ubertuber

Roachboy - I tried to watch your movie too. Ironically it crapped out about 19 minutes in.

It strikes me in much the same way as the original - it's a lot of editorializing that supports the views that people had before the movie was made. Better production value, and smarter commentary, but still I'm not surprised (or even particularly disappionted) that the Israelis would be actively spinning things. It's only prudent...

So both of these movies confirm what I suspected of both sides. Now what?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Elphaba

I must have been fortunate to see the whole of it without interruption. A case is carefully built, in a logical fashion that gives credibility to the notion that our (US) media is either being manipulated or is choosing to provide a very one sided picture to the events of the Middle East. I agree that both video's represent PR in a general sense, but the longer one provides context.

The "Now What" question is the ultimate one that we should be asking ourselves, and the video roachboy linked is a good starting off point, imo. It has been granted here, to some extent, that we are being manipulated by both sides of this divide. A topic rooted in the full context of the Middle East would serve to begin answering that very important question.

powerclown

The main question as I see it is whether religious intolerance and extremism should continue to be allowed to spread. The major nations of the world have the responsibility of addressing the issues of violent religious extremism, something I don't see them doing.

India, Europe, China, Japan, Canada, Russia, Australia etc...instead of standing by, need to actively fight against religious extremism and intolerance instead of watching the US and Israel go at it by themselves. By not acting against it, they are condoning and contributing to the spread of it. As we see, no country is safe from religious extremism, so it should be everyone's concern. To pretend it doesn't exist, to stand by and watch others do the heavy lifting, is contributing to the problem.

The major nations need to take a stand, because the situation is getting worse not better. As more and more nations get hit by religious extremism, maybe then they will consider it in their own interests to join the others in fighting it. Muslim countries need to decide that it is more important to build functional societies than to attack other countries. I think Israel and America have good intentions, the right intentions, but they can't get it done by themselves. Religious extremism and intolerance will continue to spread and infect moderate nations as long as it is tolerated by the major players.

Willravel

We're all victims of extreemists. They infest every facet of our society, and I'll bet you $5 that getting rid of them won't happen for thousands of years (if we don't destroy ourselves before then). The king of our own country often explains how God is with us.

"I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."
--George W. Bush

That wasn't God, buddy.....

powerclown

By choice, not by necessity.

Charlatan

I suggest you get up to date on your facts.

Canada, for one, is doing what we can. We have active troops on the ground in Afghanistan. We currently stand at 23 soldiers killed in action and many more wounded. We are *not* standing idly by. In my opinion we are fighting the war that actually needed to be fought... the one against the Taliban.

Be a little more willing to get off that horse... It's a little high.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ubertuber

Despite the way the field is aligned and who the players are, I don't think the root of any of the Israeli conflicts is religious intolerance. Ultimately it comes down to displacement of people and ownership of territory. Of course we are proceeding down a path that could easily lead to a flat-out "holy" war.

I certainly agree with you about the major nations of the world having responsibilities, but I think it is very difficult for any nation, however powerful, to exert much effect on these dynamics within another sovereign state. The most effective solutions would come from nations taking responsibility for influencing and monitoring the dynamics operating withing their own borders. There are only 2 problems with that: (1) not all nations want to step up to the plate here or are capable of doing so, such as Afghanistan, Somalia, etc., and (2) sometimes the extremist philosophy is more representative of popular opinion than the government itself, as in Saudi Arabia, and, in some cases, Pakistan.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ustwo

What about all those other places where Musslims do not play well with others? Is that more territory? Its about power and its fueled by religious intolerance. Its the excuse they need to justify violent agression. I know Christians who have fled Indonesia (one was a student with me). Israel is an excuse, a focal point, not a cause.

For starters........

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

The reason no one answered is that yes we are that polarized and unless you take one side or the other, your voice in their eyes doesn't matter.

Are we being manipulated? Yes, if TPTB keep us polarized and at each other's throats we won't truly see what is going on in our own country and realize we need true changes.

Yes, we are so polarized that when one side does make sense we have to disavow them, attack them and do whatever we can to make them look foolish..... (But I'll cover that in the minimum wage thread.)

This war is exactly that an escalating out of control situation of resentment, intolerence and want for power.

As for the OP......... It all comes down to who's propaganda you choose to believe. Both sides are throwing out propaganda, neither side wants to look pure evil and as though this is what they want, just as neither side is a saint and truly willing to stop and try to find peace. These 2 sides want war and these 2 sides want world support, so they will propagandize everything.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

powerclown

I'm not sure how much of that statement is valid. Case in point:

"In 1947 the British Empire in India was partitioned into two states, India and Pakistan. There was a bitter military struggle, and an estimated 10 million refugees were displaced. Despite continuing friction, some sort of accommodation was reached between the two states and the refugees were resettled.

In the following year, 1948, the British-mandated territory of Palestine was partitioned -- in terms of area and numbers, a triviality compared with India. Yet that conflict continues, and the 750,000 Arab refugees from Israel and their millions of descendants remain refugees, in camps maintained and staffed by the U.N. Except for Jordan, no Arab state has been willing to grant citizenship to the Palestinian refugees or to their locally born descendants, or even to allow them the rights of resident aliens. They are now entering their fifth generation as stateless refugee aliens."

Consider also how refugees were resettled in Eastern Europe after WW2 without a bloodbath. How the defeated, disgraced, dishonored, dictatorial countries of Germany and Japan regrouped, democratized and moved forward.

---

Size/population of Israel: 20,770 sq km (smaller than New Jersey)
pop - 6,352,117

Size/population rest of Middle East: 5,334,984 sq km
pop. - 230,040,675

Does it ever strike anyone as ludicrous how obsessed the Muslims are at the existence of Israel, realizing how miniscule a presence it is? Given the above population/area figures, why don't the other Arabs help resettle their "brother Arabs" (as Hamas and Hezbollah constantly rhetoricize over) in Palestine and end this goddamn conflict?

---

-Would it be valid to point out the disdain between the differing sects of Islam in the ME?
-Where Shia and Sunni are killing eachother in Iraq by the hundreds on a daily basis?
-Where over 1 million muslims died at the hands of other muslims in the Iran-Iraq War, dumping every weapon conceivable - including chemical weapons - on eachother?
-Where Saddam looked to annex the entire country of Kuwait and enslave the population?

How justifiable is muslim rage over the existence of Israel, in light of the rage muslims have for eachother? Why do Persian Shiite muslims in Iran give a shit about Arab Sunni muslims in Palestine today, when they are so ready to thrown down and kill eachother en masse in the streets of Baghdad tomorrow?

Is rage towards Israel real, or manufactured?

Is it within the realm of possibility that Israel is a political scapegoat for the dictatorships and religious oligarchies of the region, used to refocus their own citizens' misery, anger, discontent and indignity away from the real source of their internal problems (their failed systems of government) onto something external? Wouldn't the ongoing existence of the Arab-Israeli conflict justify the existence of, 1) all violently religious islamic fundamentalist organizations in the ME, 2) all failed states in the ME?

What would the purpose of entities like Hezbollah and Hamas be without the agenda of exterminating Israel? Do they do anything positive for the economies of Palestine or universities of Lebanon? Do they provide decent jobs for people? Do they aid in the irrigation of the land? Do they build powerplants in the Gaza Strip? Do they help with issues of public mental health, or malnutrition? Does Hamas build, stock or furnish local public libraries? Do they treat alcoholics or drug addicts? Do they help gather and throw out the garbage? Do they train doctors or lawyers? Does Hezbollah provide public laundry service? Do they build banks or restaurants? Wouldn't they just fade away without a reason to kill-kill-kill Israelis?

Look at what 60 years of resistance has turned Gaza and the West Bank into...some of the poorest, most miserable plots of land on the planet earth. Is resistance really a winning strategy?

roachboy

it seems to me that your premise is off, powerclown: what you set out to argue for is a facile, essentialist way of parsing the israeli/palestinian conflict along religious/ethinic lines. given that you assume this to be the motor/explanation of everything, what follows is simply applying a circular logic to a series of political situations. there is no need for analysis in a world circumscribed by circular argument.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

The war against the Taliban isn't just the war against the Taliban, is it? Didn't the Taliban represent something that was unacceptable to the rest of the world, too? So why should the leading countries preoccupy themselves only with the Taliban and Afghanistan, when the same ideology - the same organization! - continues to conspire and commit acts of terrorism around the world, Toronto being a recent example of this.

While I think that supporting the effort in Afghanistan is honorable of Canada, more should be done by the other leading countries as well. I still see too many heads in the sand, too much appeasement, too much political correctness. I don't think resisting terrorism or helping reform the ME is near the top of many countries' agendas. In saying this, I place America at the very top of the list of nations who have set a less than perfect example, with the UN tied at 1a for talking a lot of shit to make everyone happy, while being counterproductive in the process. Mark my words - this latest UN-brokered bandaid ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah - like all the broken resolutions before it - will lead to nothing but more suffering and violence.

ubertuber

Good points from Ustwo and Powerclown - I'll have to come back to write you the response that you deserve. My quick thought:

You ever hear the parable of the man throwing star fish back into the ocean? Palestine is kinda like that - sure, it's "trivial" compared to India, but the fact that it's Palestine makes all the difference in the world to the Palestinians, doesn't it? Also, India and Pakistan aren't chock full of the historic holy sites of the religion. I'll be back later to respond more fully.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ustwo

Move Israel to....well anywhere in the mideast, do you think it would really matter? They talk about the destruction of the Zionists, not liberation of holy sites.

The video is from before any military campaign, its a few years old now.

host is ignored because when someone takes the time to tear him appart point by point he ignores it and quite frankly many of us think he has 'issues' that need professional help. This is the same guy that thinks the government is posting in these forums and that GWB was involved with human sacrifice. You can't expect me or anyone else to waste time going over link after link, often which have almost nothing to do with the topic at hand, are quoted out of context, or come from sources with a known and proven bias and expect us to take 'their' word for it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

I think Israel would do a lot better in Europe. While the loss of Jeruselem would be horrible for them, it woudl end up saving millions of lives in the long run, AND Israelis would still have a country all their own. It'll never happen, but it'd be nice.


Host was ignored, as so was I. After everyone saying "you aren't even watching the video!!", I watched the video and broke some of it down. I tried to scrutinize it a bit, for the sake of the thread. What was the response? Nothing. Silencia. Rather odd, I should say.

filtherton

Perhaps you should be ignored for the same reasons?

Well, there was that one guy who claimed to work in some federal law enforcement agency and attempted to use that status to make veiled threats.

How would you know anything about what he posts? You said yourself that you don't read them.

host

Another way to look at it is that the OP's of some threads that you author, are anchored by citations and accompanying arguments, that in hindsight, don't bear up well in a competition of ideas and other reporting.

The effect of my post on the premise for this thread, documenting the partisan political bias and admitted pro-Israeli sentiment of the "discoverer" and promoter of the video that impressed you enough to anchor this thread with; the fact that the domain where the video originated on the internet is registered to this same individual, and that he exhibits a bias that is uncharacteristic of what I would expect from a university professor of history,
is to call into question whether you have provided enough substance to merit
a discussion, since there is no thread without the video.

I see no linked examples offered in support of anything that followed your, <b>"This is the same guy......."</b>, comments.

There is a pattern here.....easily observed in two other threads that you authored recently:
If you look at my posts in this thread, and in the other two threads that I've
linked, I do not "shoot the messenger". I expend the time and the effort to discredit the messenger's argument.

Ustwo

Yes because I am quite obviously insane.

Oh which guy was that?

No longer read, and I will read when someone quotes him, or if he takes the time to write something beyond linking and blaming GWB, well beyond linking anyways, I dont' think he ever doesn't blame GWB for the topic at hand in some way. When Labell took the time a few months back to pick appart one of hosts linked monstrosities and host didn't seem to grasp the issues at hand I gave up following, seemed kinga pointless to do so since he didn't seem to grasp it, plus I do have a life, wife, child, job, that sort of thing taking my extra time as well. But thank you for trolling this thread, it was excellent and added much.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Charlatan

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

host

Or....could you defend against my statements that you anchored this thread with a video that was discovered (edited and/or altered) and promoted by an
extremely pro-Bush/pro-Iraq Invasion/pro-Israel, university professor, and that, because this is so, there is no basis for viewing the video promoted by the professor, much less any basis for discussing it's "message" in this thread?

the "guy" was former member "daswig", who claimed that he was a prosecutor; and he was banned from TFP, presumably when it was discovered that he was also posting as "moosenose", and it was under that alias that he made the intimidating comments and threats to "alert the authorities", in reaction to things that I posted:
I thought that I had defended criticism about the integrity of documentation/links that I post on these threads, when Lebell and Marvelousmarv originally raised their "issues":

Ustwo

Just some additional fuel to the faked news fire...

Which fits nicely with this 3 month old story..

But remember, we can't trust the pallywood video because well, maybe they faked the whole video, event he parts that were shown on 60 minutes....or something like that.

And on a side note......Israel had several civilian casualities today, almost all women and children, but you won't see their images pushed on you by a horde of reporters. They respect their dead, they don't exploit them.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

what happened to this thread?


ustwo:

when it comes down to it, what you seem to want to argue is that the palestinians fake their own oppression in order to make israel look bad.
that is not an argument--that is an arbitrary assertion.

you refuse to take seriously any critique of the landes film, preferring to use the idea of the film to bolster your general position.
when you do refer to the critiques of the film, you basically disort them, which is of a piece with your preference for substituting offhand ridicule for engagement.


there are problems with the landes film.
you seem to not understand what they are.

there are real problems with your use of the landes film.
you seem to not understand what they are either.

if this kind of inability to present arguments is characteristic of your view of the israel/palestine conflicts, or the israeli incursions into lebanon, then it is no wonder that your positions are taken as problematic.


this is goofy....you do not want debate-you occupy a marginal position and are looking for ways to reinforce your sense of righteousness in marginality by drawing criticism. you must derive some satisfaction from the fact that others reject your positions--it is as if your are only interested in your positions being rejected, because for some reason you appear to take rejection as in itself confirmation of your views.



=====================================
i am quite busy over the next few days--earlier elphaba had suggested another thread about the films--i'd partcipate in it, but can't really start one up until later in the week---feel free to set something into motion and i'll fade in as my schedule allows.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

Well well well, it seems we have another doctored image that Reuters pulled....




The first Reuters image of July 24
"One is from July 24 of a bombed out area in Beirut, with a clearly identifiable building in a prominent part of the shot. The second is of the exact same area, same buildings, same condition, with a woman walking past "a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006," he wrote.


Well I'll give the terrorists one thing. They are far better at the information war than the Israeli's. They know that a good lie is as dangerous as the truth and that some people will believe anything.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Ustwo, you've ignored my first post for quite a while now, despite the fact that it directly challenges your OP video. Would you care to respond?

Ustwo

I'm sorry Will, your 9/11 threads have me conditioned, I'll take a look at that after lunch.

Oh wait my bad....

You only look at the first example, which the NARRATOR says may have been real, and the bit firing into the wall which was clearly fake but protrayed as a real event on foriegn media. Also I have no clue how you say you see blood on the left leg, but thats fine. It was clear the 'street fighter' was staged, and you say it was an exercise? An exercise in what? Why was target practice filmed in such a way, with men taken cover? What potential military value was that 'target practice'. Shooting in a hole into a building practice?

You ignore the rest.

Plus if the Israelis were really firing on that massed group of protestors, how many do you think would be standing there jumping up and down, who would take their families past it, why would people be driving across the street, who would be sitting around watching it? Do you think they just kinda shoot now and then randomly? I'm sure they had target practice (non-filmed).

My favorite (Besides the guy falling off in the 'funeral') was the guy handing off the molitov cocktail before having he had his scene.

Fuck who the hell clusters into a mass of people, standing straight up if they are 'under fire'. You don't have to be a soldier to know that being in the open in a cluster ISN'T what you do in a war zone.

Common sense will, common sense.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

stevo

more misinformation

driving to work today i hear on the radio how 40 people died in an overnight raid by israel. half way through the day we get the correction
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/07/D8JBLITG0.html
So more of the media either making up numbers or taking what hezbollah says at face value. Of course the morning headline of 40 dead killed by israel will be heard by more people than will see the correction. what matters is they already get you thinking about how bad israel is.

Like I said, take the number of lebanese deaths and divide by 10 - it will be more accurate.

I also like how when a teenager dies its a "child casualty" what they fail to mention are the number of teenage scouts hezbollah uses in its war against israel. When a 16 year old scout for hezbollah is killed we do not hear of a hezbollah casualty, just an innocent child's death.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Willravel

What a refreshing way to start a post. I respect you, too, Ustwo.
So the first one actually was real then? Why bother showing it in the video then? Oh, right, because they didn't have enough evidence to support their claim. so they had to turn to innuendo and speculation.
If you were about to engage an enemy in an open firefight, wouldn't you want to test your weapons first? Yes it's possible that the Palestinian was simply testing his weapon and the others were waiting to do the same. OR maybe they were trying to disctract the Israelis, whille another force attacked form another side. No other possible explaination for what we saw were given. They suggest that this was intended as deception and leave it at that. The men with the cameras have no control over how 60 Minutes or Dateline choose to use the footage. They may have been filming to send home to their families who they'll never see again.
The rest? The video stopped, I figured it was over. I'll try to reload it.

roachboy

okso i just watched the op film again---there are obvious problems running in all directions.

1. the material that the film uses refer to two specific situations--one in 2000 and another in 2002---it cuts back and forth between them in order to generate the impression that the limited case the film can actually make using the materials the filmakers had available constitutes a general indictment of not only news footage relating to violence in the context of the israeli occupation of the west bank and gaza, but also to the claims that the filmakers argue shape such footage.

the film does not make anything like a case for generalizing the information it presents. it tries, but the filmakers simply do not have the evidence that they pretend to have.

in this and other threads, it seems a kind of quaint commonplace for ustwo or stevo to refer to this film as if it establishes an actual case about information pertaining to the situation of the palestinians in general. this would be a shared delusion--the film does nothing of the sort.

2. as for the footage itself--there are two types basically--footage in which the claims the filmmakers want to make about it are not obviously supported by the footage itself, and footage where the problems are obvious. the assumption seems to be that the latter will wieght the former---apparently for ustwo et al this technique worked---the problem is that there is very little footage in which the evidence is clear--that taken from the fench footage "the road to jenin" seems most obvious---the footage of the palestinian gunman shooting into an empty factory--but otherwise, the voiceover tries to make claims about ambiguous footage that the footage itself simply does not support.

so i dont know folks: i havent seen anything from ustwo or stevo that even starts to address these questions and so find their reliance on the film totally unconvincing.

let's focus on the stronger elements of evidence that landes et al present: in these cases, my response really was...well duh....news organizations prefer dramatic footage and when there isnt any folk will sometime create it. duh.

o and eyewitness accounts are often unreliable. duh again.

when the americans filmed conditions are bergen-belsen in 1945, they created some of the scenes they filmed for dramatic effect. this is well-known and not particularly controversial at this point.
a landes style argument would be to highlight those staged moments, and to move from there to arguing that the holocaust did not happen.
the linking term would be a catchy name--something like "pallywood"

this word does most of the arguing for landes et al--it is what creates the impression that the two sequences that are obviously staged can be used to make general claims about all information originating with palestinians, or all information about the israeli occupation of the west bank and gaza.

this is a quite shabby bit of agitprop. i am not surprised that it looks compelling to ustwo in that it seems to simply confirm a dispositional antipathy toward palestinians in particular and toward arab muslims more generally. a dispositional antipathy is not an argument. judgments made on the basis of such a disposition are maybe of psychological interest, if your objective is to understand something about ustwo, say, but it really is not adequate for making political judgments based on a shabby film that makes claims wholly out of whack with the material it provides as evidence.

as for the film i linked to: i really do not see the equivalence between them at all--the longer film tries to provide broad social-historical contexts for the information it provides--it outlines a state media policy governed by the needs of israel in the context of an information war. so you have specific insitutions which perform specific functions for specific ends.

the landes film relies on vague claims about the fact that the raw footage it does try to use were shot by palestinian cameramen--the implication is that palestinians by their nature are problematic as sources of information--i dunno folks, that seems to me to be racist.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

more pallywood, or as they are calling it on the internets these days...fauxtography

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008766

http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/...r-bogus-photo/

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

hiredgun

Again, Stevo, you're posting links to information without giving us any clue as to what your argument is, or what conclusions this should lead us to. How about spelling it out for us, rather than leaving it at innuendo?

As for the opinionjournal link: the evidence is not at all conclusive. Are you suggesting that the fake victim is sitting up and has a head shaped like a huge bucket? It doesn't look anything like a head to me. Is it really likely that someone coached by Hezbullah to play dead decided to sit up in the middle of the staged photo shoot? Could the object outlined by the sheet be anything other than evidence of a conspiracy, e.g. more rubble? If it is his head, could someone have simply propped the body up against something, or could it perhaps be attributable to rigor mortis?

In the second photo: 1) Is it possible the vehicle was caught by an explosion and not hit directly? and 2) We have no idea who took the picture (although his name is Nasser Nasser), or who was the source of the information in the caption. Could it have been a mistake?

The more important question is this: let's forget those concerns and assume that these photo are, in fact, evidence that Hizbullah is attempting to feed false or exaggerated information to the news. What impact do you think this should have on our views of the conflict in progress? This is a genuine and important question, because there is no debate without specific claims to discuss.

Are you trying to say that most or all reported civilian casualties in Lebanon are fraudulent?

Are you trying to say, for example, that the Israeli assault on Lebanon is largely some sort of myth or invention? Because that claim can easily be countered. As regards vehicles, take a look at this: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...-campaign.html

Israel has stated that it will target any moving vehicle south of the Litani. Clearly the idea that Israel is hitting cars, even cars full of innocents, is not a fiction.

The upshot of all this is: please make specific claims so we can understand the argument you're making. Right now, this is the only argument I see: "Hizbullah is fabricating news stories that exaggerate the damage in Lebanon, therefore we are right about this war and you are wrong."

roachboy

frankly, i am a bit disappointed that the folk who assume this film is not a problem do not try to rebut my critiques of it--normally, i do not really bother myself with wondering how conservatives assemble data for their arguments--experience has shown that, in general, data is at best a secondary consideration--but in this case, ustwo and stevo have forced it upon us--and i think it nothing short of intellectual weakness that they cannot even begin to answer the critique.

there are rules to debate. you would think that not referencing a film that they cannot defend, even at the most rudimentary level, would be such a rule.

if they cannot defend the film, then i do not see why referencing it is not simply trolling.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Seaver

Ahhh, how cute. The "no, you're stupid" reply lives on.

Willravel

How is this a response? Did you think that this somehow added to the conversation?

The funny thing is that this is your one and only post in this thread, meaning that you have added no content to this thread, and yet you feel entitled to talk down to roachboy - the same roachboy who has posted consistantly throughout this thread with relevant content (whether you agree with him or not, the content is in pertaining to the discussion at hand). Seaver, do you have any thoughts whatsoever on this thead, or are you going to condecend from your lawnchair seated just outside the discussion?

MEANWHILE...

The discussion still seems one sided. One group will post a video and/or some statements about the Pallywood phenome, others will question the videos or statements, then nothing. I've read post #68 like a dozen times. It is exactly what I've been trying to say. I'd really like to see an honest esponse to post #68. If not, whatever, but the posting videos and then not being open to discuss them thing is telling.

Elphaba

Please show me where roachboy claimed that you or Ustwo were stupid? Otherwise, your comment is another side track to avoid answering his challenge.

I would have chosen "stubborn as mules" rather than "stupid". At least the former is looking for some sort of agreement among the equally stubborn. It doesn't advance any discussion or debate, however.

Just another distraction from any sort of disagreement to your beliefs, yes?

Edit: Will got to the obvious, before I did. I didn't intend a "ditto-head" response.

Seaver

There you go Elphaba.

And Will, the reason I have not posted is simply because I dont know who produced it, so I dont know the trustworthiness of it. I don't exactly feel like researching it either, as Host has pointed out enough problems for me to write it off as untrustworthy. I dont defend it because I dont know enough to, and it would make me a hypocrit for writing off many of his sources for the same reason.

So yes, until Roach decided to decry Ustwo and Powerclown as mentally lacking I was content to sit on my chair and watch.

Willravel

You don't know if you can trust the video. That's something we can agree on. As for researching, the only real research I did was watch the first video. It only took a few minutes. You could watch the film, then post your gut feeling, ike I did. Also, you don't wlays have to agree with Ustwo or Stevo. I don't always agree with roach or Host. That's the great thing about TFP, there are a thousand opinions, and they won't always match.
If it walks like a duck....

roach has been ignored, and he's calling them on it. I was ignored, too, and I called Ustwo on it. He responded. While I didn't call Ustwo mentally lacking, but I will admit that I was condescending. The last response to someone that Ustwo made was him explaining that he never reads Host's posts. They - Ustwo and stevo - post video and article again and again, but refuse to let them be heald up to scruteny. What's the point of having evidence if that evidence can't be tested? Can you imagine if they did that on CSI? The show would suck...even more!

powerclown

I think what is going on in the media speaks for itself. We have digitally manipulated photographs, corpses being manhandled and posed for the cameras, live people posing as if they are dead war casualties (which incriminates not only the photographers, but the editors too), dead people rising up in funeral processions. Instead of wasting so much energy denying it outright, it would be interesting to hear what people think about this type of thing going on.

I'm not sure the extent to which this is having an effect on people, positive or negative, but someone is trying very hard to tell a story their way.

Willravel

If the media speaks for itself, then why do so many have questions about it? Do you think it's possible that other people have other perceptions of the videos or articles?

In the 9/11 thread in Politics, I do everything I can to accomidate those who have an opposing opinion to my own as a sign of respect and for the sake of the discussion at hand. While something may be obvious to me, it isn't always going to be obvious to someone else. Shoot, I could see something as being completly obvious, but it turns out I'm 100% wrong. The idea is to meet in the middle and break it down until both or all parties understand one another. You, Ustwo, and stevo have done no such thing in this thread. The starting assumption in all the posts is that the Palestinians are lying and trying to decieve. The thing is, that shouldn't be an automatic assumption and it isn't to a lot of people. I, for one, took a look at the first video and saw it as nothing but suggestion based on conjecture. When I pointed it out, I was met with silence. I had to practically beg Ustwo to respond. Why? I mean we're talking about Ustwo, here. He loves to try and shoot me down.

powerclown

Yes I think it possible that other people have other perceptions of the videos or articles.

As far as the other stuff, I think it goes both ways. I notice people on all sides putting stuff out there all the time and are met with something else than what they hoped for, or never receive a reply at all for whatever reason. It isn't just you. Perhaps its just the nature of internet communication.

Elphaba

Seaver, I don't equate "stupid" to intellectual weakness. I would liken it to a lack of intellectual curiosity and a refusal to look beyond one's preconceived ideology. Perhaps you would call that stupid, but I think it is simply stubborn and lazy. But it is not my place to interpret rb's meaning.

Agreed, and I would make that many "someone's".