8/20/2003: Palestinian militant
 

http://cellar.org/2003/bb1.jpg

This is Raed Abdel-Hamid Mask, 29, an Islamic cleric/preacher/imam at home in Palestine with his 3-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son. (See how desperate and hopeless he looks as a result of the occupation?)

http://cellar.org/2003/bb3.jpg

Same dude. Typically, before a bombing, they film a video in which they explain what they're going to do. He holds a Koran in his right hand.

http://cellar.org/2003/bb2.jpg

Here he is shown again -- you can't really see him, but parts of his flesh are embedded along with shrapnel in the victim, who just by chance is also 3 years old.

Does anyone know of a non-political website that posts interesting images on a daily basis?

They told me if I was true to my own voice it would be more interesting.

:rolleyes:

I guess www.aljazeera.com is out, huh?

No, al-jazeera should be fine. Because since I object to a website obsessed with painting Palestinians as irrational, I must be a pinko commie idiotarian Gore supporter.

Right?

No?

We often are completely different and have different points of view, but we can discuss those things AND other things without descending into any kind of disrespect. I hope that's part of the point of the Cellar. Aside from me posting the first message in each IotD thread, your posts are as important and valid as mine, s'ok?

How did Undertoad's post paint anyone as irrational? I am asking seriously. You may have taken it as irrational and maybe to some of us it is an irrational act but in the history of war, killing children isn't such a new thing at all. In fact in a war over land, genocide is sort of the point.

They are not irrational. They are victims of a profoundly ugly deception that places no value on human life, only on personal gain. This story is as old as Cain and Abel, and will probably take even longer to fully resolve.

IMO this site is as politcal or nonpolitical as you'd like to make it, goethean ...

if you don't like the sentiments expressed... then express your own, and argue intelligently for them...

I'm certain you'll find more than a few ppl willing to debate you.. But I'm sure that you'll find more than a few ppl willing to agree with your views..

That's kind of the point of the IoTD in some ways I guess.... You've got to have some thought-provoking stuff that causes a little bit of strife every now and then.... It can't all be naked locals lying down for art, or piggies jumping into swimming pools...

I don't really post that often, but I read every comment on every topic every day... Sometimes the things that people say piss me right off... Sometimes they make me laugh out loud... Sometimes both, I guess..


If you've got a problem with the liberal/conservative slant of the content of the site, by all means, post a counter-opinion..

... But don't request a censoring of the original content.

Just out of curiosity...is suicide bombing and the associated killing of civilians rational? I read UT's post as painting a single Palestinian as being irrational, not an entire nation.

Now, if you've got a convincing argument for the rationality of suicide/murder, I'd love to hear it. :D

And, before anyone goes there, I don't consider the US's warlike attitudes to necessarily be entirely rational, either.

This is the only bit that bothered me. You can't judge the overall feelings of a person by looking at one picture. On the other hand, I don't understand how a father can commit such a despreciable act. The only explanation is "It's just the human nature", right?

Please. Undertoad's post today is political and partisan from beginning to end.

Partisan, as in showing part of--one-half of--the conflict, deliberately looking away from the other half. Undertoad's posts do this consistently.

A comparable statement might be:

Look at the foolish and murderous Viet Cong killing the innocent American GI!

I'm calling out clear bias that has plagued Undertoad's posts for as long as I've been here. I wish he would gain some empathy and lose some smugness. I don't consider that censorship.

But you know, it seems like everytime Undertoad wants to provoke us, it is from a pro-war, pro-Bush, position. There have been a multitude of posts on the horribleness of Intifada. How many have been about napalmed Afghani or Iraqi civilians? An alien reading Undertoad's posts would get the impression that Palestinians are the only ones killing anyone in the world.

decent newsweek piece on the rationale of suicide bombing, from this weeks edition:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/953555.asp

the argument is basically that suicide bombers are not "crazy" or "religiously brainwashed" but are more a product of specific political conditions..

I guess that's obvious.. maybe.


I thought the part about what the turkish govt did about the kurds was interesting...

Goethean said: "But you know, it seems like everytime Undertoad wants to provoke us, it is from a pro-war, pro-Bush, position. There have been a multitude of posts on the horribleness of Intifada. How many have been about napalmed Afghani or Iraqi civilians? An alien reading Undertoad's posts would get the impression that Palestinians are the only ones killing anyone in the world."


I would be more than interested in seeing the other side of the story, and I'm pretty sure many others here would be as well. I do seem to recall the posting of pics sometime back of the protester who got squished by the Israeli bulldozer, and there was a great deal of back and forth discussion from both sides of the issue, if memory serves. I don't think it would be any different if, say, you, Goethean, posted pictures and points of view which did not ding the Palenstinians.

Thank you (sincerely) for the thoughtful Newsweek article.

From it:

Sharon's going to be all over that, isn't he?

I don't try to provoke anyone. I just post the things that I find interesting, that's all.

I couldn't provoke you all if I tried. It routinely amazes me which items spark a lot of posts. It doesn't follow much rhyme or reason. And one could provoke from either direction IN either direction too -- I could post these things with the expectation of getting a flurry of "yeah, you're right!" posts.

BUT I NEVER DO, and any notion of smugness you're getting is solely your own. It's really difficult for me to even address that when I so often go out of my way to tell people I may be wrong, that I expect to be disagreed with, etc. etc.

It's right in the "It's not about me" paragraph in the "What's the Cellar?" link at the bottom of every single page every Cellar user reads. It says: ...you can hate me, it doesn't matter. (I will only respect you more for it.) My goal as a virtual community operator is to do right by the community itself. Disagree with me if you like; I'm often wrong and need to be taught a lesson. Disagreement and honesty are critical to a community's health.

So Cellar IotD biased: compared to "big media", hell yes. Absolutely. One guy picks all the first images and that guy is utterly biased out of his skull. Cellar in general biased: enh, it's all over the place. It flies one way for a while, then it flies another.

Tell you what though: I *far* prefer it when it flies away from me. I like having a diverse, interesting community with all types on board and happy to stick their two cents in for their point of view.

So today IotD flew away from you. Now here's the big question: can you take it for a day? Or is it upsetting to you to know that there is someone who disagree with your point of view, so strongly that he'll make it a priority?

Does our disagreement on this make my other images less cool to you? I still want to share them with you, and hope you'll find them as cool as I do.

Finally, I voted for Gore in 2000, and Bush is not currently my first choice in 2004.

Thanks, UT. They are an amazing group of pictures. Your remarks are your opinion of them. That is the right of ANYONE posting in the Cellar. OK this thread is your's but there is plenty of places to post, even pictures. Anyone that doesn't like your choice of IotD can bookmark the Cellar and skip them. Whada Country.:beer:

I guess we each see what we want to see. Something similar to 'selective memory'. We only remember what we want to remember.

When I see the three pictures in succession I get:

1) Here is a father with his children, all smiling.
2) Here is the same man with a rifle and a source of religious belief. (It could just as easily have been the Bible, the Koran, the Kama Sutra for all I care.)
3) Here is the same man having suffered a horrible tragedy because of his actions.

And before you get all holier than thou on me, it is because of his actions. If he really cared more about his family than where he was living, or what he was believing, he would have removed them from the situation.

People fled insert any given country: Britan, and came to America to start a new country; Cuba and came to America; fled Russia; fled Vietnam; fled from one side of Germany to the other, the list is endless.

That picture to me could have just as easily been an Isralie being shredded by a suicide bomber. That picture could have been... hell any place of warfare. It could have been the Vietnamese, as you suggest. It could have been anyone.

Look at the pictures themselves, and don't look at the individual. Look at the concept, the story the picture implies. You can read that story without having any captions at all. Put any one you want as the subject of that story, and the story turns out the same.

The individual is irrelevant. The story is retold countless times throughout history. This truely is the never ending story.

Quzah.

How utterly boring this would be if UT didnt push some buttons and make me think. And everythingis political.

This IOD is great. A comic strip of WTF is going on. Did a Palestinian man hugs his kids, wave the Koran, and then kill himself inorder to kill other people's kids. Yes. And the gripping rationale that goes into that act is what stops peace. Palestinians refuse peace. No compromise is just. So, how can suicide bombing be reframed as irrational to Palestinians? As failure and waste?

I'm not ready to concede to dave's vision yet. I'm hoping for some inspiration.

He's not "obsessed with painting Palestinians as irrational". He's obsessed with making you think by using the power of the visual medium, and with promoting discussion.

Syc, did you delete a post or am I going crazy?

What a straight line, eh.;)

You're crazy. :)

So, let's say UT was being biased. And this matters...why?

Come to think of it, the notion that this is a one-sided display of images is purely bias.

The first shot was given to the media by the Palestinians. That is the image that they want you to see, and I've included it.

The second shot was the video made by the man himself. He expected and wanted his image to be shown.

The third shot is what all terrorists want - maximum emotional output for their effort.

Today Abu Mazen said that he would go after the people responsible for this, so the official word of the Palestinian government is that they too are against this sort of thing.

So the other side I'm not showing is not the Palestinians, but the Palestinian terrorists.

Another take...
 

<a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=NCOTMA2RVZMKWCRBAEKSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=3312353">Israeli forces 'raid' Palestinian towns of Jenin and Nablus, arrest two men.</a>

Sounds like a real fucking slow night on my side of town!

Famous last words =)
There are certain political lines that emerge (it's not rocket science) after you're here for more than a few posts. While people will generally fall along these lines and thus the following debate often rather lacklustre occasionally there is some kind of trigger that ends up with people all over the place and then it can be really, really interesting.

There have been some fantastic discussions and debates over time and some depressingly infantile spats that have resulted in some great people (Xumagad comes to mind) leaving. Ut has as many biases as anyone else, he (generally) does a goodish job of keeping them under control in here but overall the aim is to generate discussion, cute animal pics (except on fridays) just plain aren't going to get the same quality of discussion as something as emotionally charged as suicide bombing.

Actual quote, or not?

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it"

"Hearts and minds"

"The horror! The horror!"

"Let's blow up a bunch of innocent non-combatants! Infants included! That will sure bring the world around to our position!"

Should be a poll.

The "other side"
 

http://cellar.org/2003/otherside.jpg

The Hamas bus bombing was allegedly in return for Israel's targeting of previous Hamas guys. Therefore, this is the other side of the story: Israel blew up this smart white 4-door VW Golf containing the leader of Hamas, apparently the guy who ordered the bus bombing, and his two bodyguards.

If you prefer, consider this to be the other side for the next Hamas activity.

Moments later it was swarmed upon by literally hundreds of Palestinians who pulled the car's remnants apart with crowbars.

pulled apart with crowbars....

Looking for talismans?

http://cellar.org/2003/otherside2.jpg

No, body parts.

http://cellar.org/2003/otherside3.jpg

And bodies.

Re: 8/20/2003: Palestinian militant
 

I own that shirt. Really.

http://cellar.org/2003/otherside4.jpg

And then they jump on the car and shout slogans. Note please, I'm not editoriaizing here, this is just information.

I was thinking, it's a sharp lookin' shirt. It would be a shame if he blew that up as well.

Same shirt in the video still, dude is lacking in wardrobe choices.

Dude <b>was</b> lacking in wardrobe choices.

I'm assuming the slogans were not along the lines of "Don't be upset, these guys deserved it!", or "Hey, let's stop all this madness, there's been too much death and destruction!"?

Why do they want body parts?

Because they are pure, unadulterated evil! Get with the program!

I don't think anyone's seriously said that here.

I was curious about that too..

Is a celebration thing? IE: These guys died martyrs, and they are in heaven now?

Or did they figure that if they got there in time they could save the guys maybe?

It always amazes me the quality of the photographs that seem to emerge of out these situations...

I mean... if the car was blown up, and then moments later swarmed by a bunch of ppl, then there had to be some photographer who was RIGHT THERE to get to the shot (without ppl in it), and then stuck around to get the action shots (of the ppl with the crowbars).


Also, how did israel blow up the car? with a car bomb? or like.. a long range missile? How did they know they'd get the right car?

Did they just drive a tank down the street til they found the right VW that matched the description?

I wonder what's involved in the logistics of blowing up a car full of people. ... O.o

"Because they are pure, unadulterated evil! Get with the program!"

I really had no plans to say anything. I usually don't. But that's one of the most irritating things I've ever read on this board.

Look, I know you thought you were being sarcastic (or at least that will be your defense if anybody calls you on your shit.) But from reading the rest of the posts on this thread, I get the feeling that you really do think that anybody who disagrees with you on this is stupid and simplistic. It's a common attitude among people... well, let's see if I can make your sort of thinking work for me... among people who think that Israel is pure, unadulterated evil.

Israel uses missiles from helicopters, usually. They know which car it is because they have informants and an extremely good intelligence agency, Mossad.

Hey, Señor Oso, tasteless humor is usual here. It's not always sarcasm.

The AP says Dozens of Hamas supporters at the scene dunked their fists in blood and soot, raised them in the air and threatened revenge, chanting "God is great."

It appears to have become some sort of blood ritual.

Being as I'm generally sarcastic I'd like to respond, at least for myself.
No, I don't think that people that disagree are stupid or simplistic.
I do however think they're wrong, misinformed, misguided, bias or whatever.
I don't think most people would take a position, they thought was wrong except to rattle cages.
If you feel my position is wrong, convince me. :)

Its a hard problem.
 

Everyone agrees that the problem of violence against their neighbors in Israel+Palestine is a big problem, and needs to stop.

On the one hand, I heard a great summary of the problem as a spin on a slogan from the first Bill Clinton election campaign:

"It's the Occupation, stupid."

On the other hand, I know people who support Israel for no other reason than this:

"Israel is the only governement by democracy in the Middle East."

People in the USA know that democracies are a good thing. And you see in Israel a real democracy - elections are held, and leaders are replaced (peaceably) as the electorate decides someone with a different view better represents what they want from their government.

Problem with Israel's democracy is that it is exclusive - Palestinians need not apply. Which brings us back to "It's the Occupation, stupid."

The suicide bombings will not stop until Israel chooses to treat its neighbors with respect.

The suicide bombings garner zero respect within Isreal for its neighbors.

"Be nice."
"O.k. - you go first."

Its a hard problem.

In the end, I think the message from the suicide bombers is supposed to be "Fear us." I think that message, as interpreted by Israel is "Exterminate us (bombers)."

I actually don't think that Israel is evil at all, and that's what irks me the most about Undertoad's attitude toward Palestinians--that it pisses me off and makes me more partisan.

Normally my take on the crisis is that Israel is surprisingly tolerant compared to how other countries would act in a similar situation (China, Russia, the US...). (I now know that Turkey at least has dealt with their insurgents in a bettter way.)

But look at the <a href="http://cellar.org/iotdarch.php">archives</a>. There have been more posts about Palestinians (12 or so) than about anything else. Most of them accompanied by negative captions. That's not right. It's especially troubling to me considering my country supports the administration that has destroyed, and continues to destroy these people's way of life.

I do believe that the <a href="http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php">Little Green Football</a> interpretation of the conflict is "stupid and simplistic". You can add bigoted, small-minded, and reprehensible to that as well. LGF is basically a hate site. The extent to which your own approach resembles theirs can tell you what I think of your method.

I personally would be mortified to quote and use the research of a site like LGF. Apparently that's not true of you folks.

Undertoad: I think you forgot to say: quote via <a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=7898_Palestinian_Blood_Ritual">Little Green Footballs</a>.

It's an AP story. LGF just linked to it and quoted from it.


In what way is free speech not right?

To continue with juju's comment... if we had 12 posts about Charles Manson and what a shitbag he was for orchestrating the murders of Sharon Tate and her guests, all of them accompanied by negative captions, would that also be wrong?

See, I don't think anyone here condones the killing of innocent people. That goes for both sides. It's just that, for the most part, you don't have Israeli suicide attackers. You don't hear about Israelis getting on Palestinian buses and detonating themselves and 20 victims. There have been a few attacks here and there, but you could probably count them on one mangled hand.

What Israel does do is target militants. It might not be <b>right</b> (depending on the meaning of your word), but most people have a much easier time stomaching this than they do thinking about Gal Eisenmann, the five year old that got blown up a year ago. (One of the many, I might add.)

What Undertoad is saying, and what I agree with, is that Palestinian militants that support and/or carry out attacks on innocent Israeli citizens are shitbags. The Israelis that bombed a Palestinian school a year or two ago (causing no casualties, thankfully) are shitbags as well. The bulldozer driver that ran over Rachel Corrie is, in my opinion, a shitbag. You show me an Israeli that has intentionally killed an innocent Palestinian and I'll show you - surprise - a shitbag. It's just that they're a lot harder to come across than Palestinian extremists.

It's not that there's some type of bias against innocent people. There's a bias against assholes that think they need to kill innocent civilians to get their way.

Well, Goat-boy, here are your choices at this point:

1. You could continue to hang out here, and once a month you have to deal with the expression of a bunch of ideas that you find foul and reprehensible. - OR -

2. You could find a website where everyone agrees with you and everything ever posted passes a presupposed test of acceptability. - OR -

3. You could start your own website, publish your own views, enjoy the counter-argument, and just learn to accept the occasional annoying asshole who wants to assume all sorts of crap about you and your thought process, and wants to freely post this to your site amongst the things you've written.

I recommend #1 or #3, because #2 stunts your growth.

Free speech, on a societal level, is an important right.

Within that there are many forms of free speech--that should be allowed by society--that are unethical.

The above statement is both an example of free speech, and an unethical thing to say (additionally, it is wrong, but that's neither here nor there.)

I was thinking, perhaps goethean should get a user-hosted forum and post his own images. That way, we'd have two IotD-like thingies.

I could do one too, 'cause I come across all sorts of stuff. But it's always things that make me smile and stuff 'cause I'm a sentimental retard when it comes to humanity.

Or, in keeping with a tragedy motif, we could do pictures of people who died in this but shouldn't have. Those are pretty easy to find.

Goat boy?

Type Goethe in Google if you're unfamiliar with the origin of my username.

Odd, though, that the moderator of this site only appears to object to Palestinian violence.

And because #4, the moderator gaining some degree of balance, is out of the question?

I don't agree that it is unethical to say that. The ideas behind them are unethical, but it is not immoral to speak your mind.

Most people, in response to the above comment, would attempt to reason with the person and attempt to present them with their own views. That's what you should be doing, not trying to silence the opposition.

At any rate, this isn't a news site. It's mainly a discussion site. So he's not supposed to have objectivity.

Charles Manson was a particular person. The Palestinians are 3 million people. To generalize about an entire people based on the actions of a few is the essence of prejudice. UT's coverage of the Middle East conflict gives a profoundly wrong impression.

Reading UT's posts, one would assume that there have been many times as many Israeli deaths as Palestinian. Reality shows the opposite to be true.

Dave, that was a succinct and well thought out post. :thumb:

No, goat-boy: you don't get to change my opinion just by crying and saying that I should "just because".

You have to actually refute it by providing, you know, helpful counter arguments and statements of fact and whatnot.

It's not good enough to claim that my statements are "hateful" or "biased". In order to convince me to change my posting habits, you have to convince me that I'm actually WRONG.

That's the bad news. The good news is that I'm a reasonable guy. I do change my point of view on the basis of what I learn. I'm happy to participate in discussions in which we ask questions of each other and state our various points of view. I'll be as honest as I possibly can be.

In fact, I've kinda set this entire system up for that purpose, and I've gone out of my way to make sure everyone's posts have equivalent weight (outside of their personal reputation).

You don't like what I have to say: convince me I'm wrong.

...and that's because there's lots of hateful and biased statements that are correct?