Marc Lamont Hill and CNN hypocrisy

[Epic Beard Man]

Where did he say je does not support Hamas? I understand Hill is an academic. The issue is not about his anti-zionism. The issue is about the organizations he supports with that anti-zionism.

With what group is he talking about? If you the video in both the ones I've provided here he says he does not support Hamas.

 

[Curious George]

With what group is he talking about? iIf you saw the video in both the ones I've provided here he says he does not support Hamas.

I watched all of the videos you have posted. I have not heard him say that he doesn't support Hamas. I did hear him say let's support every organization that is trying to help us resist." That would include Hamas. He supports both violent and non-violent resistance. He does oppose acts of terrorism and acts of anti-Semitism. He also says he opposes violence as a reaction to peace.

He is obviously a fan of the sentiment that both violent and non-violent resistance is necessary.

I am wondering what you think I do not understand about his position.

He is clearly knowledgeable about middle east relations. He clearly knows about Hamas. He used his position to advocate for the support of the liberation of Palestine. And his choice of words echoed a sentiment used by anti-Semetic groups who also advocate for the liberation of Palestine. He did this without any admonishment to the methods used by these groups. How anyone can try to distinguish his choice of words with support of organizations like Hamas is surprising. Do I personally think he shpuld be fired for such comments? No. But did groups rightfully attack his support of Anti-semetic organizations? Yes.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I watched all of the videos you have posted.

He only said he doesn't support it in the Breakfast Club video I think you may have selective hearing but if you wish here is what he said in the Washington Post:

“At no point did I endorse, support, or even mention Hamas. This is dishonest,” he said Wednesday on Twitter. “I was very clear in my comments about desiring freedom, justice, and self-determination for EVERYONE.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...alling-free-palestine/?utm_term=.9c16231d5506

But sir in the Breakfast Club video he (Mr. Hill) literally explained what those six words meant in his speech here let me help you out on some of his key points: 2:18-2:24 also see 6:08-6:28 He also mentioned that everyone used the phrase "From the river to the sea" on 10:12-10:20. He also speaks out about supporting the fight against anti-Semitism in 11:29-11:42.

Now if you don't believe what he said as he explained it in that short segment just say so and we can move forward. Mr. Hill is talking about the lack of democracy the Palestinian people faith, the lack of lands, the lack of mobility, and the increasing of the settlements of that region. But in no way did Lamont Hill mentioned Hamas. Does Hill support violent resistance? Yes. He supports one must violent defend oneself if one is attacked just as the Israelis have a right to defend itself so do the Palestinians. I really wish you really watched the Breakfast Club video with an open mind because he is definitely dropping Jewels in that video concerning the state of Israel.

 

[Curious George]

He only said he doesn't support it in the Breakfast Club video I think you may have selective hearing but if you wish here is what he said in the Washington Post:

I think you are mistaken if you believe he says he does not support Hamas in that video.

“At no point did I endorse, support, or even mention Hamas. This is dishonest,” he said Wednesday on Twitter. “I was very clear in my comments about desiring freedom, justice, and self-determination for EVERYONE.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...alling-free-palestine/?utm_term=.9c16231d5506

I believe he is politicking here to fend off the blowback.

But sir in the Breakfast Club video he (Mr. Hill) literally explained what those six words meant in his speech here let me help you out on some of his key points: 2:18-2:24 also see 6:08-6:28 He also mentioned that everyone used the phrase "From the river to the sea" on 10:12-10:20. He also speaks out about supporting the fight against anti-Semitism in 11:29-11:42.

I am aware. I saw the video.

Now if you don't believe what he said as he explained it in that short segment just say so and we can move forward. Mr. Hill is talking about the lack of democracy the Palestinian people faith, the lack of lands, the lack of mobility, and the increasing of the settlements of that region. But in no way did Lamont Hill mentioned Hamas. Does Hill support violent resistance? Yes. He supports one must violent defend oneself if one is attacked just as the Israelis have a right to defend itself so do the Palestinians. I really wish you really watched the Breakfast Club video with an open mind because he is definitely dropping Jewels in that video concerning the state of Israel.

I find it interesting that you assume I did not watch the video with an open mind. I think you are the one who did not watch the speech with an open mind. Perhaps you think I am in some way offended or upset by his support of Hamas. I am not. He took a position amd he has back peddled a little bit from that position for obvious reasons, but his position doesn't bother me. I think if we were to speak with him prior to the UN speech, he would agree he supports Hamas, but insist he is not supportive of some Hamas action. You want to make his speech something that it was not. It is reminiscent of apologetics that are used to soften positions of MLK jr. and Malcom X. It makes the message more palatable. I think he knew what he was doing and saying when he made that speech.

 

[Shad]

He still made some blunders such as geographic knowledge, ignorance of the same international law defining legal and illegal combatants, ignorance that the current form of resistance is terrorism, etc. When he uses ideas and say things divorced from the reality on the ground he makes himself look foolish. He is not qualified to discuss these topics no matter how passionate he is about it. That was his problem on Fox, that was his problem on CNN, that is his problem now. Hill went off the company narrative just enough to get fired. Well that is CNN for you.

CNN has major issues with minority staff. There are multiple lawsuits charging discrimination against management by staff and former staff. Beside I never thought highly of CNN anyways. They will let Lemon rant about white people, double-down with his ill conceived apology and keep his job. Hill? They just axe.

ADL has no credibility with me as they manufacture statistics. They are willing to go far to keep their funding going wheather a case is legitimate or not.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I think you are mistaken if you believe he says he does not support Hamas in that video.



I believe he is politicking here to fend off the blowback.

I am aware. I saw the video.

I find it interesting that you assume I did not watch the video with an open mind. I think you are the one who did not watch the speech with an open mind. Perhaps you think I am in some way offended or upset by his support of Hamas. I am not. He took a position amd he has back peddled a little bit from that position for obvious reasons, but his position doesn't bother me. I think if we were to speak with him prior to the UN speech, he would agree he supports Hamas, but insist he is not supportive of some Hamas action. You want to make his speech something that it was not. It is reminiscent of apologetics that are used to soften positions of MLK jr. and Malcom X. It makes the message more palatable. I think he knew what he was doing and saying when he made that speech.

I don't think you watched with an open mind because you are making assumptions based on some default principle because of his words some how makes him in support with Hamas. I've already listed the pertinent parts in the video that demonstrates what he is saying. You think he says otherwise, I think he says differently. Since we've come to an enpasse there is nothing more. I thought it was a great speech and I'm in support of his one state solution.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

He still made some blunders such as geographic knowledge, ignorance of the same international law defining legal and illegal combatants, ignorance that the current form of resistance is terrorism, etc.

Point out where....

When he uses ideas and say things divorced from the reality on the ground he makes himself look foolish.

The man spent a lot of time in that region and actually saw what was going on, in what way was ed from reality?

Hill went off the company narrative just enough to get fired. Well that is CNN for you.

Hill got fired because the ADL was offended and has political power, much enough to influence corporate policy. Considering there have been people on CNN to have made much worse comments and still retain their job. The ADL in this case is proving the White Supremacist narrative of Jews ruling the media right in this case. I again say a critique on the government of Israel is not anti-Semitic but of course the ADL pushed this narrative and won.

CNN has major issues with minority staff

CNN like Fox are hypocritical period.

 

[Shad]

Point out where....

His video. He talks about Gaza being a prison surrounded by Israel when there is a border with Egypt which is blockaded by... Egypt. Some of the backlash is due not just to his "To the Sea" but that he babbles talking points which are half-truths.

The man spent a lot of time in that region and actually saw what was going on, in what way was ed from reality?

Perception does not equate a reality.

Hill got fired because the ADL was offended and has political power, much enough to influence corporate policy. Considering there have been people on CNN to have made much worse comments and still retain their job. The ADL in this case is proving the White Supremacist narrative of Jews ruling the media right in this case. I again say a critique on the government of Israel is not anti-Semitic but of course the ADL pushed this narrative and won.

Like I said ADL manufactures stories as in the end they get more support and funding.

CNN like Fox are hypocritical period.

Worse as both selective pick which controversial subjects are acceptable in order to profit from.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

His video. He talks about Gaza being a prison surrounded by Israel when there is a border with Egypt which is blockaded by... Egypt. Some of the backlash is due not just to his "To the Sea" but that he babbles talking points which are half-truths.

You still haven't demonstrated these half-truths. The man spent time in the region. So are you denying what his two eyes saw?

 

[Shad]

You still haven't demonstrated these half-truths. The man spent time in the region. So are you denying what his two eyes saw?

"there are people who are in Gaza which 05:53 is open-air prison is ruled by Hamas but 05:56 it is but there's but it's bordered in 05:58 by land air and sea by Israel"

Basic geography here, or a lack of on Hill's part. So we have the fact there is a border with Egypt, which is blockaded as well. So naturally one should look at the reason why "not Israel" is blockading as well. The reason is Hamas and terrorism.This in turn raises the question regarding the check-points he saw and his conclusion. Ergo this is why his point was high on emotion not factors on the ground. Which is turn raises the question if Hill's proclaimed expertise, what he say, how far we went to look into the issue deeper. Considering his point was high on emotion but lacking facts, to me, suggest repeating talking points with no deep research beyond his talking points. Ergo right back to the question of his perception and conclusions which is part of the backlash.

Being in an area does not make one an expert nor right in everything they say. Perception does not equate a reality. His conclusion on his perception does not equate a reality.

I do not think you "listened" to what he said. You heard what you wanted to hear, nothing more.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

"there are people who are in Gaza which 05:53 is open-air prison is ruled by Hamas but 05:56 it is but there's but it's bordered in 05:58 by land air and sea by Israel"

Basic geography here, or a lack of on Hill's part. So we have the fact there is a border with Egypt, which is blockaded as well. So naturally one should look at the reason why "not Israel" is blockading as well. The reason is Hamas and terrorism.This in turn raises the question regarding the check-points he saw and his conclusion. Ergo this is why his point was high on emotion not factors on the ground. Which is turn raises the question if Hill's proclaimed expertise, what he say, how far we went to look into the issue deeper. Considering his point was high on emotion but lacking facts, to me, suggest repeating talking points with no deep research beyond his talking points. Ergo right back to the question of his perception and conclusions which is part of the backlash.

Being in an area does not make one an expert nor right in everything they say. Perception does not equate a reality. His conclusion on his perception does not equate a reality.

I do not think you "listened" to what he said. You heard what you wanted to hear, nothing more.

Ok. Whatever you say

 

[Shad]

Ok. Whatever you say

Fine bury your head in the sand. Ignore facts for emotional appeal.