Pallywood
 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...26655958371305

I'd recommend watching the whole video. I've seen this sort of thing before, and its been shown that many of the Israeli atrocities have been faked in the past, but I haven't seen it put together in this kind of format until today.

So for those of you who put equal weight on the Israeli's, or out right blame them for the problems in the region, what do you make of the video?

Do you trust the casualty numbers given by the Palestinian authority?
Do you trust the numbers from major news organizations?
What do you attribute the apparent acceptance at face value of these Palestinian faked incidents?

how do we know that googlevideo isn't digitally modified to make the palestinian videos look staged?

:lol: Those sneaky Jews.

a headline from today
and a correction

I guess i'll start...

no. nor do I trust the casualty numbers given by hamas, hezbolla, amnesty international, or the international red cross.

no, they get their figures from the same sources above.

anti-israeli feelings. we'll call it, "mel syndrome" that all the wars are started by the jews, that the middle east would be perfect if it weren't for the state of israel's existence. That and an attempt at moral equivalence.

About those 28 (from 52) you mentioned stevo...

I saddly don't have the source for this right now, but I'm sure its part of the Jew controlled media.

Interesting piece, But it must be an inflamitory one, because The New York Times said that 3 were killed on the day of filming, and if they report it as true then it is gospel. ;)

Is it any wonder that the anti-israeli/ anti bush crowd believes everything they see and hear that comes from the Arab news sources.

Maybe one of the dead was the "wounded" guy they accidentally headbutted into the ambulance :lol:

Wait, so you can't trust hezbollah or any other source besides the IDF, and anyone who doubts the inherent justness of israel's actions is an anti-semite?

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Brilliant!!

So did you watch the video?

I'm guessing no, so give it a go.

Why is the Israel/Hezbollah war a right/left issue? It baffles me.

I doubt you'd do the same for me if i posted a 20 minute video, so i'll just wait for the summary to appear.

I see so you just basically trolled?

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Brilliant!

Dunno Israel has womens and gay rights, a democracy, freedom of the press and the left supports the terrorists and tries to equate them with the US revolutionaries. Only the left can answer that question.

So have you watched the video?

You are the authority on drive-by trolling. How do you think i did? Too much substance?

If it makes you feel any better, pretend that i'm ignoring something that host posted. It seems to be standard practice 'round these parts. If someone posts something and you find that you don't feel like actually trying to understand what they posted you just ignore it.


As far as relevant comments go: I don't think that much credibility should be given to any country or organization that is currently actively engaging in armed conflict. I don't trust hezbollah any more than i trust the idf because they're both fighting p.r. campaigns in addition to the more conventional military campaigns.

Do you trust the idf ustwo? Why?

my back button is getting tons of work in these convos on lebanon.

let's assume for a moment that there is something of substance to this thread.
what argument(s) are there that link the material discussed in the foxnews style documentary to anything more general?

all the filmakers seem to want to do is to enable people who are predisposed to be unable to cope with the realities on the ground in gaza and the west bank to discount any information that they do not like.

the way the fine folk at secondraft.org (the source of the film) frame what they do slots directly into that peculiar know-nothing wing of likud cheerleading that is only possible at thousands of miles remove from what is happening, within a discursive framework that equates any critique of israel--ANY critique at all--with anti-semitism. (ustwo--using his finely honed trolling style--has been implying this last argument both here and in the tedious melgibson thread in gd.)

what a fine reflection of democratic debate that is.

i would imagine that this film has been getting chatted up on the planet limbaugh as a way of helping poor beleagured conservatives find new and improved ways to--um--streamline their information, erase what bothers them about that pesky reality (you remember that? reality is that set of factors that includes the ongoing brutalization of palestinians under direct military occupation--as with gaza--and a more diffuse violence deployed via the settlement programs in the west bank--a de facto apartheid system--the criticism of which is fairly routine in actually existing israel, where there are no attempts to equate judaism as a whole with the views of likud and parties to the right of likud like what you find in its shallow american copy--etc etc etc)....erasing significant elements of reality would enable folk to imagine that bush policies toward israel now are sane, that the massacre of civilians in lebanon does not matter--and to imply that saying otherwise is antisemitic.

if you want to make actual arguments in support of the israeli actions in lebanon, try taking account of the actual facts of the matter rather than relying on some cheap sub-fox documentary that you treat as unproblematically accurate to which you append a series of totally unfounded generalizations.

So you are saying its a fake documentary of the Pallistinians faking a deadly attack?

And what does this have to do with Bush per say? I was unaware that Bush was responsible for all violence in Israel.

No one on the left seems to want to look at this, I wonder why?

This sort of behavior by the Pallistinians has been long talked about by anyone who really looked at the situation there. There has got to be one member of the tilted left thats willing to say 'Yea ok they do exaggerate the situation and sometimes will fake a story and feed it to a hungry press.' I mean some of you already said its OK for them to hide in civilian areas, why is this so hard to admit to?

Because Washington DC would implode if both sides agreed on an issue. Their bases hate the other side so much that they would get pissed if they found out that they had the same ideas on what to do as the other side. It would be a sign of weakness for the the people agreeing with the opposite side as well.

They would probably argue over the fact that the sky is blue. Or that room-temperature water is wet. :)

and, as an "outside" observer, does anyone really believe this crap, as put out by the propaganda arms...

i'm sorry, but there is always more to what's going on than we are fed by whatever media we choose to believe...

case in point, any viet nam vets out there?

So what did you find int he video that didn't ring true? Its just crap afterall so you must have an example.

"pallywood"

according to palestinian sources...

at 7:50 pm EST...

andy rooney's time...

someones jerkin' your chain, ustwo...

if you had framed the thread along the relatively banal lines of:
there is an information war going on alongside the war in lebanon

and then made an argument for the relevance of this film clip to that information war--then perhaps this would have been interesting. but you didnt. instead, you have what is here.

i am not interested in persuing a debate framed in this manner.
back to using the back button.

There are several vn vets at TFP, but you don't see many of them here. For good reason, imo.

As an ex-wife of a vn vet, he wouldn't be too keen about the armchair warriors here. While Freddy was boots on the ground, I was watching the evening news that was focused on the daily death count. "A brazillian VC were killed today; our brave soldiers had three woundings." An exaggeration of course, but pretty much what the American public was spoon fed to stay in support of the war.

Ummm ok...... :confused:

Later :thumbsup: Though I view the lefts refusal to even discuss the concept proof to me that they don't care about the truth in this matter, only their oddly selected support for a 8th century agenda.

Isn't the existence of israel essentially part of a several thousand year old biblical agenda? How odd you'd select such a cause, being an athiest from illinois.

I can't speak for anyone else on the left(not that anyone can speak for the left as a whole), but i don't want to argue with you because you've vastly and smugly oversimplified the issue and can't seem to be bothered with any sort of nuance. You can't seem to understand that your initial focus is an irrelevant one. So what if some palestinians have what amounts to a p.r. machine? That doesn't automatically prove that they don't have legitimate gripes with israel. America is one of the best liars in the world, as someone who was alive during the run up to the invasion of iraq i'm sure you're well aware of this. That doesn't mean that our justifications for doing the things we do are automatically invalid, even though much of the time they are for other reasons.

ok, i'll debate this one with you, ustwo.
we need to play nice though.

watch this film first:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23714384920696


i did you the courtesy of watching the film you posted, so think quid pro quo or that you could be seen, in an abstract kinda way, to owe me at least 18:10 of your time, which you should spend watching.
(the whole thing is an hour and ten minutes long.)

we might consider the type of information presented in each film, the information provided in each that let you make generalizations based on the specific cases presented, the types of argument....that kind of thing...then at least you'd see why i have a problem with the film you linked.


i'm going back to watching pee wee's playhouse.
it is fucking brilliant.

ustwo, the source of the "pallywood" video, is Harvard professor, Richard Landes, and the domain registration of the website where it originates, is
http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whoi...rg&type=domain
Richard Landes....

You touched on the key question in your comments in your thread's OP....where do you get your information....your sources for news? What sources do you trust to shape your opinions? The sources that we trust to influence our individual opinions result in some of us predicting consequences and outcomes of political policies, instead of finding ourselves blindsided as events overcome inaccurate perceptions. The position that the Bush administration now finds itself in, with regard to the "success" of it's mid-east, foreign relations, fiscal, and domestic policies, today, vs. in March, 2003, being a case in point. What did Richard Landes "get right" in his 2003 rant?

Reading Richard Landes's "rant" on Chirac, and his opinions of Chirac's constituency in France, written a week before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the seconddraft.org, "About Us" description of Landes, et al, trigger a reaction in my brain that sez, <b>this is not an unbiased, or an evenhanded, observer/chronicler/analyst of events/history.</b>

It was quicker and easier to research Landes's reputation for accuracy and evenhandedness, than it would be to watch his video. I have to "consider the source". In regard to Landes's blind support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and his smear of the French and support of Mr. Bush, I have only to ask the question, "what have professor Landes and the folks who think similarly to the way that he does, been correct about, in their support for mr. Bush and his war in Iraq?" The obvious answer is "not much". If Landes's "pallywood" video represents a new departure from Landes's recent dismal track record in "picking sides" in the politics and justifications of war, I'm sure I'll read about it in the Times or in the Post......

Is it shocking that no one on the left seems to want to talk directly about this video? i guess not. I thought the response would be different, but I don't know what I expected. I doubt more than a couple of you even watched it.

Why does this video need a "frame of discussion?" I think it perfectly frames itself. Palistinians stage violence for the cameras to make israel look bad. When, in reality, nothing is going on we see on the news crowds of palistinians running, shooting, getting carried off in ambulances while the headlines scream "violence. israeli soldiers kill 4 and injure 12 in clashes between palestinian protesters"

You (the left) believe it because you want to believe israel is wrong and its their fault. You want to believe it so the "victims" are morally justified.

Whats funny is that its not really something that could be faked the way its laid out, yet thats basically what they want to claim it is, some without even looking at it. Though stevo are you really shocked?

not really.

nice lads....why not try playing the little debate game i proposed above? we could even talk about the various problems with the film itself that ustwo linked.
it could even be interesting--but you'd have to play first.

the game of ignoring offers for a discussion and them complaining about not being offered a discussion seems tedious, dont you think?

why is it so difficult to discuss the video ustwo posted, alone? I watched the first few minutes of the video you posted and turned it off when they started claiming the number of palestinian casualties. a point of ustwo's video is that you can't believe the numbers you hear about the palestinian casualties. While any number of the scenes in your video might as well have been another one of those staged scenes. What I saw was a series of snips - a few seconds here, a shot over there - strung together with commentary from "experts" in between. The whole thing nothing more than a sham to portray israel as an aggressive occupier with no regard for life. I heard a lady talking about how bad israel's occupation of the west bank and gaza is, about the demolishing of homes but not one word about palestinian terrorism. Okay....

well gee, stevo, do ya think you might be able to draw SOME kind of cause-effect link between the occupation, how it has been handled, the settlement programs and "terrorism"?
or would you prefer to simply think of palestinians as less than quite human?

problem no. 1 with ustwo's video: no meaningful context.
problem no. 2: the assumption that saying that the cameramen were palestinian in the clips showed necessarily equals some kind of problem. do you think that all palestinians are of one mind politically?
why would you think that?
the clip offers no proof that there is any such problem: it simply states it and leaves it to you, the audience, to generalize.
that is a shabby argument.
landes is a historian and should know better.
btu it does serve to chump the credulous...

I still don't have an answer to my question. ASU2003 went with the standard (albeit humorous) "They'll fight about anything!" answer, and Ustwo blamed it on "the left." This is not something I would think would break on party lines. Are we being manipulated by the pundits and the politicians into taking sides? Is the country so polarized that you actually do have to fight with "the enemy" about anything, even if you secretly agree with them? Is this war anything but a tragedy of escalating resentment and intolerance?

This is content-free. UStwo, I believe everyone has acknowledged the use of information warfare. Those in conflicts will use the weapons available, and some of them will be used by very twisted individuals. Everyone does it. That includes Palestinians, Israelies, and every other organized political body I've ever heard about certainly including our own. Does anyone not believe this? Does your example say anything surprising or remarkable?

What are we to discuss? Motivations? Continuity? General production values? Seems like time better spent discussing who's pushing our buttons. But that's my thread, not yours.

Please let us in on where you're going with this.

I watched both videos, beginning to end. I can easily see why Ustwo and stevo would be reluctant to engage in roachboy's offer of a true debate.

Classic. Ustwo calls out the people on the left for being unwilling to engage in a debate and then when they do he ignores them.

(Watching the Palestinian man being shot in the leg, and the ambulance pulling up)
Well they're not in suburbia, for one. When under fire, an ambulance is never meant to be used as a shield. The ambulance probably was moved close enough to get the man loaded, but not so close that it could get fired upon. An ambulance full of holes isn't much use to anyone, after all. Why drag the man? Well that's pretty simple. Why not move an injured man from an area of more danger to an area of less danger as quickly as possible? Had they patiently picked up the man and slowly moved him, he was likely to be hit again. They dragged the man to safety.
The man was apparently hit in the right leg. I can clearly see blood on his left leg (probably splattered from the initianl impact), and some blood on his right leg. The video is very lowe quality, so I can't see if there is or isn't blood on his hands or on the ground. As for being loaded on the injured area, again this is a situation where they are under fire. Even thought the video is obviousloy slowed down, it is easy to see that the medical workers are moving frantically, so as to get the man out of there as soon as possible. Having been shot in the leg myself, I can tell you that I lost all feeling around the wound very quickly, leading me to think that the lack of protest from the man is due to the severety of the wound, not a lack there of.
Anything is possible, but I see no evidence that it was staged. All I see is really poor guesswork and innuendo. When you use words like 'supposedly', 'aparently' and 'presumabally' enough, I guess anything can look staged. Still, this is making for a very weak introduction.
I see no evidence of that. I'll bet an ambulance was called immediatally as soon as firhgting broke out.
...beacuse there is no evidence that it is fake, yes. I'm starting to wonder if I'll be wasing my next 18 minutes on propoganda.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! So because this narrator interprets target practice as being intended to show some sort of exchange of gunfire, it's a massive conspiracy to fool the rest of the world? Wow. Just, wow.
1) This is not one long role of film. We do not know the date and time of the footage, nor do we know the timeline.
2) The narrator incorrectly labels the scene a 'gun fight' in the beginning of the monologue, in order to establish some sort of intention on the part of the camera men. The narrator has never met any of the people on or making this video, so how can he possilby speak to the nature of their intent? Why would we assume he's firing at Israelis? Are there Israelis in the video? No.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence of a fake battle. What strikes me the most is that Ustwo, a pecimist of the 9/11 conspiracy theory because (according to him) the evidence doesn't stand up to scruteny, is so quick to accept the unsupported word of a narrator. This video is a sham. There is NO evidence of a coverup whatsoever. And yet here we are, saying that Israel is a massive victim and that Palestine is an evil conspirator with our news organizations out to fool the world!!



Bottom line: this video is obviously poorly researched, and done by those who already knew what they wanted to find long before they started looking. It has no credibility, the conclusions are absurd, and there is no context to the footage besides a partison narrator who doesn't seem to know his ars from his elbow. Have we found...the anti-Michael Moore?

Well, the video could be interesting, but you have to take it on face value. I think that's why this discussion isn't really going anywhere - Ustwo and Stevo are willing to take it at face value, and their proposed opponents are not...

I think the Palestinians are smart to be able to influence opinion, even if it takes a PR machine. And if they aren't, they ought to start - after all, we are clearly primed to soak up media images. As far as the film goes, I think it might have made more impact for me if I'd seen the "news" report that supposedly claimed all these awful things. Since I haven't seen that, I don't know to what extent this video is actually debunking anything. Similarly, the whole bit with the lady in the hospital didn't mean too much to me. It's a tough story and all, but I don't speak Arabic, so I'm stuck relying on the given subtitles for an understanding of the situation. Also, the different points made had varying degrees of logical soundness. On the one hand, I do think it is strange that some people are getting shot in this video while others are standing around apparently unconcerned. On the other, I don't see anything unusual about an ambulance roling up so quickly. Hell, you could see the paramedic stading there jsut before the guy got shot!

So, the arguments presented in this video are on my radar, but I'm skeptical. I know I'll remember it as I read the newspaper, but I also don't believe for a second that all of the things that are reported are made up. As usual, the truth probably lies in the middle.

Roachboy, would you consider beginning a new topic with this video as the basis of discussion? I have seen other media topics on tfp, but none this specific to the presentation of the Israli/Palestinian conflict in the US media. I could see evidence of most of the seven PR strategies in today's paper and I confess that I was completely naive, willfully so I fear, to any of this prior to viewing the video. I would also be interested in speculation concerning what has transpired since the video was made in 2003, specifically Sharon's pullout from Gaza.

Of course, anyone wanting to participate in that topic would need to invest the hour and 20 minutes needed to view the video. That may prove to be a very small discussion group.

Will... that was my gut reaction to the film as well.

That aside... why would anyone be surprised *IF* something were being staged. For crying out loud, the US staged the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch, they staged the press conference in Gulf War I where the Kuwaiti minister's daughter claimed Iraqi soldiers were killing babies in a hospital...

My point here isn't to point a finger at the US. Rather it is to underscore the importance of Information in conflict. To be clear we should trust nothing we see in the media. Nothing.

Do you trust the casualty numbers given by the Palestinian authority? No. But here's the thing... I have no idea how far off they are...

Do you trust the numbers from major news organizations? I trust most of them to do their best to collect information in an unbiased manner. I can only trust that when (and if) they find out that they have been duped, they will come out with an explaination or apology.

What do you attribute the apparent acceptance at face value of these Palestinian faked incidents? As I see it, there were a number of camera crews on the ground. I don't know (because the film is vague on this) if there were any western reporters on the ground. Local corespondents and/or stringers would be looking for a news story to report to HQ. If they were on the scene and saw it being staged I would say they were corrupt and should be fired. However, if they were given footage from a "trusted" source and filed the story they are either lazy or too trusting.

The fact is many reporters won't go into area where there is likely to be fighting. They don't want to be shot.

You also have to add into this factors such as: deadline, slow news day, appetite for destruction and mayhem (if it bleeds it leads), etc.

New outlets are not purposeful in their spread of propaganda (from either side). They are now 24 hour machines that require immediate content. It is hardly surprising that these outlets, in an attempt to boost ratings and "get the scoop" on their competition are fed false information that makes it to air.

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?

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.

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.

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.....

By choice, not by necessity.

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.

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.

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........

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'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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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":

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.

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.

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

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/2...7867/1l_wa.jpg

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/2...5112767_wa.jpg
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.
http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/2...2/LBN02_wa.jpg

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.

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?

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.

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.

What a refreshing way to start a post. I respect you, too, Ustwo. :thumbsup:
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.

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.

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/

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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".:thumbsup:

So how is Intellect - Ability =! Stupid? Roachboy has proven a great deal of skill in rhetoric, I'm sure he knows many ways to define "lazy" or "stubborn" in more definate terms.

Seaver, I'm sure Roachboy would be happy to apologize for any unintended slight to Ustwo and Stevo's intelligence. I think it would be better for everyone and for the thread if we go back to discussing content rather than debating whether or not a comment was insulting.

We on "the left" are not refusing to discuss the concept. Several people have posted critiques of the actual content of both the video and the links provided later in the thread.

Questioning the validity of content or questioning Israeli policy do not amount to support for a radical Islamic agenda.

I do not entirely trust casualty numbers coming out of Lebanon or Palestine. Neither do I think it's worth much when an IDF official says that everyone left in south Lebanon is somehow related to Hizbullah and thus a legitimate target. This is not an attempt to equate the two, but merely to point out that Hizbullah do not have a monopoly on the manipulation of information in conflict.

What I would like is to see your explanation of how the content you've posted leads logically to support of Israeli action, which seems to be where you're going with this.

Most of those countries are doing the bare minimum. You can't really say they're putting as much effort into it as the United States or Israel is.

In the case of Canada, maybe the influence (leadership) of the French foreign minister, on the eve of the Invasion of Iraq, by the U.S. led, 'coalition of the willing", on a country, Canada, that boasts the presence of a city, Montreal, with the largest French speaking population in the world, after Paris, was a contributing factor for the lack of "as much effort", Infinite_Loser.....

Enough time has passed to confirm that the former French foreign minister, and current prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, was proved correct in nearly everything that he said in his march 7, 2003 speech at the UN, vs. what Mr. Powell and Mr. Bush said in those weeks, concerning what to do next in regard to Iraq's WMD and the threat to international security that they actually posed:
With the following under reported poll results this week, and the contradictions between perceptions of the Bush administration on where and how to fight the "war on terror", and much of the rest of the world community, is it really much of a surprise......the way other countries have reacted to the Bush "leadership"?
IMO, the reaction of other countries and how much they are willing to do, is not about their reluctance to commit to the fight against "terror", but about their reluctance to follow the leadership of Mr. Bush, and to believe what he and his representatives tell them, needs to be done in that fight, and why.

The majority of Americans are only now. starting to catch up with the POV of most people in most other western countries.

There just popping up all over the right-wing blogs...uh-oh did I just discredit myself?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...hezbollah.html

Of course I could go on and copy what they say in the link, but if you would take the time to read it there would be no reason for me to re-write what has already been written. Go ahead and look at this one and read the page, look at the pictures and tell me there's no frame. Tell me the guy posing as a casualty is really a casualty.

Quick impression:
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4448/evildv4.jpg

my earlier post was written from exasperation-----i read through it a couple times and do not see really why seaver interpreted it as he did--but it is a possible/viable reading (mea culpa i guess)--but what i meant was weakness of position, weakness of argument, weakness of logic or evidence.

in this case, landes' shabby "pallywood" video is both weak at the level of evidence and weak at the level of argument--yet it CONTINUES to be treated as though it was definitive by the same folks.

and i do think that continuing to act as though the landes film is not a problem amounts to provocation--it certainly is not about presenting compelling evidence to support a point. quite the contrary.

During the cold war, when nuclear war was a real possibility and the world had The Sword of Damocles over our heads the U.S. was often criticized for supporting governments/groups with poor human rights records if those governments/groups were somehow valuable in stopping the spread of communism or who’s cooperation was a strategic advantage against the USSR.

When I see members of the left in strong support of governments and groups who have horrible human rights records in both how they govern their own people and how they treat others, be it Saddam's Iraq, or Hezbollah, I have to wonder, where is the strategic advantage to the left? Do they support terrorists because there is some advantage to global socialism?

There has to be a bigger reason out there, an explanation. How can almost no one on the left support a nation with rights for women, gays, and minorities, over people who deny rights for all three groups. Is it simply because the US supports Israel and supplies their military? Is their support of what amounts to barbarians by 20th century mind sets (though they are quite enlightened for the 8th century) just a natural extension of their vilification of all things American, and especially all things American under Bush?

I really do with I had an answer to this question, because if I did, I think I'd understand the motivation of a socialist better.

IMO, you're trolling, you're labeling, you're attempting to discredit those who disagree with you.....instead of replying to their arguments.

For others who "window shop" the "storefronts" that are all of our posts here on TFP Politics:

It is possible to disagree with the idea that Israel is "on the side of right", and that it's adversaries are "on the side of wrong, darkness, evil, or whatever..." and still support the right of Israel to exist, and to defend itself, but just not to the degree that it has done so in it's projection of armed force, on two fronts, this summer.

It is possible to say that POTUS George Bush is a "war criminal", who is not capable or qualified to hold the office that he occupies, and is not credible or competent, and that he leads a political party that is rife with corruption and beholden to special interests, on the federal level, <b>without being "un-American", or a "socialist".</b>

This "tug of war" we display on TFP, is a disagreement between those who seek their information from a broad, more open, worldwide array of sources; those who question authority, more often then not; versus those who seem to trust most of what authority relates to them, and seek their information from a smaller group of sources whom they trust and seldom seem to crosscheck.

Regarding the major issues of this new century that the U.S. and it's people find themselves immersed in, and challenged by, one need only observe who has held opinions and made predictions on issues ranging from the "progress" of the war in Iraq, the U.S. administration's efforts to advance peace in the middle east, and it's progress in it's "war on terror", to discern who is more often correct about how these events "unfold", and who isn't.

If correctly perceiving what is happening, what the agenda of the elected officials is, vs. what they tell us it is, and whether we are safer, freer, wealthier, healthier....or not....whether we experience more transparent and more responsive government, or less.....what is "news", and what is politcal or corporate propaganda, or isn't.....is what a "socialist" or a "lefty" is..... I'll take the satisfaction of appraising things more accurately and more often, even it means having a label or disparaging description draped over me by those who are reduced to making such pronouncements, in lieu of an argument of substance!

I do not support Hizbullah. I strongly condemn Hizbullah. I don't subscribe to political Islam. I do believe that Hizbullah has done more harm than good for Lebanese and that it was and remains imperative that the Lebanese extend sovereignty over the entire country in order to bring attacks on Israel to a halt.

That does not automatically lead me to believe that a sustained air campaign that 'turns back the clock' in Lebanon is a good, reasonable, or moral way to address those problems.

It doesn't lead me to dismiss any and all casualties on the Lebanese side as some sort of stage show, even though it is clear that Hizbullah is distorting much of the information in its favor.

If you would like to argue that I am wrong about those things, feel free to do so. Do not sling labels at me in the stead of an actual argument.

What does this have to do with socialism? I am not any kind of socialist. Thinking that the conflict in Lebanon is a mistake is not a 'socialist' position.

Ustwo, I would appreciate it if you acknowledge this post, because I am tired of being called a leftist, a socialist, and some sort of 8th century Islamic radical.

That's one interpretation. I have the advantage/disadvantage to have missed a grea deal of the cold war due to my date of birth. I am disadvantaged in that I wasn't there, but I am advantaged as I was not bombarded with propoganda. Democracy vs. communism wasn't good vs. evil. We were both assholes in a pissing contest that costed many lives over the course of a few decades. Every time the US or the USSR supported human right's violators or violations, we became the bad guy. We both acted like children fighting over the last cookie, and it was detrimentla to our world. There are no excuses to be made for or from either side. But I digress, what does this have to do with the 'Pallywood' phenomenon or the videos or articles linked?
No one supported Saddam here. I don't think there are even many supporting Hezbollah. You are falling victim to black and white thinking. It is entirely possible to condemn both sides in a fight. In my humble opinion, Israel is wrong and Hezbollah is wrong. In that last sentence, did I take a side? Of course not. To suggest anyone in here 'supports terrorism' is blatent trolling, and a straw man to boot. Again, what does this have to do with the supposedly fake Palestinian videos?
If I open a door for a woman, out of respect, then I shoot a man walking down the street, is the crime of the shooting negated because I am respectful to women? Nope. A crime is a crime. A wrong is a wrong. I am glad that Israel has chosen to become more liberal in their equal treatment of all people, but they do still kill arabs. That fact isn't changed by equality.
If you'd like to start a thread about socialism, or liberalism, or communism, or terrorism, or any other kind of -sim, I'll meet you there. You started this thread. Out of respect to yourself and those who have posted in here, maybe we should stay on topic.

I accept your challenge to provide a Cliff's Notes version for you.

Here is the link to a one or two minute presentation:

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

In order that it not be lost in the shuffle of links, here are a few trumped-up pictures. Details are provided in the link above.

The one we all know about:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/JuniorPee/1.jpg

A rescue worker...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/JuniorPee/2.jpg

Who suddenly becomes a victim...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/JuniorPee/3.jpg

A "jet crash" that is actually tires burning at a dump...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/JuniorPee/4.jpg

And a woman who has her home bombed a little too often...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/JuniorPee/6.jpg

It's deeply troubling that so many people accept at face value such distorted and falsified items as these from Lebanon/Hezbollah, outrageous lies and tortured out-of-context quotes provided by Michael Moore, and total misrepresentations such as the polar bear photo from Al Gore.

Let President Bush say that we have made improvements in Iraq, though, and he's labeled the biggest liar in history.

So the whole point of this thread is that some palestinians have lied whilst depicting the abuse they suffer at the hands of the israelis? I could see that. This is war and it seems pretty clear to me that the first casualty in any war is the truth.

The idiotic part is the assertion that the fact that some palestinians have been deceptive implies that none of the palestinians have any significant reasons to be pissed off at israel.

Something interesting to note is that the same people who bought the current administration's justifications for invading iraq hook, line, and sinker are now SHOCKED!!! SHOCKED!!!!! that the palestinians might use deception as a strategy. Really, how naive can you be?

If president bush says we have made improvements in iraq than he is lying, or at the very least only telling part of the story. Anyone who doesn't see that isn't paying attention to other telling things, like the whole "descending into civil war" thing that seems to be happening(that's only if you happen to trust the generals running the show over there).

magictoy......what is the potenital fallout of some people being "taken in" by some propaganda generated by folks who are aligned with hezbollah, lebanon, palestinians, who are involved in an unending war with and a decades long series of occupations carried out by the IDF....the 23rd most powerful military force in the world, compared to the consequences of the policies and pronouncements from the president of the United States....the most powerful man in the world,
over these last six years?

What is it that you are saying? Are you saying that the US president gets a "pass" for the deliberate propoganda, misleading statements, terror scares launched against his own people, and failed pre-emptive war policies, based on contrived and phony rationale.....<b>because some of Israel's enemies faked some photos to make the IDF look more brutal?</b>

Is that the "double standard" that is "deeply troubling" to you? I'm here to assure you that...even if every photo or statement that appears in the media about the extent of the damage that the IDF has ever wrought in the M.E., was discovered to be entirely staged, there is still enough evidence of the assaults unrelated to your concerns (i.e....the M.E. propaganda efforts aimed against Israel,) on the patience and sensibilities of the US electorate by our current president and his appointees, to exclude him from the "pass" that you say he is entitled to.

Forgive me for being so thorough as I "walk you through" the following. I sit here listening to and sympathizing with the rising level of lament that is coming from my wife. Her concern grows as her son prepares to be deployed to the M.E. soon in the U.S. military. In the nearly four years since she suffered a sudden stroke that has left her totally disabled, I have never seen her so sad or so concerned......and IMO, she has every reason to be:

<b>The tour begins with a look at the high standard of accountability that candidate Bush set for his opponent, Mr. Gore....in 2000, over trivial matters, in comparison to what Mr. Bush has strived to avoid "owning", or owning up to, in the years that followed:</b>
<b>Why should we not believe former US treasury sec'ty Pail O'Neill, and the witnesses that Ron Suskind and ABC news say supported his statements that Mr. Bush set "regime change" in Iraq, as his top priority, 9 months before the 9/11 attacks. O'Neill was ceo of Alcoa, and sold $90 million in stock options when he left that job to join Bush's cabinet...would he make up this account? </b>
Mr. Bush received a terror threat briefing during his month long vacation at his ranch in Texas on Aug. 6, 2001, one month before 9/11. He had been president for 6-1/2 months, and he decided to take a month long vacation. It does not appear that he responded to the briefing in any meaningful way:
factcheck.org found that both Bush and Cheney made misleading statments about the threat from Iraq WMD. and about congress knowing everything that they knew when congress voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq:
Bush gave a series of speeches to US troops on November 11, 2005. Reporters for the Washington Post reported similar conclusions about Bush making misleading statements, as the conclusions of factcheck.org
22 months ago, Bush described much progress in training Iraqi troops to assume the duties performed in Iraq by American troops.
53 weeks later, there was only one Iraqi military brigade trained and equipped well enough to fight "on it's own".........
Ten months after that.....last week.....instead of reducing US forces, it was necessary to increase the US force in Iraq by 3500 combat troops, and the two top US generals and the outgoing British ambassador to Iraq, all assessed Iraq as potentially descending into civil war........two weeks ago, a US general, Chiarelli said:
As we can see in the final quote box, a report today indicates that we should be asking. not only how "fighting them in Iraq", did anything to lessen the threat that this week turned into the first code red "terror alert" in the US, but also whether the disclosure of the foiled "terror threat", had more to do with hyping the seriousness of the threat for political advantage in the campaign for US mid-term elections to be held less than ten weeks from now, than it had to do with a real threat to airline passenger safety. Mr. Bush's administration has known about the threat of smuggled liquid explosives onto
airliners, since 1996. They have spent more than $400 billion on wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. How much spending have they earmarked for research on the development of liquid and gel chemical detection/screening equipment to neutralize a known threat to the most well known 9/11 vulnerability....airline security? I can't trust Mr, Bush to command our son in the military, or to lead our country....and it has nothing to do with photoshopped photos in Palestine

The irony is palpable.

For me, all this does is give me more reasons to doubt EVERYTHING the media presents us with. I am not surprised that the various factions make it a point to work the PR angle. In order to make war palatable to the masses it is marketed to them on a regular basis.

There is nothing shocking about this (there shouldn't be in any case). It is just a part of modern politics.

The irony is still palpable.

While it shocks me that lies such as these are a humdrum affair to you, the "PR angle" viewpoint you proclaim is appropriate here:

When lying is normal, and acceptable, why would anyone ever form an agreement of any sort?

What i really want to know is that, in light of the contents of the videos, is how can we even be sure that these "palestinians" even exist????:hmm: :hmm:

You ignored the little "tour" that I offered to walk you through....in my last post,
in an attempt to give you a well documented argument (most of the linked excerpts were from federal .gov/.mil web pages, or from the Cheney recommended factcheck.org, or the debate.org site's transcript of a 2000 Bush/Gore debate, and from a washingtonpost.com transcript of a senate committee hearing....certainly nothing from any source that would be labeled as too "fringe"......) ....yet you persist with your protest of comparatively insignifigant prpaganda examples that may have been authored by enemies of Israel?

Why are you so moved by Psy-ops from the M.E., that have no affect on you, or even on the outcome of the M.E. conflict (did Lebanon or Gaza receive less of an ass kicking, this summer, because some folks propagandized on their behalf.....than they would have if there was no propaganda distributed?)

You made a statement linking "Pallywood" with some kind of doublestandard related to the criticism of Bush's pronouncements about Iraq? IMO, there is no rationale for linking the two, unrelated, issues. I responded to your posted statement, I supported my argument that is counter to yours with support from reasonable sources, and I look forward to your best effort to respond to the points in my argument.