100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Israel attack on Gaza: | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You can know them by their deeds. They can claim to be innocent, victims, etc. but if you watch what they actually do, you know they are terrorists. They want the people of Gaza to fear them. They terrorize them. They kill innocents, they destroy homes, they assassinate leaders and scientists. They associate with known terrorists. Israel is clearly a terrorist state. Innocent Jews living in Israel would be wise to leave while there is still time. Their corrupt Nazi leadership will abandon them to the hordes after they succeed in pissing off all of their neighbors. Now that is classic propaganda-and a classic Godwin to boot! On another note, it is quite revealing how you choose to completely ignore the fact that Hamas intimidated and rounded up up its political opponents both before, and after the election when it is common knowledge. Your feigned ignorance merely illustrates your bias. I have only heard rumors of that. I don't consider it to be "common knowledge." Do you offer anything like proof to back up that claim? Why? For any proof I offer you will be ignored for some fanciful reason (i.e. some specious claim that facts are only opinion, or some other sophist BS). Meanwhile, you can try this for a start, then see how you go. In June 2007, the Palestinian terrorist organization launched a surprise coup in the Gaza Strip, wresting control of the territory from the Fatah faction, which controls the Palestinian Authority (PA). • In that battle, 161 Palestinians were killed and more than 700 were wounded. To make sure that the wounded did not return to the battlefield, Hamas shot dozens of their enemies in the legs and arms at point blank range to ensure permanent disabilities. • When the dust settled, the Palestinian people were divided. Gaza (1.5 million people) remained in Hamas’ hands, and Fatah clung to the West Bank (2.5 million people). • Since then, the two largest Palestinian factions – Hamas and Fatah – continue to be at war. They round up their political foes in these two territories. They shut down newspapers. Reports of torture are everywhere. • Numerous attempts to reconcile the two factions have failed. Egypt, Turkey, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania have all come up short. • However, the Palestinian civil war makes peacemaking exceeding difficult. There is not universally-recognized interlocutor on the Palestinian side. • Today, if Israel ceded all of the West Bank, removed security checkpoints, and gave in to all Palestinian claims on Jerusalem, there would no legitimate Palestinian representative to ratify an agreement. • The factions have been at odds over ideology since Hamas was founded in 1987. Hamas is an Islamist group, and Fatah is largely secular. The groups challenged each other politically during the 1990s. • In the aftermath of the “al-Aqsa Intifada” of 2000, the two factions began to fight each other, even as the Palestinians fought a war against Israel. • When Yassir Arafat died in 2004, a leadership vacuum opened. The Palestinian Authority had already been weakened by war with Israel. Hamas had grown to roughly equal strength with Fatah. • In January 2006, Palestinians elected Hamas to power. Fatah, with backing from the United States, refused to allow Hamas to govern. • A stalemate ensued, leading to the aforementioned 2007 civil war in Gaza. • Currently, two Palestinian mini-states are growing in two different directions. The Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip is funded by Iran and is evolving into a dangerous terrorist state. The Fatah-controlled West Bank enjoys support from the West and Arab states. • The Palestinians of the West Bank are now mulling a “unilateral declaration of independence.” •This unilateral move is dangerous because it would effectively solidify the split between the West Bank and Gaza, and possibly permanently divide the Palestinians. • Similarly, a peace process that does not first solve the Palestinian internecine conflict could permanently divide the Palestinians. If you can put aside your prejudice momentarily, you might be able to understand the conflict in a bi-partisan fashion. When elections don't do it, a civil war can happen. America also had a civil war. It was a tragic event. Brother killing brother. I don't know all the details of that either. I'm sure there was a lot of torture going on there too. The south is still bitter about it, and some still wave the confederate flag. Yes, that is all common knowledge AND a Red Herring. Despite that, my original point stands and it is not merely a rumour as you attempted to dismiss it. The two parties (Hamas and Fatah) were at odds when Hamas took control of the Gaza strip. A civil war, yes. So your only point then is that the election was not "fair?" I think you can say that in most elections. In America, Presidents are bought by the filthy rich. They are installed. They are also not "fair." We are more civilized. An irrelevance and a Red Herring. These attempts at obfuscation are quite tedious. That was your point, was it not?? The elections were not "fair" because they shot the apposition's legs or killed them, or whatever they did. It was a civil war, so the "election was not fair." The election of President Lincoln was also not fair because of our civil war then right? No, it wasn't. Please re-read my posts. Do you know what a 'Red Herring' is? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was the original claim:
"On another note, it is quite revealing how you choose to completely ignore the fact that Hamas intimidated and rounded up up its political opponents both before, and after the election when it is common knowledge. Your feigned ignorance merely illustrates your bias. " So do you actually think that Israel would have accepted ANY WINNING PARTY?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's not news, but merely a biased, editorial commentary. Can't you tell the difference? Yes, it was definitely an editorial opinion piece, but it did have news. It is refreshing to hear someone else's honest opinion. (Instead of the drab propaganda we are constantly bombarded with.) But that is all it is. Propaganda crap. Is your definition of 'propaganda' only that opinion which you disagree with? No, it is not propaganda at all. It is clearly an editorial opinion piece backed by facts. What we see on the major media is often lies, and they want you to believe them and accept them as fact, not opinion. This is clearly an opinion piece. Our "news" is often vague and slanted and even fabricated. I see, you're unfamiliar with the definition of propaganda. Because the piece proffers a biased and opinionated slant, it is automatically trying to influence the audience, therefore it can be considered propaganda. But I'm sure you'll define it any way you see fit to suit your bias. Ah but because it is CLEARLY an editorial, people can either agree or disagree with it knowing that it is an editorial. With true propaganda, they attempt to pass it off as TRUTH OR fact or "self evident" when it is a deviation from truth or a lie. Believe us because we are the "news." We would not steer you wrong. We are the news. Your president would never lie to you. Your government would never lie to you. Believe EVERYTHING WE TELL YOU. FOOLS. Incorrect. Defining propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding an "if they do it then that's propaganda, while if we do it then that's information and education" biased approach. Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." More comprehensive is the description by Richard Alan Nelson: "Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion." The partisan approach of the opinion piece complies with the above. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A red herring is a fish.
Now if your point was NOT that Hamas won the election unfairly by intimidating the opposition, then what was the point? And it was NOT a red herring. It was an example. Can there be a fair election? Can there be a fair election during a civil war? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorrect. Defining propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding an "if they do it then that's propaganda, while if we do it then that's information and education" biased approach. Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." More comprehensive is the description by Richard Alan Nelson: "Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion." The partisan approach of the opinion piece complies with the above. Basically EVERYTHING complies with the above. All news is propaganda. Some just have different flavors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abraham Lincoln won by intimidation (civil war) and by shooting the opposition. In fact a lot of people got shot. Hence is he to be considered a terrorist? Or is the opposition to be considered a terrorist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sat 11/17/12 06:40 PM
|
|
This was the original claim: "On another note, it is quite revealing how you choose to completely ignore the fact that Hamas intimidated and rounded up up its political opponents both before, and after the election when it is common knowledge. Your feigned ignorance merely illustrates your bias. " So do you actually think that Israel would have accepted ANY WINNING PARTY?? That was not my point. Is there a comprehension problem here? But if you insist, at least Israel could negotiate with Fatah under Arafat. That is difficult with the militant group, Hamas (it has been posited that Hamas doesn't control all the factions within its party). Now as the Palestinian territories aren't unified (under a single party), negotiations are hampered. Moreover, the rogue actions of Hamas clearly categorise it as a 'terrorist state'. Now, some are trying to connect Israel with the death of Arafat (cf. the recent exhumation) and ignore the possibility of the supposed assassination being carried out by Hamas, which is just as likely. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorrect. Defining propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding an "if they do it then that's propaganda, while if we do it then that's information and education" biased approach. Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." More comprehensive is the description by Richard Alan Nelson: "Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion." The partisan approach of the opinion piece complies with the above. Basically EVERYTHING complies with the above. All news is propaganda. Some just have different flavors. I've been over this before, therefore, it would be a waste of time covering it again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/17/12 06:44 PM
|
|
You can know them by their deeds. They can claim to be innocent, victims, etc. but if you watch what they actually do, you know they are terrorists. They want the people of Gaza to fear them. They terrorize them. They kill innocents, they destroy homes, they assassinate leaders and scientists. They associate with known terrorists. Israel is clearly a terrorist state. Innocent Jews living in Israel would be wise to leave while there is still time. Their corrupt Nazi leadership will abandon them to the hordes after they succeed in pissing off all of their neighbors. Now that is classic propaganda-and a classic Godwin to boot! On another note, it is quite revealing how you choose to completely ignore the fact that Hamas intimidated and rounded up up its political opponents both before, and after the election when it is common knowledge. Your feigned ignorance merely illustrates your bias. This was YOUR post. If it was NOT your point then, yes, I missed your point. Perhaps your only point was to accuse me of "feigned ignorance" and "bias" which is more likely. You don't have "bias?" My "bias" is the opinion that Israel is responding to a few annoying attacks with what we here in America call "Excessive force." They are doing it on purpose to instill fear into the Palestinians. That by definition is TERRORISM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorrect. Defining propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding an "if they do it then that's propaganda, while if we do it then that's information and education" biased approach. Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." More comprehensive is the description by Richard Alan Nelson: "Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion." The partisan approach of the opinion piece complies with the above. Basically EVERYTHING complies with the above. All news is propaganda. Some just have different flavors. I've been over this before, therefore, it would be a waste of time covering it again. The problem is where a person will draw the line. By that definition, just about everything except proven scientific facts can be called propaganda so what propaganda really is would always be a matter of personal opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can know them by their deeds. They can claim to be innocent, victims, etc. but if you watch what they actually do, you know they are terrorists. They want the people of Gaza to fear them. They terrorize them. They kill innocents, they destroy homes, they assassinate leaders and scientists. They associate with known terrorists. Israel is clearly a terrorist state. Innocent Jews living in Israel would be wise to leave while there is still time. Their corrupt Nazi leadership will abandon them to the hordes after they succeed in pissing off all of their neighbors. Now that is classic propaganda-and a classic Godwin to boot! On another note, it is quite revealing how you choose to completely ignore the fact that Hamas intimidated and rounded up up its political opponents both before, and after the election when it is common knowledge. Your feigned ignorance merely illustrates your bias. This was YOUR post. If it was NOT your point then, yes, I missed your point. You did. Perhaps your only point was to accuse me of "feigned ignorance" and "bias" which is more likely.
Yes, it was, because it highlighted your superficial and partisan approach to the conflict. You don't have "bias?"
Of course I do, but I also possess the cognisance to examine the conflict in a bi-partisan fashion. After all, it is my training, so to speak. My "bias" is the opinion that Israel is responding to a few annoying attacks with what we here in America calls "Excessive force."
Your bias is evident by the phrase: 'A few annoying attacks' They are doing it on purpose to instill fear into the Palestinians. That by definition is TERRORISM.
Conjecture. The targets have been largely military and administerial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So if you want to deal in facts, minus opinion how about this:
The Palestinians launched rockets into Israel and injured about 8 people. Israel reacted and killed a child. More rockets were launched. A Hamas leader was assassinated and that was filmed and published. More rockets from Gaza. Israel has now bombed and killed hundreds of people. What is the score now? I don't really know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorrect. Defining propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding an "if they do it then that's propaganda, while if we do it then that's information and education" biased approach. Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." More comprehensive is the description by Richard Alan Nelson: "Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion." The partisan approach of the opinion piece complies with the above. Basically EVERYTHING complies with the above. All news is propaganda. Some just have different flavors. I've been over this before, therefore, it would be a waste of time covering it again. The problem is where a person will draw the line. By that definition, just about everything except proven scientific facts can be called propaganda so what propaganda really is would always be a matter of personal opinion. Sophistry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sat 11/17/12 06:52 PM
|
|
So if you want to deal in facts, minus opinion how about this: The Palestinians launched rockets into Israel and injured about 8 people. Israel reacted and killed a child. More rockets were launched. A Hamas leader was assassinated and that was filmed and published. More rockets from Gaza. Israel has now bombed and killed hundreds of people. What is the score now? I don't really know. Does a 'score' matter? Your death toll is rather inflated btw. It stands at about 64. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/17/12 06:51 PM
|
|
Conjecture. The targets have been largely military and administerial.
That's misleading. Since they are essentially at war, all targets are "military" or ad-ministerial, so anything is game. And as I suspected, your "point" as you have admitted was more of a personal attack upon me. Thus this discussion is over. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sat 11/17/12 07:23 PM
|
|
Conjecture. The targets have been largely military and administerial.
That's misleading. Since they are essentially at war, all targets are "military" or ad-ministerial, so anything is game. And as I suspected, your "point" as you have admitted was more of a personal attack upon me. Thus this discussion is over. I'm sorry you've chosen to see it that way, but it was merely a response to your somewhat 'partisan' approach to the conflict, but if you wish to take it personally, I suggest you take it up with the moderators. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TYT is a demonicrat network. Their views are always left of center, and in support of Obozo. It was interesting to see him doing a piece like this, and why I posted it. The point is, 2 wrongs don't make a right, and Netanscrewu is no better than Obozo and his drone strikes, or any other warmonging, power hungry, wannabe dictator, bully a$$hole in power. Even his own people don't like what he's doing in Gaza, but why should we care? It's their problem! Let em kill each other, perhaps they'll leave us alone! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since this seems to have turned into a personal attack, and the thread is not being discussed, i'm closing this topic. Other actions may be forthcoming, if this continues.
|
|
|
|
|
