Joe the Plumber thinks reporters shouldn't cover wars

Must.....resist....smashing....head.....against... ...wall!!

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0111?hub=World

Quote:

---

"To be honest with ya, I don't think journalists should be (allowed) anywhere near . . . war," Wurzelbacher told other reporters in the Israeli town of Sderot. "You guys report where our troops are at, what's happening day-to-day, you make a big deal out of it. I think it's asinine.

---

Yeah, covering wars is so 2008.

Quote:

---

"I like back in World War One and World War Two when you go to the theatre and you'd see your troops on the screen and everyone be really excited and happy for them."

---

Uh......yeah....

Quote:

---

"Now, everyone's got an opinion," he added.

---

Umm.....aren't you actually a plumber, Joe?

Quote:

---

Wurzelbacher added that "war is hell and if you're going to sit there and say, 'Look at this atrocity,' well, you don't know the full story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it."

---

Yes, we need to trust the government more and question them less!!
Sounds like Joe the experienced journalist doesn't like his latest gig!

No link and "Joe the plumber's" points intentionally not understood. That's my biggest peeve with things like this. People comment on nit-picky details and don't take what somebody, who I'm assuming was just making comments, actually means.

Judging from what very little bit you've posted it seems that the individual being quoted thinks that the media tends to A) pull a Geraldo and B) only reports the sensationalized.

So, can we get a link and actually read what you're point is based on?

Where is the citation? I understand that you hate all things related to Republicans/America/politics that aren't extreme left, but at least give a source.

Samuel Wurzelbacher is a media whore who got a taste of the spotlight and is now hooked.

Quote:

---

Wurzelbacher said he took the job to cover the war because he was an "expert on media bias."

---

So is Britney Spears, but nobody thought it was a good idea to send her over.

Quote:

---

Western reporters said that while the appearance of America's most famous plumber might have caused a strange look or two among the press pool, Israeli citizens at a busy cafe did not seem to recognize him.

---

America's most famous plumber(s) will ALWAYS be Mario and Luigi. End of story.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
Where is the citation? I understand that you hate all things related to Republicans/America/politics that aren't extreme left, but at least give a source.

---

Don't you know by now? For kestra, you just assume everything is from MoveOn.org or DailyKos and go there right off.

the link has been up there for about 20 minutes now. Look up, look waaaaaay up!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
the link has been up there for about 20 minutes now. Look up, look waaaaaay up!!

---

How does that change my point?

How does that change the fact that it wasn't up there when those people asked?

Silly kestra.

I merely forgot to add the link when I made the original post. Shit happens.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Shit happens.

---

It certainly does.

Come on kestra. It made for some good natured teasing is all. :)

You don't actually expect people to take these screeds seriously, do you?

I don't think journalists should take journalistic advice from unlicensed plumbers.

I can't say I don't like Joe the Plumber. What I don't like is how politics causes people like this to get recognition and attention for things that aren't relevant and yet more people know about Joe the Plumber than the do about Ralph Nader or Bob Barr.. 2 people who were actually running for president and were on the ballot in many states.

I am not going to tell journalists how to do their job just as I don't want them to tell me how to do mine. I just choose not to pay money for the sensationalized, exaggerated, incorrect and sometimes downright false reporting we get in the US.

If people like providing infortainment and are making a good buck at it they should continue to do it.

I see no reason for UNBIAS reporting of war..

thing is, it's all about theatrics now and sales of papers, why there are so many doctoring the photos, which just hurts the covering of the war.
The guy in "we were Soldiers "that was there and almost killed getting the photos..THAT's reporting, the ones that show up after the fact that is just sensationalism.

the opinion of " Joe The warehouse guy"

(just doesn't have same ring huh?)

I find it ironic that he claims to be there providing unbiased reporting on the war situation, however he has already made up his mind that Israel is being unfairly treated by the media without providing any facts. I didn't think he need to travel all the way around the world to tell us his preconceived opinions..

Caveat: I wouldn't recognize Joe the Plumber if I tripped over him. I've never heard or seen him on tv. Yes, this means I have been avoiding all political TV for at least 6+ months. I have a bare bones knowledge of his "role" in the Republican campaign, and that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I didn't think he need to travel all the way around the world to tell us his preconceived opinions..

---

Why not? That's what all the other "journalists" are doing.

The massive amount of complete BULLSHIT journalism I've seen coming out of reuters and international press over the past 5 years (Staged 'atrocities', brand new bullets supposedly dug out of walls, brand new toys placed atop unidentified rubble to support sensationalist stories, etc, etc, etc.) leads me to be more inclined to trust the integrity of a plumbers reporting than that of a journalists.

GG, journos.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sebboe
I don't think journalists should take journalistic advice from unlicensed plumbers.

I can't say I don't like Joe the Plumber. What I don't like is how politics causes people like this to get recognition and attention for things that aren't relevant and yet more people know about Joe the Plumber than the do about Ralph Nader or Bob Barr.. 2 people who were actually running for president and were on the ballot in many states.

I just choose not to pay money for the sensationalized, exaggerated, incorrect and sometimes downright false reporting we get in the US.

If people like providing infortainment and are making a good buck at it they should continue to do it.

---

Well Sebboe, this isn't just relative to Joe the Plumber rather than Drive By Media all together. There is a reason that many newspapers, and tv news are loosing ratings, and market shares.


Furthermore, Have you turned on your local 5 or 6 o'clock news? Really they call that news?

Having problem with quotes in quotes and so forth, so here's the original post with commentary added:

Quote:

---

"To be honest with ya, I don't think journalists should be (allowed) anywhere near . . . war," Wurzelbacher told other reporters in the Israeli town of Sderot. "You guys report where our troops are at, what's happening day-to-day, you make a big deal out of it. I think it's asinine.

---

Quote:

---

Kestra commented:
Yeah, covering wars is so 2008.

---

Guess what? I agree with him. How many times a day are we bombarded with "PERSON KILLED IN ROCKET ATTACK ZOMG! WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ISRAEL!? And now to a pointless talking head for five minutes of circumlocution." The news loses meaning when you treat every troop movement, every incident of fire, and every little boom as a massive development in any kind of conflict. Guess what? Stuff is always going to explode.

Quote:

---

"I like back in World War One and World War Two when you go to the theatre and you'd see your troops on the screen and everyone be really excited and happy for them."

---

Ok, this is a pretty dated reference. Plus, those news reels were just thinly veiled propaganda. Point Kestra.

Quote:

---

"Now, everyone's got an opinion," he added.

---

Quote:

---

Kestra commented:
Umm.....aren't you actually a plumber, Joe?

---

Aren't you a caterer or chef of some kind? It's obvious to EVERYONE that you have an opinion and love to share it. What was the point of your comment other than to assert that his profession makes him unable to comment intelligently on issues? Do you realize that you have just BLOWN MY MIND!? And not in a good way.

Quote:

---

Wurzelbacher added that "war is hell and if you're going to sit there and say, 'Look at this atrocity,' well, you don't know the full story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it."

---

Quote:

---

Kestra commented:
Yes, we need to trust the government more and question them less!!

---

What about his comment leads you to believe that this is what he is implying? Try this on: I don't think reporters should be embedded in military units. Doesn't that seem like a more reasonable, less straw-mannish thing to assume from his comment?

Quote:

---

Aren't you a caterer or chef of some kind? It's obvious to EVERYONE that you have an opinion and love to share it.

---

I sure am. I also have newspaper, radio and TV experience. That doesn't make me expert enough to host my own show. He is not a journalist or reporter. The difference between me and Sam W. is that I don't get paid for my opinions on wars. As I said before, he complains about media bias, when he himself is biased and has made up his opinion in regards to the war. This is an example of your quote "And now to a pointless talking head for five minutes of circumlocution." For some reason, you, pyjamas TV and Sam Wurzelbacher all feel he's qualified to cover this war because of his exposure during the presidential campaign. He and Sarah Palin made themselves look bad in front of cameras; but feel it's the media's fault for their lack of knowledge and understanding.

Quote:

---

Guess what? I agree with him. How many times a day are we bombarded with "PERSON KILLED IN ROCKET ATTACK ZOMG! WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ISRAEL!? And now to a pointless talking head for five minutes of circumlocution." The news loses meaning when you treat every troop movement, every incident of fire, and every little boom as a massive development in any kind of conflict. Guess what? Stuff is always going to explode.

---

You're welcome to your opinion Darion, but I still think you're loony!! ;) Explain to me why NOT covering war is better for the public.

Quote:

---

What about his comment leads you to believe that this is what he is implying? Try this on: I don't think reporters should be embedded in military units. Doesn't that seem like a more reasonable, less straw-mannish thing to assume from his comment?

---

Don't you think there would be far, far more atrocities committed and far far less accountability by both sides if the cameras weren't rolling?? I find it staggering that people feel that cameras don't belong in war zones.

I think what this guy is referring to is a change in the American Media that began in the late sixties with Walter Chronics LIES about the "war" in Vietnam. (i.e. Claiming that we had lost battles that we had actually won in some kind of communist sabatoge of the war at home.)

The Communist leaders at the time knew that this was going on and held hope in the fact that though they were losing the war in Vietnam, they had already won the war in the minds of the American people through the American media.

We see this same sort of thing going on today, and if I have to point to actual examples for anyone to agree with me then I'd be wasting my time to bother because you've already ignored them when you saw them the first time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I sure am. I also have newspaper, radio and TV experience. That doesn't make me expert enough to host my own show.

---

Taking that information into account and and comparing it to your average Vitrol-to-Content Ratio in any given post is both surprising and a little terrifying.

Quote:

---

He is not a journalist or reporter.

---

Uh, isn't he? Because you turn around and say:

Quote:

---

The difference between me and Sam W. is that I don't get paid for my opinions on wars.

---

As I said before, he complains about media bias, when he himself is biased and has made up his opinion in regards to the war.

Quote:

---

For some reason, you, pyjamas TV and Sam Wurzelbacher all feel he's qualified to cover this war because of his exposure during the presidential campaign.

---

I never said anything of the sort. I commented on his statements, which is precisely what you did, and you are assuming that because of this I presume the validity of his credentials. I don't know anything about the guy personally, but it's obvious that you allow your politically-based dislike to color your commentary.

Quote:

---

You're welcome to your opinion Darion, but I still think you're loony!! ;) Explain to me why NOT covering war is better for the public.

---

Not to be offensive, but this is why people here generally find you impossible to talk to.

Darion: I don't think reporters should be embedded in military units.

Kestra: Explain to me why NOT covering war is better for the public.

Darion: ...aroo?

See also: All-or-Nothing fallacy in the stickied logic thread in this forum.

Quote:

---

Don't you think there would be far, far more atrocities committed and far far less accountability by both sides if the cameras weren't rolling?? I find it staggering that people feel that cameras don't belong in war zones.

---

Maybe, but you and I can offer nothing but speculation as to whether or not this would actually prove to be the case. On the flipside, the cameras rolling also gives us Green Helmet guy. So due to this we can now assume that you prefer being blatantly lied to versus being ignorant? (sarcasm)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I find it ironic that he claims to be there providing unbiased reporting on the war situation, however he has already made up his mind that Israel is being unfairly treated by the media without providing any facts. I didn't think he need to travel all the way around the world to tell us his preconceived opinions..

---

You know, if this had come from any other person I wouldn't question it, but I find a distinct lack of venom directed at individuals who do precisely this same thing but maintain a point of view that you agree with. Who are you to say that his notions are preconceived? I also tend to think that Israel is getting the USA's damned if you do/damned if you don't treatment in the global media. Is my notion also dismissed as preconceived simply because you disagree?

Quote:

---

Taking that information into account and and comparing it to your average Vitrol-to-Content Ratio in any given post is both surprising and a little terrifying.

---

Why? Hosting a TV show requires more experience that I currently have. I don't see why that's terrifying.

Quote:

---

Uh, isn't he?

---

No, he isn't. Giving him a camera and microphone doesn't make him a journalist any more than putting on a pair of ballet shoes makes me a ballerina. Call him a commentator, or something else, just not a journalist. If I were a seasoned journalist having covered many wars, I'd be offended.

Quote:

---

I never said anything of the sort. I commented on his statements, which is precisely what you did, and you are assuming that because of this I presume the validity of his credentials. I don't know anything about the guy personally, but it's obvious that you allow your politically-based dislike to color your commentary.

---

Okay, I'll retract stating that you feel he's qualified. But why should I give credence to a plumber reporting in Israel? I still maintain that this man is unqualified and was picked up by pyjamas TV because of his over-extended 15 minutes of fame. I'd be willing to wager that if Sam W had never become known as Joe the Plumber and walked into PTV's office and asked for the same job, he would've been dismissed. He was hired because he has a familiar title, not because of job credentials. This is just another example of how sad and pitiful the state of journalism is today. Getting in TV face time wherever you can is more important than actually having something valid or informed to say. Shows like Billy O'Reilly's and Hannity and Colmes come to mind.

To re-phrase, please explain to me in more detail why you believe reporters shouldn't be embedded.

Quote:

---

I also tend to think that Israel is getting the USA's damned if you do/damned if you don't treatment in the global media. Is my notion also dismissed as preconceived simply because you disagree?

---

I agree with you regarding this Israel statement. You're a great debater Darion and seem quite informed on many issues. However if you became famous somehow like Sam W. did and were sent over there to cover the war, I'd be dubious about your qualifications as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
To re-phrase, please explain to me in more detail why you believe reporters shouldn't be embedded.

---

'kay, that one is easy: the purpose of a military is to break things and kill people. The amount of time spent training prior to a deployment is monstrous, which is also preceded by an even more intense "stand up"-type period. An embedded reporter generally has only a rudimentary understanding of military tactics and protocols, has no train-up period, and doesn't (is not permitted to) carry a weapon.

I am not a babysitter, and I feel that Bob the Reporter's seat in my humvee would have been far better utilized had it been filled with a well-trained (or even a poorly trained) soldier. You are essentially handing me a "Pick your poison" PR nightmare - far too many things can go wrong in far too many ways, whether it be an out-of-context photograph that winds up sparking WORLDWIDE MUSLIM OUTRAGE round #683478, or the poor schlub just getting killed and everyone around him getting nailed to a cross for it. Having a reporter taggling along is akin to telling me "The best you can hope for is to break even like none of this ever happened".

Quote:

---

I agree with you regarding this Israel statement. You're a great debater Darion and seem quite informed on many issues. However if you became famous somehow like Sam W. did and were sent over there to cover the war, I'd be dubious about your qualifications as well.

---

I mean, if the guy has no creds, he has no creds. I fully understand the point you were getting at if you mean that he should have never been provided this sort of opportunity. Personally, I believe the extent to which some people milk their 15 minutes is insane, but that is immaterial to the points he raises. We are capable of debating his commentary and the informed-ness of his statements without debating the person.

Quote:

---

'kay, that one is easy: the purpose of a military is to break things and kill people. The amount of time spent training prior to a deployment is monstrous, which is also preceded by an even more intense "stand up"-type period. An embedded reporter generally has only a rudimentary understanding of military tactics and protocols, has no train-up period, and doesn't (is not permitted to) carry a weapon.

---

I doubt you seriously believe the military's job is so narrow, cut and dry, but I get your point.
I think you and I are looking at a conflict from 2 different perspectives. I can see your point regarding having reporters being very superficially trained to be in such an environment. For sure pictures get snapped and distributed and taken out of context. But many don't. The famous one that comes to mind is the picture of the naked and bloody child walking destitute during the Vietnam war. That image was so powerful!! Why shouldn't the public see that? Given the last 8 years of misinformation, deception and conspiracy, I think media embedding is more important than ever.
I recall 2 reporters who covered the Iraq war who seemed really great. I can't remember their names to save my life, but one was an Australian man; very passionate, and the other was a drop dead gorgeous British blonde who was smart as a whip.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I doubt you seriously believe the military's job is so narrow, cut and dry, but I get your point.

---

Topic for another thread, but yes, I do believe that and almost word for word. You can adequately sum up the entire conventional military organization into people that break things and people that enable the thing-breakers to break things more efficiently. Off-topic commentary over - I'll talk about military topics all day, so feel free to start up a thread if the spirit moves you.

Quote:

---

I think you and I are looking at a conflict from 2 different perspectives.

---

Honestly, yes. I look at it as a matter of survivability. Being a cold-hearted prick, I tend to support almost anything that improves said survivability for members of the military. Not having to sheperd a reporter around a combat zone is one of those things, and not only is it a question of the reporter's presence directly affecting the ability of soldiers not to get all dead and such, it also provides the tertiary consideration of perhaps making you famous for all the wrong reasons.

You see this in terms of freedom of the press - super. I'm all for freedom of the press and heavily against censorship in any fashion, except in situations where (see above) it might directly affect the ability of someone to not get all blowed up (such as not broadcasting "Yeah, so the Marines are totally planning a huge offensive into Fallujah in the next few days", for example).

Quote:

---

I can see your point regarding having reporters being very superficially trained to be in such an environment. For sure pictures get snapped and distributed and taken out of context. But many don't.

---

I get it - I really do. But the thing is, having a reporter in one's general vicinity exponentially increases the chance that something, anything, will get drastically overblown. I believe Prince Harry is currently on the mainstream media's Celebrity Racism Crucifix for using the term "raghead". Compared to what trainees endure in basic, this is practically a term of endearment. I highly doubt that he has grown up indoctrinated in anti-Arab racism.

Quote:

---

Given the last 8 years of misinformation, deception and conspiracy, I think media embedding is more important than ever.

---

You know, this might be one of the strongest arguments I've ever heard you make. And I agree that it is necessary in theory, but I disagree strongly in practice. When I have that kind of split in my reasoning, I tend to almost always default to the practical solution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
Topic for another thread, but yes, I do believe that and almost word for word. You can adequately sum up the entire conventional military organization into people that break things and people that enable the thing-breakers to break things more efficiently. Off-topic commentary over - I'll talk about military topics all day, so feel free to start up a thread if the spirit moves you.

---

Mythbusters: Breaking big things, for science! ("Boom Lift Catapult")

Military: Breaking big things, with science!

Whatever you may say about war itself, the threat of war has done society a lot of good sometimes, by providing impetus for research and development - the US government says "The USSR is doing blah blah, so we need a counter-move", and pour fundage into development of aeroplanes, missiles, rockets, the space programme, ARPANET, encryption... the list is endless. The US DoD (and of course other coiuntries' military forces) has had dollars to put to scientific development, and primarily because of the threat of war. We then see the benefit in the civilian arena - aeroplanes use plenty of military-developed technology; Virgin Galactic has taken "men on the moon" from science with military application to commercial reality; and you wouldn't be playing Threshold RPG if it hadn't been for packet-switching networks.

Getting back on _this_ thread's topic... Journos seem to think that (a) it is the right of the American people to see everything and know everything; (b) therefore, someone must go everywhere and report on everything; and (c) that the military has to let them. None of these is guaranteed. I mean, if there's a major volcanic eruption, do you see reporters swarming to the mountain and going inside to report on the nature of things underneath? Ridiculous, but how different is that from going into a war zone?

Quote:

---

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Help for vulnerability (General Help)
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
When the difference in <s>guild level (glevel)</s>combat training between the highest and lowest
member of a group exceeds a certain range, the disparity results in everyone
in the party being more vulnerable to attack (they will take more damage than
usual when wounded). This is because the stronger members have too much of
their attention drawn towards protecting the weakest, and the weakest member
is doing everything he or she can not to mess up the highly advanced tactics
and strategies of the more powerful party members.

---

Thanks Ari, I think you've accurately explained non-combatants going out with a combat unit.

Israel is not allowing journalists into Gaza. Al Jazeera does have some journalists in Gaza, however most people do not have access/watch Al Jazeera in the west.

Nobody knows what is happening in Gaza because the only people who can speak are discredited (ie, that Norwegian doctor who has Michelle Malkin, and LGF pants' in a knot) or arrive too late to do anything.

The IDF tell their version of what is happening in Gaza. For example, they tell us that the UN school which was bombed, killing 40 civilians, was fired on for launching rockets. In fact, that turns out not to be true, and they were caught out on that for all that it matters.
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...870087,00.html

They don't tell us though, that they let 4 young children starve by their dead mothers, too weak to move, or that the IDF stood by and threatened red cross workers when they wanted to evacuate these babies and a wounded man, 4 days after the shells landed.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-12377,00.html

They also didn't tell us that they herded 110 members of one family into a house - women, children, men - which they later shelled repeatedly. I remember reading rumours of it early on, but it took some days before the UN could confirm it, and actually send workers in there to help evacuate survivors:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/wo...10zeitoun.html

In any case. I go to bed thinking about those 4 small children and wonder what they were thinking about as they lay there day after day next to their rotting mothers. I hope that so many others do that the image will live for a thousand years as a warning about what can be gotten away with - what international laws can be ignored - when you can be confident that nobody will call you to account because nobody credible was there to witness it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
Israel is not allowing journalists into Gaza. Al Jazeera does have some journalists in Gaza, however most people do not have access/watch Al Jazeera in the west.

Nobody knows what is happening in Gaza because the only people who can speak are discredited (ie, that Norwegian doctor who has Michelle Malkin, and LGF pants' in a knot) or arrive too late to do anything.

The IDF tell their version of what is happening in Gaza. For example, they tell us that the UN school which was bombed, killing 40 civilians, was fired on for launching rockets. In fact, that turns out not to be true, and they were caught out on that for all that it matters.
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...870087,00.html

They don't tell us though, that they let 4 young children starve by their dead mothers, too weak to move, or that the IDF stood by and threatened red cross workers when they wanted to evacuate these babies and a wounded man, 4 days after the shells landed.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-12377,00.html

They also didn't tell us that they herded 110 members of one family into a house - women, children, men - which they later shelled repeatedly. I remember reading rumours of it early on, but it took some days before the UN could confirm it, and actually send workers in there to help evacuate survivors:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/wo...10zeitoun.html

In any case. I go to bed thinking about those 4 small children and wonder what they were thinking about as they lay there day after day next to their rotting mothers. I hope that so many others do that the image will live for a thousand years as a warning about what can be gotten away with - what international laws can be ignored - when you can be confident that nobody will call you to account because nobody credible was there to witness it.

---

Yes Malacasta you are right. It is very high likely that Hamas would bomb or mortar their own people for propaganda. Secondly, It's very highly unlikely that the TIME, and NyTimes both whom been having severe slumping sales are not grabbing this story simply to jump on the anti-Israel band wagon to generate sales?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
[B]Israel is not allowing journalists into Gaza. Al Jazeera does have some journalists in Gaza, however most people do not have access/watch Al Jazeera in the west.

---

This is because Al-Jazeera is a thinly veiled propaganda machine for pro-Arab interests.

Quote:

---

Nobody knows what is happening in Gaza because the only people who can speak are discredited (ie, that Norwegian doctor who has Michelle Malkin, and LGF pants' in a knot) or arrive too late to do anything.

The IDF tell their version of what is happening in Gaza.

---

Much like Hamas, the UN, and the Red Cross give us their version.

Quote:

---

For example, they tell us that the UN school which was bombed, killing 40 civilians, was fired on for launching rockets. In fact, that turns out not to be true, and they were caught out on that for all that it matters.
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...870087,00.html

---

Honestly, what goes on in your head when you think about war? You generally seem to paint pictures of constant atrocities of the worst kind, but only committed by one side. Everyone suffers. Do you think the IDF wants to be wandering around Gaza taking intermittent sniper/rocket fire just so they can have the chance to commit some war crimes on those eeeeeee-vil Palestinians?

I read each of those articles. To be frank, as far as the first article goes I have no pity for anyone killed in the school. If I had to make a judgement call based only on the value of the information contained within the article, I would immediately default to believing that the IDF was, in fact, engaged from the schoolhouse and the IDF was well within their rights to bomb the crap out of it.

I see no evidence contained within that article to indicate that the IDF was "caught out" doing something wrong except for several issuances of weasel words by the writer. I have personally observed shooting from mosques a dozen times simply because the necessary retaliation is going to arouse heated feelings just like yours. Guess what? You jump on the radio and contact either your air or artillery support anyway, because the alternative is to permit them to fire at you with impunity. Turns out war is still hell.

This exposes the fundamental problem behind the Geneva Conventions and similar codified rules of behavior - it makes a nice headline when someone shoots up a church/school/hospital, and Hamas does seem to love their PR wars.

This also nicely illustrates my problem with wartime media coverage in general, given the amount of deliberate disinformation present currently - you mix in enough misleading information in with a true story or slant it just enough and most people don't know the difference. This is precisely what Hamas is looking for.

Quote:

---

They don't tell us though, that they let 4 young children starve by their dead mothers, too weak to move, or that the IDF stood by and threatened red cross workers when they wanted to evacuate these babies and a wounded man, 4 days after the shells landed.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-12377,00.html

---

I am loath to say that you are being deliberately disingenuous, but perhaps that article has generated precisely the impact it was meant to. Nowhere did I read that Israeli soldiers "let 4 young children starve by their dead mothers". The only reference made to the proximity of the IDF was one mention making note of the fact that there was an IDF checkpoint/outpost roughly 80 meters away from a house with three corpses in it, and yet the article implies that the IDF stood there and watched as four children slowly died. I hate to phrase it so coarsely, but, "so what?". I still see nothing that imparts the level of guilt that you seem to take for granted.

Quote:

---

They also didn't tell us that they herded 110 members of one family into a house - women, children, men - which they later shelled repeatedly. I remember reading rumours of it early on, but it took some days before the UN could confirm it, and actually send workers in there to help evacuate survivors:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/wo...10zeitoun.html

---

This entire article is written to imply that because the IDF did not IMMEDIATELY permit Red Cross members to enter an area it was in the middle of maneuvering in that every civilian death perpetrated in that area was thus a war crime. I hate that all my arguments are being made so simply, but "War sucks, civilians die". I find it extremely likely that all the IDF was doing was trying to avoid a similar "ZIONISTS TAKE A BREAK FROM EATING BABIES TO ATTACK RED CROSS WORKERS!" headline. As soon as someone invents a bomb that kills only the bad guys, I'm sure we'll use it.

Quote:

---

This also nicely illustrates my problem with wartime media coverage in general, given the amount of deliberate disinformation present currently - you mix in enough misleading information in with a true story or slant it just enough and most people don't know the difference. This is precisely what Hamas is looking for

---

My point was, and I think you've strengthened it in your response to me, that without an independent, verifiable 3rd party witnessing the battle, one side in the battle can invent or mislead. In this situation, Israel has REMOVED the ability for one (supposedly) independent, verifiable 3rd party to be a witness (the media). They have also made it very difficult for other independent 3rd parties to be immediate witnesses as UN and Red Cross workers have been fired on in their duties.

One side of this battle has no way of communicating, and this is completely the result of the other side silencing them. As a result, Israel can be less careful than they otherwise might be had the media been scrutinising them.

Regardless of who is wrong or right, of how many women and children have been killed, of ratios of dead, to deny one side a voice and an independent witness removes the accountability of the other side. They can just assert their position unopposed. Even if Israel was being careful, they should not have the right to carry out actions that impact on other people, without scrutiny.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
My point was, and I think you've strengthened it in your response to me, that without an independent, verifiable 3rd party witnessing the battle, one side in the battle can invent or mislead. In this situation, Israel has REMOVED the ability for one (supposedly) independent, verifiable 3rd party to be a witness (the media). They have also made it very difficult for other independent 3rd parties to be immediate witnesses as UN and Red Cross workers have been fired on in their duties.

One side of this battle has no way of communicating, and this is completely the result of the other side silencing them. As a result, Israel can be less careful than they otherwise might be had the media been scrutinising them.

Regardless of who is wrong or right, of how many women and children have been killed, of ratios of dead, to deny one side a voice and an independent witness removes the accountability of the other side. They can just assert their position unopposed. Even if Israel was being careful, they should not have the right to carry out actions that impact on other people, without scrutiny.

---

Once again, I agree with non-censorship, but explain how you propose to seamlessly mix Red Cross volunteers, the IDF, ununiformed Hamas fighters, and UN troops in such a fashion as to permit neutral oversight of this particular conflict.

If the IDF says "No Mister Red Cross Volunteer, you can't go into that neighborhood", you seem to be defaulting to the belief that this restriction is in place to prevent the world from viewing some heinous IDF war crime that would otherwise be exposed by the reliable, trustworthy and defintely not anti-Israel mainstream media. I tend to assume that the IDF would place such a restriction on travel for reasons of legitimate physical security for the Red Cross/UN troops.

Quote:

---

Once again, I agree with non-censorship, but explain how you propose to seamlessly mix Red Cross volunteers, the IDF, ununiformed Hamas fighters, and UN troops in such a fashion as to permit neutral oversight of this particular conflict.

---

Well I'm not sure, but I suspect that this might not be the best way of encouraging neutral oversight:
"We have suspended our operations in Gaza until the Israeli authorities can guarantee our safety and security"
"Our installations have been hit, our workers have been killed in spite of the fact that the Israeli authorities have the co-ordinates of our facilities and that all our movements are co-ordinated with the Israeli army." (Chris Gunness, spokesperson for United Nations Relief and Works Agency)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7817926.stm

Quote:

---

If the IDF says "No Mister Red Cross Volunteer, you can't go into that neighborhood", you seem to be defaulting to the belief that this restriction is in place to prevent the world from viewing some heinous IDF war crime that would otherwise be exposed by the reliable, trustworthy and defintely not anti-Israel mainstream media. I tend to assume that the IDF would place such a restriction on travel for reasons of legitimate physical security for the Red Cross/UN troops.

---

Well, it's not me defaulting to that position. It's the IRC:
"This is a shocking incident, the Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded. Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestinian Red Crescent to assist the wounded." Pierre Wettach, ICRC head for Israel and the Palestinian territories. According to the IRC, this is a breach of international humanitarian law.

The Red Cross and UN aid workers are being denied the ability to evacuate casualties by the IDF in areas controlled by the IDF, where it is the IDF who has probably caused those casualties. It is the IDF who can stop shelling these areas long enough to allow aid workers. Could you actually explain what you mean by saying that they shouldn't be allowed in?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
Well I'm not sure, but I suspect that this might not be the best way of encouraging neutral oversight:
"We have suspended our operations in Gaza until the Israeli authorities can guarantee our safety and security"
"Our installations have been hit, our workers have been killed in spite of the fact that the Israeli authorities have the co-ordinates of our facilities and that all our movements are co-ordinated with the Israeli army." (Chris Gunness, spokesperson for United Nations Relief and Works Agency)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7817926.stm

---

All this proves is that if you wander around in a war zone you run the risk of getting shot at - it should not even be news. The IRC seems to think because of their white jackets and red logos they should be immune to bullets. Theoretically, sure, but this is likely also the precise reason they are denied access to many areas - because they will get some of their workers killed due to the general fog of war and then we will all have to listen to the IDF-kills-kittens screeds.

Quote:

---

Well, it's not me defaulting to that position. It's the IRC:
"This is a shocking incident, the Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded. Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestinian Red Crescent to assist the wounded."

---

No, it's definitely you. You specifically stated:[list=1]
...they tell us that the UN school which was bombed, killing 40 civilians, was fired on for launching rockets. In fact, that turns out not to be true, and they were caught out on that for all that it matters.

...they let 4 young children starve by their dead mothers, too weak to move, or that the IDF stood by and threatened red cross workers when they wanted to evacuate these babies and a wounded man, 4 days after the shells landed.[/list=1]

Those are your words. As far as #1, you are totally speculating when you state that "it turns out not to be true", and despite this you claim that the IDF was "caught out" despite the article having made no mention of a definitive 'no-rockets-fired' contained within, and in fact included a statement from an IDF spokesperson claiming that they were simply returning fire. The second comment is specifically slanted to insinuate that the IDF knew full well that civilians were suffering and posted up outside the house, aiming their weapons at the well-meaning IRC workers to prevent them from administering aid when a brief skim of the article immediately imparts that this is not the case. This is academically dishonest, at the very least. Throughout all these comments you are leading off by presuming guilt.

Quote:

---

The Red Cross and UN aid workers are being denied the ability to evacuate casualties by the IDF in areas controlled by the IDF, where it is the IDF who has probably caused those casualties. It is the IDF who can stop shelling these areas long enough to allow aid workers. Could you actually explain what you mean by saying that they shouldn't be allowed in? [/B]

---

I believe you may be confusing terms. The IRC/UN is not being denied the ability to evacuate casualties once they have patients on board, they are being denied access to areas that are UNDER ATTACK. To me, this smacks of common sense. As to your final question:

Quote:

---

If the IDF says "No Mister Red Cross Volunteer, you can't go into that neighborhood", you seem to be defaulting to the belief that this restriction is in place to prevent the world from viewing some heinous IDF war crime that would otherwise be exposed by the reliable, trustworthy and defintely not anti-Israel mainstream media. I tend to assume that the IDF would place such a restriction on travel for reasons of legitimate physical security for the Red Cross/UN troops.

---

I am all for letting them go and do whatever it is that they do, provided that any in-progress assault has been concluded and the area is at least reasonably secure. The areas in question were not at the time of the events described in your articles.

Quote:

---

All this proves is that if you wander around in a war zone you run the risk of getting shot at - it should not even be news. The IRC seems to think because of their white jackets and red logos they should be immune to bullets.

---

And that stuff about coordinating efforts with the IDF meant what exactly? "Our installations have been hit, our workers have been killed in spite of the fact that the Israeli authorities have the co-ordinates of our facilities and that all our movements are co-ordinated with the Israeli army." (Chris Gunness, spokesperson for United Nations Relief and Works Agency)

Quote:

---

...they tell us that the UN school which was bombed, killing 40 civilians, was fired on for launching rockets. In fact, that turns out not to be true, and they were caught out on that for all that it matters.

---

I don't have any idea what you're disagreeing about here. The IDF claimed that they attacked the UN school because it was firing rockets. The UN has said no rockets were fired.

Quote:

---

Israel says attack on UN school a mistake: reports

Posted Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:02am AEDT

An Israeli investigation into a deadly attack on a United Nations school in Gaza last week is reported to have concluded that it was a mistake.

Palestinian medical officials say more than 40 people were killed in the UN school in Jabaliya.

Israel initially said its troops had been returning fire after coming under attack from within the school compound.

The account was rejected by UN officials and now Israel has offered another explanation.

Its investigation reportedly says that Israeli troops fired three mortar rounds at Palestinian militants nearby, one of which missed its target and hit the school.

UN officials said the Israeli military had the GPS coordinates of the school and that it was horrific and totally unacceptable that it should be attacked.

---

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...?section=world

Quote:

---

...they let 4 young children starve by their dead mothers, too weak to move, or that the IDF stood by and threatened red cross workers when they wanted to evacuate these babies and a wounded man, 4 days after the shells landed.

---

Quote:

---

The second comment is specifically slanted to insinuate that the IDF knew full well that civilians were suffering and posted up outside the house, aiming their weapons at the well-meaning IRC workers to prevent them from administering aid
when a brief skim of the article immediately imparts that this is not the case. This is academically dishonest, at the very least. Throughout all these comments you are leading off by presuming guilt.

---

I honestly don't believe I've inferred anything dishonest. The IDF were in control of an area where buildings (housing civilians) were shelled. Either those buildings were empty of wounded or they weren't. If the IDF didn't know one way or the other, why didn't they know? I'm not inferring anything, in fact, I'd be surprised and shocked to discover that the IDF KNEW that 4 young children were starving next to their dead mothers but it's true that the IDF let those children lie there. That's what they did, if you want to play semantics about that, then good luck to you, I'm not going to play.

Quote:

---

I believe you may be confusing terms. The IRC/UN is not being denied the ability to evacuate casualties once they have patients on board, they are being denied access to areas that are UNDER ATTACK. To me, this smacks of common sense.

---

This article has a little more information about what's went on there
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090108...nded_newsmlmmd
Seriously, I think it's disingenuous to claim that relief organizations can go in unhindered, when these same organizations are claiming that they can't, that they're under fire, and that unacceptable delays are occurring. I've posted actual quotes from the UN and the Red Cross, discussing this, and discussing the fact that they're coordinating with the IDF.

I'm not making any extraordinary claims, I've sourced my claims. You're inventing excuses and denials that even the IDF aren't making. What's your agenda?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
And that stuff about coordinating efforts with the IDF meant what exactly? "Our installations have been hit, our workers have been killed in spite of the fact that the Israeli authorities have the co-ordinates of our facilities and that all our movements are co-ordinated with the Israeli army." (Chris Gunness, spokesperson for United Nations Relief and Works Agency)

---

This sounds like "we gave them our coordinates and told them where we would be." Saying you "co-ordinated" with someone is just weasel words unless the other side reciprocates the claim. How do we know their co-ordination was anything more than simple notice and a dare to continue to conduct military operations in the same area?

If they shouldn't be there in the first place (due to it not being secured yet), telling people where you are going to be doesn't really matter. It just isn't good enough.

If you go into a war zone, you really have to acknowledge that you are assuming the risks.

But they said that they coordinated with Israel, so we have one (supposedly) independent source telling us that they coordinated. Maybe Israel denies it, can you give me a source that says they're denying the coordination? Even if Israel does say they deny it though, then you just have a he says, she says.

It's interesting that even in the absence of a contradiction people are taking the IDF's side over the UN relief organizations though.

Quote:

---

It's interesting that even in the absence of a contradiction people are taking the IDF's side over the UN relief organizations though.

---

Because we've all seen the impartiality of the reports from that lot, haven't we?

Someone so much as skins their knee without a gun in hand and they start screaming 'atrocity'.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
But they said that they coordinated with Israel

---

Oh my goodness. They said it? Why didn't you tell me that. Well if they said it, then it must be true, right? They couldn't possibly have their own agenda!

Sorry, but "we co-ordinated with them" is weasel words. They want to make it sound like everything was made clear in both directions, and the IDF signed off on them going in there, and then blamo.

Think about it. If there was TRUE co-ordination, wouldn't that mean the IDF was fine with them being in there? Wouldn't that also mean they felt the area was secure enough for civilians to be running around?

I'm not taking sides. I am pointing out suspicious language from a PR mouthpiece using weasel words.

Umm... so let me get this straight. Everything Hamas, the IRC, the UN say is suspicious, spun, misleading, based on an agenda, a lie, an invention or something along those lies. Whereas, everything the Australian army says, the US army says, the IDF says, the British Army says is absolutely true and even if they don't say it, they obviously meant to say it, and if it's not in the media, then that's because the other side made it up and it's not worth responding to.

Okay, well, there ain't nothing more for me to say I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
Everything Hamas....say is suspicious, spun, misleading, based on an agenda, a lie, an invention or something along those lies.

---

Yes. Their charter espouses the eradication of a nation. They use suicide bombers and glorify a cult of death in an effort to achieve this. Whatever they say is garbage, and not to be believed, ever.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
Umm... so let me get this straight. Everything Hamas, the IRC, the UN say is suspicious, spun, misleading, based on an agenda, a lie, an invention or something along those lies. Whereas, everything the Australian army says, the US army says, the IDF says, the British Army says is absolutely true and even if they don't say it, they obviously meant to say it, and if it's not in the media, then that's because the other side made it up and it's not worth responding to.

---

That must be your opinion, since I never said any of that, and I know you have too much integrity to claim I said such a thing.

Why do you have so much confidence in the words of the IDF, the US military, the British military, etc.? Frankly, that surprises me a bit. Given your usual opinions, I would have expected you to be more suspicious of them.

I'm not sure I can get on board with your extreme assurance of their total honesty. I think there are times when everyone lies or fudges the truth - even western militaries. I can only go as far as what I already said: when a group uses weasel words like "we told them where we would be and we co-ordinated with them", it sounds like all they did was simply say "We'll be here. We dare you to do anything in the region that could endanger us and embarass you." If the "here" happened to be a warzone, its pretty stupid to go there, and you certainly can't complain if the results are unfavorable.

Here's my point illustrated nicely once again:

Headline: Israeli forces shell UN headquarters

Why, I'm outraged just reading the headline! Let's investigate the article itself:

Quote:

---

GAZA City, Gaza Strip - Israel shelled the United Nations headquarters in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, engulfing the compound and a warehouse in fire and destroying thousands of pounds of food and humanitarian supplies intended for Palestinian refugees.

UN workers and Palestinian firefighters, some wearing bulletproof jackets, struggled to douse the flames and pull bags of food from the debris after the Israeli attack, which was another blow to efforts to ease the humaniarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Dense smoke billowed from the compound.

---

Those dicks! Nice, inflammatory imagery, right? Right.

Then we get into a UN spokesman bitching, an Israeli spokesman saying "We got shot at from there, so STFU and GBTW", and the UN spokesman saying "YOU LIE ZIONIST PIG!" or words to that effect. Then we get some statistics on how many have died in the conflict.

Buried way at the end of the article is this:

Quote:

---

The UN compound struck Thursday houses the UN Works and Relief Agency

---

Seems like this was a nice, big, white warehouse with a red cross on top of it that the Israeli Defense Force just inhumanly and deliberately used for target practice, doesn't it? And yet...

Quote:

---

It had only that morning become a makeshift shelter for 700 Gaza City residents seeking sanctuary from relentless Israeli shelling, UN officials in Gaza said."

---

Whoops. Now, so I don't presume that we're all sharing the same level of knowledge, here is how slimy this article has come off to me:

In the military, a "headquarters" can be anything from a nice, big office building with a nice lawn and a sign out front all the way down to a bombed out building that your unit has temporarily occuped to centralize command and control over subordinate units. This is almost certainly a case of the latter, and while the UN was in the process of establishing a central location to get their groove on, they got shelled.

Now, this begs a few more questions: the UN keeps repeating that they have provided "their locations" to the IDF and that the IDF is being naughty indeed to continue to try and kill the hard-done-by boys in powder blue. If the setup on this HQ had only begun just today, how is this possible? And even if the UN had transmitted the location of this under-construction HQ to the mysterious "them" at the IDF, does anyone really beileve that just because somebody in a given military has a piece of information that it is immediately disseminated to all field commanders everywhere? My point is that far too much blame is being assigned over things that are essentially blameless due to the simple friction of waging war.

Out of curiosity, is only one side doing really bad and naughty killings?

My only other comment is that if Joe Plumber isn't allowed to comment on the war, certain comedians shouldn't allowed to do so either!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
Here's my point illustrated nicely once again:

Headline: Israeli forces shell UN headquarters

Why, I'm outraged just reading the headline! Let's investigate the article itself:

---

That headline alone is evidence of despicable, sensationalistic chicanery.

I'm sorry but there is no way the IDF is deliberately blowing up and killing UN officials.

That's the kind of disgustingly biased reporting that makes me just avoid the news entirely.