Don’t make me laugh – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

if Obama is going to threaten Israel with financing, he’d better look at his own… lol…. this is very sad. Obama still thinks he has leverage. news flash! the United States is a debtor to Israel

“As of September 2009, Israel’s foreign debt totals $28 billion. Meanwhile, the State of Israel’s foreign currency reserves total $60 billion. Most of them are invested in US government bonds. That is, the Israeli government’s foreign debt stands at -$32 billion. Or in other words, at this time we, Israelis, are financing America’s debts – and not the other way around.”

A lot of Israeli economists got a good laugh when US Special Middle East envoy George Mitchell threatened in a PBS interview last week to withhold Israel’s loan guarantees. Sever Plocker explains why.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

At this time too, the Israeli government is embarrassed to tell the US administration what needs to be said: Please, take back your loan guarantees. In the coming decade we probably will not need them, while you may very well need them. The Administration economists I met know this well.

People who still speak about “US economic pressure on Israel via loan guarantees” are completely disconnected from reality. Israel is now helping the US pay its deficits, and not the other way around. This is why we were laughing, the American economists and myself, when the issue of loan guarantees came up in our conversation. I was laughing happily; they were laughing somewhat sadly.

via ynetnews.com

Ben Curtis alludes that fake MSM photos were the Neo Cons fault

so it’s the perception that caused you to exploit the viewer with posed and digitally edited photographs? a Fool Born Every Minute:

BEN CURTIS: Maybe it always was. I myself get all my news from the Internet — primarily the AP wire. I don’t watch much TV, I don’t have access to a wide range of English language papers, so I get most of my news from the Internet. Now, when you get news from the Internet, and especially if you’re getting it from blogs, you can really fine-tune the range of opinions that you receive on a daily basis, and you can fine-tune it to just those opinions that conform to your opinion.

so it’s OK for Ben to use the internet to communicate with his radical element, but he is threatened by those Neo-Con blogs

BEN CURTIS: And when you understand how people who work for the media work and the difficulties they have there is a lot of mundane reasons why things happen — light, dust, cameras, trying to compress everything into one image. If the public understood more about the process, then perhaps there’d be less suspicion of it, although I suspect that’s probably not the case.

but when people do try to understand the process (like on blogs) then you are suspect of that? don’t you think that statement is a bit arrogant Ben? Assuming that it isn’t your fault that your media is abused in the media it is presented in, it is irresponsible and exploitative to not present the context or to make motions to clarify. Ben would have his audience believe the photographer has no intent in taking a picture of a toy in the scene of destruction. Then why was the technique used repeatedly?

via opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

It’s important to understand that there is not just a single fraudulent Reuters photograph, nor even only one kind of fraudulent photograph. There are in fact dozens of photographs whose authenticity has been questioned, and they fall into four distinct categories.

The four types of photographic fraud perpetrated by Reuters photographers and editors are:

1. Digitally manipulating images after the photographs have been taken.

2. Photographing scenes staged by Hezbollah and presenting the images as if they were of authentic spontaneous news events.

3. Photographers themselves staging scenes or moving objects, and presenting photos of the set-ups as if they were naturally occurring.

4. Giving false or misleading captions to otherwise real photos that were taken at a different time or place.

via zombietime.com

fighting Israel’s Semiotic War

one must make two battles. the more important one is your cyber community where you delineate your enemy and use fair terminology. the other battle is where you must delineate your enemy through specifics. using mere semiotics puts you at a weakness because your enemy can always co-opt your language. it isn’t fighting from weakness, but rather embracing their weakness is in consistently playing word games and expecting you to be orthodox with your code.

example would be using the word “goal oriented philosophy” when dealing with atheists because using faith or g-d is a loaded term, but who could be against believing in an objective or goal?

for certain we don’t deny g-d, but we understand those that disagree with us might not understand what we are talking about and if a paradigm shifts you might break into their inner humanity. as rare as this is with an indoctrinated person, it can be useful when leveraging an unbiased third person.

again I can’t stress how important it is also to avoid conflict and to put your emphasis with your own people. pick your fights. don’t waste your energy voting on polls about who is right. Palestine or Israel… etc. because you must remember that Egypt always thought they would win because of numbers. it is what they called, “The War of Attrition”. so know that you don’t have popularity to count on.