If you
really wanted to know what I meant by propaganda, you would have asked, "why do you think that site is propaganda?" You would not have asked, "
By 'propaganda' do you mean you doubt the validity of the story, or that publishing it would automatically indicate foul political persuasions?" You present only two choices as to why I think the site is propaganda. The validity of the story is not what propaganda is. The action of publishing it is not propaganda. So, you presented TWO false choices.
I think those were two honest choices as to how someone might interpret what you meant by 'propaganda'.
You "think," an opinion, or at least, an "assumption," as to the 'honesty' of the choices you presented. Your 'opinion' is that I see propaganda as "
doubt(ing) the validity of the story, or that publishing it would automatically indicate foul political persuasions." Your assumption, opinion, was incorrect.
Aside from opinions about Israeli policy toward Palestinians and non-Jews which do, I admit, concern state-sponsored racism, that term 'propaganda' is far less clear than would suit an honest objective approach and you used it to obviously indicate doubt in the news story (which was removed from LBN).
I indicated that the site you used uses propaganda. You dishonestly state; I "
...obviously indicate doubt in the news story..." Calling "Fox Network" a propaganda site is not the same as saying that a story there is propaganda, which is what you are trying to do. However, a post from "Fox" would be under scrutiny, even if the person failed to see that the report actually came from the "Associated Press." As for your post's removal from LBN, I am not a moderator. I had nothing to do with the move. However, perhaps they removed it because it was in violation of LBN rules (no I/P unless it is directly related to America, or because they also see it (your source) as a propaganda site). Ask a moderator.
For you to insist that my inquiry was misleading and further infer that you therefore needn't extend the courtesy of any explanation shows some politcal manuevering on your part.
There was no "political maneuvering" on my part, another opinion, on your part. You provided, for the third time, in my opinion, two false choices as to why I labeled the site you provided as 'propaganda.'
My second post requested clarification which you only address inasmuch as to once again ignore, instead saying the first inquiry was insufficient. This is a mild form of abuse directed at expressed opposition to Zionism (in the context of a report of Israeli abuse at the al Aqsa Mosque) and an invitation to enter into the natural personal conflict that might follow from the slight, to later be turned against the person trying to debate the flaws of Zionism.
Your first, and second request, were insufficient. What the al-Asqa Mosque has to do with this....well, sounds like a "red herring" is swimming into your accusations. There was no 'debate' here about the "issues" of Zionism, let alone its flaws.
Fair play is readily overridden by judgments and various forms of abuse. The truth gets lost.
Fair play is, indeed, overridden. There can be no honest discussion here with some because Israel is
always wrong. Various forms of anti-Semitism are ripe, but usually in the guise of 'innocent' criticism.
I wrote on another thread on this discussion group and was deleted leading me to believe this group is basically reserved for pro-Israel writers and has a decidedly pro-Israel moderator who teaches those who disagree with the bias the cost of discourtesy toward those who take the conquering of Palestine to be an unquestionably good policy, even when the issues themselves involve major human displacements and endless violence.
I can't speak to your other "post" because I don't know what you said in that thread. Therefore, you can reach whatever conclusion (opinion) you wish. However, your very wording makes me understand why another post you made might get "axed." You seem to only know one side and think that because a post is not allowed to stand it
must be because "...this group is basically reserved for pro-Israel writers and has a decidedly pro-Israel moderator who teaches those who disagree with the bias the cost of discourtesy towards those who take the conquering of Palestine to be an unquestionably good policy...," which is simply laughable!
I was also the recipent of a harrassing personal message from <name removed> today which indicated he had done something of a background check on me in the meantime. It was just plain insult.
That is unfortunate. However, you have engaged in "calling out" another member, which is a violation of DU rules. Perhaps you should review those rules, especially the ones for I/P, as they are more stringent. You will notice that in PMs there is an "alert" function.
If controlled attacks are the MO of a sensitive political entity which can't tolerate consideration of Israel's actual right to exist, when in fact that right is poorly founded on real objective legal issues, then we might wonder if the legality questions aren't subject to the same thug mentality as the cop beating up the ambassador. It's not about who's right, but who's in control.
So basically, Hamas (
et al) is right in its attacks, and Israel has no right to exist in the modern world? Is that what you are saying?
Answer these questions:
- Israel has the right to remain an independent political state. Yes or No?
- The nation known as Israel should be ONE state (Arab and Jewish). Yes or No?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(93 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
