Financial Revolution Underway Led by Global Banking System

pearljamfan1212

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yes I do wonder why the mainstream media chooses certain angles to report. I also wonder why the 9/11 commission put out such expedient evidence without fully investigating things like this, and why the airline put options have yet to be traced, and also what has become the text message warnings: http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2008/11/13/two-israelis-world-trade-center-employees-receive-text-message-warning-of-911-attacks/

I'll tell you why. because the main stream media, for the most part, only reports stories that can be backed up with proof and sources. whatreallyhappened.com can post whatever garbage they want without any proof whatsoever....and people like you will take it as undeniable fact. its outright scary to see how easily you can be manipulated.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

I'll tell you why. because the main stream media, for the most part, only reports stories that can be backed up with proof and sources. whatreallyhappened.com can post whatever garbage they want without any proof whatsoever....and people like you will take it as undeniable fact. its outright scary to see how easily you can be manipulated.

WRH broke the put option story, and WRH controls the FBI's involvement into Odigo's texting services?

Wow...that's news to me. I think I need to give Rivero more credit these days. He's a sly manipulator indeed. :rolleyes:

edit btw....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

so easily manipulated I am...

pearljamfan1212

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

thanks for posting..this article you posted was written Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK

did you click on the click at the bottom of the article? that says this..

(Note: An update on this story was published in October 2006 in the BBC News editors' blog)

here is the link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

Screen grab of original website storyWe later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

so easily manipulated I am...

you said it man.

its amazing. its like you mentally block out what you dont want to see. do you do it subconsciously?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

thanks for posting..this article you posted was written Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK

did you click on the click at the bottom of the article? that says this..

(Note: An update on this story was published in October 2006 in the BBC News editors' blog)

here is the link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

Screen grab of original website storyWe later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.



you said it man.

its amazing. its like you mentally block out what you dont want to see. do you do it subconsciously?

I'll give you that, there seems to be some confusion on the names. What of the put options, and text messages. What do you know about that over what I know that makes you so sure of anything in the end?

In fact, most of what we were told were lies.


Also ...did you catch this part on the link you provided?

"Strength of the evidence:

There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.

At best the evidence is circumstantial.

Of this, perhaps the strongest leads are the alleged financial transfers between an al-Qaeda operative and the man alleged to have led the hijackers.

Other evidence - the intercepts, Mohammed Atta's link to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the ties of other hijackers to al-Qaeda - is even less firm.

The evidence is not being judged in a court of law. It only needs to persuade governments around the world to back the US-led war on terrorism and to a lesser extent to carry public opinion.

US and British officials have indicated that they are unable to reveal all the evidence for security reasons.

When asserting that Bin Laden is behind the attacks, US and UK officials lean heavily on what they believe to be Bin Laden's record and his connection to other terrorist attacks.

They are in effect arguing that the attacks are part of a clearly discernable pattern linked to previous attacks - notably the bombings of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000, and two US embassies in East Africa in August 1998."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm

Over a million people died on circumstantial evidence. Does that sit well with you, and put your mind completely at rest?

It doesn't for me.

Byrnzie

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

because the main stream media, for the most part, only reports stories that can be backed up with proof and sources.

Like the fact that Sadaam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the Western world with his weapons of mass destruction, right?
Or that the island of Granada posed a threat to the U.S and threatened to invade U.S soil in 1983?
Or that Israel is acting in self-defense and deserves our full support.

I could go on all day. Suffice it to say, we should of course always believe the mainstream media.

Whatever you do, don't read Noam Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' or 'Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies'. They're just commie propaganda.

pearljamfan1212

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I'll give you that, there seems to be some confusion on the names. What of the put options, and text messages. What do you know about that over what I know that makes you so sure of anything in the end?

In fact, most of what we were told were lies.

I'm a trader. its what I've been doing for a living for the past 15 years. someone or some group made a bet the airlines were going down. so what? that happens every day. its pure coincidence.

as for the texts, this is the first I heard of it. I'll check it out.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Also ...did you catch this part on the link you provided?

I didnt provide a link. you did. you just chose to ignore the part I posted.

and I dont see where this is. is it in the comments part?

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

"Strength of the evidence:

There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.

At best the evidence is circumstantial.

Of this, perhaps the strongest leads are the alleged financial transfers between an al-Qaeda operative and the man alleged to have led the hijackers.

Other evidence - the intercepts, Mohammed Atta's link to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the ties of other hijackers to al-Qaeda - is even less firm.

The evidence is not being judged in a court of law. It only needs to persuade governments around the world to back the US-led war on terrorism and to a lesser extent to carry public opinion.

US and British officials have indicated that they are unable to reveal all the evidence for security reasons.

When asserting that Bin Laden is behind the attacks, US and UK officials lean heavily on what they believe to be Bin Laden's record and his connection to other terrorist attacks.

They are in effect arguing that the attacks are part of a clearly discernable pattern linked to previous attacks - notably the bombings of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000, and two US embassies in East Africa in August 1998."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm

Over a million people died on circumstantial evidence. Does that sit well with you, and put your mind completely at rest?

It doesn't for me.

there is much more the circumstantial evidence. the problem is, if I go out and find it, and post it, you will dismiss it because it will come from an "official" source. so honestly, should I bother?

pearljamfan1212

Byrnzie wrote:

Like the fact that Sadaam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the Western world with his weapons of mass destruction, right?

saddam did have WMDs. he used them remember? and the main stream media never said saddam poised a threat. the American government did.

Byrnzie wrote:

Or that Israel is acting in self-defense and deserves our full support.

are you chinese? do you even watch american news? serious question.

the main stream media NEVER says Israel deserves our full support.

Byrnzie wrote:

I could go on all day.

please do

Byrnzie wrote:

Suffice it to say, we should of course always believe the mainstream media.

nope, but you can bet they have more proof of what they report they some random blog buried in the aybss of the internet.

Byrnzie wrote:

Whatever you do, don't read Noam Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' or 'Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies'. They're just commie propaganda.

thats bullshit

sponger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

So you're saying the money system is being manipulated due to overpopulation?

Overpopulation allows the manipulation to be carried out under the guise of public interest.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

I'm a trader. its what I've been doing for a living for the past 15 years. someone or some group made a bet the airlines were going down. so what? that happens every day. its pure coincidence.

as for the texts, this is the first I heard of it. I'll check it out.


I didnt provide a link. you did. you just chose to ignore the part I posted.

and I dont see where this is. is it in the comments part?



there is much more the circumstantial evidence. the problem is, if I go out and find it, and post it, you will dismiss it because it will come from an "official" source. so honestly, should I bother?

So why weren't the put options investigated and put to rest if it was probably just routine speculation? A lot of people died on this one.

The link above (I posted re circumstantial evidence) was a sub link in the story you provided on the name thing.

Also here the FBI's wanted website http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm still nothing on 9/11, so it appears it's still circumstantial evidence linking him to 9/11. One would expect if there was a discovered connection, the page would be updated for sure within the day of discovering it, not to mention probably a few day media blitz proclaiming it.

PJ_Saluki

OutOfBreath wrote:

...Tell me how you know for a fact that these Zionist bankers rule the world. Initially, to me that sounds like good old anti-semitism with a modern twist...
Peace
Dan

Bingo. I've thought that lately reading Roland's posts. I wondered if he would ever come right out and reveal his anti-semitism. It appears he has. This is follows the same line of thinking anti-semites have used for years: the world is run by the machinations of money-grubbing Jews. Give me a break.

Byrnzie

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

saddam did have WMDs. he used them remember?

He used Wmd's that we sold him in the 80's. He used them against the Iranians and against the Kurds with our full support. At the end of the first Gulf war he used them against the Arabs in the south of the country who were attempting to overthrow him, again with our full support.

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

and the main stream media never said saddam poised a threat. the American government did.

And how were these supposed 'threats' relayed to the general population? They were relayed unquestioningly, and without objection, and in many cases they were exaggerated and expanded upon by the media.

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

are you chinese? do you even watch american news? serious question.

No, I'm not Chinese. And yes, I do.

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

the main stream media NEVER says Israel deserves our full support.

Is that so?

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/28521
US Media Bias: Covering Israel / Palestine
'Every time a suicide bombing strikes Israel, mass coverage of the tragedy begins instantly. Whether landing on the front page of The New York Times or taking up the headline block on CNN.com, the pain Israeli people endure is shown endlessly. Israelis do suffer. Suicide bombings are horrific. Nevertheless, Palestinian pain occurs far more frequently, and yet often overlooked by the mainstream American media.

Since the uprising in September of 2000, more than 3800 Palestinians have been killed in the Occupied Territories as a result of the conflict. Most Americans are unaware of the toll because it is not properly reported. In 2004, If Americans Knew—an American organization that exposes and examines the facts of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict—reported that 808 Palestinian conflict deaths occurred while 107 Israelis conflict deaths occurred. The study, however, found that The New York Times covered Israeli deaths in the headline or the first paragraph in 159 articles—meaning in some cases they covered the same death numerous times. In contrast, The New York Times only covered about 40 percent of Palestinian deaths—334 of 808—in the headline or in the first paragraph of the articles. Nearly eight Palestinians died for every one Israeli. Disturbingly The New York Times is considered the quintessential “liberal” newspaper of the US...'



Associated Press Coverage of
Israeli and Palestinian Deaths
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html

'...In 2004, there were 141 reports in AP headlines or first paragraphs of Israeli deaths. During this time, there had actually been 108 Israelis killed (the discrepancy is due to the fact that a number of Israeli deaths were reported multiple times).

During the same period, 543 Palestinian deaths were reported in headlines or first paragraphs. During this time, 821 Palestinians had actually been killed.4

In other words, 131% of Israeli deaths and 66% of Palestinian deaths were reported in AP headlines or first paragraphs.

That is, AP reported prominently on Israeli deaths at a rate 2.0 times greater than Palestinian deaths.

In reality, 7.6 times more Palestinians were killed than Israelis in 2004...'


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0507-23.htm
'Routinely, the American news media have ignored or pilloried any strong criticism of Washington's massive support for Israel. But the paper and an article based on it by respected academics John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, first published March 23 in the London Review of Books, are catalysts for some healthy public discussion of key issues.

The first mainstream media reactions to the paper - often with the customary name-calling - were mostly efforts to shut down debate before it could begin. Early venues for vituperative attacks on the paper included the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times ("nutty"), the Boston Herald (headline: "Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard") and The Washington Post (headline: "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic").

http://www.imemc.org/article/55334
'The three major candidates for the US Presidency all voiced their overwhelming support for the state of Israel this week, at the annual conference of the American Israel Political Action Committee, or AIPAC...'

RolandTD20Kdrummer

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Bingo. I've thought that lately reading Roland's posts. I wondered if he would ever come right out and reveal his anti-semitism. It appears he has. This is follows the same line of thinking anti-semites have used for years: the world is run by the machinations of money-grubbing Jews. Give me a break.

There's no anti-semitism. That's a fallacy, and a common tactic used to cite racism over criticism.

Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as false flag terrorism, it's exists (and has in the past) whether you want to believe it or not.

So you deny the whole issue of radical zionist interests having any involvement in what is going on?

PJ_Saluki

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

There's no anti-semitism. That's a fallacy, and a common tactic used to cite racism over criticism.

Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as false flag terrorism, it's exists (and has in the past) whether you want to believe it or not.

So you deny the whole issue of radical zionist interests having any involvement in what is going on?

Never said I don't believe in false-flag terrorism. I'm also positive there are extremist Jews, just as there are extremist Muslims and Christians and extreme members of any group of people. That doesn't mean the entire world is controlled by your so-called "Zionists."

What you need to see is that you sound like a crackpot, anti-semite when you spout off about this great "Zionist Jew" conspiracy. You always ask people to look at things; well, look at how you sound when you cite these extreme sources to back up your idea of reality.

Correct me if I'm wrong: 9/11 was a false-flag act of terrorism perpetrated by Zionists, Muslims, centralized banks and the U.S. government? Is that correct, at least as far as you're concerned?

That's hard to believe. All this "truth" made me think of this column by Maddox, a guy you probably think is a false-flag asshole.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Never said I don't believe in false-flag terrorism. I'm also positive there are extremist Jews, just as there are extremist Muslims and Christians and extreme members of any group of people. That doesn't mean the entire world is controlled by your so-called "Zionists."

What you need to see is that you sound like a crackpot, anti-semite when you spout off about this great "Zionist Jew" conspiracy. You always ask people to look at things; well, look at how you sound when you cite these extreme sources to back up your idea of reality.

Correct me if I'm wrong: 9/11 was a false-flag act of terrorism perpetrated by Zionists, Muslims, centralized banks and the U.S. government? Is that correct, at least as far as you're concerned?

That's hard to believe. All this "truth" made me think of this column by Maddox, a guy you probably think is a false-flag asshole.

You've got it a bit blown out of proportion. One would think that such a statement cannot be made against an entire group of people by default, and that perhaps the political structure itself is the question. My mistake was saying the word Jew. Big mistake.

There is more than just casual evidence linking mossad to 9/11, and with spying in and on the US immediately prior to 9/11 and the hijackers. Certain elements in the CIA were probably well aware of this as well. In fact there is an outstanding legal trial against AIPAC relating specifically to this. This trial has been perpetually postponed several times.

One has to wonder why this is, and also why Israel can not be criticised at all without being called anti-semitic. Where is that ideology coming from exactly? The mainstream media.

edit: was the anti Semitic crackpot name calling thing necessary? do you feel better about yourself now?

NoK

Byrnzie wrote:

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/28521
US Media Bias: Covering Israel / Palestine
'Every time a suicide bombing strikes Israel, mass coverage of the tragedy begins instantly. Whether landing on the front page of The New York Times or taking up the headline block on CNN.com, the pain Israeli people endure is shown endlessly. Israelis do suffer. Suicide bombings are horrific. Nevertheless, Palestinian pain occurs far more frequently, and yet often overlooked by the mainstream American media.

Since the uprising in September of 2000, more than 3800 Palestinians have been killed in the Occupied Territories as a result of the conflict. Most Americans are unaware of the toll because it is not properly reported. In 2004, If Americans Knew—an American organization that exposes and examines the facts of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict—reported that 808 Palestinian conflict deaths occurred while 107 Israelis conflict deaths occurred. The study, however, found that The New York Times covered Israeli deaths in the headline or the first paragraph in 159 articles—meaning in some cases they covered the same death numerous times. In contrast, The New York Times only covered about 40 percent of Palestinian deaths—334 of 808—in the headline or in the first paragraph of the articles. Nearly eight Palestinians died for every one Israeli. Disturbingly The New York Times is considered the quintessential “liberal” newspaper of the US...'

Associated Press Coverage of
Israeli and Palestinian Deaths
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html

'...In 2004, there were 141 reports in AP headlines or first paragraphs of Israeli deaths. During this time, there had actually been 108 Israelis killed (the discrepancy is due to the fact that a number of Israeli deaths were reported multiple times).

During the same period, 543 Palestinian deaths were reported in headlines or first paragraphs. During this time, 821 Palestinians had actually been killed.4

In other words, 131% of Israeli deaths and 66% of Palestinian deaths were reported in AP headlines or first paragraphs.

That is, AP reported prominently on Israeli deaths at a rate 2.0 times greater than Palestinian deaths.

In reality, 7.6 times more Palestinians were killed than Israelis in 2004...'


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0507-23.htm
'Routinely, the American news media have ignored or pilloried any strong criticism of Washington's massive support for Israel. But the paper and an article based on it by respected academics John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, first published March 23 in the London Review of Books, are catalysts for some healthy public discussion of key issues.

The first mainstream media reactions to the paper - often with the customary name-calling - were mostly efforts to shut down debate before it could begin. Early venues for vituperative attacks on the paper included the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times ("nutty"), the Boston Herald (headline: "Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard") and The Washington Post (headline: "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic").

http://www.imemc.org/article/55334
'The three major candidates for the US Presidency all voiced their overwhelming support for the state of Israel this week, at the annual conference of the American Israel Political Action Committee, or AIPAC...'

And even when you don't see blatant bias in the media you see the subtle bias that passes over people's heads.. not because they are stupid but because they are not emotionally invested in this conflict.. examples always seen are

1. Israelis are always "retaliating"

2. When Israel attacks it is a military operation while Palestinian attacks are terrorist attacks (even if they are against the IDF). This was also seen in the coverage of the 2006 Lebanon war.

3. Settler violence is aggression or petty crime while Palestinian aggression is due to terrorist/fundamentalist/extremist views.

Its happened many times where a friend of mine reads an article and sees absolutely nothing wrong with it until I start pointing out to him the subtle language usage that reflects Palestinian evil. I think nowadays we are starting to see more non-biased reports because of non-mainstream media making it to our computer screens via the internet; not because mainstream media is less biased.

PJ_Saluki

I agree that there is bias in news coverage, though I also believe that any journalist worth his or her salt tries to avoid it. It's like when Katrina hit. I saw a picture of a black guy carrying some food (and beer) through the flood and he was "looting". There was later a picture of a white guy carrying food through the flood and he was "foraging".

Every person has biases. Keeping those biases out of news coverage is an undervalued responsibility.

Commy

PJ_Saluki wrote:

I agree that there is bias in news coverage, though I also believe that any journalist worth his or her salt tries to avoid it. It's like when Katrina hit. I saw a picture of a black guy carrying some food (and beer) through the flood and he was "looting". There was later a picture of a white guy carrying food through the flood and he was "foraging".

Every person has biases. Keeping those biases out of news coverage is an undervalued responsibility.

because the nature of journalism rewards those that conform. there is no room for anything but conventional ideology. reporters have a 5 minute window on tv to present their views...in no way can anything but conventional rheteoric be regurgitated in that time.

If someone says,
"the Federal reserve is slowly taking over America."
or something as significant, they are going to need more than the 5 minute slot to present their point of view. The structure of media does not allow that, or any dissenting views. notice the media is owned by the very people that the structure makes it impossible to question.

they reward those journalists, the individuals that conform.

OutOfBreath

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Isn't it a bit incredible then that your media lines right up with Canada and the US? or are you getting a different story then what I'm hearing?

Ehm, didn't I just say that it seems our media DOESN'T fall in line with what you say you see. I seem to be getting a different story than you, definitely. I might well believe that some american press is biased in it's coverage, but it doesnt seem they control the world, as you claim.

The same deal could be said for the elements in the West since 9/11, or certain other figure heads in Israel, compared to Bin Laden, but it isn't painted that way now is it?

I thought you were going for the impartial angle?

Seems you've been affected without actually realising it.

I dont understand what you're saying here. What could be said of what elements? What about Bin Laden?

I am going for the "knowing your sources" angle in an attempt at imparitality, yes. And you are still offering nothing of it. Best thing you can do to convince/placate me, is giving me some credible sources that back you up on what you allude to. You're dodging that like crazy so far.

Peace
Dan

pearljamfan1212

Byrnzie wrote:

He used Wmd's that we sold him in the 80's. He used them against the Iranians and against the Kurds with our full support. At the end of the first Gulf war he used them against the Arabs in the south of the country who were attempting to overthrow him, again with our full support.

LOL do you have a point here? I'm not debating whether or not saddam had WMDs and when, and where. I'm debating whether or not the media said saddam had them. which is a false claim you are making. the american government made the case, the media reported it.

Byrnzie wrote:

And how were these supposed 'threats' relayed to the general population? They were relayed unquestioningly, and without objection, and in many cases they were exaggerated and expanded upon by the media.

case in point why I dont think you watch the american media. and if you do, its a rare occasion. here in America the main stream media is on 24/7/365. there is a counter point to every single thing. sure there might be a bais in certain things but all sides are always covered

Byrnzie wrote:

Is that so?

yes that is so. you made a blanket claim that "media tells us to give FULL support to Israel" thats simply not true.

Byrnzie wrote:

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/28521
US Media Bias: Covering Israel / Palestine
'Every time a suicide bombing strikes Israel, mass coverage of the tragedy begins instantly. Whether landing on the front page of The New York Times or taking up the headline block on CNN.com, the pain Israeli people endure is shown endlessly. Israelis do suffer. Suicide bombings are horrific. Nevertheless, Palestinian pain occurs far more frequently, and yet often overlooked by the mainstream American media.

Since the uprising in September of 2000, more than 3800 Palestinians have been killed in the Occupied Territories as a result of the conflict. Most Americans are unaware of the toll because it is not properly reported. In 2004, If Americans Knew—an American organization that exposes and examines the facts of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict—reported that 808 Palestinian conflict deaths occurred while 107 Israelis conflict deaths occurred. The study, however, found that The New York Times covered Israeli deaths in the headline or the first paragraph in 159 articles—meaning in some cases they covered the same death numerous times. In contrast, The New York Times only covered about 40 percent of Palestinian deaths—334 of 808—in the headline or in the first paragraph of the articles. Nearly eight Palestinians died for every one Israeli. Disturbingly The New York Times is considered the quintessential “liberal” newspaper of the US...'



Associated Press Coverage of
Israeli and Palestinian Deaths
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html

'...In 2004, there were 141 reports in AP headlines or first paragraphs of Israeli deaths. During this time, there had actually been 108 Israelis killed (the discrepancy is due to the fact that a number of Israeli deaths were reported multiple times).

During the same period, 543 Palestinian deaths were reported in headlines or first paragraphs. During this time, 821 Palestinians had actually been killed.4

In other words, 131% of Israeli deaths and 66% of Palestinian deaths were reported in AP headlines or first paragraphs.

That is, AP reported prominently on Israeli deaths at a rate 2.0 times greater than Palestinian deaths.

In reality, 7.6 times more Palestinians were killed than Israelis in 2004...'


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0507-23.htm
'Routinely, the American news media have ignored or pilloried any strong criticism of Washington's massive support for Israel. But the paper and an article based on it by respected academics John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, first published March 23 in the London Review of Books, are catalysts for some healthy public discussion of key issues.

The first mainstream media reactions to the paper - often with the customary name-calling - were mostly efforts to shut down debate before it could begin. Early venues for vituperative attacks on the paper included the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times ("nutty"), the Boston Herald (headline: "Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard") and The Washington Post (headline: "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic").

http://www.imemc.org/article/55334
'The three major candidates for the US Presidency all voiced their overwhelming support for the state of Israel this week, at the annual conference of the American Israel Political Action Committee, or AIPAC...'

yes, there is a media bias towards Israel but thats not to say we are forced into taking sides on the issue.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

OutOfBreath wrote:

Ehm, didn't I just say that it seems our media DOESN'T fall in line with what you say you see. I seem to be getting a different story than you, definitely. I might well believe that some american press is biased in it's coverage, but it doesnt seem they control the world, as you claim.


I dont understand what you're saying here. What could be said of what elements? What about Bin Laden?

I am going for the "knowing your sources" angle in an attempt at imparitality, yes. And you are still offering nothing of it. Best thing you can do to convince/placate me, is giving me some credible sources that back you up on what you allude to. You're dodging that like crazy so far.

Peace
Dan

I don't see a lot of variation in the war on terror angle in the media internationally do you? It seems pretty homogeneous to me in the sense that everyone is rooting for the same team for the most part. If this wasn't the case, you would see a lot more mainstream media outlets continuously bashing Bush, Cheney, et al (Israel) incessantly for suspicious anti-humanitarian war crimes. Are you seeing this at all? I'm not. Maybe your news agencies portray this angle and I'm just not aware of it? Sure there is the occasional story that raises questions and doubts, but for the most part they all play along with what Reuters and AP churns out.

Get what I'm saying?