GD at DU - is bias getting to some here?

[The Straight Story]

While this thread has been inspired by recent events, it is not the sole component of such things. MODS - please note, this is not fully related to I/P stuff, more related to a broad swath of things and is personal in nature.

Three issues seem to be hot buttons here that bring out something I see as a negative:
Christians, US, Israel.

To keep this short here is what I see:

If there is positive news on any of those 3 it is questioned, called propoganda, and then attacked.

Say something bad about the US, Israel, christians and it is generally accepted as fact and people post on how true it is, what a shame, etc and so on.

In the latest volley, we have faked photos from Beirut. It appears ok that they were faked as they show the truth, even if not in this instance. It isn't propaganda. It's just another way to show how things really are. And even goes so far as to blame Israel as planting the photographs. Hizbollah can do little wrong.

Iraq is the same. Post anything about our troops doing something bad, and it is immediately accepted and shows how evil we are. Post a positive story about our troops helping someone, and it is torn apart.

Iran. They say crazy crap, but it is dimissed as propaganda. From our side.

A christian group does something positive somewhere, and all that is brought up is the bad things some christians have done in the past.

It seems the following is accurate:
Chavez, Castro, Iran, Hizbollah, atheists, american indians, buddhists, islam, and the like are good. A negative article about them is seen as bad with an agenda.

US, christians, Israel, UK, are all bad.

Negative news is accepted as fact, no questions, if it supports that view.


Why is this? I thought progressives sought out truth, not matter where it ended up being. The RW was supposed to be blind, yet it appears we are as blind but in a different eye (at times, and does not apply to all here).

Do Christians, US, Israel, UK, et do some crappy things? Damn straight they do. But so do others. One is accepted without question, the other is not. Why is that?

I am not saying not to criticize the crap folks pull. I am a christian and have posted negative threads about some 'leaders' I see as idiots (pat robertson, etc). I am just amazed that some folks can suck up the negative and cling to it while rejecting anything good because it 'hurts' the cause.

THIS is why some are crying anti-semitism here. Because no matter what happens some people see Israel as liars (witness the fake photos and how some believe Israel is behind them).

This is also why some folks see DU as anti-christian. Post a negative thread about a christian, we eat it up. Post a good one - few if any replies, and even then is seen as propoganda.

This is also why some see us as anti-american. Post a bad story about our troops and we jump on it, and don't even try to debunk it. Post something good about them and we slam it.

What happend to the progrssives I knew? The ones who wanted truth no matter what. Maybe the truth is US sucks, Israel sucks, and all christians are evil. But we won't know if we don't ask the hard questions - and lately it seems like we are not asking them, only accepting the ones we like.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RB TexLa]

17. wow

Does that remove my nomination too?

[The Magistrate]

24. No, Sir, It Does Not

[liberalmike27]

31. Well

I can't say I agree with your original premise. It sounds a little bit too much like "hate America first".

I agree with others who understand that both sides have stories, and often in our media only one side gets told. Should we let soldiers who loot, rape, and pillage get away with murder? Should we forgive our own administration who invaded Iraq without reason? If you love someone, or something, don't you wish for it to be better, and don't you want to do what you can to make it better? Personally I think people who just go along with everything the media or even worse, the president (sometimes indistinguishable) says are the ones who hate America. They won't even bother to read an opinion contrary to the conservative dogma that the boob tube and radio spout all the time.

It is tough when we have a war-mongering administration in power who is intent on scaring us all into submission. Add to that only about 5 percent read books, and we have a real problem, as the boob tube becomes all powerful to shape minds into perfect little copies and squeeze out all original thinking. I suspect that a higher number of people on this site read than in the general public. But you won't find the good stuff on the tube.

[RB TexLa]

36. Is your post to the OP?

[The Straight Story]

40. Personally, my point is

Why do some accept one view but dismiss another out of hand?

Maybe there is something to Qana being staged and the RW folks who see the green helmet guy of being bogus. Why not embrace this and try to learn the truth of the matter?

We have a lot of smart people on the left who could help debunk the crap - from both sides, but seem to only want to do so from one side. Truth gets hammered in it all.

[Scurrilous]

66. Embrace this...

...Israel has admitted to dropping bombs on Qana, Israel has admitted to dropping bombs on the building in question, and the Red Cross (among others)has reported that women and children died there.

The 'RW folks' who say Qana was staged are liars.

[The Straight Story]

68. You have totally missed the point....

that is fine though, seems to be the norm here.

You selected ONE issue out of many, which does not help to get to the core of things at all.

[chimpymustgo]

100. I think you've smeared DU-ers with an awfully broad brush.

There is almost ALWAYS a diversity of opinion on each of the subjects and religions you mentioned.

But I would say that most DU'ers - in the spirit of the PROGRESSIVE PRINCIPLES that guide them - are opposed to war...and bitterly opposed to agression...are disgusted and sickened by innocents being slaughtered and infrastructure destroyed.

We tend to like people supporting peace, humanitiarism, health care, fair elections - stuff like that.

I think your definition of progressive ideals may be very different from that of most DU'ers.

[WildEyedLiberal]

119. And yet those same DUers who "hate war and aggression"

Never seem to say anything about Hezbollah. It's only Israel's aggression and war which gets condemned. And don't try to pretend that there's equal condemnation on DU because there damn sure is not. Hezbollah - which has openly bragged of targeting civilians and of seeking Israel's destruction - gets almost no condemnation here. DU's ire seems reserved for Israel.

I will join the OP in pointing out the double standard of this.

[mom cat]

125. Do you approve of Israels's massive,disproportionate bombing of Lebanon?

Do you approve of Israel's blocking humanitarian aid to the Lebanese people?

Israel has repeatedly invaded and demolished Lebanon for decades. Do you support this policy of aggression? ... Does Lebanon have the right to defend itself?

If you see that the majority of voices here object to Israel's war of aggression, and object to that outcry as being one sided, then I must ask :
How the hell can you support this slaughter?

[WildEyedLiberal]

133. You just proved the OP's point

You have managed to twist my post pointing out that no one is condemning Hezbollah into me "supporting slaughter."

Do you really think that's helpful or fair or conducive to discussion? THIS is why Skinner had to ban discussion of Israel/Lebanon - because some people just can't be trusted to have a decent discussion without throwing smears and hate at other DUers.

Why are you so defensive when someone points out that there is no condemnation of Hezbollah? Why does that threaten you? Are you really so determined to pursue your one-sided agenda that even mentioning Hezbollah and their crimes gets one accused of "supporting slaughter?"

This is why discussion on DU goes into the shitter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. Actually this is why there is no discusion possible on

DU

[mom cat]

158. You managed not to answer the questions.

[WildEyedLiberal]

178. You mean your bigoted loaded straw man?

You think you can intimidate anyone who dares point out that there are two sides of this conflict by slandering them and calling them killers? Sorry, I don't back down from fascist thug tactics, whether they come from the hate-filled right or the "left."

[sir_captain]

2. Wait, you mean there's dogma on the left too?

Ah man...that explains so much.

But seriously, zealotry is one big circle, and there's a reason that many people on both sides of the aisle resemble each other with a few key words and phrases reversed.

As the old saying goes, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

[The Straight Story]

7. Thank you,

Perhaps you summed it up better than I did.

I am not pro X or Y, not against A and Z. I am trying to find the truth, and it seems it is somewhere in that awful middle. The very middle the left and right seem to flee from come election cycles.

[jpgray]

3. The groups you describe are overwhelmingly supported by the establishment

What you're noticing is a reaction (not a logical, rational reaction) to that support. To me your post is similar to those who complain about "white people can't dance" jokes. Is it racism? Sure. Is there a double standard? You bet. Is it worth freaking out over? Not really, because one's time would be better spent being concerned about the directly harmful racism towards groups who -have- no establishment support. Mainstream opinion in this country is going to be supportive of Israel, our troops and Christians. Mainstream opinion is -not- going to be supportive of Chavez, Hizbollah, etc. What you're seeing is a reaction to that, in my view.

[The Straight Story]

5. Thanks for an intelligent reply without flames

And I can see your point as a valid one.

Perhaps I am too much of a Libra :) I try to see both sides, and I see good and bad on both. Just disheartens me that I so often see negative on one side, while also seeing that so many voters see things different than we do.

[jpgray]

13. It's extremely lame to see the same flamewar over and over again

With people able to justify everything Israel/Cuba/Hizbollah/Iran does on one side, and their doppelgangers who do the same for their opposites on the other side. It's kind of worthless to sift through, but like during the primaries you can usually tell which side is desperately rationalizing in each instance--which is why it's somewhat valuable to have zealots from both sides arguing at each other. The biased arguments on both ends can help you plot out where the truth may be.

[theHandpuppet]

19. Well spoken.

There are times folks feel compelled to speak out for people they feel have no voice.

[readmoreoften]

59. What jpgray said. /nt

[tyedyeto]

4. I see bias on both sides of the issues. n/t

[onehandle]

6. The more skewed the view, the louder the voice.

If the extremes that shout the loudest here actually represented the Democratic Party, we'd never get elected for anything.

[The Straight Story]

8. I thought i would get flamed....

though I think your post may get more :)

I would have to agree with you though. So no flames from me!

[Superman Returns]

9. ...

Great points and I voted you for the greatest page.

[doc03]

10. I can hear that crap from noon to 3pm Monday thru Friday

The old line by Lush and O'Liely that the Liberals blame America first. When we invade and occupy a sovereign nation then have the policy of murdering every male of military age you're damn right I will criticize the US. When Israel terrorizes the civilian population of another country I think that's wrong. When Christians want to murder anyone that disagrees with them I will criticize them too.

[The Straight Story]

14. Ummmm, never said that was wrong

Maybe I was not clear enough.

Blast away on the things you see as wrong. I am there with you.

[doc03]

29. I do see your point also, I see some here that actually back

dictators like Castro and hate all Christians just because of nit-wits like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

[creeksneakers2]

144. I've never heard anybody say they hate Christians or anything

negative about all Christians in general. The Christians talked about here are the ones who are advancing a political movement, not a spiritual one. Let me draw the line here. If you believe in God I admire you for it. If you claim to speak for God I don't.

[sir_captain]

22. No disrespect

but you simply can't generalize to the degree that you are doing and be taken seriously.

Don't get me wrong--I don't disagree with anything you suggest--but if you are to be as morally superior as you seem to think you are, you have to show an equal amount of contempt for the Islamic groups that target civilians for the purpose of terror and provacation; and the secular Arabic countries whose leaders use fear and lack of education to maintain their own despotic control. And just as it would be ludicrous for some fundie freeper to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists, it's equally ludicrous for you to suggest that all Christians (you made it into a proper noun, after all) want to murder people. I mean seriously--how different is that from Mel Gibson saying that all the world's wars can be blamed on Jews?

I think what the OP is suggesting is that there is an obvious balance that ought to be in our discourse that is missing and your post sort of proves the point.

[The Magistrate]

32. There Are Some Odd Statements There, Sir

You have stated that the U.S. has a policy of killing every Iraqi of military age, to name just one. That is clearly not the policy, as the place is swarning with males of military age, many being recruited into formations sponsored by the United States. What you are refering to is a claim made by a handful of soldiers standing under charges of murder, that when sent to a particular objectivem they were told to kill any male of military age at that location. Their statement is, so far, totally unsupported by any witness or record. It is of course possible they are telling the truth; it is also possible they are lying through their teeth. Their unsupported claim is wholly insufficient to warrant the sweeping charge you have made.

[bridgit]

116. To My Dear Sir Mr The Magistrate With Love...

by referring to one another as sir & ma'am we will disguise the incivility here & there from time to time if not by & by, but this passage, also an extract you have neither given your credits for, is of a simulation some may find pith-within regarding these matters so poo-poo'd oft times what speak to further matters of free speech @ DU, or the lack; the bias so as to suggest one way or the other:

"...we invade and occupy a sovereign nation then have the policy of murdering"

nea, by the will of another what was spoke from a heart is now become picayune, less-so, discounted; before a said to be cracked leather oracle filled with chin stroking, chin wagging semanticists and voila! there is nothing that cannot be subjugated to obfuscation.

my greater sense at moments similar to this/these; is that your 'laser like' 'critical thinking skills' would be better spent employed from within the trades, the watermark of a defense attorney where getting the 83.4% guilty off Scot Free on a technicality is the norm.

here's hoping you will be, or think so kindly toward me when i am on the stand, or my head on the chopping block...sir...

bridgit ~

[The Magistrate]

126. The Question, Ma'am

Is not whether a speech was from the heart, but whether it was an accurate statement, reflecting the actual policy of U.S. forces. Speaking from the heart hardly guarantees, or even indicates, accuracy.

The matter of this charge, made by men charged themselves with murder, is a matter of record, much discussed here some weeks ago, and readily available at the cost of little effort, should you wish to verify the statement.

"A result one does not like proceeds from a technicality; a result one does follows the clear letter of the Law."

[bridgit]

131. then the Democratic Party along with vast tracts of it's policies are...

to be pre-cast into repetitious forms of failure, sir, in that at least imo, much of their edge-work is in fact framed by the heart their intellect having clearly failed and brought many, many us all to this state of national ruin.

i will suffer obfuscation no longer, nor respond to search orders; the future is here before us, sir, and not behind.

"the clear letter of the law" in a nation packed with usurpers is itself a sufferable, if even sometime, oxymoronic whim instead, again sir...imo

[The Magistrate]

132. If You Think, Ma'am

That proclaiming to the country that the official policy of U.S. forces is to kill all males of military age in Iraq would bring great success for the Democratic Party, you are sadly mistaken. Any such attempt would be cut to ribbons, with only the first cut being the fact that it is not true, and the result would be a solid Republican majority and the discredit of the Democratic Party for a generation.

[bridgit]

135. again, i will suffer obfuscation no longer sir; that the task...

our military, among many other tasks, is to dispense grief, death & destruction with extreme prejudice is beyond question. our noble forces; accentuating here 'noble' forces, if indeed wherever; are truly awesome as well they should be.

i am a life-long democrat and await the candidate that speaks to all these issues :kick:

[The Magistrate]

136. Dispensing Grief And Destruction Is Indeed the Task Of The Military, Ma'am

But they have not been ordered to kill all males of military age in Iraq, nor are they in fact killing all males of military age in Iraq. Pointing this out is not obfuscation; it is having some regard for the facts of the situation. Any candidate who ran on the claim that accusation was true would receive perhaps a tenth of the vote, and any Party associated widely with the charge would be rejected by the voters decisively, and for many years to come.

[bridgit]

150. in the clear absence of a 'war plan proper' others yet again have...

"ordered (others) to kill all males of military age in Iraq" as indication from the field would suggest; perhaps, for now, a matter for newspaper headlines, military courts/jurisprudence & such, and i think that was what that DU'er, up above you & i here, was trying to get out & into the open air (the charge is a serious one and a matter of great concern here's me only hoping that you are able to agree)...at least that was my impression, absent matters of the heart of course...

either way...nice talk'n to'ya :-)

[The Magistrate]

151. If The Claim, Ma'am, By The Men Charged With Murder, Is True

Then it is certainly a serious matter, for that is an illegal order, even in the limited context they claim it was given to them. Their claim should certainly be investigated, and will be in course of their trial. But at this point it is simply unsupported and self-serving assertion.

[skids]

11. Short answer: nope, doesn't bother me.

And there are just as many people complaining about this bias as the biased people.

So I'd say that that makes the site fairly evenly balanced.

[sir_captain]

25. Yeah, I don't think so

I'd say the vast majority of DUers are anti-war and pro-Palestinian, no?

(And hey, don't get me wrong--everyone ought to be anti-war and pro-palestinian in the sense that they obviously deserve to have their own autonomous country where they can be left alone)

[me b zola]

51. I see the majority view here as pro-people

I see the tendency for the majority here to support people rather than a state/nation dogma. Most people here, I would conclude, are more pro-Palestinian people rather than pro-Palistinian. Same with the conflict in Lebanon.

As for the OP, everybody knows reality has a Liberal bias. ;)






edited for spelling...tell me, did I miss much?

[Rex]

12. Way too much knee-jerking going on here at DU.

Never thought Israel would break DU, but seems so.

[jpgray]

18. !!!

The I/P forum has always been a minefield--lots of posters have been zapped fighting away over there.

[Rex]

21. Yeah and now GD is a minefield on top of the normal booby traps

and pitfalls. I can't believe some of the people getting zapped lately. Sad sad sad.

[jpgray]

23. I haven't been keeping up, but we lost some good ones in I/P

On both sides, incidentally.

[Rex]

30. Just like the I/L conflict, a great loss.

Yeah, some very longtime posters have become casualties of this verbal war. Really sad.

[The Straight Story]

20. I don't think it is Israel really

as much as it is how people react to things.

As noted: post something negative about Israel, it is seen as fact and few want to refute it. Post something positive about them, and it is seen as propoganda.

It is how some wish to perceieve things I think that is messed up. Truth is lost in Bias.

And I am not pure in this either, I have my own biases. I see them challenged here, and that is good - I just wished all sides were challenged with as much force.

[Rex]

26. I just don't believe that.

I've seen hoards of people defend Israel whenever someone posts negative threads. I think some people here just can't handle criticism and yes I've seen people make stupid attacks on Israel, and then get shutdown by the mods.

IMO the mods are doing a very good job keeping people from trashing Israel.

[jpkenny]

15. I think everyone who posts has a bias of some kind. It may not match yours

But all of us have biases because we see things from different perspectives. It's just that when the majority of biases goes against one's personal beliefs it begins to make one want to cry foul. Could it be that many people posting on DU believe as many people across the globe that the US has lost its way with its invasion of Iraq and the resulting atrocities? Could it also be the same for what Israel is now doing in Lebanon? Could it be that quite a few people do not think Hizbollah is a terrorist organization for legitimate reasons and not just because the US, UK, and Israel say so (France and others of the EU have not placed them on the terrorist list because of the history of their Resistance to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1983). Lot's of people post stuff that angers me and that I disagree with but I am not crying "foul" just to get their posts removed. It seems that a number of poster here enjoy pushing the Alert button on particular posters just to get the mods to either lock, remove their posts or ban the poster altogether. The mounting frustration on all sides about all issues is something mature adults need to be able to deal with without trying to stifle debate and discussion or conjecture.

[NNN0LHI]

16. Too much screaming and not enough thinking

It happens to all of us some time or another.

Don

[bloom]

27. It might be because

the Christian majority is running the show. They are abusing their power. And they are hypocritical when it comes to what they supposedly believe (peace?)

It's the US, the UK, and Israel that are the countries that have the power and that are abusing that power. I find more fault with their crimes because their war crimes are the most egregious. With great power - cames great potential for abuse.

Where have you been?

[The Straight Story]

33. heh

The Christians are running the show?

Some would say jews are running it. But if we say so it is toasted.

As far as abusing power - I see a lot of folks abusing it, all over the world. Hizbollah is too. Jews, christians, and so on are abusing their power.

Why can't we be fair in showing the faults of em all?? Why do we believe one side over the other? That to me is bias.

Honest discussion goes out the window when we only attack one group and give a pass to another.

[sir_captain]

34. I think you've hit on a key point, actually

Which is two-fold. First, people, in general, kind of suck. Doesn't matter what color, creed, religion, etc. Lots of people just suck.

And second, there are just some groups of people who it is simply more societally acceptable to blame for things. To many people in this country, it's still ok to blame things on people with brown or black skin.

And in large swaths of the world, and sometimes apparently here at DU, it is still very much ok to throw around conspiracy theories and canards with regards to Jews. And I find it hard to imagine that this doesn't have some sort of impact on the ME debate. And I imagine that this has a lot to do with why the mods are so quick to jump in when someone says that the Jews run the world.

[greyl]

47. Ok, how 'bout "Abrahamic salvationist religions are running the show"?

It's clear to me that when bloom says Christians are running the show, she means in this country. She's correct, and that does have something to do with it.

[ContraBass Black]

28. This is simplistic.

Some people do indeed come out foaming at the mouth about the topics you mentioned as unpopular. However, there are just as many and as vocal unreasoned detractors of the topics you mentioned as popular. Almost any attempt to classify the overall opinion of DU on a matter will fall into false generalization, as do similar attempts on the general population of the United States.



Furthermore, this is not new or different. Every few days, someone posts "What has happened to DU?" The answer is unremarkable: People argued, some got angry, and some spewed garbage--which is what always happens on DU.

[The Straight Story]

35. Has not been my experience here

Example, a thread I posted about an atheist removing some cross on a roadside memorial.

There were some who questioned why it was mentioned that the person was an atheist. If it were a christian doing something negative it would have been eaten up here, attack any other group and people get upset.

After 9/11 we were all worried about the hate that could affect islamic people here in the US. Yet we propogate hate here each day against groups. Christians are evil, believe in fairy tales, etc and so on. But if I post threads about islamic folks who are bad, people get upset that it could brew hatred.

Why do we belittle one group and protect another?

[ContraBass Black]

37. "Why do we belittle one group and protect another?"

People are generally not fair, reasonable, or kind. Being people themselves, DU'ers are no better.

[Superman Returns]

38. A lot of people

here drink the coolaide just as much as their political enemies. Only difference is that the folks at DU are right most of the time and support an agenda that will help our country overall. That doesn't mean they don't have their own bias. Everything you said is pretty much right. Groups are targeted here more than others.

[datasuspect]

141. your conceptual framework is all jumbled up

making a criticism of, for example, christianity is not the same AS HATING CHRISTIANITY.

it is a common error to mistake criticism for hatred, but they are not the same thing.

you can make comments that do not fully support something, you can even call christianity a mish-mash of fairy tales, but this is not tantamount to HATING christianity.

why is this so difficult for SO MANY people to comprehend?

[Mr_Spock]

39. Sticking up for the underdog - it's a tough job

..and I often notice what you are talking about - but I try to ignore it or be understanding.

It's always the people that are pissed about something who will be the most vociferous.

Also, what is the point in sticking up for the majority or the bully? That's easy to do. There are lots of people out there who's lives are committed to sticking up for the status quo.

Do people go overboard? Yeah, but who has the energy to constantly bat down the folks who are fired up about their pet issue when it comes up?

I think we all have to resist the bait at times - though I give in too often - it's part of the culture on the internet (not just DU).

[ContraBass Black]

41. There's a difference between sticking up for the majority or the bully

And sticking up for people who have something in common with the majority or the bully and are catching some of the bully's flack for it.

[Mr_Spock]

46. I can't understand your point

Can you restate that in other words?

[ContraBass Black]

52. Using the example in the OP, Christians and Israelis here are offended

When Christians or Israelis in general are condemned, because they are not guilty of the things that make people angry at those groups, but statements and sentiments against those are also aimed at them.

[Mr_Spock]

57. That sucks but is inevitable

The only way to fight that is to point out to people that they are over-generalizing and give them an example they might be able to relate to. I fight it all the time with people at work and my family as well - it's part of the human experience. We try to categorize things into "groups" to simplify our thought processes - it's just human nature (to repeat). I think RWers are like this all the time (more susceptible to group generalizations), but this latest episode has shown that DUers and progressives in general are just as susceptible to this phenomenon as anyone. What makes us better is that lots of people here will be holding their head in hands later on feeling bad about the things they've said during this period. This will pass and we will be back to a more thoughtful dialog in the future (well, as much as is possible amongst humans). :D

[The Straight Story]

42. I can see that

But wonder why the people I admire the most, the left, is not as interested in all sides of an issue and rush to embrace one side and not work to discover the truth?

Why didn't the left find those photos as fake first? Maybe because we did not care to look?

[Mr_Spock]

53. I'm not sure why the photo issue is important to you

I find that to be a weak example as it doesn't change the salient issues for me - 1000 dead, 90% civilians, bridges to bring aid in destroyed.

I really could care less about one or two pictures. If some dumb ass doctored the photo - he should be fired. This ends up taking the focus away from the real story - the destruction of infrastructure and human life in a war zone - and I mean both side are suffering. I find the pictures of children with gigantic holes in their head to be more to the point (though I hate to view them).

I can see being annoyed at people who are, say, pro-Castro or some of the other stuff like that though - I think I was agreeing with you generally, just not specifically on the example you chose - lol - I hope I'm not sounding like "one of them" to you - :beer:

[The Straight Story]

60. Naw, you sound reasonable to me

I agree that Israel has gone overboard on this. I just get disheartened that some here dismiss one side easily instead of trying to find the truth of an issue.

If we slam Hizbollah or Iraqi's, etc and so on, folks make excuses or gloss over it. Evil is evil and wrong is wrong on both sides. And good is good as well.

I have a friend and employee in Afghanistan, and he has good news from there. They are working hard to help kids and people there, risking their lives to make the lives of others better. It ain't perfect by a long shot. But some folks refuse to see any good in things.

He could die tomorrow, but he is glad that he is able to try and make folks' lives better there. Compared to what they had, they now have hope.

Folks seem not to like positive news at times. I could post several threads about the good things, but it would be seen as propoganda or slammed for some other reason. Why?

I am guessing if we get a D admin in, D congress, we will celebrate the news we now reject. Which, to me, is sad.

[Mr_Spock]

65. The last thing you said is the bottom line

I never, ever thought I'd see the Republicans completely change course on so many issues - all the while claiming to be "consistent" & "not influenced by polls". Bullshit. The same will apply to Dems when they get back into office.

That being said, I'll take Democratic hypocrisy over Republican hypocrisy and day of the week. There are always certain core principals that define the type of people in either party - I truly believe that we Dems have a compassion gene that has been turned off in Republicans. Most of the politics beyond that simple fact is just a game IMHO :shrug:

[blonndee]

75. But really, you don't know that people HAVEN'T tried to figure

out the truth of the issue, or that they HAVE "dismissed one side too easily." Only a small number of posts(and I'd say thank gods for this) contain a sort of record of the thought processes that led people to their conclusions/beliefs. I think it's rather unfair of you to claim that others (apparently those who disagree with your own conclusions) have not engaged in thoughtful consideration, or have no basis for their beliefs.

And BTW, I have a friend who's in Afghanistan for the second time (third deployment overall) and he reports the opposite to me. That doesn't mean that I or he "refuse to see the good in things." It means his experience and his interpretation of it are different from your friend's.

[druidity33]

173. thank you...

for saying this:

" I think it's rather unfair of you to claim that others (apparently those who disagree with your own conclusions) have not engaged in thoughtful consideration, or have no basis for their beliefs."

i figured i'd read throught the thread to see if anyone had brought this up... & lo and behold, here you are. You stated it perfectly.

I've read and researched enough to know which side i'm on in the scheme of things... and only extremely persuasive arguments can sway me. Give me new and honest information with valid sourcing and good reasons to consider your point of view and i will. But don't think that just because you've posed a thought that i'll change my mind.

all the rest of this is sentimental claptrap, semantic flubdub...

[blonndee]

181. Thanks, yourself.

I was beginning to think all reasonable thought was being ignored on this thread!

[DeepModem Mom]

43. My complaint is about a double standard re. freedom and human rights...

in our discussions. Any breach of liberty in our own country, and there are worrisome examples, is cause for outrage, and I'm first in line. Breaches of human rights and freedoms in other nations -- Cuba, for example -- are excused because we ourselves are not perfect. Posts about human rights in China are largely ignored. Sham elections, restrictions on the press, political prisoners thrown in jail without rights -- these things get a pass from many, often with a caustic comment about our own country, when they take place outside our border.

I fail to see that two wrongs make a right, or why any of these oppressive countries should be given a pass. I deplore government surveillance, interference in private lives, political enemies lists, etc., here, and I deplore them in Cuba, China, Russia, and other countries across the globe.

[greyl]

44. I think you're double broad-brushing with black and white paint.

There are many more than two sides expressed to most issues around here, but throughout your OP, you imply that a distinct majority of DUers typically agree on issues down the line.
I don't think that's the case.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Where was there a "negative article" about atheists? And why?

Have roving gangs of atheists been committing crimes, beating up old ladies, stealing baby Jesuses from Manger displays?


...Uh, Did I miss something?

[The Straight Story]

55. I posted one

About an atheist removing a roadisde memorial.

The guy mentioned he was an atheist, not me, and yet people seemed to want it to be clear that not all atheists were the same. Well DUH. Not all christians are the same either.

But how many people ride to the defense of christians when a negative article is posted about them? All christians are not the same, and not all atheists are either.

On any given day we can find folks here bashing christians. That is life, and some deserve it. But bash islam and we are promoting hate and a RW agenda?

People can, and do, suck. Dogma sucks at times - why can't we come together and seek truth (science if you like) without an agenda behind it?

I would think atheists of all people would seek the truth, with eyes wide open, and not be blinded by a bias. I would think atheists would be the folks who figured out some photos were faked, but apparently some are just as blind as the people of faith they rail against.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Right. Removing a roadside memorial from his OWN property.

...If I remember correctly.

And, personally, I'm an equal opportunity criticizer. I think Fundamentalist Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity share some deep, common collective psychological problems.

But I think you're using too wide, and broad a brush, with some 'commonly held' assumptions- i.e. all Christians take a beating here, and everyone here who criticizes fundamentalists can't distinguish between the Christianity of, say, Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson and that of MLK.

I know you're involved enough around here to understand that that's not true. Just like, yes, there are some people who may take what you consider "out there" stands at times, but they may agree with you on other matters. Someone who doesn't have a problem with Hugo Chavez, for instance, may also be a liberal Christian. An atheist, like myself (for the simplistic yes-no lowest chakra purposes of that question as it relates to political dialogue in this country) may surprise you by being -as I am- a committed supporter of the right of the State of Israel to exist and defend itself; even if I don't always agree with the tactics or behavior of the Israeli government.

That's why I don't get you talking about how atheists "should" see when photos are faked- are you referring to that bad photoshop job out of Lebanon? Clearly it was faked, and clearly it was propaganda. But I don't think you have a basis to assert that it is the atheists around here who aren't getting that, as opposed to everyone else. This statistical sample of one, right here, at least partially refutes that.

I take "out there" stands, as well. Some here have told me I'm not "progressive" because I don't think the government should be censoring videogames or waging war on nudie magazines. I think the drug war is a waste of time. I also think the exemption on the Estate tax should be raised, a position that is clearly in the minority around here.

But the beauty of DU is that none of us, really, get to tell everyone else what a "progressive" or a "liberal" or a "Democrat" is, although we certainly do get our share of threads telling "us" what we "should" and "shouldn't" be talking about, lest we convey the wrong message or alienate the values voter. (That's my personal favorite)

I don't think it works that way. As long as we're all supporting Democrats and otherwise following the rules, we should be open to a free exchange of ideas. I don't think we should tolerate open bigotry, and yeah, I've seen some clearly anti-Semitic stuff the past week or so. The mods have done a bang-up job of addressing that issue. I also don't think wholesale slams against "Christians" are any more appropriate than they are against atheists. But just as it is legitimate to distinguish between criticism of the Government of Israel and anti-Semitism, it is also legitimate to distinguish between slams against ALL Christians and well-deserved Criticism and slams against the religious right.

Unfortunately, some of the same people (not saying this is you) who work overtime trying to remind everyone that the two groups are not synonymous, are the worst offenders when it comes to conflating criticism of the latter with wholesale slams on the former.

Peace.

[greyl]

79. Your post shows confirmation bias of your own.

As I recall, the loudest argument from atheists about the memorial was that the guy had a right to take it down, not that they 'didn't want to be associated with that behaviour'.

I would think atheists would be the folks who figured out some photos were faked, but apparently some are just as blind as the people of faith they rail against.

Speaking for myself, I didn't see that absurdly blatant fake photo till a link to the Reuters story about retracting it was posted here. I don't think Hindus were less likely than atheists to spot it as being fake. It was an incredibly bad fake. I also disagree with your assertion that left wing sites didn't spot the fake before having to be notified about it by a site like LGF.

[Taxloss]

175. There was the whole Raw Story / Atheist Wackjob sheboggle.

A very negative piece about atheists that was strongly defended by many DUers, but also strongly attacked by others including me.

I'm not certain where that fits TSS's OP, but it is an example of a negative story about atheists.

[Warren DeMontague]

177. Yeah. And we both know what a bigoted pile that "piece" was.

I meant a legitimate story.

That was a hit, attack piece. The irony with that was, no one would have dared float that kind of BS replacing, say, "atheists", with "gays", for instance.

Like, "gays are okay, as long as they keep quiet- the problem is the ones who insist on being so outspoken about it."

(I know we agree on all this. I'm just rantin'.)

[NoSheep]

48. I'm (we're?) dead sick of propaganda, lies, double standards.

I think I try to see the truth in the "lies" and the lies in the "truth". I get it. Because I'm there. Perhaps you don't see what I see. If you did, you wouldn't have to ask this question.

[NoSheep]

49. I have a strong bias against bias.

[MrPrax]

50. Is this a serious post? n/t

[The Magistrate]

54. Yes, Mr. Prax, It Is

[The Straight Story]

56. Do you have something to contribute to this

other then asking that question?

If you don't see any bias at all, let me know I am wrong.

[MrPrax]

63. Well other than...

it's the same bland testimonials of outrage that have cropped up lately attacking people who post their opinions here...

Like this:

Three issues seem to be hot buttons here that bring out something I see as a negative:
Christians, US, Israel.

To keep this short here is what I see:

If there is positive news on any of those 3 it is questioned, called propoganda, and then attacked.

I don't see this at all? And since the only evidence offered is little more than people's reaction to such outrage as:

In the latest volley, we have faked photos from Beirut. (see OP for details)

The poster seems upset that people might question proclamations of 'fake' photos -- but there was an active debate that had very little controversy board-wise, when Rather-Gate popped up and most folks had very hard feelings of disappointment.

When it comes to media spectacle, folks remember back to when Howard Dean was decimated over a propaganda media campaign...one small manipulation of 'perception' was all it took -- this inspite of the fact that IMHO a great many Americans -- good democrats-- got enthusiastic over an election and felt very strongly about a particular candidate. You could feel the board sag after the shout.

I feel that same sag when folks look over posts like this...they are being told that they're guts are wrong, and someone in the Media is right, yet again.

Posts like this are corrosion...

[zippy890]

98. I agree with you

ususally don't read threads like this, because they are deflating.

I like DU because many people have out-of-the-mainstream analysis and perspective/ and there is righteous outrage as well as heartfelt passion.

[dweller]

58. perhaps not relevent, but

it's been 6+ long, bloody, aggravating and impossibly frustrating years without a turnaround toward a positive outcome. . . generally.

And sometimes i believe many have lost an anchor, or touchstone to depend on that something good will come and soon.



like i said, perhaps not relevent.
dp

[earth mom]

61. All of this crap that is going on is happening because of RELIGION.

I'm an agnostic and I have no beef with any religion except to say:

SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT YOUR RELIGION and stop pushing other people around and/or killing them in the name of it!

The hypocrisy of most religions is just ridiculous and has gotten old, way, way old with each passing day. And good deeds? How come they always seem to get canceled out by their bad ones?! Look no further than the church that's kicking the Katrina mom with 3 kids out. :grr:

IMO-The extreme religious wackjobs are RUINING the planet! When people start realizing this-and GETTING IT-things will change. There is a reason why the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state! Until then, watch out!

:nuke:

[The Straight Story]

70. About all that and that mom

Who is taking her in? The church gave her more help than any atheist here.

Wars can be started by religion, or by those who have no religion. Science has made war more deadly, not religion. It was science who gave us the A bomb that killed so many.

Religion can be A problem, but it is not THE problem. If we want to make it the problem we ignore the real issues.

[etherealtruth]

152. Human beings (sadly) will find reason to war ...

It may be religious differences, ethnic differences, tribal differences and if all else fails it could be eye color difference ... warring people focus on differences and ignore commonalities.

[Renew Deal]

64. Thanks for saying what I was thinking.

The cover for the photos is astonishing. I had at least 2 people tell me that it was OK that photos were face because people are dying anyway. That's such bullshit. We should have found that those pictures were fake, not the wingers. It's a shame and a disappointment and we should all promise to do better.

[mhatrw]

67. Yes, I hate Israel, the United States & Christ!

Free Barabbas!

[The Straight Story]

73. You stated you position so well...

seriously though, you have something more???

[SoCalDem]

69. Hot buttons are everywhere..and

they change from year to year..and some old ones stay with us as new ones get added..

some oldies but goodies.:

Nader
911
Israel
Palestine
gun control
abortion
vouchers
smoking
no-smoking legislation
home schooling
rape

there are things on which we all can easily agree, but the designated issues are always just below the surface..just waiting for someone to loan us their lighters:)

[Mr_Spock]

72. That flaming dude is popular these days

I see him buring up all over the web :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

76. You left out the 3 P's.

Porn, Pitbulls, and PETA. :hippie:

[SoCalDem]

78. Hee-hee.. I never participate in those, so naturally I forgot

[chimpymustgo]

112. Damn, SoCalDem - that is one FIERCE KITTY! Meoooowww!

Thanks for the startled laugh!

[melnjones]

71. To be a Christian and be at DU...

typically one has got to have pretty thick skin. AND an ignore button :) There are some here who, sadly, expect everyone at DU to conform to whatever they think is appropriately Democrat. They aren't many, but they are quite loud. The beauty of the Democratic Party is that it really IS quite eclectic, and that is represented here at DU.

The last couple days I've been chewed up and spit out by a couple of DUers because I admitted that ethically I have issues with late-term abortions. I do NOT think congress should just criminalize it tomorrow, however, and I completely agree that in general abortion should be rare, safe, and legal. (The whole separation of church and state thing...very applicable with the issue of abortion...) I am constantly amazed that by merely stating a personal belief (and not trying in any way to force it on others or judge them for disagreeing) some people here think it's logical to compare me to "right-winged zealots" and inform me that I can't call myself a feminist.

As far as the US/Israel bashing goes, I tend to not be a fan of much of anything that Israel (collectively) does, and I can be pretty negative about the US as well, but I do hear what you are saying in regards to those issues. Holding a minority opinion on anything in any group is just kinda sucky sometimes.

[The Straight Story]

77. Not even so much a minority opinion to me

the issue is being blind to all sides of an issue.

Why do some here on DU accept the negative about one side without trying to debunk it? Where has objectivity gone?

If it helps ones views we accept it in toto, and believe it. The DU I used to know questioned everything and tried to find the truth. It was less about sides and more aout finding out what is real.

Do folks here now see truth as secondary to the cause?

[Common Sense Party]

82. I agree. As a Christian, I have found DU to be a less-than-hospitable

place at times.

I don't mind that people disagree--vehemently--with my beliefs. That's great.

But those that think that I must be small-minded, narrow-minded, or ignorant because I believe what I choose to believe, and I try to live it as best I can...they I can do without.



Off-topic: The cardinal sin of all religious types is to be labled a "hypocrite." Right? People love nothing more than finding a Christian who isn't perfect (not hard to do) and does something really stupid, and then they label that person a "hypocrite." Isn't it interesting that it's usually ONLY religious people that are labeled hypocrites? Agnostics, atheists, secularists are almost never considered hypocrites. And there is no comparable cardinal sin on the secular side. It seems a peculiar double standard.

[DanCa]

91. The prolife movement has done it work.

They have branded christianity as in all or nothing wedge issue organization. This includes not only abortion, but gay marriage, and ssc research as well. The problem is that you don't know how it feels like to live with an wedge issue until you exp it.
Case in point I cannot attend church anymore because i want stem cell research to cure my parkinsons. At the worst I have recived threats by people for wanting said research, at the least the make me feel like a hypocrite. On the flip side I have also had a couple of punks who laughed at me because I still pray that science comes up with a cure for my disease. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

[T Town Jake]

74. Excellent post.

:thumbsup:

[everythingsxen]

80. Thank you very much!

An excellent post and excellent points! I have tried to say much the same and endured many a flame war for it! My hat is off you!

[mmonk]

81. Maybe we don't generally expect much fron Iran

but do or did from the others. As far as Christianity goes in the US and its general support for alot of bad politicians and actions and the rhetoric that spews from the Christian right affects thinking people in a negative way and has earned our scorn?

[Common Sense Party]

83. Well said. Common sense is often found somewhere in between

the two extremes.

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. it is not fair to equate Christianity with U.S. and Israeli policy

This is just plain WRONG.

Here is a link to an Evangelical organization - Sojourners -(BTW I am not an Evangelical or even a religious person) that has been outspoken against both:

link for Sojourners:


http://www.sojo.net /

This is a link to Sojourners Magazine:


http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=060727#6

Note: Sojourners was the organization the sponsored the conference in Washington, D. C. that Sen. Obama, Gov. Dean and Sen. Clinton spoke at about two months ago.


this is an example of some of their work:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_archives&mode=current_opinion&article=CO_031217

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=C&NewsID=5505

[mmonk]

85. Yes, there are still good

religious Christians out there such as the Rev. W W Finlater in North Carolina that passed away recently. However, the general trend has been in the opposite direction even with some churches kicking democrats out. They have also been GOP GOTV operations and they've led the assault on our Constitution and unfortunately, have been winning.

[DanCa]

88. I think it's the prolifers that most of the people are upset with.

I think most people are angry or upset with the pro life movement in general, and not Christianity as a whole. In moments of anger subtely is lost and the pro lifers have done such a good job at thier you can't be christian unless your one of us spiel that people have bought into the sterotype. The loud mouths within the prolife movement have gotten their wish and people knee jerk (self included) that "most" Christians are prolifers.Thats the unfortunate side effect of one group having too much power and influence within the organization.

[melnjones]

93. I think we should even be cautious

in discounting everyone who claims to be "pro life." I know many many people who are blue as can be on every other issue, but because of their faith background they believe firmly that life begins at conception. These are the ones who ARE working to improve the lives of babies growing up in poverty. There's a big difference between those who intentionally make abortion a wedge issue and those who don't agree with its legality at all but function appropriately in society anyway. It is a religious belief, plain and simple, and I don't understand why we take that and then vilify each and every one of them without knowing anything else about them. Sorry, but not all pro-lifers are hypocritical in their actions. Many are, but not all.

[DanCa]

96. Shades of Grey

While there are shades of grey in everything, I have no sympathy for people who interject themselves in other people's medical affairs.. I swear external hostility to anyone who opposes stem cell research and condems me to life within a wheel chair for their beliefs. I know that some pro lifers like orrin hatch understand the differences and nuiances between stem cell and abortion but they are to few and far between.
Hell most of the scum - and yes i view them as scum - that oppose the research that i need have never even been to a stem cell lab to wtiness the procedure first hand. Like I said I know that there are exceptions, and I love the exceptionist but they are to few and far between.

[melnjones]

156. IMO, stem cell is overall a separate issue

because the 400,000 embryos are gonna be destroyed regardless. I get upset too when pro-lifers pull the frozen embryos into the abortion debate.

[mmonk]

97. A big problem with me is

the "liberal activist judges" canard that has led to a defacto sacking of our court system based on a fraudulent "up or down vote simple majority" claim to choosing the judiciary. Our system was NEVER designed to choose the Supreme court of the land by that method and NEVER has before. The judiciary was supposed to be a non partisan independent branch of government. Also, "liberal activist judges" IS a lie, especially with the Rhenquist court having been one of the most conservative courts and with 7 out of 9 justices chosen by republican presidents. Our system is damaged and there is no guarantee it will return in our lifetime and that is unforgiveable.

[DanCa]

103. And let's not forget our rogue activist president.

Who used his one veto to keep me crippled up. It's not christians that I have a problem with it's that 30 percent all or nothing crowd that keeps me crippled up with parkinson's because the refuse to step foot inside a ssr lab.

[mmonk]

104. With you on that. He's acting like a monarch

rejecting a clear will of the majority by that veto based on an extreme "pro-life" position.

[cali]

86. This is a thoughtful and brave

post; I commend you for it. We all should be aware of our biases- the lens through which we view the world.

[chimpymustgo]

108. This is a biased, blameful post that smears those who disagree with OP.

He chooses his villains and heroes. If we disagree - why we're knee-jerk leftists.

No, actually, we're just opposed to aggression, murder, slaughter, destruction, blocking of humanitarian aid - you know, stuff MOST PROGRESSIVES are against.

[cali]

111. It doesn't smear anyone

it presents a pov in a rather mild manner. Why the outrage?

[blonndee]

139. I disagree somewhat.

Maybe "smear" isn't the word I would have chosen, but the OP and his subsequent posts imply that those who have come to different conclusions or who have differing beliefs than he have not given thoughtful consideration to the issues or have no basis for believing as they do, while he himself HAS engaged in honest consideration.

[datasuspect]

143. this is actually a great post

for reading between some lines and discovering the closet freeptards around here.

[eridani]

87. Hezbollah is obviously less bad--

--because they kill 1/10 as many people as the IDF. Case closed. If the numbers were the other way around, Hezbollah would then become the major villain.

[cali]

90. I must say

That's an extraordinarily simplistic view of things.

[eridani]

107. Yep. Counting the dead bodies is the best way to figure out

--which side is the worst. More killing = worse, period.

[The Magistrate]

128. Not Really, Ma'am

Certainly not as a moral question. The efficiency with which an intention is applied has no bearing on the moral worth of the intention or of the action seeking to put it into effect. If two peope wish to kill as many people as they can manage, and one has available only a knife while the other has a gun with many bullets, that the former will succeed in killing fewer people does not count for any moral credit to him or her.

[stretch]

140. US killed more civilians in WWII

from bombings of German cities (Dresden) and Japanese cities (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). Does that mean we were wrong in fighting the Axis Powers and more evil?

[eridani]

179. 6 million Jews and 6 million others in concentration camps is less?

Didn't know that.

[Behind the Aegis]

92. .

:crazy:

[mduffy31]

95. No they just send kids with bombs strapped to their chests into

...discos. I can see how they are soo much better than the IDF.

:eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

99. when did Hezbollah do that?

I'm not a fan of Hezbollah, but I do not think they can be accused of that action.

[mduffy31]

102. Here is a citation from Wikipedia

Suicide attacks
Hezbollah is reputed to have been among the first Islamic resistance groups to use tactical suicide bombing in the Middle East, and early bombings attributed to the group (e.g. the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing) inspired other militant extremist groups to adopt the tactic for their own purposes. The Palestinian Sunni group Hamas is perhaps the most well-known of these copycats, and while Hezbollah has largely ended its own suicide bombing campaign, some claim it continues to help Hamas in planning and training for suicide missions to this day.

According to Robert Pape’s Dying to Win,<32> Hezbollah conducted three distinct suicide bombing campaigns against forces it deemed to be occupying Lebanon:

1983–1984: 5 acts against the US and France,<32> including these specific acts:
April 18, 1983: U.S. embassy bombing in Beirut.
October 23, 1983: Beirut barracks bombing, targeting French soldiers and U.S. Marines;<32> responsibility for this is disputed (see 1983 Beirut barracks bombing).
1982–1985: 11 acts against Israel.<32>
1985–1986: 20 acts against Israel and the South Lebanon Army.<32>
In addition to these campaigns, Pape documents six other isolated suicide attacks taken by Hezbollah between 1985 and 1999.

Upon Israel’s withdrawal from South Lebanon in 1990, according to Pape, the necessary conditions for Hezbollah’s continuing use of suicide attacks evaporated. Hezbollah has not directly participated in suicide bombings since 1999, its leaders evidently having renounced the tactic, at least for the time being (see #Stance on the use of terrorist tactics).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Suicide_attacks

[eridani]

106. In other words, they quit when Israel pulled out of their country n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

109. again they have not used that tactic in a number of years

when they did use that tactic it was during the period of the extremely brutal Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon - a period during which more than 17,000 Lebanese civilians were killed; thousands were kidnapped and tortured.

I'm not a fan or apologist for Hezbollah and I cannot condone ANY attacks on civilians - if it is wrong for the Israeli occupiers, it is also wrong for those resisting occupation. However attacks on an occupying military force is considered under international law to be both legal and legitimate.

[eridani]

105. When did they do that?

And don't bother about "Hezbollah + some other group" documentation. It was almost certainly the other group, probably Hamas.

[dmosh42]

89. don't include Israel

Any time I watch Cnn or MSNBC, they seem to have live coverage going on with a steady stream of people from Lebanon or Israel being interviewed, and their viewpoints being sympathized with. This is probably 60-70 per cent of the hour! On the other hand, I have actually heard one of the commentators use the words about "that other war" in Iraq. This where we are losing "our" troops, our honor, our wealth and our future!

[mogster]

94. You are generalizing

And you seem to forget the events going on, and the carnage that's being created in the name of Christianity.

I want the truth about Chavez - so I post what is not generally known, or obfuscated by the msm. There's no shortage of opinions representing the opposite view.

I want the truth about the US evangelicals - so I post what you will find if you collect info and put it together. There's no shortage of true Christians here who post the effects of what their faith makes them do. They just don't dress themselves in Jesus.

I want the truth about Israel and post material not known, because it's in a foreign language. So I translate it and put it out in public. This is both material supportive to Israel, who shows the history of the conflict, and material that discloses the deeper doctrine of what's going on. Not all is left standing, it appears.

I want the truth about Ahmadinejad and Iran, so I post translated material from foreign languages that may broaden our view of that man and that country.

I want the truth about Hizbollah and the longer history of that organization, so I post material about the history of that organization, and the Palestinians that live in southern Lebanon.

I also want the truth about those photos from Hajj, and has put him on hold, to see what surfaces in the long run. I have posted several critical questions about the photographer, and also disclosed other pictures that proves the 'opposite' agenda; he has a history.

My problem is that when asking questions, I'm broad brushed into supporting the people I'm digging up info about - if it is positive, or being against them, if it is negative.
The reason we probe is that the msm is full of the things you mention; pro-Israel, pro-US, pro-UK and pro fundie Christians.

Why do I even have to come here if that's what I wanna read? I could just read the news.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Meshuga]

110. BRAVO!

Recommended!

[bridgit]

117. BRAVO, fits the breach quite nicely...

[Junkdrawer]

113. Yeah, and why won't libruls talk about the good news in Iraq...

:sarcasm:

[chimpymustgo]

114. Ding ding ding!!!! We have a WINNER!

So much similarity in the POV's. You're either with us or you're agin' us.

[WildEyedLiberal]

120. That's not at all what the OP said

And the only reason you'd be defensive about the OP is if you DO have a bias and don't like to be called out on it. Well, tough.

[Junkdrawer]

122. or I could be commenting that there are times where the Corporate Media...

bias is so strong and obvious that only liberals would challenge it. And, when they do challenge it, the Right (American and Israeli) immediately screams about "liberal bias".

[CJCRANE]

115. It goes in waves depending on what's topical.

When the Prophet Mohammed cartoon riots happened a lot of islamophobes came out of the woodwork and there were plenty of posts about how all muslims were savages and they wanted to take over the world etc etc.

For me, there is such a thing as moral equivalency. 19 hijackers killed 3,000 people on American soil (I believe with inside help but that's another story). Bush's reaction was to use this to send 150,000 troops to Iraq which led directly and indirectly to 100,000 civilian deaths. Here the punishment (because that is how Bush's christian base see it) of an uninvolved 3rd party totally outweighs the initial crime. Given the numbers who do you think should be more afraid - an innocent christian in America or an innocent muslim in Iraq?

A similar dynamic seems to be at work in I/L (although Israel has more legitimacy in its action than B*sh did). The destruction of an entire country's infrastructure and bombing of civilian areas seems to be several orders of magnitude greater than Hezbollah's crimes or at least that is how it is perceived in the court of world public opinion.

On edit: another important point - particularly in criticising the US/UK - these are meant to be bastions of democracy where the leadership is answerable to the people. The leadership of al-Qaeda etc is not answerable to us.

[WildEyedLiberal]

118. You know you're becoming one of my favorite posters on DU

Thanks for another dose of good common sense. I can't add a word to your OP because you said it all. Just nailed it.

Kicked and rec'd.

[npincus]

121. I agree w/you.

having been the receipient of abuse for expresing the occassional 'alternative' viewpoint. But, that said, I think it's a vocal minority (in a membership of 70,000 +) of repeat offenders who are responsible for much of this. Many, many lurk and never (or rarely) post for fear of a brow-beating.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

123. "The Truth" is often in the eyes of the beholder.

"The Truth" about dead Lebanese/Iraqi/Israeli civilians may be that they are "collateral damage" in a "necessary war".

"The Truth" about dead Lebanses/Iraqi/Israeli civilians may be that they are "innocent victims" of wanton murder.

"The Truth" about torture may be that it is a useful tool to "protect the country" from "terrorists".

"The Truth" about torute may be that it is a useless display of sadism that harms the very basis of humanity.

"The Truth" may be that the soliders that raped and killed a young girl and her family were under "stress".

"The Truth" may be that the soldiers raped and killed a young girl because they are rapists and murderers.


Of course, we all have our biases, and they determine what we see as "The Truth".

[FredStembottom]

124. It can seem like that.........

But DU is a forum that lets a vast array of opinions, held by millions, surface into a vast, homogeneous sea of "correct" opinion for the 1st time. Remember, the good ol' USofA is now only 26th in the world for Freedom of the Press (according to some)!

So...these "new" opinions are flying around like newborn ponies....FREE at last!

Some excess is to be expected.

[mistertrickster]

127. You have a point. However, I think the reason we liberal-leftists are

so critical of our own country is that

1. the US professes to have ideals of equality and democracy and so we think it should actually LIVE UP TO THEM and

2. we live in the US, so we have a duty to try to make the country better. That's what participatory democracy is all about. We criticise our troops when they engage in atrocities because they represent us, they're paid for with our taxes and hired by our government.

We could criticise Saudi Arabia for not letting women vote, if you like. But what does that do? We don't live in Saudi Arabia. It's not a participatory democracy like our country is supposed to be.

Nevertheless, I agree with the essence of your post. We shouldn't accept evidence based on pre-determined conclusions. We should let the evidence lead to the conclusion, not the other way around.

[muriel_volestrangler]

129. Massive broad brush and over-generalizations in your post

There are plenty of positive posts about the US, Israel and Christians. But news tends to be about problems, so you'll see more about the problems associated wit hthose 3 - or just about any subject.

It seems the following is accurate:
Chavez, Castro, Iran, Hizbollah, atheists, american indians, buddhists, islam, and the like are good. A negative article about them is seen as bad with an agenda.

There are many Chavez and Castro supporters here, and they may have a tendency to post and comment on fairly minor stories about them as if they've just saved the world (again). They'll also get DUers who oppose them, on the same threads.

Iran (the government, anyway) and Hizbollah do not get positive articles about them. They get many bad articles, though they will get defenders who say they are picked on by the USA. That is true, though it's questionable if they deserve it.

Negative articles on atheists do get jumped on. Not surprising, since many here are atheists, and we don't see how we're doing anything wrong, as a group (maybe because we don't do things as a group). Negative articles that broadbrush Christians get jumped on too. People like Robertson get shouted at by everyone, inculding, as you say, you.

American Indians and Buddhists? Again, there are some here, and I can't think of any particular thing they've done wrong, so I would see a negative article about them as probably having an agenda. I can't recall seeing one here, though.

Islam? It gets extensively slagged off on DU, because of bombs, attitude to women, draconian punishment, and other features of some Muslim countries. On the whole, it suffers from a broadbrush approach - the relatively few Muslims we have here frequently have to explain the sometimes huge differences between the several cultures and interpretations of a large religion, and why people are wrong to lump them all together.

If you think Christianity gets a harder time here than Islam, I think you're wrong.

[trotsky]

134. Bravo, m_v.

Well put.

[mmonk]

130. things are getting tight around here anyway.

People can and do take criticism out of context as a bias with unfolding events sometimes.

[KoKo]

137. Here's something you might find interesting

because the level of awareness of some on DU about our Media might be why you see what you see as bias is due to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1839026&mesg_id=1839026

[datasuspect]

138. damn, why can't those coloreds just behave?

what right do the powerless have to have their voices heard anyway?

ugh.

[cali]

154. Ugh is right.

Disgusting to twist the OP's message like that when he said NOTHING of the sort. What a lousy, thoughtless thing to do.

[datasuspect]

155. yeah, okay

your self-righteous indignation has been duly noted.

[nam78_two]

167. wow...

congratulations on bringing a racial element to a post that had none...

I am a colored person-also a progressive, vegan environmentalist atheist and I make under $25,000/year, but I happen to agree with the OP.

No really...seriously...there is diversity in opinion even among us colored people ok? Oh wait what does that make me ? A sell -out, a stooge :eyes:

Nice when the world is so black and white and everyone who doesn't agree with you to a T must be racists, bigots etc. Its a convenient substitute for intelligent debate Isuppose....

[datasuspect]

170. yes

the internet is my definitive source for intelligent debate.

geez.

[treestar]

142. The bias is that the Arab side is not represented at all anywhere

And questioning the Israeli side is labled "bias."

[JudyM]

149. It's not the questioning of the Israeli side, it's the refusal to consider

the spot the Israelis are in. None of us, including Israel, wants to see civilians killed, and we question why this is happening. But to protect their very existence they have to do something... it's just the issue of automatic villification of everything Israel does as if Israel is the big bully and not surrounded by enormously wealthy Arab leaders who want nothing more than its destruction. Not all Arabs, of course, but for the most part Israel is in a fight for its life, as a result of documented statements and actions by its neighbors.

And the Arab side certainly seems represented to me ... in the U.N., in their continuously exxagerated casualty reports that are all over the news, etc. And in a continuous tempest on DU. What about their side do you not see represented, exactly?

[treestar]

153. That is all considered and is all posted repeatedly on DU

It's the "refusal to agree" that is somehow "biased."

I still don't know what the Arab side in this particular thing is. Nobody on DU has ever argued for it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

157. I swer them I have been dreaming

it has been posted and some folks have even EMBRACED Hisbollah as some sort of freedom fighters in the same mold as the Sandinistas...

Perhaps you should go to the dungeon to find it... or pay attention

;-)


I will put it to you this way, the bias is so strong at times I want to scream...

[treestar]

161. Nobody has ever embraced Hezbollah as some sort of freedom

fighter. That is only a projection from those who apparently cannot stand any questioning of Israeli actions. We're supposed to cheer them on or we get this crap about how we are supporting Hezbollah.

I don't have to read the dungeon. I pay enough attention to the GD and have seen plenty of that accusatory type of post for questioning Israeli actions, and attempt to shut down the discussion with emotional attacks but not one single post showing anyone thought Hezbollah were some sort of freedom fighters.

I will continue to condemn the Israelis as much as I condemn Hezbollah.

[JudyM]

168. Again, there is no problem with questioning Israeli actions. There is a

problem, as some of us view it, that many many DUers cast Israel as the (cough!) evildoer as if it is not in a fight for its life.

[muriel_volestrangler]

165. The last time Israel's "very existence" was threatened was 1973

It then proved itself able to withstand a combined attack from its neighbours. Since then it has been continually supplied with top class military equipment by the US, and has made peace treaties with the 2 neighbours sovereign nations with the largest borders with it. A combination of Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas could not seriously threaten its existence, even if they attacked all at once. Only Syria has an airforce, which the Israelis could quickly defeat; no-one in the world has an army strong enough to invade Israel (except the USA, and that won't happen).

You say "surrounded by enormously wealthy Arab leaders who want nothing more than its destruction". That's complete bollocks. Egypt does not threaten Israel in any way, and won't, unless they have a complete revolution - in which case the US aid to Egypt will cease, it will be under as much pressure from the US as Iran is now. Jordan is a poor country, and presents no threat to Israel. Syria is antagonistic to Israel - not surprisingly, since Israel has occupied Syrian territory for nearly 40 years - but does not have the strength to hurt Israel seriously. If it tried, Israel would be able to defeat it on its own - but the US would lay Syria waste. Bush has been wanting an excuse for 6 years. Syria knows this. Hizbollah can kill some civilians with rocket attacks on the northern Israeli cities - but not many. 7 civilians died from Hizbollah attacks in the 6 years between Israel withdrawing from Lebanon and the current conflict. Don't pretend that threatens Israel's existence. The only air force in the region that might be able to withstand the Israeli one is Saudi Arabia - and they are firmly in the global capitalist camp. They are not going to attack Israel, and find themselves losing billions of dollars when the US demolishes them in return. Iran has a few missiles that could kill some Israelis, but nothing that could "threaten its existence".

The pretence that the kidnapping of a few Israeli soldiers, and a few rockets aimed at its border towns, "threatened its existence" is one of the most annoying characteristics of the "Israel is always right" brigade. The attack on Lebanon was, as many in Israel have said, a war of choice. it's not a "fight for its life"; Israel could have responded as it did several times before in the past 6 years.

Representation in the UN? Oh great, the UN gets reported so well in the US media. :sarcasm: DU is one of the few places where a lot of Americans do get a proper international view, rather than the pap the US media feeds its punters. Why you think people should feel sorry for the largest power in the region I can't tell at all, when it has killed 1000 Lebanese in a month.

[Dutch]

145. Excellent post, I see things much the same way.

It's troubling, as are a lot of the attempts at justification.

[JudyM]

146. You're right. Too many DU discussions degenerate instantly into rhetoric

like a junior high foodfight, everyone egging everyone else on. Build up a foaming lather of vitriole, then move on to the next post and do the same thing. Sure, everyone's frustrated by the state of events in the world and *'s contribution to it, but I no longer feel that our reasoning is what sets us apart from the Freepers. If you go to their site they descend into empty, hateful bigoted rhetoric at the drop of a hat. It appears that DU is more and more like them, these days. Jumping excitedly on any story that villifies Israel, especially, without the ability to see how terrified the Israelis themselves are, surrounded by countries and terrorist organizations (yes, they are terrorists, please let's not get into that lame discussion) committed to taking away their very existence. I've always thought that compassion is one of the highest ethical virtues. It's sad to me that so many DUers have such a narrow field of compassion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. You just identified the blind spots on the left

The right has its own, but the left has also its own koolaid... and just like the right the people who believe any of this as a mater of faith are very vocal and far from the majority... but VERY VOCAL

you forgot one though, Obrador, the saint Messiah in Mexico, never mind he is far from it.

[peacebaby3]

159. Yes, I agree with the OP 100%. n/t

[T_i_B]

160. Well done to you for speaking the truth

This site is indeed wildly, fanatically partisan, and quite frankly can get a bit on the stupid side as a direct result.

[stepnw1f]

162. I Disagree

However instead, I think pro-Israeli folks are losing the debate and have been trying to stifle criticism of Israel for a while now by unjustly accusing folks of either being anti-semitic, stupid, Hezbollah lovers or "fill in swear here".

From what I have noticed, those who are against the actions of Israel have applied the same critique to the US. They are being consistant when they criticize both the US and Israel for killing civilians. NOBODY supports terrorism, just because they criticize a government... And nobody is an anti-semite or biased just because they criticize Israel or the US.

And I will keep criticizing both governments until the war stops and I hope others do as well, because the killing must end or we will all be in a WWIII. Then biased or not, million will die. Duers are pretty even handed. I do not buy your analysis or generalization of DU and its members.

[Throd]

163. I hate the ideological litmus tests from the Purveyors of Political Purity

If you even slightly disagree with me on issue "X" then you are a Nazi stooge KKKarl Rove humping troll!

[breakaleg]

164. This poster said it best....

"-- Opposition to violent Islamism is so obvious that it scarcely needs to be mentioned. Am I required, every time I criticize Bush, to issue an "equal time" denunciation of al-Qaeda? I doubt that there are many on the left (although plenty on the right) who would make such a demand."

I don't think it's necessary to state the obvious in every post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1841944&mesg_id=1843110

[akushuki]

166. I would say that most people at DU arent like that...

everywhere you go you are likely to find people that disagree with FACTS by saying they are lies and not providing any proof to their claims and then posting hatred. DU is no exception though I bet it has less a percentage then FReeperland. However, I submit no proof to that claim.

[whosinpower]

169. Because we have been lied to, coerced, blamed, villified

condemned, sidelined, ridiculed, impuned, by MSM for so long--anything that MSM reports - we take with a big big reservation or outright condemnation. See - we can't tell the difference anymore because so very many times the truth was not reported, or it was biased, or it was an outright lie. So, as human nature goes--we tend to dwell on the negative.

Hard questions HAVE been asked and discussed on this forum.

You specifically mention Hizbollah. I have been doing some reading on them, from a variety of sources. I know - terrorist=bad. But - and this is important given the current crisis--it is important to take a good hard look at what happened from 1982 to 2000. There are many of us that do not know. And we do not know because we are either intellectually lazy; we don't want to bother finding background information and we trust what the MSM tell us, what our government tells us, what Israel tells us.

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon claiming it was a defensive measure against the PLO - who were supported by the USSR. (Exchange PLO for Hizbollah, and USSR for Iran and we have the same story repeating itself) Israel did not leave for EIGHTEEN YEARS! During that time 455 Israeli's died. Over 17000 Arabs were killed during the same period. And Hizbollah was born out of the hardship, extreme poverty, desperation of that occupation. During that occupation, Israel imprisoned thousands and still has not let them go--even though they do not occupy that land anymore. But still, they refuse and have not formally charged these people or submitted them to any sort judicial process.

I KNOW....HIZBOLLAH=BAD. Israel's lopsided assault continues today unabated. Body counts vary, but it could be estimated at 700 Lebanese killed so far and a nation torn apart with no end in sight. Israel counters Katuysha rocket attacks with precision weapons, cluster bombs. Roads are destroyed. Bridges blown. Hospitals attacked. TV towers blown up, factories destroyed, gas stations targeted, Power plants attacked.

In 1982, Israel tried the same thing....and Hizbollah was born. Even if they manage to defeat Hizbollah - why expect any different result today for tomorrow's generation? (you know - lasting peace etc)

Is that a progressive question by the way??? And we need to look even deeper into the middle eastern quagmire and ask even harder questions. Questions about democracy. Because democracy allows Hamas to have a political voice - put forth by the will of the people. To kidnap those elected is an insult to the entire democratic process, undermines the palestinian authority - and the silence from the west is a slap in the face of Abbas and the palestinian people.

And Hizbollah, (I KNOW HIZBOLLAH=BAD) gains political traction just by standing up to Israel. Just ask the Lebanese. Who do you think they are going to vote for if they ever get the chance to vote ever again. The guys that stood and fought? Or the government that stood by and watched as Beirut was turned to rubble?

Here is another question. If Syrian troops were still occupying Lebanon--would we see the current war? I KNOW - SYRIA=BAD. But ask yourself that question removed from sympathies to any side of the equation. What is your answer? And then ask yourself-who has really taken advantage of a weak Lebanon....is it Hizbollah, or is it Israel? And here is another loaded question. Lebanon was supposed to be a beacon of what western idealogies could gain its civilization. They were finally free from Syrian oppression we were led to believe......and this is the payoff???????

[garthranzz]

171. Excellent post

I couldn't agree more.


:applause:

[Truthiness Inspector]

172. K & R

Well said.

[SPKrazy]

174. While You Post With A Broad Brush

I believe you are correct about a strong anti Christian, anti Israel, anti anything the US does is that is positive

But with that said, remember there are over 90K registered members of DU

DU does not represent the Democratic party

the posts that don't put down Christianity, Israel, or the US outnumber the ones that do.

So don't give up

DU doesn't belong to the fringe (of course literally it belongs to the admins), it belongs to the left, middle, and all who are Democrats/progressives!

[nashville_brook]

176. don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out

[Autonomy]

180. You assume we are all progressives here at DU

There are many regressive socialists, and even some surreptitious Stalinists here as well. Their intentions here are not much different from right-wing trolls.