В Солт-Лейк-Сити проводят авторизированую демонстрацию "За уничтожение Израиля". Можете написать мэру города все что вы по этому поводу думаете.
[email protected]
Одно из самых серьезных обвинений против израильтан во время 2-й Ливанской Войны было в том, что Израиль целенаправлено подбил 2 машины скорой помощи.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7wroSYRXJo
Посмотрев этот ролик, ни у кого не остается сомнений, что израильтяне мразь, каких мало.
Но вот тут есть другое мнение...
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
А матом можно?Сообщение от sirUjin
______________
Я вот смотрю всё то, что подделывают про Израиль, и у меня зарождается мысль: всё равно, как бы мы ни старались соблюдать точность и аккуратность во время боевых действий, лживая пресса покажет во всех подробностях, какая израильтяне мразь, каких мало". Так почему не развернуться на всю мощь, дав им материалы для правдивых репортажей? Хотя бы не будем выглядеть идиотами: нам в лицо тычут "факты", а мы "лицемерно" их отвергаем. А так мы и спорить не будем. Да, ну и юли?
И вот что мен ответили:
Dear Sir (or Madam),
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free speech rights of everyone equally--even when the message is offensive or hurtful to people. The people organizing this rally have the same right as anyone else to express their views. There is nothing to indicate that this group will go beyond the bounds of protected speech. It is a fundamental principle of American democracy that government or a majority of citizens cannot determine, based on a person's message, whether he or she may speak.
Best regards,
Stevie Danielle Chapman
Staff Assistant
Office of the Mayor
Красивая подборочка, подбросить бы её какому-нибудь международному каналу...
Не знаю, было или нет: http://www.beseder.co.il/terror/8371
Для начала вот:
http://www.honestreporting.ca/English/page-1-262-1.html
Я написал им письмецо, получил ответ, написал второе, уже какому-то специальному главному по жалобам дядьке.
Может кому интересно, вот привожу нашу переписку.
Dear Mr. Vince Carlin
Some days ago I wrote a letter to your network considering the possible release of Samir Quntar.
Here, I let me quote this letter:
Today I’ve received a reply quoting the reaction your network gave to the HonestReporting Canada site. I allow to myself to quote this one too.Today I've seen your report concerning the release of Samir Quntar from the Israel prison and I can't let go the feeling that you sympathize him a lot.
Let me remind you that this man murdered a father in front of his 4 years old girl and then smashed her skull. Such a man everyone who is honest with himself would call a terrorist not worthy of being named a human being. And yet, you call him a "militant" and a "freedom fighter".
Furthermore, this man was captured on Israel territory and convicted by the court of law for a life sentence. Any activity pointed on release of such a man would be considered illegal by any international law. And yet, you justify the unprovoked attack of Hezbollah on Israel that cost it 8 men killed and 2 captured.
The very famous in Russia movie police officer says: "The thief must stay in jail". The merciless murderer must stay in jail too. Your unbalanced report leaves me with a feeling that this simple truth isn't so obvious to people that produced that report.
Sincerely.
Evgeny Bespechansky.
First of all I wish to thank your network for a reaction.Dear Evgeny,
Thank you for writing the CBC.
Jonathan Whitten, executive producer of The National has asked me to forward the following to you:
“Thank you for your e-mail to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation drawing our attention to what you feel is a one-sided report broadcast on the September 4 edition of THE NATIONAL.
You may be interested in my response to a similar view concerning this report expressed in an article on the pro-Israel web site HonestReporting Canada, posted on September 6, under the headline “CBC Portrays Terrorist as Victim.”
With respect, that is not the case.
To be clear the introduction to the report on THE NATIONAL said that United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan was appointing a secret mediator in an effort to secure the release of the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah in July. It said that Hezbollah wants to exchange prisoners. Indeed, the sudden videotape appearance on Lebanese television on Wednesday (September 6) of Israeli Ron Arad would seem to underline Hezbollah’s interest in an exchange. (Mr. Arad is the IAF navigator captured near Sidon 20 years ago after his fighter crashed.)
But as the report said, when talk turns to prisoner exchanges, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is clear that he is particularly interested in the return of Samir Qantar, the longest held Lebanese prisoner in Israel. Qantar is serving a 542-year sentence for an attack in Nahariya 27 years ago during which he brutally beat to death a 4-year-old girl, and shot her father and two policemen. But, as the report said, while he is reviled in Israel, he is “a hero to many Lebanese. As they saw it, he was fighting for his country.”
In an effort better to understand that divergence of views, and the man who is likely to be pivotal in any exchange, the reporter sought out those – his family and his brother – who know him best. She also included the views of an Israeli government spokesman who set out the Israeli government’s position and explained why an earlier exchange involving Qantar had failed.
I should point out, here, that this is not the only report on the matter we will be carrying. We expect to have a report on a conversation with Smadar Haran, the mother of the young girl and wife of the man who was shot, about her views of Qantar and any possible exchange, on THE NATIONAL.
But the HonestReporting article raised several specific issues and I want to reply to them in turn. The article said that the report’s description of the brutal attack was “limited” to one sentence. If that were true, that one sentence, “Qantar shot the father and clubbed the 4-year-old to death with the butt of a rifle,” in itself, forcefully conveyed the brutality of the attack, but it was not the only sentence. There were others, and the attack they described was accompanied by video of the scene and the very bloody aftermath of the attack that would leave little doubt about its nature.
The article said the report “portrayed Qantar’s family in personal, even sympathetic terms.” While the reporter went to the Qantar home and asked Bassam Qantar about his brother – in one brief clip he said he was only one.
It is important to bear in mind here, as well, that Qantar’s actions, as despicable as they may be, are his. They are not those of his family.
The article said that by using the Hezbollah code name, “True Promise,” for the capture of the Israeli soldiers, the report “legitimized … unprovoked aggression.” Again, that is not the case. The reporter explained the origin of the code word: “Nasrallah called the capture of the Israelis operation ‘True Promise,’” she said, “suggesting the Israelis were taken in part to force the release of Samir Qantar.” Certainly, that appears to coincide with Nasrallah’s long stated aims. A few seconds later, she asked Bassam Qantar if he supported operation True Promise. To explain the name’s meaning to Hezbollah and then refer to the event in the way Bassam Qantar would understand it, does not in any reasonable fashion “legitimize” what happened.
It is CBC’s obligation through legislation and policy to expose the different principal points of view on controversial matters, like this one. Of course, not everyone will agree with those views, as you may not in this case. Fair enough. Nevertheless, it is our responsibility to present those differing views in a balanced fair and accurate fashion, affording Canadians the opportunity and the information they need to make up their own minds about the nature or quality of the event or the views expressed.
Thank you again for your e-mail. I hope my reply has addressed the issues you raised and reassured you of the continuing integrity of CBC News.
Finally, it is my responsibility to inform you that if you are not satisfied with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by the CBC Ombudsman, Mr. Vince Carlin. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC’s journalistic policies. Mr. Carlin may be reached by mail at the address shown below, or by fax at 416-205-2825, or by e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Jonathan Whitten
Executive Producer
THE NATIONAL”
I hope this information has been helpful and thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Mazo Molar
Communications Officer
CBC National Audience Relations
Though this reaction doesn’t satisfy me at all. I want to regard 2 major problems in that Samir Quntar report.
The fist one is unbalanced bias. It’s very possible that your network is preparing a report about Quntar’s victims and that this report will present the other point of view. But the only thing it will do is to create 2 unbalanced reports rather than just one but a fair one. Will it do any good? Well, to the people holding up to a pro-Israel point of view it’s better than nothing. But wouldn’t it just be better to present both points of view in one report?
This is for your promises to tell about second side of the story. But than comes the other issue I want to appeal. It's the legitimacy your network gave to Quntar’s actions.
The problem is that the true objective reporter doesn’t use any adjective or any other world carrying a good/bad meaning in his reports at all, telling only facts in a most moodless way. The moment he/she uses adjectives, his own point of view comes into a picture positioning him/her in the conflict.
So, my question is where do you want your network to be positioned? On what side? Well, with that reporter, Nahlah Ayed, everything is clear. Her Arab origins speak for themselves. However, I presume that her point of view is not necessarily the point of view of CBC Network, is it? Than why it was broadcast using words like a “freedom fighter” and ”martyrs”? Why editors havn't interfere? Do you, Mr. Vince Carlin, think that that action was a freedom fighting one? How will you call it and the man who did it, if instead of Nahariya he would go to some place in Canada? I want to remind you, that nether Canada, nor Israel weren’t at war with Lebanon in 1979. Well, I would call it a merciless terror act driven by hatred, an inhuman deed. And I dare to state that any civilized person who stops for a moment and things about it will call it the same.
So, is it enough that a bunch of “people” like him call him a hero, to use such a heroic words like a “freedom fighter” on your channel?
Sincerely.
Evgeny Bespechansky.
Можно это слегка перевести? А-то уж больно много, и всё на аглицком...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Ваши права в разделе
Ответить с цитированием