HazbAllah television is banned in the US.
Did you know this?
I didn’t.
I didn’t even know it existed.
It is characterized as the “mouthpiece of the Iranian based government of Lebanon”.
Golly.
You mean like Fox News?
Over and over on CNN it would flash for a nanosecond that 60 people had been killed in Beirut and at least twice that had been injured. And then for up to a minute at a time, relentlessly, it said that an Israeli grandmother and grandson had been killed in a direct hit.
Seems a bit, what? Lopsided?
Yes.
Just a bit.
Over and over it was IDF – Israeli DEFENSE Forces and the Lebanese forces were “militants”, “terrorists” essentially painted as deviants. What does the word "defense" bring to mind for you?
Uh-huh.
Exactly what it is supposed to connote?
They are being attacked.
This is not an OFFENSIVE move it is DEFENSIVE.
Some guy got on the air “analyzing” the speech the HazbAllah leader made to the people of Lebanon. Repeatedly, this guy said it was a rant. I don’t know what one expects to achieve by dismissing a nation’s leader whose country is under attack as someone engaged in a rant.
It just seems so unnecessary.
Then there was the constant reference to the missiles fired by Lebanon being from Iran.
Say…wha?
So?
Most of the arms being used on both sides are made and brokered by the US, does that have some significance?
It’s just another way to pull Iran into it, demonizing, again, an entire region to propel our agenda forward.
But, this is the perfect opportunity to start showing who we are. We need to go in, diplomatically, we need to go in and be the peacemakers. Perhaps we can sponsor another country going in who is less likely to show prejudice and is less likely to incite a very negative, possibly violent response, instead of directly engaging with that cringe inspiring American bravado. How can we possibly talk about not killing innocent people when we are doing currently engaged in that exact action?
Makes us look like hypocrites.
I have to say, though, it really bothers me that other national medias, broadcasting, podcasting, whatever are BANNED in this country. That really makes me wonder.
Here’s the other thing I wonder. Ad nauseum, Syria is scolded for “harboring terrorists”. What does this mean? That they give them safe houses? That these guys come in and are un-harassed within the country?
Do we have any people that would be considered terrorists in our country? Probably. Would that mean that we are harboring them? I just think that when you point at an entire country and say they “harbor” something that is generally considered “evil” it is dangerous. I think it is just another way for this administration to, again, paint with a broad stroke an entire region of people and categorize them as “terrorists” or “terrorist sympathizers”.
All this crap is doing no good.
It is just adding fuel to an already exploding situation.
Nothing will be solved with this approach.
Someone call Clinton.
I think he’s on Bush Sr.’s speed dial.
Did you know this?
I didn’t.
I didn’t even know it existed.
It is characterized as the “mouthpiece of the Iranian based government of Lebanon”.
Golly.
You mean like Fox News?
Over and over on CNN it would flash for a nanosecond that 60 people had been killed in Beirut and at least twice that had been injured. And then for up to a minute at a time, relentlessly, it said that an Israeli grandmother and grandson had been killed in a direct hit.
Seems a bit, what? Lopsided?
Yes.
Just a bit.
Over and over it was IDF – Israeli DEFENSE Forces and the Lebanese forces were “militants”, “terrorists” essentially painted as deviants. What does the word "defense" bring to mind for you?
Uh-huh.
Exactly what it is supposed to connote?
They are being attacked.
This is not an OFFENSIVE move it is DEFENSIVE.
Some guy got on the air “analyzing” the speech the HazbAllah leader made to the people of Lebanon. Repeatedly, this guy said it was a rant. I don’t know what one expects to achieve by dismissing a nation’s leader whose country is under attack as someone engaged in a rant.
It just seems so unnecessary.
Then there was the constant reference to the missiles fired by Lebanon being from Iran.
Say…wha?
So?
Most of the arms being used on both sides are made and brokered by the US, does that have some significance?
It’s just another way to pull Iran into it, demonizing, again, an entire region to propel our agenda forward.
But, this is the perfect opportunity to start showing who we are. We need to go in, diplomatically, we need to go in and be the peacemakers. Perhaps we can sponsor another country going in who is less likely to show prejudice and is less likely to incite a very negative, possibly violent response, instead of directly engaging with that cringe inspiring American bravado. How can we possibly talk about not killing innocent people when we are doing currently engaged in that exact action?
Makes us look like hypocrites.
I have to say, though, it really bothers me that other national medias, broadcasting, podcasting, whatever are BANNED in this country. That really makes me wonder.
Here’s the other thing I wonder. Ad nauseum, Syria is scolded for “harboring terrorists”. What does this mean? That they give them safe houses? That these guys come in and are un-harassed within the country?
Do we have any people that would be considered terrorists in our country? Probably. Would that mean that we are harboring them? I just think that when you point at an entire country and say they “harbor” something that is generally considered “evil” it is dangerous. I think it is just another way for this administration to, again, paint with a broad stroke an entire region of people and categorize them as “terrorists” or “terrorist sympathizers”.
All this crap is doing no good.
It is just adding fuel to an already exploding situation.
Nothing will be solved with this approach.
Someone call Clinton.
I think he’s on Bush Sr.’s speed dial.
Comments