From London to Jerusalem

Palestinian terrorists have carried out over 25,000 attacks on Israelis since September 2000, resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries. Israeli security forces have thwarted thousands of attacks, and Israelis have grown used to living with manhunts of the kind seen in London on Friday; yet they are barely reported abroad.

-
CONTRARY TO the absolute lies told in British media in recent days, the Israel Defense Forces have not instituted a shoot-to-kill policy, or trained the British to carry out one. For example, on Friday, at the very time British police were shooting the man in the Tube, the IDF caught and disarmed a terrorist from Fatah already inside Israel en route to carrying out a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Israeli forces didn't injure the terrorist at all in apprehending him and disarming him of the 5-kg. explosive belt he was wearing. And yet, for taking the bare minimum steps necessary to save the lives of its citizens in recent years Israel has been mercilessly berated by virtually the entire world.

Had Israeli police shot dead an innocent foreigner on one of its buses or trains, confirming the kill with a barrage of bullets at close range in a mistaken effort to thwart a bombing, the UN would probably have been sitting in emergency session by late afternoon to unanimously denounce the Jewish state. By evening, 12 hours had passed since the shooting, but the BBC still hadn't interviewed a grieving family, no one had called for British universities to be boycotted, Chelsea and Arsenal soccer clubs hadn't been ordered to play their matches in Cyprus, and The Guardian hadn't yet called British policy against its Pakistani population "genocide."

As for London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who is in overall control of transport in the city, including the train where the man was shot, and who strongly defended the shoot-to-kill policy as a legitimate way to prevent suicide bombings, he was not yet facing war crimes charges – as Livingstone himself has demanded Israeli political leaders should be.

Instead on Friday, Polly Toynbee, leading commentator for The Guardian, wrote that the terrorists were "deranged," "savage" and "demented" "killers" who "murder in the name of God." This is a far cry from the habitual manner in which The Guardian and others describe the suicide killers of Israelis as "fighters" and "activists."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?
pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1122171719427&p=1006953079865

.................................................................

Welcome to Double-standard terrorism 2005.

great article

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you mean like me ?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

:hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide:

Oy vai!! Gott in himmel!! Had Israeli police shot dead an innocent foreigner on one of its buses or trains, confirming the kill with a barrage of bullets at close range in a mistaken effort to thwart a bombing.

The UN would probably have been sitting in emergency session by late afternoon to unanimously denounce the Jewish state. And the DU server would have crashed with all of the flaming posts. And Liberals and progressives from Sydney to Melbourne to Canberra to Adelaide to Perth to Darwin to Townsville to Brisbane to Aucklnd to Chritchurch to Cambridge to London to Liverpool to Leeds to Birmingham to Berkeley to San Francisco to Santa Cruz to Humboldt to Madison to Ann Arbor to Stony Brook to the Bronx would have gone berserk with flaming posts and appends dripping with vitriol. The UN Securuty Council would have gone into Emergency Session.

The AUT would have called for firing all Joooze in British and Commwealth Universities and applying Numerous Clausus restrictions against Jooze.

The good Church people would have divested all stocks in companies that didn't comply with the Arab League Terms and Conditions and fire all Jooze on their payrolls.

International Answer would have fire bombed temples and synagogues in the US and Europe.

But, it didn't happen -- wake up from your wet dreams - and go back to Genesis XXXVIII

:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide::sarcasm: :sarcasm:

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Also not to mention her political twin, Joe Vialls. Oh wait, he died last week, unmourned - except by her other political twin, John Kaminski.

who would be all over the news screaming about "israeli aggression"...

Strange he hasnt said anything about the recent cold-blooded murder of an israeli couple.

You were around at the time and you know full well that the Jerusalem Post misquoted him (I suspect deliberately), taking a quote from an interview where he was speaking of casualties throughout the entire Occupied Territories, and twisting it so they could pretend he said it about Jenin...

Violet...

Beyond the fact that I fell it's somewhat out of place to be pleased at someone's death (with certain limited exceptions), I found him kind of entertaining.

"July 22nd Congressional Briefing:
The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later:
A Citizens’ Response – Did They Get It Right?

On July 22, 2005, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) will host a full-day briefing, co-sponsored by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), and other sponsors, for Members of Congress and their staffs in the Caucus Room, Cannon House Office Building, Room 345, Independence Ave. & First Street SE, from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.

One year after the release of the 9/11 Commission Final Report many questions about what transpired on September 11, 2001 and who should be held accountable still remain unanswered. Serious flaws and omissions in the Report have been addressed by whistleblowers and academics. Well known researchers and authors have put the evnts of that day into historical perspective, and have suggested possible alternatives to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission regarding intelligence reform, domestic and foreign policy. The hard evidence has yet to be properly evaluated, and points to the need for full transparency, release of information, and continued probative investigations to have an effective, democratic response to the crisis that confronts all of us.

Family members of the victims of 9/11 will present a “Report Card” to address their still unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 and the lack of accountability for the security and intelligence failures that may have allowed these events to happen. Other experts will speak to the flaws in the 9/11 Commission’s process, including conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, investigative rigor and public input, and the many whistleblowers ignored by the Commission.

One panel of experts will explore the omissions and errors in the Commission’s Final Report, including the timeline of NORAD/FAA and P-56 defense responses that day, the suspects and plot, the background of Al Qaeda and bin Laden, the involvement of other countries, the obstruction of investigations by the FBI and CIA, and foreknowledge and forewarnings prior to the attacks. Another panel will place 9/11 into historical perspective and looka t the flawed assumptions that misled the Commission’s work, including the politics of illegal drugs, oil investments, covert operations and terrorism, as well as past covert operations like Contragate and the rise of the neo-conservatives and their agenda.

The last half of the day will be a critical examination by experts of the Commission’s recommendations concerning domestic and foreign policy and intelligence reforms, suggesting other alternatives and policies that could lead to real security and preserve civil liberties and democracy. Rep. McKinney will also address the need for further investigation and opening the evidence for public scrutiny.

A list of confirmed speakers so for includes:

Rober McIlvaine, father of 9/11 victim, member of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows
Marilyn Rosenthal, mother of 9/11 victim, professor at U. of Michigan, expert on forewarnings to 9/11
Robert Baer, author of Sleeping with the Devil and See No Evil, former CIA
Nafeez Ahmed, author of The War on Truth, Director, Institute for Policy Research & Development
Jumana Musa, Amnesty International
Melvin Goodman, Fellow, Center for International Policy, former CIA
John Newman, Ph.D., professor University of West Virginia, former NSA analyst
Paul Thompson, author of The Terror Timeline
Elaine Cassel, author of The War on Civil Liberties, legal expert
William Michaels, author of No Greater Threat
Lauretta Napoleoni, author of Terror Incorporated: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks
Anne Norton, author of Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire
Mary Rose Oaker, President, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, legal expert
Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D., professor UC Berkeley, author of Drugs, Oil and War, former Canadian diplomat
Murray Weiss, author of The Man Who Warned America concerning FBI agent John O’Neill who died on 9/11"

http://www.house.gov/mckinney/pr_050722.htm

which richly deserves the same contempt that the Washington Times or Newsmax deserves. Let's kick all of those American neocons that are running the Post, and let Hollinger International sell it to the locals.

that you don't have any objections to the article itself?

I don't watch Faux or listen to Rush Limbaugh.

just because an article is within a publication of whos owners you dont like hardly means the article itself is tainted....

i've read some amazing stuff on a marxist website...a philosophy which I think is one of the worlds biggest failures and the cause of untold millions of deaths.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And the reason JP is disliked is because 1) it's right-wing drivel 2) the journalism can be of a shoddy standard, 3) I've yet to read an opinion piece or editorial in it about the I/P conflict that isn't right-wing drivel, and 4) for all the above reasons I don't waste my time registering to read it. I will comment on the excerpt though - even with my limited knowledge of those sorts of things, I doubt Israel has a carte blanche shoot to kill policy, because I can think of three times at least where potential suicide bombers have been restrained and not shot. As to there having been no interviews with the grieving family of the man who was shot - that's not what I saw the past two days in the Guardian, and I'm suspecting that it took more than twelve hours for his family to have been informed of his death. Also, I've never seen the Guardian refer to suicide bombers as 'activists', and I'd be interested to see anyone provide any examples of where they have...

Violet...

that there isn't a "shoot-to-kill" policy. In a nutshell, the standard approach is to have the suspected bomber halt, then get him to raise his shirt (depending on the circumstances, he may be ordered to strip). If he doesn't stop, then you can shoot (depending on cirumstances, you may be required to fire warning shots first).

To my knowledge, the Guardian hasn't referred to suicide bombers as "activists" (it uses the ever-popular "militants" instead) but has referred to other Hamas (et al) members as such (including those involved in non-suicide attacks).

its actually pretty straight forward....no killing unless you or your buddies lives are in danger.

if the suicide bomber is at a distance there is no reason to shoot....if he keeps moving forward and doesnt listen to the commands to stop...first warning shots, best at his feet so he hears and see the bullets hitting...if that doesnt do it...then shoot to wound if possible and time permitting (as well as emotion....) otherwise kill him.

I'd been seeing some stuff upstairs about the British following the Israeli 'shoot to kill' policy, and doubted that there was a 'shoot to kill' policy rather than one where different steps are taken and shooting only happens as the last resort...

Violet...

Drivel and bigotry and txxd flowers.

If I wanted to read right-wing drivel, I'd go over to Free Republic and do it. I don't want to read it, so I hang out here at DU, which is after all supposed to be a liberal and progressive forum...

Violet...

heretofore identified predominantly with the right wing.

The small number who do that are an anomoly and are no justification for why we as left-wingers should be expected to view editorials from right-wing media sources with the same level of credibility as we do to liberal sources..

Violet...

n/t

is about mineral exploitation - (some would call it "dialectic materialism") by a Romanov like Saudi Royal family --- as I have posted numerous times.

Remember - I referred you to Engdahl and you referred me to Keay. ;)

There's not much in the way of minerals in Israel or the Occupied Territories, and while oil explains much of what happened in the rest of the region, it doesn't when it comes to the I/P conflict...

Violet...

I/P is just one venue of the total ME conflict -- very clear from Engdahl and Keay. And it's mineral exploitation and mineral hegemony driven - again very clear from Engdahl and Keay.

As to "it doesn't when it comes to the I/P conflict...", like Mark Felt said to Woodward and Bernstein "follow the (Islamic charities) money."

There is nothing about mineral exploitation when it comes to the causes of the I/P conflict. As I said, it's a very specific conflict in that region...

Violet...

I am in the energy "industry" -- and I have seen and observed and experienced some things you haven't. Then again, you may have seen and observed and experienced some things I haven't.

Analyze what is out there in the open, read, observe - even things you disagree with --- Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Craig Unger (House of Bush - House of Saud), the lawsuits against Shell Oil (re: direct payments to terrorist organizations - oops that's to protect Indonesian and Philippine operations - doesn't count - outside the scope of your append ---> to which I respond "same chain of illegal transactions").

Very narrow view of funding of Palestinian and ME terrorism --- very broad view of the "Zionist conspiracy."

Not only am I in the industry -- but I grew up in a Mafia town -- you don't need MatLab (or Kreyzig nd Kreyzig) to analyze every matrix.

And what is absolute fact is that the causes of the I/P conflict are not about oil. Not being in the energy 'industry' I must have missed the vast resources of oil etc that Palestine had. Either that or there were multiple typos in multiple books about areas of the Middle East that did have lots of oil, and Iraq was a bit of an oopsie, and they meant to say Palestine instead...

I can't help but notice that you've been in an awful lot of industries, Coastie ;)

Violet...

technically,and dirt is too,i dont think thats what normal people understand.
And another thing..the only country in the middle east free from the domination of the united states and its secret services is Iran as far as i can tell..maybe to a lesser extend libya and Syria.
That doesnt imply they are good,but free from western oppression.
The rest of the Arab Governments are muppets and puppets of the west.
You imply you have a grasp of the history of the region,this is no secret.
So when you complain about the Arab countries you are complaining about western failures.About western oppression of Arab countries for minerals.
The tail does NOT wag the dog.

Any reply not contradicting this with facts or directly addressing this will read to me as a recognition of the fact that ordinary Arabs are oppressed by the elite's we the west installed.
Its important to recognise historical facts for what they are.
i think you have come to know that i dont make "empty statements" without a BARRAGE of facts to back up my assertion if challenged.

I grew up in a coal mining region (coal is a mineral) - my dad was a United Mineworkers of America lawyer -- and I saw mineral exploitation first hand -- i saw "black Lungs" and I saw the men nick named "Stumpie" (missing limbs) as a result of mine accidents -- and they were the lucky ones. Our garage (and my swing set) collapsed into a coal mine sink hole in the back yard (scared the heck out of the dog - she charged through the screen door into the kitchen without stopping).

And I spent three years in safety regulation of the oil industry -- weasles.

This is my book - (actually, I was "Project Officer" on the red bound 1960's edition)-->

<>

I know the oil industry and coal industry -- first hand.

I have seen how the mineral industry controls state governments and Congress.

BTW - I have only been saying that "ordinary Arabs are oppressed by the elite's we the west installed." since I began posting here -- that is the essence of Engdahl's and Keay's books -- and of Unger's book.

I drew the analogy betwen the mineral exploiters and the Arab ruling elites on the one hand and the Romanovs on the other.

"that is the essence of Engdahl's and Keay's books -- and of Unger's book"

see it would take quite some time for me to go and order these books,read them,come back here and discuss what you mean.
The thread might even have lost relevance by that time :)

When you actually explain what you mean in a little less obscure and coded way.. say with a little link or as just now with this explanation it is far easier for me to actually discuss this with you and accept at face value the relevance too the discussion.
Not everyone is as well informed in every area,and others just lurking might be even less informed than me.

This time we understood eachother perfectly and agreed while it normally takes a while to get there or to agree to disagree.
I now feel i understand a little bit better.and i have learned something and am more likely to pick up some of your suggested reading as opportunity arises.
cool :)

necessarily the same thing, I'm beginning to find out.

Apparently leftwingers are just as set in their ways and blind to other people's points of view as the rightwingers they condemn. What's the difference? It's especially silly when leftwingers, who pretend to cloak themselves in Moral Superiority, support violent and repressive regimes.

There was nothing redeeming whatsoever about the murders of the Munich athletes. That was terrorism pure and simple and it's been going on for decades, although people not born back then seem to have romanticized it, along with the exploding airplanes and the other atrocities. None of this is new, in fact it's getting pretty damned old.

There's no left-wingers in this forum (or I suspect upstairs) who support violent and repressive regimes, yet this nonsense gets peddled as though it's a fact. Likewise with Munich...

If you want to explain how JPost is a liberal and progressive media source, I'm all ears :)

Violet...

I listen to and watch a broad spectrum of ideas. I have even taken DUers that I completely disagree with off of "Ignore".

you didnt read the article.

it is really good.

It was really bad and the stuff conservative's wet-dreams are made of. But seeing as how you thought the article was so good, maybe you can address these points I raised about it in an earlier post in this thread:

"As to there having been no interviews with the grieving family of the man who was shot - that's not what I saw the past two days in the Guardian, and I'm suspecting that it took more than twelve hours for his family to have been informed of his death. Also, I've never seen the Guardian refer to suicide bombers as 'activists', and I'd be interested to see anyone provide any examples of where they have..."

Come on, drdon. Where's those examples of the Guardian ever referring to suicide bombers as 'activists'? Or doesn't an article need to be factual to be 'good'?

Violet...

In brief: Spielberg's Olympic road to Munich
















Will this suffice?

Suicide-bombers, bta. The claim that was made was that the Guardian called suicide bombers 'activists'. Suicide bombers are those folk who strap explosives to themselves and kill themselves and anyone around them. People who belong to groups like Hamas and don't carry out suicide bombings aren't suicide bombers. So, care to try again and this time address what the claim actually was, as the article very specifically said suicide bombers?

Just to make it more helpful for you in yr quest, here's what the article claimed: 'This is a far cry from the habitual manner in which The Guardian and others describe the suicide killers of Israelis as "fighters" and "activists."'


Violet...

"The Israeli military killed three al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades activists in a helicopter missile strike on a car in Jenin yesterday.

The dead included Mahmoud Abu Khalifeh, the deputy commander in the city of the group, which has been responsible for a number of suicide bombings. The army tried to kill him two weeks ago, hitting a Palestinian home instead."


Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades activists, included Mahmoud Abu Khalifeh, commander of the group, which has been responsible for a number of suicide bombings.

A group, which has been responsible for a number of suicide bombings has its members called "activists." Therefore, a suicide bomber FROM Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is an 'activist' FROM Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand, but not every member of groups like Hamas or Al-Aqsa Martyrs is a suicide bomber. Suicide bombers are those that detonate themselves and kill civilians who are near them. So I take it that you actually have no examples at all to give of where the Guardian has referred to suicide bombers as 'activists'. A good place to start looking would be articles that report the news of suicide bombings, seeing as how it's suicide bombers that the claim was made about...

Violet...

Let's do this mathmatically...

If "A" = "B" and "B" = "C" then, "A" = "C."

If "4+1" = "5" and "5" = "7-2" then, "4+1" = "7-2"

If "al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade members" = "activists" and "suicide bombers" = "al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade members" then, "activists" (from al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) = "suicide bombers" (from al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade).

However, this seems to be a difficult concept...so...

Someone who is a member of a terrorist group but doesn't blow themselves up is NOT a suicide bomber. Suicide bombers are the folk who detonate themselves. There's nothing difficult about that one. Claiming that all members of Hamas are suicide bombers is the most ridiculous claim I've seen for a while...

You had to go all the way back to 2002 to find even one 'activist' mention? Where's the rest, bta? After all, this was the claim, and I'm assuming you do know what the word habitual means?

This is a far cry from the habitual manner in which The Guardian and others describe the suicide killers of Israelis as "fighters" and "activists."


Waiting patiently :)

and just in case yr studiously working yr way through articles by googling, here's the Guardian index to make things quicker for you

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Index/0,3332,207873,00.html

p.s. I just went and checked my original question and I did point out that I'd never seen the word 'activist' used and asked if anyone else had. Now I have seen one example, but one example is nowhere near the claim of habitual use of the word, which is what the author of the trash donny posted claimed...

Violet...

"Someone who is a member of a terrorist group but doesn't blow themselves up is NOT a suicide bomber. Suicide bombers are the folk who detonate themselves." Uh...DUH!

"Claiming that all members of Hamas are suicide bombers is the most ridiculous claim I've seen for a while... There is a reason it is the most ridiculous claim you have seen in awhile...NO ONE made it!

"You had to go all the way back to 2002 to find even one 'activist' mention? " NOW time is a concern? Your original statement was "Where's those examples of the Guardian ever referring to suicide bombers as 'activists'?" Of course, I added emphasis and it was only one example. How many more do you require? Is there a "date limit" now, since I have proved at least one example exists?

I do know what 'habitual' means. Do you know what 'ever referring' means?

BTW...thanks for the link....but I already was there. Didn't even use Google. Maybe I am a tad smarter than I am given credit.

I am just surprised that you cannot understand that if a group, Hamas (easier to spell), sends a member out to blow himself up, he does so as a MEMBER of Hamas. If The Guardian refers to members of Hamas as "activists," then it is not that big of stretch of comprehension, that suicide bombers who are members of Hamas are "activists!" Why not label them 'terrorists' as you did?

Read the end of my post please, bta...

"p.s. I just went and checked my original question and I did point out that I'd never seen the word 'activist' used and asked if anyone else had. Now I have seen one example, but one example is nowhere near the claim of habitual use of the word, which is what the author of the trash donny posted claimed..."

I'd like to see more than one example. Maybe five or six might get me starting to think it may be approaching habitual, but one example dragged from back in 2002 isn't habitual.

Uh, you didn't claim that being a member of a group like Hamas = suicide bomber? Then why did you post that stuff talking about members of Hamas who weren't suicide bombers?

am just surprised that you cannot understand that if a group, Hamas (easier to spell), sends a member out to blow himself up, he does so as a MEMBER of Hamas.

That's not the claim the author of the article made, and I'm sure you know it. No-one's arguing that they're not members of the group, the argument is that just because someone is a member of a group that doesn't make them suicide bombers unless they carry out a suicide bombing. The article claimed that suicide bombers are habitually referred to as 'activists' by the Guardian, which after doing some reading through the Guardian archive, I've found to be a false claim. Apart from that one old example you found, everything I've looked at so far refers to suicide bombers as suicide bombers or bombers. The examples you posted earlier weren't about suicide bombers, as I'm sure you understand now...

Violet...

"Read the end of my post please, bta..."

I read it.

""p.s. I just went and checked my original question and I did point out that I'd never seen the word 'activist' used and asked if anyone else had. Now I have seen one example, but one example is nowhere near the claim of habitual use of the word, which is what the author of the trash donny posted claimed...""

Ahhh..here is where the problem is...."one example is nowhere near the claim of habitual use of the word, which is what the author of the trash donny posted claimed." The author claimed: "This is a far cry from the habitual manner in which The Guardian and others describe..." ("Describe" is defined as "(t)o convey an idea or impression of; characterize.") "...the suicide killers of Israelis as "fighters" and "activists."

So, let's reword...the author claimed: "This is a far cry from the habitual manner in which The Guardian and others convey an...impression of the suicide killers of Israelis as "fighters" and "activists." Therefore, the writers at The Guardian "convey an impression" that the suicide bombers are "activists" because of the group for which they have membership.

"I'd like to see more than one example. Maybe five or six might get me starting to think it may be approaching habitual, but one example dragged from back in 2002 isn't habitual."

It is late here in the States, almost 4am on July 27, 2005, so I will not continue to search at this moment. Although, it should be obvious now, that a DIRECT comparison may not be as forthcoming, but inferences abound!

"Uh, you didn't claim that being a member of a group like Hamas = suicide bomber? Then why did you post that stuff talking about members of Hamas who weren't suicide bombers?"

Uh...no, I didn't claim that being a member of Hamas was equal to a suicide bomber. What I did CLAIM was that some suicide bombers WERE members of Hamas. BTW, you said "all" and that is just not possible. If "all" members of a group were successful sucicide bombers, there would no longer be a group. ("Claiming that all members of Hamas are suicide bombers is the most ridiculous claim I've seen for a while...")



"That's not the claim the author of the article made, and I'm sure you know it. No-one's arguing that they're not members of the group, the argument is that just because someone is a member of a group that doesn't make them suicide bombers unless they carry out a suicide bombing. The article claimed that suicide bombers are habitually referred to as 'activists' by the Guardian, which after doing some reading through the Guardian archive, I've found to be a false claim. Apart from that one old example you found, everything I've looked at so far refers to suicide bombers as suicide bombers or bombers. The examples you posted earlier weren't about suicide bombers, as I'm sure you understand now..."

You are right. I know that is not the claim the author makes, it is the claim you make. The author claims: "This is a far cry from the habitual manner in which The Guardian and others describe the suicide killers of Israelis as "fighters" and "activists."" You claim: "Suicide bombers are those folk who strap explosives to themselves and kill themselves and anyone around them. People who belong to groups like Hamas and don't carry out suicide bombings aren't suicide bombers." See the difference? The author claims the bombers are described as "fighters" and "activists." You claim that "(s)uicide bombers are those folk who strap explosives to themselves and kill themselves and anyone around them. People who belong to groups like Hamas and don't carry out suicide bombings aren't suicide bombers." You are both describing different things.

I will give you this...they are not "referred to" as "fighters" and "activists" but rather, they are inferred to as "fighters" and "activists."

As for the earlier examples I gave, they were not "references" but "inferences" of 'suicide bombers' as 'activists.'

{I did no spell check because it would be a mess in picking up all the brackets and such.}

Once dictionary.com gets dragged up to try to split hairs over what was said, I figure the whole thing's run its course and is entering the territory of the absolute ridiculous...

This is what the article said: 'This is a far cry from the habitual manner in which The Guardian and others describe the suicide killers of Israelis as "fighters" and "activists."'

Nope, it's wrong. A checking of the Guardian archive proves that the only habitual description of suicide bombers is as, well, suicide bombers, and sometimes bombers. Maybe you find some problem with that? I sure don't...

Violet...

They LABEL them as suicide bombers but they DESCRIBE them as "fighters" and "activists."

"The green object is an apple. The apple is delicious."

I have LABELED the green object as an APPLE. I DESCRIBED the green object as DELICIOUS.

"The suicide bomber was a member of Hamas. Members of Hamas are "fighters" and "activists.""

I have LABELED the suicide bombers as a member of Hamas. I DESCRIBED them as "fighters" and "activists."

'This is a far cry from the habitual manner in which The Guardian and others describe the suicide killers of Israelis as "fighters" and "activists."'

It is not that difficult to understand, or perhaps it is. They don't say; "a suicide bomber, a Hamas activist...," but they do imply it.

Example #1;

Staff and agencies
Tuesday July 26, 2005
The Guardian

No mention of suicide bombers,& the article was
probably taken from a news agency,so not "written"
by any Guardian writers.

Example #2;

'Sharon will shortly invade Gaza'
Israel will not tolerate the threat from Hamas
Tuesday July 19, 2005
The Guardian

This is an editorial from the Saudi Arabian paper
"Arab News",so,again, not written by the Guardian,
& no mention of suicide bombers.

Example #3;

Israel masses troops along Gaza border
Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Monday July 18, 2005
The Guardian

The "activist" assassinated by the IDF,was,obviously,
not a "suicide killer".

Example #4;

Again,the arrested members of Islamic Jihad are not
"suicide killers".

Example #5;

Nope,the Hamas member referred to as an "activist" who
was shot dead by IDF troops was not a "suicide killer".

Example #6;

No,the "activist" killed in a helicopter missile attack
was not a suicide bomber,but responsible for planning bombings.

So, 0/6.

Good score!!

"No,the "activist" killed in a helicopter missile attack
was not a suicide bomber,but responsible for planning bombings."

Is this not splitting hairs a bit? When you plan bombings you are not an activist. You are a terrorist. When you belong to a group that plots bombings and attend such meetings (or whatever they do) you are not an activist. You are a terrorist.

Hamas wants a Palestinian state IN PLACE of Israel. They use terror and violence to achieve this. They are not activists. They are terrorists.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)." -The Hamas Covenant

On your point about the Guardian reprinting other newspapers articles, I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean anything. However, you don't really see the NYT printing essays from the Heritage Foundation. Know what I mean?

dress them up and call the ACTIVISTS,FIGHTERS, AND BOMBERS.

Just dont call them TERRORISTS AND MURDERERS.

Legitimize terror.


Hamas wants a Palestinian state IN PLACE of Israel. They use terror and violence to achieve this. They are not activists. They are terrorists.

shhhhhhhhh.....get with the propaganda, ok ?

But thanks for playing!

--"On your point about the Guardian reprinting other newspapers articles, I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean anything. However, you don't really see the NYT printing essays from the Heritage Foundation. Know what I mean?"

The point I was making was that the mention of the
word "activist" in that instance was not *from the Guardian*
it was taken from "Arab News". The Guardian were merely
quoting another 'paper.

The author of the original article made a specific claim that the Guardian habitually describes suicide bombers (I think they said suicide killers) as 'activists' or 'fighters'. They tried to compare the Guardian's description of suicide bombers to those suicide bombers who carried out the attacks in London, so it's pretty clear the writer was referring to suicide bombers. The Guardian no more does that than Ha'aretz does. What the Guardian habitually does is describe suicide bombers as suicide bombers or bombers, which I something can't see why anyone would have issues with. Sorry, but just because someone is a member of a terrorist group, that does not mean they are suicide bombers. The guy who planned the Bali Bombings wasn't a suicide bomber, even though he planned the attacks.

I'm not getting why the Guardian is being slammed by a small number in this thread for describing suicide bombers as suicide bombers...

Violet...

I am old enough to remember Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and the HUAC, nd Director Hoover at his peak of power and the martyrdom of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg --- that was right wing.

Richard Mellon Scaife controlled the Republican Party in my home state (I don't live there any more) - that was right wing.

n/t

What is the basis for your claim? Besides your personal opinion?

Are you claiming that JPost isn't a conservative media source? Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

Violet..

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And I take it from that response that you've got no intention of trying to explain why you think JPost isn't a conservative source. Shame, because I'm sure I would have found the explanation interesting...

on a side-note - I find this whole argument that JPOst isn't a conservative rag to be as bizarre as those I see arguing that The Australian and other Murdoch rags aren't conservative...

Violet...


Violet...

It's similar to the UK Daily & Sunday Telegraph,
& the New York Sun, & the Washington Times.

Chicago Tribune, for example, can be considered to have "right wingish" editorial writers and frequently endorses Republican candidates. However it's a good - maybe a great - paper. J. Post has many writers on staff who are insightful and creative.

I'm beginning to wonder what the difference is between far right and far left? It seems to me that the far left is just as judgemental, bigoted, and thirsty for power as the far right, and just as dangerous. Ultimately, what was the difference between Hitler and Stalin?

Many of the comments on this board concerning centrist Democrats, for example, condemn them as "right wing". People with respect for religion: right wing. People who can understand the "Right to Lifers" even as we reject their principals - right wing. Anybody with any commercial or financial interests: right wing. Anybody with any respect for the military: right wing. Anbody with any respect for Israel: right wing.

You see what I mean? There's no subtlety of thought allowed in these blanket statements and that's dangerous. It's demogoguery and that's what progressives stand AGAINST - not what we are supposed to embody:)

the (J.Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy and Martyrdom of the Rosenbergs) right wing of my childhood - with blanket accusations and enforced orthodoxy of thought.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

as he did on the board of the Jerusalem Post, together with a handful of American neocons (yes, the same gang that brought us the war in Iraq).

in either of those papers becomes suspect?

And in any case I suspect an investigation of the board of the Trib would reveal some very heavy and serious "big business" interests - interests which dwarf those of Israel or a few Jewish businessmen/politicians, and which voted pretty overwhelmingly for Bush and his policies, which included the war. Ultimately it must be understood that war is BIG BUSINESS, whatever other reasons may serve as rationale or motivation - and Big Business is driving this administration.

Please note: these are the policies of the Bush/Cheney Administration, not the policies of the PERLE Administration. I'm getting damn tired of people attempting to confuse this issue. It's important to keep in mind who is running this country and it ain't a Jew conveniently nicknamed The Prince of Darkness. It's all too easy for people to Blame It All On The Jews - in fact it's traditional - but that doesn't make it right.

In any case it needs to be mentioned that some very thoughtful and well-meaning people DID support this war, because they felt the human rights issues were overwhelming AND because they feared Saddam and his war machine. Neither one of those positions is irrational and neither is indefensible, and although I disagreed with the decision to make war in Iraq I can certainly understand that the situation was ambiguous. Progressive thinkers MUST be able to see and understand the gray areas!

Meanwhile, this particular article, the subject of this thread, raises some extremely disturbing questions. Its allegations are backed up, as BTA has asserted, by other articles and in any case I think it's pretty obvious that there's a bias in regard to Israel and dead Jews.

Not that this should come as a surprise. But it's deeply upsetting nevertheless.

--"In any case it needs to be mentioned that some very thoughtful and well-meaning people DID support this war, because they felt the human rights issues were overwhelming AND because they feared Saddam and his war machine. Neither one of those positions is irrational and neither is indefensible, and although I disagreed with the decision to make war in Iraq I can certainly understand that the situation was ambiguous. Progressive thinkers MUST be able to see and understand the gray areas!"

The Iraq war was illegal,there were no WMDs.
No "ambiguity" there.

Who were these "very thoughtful and well-meaning people"?
Can you supply some names,so that we can comment on
them?

I would like to know who these individuals are!

The article falsely claimed that the Guardian habitually describes suicide bombers who carry out attacks against Israelis as 'activists' and 'fighters'. That was well and truly proved wrong, and for those who have an interest in facts rather than taking a position and sticking to it no matter what, the Guardian archives are there for them to peruse...

Violet...

I was hoping that the identity of those
"very thoughtful and well-meaning people"
would be revealed.

In any case it needs to be mentioned that some very thoughtful and well-meaning people DID support this war, because they felt the human rights issues were overwhelming AND because they feared Saddam and his war machine.

Saddam's human rights record was no worse than that of his neighbors and he was not the only one to use poison gas in the region, Iran having done so during the Iran-Iraq War, and the British being the first to use poison gas to put down an Iraqi rebellion in the 1920s.

Saddam didn't have a war machine! The US obliterated Saddam's military during the noble Gulf War. All Saddam had was enough of a force to keep himself in power.

I hope you don't include pukes such as Judith Miller and Tom Friedman among the unnamed "very thoughtful and well-meaning people" that supported the war. These pukes peddled to the public the many lies of the Bush Administration about WMDs in Iraq, and they bear responsibility for the carnage we have unleashed on the innocent people of Iraq. We have done more harm to Iraq than Saddam ever did!

We have done more harm to Iraq than Saddam ever did!

Not to sure about that but the final chapter hasnt been written yet.

Time will tell.

Not counting the million or so children that died as the result of UN imposed sanctions, or the countless civilians that died as the result of target-softening US bombing under the guise of no-fly zones, and excluding the cataclysmic damage the US bombing has done to Iraq's infrastructure and civil society, the early reviews are already in:



The verdict is already in on the role certain media darlings have played in selling the war in Iraq, and in the punishment of those that dared criticize the rush to war:

BUT I dont think will know for 20 years.

To paraphrase someone you might be familiar with...

"A spectre is haunting the Mid-East, the spectre of democrcy".

nobody dares touch this when i posted this a few days back in another unrelated thread.but now its directly related and i want answers.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3118275,00.html

"“We said the prayer near the grave of (hanged pre-state activist) Shlomo Ben-Yosef - the most suitable site - as he is Sharon’s antithesis,” he said. “Ben-Yosef sacrificed his soul for the people of Israel, while Sharon is robbing the nation. We hope the lord will take him from us.”"

this statement stands in the article unchallenged and with no historical perspective,i.e. YNET prints it as FACT.

now for the truth:
http://www.etzel.org.il/english/people/benyosef.htm

"In 1937 he decided to immigrate to Eretz Israel, but failing to obtain the certificate granted by the Jewish Agency - he joined a group of 'illegal' immigrants as part of the 'Af Al Pi' project. When he reached Eretz Israel on September 20, 1937, he joined the Betar labor company at Rosh Pina and shortly afterwards was accepted into the Irgun. On arrival at Rosh Pina he burned his foreign passport and changed his name to Shlomo Ben-Yosef.

He was arrested by the British after shooting at an Arab bus as a retaliation to the murder of six Jews."

so what is it,he is a hanged pre-state activist,the anti-thesis of sharon?
or
a religious fanatic illegal immigrant terrorist hanged for attacking innocent Arabs on a BUS

when will you get that its the hypocracy and lying, the revision of history that infuriates progressives.

YNET printed it as a quote. And it's a tangential point to the article, so why would they add more detail? (for that matter, the original Hebrew version doesn't even give the parenthetical description of Ben-Yosef the translation does).

"the original Hebrew version doesn't even give the parenthetical description of Ben-Yosef the translation does"

so its a lie by YNET?

The description in the brackets is not a quotation,
it's an addition by Ynet.

The person being quoted did not say "(hanged pre-state activist)"
That's been added by Ynet.Ynet decided to describe
Shlomo Ben-Yosef as an "activist".



Quick! Somebody call the JPost!

YNET's translators aren't always...um..the most competent you might find, let's say*. My point was that the while the Hebrew version had no descriptors whatsoever, the translation added minimal-length descriptions to the names - there's no reason to start doing an in-depth description of such a tangential point, any more than there's reason to add a list of Chitman's and Manor's songs rather than just describe them as "(songwriter)" and "(performer)".

Though it is amusing to see the translator took translation cues from the Guardian...

*A general point everyone should bear in mind when reading "native" (i.e., done by the source organization, not by a second party) translations of articles - the translators may not be fully up to all the nuances of the English language.

sometimes its sensible just to face up to facts,accept that a position is untenable and move on from that new understanding of the situation.
It improves the dialog and avoids repeating the same argument over and over and falling into the same trap.
It matters little to me,the trap is not my creation nor do i fall into it.
Infact, every time the factual inaccuracies get repeated and i get to correct it, every time a lurker reads one of these thread and follows the arguments, a supporter of the democratic rights of the Palestinian people is created.
This is often forgotten by people who cant step outside their own boundaries and look dispassionately at their own position and argument.

History is the ultimate judge.
You and I are not.
Other people in the future will read "our" arguments without the fog of preconception and the cultural baggage of our time.

This argument i make in this post is not only valid as a supporter of the rights of the Palestinian people.
I also fear greatly for ordinary Israeli's and Jewish people worldwide.I fear what happens when this bubble bursts and nazi's and other rightwing extremists and anti-semites will use this to further their twisted hate.
I fear many will believe them.
I hope people here would think about this and see the terrible future danger in this.

That the description didn't appear in the Hebrew original?

That YNET's translators are...not the best?

That who Shlomo Ben-Yosef was is tangential to the article?

i took your word for it that it didnt appear in the Hebrew original.

But the rest is just assertions at best.
That the YNET translators might not be the best has no bearing on the added "hanged pre-state activist"
This is not something that was translated from hebrew it was added to the english translation.
We have no knowledge of WHO caused that to be there.
But it is normal for a serious publication to have a editorial process.
And the editor and publisher have a responsibility in this process.
another poster in this thread has already pointed this out to you.

You are also completely failing to address the main point i am making.
I dont care WHO shlomo is or how he is described.
I understand that different people see events differently.
The original article is about supposed hypocrisy in relation to the way media portrays terrorism in relationship to I/P.
My post was about that exact topic.
Nobody who tried to counter the assertion of the original post and article used arguments like "its a mistake" or "oh well those incompetent editors at the guardian" they showed instances that directly contradict the article.
You assert those things as fact and we are left to either accept your word for it without any knowledge of your competency to comment on YNET, its editorial process,or how the quote got there or to ask for facts that back this up.

And it is quite disingenuous to move the discussion away from the simple fact i posted or its relationship to this discussion.

it isnt that complex really?

2) About YNET - as I've demonstrated above - the quality of their translation - and for these purposes, added words count as translation - is rather shoddy. The problem appears in the end product, not the translator's draft. Given that, what does it matter whether the poor work is on behalf of the translator or the editor or the publisher? I've given two specific examples on this thread about their poor work - I've given a third example elsewhere on the board.

2) My assertion is quite on point. If the use of "activist" in this case was because of lack of sufficient familiarity with English - something that doesn't apply to the Guardian - than your example is irrelevant.

3) I can't say for a fact that YNET mistakenly chose this description - I maintained it was a possibility that had to be considered. The reason I went back to the original Hebrew in the first place was because I wanted to see what word they used there.

1) As I noted in my reply to Englander, it's not uncommon for Israeli sources to describe Palestinian members of Hamas et al as "activists" (e.g. YNET, Ha'aretz), so even if it was a deliberate word choice, you don't necessarily have an example of "hypocrisy"

I know you gave examples of poor work,but anything else is speculative?
Your explanations for how and why are possible but nothing more than that.
The point for me was that this has nothing to do with the Guardian or any evil implied by the original poster and for me its a unhappy accident i am discussing this with you instead :)

I think its quite fair to point it out as hypocrisy because it was such a perfect example of one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
All of us would condemn the shooting at a bus filled with innocent civilians?The irony of him being a religious extremist and a illegal immigrant goes directly to what is a issue in I/P?

To be perfectly fair i will add that i have seen many condemnations of these settlers and their actions from a whole spectrum of Israeli commentators.

"1) As I noted in my reply to Englander, it's not uncommon for Israeli sources to describe Palestinian members of Hamas et al as "activists"

To be clear i am not disputing this and agree with you completely,i am trying to show in relationship to the original article/posters premise how faulty that logic was and the dangerous ground it is on.

If there is no mention of (hanged pre-state activist)
in the Hebrew version of Ynet,then how
could a non-existant description be translated
incorrectly?

Also Ynet describes these characters who cursed
Sharon as "activists".

The BBC & Haaretz,& other outlets describe them
as "extremists","extreme", "radicals" "ultranationalists"
&tc,&tc.

And have a guess which word the Jpost uses to describe
these settlers,& also the same word they use when referring
to Shlomo Ben-Yosef?

That's right - they're *merely* "activists"!

If you don't want to take my word for it, here's the original article; find someone to translate it for you (10th paragraph, more or less). And the translator's competence doesn't just affect parts he tranlsates - it also affects his word choices in things he adds.

(BTW, another example of YNET's translation quality in this article - if you look at the other thread, you'll see I was puzzled why the translated article said



I couldn't understand what they had against Chitman and Manor. Well, it turns out what the Hebrew article says is



The phrase "sacrificed his soul", elsewhere in the article, is also inexact. I suspect I'd find more errors if I looked

As for the Jpost - google search for "shlomo ben yosef site:jpost.com" turns up no relevent hits. As for the "cursers" - well, if you think they should be branded terrorists, I claim the right to name anyone who makes a death threat a terrorist.

eyl wrote;

--"My point was that the while the Hebrew version had no descriptors whatsoever,..."

Yes,I took yer word for it,that there was no
description added in the Hebrew version.
I believe you when you said there was no added
description in the Hebrew version of Ynet.

The point being that the editors of the English
version of Ynet deliberately chose the word "activist".

--"As for the Jpost - google search for "shlomo ben yosef" turns up zero hits."

Really? Then what's this;

Google News search for "shlomo ben yosef"

http://news.google.com/news?q=shlomo%20ben%20yosef&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wn

Or this;

Google News search for "shlomo ben yosef source:jerusalem_post"

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=shlomo+ben+yosef+jpost.com&btnG=Search+News

__________________________


Why have you introduced the word "terrorist" to the discussion?
Don't make-shit-up; I haven't used that word,neither have
any of the outlets I mentioned.


Edited to include extra Google search.

I don't know why Google didn't bring it up for me.

About terrorists - mistaken assumption - I'll take it back

One thing I forgot to note earlier - it's not uncommon for Hebrew publications (and radio) to use the term pa'eel - "activist" -for Palestinian members of Hamas et al (what reminded me was the 19:00 news, which referred that way to the IJ member shot today)

by other Israeli activists.

There has been a hell of a lot of criticism for the shooting/killing/execution/murder of Mr Menezes here in Britain.

Other than that the post becomes a bit erratic and off the point. Something ridiculous about genocide of Pakistanis in Britain and some other half truths untruths and deliberate misleadings to back up a fanatical position.

Funny. Using the tradegy of some to justify the politics of another.