Sounds Like Israel Has Had Enough...

[layoutshooter]

Follow any, and all, news sources, and you will be misled.

 

[muttly]

Hmmm ... vacant schools ...


That's where those phantom "human shields" attend, right ?

... lol ...

Straw argument. I didn't say in THIS INCIDENT that they were using it for human shields. Rather obvious in the title of the article. They are endangering lives however by putting them there.
From article:
It said the incident was the first of its kind, warning that it “endangered civilians including staff and put at risk UNRWA’s vital mission.”

 

[Turtle]

Kind of goes against the false narrative advanced by Turtle that I've feverishly googled everything to discredit him now does it? Hehehe.

If you go back and read my statement, you'll notice that I didn't advance that narrative at all. I would appreciate it if you are going to characterize my statements that you do so accurately, in the proper context, and in the proper tense. I didn't say that you had (past tense) feverishly Googled anything, I simply stated that you will, because of a desperate need to do so. So your assertion that it is a false narrative, and that I advanced it, in untrue and changes the context of my statements.

 

[muttly]

Snippy because your very first response to this was to post Scott Whitlock's assessment of Mohyeldin's comments as being "derisive" despite the fact that Mohyeldin's comments were nothing more than factually stating what the State Department said. All Mohyeldin did was report the facts without bias, and Whitlock (and by association you, since that was your response) claims it's biased when it clearly is not. Like I said earlier, in the minds of many, if your reporting isn't pro-Israel, then it's biased against Israel and you are therefore pro-Hamas.

Your conclusion that my conclusion is based solely on a hunch is ridiculous. You should know me well enough by now to realize I'm not one to make definitive or strong opinionated statements based on mere hunches. It's not based on a hunch, it's based on the facts at hand. Like I said in #22, his reporting was facts delivered in an impartial manner, some of which was not at all flattering to Israel, and in the eyes of pro Israel folks that equates to not being pro Israel, which means he's pro-Hamas. NBC News, like all US mainstream media, is pro Israel, and always have been. And they won't tolerate reporters putting Israel in a negative light, even if the reporting is true, unless there is no way around it. NBC News stated they pulled him off the story for "security reasons" because of an impending ground assault, which falls disingenuous, since they continue to report from there, and sent into Gaza Richard Engel along with an American producer who has never been to Gaza and speaks no Arabic. One could certainly speculate that NBC News got word that if they didn't shut him up and tow the line, then he or other NBC News reporters would be accidentally killed by lightening or lead rubber bullets, or, even more horrific, they would lose certain access to stories and political figures. But Occam's Razor being what it is, the likely reason behind his pulling is that he wasn't pro-Israel enough with his Five Ws.

Do keep in mind that Jews have a rather large and impressive representation in the American news media, tend to be (understatement) pro Israel and that Richard Engel is Jewish. He has no love lost for Arab Muslims, especially after that incident where he and 2 of his crew members were kidnapped in Syria by shabiha militia, which is allied with Hezbollah.

So, this "hunch" is based on the fact that NBC News, who is pro Israel, yanked the unbiased Egyptian-American reporter who had the gall to report unflattering truths about Israel, and replaced him toot sweet with an anti-Hamas, pro-Israel Jew.

Just speculation on your part. Some of it down right, wackishly wacky. You really don't know why he was removed. Again your comment previously was that he was removed because he reported unflattering things about Israel. You don't know that.You also didn't address the controversial tweet when he said 'talk among yourselves'. Sounds like he is taking sides in the matter and showing his bias.You would agree with that right? He obviously, by his flippant remark, blames Israel and holds them responsible.
You didn't mentioned that I provided a Wikipedia link ,that was just updated yesterday, and had no mention of the controversial tweet. The other New York magazine article I provided had in the story a link from RCP and comments from someone from Mondoweiss. The article addressed both sides.
Regarding Engel being Jewish, I guess it's as irrelevant as Mohyeldin's mother being Palestinian. Right? Rrrriiiight.

 

[muttly]

If you go back and read my statement, you'll notice that I didn't advance that narrative at all. I would appreciate it if you are going to characterize my statements that you do so accurately, in the proper context, and in the proper tense. I didn't say that you had (past tense) feverishly Googled anything, I simply stated that you will, because of a desperate need to do so. So your assertion that it is a false narrative, and that I advanced it, in untrue and changes the context of my statements.

Turtle quote:
I understand the overwhelming, seemingly desperate need to Google your fingers raw looking for something, anything, to discredit Ayman Mohyeldin as a biased reporter, as a pro-Hamas shill, especially since you probably never even heard of him until very recently, but you won't be able to. At least not with facts. You'll have to use someone else's biased opinion to do it, someone who is pro-Israel to the point where they believe, like the RealClearPolitics commentator, that Israel can do no wrong, ever.
Good grief ,you're really trying to split hairs aren't you. No mischaracterization on MY part.
You mentioned that I Will after I already provided the links,and I didn't.
I provided TWO links out of FOUR that were not unfavorable to him.
So it is a false narrative on your part.

 

[Turtle]

Just speculation on your part. Some of it down right, wackishly wacky.

Other than the parts that I said were speculation, which parts are wackishly wacky speculation?

You really don't know why he was removed.

Yes, I know that. In fact, I think I've already said that I don't.

Again your comment previously was that he was removed because he reported unflattering things about Israel. You don't know that.

No, I don't know that. But I can come to that conclusion that based on evidence and the most likely scenarios.

You also didn't address the controversial tweet when he said 'talk among yourselves'.

I didn't comment on it because it ain't all that controversial. He Tweeted a fact. A fact by definition cannot be controversial. It's only controversial because it isn't pro-Israel, despite it being a fact.

Sounds like he is taking sides in the matter and showing his bias.You would agree with that right?

No, I wouldn't agree with that at all. He Tweeted a fact, and took no sides at all.

He obviously, by his flippant remark, blames Israel and holds them responsible.

How is a solicitation for people to Tweet their comments a flippant remark? As far as blaming Israel and holding them responsible, well, they are to blame and they should be held responsible. To indicate anything otherwise would be taking sides.

You didn't mentioned that I provided a Wikipedia link ,that was just updated yesterday, and had no mention of the controversial tweet.

Again, it wasn't controversial, and I didn't comment on it because I had nothing to say about it, didn't think it was worth commenting on. Does that link feel slighted by me in some way? Would you like for me to comment on it?

The other New York magazine article I provided had in the story a link from RCP and comments from someone from Mondoweiss. The article addressed both sides.

Yeah, because Monoweiss is known far and wide for it impartiality on Israel.

Regarding Engel being Jewish, I guess it's as irrelevant as Mohyeldin's mother being Palestinian. Right? Rrrriiiight.

It's not irrelevant, but it's not really a factor, considering his history of unbiased reporting in the region.

 

[Turtle]

Good grief ,you're really trying to split hairs aren't you. No mischaracterization on MY part.

Not at all. Past tense is accusing of you already doing something, and in this case it would accusing you of something that I don't think you did. Stating that I believe that you will do so in the future is very different from accusing you of already doing something.

You mentioned that I Will after I already provided the links,and I didn't.

You mean you haven't YET. There's still time.

I provided TWO links out of FOUR that were not unfavorable to him.
So it is a false narrative on your part.

That's because you're just getting started. You provided TWO of FOUR that were biased opinions of others that were unfavorable to him. Which is pretty much what I said in the narrative.

 

[muttly]

Not at all. Past tense is accusing of you already doing something, and in this case it would accusing you of something that I don't think you did. Stating that I believe that you will do so in the future is very different from accusing you of already doing something.

You mean you haven't YET. There's still time.

That's because you're just getting started. You provided TWO of FOUR that were biased opinions of others that were unfavorable to him. Which is pretty much what I said in the narrative.

Accusing me of something I will do in the future. That makes perfect sense.BTW I would appreciate if you didn't speculate on what I will do in the future. YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW.
Again you DON'T KNOW if I'm just getting started. I may very well already finished. Linking a balanced article and a Wikipedia page isn't pretty much what you said in the narrative .

 

[Pilgrim]

It's interesting that the link to the RealClearPolitics piece has his words described as a "a pro-Hamas rant" when the reality is his words are nothing more than a bland reporting of the Five Ws done without bias. It's a simple laying out of the facts, every one of which is true and verifiable. It's also telling that he categorized a statement of fact as a "complaint." Twice.

It might help to actually read the transcript.

Mohyeldin: Well the United States can definitely play a pivotal role. I don’t think people in this part of the world feel it has played the role it should be playing. And that really comes down to two very important factors: One, the United States does not have any direct contact with the Palestinian factions which it, and Israel, and others label as terrorist organizations. Despite the fact Hamas did win democratic elections here, despite the fact that it is a part of the fabric of Palestinian politics. That simply cannot be ignored or isolated or marginalized. They have instead focused on the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and this hasn’t necessarily produced tangible results. So, there’s a lot of problems in terms of getting everyone on the same table. Not everyone sits at the same table. So, people would first, and U.S. officials in the past, including President Jimmy Carter and others, they’ve argued that that dynamic in itself has to change; there has to be a bigger, wider table for negotiations in order for this problem to be solved. The other issue has to be able to rein in Israel in terms of the actions it takes on the ground. We referenced this yesterday, one of the biggest issues, and because Israel is such a dependent recipient of U.S. military aid, and money, that when it comes to Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, it hasn’t stopped, despite the fact that the U.S. opposes this policy. People in this part of the world will say, very simply, well, how can the U.S., which gives so much money to Israel, not stop it from doing something against the U.S. interest, which is a two-state solution.

This is not bland reporting of the facts - it's editorializing, and it starts when he says "I don't think...". It's obvious that "people in this part of the world" translates to "Palestinians", and he's offering his opinion that he "thinks" the US should be negotiating with Hamas (a terrorist organization) and should "rein in Israel" (a sovereign nation). First of all, he's not entirely correct about the US not negotiating with Hamas; the US has formally announced that they would work with the new unity government of Palestine that includes Hamas, as stated in this prophetic article dated June 4 of this year:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/w...looms-over-latest-israel-us-dispute.html?_r=0

Maybe Mohyeldin should have included a few comments about why the Israelis accepted the Egyptian proposed cease-fire and the Palestinians didn't, instead of worrying about the US not reining in Israel. In the interest of fairness, he might also have mentioned the possibility of reining in the Palestinians, considering the amount of US monetary aid they receive.

 

[Pilgrim]

This article by Charles Krauthammer offers the clearest picture yet offered about the conflict in Gaza.

Apologists for Hamas attribute the bloodlust to the Israeli occupation and blockade. Occupation? There is not a soldier, not a settler, not a single Israeli in Gaza. Does no one remember anything? It was less than ten years ago that worldwide television showed the Israeli army pulling diehard settlers off synagogue roofs in Gaza as Israel uprooted it settlements, expelled its citizens, withdrew its military, and turned every inch of Gaza over to the Palestinians.There was no blockade. On the contrary. Israel wanted this new Palestinian state to succeed. To help the Gaza economy, Israel gave the Palestinians its 3,000 greenhouses that had produced fruit and flowers for export. It opened border crossings and encouraged commerce.
The whole idea was to establish the model for two states living peacefully and productively side by side. No one seems to remember that simultaneous with the Gaza withdrawal, Israel dismantled four smaller settlements in the northern West Bank as a clear signal of Israel’s desire to leave the West Bank too and thus achieve an amicable two-state solution...

The Truth about Gaza | National Review Online

 

[Turtle]

Accusing me of something I will do in the future. That makes perfect sense.

Once you know how predictable you are, you'll see that, too.

BTW I would appreciate if you didn't speculate on what I will do in the future. YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW.

I'm allowed to speculate.

Again you DON'T KNOW if I'm just getting started. I may very well already finished. Linking a balanced article and a Wikipedia page isn't pretty much what you said in the narrative .

So I take it you're done then?

 

[muttly]

Once you know how predictable you are, you'll see that, too.

I'm allowed to speculate.

So I take it you're done then?

No, suck on this for awhile :
NBC News Correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin Returning To Gaza
Now I am.

 

[Turtle]

It might help to actually read the transcript.

It might help even more if you actually watch the video and hear his own words from his own mouth in the context in which he said them. The transcript offers no context whatsoever.

This is not bland reporting of the facts - it's editorializing, and it starts when he says "I don't think...".

OK, I have to assume that you've never had any journalism courses. Like I said above, it would help you tremendously if you watched the video and heard his own words in the context in which he spoke them. He wasn't speaking in the context of bland reporting, and no, it didn't start when he said, "I don't think," it actually started when he was asked, "Do you think..?" He wasn't reporting, he was being interviewed.

But even at that, because of his experience and history in that part of the world, his perspective what he thinks is quite relevant, because it is based on comments and discussions and experiences he'd had over the years with people in that part of the world. He's giving his opinion based on facts, and did so in an unbiased manner. Yes, yes, I know, he wasn't flattering to Israel, I know that, but that doesn't mean he's biased.

It's obvious that "people in this part of the world" translates to "Palestinians",

It's even more obvious that "people in this part of the world" doesn't need to be translated at all. The only reason to do so would be if you want it to mean something other than what he said. He's sitting in the Middle East, and when he says "people in this part of the world" it translates to "people in this part of the world."

and he's offering his opinion that he "thinks" the US should be negotiating with Hamas (a terrorist organization) and should "rein in Israel" (a sovereign nation).

Wow, that's impressive. Did you find the ball scores in there, too? He didn't offer up his opinion, it was a continuation of what people in that part of the world believe.

What he said was very straightforward and matter of fact, and you still didn't comprehend it, and instead wanted it to mean something entirely different from what he actually said. That's, wow, I mean, whooo-wee I gotta tell you, that's slam-dunk impressive right there.

First of all, he's not entirely correct about the US not negotiating with Hamas; the US has formally announced that they would work with the new unity government of Palestine that includes Hamas, as stated in this prophetic article dated June 4 of this year:

He was entirely correct in what he said. The Palestinian factions which the US, Israel and others have labeled as terrorist organizations, the US does not, in fact, have any direct contact with. To state that the US would work with them, as part of a new unity government, in the future doesn't change the accuracy of his statement at all. Nor does a new, as yet unformed unity government equate to the factions which the US and Israel and others have labeled as terrorist organizations. Hamas as a part of a unity government does not a Hamas make. Unless you know of some direct US contact with Hamas that no one else knows about, including Hamas and the US, then his statement is dead on balls accurate.

Maybe Mohyeldin should have included a few comments about why the Israelis accepted the Egyptian proposed cease-fire and the Palestinians didn't, instead of worrying about the US not reining in Israel. In the interest of fairness, he might also have mentioned the possibility of reining in the Palestinians, considering the amount of US monetary aid they receive.

I'm not sure why you think he should have included any of that. None of what you propose he should have talked about is related to the question he was asked.

I understand that Mohyeldin isn't pro-Israel, and in your mind, clearly, that makes him pro-Hamas and/or anti-Israel. You can choose to believe that if you like, but it's not the truth.

 

[Turtle]

No, suck on this for awhile :
NBC News Correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin Returning To Gaza
Now I am.

Not really surprising that NBC News would do that, considering the backlash they faced in the aftermath of removing him.

 

[muttly]

Not really surprising that NBC News would do that, considering the backlash they faced in the aftermath of removing him.

Turtle wrote:
'Do keep in mind that Jews have a rather large and impressive representation in the American news media, tend to be (understatement) pro Israel and that Richard Engel is Jewish. He has no love lost for Arab Muslims, especially after that incident where he and 2 of his crew members were kidnapped in Syria by shabiha militia, which is allied with Hezbollah.

So, this "hunch" is based on the fact that NBC News, who is pro Israel, yanked the unbiased Egyptian-American reporter who had the gall to report unflattering truths about Israel, and replaced him toot sweet with an anti-Hamas, pro-Israel Jew.'



So much for the so called powerful Jewish News Media keeping the Arab reporter off the news. Kind of debunks that whole theory that they just want the Jew reporter in there for the pro Israel slant. So Engel is the anti Hamas, pro Israel reporter. That isn't based on anything coherent .

 

[Turtle]

Turtle wrote:
'Do keep in mind that Jews have a rather large and impressive representation in the American news media, tend to be (understatement) pro Israel and that Richard Engel is Jewish. He has no love lost for Arab Muslims, especially after that incident where he and 2 of his crew members were kidnapped in Syria by shabiha militia, which is allied with Hezbollah.

So, this "hunch" is based on the fact that NBC News, who is pro Israel, yanked the unbiased Egyptian-American reporter who had the gall to report unflattering truths about Israel, and replaced him toot sweet with an anti-Hamas, pro-Israel Jew.'



So much for the so called powerful Jewish News Media keeping the Arab reporter off the news. Kind of debunks that whole theory that they just want the Jew reporter in there for the pro Israel slant. So Engel is the anti Hamas, pro Israel reporter. That isn't based on anything coherent .

Your frustration, and desperation, is showing.

"So much for the so called powerful Jewish News Media keeping the Arab reporter off the news."

Who said that? I know I didn't. While the Jews do indeed have a rather large and impressive presence in the American media, and they do tend to be pro-Israel, they aren't all powerful (or all stupid - they know the value of ratings dollars, afterall) and they aren't 100% pro-Israel in all cases.

"Kind of debunks that whole theory that they just want the Jew reporter in there for the pro Israel slant."

It really doesn't debunk it at all. They pulled someone who wasn't reporting in a pro-Israel fashion and replaced him directly with someone with a history of doing just that. The fact that circumstances changed so that it was no longer feasible to be that overt about it made it virtually impossible to be so blatantly biased moving forward. At least in the short term. We shall see what happens in the next few weeks and months.

"So Engel is the anti Hamas, pro Israel reporter. That isn't based on anything coherent ."

Actually it is.

 

[RLENT]

Kind of goes against the false narrative advanced by Turtle that I've feverishly googled everything to discredit him now does it? Hehehe.

Ahhh ... I think with you refusing to put down the shovel and continuing to dig ever deeper - seemingly with wild abandon - I'll mostly be taking this next week off ... lol ... assuming good weather ...

Much to get done around the place before I head back out on the road ... and at the rate you're going, there's probably very little I can add ...

But I'll check in from time to time ... and keep an eye on your progress ...

 

[RLENT]

And your problem with Richard Engel is what? Be PRECISE.
Richard Engel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That might be a flawed assumption don't you think ... that I have much of a problem with Richard Engle ?

I mean just because Richard Engle was mentioned in my post, doesn't necessarily mean the issue I have is primarily ... with him.

After all, he probably wasn't the one to make the decision about pulling the reporter covering the story and replace him with another ...

Evidently, this sailed right over your head ...

Don't let those trees keep ya from seeing the forest ...

 

[RLENT]

Straw argument.

No, actually it's not ...

First off, it wasn't an argument - it was simply a little bit of rhetoric to "tune up" the fanatical supporters of Israel ... who are prone to mindlessly repeating the "human shield" propaganda and other assorted pro-Israel Hasbara™ ...

You know: the jibbering morons - like those writing over at Weasel Zippers ... who write a headline like this:

"UN Shocked To Find Hamas Rockets Found In One Of Their Schools ..."

... when the story/article (from AFP) that the Zipperheads apparently based their article off of, actually says this:

"... Yesterday, in the course of the regular inspection of its premises, UNRWA discovered approximately 20 rockets hidden in a vacant school in the Gaza Strip," the agency said in a statement.

"UNRWA strongly condemns the group or groups responsible for placing the weapons in one of its installations," it continued. ..."

UNRWA investigates rockets found in Gaza school | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR

See anything in that AFP article @ The Daily Star about these rockets being Hamas' ?

Yeah ... I didn't think so ...

Yet apparently you - as evidenced by your own statement - lapped it up like a starving mutt at a full food bowl:

They were probably planted in there to make Hamas look bad.

What's to say they weren't PFLP rockets ?

Or the DFLP's ?

Or the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade's ?

Or one of the other dozen or more Palestinian armed resistance groups that exist ?

The importance really isn't whether the rockets were Hamas' or not ... it's that the journalism is honest and accurate, reports the facts - and avoids being misleading and perverting the truth in service of an ideological agenda.

Unfortunately that is as much a conservative problem as it is a liberal one ...

Also unfortunately some folks are so fanatically ideological that they really don't care about accuracy and truth. And a lot of them don't even know it.

I didn't say in THIS INCIDENT that they were using it for human shields.

Well ... I certainly didn't say that you had ...

Rather obvious in the title of the article.

Rather irrelevant.

They are endangering lives however by putting them there.

By all means: feel free to elaborate on that:

How the presence of something endangers lives that apparently aren't there ...

From article:
It said the incident was the first of its kind, warning that it “endangered civilians including staff and put at risk UNRWA’s vital mission.”

Oh - so this hasn't happened before ...

Good to know ... thanks for clearing that up ...

 

[RLENT]

So I take it you're done then?

No, suck on this for awhile :
NBC News Correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin Returning To Gaza
Now I am.

LOL ... apparently not ... since the dirt continues to fly off of your shovel ...