Doctor who slammed Gaza violence supported 9/11 attacks

[Mosby]

Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert entered the Gaza Strip several days before Israel launched its military offensive there. In the course of the operation Gilbert spoke to numerous media outlets, presented himself as "an objective physician" and repeatedly condemned the IDF's actions in Gaza.

However, it recently became known that Gilbert might have been less impartial than he claimed to be. The only Western doctor allowed into the Strip during the fighting is a member of the Norwegian socialist party Red, and a man who in the past expressed support for al-Qaeda's September 11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York.

In an interview to Dagbladet newspaper in wake of the terror attacks, Gilbert said: "The attack on New York did not come as a surprise with the politics the West has followed the last decades. I am upset by the terrorist attack, but I am at least as upset over the suffering that the US has caused. It is in this context that 5000 dead has to be seen.

"If the US government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, the oppressed has a moral right to attack the US with the weapons they may create as well. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3666579,00.html

[no limit]

1. You dont actually buy this propaganda, do you?

if you do you need to get your head out of Israel's ass.

[Mosby]

13. Are you claiming that he did not make those statements?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mosby]

26. lol

The western media has presented this guy as an objective, unbiased observer something he clearly isn't.

[no limit]

27. Which media where?

And what in the hell does that have to do with all those innocent people that died in the gaza strip as a result of Israel's actions?

[Mosby]

29. Might I suggest Google?

[no limit]

33. You can suggest whatever you want but until you show some examples your claim wont be true

and you didnt address my second point, did you miss it?

[Mosby]

38. I saw your post

Civilian casualties are a tragic consequence of war. It was not very smart for Hamas to provoke Israel.

Here is an article from a MSM site:

High-Profile Doctor in Gaza Called an 'Apologist for Hamas'

snip

International media reports, including those from the BBC, CBS, CNN and FOX’s sister station Sky News, present Gilbert as an ordinary doctor.

But a look at his record shows that Gilbert, 61, is a political activist and member of the Norwegian Maoist "Red" party, and he has been involved in solidarity work for the Palestinians since the 1970s. He has criticized the international aid organization Doctors Without Borders for refusing to take sides in conflicts.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477881,00.html

[Idealism]

40. Good source; Fox is the epitome of journalistic integrity

[no limit]

42. And we wonder why fox gets high ratings. Even supposed liberals on DU will listen to it when it fits

their agenda. What a joke.

[Idealism]

44. I learned long ago

Just because someone is a liberal, it doesn't make them less susceptible to indoctrination against something or someone. The fallacy of positive results has plagued humanity for eternity. Many people believe Nastradamus's prophecies because three or four may have been tangibly close to real events, but they don't criticize his 400 other prophecies that are completely false.

[Mosby]

47. I agree with that

Just look at how some people on this thread are ignoring the simple fact that Gilbert's "reports" were shown on major networks like the BBC, CNN and CBS where he was presented to the viewing audience as a unbiased observer when in fact he wasn't. Takes a lot of indoctrination to mitigate that much cognitive dissonance.

[Idealism]

49. Mosby, if you don't realize that everyone has an agenda by now...

What would make an attorney take a case pro-bono? It isn't completely out of the "good of their heart." This doctor obviously was moved by the plight of the Palestinians, just as other doctors have been moved by the oppression of the population in Darfur and have gone there. Everyone has an axe to grind, but it does not mean that the observations Dr. Gilbert's has made aren't true- just perhaps fit to his agenda.

That being said, I read stories of him claiming White Phosphorous wounds on children coming into the al-Shifa hospital, and that turned out to be true. Numerous NGO's have documented that claim, as well. I have not read all of the reports you claim to have seen of his from BBC, CNN, CBS, etc from the doctor, but what I have read of him has been verified.

I think he is a blessing to the Palestinian people because he is there saving lives. You should value his service to humanity, not decry that he is "biased." That is like saying God is "biased" against Palestinians because he let more of them die than Israeli's, and that the Palestinians have a right to complain about this perceived slight.

[Mosby]

53. Having a particular perspective is one thing

But purposely providing inaccurate casualty ratios to the MSM or stating that the IDF were targeting civilians crosses the line into propaganda.

[Idealism]

54. Can you cite specific examples of him doing this?

The casualty ratios are only disputed by Israel from what I've seen, as the death toll still is too, but most articles on the subject agree that at least half are civilians.

Again, I didn't read all of the reports done with information from the doctor, so if you could cite examples of this it would be helpful.

[iconicgnom]

57. that ain't no "liberal"!

jeez, just because someone posts here doesn't make them "liberal" or "progressive".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. Better than Al-Ahram, EI and many others in the Middle East

[Idealism]

67. I don't think so

They are all bullshit, and shouldn't be given the title "news agency." All they spew is propaganda, much like PressTV, JPost, National Review, etc

[no limit]

43. You got an actual news story? Forgive me for not trusting fox "news".

And so you are saying bombing a school full of children is a by product of war?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. You are aware that Ging backed off of some of his claims

[no limit]

65. Who?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. Head of the UNRWA in Gaza, who made some of the original claims

[no limit]

69. What does that have to do with this doctor that we are talking about?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cboy4]

22. Oh look at Mr/Ms 351 posts call someone else a troll.

You should remove your head from Hamas' ass along with all of your Pro-Hamas friends in this thread.

[no limit]

23. Who is pro hamas in this thread?

you might want to look up the meaning of strawman.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Just the same number as have 'their head up Israel's ass'

I.e. probably none. But if it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander.

[no limit]

34. Are you trying to tell me there are no people here that supported what Israel did?

Poeple that would use some lame example of a doctor to try and excuse Israel's actions?

Because I think we both know that's not true.

[LeftishBrit]

58. Disagreeing with you does not mean 'having your head up either Israel's or Hamas' ass'

I'm critical of both at present, and therefore disagree with lots of people on the issues. It doesn't mean that I think they've got their head up any country's/ group's ass, just that I think they're wrong on the particular issue.

For the record, I disapprove of Israel's actions in Gaza; but it has nothing to do with the words of this particular doctor, whom I'd barely heard of till he became an issue on this thread. The same is probably true of others. Dr. Gilbert is not *that* influential.

[lxlxlxl]

35. psychosis

there is absolutely nothing even remotely close to a pro-hamas position in my last post. someone that starts running their mouth with absolutely no reference to reality, and has their own argument/counter-arguments running in their head constantly obviously suffers from some type of self-referential psychosis.

[cboy4]

36. Whatever you say Dr. Phil

Your anti-social behavior of calling someone a troll must have forced me to mistake you as someone who supports classic anti-social behaved people like Hamas.

[lxlxlxl]

37. are you just going to repeating the word hamas over and over?

hamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamas
hamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamas
hamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamas
hamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamashamas

good for you. like i said, if your replies dont have anything to do with the post, and you are having some self-engineered discourse in your own head, take a step back and think about it.

Dr. Phil

[cboy4]

39. Yes Dr. Phil, I repeat Hamas a lot in this forum since

DU is flooded with Hamas apologists.

[Idealism]

41. How many people has Hamas killed compared to the IDF?

One could argue that Israel needs more apologists than Hamas does.

[oberliner]

45. Around 400

And they've had to work a lot harder to do so.

[Idealism]

46. Care to clarify that?

400 what? Who?

[oberliner]

48. About 400 Israelis have been killed in Hamas attacks since 2000

Not sure what the exact total is at this point, but I can try to find it.

[Idealism]

50. It is more than that

The second intifada killed a little over 1000 Israeli's alone.

[oberliner]

51. But that includes attacks by Islamic Jihad and other groups

Not all of the attacks in the second intifada were carried out by Hamas.

[Idealism]

52. Even if only half were done by them

it is still over 500, but we digress. My point is that the IDF has killed far more Palestinians than Hamas has killed Israeli's and thus, Israel may need more apologists than Hamas does if you were to go by the numbers.

[azurnoir]

55. How many since the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza? n/t

[oberliner]

59. Seven I think nt

[atreides1]

2. And????

Do you really think that he's the only one who sees the gray in your black and white world?

[no limit]

3. don't you get it? This story makes it okay for Israel to kill little children

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

4. Oh, brother. n/t

[JuniperLea]

5. You need to change your title! Did you actually read the piece?

He said he was upset over the terrorist attacks. There are few here that are NOT upset about what the US has done under BushCo.

So, your point is?

[LeftishBrit]

21. He can't change the title. It's against the rules to post a different title from the original one.

[no limit]

24. Then why post something you know is false? He shouldnt have posted it at all

but something tells me facts dont matter to him.

[JuniperLea]

28. Is it?

Can you link to that rule, please?

[LeftishBrit]

30. Here's the link to the forum rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x21970


The relevant item, under the heading 'New threads', is:


'The subject heading for threads must contain the title of the source article. The only exception is when you must shorten long titles or to make the subject of the article more clear.'

I've seen quite a few threads in this forum locked because people changed article titles in their subject headings.

[JuniperLea]

32. Well, doesn't that propagate bullshit!

Thanks for the info. I hadn't read that before.

[Ian David]

6. That doesn't actually sound so much "supportive" of the 9/11 attacks as placing it in context.

As he says, "I am upset by the terrorist attack, but I am at least as upset over the suffering that the US has caused. It is in this context that 5000 dead has to be seen."

[endarkenment]

7. Even for this awful forum, this OP blows.

" I am upset by the terrorist attack" = "supported 9/11 attacks". another ynet noise disaster.

[NaturalHigh]

14. "(T)he oppressed has a moral right to attack the US with the weapons they may create as well."

That seems pretty supportive to me.

[LeftishBrit]

17. He said "IF the US has a right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq..."

I would interpret his argument as saying that both the US actions and Al Quaeda's actions were terrorist in nature, and that if one accepts one, one needs to accept the other - so one should accept neither. Rather like saying to a child, "If you think it's all right to hit other people, then it must be all right for other people to hit you."

If he said it just after the 9-11 attacks, as seems to be the case, then it was certainly insensitive of him - but I wouldn't interpret it as actual support for the attacks. Unless he's said other things since that I don't know about.

In any case, I don't think his opinion is, or should be, the basis for how people judge Israel's (or anyone else's) actions - one way or another.

[Idealism]

8. Headlines are interesting: "Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel "

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html

[bemildred]

10. Shhhh. That's different. nt

[LeftishBrit]

20. Netanyahu is an insensitive idiot - and that's one of his better qualities.

Neither he nor Gilbert seem to have *supported* the attacks, but both were insensitive in using them as a basis for a political argument. The only appropriate response in the immediate aftermath of the attacks would have been to express regret.

[Idealism]

25. I was drawing a comparison to how badly worded headlines can be

In the article I posted, it was worded a bit tricky (probably because Ha'aretz was attempting to defame Bibi). Although this quote is interesting:

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

I disdain anyone using 9/11 for political purposes (Rudy G., BushCo). It sickens me.

[Ian David]

9. Damn you, Doctor Who!

Oh, wait.

Never mind.

[ZombieHorde]

11. Very misleading subject line.

I was expecting a thread about Doctor Who.

[Mosby]

16. Logic, my dear Zombie,

merely enables one to be wrong with authority.

Happy now?

[madrchsod]

12. oh no..... another ynet news release

[bemildred]

15. No no, Ynet is great, I use them all the time. nt

[azurnoir]

56. More on that statement

A statement made to Dagbladet in the wake of the September 11 attacks was met with strong reactions.<1> His statement to Dagbladet was: "The attack on New York did not come as a surprise with the politics the West has followed the last decades. I am upset by the terrorist attack, but I am at least as upset over the suffering that the US has caused. It is in this context that 5000 dead has to be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, the oppressed has a moral right to attack the U.S. with the weapons they may create as well. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis." When asked if he supported a terrorist attack against the US he answered: "Terror is a poor weapon, but my answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned." <9>

In an interview with the Norwegian news agency NTB in 2009, Gilbert described his own statements in the aftermath of 9/11 as "unwise and ill-considered", stressing that he is completely against terror against civilians.<10>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mads_Gilbert

"odd" that last bit was left out, but then it would have compromised the purpose of the article wouldn't it?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

60. Hey Mosby, are you hoping some people read only the title and not the article?

What a bunch of BS!

[Mosby]

61. For the record I think the headline stinks

and I hope everyone reads the entire article.

I don't think the main issue here is his comments about 911, which apparently he clarified (thx azurnoir) but his statements on television where he was presented as an unbiased observer when he wasn't.

[Chulanowa]

64. Do you even know what "supported" means?

I don't think you do. Support would be commending the perpetrators. This is not what he's doing.

But thanks for the propaganda and attempt at a cahracter assassination. I hope you have fun supporting the mass murderers and war criminals that make up the Israeli government, sir.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

68. He clearly has an agenda and after questions about a video is no long considered credible by the MSM

That does not mean that some of what he says is not true, but you will no longer see him in the MSM