Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
The media does it all the time concerning marijuana and that propaganda.
The NEWS !!
- Thread starter lwien
- Start date
- Status
The media does it all the time concerning marijuana and that propaganda.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Good question. I was thinkin' the same thing myself yesterday.
cawshook
Solod out.
This isn't some police investigation into the matter, its on camera. Social media is a very powerful tool. Word gets out quickly nowadays. If you didn't see it now on CNN, you'd see it a few days later somewhere else. I didn't see no documentation for the three Israeli teens.
Actually Abbas condemned the kidnappings quickly after it happened, and you have to understand that Israeli soldiers violate Palestinians' right everyday. They are people with feelings, and they will retaliate. Imagine seeing your little brother getting smashed in the face like that. Tell me that it wouldn't light a fire in you. Family is very very important in middle eastern culture, its not always in the name of religion. I'm not justifying the murder of the Israeli teens (if any), just explaining. The Israelis can talk about persecution all they want, bunch of bullshit to try to fix their image. do you really think they care about the Palestinians? Remember these guys believe the life of one Israeli is worth a thousand Palestinians.
Caligula
Maximus
As I stated in the text you quoted, I was talking about the teen who was burned to death. You do bring up a good point, though. The Israelis are also publicly condemning what their police did, and are investigating that matter as well.
To further that point, there is a distinct difference between giving lip service to the international community by saying "oh yea, that was a bad thing", and actually doing something about it. I cant seem to find mention of any of the many "governing bodies" within Palestinian territory that have actually bothered to conduct an investigation or search for a missing/beaten/murdered Israelis and/or to find a suspect. Perhaps if you can cite valid examples of this, it would go a long way of substantiating the point you are trying to make?
Interesting. Before I was born, my mother moved from Hawaii to Haifa. She lived there for 4 years with various familys as a sort of cultural/student exchange with the University of Hawaii. She tells me stories about how the father of one family was assigned to pick up body parts of civilians who were killed in random bombings and rocket attacks. About how one of her host's family members had a not so awesome end when he was on patrol for the IDF (a job which is mandatory for all citizens under a specific age) when two guys popped out of a spider hole, held him down, and slit his throat. Aside from this, I've also heard a smattering of other terrible stuff that happened to people and their property.
Needless to say she has a somewhat biased opinion, which is why I take what she says and run it through a mental filter. This also means I needed to do my own research, as I tend to do on multi-faceted issues like this. Its obvious to me, and to anyone else who looks at it with an unbiased eye, that while there is truth in those stories they are told through colored lenses. One side of the story does not paint a complete picture for anyone.
My point is that you are doing the same thing here. Throwing out terms like "zionist liars" while using wide, sweeping generalizations is not furthering your cause. Not with me at least. If anything, it makes me less sympathetic because I immediately start looking for the bias and BS. Its no different than someone making broad generalized comments about all Democrats, or all Republicans, or all white people, or all Palestinians for that matter.
Im afraid that your obvious bias here may be clouding up the forest, and only allowing you to see individual trees.
Can you cite your sources on this? Did the Israeli PM say that exact quote to international news agencies?
Iran's conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesdaythat Israel must be "wiped off the map"
BTW, if you're making reference to prisoner exchanges I shouldn't need to point out why and how this is an invalid argument, but I digress.
Final thoughts; I remember when Arabs (and Hindu Indians and Sikhs... they all look the same, right?) were getting threatened, beaten, murdered, etc... here in the US shortly after 9/11 on quite the regular basis. Does that make it valid to paint all Americans (or all of any group, really) as uneducated knee-jerk xenophobes?
No. It does not.
I see stories about the US Boarder Patrol beating and mistreating illegal immigrants in their custody. Does that mean that the Homeland Security branch (or by extension the entire US Government) condones these acts?
No. It does not.
Edit: As this may come off that I am pro Israel, I should state that I have no dog in this fight. I am simply pointing out the contradictions being discussed here.
Last edited:
cawshook
Solod out.
I never said they followed through, both sides can condemn the murders as much as they want. It doesn't mean shit. That's my whole point. You're the one who brought up Israelis condemning the killing.
Those horror stories are kid bedtime stories in comparison to the rape, mass murder and humiliation that Palestinians have to go through.
The thing is you're too focused on me saying they're Zionist liars, I have good reason to believe that. I remember when they bombed the shit out of a school killing 200 kids while claiming there were weapons hidden there when in reality there was nothing. They go on and on. They contradict themselves all the time for what they say to international media vs what is really happening. Like I said, eventually you just don't give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not trying to convince you they're lying about the killings, I said I'm bias in thinking that, but for good reason.
Why does it have to be an international news source? Israeli ministers have claimed the life of one Israeli is worth the life of a thousand Palestinians multiple times through local media, and they've shown it through their actions. Of course they won't say it to an international news source, that's why I think they're hypocrites and liars.
As for generalizations, I defined Zionists in my previous post as people who share the mentality that it is ok to eradicate Palestinians off their land because they have a religious right to it. Not all Jews or Israelis. I don't think that's generalization. Its an unacceptable mentality.
As for that Iran article, that really doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand. Why don't they bomb Iran then? I hate ahmidinejad just as much as netanyahu. They can both kill each other off.
At least I admit some of my bias. You on the other hand...
Caligula
Maximus
cawshook said:
I was referencing Ahmidinejad as an example of what I was looking for regarding citation. Although if one were to try, its not too hard to draw a connection between him and the PLO, Hamas, et al.
cawshook said:
I used the terms "zionist liars" and "sweeping generalizations" separately for a reason. I read "zionist liars" the same as when someone starts using terms like "libertard" for liberals or "tea bagger" for tea party members. That's a solid red flag for the BS detector to turn on full.
cawshook said:
Okay, let's change that to legitimate mainstream news outlets. Ill wait for the links.
cawshook said:
My point was that that there is actual evidence proving Israel has indeed followed through in the past as well as presently.
Here, I'll show you mine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-muhammad-abu-khdeir.html
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/var...nished-over-aggressive-anti-Arab-shirts-.html
May I now see yours?
...On that note, I'd love to see how Hamas or the PLO treat members who have anti semitic t-shirts. LOL, I have this image floating around in my head:
cawshook said:
cawshook said:
I'm afraid you've missed my points completely.
Last edited:
cawshook
Solod out.
HAve AT IT: (I Don't KNOw WTF IS happening with my computer, capslock key is acting up)I was referencing Ahmidinejad as an example of what I was looking for regarding citation. Although if one were to try, its not too hard to draw a connection between him and the PLO, Hamas, et al.
I used the terms "zionist liars" and "sweeping generalizations" separately for a reason. I read "zionist liars" the same as when someone starts using terms like "libertard" for liberals or "tea bagger" for tea party members. That's a solid red flag for the BS detector to turn on full.
Okay, let's change that to legitimate mainstream news outlets. Ill wait for the links.
My point was that that there is actual evidence proving Israel has indeed followed through in the past as well as presently.
Here, I'll show you mine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-muhammad-abu-khdeir.html
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/var...nished-over-aggressive-anti-Arab-shirts-.html
May I now see yours?
...On that note, I'd love to see how Hamas or the PLO treat members who have anti semitic t-shirts. LOL, I have this image floating around in my head:
I'm afraid you missed my point completely.
http://www.rense.com/general42/morej.htm
If you can show two instances of action against them, that doesn't mean they do it all the time, and if you dont follow through all the time, its irrelevant. It really doesn't mean they did it these two times either, they just said they did (again, my bias).
Have you ever seen how they get treated there? You talk about Israeli's rights of getting they're property damage and rocket attacks that have probably amounted to like less than 1% to the amount of deaths and property damage to palestinian civilians. How is that not biased? Basic needs like electricity, water and food are cut out at times.
I'm sure Hamas is antisemetic, but did you ever stop and think about where those feelings come from?
Caligula
Maximus
Ok.
http://www.rense.com/disclaimer.htm
Disclaimer and Fair Use - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives.
Actually I hand picked only two. One deals directly with a case mentioned by you, the other I'm using jokingly to make a point. However, it looks like your argument is that the government that does nothing, all of the time is somehow better than one that does something, some of the time? I don't follow that logic and request elaboration.
Sigh. Can't win.
I can quite assure you there was antisemitism in that region well before the state of Israel was created. How far back do you want to go?
cawshook
Solod out.
Regardless of the disclaimer, those are straight up quotes.
Never said that not doing anything is better than doing something. I'm saying in the grand scheme of things, and all the violations going on against the palestinian people's rights, when a very few get "punished", whatever that means anyway, it is irrelevant.
You do know Jews lived all over the middle east just before the creation of Israel?
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Washington (CNN) -- Power it up, or leave it behind.
By Greg Clary, CNN
updated 6:31 PM EDT, Sun July 6, 2014
The Transportation Security Administration said Sunday that officers may ask passengers en route to the United States from overseas to turn on their electronic devices to prove they work and aren't explosive devices.
They won't allow devices without power on board planes. The traveler may then undergo additional screening.
It's part of an update to security measures aimed at combating potential new threats from terrorists in the Middle East and Europe.
Tighter security ordered for some U.S.-bound flights
CNN's Jim Sciutto and Evan Perez contributed to this report.
By Greg Clary, CNN
updated 6:31 PM EDT, Sun July 6, 2014
The Transportation Security Administration said Sunday that officers may ask passengers en route to the United States from overseas to turn on their electronic devices to prove they work and aren't explosive devices.
They won't allow devices without power on board planes. The traveler may then undergo additional screening.
It's part of an update to security measures aimed at combating potential new threats from terrorists in the Middle East and Europe.
Tighter security ordered for some U.S.-bound flights
CNN's Jim Sciutto and Evan Perez contributed to this report.
Hmmm... let's see: turn on your inactive device - "ON" = BOOOOM!!! at that location, or a remote location ...BrilliantWashington (CNN) -- Power it up, or leave it behind.
By Greg Clary, CNN
updated 6:31 PM EDT, Sun July 6, 2014
The Transportation Security Administration said Sunday that officers may ask passengers en route to the United States from overseas to turn on their electronic devices to prove they work and aren't explosive devices.
They won't allow devices without power on board planes. The traveler may then undergo additional screening.
It's part of an update to security measures aimed at combating potential new threats from terrorists in the Middle East and Europe.
Tighter security ordered for some U.S.-bound flights
CNN's Jim Sciutto and Evan Perez contributed to this report.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Hmmm... let's see: turn on your inactive device - "ON" = BOOOOM!!! at that location, or a remote location ...Brilliant
There are more than a billion ways to skin a cat, so to speak. The Israeli security booth device is more for show & demonstration of defense than anything else, I'm afraid. If a device is meant to trigger an explosion at an immediate or remote location, there is almost no way to stop that. Jamming signals may work in some specific instances, but for most, likely not. We live in a technologically/increasingly dangerous world. Very difficult to keep up with that, if not stay at least one step ahead.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Snappo, that booth is not real. Never was. It was meant as a joke.
grokit
well-worn member
The middle east is fucked and will be the end of us all no matter what damn (in every sense of the word) side you're on. The problems are intractable and the undertakings of the current actors are only making things worse while the sheeple continue to go about their business as usual, oblivious to the doom inevitably headed their way from this region; except for china and russia they're teaming up to play the long game.
Last edited:
Yes! It was a spoof that circulated worldwide, and was taken very seriously by many! Obviously the concept is idiotic ...but that never stopped anyone before
.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I made a mistake in an earlier post and I apologize. I said that the Supreme Court of the US was insane. They are NOT insane, they are CORRUPT IDEALOGUES.
Court conservatives add insult to injury on contraception
07/07/14 08:00 AM
By Steve Benen
A week ago today, a narrow Supreme Court majority broke new legal ground, issuing a 5-4 ruling that said some corporations can restrict employees’ access to birth control. And while that controversial decision generated considerable attention, what much of the country may not realize is that the same conservative justices quietly returned to their decision – twice.
The first “clarification” came a day after the ruling – which was intended to bring clarity to the law – when the legal community was left wondering about the applicability of the Hobby Lobby decision. The chain store’s lawsuit did not target all birth control, just the forms of contraception the corporation’s owners found morally objectionable. Did the court’s ruling apply to the contraception methods included in the litigation or everything, including regular ol’ birth control pills?
On Tuesday, the Court said the ruling covered all 20 forms of contraception protected through the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that Hobby Lobby’s lawsuit only covered 4 of the 20. By what rationale did the conservative majority reach this expansive conclusion? I believe it’s called the “because we said so” rule of American jurisprudence.
For proponents of reproductive rights and the separation of church and state, Tuesday’s “clarification” simply added insult to injury. But on late Thursday, the Supreme Court returned to the same issue again, this time granting an emergency request from an evangelical school in Illinois called Wheaton College. Irin Camron explained:
At issue is the “accommodation” the Obama administration worked out for religiously-identified non-profits: Sign a form certifying your objection, and the insurer will provide the coverage directly, without the objecting organization having to pay. As of now, 122 non-profits have sued, claiming that signing the opt-out form for someone to get contraception violates their religious liberty. (An attorney for the plaintiffs has repeatedly referred to it as a “permission slip for abortion,” even though it does not actually cover abortion.)
In fact, that accommodation was one of the reasons Justice Samuel Alito cited to justify his Hobby Lobby decision – words [Justice Sonia Sotomayor] threw back at him in the dissent.
The justices usually go out of their way to be respectful towards one another, but in this case, the conservatives were being so cavalier with the law, contradicting their own conclusions from literally a few days prior, that Sotomayor felt the need to call out the right’s judicial recklessness in unusually strong terms.
“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.” She added that the conservatives’ latest gambit is the sort of action that “undermines confidence in this institution.”
Those are forceful accusations, which in this case, appear to be well grounded – there can be little doubt that the Republican-appointed justices started with the answer they found ideologically satisfying, then worked backwards to find the rationale that made them happy. And then a few days later, when a related case posed a problem, these same justices simply flipped the whole thing upside down in order to once again advance a pre-determined agenda.
Even the most knee-jerk conservative should find this tough to defend. On Monday, Alito, speaking for the five-member conservative majority, said the ACA’s contraception policy created a “substantial burden” on religious corporations and officials must rely on the “least restrictive” approach to achieving policymakers’ goal. In this case, Alito said, the Obama administration already developed a compromise process through which a private entity “can self-certify that it opposes providing coverage for particular contraceptive services.”
For everyone involved, this meant one thing: the Supreme Court’s conservatives are comfortable with that compromise approach. After all, there was Alito touting it in his own Hobby Lobby ruling, clearly using the policy as an example of the government taking the “least restrictive” path towards its goal. The far-right jurist specifically said this policy “achieves all of the government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.”
That is, until Thursday, when Alito and his cohorts on the right apparently changed their mind about their own rationale, announcing that those who took their own legal reasoning at face value are wrong – again, because the conservatives says so.
Keep in mind, Wheaton College is effectively raising a religious objection to paperwork. The school starts with the premise that the birth control methods they don’t like are literally abortion – all scientific evidence to the contrary notwithstanding – and from there, Wheaton also says it, as a religiously affiliated non-profit, wants to exclude contraception from its coverage plan.
Fine, the Obama administration responds, just fill out some forms, letting insurers know about the moral objection.
No, Wheaton responded, filling out the forms about the moral objection is itself morally objectionable. Indeed, the school’s administrators and lawyers went so far as to suggest filling out paperwork raising moral objections to birth control – which, again, is abortion in their eyes – is practically the same thing as endorsing the moral wrong itself. The college filed a federal case and on Thursday, the Supreme Court granted emergency relief – an extremely rare event – ensuring Wheaton won’t have to do the paperwork, despite what the same court justices said on Monday.
As Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West put it, “Overnight, the cure has become the disease. Having explicitly promised that Hobby Lobby would go no further than Hobby Lobby, the court went back on its word, then skipped town for the summer.”
What an embarrassment.
Court conservatives add insult to injury on contraception
07/07/14 08:00 AM
By Steve Benen
A week ago today, a narrow Supreme Court majority broke new legal ground, issuing a 5-4 ruling that said some corporations can restrict employees’ access to birth control. And while that controversial decision generated considerable attention, what much of the country may not realize is that the same conservative justices quietly returned to their decision – twice.
The first “clarification” came a day after the ruling – which was intended to bring clarity to the law – when the legal community was left wondering about the applicability of the Hobby Lobby decision. The chain store’s lawsuit did not target all birth control, just the forms of contraception the corporation’s owners found morally objectionable. Did the court’s ruling apply to the contraception methods included in the litigation or everything, including regular ol’ birth control pills?
On Tuesday, the Court said the ruling covered all 20 forms of contraception protected through the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that Hobby Lobby’s lawsuit only covered 4 of the 20. By what rationale did the conservative majority reach this expansive conclusion? I believe it’s called the “because we said so” rule of American jurisprudence.
For proponents of reproductive rights and the separation of church and state, Tuesday’s “clarification” simply added insult to injury. But on late Thursday, the Supreme Court returned to the same issue again, this time granting an emergency request from an evangelical school in Illinois called Wheaton College. Irin Camron explained:
At issue is the “accommodation” the Obama administration worked out for religiously-identified non-profits: Sign a form certifying your objection, and the insurer will provide the coverage directly, without the objecting organization having to pay. As of now, 122 non-profits have sued, claiming that signing the opt-out form for someone to get contraception violates their religious liberty. (An attorney for the plaintiffs has repeatedly referred to it as a “permission slip for abortion,” even though it does not actually cover abortion.)
In fact, that accommodation was one of the reasons Justice Samuel Alito cited to justify his Hobby Lobby decision – words [Justice Sonia Sotomayor] threw back at him in the dissent.
The justices usually go out of their way to be respectful towards one another, but in this case, the conservatives were being so cavalier with the law, contradicting their own conclusions from literally a few days prior, that Sotomayor felt the need to call out the right’s judicial recklessness in unusually strong terms.
“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.” She added that the conservatives’ latest gambit is the sort of action that “undermines confidence in this institution.”
Those are forceful accusations, which in this case, appear to be well grounded – there can be little doubt that the Republican-appointed justices started with the answer they found ideologically satisfying, then worked backwards to find the rationale that made them happy. And then a few days later, when a related case posed a problem, these same justices simply flipped the whole thing upside down in order to once again advance a pre-determined agenda.
Even the most knee-jerk conservative should find this tough to defend. On Monday, Alito, speaking for the five-member conservative majority, said the ACA’s contraception policy created a “substantial burden” on religious corporations and officials must rely on the “least restrictive” approach to achieving policymakers’ goal. In this case, Alito said, the Obama administration already developed a compromise process through which a private entity “can self-certify that it opposes providing coverage for particular contraceptive services.”
For everyone involved, this meant one thing: the Supreme Court’s conservatives are comfortable with that compromise approach. After all, there was Alito touting it in his own Hobby Lobby ruling, clearly using the policy as an example of the government taking the “least restrictive” path towards its goal. The far-right jurist specifically said this policy “achieves all of the government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.”
That is, until Thursday, when Alito and his cohorts on the right apparently changed their mind about their own rationale, announcing that those who took their own legal reasoning at face value are wrong – again, because the conservatives says so.
Keep in mind, Wheaton College is effectively raising a religious objection to paperwork. The school starts with the premise that the birth control methods they don’t like are literally abortion – all scientific evidence to the contrary notwithstanding – and from there, Wheaton also says it, as a religiously affiliated non-profit, wants to exclude contraception from its coverage plan.
Fine, the Obama administration responds, just fill out some forms, letting insurers know about the moral objection.
No, Wheaton responded, filling out the forms about the moral objection is itself morally objectionable. Indeed, the school’s administrators and lawyers went so far as to suggest filling out paperwork raising moral objections to birth control – which, again, is abortion in their eyes – is practically the same thing as endorsing the moral wrong itself. The college filed a federal case and on Thursday, the Supreme Court granted emergency relief – an extremely rare event – ensuring Wheaton won’t have to do the paperwork, despite what the same court justices said on Monday.
As Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West put it, “Overnight, the cure has become the disease. Having explicitly promised that Hobby Lobby would go no further than Hobby Lobby, the court went back on its word, then skipped town for the summer.”
What an embarrassment.
grokit
well-worn member
Agreed.
Demote this corporate-leaning, activist, misogynistic prick masquerading as the "reasonable one".
Sotomayor for chief justice now!
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
lwien
Well-Known Member
To me, kids have died and regardless what words you want to describe it, kids dying is abhorrent on all levels. For me, I could give a fuck what words you want to use. They're fucking dead and that should bring a tear to anyone's eyes.
And yeah Vicki, that pic illustrates the ONLY way this madness is going to stop.
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
Here is a link:
The uncle of the slain Israeli teenager Naftali Fraenkel offers his condolences to Hussein Abu Khdeir, whose 16-year-old son Mohammed was murdered last week.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ael_n_5563454.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
Last edited:
- Status