A message from a Lebanese journalist .....

Originally posted by no1marauder
Thanks; a long cut and paste in a language that the vast majority of posters on this forum can't understand is a very useful addition to the "debate".

Originally posted by ivanhoe
http://www.worldlingo.com/en/products_services/worldlingo_translator.html

The above link was posted by AthousandYoung.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since you are presenting it in the Debates forum, translate it yourself.

I made no "personal attacks" on "Michael Behe". And it is impossible to make a " personal attack on the author's article"; articles aren't persons.

So Ivanhoe,

Over 100 posts later and you still skirt around the issue of the author's origin and credibitly.
I raised this point on post 5 of this thread and you haven't come up with any sort of intelligent answer on this one point.

Poor Show very poor..............

Oh, and saying "as i defined" in your earlier post, exactly what does that mean?

The author and this article are not a representation of what the lebanese feel so the article, this whole thread and any incoherent no answers you have given are irrelevant.....

So, to recap:

The original article was posted with the explanation: "This article is written by a Lebanese journalist, an independant journalist, not a Hezbollah sycophant, nor a Syrian one, nor an Iranian one, nor a lackey of the Lebanese establishment."

Now it seems we have no reason to believe the journalist is Lebanese* (although the original poster claims this doesn't matter), and we have a definition of "independent" which is along the lines of "not in thrall to/directed by a government or organisation". Note that the original poster contrasts "independent" with sycophants/lackeys of Hezbollah/Syria/Iran/"the Lebanese establishment". No mention of Israeli sycophants/lackeys (do they not exist? do they have no voice?) We also learn that MeNA has a strong pro-Israeli bias, to the extent that the main "story" on the front page of their news site is simply an attack on Hezbollah, it's terrorist status, etc. A cursory glance at the other stories and features all show the same pro-Israeli bias, with little or no attempt at balance. The "independent" employees of this quite mysterious news organisation all show remarkable consistency of viewpoint.

No matter. We are asked to consider whether the facts presented are true, and have been overlooked by the "non-independent" news sources (the original poster's main example is often the BBC - quite how Hezbollah infiltrated and controls the BBC is somewhat unclear).

What are these facts? That the Lebanese don't support Hezbollah? The only poll data we have (from a source routinely quoted by all mainstream media, including the Israeli media) suggests something different. The original poster hints that the director of the polling organisation may be a dubious source. All we really know about him is that he gives lectures around the world,** is a Shia muslim (a lot of Lebanese are) and his daughter, an academic not involved in the polling, seems to have some sympathy with Hezbollah (a lot of Lebanese do). Against this, we have an op-ed piece by someone who writes for a strongly pro-Israeli organisation.

My own limited experience, from talking to around a dozen British refugees from Lebanon of various faiths, is that the scale of the attacks on that country has indeed broadened support for Hezbollah.

What other facts? It is not clear. I await clarification. What are the great revelations the world has ignored that this article brings to light? Syrian and Iranian involvement? We know of this. But then we know that America has supplied arms to various countries, including Iraq and Israel. What else? The "satellite photos"? It seems the journalist has just drawn a circle on a GoogleEarth map and claimed that is the extent of the bomb damage. Is that a fact? How do we weigh it against the eyewitness accounts of mainstream journalists and Lebanese of all faiths (and the admissions of the Israeli army)?

What are the facts that the world is ignoring?

*MeNA has addressed this issue and insisted only that the journalist is based in Lebanon.
**He also said recently there was no point trying to take details polls now; the current situation was too inflammatory.

Dottewell: "We also learn that MeNA has a strong pro-Israeli bias, to the extent that the main "story" on the front page of their news site is simply an attack on Hezbollah, ... "


Thanks for the above words. They show exactly what my point is about many media, the point I am trying to make by initiating this thread. If we apply your reasoning to the mainstream world media then they have a strong pro-Hezbollah bias, since they publish on their front pages lots of main "stories" and reports, "simply" attacking Israel.

You just proved my point. Thanks.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Dottewell: "We also learn that MeNA has a strong pro-Israeli bias, to the extent that the main "story" on the front page of their news site is simply an attack on Hezbollah, ... "


Thanks for the above words. They show exactly what my point is about many media, the point this thread is trying to make. If we apply your reasoning to the mainstream w ...[text shortened]... n "stories" and reports, "simply" attacking Israel.

You just proved my point. Thanks.[/b]

Originally posted by dottewell
Yeah, right. Find me a newspaper which has carried a front-page story, this month, which is equivalent to:

Hezbollah, Trojan Horse?

The European Parliament adopted, in March 2005, a resolution (473 votes for, 33 against, judging Hezbollah to be a terrorist organisation.

Is that news?

Actually, they have a new main "story" now. This begin ...[text shortened]... ]

Is that news?

Or is it opinion?

What do you think a news agency is supposed to be?

Coins have two sides:
http://blogs.24.com/ViewBlog.aspx?blogid=4be6a7bd-a485-49f0-8983-554bf12c2645

http://blogs.24.com/ViewBlog.aspx?blogid=9aad6891-0e99-460e-a44f-85b3f30b8bb2