Agression Vs Expression

Current times can best be described as times of aggression termed as "World politics" and misuse termed as "Freedom" of expression.

Mixed Doubles

Recently, when A R Rahman won the award for Slumdog Millionaire, Indians were happy & sad. Happy because an Indian had won the 'prestigious' award, sad because the film had shown India in badlight. A colleague was all jubiliant that A R Rahman, his favorite, had won an award he truely deserved. The other colleague was happy that India had made it to the international arena. Another colleague retaliated, "There are so many homeless persons in the US, why highlight India?". There came the sane voice, "We have so many slums and government does not do enough to get rid of them" (I believe he meant the slums and not the dwellers). Came flying the explanation "On my last visit, there was this slum in Poona/Pune. Those guys were given new houses, but they did not move, rather they started renting the new place!".
The events turned, one nationalist voice said, "There have been very nice movies like Lagaan, which was better than this movie, but it did not win!". There came the explanation, "The difference is that a firangi had made the movie." Yet another thought came flying "There are a couple of resons, firstly it was made by a westerner, and there are entering the Indian cinema for the big buck. Remember, how Indian women started winning the beauty pageants in a row back in the ninetees. It gave a big boost to fashion in India and opened new markets for brands like L'Oreal etc. Now, the africans and south Americans have started winning the beauty titles, I see new markets there!". Another voice echoed, "Lagaan showed Indians winning, but this movie showed India in a poor light, moreover it was made by a westerner. So, it had all elements to win the awards." An observer retorted, "Anyway, in India there are at lest slums to be depicted! Just imagine, what would they have to show if they made a movie on Pakistan? It would have to be the Taliban. What else would they be able to show in a country like Pakistan". I thought people would have some insight into the thought process of the bad firangs and westerners from whom they get to know about the Taliban. But strangely they had nothing to add.

Deliberate Deceptions

The Murder of the Term Palestine
More than 900 Gazans dead as Israel continues attacks Why this new term "Gazans" for "Palestinians"? Isn't it seeking to eliminate the term Palestinians from world's innocent people's (stupid & mean public?) memory.

The Yahoo Blunder!
When you logout of mail.yahoo.com, it shows certain headlines. Today, when I clicked on the unbelievable title "Israeli troops battling militants on Gaza City streets", I was surprised to be taken to the page titled Israeli official plans 'decisive' talks in Egypt instead.
Isn't it a Deliberate Deception?
Israel an uncensored nuclear power is putting its troops to fight with the frustrated Palestinians. Isn't it deliberately putting its 'soldiers' armed with the most advanced killer weaponery at risk while fighting the ailing, stone throwing and 'dangerous Palestinians'.

What more can you do after killing the Palestinian people? You can only denigrate the dead and kill their names too.

Hitler failed to demonize the Jews in his own country and got a bad name. Jews have learnt lessons from him and these international land mafia started first giving a bad name to their illegitimate targets, the legitimate dwellers of Palestine, who are being mudered and called terrorists at the same time.

Its a shame on educated Muslims, Arabs and the western 'civilised world'. Everyone knows how safe animals (and even beasts) are in 'a civilised world'!

Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict

History of a Conflict Part 1

History of a Conflict Part 2

ABOUT THE NARRATOR

Charles D. Smith is professor of Middle East history in the Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of Arizona. A historian and an author, the narrator in the above two videos, is the author of the book titled "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict".

The Iraqi journalist who threw his black leather shoes at U.S. president George W. Bush

NEWS: This is the iraqi journalist, Muntazar-al-Zaidi, who hurled both his shoes at U.S. president, George W. Bush, during the latter's Iraq visit.

Now, lets see the media language playdown, how the news agencies add phrases according to their leanings:
Who was thrust to instant fame: The fact is, he was not thrust to fame, he in fact rose to fame, he became famous. How does it matter if you like his fame or not, unless you are siding with one or the other!
Most notorious pair of black leather shoes:
How come the shoes became notorious? Only because the media's deliberate sympathies go with the target.
Iraq shoe-thrower to go on trial :
He is not a shoe-thrower, he is a journalist who dared throw shoes at the president of the United States. He still remains a journalists who threw shoes, and not a shoe-thrower.

The question: Why does the media report it indifferently adding such subtle yet far reaching phrases?

I can see racism, superemacy, jealousy, media-infilteration and government-pressure behind such reporting.