I don't see the problem. In fact -- I'd say it is a good thing.
Posted on 07/24/2006 8:53:24 AM PDT by MikeA
In the public relations battle brewing on-line, there is a new eye to the center of the storm surrounding the war with Hizbullah - a series of photos showing Israeli children writing messages on shells meant for targets in Lebanon.
Questions over the photos' authenticity have been put to rest by authorities that were present during the incident, which occurred on July 17 near the northern border. The mostly local children had been brought to see the shells by their parents. Although it remains unclear who encouraged them to write the messages, their colorful scribbles, including a Star of David, hearts, and "From Israel, with Love," have appeared in dozens of blogs, or on-line journals, and on-line photo hosting sites.
Although the IDF has failed to issue a response to the incident, a spokesman from the IDF said it "appeared as though the situation occurred unofficially." Although an officer was present during the incident, the soldiers, and the IDF as a whole, did not condone or condemn the incident.
An official close to Israel's public relations campaign said that there was "no way" to spin the incident in a positive light. "Some people are simply irresponsible," said the official.
On-line, the photos are being called "horrifying," "disgusting" and "despicable." "I still cannot understand why or how anyone would allow their young children to walk up to missiles or other explosives. The militarization of children is always a crime," said one user by the name of "aviv2b" on the Guardian Web site, which ran a lengthy discussion about the photos.
Another reader, by the name barbicanangel posted that "I still say Israel is right in this war, however, the picture of young Jewish girls signing the shells is quite disturbing."
Although the photos were first taken by professional photographers from AFP, Associated Press, and Haaretz, they were circulated on-line through the popular photo-hosting Web site Flickr.com. That site republished the photos, bringing them to the attention of hundreds who later posted them on their own personal sites.
Many users on both the flickr and Guardian Web sites said that the images proved how difficult it was for a country to control their public relations image on-line. "There is no way to tell how, when, where, or why these photos were taken," said one anonymous poster. "We have to rely on the people hosting the Web sites, who have no official accountability hanging over their heads at all."
Over the years, there have been a number of photos that have been popularized by the on-line community such as photos of young Palestinian babies dressed as suicide bombers, or Israeli children in Purim costumes mocking Palestinian political officials.
Now that I have pointed it out - and I know you don't believe me at the moment - you will start to notice it! :D
Yeah, and all the bad guys in those Harry Potter movies have British accents.
No, wait. . . .
/yes, sarcasm/mocking/
I don't see the problem. In fact -- I'd say it is a good thing.
I know a lot of people who love British culture and especially British comedy. Fawlty Towers is too funny too.
If evolution were progressive, we wouldn't be overrun with idiots.
That's one Congressman out of 435. And I don't know that he provided them any funding. He was a bit of a loud mouth with Gerry Adams. I certainly never knew of anyone who supported the IRA and I was a Catholic at the time Northern Ireland was such news during the 70s and 80s. I never heard of any mass movement to support the IRA during that time. I'm aware some did, but it wasn't many people.
And it doesn't surprise me that people in the UK wouldn't still be invested in the idea of maintaining a North American colony, LOL. I never thought otherwise. Even if not ended by war, a world evolving away from colonialism would surely have lead to the Brits giving up control here voluntarily long ago, just like they did in most of their other former colonies.
You lost me on the Mad Ivan reference. Who is that?
Your contention that all polls are within 10% of "reality" is unscientific nonsense.
I have 8 years in the polling industry and it's pretty rare that polls are skewed so bad they're off by more than 10 points. And I never said 10% of reality, I said 10 percentage points of reality. There's a difference. And not even the worst polls I ever saw seemed to skew away from what one would expect from reality by more than 10 percentage points. The ridiculous US media polls that overpolled Democrats to produce artifically low approval numbers for Bush were probably off by 6-8 points in representing Bush's approval numbers. While Rasmussen which actually balances by party I.D. based on census representations was showing Bush at about 42-44% approval, the other media polling outfits had Bush at 34-36%. So while yes I believe US media polls are inaccurate, I don't think they're inaccurate to the tune of 10 or more points although the one that showed Bush at 29% at one point probably was wrong at about 9-10 points. But even if you want to assume this poll was off by 20 points, which you have no basis for believing, it still did not paint a rosy picture of what the Brits think of the US, our president or the WOT.
Anyway, to find out more about the poll click the links I provided.
Kilroy was here!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.