↓
 
Home » Reuters and CYA journalism: the mystery of the disappearing terrorists

Reuters and CYA journalism: the mystery of the disappearing terrorists

The New Neo Posted on by

Now that Reutergate has caught our attention, it’s informative to look at certain other questionable aspects of Reuters policy.

For example, Reuters is famous for refusing to use the word “terrorist” in its copy or headlines.

Two years ago, Reuters made an amazing admission about this practice. I missed it at the time, but now it takes on greater significance. I had always thought that the failure of Reuters to use the “t” word was based on some abstract principle of “innocent till proven guilty,” combined with an incomprehensible bias in favor of those in the Mideast with grievances against the West.

But it turns out I was wrong. Reuters’s motivations are not even that lofty. They could best be described under the general rubric “CYA.”

Oh, but let me present it in Reuters’s own words–that is, the words of Reuter’s managing editor David A. Schlesinger. Back in September of 2004 when CanWest, the owners of a large Canadian newspaper chain, decided to substitute “terrorists” for “militants” in Reuters’s mealy-mouthed articles, Schlesinger said CanWest would be required to remove the Reuters label from such demonizing pieces:

“Our editorial policy is that we don’t use emotive words when labeling someone,” said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters’ global managing editor. “Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline.”

Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to “confusion” about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations.

“My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity,” he said.

So, it’s Eason Jordan all over again. The words “editorial integrity” used to mean telling the truth; at least I thought so. But truth? Fahgetabout it, says Reuters. What does matter, instead? Press access: Reuters’s ability to bring you all the news that’s not fit to print.

How has it come to this? Oh, believe me, I understand the need for journalists to live to write another day. But if telling the truth is too dangerous, then it’s time to get out and tell it from another place.

Because you’ve outlived your usefulness as journalists if you compromise that much. You’ve become the tools of terrorists–and I doubt even Mr. Schlesinger had that particular goal in mind when he chose his profession.

Comments

Reuters and CYA journalism: the mystery of the disappearing terrorists — 78 Comments

  1. >>>>>But if telling the truth is too dangerous, then it’s time to get out and tell it from another place.

  2. Sorry…rest seems to have fallen off….but Dead on! That is exactly the point. If you are doing ‘commentary’, then say so and allow me to decide if I want to hear your views and opinions. Otherwise, just present the facts, unembellished. While Reuters is taking the lion’s share of the backlash at the moment, they are not alone in this and maybe, just maybe, the MSN is starting to acknowledge that what they say and print is being very carefully looked at.

  3. “You’ve become the tools of terrorists–and I doubt even Mr. Schlesinger had that particular goal in mind when he chose his profession.”

    Perhaps when he became a journalist, but not now. He is for all intents and purposes an officer of Hezbollah. His actions speak louder than his words.

  4. So you wouldn’t object to Reuter’s, or anybody else for that matter, refering to the U.S and Israel as ‘terrorists’?

    If we’re going to tell the truth…..

    What say you Neo?

    If you say yes – than you understand with crystal clarity why Reuter’s(and others)use this policy when using subjective terms.

  5. Obviously I am not neo Yhamir…..but will answer your questions never the less. What would I say? I’d have mighty tight jaws I must admit, and no, would not like it. But you see, I am an American and thusly I could do no more than allow this term to be applied. It’s that pesky free speech thing that we are so fond of. But I would rather you call me and mine ‘terrorists’ a thousand times a day as long as those that are truely terrorists garner the same label, applied in the truest sense to them. The fact that by being PC and not calling me what you wish you give a free pass to the ‘insurgients’ who are likewise not named for what they are. God help us all from the PC monitors who refuse to call a spade a spade.

  6. I appreciate the truthful response, Ginger – thank you.

    The only thing I would say to that is that there are many Americans who would agree with calling certain U.S policies or actions as ‘terrorism’.

    I don’t know if that’s a matter of PC or just plain old correctness – if we’re going to go on the official definition of the term.

    But again, thank you – it’s refreshing to read a serious response for a change…

  7. In much the same way that Castro is not, according to the media, a Communist but merely a ‘good father’ and Nashralla is not a terrorist but merely a militant…..the English language has been hijacked to suit the greater ‘world’ sensitivities. Language does not frighten me. I am an American, a Republican (good lord grab your heart!) and a military vet. Castro IS a communist, Hezbos ARE terrorists, Iran’s leader (couldn’t begin to spell that name) is a certifiable lunatic…..and you appear to be a troller, spammer, and a huge Arab sympathizer. See…..not that hard to say clearly what your thoughts are. 🙂

  8. ginger:

    Yes, I agree that calling a spade a spade is highly liberating. Why, just the thought of labelling yhamir a “raving moonbat” is enormously gratifying.

  9. Well now! I think we can safely apply the T word to some of the resident trolls as well, at least T supporters and enbablers. A certain troll is being a bit ‘Reuteresque'(?) in claiming many Americans regard US policy as terrorist in nature. Hey! Do you suppose he is referring to certain people of a certain religion we have mistakenly allowed to infest our nation? NO! surely not! Duhhh! Boy! if Neo was in charge of our national defense, we would be dead a long time ago, eh?

  10. stumbley,
    For heaven’s sake…give me advance warning that you are going to say something to cause me to spit my adult beverage all over my monitor! 🙂

  11. LOL, back to form. No problem – I’m flexible.

    I’m all those things(I suppose, I’ll let you do the labelling).

    And what is wrong with being an Arab sympathizer? Is that some kind of crime?

    I’m not sure I understand.

    Words do having meaning Ginger – and they mean different things to different people.

    And thats why properly explaining your position is more important than having a serious hang up about terms.

    Wouldn’t you agree?

    If I’m a spammer – what’s the lot above me?

    Hypocrites I’d say…

  12. If calling me a dumb name is gratifying Dumbley than by all means, knock yourself out.

    My 4 year old luvs it too….

  13. Well….didn’t call you a ‘dumb name’ that I can recall, and re-reading I still don’t see that. I told you, clearly and honestly, in the clearest language I could muster just what your previous posts had LED ME to feel about you. I do not know you so only your written text and language gives me a clue as to who you are. And sorry, what you have previously written since I have become engaged here on this terrific blog has shown me that you are a spammer and a troller. I have nothing else to go by….other than your ‘language’. If you don’t want to be labeled as such, then change your writing style maybe? As for being an Arab sympathizer…heck, there is nothing wrong in that at it’s broadest limits. I am an ‘American’ sympathizer. I expect people to be proud of, defendants of, and vocal in support of their country or persuasions. The problem, it seems to me, is when one becomes obsessive in trying to prove they and their ilk are always right, no matter what the information might say otherwise. If you are 100% supportive of the ‘Lebanese’ people, I completely understand. If you are offering support for KNOWN TERRORIST GROUPS like Hezbo’s…..my mind is sutting down and blanking out for what you have to offer. And that is as honest as I can be. I have no tolerance and no wish to ‘understand’ those who wish my country, me and mine harm for simply being who we are….Americans and non-islamists. I don’t require you to be of my faith or country to have a conversation with you….I expect the same courtesy from others.

  14. Oh for heaven’s sake…I just got it! You weren’t accusing ‘me’ of calling you a dumb name….Yahmir, can you not see this. You accuse Stumbley of calling ‘you’ a dumb name by calling him ‘Dumbley’. LOL! So apparently civility and language actually don’t really matter to you, you are indeed proving my initial thoughts and are just here to cause a stir. Sir, if you wish to engage in adult, mature debate….then ignore those that in your words call names and resist the impulse to follow their lead and have a mature conversation. I’m happy to engage you on any subject you wish, but when you act like a child then the child in me tends to come out and it’s not pretty nor productive.

  15. There is a “line in the sand” those on that side are the enemies of freedom and Western culture. Those on this side are not. Those on that side will either need to stand down or submit or face the consequences of such failure.

    Why is this so hard to understand? Of, course, as I have said before, I am not sufficiently “nuanced”.

    As far as enemy sympathizers are concerned, as long as they take no overt actions then they can be allowed to yammer their trash. If they step over that line they voluntarily have a new status; Targets.

    I live in a smaller city; affluent and big “L” Liberal for the most part. However, even here my view is becoming somewhat common. Islamofascism has sown the wind and are coming closer to reaping the whirlwind.

    They really don’t understand American’s very well at all. People just like me were over Dresden, Essen, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We burned Japanese soldiers out of dugouts with tank mounted flame throwers. And, then we came home, raised families and forgot.

    We don’t talk about it out loud too much; only curmudgeons and Cassandras like me do that; but we are very good at killing. We have entire industries dedicated to it. If you decide to be our genuine friends we do that. If you actively seek to be our enemy we will kill you.

    It is something many of our trolls don’t understand because they are too young and, in their anti-Americanism, think it’s fun to tease the big dog and then run away laughing up their sleeves. They’ve never seen the big dog off his chain and they should pray to whatever deity the have that they never do.

  16. Senescentwasp,
    (doing my best to figure out that name 🙂 ) I agree, it’s been many years since the American public has been totally engaged. There has been no overriding feeling to do so. Thus, people think us soft. Even 9/11 did not rouse this big dog to it’s full height. It’s the problem the Dems are facing this election year. Folks want to be happy face and loving…but underneath it all is this rottreiler if you will that won’t be totally quiet. It takes a lot, a damn lot, to rouse us. But as you say, woe to those who just keep yipping and nipping too much. I can lay 9 M-16 rounds in a 2 inch circle faster than you can blink…and am even better with the 9mm. Do I want to use them…..of course not. And I’d say most Americans don’t either. But, don’t pull my chain too often, don’t think I can’t or won’t. History does repeat itself….they are banking on the wrong history though. I am a calm, peaceful person…unless you try to get in my door in the middle of the night….and overall, I think that is the way most Americans are, even the peaceniks. Leave me and mine alone, we can co-exist. But do not cross that line! My temper only holds for so long. But damn….my temper keeps edging towards boiling point. But that’s a rabid military, republican, pro-American neocon for ya. 🙂

  17. So you wouldn’t object to Reuter’s, or anybody else for that matter, refering to the U.S and Israel as ‘terrorists’?

    I would mind terribly, because the term “terrorist” has a specific meaning, and none of those meanings apply to US or Israeli actions. You don’t call someone a “terrorist” because you think they’re evil. You call them terrorists because of their methods.

    A terrorist is someone whose primary weapon is, strangely enough, terror. That is, they blow things up in an apparently random manner, which is supposed to communicate to the general population that they could be blown up anywhere, anytime. Remember the DC shooters? People stopped going out of doors because they were terrified of being shot at random.

    Terrorists don’t necessarily target those to whom they object. For example, a terrorist organization might object to a government, but instead of assassinating government officials, they blow up random civilians, again, to instigate general panic and to erode confidence in the existing government’s ability to maintain law and order.

    Terrorists say “do what we say — all of it, or we’ll keep blowing things up.” They’re not interested in negotiation, only coersion.

    Terrorists don’t recognize the difference between civilians and soldiers: everyone’s guilty in their eyes. They don’t wear uniforms because they don’t want to be known as combatants. By blending in with the population, they show their utter indifference to who gets killed. Their objectives are paramont. For this reason, the Geneva Conventions made terrorism illegal, and provided terrorists with no rights.

    Terrorists do not comprise a nation’s armed forces but are rogue groups that operate in loose cells. They may or may not have funding from a state.

    Constrast this with one state waging war against another. In this case, you have uniformed soldiers acting as agents of a state. They are out in the open, their identities clear. They wear uniforms so that their enemies will know to shoot at them, not at civilians. Battles often take place away from populated areas, so that civilians will be protected. Relatively speaking, that is.

    What is the US doing that qualifies as terrorism? Are we funding rogue actors who randomly blow up civilians for the purpose of terrifying the survivors, or are we hunting down and trying to eliminate the people who randomly blow up civilians.

    Are we capturing the wives and children of known “insurgents” and threatening to kill them if the terrorists don’t give themselves up?

    Do we stash our weapons in schools and hospitals and mosques so that, when the enemy blows them up, we can say, “See? Those bastards blow up schools and hospitals and holy sites.”

    Are we trying to wipe an entire nation off the face of the earth?

    Can you be a terrorist if you drop flyers on cities, announcing that enemy targets are scheduled for destruction? Can you be a terrorist if you apologize

  18. wasp:

    I don’t think all of the folks who sympathize are “young”, unfortunately. Our old friend probligo is no spring chicken. But I agree with your sense that the patience of red state America is wearing thin; folks like yhamir and his kin might do well to remember this quote:

    “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

    Isoroku Yamamoto

  19. argh, got cut off

    …for civilian casualties? Can you be a terrorist if you make sure your own civilian population is evacuated from the area?

    BTW, if the US were ever taken over by totalitarians, and I joined an insurgency group that blew things up at random to destabilize the situation and incite panic, then yeah, I’d be properly called a terrorist, regardless of how just I thought my cause was.

    Because the word “terrorist” doesn’t speak to the loftiness of the terrorists’ goals, it merely addresses their modus operandi.

  20. Yhamir,

    And what is wrong with being an Arab sympathizer?

    So, you consider yourself an ‘arab sympathizer’? Since you said:

    Words do having meaning Ginger – and they mean different things to different people.

    What do the words ‘arab sympathizer’ mean to you?

  21. dicentra,
    You gave the answer I should have. I am humbled. Of course we are not terrorists…..but if that is the name he wants to assign, so be it as long as others are labeled as such as well. My contention is that no matter whom it is being applied to…just apply it honestly and correctly to one and all.

  22. “My 4 year old luvs it too….”

    Congrats to Yhmir! He’s the first one in the thread to use the “We’re laughing at you” tactic (he AND his 4 year old; get it?! get it?! Your opinions are even laughable to a child). Good go Y! Now they all see what fools they are and that you see things with “crystal clarity.”

    And let’s not forget that he wants Isreal “kicked off the planet.”

  23. How I second that Weary G!! Tell us Yahmir…exactly what does ‘arab sympathizer’ mean to you? You apparently want your point of view validated….so speak right up and say what that view is. I’m just curious…being as how ‘language and words’ matter…..and mean different things to differnt people. So terrorist to me is Hezbos, Hamas, Al Queda, Iran….name your poison. What is terrorist to you….other than US et al, and why?

  24. Here is the definition of terrorism that I work with every day. Terrorism “…is defined by the US Department of Defense as “the unlawful use of — or threatened use of — force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.”

    Here is the one the FBI uses, “The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

    Notice the use of the word “unlawful”. By definition, the actions of states acting as states are lawful. Individuals in government can be held responsible for their actions only ante-bellum and by the victors. Hence, the Nuremberg Trials.

    The actions of the US and Israel are “lawful acts” by definition since they are conducted by states. The actions of Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorism, also by definition.

    Weep, wail, gnash your your teeth, rend your garments, make disingenuous arguments, twist words, play with semantics as you will the above is writ in US law and in reality.

    Do not pretend that there is any “Higher Law” such as “International Law”. Making a “law” subsumes the ability to enforce said law. Absent the ability to enforce, it is merely somebody’s opinion; and opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one.

  27. So you wouldn’t object to Reuter’s, or anybody else for that matter, refering to the U.S and Israel as ‘terrorists’?

    If we’re going to tell the truth…..

    It would be interesting–it would further discredit Reuter’s. It would lay open their bias.

    And it would make them look stupid. Because Israel and the US are not terrorists. In the case of the US in particular, our enemies are well aware of how well we will treat them when we capture them, etc.

  28. The only thing I would say to that is that there are many Americans who would agree with calling certain U.S policies or actions as ‘terrorism’.

    True enough. Even the residents of our insane asylums are entitled to their 1st amendment rights.

  29. “The only thing I would say to that is that there are many Americans who would agree with calling certain U.S policies or actions as ‘terrorism’.”

    Yes but those that would do so are nuts so why would one even talk to them?

  31. The NYT is pwned!

    Also, Green Helmet Guy now has his own

    Not pwned yet. The original caption on the “dead guy” photo said it was a photo of a rescue worker who collapsed, not a dead man being pulled from the rubble.

    Either some editor spruced up the photographer’s caption, or the NYT screwed up the coding on their little slideshow and displayed an “incorrect caption” (and I’m sure the NYT will claim the latter; better to look incompetant than fraudulent).

    Nope, not pwnt by a long shot. Too much wiggle room. The only person who’s likely to get pwned in this brouhaha is Andan Hajj, and the moonbats are already claiming he’s really an operative of LGF, if not taking marching orders directly from Mossad or Karl Rove.

  32. Tatters,
    Loved your last line. I have a friend who says that Rove has guys follow him around with a telephone booth so he can change into his other self and be in so many places at the same time.

    Things are happening so fast that round ups are getting dated as we speak. Here’s Jeff at Protein Wisdom. And, Michelle Malkin also has lots of links to MSM hijinks with photos and text.

    I just love the smell of burning reputations in the morning.

  33. More…
    Here’s Zombie, the Bay Area photographer of moonbats, on Reuters

    Well, well, well…..what a ‘screenful’ of hijinks I awoke to this day. As I said in a very early comment here, the genie is indeed out of the bottle. What fun it would be to be able to wander the halls of the NYT, AP, UPI, heck any of them. Do ya suppose there is some sort of ‘conversations’ going on in those vaunted hallow halls this morning…..or perhaps the predominant sound would be that of a huge sucking whoosh as folks will be grabbing anything and everything they possibly can to cover their asses. 🙂 But what do we know? We’re just right wing nut cases, just ‘amateurs. Yup, yup, just keep telling yourselves that, keep that ‘unbiased’ nose stuck firmly up in the air, It will make it easier to smell the smoke as your destruction goes on…and on…and on.

  34. BTW……it would seem Yahmir doesn’t have an answer to the question posed…what does Arab sympathizer mean to him. Perhaps he simply just does not the words to explain it, being as how words do matter.

  36. Press relations, Hezbollah style:

    “They’ve not tried to stop us filming other events while we’re in the field, but they have, on several occasions, threatened reporters here in Tyre, south Lebanon. From the location where we’re standing right now, we’ve been able to see, today and on other days, outgoing Katyusha rockets. And on more than one occasion people from Hezbollah have come and said, “Do not film the locations of these rockets when they’re being launched.”

    At one time, when we were talking and having a conversation with this Hezbollah representative, he said, “Look, we’re serious, we will kill you if you film these outgoing rockets.” So it is a threat, but when we’ve been out in the field, we’ve not had situations where they told us to stop filming.

    Apart from bias against Israel, the US, the West, and sympathy for the cause, another reason we get a slanted view of things around the world is simple self-preservation. The thugs and terrorists threaten reporters and will sometimes kill them to prove the point. Reporters cave instead of denouncing the threats and those who make them.

    It’s all part of the media war, and Reuters, AP, the Times, et all, are all involved, whether as collaborators, lackeys or cowed victims.

  37. y George Monbiot

    Whatever we think of Israel’s assault on Lebanon, all of us seem to agree about one fact: that it was a response, however disproportionate, to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah. I repeated this “fact” in my last column, when I wrote that “Hizbullah fired the first shots”. This being so, the Israeli government’s supporters ask peaceniks like me, what would you have done? It’s an important question. But its premise, I have now discovered, is flawed.

    Since Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the “blue line” between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line “on an almost daily basis” between 2001 and 2003, and “persistently” until 2006. These incursions “caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas”. On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.

    In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, “none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation”.

    On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad – Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub – were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region “remained tense and volatile”, Unifil says it was “generally quiet” until July 12.

    There has been a heated debate on the internet about whether the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah that day were captured in Israel or in Lebanon, but it now seems pretty clear that they were seized in Israel. This is what the UN says, and even Hizbullah seems to have forgotten that they were supposed to have been found sneaking around the outskirts of the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab. Now it si

  38. .(continued)
    No one was hit.

    But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would – without the spillage of any more blood – have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead – well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.

    On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.

    The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail”. The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that “of all of Israel’s wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared … By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we’re seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it’s been simulated and rehearsed across the board”.

    A “senior Israeli official” told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a “unique moment” for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman’s editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel’s intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.

    Israel’s assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim – also with justification – that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just a

  39. (continued)

    like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

    So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line – in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?

    George Monbiot is a journalist, author, academic and environmental and political activist in the United Kingdom.

    © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

  40. Paul,

    First, are you quoting somebody, or are you writing this yourself?

    Second, if you are quoting someone, I think you need to cut to the chase. Okay, its not my blog, but cutting and pasting someone’s entire editorial or essay is obnoxious. If the guy makes such a strong case, link to the article.

    Just a thought

  41. What does “Arab sympathizer” mean to me?

    It means I regard them as equals.

    It means I recognize their human rights as equals.

    It means I recognize they have been the victims of western imperialism.

    It means I recognize they have been the victims of racism and prejudice in the Western media – a real, measureable form of bigotry as oppossed to abstract interpretations of anti-semitism which are used to justify crimes against Arab populaces. The propaganda campaign against Arabs (much more so in North America)is especially damaging to the realization of justice to Arab populaces victimized by U.S and Israeli policies in the region).

    Anything else?

  42. Strangely enough, our new friend Yhamir has a shifting IP number, just like our old friend Stevie. And, strangely enough, he hails from the same place–Toronto–and connects to the internet via the same service. And, just as strangely, he has logged far more visits to this site than his recency would account for.

  43. yhamir:

    Okay, we understand your sympathies. But why do you countenance the means the Arabs use to achieve their ends: suicide bombings and terror? Why do you not argue for the peaceful, “diplomatic” solutions that you constantly press on Israel? When Israel pulls out of Gaza, why do you not cheer their accommodation of Arab desires? Why do you not criticize the constant violation of cease-fires by the Arab side? Why is the situation always—always—Israel’s fault?

    That’s my beef with folks like you…you argue for equality, but never expect it of those you sympathize with. And the incessant failure of Arab sympathizers to recognize that some of THEIR intransigence is part of the problem, and the constant charges of “racism” and “bigotry” just causes me to want to discount your side altogether. I mean, you can mislabel me a “racist” and “bigot” only so many times until I say, “What the heck, I’ll become what they want me to be…”

    Yes, both sides have issues. But in my mind, Israel has attempted, on many occasions, to satisfy the demands of the Arabs…and EVERY TIME, has had to regret those concessions. Paul above has cited an article alleging the Israeli “violations” of the Blue Line…my God! Jets flew over the border! We’re invaded!

    Please.

  44. Ah, the phrase “Western Imperialism” says volumes as an signifier. It identifies the signer as a Marxist thereby allowing the receivers of the sign to impute many things. Yammer is simply another of the UK’s anti-American Socialist Marxist’s, the country’s only growth industry.

    This breed; small stature, bad teeth and dodgy personal hygiene; is well known to me. How boring; I had hoped for something new. I expect when I have an opportunity to examine its computer stats that it will turn out to be someone not unknown to those of us who have been here for a while.

    Engaging it in “debate” or “discussion” is futile since it is hermetically sealed and guaranteed to be impervious. It also tells us that it is not here to “change minds” or “influence attitudes” but merely to leave troll droppings and witness for its peculiar religion.

    It may be ignored.

    BTW yammer, racism pertains to actual races and the last time I checked Arabs were not a race using the standard definitions.

    Its last paragraph leaves it naked before our gaze, a singularly unattractive sight.

    Be advised that it will attempt, at all times to use this formulation of “Arab” and will never engage on the level of the “Arabs” religious imperatives. It has also “forgotten” that Iran considers itself “Persian” and not Arab. In fact Iran has a long history of oppression of its non Persian populations.

  45. Yahmir,
    You are continuing the ‘program’ excellently! Bravo. I know you can’t see…but why can’t you see?….that by continuing to attempt to force feed your ‘facts’ while totally disregarding any other point of view does little more than draw those lines in the sand. And your partner follows the same game plan…let’s quote a “journalist, author, academic and environmental and political activist in the United Kingdom.” to prove our point. Well holy shit! If a ‘journalist’ says it is so, then it must be true. Right? Isn’t that what started this entire thread? Journalistic integrity? But I can’t help by wonder why there is no mention, none at all, of the FACT that Hezbo has to date in this war lobbed over 3300 rockets/shells at Israel and her citizens. It’s so tiring trying to debate with people who refuse, refuse to have any a tiny bit of open mindedness. I think I actually can see those shades of gray, and have troubles conversing with someone who only sees black.

  46.  
    Things are a bit different this time. In ’82 the Israelis did not have such a clearly defined purpose, which is to permanently stop the rockets from being launched into Israel by terrorists.

    I believe there are more people that are on Israel’s side than in ’82. Perhaps that is because of the alternate news sources that now exist(cable, blogs, talk radio). Perhaps it’s because 9/11 woke a few more up(such as myself).

    I also think it’s becoming obvious to a significant amount of the world-wide public that the news from Lebanon by the MSM is highly scripted and staged to create a wave of pro-Hezbollah outrage. The hasn’t been the same level of sanctimonious outcry about current Israeli ‘atrocities’ as I remember from ’82. These so-called ‘atrocities’ are now seen by many as the normal events of war.

    Lastly and perhaps most importantly there is a President in the Whitehouse that possesses true resolve and who will let the Israelis do what they need to do.

    If Israel is allowed to go on and mount a real military operation instead of the half measures employed so far it could serve notice to their neighbors that proxy warfare is to no avail.

    We can expect more staged ‘atrocities.’ We can expect more hypocritical outrage from terrorist-supporters. The more successful the Israelis are the more we can expect the level of hysteria to rise over the plight of the hapless, feckless, terrorist-supporting Lebanese.
     

  47. Y-ham:

    To my knowledge, blacks, whites, and even Asians are members of Islam. Islam is a religion, not a race. Get that through your paleolithic brain.

    Secondly, when we see MUSLIM violence in play in Russia, Thailand, Indonesia, UK, France, Argentina, Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya, Somalia, Turkey, Egypt, the Philippines, Israel, India, Nigeria, Spain, Saudi Arabia and so forth, it begins to look like a GLOBAL JIHAD by MUSLIMS.

    You simply can’t say Muslims are victims of western imperialism when THEY are the ones starting all of the violence, even against fellow Muslims.

    Racism? Imperialism? You may convince decadent socialists of their own inherent sin, but you won’t convince anyone else.

  48. Strangely enough, our new friend Yhamir has a shifting IP number, just like our old friend Stevie. And, strangely enough, he hails from the same place–Toronto–and connects to the internet via the same service. And, just as strangely, he has logged far more visits to this site than his recency would account for.”

    Well, I for one am shocked! SHOCKED!!

  49. It means I regard them as equals.

    It means I recognize their human rights as equals.

    Equals to who? Everyone? So, why not call yourself a “human sympathizer”? Are not Jews, and Africans, and Europeans and Chinese, and Malaysians equalling deserving of sympathy and human rights?

    By singling them out for sympathy, it would seem you are treating them as special, which kind of precludes the “equal” claim. Does every group, racial and cultural deserve sympathy equally, or some more than others? just trying to clarify.

  50. “Okay, we understand your sympathies. But why do you countenance the means the Arabs use to achieve their ends: suicide bombings and terror? Why do you not argue for the peaceful, “diplomatic” solutions that you constantly press on Israel?”

    Because they do try. I’d rather not condone violence at all – but the fact is(yes the actual record)demostrates that they are rejected regardless of whether there is armed resistance or not. Thats why I don’t push for Arabs to seek a diplomatic solution – because they have been since the mid 70s and have been rejected ever since.

    When Israel pulls out of Gaza, why do you not cheer their accommodation of Arab desires?

    I thought it was a small step in the right direction – after all it has been required by international law for 40 years. But those who follow the issue closley know that Israel’s reasons for doing so have very little to do with peace, and everything to do with tightening control on Palestinians(Gaza has been further strangled as was always the intention in my opinion).

    “Why do you not criticize the constant violation of cease-fires by the Arab side? Why is the situation always—always—Israel’s fault?”

    Because, quite simple(and verifiably) it more often that not it isn’t the Arabs who violate ceasefire agreements.

    Remember, we’re talking the fouth most powerful military on the planet. They
    simply have so very little regard for Arab rights and life and have a rather overblown(I’d say) faith in a military solution to their problems.

    Hope that helps…

  51. Sorry that was me.

    Neo – lighten up. I’ll promise to stop posting under different names and be a good boy alround if you can at least show some measure of enforcing the ‘rules’ with equal consistancy – and not simply against those who disagree with your views….

  53. anon:

    Yes, it helps codify the absolute falsity of your claims…and the reason I don’t believe any of that c**p anymore.

  54. Sorry that was me.

    Oh.

    Neo – lighten up. I’ll promise to stop posting under different names and be a good boy alround if you can at least show some measure of enforcing the ‘rules’ with equal consistancy – and not simply against those who disagree with your views….

    Well, this is an interesting proposal.

    Yhamir promises to stop doing bad things if Neo does exactly as he wants.

    Hmmm. I think I am understanding Yhamir’s (I mean Steve’s) feelings of comradery with Hezzbollah and the like. They share the same tactics.

  55. What! Yahmir..you admit posting under differnt names? How very unchivalrous of you. I am shocked, shocked I tell you. Being a very new member here I attempted to respond to your posts with thought and honesty. And now, heavens, you openly admit to being a troll. That being the admitted case….well, why should I aford your views any notice at all? Ahem..could this be one of the reasons the sympathizers have trouble finding an outlet that will listen? Just asking….

  56. “Strangely enough, our new friend Yhamir has a shifting IP number, just like our old friend Stevie. And, strangely enough, he hails from the same place–Toronto–and connects to the internet via the same service. And, just as strangely, he has logged far more visits to this site than his recency would account for.”

    Well, why would a troll give up on a board that keeps indulging him? Especially when all he has to do is use a new name to get around any ban.

    Sad to say, most ISPs do that these days. The only way to ban a determined troll (without user registration) is to ban their ISP’s whole IP block, and that will also ban anyone else using the same IP block.

  57. And by the way Yahmir….my name is ginger, my email is dustoffmom…I’ve been around the net for several years and am quite easy to find. I am who I am, easy enough to check. Why do you feel a need to ‘hide’ who you are? Anyone who can not put their own name to any post……well, makes me step back and wonder just what it is they are trying to hide.

  58. Oh wasp, you old battleaxe – you really are a silly boy.

    “The actions of the US and Israel are “lawful acts” by definition since they are conducted by states. The actions of Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorism, also by definition.”

    What utter nonsense. Poor wasp – he forgets about international law, and the Nurenburg trials – he doesn’t know anything about ‘aggression’ in the eyes of the international community.

    The actions of U.S/Israel are lawful because they are conducted by states?

    You are a joke big fella.

    You should ban yourself for excessive stupidity….

  59. Who I am, Ginger, isn’t really that important.

    You can tell me who you are – I really don’t care – this is a policial disucssion forum – and thats what I’m interested in.

  60. holding my belly and spewing my drink…..not important? You can’t stand face to face with who you are…because it is the ‘political’ discussion that matters? Haven’t had such a great guffaw in a long time. Thanks little boy.

  61. “Yahamir promises to stop doing bad things if Neo does exactly as he wants.”

    I don’t think so – Neo does as she likes – and so do I.

    What I’m doing isn’t ‘bad’ anyway.

    Just think – you lot wouldn’t have much to talk about anyway without the extreme constroversey that precedes ‘names’ around here….

  63. “Yes, it helps codify the absolute falsity of your claims”

    If only it were only that simple, eh Dumbley??

    That it is for you, doesn’t particularly suprise me though.

  64. You guys ever see those mechanical Monkeys, you know the ones with the cymbals and crazy grin? You wind it up and all it does is keep banging those cymbals together, making noise?

    Stevie reminds me of that. So does Yhamir/Yahimr/Yahmie.

  66. Your welcome ginger.

    You laugh easily.

    Sure I do! I am an American woman, sure of myself, my country, my convictions and my god. So I can easily see the humor in idiots.

    Thanks again for an entertaining few days…out of here….looking for someone to have an adult conversation with. My grandkids give me all the nonsense babble I can handle.

  67. As i said – thats good.

    And yes – you’d do well to find other pastures for intelligent conversation that this blog.

    Whether you’d have anything to offer in that regard is another matter, but…

    At least you can laugh.

    God be with you sister….

  68. uhm….I meant out of this particular thread. Wishful thinking on your part. And believe me, I am surely NOT your sister!

  69. No, not my real sister, but a female of the human species – a phrase, one of affection – even love.

    Don’t be so bitter ginger – the days to short…

  70. Stevie, don’t be saccharine and try to be ingratiating. You are Stevie from Toronto, probably a former Limey and you are a Marxist troll. You don’t care a whit about anyone’s opinion of you here unless it means that someone might contact your ISP and tell them that their entire IP range might be banned and that you are the responsible party. They’ll drop you like a bad habit if that happens and you know it.

    It says: What utter nonsense. Poor wasp – he forgets about international law, and the Nurenburg trials – he doesn’t know anything about ‘aggression’ in the eyes of the international community.

    There is no International Law. If there was International Law there would be international policment to enforce it. I know all about agression and don’t give a flying f**k about the “international community”. I believe that I speak for a number of my fellow citizens in this regard. If it ever became my decision to make, I’d turn you over to the tender mercies of your Islamic “allies” and go have a cold beer.

  71. I might also remind Stevie that it was the US, the victor, that initiated the Nuremburg (with an “m”, Stevie) trials. Had Nazi Germany won they wouldn’t have bothered nor would the Japanese.

    International Law had nothing to do with it.

  72. Just for the record, I am Canadian and this asshat Yahimr (or Steve or whatever) does not represent the vast majority of us. Unfortunately, he IS quite typical of the Canadian Left who are a unique species characterized by their nasty, boorish and rabid view of anyone and anything that doesn’t fit into their narrow, self-righteous worldview. They’re even worse than their British counterparts which is something I never thought possible. I read a couple of his inane posts and then gave up. I’d advise you all to do the same.

  73. liam:

    Welcome, and believe me, Stevie represents no useful grouping of humanity. We will not tar all Canadians with his brush.

  75. Heck no Liam! (btw…a fav name of mine 🙂 ) Trolls, no matter their supposed nationality are just that, trolls. Nothing Canadian about it….or Arab, or American….just plain old trolls! But please…don’t apply that tar brush to the Brits either! As to Steve, or Yahmir, or whatever of several names he chooses…we all see who he is…no reflection on you or anyone else! It’s that silly ‘grown up’ thing again….I am who I am and state clearly and openly my thoughts. Agree or not, but don’t pretend to be something/someone you are not. That’s trolls, no nationality required!

  76. Believe me, I wasn’t commenting on all Brits (British extraction myself) just the lefties in that country. There are simply way too many on one small island and they have had (and are currently having) a malevolent influence on political life in that country. Through inuendo and outright intimidation, they have managed to close down most of the serious debate over the place (if any) of Muslims in Britain and what to do about their obvious inability to assimilate. It’s just easier for them to engage in endless rants, indiscriminately bash Tony Blair and call everyone who disagrees with them a mindless racist. Unfortunately, we are seeing the same thing from their fellow travellers here in Canada. It is beginning to push our society toward the extremes and causing the middle ground to fall away as people identify with the Left, the Right or just drop out altogether. That cannot be a good thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑