« United Flight out of Heathrow Diverted to Boston | Main | What's Spanish for "Usury?" »

New York Times Heaps on the Praise for Hezbollah

Sweetness & Light points to this article in the New York Times which heaps on the praise for Hezbollah:

As stunned Lebanese returned Tuesday over broken roads to shattered apartments in the south, it increasingly seemed that the beneficiary of the destruction was most likely to be Hezbollah.


A major reason -- in addition to its hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill -- is that it is already dominating the efforts to rebuild with a torrent of money from oil-rich Iran.

Nehme Y. Tohme, a member of Parliament from the anti-Syrian reform bloc and the country's minister for the displaced, said he had been told by Hezbollah officials that when the shooting stopped, Iran would provide Hezbollah with an "unlimited budget" for reconstruction.

In his victory speech on Monday night, Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, offered money for "decent and suitable furniture" and a year's rent on a house to any Lebanese who lost his home in the month-long war.

"Completing the victory," he said, "can come with reconstruction."

On Tuesday, Israel began to pull many of its reserve troops out of southern Lebanon, and its military chief of staff said all of the soldiers could be back across the border within 10 days. Lebanese soldiers are expected to begin moving in a couple of days, supported by the first of 15,000 foreign troops.

While the Israelis began their withdrawal, hundreds of Hezbollah members spread over dozens of villages across southern Lebanon began cleaning, organizing and surveying damage. Men on bulldozers were busy cutting lanes through giant piles of rubble. Roads blocked with the remnants of buildings are now, just a day after a cease-fire began, fully passable.

It's as if the New York Times was writing about the Red Cross.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New York Times Heaps on the Praise for Hezbollah:

» The Dumb Ox linked with Oxidental Musings...

» Maggie's Farm linked with Thurs AM Links: NEW! IMPROVED!

Comments (72)

And Mussolini did make the ... (Below threshold)
Scott Harrington:

And Mussolini did make the trains run on time.

It's amazing how the Times can heap such praise on a bunch of murdering terrorists, but can never seem to come up with a kind word for the President.

Gosh, what swell folks. Jus... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Gosh, what swell folks. Just so gosh-diddly-darn helpful, I wish they were my neat-aroo neighbors! I wonder how we can help them out? I know, they're men of God, let's sit down and share the words of Jesus with them!
--Ned Flanders

"Yeah,. daddy!"
Rod and Todd Flanders

You NYT haters are downrigh... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

You NYT haters are downright silly sometimes. Any clear reading of that shows it is a report of the facts. If those are the facts what would you have them do? (Oh but I forget, your standard of fair reporting is Fox). Where is the "praise" in the story? Where is the expression of admiration or approval?

So, essentially, Kim, what ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So, essentially, Kim, what you're saying is that the press should not report on Lebanon or Hezbollah (or Hamas, or any other terrorist group) unless they are screaming "Terrorist!", and leave it at that, correct? If Hezbollah is instrumental in rebuilding what Israel destroyed, with Iran's help, we should not know about it? It is therefore the press' responsibility to avoid reporting on such topics, thus keeping their readers in the dark about the reality of what is going on?

Isn't it important to know what Hezbollah is doing, how they maintain the support they do from the Lebanese people, and how their relationship with Iran will further solidify support from Shia in the Middle East? Can't such knowledge help in understanding the threat of terrorist groups and how to deal with them? Shall we ignore such things, content to know such groups simply as "the enemy" that must be destroyed, without any interest in why they succeed in avoiding destruction?

You are an ostrich, Kim. Too bad you can still type with your head in the sand.

Leave it to to the New York... (Below threshold)
krazy kagu:

Leave it to to the New York Times to praise terrorists while supporting gun control i mean this rotten news paper is a birdcage linner,fish and trash wrapper its just not worth wasting your time reading this crappy rag ALL THE TERRORISTS SUPPORT THATS FIT TO PRNT the grey lady is becoming a bitch

Mantis, you are just being ... (Below threshold)
Bob Jones:

Mantis, you are just being a putz. The NYT is a leftist anti-American rag, and this puff piece on the terrorist group just shows it. Most people wouldn't expect anything else from the grey socialist lady. Perhaps more Photoshopped pics from Pallywood...

I suspect you've never read... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I suspect you've never read the NYT Krazy, likely because it has no comics.

I assume the article is fac... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I assume the article is factual, and this is just another lame excuse to take potshots at the liberal media.

If you think the facts speak in Hezbollah's favor, that is your interpetation. I see zero "praise" in this article - but neoconservatives see "facts and reality" as "bias" so I know this is a waste of time.... You guys long for Fox News, where they hide the "inconvienent truth" to boost their ratings among you neocons.

It's the same reason you guys can't debate issues of the day. You are uninformed because you would not know from watching Fox News, for example, what Hezzbollah is doing in the way of rebuilding Lebanon.

But then Kim would see my statement "what Hezzbollah is doing in the way of rebuilding Lebanon" as praise also.

It's just facts - don't be afraid of the facts kiddies.... facts are your friends, even when it is another "inconvenient truth".

Mantis, you are just bei... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis, you are just being a putz. The NYT is a leftist anti-American rag, and this puff piece on the terrorist group just shows it. Most people wouldn't expect anything else from the grey socialist lady.

Rejecting everything you read ad hominem is an interesting way to go through life, but you should try substance once in a while. Now is a good time, why don't you point out where the NYTimes got something wrong in this article? Was it the bulldozers, the surveying of damages, the Nasrallah quote, or the Iranian promise of money for reconstruction? Which one was incorrect?

Mants:It's no use.... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mants:

It's no use. Mention the NYT and thay act like rabid dogs. And we all know, rabid dogs have no sense. My guess is that 90% or more of them have never read a page of the paper.

One thing that NYT clearly ... (Below threshold)
smitty:

One thing that NYT clearly points out is Hezb'allah's complete dependence on Iranian money---and Iranian weaponry. Something a lot of Sunnis aren't happy about.

P.S. Hugh, you always sound like a smug putz.

Thank you Smitty. I try not... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Thank you Smitty. I try not to but sometimes I can't help myself...read some of the early absurd posts.

You libs crack me up. Usef... (Below threshold)
Bob Jones:

You libs crack me up. Useful idiots. Assume all you want. The NYT has lost credibilty right along with readership and advertising revenue. You moonbats are all they have left. Facts or made up facts, they always are painted with a leftist paintbrush right along with AP and al-Reuters and you lap it up without question because you WANT to believe it.

A major reason — in addi... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

A major reason — in addition to its hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill...

"Hard-won reputation"? Hugh, baby, just look at that statement for a minute. Hezbollah didn't fight Israel to a standstill; Israel backed off to appease ever-capitulating Western diplomats. Hezbollah "won" squat. They were getting the snot kicked out of them.

While the Israelis began their withdrawal, hundreds of Hezbollah members spread over dozens of villages across southern Lebanon began cleaning, organizing and surveying damage.

Sounds like a regular block cleanup party for Hezbollah! "Cleaning, organizing and surveying damage" they brought to Southern Lebanon with their aggression. Yet this is absent from the article until the last 3 paragraphs:

Support for Hezbollah was likely to become stronger, Professor Saad-Ghorayeb said, because of the weakness of the central government.

“Hezbollah has two pillars of support,” she said, “the resistance and the social services. What this war has illustrated is that it is best at both.

Referring to Shiek Nasrallah, she said: “He tells the people, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to protect you. And we’re going to reconstruct. This has happened before. We will deliver.’ ”

The last f***ing paragraph is the most important one!

But this article is a typical "Look at war hath wrought!" kind of touchy-feely journalism that lacks context as to WHY Hezbollah is going into Southern Lebanon and cleaning up (going to mantis' point). They do it to win support of the people; a great strategy because they know damn well Western journalists will report on it but never put it into context. Reporters will never write:

"To maintain the support of the Lebanese people, Hezbollah began sending in its workers to help begin cleaning, organizing and surveying the damage started when they provoked a confrontation with Israel. Thousands of Lebanese were forced from their homes when Israel retaliated."

That's how this article should've started. Context first; touchy feely shit, second.

I think this article clearl... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I think this article clearly points out the the United Nations handed yet another victory to the Islamofascist Terrorists.

It also appears to me that the lefty commenters on this thread are proud of that.

Could it be that a victory for the terrorists is a victory for the democrats?

Peter:You might wa... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Peter:

You might want to ask folks from the Middle East (the ones who really count) wheteher Hezbollah fought Israel to a stand still or not. They believe they did. In fact most probably believe Hezbollah won. Almost all reputable experts agree that Hezbollah came out of this horrible fight stronger. Their missles can be replaced...by the thousands. Those are facts, not cheers from me or the NYT.

Touchy, feely? Again, the article reports quotes and facts. You may hate them....I do...but to deny them is silly. That's what Mr Bush et al do all the time. Deny deny deny. It's always a different story when the first doesn't hold up.

Obviously anyone has the right to despise the NYT. I admit I despise Fox News. But to argue that a straight reporting piece is cheerleading for a terrorist organization is absurd.

P.S. Smitty....when someone posts a reasonable argument....a point of view....then I hope I'm not too smug for you.

Too bad the Times forgot to... (Below threshold)
Lisa:

Too bad the Times forgot to remind its readers that Hezbollah are the same thugs that started the whole problem in the first place. I have no doubt that with help from Iran & Syria, Hezbollah will help restock their ammunitions supply in Southern Lebanon and then graciously help the Lebanese build schools, hospitals, and houses on top of those replenished caches of weapons.

My only hope is that more courageous Hezbollah workers, especially those in Dearborn, MI. , will rush to the aid of their fellow Jihadis and not come back!

I believe the statement tha... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

I believe the statement that Hezbollah “fought Israel to a standstill” is more propaganda than truth. Certainly Israel was continuing to take territory up to the last day, so where does this “standstill” statement come from? Israel failed to destroy all the enemy fighters within the 35 days of war. However, that was true in WW2 with some of the islands invaded by the U.S. Navy and the Japanese weren’t dressed as civilians.

It’s not what the NYT said it’s what they didn’t say. Here’s a part of their story where I have includes some of that missing information:

In his victory speech on Monday night, Hezbollah’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, offered money for “decent and suitable furniture” and a year’s rent on a house to any Lebanese who lost his home in the month-long war”, which was initiated by Hezbollah’s attack on Israel.

If Hezbollah brought the destruction to the Lebanese, then they should be expected to pay for it.

I wonder when the NYT will run similar stories about all the wonderful work the U.S. is doing in Iraq? After all, we need all the facts to make informed decisions, right?

Hugh,Shouldn't tha... (Below threshold)
smitty:

Hugh,

Shouldn't that be "Faux" news? "Faux" is the New York Times of the Left.

Is the NYT article a straight piece of reporting or a puff piece? Reads like a bit of both to me.

Hezb'allah reminds me of Al Capone, the gangster who bought the support of many Chicagoans in the early 30s by setting up soup kitchens and paying rental arrears. But good deeds can't cancel out bad actions, especially when bombs start falling.

Hezb'allah's charities and welfare works are dependent on Iran cash. What happens to southern Lebanon when Iran decides not to fund its welfare state?

I'm missing the part where ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I'm missing the part where the Times praises Hezbollah. I see them describing what Hezbollah is saying and what they are doing.

It seems to me to be useful information. Hezbollah, like Hamas, are dangerous terrorist groups which maintain strong local support by providing services. Meanwhile, the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority prove to be ineffective and lose control of the areas they supposedly govern.

Mussolini was a really bad guy who got praise for making the trains run on time. Seems to me that Hezbollah and Hamas are doing something similar. Let's think about that information, and figure out how we can be more effective against them.

Facts aren't useful to repu... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Facts aren't useful to republicans, Publicus. They are afraid of facts for the same reason dogs bark and bay at the moon... they afraid because they don't understand, and if they don't understand it must be bad.

I don't think anyone is dis... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I don't think anyone is disputing that there were some facts reported in this pro-terrorist propaganda piece. Of course the Times choose to omit half the story and leave out many, many relevant facts, but that's typical and not at all surprising.

People who read the Times regularly only want to know have the story. They like "going of half-cocked" as the old saying goes.

It funny that lefties hate FOX News so much, simply because FOX reports the WHOLE story, not just the half of it that supports the secular-socialist worldview.

Hugh:You might ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Hugh:

You might want to ask folks from the Middle East (the ones who really count) wheteher Hezbollah fought Israel to a stand still or not.

No, actually, their Hezbollah/al Jazeera-fed propaganda "news" and their subsequent views of reality really holds no water or weight with any reasonable person. Think those people were told that there 200+ rockets a day were just randomly fired into Israel with no real target, military or otherwise, in mind? Think they were told those rockets had about 1-2% success rate of hitting anything? And that just scatches the surface of what they likely didn't hear from Hezbollah/al Jazeera.

As for "touchy-feely". Yes, touchy feely. The article was sap before context. Witness the opening paragraph:

As stunned Lebanese returned Tuesday over broken roads to shattered apartments in the south, it increasingly seemed that the beneficiary of the destruction was most likely to be Hezbollah.

"Stunned". "Shattered". Emotional, manipulating words if ever there were. So "straight" reporting it ain't.

Where are the 5 W's, Hugh? Point those out in the first paragraph. Because the "WHY" is definitely missing until the very end.

should be "half" not "have"... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

should be "half" not "have" in paragraph 2 of my post above.

Smitty:I was tryin... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Smitty:

I was trying to avoide being "smug: so I just used Fox News. :)

I pretty much agree with all you said except I don't read it as a puff piece.

When you read absurd statements from folks like PBunyon: "Could it be that a victory for the terrorists is a victory for the democrats?"
you wonder what planet guys like him reside on.

Peter:The propagan... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Peter:

The propaganda you speak of from al Jezeera surely doesn't hold water in the West, but I am sure you can't say that about Lebanon, Irq, Iran , Pakistan et al. Many Arabs, including current and future terrorists, are certainly not about to accept or believe anything that comes from the West. So, the facts may be that Israel killed lots of terrorists and destroyed many of their weapons but that's not the issue. The weapons and the terroists can and probably will be replaced. You and I argued last week...and i brought up Iran. To me, Iran and Syria are the real issues and I see nothing being done about either.

I see the words as descriptive. You see them as touchy feely. Obviously, we see things differently through each of our eyes. We interpret them differently. i respect your point, I don't agree with it.

That was a question, Hugh, ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

That was a question, Hugh, not a statement. I'm sorry you don't have the education and critical thinking skills to be able to tell the difference.

It sure seems to me that those of you on the left sure seem to be rooting for the other side in this war. The lefty somments here are just more examples of the thousands of lefty pro-terrorist comments that have be posted on this site.

I could be wrong. I am merely stating an opinion, not a fact. I know you lefties think all your opionions are facts, but I don't.

"in addition to its hard-wo... (Below threshold)

"in addition to its hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill"

By their logic, isn't this just wrong? I mean Israel didn't flatten Egypt? Didn't Egypt fight them to a standstill? Syria? Israel didn't annex Syria. How about the Palestinians jihadists? Hell they made Israel 'retreat' from Gaza by this logic.

Someone mentioned it before, but I'll reiterate the point for those that can't seem to see past the 'straight factual reporting' of this story...there is no context. If you read only this piece with no other information you could draw only one conclusion (and I'll prove it), that Israel was the aggressor and responsible for the devastation:

"in addition to its hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill" This paints Israel as the aggresor, as the aggressor you never want to fight someone to a standstill, but that is how they describe Hezbollah, as happy to have fought to a standstill, even though, in fact, they were the aggressor. You never describe the aggressor as happy and proud to have achieved a standoff.

"On Tuesday, Israel began to pull many of its reserve troops out of southern Lebanon, and its military chief of staff said all of the soldiers could be back across the border within 10 days." There is not a word said about why these troops were in Lebanon. Absent other information, you can only conclude Israel was the aggressor, since they invaded, who was 'fought to a standstill'.

"While the Israelis began their withdrawal" Same as last quote.

"In Taibe, a town of fighting so heavy that large chunks were missing from walls and buildings where they had been sprayed with bullets, the Audi family stood with two Hezbollah volunteers, looking woefully at their windowless, bullet- and shrapnel-torn house." Why was their house torn apart by bullets? We're never told, except that Israeli forces were in their country and were 'fought to a standstill'. Why was a private residence torn apart, by bullets, no less? Was someone attacking from their home or near this private residence? The only logical conclusion, absent other data, is that the Israelis attacked private residences before being 'fought to a standstill'.

"Hezbollah’s reputation as an efficient grass-roots social service network — as opposed to the Lebanese government, regarded by many here as sleek men in suits doing well — was in evidence everywhere." But what role did Hezbollah have in the destruction? We are never told. All we know is that Israel was there and was 'fought to a standstill'.

"“Today is the day to keep up our promises,” he said. “All our brothers will be in your service starting tomorrow.”" Presumably this story was written after Hezbollah already said they would not abide by the terms of the cease-fire, in other words, would not 'keep up (their) promises', but is this ever mentioned?

"Although Hezbollah is a Shiite organization, Sheik Nasrallah’s message resounded even with a Sunni Muslim, Ghaleb Jazi, 40, who works at the oil storage plant at Jiyeh, 15 miles south of Beirut. It was bombed by the Israelis and spewed pollution northward into the Mediterranean." Why was it bombed by the Israelis? We are never told.

"“In tone and content, his remarks seemed more like those of a president or a prime minister should be making while addressing the nation after a terrible month of destruction and human suffering,” Mr. Khouri wrote. “His prominence is one of the important political repercussions of this war.”" What role did Nasrallah have in this beyond the one described here? Any? We are never told that it was on his orders that all this happened in the first place.

"“The army is not going to the south to strip the Hezbollah of its weapons and do the work that Israel did not,” he said, showing just how difficult reining in the militia will most likely be in the coming weeks and months. He added that “the resistance,” meaning Hezbollah, had been cooperating with the government and there was no need to confront it." Might this be a good time to mention the UN resolution that demands their disarmament? I guess not since it doesn't come up.

"Sheik Nasrallah sounded much like a governor responding to a disaster when he said, “So far, the initial count available to us on completely demolished houses exceeds 15,000 residential units." Again, all we are told is that Israel was there and was 'fought to a standstill'. Why do these homes need rebuilding? Is it because the people portrayed here as home builders were launching rockets into Israeli civil population centers from and near these homes? We certainly are never told. Absent that data we have to assume an aggressor Israel simply invaded and started blowing stuff up. We are certainly given no reason why civilian areas were targeted along with infrastructure, are we?

"Referring to Shiek Nasrallah, she said: “He tells the people, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to protect you. And we’re going to reconstruct. This has happened before. We will deliver.’ ”" Is there any mention of the fact that, far from protecting the people, he personally brought this destruction down on them by provoking the attack and then continuing it by attacking from amongst the civilians he swears to protect? There is not.

So, that's all the relevant parts that I could find. Again, absent outside knowledge, all you know is that Israel was there, Hezbollah 'fought them to a standstill' and is now promising to protect the people and help them rebuild.

Why do conservatives attack the New York Times? Because they 'tell the truth' and have articles that are 'all facts'? Context. That is the problem with this piece. Is it factual? Well, there are no untruths in it. But what is the value of this piece without context? Hitler did wonders restoring German national pride. You could write a perfectly factual story about his stirring speeches to this effect and never once mention the genocide he incited. But is it proper to do so?

Kim,As much as the N... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

Kim,
As much as the NYTs hates Bush and democracy in general, the paper is not going to go all anti-Semite on their large Jewish readership. The paper is in a quagmire of opposing Bush who supports Israel. So this article is simply illustrating that Islam is right there to fund reconstruction when and where it's necessary after any conflict with Israel. It reveals Syria and Iran as sponsors of this hatred to assuage the sensibilities the Jewish readership while illustrating Islam's galvanized opposition to Bush by way of Israeli conflict.

You libs defending the Times article as if this paper isn't biased. It's all biased but the Times is treasonous too. That's the difference.

What a peice of propoganda,... (Below threshold)
Phil:

What a peice of propoganda, a real puff peice of distortions and lies that come from the leftists facists scum bags. Sure doesn't surprise me any because all Liberals are liars.

Shill Hassan Nasrallah's cl... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Shill Hassan Nasrallah's claims about victory over Israel reminds me of similar claims by Baghdad Bob:

After U.S. Forces Seized Baghdad's Airport: "We butchered the force present at the airport. We have retaken the airport! There are no Americans there!"

After U.S. Troops Penetrated Central Baghdad: "Nobody came here. Those America losers, I think their repeated frequent lies are bringing them down very rapidly.... Baghdad is secure, is safe."

While American Soldiers Are Showering in Saddam's Bathroom Nearby Presidential Palace: "We have killed most of the infidels, and I think we will finish off the rest soon."

The NYT joins the ranks of Baghdad Bob when they say “in addition to its [Hezbollah’s] hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill”. If Arabs want to believe Nasrallah and the NYT, they do so at their peril if that belief leads them to open war with Israel.

Lee,--Buff, Buff, Bu... (Below threshold)
DoninFla:

Lee,
--Buff, Buff, Buff...Still shinny turd...

"Stunned". "Shattered". ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

"Stunned". "Shattered". Emotional, manipulating words if ever there were. So "straight" reporting it ain't.

First of all, shattered is not an emotional word when describing a shattered building. Would destroyed be better, more or less emotional? As far as stunned, don't you think the people returning to their destroyed towns would be stunned? If someone described returning Katrina victims as stunned would they be manipulative propagandists? No they wouldn't, because the people are fucking stunned at their loss.

As far as this goes,

A major reason — in addition to its hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill — is that it is already dominating the efforts to rebuild with a torrent of money from oil-rich Iran.

Let's talk about context. This immediately follows the sentence describing how Hezbollah will benefit from this. One of the reasons is that Lebanese and other Arabs see them as the only force to fight Israel to a standstill, thus their "reputation". Reputation does not equal fact. The fact that they did not exactly fight "Israel to a standstill" doesn't change the fact that many in the Middle East see it that way, and that Hezbollah benefits from this. The NYTimes reporting this does not equal propaganda, but reporting. If you don't like reality, stop reading real newspapers and stick to WorldNet Daily and the White House press office.

"I bet dollars to doughnuts... (Below threshold)
Drew:

"I bet dollars to doughnuts"..seriously..without any facts? How about just regular greedy people who saw a buck in flipping?. On our one simple block in Denver, which became real trendy and saw the price of a 1200 sq.ft home go from $150,000 to $350,000 in four years..we have 3 foreclosures and ALL are WHITE laid-off tech workers who were suckered in by the "hey as rates rise so will your income" BS...this is this sort of undocumented..racist stuff negates your opinions that actually have substance....
A bet? How about instead of dollars to doughnuts you bet your credibility? You know..something of value...

I made a comment earlier ab... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I made a comment earlier about "rabid dogs" in the context of the NYT hatred espoused by some of the writers here today. I'm even more convinced now, after reading folks like Phil and Red Fog. Rabid dogs foam at the mouth and bark loudly....just like you folks.
Sorry, Smitty if that was smug.

I have no idea, as I'm sure you don't either PBunyon, what you are talking about in your last post to me. Because you phrased it in a question doesn't mean it's a fact from your perspective?? Of course that's what you believe. Why not have the courage to just say that's what you believe. Sheeesh.

"All liberals are liars"</p... (Below threshold)
Joel:

"All liberals are liars"

You seem to forget about this government's lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Jews say that they were the chosen nation and the Middle East was promised them by the God. I don't believe God will choose those babykillers, nor he will promise any land to them.

Yes, this is a victory for Hizbullah. Some call them terrorists.Terrorist is an elastic word.Only people who lost their dignity will call resistance as terrorism.Palestine and Lebanon belong to Arabs,not Jews. They are there for thousands of years.You occupy there and call the resistance as terrorism, this is a shame.

It as also interesting the cooperation of some Christians with the nation which tortured and killed Jesus. They call themselves as conservatives, it is apparent that they don't conserve anything but ignorance and stupidity.

If someone described ret... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

If someone described returning Katrina victims as stunned would they be manipulative propagandists? No they wouldn't, because the people are fucking stunned at their loss.

What a ridiculous comparison to make between a natural disaster and a man-made war! The results of the first one shouldn't expect and therefore one should be "stunned' by the result; the latter you damn well better expect, especially if you happened to be living in Hezbollah-occupied Southern Lebanon.

Irregardless of all that, the "WHY" of the whole story behind Hezbollah's "helping" is buried in the last 3 fucking paragraphs.

I'm decidedly not "stunned" by that...at all.

— in addition to i... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
— in addition to its [Hezbollah's] hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill —

Apart from a quoted source, this statement in the NYT story is not the reporting of fact as some characterize it, but rather it’s the opinion of the author. While many Arabs may concur with that opinion, it’s not an opinion that can be sustained by any reasonable analysis. I expect the NYT editors know that, and so I have to ascribe that statement to misguided bias in favor of Hezbollah. As I pointed out in my prior post, that opinion might make Arabs feel good, but it could also lead to their ultimate downfall.

Firing a few hundred unguided rockets a day into northern Israel had almost no military significance. Hezbollah might as well have be setting off fireworks. Hiding among civilians has no military value if Israel is forced in a WW2 type “total war” scenario. The NYT’s bias does nothing to promote peace, but the truth would.

What a ridiculous compar... (Below threshold)
mantis:

What a ridiculous comparison to make between a natural disaster and a man-made war!

I wasn't comparing the natural disaster and the war. I was comparing the reaction of people who return to destroyed homes. Apparently you believe because this was a war their reaction was actually, "eh, oh well", and the reporter was being manipulative and dishonest by using the word stunned.

The results of the first one shouldn't expect and therefore one should be "stunned' by the result;

Preposterous. You think when Katrina victims returned weeks or months after the storm they weren't aware of the destruction it caused? Are you serious?

he latter you damn well better expect, especially if you happened to be living in Hezbollah-occupied Southern Lebanon.

You damn well better expect damage to your town after it gets hit by a hurricane and flooded, but apparently you don't think so.

Irregardless of all that, the "WHY" of the whole story behind Hezbollah's "helping" is buried in the last 3 fucking paragraphs.

Nope, it's in the first two paragraphs:

Paragraph one: Hezbollah beneficiary of Lebanon destruction

Paragraph two: Why? Because they are rebuilding and because they are seen by the Lebanese to have stood up to Israel. That is why.

However, if you are really interested in better lead writing in newspapers, might I suggest you start here.

Btw, irregardless is a nonsense word.

Apart from a quoted sour... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Apart from a quoted source, this statement in the NYT story is not the reporting of fact as some characterize it, but rather it’s the opinion of the author.

So it is the opinion of the author that Hezbollah has that reputation, unsupported by fact? Are you saying you don't believe that this is the reputation earned by Hezbollah after this conflict? You don't believe that people in the Middle East and Iran are praising Hezbollah for "standing up to" and "defeating" Israel? Have you been paying attention? You want a quoted source. Fine. Look here, here, and here.

None of the refugees interviewed wore the scared expression that had been all too common since July 12, when the war with Israel began. All expressed happiness at not only returning home but at a perceived victory of Hezbollah over the Israeli military.

Many adorned their cars with posters of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah -- his cherubic face twice its normal size under the caption: "A Divine Victory." Refugees said they had received the posters from Hezbollah-run schools where many had sought refuge during the air attacks and received aid to help them rebuild their homes.

And no, I don't think this is good news. But I'll take bad news over ignorance any day.

Palestine and Lebanon be... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Palestine and Lebanon belong to Arabs,not Jews. They are there for thousands of years.You occupy there and call the resistance as terrorism, this is a shame.

Thanks for exhibiting the truly moronic, asshat nature of those on the Far Left.

Here's some food for thought: Who occupied Israel (apart from the Romans) at the time of Jesus? That's right, Jews. Until they were kicked out of Israel by the Romans 100+ years later. Then, Islamic conquest of Palestine, which began in 633, was the beginning of a 1,300-year span during which many empires, governments, and dynasties ruled in the Holy Land prior to the British occupation after World War I.

In layman's terms, the Palestinians were squatters on a land that was not rightfully theirs and one they had stolen.

Joel, It ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Joel,

It as also interesting the cooperation of some Christians with the nation which tortured and killed Jesus.

So you agree that Israel exited as a nation almost 2,000 years ago. Why then should they not get back the nation that was stolen from them by Rome? Jew's had bought most of the land from the Arabs who lived in what's now Israel before the UN set the modern borders of Israel. Israel was content with those diminished borders, but the Arabs attacked to destroy Israel. Only when Israel won against all odds did the Arabs recognize the UN established borders, now well within the territory won by Israel. Allowing the Arabs to retain the original UN borders was our first mistake as it has allowed the Arabs to attack Israel without risking the lose of territory.

As far as blaming the Jews for crucifying Jesus the Christ, if you buy into that then what Jesus did on the cross is of no benefit to you.

So it is the opini... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
So it is the opinion of the author that Hezbollah has that reputation, unsupported by fact? Are you saying you don't believe that this is the reputation earned by Hezbollah after this conflict? You don't believe that people in the Middle East and Iran are praising Hezbollah for "standing up to" and "defeating" Israel? Have you been paying attention?

If the NYT article wanted to be accurate they could have said something like “— in addition to Hezbollah's claim that it’s the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill—”. Instead, the NYT injected it’s opinion as if it were fact.

And no, I don't think this is good news. But I'll take bad news over ignorance any day.

That’s the right attitude. Now if we could just get the NYT to explain to the Arabs how they would get their ass handed to them in a real war with Israel.

If the NYT was interested i... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

If the NYT was interested in a real story rather than a fluff piece they would investigate how many of the Hezzbullah rebuilt homes contain weapons stashes and bunkers. How many radar and rocket installtions get rebuilt anda school or hospital built on top to provide human shield cover?

Preposterous. You think ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Preposterous. You think when Katrina victims returned weeks or months after the storm they weren't aware of the destruction it caused? Are you serious?

Of course not after weeks or months, I NEVER said that. But in the day(s) following, absolutely. Katrina victims had no idea—at least those managed to be able to return a day or two later (if THAT was even possible)—or could image the scale of the destruction. By rights, they could be stunned. If you are "stunned" by something, it is because you didn't expect it; therefore it renders you with, according to m-w.com, "paralyzing astonishment".

Honestly, having lived through now 4 major disasters/events (Loma Prieta quake '89, Oakland Hills Firestorm '92, Northridge quake '94 and the Nisqually quake '01) I am NOT stunned when I see damage; stunned, like when I lost my home in '91, yes. Why? Because I didn't expect it. I didn't expect the fire to jump an 8-lane freeway and explode my home in just seconds. And you could even say I should expect damage in earthquake-prone regions, and maybe you can even say the same thing if you live in a hurricane-prone area (I would). But how much damage they can do, can leave one "stunned" because there is not the degree of expectation for destruction that is present in ALL warfare.

Maybe it's a matter of personal perspective and experience, but how anyone can be stunned by the affects of modern warfare, particularly when a community harbors thugs and allows them to store their missles and weapons in their homes, fire them off inside the community toward a foe, and can still be "stunned" by the results of the actions taken against them, is just beyond the pale.

So, yes, I'm serious.

Paragraph one: Hezbollah beneficiary of Lebanon destruction

That does nothing to explain how and why. It's just a blanket statement that doens't get a full explanation until the end. If most readers even get that far...

Thank you for the condesceding lesson in the English language and the word "irregardless", Miss Princess Perfect.

THe NYT could have used the... (Below threshold)
eman:

THe NYT could have used the same set of facts to write any number of articles, each with a different tone or slant. The facts in this case are clear. Hezbolla brings death and destruction and uses what seem to be good deeds to hide its true nature. People who believe Hezbolla is something more and better than a smart, savvy, ruthless, vile, terrorist organization are born every minute.

My only question is how it ... (Below threshold)

My only question is how it can be "victory" when they suffered more MILITARY casualties (I won't accept their numbers for civilian deaths as they purposefully inflated them by FORCING civilians to stay with them JUST TO DIE), and THEY begged for a cease fire? OH, I forgot, any time that a terrorist loses, they instantly win the "moral victory" even though the mere use of the word moral by them is covered with irony!

Of course not after week... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Of course not after weeks or months, I NEVER said that.

Ah, I see. I was referring to New Orleans, where people weren't allowed back into the New Orleans for weeks. I didn't explicitly state that.

Maybe it's a matter of personal perspective and experience, but how anyone can be stunned by the affects of modern warfare, particularly when a community harbors thugs and allows them to store their missles and weapons in their homes, fire them off inside the community toward a foe, and can still be "stunned" by the results of the actions taken against them, is just beyond the pale.

It's really more a matter of not understanding what the word stun means in this context. The word is not a simple synonym of surprise. Let's look at the American Heritage definition:

1. To daze or render senseless, by or as if by a blow.
2. To overwhelm or daze with a loud noise.
3. To stupefy, as with the emotional impact of an experience; astound.

They could be well aware of the fighting, the reasons behind it, and the effects, and still be stunned at the first-hand sight of the destruction. In any case we have devolved here to semantics, and if you really have to twist word definitions to identify bias, you are stretching. Let's get to the meat, shall we?

Paragraph one: Hezbollah beneficiary of Lebanon destruction

That does nothing to explain how and why. It's just a blanket statement that doens't get a full explanation until the end. If most readers even get that far...

Oh wait, you don't want to respond to what I wrote, so you just ignore where I pointed out how the article says why. Apparently you think the article should focus on explaining why Hezbollah does things like reconstruction and social services, which you see as garnering support from the Lebanese. While that is true, it is simplistic (it ignores the fact that Hezbollah are Lebanese, the people they are helping are their own people), and it is not the "why" of the subject of the article.

As far as irregardless goes, sorry, it's a pet peeve I have. I often see otherwise intelligent people using that word, inexplicably.

If the NYT article wante... (Below threshold)
mantis:

If the NYT article wanted to be accurate they could have said something like “— in addition to Hezbollah's claim that it’s the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill—”. Instead, the NYT injected it’s opinion as if it were fact.

I gave you several examples that showed Lebanese and Arabs celebrating Hezbollah's victory, thus supporting the writer's contention that they had gained that reputation. You ignored them.

That’s the right attitude. Now if we could just get the NYT to explain to the Arabs how they would get their ass handed to them in a real war with Israel.

Well, the Arabs aren't exactly the NYTimes' readership, and the Arab states don't need that explained to them, as they have had their asses handed to them before in real wars with Israel (notice how there hasn't been one in quite some time?). However, this is not a "real" war in the sense that those were. This is a new kind of war and overwhelming military force alone cannot win it. We, and Israel, need to change strategies. This conflict will only bolster Hezbollah. This is very unfortunate but was, frankly, predictable.

And frankly speaking, Neces... (Below threshold)
virgo1:

And frankly speaking, Necessary.

Hezbulla does not need bolstering?? They are insane already!

Who gives a s--t what the NYSlimes or Shamestream media lie about?

Nuke em'

Hey all you PC LLL appeaser... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey all you PC LLL appeasers (you know who you are-don't have to name names) let me spell it out for you. Wonder what the situation would be right now if old "hez" did not have women and kids to hide behind like you libs hide behind your mouth? HMMMMMMM.

Maybe you should break the ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Maybe you should break the pills in half from now on, jhow.

I gave you several... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I gave you several examples that showed Lebanese and Arabs celebrating Hezbollah's victory, thus supporting the writer's contention that they had gained that reputation. You ignored them.

You're arguing that because the NYT article uses the weasel word "reputation", that the factual basis of the reputation itself is irrelevant. Saying someone or something has a reputation is the same as saying some people have an opinion without citing any source.

Using that technique it's just as valid to say Intelligent Design proponents cite the fact that Science has a reputation of being proven wrong. To support that I could just cite some ID folks who hold that opinion, but I’ll go one better and cite a recent case here.

Many posts back you admonished another contributor to “try substance once in a while”, but it seem you have abandoned doing so yourself.

Cheerleaders for Hezbollah?... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Cheerleaders for Hezbollah???

For all you NYT haters here’s a little ditty from al jezeerah in October 2003:

“One-sided reportage on terrorism, in which cause is never related to effect, was assured because the most effective component of the Jewish connection is probably that of media control. It is well known that American public opinion molders have long been largely influenced by a handful of powerful newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the St Louis Post-Dispatch – owned respectively by the Sulzbergers….”

So, the publisher(s) of the NYT, a well known Jewish family, who consistently give to Jewish charities, are cheerleader for terrorists who want to destroy Israel?

The rabid dogs foam and bark and display their utter and complete ignorance.

It would be laughable were it not sad.

Well, the Arabs ar... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Well, the Arabs aren't exactly the NYTimes' readership, and the Arab states don't need that explained to them, as they have had their asses handed to them before in real wars with Israel

The NYT is a source of information for many other news organizations around the world, so their readership by proxy likely includes many Arabs. Simply repeating Hezbollah propaganda with no critical analysis only fuels the conflict. Apparently doing so serves the interests of the NYT.

The lesson Israel and hopefully the U.S. learned from this exercise is that high tech weapons alone can’t defeat a gorilla army that uses civilians as shields. It takes troops on the ground in sufficient quantity to control the territory. Even then, you’re at a great disadvantage if you can’t identify combatants among the civilians. The Arabs know this and likely plan to kill every Jewish man, woman, and child they come across should they ever be able to overrun Israel. Does anyone think the international outcry would restrain them?

The west has made an number of mistakes in dealing with the middle east. Here are some of them.

1) Thinking war could somehow be sanitized. That you can use precision weapons to win without taking control of the territory. War needs to be the terror everyone wants to avoid, not a game.

2) Accepting the idea that even if a country starts a war and subsequently loses, it gets to retain it’s original borders. That means there’s no risk to a nation’s territory if they start a war.

3) Accepting the idea that a nation is not responsible for the actions of a military organization that it allows to openly operate within it’s territory. Lebanon has already said it won’t try to disarm Hezbollah. The UN should then insist that Hezbollah is an official unit of Lebanon’s military. Next time Hezbollah launches a rocket into Israel, it should be considered an act of war by Lebanon.

I wonder what the NYT print... (Below threshold)
epador:

I wonder what the NYT printed 65 years ago when rockets rained down on London and Dresden was bombed out of existence?

Hugh,incl... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Hugh,

including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the St Louis Post-Dispatch – owned respectively by the Sulzbergers

The statement you cite is factually wrong. The NYT is a corporation that’s publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. If you look at the insider trading document you’ll see that Arthur and Cathy Sulzberger own about 214,000 shares while Janet Robinson owns about 223,000 shares and Jacqueline Dryfoos owns over 468,000 shares. Over 85% of all shares are held by Institutional and Mutual Fund Owners. Arthur Sulzberger is the chairman, but he and his family don’t own the NYT by any stretch of the imagination.

The rabid dogs foam and bark and display their utter and complete ignorance.

Apparently that applies to you.

Seems odd that the NY Times... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Seems odd that the NY Times will report on Hezbollah rebuilding --- but not on the US military doing the same thing in Iraq.

I guess it's only newsworthy if it hurts Jews or something.
-=Mike

Mac LorrySheeesh..... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mac Lorry

Sheeesh....do you folks read posts? I posted a quote from al jezeerah for the point that the NYT is seen as one-sided in its reporting of terrorism by Arabs. Which is it? pro-terrorist or ant-terrorist? You see it as pro and Arabs see it as anti.It can't be both.

You failed to respond to the fact that the publisher is Jewish.

It's ludicrous to me that you folks would believe the publisher, who is Jewish, would allow the papaer to be pro-terrorist. It's simply absurd to believe that.

Hugh,Shee... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Hugh,

Sheeesh....do you folks read posts? I posted a quote from al jezeerah for the point that the NYT is seen as one-sided in its reporting of terrorism by Arabs. Which is it? pro-terrorist or ant-terrorist? You see it as pro and Arabs see it as anti.It can't be both.

It's anti-Zionist or more specifically, anti-Israel.

You failed to respond to the fact that the publisher is Jewish.

While Arthur Ochs Sulzberger is Jewish, there's no evidence that he's a Zionist. In fact his father, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, refused to join a Jewish fraternity at Columbia and refused to join the American Jewish Committee. He wrote in 1934,"I am a non Zionist because the Jew, in seeking a homeland of his own, seems to me to be giving up something of infinitely greater value of the world. ... I look askance at any movement which assists in making the peacemaker among nations merely a national warrior." He refused to donate to the United Jewish Appeal or the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, favoring instead the National Missions of the Presbyterian Church. In 1948, he wrote, "I know of no difference in my way of life than in that of any Unitarian." More here.

The evidence is that the NYT under Arthur Ochs Sulzberger is still anti-Israel.

We all make errors, but when you add unnecessary insults to your posts chiding others for their alleged ignorance you had better make sure you have your own house in order.

Mac Lorry:So, terr... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mac Lorry:

So, terrorists killing Jews (Zionists or not) is ok with the NYT and the Sulzbergers?

[email protected] Hugh<... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

@ Hugh

1.

Sheeesh....do you folks read posts? I posted a quote from al jezeerah for the point that the NYT is seen as one-sided in its reporting of terrorism by Arabs. Which is it? pro-terrorist or ant-terrorist? You see it as pro and Arabs see it as anti.It can't be both.

Actually it can be, because it's based on perception.

It's the same process that allows a DU/Kos member to proclaim their disdain for how "in the tank" the MSM is for Republicans. It's because however a particular publication or news channel is biased, it's simply not biased enough for that person.

So in this case the NYT is percieved, correctly, as being biased towards Hezbollah by us it is being percieved as not biased enough by Hezbollah partisans.


2. Quite a few American jews are anti-Zionists. Which probably explains why the Republican party can't get more than a fraction of that voting block no matter how vast the difference between Republicans and Democrats in their treatment of Israel.


3.

So, terrorists killing Jews (Zionists or not) is ok with the NYT and the Sulzbergers?

*shrug* probably a qualified "no".

The killing of jews, as just the killing of jews, probably, but not definitively, isn't something that either the NYT or the Sulzbergers want to have happen.

But the killing of jews as a means of eliminating Israel, then that's simply the cost of doing business for the NYT or the Sulzbergers. Keep in mind that the Sulzbergers have been in control of the NYT for a very long time. Keep in mind that the NYT buried the few stories that came out about the Holocaust, prior to the discovery of the death camps, deeply in the newspaper. Keep in mind that many stories of jewish oppression and pogroms by the Nazis were scrubbed clean of jewish identities.

http://www.acpr.org.il/English-Nativ/08-issue/silverman-8.htm

Also keep in mind that when many jewish refugees were scrambling to escape Europe before it became a death trap it was the New York Times, and it's prestige, that argued against allowing these jews entrance into America.

There's a long history of the NYT acting directly against even the most reasonable jewish interests.

Why that is, I have no idea.

Using that technique it'... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Using that technique it's just as valid to say Intelligent Design proponents cite the fact that Science has a reputation of being proven wrong. To support that I could just cite some ID folks who hold that opinion, but I’ll go one better and cite a recent case here.

Has a reputation among religious folks who don't understand science, yes. But a reputation among scientists, no way. The point is that they do have that reputation in the Middle East, and it is widespread. Also, in that part of the world reputation is very important; as many have noted, in the Arab world "perception is reality". This is not at all true in science. In any case if you haven't noticed Israel is withdrawing, which many people, and not just Hezbollah supporters, consider a victory for the terrorist group. Intelligent design proponents don't have anything like that to back up their claim. Btw the article you linked has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Many posts back you admonished another contributor to “try substance once in a while”, but it seem you have abandoned doing so yourself.

You were asking for direct quotes, something to back up the claim. I gave it to you. I did not propose that it was proof that Hezbollah was victorious militarily, only that that perception is widespread, which is of course the point of the article. Your argument, which seems to be that the NYTimes writer used the "weasily" word reputation when he really meant that Hezbollah had in fact fought Israel to a standstill, doesn't really hold up. One wonders why he would bother with the "reputation" part if that is what he meant. You have to ignore the whole point of the article, which is Hezbollah's reputation and support amongst the Lebanese and other Shia, in order to arrive at your reading. You guys are so anxious to demonize journalists that you will grasp at anything, any interpretation, that will enable you to do so. It's weak and pointless, IMHO.

The NYT is a source of i... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The NYT is a source of information for many other news organizations around the world, so their readership by proxy likely includes many Arabs. Simply repeating Hezbollah propaganda with no critical analysis only fuels the conflict. Apparently doing so serves the interests of the NYT.

But of course you're right. The NYTimes is in the employ of Hezbollah as a propaganda arm. Or they merely like to "fuel the conflict" to sell newspapers. Whatever.

The lesson Israel and hopefully the U.S. learned from this exercise is that high tech weapons alone can’t defeat a gorilla army that uses civilians as shields. It takes troops on the ground in sufficient quantity to control the territory.

And once you "control the territory" what do you have? Iraq, that's what. How's all that going?

The Arabs know this and likely plan to kill every Jewish man, woman, and child they come across should they ever be able to overrun Israel. Does anyone think the international outcry would restrain them?

I certainly don't, but Israel's massive military might, combined with our own, would. Overwhelming military strength is good for defense, especially in Israel's case. That's why all Hezbollah can do is lob rockets in, and the idea that any group or nation in the Middle East could "overrun" Israel is absurd. They'd like to, but it won't happen.

1) Thinking war could somehow be sanitized. That you can use precision weapons to win without taking control of the territory. War needs to be the terror everyone wants to avoid, not a game.

After all that has happened you still believe we can move in with ground troops and "control the territory"? Are you completely out of touch with reality?

2) Accepting the idea that even if a country starts a war and subsequently loses, it gets to retain it’s original borders. That means there’s no risk to a nation’s territory if they start a war.

Agreed, though peace agreements in the region have often been more complex than this.

3) Accepting the idea that a nation is not responsible for the actions of a military organization that it allows to openly operate within it’s territory. Lebanon has already said it won’t try to disarm Hezbollah. The UN should then insist that Hezbollah is an official unit of Lebanon’s military. Next time Hezbollah launches a rocket into Israel, it should be considered an act of war by Lebanon.

This takes you down a long and bloody road with no end. Btw, in the recent conflict Israel basically did declare war on Lebanon for the actions of Hezbollah. Half of the country is destroyed. If they left the Lebanese military intact, it was only in the hope that that military would try to control the south. Also, using this strategy we can justify war with Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Iran, and several other countries for allowing terrorists to operate within their borders (and sometimes funding them outright), and attack us (Cole, WTC, Khobar Towers, Kenya & Tanzania, etc). Those should all be considered acts of war, correct? Let's invade and "control the territory"!

So, terrorists kil... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
So, terrorists killing Jews (Zionists or not) is ok with the NYT and the Sulzbergers?

If you read the article I linked to you would find many lines that support the very thing you find absurd. Here's just one part

American Jews like William Cohen who, writing in the New Frontier of February 1942, said that Sulzberger was a self-hating Jew who had plunged "the dagger of betrayal in the back of the helpless millions of Jews who look anxiously to Palestine for haven after the war."

The lesson is that just because someone is Jewish doesn’t mean they support Israel or will even speak out against the killing of Jews in Israel. What’s telling is that you seem surprised that a person’s background doesn’t always correlate with their politics. Are all blacks democrats? Are all white businessmen republicans? Of course not, and not all Jews are pro-Israel.

Thanks for the quote from 1... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Thanks for the quote from 1942...it really bolsters your argument about the current publisher. The rest of you r response doesn't even digny a response it's so absurd.

Has a reputation a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Has a reputation among religious folks who don't understand science, yes. But a reputation among scientists, no way. The point is that they do have that reputation in the Middle East, and it is widespread. Also, in that part of the world reputation is very important; as many have noted, in the Arab world "perception is reality". This is not at all true in science. In any case if you haven't noticed Israel is withdrawing, which many people, and not just Hezbollah supporters, consider a victory for the terrorist group. Intelligent design proponents don't have anything like that to back up their claim. Btw the article you linked has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

I knew this is a hot button issue with you, so I used it to make a point. That point is that what I wrote is correct in the same way that what the NYT wrote is correct. Instinctively you go after the substance and ignore the “reputation” weasel word that allows any unsupportable opinion to be reported as fact.

I agree that "perception is reality”, but not just in the Arab world, but in all the world. My complaint is that the NYT is feeding that misinformed perception, which only serves to embolden Arabs to continue their decades old war against Israel. What would it hurt for the NYT to add a little balance to such stories?

Thanks for the quo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Thanks for the quote from 1942...it really bolsters your argument about the current publisher. The rest of you r response doesn't even digny [sic] a response it's so absurd.

Your point was that because the NYT publisher is Jewish, that the paper must be pro-Israel or at least anti-Arab. What the quote from 1942 shows is that the father of the current publisher was Jewish, and yet, anti-Israel. The second link I supplied is evidence that the Son holds the same anti-Israel bias as his father.

I have debunked your original contention of the NYT being owned by Jews and I have provided links that support the anti-Israel bias of the current and former publisher of the the NYT. Perhaps you can show where I’m wrong with some links of your own. Otherwise, I believe I have made the case that you are both ignorant and bigoted, at least in relation to the NYT and Jews.

[email protected] Hugh... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

@ Hugh

Sorry man but you're completely and utterly wrong.

Here's a test for you:

Find an article in the NYT that praises Israel for defending itself.

Let's hope you don't have to go back to 1942 to find one.

And yes I know Israel was founded in 1948. Normally I'd hope people would recognize the sarcastic humor, but I assume nothing on this blog.

And once you "cont... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
And once you "control the territory" what do you have? Iraq, that's what. How's all that going?

Controlling territory is and has been a fundamental principle of war for thousands of years. The problem in Iraq is not one of war, but of nation building.

Had Israel taken control of southern Lebanon early in the conflict by poured in thousands of troops they could have controlled the territory to the degree that few rockets could have been launched into Israel. Playing at it for two weeks with air strikes was a bad mistake.

and the idea that any group or nation in the Middle East could "overrun" Israel is absurd.

Given the effect Iraq has had on this nation, I’m not too sure the U.S. would come to Israel’s defense should it be in danger of being overrun. Particularly if an anti-war candidate wins the white house in 2008.

After all that has happened you still believe we can move in with ground troops and "control the territory"? Are you completely out of touch with reality?

Sure we can move in with ground troops and control the territory. It’s been done for thousands of years, but to make it work we have to come not as liberators or even occupiers, but as destroyers. You know, like the allies (particularly Russia) did to Germany in WW2.

This takes you down a long and bloody road with no end. Btw, in the recent conflict Israel basically did declare war on Lebanon for the actions of Hezbollah. Half of the country is destroyed. If they left the Lebanese military intact, it was only in the hope that that military would try to control the south.

Certainly Israel did attack targets in Lebanon, but only for the purpose of destroying the ability of Hezbollah to rearm and fortify it’s positions in the south, and also to try to cut off escape routes in an attempt to keep the captive Israeli solders from being taken out of the country. Had Israel declared war on Lebanon, there would be much more damage done. One of the Israel officials said in an interview with Bill O'Reilly that if the current UN plan for southern Lebanon fails, then the next time Israel will completely destroy Lebanon as a nation and maybe Syria for good measure. Then again, maybe it’s a bluff.

Also, using this strategy we can justify war with Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Iran, and several other countries for allowing terrorists to operate within their borders (and sometimes funding them outright), and attack us (Cole, WTC, Khobar Towers, Kenya & Tanzania, etc). Those should all be considered acts of war, correct? Let's invade and "control the territory"!

The problem is that we have allowed this ruse to proceed too long in hopes that such countries would mature. Apart from using the same tactics ourselves we need to continue to enforce national responsibility one country at a time. Afghanistan was the first and I think Iran should be next followed by Syria. If Rice becomes number 44, then maybe we’ll get to Syria and by then Lebanon, Jodan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia will change their ways.

Mac LorryFor someo... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mac Lorry

For someone who obviuosly considers himself intellectually superior you missed the boat entirely. The post I quoted was to demonstarte that al jezeerah considers the NYT ant-terrorist and that many here on this post argue that the NYT is pro-terrorist. My question was, how can it be both? I;m not sure where you stand in that regard.

I do find it absurd, illogical and uttlerly stupid for someone to believe that the NYT is "pro-terrorist." But then mere mention of the name NYT sends righties off the deep end, so I guess I should not be surprised.


I suppose the truth is that neither of know what Mr Sulzberger's view is about killing Jews. I'm content, however, to find it hard to believe that he approves of it. Maybe that's too touchy feely for you but I am satisfied with my belief.

For someone who ob... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
For someone who obviuosly [sic] considers himself intellectually superior you missed the boat entirely.

I make no such claim. If it's obvious to you that may be because of your own bias. I simply know how to use Google.

The post I quoted was to demonstarte [sic] that al jezeerah considers the NYT ant-terrorist and that many here on this post argue that the NYT is pro-terrorist.

I demonstrated that the al jezeeral post was factually wrong in saying the Sulzberger family owned the NYT. In your next post you said “You failed to respond to the fact that the publisher is Jewish.” You then go on to say “It's ludicrous to me that you folks would believe the publisher, who is Jewish, would allow the papaer [sic] to be pro-terrorist. It's simply absurd to believe that.”

So it’s not just jezeerah’s statement as you now contend, but your own words. You now state that "I do find it absurd, illogical and uttlerly [sic] stupid for someone to believe that the NYT is "pro-terrorist." And yet I have offered evidence that both the prior and current publisher are anti-Israel. Is that really all that much different than being pro-terrorist?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy