This is an escalation without precedent in the terrorist war waged by...Hamas"

S

sherief

Generic Human
hundredmillionlifetimes said:

....
....
from Spoilers of Peace, Gilles Deleuze, Le Monde, April 7, 1978 [reprinted in Two Regimes of Madness (Semiotexte, 2006) ].​
Click to expand...


Interesting to see that Gillez Deleuze was so taken with the Palestinian landlessness-- It does provide quite the graphic imagery to complement the otherwise peculiar language of "territorial flows" and "deterritorialized reterritorializations" that you see elsewhere. In truth, however, these Deleuzian concepts do seem to provide an interesting rubric for the political possibilities and situation of the Palestinian people and their Israeli overlords- Micropolitics and segmentarity, right?​
 
F

foret

Guest
the proxy war view isn't reinforced by israel focusing on lebanon's responsiblity rather than portraying its war as a preemtive strike against syria/iran. arguably the benefits of cutting those countries' entrenchment in lebanon are very limited next to the rewards of instigating a direct conflict with iran in which israel is seen as the victim of a proxy war against a state_sponsor_of_terror that can be sold in america, but this doesn't seem to be happening, and the likudniks would need to be far more enterprising to create the internal pressure needed for iran to support hizb'allah more visibly.
 
Last edited:
G

gek-opel

entered apprentice
You are correct that Israel's focus is on Hezbollah rather than their purported backers, however if you look at the way the conflict is being framed in the US media, then you will see that the discursive battle is being won for an escalation against Iran... oh good... :mad:
 
F

foret

Guest
there _isn't_ that emphasis on iran though

fox is just war porn, it's very distanciated, very little hyperbolic conflation and just the usual 'x insurgents taken out today' stuff you get whenever the taliban flare up, today it even has a

Mideast Debate

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organization? Watch the heated debate!

a trrst faction firing iranian rockets at an american proxy, and this is all?
 
D

Diggedy Derek

Stray Dog
There's a demonstration in London on Saturday at noon. I think I'll go.

Saturday 5th August 2006

assemble 12 noon, Speakers Corner, Hyde Park followed by march to Parliament Square for rally


[I almost feel like I should post this on the "events" forum, but that would be kinda silly]
 
O

Omaar

Guest
Diggedy Derek said:
There's a demonstration in London on Saturday at noon. I think I'll go.

Saturday 5th August 2006

assemble 12 noon, Speakers Corner, Hyde Park followed by march to Parliament Square for rally


[I almost feel like I should post this on the "events" forum, but that would be kinda silly]
Click to expand...

I think I'll go too. bump.
 
H

hundredmillionlifetimes

Banned
gek-opel said:
You are correct that Israel's focus is on Hezbollah rather than their purported backers, however if you look at the way the conflict is being framed in the US media, then you will see that the discursive battle is being won for an escalation against Iran... oh good... :mad:
Click to expand...

Yes, and as Galloway has recently argued: "No one should be in any doubt which way the chain of cause and effect runs. George Bush, with Tony Blair at his heel, is backing Israel to the hilt because the US wants Hizbollah’s resistance in Lebanon smashed as a prelude to an attack on Iran. In Washington, Blair alluded to such a war."

Blair, Olmert and Bush are murderers [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14376.htm]
 
swears

swears

preppy-kei
Buick6 said:
and look at who's spreading lies:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/spot-the-difference/2006/08/07/1154802782164.html

the ONLY thing worse than the righteous Right are the Lunatic fucking Left..blech.
Click to expand...

I think his intentions may well have been financial, rather than political.
The more extreme the image, the higher the price paid for it. Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think the Palestinians would think of themselves as left or right wing in western political terms.
Lunatic left? What is that exactly?
 
Slothrop

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
swears said:
I think his intentions may well have been financial, rather than political.
The more extreme the image, the higher the price paid for it.
Click to expand...
Only if it shows what They want you to believe, though. Which I thought in this case was meant to be that this is a justified and proportionate response on Israel's behalf...
 
G

gek-opel

entered apprentice
To be honest this is a heap of nothing. A slightly-doctored image of SMOKE, hardly the most important thing , its not bodies or images of torture is it? The bias on the BBC is interesting. They always announce the Hezbollah attack first, as if that was the key event, however, because they can get better access to Lebanon than Israel (and cos the atrocities are statistically worse there, lets face it) they actually spend more time on the Lebanese side of the border. Tho in another self-contradictory gesture they appear to have more of those nauseating (and meaningless) human interest stories with Israelis...
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"To be honest this is a heap of nothing"
Click to expand...
I kind of agree - when you see the two pictures next to each other you can see a difference but you can't tell which one is supposed to be worse - I can't really see that the "improved" picture tells a different story or even exaggerates the story of the original.
On the other hand I can see why Reuters have rejected him from now on, they can't be seen to allow people to change their photos (although I'm sure it happens) and it would seem like a dangerous precedent.
 
G

gek-opel

entered apprentice
Yes, it is journalistic malpractice (of a sort... interesting to think tho that is it any better to deliberately take a picture which makes the shelling look worse by going to a different angle, changing the lens so the smoke appears darker, or whatever, is that any less of an example of fakery than just cloning an extra plume on photoshop? Is there some extra layer of artifice here, the digital domain perhaps.. the whole thing of photography seems to be pretty artificially to me anyway... but I can see that obviously journalists are pretty keen to protect their illusory monopoly on supplies of "truth")...
 
nomos

nomos

Administrator
Whatever the motivation it's very poor Photoshopping. Anyone who's used the PS clone stamp could spot that a mile away. But the argument around it has been uninformed and disingenious.

"[Reuters] Global Picture Editor Tom Szlukovenyi called the measure precautionary but said the fact that two of the images by photographer Adnan Hajj had been manipulated undermined trust in his entire body of work.

'There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image,' Szlukovenyi said in a statement. (CNN)
Click to expand...
Please. Photos have always been manipulated, whether in the dark room or on a computer and you don't even need to do something so obvious to make a photo look more dramatic. Basic cropping and colour-correction using the Levels tool can drastically alter the character of an image, and it's standard practice for any news publication that wants to sell its stories.

It was a stupid move but the accompanying debate has been just as myopic.
 
Last edited:
G

gek-opel

entered apprentice
Ahuh, a certain degree of discrete manipulation ie- as you said: cropping and filtering can make the difference between one meaning and the diametric opposite... but it is obviously an economic necessity for newspapers and photojournalists alike to maintain that what they show is equal to "the truth". Even selecting one picture over another is a subtle manipulation, surely...? Cropping one person from the frame could change the story being implied utterly... even putting a different byline on a still image could completely change the context of the picture...
 
Last edited:
nomos

nomos

Administrator
I think we're saying more or less the same thing. It's just the non-acknowledgement of the sort of everyday manipulation you're describing that's bothering me - CNN et al. keeping up this myth of the unfiltered story/image.
 
A

adruu

This Is It
I think you could make a lot of money selling obviously doctored photos in order to undermine someone else's media position. Psyops is a bitch...
 
F

Freakaholic

not just an addiction
Speaking of photos and the US supplying bombs to Israel during this war:

_41441095_madeinusa_ap416.jpg



a picture truly is worth 1000 words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top