: “the AG could read from the phonebook and the New York Times would run the headline, ‘Ashcroft Lists Innocent Americans to be Interned.'”
Who cares what the article says – this is just a great line
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 17:26
Weekend 21st December 2024
This guy is actually quite funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaPbUvPOkD8 Apologies if this has been posted before. - Fedup2 Dec 22, 17:19
Weekend 21st December 2024
Excellent – the Marxists legislating to ban unapproved donations to other political parties – just a step to banning other… - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 17:18
Weekend 21st December 2024
The wonders of bBC output. Where would we be without Planet Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2A07ToxkTI This is a 100% genuine episode bBC… - Fedup2 Dec 22, 16:56
Weekend 21st December 2024
Far right on the march then ? Or is it someone else …? - Fedup2 Dec 22, 16:55
Weekend 21st December 2024
Yeah the dog don’t hunt – pure Southport disinformation … - JohnC Dec 22, 16:50
Weekend 21st December 2024
The question of why an anti-Muslim activist would carry out mass murder of Christians at a Christmas fair is a… - Lefty Wright Dec 22, 16:43
Weekend 21st December 2024
Pug Would a £100 million donation to Labour by Musk see a change in BBC reporting? How dare you Sir!… - vlad Dec 22, 16:35
Weekend 21st December 2024
Of course, the BBC reporting doesn’t make sense, but that’s the point: confuse, obfuscate and distract attention away from islam/ism. - tomo Dec 22, 16:28
Weekend 21st December 2024
keep an eye on your local atheists then [img]https://i.ibb.co/dmHB1nJ/chrome-Nv-K14my8-Io.png[/img]
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Courtesy of Fox – BBC, read and weep!
Charles Heyman, a senior defense analyst with Jane’s Consultancy Group (search) in Britain, defended the Marine’s actions, saying it was possible the wounded man was concealing a firearm or grenade.
“You can hear the tension in those Marines’ voices. One is showing, ‘He’s faking it. He’s faking it,'” Heyman said. “In a combat infantry soldier’s training, he is always taught that his enemy is at his most dangerous when he is severely wounded.”
If the injured man makes even the slightest move, “in my estimation they would be justified in shooting him.”
Oops – forgot this for the above!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138673,00.html
Allan
I’ve heard a few commentators on the radio this afternoon stating the same thing. As one said, should the Marine, in a split second, be 10%/25%/50% sure that the enemy is unarmed before taking action? The left has long lectured others on the need to ‘understand’ why crimes are committed. One even defended a woman to me who was aquitted of shoplifting after she blamed it on PMT. We are now seeing how inconsistent the left is regarding this so-called crime and how far their understanding stretches.
redken
Regarding Iraqi blogs, there’s a short piece here you may find instructive:
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001744.html
Radio 4 today carried a half-hour programme on calyso, narrated by Cy Grant – the guy who used to strum sing a satirical song most nights on the Tonight programme.
Ah – those were the days. When the satire was aimed at both sides. When the late-night BBC news discussion was even and balanced. There was no real talk in those days about bias at the BBC, no need for sites like this.
Bear in mind that the Marines in question had lost their corpsman to a booby trapped wounded/dead terrorist that he was stopping to help. Marines don’t take kindly to losing their corpsman. The particular Marine in question also had been shot the day before, I understand.
Consider also that there have been numerous incidents of ‘insurgents’ surrendering then turning fire on soldiers who expose themselves to accept the surrender.
Consult the conventions on these actions, if you like.
You do write some guff Pete:
“For one simple reason; Following countless atrocities by terrorists the left has not raised one finger in objection, in question, in opposition.”
WTF? Other than those mental Marxists who sued ITN over their ‘false’ coverage during the Kosovo conflict, I can’t think of anything other examples to back up your grandiose statement. I read your post, looked out the window of my office, and the first thing I laid my eyes upon was the memorial in the park opposite to those killed from the International Brigade. Utter, utter tosh.
theghostofredken Pete is referring to the idological boundaries that the ‘left’ have to (or rather don’t) due to their beliefs. Contradictions will arise in almost any given situation yet more often than not they simply choose to ignore it. Take nuclear weapons. During the cold war left wingers were absolutely against the possesion of these weapons by the West and had they had their way perhaps we might have lost the Cold War, who knows (of course there’s no acknowledgment they were wrong in their fear-filled beliefs). Back then, when such weapons were in the hands of 4 or 5 nation states they were up in arms. Now, when such weapons are more widespread and could fall into the hands of terrorist groups, the Left is positively blase about the subject and are more concerned with criticising the actions of the West to prevent such occurances than the weapons they were so afraid of.
cont:
and more poignantely:
‘The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …’
wrong order:
George Orwell has some excellent quotes on this matter:
‘All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. ‘
GORK: The International Brigade? From the Spanish Civil War?
Pete talks about the left not objecting to atrocities carried out by terrorists. Many Arafat obituaries ‘credited’ him with being the godfather of modern terrorism. So, you cite a conflict that took place when little Yasser was in short trousers?
In fact the way the left of the 1930s (people like Eric Blair) were at the forefront of the fight against totalitarianism shames their 21st century descendents who seem ambivalent to the threat of islamofascists and regard Washington as the source of the World’s evils.
Fair play Michael, perhaps the ‘minority of intellectual pacifists’ has now become the majority
?
“Many Arafat obituaries ‘credited’ him with being the godfather of modern terrorism. So, you cite a conflict that took place when little Yasser was in short trousers?”
It’s interesting you’ve skewed Pete’s ‘ideological’ rant in to a contemporary criticism about the “left” (whoever they are) and their ‘passive’ support for ‘modern’ terrorism. Where do you get this consensus view from? The Daily Mail?
I also asked you if you can name examples of lefties ignoring atrocities and so far you’ve come up with the CND and being too nice to Yasser Arafat!
“People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.”
How right you are George.
theghostofredken passive support for modern terrorism from those in the West is all around us. The easiest example is the terrorism of Islamofacism which one finds: ‘the americans deserved 9/11’, ‘root causes’ etc etc. Individual, personal responsibility is stripped from these terrorists by their ‘useful idiot ‘ western supporters (Robert Frisk and the like) and instead an inverse logic is used where by and large through ‘cultural imperialism’ and other such inventions, almost all the worlds ills can be blamed on the West.
It’s less a case of ‘ignoring atrocities’ more of ignoring or skewering the implications, motivations and ramifications of events such as terrorist attacks in order to suit an ideological bent. A suicide bombing against Israel is automatically seen as Israel’s fault, not that of the person or organisation behind the actual attack. This is just one small example, open your eyes.
Hate to go heavy on the quotes but:
‘All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing’
Those who believe that no action should be taken against terrorists in any meaningful way, (eg those who have somehow decided they were against the invasion of Afghanistan despite complete lack of rational opposition at the time) would, if they had their wishes inacted, be working in favour of terrorists.
GORK:
“It’s interesting you’ve skewed Pete’s ‘ideological’ rant in to a contemporary criticism about the “left” (whoever they are) and their ‘passive’ support for ‘modern’ terrorism.”
You brought up the subject of the International Brigade (Lord knows why) in response to Pete’s post, so what better moment to point out how the left were once the most strident of opponents to totalitarianism. Now it is the USA they regard as the great evil.
“I also asked you if you can name examples of lefties ignoring atrocities and so far you’ve come up with the CND and being too nice to Yasser Arafat!”
You didn’t ask me anything since my post to you was my first contribution to this thread. Mistaking for someone else? See Andrew Paterson’s response for a cogent reply.
“Mistaking for someone else?”
Make that “Mistaking me for someone else?”
“It’s less a case of ‘ignoring atrocities’ more of ignoring or skewering the implications, motivations and ramifications of events such as terrorist attacks in order to suit an ideological bent. A suicide bombing against Israel is automatically seen as Israel’s fault, not that of the person or organisation behind the actual attack.”
I’m confused because it seems that’s exactly what you’re doing. Although I would agree with the above statement, you’ve presented another consensus view which has little relation to reality. Who actually thinks like that? While I’m sure there are few loony lefties out there who might agree, but equally there are a few loony right-wingers who would say the Israel situation is entirely the fault of Palestinians. Neither of them would be anywhere near the truth…
I also resent the accusation/implication that questioning the actions of the Bush administration amounts to siding with the terrorists.
Who thinks that? It’s an unfortunate reality that Israel is the Left’s boogeyman. Check this link out for an excellent example of how villified Israel and its actions are compared to equivalent actions by other states:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1100578389518&p=1006953079865
Questioning the Bush administation isn’t the point, one can be against the occupation of Iraq for a number of reasons but for example, anyone who advocates the immediate withdrawl of coaltion troops from Iraq is, whatever their intention, concuring with the objectives of the terrorists operating within Iraq who seek an Islamofacist or reawakened Baathist dictatorship.
Well Michael thinks it’s the US, but never mind. I would like to think people treat the Bush administration with as much scepticism as they treat Blair or any other world leader. It’s not case of ‘hating’ the US or Israel, as your average Brit (for example) doesn’t really hate anything with any real passion (definitely a benefit of living a secular country). I think people just look at the ‘War on Terror’ or the occupation of the West bank and think “hmm..there are two sides to every argument” which is the way it should be. Scepticism and satire are the signs of a healthy democracy.
Well I think most people that I know who were opposed to war, me included, would not advocate immediate withdrawl.
Israel and the US might as well be one to their haters such as the Arabs.
I get your point theghostofredken but any sort of malaise by the West is considered a weakness by its enemies. During the 90’s the Clinton administation (‘I feel your pain’) tried such a middle of the road tact and it proved diastrous. During his time in office Al Qaeda grew more deadly and more brazen, the lack of response to his terrorist outrages leading Bin Laden to firmly believe the ‘decadent’ West had no backbone. The fact that the average brit may not hate a man and organisation dedicated to his destruction perhaps gives some weight to Bin Laden’s theory.
GORK said “I also resent the accusation/implication that questioning the actions of the Bush administration amounts to siding with the terrorists.”
Andrew Paterson said:”Who thinks that?”
GORK replies: “Well Michael thinks it’s the US, but never mind.”
Michael Gill replies: GORK seemingly has trouble on this and other threads of reading a passage of text and understanding what has been written.
“Well Michael thinks it’s the US, but never mind” – that isn’t even a direct response to Andrew Paterson’s posting.
The rampant anti-Americanism of the left is obvious to anyone with any common sense.
Responding to your silly assertion quoted above: Andrew Sullivan criticises the Bush administration for the conduct of the war on Iraq, because of insufficient troop numbers • something I agree with him on. Now, I’ve criticised Bush! But, contrary to your silly logic I do not side with terror.
Michael: “Well Michael thinks it’s the US, but never mind” was in response to:
“It’s an unfortunate reality that Israel is the Left’s boogeyman.”
To clarify, ‘Who thinks that?’ Should have had extra ??? to indicate increduility.
The Left is directly opposed to Israel and America, it’s simply undeniable. Please read that JPOST article folks, it’s a great example of the kind of villifacation Isreal suffers.
Michael: “But, contrary to your silly logic I do not side with terror.”
That what I meant. I thought Andrew implied the premise with:
“Those who believe that no action should be taken against terrorists in any meaningful way, (e.g. those who have somehow decided they were against the invasion of Afghanistan despite complete lack of rational opposition at the time) would, if they had their wishes inacted, be working in favour of terrorists”.
Hope that clarifies things.
To further clarify:
When the objectives of terrorists match your own, whatever your intention, you are siding with terror. Being against the invasion of Iraq is too wide to fall under this banner but for example demanding immediate withdrawl is not. There are many people who go along with this idea and I could not be any more against them.
“The Left is directly opposed to Israel and America”
The loony left, yes. But your average bloke in the street, no. I also disagree with pointing the finger at Clinton (hindsight, such a wonderful thing…) in respect to Al-Qaeda, lets not forget the findings of the 9/11 commission. Clinton, at the very least, acknowledged the problem before anything significant happened on US soil and was in many ways responsible for all the intelligence information GWB had at his disposal and chose to ignore.
theghostofredken decisions made by the Clinton administation directly led to 9/11. By siding with the FBI’s crime-fighting ideology while rendering the CIA impotent he further widened the ‘gap’ in US intelligence as regards terrorism, a move that would prove fateful. Throughout his presidency Al Qaeda attacks got more and more bloody while Clinton refused to do anything about it. The most telling quote was from his Defence Secretary William Cohen upon the attack on the USS cole:
‘This attack is not sufficently provocative for a response’
(I quote from memory). If Clinton was on the ball on Al Qaeda (which the evidence doesn’t point to) then he didn’t have the balls to do anything about them.
We may discuss the Clinton administration’s responses (or lack thereof)to the precursory attacks against the US – bear in mind that this President had distractions. But the turning point came with the election of Bush: would anybody seriously envisage Gore doing anything about 9/11 without the UN’s consent, or even with it? The US simply isn’t wealthy enough to buy the vote of France, never mind Russia and China. I’ve just switched off Chirac’s interview on Newsnight – good old Gallic effrontery by the master of corruption.
Andrew
Whoops! If I knew how my comments would end up taking up bandwidth I’d have kept quiet. Think I’ll keep ot strictly to BBC mattres in future 😉