From the religion of peace and tolerance:
MEMRI video (http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5098.htm)
QuoteMuhammad Salah “Abu Rajabâ€: Brothers, we must constantly remind the world, and everyone who has forgotten… The world must hear, via these cameras and via the Internet: This is Gaza! This is the place of trenches and guns! This is the West Bank! This is the place of bombs and daggers! This is Jerusalem… Jerusalem is the code word… This is Jerusalem… Much can be told about Jerusalem. This is where the soldiers of the Prophet Muhammad are. This is the grace of Allah. The soldiers of the Prophet Muhammad are here. Brothers, this is why we recall today what Allah did to the Jews. We recall what He did to them in Khaybar.
...
QuoteNow, we are imposing a curfew with daggers, and in the next phase, which is Allah willing, about to be realized… We shall not send you back to Russia, Bulgaria, the Ukraine, or Poland. We shall not send you back there. You have come here… The Islamic military court has ruled… This court, presided over by the Prophet’s Companion Sad Ibn Mu’adh, has ruled… Sa’d Ibn Mu’adh has reappeared â€" in the West Bank. Sa’d Ibn Mu’adh is now in the streets of Jerusalem, Afula, Tel Aviv, and the Negev. The Islamic military court has made the divined ruling: You will get nothing in our land except for slaughtering or stabbing. Why? The world will say that we are terrorists, that we incite. Yes! “Oh Prophet, sufficient for you and for whoever follows you of the believers is Allah. Oh Prophet of Allah, incite the believers to fight.†Why? Oh America, oh Crusader aggressors, oh Arab Zionists, oh Zionists from among the criminal Jews: Are we aggressors? You have come of your own volition to be slaughtered on our land.
How many Christian pastors, priests do you see delivering such a sermon on a Sunday morning?
I don't remember who said it, and paraphrasing: there will be peace only when Palestinian mothers value the life of their sons more than destroying Israel. As long as the Palestinians continue their armed resistance that will only strengthen the Israeli Right. And the retaliation will be merciless. Of course the right- wing factions on both sides benefit from this. The Palestinian armed resistance begets the Israeli Right retaliation, which begets more Palestinian armed resistance, which begets... It's a never ending cycle of violence.
With pacifism we might better withstand self destruction, but we might not have survived the Serengeti. Human beings are an omnivorous balance between pacifism, action and reaction. I can see myself in both Israeli and Palestinian ... because of being a descendent of immigrants but never fully at peace with the consequences of that. Choosing peace over war is a choice .. that too many make wrongly. Being aggressive or aggrieved both begin with "agg"!
Quote from: Baruch on October 14, 2015, 06:39:08 AM
With pacifism we might better withstand self destruction, but we might not have survived the Serengeti. Human beings are an omnivorous balance between pacifism, action and reaction. I can see myself in both Israeli and Palestinian ... because of being a descendent of immigrants but never fully at peace with the consequences of that. Choosing peace over war is a choice .. that too many make wrongly. Being aggressive or aggrieved both begin with "agg"!
The Palestinian can choose to end this cycle of violence by renouncing their ludicrous claim of destroying the state of Israel and start building a state in spite of Israeli opposition. But they have been bamboozled by the religious fanatics. The end result is a total lack of ingenuity.
Quote from: pr126 on October 14, 2015, 12:22:14 AM
How many Christian pastors, priests do you see delivering such a sermon on a Sunday morning?
QuoteCatholics 'breed like rabbits and multiply like vermin'
Quote"Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners"
Quote"I denounce you, Anti-Christ! I refuse you as Christ's enemy and Antichrist with all your false doctrine"
addressing Pope John Paul II
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/77548000/jpg/_77548354_1991revianpaisley4.jpg)
Rev Ian Paisley.
Quote from: jonb on October 14, 2015, 09:04:33 AM
addressing Pope John Paul II
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/77548000/jpg/_77548354_1991revianpaisley4.jpg)
Rev Ian Paisley.
However, Paisley's party, the DUP, finally agreed to share power with the republican party Sinn Féin in 2007. Can you say the same with any of the Palestinian leadership that one day, it will renounce the destruction of Israel and work to build a state for the Palestinians?
Bli'me your asking for prophecies from me now!
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 14, 2015, 07:34:00 AM
The Palestinian can choose to end this cycle of violence by renouncing their ludicrous claim of destroying the state of Israel and start building a state in spite of Israeli opposition.
Remind me again how the cycle of violence ended on September 9, 1993
Quote from: jonb on October 14, 2015, 11:01:04 AM
Bli'me your asking for prophecies from me now!
No, just an assessment of the present situation as to where it could go.
My personal opinion is I don't see anybody that wants piece.
There is an enjoyment of baying for your enemies blood in the coliseum.
https://youtu.be/o4Nj_6N1Byc
Then you don't have to question yourself.
Quote from: Poison Tree on October 14, 2015, 11:03:37 AM
Remind me again how the cycle of violence ended on September 9, 1993
A lot of things happened since that time, notably the failed Camp David 2000 Summit between Barak and Arafat, the Israel disengagement of the Gaza Strip in 2006, followed by the on-going shelling by Palestinians and multiple incursions from Israel. I'm not sure why you want to go back to September 9, 1993. The recognition of the state of Israel by the PLO fizzled out. You can easily point out what each side did wrong but it's pretty much academic by now when taking into considerations of all the things that has happened since that day.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 14, 2015, 11:19:30 AM
it's pretty much academic by now when taking into considerations of all the things that has happened since that day.
And all the things that haven't happened since then. Which was the point. Palestinians simply "renouncing their ludicrous claim of destroying the state of Israel" will not end the violence, just like it did not end the violence, because it doesn't actually solve the underlying issues. It didn't (and won't) solve, among others, the issue of Israeli settlements, the right of return or the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque problem--which has, ultimately, been the spark that set off both the Second Intifada and the current round of escalated violence.
The First Intifada went pretty well for the Palestinians (they were using MLK tactics), unfortunately the politicians and terrorists got involved, and Palestinians have made no progress since. I think at that time, there were forces on both sides, that wanted to make sure no settlement was reached.
Quote from: Poison Tree on October 14, 2015, 12:18:40 PM
And all the things that haven't happened since then. Which was the point. Palestinians simply "renouncing their ludicrous claim of destroying the state of Israel" will not end the violence, just like it did not end the violence, because it doesn't actually solve the underlying issues. It didn't (and won't) solve, among others, the issue of Israeli settlements, the right of return or the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque problem--which has, ultimately, been the spark that set off both the Second Intifada and the current round of escalated violence.
Since you brought up September 1993, what developed after is crucial to your point. Arafat who had signed on deferred that the Palestinian National Council (PNC) had to approve. There followed a long series of wrangling as to what was going to be accepted by the PNC, especially with their demands, in particular with the Palestinian right to return, a no go clause as far the Israelis are concerned. The PNC never accepted the agreement, so that the Palestinians never really renounced their armed struggle. It was just a lull. As of 1998, Arafat wrote to Clinton that the PNC had in effect rejected the agreement. After a series of further communications that led to the 2000 Camp David, and we know what happened there.
Lets put it this way: the Israelis are never going to leave. And they are never going to renounce their own state. Unless you have enough nukes to destroy the entire region, you're going to have to deal with them and on their own terms. The Palestinians have two choices: either continue their armed struggle; or focus on building a state under which Palestinians can live in relative peace. So far, they have chosen the first option. It's their choice and they must live with the consequences.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 14, 2015, 01:15:07 PM
Lets put it this way: the Israelis are never going to leave.
And neither are the Palestinians; the ultimate big issue underlying the conflict: Two peoples, one land.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 14, 2015, 01:15:07 PM
or focus on building a state under which Palestinians can live in relative peace.
That is a fine idea, but not a realistic one. Even setting aside Jerusalem and settlement expansion into areas nominally under Palestinian control, we can't realistically expect Palestinians to build a state in 39% of the West Bank while being denied access to the rest (including most of the areas resources) or the ability to travel between areas under their control.
We also can't expect Israel to simply hand control of the West Bank back (especially after how Gaza went--although, unfortunately, the message once again sent to Palestinians is that Hamas gets shit done and the PLO/Fatah is ineffectual), expel settlers or relinquish claims their claims to (more of) Jerusalem. We have a situation where neither side can honestly be expected to make concessions necessary to make peace but, for some reason, people actually do expect with ever side they dislike most to unilaterally make all the concessions while their favorite side reaps all the benefits.
Quote from: Poison Tree on October 14, 2015, 02:03:18 PM
And neither are the Palestinians; the ultimate big issue underlying the conflict: Two peoples, one land.That is a fine idea, but not a realistic one. Even setting aside Jerusalem and settlement expansion into areas nominally under Palestinian control, we can't realistically expect Palestinians to build a state in 39% of the West Bank while being denied access to the rest (including most of the areas resources) or the ability to travel between areas under their control.
We also can't expect Israel to simply hand control of the West Bank back (especially after how Gaza went--although, unfortunately, the message once again sent to Palestinians is that Hamas gets shit done and the PLO/Fatah is ineffectual), expel settlers or relinquish claims their claims to (more of) Jerusalem. We have a situation where neither side can honestly be expected to make concessions necessary to make peace but, for some reason, people actually do expect with ever side they dislike most to unilaterally make all the concessions while their favorite side reaps all the benefits.
The way I see is that whoever has the bigger guns will dictate. If they were a conflict, say between the US and Canada, I hardly see the US ready to make concessions. That's the reality of geopolitics. Right now, Israel has the bigger guns. They can inflict more pain if they want to. If the political will were there, Israel could go into Gaza or the West Bank, and turn every town into rubble. And the Palestinians would be helpless to stop that. So don't expect Israel to make any concessions whatsoever. They won't. In the meantime as the violence continues, the result is that the Israeli Right has the upper hand - Israel is not a monolith society - and so bargaining with the Right, you'll get very little. Should ever the violence go away, leaving some opportunity for moderates to have more clout in the Knesset, then you could expect a relaxation towards the settlement or some open hand towards the moderates on the Palestinian side. But we are very far from that situation. On the Palestinian side, there is little interest towards any peace initiative as violence flares up, and Israel predictably counter-attacks, that leaves the Palestinian extremists with more clout with their own people. So the Right on the Israel side and the extremists on the Palestinian side need each other to carry their respective agenda, and that's why the endless cycle of violence continues.
PLO/Fatah was a cat's paw of the Nasser of Egypt and of the Soviet Union. Once those two sponsors were gone, they were powerless. And they were powerless, for the same reason why cops don't get rid of crime ... the more criminals you have, the more cops you can hire. Hamas was originally created by Israel, as a counter to PLO/Fatah ... and like Al Qaida and the US ... it went feral on its original sponsors. With the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there was no way that Hamas would allow PLO/Fatah to exist on its territory, because they were just as much infidels as Sadat, Saddam or Old Man Assad. Thus the support of Saudi Arabia et al for the invasion of Iraq, and now Syria. And the turmoil in Egypt.
Baruch wroteQuoteHamas was originally created by Israel, as a counter to PLO/Fatah ..
Could you please elaborate on that?
Quote from: pr126 on October 15, 2015, 10:45:22 AM
Baruch wrote
Hamas was originally created by Israel, as a counter to PLO/Fatah ..
Could you please elaborate on that?
It comes from the same source that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 - in the vernacular, Conspiracy Theory.
Taken from a relatively factual website ... other sources corroborate the basic outline:
"In 1964, a number of Arab countries sent representatives to Cairo for the Arab League Summit. The goal of the summit was to resolve inter-Arab conflicts in the region so that the Arab countries could unite in their struggle against what they saw as western imperialism and Israeli aggression.
It was at this summit that the idea for the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO, was born. The stated goal of the PLO was to “liberate Palestine through armed struggleâ€.
Although the dominant religion in these Arab countries was Islam, the PLO was comprised mainly of secular Palestinian factions (the largest being the Fatah party), who were actually wary of the rise of Islamic extremism.
Historically, Palestinians have been a religiously tolerant people. For hundreds of years, Muslims, Jews and Christians alike lived peacefully together as fellow Palestinians. The PLO wanted to make sure that this tolerance was preserved.
In fact, the Islamic extremism which is now considered the backbone of Hamas was actually encouraged by Israel itself.
In 1967, Israel fought the Six-Day War against an Arab federation led by Egypt. At that time, the PLO was quickly becoming popular among Arabs in the region, and this worried Israel.
So using PLO guerilla activity as a pretext, Israel took over the Palestinian territory of Gaza and began systematically hunting down members of the PLO and the Fatah party.
To combat the PLO’s secular influence in the region, Israel began encouraging Islamic activism in Palestine. One of the biggest beneficiaries of this Israeli policy was a man named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza at the time.
In 1973, Yassin established the Islamist group Mujama al-Islamiya. The organization was officially recognized as a charity by Israel in 1979.
Yassin used the organization to establish mosques and Islamic schools in Gaza, as well as a library. But Yitzhak Segev, an Israeli official who served as governor of Gaza in 1979, says that he had no illusions about Yassin’s real intentions.
Segev had personally witnessed an Islamist movement in Iran which eventually led to a military coup that toppled the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. The coup cleared the way for the Shah of Iran (the country’s highest-ranking Muslim cleric) to take power.
He and other Israeli officials worried that the same would soon happen in Gaza, but because of the tensions in the region at the time, they were reluctant to speak out, fearing they would be accused of being enemies of Islam.
So Segev said nothing. In 1984, Israeli intelligence got word that Yassin’s group was stockpiling weapons in a Gaza mosque. They raided the mosque and arrested Yassin, who claimed the weapons were meant for use against secular Palestinian groups like the PLO, not for use against Israel.
He was released from jail a year later, and continued to spread Mujama’s influence in Gaza. Then, in 1987, he established Hamas with six other Palestinians as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The first leaflet they distributed blamed Israeli intelligence for undermining the social fabric of young Palestinians in order to recruit Palestinian “collaboratorsâ€.
But despite this harsh language, Israel continued to focus on the Fatah party and the PLO, even meeting with senior Hamas officials as part of “regular consultations†that they held with Palestinian officials not linked to the PLO.
It wasn’t until Hamas kidnapped and murdered two Israeli soldiers in 1989 that Israel started to pay attention to the group."
So basically Israel supported this sometimes charitable/militant group for 10 years, started by Yassin, and eventually after Hamas went rogue, the Israelis killed him. There must have been opposing groups in Israeli intelligence, for or against this ... as there must have been with the American adventure with Al Qaida and more recently with ISIS .. American associates that also went rogue. The ultra orthodox Jews in Mea Shearim in Jerusalem, still recognize Hamas, and don't recognize Israel. Pete and repeat of the adventure of Lawrence of Arabia ... and the immediate betrayal of the Arabs at Damascus and Baghdad, and the Palestinians as well. GB and France played all sides against each other ... Arab, Palestinian and Zionist. This only coming to an end shortly after WW II. Muslim Brotherhood operatives were part of the outcome of that betrayal, and were part of the feedstock for the Egyptian component of Al Qaida ... and the recent unrest in Egypt. Muslim Brotherhood operatives were also in Syria, but were well suppressed by the Baathist regime there and in Iraq. George W came along and upset that whole applecart.
Quote from: Baruch on October 15, 2015, 07:38:47 PM
Segev had personally witnessed an Islamist movement in Iran which eventually led to a military coup that toppled the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. The coup cleared the way for the Shah of Iran (the country’s highest-ranking Muslim cleric) to take power.
Typo?
Funny that the guy who doesn't believe anything the US government says yet is ready to believe anything that is posted on dubious websites by dubious people.
I believe you, Dr Dubious ;-)
Yes, I think that was a typo ... but they were referring to the 1953 coup ... which did happen.
It would seem that Israel reinvented the idea of using feral Sunnis as tools, and then the US copied them in Afghanistan in the 80s.
Quote from: Baruch on October 16, 2015, 06:23:02 AM
I believe you, Dr Dubious ;-)
I guess you believe what you read only if it is in accordance with your presuppositions. Welcome to the human race.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 16, 2015, 06:25:50 AM
I guess you believe what you read only if it is in accordance with your presuppositions. Welcome to the human race.
Did you think I was a Google bot released on the Internet by the CIA? Why did Twitter go down the same time as when the CIA started Tweeting?
Quote from: Baruch on October 16, 2015, 06:31:18 AM
Did you think I was a Google bot released on the Internet by the CIA KGB? Why did Twitter go down the same time as when the CIA KGB started Tweeting?
FIFY
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jmcgd (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jmcgd)
BBC a dubious people?
Yes and no, there is always an agenda, but the basics of what Baruch says is well documented.
Quote from: jonb on October 16, 2015, 06:41:26 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jmcgd (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jmcgd)
BBC a dubious people?
Yes and no, there is always an agenda, but the basics of what Baruch says is well documented.
But if you don't swallow the dogma of the KKK and John Birchers whole, you are a commie, pinko, f*****t ... and a n*****r. Ideologues (you know who you are) are not freethinkers, because freedom is their kryptonite. They sleep in SS jammies. Control of the media isn't hard, when the average person's attention span is less than 24 hours. I have a long if inaccurate memory, so advertising has never ever worked on me. Think of all those trillions of dollars on marketing wasted ... bwahaha.
I rely on the BBC to escape the fascist control of the US media (per media today Nixon would still be president, and Watergate would be unknown) ... though it is not trustworthy when they touch GB news ... generally their agenda has less need to distort news outside GB. No skin off my nose, since GB news is only entertainment to me. My colleagues at work laugh every time I sit down at the piano to play, or I tell them I get my news from the BBC. But if they were good enough for the Blitz, then they are good enough now ;-)
There is always an agenda, and the BBC represent the British ruling class, who like to present themselves as a fair arbitrator and as such will play to an audience of say Americans, Indians, or Chinese that are disaffected with their own news services.
The BBC always under reported RAF losses.
Nothing reported in war time is true ... and I don't blame GB or Germany on that. And the British ruling class is your problem, not mine.
Quote from: jonb on October 16, 2015, 06:41:26 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jmcgd (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jmcgd)
BBC a dubious people?
Yes and no, there is always an agenda, but the basics of what Baruch says is well documented.
There's a difference between "Israel has supported Hamas", most likely true, and "Israel created Hamas", definitely false.
Quote from: Baruch on October 16, 2015, 07:28:22 AM
And the British ruling class is your problem, not mine.
Ah yes nothing at all to do with you.
It is just funny that the voice of authority used in every film, etc in the American media is the upper class British Accent. Its not like you are being trained to accept who your old wealth is or anything.
(http://filmmusicreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/arthursoundtrack2.jpg)
(http://filmjunk.com/images/weblog/2011/03/fp_arthur.jpg)
Cheers, even a working class British boy is consistently chosen to play American wealth, it just seems to many more accurate if you follow the money.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 16, 2015, 07:38:19 AM
There's a difference between "Israel has supported Hamas", most likely true, and "Israel created Hamas", definitely false.
The difference can be moot. If the organisation is of only three people and then you finance so that it becomes of say a hundred thousand, strictly you have not founded it, but in practice that is more or less exactly what you have achieved.
Quote from: jonb on October 16, 2015, 10:53:58 AM
The difference can be moot. If the organisation is of only three people and then you finance so that it becomes of say a hundred thousand, strictly you have not founded it, but in practice that is more or less exactly what you have achieved.
No, "Hamas is a creation of Israel", "Al Qaeda is a creation of the US", and so on are mischaracterizations, and mischaracterization is at best a way to sensationalize; at worst, an indication that someone has an agenda, and distorting the facts is a ploy to continue that agenda.
Meanwhile in Britain the evil face of Islam has won.
(http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00990/Great_British_Bake__990250a.jpg)
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03466/bake-off-nadiya-tr_3466964b.jpg)
There are even people attacking members of the British government because of it!
http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/08/twitter-users-are-trolling-theresa-may-over-nadiya-hussains-victory-on-the-great-british-bake-off-5428737/ (http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/08/twitter-users-are-trolling-theresa-may-over-nadiya-hussains-victory-on-the-great-british-bake-off-5428737/)
Quote from: Baruch on October 16, 2015, 07:28:22 AM
Nothing reported in war time is true ...
I can see why you would say. When Germany was being clobbered both on the East and West front, the German radios would still speak of German victory.
But really, nothing reported in war time is true?!? I supposed according to you, the Holocaust was really a hoax - you should shake hands with Ahmadinejad.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 16, 2015, 03:58:00 PM
I can see why you would say. When Germany was being clobbered both on the East and West front, the German radios would still speak of German victory.
But really, nothing reported in war time is true?!? I supposed according to you, the Holocaust was really a hoax - you should shake hands with Ahmadinejad.
During WW2 the allies hardly reported on the holocaust, as from what they knew about it seemed so extreme that it was felt it would be considered by the public as pure propaganda and as such cause a lack of belief and distract from the whole message being said by the western allies.
Quote from: jonb on October 16, 2015, 04:32:23 PM
During WW2 the allies hardly reported on the holocaust, as from what they knew about it seemed so extreme that it was felt it would be considered by the public as pure propaganda and as such cause a lack of belief and distract from the whole message being said by the western allies.
It wasn't reported because they were no official report just rumors, and how could they have official reports until they invaded Germany and saw the concentration camps with their own eyes?!?
As usual, you miss the point I was making to Baruch, which was another mischaracterization of what is reported during wars - sure there is a lot of propaganda, but making a blanket statement like "Nothing reported in war time is true", a cliché which is a complete distortion.
'Nothing reported in war time is true' is an obvious over exaggeration, but to try to combat that with a story that was hardy reported in the war is about the worst example that could be chosen to refute it.
I personally tend to overlook most of the obvious over exaggerations I see, because I presume that is just the way people tend to express themselves. However given all the stories that could be chosen from the war which were widely reported to refute that exaggeration with the one story which was quite hidden seems a very odd choice. As such I thought some attention should be paid to it.
Quote from: jonb on October 16, 2015, 05:23:52 PM
'Nothing reported in war time is true' is an obvious over exaggeration, but to try to combat that with a story that was hardy reported in the war is about the worst example that could be chosen to refute it.
The first official reports came in 1944, when the war was not over. So choosing that as an example was quite appropriate.
QuoteThe first major camp, Majdanek, was discovered by the advancing Soviets on July 23, 1944. Auschwitz was liberated, also by the Soviets, on January 27, 1945; Buchenwald by the Americans on April 11; Bergen-Belsen by the British on April 15; Dachau by the Americans on April 29; Ravensbrück by the Soviets on the same day; Mauthausen by the Americans on May 5; and Theresienstadt by the Soviets on May 8.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/27/daily-telegraphs-holocaust-article-in-1942-that-went-unheralded (http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/27/daily-telegraphs-holocaust-article-in-1942-that-went-unheralded)
QuoteDaily Telegraph's holocaust article in 1942 that went unheralded
Newspaper tells tragic story behind its original report of the mass murder of Jews
Quote from: jonb on October 16, 2015, 05:50:07 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/27/daily-telegraphs-holocaust-article-in-1942-that-went-unheralded (http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/27/daily-telegraphs-holocaust-article-in-1942-that-went-unheralded)
You should show that your like-minded friend, Baruch, with his "Nothing reported in war time is true". LOL.
Baruch and I disagree of quite a lot if you hadn't noticed.
But I thought it is worthwhile showing to you, because I think you may be big enough to admit now it was worth my bringing it up, as your presumptions seem to be out by at least two years of a four/five+ year war, and not stand up to scrutiny.
Quote from: jonb on October 16, 2015, 06:22:25 PM
Baruch and I disagree of quite a lot if you hadn't noticed.
But I thought it is worthwhile showing to you, because I think you may be big enough to admit now it was worth my bringing it up, as your presumptions seem to be out by at least two years of a four/five+ year war, and not stand up to scrutiny.
In what way it doesn't stand to scrutiny??? The point was the mischaracterization of ""Nothing reported in war time is true", which you tried to defend, and you did it extremely badly - first by trying to prove that the Holocaust was a bad example, which I proved you wrong, then by bringing a link that proves my point of the mischaracterization. You were soundly defeated and you don't even realize it. You just proved that you are more of an idiot than I thought you were.
Have a nice day.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 16, 2015, 07:38:19 AM
There's a difference between "Israel has supported Hamas", most likely true, and "Israel created Hamas", definitely false.
One would have had to attend all the Mossad meetings to make that distinction. Would you agree that the Rothschilds, the trillionaires who rule this planet, created modern Israel? Oh yes, we didn't attend the top secret meetings between that family and Herzel, or between that family and the British Foreign Office. So we will never know.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 16, 2015, 03:58:00 PM
I can see why you would say. When Germany was being clobbered both on the East and West front, the German radios would still speak of German victory.
But really, nothing reported in war time is true?!? I supposed according to you, the Holocaust was really a hoax - you should shake hands with Ahmadinejad.
Everything is a hoax, because nothing the media or the government report is true, even when it is a fact, because of the spin. The fact is, we will never know everything about X, because there are no records, or the participants are lie, or they have already died. This is why history (which is a political act, just ask Herodotus and Thucydides) is bunk.
But there were a lot of dead bodies, like the recent downing of the plane over Ukraine ... what to make of those bodies is a matter of Nato/Ukrainian/Russian/American etc propaganda. Was GB and America war criminals about their strategic bombing and use of nukes? Curtis LeMay thought so. But sure, eventually if the Nazis had won, and they had felt secure enough to admit to the civilian killings (see drone policy of the US) either collateral or deliberate ethnic cleansing ... they would have found some philosophy or policy capable of justifying it as a necessary sacrifice. We do it now weddings and funerals ... and the deliberate? bombing of Physicians Without Borders. When Custer wiped out the Cheyenne along the Washita river ... he was only guilty of poor intel ... since those Indians weren't hostiles, they were friendlies. But Custer was jealous of Chivington's own massacre of the Cheyenne and wanted to count his own coupe.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 16, 2015, 11:06:42 AM
No, "Hamas is a creation of Israel", "Al Qaeda is a creation of the US", and so on are mischaracterizations, and mischaracterization is at best a way to sensationalize; at worst, an indication that someone has an agenda, and distorting the facts is a ploy to continue that agenda.
Yes ... those anti-aircraft rockets with US markings ... just accidentally ended up in Afghanistan. Tell that to the 10,000 plus Soviets who died there. Yes, the Saudis were involved. So as long as anyone else is involved, American hands are clean then? It is all a massive conspiracy for the SDS ... except that was an FBI/CIA front organization ... that no longer exists.
Quote from: jonb on October 16, 2015, 04:32:23 PM
During WW2 the allies hardly reported on the holocaust, as from what they knew about it seemed so extreme that it was felt it would be considered by the public as pure propaganda and as such cause a lack of belief and distract from the whole message being said by the western allies.
To be honest, FDR didn't much like Jewish people, and he felt the best way to stop killing of Jews, was to stop killing of everyone, which means winning the war as quickly as possible. He may have been wrong, but the Soviets controlled that territory ... and Stalin hated Jews and deliberately let Hitler reduce the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Also 50% of the Americans were anti-semitic at the time, same as the Germans ... so this wouldn't have played in Peoria, even if people have believed in it. At that time the KKK was Democrat, and FDR needed them on his team ... he even loved to get fresh moonshine during his trips South. Not quite as aristocratic as you might have thought of him.
And as far as war reporting goes, the early naval battle at Savo Island had to be "spun" because it was a defeat. And I would agree at the time, had I been there, that lying was absolutely necessary ....
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Savo/Quantock/
The worst defeat of the American Navy. But y'all miss my point, if one is in "forever war" then one has to lie forever. Post war analysis will never be made. This is why British secrets from the War of 1812 are still secret ... so I have heard. Probably because they were embarrassing to the British. That and apparently nobody here has read that very British book, 1984.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 16, 2015, 06:59:37 PM
In what way it doesn't stand to scrutiny??? The point was the mischaracterization of ""Nothing reported in war time is true", which you tried to defend, and you did it extremely badly - first by trying to prove that the Holocaust was a bad example, which I proved you wrong, then by bringing a link that proves my point of the mischaracterization. You were soundly defeated and you don't even realize it. You just proved that you are more of an idiot than I thought you were.
Have a nice day.
Was the Holocaust widely reported in the war seeing that it was evidently know about in 42 as testified by a report in just one paper on the fifth page of a six page edition. So are you going to say from that it is a good way of refuting 'Nothing reported in war time is true', because it is about the minimum reporting of a truth possible. You could have opted for a thousand and one things reports on say pearl Harbour which would have none of those evident problems, so why did you choose what you did, Am I not supposed to draw attention to what you say or question it?
You say the obvious over exaggeration, 'Nothing reported in war time is true' is indefensible because you characterize it as a 'mischaracterization' and therefore I presume you mean by that it is a black and white issue. OK we could go with that, but then your '1944' as opposed to a proven 1942 is also a 'mischaracterization' so it just becomes a question of glass houses and stones.
People are people, this forum is conversational in nature as far as I know, and I will continue to treat it as such, therefore unless you can point to a directive that only exact verifiable wording has to be used at all times formally with no exaggeration, irony humour etc, I will continue read posts in the way I have done up to now unless you can point to a directive that states I should do otherwise.
I might well be an idiot, but you would have to explain how that affects the above.
It is night time here.
The true word that can be spoken, is not the true word.
The true news that can be printed, is not the true news.
The best way to lie, is with the facts. You include some facts and ignore others ... this is the first lie. Then you take the facts you choose to include, arrange them in a way to support your rhetoric, and help the "mark" draw the conclusion you want him to draw. Namely that Tide is new and improved ;-) That is a fact, but that isn't what is important, what is important is that you swallow the bait hook line and sinker.
Consequently in any lie there is an element of truth, to say 'nothing' is to over exaggerate your position.
Just because Candide has just argued with Martin does not mean Professor Pangloss is therefore right either.
Quote from: jonb on October 16, 2015, 08:52:48 PM
Consequently in any lie there is an element of truth, to say 'nothing' is to over exaggerate your position.
Just because Candide has just argued with Martin does not mean Professor Pangloss is therefore right either.
Professor Pangloss never died, and there are always more wide eyed youth to bamboozle. We call it college ;-)
Quote from: jonb on October 16, 2015, 08:18:51 PM
, but then your '1944' as opposed to a proven 1942 is also a 'mischaracterization' so it just becomes a question of glass houses and stones.
It's not a mischaracterization on my part as a small paper printing that story in 1942 is not well-known outside of your country - I had never heard of it before your link. So you trying to impinge on me that I was mischaracterizing anything is ludicrous as mischaracterizing means a deliberate act to mislead. And you still don't understand that by you using that fact only proves my point - how dense are you?
I said in post 36 after you used the Holocaust to refute a claim about wartime reporting
Quote from: jonb on October 16, 2015, 04:32:23 PM
During WW2 the allies hardly reported on the holocaust, as from what they knew about it seemed so extreme that it was felt it would be considered by the public as pure propaganda and as such cause a lack of belief and distract from the whole message being said by the western allies.
You disagreed with my post with-
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 16, 2015, 04:50:56 PM
It wasn't reported because they were no official report just rumors, and how could they have official reports until they invaded Germany and saw the concentration camps with their own eyes?!?
(I have edited that post to show the salient paragraph I am in disagreement with.)
I have subsequently shown the Holocaust was known about before that. and yet it was hardly reported. You are now saying that my position is undermined because I have shown that the Holocaust was known at an earlier date and was under reported exactly as stated in that post, and that I am an idiot and dense.
So for showing my post was correct you say I am wrong.
How does that work please explain.
Quote from: jonb on October 17, 2015, 06:32:45 AM
I said in post 36 after you used the Holocaust to refute a claim about wartime reporting
You disagreed with my post with-(I have edited that post to show the salient paragraph I am in disagreement with.)
I have subsequently shown the Holocaust was known about before that. and yet it was hardly reported. You are now saying that my position is undermined because I have shown that the Holocaust was known at an earlier date and was under reported exactly as stated in that post, and that I am an idiot and dense.
So for showing my post was correct you say I am wrong.
How does that work please explain.
What I said is that the Holocaust might have been known but it was through rumors, and the official date that I took is when Russian soldiers actually saw those concentration camps, earliest being in 1944. Now you put a link about the Telegraph publishing a Holocaust story in 1942 - first of all, I was unaware of that, and my bet is very few people outside of the UK would know about this 1942 revelation. Secondly you are saying that I try to mischaracterize, in what way? I was unaware of that article, wft do you want? There is a gazillion number of facts that I do not know, which is the case for every individual on this planet, including you, fucking asshole.
Now your link undermines your case as you were defending Baruch's "Nothing reported in war time is true", and your link of the 1942 Holocaust story disprove that. There are things that are reported during war that are TRUE.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 17, 2015, 07:01:52 AM
What I said is that the Holocaust might have been known but it was through rumors, and the official date that I took is when Russian soldiers actually saw those concentration camps, earliest being in 1944. Now you put a link about the Telegraph publishing a Holocaust story in 1942 - first of all, I was unaware of that, and my bet is very few people outside of the UK would know about this 1942 revelation. Secondly you are saying that I try to mischaracterize, in what way? I was unaware of that article, wft do you want? There is a gazillion number of facts that I do not know, which is the case for every individual on this planet, including you, fucking asshole.
Now your link undermines your case as you were defending Baruch's "Nothing reported in war time is true", and your link of the 1942 Holocaust story disprove that. There are things that are reported during war that are TRUE.
No, if you look back I am not defending Baruch, although I did point out why I was picking up on your assertion rather than his which I also refute. Incidentally my question why would you try to refute Baruch with a subject that was hardly reported during the war which is about the worst you could pick for the purpose is I think answered, in that you are now saying you did not know much about the subject.
Quote from: jonb on October 17, 2015, 07:34:13 AM
No, if you look back I am not defending Baruch, although I did point out why I was picking up on your assertion rather than his which I also refute. Incidentally my question why would you try to refute Baruch with a subject that was hardly reported during the war which is about the worst you could pick for the purpose is I think answered, in that you are now saying you did not know much about the subject.
What?!? Because I did not know about that 1942 revelation, suddenly I don't know much about that subject??? It's a clear indication that your IQ must be in the single digit. I'm not going to bother with your posts. You're a waste.
If the subject is 'when is a thing reported' and you don't know when it is reported, I would say that is a pretty clear indicator.