Re: Joke of the week

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tony cooper, May 12, 2011.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:44:28 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:

    >On 5/12/2011 11:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> "Bowser"<> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On 5/11/2011 11:07 PM, Rich wrote:
    >>>> Pathetic.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&thread=38395540
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I suppose Hillary should be flattered. She was removed because the
    >>> imbeciles who edit that paper considered her sexually suggestive.

    >>
    >> No, it was just because the editors of that paper don't print pictures of
    >> women for religious reasons. They believe it degrades women or something
    >> like that.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >I quote the article:
    >
    >"The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of
    >women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive. "
    >
    >Ipso Fatso, Hillary is sexually suggestive.


    For a newspaper to print a photograph that has been so drastically
    modified as to remove a person of significance to the event is totally
    wrong. That's manipulating news.

    It would have been acceptable, in my opinion, to have cropped the
    image to include only the men on the left and captioned it as
    representing some of the attendees in the Situation Room.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 12, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 12 May 2011 22:11:08 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:44:28 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On 5/12/2011 11:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>> "Bowser"<> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On 5/11/2011 11:07 PM, Rich wrote:
    >>>>>> Pathetic.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&thread=38395540
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I suppose Hillary should be flattered. She was removed because the
    >>>>> imbeciles who edit that paper considered her sexually suggestive.
    >>>>
    >>>> No, it was just because the editors of that paper don't print pictures
    >>>> of
    >>>> women for religious reasons. They believe it degrades women or something
    >>>> like that.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>I quote the article:
    >>>
    >>>"The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of
    >>>women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive. "
    >>>
    >>>Ipso Fatso, Hillary is sexually suggestive.

    >>
    >> For a newspaper to print a photograph that has been so drastically
    >> modified as to remove a person of significance to the event is totally
    >> wrong. That's manipulating news.

    >
    >How is it "manipulating news"? What news fact has been misrepresented in
    >this case?


    Are you kidding?

    The photograph is a recording of the people on the President's staff
    who attended the meeting in the White House Situation Room. It is a
    blatant manipulation of a news item to remove two people from that
    group and not clearly indicate that the photograph has been altered to
    remove those two people. The US Secretary of State has been removed
    and the resulting photograph presents a scene that says she wasn't
    there.

    This is an official White House photo with the following standard
    instruction for official White House photos:

    "This official White House photograph is being made available only for
    publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by
    the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be
    manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political
    materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any
    way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First
    Family, or the White House."

    >They don't print pictures of women. Presumably their regular (Hasidic
    >Jewish) readership understands this. I don't see how it's anyone else's
    >business.
    >
    >>
    >> It would have been acceptable, in my opinion, to have cropped the
    >> image to include only the men on the left and captioned it as
    >> representing some of the attendees in the Situation Room.

    >
    >So join that synagogue and make clear to them what you regard as acceptable,
    >and what not. I'd love to be there to see with what close and thoughtful
    >attention they hear your views.
    >

    You are completely clueless. There is no particular synagogue
    involved in this. Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism
    that is world-wide.

    Di Tzeitung is a newspaper. As a matter of fact, Di Tzeitung has
    issued an apology to the White House saying: "We should not have
    published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and
    apologies to the White House and to the State Department." They've
    listened to the views.

    If the newspaper objected to women in the photograph, they could have
    not printed the photo at all. If they wanted to print it, but wanted
    to delete the images of the women, they could have included a line
    under the photo stating that the photo had been manipulated and listed
    the names of the two women deleted. That would have been wrong, but
    it would have been a more honest violation of copyright and the rules
    for using an official White House photo.

    From this newsgroup's perspective, it was an alteration of a
    copyrighted photograph and completely wrong from that standpoint.

    It doesn't surprise me that you don't object. You accept doctored
    polls and published studies and other misrepresentations. Newspapers
    Photoshopping photos to change historical events are no big deal to
    you.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 13, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    RichA Guest

    On May 13, 12:33 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 12 May 2011 22:11:08 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:44:28 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>On 5/12/2011 11:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > >>>> "Bowser"<>  wrote in message
    > >>>>news:...
    > >>>>> On 5/11/2011 11:07 PM, Rich wrote:
    > >>>>>> Pathetic.

    >
    > >>>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&thread=3839...

    >
    > >>>>> I suppose Hillary should be flattered. She was removed because the
    > >>>>> imbeciles who edit that paper considered her sexually suggestive.

    >
    > >>>> No, it was just because the editors of that paper don't print pictures
    > >>>> of
    > >>>> women for religious reasons. They believe it degrades women or something
    > >>>> like that.

    >
    > >>>I quote the article:

    >
    > >>>"The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of
    > >>>women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive."

    >
    > >>>Ipso Fatso, Hillary is sexually suggestive.

    >
    > >> For a newspaper to print a photograph that has been so drastically
    > >> modified as to remove a person of significance to the event is totally
    > >> wrong.  That's manipulating news.

    >
    > >How is it "manipulating news"? What news fact has been misrepresented in
    > >this case?

    >
    > Are you kidding?  
    >
    > The photograph is a recording of the people on the President's staff
    > who attended the meeting in the White House Situation Room.  It is a
    > blatant manipulation of a news item to remove two people from that
    > group and not clearly indicate that the photograph has been altered to
    > remove those two people.  The US Secretary of State has been removed
    > and the resulting photograph presents a scene that says she wasn't
    > there.
    >
    > This is an official White House photo with the following standard
    > instruction for official White House photos:
    >
    > "This official White House photograph is being made available only for
    > publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by
    > the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be
    > manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political
    > materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any
    > way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First
    > Family, or the White House."
    >
    > >They don't print pictures of women. Presumably their regular (Hasidic
    > >Jewish) readership understands this. I don't see how it's anyone else's
    > >business.

    >
    > >> It would have been acceptable, in my opinion, to have cropped the
    > >> image to include only the men on the left and captioned it as
    > >> representing some of the attendees in the Situation Room.

    >
    > >So join that synagogue and make clear to them what you regard as acceptable,
    > >and what not. I'd love to be there to see with what close and thoughtful
    > >attention they hear your views.

    >
    > You are completely clueless.  There is no particular synagogue
    > involved in this.  Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism
    > that is world-wide.
    >
    > Di Tzeitung is a newspaper.  As a matter of fact, Di Tzeitung has
    > issued an apology to the White House saying:  "We should not have
    > published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and
    > apologies to the White House and to the State Department."  They've
    > listened to the views.  


    They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
    forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
    official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
    politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
    quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.
     
    RichA, May 13, 2011
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >They probably
    >edited Congalisa Rice from similar cabinet and high level meeting shots
    >of the GWB administration.



    Who ??????
     
    Bruce, May 13, 2011
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/13/2011 9:11 AM, RichA wrote:

    >
    > They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
    > forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
    > official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
    > politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
    > quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.



    Your ignorant prejudice continually shows.
    Although there are members of the Hassidic community living in Israel,
    the vast majority lives in the United States and Canada. They do not
    recognize the State of Israel as a Jewish State.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce4IuSBRn9w


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 13, 2011
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/13/2011 2:10 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > news:4dcd51f8$0$12466$-secrets.com...
    >> On 5/13/2011 9:11 AM, RichA wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
    >>> forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
    >>> official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
    >>> politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
    >>> quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.

    >>
    >>
    >> Your ignorant prejudice continually shows.
    >> Although there are members of the Hassidic community living in Israel, the
    >> vast majority lives in the United States and Canada. They do not recognize
    >> the State of Israel as a Jewish State.
    >>
    >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce4IuSBRn9w

    >
    > And it's not just Hasidic Jews who are anti-Zionist.
    >
    > See the Jews Against Zionism site,
    > http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
    >
    > Good on them.
    >
    >


    Your comment shows a complete ignorance of the true meaning of Zionism,
    before it's meaning was corrupted by anti-Semitic types. Based upon
    postings that you have made in the past I strongly suspect that even
    discussing it with you would be a total waste of electrons. You are
    uneducatable on the subject.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 13, 2011
    #6
  7. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 13 May 2011 12:20:24 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >My point was that they clearly intended no offense to Hillary or to any
    >other women.


    You are such a hypocrite. When anyone else says something that can't
    be verified by 17 sources and a Supreme Court judge, you accuse them
    of suppositioning. Yet, you can baldly state that they clearly
    intended no offense.

    Well, I don't know what they *intended*, but what they did was
    offensive in that they portrayed to their readership that females have
    no place in a man's world in our world just as it is in their world.

    >Well, Gates on the far right. But if Mullen or Biden, etc., had been removed
    >from the photo, leaving the others, would it really change the sense of the
    >picture in any significant way?


    It could present the sense that Obama does not value his Secretary of
    State enough to include her in the group. In politics, that is a
    significant indicator.


    >"Bizarre" and "unreasonable" are often matters of point of view. In the case
    >of images, religious Jews (and maybe Muslims too) have certain views that
    >others do not; for example, Jews do not depict religious figures as
    >Christians do. While Christians have pictures of Jesus, Mary et al. in
    >books, portraits, statues and statuettes of Jesus all over the place; Jews
    >NEVER do this in connection with Abraham, Moses or other Biblical
    >characters, since they believe it violates the ban against making graven
    >images. I'm not saying this is directly connected to the Hasidic newspaper's
    >refusal to print photos of women, but it does suggest that they attach some
    >moral imperatives to pictures that others do not.


    You don't grasp that Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism,
    and Orthodox Judaism is significantly different in customs from Reform
    Judaism. You lump all Jews together with your "they". There's an
    ignorance and distastefulness about that.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 13, 2011
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 13 May 2011 08:59:52 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 22:11:08 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:44:28 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On 5/12/2011 11:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>>> "Bowser"<> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> On 5/11/2011 11:07 PM, Rich wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Pathetic.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&thread=38395540
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I suppose Hillary should be flattered. She was removed because the
    >>>>>>> imbeciles who edit that paper considered her sexually suggestive.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No, it was just because the editors of that paper don't print pictures
    >>>>>> of
    >>>>>> women for religious reasons. They believe it degrades women or
    >>>>>> something
    >>>>>> like that.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I quote the article:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of
    >>>>>women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive. "
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Ipso Fatso, Hillary is sexually suggestive.
    >>>>
    >>>> For a newspaper to print a photograph that has been so drastically
    >>>> modified as to remove a person of significance to the event is totally
    >>>> wrong. That's manipulating news.
    >>>
    >>>How is it "manipulating news"? What news fact has been misrepresented in
    >>>this case?

    >>
    >> Are you kidding?

    >
    >Nope. The president and a bunch of other high-level people were sitting in a
    >small room staring intently at an unseen monitor. That was the sense of the
    >scene and it was as represented.
    >
    >>
    >> The photograph is a recording of the people on the President's staff
    >> who attended the meeting in the White House Situation Room. It is a
    >> blatant manipulation of a news item to remove two people from that
    >> group and not clearly indicate that the photograph has been altered to
    >> remove those two people. The US Secretary of State has been removed
    >> and the resulting photograph presents a scene that says she wasn't
    >> there.

    >
    >I agree, the paper should have mentioned in some way that other people were
    >in the room than those shown. Not having seen all the accompanying text in
    >the paper, I have no idea whether they did or not mention her presence. Do
    >you?


    Yes. The Washington Post answered that question. I'll let you look
    it up.
    >>
    >> This is an official White House photo with the following standard
    >> instruction for official White House photos:
    >>
    >> "This official White House photograph is being made available only for
    >> publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by
    >> the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be
    >> manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political
    >> materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any
    >> way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First
    >> Family, or the White House."

    >
    >Then its alteration was an infraction of that rule. This makes it
    >approximately 0.0000001374% as important as the rules, laws and
    >constitutional principles the president himself has trashed, and I am
    >willing to consider it with just that degree of seriousness.


    It was a violation of the rules for accepting and using an Official
    White House photo, a violation of copyright, and a violation of the
    Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists.

    >> You are completely clueless. There is no particular synagogue
    >> involved in this. Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism
    >> that is world-wide.

    >
    >How do you know "there is no particular synagogue involved in this"? Do you
    >know the editorial staff?


    As I said in another post, you are quick to pull out the straw man
    like this, but you can be absolutely sure of their intent. Hypocrite.

    Another Hasidic newspaper, Di Voch, has run the same altered photo.
    No particular synagogue involved here, either.

    >>
    >> Di Tzeitung is a newspaper. As a matter of fact, Di Tzeitung has
    >> issued an apology to the White House saying: "We should not have
    >> published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and
    >> apologies to the White House and to the State Department." They've
    >> listened to the views.

    >
    >In any case, all the labor you're putting into this will still never built
    >this particular molehill into a mountain. The altered photo was funny for
    >its erasure of Hillary. The alteration was newsworthy mostly for that
    >reason. Outside of this newsgroup, I would be amazed if many people are
    >wringing their hands over it as you are.


    You have to start reading things with more truth and depth than
    "Gunslinger's Digest". There are many people and groups upset by
    this. There are still people around who respect copyright laws even
    if you don't.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 13, 2011
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 13 May 2011 06:11:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On May 13, 12:33 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 22:11:08 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >> >news:...
    >> >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:44:28 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>>On 5/12/2011 11:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> >>>> "Bowser"<>  wrote in message
    >> >>>>news:...
    >> >>>>> On 5/11/2011 11:07 PM, Rich wrote:
    >> >>>>>> Pathetic.

    >>
    >> >>>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&thread=3839...

    >>
    >> >>>>> I suppose Hillary should be flattered. She was removed because the
    >> >>>>> imbeciles who edit that paper considered her sexually suggestive.

    >>
    >> >>>> No, it was just because the editors of that paper don't print pictures
    >> >>>> of
    >> >>>> women for religious reasons. They believe it degrades women or something
    >> >>>> like that.

    >>
    >> >>>I quote the article:

    >>
    >> >>>"The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of
    >> >>>women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive. "

    >>
    >> >>>Ipso Fatso, Hillary is sexually suggestive.

    >>
    >> >> For a newspaper to print a photograph that has been so drastically
    >> >> modified as to remove a person of significance to the event is totally
    >> >> wrong.  That's manipulating news.

    >>
    >> >How is it "manipulating news"? What news fact has been misrepresented in
    >> >this case?

    >>
    >> Are you kidding?  
    >>
    >> The photograph is a recording of the people on the President's staff
    >> who attended the meeting in the White House Situation Room.  It is a
    >> blatant manipulation of a news item to remove two people from that
    >> group and not clearly indicate that the photograph has been altered to
    >> remove those two people.  The US Secretary of State has been removed
    >> and the resulting photograph presents a scene that says she wasn't
    >> there.
    >>
    >> This is an official White House photo with the following standard
    >> instruction for official White House photos:
    >>
    >> "This official White House photograph is being made available only for
    >> publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by
    >> the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be
    >> manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political
    >> materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any
    >> way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First
    >> Family, or the White House."
    >>
    >> >They don't print pictures of women. Presumably their regular (Hasidic
    >> >Jewish) readership understands this. I don't see how it's anyone else's
    >> >business.

    >>
    >> >> It would have been acceptable, in my opinion, to have cropped the
    >> >> image to include only the men on the left and captioned it as
    >> >> representing some of the attendees in the Situation Room.

    >>
    >> >So join that synagogue and make clear to them what you regard as acceptable,
    >> >and what not. I'd love to be there to see with what close and thoughtful
    >> >attention they hear your views.

    >>
    >> You are completely clueless.  There is no particular synagogue
    >> involved in this.  Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism
    >> that is world-wide.
    >>
    >> Di Tzeitung is a newspaper.  As a matter of fact, Di Tzeitung has
    >> issued an apology to the White House saying:  "We should not have
    >> published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and
    >> apologies to the White House and to the State Department."  They've
    >> listened to the views.  

    >
    >They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
    >forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
    >official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
    >politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
    >quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.


    WTF? What does Israel have to do with this?

    Di Tzeitung is a weekly newspaper in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is in the
    USA.






    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 13, 2011
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2011-05-13 08:02:28 -0700, Bruce <> said:
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> They probably
    >>> edited Congalisa Rice from similar cabinet and high level meeting shots
    >>> of the GWB administration.

    >>
    >>
    >> Who ??????

    >
    >My typo.
    >Condaleezza Rice, G. W. Bush's female National Security Advisor, and
    >Secretary of State.



    Condoleeza. An interesting name. ;-)

    According to Wikipedia:
    Her name, Condoleezza, derives from the music-related term, con
    dolcezza, which in Italian means, "with sweetness".

    Seems like her parents also found it difficult to spell right. ;-)
     
    Bruce, May 13, 2011
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/13/2011 6:05 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "tony cooper"<> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Fri, 13 May 2011 12:20:24 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> My point was that they clearly intended no offense to Hillary or to any
    >>> other women.

    >>
    >> You are such a hypocrite. When anyone else says something that can't
    >> be verified by 17 sources and a Supreme Court judge, you accuse them
    >> of suppositioning. Yet, you can baldly state that they clearly
    >> intended no offense.

    >
    > OK, prove me wrong. What offense did they intend?
    >
    >>
    >> Well, I don't know what they *intended*,

    >
    > Ohhhhhh . . . gosh, what a shame.
    >
    >> but what they did was
    >> offensive in that they portrayed to their readership that females have
    >> no place in a man's world in our world just as it is in their world.

    >
    > Horse shit. You've just said you don't know what they intended, and now
    > you've foisted off on them *your* paranoid notions of what they meant. You
    > were right the first time and you should have left it at that.
    >
    >>
    >>> Well, Gates on the far right. But if Mullen or Biden, etc., had been
    >>> removed
    >> >from the photo, leaving the others, would it really change the sense of
    >>> the
    >>> picture in any significant way?

    >>
    >> It could present the sense that Obama does not value his Secretary of
    >> State enough to include her in the group. In politics, that is a
    >> significant indicator.

    >
    > Not responsive to what I asked, was it? But you're wrong anyway.
    >
    > The Hasidic Jewish newspaper offered their own explanation, which seems
    > reasonable to me given their Hasidic way of looking at these things. It had
    > nothing whatever to do with any supposed "indicator" of how Obama values
    > Hillary.
    >
    > Get tweezers, reach into an ear and pull all that paranoid stuffing out of
    > your head, Tony. If the intent were to suggest any such thing as Obama's low
    > opinion by erasing Hillary, then why did they also erase the other woman in
    > the photo (who is completely unknown, as far as I'm aware)? Do you think
    > they were trying to suggest Obama's devaluing of her also, the poor
    > unidentified creature? Don't you think it's infinitely more likely that the
    > paper's reason for the Hillaryectomy was exactly what they said it was, that
    > they consider themselves "not allowed" to show pictures of women for reasons
    > of modesty?
    >
    > Don't you ever think these things through before posting such utter rubbish?
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>> "Bizarre" and "unreasonable" are often matters of point of view. In the
    >>> case
    >>> of images, religious Jews (and maybe Muslims too) have certain views that
    >>> others do not; for example, Jews do not depict religious figures as
    >>> Christians do. While Christians have pictures of Jesus, Mary et al. in
    >>> books, portraits, statues and statuettes of Jesus all over the place; Jews
    >>> NEVER do this in connection with Abraham, Moses or other Biblical
    >>> characters, since they believe it violates the ban against making graven
    >>> images. I'm not saying this is directly connected to the Hasidic
    >>> newspaper's
    >>> refusal to print photos of women, but it does suggest that they attach
    >>> some
    >>> moral imperatives to pictures that others do not.

    >>
    >> You don't grasp that Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism,
    >> and Orthodox Judaism is significantly different in customs from Reform
    >> Judaism. You lump all Jews together with your "they". There's an
    >> ignorance and distastefulness about that.

    >
    > This, from the bananahead who assigns all sorts of evil motives to Hasidic
    > Jewish newspaper editors, based on nothing but his own paranoia, ignorance
    > and witlessness, as demonstrated. Sheesh.



    The fact that he speaks the truth is something that you ignore. The
    issue has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 13, 2011
    #11
  12. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/13/2011 6:08 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > news:4dcd8e1c$0$12507$-secrets.com...
    >> On 5/13/2011 2:10 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:4dcd51f8$0$12466$-secrets.com...
    >>>> On 5/13/2011 9:11 AM, RichA wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
    >>>>> forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
    >>>>> official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
    >>>>> politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
    >>>>> quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Your ignorant prejudice continually shows.
    >>>> Although there are members of the Hassidic community living in Israel,
    >>>> the
    >>>> vast majority lives in the United States and Canada. They do not
    >>>> recognize
    >>>> the State of Israel as a Jewish State.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce4IuSBRn9w
    >>>
    >>> And it's not just Hasidic Jews who are anti-Zionist.
    >>>
    >>> See the Jews Against Zionism site,
    >>> http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
    >>>
    >>> Good on them.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Your comment shows a complete ignorance of the true meaning of Zionism,
    >> before it's meaning was corrupted by anti-Semitic types.

    >
    > And the anti-Zionist Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish rabbis, are they
    > "anti-Semitic types" too?


    You don't even begin to comprehend the meaning of a Jewish State, which
    is what they oppose, because one cannot be established until the coming
    of the Messiah. This fundamentalist meaning coincides with the Christian
    concept of Judgment day. One of the major differences is that from the
    Hassidic standpoint the Messiah must precede the Jewish State.

    If you have any desire to understand the true meaning of Zionism, read
    the works of Theodore Herzl. if you do so you will find that although
    Israel would be a Jewish State in the sense that all Jewish people would
    automatically become citizens, it would also be secular in operation and
    would include a place for both Jews and Arabs to live peacefully together.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 13, 2011
    #12
  13. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    Here is another version of the photo in question.

    <http://www.slate.com/id/2293232/slideshow/2293228/entry/2293222/fs/0//>


    And yet another version of the place of women in history:


    <http://madartlab.com/2011/05/10/hillary-clinton-erased-from-history-not-so-fast/>

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 13, 2011
    #13
  14. tony cooper

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2011-05-13 14:47:18 -0700, Bruce <> said:
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>> On 2011-05-13 08:02:28 -0700, Bruce <> said:
    >>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> They probably
    >>>>> edited Congalisa Rice from similar cabinet and high level meeting shots
    >>>>> of the GWB administration.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Who ??????
    >>>
    >>> My typo.
    >>> Condaleezza Rice, G. W. Bush's female National Security Advisor, and
    >>> Secretary of State.

    >>
    >>
    >> Condoleeza. An interesting name. ;-)
    >>
    >> According to Wikipedia:
    >> Her name, Condoleezza, derives from the music-related term, con
    >> dolcezza, which in Italian means, "with sweetness".
    >>
    >> Seems like her parents also found it difficult to spell right. ;-)

    >
    >That is considering that both her parents were high school teachers.
    >...and therein lies the problem with education in the USA today. ;-)



    It is just as bad here in England. :-(
     
    Bruce, May 14, 2011
    #14
  15. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 13 May 2011 18:05:14 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:p...
    >> On Fri, 13 May 2011 12:20:24 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>My point was that they clearly intended no offense to Hillary or to any
    >>>other women.

    >>
    >> You are such a hypocrite. When anyone else says something that can't
    >> be verified by 17 sources and a Supreme Court judge, you accuse them
    >> of suppositioning. Yet, you can baldly state that they clearly
    >> intended no offense.

    >
    >OK, prove me wrong. What offense did they intend?
    >
    >>
    >> Well, I don't know what they *intended*,

    >
    >Ohhhhhh . . . gosh, what a shame.
    >
    >> but what they did was
    >> offensive in that they portrayed to their readership that females have
    >> no place in a man's world in our world just as it is in their world.

    >
    >Horse shit. You've just said you don't know what they intended, and now
    >you've foisted off on them *your* paranoid notions of what they meant. You
    >were right the first time and you should have left it at that.
    >

    You don't know the difference between what was intended and what the
    result was. I don't know what was intended, but I do know what the
    result was.

    How you can read that I implied or stated that I had the slightest
    idea of their intent or the meaning to them of what they did is beyond
    me.

    >
    >The Hasidic Jewish newspaper offered their own explanation, which seems
    >reasonable to me given their Hasidic way of looking at these things. It had
    >nothing whatever to do with any supposed "indicator" of how Obama values
    >Hillary.


    Again, you confuse intent with results.

    To make it simple enough for you to grasp, injury may not be the
    intent when a car crashes into another car, but it can be the result.

    >This, from the bananahead who assigns all sorts of evil motives to Hasidic
    >Jewish newspaper editors, based on nothing but his own paranoia, ignorance
    >and witlessness, as demonstrated. Sheesh.


    I don't believe, and never indicated that I believe, that there was
    any maliciousness on the part of the newspaper editors. No evil
    motives. However, the result of what they did was offensive and
    demeaning.

    Most offensive actions are the result of not thinking through one's
    actions or comments, not intent to offend.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 14, 2011
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    Ray Fischer Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On May 13, 12:33 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> Di Tzeitung is a newspaper.  As a matter of fact, Di Tzeitung has
    >> issued an apology to the White House saying:  "We should not have
    >> published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and
    >> apologies to the White House and to the State Department."  They've
    >> listened to the views.  

    >
    >They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
    >forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
    >official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
    >politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
    >quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.


    "No one is that stupid" except, perhaps, for some dumbass who didn't
    notice that the newspaper is produced in Brooklyn.

    --
    Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
    | The new GOP ideal
     
    Ray Fischer, May 14, 2011
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/13/2011 8:46 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > news:4dcdb30a$0$12491$-secrets.com...
    >> On 5/13/2011 6:08 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:4dcd8e1c$0$12507$-secrets.com...
    >>>> On 5/13/2011 2:10 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4dcd51f8$0$12466$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>> On 5/13/2011 9:11 AM, RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
    >>>>>>> forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
    >>>>>>> official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
    >>>>>>> politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
    >>>>>>> quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Your ignorant prejudice continually shows.
    >>>>>> Although there are members of the Hassidic community living in Israel,
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>> vast majority lives in the United States and Canada. They do not
    >>>>>> recognize
    >>>>>> the State of Israel as a Jewish State.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce4IuSBRn9w
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And it's not just Hasidic Jews who are anti-Zionist.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> See the Jews Against Zionism site,
    >>>>> http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Good on them.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Your comment shows a complete ignorance of the true meaning of Zionism,
    >>>> before it's meaning was corrupted by anti-Semitic types.
    >>>
    >>> And the anti-Zionist Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish rabbis, are they
    >>> "anti-Semitic types" too?

    >>
    >> You don't even begin to comprehend the meaning of a Jewish State, which is
    >> what they oppose, because one cannot be established until the coming of
    >> the Messiah. This fundamentalist meaning coincides with the Christian
    >> concept of Judgment day. One of the major differences is that from the
    >> Hassidic standpoint the Messiah must precede the Jewish State.
    >>
    >> If you have any desire to understand the true meaning of Zionism, read the
    >> works of Theodore Herzl. if you do so you will find that although Israel
    >> would be a Jewish State in the sense that all Jewish people would
    >> automatically become citizens, it would also be secular in operation and
    >> would include a place for both Jews and Arabs to live peacefully together.

    >
    > Obviously a nonsensical notion if there ever was one, in light of the way
    > the Jewish state was founded in 1948 and has been run ever since.
    >
    > In any case by your definition the present state of Israel has no connection
    > whatever with Herzlian Zionism, making that reference irrelevant. So don't
    > tell me *I* "don't even begin to comprehend the meaning of a Jewish State,"
    > explain it all to Netanyahu. (Like he's going to pay any attention to you
    > and your Herzl style Zionist ideas.)
    >
    >


    It would never occur to you that current Israeli actions are a reaction
    to rockets being launched, Bar Mitzvah services being bombed, public
    buses carrying civilians being attacked. No, of course not. Tell your
    friends, whose actions you seem to condone, to stop the bombing and see
    what happens.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 14, 2011
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/13/2011 8:46 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > news:4dcdb30a$0$12491$-secrets.com...
    >> On 5/13/2011 6:08 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:4dcd8e1c$0$12507$-secrets.com...
    >>>> On 5/13/2011 2:10 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4dcd51f8$0$12466$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>> On 5/13/2011 9:11 AM, RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
    >>>>>>> forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
    >>>>>>> official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
    >>>>>>> politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
    >>>>>>> quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Your ignorant prejudice continually shows.
    >>>>>> Although there are members of the Hassidic community living in Israel,
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>> vast majority lives in the United States and Canada. They do not
    >>>>>> recognize
    >>>>>> the State of Israel as a Jewish State.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce4IuSBRn9w
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And it's not just Hasidic Jews who are anti-Zionist.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> See the Jews Against Zionism site,
    >>>>> http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Good on them.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Your comment shows a complete ignorance of the true meaning of Zionism,
    >>>> before it's meaning was corrupted by anti-Semitic types.
    >>>
    >>> And the anti-Zionist Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish rabbis, are they
    >>> "anti-Semitic types" too?

    >>
    >> You don't even begin to comprehend the meaning of a Jewish State, which is
    >> what they oppose, because one cannot be established until the coming of
    >> the Messiah. This fundamentalist meaning coincides with the Christian
    >> concept of Judgment day. One of the major differences is that from the
    >> Hassidic standpoint the Messiah must precede the Jewish State.
    >>
    >> If you have any desire to understand the true meaning of Zionism, read the
    >> works of Theodore Herzl. if you do so you will find that although Israel
    >> would be a Jewish State in the sense that all Jewish people would
    >> automatically become citizens, it would also be secular in operation and
    >> would include a place for both Jews and Arabs to live peacefully together.

    >
    > Obviously a nonsensical notion if there ever was one, in light of the way
    > the Jewish state was founded in 1948 and has been run ever since.
    >


    Right. Immediately upon its founding it attacked Egypt, Jordan and
    Syria, while rejecting the partition plan.

    WTF do you smoke.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 14, 2011
    #18
  19. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 14 May 2011 12:49:58 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 5/13/2011 8:46 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >> news:4dcdb30a$0$12491$-secrets.com...
    >>> On 5/13/2011 6:08 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>>> news:4dcd8e1c$0$12507$-secrets.com...
    >>>>> On 5/13/2011 2:10 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:4dcd51f8$0$12466$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>>> On 5/13/2011 9:11 AM, RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
    >>>>>>>> forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
    >>>>>>>> official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
    >>>>>>>> politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
    >>>>>>>> quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Your ignorant prejudice continually shows.
    >>>>>>> Although there are members of the Hassidic community living in Israel,
    >>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>> vast majority lives in the United States and Canada. They do not
    >>>>>>> recognize
    >>>>>>> the State of Israel as a Jewish State.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce4IuSBRn9w
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And it's not just Hasidic Jews who are anti-Zionist.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> See the Jews Against Zionism site,
    >>>>>> http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Good on them.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Your comment shows a complete ignorance of the true meaning of Zionism,
    >>>>> before it's meaning was corrupted by anti-Semitic types.
    >>>>
    >>>> And the anti-Zionist Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish rabbis, are they
    >>>> "anti-Semitic types" too?
    >>>
    >>> You don't even begin to comprehend the meaning of a Jewish State, which is
    >>> what they oppose, because one cannot be established until the coming of
    >>> the Messiah. This fundamentalist meaning coincides with the Christian
    >>> concept of Judgment day. One of the major differences is that from the
    >>> Hassidic standpoint the Messiah must precede the Jewish State.
    >>>
    >>> If you have any desire to understand the true meaning of Zionism, read the
    >>> works of Theodore Herzl. if you do so you will find that although Israel
    >>> would be a Jewish State in the sense that all Jewish people would
    >>> automatically become citizens, it would also be secular in operation and
    >>> would include a place for both Jews and Arabs to live peacefully together.

    >>
    >> Obviously a nonsensical notion if there ever was one, in light of the way
    >> the Jewish state was founded in 1948 and has been run ever since.
    >>

    >
    >Right. Immediately upon its founding it attacked Egypt, Jordan and
    >Syria, while rejecting the partition plan.
    >
    >WTF do you smoke.


    I think we all have Neil pegged pretty well. Across the board.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 14, 2011
    #19
  20. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/14/2011 5:20 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > news:4dceae8d$0$12505$-secrets.com...
    >> On 5/13/2011 8:46 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:4dcdb30a$0$12491$-secrets.com...
    >>>> On 5/13/2011 6:08 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4dcd8e1c$0$12507$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>> On 5/13/2011 2:10 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:4dcd51f8$0$12466$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2011 9:11 AM, RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
    >>>>>>>>> forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
    >>>>>>>>> official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
    >>>>>>>>> politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from
    >>>>>>>>> other
    >>>>>>>>> quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Your ignorant prejudice continually shows.
    >>>>>>>> Although there are members of the Hassidic community living in
    >>>>>>>> Israel,
    >>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>> vast majority lives in the United States and Canada. They do not
    >>>>>>>> recognize
    >>>>>>>> the State of Israel as a Jewish State.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce4IuSBRn9w
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> And it's not just Hasidic Jews who are anti-Zionist.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> See the Jews Against Zionism site,
    >>>>>>> http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Good on them.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Your comment shows a complete ignorance of the true meaning of
    >>>>>> Zionism,
    >>>>>> before it's meaning was corrupted by anti-Semitic types.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And the anti-Zionist Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish rabbis, are they
    >>>>> "anti-Semitic types" too?
    >>>>
    >>>> You don't even begin to comprehend the meaning of a Jewish State, which
    >>>> is
    >>>> what they oppose, because one cannot be established until the coming of
    >>>> the Messiah. This fundamentalist meaning coincides with the Christian
    >>>> concept of Judgment day. One of the major differences is that from the
    >>>> Hassidic standpoint the Messiah must precede the Jewish State.
    >>>>
    >>>> If you have any desire to understand the true meaning of Zionism, read
    >>>> the
    >>>> works of Theodore Herzl. if you do so you will find that although Israel
    >>>> would be a Jewish State in the sense that all Jewish people would
    >>>> automatically become citizens, it would also be secular in operation and
    >>>> would include a place for both Jews and Arabs to live peacefully
    >>>> together.
    >>>
    >>> Obviously a nonsensical notion if there ever was one, in light of the way
    >>> the Jewish state was founded in 1948 and has been run ever since.
    >>>
    >>> In any case by your definition the present state of Israel has no
    >>> connection
    >>> whatever with Herzlian Zionism, making that reference irrelevant. So
    >>> don't
    >>> tell me *I* "don't even begin to comprehend the meaning of a Jewish
    >>> State,"
    >>> explain it all to Netanyahu. (Like he's going to pay any attention to you
    >>> and your Herzl style Zionist ideas.)
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> It would never occur to you that current Israeli actions are a reaction to
    >> rockets being launched, Bar Mitzvah services being bombed, public buses
    >> carrying civilians being attacked. No, of course not.

    >
    > Zionist terrorism worked for Zionists in 1948, didn't it. After their
    > massacre of Arabs in the peaceful village of Deir Yassin, panicked
    > Palestinians fled their homes by the thousands. Eventually some 700,000
    > Palestinians either fled or were forcibly expelled from their homes --
    > arguably the most successful example of "ethnic cleansing" of a territory in
    > modern history.
    >
    > http://www.deiryassin.org/mas.html
    >
    > Look at a map of Israeli seized and illegally occupied territory today and
    > compare it with the generous area the U.N. originally approved for a Jewish
    > state:
    >
    > http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html?q=mapstellstory.html
    >
    > Then you tell me who are the aggressors, the Zionists or the Palestinians.
    >
    >> Tell your friends, whose actions you seem to condone, to stop the bombing
    >> and see what happens.

    >
    > I don't have any friends in that part of the world, but I can recognize
    > injustice when I see it. Evidently you cannot.
    >
    > If there is one lesson the Palestinians took away from all this, it is that
    > if terrorism can work for the Zionists it may eventually work for them too.
    > In fact, they have no other choice available to them. They do not have the
    > world's only superpower giving them billions of American taxpayers' dollars
    > every year, or supplying them with vast quantities of hugely expensive and
    > highly sophisticated weapons of war. They have home-made bombs and suicide
    > bombers, the "poor man's air force." And they have time and demographics on
    > their side.
    >
    > The Zionists who robbed, terrorized and murdered them evidently expected
    > them to just go away and forget about being robbed of their homes and
    > property. They have shown that they aren't going to do that.
    >
    > So the result is the situation we have today in that part of the world,
    > massive and growing hatred of the United States for our part in all this.
    > Without us the Zionists could never have succeeded in their crimes, which
    > continue to this day. And everyone knows this.


    Are you talking about the events of April 8, 1948.

    Here is the time line leading to that sad happening:
    Apr 2, 1948 - THE FACTS: DIR YASSIN MASSACRE: DIR YASSIN WAS A BASE OF
    ATTACK BY THE ARABS AGAINST THE JERUSALEM/ TEL AVIV ROAD. " On April 2,
    1948, the inhabitants of Deir Yassin began sniping at the Jewish
    Quarters of Bet Hakerem and Yefe Nof. According to reports by the Shai
    (Haganah Intelligence), fortifications were being constructed in the
    village and a large quantity of arms being stockpiled. Several days
    before the attack. ...

    From FACTS ABOUT JERUSALEM - Related web pages
    www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerusalem/jerusalem74.html

    Apr 6, 1948 - Operation Nachshon was launched on April 6, 1948, with
    the aim of opening up the road to Jerusalem. The village of Deir Yassin
    was included on the list of Arab villages to be occupied as part of that
    operation. Indeed, while fierce fighting was going on at ...Operation
    Nachshon was launched on April 6, 1948, with the aim of opening up the
    road to Jerusalem. The village of Deir Yassin was included on the list
    of Arab villages to be occupied as part of that operation. Indeed, while
    fierce fighting was going on at Kastel, Arab reinforcements flooded onto
    the battlefield through Deir Yassin, which helped to drive back the
    Jewish occupying force.

    Most here recognize that you never let facts overcome your prejudices.
    This is a photography forum, or you would see a lot more. Stop spreading
    your venomous lies. They have no place here.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 15, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?U0FN?=

    New Certifications Are A Joke!

    =?Utf-8?B?U0FN?=, Jan 6, 2006, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    650
    =?Utf-8?B?U2Vhbg==?=
    Jan 12, 2006
  2. Toby

    Re: CCIE's are a joke

    Toby, Jun 21, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    534
    Bernie
    Jun 21, 2004
  3. zenzibar

    Re: CCIE's are a joke

    zenzibar, Jun 27, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    478
    zenzibar
    Jun 27, 2004
  4. Toolman Tim

    Blonde Joke of the Week

    Toolman Tim, Oct 30, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,165
    WormWood
    Oct 30, 2004
  5. Joyce Danielson

    joke-dirty joke

    Joyce Danielson, Feb 8, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    725
    Joyce Danielson
    Feb 8, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page