Your video, Al Jazeera reports on Anonymous, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thanks for the quality.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*quality

Very good talk. I've sifted it for you @kceaton1:

http://videosift.com/video/TEDx-Wadah-Khanfar-of-Al-Jazeera-Middle-East-Revolution

It was taken straight from Al Jazeera's stream last night: http://videosift.com/video/Bahraini-doctor-s-heartbreaking-plea-for-help

-- Gunshots fired into #bahrain protesters, injured have fallen as they try to enter pearl square
-- Army firing live ammo from anti-aircraft guns from APC's at protesters #bahrain
-- Protesters were carrying flowers saying they wanted to deliver it to police. Were shot instead. Blood on street now #bahrain
-- @AP photg saw at least 4 injured and 1 dead. V bloody #bahrain
-- Protesters reached the #lulu square, sat down and army shot into them again #bahrain

>> ^rebuilder:

Indeed. What's the worst-case scenario for the more hawkish US policymakers here? Perhaps that the Egyptian people actually manage to create something resembling a stable democracy without US military intervention...
>> ^Fusionaut:
It's amazing that they got results without the United States invading their country. I guess the Americans are just too busy elsewhere.



The worst case scenario is that the Hamas end of the Muslim Brotherhood ends up seizing control of Egypt, eventually leading to another large scale war between Egypt and Israel. I suppose worst case would also mean the Egyptian scenario emboldening the Sudanese North into starting the civil war all over again too.

A more likely scenario though is a lot of instability leading to more woes for the Egyptian people than anyone else.

Point is that despite how good it is to be rid of a dictatorship, the end result is yet to be seen. More often than not dictators that are chased out are replaced by another one within a decade, and generally that dictator is even more brutal and harsh than the one before him. After all, even Al Jazeera openly observes that it was the relative tolerance of Mubarak's regime that allowed the protests to succeed where those in Syria and Iran have faltered under much more brutal suppression.

Straight from Al Jazeera's news ticker:

Egypt army says won't use violence against citizens staging protests against President Hosni Mubarak.

I thought the same thing. What a strange dynamic. I hate to imagine what this would be like in the US.>> ^radx:

I was watching Al Jazeera's live feed for hours last night. When those 12 M113s of some Guard formation arrived to secure the NDP HQ and the adjacent museum, I was quite surprised to see the protesters not only catch a ride and dance on 'em, but also apparently plead the soldiers for protection from the rozzers.

I was watching Al Jazeera's live feed for hours last night. When those 12 M113s of some Guard formation arrived to secure the NDP HQ and the adjacent museum, I was quite surprised to see the protesters not only catch a ride and dance on 'em, but also apparently plead the soldiers for protection from the rozzers.

This isn't the first time they've come under attack, of course. If I remember correctly Al'Jazeera stations have been bombed twice by "accident" once in Baghdad and once in Kabul, Afghanistan.

from Max Blumenthal's blog:
"How did the US and Israel-funded emergency PA government of Abbas/Abed Rabbo/Erekat respond to Al Jazeera’s release of the Palestine Papers? They released a goon squad to vandalize Al Jazeera’s Ramallah office and apparently to attack the person filming the video, too."

more footage:

Enoch said:there is a huge difference between a person of jewish heritage and a zionist.zionism does NOT equal judaism.

I'm glad we are agreed on this point. It's why I made the very important statement:The Jewish Palestinians were fighting a civil war with the Arab Palestinians.

This is of course important because the video, and several posters including yourself seem to want to label the entirety of Jewish Palestinians as Zionists when talking about the civil war. If you'll accept that there were many Jewish Palestinians fighting the civil war for reason and cause outside of Zionism then we are agreed.

Enoch said:to excuse an entire population by what some OTHER over-zealous political party did

Go read what I said again, because you are inventing an argument I never put forward. I stated the fact that the Jewish minority in Palestine was being mistreated and biased against by the Arab Palestinian majority, a fact even Al Jazeera doesn't dispute. I then stated that created tensions leading to a civil war, were both sides had understandable cause for concern. The Jewish Palestinians had seen how well accepting inequality worked for European Jews, and were willing to fight to be treated as equals. The Arabs were duly concerned about extreme elements of the Jewish population like the Zionist movement.

The point is very simply that a civil war exploded between two ethnic groups of Palestinians, for reasons that were domestic. The Zionists latched on to the cause, as did the surrounding Arab nations, with all sides looking to gain land for themselves out of the deal. Painting it like the entire problem boils down to Zionist aggression making victims of the Arabs is ludicrously at odds with the basic facts. So badly so in fact that even Al Jazeera, a very much pro-Arab network has published several articles on the 1948 war that soundly reject such a notion. The idea is in fact even more racist against Arabs than it is against Jews. It portrays better than 50 million Arabs as being so weak that they were helpless victims in the face of a mere few hundred thousand Jewish Zionists.

Your facts are also blatantly wrong.
3million jews/christians/muslims lived in jeurusalem peacefully until the british empire amended the balfour declaration.
Jerusalem's population was nowhere near 3 million then, the entirety of Palestine was likely under 3 million when the Balfour declaration was signed. Population estimates of the time are sketchy at best.

so while the jewish community owned less than 5% of the land the new amended document gave them 56% and hence we see..to this day..strife in that region.
The Balfour declaration amendment wasn't what gave them 56%, it was the UN's recommendation, put forward by both the US and Russia that proposed the borders with 56% attached. It was also proposed not on the premise of a handout for the Zionists, but as a resolution to the civil war within Palestine, which saw the Jewish Palestinians holding most of that 56% as a result of the fighting.

.the supposed "deal of a lifetime" that was offered to the palestinians was absolute garbage.
That's an opinion, not a fact. And I can't help but point out that your opinion assumes that only Arabs are Palestinians, the Jewish Palestinians presumably being stateless?

>> ^MaxWilder:

This actually shed a lot of light on a lot of questions I had. I have not at all made up my mind on the subject, and I welcome anyone who would like to argue against the points made in this video.


If you have a lot of questions, history books are a better starting place than a blatantly biased video like this. I made it to minute 6 before the outright lies and falsehoods were more than I needed to know this video was not worth more of my time.

The very opening claim of the video declares Israel has always, since before it's inception seen no legitimate claim for any other people in Palestine except their fellow Jewish people. Historical fact is that in 1948, when the fledgling UN recommended a partition of Palestine into two states, Israel accepted the borders and declared independence. This could have been the end of the civil war in Palestine between Jews and Arabs. It wasn't the Zionists that where aggressive at this point. The entirety of the Arab world declared a united war against the new state of Israel, trumpeting that they would drive them into the sea. My description here is not in question either within the Arab world, Al-Jazeera has an article covering all these points in even more detail.

Now the video decides around the 6 minute mark to contradict itself:
At the end of the 19th century, there were hardly any Jews living in Palestine.
And yet, the video just finished telling us in the introduction that historically Jews and Arabs had been getting along famously. We might wonder how that is imagined to have happened if there were hardly any Jews there to get along with?

Historians largely say the best guess at populations in 1900 Palestine are not possible, and largely inaccurate. The closest commitment they make is to sate there was a significant Arab majority, but also that the Jewish population was by far the most significant minority in the region. Enough so that it is well agreed, even by anti-Zionist pro-Arab sources that the city of Jerusalem itself has had a Jewish majority since the very late 1800's.

So, the video has started by lying about the basic facts of how many Jews where in Palestine when the conflicts started, and about their willingness to accept a rather reasonable partition of the country. Useful answers and insights aren't likely forthcoming from a source like that.

@dystopianfuturetoday, sounds like we're mostly in agreement to me.

I think RT has an editorial bias that encourages stories that cast America in a negative light. I don't really think reporting a story about how American banks are engaged in creepy tactics to try to blunt negative press is somehow the product of a uniquely Russian culture.

Maybe my impression of RT's bias isn't really a bias in RT's editorial decisions, but in the editorial decisions of the people who post their clips on Videosift. They've all been highlighting some form of corruption in the US, and every one I've watched has just been an echo of something the right or left has been complaining about (and it's almost always welcomed with a comment of "wow, RT is the only good media outlet anymore!").

The same thing happens with Al Jazeera, though Al Jazeera focuses more on how our pointless wars are killing lots of innocent people.

As for our own media operations, I just grow more and more cynical about it as each day passes. There's still signal, but people have to work to hear it, and most don't bother. The long run goal seems to be to erase the idea of objective truth from our collective consciousness. That way when someone speaks actual truth, they just bring in an opposing "view", and then the truth can just be passed off as one more person's opinion.

Empire is a new monthly segment on Al'Jazeera, covering more than just the US.

See a list of the previous episodes here.
>> ^Kalle:

>> ^skinnydaddy1:
>> ^Kalle:
>> ^Trancecoach:
Couple years ago, I submitted this documentary which looks at how the militarization of popular culture -- including reality shows and video games -- has turned war into a spectacle of entertainment.

Thx for that link its quite interesting to watch especially the part about military tech fetishes...
>> ^skinnydaddy1:
now I'm not going to watch it.
Someone want to tag it propaganda for me?

You haven`t watched it but you wanna tag it as propaganda???

As I've stated I find the title insulting and offensive. It would be like me starting a news segment on Faux news channel titled,
Terrorists: Muslim religious groups and Al Qaeda Media. Terrorists examines the symbiotic relationship between the Middle Eastern religion and the IED and sniper videos filmed for the internet.
The title of the program already has made the statement that the U.S. wants to take over your country. EMPIRE! Being a prominently Muslim based News organization it its telling everyone in the middle east that.
This is the same reason I won't watch Fox News. So while they may be trying to get my attention and prove a point. Insulting the country I live in is not a good way to start. So lets continue to look at the title. Hollywood and the War Machine. Wow so its not the U.S military or Defense contractors. Its the WAR machine.... So now the men and women in uniform serving my country are no longer doing so. They are there for the express purpose of starting wars. Great 2 insults and I've not even started watching the video yet but I've got a good Idea where its going. SO no i'm not going to watch it. The Propaganda in the title alone has stated enough already.

Thats a good point youre making, the title really sends out a certain anti american message..
But its still quite interesting to watch and not really comparable to fox news from a intellectual point of view.