French Bias attacks mount

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In any war, you attack an enemy at his weak point. The IDF is far too strong to be combatted directly, so the only option left is to take the war to its supporters.

POPPYCOCK! You automatically *assume* that those civilians slaughtered by terrorist suicide bombers back all of Israel's actions?!

Such hubris, Chegitz!

I guess that means the 3000 or so people slaughtered on Sept. 11, 2001 were supporters of the U.S. government's policies overseas and, thus, deserved to die 'cause poor jackass baby Osama **** HEAD Laden didn't have enough balls to try and take out another U.S. military target. Oh, wait, he DID! He took out part of the Pentagon with an airliner filled with ... you guessed it! Supporters of America's evil foreign policies! (Translation: civilians.)

Has it ever crossed your mind, Chegitz (and all you other folks that have similar thoughts) that maybe, just maybe, some of those cold-blooded vampires worthy of death by fire, er, civilians, may have been supportive to one degree or another of the agendas — albeit w/o the violence — of those who killed them? That maybe they wanted peace in the Middle East? That maybe they contributed dollars to aid groups in Israel, Afghanistan and Palestine?

All for naught! They're dead! Killed at the hands of those jackasses who deliberately targeted them because, woes them, they couldn't take on the IDF or America's horrible "fire from the sky" air force.

DanS' post was spot on. Yours sounds ... hmm ... cold-blooded Stalinish?

It is completely hypocritical for Americans to decry the horrors of suicide bombers while it was applauding the complete destruction of the civilian infrastructures of Iraq and Yugoslavia. Feh! A suicide bobmer has nothing on American death from the skies.

Yeah, you read me right, Commie-boy. I just dance and sing whenever our armed forces go into action. Oh, sorry for the stereotyping. I'm just mimicking you. Higher thought with you in this particular case isn't worth burning calories on.

So just what is your definition of a civilian structure, Chegitz? Must be a missile battery in the case of Iraq, right? A strategic bridge for the former Yugoslavia? Whoops, I lied. I had to waste a few calories to ask you those questions, Chegitz. My apologies, son. As you were!

Gatekeeper

[Imran Siddiqui]

POPPYCOCK! You automatically *assume* that those civilians slaughtered by terrorist suicide bombers back all of Israel's actions?!

Perhaps not, but plenty of them do. Best way to strike at the Israeli government and infrastructure is to go for the people. It gets more shock value than just picking off soldiers.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
No, f*ck you then

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They don't take it in the US. While Chris claims that the US media is ignoring the attacks in Jewish temples and Jews in Europe, I've seen and heard far more news about that then about the executed Palestinian policemen or the dead priest. You cannot get reliable news about what Israel is doing in the American media, only about what the Palestinians have done. It paints an exceedingly one sided picture. There are a number of reasons why this is so, which I shan't go into, but it's not because of Jewish control of the media.

**ROTFLMAO** Hey, is this the same American media that the Israeli government is threatening to kick out of Ramallah because we're not following IDF military rules regarding censorship?!

Hey, is this the same American media where one of our reporters got shot through the shoulder by an Israeli military unit?

Yeah, we love Israel so much that we deliberately paint a one-sided picture just so folks like you, Chegitz, can sit behind your computer and spout about how dreadfully one-sided we are.

**blam!!**

GODDANG IT! Stop shooting at us, Israel! See our press passes? SHEESH!!! I tell ya! Whelp, time to sit down and write that Israeli propaganda piece that Mr. Sharon wants in an hour!

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

POPPYCOCK! You automatically *assume* that those civilians slaughtered by terrorist suicide bombers back all of Israel's actions?!

Perhaps not, but plenty of them do. Best way to strike at the Israeli government and infrastructure is to go for the people. It gets more shock value than just picking off soldiers.

**stunned** I have no words, Imran. None whatsoever.

OK, I fibbed (again ... damn calories). If I ever hear you speak in sympathy of the victims of Sept. 11, 2001 after this point in time, I will think of nothing but crocodile tears ...

Gatekeeper

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because of course the world is black and white

Get a clue... things are more complex than your world of 2 colors. I don't seem to think Bin Laden was oppressed by America. I don't remember us taking his land, or threatening his water supply.

[Zoid]

As an Israel basher I´m bound to make an appearance

Horsie and Imran are spot on, I hold the exact same opinion (which I have stated in numerous threads).

Israel has created the situation which they now face.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And Gatekeeper, if you DON'T think the US media is blatently pro-Israel, you really aren't paying attention. Check out the American media v. European media or any other free media in the world.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Ti uzhe poluchaish palestinskuyu versyu, eti saiti boleye blizki kpravde

Spasibo za ssylki. Kstati, ya nastroen vovse ne protiv Izrailya, a skoree naoborot.

Kstati, gde ti priatalsia do sikh por?
Ya znayu malo rusko govoryachikh zdes.
Pochti vsye - tozhe izrailtanye.

Ya tut oshivayus' davno. Odnako ya v osnovnom chitayu i redko pishu.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Or lord... if our newspapers weren't a laughing stock already, all they need is poetry .

Well, I understand that the state- and religious-sponsored "news"papers — especially those in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon — are chock full of reliable information. Why, just a few weeks ago I hear there was a piece regarding how Jews need the blood of non-Jews (preferably children, right) to make some sort of food? Do you want a subscription, Imran? I'm just *positive* they can carry real news better than any mainstream American paper, right?

**blam**

GODDANG IT, ISRAEL!!!! **waves press pass** Hey, this ain't a gun, guys! Stop shooting at me!

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because of course the world is black and white

Get a clue... things are more complex than your world of 2 colors. I don't seem to think Bin Laden was oppressed by America. I don't remember us taking his land, or threatening his water supply.

You wouldn't believe the shades of gray in *my* world, Imran. There's a lot of them and, sorry to say, it doesn't make life's decisions any simpler.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And Gatekeeper, if you DON'T think the US media is blatently pro-Israel, you really aren't paying attention. Check out the American media v. European media or any other free media in the world.

Imran, you're talking to one of the people who gets the stories directly from our frontline people on the ground across the world's hot spots. Hard news, Imran, not that stuff you and some others seem to equate as representative of the media: op-ed.

Hard news is that stuff generally found on the pages other than op-ed, Imran. Also, TV programs such as "Crossfire," "The Point" and Bill O'Reilly generally aren't considered founts of "hard news," Imran, as they're op-ed and mean to piss some people off while turning others into zombies (Limbaugh comes to mind here). Hard news — where *I* work, along with about 96 percent of the media types you never see on-screen (trenches, ya know) — is the unglamorous stuff because it's "the facts only, ma'am." Unfortunately, some folks seem to think the op-ed pages and TV shows represent the media and everyone in the profession.

They DO NOT. So when I speak of the work I do, it's most certainly not from the viewpoint of an op-ed guy. The news, hell the only news I work with, is the hard stuff.

So if the U.S. media is "blatently pro-Israel," you'll have to take that up with the "lords" of the profession, not me. I'm still in the trenches, putting out and arranging that unglamorous "facts only" copy that comes in direct from the hotspots. So I do pay attention, Imran, to the 96 percent of the media that affects me: hard news.

Gatekeeper

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Roland is correct. It is Russian in nature... at least in print.

"In nature"? Watch it, Imran.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

In any war, you attack an enemy at his weak point. The IDF is far too strong to be combatted directly, so the only option left is to take the war to its supporters. It is completely hypocritical for Americans to decry the horrors of suicide bombers while it was applauding the complete destruction of the civilian infrastructures of Iraq and Yugoslavia. Feh! A suicide bobmer has nothing on American death from the skies.

You go to far here. I don't remember anyone applauding the destruction of Iraqi civilian infrastructure, the government was too smart to highlight that part of the air campaign. I was against the entire strategic bombing campaign because it wasn't necessary. What was necessary and wasn't done was finishing off Saddam and occupying Iraq. Multilateralism sucks when you are yoked to Arabs who want you to fail.

I don't remember any cheering about anything during the bombing in Yugoslavia with the possible exception of some ironic chuckling when the Chinese embassy got hit. You missed the best example of American bloodthirstiness which was the strategic bombing campaign in WWII. Of course you can't use that to tar the present generation of Americans.

I am a believer in the concept of going as far as your opponent is willing to if necessary. If the Pals are targeting civilians, then they have no right to squeal when the Israelis change their emphasis and do the same. Of course they already squeal and claim that there is a genocide going on, which weakens their future case significantly if they end up with the real deal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm just *positive* they can carry real news better than any mainstream American paper, right?

You know there is this big continent... yah.. meet Europe.. and over here... yes, that's Australia.

Imran, you're talking to one of the people who gets the stories directly from our frontline people on the ground across the world's hot spots. Hard news, Imran, not that stuff you and some others seem to equate as representative of the media: op-ed.

I'm talking headlines and stories on the front page (and beyond). They ain't op-ed, and they definetly back Israel more than any other Western source I've seen.

I hardly read op-ed, buddy. I'm commenting on the regular news with the subtle bias. The pro-Israel bias is very obvious to posters from Europe or Aussie-land (and I mean NON-OP-ED).