Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
CNN journalist fired for telling the truth about the Jews
Options
Comments
-
Seriously, all of you GROW THE F*CK UP or just don't bother posting. I'm assuming you're not children, so stop acting like it!0
-
So considering the influence Murdoch has over UK media and government, would it be fair to say that the British media is also biased in favor of Israel?
This is from the accompanying pamphlet from last year's Despatches programme on CH4.MEDIA
Many supporters of Israel have come to believe that they are a
beleaguered minority in Britain. They are convinced that press
and politicians alike are ranged against them and that the media
routinely distorts the actions and intentions of the Jewish state.
This belief is sincerely held, but it is difficult to support on
closer examination.
Most of the mainstream British media takes a pro-Israel line.
Rupert Murdoch, whose News International media empire
controls between 30-40% of the British newspaper press27,
makes no secret of his pro-Israeli sympathies. Indeed one wellregarded
Times correspondent, Sam Kiley, took the
extraordinary step of actually resigning from the paper because
of interference with his work on the Middle East.28
In addition to the Murdoch press, the Telegraph Media Group
and Express Newspapers have tended to support Israel. So has
Associated Newspapers, though to a less obvious extent. There
are, however, two important media organisations, which have
consistently sought to report fairly from the Middle East and
present the Palestinian point of view with equal force to the pro-
Israeli government line. These are The Guardian and the BBC.
These two organisations have been subjected to ceaseless
pressure and at times harassment both from the Israeli
government itself and from pressure groups.
This chapter will document some of this pressure by
chronicling some of the campaigns mounted by the pro-Israel
lobby against The Guardian and the BBC. We will then turn our attention to the pro-Israel media lobby groups, of which the
Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM)
is by some distance the most important.
The Guardian
The Guardian was more closely involved in the creation of
Israel than any other British newspaper. Its editor C.P. Scott was
instrumental in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, introducing
Chaim Weizmann, the leader of the Zionist movement and later
the first President of the state of Israel, to leading members of
the British government.
However, the paper now finds itself at the centre of an
international campaign accusing it of anti-Zionism and even
antisemitism. Through much of the last decade, the Guardian
has been in dispute with the Israeli government and in particular
the combative Israeli Government press office director, Danny
Seaman. In 2002, Seaman publicly boasted that he had forced
The Guardian to move correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg after
she had been transferred to Washington. "We simply boycotted
them,” claimed Seaman, “the editorial boards got the message
and replaced their people.”29
Seaman is well known for using tactics such as denying or
delaying visas to obstruct correspondents he sees as hostile to
Israel. One reporter familiar with Seaman described him as a
“bully” who was “at the forefront of the general harassment.
Rusbridger wrote to Seaman insisting he withdraw his
comments, only to be told by Seaman: “I will happily withdraw
my comments about Ms. Goldenberg when your newspaper
withdraws the biased, sometimes malicious and often incorrect
reports which were filed by her during her unpleasant stay
here.”30
Rusbridger insists he had total faith in Goldenberg’s
reporting, for which she received numerous awards, and that
“only the Israelis would see a move to Washington as a
demotion.”
29
http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=1574&q=1
30
Danny
Seaman’s
letter
to
Alan
Rusbridger,
17th
October
2002
24
In 2006 the Guardian was caught up in another row after
publishing a controversial article by correspondent Chris
McGreal comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa. The
episode reveals the workings of the pro-Israel lobby with the
Israeli embassy coordinating the offensive. An emergency
meeting was called at the Israeli ambassador’s residence with
BICOM chairman Poju Zabludowicz, board of deputies
president Henry Grunwald, community security trust chairman
Gerald Ronson and Lord Janner of Labour Friends of Israel to
plan the response.
Ronson and Grunwald were dispatched to visit Alan Rusbridger
in his office to convey their feelings. According to Rusbridger,
Ronson didn’t even take his coat off: “He began by saying, I
think his phrase was ‘I’ve always said opinions are like
arseholes, everyone’s got one’, and then he effectively said ‘I’m
in favour of free speech but there is a line which can’t be
crossed and, as far as I’m concerned, you’ve crossed it, and you
must stop this’.” Ronson accused The Guardian of being
responsible for antisemitic attacks, a claim Rusbridger refused
to accept: “I mean I didn’t want to get in a great row with
Gerald Ronson, I just said I’d be interested in the evidence, I’m
not sure how you make that causal connection between someone
reading an article that is critical of the foreign policy of Israel
and then thinking why don’t I go out and mug Jews on the
streets of London. I just can’t believe that happens.”
The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in
America (CAMERA), a pro-Israel media watchdog, made a
complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, arguing that
McGreal’s article was “based on materially false accusations”.
The complaint was not upheld.31 Alan Rusbridger’s decision to
run the Chris McGreal article was vindicated.
The Guardian is not the only newspaper to come under pressure.
and, according to Rusbridger, it works. He told us that “there are
a lot of newspaper and broadcasting editors who have told me
31
http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NDE2NQ==
25
that they just don’t think it’s worth the hassle to challenge the
Israeli line. They’ve had enough.”
The BBC AND THE PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY
The case of the BBC is extraordinary. The organisation has
become a hate figure for pro-Israel groups, who resent its global
reach and supposed sympathy for the Palestinians. We have
spoken to BBC journalists and recently departed staff who say
that rarely a week goes by without having to deal with
complaints about their coverage of the Middle East.
This year has been particularly difficult for the Corporation. The
BBC refused to screen an aid appeal from Britain’s top charities
for the people of Gaza, resulting in millions of pounds less
money being raised. It reacted to pressure from pro-Israel
pressure groups by publishing a report, which criticised its own
Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen. Finally, it refused to
disclose a report by Malcolm Balen into its Middle East
coverage which cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds to the
licence fee payer. Through a Freedom of Information request we
discovered the BBC had spent over a quarter of a million
pounds on legal fees relating to the case.32
It is no surprise that at the start of the year the culture secretary,
Ben Bradshaw, himself a former BBC reporter, remarked that
“I’m afraid the BBC has to stand up to the Israeli authorities
occasionally. Israel has a long reputation of bullying the BBC.”
Bradshaw added that “I’m afraid the BBC has been cowed by
this relentless and persistent pressure from the Israeli
government and they should stand up against it.”33
1. The Balen Report.
This report has its origins in the spring of 2003, when the
BBC’s relationship with Israel completely broke down. The
32
Letter
from
BBC
Information
and
Compliance,
10
November
2009
33
BBC
Any
Questions,
24th
January
2009
26
Israeli government imposed visa restrictions on BBC journalists
and refused access to Israeli government figures after a
documentary about its nuclear weapons entitled “Israel’s Secret
Weapon” was shown on BBC World. The Israeli Government
press officer, Danny Seaman, compared it to “the worst of Nazi
propaganda”.34
For a time Israel joined a small band of countries, including
North Korea, Zimbabwe and Turkmenistan, which refused the
BBC free access. When Ariel Sharon visited London in July
2003, BBC journalists were in the ludicrous position of being
banned from attending the press conference.35 By the autumn,
pressure on the BBC from pro-Israel groups and the Israeli
government was so great that the head of BBC news Richard
Sambrook felt obliged to act.
Sambrook employed Malcolm Balen, a former head of ITV
News and senior BBC executive, to write the now infamous
Balen Report on the BBC’s Middle East coverage during the
previous four years. In October, the High Court finally ruled
that the BBC does not have to publish the report, which has
become an obsession for Israel's supporters, who hold this up as
the BBC trying to hide its anti-Israel bias.36
This is dubious. We have spoken to one of the very few
people who have read the report. He says that far from
concluding the BBC’s coverage was biased against Israel, it
simply finds examples where more context should have been
given. If anything, our source claims, the impression given is
that the BBC is sympathetic to Israel.
2. Punishing Jeremy Bowen.
34
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jul/01/israel.bbc
35
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jul/11/bbc.television
36
http://www.zionism--‐israel.com/log/archives/00000268.html;
http://www.honestreporting.co.uk/articles/critiques/BBC_Something_to_Hide$.
asp
27
In April this year, in an important success for the pro-Israel
lobby, the BBC’s Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, was
criticized by the BBC Trust for breaching their rules of accuracy
and impartiality in an online piece, and their rules of accuracy in
a radio piece. Bowen’s critics have seized on his humiliation,
demanding that he be sacked and insisting that the episode
proved the BBC’s “chronically biased reporting”. The real story
behind the BBC Trust’s criticism of Bowen reports is rather
different: it demonstrates the pusillanimity of the BBC Trust and
the energy and opportunism of the pro-Israel lobby.
The story begins with an essay written by Bowen to mark the
40th anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War for the BBC
website.37 Though many people viewed Bowen’s essay as a fair
and balanced account, erring if anything on the side of
conventional wisdom, this was not the reaction of two
passionate members of the Pro-Israel lobby, Jonathan Turner of
the Zionist Federation and Gilead Ini, who lobbies CAMERA,
an American pro-Israel media watchdog organization..
Turner and Ini subjected Bowen’s article to line by line
scrutiny, alleging some 24 instances of bias in his online article
and a further four in a later report by Bowen from a
controversial Israeli settlement called Har Homa.
Turner and Ini’s complaints were rejected by the BBC’s
editorial complaints unit, so they duly appealed to the BBC
Trust. The meeting was chaired by David Liddiment who, to
quote Jonathan Dimbleby, “is admired as a TV entertainment
wizard and former director of programmes at ITV but whose
experience of the dilemmas posed by news and current affairs,
especially in relation to the bitterly contested complexities of the
Middle East is, perforce, limited.”38
37
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6709173.stm
3
The BBC Trust found that Bowen had breached three
accuracy and one impartiality guideline in his online report, and
one accuracy guideline in his radio piece. This was a massive
boost for the organizations to which Turner and Ini were
attached. The Zionist Federation at once called for Bowen to be
sacked, calling his position “untenable”, while adding that what
they called his “biased coverage of Israel” had been a
“significant contributor to the recent rise in antisemitic incidents
in the UK to record levels.”39 Meanwhile, CAMERA claimed
that the BBC Trust had exposed Bowen’s “unethical” approach
to his work and insisted the BBC must now take “concrete
steps” to combat its “chronically biased reporting” of the Middle
East.40
These powerful attacks might have been justified if the BBC
Trust had found Bowen guilty of egregious bias. In fact he was
condemned for what were at best matters of opinion. In a
majority of the cases, the complaints were found to have no
merit, and where changes were made they changed the meaning
very little.41
http://zionistfederation.blogspot.com/2009/04/embargoed--‐until--‐1100--‐on--‐
thursday--‐16.html
40
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_article=1655
As Dimbleby concluded, “You don’t have to search far on the
web to find Zionist publications, lobby groups and bloggers all
over the world using distorted versions of the report to justify
their ill-founded prejudice that the BBC has a deep-seated and
long-standing bias against the state of Israel. Conversely,
millions of Palestinians, other Arabs and Muslims will by now
have been confirmed in their — equally false — belief that the
BBC is yet again running scared of Israeli propaganda…
“Not only has Bowen’s hard-won reputation been sullied, but
the BBC’s international status as the best source of trustworthy
news in the world has been gratuitously — if unintentionally —
undermined.”
The Trust’s ruling was met with dismay in BBC newsrooms.
A former BBC News editor, Charlie Beckett, told us “the BBC
investigated Jeremy Bowen because they were under such
extraordinary pressure... it struck a chill through the actual BBC
newsroom because it signaled to them that they were under
assault.”
We can reveal that Jeremy Bowen had an article “Israel still
bears a disastrous legacy” (31 May 2007) published a week
earlier than his BBC piece (4 June 2007) in The Jewish
Chronicle containing most of the contentious sentences.
Indeed, even the problematic lines that led the BBC Trust to
conclude there had been a breach of accuracy and impartiality,
such as “Zionism’s innate instinct to push out the frontier” and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/
2009/mar.pdf
30
“The Israeli generals, mainly hugely self-confident sabras in
their late 30s and early 40s, had been training to finish the
unfinished business of 1948 for most of their careers” are still in
Bowen’s article on The Jewish Chronicle’s website. Perhaps the
BBC Trust’s interpretation of due impartiality is different to that
of Britain’s Jewish community.42
The Gaza Humanitarian appeal
The BBC has a long tradition of showing humanitarian appeals,
including those that are seen as politically sensitive, such as the
Lebanon appeal in 1982, and has helped raise tens of millions of
pounds for people in need around the world. But in January
2009, Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC, took the
unprecedented decision of breaking away from other
broadcasters and refusing to broadcast the Disasters Emergency
Appeal for Gaza, claiming it would compromise the BBC’s
impartiality. ITV and Channel 4 screened the Gaza appeal, but
Sky joined the BBC in refusing.
The BBC’s decision had an undeniable impact. Brendan
Gormley, Chief Executive of the DEC, told us that the appeal
raised about half of the expected total: £7.5 million. In the first
48 hours of the appeal phone calls were down by 17,000 on the
average.
Thompson also cast doubt on the charities’ ability to deliver aid
on the ground despite assurances from the DEC and his own
charitable appeals advisers that this was not the case.43
We asked Charlie Beckett why the BBC had refused. He
replied: “If there was no pro-Israeli lobby in this country then I
42
http://website.thejc.com/home.aspx?AId=53009&ATypeId=1&search=true2&sr
chstr=jeremy%20bowen&srchtxt=0&srchhead=1&srchauthor=0&srchsandp=0&
scsrch=0
43
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/01/bbc_and_the_gaza_appeal.ht
ml
31
don’t think [screening the appeal] would have been seen as
politically problematic. I don’t think it would be a serious
political issue and concern for them if they didn’t have that
pressure from an extraordinarily active, sophisticated, and
persuasive lobby sticking up for the Israeli viewpoint.”
Source: http://www.iengage.org.uk/images/stories/dispatchesproisraellobbypamphlet.pdf0 -
So what if they are all Jewish?If the people doing it happen to be Jewish what are we supposed to do? Not point out the elephant in the room?
Why is this a problem that need to be pointed out?I never said or will never say ALL Jewish people are up to no good. Until I say that then I'd like not to be accused of something I'm not.
Yea you might not be saying it, but the article you posted and are defending most definitely is.0 -
king mob loves jews more than irish people woohooo
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »who has done that?
The article we've been discussing for the last two pages?
TMoreno?0 -
The article we've been discussing for the last two pages?
TMoreno?
It was Profitius. That article was about 90% of (somewhat dated apparently) claimed facts regarding media ownership/management in the US. And it was posted with a disclaimer by Profitus. He hasn't ever, from what I've seen posted anything at all anti-semitic. Why can't we discuss the contents without smearing each other?
Or why are we even discussing it all? It's a given. Jewish people in the US are hugely influential in the US media. Incredibly over represented based on numbers. It is accepted by prominent Jews within the media we are discussing. It's not up for debate. Which is why I suspect we are talking about racism rather than these facts.0 -
Which is why I said the article.Brown Bomber wrote: »It was Profitius. That article was about 90% of (somewhat dated apparently) claimed facts regarding media ownership/management in the US. And it was posted with a disclaimer by Profitus. He hasn't ever, from what I've seen posted anything at all anti-semitic. Why can't we discuss the contents without smearing each other?
And I have pointed out exactly where it assumes that they are evil because they are Jewish.
And can you point out where I said that there weren't a lot of Jews in the media?Brown Bomber wrote: »Or why are we even discussing it all? It's a given. Jewish people in the US are hugely influential in the US media. Incredibly over represented based on numbers. It is accepted by prominent Jews within the media we are discussing. It's not up for debate. Which is why I suspect we are talking about racism rather than these facts.
My point is that it's racist to just assume they are all in on an evil plan together simply because they are Jewish.
So why exactly is it a problem that there are a lot of Jews in the media?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
fair enoughWhich is why I said the article.
And I have pointed out exactly where it assumes that they are evil because they are Jewish.And can you point out where I said that there weren't a lot of Jews in the media?ME
Of course its working on the premise that Jewish people are heavily influential in the media industry in the US. I think only someone who is deeply ignorant would challenge that claim, which I don't believe you are.YOU]And that premise has yet to actually be validated by you or anyone.
My point is that it's racist to just assume they are all in on an evil plan together simply because they are Jewish.So why exactly is it a problem that there are a lot of Jews in the media?
It's not that they are Jews but any single interest group with disproportionate unfluence.
Some simple facts- Jews dominate the corridors of power in the US media
- Mass media has enormous powers of persuasion and influence on public opinion
- Israel is the Jewish state.
- Israel commits many war crimes and human rights abuses, has an illegal nuclear arsenal and is militarily expansionist and aggressive.
- The majority of well meaning, moral Americans would strongly object to this if they were aware of the reality.
- Israel is dependant on the US for it's very existence. http://wrmea.org/component/content/article/245-2008-november/3845-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-direct-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html
A Conservative Estimate of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: Almost $114 Billion - US media is very clearly carries a pro-Israel bias.
0 -
-
And there is my point exactly.Brown Bomber wrote: »It's not that they are Jews but any single interest group with disproportionate unfluence.
How do you know that they are a single interest group?
Their heritage perhaps?
So because they are Jewish they therefore must be involved in a Israel conspiracy?Brown Bomber wrote: »Some simple facts- Jews dominate the corridors of power in the US media
- Mass media has enormous powers of persuasion and influence on public opinion
- Israel is the Jewish state.
- Israel commits many war crimes and human rights abuses, has an illegal nuclear arsenal and is militarily expansionist and aggressive.
- The majority of well meaning, moral Americans would strongly object to this if they were aware of the reality.
- Israel is dependant on the US for it's very existence. http://wrmea.org/component/content/article/245-2008-november/3845-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-direct-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html
A Conservative Estimate of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: Almost $114 Billion - US media is very clearly carries a pro-Israel bias.
0 -
IMO any religious group having a dominance in the media is a bad thing.
And most of those people who you guys love to list aren't all part of a single religious group.
As far as most of the sources cited are concerned, having a Jewish name is enough to be lumped into the conspiracy.0 -
And there is my point exactly.
How do you know that they are a single interest group?
Their heritage perhaps?
So because they are Jewish they therefore must be involved in a Israel conspiracy?
No you leaped from point 1 to 7 when in fact it was point 7 that leads me to connect it to point 1 (along with AIPAC, ADL etc). Unless you have a better explanation for pro Israel bias?0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »No you leaped from point 1 to 7 when in fact it was point 7 that leads me to connect it to point 1 (along with AIPAC, ADL etc). Unless you have a better explanation for pro Israel bias?
Maybe portraying Israelis as people and not snarling brainwashed psychopaths like you think they are isn't actually a bias?
Maybe you're just way too biased in the other way?
Maybe by reading similarly biased sources?0 -
-
-
:rolleyes:Maybe portraying Israelis as people and not snarling brainwashed psychopaths like you think they are isn't actually a bias?
Again with the petty name calling.
Have you considered that you may be the one who is biased?Maybe you're just way too biased in the other way?
I get my news on Israel/Palestine from Haaretz, I've even linked them a couple of times today. Also from human rights groups. Otherwise http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68372830&postcount=10Maybe by reading similarly biased sources?0 -
I didn't call you a name.Brown Bomber wrote: »:rolleyes:
Again with the petty name calling.
You do think Israelis are psychopaths:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056002444
Yes, cause I think Israelis are people, not monsters, so by your definition...Brown Bomber wrote: »Have you considered that you may be the one who is biased?
And notice how I haven't actually expressed an opinion about Israel at all.
My position has only been "Being Jew does not mean they are involved in a conspiracy".
If you think that's biased...
Well they're obviously part of an anti-Israeli conspiracy. :rolleyes:Brown Bomber wrote: »I get my news on Israel/Palestine from Haaretz, I've even linked them a couple of times today. Also from human rights groups. Otherwise http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68372830&postcount=10
So then you'd agree sites like Jewwatch and Whiteworldnews would be examples of biased sources0 -
Advertisement
-
BB off topic but why dont you start threads on the politics forum about israel as opposed to here?0
-
When they behave like Reasonable People then we will portray them as such, Curently I see very little to dispel the Brainwashed psychopath interpretation of their actons.Maybe portraying Israelis as people and not snarling brainwashed psychopaths like you think they are isn't actually a bias?
Or maybe he has his eyes open to the Bull**** your ilk seem to lap upMaybe you're just way too biased in the other way?
Right, how about you Provide an UNBIASED Source in this debate????????Maybe by reading similarly biased sources?0 -
I didn't call you a name.
You do think Israelis are psychopaths:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056002444
1. You do know what "create" means right?to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior
Therefore these "Israelis" weren't pschyopaths to begin with in that CT
2. 20% of Israelis are Moslem & Christian Arabs . Perhaps you don't view them as Israelis but they are. There are also other minorities.
3. Not all Jews enter the IDF on ethical grounds, religious grounds, health grounds or they simply take up further education.
4. I made it quite clear that of this group it was not for all IDF personell. I even posted links to "Breaking the Silence". It was trying to point out that it seems that IMO the IDF seems to have a larger proportion of sociopaths than the average.
5. This was all based on the actions of the IDF of which I posted countless links.So then you'd agree sites like Jewwatch and Whiteworldnews would be examples of biased sources
Whiteworldnews or whatever it was isn't a source at all it is a forum but otherwise based on the names of the sites I would absolutely agree without being in any way familiar with the sites. Something I have no intention of changing.0 -
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »First you lied and now your moving the goalposts. Why don't you just be honest with everyone and admit your hissyfit was based on
Eh, I must have missed your answer there Black Ulan.
What site did the article link to as the Original Story?
Why did Profiterole's article link to it in the first place?
The forum actually contains articles, which are locked, probably because they are all paranoid...
However why can't a forum be a source? A crappy source, but still a source none the less.
Fess up, Profiterole posted an article from a white supremacist forum and didn't realize he's been duped by the new alternative media the US Nazi's.0 -
That's a very good question joe.
I doubt the people writing these articles know themselves.
They sorta just stick to implying that those dastardly Jews are up to something, cause they're Jewish.
Ok so, regardless of conspiracy, Do you agree with Christopher Hitchens here?The best way to demonstrate the hidden influence of the chosen people would be for Jon Stewart and others to join me in calling for Rick Sanchez's reinstatement. If it then didn't happen, it would help us understand who really pulls the strings around here.
http://www.slate.com/id/2269846/pagenum/all/#p20 -
Had Sanchez not made the issue personal by calling Stewart a bigot then I'd fully agree with that statement, in light of what actually happened though I don't think Stewart should be expected to do it.
As for the rest of the article, I find very little to disagree with, as per usual with Hitchen's articles. Do note, however, that he is quite specific in what groups he criticises. He does not apply any blanket terms to "Jews", for example he refers to the "Jewish lobby" in the US, which most certainly exists and wields considerable control. This does not equate with silly statements such as "the Jews control X" etc...0 -
:eek:Eh, I must have missed your answer there Black Ulan.
I had an account before boards was hacked :eek:. You best sit down because what your about to find out may shock you. Di0genes was formerly known as Diogenes :eek:and Uprising2 is actually Uprising :eek:.
Far, far more interesting would be your blog and your past history on another Irish forum.
Why don't you share it with the group?
Why are you asking me stupid questions you already know the answer to?What site did the article link to as the Original Story?Why did Profiterole's article link to it in the first place?
oh I see what you did with his username there, clever!The forum actually contains articles, which are locked, probably because they are all paranoid...
However why can't a forum be a source? A crappy source, but still a source none the less.
Fess up, Profiterole posted an article from a white supremacist forum and didn't realize he's been duped by the new alternative media the US Nazi's.
It can't be a source unless you consider this a source.No Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator
It's a broken link FFS, which you knew but never mentioned.
I'm gonna put you out of your misery anyway. This appears to be the original source.
The POST in THE FORUM that your are fetishing over linked to this site.
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/six-jewish-companies-own-96-of-the-worlds-media/0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »I'm gonna put you out of your misery anyway. This appears to be the original source.
The POST in THE FORUM that your are fetishing over linked to this site.
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/six-jewish-companies-own-96-of-the-worlds-media/
Had a quick look at that. Serious question, what exactly is a Jewish company?0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement