into a stage where you can't see the forest for the trees.

Ralphie met a gentleman a couple of weeks ago who takes photos of New England area for tourism fliers. He said that altering photos is common in the tourism field. He showed Ralphie a shot of a lighthouse that would be impossible to photograph in the way it was presented. The lighting was fabricated and the background was different from the one you'd see if you actually visited the spot.

That's different from Reuters, but I thought it was interesting. The photo was very convincing.

I remember when CBS got in trouble for piping in phony bird calls during their golf telecasts. They were busted by viewers who knew that the birds behind the calls were not indigenous to wherever the tournament was being held.

CBS copped to the shenanigans and now they only play sounds from birds that don't exist.

I never heard that. How amusing.

Speaking of bird calls... Didn't someone also reveal that the Dean scream was altered to sound louder?

It was altered to reduce the sound of crowd noise, GC.

Yeah, a good rule of thumb is to never assume a photo used for marketing purposes is unaltered. They almost always are.

At MousePlanet a "journalistic" photo is never altered except perhaps for color and contrast correction. Otherwise the only editorial choice I get is in cropping. But "non-journalistic" photos, desktops and the home page leader graphic for example, frequently are photoshopped to remove distracting elements or create a more pleasing artistic object. For example, a desktop photo (the purpose is artistic not informational) of the castle might be photoshopped to remove a stray person that wandered in frame but in a photo accompanying article I would never do that.

Hmm. Who did that?