French PM says “al-Manar” to be taken off the air

[drdon326]

http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=11903


French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin announced over the weekend that his government intends to take the Hezbollah-affiliated “al-Manar” television station off the air.

According to Raffarin, “France will not stand any harm to the values of the republic”. He said his government would immediately vote on the proposal to shut down all racist or anti-Semitic television stations. “We plan on dealing with this immediately and without delay”, he added.

The station received a permit to broadcast in France only two weeks ago. However, one of its commentators already managed to stir uproar when he accused Israel of spreading AIDS throughout the Arab World.

In addition, Raffarin instructed the French minister of culture and media to call on the next convention of the EU Ministerial Council to “find suitable answers to the anti-Semitism on European television, which has recently spread across Europe”.

....................................................................

yeah....riiiiiight .

[Ardee]

1. This is not enough

The French should immediately allow the Israeli air force permission to drop a few 500 lb. bombs on this station.....that'll show 'em!!

[RedCheckShirt]

2. Let's hear the other side

"Arab Officials, Groups Oppose France's Moves to Ban AlManar

The representative of the Palestinian Authority in France Leila Shaheed said she was against the banning of AlMamar TV's broadcast in France and Europe. Shaheed told France's channel 2 that she saw no hatred material on alManar. She noted that a number of Jewish stations use the language of hatred towards AlManar, adding that despite this they faced no problems in broadcasting in France....."

http://www.manartv.com/

As someone on the left, who has no preference for either Arabs or Jews, it appears to me that we should be supporting the leftist side in this fight and the leftist side is clearly the Palestinians.

Explain to me how I am wrong.

[drdon326]

3. Fascinating....

so allowing terrorists to roam free to murder innocents is now leftist???.......

Not my definition.Good luck.

[RedCheckShirt]

7. so allowing terrorists to roam free to murder innocents is now leftist???.

Palestinian nationalists are called "terrorists" only by the neocon-controlled press in the United States. The rest of the world sees them as revolutionaries with a just cause.

It seems to me that it is about time the United States got in step with the civilized world.

[drdon326]

9. OK.....SO....

you condider hamas (or as you call them "palestinian nationalists") actions as justifiable.

Is that correct?

[RedCheckShirt]

11. Not just me, the world

How many times has Israel been condemned by the UN? (including the resolutions that were vetoed by the US) 50 times? 100 times?

How many times has Hamas been condemned by the UN?

Don't you think it is time the United States got in step with the rest of the world? I, for one, am tired of Chimpy's go-it-alone policies. Aren't you?

[pelsar]

14. redcheck...you said it and I agree

How many times has Israel been condemned by the UN? (including the resolutions that were vetoed by the US) 50 times? 100 times?

How many times has Hamas been condemned by the UN?

Don't you think it is time the United States got in step with the rest of the world?

i guess you mean that the US should wake up and realize that Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, Burma, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba...and other bastions of Human Rights are the real leaders in progressive morality....these are the countries your talking about?

and btw the fact that hamas has never been condemmed is precisly the point, an organization that promotes killing of civilians and has never been condemmed by the world body, pretty much says it all.

[RedCheckShirt]

17. "Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, Burma, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba...

and other bastions of Human Rights"

The rest of the world looks at these differently than they do in the red states.

The civilized world sees Israel as the biggest threat to world peace. This has been shown in polls.

[Darranar]

29. If the civilized world sees that, which is unclear, they're wrong...

the biggest threat to world peace is the United States, not Israel. One of the reasons Israel is a threat to world peace at all is the essentially unconditional US aid it recieves.

[drdon326]

15. RedCheckShirt....You're honest.....

at least you OPENLY admit you support Hamas.....alot of people ususally try to conceal their support.

Signed, a pig and monkey

[RedCheckShirt]

21. 75% of the people in the Middle East

support Hamas. This has been shown in polls.

[drdon326]

23. Which proves what ?!?!

So you and 75 % support hamas ....

Early on, the vast majority thought the world was flat.

In NAZI GERMANY , the vast majority supported the Third Reich.

You put alot of emphasis on the what the majority think and justify your opinion based on that.

Yet when psycho regimes like Iran, China , Sudan , etc are brought up , you say 'well the UN hasnt denounced them'.

oh....thats right...i must be wrong....i'm a neo-con to you.:eyes:

[RedCheckShirt]

27. "psycho regimes like Iran, China , Sudan "

The biggest psycho regimes are in Washington DC and Tel Aviv.

[pelsar]

41. cant resist....

The biggest psycho regimes are in Washington DC and Tel Aviv.

ok this defiys all logic for me....In Sudan, Chechniya, Somolia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria etc
millions are being killed, tortured, slavery exists, religious fanatics cut off arms of people as punishment, kids are punished by lawful whippings, women have to hide themselves, cant vote, drive, leave the house without an escort, people "dissapear, whole cities have been flattened....i could go on, but the list would be endless....

and these are all sanctioned by their govts....and these you say are better than Tel Aviv and Washington, places where modern civil rights, due process exists.

I get the impression that not only have you never actually been to the above mentioned places, but never have even talked to any body from there...especially the women. May I suggest the minimum is to use the internet and go the websites/discussions of those who have actaully lived there...they might just open your eyes to reality.

though actually must first suggestion is that you should go yourself, and dont stay in the hilton, try the local variety (and watch out for the secret police that will probably be followig you....)

[Darranar]

42. I don't think the poster was referring to...

the US and Israeli governments' treatment of their own people, at least not for the most part.

[Darranar]

12. "Revolutionaries for a just cause" or not, they are still terrorists...

people who murder innocent people for political purposes can accurately be called that, whatever political purposes those may be.

I guess I'm a neocon now. A rare experience for me, I must say. :)

[Bono71]

46. You are not a neocon...and neither am I...I think in some

people's attempt to 'hear' both sides of the story, and acknowledge that not all Arabs/Palestinians are terrorists, they have gone a little overboard in their acceptance of certain political groups...

There is no justification for groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They are murderers, terrorsists, what ever you want to call them.

[Bono71]

44. I like the part about blaming Israel for the spread of Aides in the

Arab world...

People actually believe this crap?

[drdon326]

45. Can you say......

YES?

[Bono71]

47. Well, I guess my great grandmother believed they faked the moon landing.

[pelsar]

4. well redcheck..

leftist side is clearly the Palestinians....hmm I always felt that the "left" was for such things as equality, no racism, no fanatiscism, basic human rights etc.

so when AlMamar TV claims that

"Nov. 23, monitors recorded an "expert on affairs relative to the Zionist entity" who in a press review spoke of "Zionist attempts to transmit dangerous diseases like AIDS via exports to the Arab states."

http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=10687

i would say a TV program which demonizes a national movement and accuses them of attempting to kill millions of arabs...as wrong.

but I assume you clearly see that correct?

[RedCheckShirt]

8. "National movement?" You mean Zionism?

Zionism is racism. The UN declared as such by Resolution 3379 in 1975. It repealed that resolution only as a result of bullying by Republican American presidents.

The majority of the world would support a reinstatement of that resolution.

[Liberal Classic]

5. How about the other other side?

Lionizing suicide bombers, inciting viewers to become martyrs themselves, claiming that jews ritually eat the blood of Christian children and spread AIDS among Muslims.

Truly, the epitome of liberal values.

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/10_04/oct_04.htm

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/t_as12_03/as_tv.htm

[drdon326]

6. Clearly Leftist.....

on edit...you forgot pa media calling jews "pigs and monkeys".

:eyes:

[RedCheckShirt]

10. Face it

Other than the fundamentalist Christians in the United States, Israel has no support anywhere in the world.

You are on the losing side of history. Israel would have been put out of its misery 30 years ago, in the 1973 war, had it not been for Richard Nixon's desperate attempt to buy Jewish support during Watergate.

[pelsar]

13. 1973.......

RedCheckShirt.....had israel faced destruction that the arabs had attempted and some still promise (which justifies its present fight)....chances are the arab armies and perhaps parts of the attacking countries would no longer exist.

Israeli Nuclear capacity existed in 73 as a deterent to its own destruction.

As far as "support" goes...we didnt have it during WWII and look what happened.... so do you really thing "world support" is going to have the final say as to what we do?

but most interesting of all is what appears to be that wiping out israel is justified by you, since the the majority of the members of the UN, who themselves are members of govts who have stolen their countries from their people-i.e. theives) say so. And I should listen to a bunch of theives as to their idea of justice?

And finally simply because a majority say something...doesnt make it right. Never has, never will. (I suspect that you believe that electing G.Bush, who received a majority was wrong.....)

and what appears to be you justification for israels destruction, seems to be in tune with Hamas, Hizballa etc.....If thats really the situation that israel might as well stop negotiating and deal with the palestenians the way the syrians do (it sure shut down the moslem brotherhood) or the way the egyptians do, etc...all this "tip toeing" and hoping to live peacefully is obviously an illusion.

and we really arent in misery over here, we're living in a modern, democratic country free of anti-semetism, and this time we get to defend ourselves.....we'll take that over the alternative.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[lesterhalfjr]

18. redcheckshirt

Kerry supports Israel. moreso than Bush as a matter of fact.

[drdon326]

19. Well then....KERRY......NEO-CON !!!!!!!!

N/T

[RedCheckShirt]

20. When Kerry is sworn in

I believe he will take a more internationalist, more United Nations-oriented policy toward the Middle East. He will be more in step with the rest of the world.

That is what he says and I believe him.

[lesterhalfjr]

22. Meet the press April 18, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: Israel assassinated Hamas leader Rantisi. Do you support that assassination?

SEN. KERRY: I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond to any act of terror against it. Hamas is a terrorist, brutal organization. It has had years to make up its mind to take part in a peaceful process. They refuse to. Arafat refuses to. And I support Israel's efforts to try to separate itself and to try to be secure. The moment Hamas says, "We've given up violence, we're prepared to negotiate," I am absolutely confident they will find an Israel that is thirsty to have that negotiation.

MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Completely?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

[RedCheckShirt]

25. Kerry also said he would be more internationalist

and respect the wishes of the UN. You don't dispute that do you?

Obviously, his statements in support of Israel and in support of the UN seem contradictory but at least there would be SOME hope that Kerry will abandon Chimpy's out-of-step foreign policy and get with the rest of the world.

No one but the United States still supports Israel. Eventually, that will have to end. Just as the United States finally ended support for South Africa, it will eventually have to bow to the wishes of the rest of the world and force Israel to come to terms with the Arab majority in Palestine.

[pelsar]

26. dictatorships.....

A dictatorship is a bunch of people who have stolen their country from the citizens of that country and hence have no right to represent them....why should they?

do I respect the UN....in principle yes, the idea is great, obviously one shouldnt give thieves respect in terms of morality, but it does need some serious revising (but thats another thread)

but now its your turn. You say because the "majority says...it must be true (correct if if I am wrong). Does that principle apply to the US voter as well?

if not how do you differentiate when a majority is right vs when a majority is wrong?

cause you sure seem to think the majority of the american voters were wrong, and given your view that if the majority says so it must be true, i sure dont understand.....

[number6]

24. so how many Arabs did they want to vaporize ...

"perhaps parts of the attacking countries would no longer exist."

"Israeli Nuclear capacity existed in 73"

[pelsar]

28. obviously none...

since israel has never used them.....even though the capability exists, Can the same be said of Iran? (I assume quotes from the ruling mullahs of today, Nasser of 67, etc arent really neccesary-you know the usual, we're going to destroy the 'jewish/zionist entity etc etc etc... All that stuff no one take seriously except for its potential victims....)

[lesterhalfjr]

30. shabbas goy

redcheckshirt- Pat buchanan is against US support for Israel. barney Frank is for it. To say "the left" is against Israel is wrong.


Palestine under arafat (which until the upcoming elections it essentially still is) not only supported terrorism towards civilians, but also supported Saddam husseins invasion (and violent occuaption) of Kuwait. Arafat also supported Idi Amin!!!!! Not too mention that radical jihad muslim beliefs regarding dissent and women's rights are totally against democratic principles.

[RedCheckShirt]

32. What is a shabbas goy?

Just out of curiosity. Is it an insult?

[Liberal Classic]

31. Clearly an appeal to popularity

"Other than the fundamentalist Christians in the United States, Israel has no support anywhere in the world."

This is clearly an appeal to popularity.

"You are on the losing side of history."

History has yet to be fully written. And this is sort of an appeal to authority.

"Israel would have been put out of its misery 30 years ago, in the 1973 war, had it not been for Richard Nixon's desperate attempt to buy Jewish support during Watergate."

I guess you're talking about the Yom Kippur War. Saying that Israel's survival was solely dependant upon the U.S. airlift of supplies is inaccurate IMO and really shortchanges Israel. Coming from someone who describes Israel as a sick animal to be "put out of its misery" I can't say I'm too suprised.

[RedCheckShirt]

33. You do not like appeals to popularity

because Israel is clearly losing popularity, especially in the Democratic Party.

Look at the constituency groups:

African Americans are no longer enthusiastic about Israel.

Hispanics are against Israel

The mainstream churches, which used to support Israel, are turning against it. They are now passing divestiture resolutions.

The university faculties and student bodies, which used to support Israel, are also passing divestiture resolutions.

(But, not to worry, you still have Pat Robertson.)

[Liberal Classic]

34. Appeals to popularity are fallacious. Duh.

(But, not to worry, you still have Pat Robertson.)

I ignored it the first time you tried to associate me with "fundamentalist Christians" thinking maybe that wasn't your main point. Since you've seen fit to repeat this particular accusation, I can only conclude that you're trying to paint me as a fundamentalist.

Isn't this fun?

[RedCheckShirt]

35. No, I am not trying to paint you as a fundamentalist

I am merely pointing out that the pro-Israel side is losing popularity among each and every constituency group in the Democratic Party.

The only support Israel still has, other than Jews, is on the far right.

And I do not understand how you can call this "fallacious." It is not fallacious, it is true.

[Liberal Classic]

36. Just because everybody says it/does it doesn't make it true

That is the essence of argument from popularity.

Also, what supporting evidence do you have that suggests:

African Americans are no longer enthusiastic about Israel.

and

Hispanics are against Israel

for example. Blacks and hispanics, churches and universities, are all very large non-monolithic groups. I don't think you can make such sweeping statements and have them remain valid. These would be good examples of the hasty generalization fallacy.

I am not trying to paint you as a fundamentalist

Sure, that's why you said I "still have Pat Robertson."

:eyes:

[RedCheckShirt]

37. What supporting evidence?

that blacks no longer support Israel?

Look at the African American leadership in the 1960's: Martin Luther King, Roy Wilkens, A Philip Randolph. They were all strong supporters of Israel.

Look at the African American leadership today: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond. They are all suspicious, if not downright hostile toward Israel.

The times they are a changin', my friend. Your side is losing.

[pelsar]

38. redCheck...your basic argument....

still you have yet to back up your basic argument: that popularity decides what is right and wrong:

that means:

slavery is good, as there were times when it was "popular" and in fact in certain areas of the world today if you take a poll, it will be have the popular vote

dictatorships are good.....take a poll in Egypt, Syria, China......

but best of all, according to the popular vote: Bush is correct, after all he did win the elections (most accurate of the "polls"

so if according to you "polls" determine what is right and wrong, why do you have a problem with bush?

as far as israel goes, not having the "world popular vote"...heh heh, happend before (several times), only they didnt have guns then. do you really thing "they care" that much to commit national sucide to satisfiy popular opinion?

[Liberal Classic]

39. This strikes me as an oversimplification

Look at the African American leadership in the 1960's: Martin Luther King, Roy Wilkens, A Philip Randolph. They were all strong supporters of Israel.

Look at the African American leadership today: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond. They are all suspicious, if not downright hostile toward Israel.


I believe you are guilty of romanticizing here. Race relations between Jews and Blacks have historically been strained. Though the period of the early sixties have been called by some as a "golden age" of cooperation between Blacks and Jews, the change you describe was already taking place during the tumultuous civil rights era, and continues to this day. Jews tended to view themselves as being in the same boat with African Americans, having been the subject of discrimination and persecution. Evidence of this is shown as far back as Jewish financial support of Booker T. Washington's Tuskegee Institute, and creation of the NAACP and the CRE. At the same time, however, some African American authors were beginning to put forth the idea that Jews were not exploited, but were instead the exploiters.

Jessie "Hymietown" Jackson is only the latest example of this phenomenon. To suggest that race relations between Blacks and Jews were peachy until recently is a gross mischaracterization of history. It is most definiately not true. Conspicuous by its absence from your post is any mention of Louis Farrakhan. Any discussion of Jewish/Black relations is incomplete without touching on Farrakhan, and wonder what you're trying to imply by leaving him out.

The times they are a changin', my friend. Your side is losing.

The more things change the more they stay the same. Anti-semitism is nothing new. "My side" if you insist on being so childish as to delineate "sides" has seen through tougher times than now, and will undoubtedly see through the current mess. Have I just outed myself?

[Darranar]

40. Um, the Democratic Party is firmly behind Sharon...

I disagree with this policy, but it is the policy.

What the constituency groups want matters little.

[lesterhalfjr]

43. a shabbas goy

a shabbas goy is a non jew who works for jews on jewish holidays. It's somewhat of an anti-semetic remark in most cases, and is often generically applied to non jews who support israel.

I don't understand what your getting at at all redcheck shirt.

[Bono71]

48. Ummm, I am Cuban and I have nothing against Jews or Israel.

[me b zola]

49. the leftest side is Israel

Please, first begin by putting in your mind-frame the religious right for the U.S. Now, please, defer back to the Karl Marx reference to how religion is used as an opiate of the masses ( I am not a communist, just a free-thinker), I don't drink ANYBODY's kool-aid. In the context of his manifesto, he spoke in terms of class struggle, and how those with power seek to use the masses (those without power), to their benefit. Arafat, as leader of the palestinians, chose instead of empowering his people by creating a sound economic infrastructure, chose instead to make himself a millionaire while his people suffered. He, himself a terrorist as leader of the plo (do you remember the Munich Olympics?), encouraged his people to blame their fate on their only non-arab neighbor--Israel. He goaded Israel by attacking them, then used the response of Israel to say that they are the victims.
Islam has been used in a most unholy way by those mid-eastern countries who seek more power on a global scale. The masses of people who live in these countries have been brought to believe that their economic & social injustices are due to the Jews and the Americans, and if you dare to question then surely you are a heretic worthy of death.
BEWARE OF RELIGION THAT IS USED TO GAIN POLITICAL/ECONOMIC POWER.
If you are curious, I am a Catholic....JUST NOT A KOOL-AID DRINKER!!

[lesterhalfjr]

50. what 's the big idea me b zola

you don't fit into any easy stereotype of religious/ political group. What are you, saying what you actually believe or something. crazy crazy