Med ujævne mellemrum – stort set hver gang demokraterne er blevet valgt – tester ekstremistiske muslimer fra HamaSS/Hezbollah/Isis den amerikanske regering. Det er det samme HVER GANG:
HamaSS fyrer masser af raketter, som de har fået fra Iran, af mod Israel. De er revnende ligeglade med HVOR de rammer, og Hamass sigter altid efter civile mål
Og hvad gøre pseudo-journalisterne ? Præcis det samme HVER gang : afholder en konkurrence om hvem der kan klynke mest, når Israel forsvarer sig ved at angribe Hamass- mål i Gaza
Disse pseudo-journalister koncentrerer sig altid om civile tab i Gaza, men fortæller næsten aldrig sandheden:
- at Hamass gemmer sig under/i civile mål, så som skoler og vestlige organisationer. Hvis Israel så rammer disse Hamass mål, er det umuligt at undgå civile tab, og pseudo-journalisterne kan klynke løs og lade befolkningen i Danmark ( og i Vesten) konkludere at det er Israels skyld
- at Hamass har lavet en aftale med MSM om at MSM IKKE viser/fotograferer/beretter om at Hamass fyrer raketter af mod Israel fra civile mål. Det blev klart dokumenteret forrige gang Hamass angreb Israel i 2014, da en – vistnok finsk – rapporter var i færd med at lave en direkte udsendelse og Hamass bag hende midt i et civilt bymiljø fyrede raketter af, så det kom med på videoen !
- at Hamass gemmer sig sig i bygninger, som pseudo-journalister arbejder fra, fordi de “ved” at Israel normalt ikke angriber sådanne mål af hensyn til civile tab !
- at når pseudo-journalister en sjælden gang beretter om civile israelske tab, ALTID skynder sig at understrege at de stakkels araberes tab er meget større
- at pseudo-journalister altid HELT UKRITISK accepterer tabstal fra Hamass/Hamass kontrollerede hospitaler, som om man kunne stole på det. I 2002 (før Hamass) var Israel nødt til at angribe byen Jenin og genrerobre den for at fjerne Fatah-terrorister. Og fake-news-MSM havde som sædvanligt travlt med at klynke og undersøgte aldrig de “tabstal”, som de fik udleveret på 550 døde . Senere har det vist sig at maksimalt 10 % af dette tal var korrekt !
- at pseudo-journalister aldrig fortæller at en stor del – måske 20 % – af civile tab skyldes nedfaldne Hamass raketter/granater !
Ovenstående er bare det, jeg umiddelbart kan huske at pseudo-journalister i 99% af deres “rapportering” ( læs propaganda) med vilje undlader
Her er en rigtig god artikel :
Denne gang klynker pseudo-journalisterne endnu mere, fordi Israel er blevet træt af at Hamass gemmer sig i de samme bygninger …
Denne gang angreb Israel en Hamassbygning , hvor også pseudo-journalisterne arbejdede. Men Israel gav dem en advarsel først , selv om man IKKE behøver at gøre det ifølge Geneve-konventionen.
Det angreb bragte denne gang klynk fra AP ,bragt af BT:
Bemærk BTs første sætning :
“I bygningen var beboere, men også ansatte på de to internationale medier Al Jazeera og Associated Press (AP).”
Så der var altså slet ikke nogen Hamass-terrorister der … ja godmorgen
Her er en video med AP løgneren 🙂
Man kan ikke arbejde i en bygning og undgå at se, hvem der ellers kommer ind i bygningen…
In 2014, former AP Jerusalem editor Matti Friedman wrote about how Hamas manipulates and intimidates the media:
In previous rounds of Gaza fighting, Hamas learned that international coverage from the territory could be molded to its needs, a lesson it would implement in this summer’s war. Most of the press work in Gaza is done by local fixers, translators, and reporters, people who would understandably not dare cross Hamas, making it only rarely necessary for the group to threaten a Westerner. The organization’s armed forces could be made to disappear. The press could be trusted to play its role in the Hamas script, instead of reporting that there was such a script. Hamas strategy did not exist, according to Hamas—or, as reporters would say, was “not the story.” There was no Hamas charter blaming Jews for centuries of perfidy, or calling for their murder; this was not the story. The rockets falling on Israeli cities were quite harmless; they were not the story either.It’s easier to leave the other photographers out of the frame and let the picture tell the story: Here are dead people, and Israel killed them.
When Hamas’s leaders surveyed their assets before this summer’s round of fighting, they knew that among those assets was the international press. The AP staff in Gaza City would witness a rocket launch right beside their office, endangering reporters and other civilians nearby—and the AP wouldn’t report it, not even in AP articles about Israeli claims that Hamas was launching rockets from residential areas. (This happened.) Hamas fighters would burst into the AP’s Gaza bureau and threaten the staff—and the AP wouldn’t report it. (This also happened.) Cameramen waiting outside Shifa Hospital in Gaza City would film the arrival of civilian casualties and then, at a signal from an official, turn off their cameras when wounded and dead fighters came in, helping Hamas maintain the illusion that only civilians were dying. (This too happened; the information comes from multiple sources with firsthand knowledge of these incidents.)
Colford, the AP spokesman, confirmed that armed militants entered the AP’s Gaza office in the early days of the war to complain about a photo showing the location of a rocket launch, though he said that Hamas claimed that the men “did not represent the group.” The AP “does not report many interactions with militias, armies, thugs or governments,” he wrote. “These incidents are part of the challenge of getting out the news—and not themselves news.”
AP plejede at stå for Associated Press., men det har længe været en løgn . Idag er AP = Arabisk Propaganda
Her er tilsidst en video med Pat Condell om Gaza-hykleriet.
Den er oploaded for kort tid siden, men jeg mener den er fra forrige gang …
Men den er præcis lige så aktuel !
Her er en fantastisk god video fra Sky news Australia, som også givert Sky News (UK) et hak i tuden !
Decisions like these are hard to fathom if you believe the foreign press corps’ role is to explain a complicated story to people far away. But they make sense if you understand that journalists covering Israel and the Palestinian territories often don’t see their role that way. The radio and print journalist Mark Lavie, who has reported from the region since 1972, was a colleague of mine at the AP, where he was an editor in the Jerusalem bureau and then in Cairo until his retirement last year. (It was Lavie who first learned of the Israeli peace offer of late 2008, and was ordered by his superiors to ignore the story.) An Indiana-born Israeli of moderate politics, he had a long run in journalism that included several wars and the first Palestinian intifada, and found little reason to complain about the functioning of the media.
But things changed in earnest in 2000, with the collapse of peace efforts and the outbreak of the Second Intifada. Israel accepted President Bill Clinton’s peace framework that fall and the Palestinians rejected it, as Clinton made clear. Nevertheless, Lavie recently told me, the bureau’s editorial line was still that the conflict was Israel’s fault, and the Palestinians and the Arab world were blameless. By the end of Lavie’s career, he was editing Israel copy on the AP’s Middle East regional desk in Cairo, trying to restore balance and context to stories he thought had little connection to reality. In his words, he had gone from seeing himself as a proud member of the international press corps to “the Jew-boy with his finger in the dike.” He wrote a book, Broken Spring, about his front-row view of the Middle East’s descent into chaos, and retired disillusioned and angry.
Most consumers of the Israel story don’t understand how the story is manufactured. But Hamas does. Since assuming power in Gaza in 2007, the Islamic Resistance Movement has come to understand that many reporters are committed to a narrative wherein Israelis are oppressors and Palestinians passive victims with reasonable goals, and are uninterested in contradictory information. Recognizing this, certain Hamas spokesmen have taken to confiding to Western journalists, including some I know personally, that the group is in fact a secretly pragmatic outfit with bellicose rhetoric, and journalists—eager to believe the confession, and sometimes unwilling to credit locals with the smarts necessary to deceive them—have taken it as a scoop instead of as spin.
During my time at the AP, we helped Hamas get this point across with a school of reporting that might be classified as “Surprising Signs of Moderation” (a direct precursor to the “Muslim Brotherhood Is Actually Liberal” school that enjoyed a brief vogue in Egypt). In one of my favorite stories, “More Tolerant Hamas” (December 11, 2011), reporters quoted a Hamas spokesman informing readers that the movement’s policy was that “we are not going to dictate anything to anyone,” and another Hamas leader saying the movement had “learned it needs to be more tolerant of others.” Around the same time, I was informed by the bureau’s senior editors that our Palestinian reporter in Gaza couldn’t possibly provide critical coverage of Hamas because doing so would put him in danger.
Hamas is aided in its manipulation of the media by the old reportorial belief, a kind of reflex, according to which reporters shouldn’t mention the existence of reporters. In a conflict like ours, this ends up requiring considerable exertions: So many photographers cover protests in Israel and the Palestinian territories, for example, that one of the challenges for anyone taking pictures is keeping colleagues out of the frame. That the other photographers are as important to the story as Palestinian protesters or Israeli soldiers—this does not seem to be considered.