I cannot spot anything "anti-semitic" about any media I read or watch, sorry guys.
I cannot spot anything "anti-semitic" about any media I read or watch, sorry guys.
This is called, Argumentum ad hominem. Literally, Argument against the person.
It's a concession that your premise has no merit. Otherwise, you could present your own facts, evidence, and/or logic.
I can present links for all of these points, if anyone is interested; but, everyone who reads the news should remember the news events in question.
Hardly an argument against your person, merely a rhetorical question.Originally Posted by Niteowl
Let me try different arguments:
Where did Reuters get the pics from, did Reuters know the pics were photoshopped when they published them, and which action did they take against the author? - does your source explain this?1. The Reuters Photoshop scandal - Reuters published photoshopped photos, to make it appear that a very limited attack on artillery placements, was an indiscriminate attack on civilian housing.
Which "press" was an accomplice, and were there no reports exposing the scam?2. The Fauxtography scandal - Photos were staged, orchestrated by Hezbollah with the complicity of the press, to give the appearance of a "massacre".
I haven't followed this story, but it sounds like an example of bad reporting. Was this a deliberate "anti-Israel" campaign, or common practice?3. The "Attack on the ambulance" story - this one was carried around the world. Israel had alledgedly deliberately attacked an ambulance. But experts reviewing the photographs pointed out glaring inconsistencies between the allegations and the photographic evidence. Rather than admit their culpability, the story was dropped.
Is "the press" obliged to mention this in a news article about the war (btw, London is a city, Israel a nation)? If so, shouldn't the damage done by Israel be compared as well - or would that be "anti-semitic"?4. The fact that more rockets were fired against Israel, from Lebanon, during the recent campaign, than the Germans fired on London during the whole of WWII -
Was this incident not covered in the media? Was the 'personnel' acting on orders from the Lebanese gov, so that it needs to be reported as an act of war?5. The fact that armed personel from Lebanon invaded Israel, killed Israelli soldiers, and took two men hostages, in order to hold them for ransom - an egregious act of war, if ever there was one - and yet, the coverage in the media was all about Israel's war on Lebanon.
Anyway, I also noticed a bias in certain sections of the media, but that is hardly "anti-semitic". That's a spin from you, similar to saying everyone who disapproves of the Iraq invasion s a terrorist sympathizer.
So first you say "the media" (without specifying) is "anti-semitic" and now expand your statement to "ultra-liberal" without the slightest evidence.The media is, in fact, ultra-liberal, and highly anti-semitic.
Last edited by stroller; 19-11-2006 at 10:46 AM.
Btw, that's a very broad brush you're using, "fox-news", "The Sun", the "Bild-Zeitung" and other popular media are all "highly anti-semitic" and "ultra liberal"????
My following post is in response to SK, and Niteowl.
The media in the U.S. is dominated by Jews.
I'm not saying this negative. It's not negative at all. But - when it comes to Israeli policies and U.S. foreign policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and general American foreign polityc - it is a problem.
Yes, many academics, politicians, teachers, journalists, and writers have been punished for not being "pro" Israel. Not that I didn't say, "anti" Israel, but "not being pro-Israel."
The recent article that was shelved by the Atlantic Monthly is a perfect example.
The book titled "From Time Immemorial" is another example, as well as the reviews and backlash, and punishments against those who realized it was a lie.
............
We should be able to examine the facts and evidence, and reach our own conclusions about the existence of a "Jewish Controlled Media".
Let's examine the most egregious claim to come from the most recent Israelli - Lebanon conflict: the charge that Israel deliberately committed war crimes.
The story was, that Israel deliberately targeted ambulances, in violation of the Geneva Convention.
Unfortunately, many of the relevant pages have expired by now, or been taken down - but here's a sample of some that can still be found:
Islamic Republic News Agency
Rooftop protest staged against arms sales to Israel
Andrew Beckett of Smash EDO said that a Hellfire missile produced by EDO, was used by Israel to destroy an ambulance leaving Qana on ly 23. "The directors of EDO are complicated in murder," he said.
Of course, that's an Islamic agency; what would they say? But, what about this:
MSNBC news
On a mission of mercy with Lebanon Red Cross
Everyone a target
At the Red Cross headquarters in Tyre, I spoke to Kassem Chaalan, 28, who told me about being in an ambulance that was struck by a missile. When the armament struck the vehicle, he says, it hit the Red Cross symbol on the roof dead-on.
The volunteer thought at first that had died — he said the blast blew him back 15 to 25 feet. “I thought I was just dreaming and that I was dead — there was no way that I was alive,” he said.
Then there's Time magazine
Where No One Is Safe
On Scene: Ambulance drivers for the Lebanese Red Cross want to know why they too have been targeted by the Israelis
And The Boston Globe
Ambulance drivers tell tales of horror
``We are obliged to go out and save people," said Imad Hillal, 38, the second-in-command at the Tyre branch of the Red Cross. ``We count on Israel to respect the neutrality of the Red Cross, but they don't."
The Inter Press Service News Agency
Lebanese Red Cross Repeatedly Targeted
Dahr Jamail
TYRE, Aug 1 (IPS) - Israeli warplanes are attacking the Lebanese Red Cross repeatedly, members of the medical aid group say.
And from Australia, The Age
Agonies anew for team on the side of the angels
QASIM Chaalan thought he had died in the burning haze of the missile strike.
But it gradually dawned on him that he was still there, inside the ambulance. He still felt his body and, opening his eyes, could still see.
There are many more sources still available, and a more comprehensive study of this incident can be found here
Hard-hitting, explosive news: Israel is guilty of War Crimes! The Media lapped it up. There's just one problem:
It didn't happen!
Here's a photo that appeared with some of the news articles, showing a Red Cross worker, poking his head through the hole allegedly made by the missle:
Here's a photo showing the inside of the ambulance:
Here's a photo showing a Hellfire missle hitting an armored tank:
And here's what happens when a missle hits an unarmored vehicle.
Compare this last photo, to the photo of the inside of the ambulance. If the ambulance had been hit by a missle, it would've been obliterated. You'll note that the windows in the amulance are intact (except for the windshield, which appears to have been pushed in). There's no searing, or burning, of the headliner material. Even the sheets on the stretchers are undisturbed.
What does all of this prove? Well, if your theory is that the "Media is controlled by Jews" - why wasn't the story:
Israel Falsely accused of War Crimes
Where is that story? Can someone supply a link?
are you some kind of conspiracy theorist ? or some Israeli lover ? do you believe in the government story of 911 ?

Meanwhile, Israel is struggling to digest its failed policies:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...449773,00.htmlMilitary Setbacks Have Israel in a State of Soul-Searching
The Israeli government has lost its direction, faith in the military is fast-waning and the country is plagued by self-doubt. Just months after the war in Lebanon, the country is being forced to adopt the new realism of the Bush administration.
...
Israel made a number of mistakes in rapid succession, mistakes for which Bush's America, with its theory of war as a suitable tool for bringing about change, is partly responsible. The invasion in Lebanon was based on the illusion that Hezbollah, under its leader Hassan Nasrallah, could be dealt a devastating and possibly quick military defeat. But when faced with large numbers of civilian casualties, Olmert was eventually forced to agree to a cease-fire. An international force has now been deployed to the region to keep the peace, but Israel has little confidence in its effectiveness, as evidenced by Israeli military aircraft routinely flying over German ships and ignoring Lebanon's territorial sovereignty. In taking such action, the Olmert administration is in violation of United Nations resolutions.
...
Israel still has the monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, although it has never admitted to being a nuclear power. On the strength of this position, Sharon reasoned that Israel should take an approach of unilateral withdrawal, instead of waiting for international diplomacy and conferences to take their course. But Olmert's efforts to continue that policy have failed. Seen in this light, his helplessness is consistent with the situation. But with his military adventures, this inexperienced prime minister has plunged his country into a deep sense of doubt -- over itself, over the political establishment and even over the Israeli military, long a symbol of national pride.
Good. Olmert should stay in power as long as possible and drag Israel to the ground
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)