Arafat Had Done it Again. Abu Mazen Quits.

[CyberGnu]

Alvaro

Large number. Can you compare the Red Army's invasion of Eastern Prussia to what happened there?

The latter is a certified massacre. The former is what pompous leftists call a "massacre" when even CNN don't dare doing so.

As an Israeli, I trust you've heard of the Munich Massacre? 11 people died that day - are you claiming that there is a limit somewhere between 6 and 11? Maybe 10, because it is nice and round?

There is no set limit to the number of victims, so it is left to the eye of the beholder.

[Alvaro]

Gnu: Lets turn to "indiscriminately". Thats was the case in 1972.

But surely there were more than 6 palestinians out there? Had the IDF wished to massacre loads of palestinians it would hardly be a challenge would it?

For years it has been claimed that with F15 Strike Eagles, Merkava battle tanks and multiple infantry and mechanized infantry divisions we are abusing a mostly civil population. Don't you think that all that technology and might would count for more than 6 dead at any given second if it were used indiscriminately?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Alvaro
Gnu: Lets turn to "indiscriminately". Thats was the case in 1972.

But surely there were more than 6 palestinians out there? Had the IDF wished to massacre loads of palestinians it would hardly be a challenge would it?

For years it has been claimed that with F15 Strike Eagles, Merkava battle tanks and multiple infantry and mechanized infantry divisions we are abusing a mostly civil population. Don't you think that all that technology and might would count for more than 6 dead at any given second if it were used indiscriminately?

hi ,

with what we pack , it would just be a matter of time , ....

but since we dont want to do that , ......

have a nice day

[CyberGnu]

Edan:

The article was completely factual at the time it was written because at that point, Abu Mazen had not agreed to meet Arafat again, and indeed, what was written in the article was:

What is incorrect is the appearance that this is a finished story. As the reports in Reuters and NYT showed, this wasn't the case. The meetings continued after Mazen stormed out, and an agreement was eventually reached.

But by taking a snapshot of the story right at the summit of hostility, it paints a picture that doesn't represent reality - But one that follows the ideological goals of the JP.

Exactly what fact was not accurate about that at the time the article was written?

It's called "quoting out of context". I know you are familiar with it, it's been a cornerstone of pro-israeli debate for years.

[CyberGnu]

You're the one who writes stuff without checking what was written first, like that the article claimed that Abu Mazen quit, when it did not,

Intriguing logic, that. So if I post a thread with the title "Edan is a Child Molester" and then post an article dealing with the environmental impact of bulgarian iron mining, I should expect people to ignore the title and debate the article? I would try it if it wouldn't get me banned.

or that no other news agency reported what that article reported.

Why don't you check the time stamps on my first post and the story in Reuters?

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Edan:

What is incorrect is the appearance that this is a finished story. As the reports in Reuters and NYT showed, this wasn't the case. The meetings continued after Mazen stormed out, and an agreement was eventually reached.

But by taking a snapshot of the story right at the summit of hostility, it paints a picture that doesn't represent reality - But one that follows the ideological goals of the JP.

[/qb]

Absolute nonesense. At the time the article was witten and at the time this thread was made, it contained all current events and DID NOT contain anything false. The article, as I have already quoted several times, makes mentions of the attempts (that at that point were unsuccesful) to make compromises to resolve the issue.

And EVERY news source updates their articles when new information comes in, including Reuters and the NYT. Thats why this Reuters article (written 2 and a half hours after the start of this thread.) makes no mention of any compromises being worked on or the eventual resolution either - because they hadn't happened yet.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Intriguing logic, that. So if I post a thread with the title "Edan is a Child Molester" and then post an article dealing with the environmental impact of bulgarian iron mining, I should expect people to ignore the title and debate the article? I would try it if it wouldn't get me banned.
[/qb]

Oh, very mature, trying to call me names and slurs by putting it in quotations.

However, regardless of the title of a thread, it has nothing to do with the content of the article, which was what you have been spending the last whatever-many-pages criticizing. If you have a problem with the thread title, take it up with Eli, don't criticize a newspaper or call me names instead.

Why don't you check the time stamps on my first post and the story in Reuters?

It appears to have been written 25 minutes before your posting. The other I just posted was from an hour earlier.

[CyberGnu]

They certainly covered up some of Saddams crimes.

Are you still confusing "convering up" with "keeping silent"?

The motives for that may be in question, however. They claimed to be "protecting" their reporters by not reporting murders, tortures, dissapearances and other crimes. It seems to me, however, that they could have protected reporters by pulling them out of Iraq and then reporting the stories.

Sure, that would make ONE story - and then what?

Then also claimed that they were doing so to protect Iraqis - which is a copout. They could easily report the stories while not identifyying Iraqis and using technology to make faces and voices unrecognizable - it's been done before and will be done in the future.

Ahh, another classic israeli argument. Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present: The Strawman!

Why don't you read the article you linked to?

Indeed, pulling the reporters home would be a lot more safe than keeping them in Baghdad, even if they were lying for Saddam.

What lies? Third time I ask.

Of course, it means that CNN would have less access to Iraq, but what CNN would have is integrity and a clear record, and not have to worry - at all - about it's reporters.

Let's apply your logic to a different case, the embedded reporters. During their mission, they occaisonally get shot at, which endagers their lives. You are claiming that if they duck the bullets, they are compromizing their journalistic integrity, because they will obviously missing part of the story. The only alternative would be not to go with the trops at all, instead staying at home.

[quote]How are we to trust CNN in the future, if all it takes is some threats and CNN will lie or cover up for someone in power capable of carrying out those threats[quote]

What lies? You keep making this accusations, but no backing for it.

with CNN prefering to get a little better access rather than to protect it's reporters and tell the complete truth?[/

"Little better" ?

Their presence inside Iraq was what made CNN a network to be reckoned with in the first place.

edited to make Ming happier

[CyberGnu]

Absolute nonesense. At the time the article was witten and at the time this thread was made, it contained all current events and DID NOT contain anything false. The article, as I have already quoted several times, makes mentions of the attempts (that at that point were unsuccesful) to make compromises to resolve the issue.

Absolute nonsense if you completely ignore the point of my post, yes. If you actually read it it makes sense.

And EVERY news source updates their articles when new information comes in, including Reuters and the NYT. Thats why this Reuters article (written 2 and a half hours after the start of this thread.) makes no mention of any compromises being worked on or the eventual resolution either - because they hadn't happened yet.

And EVERY news source updates their articles when new information comes in, including Reuters and the NYT. Thats why this Reuters article (written 2 and a half hours after the start of this thread.) makes no mention of any compromises being worked on or the eventual resolution either - because they hadn't happened yet.

Nope. They wait until the story is ready to be written up, and then publish a finalized version. Anything before then is reported as a dispatch, with the normal disclaimers.

[CyberGnu]

It appears to have been written 25 minutes before your posting. The other I just posted was from an hour earlier.

Nope, my post was recorded as 19.00 ET and the reuters at 7:40 pm ET.

[CyberGnu]

Oh, very mature, trying to call me names and slurs by putting it in quotations.

?

However, regardless of the title of a thread, it has nothing to do with the content of the article, which was what you have been spending the last whatever-many-pages criticizing. If you have a problem with the thread title, take it up with Eli, don't criticize a newspaper or call me names instead.

No, but it DOES have something to do with the content of the THREAD.

That I find the actual article to be sub-par is a separate question.

And I have yet to call you any names.

[CyberGnu]

Alvaro, I never connected the word "massacre" with the necessity of killing everyone at a specific place. Only a large number.

[CyberGnu]

Ned:

CyberGnu, I think Edan meant the duty of a free press to its readers. It has an ethical duty to its readers to not become a propaganda mouthpiece for any government.

Well, as long as it doesn't actually tried to portray Saddam as nice and benevolent guy, I don't think they have compromised their ethical duty.

Well, OK, maybe a little, but I think it is outweighed by the benefits of learning first hand about the political currents in the country.

[CyberGnu]

Actually, CyberGnu, you raise a very good point here. There can be no free elections so long as Arafat is in power. With Arafat in charge, I wouldn't be surprised if Arafat would receive 99.9% of the vote, just like Saddam did in the last election in Iraq.

I would, actually. The palestinians seem to have a lot higher expectations from their leader than the Iraqis did.

And remember, in the 1996 election Arafat got 82% (IIRC) of the vote, which was both certified by the intrnational observers as a fair election, AND corresponded quite well to his popularity at time, as seen in poll numbers.

[CyberGnu]

I wonder, at times, whether the tradition outside the US of having the major networks owned and operated by the government hasn't lead to a blaise attitude concerning this issue. After all, they have been receiving government propaganda as news their entire lives.

Eh, what do you mean with "outside of US"?

The only place in Western Europe this is a concern is in Italy, and there it has been a major debate topic ever since Berlusconi came into power...