StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Coyote wrote:Would people be saying "it doesn't matter" if they found out that the Republican Party owned a 5% stake of Fox News?

'That explains a little bit'.

Unless there's evidence of this bias and tampering, I regard it as bunk nonsense. The outlets reported don't exactly publish gobs of anti-Israeli screeds.

As for the 'Conflict in middle east raises oil price', they don't go to arabians for that. They go to Wall Street, where a quick buck off perceived risen tensions is the norm.

SirNitram wrote:
'That explains a little bit'.

Unless there's evidence of this bias and tampering, I regard it as bunk nonsense.

Soitently(although this particular example is about the muslim riots in France, rather than IvP/Lebanon). When I get home I'll open my copy of Energy Victory to get the chapter and verse, and a cite from another source besides AIM.

The outlets reported don't exactly publish gobs of anti-Israeli screeds.

Not disagreeing with that statement, just saying that some of the Saudi leadership in the past has used partial ownership of the two media corporations to get coverage changed/Saudi line about how it's Israel's fault gas prices go up parroted.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Elfdart wrote:Palestinians are depicted as little more than animals in most US media and Faux News is among the worst.

Pulitzer prize-winning "political cartoonist". This shit is syndicated in hundreds of American newspapers.

What is the offensive item? Depicting Palestinians as monkeys? Or depicting them as too stupid to learn from experience? Hamas is doing the same shit over and over and over, with the same results every time. Maybe they should attempt different tactics because the ones currently in use don't seem to be working so well.

And yes, the artist is a political cartoonist - that sort of thing is exactly what political cartoonists do. The don't write Family Circus, they paid to be provacative and "edgy"

LOL! Behavioral science have alot of explaining to do to explain that.

A more correct image would be the hammer hitting other apes.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Elfdart wrote:Palestinians are depicted as little more than animals in most US media and Faux News is among the worst.

Pulitzer prize-winning "political cartoonist". This shit is syndicated in hundreds of American newspapers.

But the point of that is not "Hamas are animals!", the point is the comparison to a behavioral experiment where the chimp never learns to avoid the punishment, unlike in typical experiments where chimps do learn. Using this as an example is really reaching.

Lonestar wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
They own it to make money, and contrary simplistic understandings of media corporations, while they may broadly conform to the class interests of their owners, particular stockholders cannot veto verboten statements on the channels. They do not have active editorial control.

No, but they can call Rupert Murdoch and "request" that the editorial slant of the coverage of certain newsstories changes...and then boast about it later.

Evidence? The recent book on Murdoch actually details how while he detests certain personalities (O'rielly) and the redneck tawdry character of FOX (leading to him trying to fill it out with his purchase of WSJ), he cannot interfere directly due to Roger Ailes' editorial oversight.

SirNitram wrote:

Elfdart wrote:Even "liberal" media outlets like Huffington Post are chock full of IDF camp followers and fanwhores like Alan Dershowitz who claims that IDF atrocities are perfectly legal. Not only do they run this kind of excrement on their front page, they vigorously censor any posts that bring up his column in the Jerusalem Post calling for Lidice-style retaliation against Palestinian civilians.

HuffPo sides with antivacciners. Nuff. Said.

They do? Show me?

Darth Wong wrote:Ooooh, they warn people before they hurt them! How wonderful!

The Mafia does that too.

So, if the Israelis do nothing to mitigate civilian casualties, they're barbaric; and if they do make an attempt to mitigate civilian casualties they're "like the Mafia"?

Really, by many of us outside the conflict BOTH sides are often viewed as barbaric and senseless.

Of course, I grew up in a country were people of various (and no) faiths all lived on the same block without killing each other, so it's still a little hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of killing in the name of religion. It just doesn't make any sense to me on an emotional level. I know people do it, it just seems batshit crazy.

I realize that in my instances it's not just religion, but killing your neighbor because he/she is a different nationality or color doesn't make sense to me either. Granted, it's not all sweetness and light in the USA but we generally manage to co-exist with the people in our community even if we hate some of them. Hate, yes, outright violence - no, that's just not justified. And we don't want it to come over here.

The fact that in the US you can have Palestinians and Jews living on the same block, going to the same schools, and yet not have bloodshed just makes the Middle East seem all the more hopeless and crazy.

Broomstick wrote: What is the offensive item? Depicting Palestinians as monkeys? Or depicting them as too stupid to learn from experience? Hamas is doing the same shit over and over and over, with the same results every time. Maybe they should attempt different tactics because the ones currently in use don't seem to be working so well.

And yes, the artist is a political cartoonist - that sort of thing is exactly what political cartoonists do. The don't write Family Circus, they paid to be provacative and "edgy"

Ramirez has also depicted Iran as a sewer full of cockroaches, and in general is an intellectually dishonest asswipe. I tend to assume the worst out of him, although I don't hate him nearly so much as I do Chuck Asay.

Though, I still think "depicting Palestinians as monkeys who can't learn not to pull SOME LEVER" is actually relevant to Elfdart's remark that the American media portrays Palestinians as little better than animals.

Broomstick wrote:Of course, I grew up in a country were people of various (and no) faiths all lived on the same block without killing each other, so it's still a little hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of killing in the name of religion. It just doesn't make any sense to me on an emotional level. I know people do it, it just seems batshit crazy.

I realize that in my instances it's not just religion, but killing your neighbor because he/she is a different nationality or color doesn't make sense to me either. Granted, it's not all sweetness and light in the USA but we generally manage to co-exist with the people in our community even if we hate some of them. Hate, yes, outright violence - no, that's just not justified. And we don't want it to come over here.

The fact that in the US you can have Palestinians and Jews living on the same block, going to the same schools, and yet not have bloodshed just makes the Middle East seem all the more hopeless and crazy.

This used to happen. In Palestine, and in other parts of "the Middle East". Well, not as much the "going to the same schools" part. But Muslims, Jews, Christians, all lived and worked together within communities, without the regular bloodshed that people associate with that part of the world today.

And then, quite frankly, Europe rolled in and fucked them all over, such that today we have people who shake their heads and wonder just how 'those people' (or 'that area' or 'that region' or 'the middle east') can be such a bloody-minded lot. Do you really think that most of the violence by Iraqis or Palestinians or Lebanese or Afghans or Iranians is truly religiously motivated?


Maybe there's something you failed to convey, Broomstick. Or maybe you're just not very well versed with the history of the region. Or maybe I've clouded over with emotion and I'm not reading very well at the moment. But I don't care. That you have no problem with sitting in a country which has practiced some really barbaric acts within both our lifetimes, smarmily prattling about how you're so lucky to live in such a civilized community that you just can't understand what it feels like to live in such a "hopeless and crazy" region (which has itself been the victim of some of our government's barbaric acts!), really deeply offends me.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Broomstick wrote:Of course, I grew up in a country were people of various (and no) faiths all lived on the same block without killing each other, so it's still a little hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of killing in the name of religion. It just doesn't make any sense to me on an emotional level. I know people do it, it just seems batshit crazy.

I realize that in my instances it's not just religion, but killing your neighbor because he/she is a different nationality or color doesn't make sense to me either. Granted, it's not all sweetness and light in the USA but we generally manage to co-exist with the people in our community even if we hate some of them. Hate, yes, outright violence - no, that's just not justified. And we don't want it to come over here.

The fact that in the US you can have Palestinians and Jews living on the same block, going to the same schools, and yet not have bloodshed just makes the Middle East seem all the more hopeless and crazy.

This used to happen. In Palestine, and in other parts of "the Middle East". Well, not as much the "going to the same schools" part. But Muslims, Jews, Christians, all lived and worked together within communities, without the regular bloodshed that people associate with that part of the world today.

And yet... they didn't educate their children together? How did they feel about intermarriage with others?

Yes, I am aware that at time the Middle East has been much more peaceful. I am also aware that various groups in the Middle East were slaughtering each other while Europeans were illiterate pig farmers (at best).

And then, quite frankly, Europe rolled in and fucked them all over, such that today we have people who shake their heads and wonder just how 'those people' (or 'that area' or 'that region' or 'the middle east') can be such a bloody-minded lot. Do you really think that most of the violence by Iraqis or Palestinians or Lebanese or Afghans or Iranians is truly religiously motivated?

I actually SAID that I knew it was not entirely religious - did you fucking read what I wrote, or just cherry pick what supports your views? I went back and bolded some of it for you.

It fucking DOES break down along religious lines, just like the centuries of bullshit in Ireland broke across religious lines. That, of course, was not nearly the whole of it but to pretend religion plays NO role is just horseshit.

As I said - the historical record of the Middle East had a hefty dose of blood and genocide long before Europe showed up, it's just as racist to blame the current mess entirely on Europe as it is to call Palestinians animals. Europe took advantage of volatility in the region but it's bullshit to lay it all at their doorstep. Other regions of the world that Europe ran roughshod over have their problems but the Middle East is exceptionally violent.

Maybe there's something you failed to convey, Broomstick.

Maybe there's something you neglected to read.

Or maybe I've clouded over with emotion and I'm not reading very well at the moment.

^ yeah, that one.

But I don't care. That you have no problem with sitting in a country which has practiced some really barbaric acts within both our lifetimes, smarmily prattling about how you're so lucky to live in such a civilized community that you just can't understand what it feels like to live in such a "hopeless and crazy" region (which has itself been the victim of some of our government's barbaric acts!), really deeply offends me.

I'm sorry if you're so fucking offended, but I refuse to buy into collective guilt, which is a toxin that poisons a lot of the world today. I am not personally responsible for what occurred before I was born, I am not responsible for what my government did before I was old enough to vote. You have no clue what causes I have or have not supported during my adult life.

Yes I AM lucky to live in a country not torn by the same violence as the Middle East. Why shouldn't I be glad about that, and prefer it to living in Gaza? You'd have to be fucking nuts to think otherwise. I only wish the average person in Gaza could live in the same relative safety I enjoy.

But as long as the majority of the populace tolerates and even fosters the "martyr" mindset and the likes of Hamas not a goddamned thing will change. They refuse to see how their own actions contribute to the problem. And that goes for Israel, too. Both sides keep pulling the damn lever over and over and over and can't figure out why they have such a headache.

As for barbaric actions of my nation - no, I'm not happy about it. Nor am I deluded enough to believe ANY nation has clean hands. I'm not going to wail "Oh woe is me!" and pretend I can't look at the actions of others. That's horseshit, too. I do what I can to make the world the better place, and if I see endless crap occurring over and over in some part of the world I'm not going to pretty it up.

Until ALL sides in this conflict want peace there will be no peace other than the peace of the grave.

And then, quite frankly, Europe rolled in and fucked them all over, such that today we have people who shake their heads and wonder just how 'those people' (or 'that area' or 'that region' or 'the middle east') can be such a bloody-minded lot. Do you really think that most of the violence by Iraqis or Palestinians or Lebanese or Afghans or Iranians is truly religiously motivated?

Even before then, the Ottoman Empire was getting roughed up by all the lovely little ethnic nationalist movements springing up within its borders.

The only way to achieve real peace in the region is to find a way where the Palestinian can see actual benefits from peace. Such as food supplies, medical supplies, jobs and etc.

Without any actual benefits, any peace agreement will be an empty peace agreement, and conflict will prevail. If Israel really wants peace in the region, and stop using the Palestinians as a political campaign tool, let the Palestinians experience the benefits of peace, beyond zero fighting.

A starving, and jobless person can hardly be a rational person. Provide him with benefits, and you might see some sort of reason.

Coyote wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:

Elfdart wrote:Palestinians are depicted as little more than animals in most US media and Faux News is among the worst.

Pulitzer prize-winning "political cartoonist". This shit is syndicated in hundreds of American newspapers.

But the point of that is not "Hamas are animals!", the point is the comparison to a behavioral experiment where the chimp never learns to avoid the punishment, unlike in typical experiments where chimps do learn. Using this as an example is really reaching.

You may be right, but would you want to lay odds on political cartoonists similarly depicting American Heartland voters for their mindless subscription to Republican dogmas such as the wonders of trickle-down economics, abstinence-only sex education, market deregulation, a blank check for the military-industrial complex, and the War on Drugs? It doesn't matter how badly society pays the price; they keep supporting the same dumb-shit policies, even if they're the ones who get hurt by them.

It would be an equally perceptive and appropriate cartoon.

I'd chuckle.

But I think we all understand that a paper depends upon maintaining its circulation; at least in the US you don't accomplish that by holding up a mirror to your readers, when it reflects something they'd prefer not to see.

Broomstick wrote:Of course, I grew up in a country were people of various (and no) faiths all lived on the same block without killing each other, so it's still a little hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of killing in the name of religion. It just doesn't make any sense to me on an emotional level. I know people do it, it just seems batshit crazy.

I think it makes more sense when you remember that horrible living conditions make death more common, and hence they make life itself cheaper. That's true today, and it's true when you look at history: the more common death is, the more people become accustomed to it. The more people become accustomed to death, the lower their threshold becomes for justifying killing.

Darth Wong wrote:The more people become accustomed to death, the lower their threshold becomes for justifying killing.

This seem to work on people whose exposure isn't even first-hand, too.

Uraniun does bring up a good point; it wasn't until "civilized European" notions about the importance of the nation-state were introduced --In the Middle East, Africa, and other regions-- that it all went to pot.

Broomstick wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:That you have no problem with sitting in a country which has practiced some really barbaric acts within both our lifetimes, smarmily prattling about how you're so lucky to live in such a civilized community that you just can't understand what it feels like to live in such a "hopeless and crazy" region (which has itself been the victim of some of our government's barbaric acts!), really deeply offends me.

...I'm sorry if you're so fucking offended, but I refuse to buy into collective guilt, which is a toxin that poisons a lot of the world today. I am not personally responsible for what occurred before I was born, I am not responsible for what my government did before I was old enough to vote. You have no clue what causes I have or have not supported during my adult life.

You are part of the economic system of the country, which is in turn utterly dependent upon the complex foreign trade relationships that your government has built up over the decades leading up to the present. And those foreign trade relationships are often created, maintained, or defended with violence. You can say that you are less responsible than others in your society, but you cannot entirely extricate yourself from collective responsibility in the behaviour of your society, unless you extricate yourself from that society (eg- by living "off the grid" in the wilderness of Montana or something).

You're saying that you can't understand the emotional state of someone who takes life over religious beliefs; why not? It's not hard to understand, quite frankly. All you have to do is imagine yourself living in shit conditions and sincerely believing in religious bullshit. I know you're smart enough to be capable of understanding if you make a serious effort. I think you're not trying to understand because it's too heinous, even though I'm betting you do understand the act of butchering people for national economic self-interest, which is equally heinous.

This way lies the idea that any given individual Palestinian is likewise responsible for their leadership's decisions (some less responsible than others) and therefore bears a share of guilt for whatever unpleasantness *their* elected leadership chooses to perpetrate, doesn't it?

Kanastrous wrote:This way lies the idea that any given individual Palestinian is likewise responsible for their leadership's decisions (some less responsible than others) and therefore bears a share of guilt for whatever unpleasantness *their* elected leadership chooses to perpetrate, doesn't it?

Assuming that they can be said to have a coherent functioning inter-dependent ordered democratic society, as we do.

Nevertheless, even if we do declare that Palestinians have some collective responsibility, I think we need to ask why that responsibility need always be a hundred times whatever the Israelis' collective responsibility is, because that's how the death toll for Israeli "self-defense" typically adds up.

In any case, my post was addressed more at Broomstick's attempt to wash her hands completely of responsibility for the actions of the society of which she is a part.

Broomstick wrote:And yet... they didn't educate their children together? How did they feel about intermarriage with others?

Yes, I am aware that at time the Middle East has been much more peaceful. I am also aware that various groups in the Middle East were slaughtering each other while Europeans were illiterate pig farmers (at best).

Jews were welcome to live in Muslim/Arab lands, they just had to pay a tax. They were exempt from certain social obligations such as jihad or hajj, but the tax went to support Muslims who would "fight in their place". In a way, parallels could be drawn with the current Israeli system, where Israeli Arabs pay taxes but aren't conscripted-- the irony. Much of the slaughtering & fighting was either Muslims vs. Infidels (Jahaliyya infidels, such as pagans, etc) and inter-clan "Hatfield & McCoy"-type fighting that has been a feature of the region well before Islam or Judaism had anything to do with it.

I actually SAID that I knew it was not entirely religious - did you fucking read what I wrote, or just cherry pick what supports your views? I went back and bolded some of it for you.

It fucking DOES break down along religious lines, just like the centuries of bullshit in Ireland broke across religious lines. That, of course, was not nearly the whole of it but to pretend religion plays NO role is just horseshit.

The earliest Arab-Jew conflicts were more about real estate than about religion or culture. The religious difference was, however, all too obvious and it wa sonly a matter of time before it was latched onto. But the pre-Israel local Jews, referred to as "Arab Jews" by some, had to be cajoled by the newcomer European Jews to fight their neighbors.

Be aware you did yourself no favors by saying "it isn't entirely religious" and then saying "it does break down along religious lines" almost in the same "breath". It was chicken-and-egg; the conflict was over land and then the religious template was overlaid and found that it fit pretty well. But I think a lot of it had to do with the importation of yet anothe rnotion that was unfamiliar to the region-- European-style nationalism, imported subconsciously by the Jews of Hertzl's call, but also reinforced by the British during World War 1 to encourage the Arabs to create nation-states as well. Arab nationalism vs. the Ottomans easily became Arab nationalism vs. the Jews, the British/"Colonialists-Imperialist powers", what have you.

As I said - the historical record of the Middle East had a hefty dose of blood and genocide long before Europe showed up, it's just as racist to blame the current mess entirely on Europe as it is to call Palestinians animals. Europe took advantage of volatility in the region but it's bullshit to lay it all at their doorstep. Other regions of the world that Europe ran roughshod over have their problems but the Middle East is exceptionally violent.

Bear in mind that the troublesome ideological importation from Europe was nationalism, not a race-based doctrine. Napoleon gave Nationalism a big kick-start and specifically shepherded a sense that "we are all French, regardless" and tore down the ghetto walls and invited Jews (for example) to participate in civic culture. It was, in the long run, replacing one "tribal identity" with another, made-up one, where flag and ideology was supposed to trump race and religion (obviously it didn't work so well).

Don't get the wrong idea, I agree with much of what you said, but the truth of the matter is, the region got done no favors by Europe.

Is nationalism really so alien to the region? There have been large regional empires in that part of the world for thousands of years: the Hittites, the Egyptians, Babylon, the Persians, Alexander, etc. I thought the Europeans' negligence was to carelessly redraw boundaries, rather than creating a whole new concept of nationalism where it did not exist before.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Evidence?

Scoot up two posts, skippy.