Israeli war deaths go largely unnoticed

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
let's see if there will be an outcry of today's attacks in haifa where about 10 israelis were killed & 100 injured....probably not.



Hours after mother and two daughters are killed in Hizbullah rocket attack, media outlets around world fail to report deaths; meanwhile, British press continues anti-Israel tirade


Media bias? Hours after 60-year-old Fadia Jumaa and her two daughters, Samira, 31, and Sultana, 33, were killed by a Hizbullah rocket attack on their home in the Israeli-Bedouin village of Arab al-Aramshe, the international media has so far largely ignored their deaths.


Reuters was alone among non-Israeli media outlets to report the deaths, according to a Google news search, a number of hours after the first reports of the attack surfaced.


The lack of coverage of the Israeli civilian war casualties stands in marked contrast to the swift response by many sections of the international media to reported Lebanese casualties.


Meanwhile, the British press, which has produced some of the most venomous anti-Israel coverage during the war, has continued its tirade against Israel.



Inaccuracies


An article in the London-based Guardian, entitled "Militants merge with mainstream ," argues that Hizbullah has gained widespread, cross-religious support in the Arab world, and uses terms such as "the Qana massacre" to explain the apparent newfound unity.


The article argues that Sunnis and Shiites have come together in their backing of Hizbullah: "Whatever qualms Arabs once had about Hizbullah

they have since been dissipated by Israel's attacks, the hundreds of deaths, the sight of up to a quarter of the Lebanese population fleeing their homes, and especially the bombing of UN observers and the massacre at Qana. The Shiite organisation and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, have become symbols of resistance even in such unlikely places as the Gulf countries where Sunnis and Shiites have been spotted waving the yellow-and-green flag."


The article was co-written by Issandr el-Amrani, a freelance journalist in Egypt who referred to Hizbullah as " Lebanese resistance fighters " on his personal blog and who describes reports of Hizbullah members operating out of civilian areas as "Israeli lies."


The article's authors failed, however, to note that an influential Saudi Sunni cleric, Sheikh Safar al-Hawali, has issued an anti-Hizbullah fatwa declaring that "Hizbullah is not the 'Party of God' but the 'Party of Satan.'"


An Associated Press report, which undermines the Guardian's claims, says that "Al-Hawali's words are an addition to a previous fatwa issued two weeks ago in Saudi Arabia by the leader of the Wahhabi movement, Sheikh Abdullah bin Jabrin, which declared that it is illegal to support, join, or even pray for Hizbullah."



BBC correspondent reports his own views


Meanwhile, an article has appeared on the BBC website in which a reporter for the British broadcaster, Hugh Sykes, relays a conversation he has with Lebanese residents.

The article is remarkable as it contains the views of a BBC journalist being given to Lebanese locals, rather than the other way around.

In the piece, written in first person narrative, Sykes tells people in Lebanon that there would be "no point" for Israel to strike Hizbullah targets in Lebanon: "'People keep asking me? ' Beirut - will they bomb Beirut again?' 'What would be the point?" I reply.'"


The BBC journalist also attempts to second guess where Israeli strikes hit.


"Four massive thumps one night, and six the next, as Israeli bombs or shells slammed into the ground a few kilometres away. Or into the children's homes," Sykes wrote.
 

shamrock

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 12, 2001
8,297
318
83
Boston, MA
This is a valid point, many media outlets have labeled Israel the aggressor therefore, very wrongly & unprofessionally they neglect the innocent killed in Israel. Just because a higher number of people have been killed in Lebanon is no excuse to minimize the deaths of Israeli innocent civilians. I truly am pained to see any innocent civilians needlessly killed. I have spent 20 + years paralyzed in a wheelchair, more now than half my life, any person of any religion or heritage that is killed who is not involved, just going about living their life is tragic of my thinking. But war is Hell, and it will continue to go on.
 
Last edited:

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Nothing about this conflict is going "unnoticed". It's as if it were actually our war or something. I don't remember us covering the English-No. Ireland fighting very much. ....What about Sudan right now? ...What about Afghanistan and Iraq? For christ's sake, this ISN'T OUR WAR, despite what Raymond says. Personally, I like Israel - they are a good Western allie. BUT THEY ARE NOT US.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
smurphy said:
Nothing about this conflict is going "unnoticed". It's as if it were actually our war or something. I don't remember us covering the English-No. Ireland fighting very much. ....What about Sudan right now? ...What about Afghanistan and Iraq? For christ's sake, this ISN'T OUR WAR, despite what Raymond says. Personally, I like Israel - they are a good Western allie. BUT THEY ARE NOT US.

no they are not us but they are fighting our enemies. remember they killed about 280 of our troops in 1983
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
19 Saudi Arabians killed 3,000 of our civilians 5 years ago, but we aint done shlt to them.

So the interest we have in this conflict is a delayed revenge through a 3rd party for something that happened 23 years ago?
 

shamrock

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 12, 2001
8,297
318
83
Boston, MA
The fact that Saudi Arabia has gone Scott free from 9-11 still puzzles the shit out of me. Murph brings up a point that has troubled me for a long time. How can a media that can't wait to get there nose in everything, has completely given Saudi a free pass. There is no denying Saudi was responsible for 15 of 19 bombers, and also helped bankroll the operation.

My brother Steven was in the world trade center 9-11, his company Thompson financial lost 22 people. Long before Michael Moore movie, he told me nobody was moving anywhere at JFK, many celebrities were there that couldn't fly anywhere, even the Boston Red Sox who played New York the previous night couldn't fly to Tampa. Everyone was grounded, except bus loads of Saudi nationals, he saw it with his own eyes, and told me via his blackBerry. How and why did this happen??

Murph don't even get me started on Sudan, or for that matter, many parts of Africa. The needless killing in these areas dwarfs Lebanon Iraq Israel everywhere, yet it is almost universally ignored. Nigeria, Liberia, congo, Rwanda they are all a travesty, a embarrassment to mankind this is allowed to go on and on.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
smurphy said:
19 Saudi Arabians killed 3,000 of our civilians 5 years ago, but we aint done shlt to them.

So the interest we have in this conflict is a delayed revenge through a 3rd party for something that happened 23 years ago?


that's not the samething.

the guys who were involved on 9/11 did it on their own, without ther gov't. being involved...unless you can prove otherwise.

hezzbollah, as a group bombed our soldiers.
this is a terrorist organization that is sworn to kill us, even people, like you who don't think they are terrorists.

it's really amazing for intelligent guys you people don't understand what is happening in this world...unbelievable !!

i have to stop coming to the political forum because you liberals are making me sick...you guys are truly pathetic !!
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
??? You have a problem with me making a comment that I find it a little strange that we get more coverage on this than we do our own US wars? We have American soldiers dying on a daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan - that IMO should always be bigger than a conflict going on in a different country. What about that brings up the "liberal" comment? I find this last post of yours very confusing.
 

shamrock

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 12, 2001
8,297
318
83
Boston, MA
Al, sorry you are upset, and I wish you no harm, but I just told you my brother was IN the wtc 9-11,I despise terrorist.

And to my understanding, you are wrong, the terrorists that did 9-11 were Al Queda, a terrorist organization, just like Hezbollah, or Hamas.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Here's a pretty good article on Saudi connections:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ehrenfeld200408170825.asp

Show Me the Money
The 9/11 Commission and Saudi Arabia.

By Rachel Ehrenfeld

The final report of the 9/11 Commission contains many useful recommendations, but on at least one score it is critically deficient. In its study, the Commission fails to identify the major sources of financing for the al Qaeda organization.




Instead, the report claims that "there is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before 9/11." In doing so, it ignores volumes of information provided by U.S. government officials to Congress, as well as numerous published reports and investigations by foreign nations, regarding Muslim and Arab regimes that have supported al Qaeda either financially or in kind.

Moreover, the commission's statement actually removes responsibility from countries such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen ? to name just a few.

Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen are not democratic countries in which al Qaeda's activities, such as fundraising, recruitment, and training, could have gone unnoticed or unrestricted. All are totalitarian police states that ? as documented evidence has shown ? have actively been supporting al Qaeda.

The 9/11 Commission says that, in Saudi Arabia, "charitable giving...until recently [was] subject to very limited oversight."

Not necessarily. Back in 1994, a royal decree banned "the collection of money in Saudi Arabia for charitable causes without official permission." At that time, King Fahd set up a Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, headed by his brother Prince Sultan, to control the charity financing and look into ways of distributing donations to eligible Muslim groups.

Clearly, however, that royal decree was not implemented: A new Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad was established in June 2004 to belatedly oversee all Saudi contributions supporting charitable donations abroad. It remains to be seen how effective this new commission will be.

Another disturbing conclusion of the 9/11 Commission is that although "Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al-Qaeda funding...we found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials within the Saudi government funded al-Qaeda."

This statement not only exonerates the totalitarian regime in Riyadh ? which continues to control all charities and donations in the kingdom ? but worse, contradicts volumes of documents accumulated by several U.S. government agencies ? apparently not the intelligence services' ? attesting to the Saudi government's sponsorship and control of charitable organizations that funded al Qaeda and other Islamist militants.

Examples abound, including: Prince Turki al Faisal ? the former longtime head of Saudi intelligence, and current ambassador to London ? who reportedly gave Osama bin Laden $200 million in 1998 to move to Afghanistan and negotiated on his behalf with the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar Mohammad; and Interior Minister Prince Naif, who oversaw and sponsored "most of the major [Saudi] charities," according to David Aufhauser, a former general counsel of the Treasury Department.

The 9/11 Commission's findings also make a mockery of the testimonies of government officials like Aufhauser, who have testified under oath before Congress that "Saudi Arabia has been an 'epicenter' of terrorist financing." It also calls into question the very terrorist lists of the Treasury and State Departments, which have catalogued the Saudi government's decades of support for bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and other militant Wahhabi organizations.

The 9/11 Commission report could also have hazardous consequences: Many Saudis could bring lawsuits against the United States government for "falsely" putting them on its terrorist list and demand billions in compensation. Moreover, this would make all the 9/11 lawsuits, in which the Saudis are major defendants, irrelevant.

The commission, again relying on the information provided to them by U.S. intelligence services, further finds "no persuasive evidence...that al-Qaeda relied on the drug trade as an important source of revenue." It may have not "relied" on the drug trade, but it certainly used it as a major source of revenue.

Just a few examples: In October 2001, then-DEA administrator Asa Hutchison, testifying before Congress, said: "The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is believed to have flourished in large part due to the Taliban's substantial reliance on the opium trade as a source of organizational revenue."

In November 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced in Hong Kong the arrest of three al Qaeda operatives who offered 600 kilograms of heroin valued at least $240 million on the street, and an additional five metric tons of hashish, in exchange for four Stinger shoulder anti-aircraft missiles.

In May 2003, Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, stated, "al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Afghanistan raised and distributed opium to support their operations." He further emphasized, "The war on drugs is a critical component of an effective counterterrorism strategy."

Saudi oil is certainly important for the U.S. economy, and the stability of the regime in Saudi Arabia can ensure that the oil continues to flow. But whitewashing Saudi Arabia's culpability in breeding and sustaining the Islamist monster, including al Qaeda, threatens the national security of the United States and the lives of millions around the world. It might even mean losing the war.
 

shamrock

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 12, 2001
8,297
318
83
Boston, MA
And regarding Africa, conservative estimates say 4 million died in the great congo war, also called the great African war, this war dwarfs all wars since WWII in casualties, and that only attributes to end 2004, doesn't even account for Sudan deaths since 2004. This war has affected 9 countries, and most people know little to nothing about it.
 

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
A pity

A pity

shamrock said:
And regarding Africa, conservative estimates say 4 million died in the great congo war, also called the great African war, this war dwarfs all wars since WWII in casualties, and that only attributes to end 2004, doesn't even account for Sudan deaths since 2004. This war has affected 9 countries, and most people know little to nothing about it.


Simple..there are no political or economic gains to be made by headlining it....I think many in power have just written most of Africa off ..a true pity.

I follow some mining interests and it appears China is throwing some good will development money in Tanzania....among other areas.
Probably a very smart move, as these areas are rich in resources needed by China, and they apparently have little competition.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
You want to know dam near by the hour. Check CNN/FOX. It's true Israel is mention first. Fair enough believe most us Americans pulling for them. But Lebanon is mention in same text. Only problem with each time they mention the numbers it makes Israel seem evil. I mean it does not sound good when all day long you here Israel 102 dead over 500 wounded. Lebanon over 700 dead 2000 injured. Do we want to know every hour or day.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
shane & dan..

im sorry for getting angry at both of you yesterday..please accept my apologies.

i keep saying that i should stay out of the political forum but still come into it...but that's a mistake.

i will try to keep my word this time.
 

zoomer

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 20, 2000
2,623
123
0
Massapequa Park, NY USA
AR182 said:
shane & dan..

im sorry for getting angry at both of you yesterday..please accept my apologies.

i keep saying that i should stay out of the political forum but still come into it...but that's a mistake.

i will try to keep my word this time.

AR, as you told me, it's like banging your head against a wall. You cannot change those that don't want to be changed.

Islamofacists have decided America needs to be punished for it's support of Israel.

Terrorists want to dictate who or who we cannot befriend.

Maybe some of these posters willl be better able to discern the good from the bad after the second attack here.
 

shamrock

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 12, 2001
8,297
318
83
Boston, MA
Al, no problem my friend, I enjoy your posts, don't be to much of a stranger. Football is here anyway, I'm hoping to get down to Patriots practice down the street, if I can get out of bed for a couple hours.

Zoom, I'm not sure who your insinuating can't tell the good from the bad myself or Murph, and where exactly do you derive that from in this thread.
 

zoomer

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 20, 2000
2,623
123
0
Massapequa Park, NY USA
shamrock said:
Al, no problem my friend, I enjoy your posts, don't be to much of a stranger. Football is here anyway, I'm hoping to get down to Patriots practice down the street, if I can get out of bed for a couple hours.

Zoom, I'm not sure who your insinuating can't tell the good from the bad myself or Murph, and where exactly do you derive that from in this thread.

Wasn't referring to this particular thread or you Shamrock. You can determine by their comments in several differebnt threads, the ones whose support of America I question. I stopped posting in this forum once because it's really pointless. AR had pointed that out to me once and I'm agreeing with him now.

Good luck and I'll see you in the sports forums.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Interesting the way my point got interpreted. It's obvious people interpret what they want out of others' posts, rather than reading the actual words on the screen. I guess the one thing we can all agree on is the word "pointless".

Zoomer, your name and location is funny. We have good family friends named Zimmer from Massapequa. I'm assuming the similarity is coincidence?
 

zoomer

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 20, 2000
2,623
123
0
Massapequa Park, NY USA
smurphy said:
Interesting the way my point got interpreted. It's obvious people interpret what they want out of others' posts, rather than reading the actual words on the screen. I guess the one thing we can all agree on is the word "pointless".

Zoomer, your name and location is funny. We have good family friends named Zimmer from Massapequa. I'm assuming the similarity is coincidence?

I'm a Mazda Owne
What side of Sunrise are your friends on? You are on Manhattan's West Side? I'm FDNY.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top