NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

Your thoughts?

1 - you're a few days too late
2 - It was just smoke, for fucks sake
3 - Theres still over 20 Airports, Ports damaged and out of use, 149 bridges destroyed, over 950 Lebanese dead, 120 Israeli, 500km of roads destroyed and damages well into 3 Billion.
4 - Theres a hippy behind you.

1 - you're a few days too late
2 - It was just smoke, for fucks sake
3 - Theres still over 20 Airports, Ports damaged and out of use, 149 bridges destroyed, over 950 Lebanese dead, 120 Israeli, 500km of roads destroyed and damages well into 3 Billion.
4 - Theres a hippy behind you.
I couldn't be arsed to search through all the threads that were posted while I was on vacation. Sue me. :D

"Hippy?" Where??? [ runs ] :p

well I wouldn't say this is a new thing the news will use every chance it gets to make a story look more dramatic without getting accused of misleading the public it helps those stories sell and that’s what makes the money

Now, as far as I remember, they didn't do anything but add a bit of smoke and two flares to a pic of an Israeli jet. That's untruthful, and that particular person has been fired, IIRC.

But that didn't change the story, it just made the accompanying picture more exciting. Fact of the matter is, as Nodinia said, that there is a lot of destruction there. Whether this is all in one picture frame or just beyond that frame doesn't make for trying to "make someone look bad".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm

Now, as far as I remember, they didn't do anything but add a bit of smoke and two flares to a pic of an Israeli jet. That's untruthful, and that particular person has been fired, IIRC.

But that didn't change the story, it just made the accompanying picture more exciting. Fact of the matter is, as Nodinia said, that there is a lot of destruction there. Whether this is all in one picture frame or just beyond that frame doesn't make for trying to "make someone look bad".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm
:rolleyes:

Also, the guy in that video says that the doctored photos create sympathy for Hezbollah, which I don't think is true. It may generate sympathy for Lebanon, but I don't think anyone outside of a few Internet ideologues have any sort of sympathy for Hezbollah.

Funny how nobody bothers mentioning the second doctored photo. Might be because it wasn't a right-wing blog but Reuters itself that caught it. Or that all of Hajj's pictures are no longer available from Reuters...

I couldn't be arsed to search through all the threads that were posted while I was on vacation. Sue me. :D

"Hippy?" Where??? [ runs ] :p
welcome back Eut. enjoyed your vacation?

"Doctoring" photos? You mean like the one the righties did that made it look like Kerry and Jane Fonda were conspiring?

Yeah, it's zomfgbbq when the "other" guy does it.... Big whoop.

My connection is a bit laggy, so I didn't see the video before.

Good grief... That's a pretty slanted view. It leaves you with the impression that Reuters allows people to use excuses such as "I was just removing dust" in order to doctor photos, when in fact, that was Hajj's defense when confronted by Reuters... Reuters does not allow editing photos whatsoever, which is why all of these have been pulled. The video also doesn't attribute the discovery of the picture of the flares. That one was discovered by Reuters when they checked through all the pictures they had from Hajj after pulling them from their inventory. The report also leaves the impression that Hajj was an integral part of Reuters, when in fact he was a freelance photographer while still working with Reuters, and not a staff photographer.

That video is a pisspoor attempt at slanting people's views. It's guilty of the same things its accusing Reuters and other news agencies of.

:rolleyes:
Watched the thing now (where in hell's name do you manage to find these websites?). Next time, try and find a text-based version, you just wasted minutes of my life.

Still no support for your claim. Israel is destroying the place, there is no doubt about that. You don't need evocative photos to tell you that.

It's more of a case of taking artistic liberties with news photos, which is obviously unacceptable. I'd suggest the news agencies pay a lot more attention to this stuff.

How this improves Hezbollah's image though, well that eludes me completely. I suppose it works if you take the "Lebanon = Hezbollah" stance, but Eut, NSG has abandoned that stance since you left. No one still claims that.

As it is, it's pictures of destruction. While some of the pictures might be doctored, the destruction is real nonetheless. Think of them as "reenactments" if it helps you...it's not exactly a new trick in wartime media coverage.

What? The media is trying to dramatise the news in order to make more money? How totally unexpected. Thank the great truth gods in the sky that we have www.aish.com to bring us the truth about how much every other news agency sucks. I'm going to subscribe right away.

"Doctoring" photos? You mean like the one the righties did that made it look like Kerry and Jane Fonda were conspiring?
No, of course not. And not like the 9/11-based ads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLIKMMtsOfM) certain other righties are running.

Watched the thing now (where in hell's name do you manage to find these websites?). Next time, try and find a text-based version, you just wasted minutes of my life.Genauso hab ich auch gedacht!!! :D

Still no support for your claim. Israel is destroying the place, there is no doubt about that. You don't need evocative photos to tell you that.He's only claimed that photos are being doctored in order to make someone look bad. The way those photos where put together and the context doctored, Reuters was made to look worse than it is. His claim holds true! Aish is a perfect example of doctoring... :p

Wait a second here.

I'm no expert but do the zionist liars/idiots/motherfuckers who made this film not realise that a more dramatic photo is going to bring a photographer more money than a dull one? Is it really any suprise that photos are being doctored when a doctored photo will make its creator money than the original image?

No, of course not. And not like the 9/11-based ads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLIKMMtsOfM) certain other righties are running.Well, you know they just wanted to make the message stronger, and they're on the right side, so it's okay to 'shop some smoke in. But that Lebanese smoke, that's just tooooo much. :rolleyes:

Wait a second here.

I'm no expert but do the zionist liars/idiots/motherfuckers who made this film not realise that a more dramatic photo is going to bring a photographer more money than a dull one? Is it really any suprise that photos are being doctored when a doctored photo will make its creator money than the original image?

I still don't see how the photoshopped smoke looks any worse than the real smoke. Other than being darker, but that makes it look like they're burning tires or something.

Ever since the development of photography those taking the pictures have arranged the scene to create the picture they wanted, especially when it's about war. They so to speak "conduct" their motive, for example by placing muskets onto the bodies of Civil War dead.

Once you know how the trade works, you know how to "read" those pictures, and everything has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

I mean, come on! You can't even trust video images - just look at what Hollywood produces every day! [Wag the Dog, anyone?]

Well, you know they just wanted to make the message stronger, and they're on the right side, so it's okay to 'shop some smoke in. But that Lebanese smoke, that's just tooooo much. :rolleyes:
American smoke is truthier than Lebanese smoke.

Stupid..
"Blah blah blah.. My voice is annoying and I have too much spare time! I should get a real job!"

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

Your thoughts?
If Israel is such a vicious inconsiderate nation, then why do photos of its "abuse" need to be faked?

If Israel is such a vicious inconsiderate nation, then why do photos of its "abuse" need to be faked?
.. The first example isn't 'faked'. It's smoke. Theres just a little bit more in the doctored photo.

.. The first example isn't 'faked'. It's smoke. Theres just a little bit more in the doctored photo.
Oh, sure, a little bit here, a little bit there, fix that kid in a horrible position and paint him red, and you've got yourself an a-type example of Israeli aggression.

Your doublethink is morally repugnant and I feel nothing but contempt and scorn for people like you.

Oh, sure, a little bit here, a little bit there, fix that kid in a horrible position and paint him red, and you've got yourself an a-type example of Israeli aggression.

Your doublethink is morally repugnant and I feel nothing but contempt and scorn for people like you.
You know the saying--better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it to all? Nothing was added to the first photo. Nothing. The existing smoke in the photo was darkened to bring it out more. That doesn't excuse the doctoring of the photograph, but you could at least accuse the photographer of what he did.

He did add two flares to the second photo, which is more egregious in my book, and Reuters did the right thing--they terminated his contract and pulled all his photos.

You know the saying--better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it to all? Nothing was added to the first photo. Nothing. The existing smoke in the photo was darkened to bring it out more. That doesn't excuse the doctoring of the photograph, but you could at least accuse the photographer of what he did.

He did add two flares to the second photo, which is more egregious in my book, and Reuters did the right thing--they terminated his contract and pulled all his photos.
Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the first photo. What about the others? What about the one with the guy in the green hat, or the waling woman, or those unscathed toys amid the rubble?

For some reason, they aren't faking photos of the destruction in Israel. Could it be because the destruction there is real, and they don't need to go through the trouble of faking it, or because it's only jooooos in Israel?

Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the first photo. What about the others? What about the one with the guy in the green hat, or the waling woman, or those unscathed toys amid the rubble?

For some reason, they aren't faking photos of the destruction in Israel. Could it be because the destruction there is real, and they don't need to go through the trouble of faking it, or because it's only jooooos in Israel?What others? So far, the only ones I've read about were those two. There was a problem with a caption in a New York Times photo set, but there was no doctoring going on there.

What others? So far, the only ones I've read about were those two. There was a problem with a caption in a New York Times photo set, but there was no doctoring going on there.
Did you even watch the video in its entirety? I suggest you do that before debating about this subject.

Oh, sure, a little bit here, a little bit there, fix that kid in a horrible position and paint him red, and you've got yourself an a-type example of Israeli aggression.Although making a political statement is the most obvious reason for Hajj's photo manipulation, I've seen nothing authoritative that makes that claim. As someone noted above, it may have been to pad a paycheck.
For some reason, they aren't faking photos of the destruction in Israel. Could it be because the destruction there is real, and they don't need to go through the trouble of faking it, or because it's only jooooos in Israel?Could it be because there just isn't that much damage in Israel? The unguided "rockets" Hezbollah's been throwing over the border have been less than effectual at actually blowing things to smithereens.
Did you even watch the video in its entirety?Dude, the video is grossly biased. You need to get hold of some objective information.

Did you even watch the video in its entirety? I suggest you do that before debating about this subject.
Yeah I did, and I gave it about as much credence as it deserves, seeing as their third example--the NY Times one--deliberately misrepresents what happened. The captioning and the order of the photos was done incorrectly. There was no doctoring of the photos. And then the insinuation that the woman in Beirut couldn't possibly have had two houses bombed out? Beirut is a large city, but it ain't that large, and the Israelis have been dropping a lot of bombs.

Others have said it, and I'll repeat it--the guys who put this thing together had an agenda, and they're as guilty as the Reuters photographer in making shit up to fit their agenda. And anyone who uses Little Green Footballs, that racist, hacktackular excuse for a website as a source ought to be laughed out of town.

Yeah I did, and I gave it about as much credence as it deserves, seeing as their third example--the NY Times one--deliberately misrepresents what happened. The captioning and the order of the photos was done incorrectly. There was no doctoring of the photos. And then the insinuation that the woman in Beirut couldn't possibly have had two houses bombed out? Beirut is a large city, but it ain't that large, and the Israelis have been dropping a lot of bombs.

Others have said it, and I'll repeat it--the guys who put this thing together had an agenda, and they're as guilty as the Reuters photographer in making shit up to fit their agenda. And anyone who uses Little Green Footballs, that racist, hacktackular excuse for a website as a source ought to be laughed out of town.
I want you to read very carefully what you've just said in the above statement. You are going way out of your way to rationalize for these people. How many Lebanese do you think have two houses in Beirut, and what are the chances that both would be bombed within one month, if they weren't Hezbollah strongholds, that is. Furthermore, why was that woman wearing the same exact clothes in both photos? What is the chance of that?

You still haven't answered my question about those children's toys amid the rubble.

Have you heard of Occam's Razor? Of course you had-you're a college professor aren't you? Why not apply this concept to this topic, and take it to the logical conclusion-that there are anti-Israeli elements in the media that are actively seeking to build sympathy for Hezbollah, a group of vicious killers?

Although making a political statement is the most obvious reason for Hajj's photo manipulation, I've seen nothing authoritative that makes that claim. As someone noted above, it may have been to pad a paycheck.
Could it be because there just isn't that much damage in Israel? The unguided "rockets" Hezbollah's been throwing over the border have been less than effectual at actually blowing things to smithereens.
Dude, the video is grossly biased. You need to get hold of some objective information.
Come on, bro, his excuse was ludicrous. "Yeah, I had to get this dust off so I just added a shitload of special effects. Ok, so now it looks like the Israelis dropped a nuke on Beirut, instead of one or two bombs, but hey, I work for Reuters so I can't do wrong."

With north of 100 rockets getting shot at Israel every day, each of them with the purpose to cause as much damage as possible, you can bet your ass there's damage in Israel.

That video is scornful, but it's not biased. It tells it how it is. I don't see how that's any more biased than having reporters interview Hezbollah and have larry king get queen noor on every single day during this war so that she could spew bullshit like the "Israeli occupation of Arab lands" and "the issue of political prisoners in Israel" All her words by the way, not mine.

No, of course not. And not like the 9/11-based ads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLIKMMtsOfM) certain other righties are running.
That ad makes me want to punch somebody in the face.

That ad makes me want to punch somebody in the face.
They had one image of 911, and it lasted all of two seconds.

You just probably hate all Republicans.

I want you to read very carefully what you've just said in the above statement. You are going way out of your way to rationalize for these people. How many Lebanese do you think have two houses in Beirut, and what are the chances that both would be bombed within one month, if they weren't Hezbollah strongholds, that is. Furthermore, why was that woman wearing the same exact clothes in both photos? What is the chance of that?
Hmmm. She's in a house that gets bombed out. She moves to somewhere else in the neighborhood. It gets bombed. She doesn't necessarily have to own them--she might have moved in with a relative or a friend. That's not all that unusual, you know.

Plus, Beirut is a pretty divided city, with the various religious groups sticking together--I should know; a friend of mine from grad school grew up there and was alive during the civil war, and I read her essays on her childhood in our creative non-fiction classes. As for the clothes, well, if you're poor, you probably don't have many changes of clothes, especially if your house was bombed out and your clothes were in there. That's a perfectly reasonable explanation, and you only say it isn't if you have an agenda.

You still haven't answered my question about those children's toys amid the rubble. BY this point, I feel I don't have to, since the people putting the video together have already shot their credibility in my eyes. Why should I believe anything they have to say now, since it's clear to me that they're willing to distort to make a point?

Have you heard of Occam's Razor? Of course you had-you're a college professor aren't you? Why not apply this concept to this topic, and take it to the logical conclusion-that there are anti-Israeli elements in the media that are actively seeking to build sympathy for Hezbollah, a group of vicious killers?
You know something--there are anti-Israeli elements in the press that are looking to build sympathy for Hezbollah, and there are some on the other side as well, excusing everything Israel does no matter how stupid. But the vast majority of the people covering the story are doing just that--covering the story. The guys covering this video have been less than persuasive.

They had one image of 911, and it lasted all of two seconds.

You just probably hate all Republicans.
Tell us why anybody should love them.

Hmmm. She's in a house that gets bombed out. She moves to somewhere else in the neighborhood. It gets bombed. She doesn't necessarily have to own them--she might have moved in with a relative or a friend. That's not all that unusual, you know.

Plus, Beirut is a pretty divided city, with the various religious groups sticking together--I should know; a friend of mine from grad school grew up there and was alive during the civil war, and I read her essays on her childhood in our creative non-fiction classes. As for the clothes, well, if you're poor, you probably don't have many changes of clothes, especially if your house was bombed out and your clothes were in there. That's a perfectly reasonable explanation, and you only say it isn't if you have an agenda.

BY this point, I feel I don't have to, since the people putting the video together have already shot their credibility in my eyes. Why should I believe anything they have to say now, since it's clear to me that they're willing to distort to make a point?


You know something--there are anti-Israeli elements in the press that are looking to build sympathy for Hezbollah, and there are some on the other side as well, excusing everything Israel does no matter how stupid. But the vast majority of the people covering the story are doing just that--covering the story. The guys covering this video have been less than persuasive.
Contrary to what the mudstream media would have you believe, most of Beirut has actually been left untouched. The only way this woman could have had both houses bombed is if she had terrorist friends or relatives in both houses, in which case I have 0 sympathy for her, or the much more likely option, that these two photos were faked. Use your common sense, which do you think is more likely? I will admit that your explanation for her clothing was plausible, although don't you think that her hypothetical neighbors would at least lend her a spare set?

Now you're just looking for an excuse to not answer the question. Fine, I'll let you off the hook for this one, wouldn't want you to dig your hole deeper.

You're right, the media is reporting all sides of the story, and this is another thing that deeply disturbs me. Did the NYT have reporters telling the German or Japanese "side"of the story during WW2? Hezbollah is no different from the Nazis, and in some ways they are worse. They are not only fanatics, but the worst kind of fanatics-religious fanatics. Now, I'm not a heartless bastard, I don't like the fact that Lebanese civilians are dying, but a lot of them did support Hezbollah, and Israel needs to be ruthless-it's fighting a ruthless enemy.

Who said McCarthyism wuz dead? Congratulations, America.

Tell us why anybody should love them.
They make the economy function, and they do a better job of defending America from the terrorists than the dems. Of course, if you're a european, a muslim, or a communist, I could understand why you wouldn't like them.

Come on, bro, his excuse was ludicrous. "Yeah, I had to get this dust off so I just added a shitload of special effects. Ok, so now it looks like the Israelis dropped a nuke on Beirut, instead of one or two bombs, but hey, I work for Reuters so I can't do wrong."None of which attests to a political vs. a profit motive. He made "exciting" pictures to sell to Reuters. Anything else is (biased) speculation.

With north of 100 rockets getting shot at Israel every day, each of them with the purpose to cause as much damage as possible, you can bet your ass there's damage in Israel.Compared to southern Lebanon? Hardly a proportionate amount.

That video is scornful, but it's not biased. It tells it how it is. I don't see how that's any more biased than having reporters interview Hezbollah and have larry king get queen noor on every single day during this war so that she could spew bullshit like the "Israeli occupation of Arab lands" and "the issue of political prisoners in Israel" All her words by the way, not mine.Ah, I see where you're coming from. We're only supposed to get the Israeli point of view. Thanks, but no thanks. As for Queen Noor, she has my utmost respect for all she's done.

"Israeli occupuation of Arab lands" is a documented fact, not "bullshit". And there have been Lebanese "political prisoners [held] in Israel" for years whose status needs addressed. Quit swallowing the pro-Israel propaganda.

They make the economy function, and they do a better job of defending America from the terrorists than the dems. Of course, if you're a european, a muslim, or a communist, I could understand why you wouldn't like them.
*falls over, laughing spasmodically*

Contrary to what the mudstream media would have you believe, most of Beirut has actually been left untouched. The only way this woman could have had both houses bombed is if she had terrorist friends or relatives in both houses, in which case I have 0 sympathy for her, or the much more likely option, that these two photos were faked. Use your common sense, which do you think is more likely? I will admit that your explanation for her clothing was plausible, although don't you think that her hypothetical neighbors would at least lend her a spare set?

Now you're just looking for an excuse to not answer the question. Fine, I'll let you off the hook for this one, wouldn't want you to dig your hole deeper.

You're right, the media is reporting all sides of the story, and this is another thing that deeply disturbs me. Did the NYT have reporters telling the German or Japanese "side"of the story during WW2? Hezbollah is no different from the Nazis, and in some ways they are worse. They are not only fanatics, but the worst kind of fanatics-religious fanatics. Now, I'm not a heartless bastard, I don't like the fact that Lebanese civilians are dying, but a lot of them did support Hezbollah, and Israel needs to be ruthless-it's fighting a ruthless enemy.
Beirut, before and after the bombing, no photoshopping.

http://www.juancole.com/graphics/APTOPIX.jpg

So LGF can kiss my fucking ass. And if you really think that Hezbollah, as bad as they are, are anywhere near the threat Japan or Germany were during WWII, then you're an idiot, plain and simple. They're a guerilla group in a tiny Middle Eastern country. They're not a war machine that dominated the better part of Europe and the Pacific for four years.

Watch Pallywood, it exposes the staged crap that gets passed off as news for what it really is.

Watch Pallywood, it exposes the staged crap that gets passed off as news for what it really is.
Well, then - having seen it yourself, you're presumably in a good position to illuminate the rest of us as to what, exactly, "it really is".

Do go on, Please.

Let's just put the shoe on the other foot and see how it fits...

Zionists are no different from the Nazis, and in some ways they are worse. They are not only fanatics, but the worst kind of fanatics-religious fanatics. Now, I'm not a heartless bastard, I don't like the fact that Israeli civilians are dying, but a lot of them did support the Zionists, and Hezbollah needs to be ruthless-it's fighting a ruthless enemy.

Wow. It works both ways. Fancy that. Hezbollah as an organization has gained support from the Shi'ia portion of the Lebanese because they run charity organizations (hospitals, orphanages, etc.), provide clothing and shelter. Not only that, but they're one of the few groups that has even a remote chance to defend the Lebanese borders from Israeli invasion. Of course, the population supports them. Were they stupid to begin the rocket barrages? Yes. Is Israel over-reacting and undermining any chance of peace? You betcha. Is demonizing Hezbollah beneficial in any way? No.

Oh, and I call Godwin on your ass.

Ah, I see where you're coming from. We're only supposed to get the Israeli point of view. Thanks, but no thanks. As for Queen Noor, she has my utmost respect for all she's done.

Let me throw another thing out there for everyone to chew on for a bit.

Queen Noor is American. She also funds a graduate program in MIddle Eastern studies at the University of Arkansas, of all places.

None of which attests to a political vs. a profit motive. He made "exciting" pictures to sell to Reuters. Anything else is (biased) speculation.

Compared to southern Lebanon? Hardly a proportionate amount.

Ah, I see where you're coming from. We're only supposed to get the Israeli point of view. Thanks, but no thanks. As for Queen Noor, she has my utmost respect for all she's done.

"Israeli occupuation of Arab lands" is a documented fact, not "bullshit". And there have been Lebanese "political prisoners [held] in Israel" for years whose status needs addressed. Quit swallowing the pro-Israel propaganda.
If it's all about profit, then why don't they ever fake photos of the destuction in Israel to make it look more sensational? Read again, they never do it.

What is "proportionate"? Do you think that for every Israeli that gets killed, one Lebanese should be killed? Do you think that will stop Hezbollah?

Consider this: Hezbollah is killing civilians indiscriminately. The central government in Beirut is unable to reign in Hezbollah. This effectively makes any Hezbollah occupied territory, ie, southern Lebanon, a war zone. The only "proportional" response in this case would be for the IDF to carpet bomb all of southern Lebanon, and kill civilians indiscriminately. The fact that the IDF is not doing this is a testament to the humanitarian principles that Israel stands for.

Yes, exactly, we're only supposed to get the Israeli POV because that's the correct POV. Israel is a liberal democracy, just like America, or Britain. During the Blitz, we only got the British POV, not the POV of the Luftwaffe.

Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, from most of the West Bank, and all of Lebanon. How much futher would you have them withdraw? To the Mediterranean? Face it, Israel gave the Arabs all of their land back, and neverthless, Hezbollah attacked Israel. As for the "prisoners", they're terrorists. They have been apprehended during attacks or attempted attacks on Israel. I will say it once again, they're terrorists, any notion of a "prisoner exchange" is ludicrous, as any "prisoners" Israel gives up will be shooting rockets at Israel in two days.

Of course, if you're a european, a muslim, or a communist, I could understand why you wouldn't like them [Republicans].I'm dissapointed in you. You missed a chance to call us terrorists. Ah well, next time.

Consider this: Hezbollah is killing civilians indiscriminately.
Provide us the death statistics to prove it.

Let's just put the shoe on the other foot and see how it fits...



Wow. It works both ways. Fancy that. Hezbollah as an organization has gained support from the Shi'ia portion of the Lebanese because they run charity organizations (hospitals, orphanages, etc.), provide clothing and shelter. Not only that, but they're one of the few groups that has even a remote chance to defend the Lebanese borders from Israeli invasion. Of course, the population supports them. Were they stupid to begin the rocket barrages? Yes. Is Israel over-reacting and undermining any chance of peace? You betcha. Is demonizing Hezbollah beneficial in any way? No.

Oh, and I call Godwin on your ass.
You do realize that you just called Israelis Nazis, don't you? Wow, just wow. I don't even know what to say, or if it's worth it to say anything.

I will say one thing, though: The attack by Hezbollah was not merely "stupid." It was part of a strategy to end the existence of Israel.

You have lost any respect I had for you before this comment. I don't even know why I bother.

Beirut, before and after the bombing, no photoshopping.

http://www.juancole.com/graphics/APTOPIX.jpg

So LGF can kiss my fucking ass. And if you really think that Hezbollah, as bad as they are, are anywhere near the threat Japan or Germany were during WWII, then you're an idiot, plain and simple. They're a guerilla group in a tiny Middle Eastern country. They're not a war machine that dominated the better part of Europe and the Pacific for four years.
That's what they said about the Nazis in 1932. Now, suppose Hezbollah took over all of the middle east. You can bet your left nut that they would start killing every Jew and homosexual they could lay their hands on. Would they look so helpless then?

Hezbollah's goals aren't that much different from the Nazis.

Please, you call that photo reliable evidence? It could be a photo of anything, or any part of Beirut.

Provide us the death statistics to prove it.
There have been at least 50 Israelis killed thus far. Hezbollah shoots Katyusha rockets, which are loaded with small metal ball bearing that spread out upon impact.

That's what they said about the Nazis in 1932. Now, suppose Hezbollah took over all of the middle east. You can bet your left nut that they would start killing every Jew and homosexual they could lay their hands on. Would they look so helpless then?

Hezbollah's goals aren't that much different from the Nazis.

Please, you call that photo reliable evidence? It could be a photo of anything, or any part of Beirut.
You know, I just wrote on another thread that you had written the most ignorant post I'd ever seen around here. This one isn't quite as bad, but it's up there. You're on a roll buddy. Good Work!!!!!

Oh, and you're welcome to look at the image tag to see where I got it from--and where Juan Cole got it from in the first place. :rolleyes:

You know, I just wrote on another thread that you had written the most ignorant post I'd ever seen around here. This one isn't quite as bad, but it's up there. You're on a roll buddy. Good Work!!!!!

Oh, and you're welcome to look at the image tag to see where I got it from--and where Juan Cole got it from in the first place. :rolleyes:
Once again, you're simply engaging in character assasination instead of debating the real topic. I'm trying to be as civil as I can, I expect you to do the same.

Rest assured, I will visit that website once again.

There have been at least 50 Israelis killed thus far. Hezbollah shoots Katyusha rockets, which are loaded with small metal ball bearing that spread out upon impact.
You haven't done as asked.


How many dead Israelis are soldiers, and how many are civiians?

How many dead Lebanese are civilians, and how many are Hezbollah?

Provide. Substantiation. Of. Your. Claim.

Once again, you're simply engaging in character assasination instead of debating the real topic. I'm trying to be as civil as I can, I expect you to do the same.

Rest assured, I will visit that website once again.
When I call you ignorant, it's not an insult--it's a description. To compare Hezbollah to Nazi Germany in 1932 is ignorant because it shows a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of recent western European history and the current situation in the Middle East.

When I call you ignorant, it's not an insult--it's a description. To compare Hezbollah to Nazi Germany in 1932 is ignorant because it shows a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of recent western European history and the current situation in the Middle East.
First and foremost, don't patronize me.

In 1932, the Nazis were rapidly on the rise in Germany. Right now, Hezbollah is rapidly on the rise in popularity in Lebanon. When you look at the rhetoric and tactics of Hezbollah, it's not that much different from the Nazis. Lastly, both organizations harbored a deep hatred of Jews, and homosexuals. They're both morally repugnant.

Suppose I started my own little group right here in the good ol US of A. Let's say I called it RockTheCasbastan, and our central goal is the extermination of all Jews, or at least the expulsion of Jews from America. Now let's say I managed to get members of my group to take over my home state of New Jersey because most people voted for my guys. Then let's say I started to attack neighboring states simply because I disagreed with their right to exist, and I went after the Jews and gays in my state. Would you still consider my group harmless, especially if we started to take over other states in America?

By the way, here's a much more accurate map of Beirut:
http://vitalperspective.typepad.com/vital_perspective_clarity/2006/07/new_map_of_beir.html

First and foremost, don't patronize me.

In 1932, the Nazis were rapidly on the rise in Germany. Right now, Hezbollah is rapidly on the rise in popularity in Lebanon. When you look at the rhetoric and tactics of Hezbollah, it's not that much different from the Nazis. Lastly, both organizations harbored a deep hatred of Jews, and homosexuals. They're both morally repugnant.

Suppose I started my own little group right here in the good ol US of A. Let's say I called it RockTheCasbastan, and our central goal is the extermination of all Jews, or at least the expulsion of Jews from America. Now let's say I managed to get members of my group to take over my home state of New Jersey because most people voted for my guys. Then let's say I started to attack neighboring states simply because I disagreed with their right to exist, and I went after the Jews and gays in my state. Would you still consider my group harmless, especially if we started to take over other states in America?
Ah, but there is the difference in gaining support by attacking (and "defying" the "agressor") Israel in an open act of war and aggression - or gaining support as a political party in a democratic development in a country like Germany after WWI. Huge difference. They have less in common than the comparison is good for.

If it's all about profit, then why don't they ever fake photos of the destuction in Israel to make it look more sensational? Read again, they never do it.They haven't been caught doing it. Big diff. The righties have been caught doing it with other subjects (9/11 for one).
What is "proportionate"? Well certainly not the 763 Lebanese dead (most of them civilians) to the 134 Israeli (most of them soldiers).
Consider this: Hezbollah is killing civilians indiscriminately. Consider this: Israel calls indiscriminate killing of civilians collateral damage.
Yes, exactly, we're only supposed to get the Israeli POV because that's the correct POV. Israel is a liberal democracy, just like America, or Britain. During the Blitz, we only got the British POV, not the POV of the Luftwaffe. You obviously are happy being spoon-fed propagandic swill. Many of us are not.
Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, from most of the West Bank, and all of Lebanon. That was not correct before the invasion, and it's certainly not correct now. Israel had not withdrawn from all of southern Lebanon, which is what triggered the Hezbollah rocket attacks.
As for the "prisoners", they're terrorists. Yeah, just like all those terrorists in Gitmo. The crime of it is, they aren't all guilty... of anything. Israel, like the U.S., has no qualms about incarcerating and torturing people based on hearsay, shaky accusations, and racist agendas.
Hezbollah shoots Katyusha rockets, which are loaded with small metal ball bearing that spread out upon impact.And Israel is shooting petunias at Lebanon I'm sure. /sarcasm
The attack by Hezbollah was not merely "stupid." It was part of a strategy to end the existence of Israel.That's the problem with believing the propaganda. You have no idea what the other guy really wants.You have lost any respect I had for you before this comment. You made a ridiculous statement (Hezbollah=Nazis); I made a counter ridiculous statement (Zionists=Nazis) to point out how ridiculous you were. Luckily I'm not dependent on you for respect.

It's late and Jolt isn't playing nice. I'm out.

Ah, but there is the difference in gaining support by attacking (and "defying" the "agressor") Israel in an open act of war and aggression - or gaining support as a political party in a democratic development in a country like Germany after WWI. Huge difference. They have less in common than the comparison is good for.
Israel is defending itself. If someone lobbed rockets on your house, you'd expect the military to stop those rocket attacks. The IDF is defending its civilians.

They haven't been caught doing it. Big diff. The righties have been caught doing it with other subjects (9/11 for one).
Well certainly not the 763 Lebanese dead (most of them civilians) to the 134 Israeli (most of them soldiers).
Consider this: Israel calls indiscriminate killing of civilians collateral damage.
You obviously are happy being spoon-fed propagandic swill. Many of us are not.
That was not correct before the invasion, and it's certainly not correct now. Israel had not withdrawn from all of southern Lebanon, which is what triggered the Hezbollah rocket attacks.
Yeah, just like all those terrorists in Gitmo. The crime of it is, they aren't all guilty... of anything. Israel, like the U.S., has no qualms about incarcerating and torturing people based on hearsay, shaky accusations, and racist agendas.
And Israel is shooting petunias at Lebanon I'm sure. /sarcasm
That's the problem with believing the propaganda. You have no idea what the other guy really wants.You made a ridiculous statement (Hezbollah=Nazis); I made a counter ridiculous statement (Zionists=Nazis) to point out how ridiculous you were. Luckily I'm not dependent on you for respect.

It's late and Jolt isn't playing nice. I'm out.
Hm..if they haven't been caught doing it, could it be because it never happened?

Israel is doing its best to avoid civilian casualties. You obviously do not now about anything that's going on down on the ground.

It was correct about the invasion, and right now the IDF is in southern Lebanon to stop the rocket attacks.

Please, Israel is racist? Prove it. Go ahead. You made this ridiculous accusation so the burden of prove is up to you.

You say you don't want to be spoon-fed propaganda, but the irony is that you don't know what propaganda really is. Your hatred of Israel (for whatever reasons) is obviously blinding you to reaching an objective conclusion.

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

Your thoughts?
I suppose that doctoring photos is not such a great idea. The guy got caught and has been punished accordingly. However, since we are on the subject of "doctoring", how about the doctoring of news and planting "black" propaganda?

U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/politics/01propaganda.html?ei=5088&en=15a816ad2c204281&ex=1291093200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

US military planting stories in Iraqi papers (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1201/dailyUpdate.html)

Military Says It Paid Iraq Papers for News (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201454.html)

Another subject would be quoting others out of context, which happens quite frequently here at NS General.

I suppose that doctoring photos is not such a great idea. The guy got caught and has been punished accordingly. However, since we are on the subject of "doctoring", how about the doctoring of news and planting "black" propaganda?

U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/politics/01propaganda.html?ei=5088&en=15a816ad2c204281&ex=1291093200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

US military planting stories in Iraqi papers (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1201/dailyUpdate.html)

Military Says It Paid Iraq Papers for News (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201454.html)

Another subject would be quoting others out of context, which happens quite frequently here at NS General.
You know, al-jazeera isn't exactly unbiased in its reporting. I think the US inserting these stories is just a counterweight to that. Besides, it's not like they're shutting down the newspapers.

Israel is defending itself. If someone lobbed rockets on your house, you'd expect the military to stop those rocket attacks. The IDF is defending its civilians.
And that contradicts my statement about the difference between what Hezbollah is doing right now as to what the Nazis did in the early 30s of last century... how?
Never stated any opposite of what you're trying to get at there.

And that contradicts my statement about the difference between what Hezbollah is doing right now with what the Nazis did in the early 30s of last century... how?
Never stated any opposite of what you're trying to get at there.
Oh, ok, I just misunderstood you then.

You know, al-jazeera isn't exactly unbiased in its reporting. I think the US inserting these stories is just a counterweight to that. Besides, it's not like they're shutting down the newspapers.
So,after all your rhetoric on your previous posts, you will now try to rationalize and justify interferring in freedom of the press. Well done. :rolleyes:

Besides, it's not like they're shutting down the newspapers.
Yeah, really. They're just undermining the freedom of the press, is all. Water off a duck's back in any dictatorship, any banana republic. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh wot?

Bloody journalists. They'll pay to hear what they think.

"Pro-terror leftist media demonises poor little Israel with propaganda and doctored images?" Or perhaps back in reality "Conservative media corporations exaggerate scenes of violence, terror, and destruction to sell more papers?" It just so happens Israel is doing more damage than their pissweak opponents. As such, they provide much more, and much better, source material for sensationalisation. Sorry guys, the world doesn't hate Israel. There is no more of an international network of anti-semites perpetually working towards the eradication of all Jews than there is an international network of Jews perpetually working towards world domination. There is just money.