• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LA Times allows Hamas to editorialize their terrorism

Truth Detector

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
1,400
Location
Ventura California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is official, the Los Angeles Times and other mainstream newspapers have now become the willing propaganda pieces of terrorists.

One might ask who is Mousa Abu Marzook?

Abu Marzook provided substantial funds to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) in the early 1990s. In 1994, Abu Marzook designated HLF as the primary fund-raising entity for Hamas in the United States.

Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So without any rebuttal or statement to place this editorial piece into context, the LA Times allows the propagation of lies and distortions by terrorist organizations here in the USA.

Clue to LA Times; this may be one of the reasons for your declining readership and losses.

I cannot begin to discredit the lies and distortions contained in this piece it would take too much of my time, it truly speaks for itself. The bottom line is that all the blame for all the problems in Gaza is not Hamas, it is Israel. DOH! :roll:

Hamas speaks
A Hamas official insists that a 'legacy of suffering' under Israel is what fuels Palestinian resistance.
By Mousa Abu Marzook
January 6, 2009

From Damascus -- While Americans may believe that the current violence in Gaza began Dec. 27, in fact Palestinians have been dying from bombardments for many weeks. On Nov. 4, when the Israeli-Palestinian truce was still in effect but global attention was turned to the U.S. elections, Israel launched a "preemptive" airstrike on Gaza, alleging intelligence about an imminent operation to capture Israeli soldiers; more assaults took place throughout the month.

The truce thus shattered, any incentive by Palestinian leaders to enforce the moratorium on rocket fire was gone. Any extension of the agreement or improvement of its implementation at that point would have required Israel to engage Hamas, to agree to additional trust-building measures and negotiation with our movement -- a political impossibility for Israel, with its own elections only weeks away.

Hamas speaks - Los Angeles Times
 
Do they exclude printing the Israeli perspective?
 
So, Marzook doesn't think that firing rockets into Israeli hoods concstitutes a violation of the ceasefire?

Of course not. But he know that he can get away with such absurdity because the western media is completely in the tank with the poor, poor Palestinians.
 

And the Western media like many in the Western public are a bunch of gullible lemmings who think that terrorist organizations can be negotiated and reasoned with.

:rofl
 
I thought I would also share the letter to the editor I sent in to the LA times Editorial board on this article:

Once again we see the Times Editorial board promoting the propaganda of Hamas without a counter opinion. If the Times Staff is wondering why they have a declining readership and declining revenue, perhaps they need to reflect on their willingness to promote the lies and distortions of terrorist organizations. This is not about free speech; this is about providing a forum for terrorist organizations to spread their lies.
 
Setting aside whether or not it's worthwhile to let them share their opinion, the LA Times was at least up front about the guy's affiliation.

At the end of the op-ed:

Mousa Abu Marzook is the deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement.
Click to expand...
 

I don't have any problem with a paper reporting the Palestinian perspective, as long as they give equal footing to the Israeli perspective as well.

As far as as lies and distortions, it should be fairly easy to prove or disprove.

The Hamas claim is that: On Nov. 4, when the Israeli-Palestinian truce was still in effect but global attention was turned to the U.S. elections, Israel launched a "preemptive" airstrike on Gaza, alleging intelligence about an imminent operation to capture Israeli soldiers; more assaults took place throughout the month.

That is either true or not. Did Israel launch an airstrike on Gaza on Nov 4? If that is a lie it should be easily disproven.
 

Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen | World news | guardian.co.uk


They did launch an airstrike, but it was in response to a mortar attack which was in response to a raid which was in response to tunneling which was in response....
 
According to these source, the Hamas claim is true:

A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today [Nov 4] after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.

Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen | World news | guardian.co.uk

On 4 November 2008, Israeli troops raided the Gaza Strip and killed six Hamas gunmen. The Israeli military claimed that the target of the raid was a tunnel that Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers.

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
RightinNYC said:
Setting aside whether or not it's worthwhile to let them share their opinion, the LA Times was at least up front about the guy's affiliation.

At the end of the op-ed:
Click to expand...

'Cuz the political bureau of a terror organization is in no way part of that terror organization...

I notice how the LAT minimized the guy's terror affiliation by citing his employment with a political bureau.
 
JMak said:
'Cuz the political bureau of a terror organization is in no way part of that terror organization...

I notice how the LAT minimized the guy's terror affiliation by citing his employment with a political bureau.
Click to expand...

Who if anybody prominent representing the Hamas government in Palestine wouldn't be deemed a terrorist by our neocon friends?
 
Iriemon said:
Who if anybody prominent representing the Hamas government in Palestine wouldn't be deemed a terrorist by our neocon friends?
Click to expand...

Your abuse of the phrase of neocon is quite telling.

So you're going to argue that because Hamas won elections there they're no longer a terror organization?

Really?
 
JMak said:
Your abuse of the phrase of neocon is quite telling.

So you're going to argue that because Hamas won elections there they're no longer a terror organization?

Really?
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't going to argue that at all. What would make you think such a thing, except to yet again build a strawman to knock down?
 
Iriemon said:
No, I wasn't going to argue that at all. What would make you think such a thing, except to yet again build a strawman to knock down?
Click to expand...

Was there some other point you were making then?

I mean, Hamas is Hamas is Hamas. It doesn't matter whether within Hamas there are political or social groups or otherwise. It's a terror organization. You need not fit the gross caricature of a neocon that you peddle to recognize this.
 

I got a clue for you TD.....cancel your subscription (if you have one) and subscribe to the "Daily News". The "Daily News" is basically a right-wing tool that will give you the right-wing slant that you desire without any opposing views. It is a paper designed for people that want to be spoon-fed their news rather than challenge their readers with some critical thinking. I'm sure that you would prefer their publication over the LA Times.
 




:lol: at this.....
 
disneydude said:
The "Daily News" is basically a right-wing tool that will give you the right-wing slant that you desire without any opposing views.
Click to expand...

Uh, clown...in TD's comment that you excerpted he cited his complaint to LAT and his very first statement reads:
Once again we see the Times Editorial board promoting the propaganda of Hamas without a counter opinion.

Now, if you had read what you were quoting you would have seen that part I bolded and having seen it you could not have concluded that TD was interested in one-sided commentary.

So, did you read TD's comments before responding?

If not, then why respond at all?

If so, why did you insist on imputing to him something he was arguing against?

Well?
 
JMak said:
Was there some other point you were making then?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Anyone defending the Palestinian position in gaza would be called a terrorist. It's an effective way of muting any perspective from that position.
 
Iriemon said:
Yeah. Anyone defending the Palestinian position in gaza would be called a terrorist. It's an effective way of muting any perspective from that position.
Click to expand...




What is the "palestinian" postiton and can you link to it? thanks. :2wave:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
What is the "palestinian" postiton and can you link to it? thanks. :2wave:
Click to expand...

In this case look at the OP, which asserted that Israel violated the truce by invading Gaza on Nov 4 and killing 6 Hamas guys.

That was asserted by Truth Detector, the author of the OP, to be lies and distortion, but Truth Detector did not bother to detect the truth, as it appears in fact to be true.

If the Palestinian side was not presented, I'd have never known about this Israeli raid. The American media was focusing on other things on Nov 4.
 
Iriemon said:
Yeah. Anyone defending the Palestinian position in gaza would be called a terrorist. It's an effective way of muting any perspective from that position.
Click to expand...

I don't see that happening, do you?

I see that the apologists for the Palestinian terrorists are being, rightly, called apologists and sympathizers.

As for muting disagreement, how about calling Israel the new Nazi state and calling Jews the new SS? How about GW skeptics being called deniers equating them to Holacaust-deniers?

No problems with that? Just curious.
 
Iriemon said:
In this case look at the OP, which asserted that Israel violated the truce by invading Gaza on Nov 4 and killing 6 Hamas guys.
Click to expand...


So the hammas rockets being fired into Isreal was keeping in line with the truce? :roll:



The "American media" ignores the rocket attacks on isreal.


List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Between October 29th and November 6th 48 rockets and 21 mortars were fired from Gaza into Israel.




How many rockets into israel are acceptable to you?
 
JMak said:
I don't see that happening, do you?
Click to expand...

Yeah, generally.

I see that the apologists for the Palestinian terrorists are being, rightly, called apologists and sympathizers.
Click to expand...

Who arguing the Palestinian position is nto a terrorist sympathizer, in your opnion?

As for muting disagreement, how about calling Israel the new Nazi state and calling Jews the new SS? How about GW skeptics being called deniers equating them to Holacaust-deniers?

No problems with that? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't say that, and disagree with that assertion.

How about pro Israel supporters calling to nuke Gaza.

No problems with that? Just curious.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So the hammas rockets being fired into Isreal was keeping in line with the truce? :roll:
Click to expand...

It would not be.

The "American media" ignores the rocket attacks on isreal.

List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Between October 29th and November 6th 48 rockets and 21 mortars were fired from Gaza into Israel.
Click to expand...

Same source:

October
October 11th
A single rocket was launched from Gaza into Israel resulting in no injuries or deaths.

So on rocket in October, on the 11th. -0- from Oct 12-31.

November
The Israel Security Agency reports a sharp increase in the number of high trajectory weapon attacks, including towards Ashkelon. This was preceded by an ISA-IDF operation on the evening between November 4th and 5th. Between October 29th and November 6th 48 rockets and 21 mortars were fired from Gaza into Israel

Rockets in November come after the Israel army invades Gaza and kills 6 hamas members.

So between Oct 12 adn Nov 3, 3 weeks, not one rocket. Then the Israeli army invades Gaza, I doubt coincidentally on election day in the US, and kills 6 guys.

Who broke the truce is a matter of interpretation of the facts.

How many rockets into israel are acceptable to you?
Click to expand...

The zero rockets fired between Oct 12 and Nov 4 when the Israeli army raided into Gaza is an acceptable number to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…