This is the only part I saw you specifically drew issue with yet, read it again and this time realize what the writer is saying. It seems so clear and easy to read, yet you distort it, I assume, on purpose to further mohamud's cause.
Great thread. Toopac (the "atheist") is standing in the line and every member of the forum (from the majority who have brains and also use them) comes in his turn and slaps him in the face. lol what a liar
Well we have chaos (the emotional one crying, lol,ing as usual but very little talking), Mia backing him up making little if any sense, neither of the two are following forums rules. Debunk actually this time has made a point (even though it isn't his own) but it's right it should be clarified: These are continuous paragraphs under the section: "CHAPTER 17: TALKING TO THE AMERICAN LEFT" With their heads, most liberals still support Israel. But their hearts go out to whomever looks like the biggest underdog. Right now they feel that is the Palestinians. It explains why liberals have become so openly hostile since the start of the Gaza war and why life for pro-Israeli communicators will only get more difficult in the future. There is far too little sympathy for the plight of Israelis from America’s left, and incredible emotional support for the plight of the Palestinians. It is critical to make sure that Liberals understand this is a fight between Israel and Iran and its proxies, not just a territorial dispute between Israel and Palestinians. In Israel’s short 61 years they have faced 7 wars and two intifadas. Almost no Israeli family has escaped the tragedies of war unscathed. The suicide bombings and rocket attacks have become a fact of life, but stories and pictures of Palestinian children hurt or killed by an Israeli soldier evoke significant anti-Israeli emotion. I blame some of this on key media outlets that wrongfully published as truth false allegations by UNWRA and others against Israel during the Gaza War. But, the fact is, the pictures coming into people’s homes on a daily basis do a great deal to undermine Israel’s cause. If you don’t do something about both news sources, the communication problem will only get worse. (And you need to spend as much time focused on the visual component of the story as the language you use.) The wealth, power and success of Israel actually hurts you in the eyes of the Left, while the poverty and failure of the Palestinians work to their benefit. The feeling among the liberal elite is that Israel uses all of its advancements and advantages “unfairly†or “immorally†against the Palestinians. Israel is so rich and so strong that they fail to see why it is necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids or why Israel needs to level homes or attack villages or, most importantly, why a Palestinian state is a threat to Israel’s existence. Making the argument that Israel is a small country with a tiny land mass with hostile neighbors all around you won’t win either the hearts of the minds of liberal Americans. They think Israel can survive anything. The nation and those who speak on their behalf that are perceived as being most for peace will win more hearts and minds. Period. Because they believe “all people are basically good†and hate war, liberals think diplomacy can and should solve almost every conflict. Don’t make the mistake of thinking you will win friends in the liberal community or from Europeans by publicly opposing opportunities for America or Israel to speak to Iran or their proxies. They believe in engagement. Thus, your job is to remind liberals that engagement is an important process but it is not an outcome. The outcome we want is security and peace for both sides. What's not in-context? there's 2 paras before "shooting unarmed kids" is mentioned, there's 2 paras after it. I think we can safely rule out Anti-Semitism considering their cause and propaganda to further Israel's agenda. Maybe if one claims "out of context again", they will kindly put: " The feeling among the liberal elite is that Israel uses all of its advancements and advantages “unfairly†or “immorally†against the Palestinians. Israel is so rich and so strong that they fail to see why it is necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids " --- in to the correct context, in fact into any context that would make it less repugnant. Thanks @ Chas for your rep, it's appreciated.
This coming from the same person who expects us to believe that israel keeps building settlements because hamas keeps attacking them. Yes and the settlements are for purely self defense purposes . Heck while were at it why dont we just roll over a peace activist while we are at it. Its cool we have some honest israelis like Anna Baltzar who details all the settlements that they keep on building. This is like me saying to the palestinians " accept our breadcrumbs today because tomorrow you might not even exist". There is a huge difference between being jewish and being a zionist. I had many jewish friends when growing up on the east coast and none of them even remotely seem like the pro-zionist propagandists on this forum. They are respectful, honest, helpful and were always there for me and my family, plus they never twisted the truth like this.
This thread is ridiculous, what is the issue? You would have to be incredibly naive to believe a special interest group is not actively trying to persuade. The National Rifle Association wants us to write to our representatives in support of firearms, and the National Right to Life Committee is working diligently to convince people that abortions are morally wrong, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has a handbook to show you how to convince friends that they must become a vegetarian, you know the National Organization for Women isn't that fair and balanced as far as protecting the rights of men, and The Christian Coalition wants to convert all of you atheists - and yes, do not believe for a moment they do not provide training for this activism. Why is this somehow different? What's the matter New, are you geting all riled up by watching Farfour re-runs again?
there is slight difference, none of the above is perching to justify the slaughter of humans, ethnic cleansing and the land-grabbing but that shouldn't be of any problem right ? because for you or may be you are having cramps after reading this propaganda bible ?
Nothing much, just small things. For instance a charity saying saying that liberals will fail to see why shooting it's necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids. A charity for peace, security and freedom. Are you liberal? Did these techniques work on you? or are you a republican that apparently by omission won't fail to see why they should shoot unarmed kids? Persuade? You mean like. Don't eat meat, killing animals is bad? Then showing you how these animals are killed. Don't ruin the world with CO2? use alternatives like wind power. Human Rights watch promoting human rights and persuading others to support human rights? Any organisation out to hoodwink is by default dishonest. Are they saying in there doctrine and propaganda that "the world fails to see why shooting liberals necessary on the grounds that they often oppose guns and may like to see them banned"? Or making any statements such that are equivelent to the one shown? Are they saying in their doctrine and propaganda that "the world fails to see why shooting pro-abortionists is necessary on the grounds that they oppose life"? Or making any statements such that are equivelent to the one shown? Are they saying in their doctrine and propaganda that "the world fails to see why shooting animal killers is necessary on the grounds that they kill animals"? Or making any statements such that are equivelent to the one shown? Do they advocate shooting men? or maybe just the violent ones? And if we don't convert they say we are going to hell, however do they say that "the world fails to see why shooting Atheists is necessary" on the grounds they should meet their maker early to be sent to hell? It's not difficult, do any of them Say others eg (liberals/republicans/whites/blacks/or whatever group) "fail to see why shooting it's necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids"? or an equivalent? Can one be honest and say there is not a problem, They are a special interest group?
I will repeat what everbody told you already 20 times: if you can't understand from the context and the spirit of the whole chapter, that the purpose of the blue sentence is not to say that: "It is necessary that armored tanks shoot unamred kids" Then you are plain and simple: stupid. like new. I thought that you were a manipulating liar, but apparently you're just stupid, and that's even worse. So my mind is at rest. And even if you found one sentence that was misplaced or mistyped, this still doesn't make the whole paper: "racist, intolerant, evil and supremacist in nature". and lets not even mention that this paper have absolutely no importance and does not represent anybody. The following, however, do represent a society. Called "The Palestinian People". As there are millions of such footages, on their national TV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEB0SvMzKzg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dPb1bF-s4M you get it? good.
Then put it into the correct context as asked above. Keep claiming "out of context" doesn't help you say "it doesn't mean what it says".
I did. As well as the rest of us did. Start to read out posts and then all of us will not slap you in the face one after another.
Ok, post the whole chapter lets see if that text disappears after doing so. You cannot say "liberals fail to see why it is necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids" whether it's in the context of that chapter the whole propaganda guide nor anywhere. You want to know why? Liberals nor any other human being would never say shooting unarmed kids is "ok" or "acceptable", because that is no different than Hama's blowing up Israeli kids.
I posted already, and I pointed out already everything that needs to be said. You intentionally left the whole context + the closing sentence out. And you know why. I will not argue again the this sentence certainly does not show that the authors of the text (who represent NOBODY anyway) did not want to say what you try to convince us they did. I will also not argue that the earth is not flat. My pride and self-respect does not allow me to do such a thing. Could have helped you if you have some self-respect too, in which case you would have read the report, thought to yourself "these nasty jews - they are smart, they know how to take care of their interests", and moved forward without creating this miserable evil OP and putting yourself for all the westerns here as a bad joke. It they said that "it is necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids" I would have had no problem to admit it. They represent nobody. They are nobody. But, they didn't. If you don't care that all the smart people on this board (differentiate from new and polite teen) tell you that they didn't and insist they did, you are not just stupid, you are major fucking stupid. Everybody can read the text. Only you arrive at the wrong conclusions, and this is called: Stupidity.
No you didn't you posted that it's no in context that's all. Here's a challenge for you, summarize that into the correct context, do so yourself here on this forum, you read the entire chapter you say "to know what context it's in"? right? So explain to us what it means etc using your own words. So in other words deal with the point* That involves not drawing comparisons with other crimes or hate speech, not saying it's evil to point it out, not saying it's "out of context", these diversions do not prove your point. The only remedy to that is let others make their mind up, in fact they should read the entire Propaganda Guide. Well they are representing Israel You support them too Actually I read it and thought they are incredibly dumb, one for including such mis leading information, two for even including some of the things that they did, three because a lot of their psychology is wrong, four for even publishing it. Yea, it's evil for pointing out what Israeli's say such as "Israel is so rich and so strong that they fail to see why it is necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids ". Westerners that support Israel mostly by large simply don't like brown people, it really is that simple. The others simply believe what they see on TV, very few have never even been out of the USA to actually look for themselves. So you have the support of dumb and dumber for wars, wars and more wars, actually having the support of dumb and dumber proves why the world should ignore you calls for more wars.
I did, others did too. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=12979462&postcount=11 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=12979296&postcount=9 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=12980770&postcount=18 I hope that you are young and still need to improve your reading comprehension abilities, if not, I feel very sorry for you for being such a fail. You and "new" is the perfect match.
Oh you diversion attempts were "in context"? Good. I still see "liberals fail to see why it is necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids". Do you see this? and now it's in the correct context... What bit if any qualifies that statement? IE "liberals fail to see why it is necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids" or makes it any less sickening? (from the above the "in-context version") You may consult your Propaganda Guide if necessary and even use highlighting.
lets try a different approach, you seem to be too stupid for the conventional one. Does the quran say that muslims should not take jews and christians are their friends, and kill all unbelievers until they surrender before Allah? If the quran tells the muslims not to take jews and Christians are their friends and kill all of the non-believers, then the paper of these 23 guys who represent nobody claim that it is justified to shoot with tanks on unarmed kids. We have a deal?
Obviously, I'm in complete disagreement with your views on Israel - the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has already been discussed on this forum ad nauseum. I believe what you're saying is that you fully support Palestinian propaganda, but it's wrong if Israeli supporters do the same. Is that correct? This sentence makes a lot of sense, except for everything after the "or".
You mean lets try a Straw Man Argument Right? - I'm no Muslim, I don't read the Quaran. Muslims live next door to me I'm not dead yet and I'm an unbeliever. Now will you attempt a proper "in-context" defense for shooting at unarmed kids or not? What bit if any qualifies that statement? IE "liberals fail to see why it is necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids" or makes it any less sickening? (from the above the "in-context version") You may consult your Propaganda Guide (except using diversion) if necessary and even use highlighting.
If you couldn't understand my and others' explanations, there is no point in trying to explain again, as this will require some writing and you stand no chance to be able to understand it if you didn't understand it so far. Instead, lets move forward and try something else. I did not ask you if you are muslim. My question was very simple. I asked you if you think that the quran tells muslims: A) not to take jews and christians as friends B) kill all the unbelievers where they can find them. C) that in the hearts of the unbelievers (you?), there is a disease. D) that the unbelievers are evildoers. Then, I will go back to your question was yet another attempt to explain it how to read it in context.