|
lets see what mind-pollutionist cyusking has to say about this
*censored due to lack of counter arguments by opposition*
Once again, here is reality, presenting a different side
lets probe the future: i predict "oh this guy just showing that Israel is the victim, but what about the poor palestinians!"
or maybe
"they are obviously not objective, because they take israel's side!"
LOL
blow me...
sick of all this middle east BS!!!
anyone who has family in the middle east, whither in iran, or syria, or israel for that matter! know's that finding the REAL truth here is like finding the truth of what will happen during a presidental campaign!
those same people know when someone is truly against one party or the other based on their views.
That is an example of this forum.
moderators should finally ban people that continue with this propaganda!!
Orwellian media coverage
By Doron Kescher August 27, 2003
On reading this morning's newspaper and Internet headlines, I was reminded of an episode described in George Orwell's landmark book Nineteen Eighty-Four:
"There had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it." [George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four]
The protagonist wondered how it could be that the whole world was overcome with collective amnesia over an event which for all intents and purposes should still be so fresh in their minds? The assumption drawn is that the masses either wanted to or needed to believe what they were being told.
On reading this morning's papers, I was confronted with the following headlines dealing with Israel's dispatching another Hamas terrorist to the eternal barbeque:
"Islamic Militant Groups Say Truce Is Dead After Israeli Strike" (New York Times, August 21, 2003);
"Hamas ends cease-fire" (CNN Online Edition, 21:24 GMT August 21, 2003);
"Israel Kills Hamas Leader, Militants Abandon Truce" (Reuters, August 21, 2003);
"2 militant groups end Israel truce" (International Herald Tribune, August 21, 2003);
"Hamas ends cease-fire after leader killed" (Toronto Globe and Mail, August 21, 2003);
"Cease-fire over, say militants as missiles kill Hamas leader" (Sydney Morning Herald, August 22, 2003).
The media's interpretation of the story is more than subliminal: Hamas ended its cease-fire* after Israel killed one of its leaders. This is the message that has come from the mouths of Hamas representatives, and has been mindlessly parroted by the world media.
It is unbelievable that not a single journalist around the world considered the suicide bus bombing of August 19, 2003 - in which 20 Jews were slaughtered and more than 100 maimed - to be an end to the so-called cease-fire. Not a single journalist considered the previous 2 suicide bombings in which 'only' two Jews were murdered to be an end to the phony cease-fire.
How is it possible that not a single journalist even thought to question this?
According to the Hamas/media line, neither the terrorist acts nor the re-arming and reorganization of these groups constituted a breach of the cease-fire. Instead, the media chose to focus on the Israeli decision to eliminate a man who was actively involved in planning past and future murderous attacks as the event that broke the cease-fire.
The mind is confounded when searching for an answer as to why the media need or want to believe that it was anyone other than the Islamic terrorist groups that ended the cease-fire.
This collective amnesia and denial - in the face of manifestly obvious facts - has very few rational explanations. The Orwellian assumption is that the world's media either need or want to believe that the cease-fire collapse was due to Israel.
Given the rampant anti-Semitism in many journalistic circles of late, it is unfortunately not too difficult to understand why the media may want to believe that it is the Jews' fault that the cease-fire is dead. As for those journalists who are not innately hostile to Jews, one can only assume that questioning the 'party line' would not be a smart career move.
What a sad world it is when our journalists are either too prejudiced or too frightened to tell the truth.
* I use the term cease-fire out of convenience. In actual fact, the almost imperceptible lull in terrorism over the last seven weeks is best described by the term which the Palestinian Arabs themselves use: hudna. A hudna - unlike a cease-fire - is an Islamic construct whereby a party agrees to a temporary truce in order to re-arm and then once again attempt to slaughter the party with whom they had agreed the said hudna.
___________________
TORAHTRANCE CREW!
Last edited by DJBARON on Sep-03-2003 at 12:04
|
