NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/6132/hamas6pn.th.jpg (http://img121.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hamas6pn.jpg)

Caption
A Palestinian boy holds a toy gun during a Hamas celebration ceremony in Gaza city September 18, 2005. Thousands of armed Hamas militants marched through Gaza City on Sunday, defying efforts to remove unauthorised weapons from the streets just days after the Palestinian president vowed not to tolerate armed chaos. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem

Toy gun my ass. But y'know, they can't let the truth be known because that might cast Hamas in a bad light, and since that would be a good thing for Israel, they can't let it happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/080601mideast/im:/050918/ids_photos_wl/r3439368586.jpg

Could you show me where the caption links to the image?

Toy gun my ass. But y'know, they can't let the truth be known because that might cast Hamas in a bad light, and since that would be a good thing for Israel, they can't let it happen.
Is that what qualifies as a "Whitewash" these days?
Perhaps the boy was too weak to hold a real gun like that in one arm, and his dad had to carry his real one?

Considering that the article refers to "thousands of armed Hamas militants", claiming that making an honest mistake when talking about a kid holding a gun is "white-washing" Hamas doesn't make much sense to me.

That guns looks plastic. He's not exactly Rambo with two AKs, one in each hand.

Gotta love reuters attempt to whitewash HamasReuters is not all-out Pro-Isreael like AP,FOX, CNN, ABC, CBS, ot other major US Newspapers/TV networks.

The barrel looks bent. You might get away calling it a fancy club, but I doubt you could get it to fire properly even if it was a real gun.

Unlike the bbc who's Middeleastern cossipondant Is married to a Palastinien. There is impartiality at work. Also let us consider the continued mentioning of the 'massacer' at Jenin . Which did not occure and was even verifiyed by the hugley anti Israelie UN. However facts should never get in the way of a good story and the worlds media consistantly reffer to this non massacre.


The question always remains . If china and syria are allowed on to the Security council Why arent Isreal?

Why not Israel?

Israel is by no means perefect or without fault. But let he who hath no sin cast the first stone. The Mass media would be better served looking at and higlighting the corruption indemic within the UN Than playing a game of propergandan tennis with the Arab Israelie conflict.

peace.

Unlike the bbc who's Middeleastern cossipondant Is married to a Palastinien. There is impartiality at work. Also let us consider the continued mentioning of the 'massacer' at Jenin . Which did not occure and was even verifiyed by the hugley anti Israelie UN. However facts should never get in the way of a good story and the worlds media consistantly reffer to this non massacre.


The question always remains . If china and syria are allowed on to the Security council Why arent Isreal?

Why not Israel?

Israel is by no means perefect or without fault. But let he who hath no sin cast the first stone. The Mass media would be better served looking at and higlighting the corruption indemic within the UN Than playing a game of propergandan tennis with the Arab Israelie conflict.

peace.Isreal isn't "allowed" on the SC because the non permanent members (China is a P5 member by the way, blame Stalin) are elected according to regional groups. Isreal's region includes Syria, Iran, Jordan... How many votes do you think Isreal gets when the time comes to put another ME candidate in the SC?

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/6132/hamas6pn.th.jpg (http://img121.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hamas6pn.jpg)

Caption


Toy gun my ass. But y'know, they can't let the truth be known because that might cast Hamas in a bad light, and since that would be a good thing for Israel, they can't let it happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/080601mideast/im:/050918/ids_photos_wl/r3439368586.jpg
I don't see what's wrong with the caption, apart from the toy gun part. They were marching against enforcement of the law on weapons. That's a fact. The report does not say that Hamas were in the right. You're seeing bias where there is none, which is typical of paranoid American conservatives.

Judging by that boy's age, he would have to be pretty strong to hold up a real gun like that. But maybe the gun experts on here know better.

Isreal isn't "allowed" on the SC because the non permanent members (China is a P5 member by the way, blame Stalin) are elected according to regional groups. Isreal's region includes Syria, Iran, Jordan... How many votes do you think Isreal gets when the time comes to put another ME candidate in the SC?


Isn't Isrealin the 'Western Europe and Other' regional grouping?

Isn't Isrealin the 'Western Europe and Other' regional grouping?Depends. Not in SC elections, though. I think they're in when it comes to soccer. I know there's israeli teams playing in the UEFA Champions League.

Depends. Not in SC elections, though. I think they're in when it comes to soccer. I know there's israeli teams playing in the UEFA Champions League.


:confused:


At every model UN I've been to, Isreal has been in the Western Europe and other group, with other being the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's their way of tacking together all the supposed 'western' nations.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:IsrjDZUjZesJ:www.pops.int/documents/meetings/cop_1/meetingdocs/en/inf_16/COP_1_INF_16.doc+list+of+UN+regional+groupings
Western Europe
and other (27)

Andorra
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
San Marino
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland


Unless that all goes out the door for the SC, in which case I'll probably find out at the model security council I'm attending next monday..

Depends. Not in SC elections, though. I think they're in when it comes to soccer. I know there's israeli teams playing in the UEFA Champions League.Israel Lobbied hard to be allowed to play in EU...and the UEFA and FIFA accepted this on humanitarian grounds...Its was a good decision as Israel away games were "uncomfortable"...

Soccer mobs can be violent...and God knows there is no need for that over there.

Israel Lobbied hard to be allowed to play in EU...and the UEFA and FIFA accepted this on humanitarian grounds...Its was a good decision as Israel away games were "uncomfortable"...

Soccer mobs can be violent...and God knows there is no need for that over there.
having said that...Israel could very much want to be allowed "in" the EU Political and Economic "Private Clubs"...But that is another story.

That kid's what, ten? There's no way he could hold that gun up straight by the grip like that if it were a real gun. His arm would collapse. You're seeing conspiracies where none exist. If they really wanted to whitewash Hamas, they'd have published a picture of a kid WITHOUT a gun.

Isreal isn't "allowed" on the SC because the non permanent members (China is a P5 member by the way, blame Stalin) are elected according to regional groups. Isreal's region includes Syria, Iran, Jordan... How many votes do you think Isreal gets when the time comes to put another ME candidate in the SC?


The P5 members are the winners of WWII and the first nations to get nukes.

:confused:


At every model UN I've been to, Isreal has been in the Western Europe and other group, with other being the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's their way of tacking together all the supposed 'western' nations.

Unless that all goes out the door for the SC, in which case I'll probably find out at the model security council I'm attending next monday..
Hmph... I've chaired UN meetings and I've never seen any of these lists. I'm not sure how different they are for the SC; if at all they'd probably just exclude the P5.

The P5 members are the winners of WWII and the first nations to get nukes.the permanent members with Veto power are 5...

But other countries are invited (to the SC) giving a fake impression of "sharing power"

The P5 members are the winners of WWII and the first nations to get nukes.France and China only got seats due to the fact that they got backed up by someone else, the UK in France's case and the Soviet Union in China's. The nuke theory doesn't hold water, since the P5 were P5 long before all of them had nuclear weapons.

Hmph... I've chaired UN meetings and I've never seen any of these lists. I'm not sure how different they are for the SC; if at all they'd probably just exclude the P5.


Chaired UN meetings? Have you been to THIMUN?

That kid's what, ten? There's no way he could hold that gun up straight by the grip like that if it were a real gun. His arm would collapse. You're seeing conspiracies where none exist. If they really wanted to whitewash Hamas, they'd have published a picture of a kid WITHOUT a gun.And the caption probably would have read "thousands of peaceful Hamas demonstrators armed with flowers" instead of what it really said. :D

The barrel looks bent. You might get away calling it a fancy club, but I doubt you could get it to fire properly even if it was a real gun.
Doesn't look bent to me. It's a real gun, and real optics. Who's ever heard of a toy gun with dual magazines taped together, and a real Trijicon scope installed?

And the second, silverish magazine is an old Galil mag, compatible with M16.

It's not the first time the media does it. I recall Associated Press trying to pass this (http://www.honestreporting.com/images/kidgun.jpg)modified Dragunov sniper rifle as a "toy" as well.

Oh and by the way, a kid COULD easily hold either of those guns like that. The M16 is very light, especially the shorter models (this one is a sawn off CAR15 I think), and the way the other kid holds the Dragunov, with the buttstock working like a leverage, is also not difficult even for his age.

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/6132/hamas6pn.th.jpg (http://img121.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hamas6pn.jpg)

Caption


Toy gun my ass. But y'know, they can't let the truth be known because that might cast Hamas in a bad light, and since that would be a good thing for Israel, they can't let it happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/080601mideast/im:/050918/ids_photos_wl/r3439368586.jpg


you know, whether they goofed on that particular gun being a toy or not, how are they avoiding "the truth" as you put it by covering a rally by Hamas which clearly states that they are resisting disarmament?


If they wanted to mask the truth they'd have called it a parade to turn in their weapons or some such BS.


Really, what EXACTLY is "the truth" about Hamas that this article is supposedly hiding?

Hamas is fighting for freedom. If a few jews stand in the way, who cares?

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/6132/hamas6pn.th.jpg (http://img121.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hamas6pn.jpg)

Caption


Toy gun my ass. But y'know, they can't let the truth be known because that might cast Hamas in a bad light, and since that would be a good thing for Israel, they can't let it happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/080601mideast/im:/050918/ids_photos_wl/r3439368586.jpg

lefties just LOVE terrorists.

Hamas is fighting for freedom. If a few jews stand in the way, who cares?

Hamas are currently a bunch of criminals. They need to get it through their heads that it's Israel again, just like it was 3,000+ years ago, and it's going to remain Israel.

They'd do well to put up their guns and be peaceful, and maybe Israel will grant them some of that land to call Palestine.

Hamas are currently a bunch of criminals. They need to get it through their heads that it's Israel again, just like it was 3,000+ years ago, and it's going to remain Israel.

They'd do well to put up their guns and be peaceful, and maybe Israel will grant them some of that land to call Palestine.

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You expect the criminal jewish nation known as Isreal to had over any of theoir land to the arabs!? Give me a break. If they had a chance, they'd put all of the arabs in death camps, and gas em. Ironic, isnt it?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You expect the criminal jewish nation known as Isreal to had over any of theoir land to the arabs!? Give me a break. If they had a chance, they'd put all of the arabs in death camps, and gas em. Ironic, isnt it?I've seen you before and I know why there's a II behind your name. Stop flaming please.

I've seen you before and I know why there's a II behind your name. Stop flaming please.

I do not flame, I spread the truth of the unholy alliance between america and isreal.

Why is the only person with a gun I can see a kid? If it's a bring a gun kind of occaison, like an NRA barbeque, why doesn't anyone else have a gun? Is that why the kid looks stressed? He realizes he's committing a social faux pas by being armed?

Why is the only person with a gun I can see a kid? If it's a bring a gun kind of occaison, like an NRA barbeque, why doesn't anyone else have a gun? Is that why the kid looks stressed? He realizes he's committing a social faux pas by being armed?
Social faux pas? Not in that neighborhood.

And of course he isn't the only one. If the photographer stepped back a little...

Social faux pas? Not in that neighborhood.

And of course he isn't the only one. If the photographer stepped back a little...You mean we'd be able to see the "thousands of armed Hamas militants" the caption mentions?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You expect the criminal jewish nation known as Isreal to had over any of theoir land to the arabs!? Give me a break. If they had a chance, they'd put all of the arabs in death camps, and gas em. Ironic, isnt it?

it was israel (and, at times, part of it was Judah) before it was palestine... the promised land of the Jews. Read the Bible. It's not like Martians were flown in and given that piece of land... it is Israel.

and i don't think they'd put them in death camps... they'd have done so already.

Doesn't look bent to me. It's a real gun, and real optics. Who's ever heard of a toy gun with dual magazines taped together, and a real Trijicon scope installed?

Maybe it's the camera angle, but it looks bent to me. Or at least the rifle as a whole looks somewhat slanted. And besides, kids usually emulate examples set before them. It might be a toy. It could be the real thing. But somehow, I doubt it.


And the second, silverish magazine is an old Galil mag, compatible with M16.


Isn't the Galil of slightly different calibre size? Longer bullets I mean.


It's not the first time the media does it. I recall Associated Press trying to pass this (http://www.honestreporting.com/images/kidgun.jpg)modified Dragunov sniper rifle as a "toy" as well.

The kid using the buttstock as leverage? Looking at the angle of it and the placement, it looks more like it's against the side of the arm. Hardly any leverage there. At that angle, I think it would have slid sideways, forcing the kids arm towards the right much more than what it currently is. You'll have to do better than that.

Either they've started making Druganovs out of plastic or that's a fake.

it was israel (and, at times, part of it was Judah) before it was palestine... the promised land of the Jews. Read the Bible. It's not like Martians were flown in and given that piece of land... it is Israel.

and i don't think they'd put them in death camps... they'd have done so already.

Please don't tell me you're using some musty old religious text as legal document conferring property rights. Israel today was formed in almost the same way America was. With settlers bused in displacing existing occupants, albeit with less bloodshed initially before the surrounding regions got their act together. Naturally, the existing occupants and the settlers didn't get together very well.

If you can tell me what type of gun that actually is and why a kid, who clearly weighs not much mroe than that gun would, can hold the gun in one hand, I will give you it is a real gun.

they definately have a bias, but I'm not sure if that's a real gun. They could've said "what appears to be a toy gun" but that would be too accurate for them.

Go to the "All your base are belong to us," thread and click on the link to see examples of devices for murdering people and compare them to what the young lad is holding.

Judging by that boy's age, he would have to be pretty strong to hold up a real gun like that. But maybe the gun experts on here know better.
Only weighs about 7-9 pounds, even with the taped together clips, as for what it is probably a Colt XM-177E1 http://world.guns.ru/assault/as50-e.htm

France and China only got seats due to the fact that they got backed up by someone else, the UK in France's case and the Soviet Union in China's. The nuke theory doesn't hold water, since the P5 were P5 long before all of them had nuclear weapons.


Well they were definantly the winners of WWII. Otherwise Germany (at least WGermany) would have probably got a position...

Maybe it's the camera angle, but it looks bent to me. Or at least the rifle as a whole looks somewhat slanted. And besides, kids usually emulate examples set before them. It might be a toy. It could be the real thing. But somehow, I doubt it.
It's the camera angle, then. I just had it confirmed on a gun nut forum that the first picture is a real gun.

Seems I was only half-right about the second one though.


Isn't the Galil of slightly different calibre size? Longer bullets I mean.
No, it's 5.56 NATO. Magazines are STANAG compatible and can be used in M16s, or M16 mags in the Galil.


The kid using the buttstock as leverage? Looking at the angle of it and the placement, it looks more like it's against the side of the arm. Hardly any leverage there. At that angle, I think it would have slid sideways, forcing the kids arm towards the right much more than what it currently is. You'll have to do better than that.

Either they've started making Druganovs out of plastic or that's a fake.
Well, my gun nut acquantances told me that it's an air gun, an accurate Dragunov replica. Most likely used for target practice.

Unlike the bbc who's Middeleastern cossipondant Is married to a Palastinien. There is impartiality at work. Also let us consider the continued mentioning of the 'massacer' at Jenin . Which did not occure and was even verifiyed by the hugley anti Israelie UN. However facts should never get in the way of a good story and the worlds media consistantly reffer to this non massacre.


Look, either the massacre happened or it didn't. That's a pretty simple thing to verify, no? Especially with fricking eye witnesses there to recount it. So I really don't understand the debate over this issue. HRW saw it. Palestinian witnesses saw it. UN observers saw it. The stupid thing happened so drop it already.

Look, either the massacre happened or it didn't. That's a pretty simple thing to verify, no? Especially with fricking eye witnesses there to recount it. So I really don't understand the debate over this issue. HRW saw it. Palestinian witnesses saw it. UN observers saw it. The stupid thing happened so drop it already.
Well it did happen, but it wasn't as big as was initially thought. If you look for some air pics of Jenin, you see that the damage done is terrible, but only in a relatively small area.
When the UN observers went there they were honestly shocked at the damage, but they are probably misquoted if you take them as confirmation for the "Jenin Massacre".

Nonetheless, I'm not a fan of the occupation, and especially not of the policy of ripping down houses that belong to the families of suicide bombers.

Chaired UN meetings? Have you been to THIMUN?Been to THIMUN twice (there's even a picture of me in Munity somewhere) and I chaired meetings in BERMUN (http://www.bermun.de/), which is my school's own conference.
We had weekly debates in our MUN program, though it's always more fun to be a delegate ;)

Well, my gun nut acquantances told me that it's an air gun, an accurate Dragunov replica. Most likely used for target practice.

Hmmm, possibly airsoft. Either way, that means it's composition is most likely plastic and balsa wood or something similarly light.

Look, either the massacre happened or it didn't. That's a pretty simple thing to verify, no? Especially with fricking eye witnesses there to recount it. So I really don't understand the debate over this issue. HRW saw it. Palestinian witnesses saw it. UN observers saw it. The stupid thing happened so drop it already.
It didn't. Even UN investigation proved that it was a load of hogwash. HRW head Kenneth Roth, actually, credits (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1099543819705&apage=2) credits his organization as being the first to prove that there was no massacre in Jenin:

I see this, for example, with people who criticize the Human Rights Watch report on Jenin, oblivious to the fact that we were the group who found there was no massacre.

The "witnesses" were fake. The whole thing was fake. Hell, haven't you seen the hilarious footage of the "dead" Palestinian jumping up and running for cover? I bet it is still avaliable to watch at The Second Draft (http://seconddraft.org/home.php).

Do check out that website, btw. It has lots of rare raw footage of the Mohammad Al-Dura case and other incidents, proving just how many of these events were staged Palestinian theatrics.

It didn't. Even UN investigation proved that it was a load of hogwash. HRW head Kenneth Roth, actually, credits (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1099543819705&apage=2) credits his organization as being the first to prove that there was no massacre in Jenin:

I see this, for example, with people who criticize the Human Rights Watch report on Jenin, oblivious to the fact that we were the group who found there was no massacre.

The "witnesses" were fake. The whole thing was fake. Hell, haven't you seen the hilarious footage of the "dead" Palestinian jumping up and running for cover? I bet it is still avaliable to watch at The Second Draft (http://seconddraft.org/home.php).

Do check out that website, btw. It has lots of rare raw footage of the Mohammad Al-Dura case and other incidents, proving just how many of these events were staged Palestinian theatrics.

Didn't you say some time ago that it DID happen but not as large a scale as it seemed? Not this thread, but another one.

Didn't you say some time ago that it DID happen but not as large a scale as it seemed? Not this thread, but another one.
You are confusing me for Leonstein, a few posts up from here. I never bought into the "massacre" lie, not for a moment. Leonstein's comment is based on misinterpreting the HRW findings.

Of course, the HRW themselves have a record of distorting facts to present Israel in a worse light- it's largely a money issue for them, as most of their donors designate their funds for specific purposes, and if HRW stops smearing Israel, they will simply begin losing funds- but not even they are willing to claim that there was a massacre in Jenin.

You are confusing me for Leonstein, a few posts up from here. I never bought into the "massacre" lie, not for a moment. Leonstein's comment is based on misinterpreting the HRW findings.

Of course, the HRW themselves have a record of distorting facts to present Israel in a worse light- it's largely a money issue for them, as most of their donors designate their funds for specific purposes, and if HRW stops smearing Israel, they will simply begin losing funds- but not even they are willing to claim that there was a massacre in Jenin.So HRW is a money-grubbing, biased group that has no valid opinion unless it agrees with you? ;)

So HRW is a money-grubbing, biased group that has no valid opinion unless it agrees with you? ;)
Well, they certainly don't have a halo, despite what many seem to think. I've researched the methodology of these "human rights" groups enough to conclude that they are not what they claim to be.

Well, they certainly don't have a halo, despite what many seem to think.

Mmm, nobody really wears a halo these days, physically and metaphorically speaking. Including governments.


I've researched the methodology of these "human rights" groups enough to conclude that they are not what they claim to be.

Well then, do tell us what you've learned. Don't be stingy. Tell us.

Well, they certainly don't have a halo, despite what many seem to think. I've researched the methodology of these "human rights" groups enough to conclude that they are not what they claim to be.I take it the reasoning why you did said research was to find something to refute what they were saying?

Well, they certainly don't have a halo, despite what many seem to think. I've researched the methodology of these "human rights" groups enough to conclude that they are not what they claim to be.

Given that The Holy Womble is offline now, I think we should fill the time until they're able to tell us what these groups really are by guessing what the answer will be.

My guess is that they're an intergalactic criminal syndicate attempting to take over the world by cornering the Israeli cheese market. It makes sense. Think about it.

I take it the reasoning why you did said research was to find something to refute what they were saying?
Rather, to find the reasons why their declared agenda is so obviouslt different from the real one. When an organization that claims to be concerned about all human rights equally, yet clearly takes more interest in one-lesser-conflict than another-greater scale- one, I can't help but wonder what their true motivation is (just check out how many HRW reports there exist on Israel and how many on Sudan). While you're at it, consider that this massive number of HRW reports on Israel and the Palestinian territories was produced while having only ONE HRW researcher in the area (as claimed by Kenneth Roth himself in the interview I have linked to a few posts earlier:

And he almost fell off his chair when I told him that out of our staff of 200 people, we have one researcher on Israel/Palestine.

How can one researcher possibly process such a massive amount of data and properly investigate each case? That's right, he can't. HRW operates on Palestinian hearsay.

In light of all of the above, examine this: (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1122949172192)

When New York-based Human Rights Watch decided to expand its work on rights violations linked to terrorism and counterterrorism efforts, they received plenty of donor funds to look at American abuses – but none to examine terror itself.

"People want us to do more work around the US abuses in the campaign against terror," said Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth. "Nobody's given us more money to do work on terrorism, though we've sought it."

He said the situation "has been a source of disappointment."

As a result, he added, the organization took "general" monies from its budget to fund new positions looking at human rights in the context of terror and counterterror.

HRW does the same thing when it comes to terror in Israel. "We don't receive money for work on terrorism against Israel and have to devote funds from our general fund for that," Roth said.

In other words, reporting on Israeli abuses earns them money, reporting on Palestinian terrorism does not. The rest follows as a natural conclusion.

<snip>Consider this: Human rights abuses by a state are easier to investigate than those comitted by individuals or groups.

Been to THIMUN twice (there's even a picture of me in Munity somewhere) and I chaired meetings in BERMUN (http://www.bermun.de/), which is my school's own conference.
We had weekly debates in our MUN program, though it's always more fun to be a delegate ;)

I'm a member of UNYANZ (http://www.unyanz.co.nz/), and we send a delegation around the world to THIMUN each year, although I've never been. I'm generally a CA rather than a delegate nowadays because I'm out of school. I might still be a delegate for the model SC next week (As Russia, I think) but they've probably got someone to do it already, so I'll just be there running around doing various helping things.

Consider this: Human rights abuses by a state are easier to investigate than those comitted by individuals or groups.
Suppose. But it is quite evident that they're not trying too hard. Not to mention that the HRW themselves don't seem to be using the excuse that you have generously constructed for them.

I've researched the methodology of these "human rights" groups enough to conclude that they are not what they claim to be.I am not Surprised...Jews do not like most International "human rights organizations"...specially when "human rights orgs" expose Israel violations.

I am not Surprised...Jews do not like most International "human rights organizations"...specially when "human rights orgs" expose Israel violations.
Ohh, here comes our resident anti-Semite...who claims he isn't one :rolleyes:

Holy Womble, I fail to see any real bias in HRW. True, they do not receive funds to research other violations, but if they truly had a bias, why direct any money from the general monies for actual research into the violations by parties you claim are not being looked at?

It seems the fault lies with the donators and not the organization itself. If they took the funds earmarked for other purposes into researching areas it wasn't given for, they could get sued.

Ergo, if you wish to rectify the situation, donate to them with specific instructions on what area you would like to see them spend it on.

Ohh, here comes our resident anti-Semite...You are the anti-Semite...
(Semite = Arabs & some other ME dark skinned races)

...If you want to destabilize me....at least try use the proper term...either Anti-Israel or anti-zionist...or something like that.

It is not the first time you pull that on me(or other words you people like to use NAZI !!, HOLOCAUST !!, ANTI-SEMITE !!, TERRORIST !!)...

It wont be the last...

But it didn't work then...It wont work now...You guys have cried "Wolf" way too often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters

"The company was founded by Paul Julius Reuter, a German-Jewish immigrant"But we all know how the newsmedia is dominated by militant Arabs and Muslims.

"Reuters has asserted adherence to principles of journalistic integrity ([3]). However, the company, along with many other major media organizations, has been accused by American right-wing and conservative people of showing left-wing or liberal bias. It has been pejoratively referred to as Al Reuters which is a reference to the Al Jazeera television channel. Similarly, Reuters is accused by the left of exhibiting a pro-west and pro-corporate bias, being itself a western multinational corporation, based in London."

"Accusations of bias are often prompted by the use of neutral words such as 'militants' or 'guerrillas'. Paradoxically, many media organizations that use these terms are, in fact, aiming to eliminate bias, on the basis that one person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter"; these words are avoided because they imply that the writer either supports or opposes the attacks carried out by such people."In other recent anti-Semitic news, from one of Reuters' frontpage stories:
Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal dies (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-09-20T115936Z_01_SCH025334_RTRUKOC_0_US-WIESENTHAL.xml)

In short: To Conservative nitwits, non-biased news is biased. And biased news is objective.

Holy Womble, I fail to see any real bias in HRW. True, they do not receive funds to research other violations, but if they truly had a bias, why direct any money from the general monies for actual research into the violations by parties you claim are not being looked at?
Because they have to maintain at least an illusion of impartiality. Otherwise you would begin to notice bias :rolleyes: Which is why they have issued one or two reports on Palestinian terrorism, to "balance" dozens of reports on Israel. Now they can claim "oh look, we're almost fair"!


It seems the fault lies with the donators and not the organization itself. If they took the funds earmarked for other purposes into researching areas it wasn't given for, they could get sued.

Ergo, if you wish to rectify the situation, donate to them with specific instructions on what area you would like to see them spend it on.
This calls for another :rolleyes:

Money is one of the main factors, but not the only one. HRW bias has been going on for years upon years and is simply too deeply entrenched. It is reflected in their methodology, employment and public relations policies. What pro-Israeli person is going to donate to an NGO that actively promotes a boycott of Israel? (Yup, HRW does that, along with Amnesty International) or hires people like Lucy Mair from the Electronic Intifada or Joe Stork from the just as rabidly anti-Israeli MERIP?

By the way, did you know that HRW employment process is kept strictly secret?

You are the anti-Semite...
(Semite = Arabs & some other ME dark skinned races)

...If you want to destabilize me....at least try use the proper term...either Anti-Israel or anti-zionist...or something like that.
Destabilize you? There hasn't been anything stable about you for way too long.


It is not the first time you pull that on me(or other words you people like to use NAZI !!, HOLOCAUST !!, ANTI-SEMITE !!, TERRORIST !!)...

It wont be the last...
The last will be when you stop butting into threads trying to insult Jews.

I am not Surprised...Jews do not like most International "human rights organizations"...
I suppose you'll try to weasel your way out of this one by saying that you confused Jews for Zionists :rolleyes:


But it didn't work then...It wont work now...You guys have cried "Wolf" way too often.
Wolf? You're no wolf, you're a dumb weasel.

Destabilize you? There hasn't been anything stable about you for way too long.


[quote
It is not the first time you pull that on me(or other words you people like to use NAZI !!, HOLOCAUST !!, ANTI-SEMITE !!, TERRORIST !!)...

It wont be the last...[/quote.The last will be when you stop butting into threads trying to insult Jews.


I suppose you'll try to weasel your way out of this one by saying that you confused Jews for Zionists :rolleyes:


Wolf? You're no wolf, you're a dumb weasel."Cryed Wolf too many times" its an expression...
Meaning the Anti-Palestine-Jews have way-too-often miss-used the words NAZI , ANTI-SEMITE, HOLOCAUST, TERRORIST...you people have used them so often...than now it doesnt work any more.

I am not a wereWolf...I hope i am not :D

BTW your quote window is all fucked up

"Cryed Wolf too many times" its an expression...

I know. You're still a dumb weasel.


BTW your quote window is all fucked up
So are you. But my quote window is easy to fix...

So are you. But my quote window is easy to fix...teehehehe :)

Good one...I see you can use your Imagination too. You win(I will now shut up for a while)

Holy Womble, you seem to largely be going by what NGO-Monitor.org has said about HRW and the number of other anti-Israeli non-profit organizations.

And, Womble, I won't bother arguing, but I will simply say this: What you're saying is just as ridiculous to us as the "Zionist Conspiracy," seems to you.

Because they have to maintain at least an illusion of impartiality. Otherwise you would begin to notice biasYou don't see KKK members or Neonazi Parties diverting funds to Jewish charities. And you don't see Republicans donating to the NAACP or Democrats donating to the Christian Coalition.

I suggest you take a closer look at NGO-Monitor's methodology, before accepting what THEY say so blindly. And if that isn't your source, whatever your source is, examine it more closely.

Because I fail to see how anti-semites and radical Islamic militants can be so rational and crafty to engage in such a massive conspiracy.

Holy Womble, you seem to largely be going by what NGO-Monitor.org has said about HRW and the number of other anti-Israeli non-profit organizations.
NGO Monitor are pretty good researchers. Sometimes they go overboard, sometimes they don't dig deep enough, but by and large they have it right.


And, Womble, I won't bother arguing, but I will simply say this: What you're saying is just as ridiculous to us as the "Zionist Conspiracy," seems to you.
That's because you're not really reading what I say. You react on trigger words, but you don't actually examine what I say on its merits.

You don't see KKK members or Neonazi Parties diverting funds to Jewish charities. And you don't see Republicans donating to the NAACP or Democrats donating to the Christian Coalition.
And the point of this paragraph was?


I suggest you take a closer look at NGO-Monitor's methodology, before accepting what THEY say so blindly. And if that isn't your source, whatever your source is, examine it more closely.
I have done that. Plus I have my own observations. It is, for example, often overlooked that all organizations working in the Palestinian territories are infiltrated by the agents of both the PLO and the rival terrorist organizations (Peter Hansen from UNRWA has admitted on record that his organization employs Hamas members). Most journalists and other foreigners working in the area hire locals as guides- and these guides are hardly disinterested parties, many, if not most, of them have to account to the PLO and operate within the official PLO enforced guidelines.


Because I fail to see how anti-semites and radical Islamic militants can be so rational and crafty to engage in such a massive conspiracy.
Anti-Semites and Islamists may be insane, but they are not stupid. They are perfectly capable of acting rationally, within the limits of their insane ideology.

Besides, this is more complex than a mere conspiracy. The nature of the NGOs, the nature of the media as a profession and many other factors play a role.

NGO Monitor are pretty good researchers. Sometimes they go overboard, sometimes they don't dig deep enough, but by and large they have it right.So sometimes going overboard and sometimes not digging deep enough is enough to damn HRW but makes NGO Monitor pretty good researchers?

So sometimes going overboard and sometimes not digging deep enough is enough to damn HRW but makes NGO Monitor pretty good researchers?
Yes. Not excellent, but fairly good. No one is perfect, but they are right most of the time.

Yes. Not excellent, but fairly good. No one is perfect, but they are right most of the time.So far you've put forth an example where HRW was right and stated that they're biased against Israel. Now consider that there's more than 190 nations in this world and HRW monitors them all. You seem to be willing to discount them mainly because they're "wrong" when it comes to Israel. Since Israel isn't the only place in the world, you'd need to put forth some evidence that it's wrong everywhere else too in order to keep them from being considered right most of the time and therefore a reliable source.

Hamas is fighting for freedom. If a few jews stand in the way, who cares?
I hope you're being sarcastic. HAMAS is fighting for the genocide of all Israeli Jews. It's their mission statement.

Because they have to maintain at least an illusion of impartiality. Otherwise you would begin to notice bias :rolleyes: Which is why they have issued one or two reports on Palestinian terrorism, to "balance" dozens of reports on Israel. Now they can claim "oh look, we're almost fair"!

So you would prefer them to magic up the money to invest in research on areas where nobody is willing to pay for? HRW is a non profit organization last I looked, so they can't exactly make money the conventional way other than by donations.

It really is unfair to expect them to draw funds from their general monies to focus on research in areas nobody is paying them for is it? Much like how research groups do not research areas which they do not get paid for.


This calls for another :rolleyes:


You might want to be careful about that. Keeping your eyes skywards too often tends to result walking into immovable obstructions like brick walls :p


HRW bias has been going on for years upon years and is simply too deeply entrenched.

And you have concrete proof of this yes? Evidence that the bias is a result of direct influence by the management and completely unrelated to sponsors yes?


It is reflected in their methodology, employment and public relations policies. What pro-Israeli person is going to donate to an NGO that actively promotes a boycott of Israel?

Perhaps someone who wishes to actually change public perception with fair and balanced reports rather than someone who wishes to just sit about it and complain? :rolleyes:


(Yup, HRW does that, along with Amnesty International) or hires people like Lucy Mair from the Electronic Intifada or Joe Stork from the just as rabidly anti-Israeli MERIP?


And who on earth are these people? Additionally, what exactly have they done under the direct employ of HRW that indicates this bias?


By the way, did you know that HRW employment process is kept strictly secret?

Employment process meaning how they select candidates, how they recruit them or how they filter who gets trained or not? I cannot respond until you clarify.

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You expect the criminal jewish nation known as Isreal to had over any of theoir land to the arabs!? Give me a break. If they had a chance, they'd put all of the arabs in death camps, and gas em. Ironic, isnt it?
No they wouldn't, but the Arabs certainly would do it to them.

Arabs worked with Hitler to try to exterminate the Jews. Palestinians still use Nazi symbols. Several Arab groups, including HAMAS, hold the destruction of Israel and it's people as an article of faith.

Meanwhile, Israel has Arab muslims in the knesset, has withdrawn from Gaza, and has negotiated in good faith even with the scum who have promised to exterminate them.

You, however, are an antisemite and there's no reasoning with you.

So far you've put forth an example where HRW was right and stated that they're biased against Israel.
Not exactly. I quoted HRW head crediting his organization with being the first to discover that there was no massacre in Jenin. This is a case of an indefensible Palestinian lie that couldn't be concealed forever by the sheer giant scope of it, and threatened to become a major embarrassment for anyone claiming that there was a massacre. If HRW did not backtrack on their initial allegations, they would have become a laughing stock. They did, however, try grasping on straws and accuse Israel at least of "war crimes"- even though the UN investigation produced no evidence to support such accusations.


Now consider that there's more than 190 nations in this world and HRW monitors them all. You seem to be willing to discount them mainly because they're "wrong" when it comes to Israel. Since Israel isn't the only place in the world, you'd need to put forth some evidence that it's wrong everywhere else too in order to keep them from being considered right most of the time and therefore a reliable source.
Demonstrating that HRW is wrong elsewhere is up to the people who live there. Their failings, as well as those of other NGOs operating on similar principles, are certainly not limited to Israel alone. I am fairly sure that they inflate death tall in Iraq a great deal, for instance. But I simply don't care enough if they messed up elsewhere. I am concerned with them messing up where I live.

Didn't you say some time ago that it DID happen but not as large a scale as it seemed? Not this thread, but another one.
Everyone who has done any honest research into what happened at Jenin, even biased sources like the UN, which always favors the Palestinians, everyone agrees that there was no massacre. Palestinians constantly exaggerate their number of dead to gain sympathy from the outside world and to try to isolate Israel politically.

You are the anti-Semite...
(Semite = Arabs & some other ME dark skinned races)

...If you want to destabilize me....at least try use the proper term...either Anti-Israel or anti-zionist...or something like that.

It is not the first time you pull that on me(or other words you people like to use NAZI !!, HOLOCAUST !!, ANTI-SEMITE !!, TERRORIST !!)...

It wont be the last...

But it didn't work then...It wont work now...You guys have cried "Wolf" way too often.
The Jews do this, "You Guys" said that...

Fuck it dude, just go ahead and embrace your racism. You know you want to accuse the Jews of baking baby's blood into their matzoh for Passover. You know you want to quote the protocals of the elders of zion. Just be up front with it.

Holy Womble, which human rights organisation is the most credible?

The Jews do this, "You Guys" said that...

Fuck it dude, just go ahead and embrace your racism. You know you want to accuse the Jews of baking baby's blood into their matzoh for Passover. You know you want to quote the protocals of the elders of zion. Just be up front with it.
I don't think that the claim that Ocean Drive is a racist is a credible one, since he has shown himself to be quite liberal in his time on this forum. I suppose, like most Europeans, he is just tired of Israelis screaming "Nazi! Anti-semite!" every time someone criticeses their, shall we say, "extreme security policies".

Fuck it dude, errr... you are not my type...Try the guy next door.

The Jews do this, "You Guys" said that...LOL..you just said "that"...2 posts ago.

You, however, are an antisemite and there's no reasoning with you.

You need to read your own posts before making a fool of yourself...

Demonstrating that HRW is wrong elsewhere is up to the people who live there. Their failings, as well as those of other NGOs operating on similar principles, are certainly not limited to Israel alone. I am fairly sure that they inflate death tall in Iraq a great deal, for instance. But I simply don't care enough if they messed up elsewhere. I am concerned with them messing up where I live.
Which is basically saying that you don't care if they're right or wrong unless they agree with you. Demonstrating that HRW is wrong elsewhere is up to you, since you need to prove that they are wrong most of the time in order to flatly rule out that they have any validity. Instead, you base your assumptions on NGO monitor, which you admit isn't perfect.
That's a double standard.

Everyone who has done any honest research into what happened at Jenin, even biased sources like the UN, which always favors the Palestinians, everyone agrees that there was no massacre. Palestinians constantly exaggerate their number of dead to gain sympathy from the outside world and to try to isolate Israel politically.

Hence my clause of "not as large a scale as it seemed"

Does anyone bother reading complete posts anymore?

So far as is apparent, there was at the very least, Israeli military action in that area, resulting in the deaths of some 50 odd people of which 20 were unarmed civilians.

I doubt even Womble would deny the Israeli military action in the Jenin area.

So you would prefer them to magic up the money to invest in research on areas where nobody is willing to pay for? HRW is a non profit organization last I looked, so they can't exactly make money the conventional way other than by donations.
Actually, yes, I would expect them to either allocate the money equally even if it means displeasing the sponsors, or come out and admit that the amount of their attention given to areas of the world depends on who is rich enough to buy it.

By the way, the "non-profit" nature of the so called non-profits could itself make for a fascinating discussion.


It really is unfair to expect them to draw funds from their general monies to focus on research in areas nobody is paying them for is it? Much like how research groups do not research areas which they do not get paid for.
Unfair? They claim to stand for universal causes like justice and human rights. They do not claim to be activists for hire. OF COURSE they should allocate the money according to the scale of human rights violations as the one and only criteria, what else would qualify as justice?


You might want to be careful about that. Keeping your eyes skywards too often tends to result walking into immovable obstructions like brick walls :p
Not in my case. I was born with a built-in radar that easily detects brick walls and objects of similar density (anti-Semites for example :D ).


And you have concrete proof of this yes? Evidence that the bias is a result of direct influence by the management and completely unrelated to sponsors yes?
I have proofs of bias and of inadequate methodology some of which I have presented here. I don't particularly care what they're caused by, but if it's all about the sponsors, it is time to recognize HRW as a bunch of PR mercenaries working for the highest bidder. :p


Perhaps someone who wishes to actually change public perception with fair and balanced reports rather than someone who wishes to just sit about it and complain? :rolleyes:
And would you, for similar reasons, donate money to an organization that has been smearing your family for years and employs people who you know hate you and your kind?


And who on earth are these people? Additionally, what exactly have they done under the direct employ of HRW that indicates this bias?
Don't tell me you don't know what Electronic Intifada is. Hell, the name alone will tell you just about everything. Look it up on the Net, I am too disgusted to even link to that stuff. Lucy Mair of the Electronic Intifada was a researcher in the HRW's Middle East department.

MERIP- Middle East Research and Information Project- is a "progressive" media project with heavy anti-Israeli bias. Joe Stork of the MERIP was the deputy director of the HRW's Middle East department.


Employment process meaning how they select candidates, how they recruit them or how they filter who gets trained or not? I cannot respond until you clarify.
All of the above. Now respond.

I don't think that the claim that Ocean Drive is a racist is a credible one...several times I have denounced racism...and questioned our attitudes towards Poor Immigrants...or Unemployed Blacks...My record speaks for itself.

BTW thx Swimmingpool

LOL..you just said "that"...2 posts ago.



You need to read your own posts before making a fool of yourself...
Why are you quoting snips of two separate posts, one of which isn't even directed at you, and then posting nonsensical responses to them?

Holy Womble, which human rights organisation is the most credible?
None. It's kind of like asking which media source is the most objective.


I don't think that the claim that Ocean Drive is a racist is a credible one
Do scroll back and comment on his post over which I called him an anti-Semite.


, since he has shown himself to be quite liberal in his time on this forum.
And this is supposed to be a contradiction?

Out of time now. See you all later.

Holy Womble, which human rights organisation is the most credible?


I don't think that the claim that Ocean Drive is a racist is a credible one, since he has shown himself to be quite liberal in his time on this forum. I suppose, like most Europeans, he is just tired of Israelis screaming "Nazi! Anti-semite!" every time someone criticeses their, shall we say, "extreme security policies".
Well, I'm judging OD based on comments made in an older thread where he excused all Palestinian violence by saying they were "like the French resistance", and condems all violence on Israel's side even though much of that violence is in self defense, and Israel punishes soldiers and civilians who take extreme actions and attack Palestinian civilians. That double standard implies some racism to me.

None. It's kind of like asking which media source is the most objective.Those that don't rely on ratings and commercials for revenue.
And this is supposed to be a contradiction?Yup. People that sound liberal and are anti-semites are populists.

Well, I'm judging OD based on comments made in an older thread where he excused all Palestinian violence by saying they were "like the French resistance", and condems all violence on Israel's side even though much of that violence is in self defense, and Israel punishes soldiers and civilians who take extreme actions and attack Palestinian civilians. That double standard implies some racism to me.From were I am sitting...the self-defense excuse applies both sides...Also my View is that both sides use Terrorism...

If anyone has Double standard it has to be you. You have always Justified Israel Violence as "Self-Defense"...and you never gave equal treatment to Arab violence.

By your own Logic You are the "racist"...cos your post history is Full of said "Double standards" against Arabs.

No they wouldn't, but the Arabs certainly would do it to them.

Actually, yes, I would expect them to either allocate the money equally even if it means displeasing the sponsors, or come out and admit that the amount of their attention given to areas of the world depends on who is rich enough to buy it.

Or perhaps they simply do not have the money to use to create the level of research that would be deemed completely equal? It is a sad, but true fact that money concerns often taint and bind most actions, be they noble or evil.


By the way, the "non-profit" nature of the so called non-profits could itself make for a fascinating discussion.


Can we NOT go there? I believe it would be a long and exhaustive discussion that will go nowhere.


Unfair? They claim to stand for universal causes like justice and human rights. They do not claim to be activists for hire. OF COURSE they should allocate the money according to the scale of human rights violations as the one and only criteria, what else would qualify as justice?


Money cannot be magicked out of the air. Unless of course you have a printing press and copious amounts of deviousness. But that is besides the point. As I have pointed out above, money concerns bind the actions of many, despite intent. A police force is constructed with the intent that it protects and serves the people. Yet without proper funding or specialized funding (you can only spend x sum here), would result in a hobbled and unequal level of action not coinciding with intent. And of course there is the matter of corruption, but every organization has that problem to deal with.


Not in my case. I was born with a built-in radar that easily detects brick walls and objects of similar density (anti-Semites for example :D ).


Radar is overrated. *throws tinfoil strips*

And besides, mental deficiency is a trait universally spread throughout the human race as a whole and is not limited to one particular race or creed.


I have proofs of bias and of inadequate methodology some of which I have presented here.

Mmmm, proofs that have been somewhat debunked have they not? Mostly in regards to your use of another group which you admit to being not being always right or fair. Laerod has pointed this out.


I don't particularly care what they're caused by, but if it's all about the sponsors, it is time to recognize HRW as a bunch of PR mercenaries working for the highest bidder. :p


If it really was about sponsors, they wouldn't take money from their general accounts to use to sponsor undemanded research into violations nobody is paying for is it? Of course you have already claimed that it is a matter of public face saving, but there are several factors that I would like to know of before I can give your statements credence.

First off, how much are they spending on said research on Palestinian human rights violations (or whichever topic you feel is neccessary). Secondly, a round sum of the total surplus money in their general accounts. Thirdly, how much is donated and being spent on watching Israel (which I believe is the one you wish to contend).


And would you, for similar reasons, donate money to an organization that has been smearing your family for years and employs people who you know hate you and your kind?

If I can see to it that the money was actually channeled for the purposes that I chose it for, then yes. A delightful irony wouldn't it? One should not let passions override the needs of practicality. Unfortunately, that is hardly the case in this world which uses sound bites and emotive words to elicit responses is it?


Don't tell me you don't know what Electronic Intifada is.

I shall defy you. I don't know. :p

Or at least that was true 5 minutes ago.


Hell, the name alone will tell you just about everything. Look it up on the Net, I am too disgusted to even link to that stuff. Lucy Mair of the Electronic Intifada was a researcher in the HRW's Middle East department.

I looked up her name, but did not find it related anywhere to the EI. So far as I can tell, she works for Grassroots International. Are you sure you have the right person?


MERIP- Middle East Research and Information Project- is a "progressive" media project with heavy anti-Israeli bias. Joe Stork of the MERIP was the deputy director of the HRW's Middle East department.

Hmmm, and what has he done while working under the auspices of HRW indicates the continuation of this bias? The same for Lucy Mair if you please.


All of the above. Now respond.

And my response is as follows. What of it? Yes, keeping the recruitment policy secret allows for abuses and possible bias, but at the same time, it is not proof of it either. It could be a requirement that all members are baby sacrificing satanists or canonized saints but the truth of the matter is that we do not know. Unless there is an expose into whatever recruitment techniques they employ, no accusation levelled against this particular aspect can hold any real water.

It would be very much like me claiming that Osama Bin Laden is currently living in my dumpster just because nobody has ever seen him.

So in regards to their recruitment policy, there is nothing much to say until evidence comes to light.

From were I am sitting...the self-defense excuse applies both sides...Also my View is that both sides use Terrorism...

If anyone has Double standard it has to be you. You have always Justified Israel Violence as "Self-Defense"...and you never gave equal treatment to Arab violence.

By your own Logic You are the "racist"...cos your post history is Full of said "Double standards" against Arabs.
When HAMAS says that they're going to destroy Israel is that self defense? When a Palestinian sniper shoots a child sitting in her father's lap or guns down a carload of women and children on their way to vote is that self defense?

Nope. It's clearly not. Self defense would be fighting the Israeli military or assasinating government officials.

Israel has had terrorists. People like Baruch Goldstein (I think that was his name) and some Israeli soldiers who shot innocents, but Israel court martials such soldiers and punishes them. The Palestininas treat HAMAS terrorists as heros.

A double standard applies between HAMAS and Israel because one doesn't treat a murderous, genocidal criminal organization the same as one treats a democratic government.

Do scroll back and comment on his post over which I called him an anti-Semite.

And this is supposed to be a contradiction?

All he did was call people of Israel "Jews", which as far as I know, they mostly are. It was not anti-Semitic. I would have used the word "Israelis" myself, but whatever.

Yes, liberal people are by definition non-racist.

Well, I'm judging OD based on comments made in an older thread where he excused all Palestinian violence by saying they were "like the French resistance", and condems all violence on Israel's side even though much of that violence is in self defense, and Israel punishes soldiers and civilians who take extreme actions and attack Palestinian civilians. That double standard implies some racism to me.
The double standard implies any other range of biases to me, most of which are political, not racial.

I don't agree that the Palestinians are "like the French resistance" (although they also killed a lot of people) nor do I think that the Jenin massacre was real, but I'm also not one to wildly attack anyone who criticises the IDF like you and Holy Womble are.

<snip>
Israel has had terrorists. People like Baruch Goldstein (I think that was his name) and some Israeli soldiers who shot innocents, but Israel court martials such soldiers and punishes them. The Palestininas treat HAMAS terrorists as heros.


Not wanting to wade into the usual minefield, while it is good and proper you recognise the existence of Israeli terrorists, and the eventul prosecution of soldiers for murder, may i point of the killing of Western aid workers/members of NGO's in Gaza and journalists by the IDF that are not brought to a speedy and just trial in public.

As in the case of the murdered BBC (i think) journalist James Miller (an posthumost winner of 2/3 Emmy's) in his program 'Death in Gaza'.

The film ends with Miller's death. His final moments were captured by a local cameraman, as he approached an Israeli army APC, wearing clothing that clearly identified him as a television journalist and shining a torch on a white flag while asking permission to pass. Saira, who was with James, also identifies the team as British TV journalists. To date, no-one has been held accountable for his death.

This occured in May 2003.

That guns looks plastic. He's not exactly Rambo with two AKs, one in each hand.

I agree it is definitely fake! It is amazing how real they make them look nowadays. When I was a kid, we had to TAPE ANOTHER CLIP UPSIDE DOWN ON THE ORIGINAL AMMO CLIP OURSELVES for that realistic look. :rolleyes:

Ok, sarcasm off. How many of you proclaiming it fake have ever even used a real gun?

Look at the ammo clip. There's another one ELECTRIC-TAPED on to the current ammo clip upside down. That's so when you empty one, you can pull it out, turn it upside down, and put it back in the receiver with a whole nother set of ammo.

That ain't fake!!! :headbang:

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20050918/i/r3439368586.jpg?x=245&y=345&sig=lExImj7Kwh1b5yk4Df_bPg--

That kid's what, ten? There's no way he could hold that gun up straight by the grip like that if it were a real gun. His arm would collapse. You're seeing conspiracies where none exist. If they really wanted to whitewash Hamas, they'd have published a picture of a kid WITHOUT a gun.

I can get it when people are wrong, but I never understand the posters who have no idea what they are talking about, but still post authoritatively on a subject which they aren't educated.

You know nothing about guns. :sniper:

Hawkintom']I agree it is definitely fake! It is amazing how real they make them look nowadays. When I was a kid, we had to TAPE ANOTHER CLIP UPSIDE DOWN ON THE ORIGINAL AMMO CLIP OURSELVES for that realistic look. :rolleyes:

Ok, sarcasm off. How many of you proclaiming it fake have ever even used a real gun?

Look at the ammo clip. There's another one ELECTRIC-TAPED on to the current ammo clip upside down. That's so when you empty one, you can pull it out, turn it upside down, and put it back in the receiver with a whole nother set of ammo.

That ain't fake!!! :headbang:

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20050918/i/r3439368586.jpg?x=245&y=345&sig=lExImj7Kwh1b5yk4Df_bPg--
The scope on the gun looks pretty real too. I can't imagine alot of toy manufacturers go to the expense of strapping expensive optics onto a plastic toy.

Don't tell me you don't know what Electronic Intifada is. Hell, the name alone will tell you just about everything. Look it up on the Net, I am too disgusted to even link to that stuff. Lucy Mair of the Electronic Intifada was a researcher in the HRW's Middle East department.No, she didn't write for Electronic Intifada. One article that she CO-WROTE for ANOTHER GROUP was REPRINTED by EI with her permission.

That hardly makes her "Lucy Mair of the Electronic Intifada."

http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/2205

On EI's website, they clearly have a pro-Palestinian bias, but unlike NGO-monitor, they don't hide their bias. On the front page, it says that they discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "from a Palestinian viewpoint." And nowhere on the site does it advocate terrorism or anti-semitism. In fact, so far as I can see, they do not even discuss the Jewish people at all, but strictly talk about the Israeli government and the military. So I do not understand your disgust, whatsoever.

You see, this is what I'm talking about here. It's just like conspiracy theorism. You find some poor tie that creates guilt by association, and then you multiply that several times until you've built an entire conspiracy. I'll say it once again: White supremacists and Neonazis link politicians and journalists to Zionist extremists to create a false, "Zionist Conspiracy," the same way you're creating this Palestinian Conspiracy. They barely even have a military, much less a massive media operation.

And guilt by association (what NGO-monitor was solely designed for) is fallacious. Liberal journalists have worked for the conservative station, Fox News, but that hardly makes Fox News liberal or those journalists conservative. And I guarantee you that there are CBS news employees with past ties to Conservative groups, but once again, that would hardly make CBS News Conservative.

Specifically, the fallacies you are committing:
Fallacy of Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_%28logical_fallacy%29): All members of or those who participate with pro-Palestinian groups are pro-Palestinian liars.

Fallacy of Hasty Generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization): If some pro-Palestinian liars are members of HRW, then HRW is a group with the intent of spreading pro-Palestinian lies.

It's fallacious conspiracy-theorism.

The scope on the gun looks pretty real too. I can't imagine alot of toy manufacturers go to the expense of strapping expensive optics onto a plastic toy.
I believe you'd need a Palestinian here to answer whether or not they allow or sell such toy guns where they live (I wouldn't be surprised).

At first, I was skeptical that it was real because the wood of the handle doesn't look glossy enough to be real wood, but rather, it looks plastic. But then I enhanced the photo.

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/1646/enhancedphotoofarabkid9be.jpg]

And I'm now FAIRLY certain that it's real, for three reasons:

#1. Not only does the scope look realistic, but it actually has a mount on the top of it, where it screws in.

#2. The ribs on the gun are extremely detailed.

#3. The barrel looks slightly warped, due to the heat from being used. Once again, that wouldn't happen with a toy gun.

Your photo doesnt work.

Here:
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/1646/enhancedphotoofarabkid9be.jpg

When HAMAS says that they're going to destroy Israel is that self defense?.no, its pep talk.

no, its pep talk.

Consider that despite the best attempts of most of humanity, a mere 14 million Jews worldwide manage to own a nation and a lot of money as well - far out of proportion to their numbers.

A number of intelligentsia far out of proportion to their numbers. Doctors, lawyers, scientists.

By comparison, even if you include all of Islamic history, it still doesn't add up to the same achievement. Modern day Arab Muslim nations can't do anything right at all on the battlefield. And moderen day Arab Muslim nations don't produce even a fraction of the intelligentsia.

So they need all the pep talk they can get. Most of it has to do with killing Jews for the simple reason that Arab Muslims are sore losers who can't defeat Israel on the battlefield, and who have suffered one major humiliation after another at the hands of the Western world.

Point of fact, most of them can't even run their own nations. Gaza, current day, is a case in point of their representative anarchy.

Consider that despite the best attempts of most of humanity, a mere 14 million Jews worldwide manage to own a nation and a lot of money as well - far out of proportion to their numbers.Jews have managed to own huge amount of money.

Jews have managed to own huge amount of money.

Yes they have. So has the Saudi royal family - but who is a greater benefit to society and business? Which one has been giving more money to charity? Building businesses and nations?

Eh?

Of all the money given in charitable donations each year in the US (an amount which far outstrips the amount given by Europeans, even if you count their government donations), over half is provided by American Jews.

Someone is smart. Someone is working hard. Someone is not blaming the rest of the world for why they suck.

Until the Arabs learn to emulate this success, they are going to always be on the bottom of civilization's ladder.

Which one has been giving more money to charity? Bill gates....

Not the Walmart owners...or The Bankers...or the Diamonds traders...or the past Alcohol traders...or Mafia Magnates...or slave traders...

Jewish have historically proved to be very good making money but most of their charities are for not for the good general population.

Saudi Family? hahaha...they can burn in hell...all their money is stolen from the poor of their country.

No, it's a yearly fact. Most of the chartiable giving (averaging around 65 percent of the total) in the United States comes from Jews.

No, it's a yearly fact. Most of the chartiable giving (averaging around 65 percent of the total) in the United States comes from Jews.a Fact???

haha...and that "Fact" comes from the Jewish pwned media?

a Fact???

haha...and that "Fact" comes from the Jewish owned media? or from that Jewish Lover Murdoch?

Im sure is does not come from unbiased Media like the BBC or AFP or EFE or Reuters...

Does it?

It doesn't come from the media. It comes from the United Way.

You see, I don't have to be an anti-Semite to have some intelligence.

You see, I don't have to be an anti-Semite to have some intelligence.If you hate the arabs...you are in fact Anti-semite.

If you hate the arabs...you are in fact Anti-semite.


And where did I say I hated arabs? I am only saying that until they decide to join the common mass of humanity, and accept reality, and stop blaming the West and the Jews for their own self-made malaise, they will be at the bottom of civilization's ladder forever.

And where did I say I hated arabs? I am only saying that until they decide to join the common mass of humanity, and accept reality, and stop blaming the West and the Jews for their own self-made malaise, they will be at the bottom of civilization's ladder forever.
Meh...he's just making the annoying point that White Supremacists also like to bring up...that Jews and Arabs are technicaly all Semites. (not calling you a white supremacist Ocean...just not seeing the point of that comment)

Meh...he's just making the annoying point that White Supremacists also like to bring up...that Jews and Arabs are technicaly all Semites. (not calling you a white supremacist Ocean...just not seeing the point of that comment)you can always call me White supremacist or anti-semite or KKK or hippie or Nazi or NeoCon or Liberal or Commie pinko or Capitalist Pig or Pro-Bush or Anti-Bush or whatever you want...

Its not like i am going to care Sinuhue.

I am not Jocabia.

calling me "names" is not going to change the way i see the Palestine issue...

Proving me wrong...can change the way I see a particular subject...It has already happened a few times...

Proving me wrong...can change the way I see a particular subject...It has already happened a few times...for example if someone proves his 65% "fact"...I could no longer see them as a selfserving selfish community

for example if someone proves his 65% "fact"...I could no longer see them as a selfserving selfish community

Any racist who begins his phrases with "Jew lover" isn't going to change his mind.

It is a known fact, and an easily observable one, that charitable giving, including to non-Jewish sources, is a centerpiece of Jewish social and religious life.

To say otherwise smacks either of anti-Semitism or ignorance.

It is a known fact...Blah-blah-Blah...

To say otherwise smacks either of anti-Semitism or ignorance.I say otherwise.

Prove your 65% "fact"...and I will make a public retractacion.

The American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel (AAFRC)
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
The National Center for Charitable Statistics
The United Way

Talked to each of them on the phone.

I have a special data request in with the National Center for Charitable Statistics. It's costing money to do the query, but they have already said that you're going to eat your words.

Let you know as soon as I get the data back.

The American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel (AAFRC)
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
The National Center for Charitable Statistics
The United Way

Talked to each of them on the phone.

I have a special data request in with the National Center for Charitable Statistics. It's costing money to do the query, but they have already said that you're going to eat your words.

Let you know as soon as I get the data back.Call them back...ask the for a link.. something you can share with us.

I am sure they have web-sites...

Call them back...ask the for a link.. something you can share with us.

I am sure they have web-sites...

They have web sites, Ocean. The statistics, however, cost money. It's called paying for data out of databases. Which is what I'm paying for.

Not all answers are already printed out on a website.