-
Posts
-
Well if my comments seem one-sided look at the facts:
13 Israeli civilians dead, 300 Lebanese civilians dead.
The facts speak for themselves and it’s not hizbollah that is putting the lives of british citizens in danger. I’m not advocating for Britain to get involved in the war, it’s just a case that we need to put our foot down when our citizens are in danger. It’s totally absurd that British citizens should be stuck in Lebanon fearing for their lives. They have to stay where they are in the line of fire because our government has been too soft with Israel. It’s a disgrace. All Tony Blair needs to do is get Ehud Olmert on the phone and insist that all British citizens should have safe passage out of the country. We shouldn’t have to wait for permission from Israel. The British government needs to impose its own evacuation timetable on Israel.
Imagine if you were stuck in a country with bombs raining down all around you and you were told that the government couldn’t rescue you because it hadn’t got permission from the country that was launching the bombing raids, a country of about 5 million people. A powerful country of around 60 million people is now taking orders from a minor nation of 5 million people. It’s madness.
I thought this article from The Wall Street Journal might add something to the debate. A good examination of the situation Lebanon finds herself in, I reckon.
I wonder how many pro-hizbollah opinions the wall street journal publishes? It sort of proves that the american media is heavily biased. If you watch the american reports about this conflict on ABC, CBS, C-Span, CNN you’ll notice that they are all pro-israel and anti-hizbollah, anti-palestinian, anti-arab etc. There’s no balance and so people can’t see both sides of the argument and form their own conclusions.
Looking at some of the other articles on the WSJ it’s clear that they are pro-israel in a big way too. They even have an article by benyamin netanyahu who is as hardline, right-wing, israeli as they come. The american public is being subjected to propaganda instead of news.
No, no, Mr. Bigstuff, who do you think you are? Mr. Bigstuff, you’re never gonna get my love and you’ll have to do better than than that. It’s fine to criticise sources but there has to be some basis for it apart from the nature of the publication. If you look at the bottom of the article, you’ll see it was penned by the Lebanese born, Mr. Ajami, a 2006 Bradley Prize recipient, …the Majid Khadduri Professor and director of the Middle East Studies Program at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
A man that clearly knows what he is on about, even if his general political views are known to lean towards the right. I introduced the article, as I mentioned, to further the debate. If you have problems with the basic tenets of the piece or the nature of the argument then you’d better spell them out, otherwise I think it’s fair to assume you have no interest in rational debate and are purely acting as an apologist and propagandist for one side only.
You said it was a good examination of the situation lebanon finds itself in, but it only gives one side of the story, so it would not be a piece capable of fully informing anyone about the complex political situation in lebanon. It proves my point that Americans only get 1 side of the story.
My point is that rather than being an objective piece of journalism aimed at informing readers, it is an article aimed purely at expressing the opinion of the journalist. There’s nothing wrong with that in itself but you can’t use that article to explain all that’s going on in lebanon because it doesn’t give the full story.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!