Minutes before the 72-hour ceasefire began, this rocket was fired from deep within a civilian zone.
Monday, January 3, 2005
Sunday, January 2, 2005
Stooges of Terrorists
August 5, 2014
Early Pallywood:
Moving from fake corpses to fake carnage and over-acted hysteria:
No surprises here:
Early Pallywood:
Palestinian Deception: Fake Palestinian Funeral in Jenin, 2002
starring The Walking Dead.
Moving from fake corpses to fake carnage and over-acted hysteria:
Gaza Beach Tragedy: Exploiting Grief (Pallywood)
No surprises here:
A television reporter from the Finnish Helsingin Sanomat confirmed Friday that Hamas has been firing rockets out of the Al-Shifa Hospital.
....
“It’s true that rockets are launched here from the Gazan side into Israel,” she said.
....Israeli officials said last week that several Western journalists in Gaza have been harassed and threatened by Hamas for documenting cases of the terrorist group’s involvement of civilians in warfare, and expressed outrage that some in the international media apparently allow themselves to be intimidated and do not report on such incidents.
The Times of Israel confirmed several incidents in which journalists were questioned and threatened. These included cases involving photographers who had taken pictures of Hamas operatives in compromising circumstances — gunmen preparing to shoot rockets from within civilian structures, and/or fighting in civilian clothing — and who were then approached by Hamas men, bullied and had their equipment taken away.
Hamas has indisputably used violence against reporters who have covered stories it doesn’t like, the official said. And it has emphatically limited reporters’ access to aspects of Hamas operations that would reflect to its detriment. One example of this relates to Gaza’s Shifa hospital, the official added. “We know that downstairs there is a Hamas command and control center and that Hamas leaders are hiding there. No reporter is allowed to go anywhere downstairs. They’re only allowed to work upstairs to take pictures of casualties, the pictures that Hamas wants them to take.”Unfortunately, there are no surprises in the number of gullible viewers who fall for the tear-jerk propaganda, and don't wonder for a minute how many of the dead were Hamas "soldiers".
How many have really died? Can we really trust the Gazan Health Authorities, whoever they happen to be?
I don't. I certainly don't believe that an air force capable of the precision bombing that took out Hamas' propaganda station also accidentally bombs areas crowded with civilians.
On the other hand, I do believe that some of those over 3000 rockets fired from Gaza into Israel have misfired, landing—since they were fired from heavily populated areas—on their own civilians.
Never mind, Hamas thinks, we can blame Israel and show the Western media outlets some juicy pictures.
Speaking of showing the media juicy pictures,
More Pallywood pictures of the latest in what is probably a long line of fakery and exaggerated death statistics. This series was compiled from tweets. The blood is far to red to be real, and the blood smears are in the oddest places for "fatal" wounds. People rarely die from knee wounds that produces smears of blood. Mind you, kneeling in blood is hard on the laundry.
And more on the bombing of the al-Ghoul house in Rafah (a Hamas target), and the “air strike” on the Rafah Preparatory “A” Boys School.
There's more, of course. We are shown a building that has collapsed and told that a pregnant woman had stayed there despite warnings to leave. No blood that I noticed at the scene.
However, on it goes.
We are next shown a cute neonate, supposedly a little premature—actually full term, and as much as several days old. (I have delivered babies, so I have seen crumpled red newborns. This child was not one of those, though she could have been delivered by Cesarean.)
We are "informed" that she was delivered from the dead mother by Cesarean section, and has a 50-50 chance of living.
At this point, I fully expected that Western viewers had a 100% chance of being told the child had died.
A few days later we see a man carrying a shrouded, baby-sized bundle to a sandy graveyard. The reporter dutifully tells us that this is the baby about to be buried next to "the mother she never knew".
Tragic if it's true, but I don't believe it for a minute. The reality is almost certainly that mother and child are doing well.
On the news today, we were shown a boy with a birthmark or healed scar on his flank. Supposedly, a piece of shrapnel from a mortar had struck him in the abdomen and exited from his back. All I can say is that Gazan children are miraculously fast healers.
Lies, lies, and more disgusting lies with Western reporters as stooges fomenting hatred against the wrong people.
Pallywood - little girl placed next to dead Jihadi for the cameras
More Pallywood pictures of the latest in what is probably a long line of fakery and exaggerated death statistics. This series was compiled from tweets. The blood is far to red to be real, and the blood smears are in the oddest places for "fatal" wounds. People rarely die from knee wounds that produces smears of blood. Mind you, kneeling in blood is hard on the laundry.
And more on the bombing of the al-Ghoul house in Rafah (a Hamas target), and the “air strike” on the Rafah Preparatory “A” Boys School.
There's more, of course. We are shown a building that has collapsed and told that a pregnant woman had stayed there despite warnings to leave. No blood that I noticed at the scene.
However, on it goes.
We are next shown a cute neonate, supposedly a little premature—actually full term, and as much as several days old. (I have delivered babies, so I have seen crumpled red newborns. This child was not one of those, though she could have been delivered by Cesarean.)
We are "informed" that she was delivered from the dead mother by Cesarean section, and has a 50-50 chance of living.
At this point, I fully expected that Western viewers had a 100% chance of being told the child had died.
A few days later we see a man carrying a shrouded, baby-sized bundle to a sandy graveyard. The reporter dutifully tells us that this is the baby about to be buried next to "the mother she never knew".
Tragic if it's true, but I don't believe it for a minute. The reality is almost certainly that mother and child are doing well.
On the news today, we were shown a boy with a birthmark or healed scar on his flank. Supposedly, a piece of shrapnel from a mortar had struck him in the abdomen and exited from his back. All I can say is that Gazan children are miraculously fast healers.
Lies, lies, and more disgusting lies with Western reporters as stooges fomenting hatred against the wrong people.
Saturday, January 1, 2005
Media Bias and Fake Tears
July 31' 2014
Actors say that crying—not applied tear tracks—is the hardest emotional display to fake. Sadly—kindly excuse the irony—most actors demonstrate the truth of this. (Emma Thompson in "Love Actually" is a brilliantly notable exception.)
Having spent more than 20 years as a 'shrink', I can tell the difference. It's akin to the way most of us can discriminate between a genuine smile and a fake smile. Provided we aren't in the throes of depression, real smiles make us feel like smiling.
When tears are genuine, the empathic among us feel like crying along with the sufferer. That's why talk therapy is much more exhausting than a conversation. That's why world news has been so upsetting recently.
Here's a fake:
In the sense that the genuine plight of innocent Gazan children and parents would move all but the hardest-hearted to weep, it is surprising that Chris Gunness, the spokesperson for the "United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East" would need to fake tears for Al Jazeera. Yes, the agency exists solely to help Palestinian "refugees", though it's hard to see how hordes could be refugee in their own state, except during warfare.
However, the explanation might lie in Gunness' real mission in Gaza, whatever that might actually be. After all, it appears that the UNRWA has thrice handed weaponry and stockpiled-rockets that employees found on its premises back to the authorities. In other words, probably back to Hamas.
Call me suspicious, but that implies complicity with the Hamas fighters who are hiding behind children.
Call me suspicious, but how could anyone fail to notice tunneling and storage of weapons in their near vicinity?
Call me suspicious, but why is there overcrowding in some "UN" facilities when others admittedly sit empty? Perhaps it's because the IDF goes to great lengths to warn civilians which areas are unsafe. Not so with Hamas, apparently. Witness the case of the misfired Hamas rocket that killed mostly children, and hasn't been mentioned since.
Overly skeptical? Never mind, I'd sooner be called suspicious than be a dupe of Hamas. I'd sooner be called suspicious than be fooled by transparently-biased media-coverage. Lately, I'm reminded of the comparatively hilarious exercise of detecting the deceptive practices used in advertising.
For example, according to the BBC, shadowy "Palestinian authorities" "say", yet Israelis "claim".
In her role as apologist for perpetrators, Elizabeth Loftus is beneath my contempt. However, she was correct that asking "did you see the broken headlight?" is more leading than "did you see a broken headlight?" That's why 'the' and 'and' are respectively called definite and indefinite articles.
Likewise, any native speaker of English should be aware of the different emotional implication of "say" versus "claim", with it's overtones of mere allegation. Unfortunately, few viewers would think to consider the situation and look beneath the intention of the language in order to assess motivation.
Perhaps it comes of being a shrink. Patients lie, so one must look beneath the "headlines", think for oneself, and deduce what is really going on. Patients' lies are very revealing—a therapeutic goldmine. It's like finding a sign that says, Dig Here For Buried Truth.
In essence, if one values truth, one must keep a sense of perspective.
I've long regarded much of the media as rather inept, but journalist are not safe in Syria, Iraq, Iran, or Egypt. So, we hear little lately of the 170,000 civilians killed in Syria, and little of the thousands suffering in Iraq. More, for example, died in Syria in one day than during the first couple of weeks of the current conflict in Gaza. Children are dying in pro-Russian-annexation-held areas of Ukraine (read 'Putinian), but those deaths are mentioned in passing.
Why such transparent bias?
A little background:
"The 2014 World Press Freedom Index spotlights the negative impact of conflicts on freedom of information and its protagonists" : Note the telling difference between the rank of Israel (#96) versus the Palestinian (#138) segment on the map.
The obvious inference is that the BBC and other western media services are playing Hamas' game, thus ensuring they are not imprisoned, beheaded, or dragged through the streets. Instead, they are allowed no-doubt-selective-access to danger spots where the-powers-that-would-be would slaughter them if they were uncooperative (read 'honest').
Please don't misunderstand.
I deplore the bloodshed that is the inevitable result of 60 years of what appears to be politically-ambitious, anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist hate-mongering. However, unlike so many who appear unwilling to look beyond their understandable empathy for the suffering of genuine innocents, I think that political fundamentalism and rabid irredentism is the real killer in Gaza.
It surely is in Mosul nowadays.
Actors say that crying—not applied tear tracks—is the hardest emotional display to fake. Sadly—kindly excuse the irony—most actors demonstrate the truth of this. (Emma Thompson in "Love Actually" is a brilliantly notable exception.)
Having spent more than 20 years as a 'shrink', I can tell the difference. It's akin to the way most of us can discriminate between a genuine smile and a fake smile. Provided we aren't in the throes of depression, real smiles make us feel like smiling.
When tears are genuine, the empathic among us feel like crying along with the sufferer. That's why talk therapy is much more exhausting than a conversation. That's why world news has been so upsetting recently.
Here's a fake:
In the sense that the genuine plight of innocent Gazan children and parents would move all but the hardest-hearted to weep, it is surprising that Chris Gunness, the spokesperson for the "United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East" would need to fake tears for Al Jazeera. Yes, the agency exists solely to help Palestinian "refugees", though it's hard to see how hordes could be refugee in their own state, except during warfare.
However, the explanation might lie in Gunness' real mission in Gaza, whatever that might actually be. After all, it appears that the UNRWA has thrice handed weaponry and stockpiled-rockets that employees found on its premises back to the authorities. In other words, probably back to Hamas.
Call me suspicious, but that implies complicity with the Hamas fighters who are hiding behind children.
Call me suspicious, but how could anyone fail to notice tunneling and storage of weapons in their near vicinity?
Call me suspicious, but why is there overcrowding in some "UN" facilities when others admittedly sit empty? Perhaps it's because the IDF goes to great lengths to warn civilians which areas are unsafe. Not so with Hamas, apparently. Witness the case of the misfired Hamas rocket that killed mostly children, and hasn't been mentioned since.
Overly skeptical? Never mind, I'd sooner be called suspicious than be a dupe of Hamas. I'd sooner be called suspicious than be fooled by transparently-biased media-coverage. Lately, I'm reminded of the comparatively hilarious exercise of detecting the deceptive practices used in advertising.
For example, according to the BBC, shadowy "Palestinian authorities" "say", yet Israelis "claim".
In her role as apologist for perpetrators, Elizabeth Loftus is beneath my contempt. However, she was correct that asking "did you see the broken headlight?" is more leading than "did you see a broken headlight?" That's why 'the' and 'and' are respectively called definite and indefinite articles.
Likewise, any native speaker of English should be aware of the different emotional implication of "say" versus "claim", with it's overtones of mere allegation. Unfortunately, few viewers would think to consider the situation and look beneath the intention of the language in order to assess motivation.
Perhaps it comes of being a shrink. Patients lie, so one must look beneath the "headlines", think for oneself, and deduce what is really going on. Patients' lies are very revealing—a therapeutic goldmine. It's like finding a sign that says, Dig Here For Buried Truth.
In essence, if one values truth, one must keep a sense of perspective.
I've long regarded much of the media as rather inept, but journalist are not safe in Syria, Iraq, Iran, or Egypt. So, we hear little lately of the 170,000 civilians killed in Syria, and little of the thousands suffering in Iraq. More, for example, died in Syria in one day than during the first couple of weeks of the current conflict in Gaza. Children are dying in pro-Russian-annexation-held areas of Ukraine (read 'Putinian), but those deaths are mentioned in passing.
Why such transparent bias?
A little background:
"The 2014 World Press Freedom Index spotlights the negative impact of conflicts on freedom of information and its protagonists" : Note the telling difference between the rank of Israel (#96) versus the Palestinian (#138) segment on the map.
The obvious inference is that the BBC and other western media services are playing Hamas' game, thus ensuring they are not imprisoned, beheaded, or dragged through the streets. Instead, they are allowed no-doubt-selective-access to danger spots where the-powers-that-would-be would slaughter them if they were uncooperative (read 'honest').
Please don't misunderstand.
I deplore the bloodshed that is the inevitable result of 60 years of what appears to be politically-ambitious, anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist hate-mongering. However, unlike so many who appear unwilling to look beyond their understandable empathy for the suffering of genuine innocents, I think that political fundamentalism and rabid irredentism is the real killer in Gaza.
It surely is in Mosul nowadays.
There's No Fool Like an Old Fool
The day after Congress voted to provide funds to Israel, a rally was held in Washington DC.
This ironic piece caught my eye.
“Gaza will not die — it will never die,” says Amar Jamal as he marches through downtown Washington with his family.
“It is the time to make peace because this bloodbath will not stop in Gaza. All the Middle East will be in trouble” if the conflict doesn’t end, warned the Palestinian-born 70-year-old.
Admittedly, "bloodbaths" are bound to continue if "conflict doesn't end". However, it appears that Amar Jamal hasn't been watching the news about Syria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, etc these last few years.
Wait! Perhaps he has. Perhaps Mister Jamal sees no point in protesting over Muslims' being killed when Muslims are doing the killing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)