Let's not forget the woman on the right could most likely be an undercover Mossad agent and the baby is concealing an assault rifle.
Mossad is no joke.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
WAR in GAZA???
- Thread starter A4sForever
- Start date
Let's not forget the woman on the right could most likely be an undercover Mossad agent and the baby is concealing an assault rifle.
Mossad is no joke.
That answer is not the one that is being used or even argued for by anyone, except maybe the more hawkish members of this forum. Israel's approach has been, by all objective accounts I've seen, a very cautious one that aims to absolutely minimize civilian casualties.
At least attempt to be unbiased. What about the 1000+ civilians that are piling up in hospitals in Gaza because of the Israeli advance?
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/200911415461671162.html
Granted this is from Al Jazeera...but it's much more credible than our news agencies.
Here is from the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm
You make it like the Palestinians are fighting with wreckless abandon and the Israelis are being really careful. Your statement is at the very root of the whole problem in the first place.
I've seen AP articles claiming 500+ palestinian casualties in the headline, and when you read thru the article, 458 are Hamas militants and the other 42 were women and children living next to a rocket launch pad. I stopped reading most of them after that.
Israel is fighting this one with one hand behind its back and an ass kicking leg tied down, and still ogre stomping Hamas. Maybe they will kill them all and the palestinians can elect a new government hell bent on poking a giant in the eye, too. God bless democracy in the middle east.
I'll buy the BBC most of the time, but Al Jazeera, seriously? Just because that's where the middle east gets its news from doesn't exactly make it more credible than Reuters or the AP.
"Granted this is from Al Jazeera...but it's much more credible than our news agencies. "
Hardly.
As hard as it is to believe Al Jazeera is actually a pretty reliable news source when it comes to actual news. Why? For the simple reason that they have more reporters on the ground in the Middle East. Their reporting is definitely focused on the Palestinians in this case, but that does not mean that you can discount it. Their commentary and 'in-depth' reporting on the other hand, not so good. Same with the BBC.
And I have no idea where you all are getting that the news is not reporting on this story, they are all over it. Just because it does not make the front page of your local fish-wrapper or TV station doesn't mean it is not covered. I have seen plenty of reporting on it from domestic news sources, from newspapers to cable news.
Israel has been very methodical in its attacks on Gaza, both from the air and on the ground. They are likely not going to destroy Hamas, but they want to damage them enough to remind them and the rest of the Middle East that they still know how to fight. That deterrent was seriously damaged by their performance in the 2006 Lebanon war, and this invasion is a demonstration to their enemies that they still mean business. It won't be a long-term occupation, Israel cannot afford it, but Israel's goals are at least partially met. It remains to be seen if they will have a lasting impact.
And I have no idea where you all are getting that the news is not reporting on this story, they are all over it. Just because it does not make the front page of your local fish-wrapper or TV station doesn't mean it is not covered. I have seen plenty of reporting on it from domestic news sources, from newspapers to cable news.
Israel has been very methodical in its attacks on Gaza, both from the air and on the ground. They are likely not going to destroy Hamas, but they want to damage them enough to remind them and the rest of the Middle East that they still know how to fight. That deterrent was seriously damaged by their performance in the 2006 Lebanon war, and this invasion is a demonstration to their enemies that they still mean business. It won't be a long-term occupation, Israel cannot afford it, but Israel's goals are at least partially met. It remains to be seen if they will have a lasting impact.
Clux4
Banned
Flash,
I never thought I would disagree with you but I have to disagree with you on this one. How can you propose that Al Jazeera is a more reliable news source because it has more reporters on the ground. They are an Arab funded TV station (read: Jordanian and Saudi controlled). There is no way you can tell me that does not affect what they cover and how they cover it. Only the West (U.S and a few NATO countries) truly practises unbiased reporting and many will disagree with this statement.
Something similar occured in 2003/2004 time frame. "Battle for Fallujah".
Al Jazeera was the only news source embedded with the insurgency and guess what they did, they reported fake numbers when in reality the number of casualties was less.
When we finally decided to go into Fallujah for the last time, guess what we did, we pulled all Al Jazeera reporters back to Baghdad.
Read "No True Glory" - Bing West
It all boils down to Information Operation(IO). The enemy is learning and they know one thing, showing hundreds of wounded in a hospital building makes Israel look bad and forces the international world to come to their rescue.
As you pointed, Israel will not fight for too long and will eventually withdraw. This is not the first time it will happen and neither is it the last time.
In reporting the actual news they are pretty accurate and reliable, and it is largely because they are actually there on the ground reporting. I agree that most western reporting is more unbiased than others, but due to recent cuts many have only a fraction of the overseas reporters than they used to leaving huge gaps in coverage. Some of their biases are very evident in some of the reporting, their coverage of the Israeli invasion into Gaza has been largely one-sided with a focus on Palestinian casualties, but that does not mean that what they do report is inaccurate.
For news in the Middle East and certain parts of Africa they usually report the news earlier and more accurately than most others. It is a simple fact, I see it every day. And that is comparing it to the most unbiased source of all, the US government.
P.S. Al Jazeera was founded and still largely supported by the Emir of Qatar.
^^^
"their coverage of the Israeli invasion into Gaza has been largely one-sided with a focus on Palestinian casualties, but that does not mean that what they do report is inaccurate. "
Oxymoron.
If what they report gives an inaccurate picture, because of what they leave out/choose to emphasize, then their reporting is inaccurate. Even if all the sub-sections are accurate. And their reporting pretty consistently does that.
"their coverage of the Israeli invasion into Gaza has been largely one-sided with a focus on Palestinian casualties, but that does not mean that what they do report is inaccurate. "
Oxymoron.
If what they report gives an inaccurate picture, because of what they leave out/choose to emphasize, then their reporting is inaccurate. Even if all the sub-sections are accurate. And their reporting pretty consistently does that.
Really? Name an independantly verified report of an alleged strike by Israeli forces that hit a supposed school or mosque and caused massive civilian casualties. I guess it depends on your definiton of "civilian" because Palestine has no military--only militants. So yes, 100% of Palestinian casualties are civilian.
I have looked for proof of Palestinian propaganda claims and for proof of Israeli propaganda claims, and I have found none in support of Palestinian claims and more than a few in support of the Israeli ones. I'm not going to take the IDF at their word, but it is far more credible based upon my own mediocre research. Palestinian claims are perpetually discredited by every fact-finding effort; yet there's video proof of Qassam rockets and other munitions being stored in mosques, mortars being fired from UN locations, and so forth. Yes, Israeli military actions are brutal--the whole shooting at reporters thing is disturbing and the disproportion of casualties is hard to swallow prima facia, but if you want to play moral equivalency, you will lose that discussion.
Also, neither article says 1000+ civilians. The Al Jazeera article which tried to illustrate international efforts to condemn Israel is the one that claims 1000+ Palestinian dead with about 40% of them being defined as "civilians," and the other described the plight of the Palestinians. Which of these articles described the other side of the issue? Only a minor blurb at the end of the first one, which was an attempt to contrast casualty totals.
I think I am being mostly unbiased. I see Palestinians in the worst situation imaginable, and Israel in another unenviable situation. The most evil entity is the one that perpetuates the situation; which is so much more the Palestinian "government" than any other entity.
Well would it not be true to say most Western news agencies are covering the Israeli side? To truly get a balance of what is going on I suggest getting the news from both sides. Somewhere in the middle is more likely closer to the truth.
For people to say that the Israelis are completely right and are protecting innocent civilians from needless bloodshed is a bit naive. War is hell, I imagine atrocities are being committed on both sides.
Just like I don't get in politics why Republicans only watch Fox and vice versa with Dems. To be 'informed' you must look at what the other side is saying and actually keep an open mind. To discredit Al Jazeera because they are simply "pro Muslim" (not you exhelodrvr, others have said this) and what not is absurd. This is why we have the problems we do anyway.
Maybe their news agency was embedded with the Palestinians and Islamic terrorist organizations, but they are "on the ground" and can report what they see. I don't think Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper would be very welcome in an Al Queda safe house live on CNN. Yet we give so much credibility to reporters who are only embedded with our forces.
Democratic? Are you serious? I don't think there's any instance were some democratic principles weren't suspended to varying degrees when a country went to war.
Besides, Israel does have a reputation for killing journalists. It's usually when those journalists approach a tank or patrol boat after warning shots have been fired, but sometimes just for approaching them. Anywho, you can't "imbed" journalists in a loosing side of a war, or they'd be wiped out. I genuinely don't know if any journalists were imbeded inside Iraqi Republican Guard units, but they probably didn't get a chance to file their reports.
Given Hamas' style of conducting 4GW, what do you think would happen to journalists, especially western journalists, inside Gaza? They'd likely be holed up inside "secure" and "off-limits" hotels. You know, like the UN buildings that were used as mortar nests. Given Israel's actions so far, their barring of journalists seems to be a safer bet.
But you are right. It is imprudent to cast judgement so far, and Israel is not a gentle teddy bear to Palestinians. What I see so far puts all of the blame for this flare-up on Hamas, but there are faults in both sides.
Oh, and speaking of the "accuracy" of Al Jazeera, iirc the Arab world was taken by surprise when Baghdad fell in 2003 because they actually put credence in the Iraqi propaganda minister's reports. What was his nickname on late night TV? Baghdad Bob or something? So on any issue, you have at least three sides; you have one player's side, the other player's side, and the truth. I suspect that in this case, the truth is far closer to Israel's version of it than the Palestinians. That doesn't discount the casualty figures though...
Time will tell, but the conflict will not end.
Besides, Israel does have a reputation for killing journalists. It's usually when those journalists approach a tank or patrol boat after warning shots have been fired, but sometimes just for approaching them. Anywho, you can't "imbed" journalists in a loosing side of a war, or they'd be wiped out. I genuinely don't know if any journalists were imbeded inside Iraqi Republican Guard units, but they probably didn't get a chance to file their reports.
Given Hamas' style of conducting 4GW, what do you think would happen to journalists, especially western journalists, inside Gaza? They'd likely be holed up inside "secure" and "off-limits" hotels. You know, like the UN buildings that were used as mortar nests. Given Israel's actions so far, their barring of journalists seems to be a safer bet.
But you are right. It is imprudent to cast judgement so far, and Israel is not a gentle teddy bear to Palestinians. What I see so far puts all of the blame for this flare-up on Hamas, but there are faults in both sides.
Oh, and speaking of the "accuracy" of Al Jazeera, iirc the Arab world was taken by surprise when Baghdad fell in 2003 because they actually put credence in the Iraqi propaganda minister's reports. What was his nickname on late night TV? Baghdad Bob or something? So on any issue, you have at least three sides; you have one player's side, the other player's side, and the truth. I suspect that in this case, the truth is far closer to Israel's version of it than the Palestinians. That doesn't discount the casualty figures though...
Time will tell, but the conflict will not end.
OU,
"Yet we give so much credibility to reporters who are only embedded with our forces."
I give more credibility to news sources who have earned more credibility. And after all the bogus claims of Israeli atrocities over the years from the Palestinians, that are reported as Gospel (pun intended) by the media (both Al Jazeera and the western press), and subsequently disproven, I give virtually no credibility to Al Jazeera when it comes to reporting on issues between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
"Yet we give so much credibility to reporters who are only embedded with our forces."
I give more credibility to news sources who have earned more credibility. And after all the bogus claims of Israeli atrocities over the years from the Palestinians, that are reported as Gospel (pun intended) by the media (both Al Jazeera and the western press), and subsequently disproven, I give virtually no credibility to Al Jazeera when it comes to reporting on issues between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
I figured someone would bring that up. While you are partially right about that not telling the full story is on the whole inaccurate, but that does not mean that most of their reporting is not factual. Taken individually, much of their reporting is not only accurate but also provides very good insight into areas that we otherwise have little visibility. Where else are you going to find out reliable and accurate reporting on the Al Shabaab suicide bombings in Somaliland and Puntland, fighting in Yemeni hinterlands and the latest bombings in Iraq? Often, Al Jazeera is the earliest and most accurate on all the above counts.
Al Jazeera is not a propaganda channel either like Iran's Press TV, Venezuela's Telesur or Hezbollah's Al Manar. They have come a pretty long way from the early days of OIF and OEF.
Here is good article, from a very reliable source.
http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12953753