wtf is a person supposed to actually do about israel murdering hundreds of innocent civilians.

  On 8/2/2014 at 4:47 AM, MisterE said:

alco its pretty absurd how after i mentioned the syria thing you actually tried to act confused about why i would suggest that the death toll is an important factor in how much attention we give a thing. the whole premise of this thread, and the concern for whats going on over there, is very clearly laid on the loss of life. not only that but on how israel's military responses are disproportionate to their own losses. so when i point out that the media and people here and elsewhere are doing the same thing, giving an amount of attention to THESE particular casualties, which is also disproportionate, because there are far greater death tolls elsewhere that don't get that same amount of attention (or little to none)... it's no surprise to me that you'd either not get that point or scoff at it or whatever. but it's built on the crux of the whole topic, which is laid out in the thread title, it's laid out in several posts, in the UN guy crying, the main thing here is the loss of life. it calls into question how genuine the concern over these lives being lost really is when that concern is lacking for other places where the intensity of the human suffering/death is much greater.

 

but the funny part is that in that post you totally agreed with both parts of my main point. you basically re-stated what i was saying.

a) it's really NOT about the loss of life

b) it's about the "jewish problem"

 

you said that. you said that in a post that was somehow in disagreement with me while completely confirming that what i was saying is true. those two things were the entire point of what i was saying and you totally confirmed yourself that both of them are the case. it wasn't me who made it about the loss of life. it was everyone crying for the casualties in gaza. but if i or anyone else says 'hey FAR more people are dying over here, and you aren't crying for them', then you actually say 'well why would you act like this is about death tolls?' then 'its about the jewish problem'. no shit. so where do we disagree here exactly?

 

oh but look, you're already right back to making it about the casualties in gaza after being supposedly perplexed about why i would talk about death tolls as being some kind of measuring stick in where our concern might be focused: "....believe that the overwhelming civilian deaths in gaza...." so it IS about the deaths in gaza????????????????????????????????????? which are vastly outnumbered by those in syria?? i think its pretty clear the only unit on your measuring stick is 'jew'. ha i mean the fact that you put "jewish problem" in quotes speaks volumes doesnt it? the violence in syria may be condemned but that condemnation doesn't seem to be vocalized in anything remotely resembling proportionate to the death toll there. but as you say, israel isnt involved.

I feel stupid responding to such a senseless post but let's make something clear: civilian casualties are bad and play an important role, one of the most essential roles, in armed conflicts. however, to simply suggest that you think it's a double standard that people are concerned about israel/palestine and not Syria based only on comparing casualty rate is ignorant. there are obviously many other significant factorsm which I mentioned. a very obvious one is that the Israeli occupation is decades old so there is a lot more information available and a whole lot of scholarship and historical record available which clearly means more people can be informed and thus concerned about it. with Syria I would guess that most people simply do not have these resources since the conflict is not as linear and does not have 50 years of United States backing etc. this is obvious but you fail to address it bc you are incapable of positing an argument that isn't some kind of pathetic party politics which in this case is "obama orchestrated the Syria conflict so liberals won't speak out even thought there are hundreds of thousands dead." I believe one reason you remain so silent on the israel/palestine issue is because the obama-liberal establishment you are so bent on reviling takes the exact same stance as the right in the issue which leaves you no room to take your familiar "liberals are hypocrites" position.

as for the "Jewish problem" if you actually read books you'd be aware that this is a familiar phrase used to describe the historical and cultural conflict of the Jews in the west and includes the difficulties the Jewish people have faced assimilating among gentile Euroep (the "dual loyalties" issue) and particularly the racism against them which culminated in the unspeakable atrocity of the nazi holocaust. the "Jewish problem" shapes the conflict of course bc Europe has never actually dealt with this issue and simply hoped to get it out of the way by encouraging Jews to go to israel. I feel like I'm talking to a second-grader here though. I encourage you to read the history before writing ridiculous posts about how my comments "speak volumes." the only volumes that should concern you now are actual books.

look man, i didnt get into details about it, i just said that it's at least possible that some of the reason for there being relatively little media coverage and discussion on forums such as this one, about whats going on in syria, could have something to do with the fact that obama put himself into that conflict, tried to come off all hard, moved his 'red line' back a few times, but then bing bang boom the story becomes that he won and the weapons are destroyed and that's that (similar to the time he got a nobel prize for preventing nuclear armageddon before he did anything, meanwhile russia and the US both still have enough nukes to destroy the planet multiple times over. no theres not at all something like a delusional cult mentality propping this guy up is there). so if we talked about the fact that people are still dying, well, that conflicts with the idea that 'thats that'. just like it would have conflicted with the narrative that he single handedly defeated terrorism by killing osama, for him to very clearly and vocally announce to the american people that we had a compound in benghazi which was attacked by those very same, still very active terrorists, just before the 2012 election. and on the anniversary of 9/11 at that.

but what happened there? the media covered his ass and actually hid the thing by going along with his totally concocted narrative that it was a spontaneous protest over some video. this is all well documented fact. the media (with the obvious exception of fox) literally conspired to help him get re-elected by sweeping a story under the rug that would've hurt his image. the fact that that actually happened, should show any intelligent, honest person, what the media is capable of, and who they work for. they would not have done that for bush. so exactly how is it impossible that to some degree the same kind of thing could be at play here to some degree?

but this is all beside the point of you and like-minded people only caring about casualties in the middle east when they can be pinned on either america or an american ally, and its a double whammy if its jews. that combined with obama's red line in syria are more than enough reason for relative radio silence compared to israel/palestine coverage/discussion. i mentioned obama's name once and said nothing about liberals, but congrats, youve succeeded in baiting me out into talking about that side of things more so now you can make it about me and my wacko left/right ideas. as if i'm totally delusional and i've just completely concocted the idea/concept that the world is becoming super polarized ideologically and that people may act in accordance with their own bias. surely that has nothing to do with anything though. right einstein? i mean your stance is that media coverage CAN be biased, but not along ideological lines? because that would be un-possible? duuuurrrrr

well you've definitely concocted the notion that I have some special interest in blaming Jews so i no longer wish to speak to you about this. get a life.

well i just think you saying its about the "jewish problem" steps a bit beyond the territory of things such as saying to a sassy black woman the phrase "you people", and your pretending to be confused about why i would rate world events in terms of death toll, then going back to talking about the death toll in gaza without missing a beat, it makes me not so inclined to miss your conversation

ok well i'll admit i wasn't really familiar with the phrase "jewish problem" talking about the plight of the jews. i guess you got me, i dont sit around reading books about jews just waiting for the day to drop phrases from them in a debate about israel. but the context you used it in made absolutely no sense. i was asking why this is being talked about so much, and you used that as a reason, but the reporting on what's going on over there opens the doors to criticism of israeli ethics, because most times i see a story talking about whats going on over there it's pretty critical of israels conduct. wouldn't bias in favor of israel be better served by just not talking about the thing? instead they actually talk about how theyre bombing schools without mentioning the possibility of some of those schools being used to store rockets or that warnings were given before the bombing. i've seen i dont know how many articles do that. exactly how is that pro israel bias?

Here's an interview with Joris luyendijk about how journalism can misrepresent the things that are happening in the Middle East (or anywhere else). I thought this was appropriate seeing the current discussions. It's a bit long, but if you want a quick idea, start at ten minutes in: why a 30 people demonstration in damascus can still get newscoverage as if its of some importance.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QcfEPgetyMc

Abby Martin is dropping some knowledge right now on JRE about this situation:

http://www.ustream.tv/joerogan

sadlol. i know it's fucking over when abby martin is considered an authority on the issue capable of "dropping knowledge", i lost, please ban me.

you're a sadlol

  On 8/3/2014 at 5:04 AM, eugene said:

sadlol. i know it's fucking over when abby martin is considered an authority on the issue capable of "dropping knowledge", i lost, please ban me.

mods, please grant his request. thx.

are you serious eugy ?

Don't ask, do it, do it quickly..

jesus fucking facepalms, how can you not feel like an obnoxious douchebag making such remarks even semi-seriosly? i consider people like delete and awepittance and all of the RT/911 truth/zeitgeist/whatever crew as complete fucking idiots incapable of making a coherent arguemnt about anything who have been filling this forum with retarded shit for years, but i'd never imagine myself even hinting at their disappearance from the forum.

as much as I think eugene can be a cunt I'd like to say these calls for the ban hammer are ludicrous and if he is banned I'd like to be banned as well. he has every right to be here, come on people.

I'd like to get this shit back on topic in case anyone is still interested. a couple of compelling articles have come out in the last couple days.

this one from lrb provides a good analysis of the recent history and context that you will find absolutely nowhere in the us media:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n16/nathan-thrall/hamass-chances

there was a similar article a couple weeks ago in the nyt (in the oped I think) but I can't seem to find it on my iPad. any chance some one has it?

here are two very interesting pieces on the nyt coverage. the first is a very detailed report on the entrenched and absurdly biased context of nyt's jerusalem's bureau chief:

http://electronicintifada.net/content/candid-video-reveals-nyt-bureau-chief-jodi-rudorens-zionist-bubble/13685

the second is a basic gloss of some of the central problems of nyt's coverage, focusing on some ways in which the paper distorts and filters the facts:

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/inhuman-protects-reality.html

bc I use ei and mondoweiss as sources here I suspect that if he replies eugene will discredit them as such. however, unless he's willing to actually debunk the articles I think it's unnecessary to hear his opinion about how "poop" mondoweiss is.

also, in case you're still reading, lane v I think the first link might be quite informative and I encourage you to check it out.

  On 8/3/2014 at 6:59 PM, eugene said:

jesus fucking facepalms, how can you not feel like an obnoxious douchebag making such remarks even semi-seriosly? i consider people like delete and awepittance and all of the RT/911 truth/zeitgeist/whatever crew as complete fucking idiots incapable of making a coherent arguemnt about anything who have been filling this forum with retarded shit for years, but i'd never imagine myself even hinting at their disappearance from the forum.

You joked about having mods ban you and now people are making jokes with/at you. Calm down you pansy - you once told me that I didn't have enough time on WATMM to have an opinion for christ sakes - I took it as a joke, so did everyone else, but who knows if you were kidding or not.

I don't really understand why you stick around if the mods, older members and younger members are complete fucking idiots to you... I'm 100% serious in asking that question... if you really think people here are idiots, why the fuck do you even come on WATMM? It's obvious your distinct brand of intellectualism isn't well accepted here - why not just stop logging in and have fun elsewhere?

Is it cuz u really lurf us? Cuz we LURRRFFF you EUGENEY

sadlol just about sums it up really

  On 8/3/2014 at 11:05 PM, poblequadrat said:

sadlol just about sums it up really

sort of. but you're willing to chime in about architecture and driverless cars and shit so I'm curious what you have to say about this situation beyond "sadlol." I'm especially curious bc you're post are robust with philosophical knowledge and insight; but in my experience contemporary philosophy has basically no insight into situations like this.

  On 8/3/2014 at 5:04 AM, eugene said:

sadlol. i know it's fucking over when abby martin is considered an authority on the issue capable of "dropping knowledge"

lol

  On 8/4/2014 at 3:03 AM, DerWaschbar said:

 

  On 8/3/2014 at 5:04 AM, eugene said:

sadlol. i know it's fucking over when abby martin is considered an authority on the issue capable of "dropping knowledge"

 

lol

no lol

lol @ != lol w/

  On 8/4/2014 at 3:13 AM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 8/4/2014 at 3:03 AM, DerWaschbar said:

 

  On 8/3/2014 at 5:04 AM, eugene said:

sadlol. i know it's fucking over when abby martin is considered an authority on the issue capable of "dropping knowledge"

lol

 

no lol

 

notlel

We should turn this thread into a dicussion where we aim for a consensus on whether I lol'd!

what is a lol, really?

fuck a lol in the lol

http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/unrwa-strongly-condemns-israeli-shelling-its-school-gaza-serious

more of israels war crimes.