View Full Version : Does it strike you as odd?
July-9th-2002, 10:14 AM
It's been 17 (or maybe 18 days now) since Israel re-engaged the West Bank and Gaza, taking over and occupying Palestinian territories and imposing a curfew. It's been 17 (or maybe 18 days now) since an Israeli civilian has been killed by a Palestinian terrorist as well. Coincidence? Hmmm, I think not. Is the only way for Israel to be safe to control all of Palestinian land? It certainly appears to be so. Very sad that the 50,000 member police force Arafat has can't do this without Israeli occupation, don't you think?
July-9th-2002, 11:17 AM
That sounds pretty good right now. However, it just returns the Israelis to the point where they were before all the peace process stuff started...as an occupying army. That led to all the news pics of Israeli forces being pelted by Palestinian youths with rocks then being shot, having their arms/legs broken (as an intentional policy) etc. etc.
In a way it puts them where the extremists want them since it gives lots the extremists lots of military targets to hit instead of civilian ones. Add to that the fact that it only further inflames Arab opinion and it's a no win strategy for Israel long term. What I suspect is that after they have "rooted out all the terrorists" they'll leave.
July-9th-2002, 12:26 PM
This is slightly OT, but this is where the liberal bias in the media REALLY kicks in. Turn on CNN, and you'll see story after story about the suffering of Palestinians, but the Israeli side of the story isn't told once.
July-9th-2002, 02:30 PM
Hate to disagree, but I was looking in the Washington POst and the NYtimes for justification of your claims about how the liberal bias will paint the Israeli's as bad now. ON this board, those newspapers are considered liberal press (I agree).
Israeli Policeman Shot While Palestinian and Israeli Ministers Meet
Palestinian and Israeli Ministers Meet for 2nd Day
If you read the articles, they are pro-Israeli too. They even go so far as to point out that the civilian killed in a gun fight may not have been killed by the Israelis.
Sometimes, it feels like the liberals don't even have to do anything to get blaimed on this board. Oy.
July-9th-2002, 03:00 PM
Yes, usually "liberal" is used a blanket term that is never defined or justified.
This is a common tactic of many of the right-leaning posters on this forum: start a thread or flame war by blaming a phenomenon on a stereotype, rather than on a defined person or group.
That way, you never really have to defend your assertions, because the opposition can't contest facts based on YOUR stereotype ... you can always change it to suit your argument.
So, the trick for left-leaners/progressives is to not agree to the stereotype in the first place. The rightists need to define exactly what they mean by liberal. Do they mean:
Neo-liberals e.g. Milton Friedman?
National Liberals e.g. Michael Lind?
New Deal Democrat/Keynesians e.g. Tom Harken?
Academic Leftists, i.e. Chomsky?
60's Progressives, e.g. Jerry Brown?
The fact of the matter is that all of these groups have radically different viewpoints, so a vague blanket term is essentially meaningless, and arguing over a meaningless term is pointless.
The bottom line is: if youre going to make a point about someone, at least define whom you're talking about.
.. unless of course you're just parroting Rush Limbaugh and Republican politicians.
July-9th-2002, 03:11 PM
Certainly an interesting post in this thread that does none of what you describe. So, I assume you are simply rambling, unsure of how to contribute? Interestingly, the last thread to be started on the premise that "liberals" are to blame was the one you started about the jelly throwing class. So, perhaps you're just mad at yourself, eh?
July-9th-2002, 03:30 PM
and, of course, the left is entirely consistent in its labeling and cavilling of every member of the "right", "far right", "christian right", "conservatives", "republicans", ad infinitum. pls fellas, as usual, one has to remind you to practice what you preach. :shootinth
July-9th-2002, 04:01 PM
Orangeskin's post (2 previous) was of the tactic I described -- "the liberal bias of the media" ... a supposed bias towards supposed viewpoints that aren't defined.
... and the "jelly thread" was an INTENTIONAL PARODY of the very tactic I describe. Using random topics to start lambasting undefined "liberal" straw-men with undefined viewpoints.
I do practice what I preach. Find where I haven't in this regard and post it, please. :rolleyes:
July-9th-2002, 04:12 PM
Ahh. I see RD. Orange had the post you took exception to, discussing liberal bias, without defining it. Ok. Understood. No, wait. I don't understand, because I read OrangeSkins post and it clearly defines liberal bias as he's referencing it, which is here, clearly defined, "Turn on CNN, and you'll see story after story about the suffering of Palestinians, but the Israeli side of the story isn't told once."
So, again, I'm back to you are making an interesting thought about something that is not contained in this thread, since the example you speak to is defined, whether you like the definition or not.
July-9th-2002, 05:58 PM
You forgot classical liberal. Closest recent well-known example might have been Reagan. You might also read some of F. A. Hayek for another modern example. Others of this philosphy would include Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Locke.
Sadly, the GOP seems to have abandon much of the quality Reagan ideals and move back to its traditional Whig-like conservatism that came from people like Hamilton.
July-9th-2002, 08:16 PM
Funny thing, I also thought CNN wasconservative, atleast by my standards. The Washington POst and NYtimes I would view as liberal. As per my original point, I'd say the liberal press is still decidely pro Israeli.
July-9th-2002, 10:21 PM
As a generic statement, I think you are correct. The press is generally very pro-Israel. It is hard, in general, for people not to support the victims of unprovoked attacks that target and slaughter innocent people. Also, Jewish money is very much a part of our industries that communicate views -- be it media or entertainment.
CNN has typically been weaker on this than other media outlets, but, of late, there has been a distinct change in tone. Typically though, it may be stated that any Palestinian slant that lends weight or credence or acceptance or understanding of terrorist bombing the Palestinian people utilize and support tends to come from columnists generally seen as "liberal" columnists.
While I'm certain there are conservative speakers -- Pat Buchanan comes immediately to mind -- that takes a side very against the Israeli point of view, it is, I think fairly stated, more rare to see a conservative publication or piece that is not generally in favor of Israeli response to repeated provocation.
But, that's not to say I disagree with your statement really. Jews do, I think, get a better shake out of the media than they like to let on sometimes.
July-10th-2002, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by RiggoDrill
you never really have to defend your assertionsWell, RD, you've certainly done a poor job of defending your assertions thus far. Pat yourself on the back, brother. You're the very epitome of what you're railing against.
Originally posted by RiggoDrill
"the liberal bias of the media" ... a supposed bias towards supposed viewpoints that aren't defined. Supposed? :laugh: Go read Bernie Goldberg's Bias, one of the finest books ever written about the news media, and you'll find evidence of that "supposed" liberal bias presented to you in clear, concrete terms.
July-10th-2002, 08:25 AM
RD.....i doubt it....but the comment was directed at liberals generally. funny thing......all the folks on the left who proudly march under the banner of righteousness and self-affirmation dutifully claim that they are "in the fight", doing what it takes to advance the causes of equality, defend our freedoms, etc. well.......i can tell you that it's a fairly safe generalization that liberals and their children generally don't "man the rail" in the military very often. the military is generally conservative to middle-of-the-road. irrespective of what is happening elsewhere, this ultimately equates to a disproportionate load of the risk for "the common defense" being borne by particular sub-groups in the population. it also equates to a certain degree of hypocrisy on the part of our esteemed brethren on the left. yes...it's a volunteer force. it just appears that certain political, income, and racial groups volunteer more so than others.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.