Personally, I'm kinda hoping that media attention is diverted from the entire Middle East. Maybe then our military can do the job they probably want to do. And do it as efficiently as I am sure they can. I don't know about you, but I know that the Americans with "their feet on the ground" in the ME can and will do a job that all of us will be proud of when it is all said and done. That leaves a lot unsaid but anyone of you who has half a brain get my drift.

This is why people shouldn't get their news from blogs. For all the crying about the bias of the media, this post is absolutely misleading. First of all, the story says the boy died in a hail of bullets, not that the Israelis killed him. It then states that the Palestinians have used his death to advance their cause. But this is the part that kills me. Youy say "The Globe story is filled with sympathy and pathos. The one thing that is missing from the story is one single, annoying fact:

It's highly doubtful that the Israelis shot his son. He was almost certain he was killed by his fellow Palestinians -- quite possibly deliberately."

Now there's this from the story: "There has been heated debate in recent years whether the Duras were even struck by Israeli bullets during the gunfight or whether they were instead hit by wild Palestinian gunfire. A campaign led in part by Boston University Professor Richard Landes has sought to portray the Dura case as an example of ''Pallywood," or theatrical Palestinian propaganda."

Hey, I found the annoying fact you said was missing. In addition, the article says "But there's no question that Mohammed became the most famous ''martyr" of the intifadah."
Notice how thay put "martyr" in quotes? See, that's a journalistic device to point out that they are not calling him a martyr, others are.

Finally, the entire tone of the article is how many people are turning their backs on martyrdom, and the person who is quoted most extensively is a guy who says the intifadah had nothing to do with the Israelis leaving Gaza. So how on earth is the Globe "Spreading the lies of terrorists?" As far as I'm concerned, you're the one with the credibility problem. Perhaps next time you should read the article.

Uuuh did some step on Chris's toe?

I think Chris is just PO'd about what the polls are showing re Bush and Katrina.

Seems to me that Chris has some very good points. Whether or not he is correct, I think he deserves better thatn "Uuuh did some step on Chris's toe?" as a reasoned response. This is Wizbang, not DailyKos.

What midwich said.

Hmmmm.

@ Chris

link

Read.

There's a long history of media organizations using muslim stringers. Who then regularly engage in propaganda activities under the aegis of their employment.

*shrug* but hey. If believing any nonsense thrown in front of you uncritically is your bag, then go right ahead and live your dream.

Ed

You've really got to learn to process what you read a little better. I've noticed that your responses to my posts almost never reflect an understanding of my point. I'm not talking about agreeing with me, I'm talking about demonstrating that you know what it is I'm trying to say.

The whole point of my post was that I didn't think the Globe story was unfair, that it did mention the controversy about who really shot the boy, and that it focuses on Palestinians who think the intifadah was not successful in driving out the Israelis. From this you get that I believe the Israelis killed the kid. Huh?

There are 2 sides to every story. I know you guys believe you're very bright, and right, and well informed.

You seem to have this childlike perspective on things in the middle east which centers on the premise that Israelis are good and well intentioned and that anyone who disagrees with their policies are a bunch of bad meany pants.

The link I have provided may help you see things from a different perspective.

http://www.honestmediatoday.com/UAS-WMV2.wmv

Sorry,

Here's the link

A history of anti semitism

Two quick points:

1) None of you addressed Chris's valid points about THIS article.

2) This month's Commentary magazine has an article totally gutting the Al-Dura blood libel - quite cleverly, the author reviewed the unedited footage of all the *other* cameramen and stringers that day. And it clearly shows that there was a whole area - beyond shooting range of the Israeli checkpoint - in which a whole lot of staged "Pallywood" filming was going on - guys acting wounded, getting filmed as their "brothers in arms" load them onto an ambulance, then reappearing a half-hour later in another cameraman's footage with no wounds. Et cetera.

This was the area in which the Al-Dura incident was staged - no where near the checkpoint.

The other cameramen's footage shows the boy getting back up after his "death throes" and moving limbs that no dead person can move.

www.commentarymagazine.com

So how on earth is the Globe "Spreading the lies of terrorists?"

They're not out-and-out calling al-Dura a lying piece of scum.

Which he is.

to view the footage referred to in the Nidra Poller Commentary article, please come to our new website: www.seconddraft.org and go to current investigation. we've made the "rushes" taken that day by another cameraman available for the public to download and examine. we also want to start a larger discussion on the issue of how our media could use this kind of cheap, badly acted propaganda as news.
richard