I find this more disturbing

[Greadius]

Originally posted by andycapp
sgrig raises some very good points about British (and resident foreigner's within Britain) attitudes toward America . I think the same could be said about attitudes towards America in most other Western countries including Australia. I think many non-Americans (within the Western world) feel smugly that Muslim hostility is directed only at Americans - I think that conclusion is false.

Absolutely; they have to understand murderous rage doesn't rationally pick targets. I believe there is a long list of nationalities of people who died in the WTC. The bombings of American embassies in Africa killed many more Africans than Americans. They don't care who they hit as long as they kill alot of people.

Originally posted by basta72
It was a fake, they where celebrating something completely diffrent. But how can you tell the diffrence between the truth and the lies/desinformation in western media? This video for example, every TV-channel showed it in theír news. Most people automaticly belives that they are watching the truth. The damage had already been done even if it turned out to be a fake. Perhaps it was the news about the faked video that really was the faked news? You wouldn´t know.

Actually, I thought the video was stock footage... people WERE in the streets celebrating, they just didn't have cameras out there so they used that footage to help pass the message along. They do the same thing when the U.S. launched air strikes in Afghanistan, show the stock footage of some B2s taking off 5 years ago while they explain that B2s bombed something. If they had a camera out there showing the live celebrations I'm sure it would have made people almost as angry as watching that same footage over and over.

Originally posted by basta72
I dont belive that you ever can justify the killing of innocent people. But who´s innocent? The Talibans? The People in WTC? None? All? It depends on who you are asking.

Thank you. Your moral relativism has certainly helped us piece things together and make sense of it all.

 

[basta72]

QUOTE]Actually, I thought the video was stock footage... people WERE in the streets celebrating, they just didn't have cameras out there so they used that footage to help pass the message along. They do the same thing when the U.S. launched air strikes in Afghanistan, show the stock footage of some B2s taking off 5 years ago while they explain that B2s bombed something. If they had a camera out there showing the live celebrations I'm sure it would have made people almost as angry as watching that same footage over and over.[/QUOTE]

If you aren´t told that it is stock footage when the footage is aired then it is a lie/desinformation, even if there where celebrations taking part. The true celebrations may have looked very diffrent from the stock footage. Wouldn´t it have made a diffrence if it was men with AK-47s celebrating and not women and children?

QUOTE]Thank you. Your moral relativism has certainly helped us piece things together and make sense of it all.[/QUOTE]

All we can do are to follow our own moral values, it´s easy, but is it the right thing? Moral is relative and this is a problem that can´t be solved.

 

[knowltok2]

I have heard the rumor about that footabe not being accurate, and I have heard that it was debunked. That it really was shot, and really was about people celebrating that the WTC was hit. I have heard it go back and forth, and to tell the truth, it is immaterial.

Fact: There are many people in the Middle East that hate the US.

Fact: Their governments are restrictive, practice censorship, are not democratic, and are often oppresive.

Fact: Their level of technological development is far behind the western standard, as is their standard of living.

Fact: Literacy rates are lower than in Westernized countries, and there are less radios, TV's and ISPs than in Westernized countries. This makes information easier to restrict.

Opinion: These governments allow the blame game to be played to keep internal dissent under control. The scapegoat helps hide the fact that Islamic societies are not growing and producing the methods for improvement on their own.

Opinion: If these people didn't blame the US, they would blame someone else. Britain, France, Germany, and Japan come to mind.

Opinion: The US needs to get off of oil. Then the US needs to stop proping up these governments and worrying about the stability of the region except for Israel. The region is already producing plenty of hatred and terrorism under 'stable' government. How much worse could it get if the Saudi royal family was deposed, or if an Assad wasn't the head of Syria? In short, cut off the oil money and then let them go to hell. We may be able to help pick up the pieces and rebuild, but we aren't going to get the current governments and societies to change into something more stable and peaceful without them going through some pain. This is harsh, and not very friendly, but does anyone really think we can get reforms in Saudi Arabia (or any of the other countries) by continuing to buy oil and selling the government weapons?

Go ahead and blast away.

 

[sysyphus]

Most of the posts here are by people from the west, adn I find it pretty sad how many of them think that just because the western media is not government controlled, it is therefore not lacking in propoganda.

Now I can't confirm what the ultimate influence is on western media (although let's face facts: it's largely owned by right-wing money), but I have seen and read from media sources throughout the west including the two major players, i.e. the BBC and CNN.

Every one of them purports an "I'm alright jack" image of their own part of the world (none more patheticly so than the Canadian media ) and chooses only the facts which support themselves.

I've travelled worldwide and I can say confidently that in general terms: westerners are bloody ignorant.

 

[sgrig]

Originally posted by knowltok2

Opinion: The US needs to get off of oil. Then the US needs to stop proping up these governments and worrying about the stability of the region except for Israel. The region is already producing plenty of hatred and terrorism under 'stable' government. How much worse could it get if the Saudi royal family was deposed, or if an Assad wasn't the head of Syria? In short, cut off the oil money and then let them go to hell. We may be able to help pick up the pieces and rebuild, but we aren't going to get the current governments and societies to change into something more stable and peaceful without them going through some pain. This is harsh, and not very friendly, but does anyone really think we can get reforms in Saudi Arabia (or any of the other countries) by continuing to buy oil and selling the government weapons?

Go ahead and blast away.

Why the special treatment of Israel? The major cause of Arab hate for USA is America's support for Israel. Your approach would breed only more terrorists, and would fire back on both Israel and USA (and America's other allies).

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by sgrig
Why the special treatment of Israel? The major cause of Arab hate for USA is America's support for Israel. Your approach would breed only more terrorists, and would fire back on both Israel and USA (and America's other allies).

Because Israel is a genuine Democracy, and we support those. Period.
And I hate the idea of allowing the possible creation of terrorists dictate our foreign policy. Isn't that like pandering to their will because they might start killing people?

Originally posted by sysyphus
Most of the posts here are by people from the west, adn I find it pretty sad how many of them think that just because the western media is not government controlled, it is therefore not lacking in propoganda.

Nobody has said the Western media doesn't have propoganda. But we have alternate sources, and our sources question what the government tells them, and if they find any contradictary evidence, they present it.

Originally posted by sysyphus
Every one of them purports an "I'm alright jack" image of their own part of the world and chooses only the facts which support themselves.

Only facts which support themselves? Like when the media covered up the mistaken raid on loyal Afghans, or when they lied about the friendly fire deaths, or when they covered up the accidental mosque bombing? Exactly what FACTS exist that the media is covering up. Apparently you must know some that exist or you wouldn't have observed the cover-up... correct?
I think the BBC runs some sort of pansy terrorist-pandering special about the plight of the ______, and how horrible and evil they've been treated by everyone at least once a week. How many specials about the WTC has Al Jazeera ran again...?

Originally posted by sysyphus
I've travelled worldwide and I can say confidently that in general terms: westerners are bloody ignorant.

And you are, of course, well informed and not part of the ignorant masses. Since morals are apparently now relative, doesn't that mean ignorance has to be relative too? Westerners are ignorant? Compare to whom?

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Greadius

And you are, of course, well informed and not part of the ignorant masses. Since morals are apparently now relative, doesn't that mean ignorance has to be relative too? Westerners are ignorant? Compare to whom?

Compared to the view we have of ourselves.

Au contraire, I readily admit to my western ignorance. The first step to solving a problem is to recognise that it exists.

Ignorance is a plague that has conquered the whole world.

If we in the west are as great as we make ourselves out to be (and don't kid yourself, we do), the perhaps we ought to take the lead to correct?

The Gallup poll which inititated this thread: just exactly how did they conduct their survey anyway? How can you be sure it completely lacks bias or real error?

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Greadius
Because Israel is a genuine Democracy, and we support those. Period.
And I hate the idea of allowing the possible creation of terrorists dictate our foreign policy. Isn't that like pandering to their will because they might start killing people?

My sentiments exactly. Israel isn't perfect, but they are a democracy, and they haven't vowed to push the Arabs into the Persian Gulf.

Originally posted by sysyphus
The Gallup poll which inititated this thread: just exactly how did they conduct their survey anyway? How can you be sure it completely lacks bias or real error?

I am not sure at all that it lacks error. Considering that several of the questions were forbidden by governments in question, I'd say there is room for plenty of error.

 

[Juize]

On second thought, edited out
EDIT2: Taken signature. Please delete this post. Thank you.

 

[Richard III]

I'm pretty disturbed by the poll too, but then, I shouldn't be surprised. Somewhere on a thread a few weeks back, I posted the links to a guy on Canadian TV who openly suggests that the AMERICANS attacked the WTC as part of some CIA-fed global oil conspiracy.

So it would be nice to think it's because of ignorance, but I'm starting to think that that sort of thing is actually a byproduct of WILFUL ignorance - the same sort that allowed intelligent marxists (?) to pretend to themselves that Stalin was always right, or neo-nazis to believe that the world is run by some sort of trilateral commission that meets every week, or allowed Noam Chomsky to pretend that the atrocities in Cambodia were just a trick by the western media.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

PS many of my friends pitch the "Israel is a democracy" thing to me too. And a degree, they're right. And I have a lot more sympathy with Israel than I might otherwise have because it allows its nationals to have genuine conversations about peace without accusing the doves of implicitly being traitors at every step.

But what's always bothered me about the "democratic Israel" argument is that it is not that simple, and there are - by Israel's own design - grey areas. First, unlike most Western democracies, it's clearly a psuedo-theocratic democracy in that the policies built around a state religion differentiate slightly between "real citizens" (jews) and "resident citizens" (Israeli arabs). Historically, that doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't quite jive with the perfect "democratic ideal."

More troubling, though, is how that differentiation applies in the more extreme case of occupied territory. In an interview on our province-owned educational TV station last night, one of Sharon's advisors was asked -

"Why not (as some columnists have said) end this by doing the honorable thing? Since Israel does not plan to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, why not annex it and confront the fact that it's Israel's once and for all?"

The answer was a firm "no, we won't do that." Unsaid was the real reason: annexation would mean pressure to confer rights on the new residents of Israel. So the "democratic alternative" is to pretend that those people (um, you know, those Palestinians) aren't actually legally residents of that lovely democracy at all. Again, hardly the actions of a constitutional society that accepts the rule of law, etc. (I have just as many criticisms of Palestinian respect for those same principles, but that's not the point).

R.III

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by sysyphus
Au contraire, I readily admit to my western ignorance. The first step to solving a problem is to recognise that it exists.

Ignorance is a plague that has conquered the whole world.

Please, when you cure your ignorance come back to us. Sounds fatal

Originally posted by Richard III
But what's always bothered me about the "democratic Israel" argument is that it is not that simple, and there are - by Israel's own design - grey areas. First, unlike most Western democracies, it's clearly a psuedo-theocratic democracy in that the policies built around a state religion differentiate slightly between "real citizens" (jews) and "resident citizens" (Israeli arabs). Historically, that doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't quite jive with the perfect "democratic ideal."

I know we have some Israeli's on this board who I hope can correct my corrections. I don't believe it is against the law for non-Jews to be citizens. However, most of these things were determined while Israel was under attack and really had to hammer out its borders in the most undemocratic of means. Its also important to remember a lot of the 'resident citzens' are immigrants, or at best second generation settlers... in most democratic countries they wouldn't be citizens either.

 

[PinkyGen]

Originally posted by basta72
You may have heard it already since its old news. But do you remember the video that claimed to show Arab women and children in Palestine celebrating shortly after 9/11?

It was a fake, they where celebrating something completely diffrent. But how can you tell the diffrence between the truth and the lies/desinformation in western media? This video for example, every TV-channel showed it in theír news. Most people automaticly belives that they are watching the truth. The damage had already been done even if it turned out to be a fake. Perhaps it was the news about the faked video that really was the faked news? You wouldn´t know.

It appears that you are suffering from disinformation. The video was perfectly valid and shot on September 11th in East Jerusalem. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm

For those who don't want to read the entire thing, here is a small snippet of the page...

No, CNN did not air decade-old footage of Palestinians dancing in the streets. Eason Jordan, CNN's Chief News Executive, confirmed that the video used on CNN was in fact shot on Tuesday, 11 September 2001, in East Jerusalem by a Reuters TV crew, not during the Persian Gulf conflict of 1990-91 -- a fact proved by its inclusion of comments from a Palestinian praising Osama Bin Laden (whose name was unlikely to have come up ten years earlier in connection with the invasion and liberation of Kuwait) as well as the appearance in the video of post-1991 automobiles. The person who made the claim quoted above has since recanted.

(The argument that the footage CNN used could not possibly be real because it showed Palestinians in broad daylight not long after the attack -- even though Palestinian territory is several time zones ahead of New York -- is not valid. Eastern Daylight Time in the United States is six hours behind the area of the Middle East referred to as Palestine. Thus, when the first attack occurred in New York just before 9:00 A.M., Palestine time would have been 3:00 P.M., and the area would still have been bathed in plenty of mid-afternoon sunlight.)

Reuters, the international news agency whose camera crew shot the footage, issued the following statement:

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by sysyphus
Most of the posts here are by people from the west, adn I find it pretty sad how many of them think that just because the western media is not government controlled, it is therefore not lacking in propoganda.

Now I can't confirm what the ultimate influence is on western media (although let's face facts: it's largely owned by right-wing money), but I have seen and read from media sources throughout the west including the two major players, i.e. the BBC and CNN.

Every one of them purports an "I'm alright jack" image of their own part of the world (none more patheticly so than the Canadian media ) and chooses only the facts which support themselves.

I've travelled worldwide and I can say confidently that in general terms: westerners are bloody ignorant.

When I read hte news paper or watch the news, I can at least be sure that its not a sugar coated voice for the government.

When you mix capitalism with a free press you're going to end up with some negatives, but the good far outweighs the bad. Competition amongst the media keeps the general media fairly honest. They agressively search for the story. They question everything.

I may be in the minority on this, but I also believe that the majority in western media believes in the integrity of journalism and are ethical enough in the way the handle and deliver the news.

Like I said, the capitalism factor also has it's negative effects, but its still worth it. Say what you want about media in the US, but I think its one of our best products as a nation...

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Greadius
I don't believe it is against the law for non-Jews to be citizens. However, most of these things were determined while Israel was under attack and really had to hammer out its borders in the most undemocratic of means. Its also important to remember a lot of the 'resident citzens' are immigrants, or at best second generation settlers... in most democratic countries they wouldn't be citizens either.

#1 Quite true. But as I said, there are minor distinctions - Jewish citizens have slightly different rights and responsibilities (e.g. military service). It's a small point, but it matters, I think, in terms of creating two different perceptions of citizenship.

#2 of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, if Israel said "hey, arab-israeli citizenship (e.g. their other class) is available to anyone who can demonstrate residency from year X," I'd be the first to shut up. I'm not sure how productive that would be now, but it might have been a few years ago.

I assume you are speaking of Palestinian second gen. settlers as opposed to Jewish settlers, who of course CAN become naturalized citizens whether the territory is occupied or not.

R.III

 

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by basta72
You may have heard it already since its old news. But do you remember the video that claimed to show Arab women and children in Palestine celebrating shortly after 9/11?

AAAARRRRGGGHHH! How is it possible for someone to be so amazingly ignorant of basic facts?

Edit: This will teach me to read page 2 before responding.

 

[basta72]

"You may have heard it already since its old news. But do you remember the video that claimed to show Arab women and children in Palestine celebrating shortly after 9/11?

It was a fake, they where celebrating something completely diffrent. But how can you tell the diffrence between the truth and the lies/desinformation in western media? This video for example, every TV-channel showed it in theír news. Most people automaticly belives that they are watching the truth. The damage had already been done even if it turned out to be a fake. Perhaps it was the news about the faked video that really was the faked news? You wouldn´t know."

My point was disinformation.

And since this subject seems to contain alot of it. Then why isn´t my point valid?

 

[andycapp]

Basta72,

The allegation you make against the Western media is a serious one and it is not unreasonable to expect that you would offer some sort of verification, such as link to a media organisation (or non-media organisation) to support what you say.

I have heard this allegation before and am yet to see any creditable evidence to support the claim.

I put it to you that the Western media for all it's inherent cultural and political prejudices would eventually expose the misrepresentation you suggest, because of the diversity and competition which ensures that competitors are ruthlessly exposed.

 

[Sirotnikov]

It was a fake, they where celebrating something completely diffrent. But how can you tell the diffrence between the truth and the lies/desinformation in western media? This video for example, every TV-channel showed it in theír news. Most people automaticly belives that they are watching the truth. The damage had already been done even if it turned out to be a fake. Perhaps it was the news about the faked video that really was the faked news? You wouldn´t know.

I do know that there were people dancing on the streets and giving out candy.
I don't know what video are you reffering too, as I've seen several.

Why did they do it?

Because palestinian authority gunmen ceased the footage from the press and threatened palestinians to go back into their homes.

It appears Arafat didn't want bad press.

The people were dancing and did know about 9/11, as reported by people who were on the scene.

If you aren´t told that it is stock footage when the footage is aired then it is a lie/desinformation, even if there where celebrations taking part. The true celebrations may have looked very diffrent from the stock footage. Wouldn´t it have made a diffrence if it was men with AK-47s celebrating and not women and children?

Well, I saw many different footage, and most included women and children.

People were giving out candies on street corners. Just like they do after suicide attacks in Israel.

First, unlike most Western democracies, it's clearly a psuedo-theocratic democracy in that the policies built around a state religion differentiate slightly between "real citizens" (jews) and "resident citizens" (Israeli arabs). Historically, that doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't quite jive with the perfect "democratic ideal."

we don't really differentiate between arabs and jews.
not legally at least.

the "theocratic" parts only apply to jews. muslims don't have to keep sabbath or something.

"Why not (as some columnists have said) end this by doing the honorable thing? Since Israel does not plan to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, why not annex it and confront the fact that it's Israel's once and for all?"

But Israel does plan to withdraw.

It's a question of how much, and when.

The answer was a firm "no, we won't do that." Unsaid was the real reason: annexation would mean pressure to confer rights on the new residents of Israel.

That's your speculation.

In reality israel has no real intention of annexing most of that territory.

So the "democratic alternative" is to pretend that those people (um, you know, those Palestinians) aren't actually legally residents of that lovely democracy at all. Again, hardly the actions of a constitutional society that accepts the rule of law, etc. (I have just as many criticisms of Palestinian respect for those same principles, but that's not the point).

I disagree with you there.

If we have had troubles giving rights to palestinians, we wouldn't have some 1,100,000 israeli-arabs in israel now.

While I can't promise they are content of everything that goes on, they are certainly equal citizens.

However, the problematic circumstances of being in war with their relatives is often problematic.

 

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Richard III
#1 Quite true. But as I said, there are minor distinctions - Jewish citizens have slightly different rights and responsibilities (e.g. military service). It's a small point, but it matters, I think, in terms of creating two different perceptions of citizenship.

I think it should only credit the israeli state.

I wouldn't imagine forcing arabs doing military service which is very likely to be contrary to their morals and in which they may be in conflict with relatives / friends on the other side.

They can volunteer though They're simply not asked to serve.

As for other restrictions applying to arabs in the army - it's due to current circumstance. Can someone say spies?

We've had/have agents deep in arab army and political ranks, and really don't want to taste our own medicine

#2 of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, if Israel said "hey, arab-israeli citizenship (e.g. their other class) is available to anyone who can demonstrate residency from year X," I'd be the first to shut up. I'm not sure how productive that would be now, but it might have been a few years ago.

a) this has been done to population which returned to israel and such.
b) in areas we annexed, everyone can get citizenship. some refused.
c) east jerusalem arabs are free to get citizenship if they want to.
d) we don't plan to annex most of the west bank and gaza.

I assume you are speaking of Palestinian second gen. settlers as opposed to Jewish settlers, who of course CAN become naturalized citizens whether the territory is occupied or not.

I'm not sure of the point, but I'll insert this piece of propoganda

There were jews living in the territories prior to 1948, and they were kicked out by the arab armies.

Some of the settlements are reconstructions of jewish settlements that were uprooted in the 48 war.

Sirotnikov

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Greadius
Please, when you cure your ignorance come back to us. Sounds fatal

Perhaps I've been too hasty. Maybe living in denial is the best way to go, that will acheive so much.

You may think that I'm pulling some sort of "holier than thou" attitude, but I'm not. Just pointing out a fact. Sorry if it doesn't paint a rosy picture for our side.