Galloway wipes the floor with Sky News anchor

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

You may be the first to say that. Maybe we should ask Lanny what he thinks of Fox?

Drudge has links to articles from various news outlets, and yes their page is very hard to get used too. Doesn't bother me, news is news.

FauxNews is a joke. Pipelines directly from the White House, the RNC and the Weekly Standard terminate in the Fox production offices. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE that tries to argue that FauxNews is not a RW propaganda network has not done any research on the orgainzation at all. It's run by an ex-Nixonite who is unabashed in his political leanings and his preference to shape the message, is filled with the best and the brightest that the RW think tank network has to offer, and routinely sources information from that same support network. When you have Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, William Kristol, etc. as regular contributors to the programming, and Alan Colmes as the lone balancing voice (they would be better with no one to be honest), it is slanted so far to the right that is pretty well falls over on its own. Add in the wise-cracking spinmaster anchor, Brit Hume, and you have a three ring circus of clowns dancing to the beat of the neo-con drum.

Drudge ain't much better. The collection of sensationalistic crap, and the links to a predominantly right wing crowd of pundits makes it a questionable "portal" for news. The mindless dittoheads love it because it gives them all the message they need to feel good about themselves and the wonderful job their goverbment is doing for them. You want to know why Americans don't know why the rest of the world hates them? Look on Drudge for the answer. The complete detachment from reality is amazing. It's very hard to develop a global perspective when you are tld that you are wonderful and the world hangs on every word your country utters.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

One one side you have a democracy protecting it's own self interests and national security. I think as I've said, they've taken it too far, but that doens't change the fact that everyone country within 1000 miles wants them dead, pushed into the sea or disemboweled.

That's what I can't get my head around on this topic. Nobody wants civilians killed but how can anyone take the Hezzbollah or Palestinian side when they use suicide bombers and spout complete ethnic hatred towards the other side.

He points hard to Oil, but doesn't hit the even bigger issues in the region ... religion and intolerance.

And yes I think his anti-US stance clouds the issues for him big time.

Just my opinion.

Well he's quite clearly anti-US foreign policy. However he does credit the US with many things, he's not strictly anti-US.

The issue with history is that history has caused the present. There are feelings of resentment, hatred, etc because of what's gone on in the past. So we can't ignore that and it's role. People will not be appeased unless you look at the past and see how certain people have been wronged and how they think they must be avenged. You can't examine a bitter conflict that has been going on and off for decades by just looking at it in the context of the past few years, that does a disservice to all the wrongs that have been committed over the past few decades.

As for Oil vs religion I think he's bang on there. I think the religion angle is overplayed. Muslims, jews, christians live together in peace in various places in the world. And let's be careful not to paint every Muslim with the same brush. There are extremist Muslim's just like there are extremist Christians. Not every follower of Islam believes that the Jews and/or Christians must be wiped from the map, that is quite clear. So then the question becomes what has happened to increase the # of extremist Muslims? And here once again we hit history and Israel and the US's actions over the past 5 decades. Had the US not set up or supported some brutal regimes in certain parts of the middle east, religious fundamentalism would likely have gone down. Instead some of the things they've done have fueled the fire. Same goes for Israel, they are guilty of fomenting hatred towards them by their actions towards the Palestinians among others. Nobody in that region is unaware of how Israel has bulldozed villages in their attempts to "settle" the territories they conquered earlier.

Do I think many side with Hizbollah? I don't think many do. What I think you see going on with this board and other places where the debate is going on is that people are questioning the bias in the reporting (pro-Isreal) and the bias in the moral judgement (Israel is in the right, Arabs in the wrong.) Do I think the Hizbollah response is the right one? No. But at the same time I see that they have little recourse if they want to do something about it. They don't have the most powerful country in the world on their side and they aren't content to let Israel do as it pleases in the region.

Why does Israel get to protect it's interests and security by force while Hizbollah cannot do the same for Lebanon? Why is one side condemned for civilian casualties while the other is not? There's quite obviously a double standard.

Will the # of extremists go down? I think if Arab people didn't feel threatened by Israel and the US and if education and standard of living improves then the # of extremists would most certainly go down. However that isn't particularly in the US's best interest if they want to have sympathetic regimes in the middle east whose people don't demand that their natural resources be used/sold for the people in that country

[nuckles]

Originally Posted by White Doors

There is a great article in the National Post yesterday about the politics of appeasement.

There certainly is a prevailing vie of anti-semitism on the left wing of the political spectrum lately. Alot of anti-western idealists too. Alot on the left WANT the west to lose.

forgive them lord for they know not what they do.

wow The National Post ah , they should be the last ones doing a piece on Politics of appeasement LOL , Man every time you post White Doors ,it just makes me laugh.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

unless there's a rule book I've never seen I think you can have an axe to grind without an agenda, though I guess they can be one in the same.

He's very anti-US, and very anti-US foreign policy ... it flows through almost every topic in that lecture you quoted (which I did just read by the way ... or skimmed if I'm to be honest as it wasn't easy to read - partly guilty of rolling my eyes, and the fact that I have two kids and I can't devote three minutes to any one topic).

Perhaps his 'anti-US' and 'anti-Israel' 'bias' is a result of his extensive research on the subject? It's not exactly a bed of roses.

[Flame On]

Bingo, do you really think it's fair to compare a scholar in Chomsky with Anne Coulter who's a ranting commentator or pundit, not even a journalist?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

FauxNews is a joke. Pipelines directly from the White House, the RNC and the Weekly Standard terminate in the Fox production offices. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE that tries to argue that FauxNews is not a RW propaganda network has not done any research on the orgainzation at all. It's run by an ex-Nixonite who is unabashed in his political leanings and his preference to shape the message, is filled with the best and the brightest that the RW think tank network has to offer, and routinely sources information from that same support network. When you have Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, William Kristol, etc. as regular contributors to the programming, and Alan Colmes as the lone balancing voice (they would be better with no one to be honest), it is slanted so far to the right that is pretty well falls over on its own. Add in the wise-cracking spinmaster anchor, Brit Hume, and you have a three ring circus of clowns dancing to the beat of the neo-con drum.

Drudge ain't much better. The collection of sensationalistic crap, and the links to a predominantly right wing crowd of pundits makes it a questionable "portal" for news. The mindless dittoheads love it because it gives them all the message they need to feel good about themselves and the wonderful job their goverbment is doing for them. You want to know why Americans don't know why the rest of the world hates them? Look on Drudge for the answer. The complete detachment from reality is amazing. It's very hard to develop a global perspective when you are tld that you are wonderful and the world hangs on every word your country utters.

You see what I mean FDW?

Thanks for proving my point Lanny.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by nuckles

wow The National Post ah , they should be the last ones doing a piece on Politics of appeasement LOL , Man every time you post White Doors ,it just makes me laugh.

Another example of an article being run over by certain people on here for being left-wing.

And what were we saying with approaching the Chomsky article with an open mind?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

'Cutting 20 percent of the fat' from both sides is just an argument for self-reinforced ignorance.

From a statistical analysis perspective it's rejecting outliers.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You see what I mean FDW?

Thanks for proving my point Lanny.

You have points? I always thought you were here to muddle and confuse debates and threads.

Please be more clear with your 'points.'

[transplant99]

Are the Chomsky fans willing to read an article that puts his "non-bias" into question?

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/...03/chomsky.htm

And though I dont necessarily buy it.....there is some reasoning for others to label him as an anti-semite.

http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html#anchor13840

[Bleeding Red]

Whoa, go to sleep for a bit and come back to this! It took me two hours ro read through it all.

Flamesaddiction - See, you say that in biblical times "the Jews left" while in modern times the Arabs were forced out. I say that in biblical times the conquering Assyrians forced the Jews to leave while in modern times many Arabs "left" modern Israel. My point was that time can't nulifiy a "right" nor a groups "belief". I am sure if you find any Jesubites, or Hittites, or Moabites, etc...they too will lay a claim. (I am unaware if the Palestinians consider themselves to be descendents of those biblical peoples - though it does say they were either destroyed or converted.)

Why didn't they capture civilians instead? Because, civilians don't hang out at secluded areas of the boarder! Most tourists go to the boarder at Rosh Hanikra- which is heavily gaurded. Any nearby farmers fields are well away from the boarder. The IDF patrol was probably patroling in the space between the two fences (it is a double fenced boarder) and the hezbollah gurillas only had to get through one fence to get to them.



Though hezbollah's missles may be crude, I am sure they can be angled at launch to head either east, towards the IDF base, or west, towards Haifa. they are making a choice.



What does Chomsky have to gain? The same thing Dershowitz or Krauthammer gain - respect and adulation among their followers, speaking tours (with fees & expenses), more books sold - that bestseller list = millions of $.


Are Chomsky & Dershowitz comparable? Both are respected Profs. at a respected University, both have followers and detractors - I am sure there is an anti-Dershowitz page next to the anti-Chomsky page at Bingo's link.



(But Transplant99 - that "hidden alliances of Chomsky" site, thanks, it gave me a chuckle, reminded me of Loogers "Hidden Zionist alliances". Someone needs to write "The Hidden Alliances of the Secret Scocieties and How They Keep Their Treasures From You".)

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Disagree. Everyone is biased by their upbringing, their beliefs, any religious they may believe in, what their family and friends say, what they've been taught, etc. They is no such a completely fair, balanced or impartial viewpoint. That's a fantasy.

Everyone is biased, but not everyonme has an AGENDA.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by nuckles

wow The National Post ah , they should be the last ones doing a piece on Politics of appeasement LOL , Man every time you post White Doors ,it just makes me laugh.

Well the article was in the ideas section from a professor. They just reprinted it with his permission. You discount that because it appears in the National Post? How very sad for you.

[Lurch]

Now I'm loony? You can certainly have that opinion if you wish, but it's very insulting. There's not a loony bone in my body, I think things through on my own, but don't tend to go to the utopian solutions on things.

I don't know why I try so hard to not be attack driven on my own site ... lord knows that type of position never seems to pay itself back as this string shows.

I think you should re-read what I wrote- very clearly it is not calling you loony. Rather, your opinions on a lot of these matters are in the 'fringe' 20% of world opinion, which you suggest can be dismissed out of hand and still get to the truth, i.e. only loony opinions are on the fringe. My point is that you cannot dismiss something merely since it falls on the edge of what is popularly held truth, or else you'd be forced to dismiss a lot of your own opinions as being 'loony', depending on the definition of what constitutes fringe. In general, what I'm suggesting is that by dropping the 20% on the edges around what is already a narrow spectrum we see in North America, you are left with little that may not always contain the most accurate read.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hakan

You have points? I always thought you were here to muddle and confuse debates and threads.

Please be more clear with your 'points.'

I guess if you want to attack the personal side, go right ahead.

Usually the people that do that have no 'point' to make either.....

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess if you want to attack the personal side, go right ahead.

Usually the people that do that have no 'point' to make either.....

He wasn't making a personal comment, he was pointing out that your style is to 'muddle and confuse' the debate rather than clearly making points. I agree with him.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Are the Chomsky fans willing to read an article that puts his "non-bias" into question?

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/...03/chomsky.htm

And though I dont necessarily buy it.....there is some reasoning for others to label him as an anti-semite.

http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html#anchor13840

Read/skimmed both. The first one makes some interesting points. Is he infallible? Certainly not. Have his views changed over time? Sure. So to some extent trying to connect what he wrote 30 years ago to stuff he's wrote more recently can be a bit misleading. I think some of the points are taken a bit out of context, his support of China for example is just a passing comment about how they've got some good things going on. He wasn't trying to hold them up as a shining example for all.

The 2nd one is a little ridiculous IMO. The issue is talked about in the documentary "Manufacturing Consent" and it seems quite clear that Chomsky does not support the view that the holocaust never happened but instead supports free speech for everyone even if they have an opinion that everyone disagrees with. He let's Faurisson's work (which according to your link was complete crap) stand for itself, which of course means that no one takes it seriously. What he seems to disagree with is whether Faurisson should be thrown in jail or not for publishing such work. As he says in Manufacturing Consent, if you don't have free speech for the views you disagree with then you don't have free speech at all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

He wasn't making a personal comment, he was pointing out that your style is to 'muddle and confuse' the debate rather than clearly making points. I agree with him.

Ahhh....

Did you read my post of how Fox News is regarded as not being a credible source because they seem right-wing?

One of the posters disagreed with me(I believe it was Hakan) saying most people don't like them because of their amatuer style of reporting, and not because of their right-wing bias.

Then Lanny comes along and proves my point.

And we were in the process of talking about how Chomsky is obviously left-leaning, yet Bingo and others should still look upon his writing as being credible, despite the left-wing bias, but I'm not allowed to post anything from Fox News because they're right wing? Or for that matter, anything from O'Rielly, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, etc...and have the posters here actually read it as a credible source of information, instead of them dismissing it simply because of the reputation of the author?

Double standard......

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess if you want to attack the personal side, go right ahead.

Usually the people that do that have no 'point' to make either.....

Please! You're the biggest obfusicator around. And you can take that one to another board to "test that theory".

[Lurch]

And we were in the process of talking about how Chomsky is obviously left-leaning, yet Bingo and others should still look upon his writing as being credible, despite the left-wing bias, but I'm not allowed to post anything from Fox News because they're right wing? Or for that matter, anything from O'Rielly, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, etc...and have the posters here actually read it as a credible source of information, instead of them dismissing it simply because of the reputation of the author?

Double standard......

No double standard - you simply cannot compare O'Reilly et al to serious research. It would be double standard to ignore Dershowitz and adore Chomsky, but the people you reference are entertainers, not informers.