Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would Morally NEUTRAL reporting have helped the NAZIs in WWII???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    this is for you too OP OP..

    What do you think of ISRAEL / ZIONISM???
    What is the difference between them and NAZI GERMANY


    Do you know that Zionists cooperated with Nazis to export jews to Palestine?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Opp,

    I find it interesting your Nazi argument gravitates so easily towards Islam. Obsession is not just a perfume, you know. The fact is that Nazis did not seek shelter in Islamic nations. They sought shelter in Nationalist nations whether Arab or not (i.e., Spain, Argentina, Brazil, etc.). These were the nations which allowed their immigration. Nationalism was not a movement singular to Germany. It was a world-wide political ideological wave. A significant amount of it lasted until very recently and now wants to show up its ugly head again. The German brand became known as Nazism.

    Neo-Nazism is as grave a problem as is Islamic Fundamentalist, along with all other kinds of extremisms, whether political, religious, or racial. One thing to keep in mind is that they happen to walk among us, not half a World away.

    One last comment about myself. I am neither impressed nor intimidated by quotes. This is why I seldom use them in discussions. I happen to believe that people purposely write biased articles and I place very little weight on the conclusions of just one article. I will read your quoted articles, but believe you me, I only need my brain to determine what or who is truly evil, not what the press wants me to believe.

    José

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Oppressor:

    I think people here are giving you way too much credit, myself included. It is apparent that all you are capable of doing to support your ridiculous claims is cut and paste B*S* articles. You also seem incapable of including any original thought in what you write (except for when you try to rewrite history and then attempt to support this by quoting revisionists; that's not very objective... or very original...is it?)

    Anatomy of an unintelligent argument:

    First you bring up a topic, and then you make a completely invalid point. Some of us then use facts to dispute it intelligently, and then you go and change the subject, or twist our words around. How about defending your allegations with some facts! (not revisionist propaganda, but facts), and sticking to the subject at hand. And please try to include some original thought next time...Anybody can find b***s**t to cut and paste from. The internet is full of useless information.

    Think...that's why God gave you a brain.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    the Nazislam


    "What I find interesting is the growing number of Nazi or Nazi-like organizations sprouting all over Europe and the US. For them there is no doubt they belong to the extreme right. To the irritation of some right-wingers of color, these groups claim to be firmly grounded in white Christian values. "

    So you have no problem with the Arab Nazis? I'm sorry...are there "acceptable Nazis" and "unnacceptable Nazis"?

    I know it's hard for some of you leftists to accept that one of history's most evil ideologies was spawned from your own beloved socialism, but I have even more bad news for you. Those poor Palestinians you also hold so dear, those misunderstood Muslims, they are also Nazi partners in crime. Funny how most leftists will in one breath support the "Arab plight" and in the other breath condemn Naziism, when in fact they are virtually identical. Naziism, the left's "ugly duckling of socialism" is also the preferred brand of socialism for Arab Muslims.

    So you see, you leftists not only bear the responsability of all the millions upon millions of deaths caused by communism in its various forms, but you also have the dubious privelege of being allied with Nazis and Muslim terrorist. How proud you all must be.

    Islam’s Nazi Connections
    By Serge Trifkovic
    FrontPageMagazine.com | December 5, 2002

    An essay adapted by Robert Locke from Dr. Serge Trifkovic’s new book The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam

    One of the good things one can truthfully say about Islam is that there has never been any love lost between Moslems and Marxists. Sadly, the opposite end of the totalitarian political spectrum is quite another matter. SS chief Heinrich Himmler was known to remark that he regretted that Germany had adopted Christianity, rather than "warlike" Islam, as its religion, and there is a disturbing amount of twisted but very real logic in his remark. Beyond the obvious dislike of a certain other religion, we have the plain fact that both Nazism and Islam both openly aim at world conquest. Both demand the total subordination of the free will of the individual – the very word "Islam" means submission in Arabic. Both are explicitly anti-nationalist and believe in the liquidation of the nation-state in favor of a "higher" community: in Islam the umma or community of all believers; in Nazism the herrenvolk or master race. Both believe in undemocratic leadership by a privileged knower of an absolute, eternal, and ultimately mystical truth: the caliph or führer respectively. To be fair, in strict Nazism Arabs are racial Semites and thus subhumans, but as Robert Locke has written, the Nazis did not really believe in their racial mythology when they found it inconvenient, and they exploited their commonalities with Islam for all they were worth. If the British army had not stopped Rommel in the sands of El Alamein in 1942, preventing him from conquering the Middle East, the consequences for world history might have been dramatic. What did happen was quite ugly enough.

    The Nazis began by attempting to exploit Arab resentment of the British and French colonial rule that they were under during the 1930’s, colonial rule which, in light of the subsequent bloody and tyrannical history of the region, it is hard to condemn today as worse than the likely alternative. The promised the Arabs "liberation" from the French and British, a promise which the naïve Arabs, not grasping the character of a Nazi regime that would likely have reduced them to slaves in its own empire, took at face value. This gave rise to a curious Arab ditty rendered in English thus:

    "No more monsieur,

    No more mister.

    In heaven Allah,

    On earth Hitler."

    Hitler himself was even given an Arabic name: Abu Ali. But Hitler’s Germany went further and sensed the demonic potentialities inherent in the mythology, reliably emotionally satisfying to persons crazed with resentment, of radical anti-Semitism. It made a concerted, and remarkably successful effort to plant modern anti-Semitism in the Arab world.

    The founding of Israel helped further this project. As Bernard Lewis has written,

    "The struggle for Palestine greatly facilitated the acceptance of the anti-Semitic interpretation of history, and led some to attribute all evil in the Middle East—and, indeed, in the world—to secret Jewish plots."

    Thus even before Israel was created the struggle to create it was turned into an existential battle of identity, with the complete denial of the legitimacy of Jewish existence as a central component of Moslem aspiration.

    The Nazis managed to recruit some Moslems directly. Several Moslem SS divisions were raised: the Skanderbeg Division from Albania, the Handschar Division from Bosnia, and smaller units from throughout the Moslem world from Chechnya to Uzbekistan were incorporated into the German armed forces in one capacity or another. This was only taking the first step in Heinrich Himmler’s planned grand alliance between Nazi Germany and the Islamic world. One of his closest aides, Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger, boasted that

    "a link is created between Islam and National-Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East."

    What an image: a Nazi-Moslem alliance to conquer the world! Naturally, totalitarian ideology (as shown by the Sino-Soviet and Iran-Taliban splits, for example) is a notoriously weak glue, so it is questionable how far this could have prospered. But the thought is chilling enough.

    Major Nazi sympathizers of this era include Ahmed Shukairi, the first chairman of the PLO; Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, future presidents of Egypt; and the founders of the Pan-Arab socialist Ba' ath party, currently ruling Syria and Iraq. One Ba'ath leader has since recalled of this time:

    "We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading their books and sources of their thought. We were the first who thought of translating Mein Kampf."

    Many of the Nazi sympathizers of this era have never repudiated their beliefs; some still openly parade them.

    In 1945, one name was missing from the Allies’ list of war criminals, that of Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti or supreme religious leader of Jerusalem and the former President of the Supreme Moslem Council of Palestine. In May 1941, the Mufti declared jihad against Britain and made his way to Berlin after the British put down his attempt to establish a pro-Nazi government in Iraq by a coup d’etat. When he met Hitler, on November 21, 1941, he declared that the Arabs are Germany’s natural friends, ready to cooperate with the Reich with all their hearts by the formation of an Arab Legion. Hitler promised that as soon as the German armies pushed into the Southern Caucasus the Arabs would be liberated from the British yoke. The Mufti’s part of the deal was to raise support for Germany among the Moslems in the Soviet Union, the Balkans and the Middle East. He conducted radio propaganda through the network of six stations, set up anti-British espionage and fifth column networks in the Middle East.

    In the annual protest against the Balfour Declaration held in 1943 at the Luftwaffe hall in Berlin, the Mufti praised the Germans because they "know how to get rid of the Jews, and that brings us close to the Germans and sets us in their camp is that up to day." Echoing Muhammad after the battle of Badr, on March 1, 1944 the Mufti called in a broadcast from Berlin:

    "Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor."

    In 1941, he had pledged "to solve the question of the Jewish elements in Palestine and in other Arab countries as required by national interests, and in the same way as the Jewish question in the Axis lands is being solved." Bernard Lewis writes that in addition to the old goal of a Jew-free Arabia "he aimed at much vaster purposes, conceived not so much in pan-Arab as in pan-Islamic terms, for a Holy War of Islam in alliance with Germany against World Jewry, to accomplish the Final Solution of the Jewish problem everywhere."

    According to German officials who knew him, The Mufti had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintaining contact, above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestinian problem. Perhaps "the Nazis needed no persuasion or instigation," as he was later to claim, but the foremost Arab spiritual leader of his time did all he could to ensure that the Germans did not waver in their resolve. He went out of his way to prevent any Jews being allowed to leave Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, which were initially willing to let them go: "The Mufti was making protests everywhere — in the Office of the (Foreign) Minister, in the antechamber of the Secretary of State, and in other departments, such as Home Office, Press, Radio, and in the SS headquarters." In the end, Eichmann said, "We have promised him that no European Jew would enter Palestine any more."

    The contemporary heirs to the Nazi view of Judentum are not the handfull of powerless skinheads and Aryan Nation survivalists. They are schools, religious leaders, and mainstream intellectuals in the Moslem, meaning primarily Arab, world. Quite apart from the ups and downs of the misnamed "peace process" in the Middle East, quite apart from the more or less bellicose posture towards the government of Israel, the crude way they actively demonize all Jews as such is startling.

    The most prominent and influential daily newspaper in the Arab world is Al-Ahram, a semi-official organ of the Egyptian government. In June 2001 it carried an op-ed article, "What exactly do the Jews want?"--and the answer was worthy of the Nazi newspaper the Völkische Beobachter six decades earlier:

    "The Jews share boundless hatred of the gentiles, they kill women and children and sow destruction… Israel is today populated by people who are not descendants of the Children of Israel, but rather a mixture of slaves, Aryans and the remnants of the Khazars, and they are not Semites. In other words, people without an identity, whose only purpose is blackmails, theft and control over property and land, with the assistance of the Western countries."

    The second most influential Egyptian daily is Al-Akhbar, which went a step further on April 18, 2001: "Our thanks go the late Hitler who wrought, in advance, the vengeance of the Palestinians upon the most despicable villains on the face of the earth. However, we rebuke Hitler for the fact that the vengeance was insufficient."

    It is hard to imagine hatred more vitriolic than that which reproaches the Nazis for not completing the Final Solution more thoroughly. What is remarkable is not that such sentiments exist, but that they are freely circulated in the mainstream media and internalized by the opinion-making elite throughout the Moslem world. In the same league, we find the claim that the Holocaust in fact never happened and that the Jews and Israelis are the real Nazis is regularly made. The Jewish-Nazi theme is a favorite of Arab caricaturists, some of whom use the swastika interchangeably with the Star of David, or juxtapose them. Graphic depiction of the Jews appear to have been lifted directly from the pages of the notorious old Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer (The Stormtroooper.)

    A final tidbit: it is no accident that a number of Nazi war criminals found refuge in Moslem nations. Take the notorious Otto Skorzeny, an SS officer who led the rescue of Mussolini from captivity, was described by the OSS, predecessor to the CIA, as "the most dangerous man in Europe," and later found service under General Nasser in Egypt. There were others.

    Thankfully, the Nazis of course lost WWII and the abortive alliance between Islam and Nazism never panned out. Sadly, there exist Moslems today, not on the fringes but in the mainstream of their nations, who still view this as a great lost opportunity based on profound natural affinities.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    What I find interesting is the growing number of Nazi or Nazi-like organizations sprouting all over Europe and the US. For them there is no doubt they belong to the extreme right. To the irritation of some right-wingers of color, these groups claim to be firmly grounded in white Christian values.

    In my opinion, extreme right does not equal Capitalism. I believe the extreme right is actually semi-capitalistic in nature because it allows capitalistic growth as far as it fits its "values." This is why it has never achieved sustainable success as a true form of government. The extreme right's definition of "values" itself is very interesting and its scope really depends on which extreme right-wing leader comes to power. Just like it happened with Hitler. You might try to paint him anyway you want, but middle of the ground he was not. Now, there is the left and there is the right, you put him were he belongs.

    José

    Leave a comment:


  • replied

    Jibaro.. YES and NO... YES that it is immoral to equate victims and agressors.. MEDIA should be frank and condemn ISRAEL.

    btw, what is your opinion in ISRAELI problem?


    NO. For your account on nigeria.. your resources are from extremist fundemental christians.. we all know that Muslim demonstrators aim was protesting against the BAD article written in the journal.. that's when POLICE escaletesd the event and used brute force against the demonstrators.. and some "HIDDEN" force incited the christians to attack.. and you know in Africa they will retaliate..

    of course the media is biased cuz they don't picture the burnt mosques and the dead muslims

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Iluminado, (la verdad es que tu nombre te sienta muy bien!!)

    Mr. Oppressive still has not cleared up his convoluted logic from that last thread....why make alliances if you are Hitler with Francisco Franco, Mussolini (he was a fascist), and Nippon Emperor? And not with the 'the diehard communists' the Russians....iluminado brought up a valid point....history is not simplistic by any means...But Mr. Oppressive can only grasp simplistic thinking.

    If Mr. Oppressive wants no or little gov't control over his life....hey become an anarchist....they don't believe in GOV'T authority at all. Lol.

    Naw, he just wants to make millions of dollars, pay no taxes, and force others to think the same way he does....I think he would be a perfect Anastasio Somoza or Pinochet. Lol.

    Ilumninado....sigue ahi que lo que dices es lo mas chevere. Lol.
    Suki.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Oppressor



    Stop rewriting history will you?


    Yes, Hitler used the word socialist for the name of his political party, just like Columbus used Indio when referring to native americans. It's been taken out of context. Clearly, the National Socialism that he advocated, with it's fascist emphasis on race, nation, and military rule is the complete oppossite of what marxism, and modern day socialism stand for. Modern day Social-democratic thinking seeks to unite the working classes worldwide in the name of justice and equality for all. Hitler's unilateral concern with race, nation, and his heavy emphasis on military might is clearly more similar to right wing ideologies. You don't have to look to far to find the similarities... just look at all the flag-waving, scapegoating, and military agendas going on right here. Very reminiscent isn't it?


    Hitler hated communists...in fact, his early political career began when he witnessed a takeover bid by local Communists in the army's compounds in Munich, shortly after returning from Traunstein. After he gave evidence at an investigation of the takeover, he was asked to become part of a local army organization which was responsible for persuading returning soldiers not to turn to communism or pacifism.

    Moreover, during the Reichstag fire (which was staged by the Nazi party), a Dutch communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, was made scapegoat for the fire. The main outcome was that Hitler was given an excuse to have all the Communist deputies of the Reichstag arrested, and managed to obtain a decree from President Hindenburg giving the Nazi goverment powers to interrogate anyone they thought was a threat to the nation.

    Even with the suppression of the Communist deputies, Hitler was still short of an overall majority and nowhere near the two-thirds majority needed for any change in the German constitution.

    In 1933, the Enabling Act gave legislative power to Hitler's cabinet for a period of four years. The act passed easily with the support of the Center and Nationalist parties and the SUPPRESSION of all Communist deputies and several Social Democrats. Thus dictatorial powers were finally conferred, legally, on Adolf Hitler. Shortly after, Hitler proclaimed that the Nazi Party was to be the only political party allowed in Germany. All non-Nazi organizations were disbanded, including political parties and TRADE-UNIONS.


    Do I think all right-wingers are Nazies? NO.
    Do I think all communists are heroes? Tampoco.

    Life is not black and white, as many of you wish it were, but facts are facts...get them straight!!! That's the only way to maintain intelligent dialogue.

    "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." (John Stuart Mill).


    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    For Sucki and disiluminado

    A Little Secret About the Nazis

    They were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist, and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist "exploitation" by capitalists -- particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape, and the time has come to expose it.

    Richard Poe, editor of Frontpage Magazine, sets the record straight:


    Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a "Third Way" between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.

    Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was "socialist" and that its enemies were the "bourgeoisie" and the "plutocrats" (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.

    Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, "On the Jewish Question," Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps.


    The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer. The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist. And the constant emphasis on the fact that the Nazis were nationalists, with barely an acknowledgment that they were socialists, is as absurd as labeling the Soviets "internationalists" and ignoring the fact that they were socialists (they called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Yet many who regard "national" socialism as the scourge of humanity consider "international" socialism a benign or even superior form of government.

    According to a popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with the communists in Russia. This specious logic has gone largely unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which needs "right-wing" atrocities to divert attention from the horrific communist atrocities of the past century. Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective measure.

    R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii documents in his book Death by Government that the two most murderous regimes of the past century were both communist: communists in the Soviet Union murdered 62 million of their own citizens, and Chinese communists killed 35 million Chinese citizens. The Nazi socialists come in third, having murdered 21 million Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and others. Additional purges occurred in smaller communist hellholes such as Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, and Cuba, of course. Communism does more than imprison and impoverish nations: it kills wholesale. And so did "national socialism" during the Nazi reign of terror.

    But the history of the past century has been grossly distorted by the predominantly left-wing media and academic elite. The Nazis have been universally condemned -- as they obviously should be -- but they have also been repositioned clear across the political spectrum and propped up as false representatives of the far right -- even though Hitler railed frantically against capitalism in his infamous demagogic speeches. At the same time, heinous crimes of larger magnitude by communist regimes have been ignored or downplayed, and the general public is largely unaware of them. Hence, communism is still widely regarded as a fundamentally good idea that has just not yet been properly "implemented." Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." God help us if we forget the horrors of communism and get the historical lessons of Nazism backwards.

    The Nazis also had something else in common with the modern left: an obsessive preoccupation with race. Hitler and his Nazis considered races other than their own inferior, of course. Modern "liberals," who vociferously oppose the elimination of racial quotas, seem to agree. They apparently believe that non-white minorities (excluding Asians, of course) are inferior and unable to compete in the free market without favoritism mandated by the government. Whereas Hitler was hostile to those racial minorities, however, modern white "liberals" condescend benevolently. Hitler's blatant and virulent form of racism was eradicated relatively quickly and very forcefully, but the more subtle and insidious racism of the modern left has yet to be universally recognized and condemned.

    The media often focuses its microscope on modern neo-nazi lunatics, but the actual scope of the menace is relatively miniscule, with perhaps a few thousand neo-nazis at most in the United States (mostly "twenty-something" know-nothings). The number of communists and communist sympathizers in the United States dwarfs that figure, of course -- even among tenured professors! And while the threat of neo-nazi terrorism is indeed serious, the chance of neo-nazis gaining any kind of legitimate political power anywhere is virtually zero. That is why the ACLU can safely use them to advertise its supposed commitment to free speech. Neo-nazi rallies incite violence, but they do not persuade bystanders to join their cause! If they did, the ACLU would have nothing to do with them. --1/02

    Leave a comment:


  • Would Morally NEUTRAL reporting have helped the NAZIs in WWII???

    [i]

    MORALLY NEUTRAL REPORTING IS DISHONEST REPORTING


    By Dennis Prager

    December 3, 2002


    Under the guise of "
    objectivity," virtually every major news agency, newspaper and television news network in the West is feeding its readers and viewers a morally neutral view of world events that is so distorted as to verge on mendacity.

    Take this article from The New York Times, which describes the recent Muslim rioting in Nigeria over one sentence written by a Nigerian reporter in an article defending the Miss World pageant ("Muhammad would probably have taken one of the contestants for a wife."):

    First, the headline: "
    FIERY ZEALOTRY LEAVES NIGERIA IN ASHES AGAIN[b]."

    Notice that no group is identified as responsible. Reading the headline, one would have no idea that it was Muslims in Kaduna who burned churches, killed Christian bystanders and razed newspaper offices. Putting the moral responsibility on those who actually started the rioting would violate the doctrine of moral neutrality. So, for The New York Times headline writer, the culprit is "fiery zealotry."

    It gets worse. The article then begins:

    "KADUNA, Nigeria, Nov. 28 -- The beauty queens are gone now, chased from Nigeria by the chaos in Kaduna."

    If this is not a direct lie, it surely is an indirect one. The beauty queens were not chased out of Nigeria by "chaos," but by Muslim rioters. http://One might as well say that be...than by Nazis.

    Lest the reader miss the point that no group is morally responsible, the article's next sentence develops this idea:

    "But there are no celebrations in this deeply troubled town, which has become a symbol of the difficulty in Nigeria -- and throughout Africa -- of reconciling people who worship separately."

    Aha! The problem, dear Times reader, is not Islamic intolerance and violence in Nigeria, nor is it Nigerian Muslims attempting to violently spread Islamic religious law (as in sentencing a non-Muslim Nigerian woman to be stoned to death for giving birth to a child out of wedlock). No, the Times assures us, what happened in Kaduna is merely another example of Africa's "difficulty in reconciling people who worship separately." Nigeria's and Africa's Christians are just as guilty, as the next sentence makes clear:

    "Kaduna is too occupied burying its dead, some of whom followed Jesus and others Muhammad . . . "

    Don't blame the Muslim rioters. After all, Muslims, too, are burying their dead.

    In the third paragraph, the Times quotes a Christian who wants to leave Nigeria. And in the next paragraph, the paper moves on to the one thing the paper can blame.

    Nigeria's population "has shown itself to be devoutly religious but also quick to kill."

    Fanatical Muslims are not the killers -- "devoutly religious people" are.

    Everyone-is-responsible is, of course, the trademark of virtually all reporting from the Middle East. Israelis and Palestinians are immoral equals. Each kills the other; no one started the violence (or both did); no one terrorizes the other (or both do); no one targets civilians (or both do).

    Take this typical Reuters report: "A suspected Palestinian militant tried to ram a car laden with explosives into a crowded Tel Aviv nightclub Friday . . . The apparent suicide attack was the latest in a fresh cycle of tit-for-tat violence . . . " (italics added).

    First, Western journalists nearly always use the term "militants," or even the more non-judgmental "gunmen," to describe terrorists. For Reuters, BBC, AP, CNN, and most newspapers, it violates moral neutrality to label a man attempting to smash a bomb-laden car into a nightclub a "terrorist."

    Second, just as "chaos" and "fiery zealotry," not rampaging Muslim militants, chased the Miss World pageant from Nigeria, a morally neutral "cycle of violence" causes death in the Middle East, not Palestinian terror.

    And, of course, virtually every news source lists the greater number of Palestinians killed in the Palestinian-Israeli war as if to suggest that Israelis are the aggressors and Palestinians the victims. http://Had this type of reporting ta...ca or Britain.

    But during World War II, Western reporters did not aim for moral neutrality. They aimed for truth, moral and otherwise.

    And, by the way, this is why talk radio and the Internet are increasingly the preferred sources of news for so many Americans. Unlike the mainstream news media, most Americans do not believe that the greatest source of violence in the world today is "chaos" or "tit-for-tat cycles of violence."
Working...
X