Unmitigated Slaugher in Congo - World Condemns Israel

[jbg]

This thread seems a little, nay make it a lot like a non sequitur.

TB -

Usually I agree with your posts but not this time. What I am pointing out is the utter hypocrisy inherent in the constant condemnations of Israel and the near-silence with regard to true, unprovoked savagery occurring elsewhere.

And Rue, for your purposes I made sure that the thread had nothing to do with Muslim-bashing.

[Smallc]

So because worse things happen in other places, Israel is beyond criticism?

[M.Dancer]

So because worse things happen in other places, Israel is beyond criticism?

I think the question is, when so much worse...far worse happens elsewhere without criticism, why does every petty thing in Israel take up bandwidth.

[blueblood]

And the problem with that is? You certainly have no qualms about attempting to "marginalize" certain other MLW members, who you routinely call "morons", "idiots", "deniers" and other derogatory descriptions, when discussing the topic of climate change.

And that's why 22 people think he blows ass at arguing!

Good old Waldo, do as I say, not as I do.

[ToadBrother]

I think the question is, when so much worse...far worse happens elsewhere without criticism, why does every petty thing in Israel take up bandwidth.

So this, in fact, has nothing to do with the Congo, or any place else.

[Smallc]

I think the question is, when so much worse...far worse happens elsewhere without criticism, why does every petty thing in Israel take up bandwidth.

Because many expect better from Israel I suppose. Pointing out problems elsewhere isn't an excuse.

[waldo]

to challenge on the merits of exclusivity of interest? What's the remedy for perceived coloured statements in the face of a perceived biased agenda? To me this OP reeks of an attempt to marginalize the targeted MLW member.

And the problem with that is? You certainly have no qualms about attempting to "marginalize" certain other MLW members, who you routinely call "morons", "idiots", "deniers" and other derogatory descriptions, when discussing the topic of climate change.

is there a problem? ... and thanks for acknowledging that this thread's intent is to marginalize the targeted MLW member. As for your personalization, I'm quite comfortable in directing an occasional slag towards AGW climate change deniers... but really, not to derail this thread, you can't seriously infer the label "denier" is derogatory - right? It's simply a matter-of-fact classification

And that's why 22 people think he blows ass at arguing!

Good old Waldo, do as I say, not as I do.

whaaa! Hey blueblood... have you anything to say about the thread topic itself? I relish the fact you dance to my presence - I am most content to keep you engaged - to allow you a means to feel you're contributing - on what ever level, particularly since your favoured proxy spokesperson has been vanquished! I keep telling you that I welcome your continued fallback to your baseless denier poll... you know, the one you don't have the basic smarts to actually frame arguments and positions for. Again, although welcomed, I question your want to fallback to a baseless poll, when your favoured poll protagonist... he who you openly expressed a want to speak for you... has been dispatched, vanquished from MLW!

[waldo]

Actually, Waldo, I was mentioning her more to draw a response on an issue of obvious concern to her. People will often write, if something concerns either law, Judaism or Canadian-American relations "we'd like JBG's input" or something to that effect. I intended nothing unconstructive.

fair enough; however, I don't agree that one's favoured subject commentary can be negated over an absence or lack of commentary on another subject, related or otherwise.

[jbg]

fair enough; however, I don't agree that one's favoured subject commentary can be negated over an absence or lack of commentary on another subject, related or otherwise.

But it's fair to ask her views on it, given how closely related it is.

[Bonam]

Because many expect better from Israel I suppose.

This seems to be the crux of the problem. People for some reason want to hold Israel to an impossibly high standard. It is a nation surrounded by enemies bent on its annihilation, fraught with constant terrorism by a population that is brainwashed from birth to hate Jews, subjected to more invasions and attacks in the span of a few decades than many nations have experienced in their entire histories, and yet when even one of their enemies is killed in some retaliatory action, Israel is the evil demon.

Certain people would criticize Israel absolutely regardless of what Israel did. Even if all the Jews drowned themselves in the Sea so the Palestinians could have "their land" back, some people would probably be posting that they didn't do it fast enough or humbly enough...

Frankly, such single minded hate-mongering and demonization of a single nation completely discredits the poster.

[bush_cheney2004]

As your comparison reference point was Israel, that was followed up by the one-quip artist, Bush_Cheney, whose hate phasor targeted his described Jew bashers, who he claimed had a desire for Congolese to rot... by the millions, he said! Now, as the one-quip artist, Bush_Cheney, hasn't himself raised concerns for the Congolese....

Except that my record here at MLW proves you wrong...again. SubSaharan African plight for even the simplest of things like potable water were discussed long before waldo showed up to save us all from global warming climate change.

I know the score...as does jbg....but you are clueless.

Edited March 30, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[msj]

The only logical reply to this thread I can come up with is won't somebody please think of the children... but I won't complain if you think of the Palestinians first.

But not those African people.

The children come before them.

[Smallc]

and yet when even one of their enemies is killed in some retaliatory action, Israel is the evil demon.

I've never really criticized Israel before now. I am now because the fact that they're thumbed their nose at the peace process is blatant and it rightly has drawn condemnation from nations that normally support Israel.

[Bonam]

I've never really criticized Israel before now. I am now because the fact that they're thumbed their nose at the peace process is blatant and it rightly has drawn condemnation from nations that normally support Israel.

Yeah a peace process that is supposed to happen even while rockets keep being launched into Israel from Gaza... wonder why they might not be so thrilled to sit around and talk about the same things for the 3098205803275723057th time.

[jbg]

I've never really criticized Israel before now. I am now because the fact that they're thumbed their nose at the peace process is blatant and it rightly has drawn condemnation from nations that normally support Israel.

Maybe the way for the Palestinians to have peace is to offer the same kindof relationship that the U.S. and Canada have. More or less undefended borders, free travel, normal diplomatic relations, and end to all boycotts.

But ah, the Palestinians' desire for a "second state" is to carve Israel just a little thinner making going in for the kill easier.

[M.Dancer]

So because worse things happen in other places, Israel is beyond criticism?

I think the question is, when so much worse...far worse happens elsewhere without criticism, why does every petty thing in Israel take up bandwidth.

So this, in fact, has nothing to do with the Congo, or any place else.

Correct, it has to do with smallc's statement.

[Smallc]

Yeah a peace process that is supposed to happen even while rockets keep being launched into Israel from Gaza... wonder why they might not be so thrilled to sit around and talk about the same things for the 3098205803275723057th time.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Israel is, literally, spitting in the face of the countries that support it. Not smart.

[jbg]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Israel is, literally, spitting in the face of the countries that support it. Not smart.

But query, why do countries that "support" Israel urge on it policies that amount to self-service Sobibor or Dachau?

[nicky10013]

I haven't read through this thread nor will I probably be likely to. The question I have is this:

What's worse? People bringing up legitimate human rights abuses by Israel or people using the Congo as a political club to beat the people who are calling out Israel?

[Argus]

Not much can be done about it and not to downplay the incident, it happened about a year ago and we are just finding out about it now. There is a lot of this going on in Africa, but why is there no focus on it from western media?

There appears to be a serious dearth of four star hotels with satellite hookups, air conditioning and pornographic movies in the Congo. In addition, there are no good restaurants, and the roads are abominable. All in all, a most uninviting place for a reporter pulling in six or seven figure salaries to want to visit.

Israel, by contrasts, has all the comfort they could want, and very nearly no danger. There is no threat from the government, and the "media tourist sites" are a close drive away in an air conditioned SUV. You can very nearly always count on some sort of violence to be going on in the area, which makes for good TV, and if there isn't there's always woeful, sympathetic portrayal of the poor and downtrodden to tug at the self-righteous strings of politically correct lefties.

The Congo is just darkies killing darkies. Not really very interesting unless the bodies are literally all over the streets, as in Rwanda, which makes for good TV. Now get some white boys in there and have them using the "N word" a lot, and you'll have about ten thousand reporters there overnight screaming about oppression and racism. But as long as it's Black on Black, well, to quote the infamous shorthand code of the LAPD - it's NVNNHI.

[Argus]

1 There is a massive media presence in Israel. Like any other behometh, it needs to constantly feed. If you don't produce real stories it will find stories and make them real. This is why five thousand dying in the Congo is NVNNHI while 1 Palestinian tripping over a stone and hitting his head gets four network cameras and a myrid of weepy reporters decrying Israeli injustice in not ensuring rocks were absent from the steet.

2 The constant focus on Israel as THE foreign source of news means almost everyone who watches the news is aware of Israel. For decades, people have been led to believe everything which happens there is dreadfully important to them, and so the interest in Israel is higher than it is on the Congo. This is a catch 22 situation, of course. Are the media there because people want to watch stories about Israel or do people want to watch stories about Israel because the media have been pumping them out at them for decades?

I think a lot of the "human rights" interest in Israel is on the part of the weak-minded who have been watching all these stories about Israel for much of their lives, and who are part of the leftish thought process which says "ragged assed civilian = good", and "tough, uniformed hombre with rifle = bad". Knowing almost nothing about the human rights situations in the rest of the world they have come to think of Israel as this awful human rights violator even though the actual freedoms Palestinians have are generally higher than in surrounding Arab nations, and even though the actual death count of Palestinians killed by Israel is pretty small compared to what neighbouring nations have done in the way of repressing home grown opposition. This is why Syria can cry crocodile tears about human rights "abuses" by the Israelis even though they slaughtered more people crushing the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama in a two week period than Israel has killed in twenty years of the intifadas.

And of course, a lot of people just hate Jews.

I think 80% of the "human rights" agitators who focus on Israel probably fall into the first group, and the other 20% fall into the second group.

[jbg]

Argus -

Good post but you do contradict yourself in one place; is Israel "almost totally safe" or is there "violence almost always going on somewhere" (to paraphrase).

What did you mean to say?

[Argus]

Argus -

Good post but you do contradict yourself in one place; is Israel "almost totally safe" or is there "violence almost always going on somewhere" (to paraphrase).

What did you mean to say?

I mean to say that if one is a well-paid international jet setting reporter one can relax in a luxurious suite in a safe hotel with a great view, can go shopping in luxury shops without fear, can attend the theatre or go to the beach without needing to look over his or her shoulder. Yet not very far away lies Gaza or the West Bank or Syria or Egypt or Lebanon where some manner of violence is almost inevitably taking place.

[jbg]

Thanks for the clarification. I saw some cognitive dissonance there.

[dizzy]

There are considerable western religious, cultural and political interests in Israel. There are considerable western business interests in the DRC. Guess what, of the four mentioned considerable western interests, only one likes to operate without media scrutiny. So who is really surprised with the outcome re: interest in Israel/Palestine vs. the lack of interest in the DRC?

Edited April 4, 2010 by dizzy