Amazing Vid! George Galloway takes on the right wing media (Middle East Issues)

[5150Joker]

He totally owned her at the end and made a very good point about the biased nature in british and american reporting. News organizations make it a point to know who the Israelis are that died and mourn them yet they shrug off the deaths of Lebanese and Palestinians--there's an unmistakeable bias against Arabs and Muslims in favor of Jews and this guy just said what I'm sure is on the mind of a lot of people.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Termagant
Galloway is a piece of sh*t simply because he consistently sides with terrorists against free people who simply want to live and act to defend themselves. Arab self determination, whatever, that doesn't excuse the deliberate targeting of civilians.

I think the only thing simple here is your analysis, that it really is just about good vs evil.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
He totally owned her at the end and made a very good point about the biased nature in british and american reporting. News organizations make it a point to know who the Israelis are that died and mourn them yet they shrug off the deaths of Lebanese and Palestinians--there's an unmistakeable bias against Arabs and Muslims in favor of Jews and this guy just said what I'm sure is on the mind of a lot of people.

Funny how that doesn't really jibe with the news organizations airing blatantly falsified "reports" of the aftermath of Israel bombing Lebanon, as well the doctored photos. Huh.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
He totally owned her at the end and made a very good point about the biased nature in british and american reporting. News organizations make it a point to know who the Israelis are that died and mourn them yet they shrug off the deaths of Lebanese and Palestinians--there's an unmistakeable bias against Arabs and Muslims in favor of Jews and this guy just said what I'm sure is on the mind of a lot of people.

True... the media is in a sad state.

 

[buggati]

True... the media is in a sad state.

Especially those fox news racist rednecks!

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Why would a suicide bomber who only finished off Tony Blair be immoral?

You people are nuts sometimes.. what Americans or British did the people of Iraq kill before we chose to pre-emptively attack them?

If you were trying to make a point, then you failed miserably.

I doubt that any Brit or American died by the hands of an Iraqi even after the toppling of Saddam.

The attacks in London and Madrid were carried by local fools, who apparently blame the US & UK for all the slaughter that the Sunnis unleash on the Shias, and vice versa.

It would be interesting to compare numbers and see how many people died/executed/vanished (yearly) under the rule of Saddam, and how many do now due to this religious/power-struggle conflict between the Sunnins and Shias.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: buggati
Ya quite a few.

Care to list them so we may discuss them?

Other than that, I saw this video probably more than a week ago, and I was very unimpressed: the guy is a loud-mouth clown, that kept on rambling without answering any of the questions, and resorted to calling names.

Yeah, real class act.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
He totally owned her at the end and made a very good point about the biased nature in british and american reporting. News organizations make it a point to know who the Israelis are that died and mourn them yet they shrug off the deaths of Lebanese and Palestinians--there's an unmistakeable bias against Arabs and Muslims in favor of Jews and this guy just said what I'm sure is on the mind of a lot of people.

Funny how that doesn't really jibe with the news organizations airing blatantly falsified "reports" of the aftermath of Israel bombing Lebanon, as well the doctored photos. Huh.

How many news organizations airing falsified reports or doctored photos compared to how many news organizations make a point to personalize Israeli deaths? Looks like the man has a valid point to me.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
How many news organizations airing falsified reports or doctored photos compared to how many news organizations make a point to personalize Israeli deaths? Looks like the man has a valid point to me.

Care to point us to a few of those? All I remember is a barrage of pictures from the circus in Qana, where children were tossed from one "rescue worker" to another, so they may get as many photos as possible.

Seriously, show me some articles regarding the personalized deaths, whatever that means.

 

[Aisengard]

I still have yet to see these abundant mythical 'personalized reports'. All I can remember from CNN and Reuters is "40 people killed....oh wait we took the word of an incompetent moron on that one...hey here's a photo we spiffed up for you....oh shoot we got called on it..."

George Galloway is taking on made-up nonsense. That's pure Rovian politics right there.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I still have yet to see these abundant mythical 'personalized reports'. All I can remember from CNN and Reuters is "40 people killed....oh wait we took the word of an incompetent moron on that one...hey here's a photo we spiffed up for you....oh shoot we got called on it..."

For those who are not familiar, this is what Aisengard is talking about.

 

[Craig234]

I like his position that the plan for the Middle East that's needed is Israel out of all occupied territories, and a Palestenian state with a capital of East jerusalem.

Within that context, there's plenty of room to add what's needed for Israel's security. You don't here basically anyone in the US pursuing that plan.

Without it, you have ongoing conflict over injustice, with the only solution being akin to what the US did to the native Americans. Kill almost all the Palastenians, and reservations?

 

[imported_dna]

Ironically enough, ex-prime minister Barak offered just that to Arafat several years ago, and Araft rejected it without providing a reason, nor an alternative arrangment. A bit on this is included in the movie Obsession.

Even more ironic is the fact that the "occupied territories" (West Bank & Gaza) were not occupied prior to the war in 1967, and were conisdered Jordanian and Egyptian territories; however, you proably won't be surprised to know that there was no attempt made during those long years since 1948 to 1967 to form any Palestinian state in the West Bank.

And by the way, the West Bank would still be Jordanian territory today, if the King hadn't chosen to open a front with Israel. Nevertheless, I doubt we would've seen any Palestinian state in this hypothetical scenario; the PLO & friends were more preoccupied with killing Jews, than forming a state -- an observation that it is still true today.

I recommend the movie, you'll see some bits of the corruption and what was going on in Gaza while they were supposed to be building a state.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
How many news organizations airing falsified reports or doctored photos compared to how many news organizations make a point to personalize Israeli deaths? Looks like the man has a valid point to me.

Care to point us to a few of those? All I remember is a barrage of pictures from the circus in Qana, where children were tossed from one "rescue worker" to another, so they may get as many photos as possible.

Seriously, show me some articles regarding the personalized deaths, whatever that means.

It's mostly segments on TV news I'm speaking about and I'm not going to go Googling for links, but I stumbled across this the other day:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/terror.victims/page1.html

Originally posted by: dna
Ironically enough, ex-prime minister Barak offered just that to Arafat several years ago, and Araft rejected it without providing a reason, nor an alternative arrangment.

Seems like Barak's so called "generous offer" was downright insulting to Arafat, but we can't say for sure either way as the offer wasn't made publicly.

And I've seen that Obsession movie, it doesn't even bother to touch on the legitimate grievances the Muslim world has against us. Here is a short video that explains a bit of that:

http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=7...jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIrDQ6r0A6q-Aj8U2PEZZ4M

 

[EXman]

That guy is a rude socialist putz.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: EXman
That guy is a rude socialist putz.

bingo - it was hilarious when he said hezbollah is not a terrorist organization - and he proceeded to deflect the question about Iran providing missles to them.

I'm not surprised that Galloway is an nazi appeaser - there's been accusations of him accepting money from iraq and/or saddam. He's a piece of scum.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: dna
Ironically enough, ex-prime minister Barak offered just that to Arafat several years ago, and Araft rejected it without providing a reason, nor an alternative arrangment. A bit on this is included in the movie Obsession.

Even more ironic is the fact that the "occupied territories" (West Bank & Gaza) were not occupied prior to the war in 1967, and were conisdered Jordanian and Egyptian territories; however, you proably won't be surprised to know that there was no attempt made during those long years since 1948 to 1967 to form any Palestinian state in the West Bank.

And by the way, the West Bank would still be Jordanian territory today, if the King hadn't chosen to open a front with Israel. Nevertheless, I doubt we would've seen any Palestinian state in this hypothetical scenario; the PLO & friends were more preoccupied with killing Jews, than forming a state -- an observation that it is still true today.

I recommend the movie, you'll see some bits of the corruption and what was going on in Gaza while they were supposed to be building a state.

palestinians would have had
- no control over their water supply
- no control over their borders
- no control over their airspace
- no sollution to the refugee problem
- annexation of all major settlements

basicly it would have been very little from what they have now, not really fair now is it, read up on the subject untill next time

 

[Aisengard]

Also you forgot the biggest insult: Israel would still exist.

 

[ericlp]

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter....

Isn't that the truth...

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Shakespeare knew this 400 years ago. What do you win when all you get is making somebody look like a fool? Why do you suggest it's not wrong. Look at the difference between being wrong as in looking like a fool and wrong as in not being effective. In this Arab Israeli thingi I should thing the point should be, not whose right or wrong, but how do we get to peace. How do we bring people who want to kill each other to want to live in peace. It can't happen without respect for the other side. That's going to require seeing the other as being as human as you see yourself to be, no? It seems to me that being dispassionate about the truth is the only way that's going to really happen. Fortunately, with kids, bitter enemies can and do very often become fast friends and we are certainly all children, it seems to me.

Nice post.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It's mostly segments on TV news I'm speaking about and I'm not going to go Googling for links, but I stumbled across this the other day:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/terror.victims/page1.html

You're joking, right?
You're pointing to something from 2002, a year which followed 2001 -- you know -- when 9/11 took place, as well as the invasion to Afghanistan. The USA was still coping with the post 9/11 trauma, and begining to realize that terror will be a problem for the US as well.

Seems like Barak's so called "generous offer" was downright insulting to Arafat, but we can't say for sure either way as the offer wasn't made publicly.

And I've seen that Obsession movie, it doesn't even bother to touch on the legitimate grievances the Muslim world has against us. Here is a short video that explains a bit of that:

If you really saw the Obsession movie, then you would've seen the part where the Palestinian prime minister (I belive) was giving a firey speech saying that Arafat had no intention of accepting the deal, and then went on to ramble about how they are going to fight the jews.

As far as the video goes, it's pure propaganda. The curfew, and demolition of houses came after the terrorist attacks, and not the other way around.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Czar
palestinians would have had
- no control over their water supply
- no control over their borders
- no control over their airspace
- no sollution to the refugee problem
- annexation of all major settlements

basicly it would have been very little from what they have now, not really fair now is it, read up on the subject untill next time

Nor would they have had any of those rights under the rule of Jordan or Egypt.

Also, I doubt there is any water supply in the West Bank, and you can hardly expect them to get control over borders and airspace right from the start, not after the spike in terrorist attacks after they received some control after the agreement in the mid 90s.

Furthermore, what about the refugee problem? Are there any "refugees" left since 1948? That's almost 60 years ago, and you can't expect me to believe that they hadn't settled down by now.

Also, most of the blame (if not all) lies on the neighboring states which initiated the war in 1948; it's not as if Israel kicked them out -- they fled because their firends ultimately lost the war. In sports you'd get labeled as a "bad loser" if you were to exhibit such behaviour.

If after 60 years some of them still live as refugees in tents, then I'd say it's because one of these two reasons:
(1) The have serious personal issues, and can't move on.
(2) They are kept in abject poverty by the powers at be, for the political, and monetary gain

Since I doubt those people are invalids, I'll go with #2. Read about the corruption, and watch the end of this interview where she talks about the PA.

 

[Craig234]

"Ironically enough, ex-prime minister Barak offered just that to Arafat several years ago, and Araft rejected it without providing a reason, nor an alternative arrangment. A bit on this is included in the movie Obsession."

That's not my understanding of the deal that was offered, and Arafat did provide a reason as I recall.

The movie obsession - well, right-wingers seem to be praising it as the movie that finally demonizes the enemy du jour the way they like, sort of 'Birth of Nations' for the muslims.

You can tell a lot by the two big headlines on the site bragging 'Obsession on Fox!' and 'Obsession on Rush Limbaugh!'

Regarding your other comments, I agree that the nations other than Israel are hardly a paradise for the Palastenians either, and that there was a lot of corruption with Arafat.

Of course, it pales in comparison to the corruption under the current US administration.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It's mostly segments on TV news I'm speaking about and I'm not going to go Googling for links, but I stumbled across this the other day:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/terror.victims/page1.html

You're joking, right?
You're pointing to something from 2002, a year which followed 2001 -- you know -- when 9/11 took place, as well as the invasion to Afghanistan. The USA was still coping with the post 9/11 trauma, and begining to realize that terror will be a problem for the US as well.

It's a huge list of personalized deaths, exactly what you asked for. But if you want a more recent example then just wait for the next attack on Israel and you'll see stories giving the names of the dead and explaining what they did during their lives as we as who survives them.

Originally posted by: dna

Seems like Barak's so called "generous offer" was downright insulting to Arafat, but we can't say for sure either way as the offer wasn't made publicly.

And I've seen that Obsession movie, it doesn't even bother to touch on the legitimate grievances the Muslim world has against us. Here is a short video that explains a bit of that:

If you really saw the Obsession movie, then you would've seen the part where the Palestinian prime minister (I belive) was giving a firey speech saying that Arafat had no intention of accepting the deal, and then went on to ramble about how they are going to fight the jews.

Yes I have seen Obsession, twice. What I haven't seen is Israel ever offer the Palestinians a fair two state solution, so it isn't hard to imagine why Arafat would have turned down the deal and be left feeling the only option was to fight.

Originally posted by: dna
As far as the video goes, it's pure propaganda. The curfew, and demolition of houses came after the terrorist attacks, and not the other way around.

The video doesn't claim the curfew or demolitions came before the terror attacks, but it does show Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people which the Obsession movie completely leaves out, and it shows how that oppression effects all Palestinians rather than just the minority of extremists as well as how that oppression dates back to long before those extremists were ever born.

Here is a clip from another movie that clears up another Obsession overlooks:

http://www.occupation101.com/History_stream_hi.html

And the first four minutes of that film puts the situation in widely overlooked historical perspective:

http://www.occupation101.com/Intro_stream_hi.html

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It's a huge list of personalized deaths, exactly what you asked for. But if you want a more recent example then just wait for the next attack on Israel and you'll see stories giving the names of the dead and explaining what they did during their lives as we as who survives them.

Writing anything afte the fact doesn't make much difference; expample: the circus in Qana shifted opinion, or at the very least gave the mallable European politician a reason to call for cease fire.

Yes I have seen Obsession, twice. What I haven't seen is Israel ever offer the Palestinians a fair two state solution, so it isn't hard to imagine why Arafat would have turned down the deal and be left feeling the only option was to fight.

You can't really ask for a "fair solution" while you have the destruction of Israel in your charter, can you? And you left out all the propaganda, and brainwashing their doing to their children (did you fastforward that part?)

The video doesn't claim the curfew or demolitions came before the terror attacks

No, but it was implied, as the narrator said that "this has led to such anger in some palestinian that they turned themselves into human bombs" (not word for word).