Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5403798.stm
AntiCitizenOne
Points 1 + 2 – yep, that’s what I’ve read, although I couldn’t find quite such a lucid way of putting it!
Point 3 – I couldn’t agree more. It’s all political.
AntiCitizenOne | 04.10.06 – 3:24 pm
“anthropomorphic climate change”
Surely not.
Anthropogenic……maybe?
Pete-London
check this out:
http://www.undoit.org/what_is_gb_myth.cfm
AntiCitizenOne – I certainly couldn’t have put it better myself!
Did you notice that one reason given for oil prices going down is that the hurricane season in America has been mild. But somehow this fact isn’t included in predictions on climate change. When the hurricanes are bad it proves their thesis. When the hurricanes are not bad they bury the information and exclude it from their thinking. Rather like their general treatment of the news …
Mr Minute wrote;
I’m sorry, but how on Earth can that article be seen as “slating Israel and the US as the bad guys”? I can’t help but think that your intellectual honesty is eroding by the day.
Oh please, The BBC makes it quite plain on how it portrays Israel, the US and UK when it comes to discussing a certain religion. Don’t believe me. Once again I will bring to my defence the infamous BBC news web article on the History of the region;
“Key maps Trace the history of the conflict over land and borders.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/default.stm
Tell me which war is missing?
The only one which the Arabs started and lost.
Yet in term of geopolitics that war (Yom Kippur) was the most important since 1967 or even 1948. Even thou both Eygpt and Syria lost more ground than in 1967 it allowed the Egyptian leader to declare a victory (sounds no so dissimilar to a few months ago) and thus allow him to walk down the road of peace with Israel. So why is it missing when the mirror of that war from 1967 is listed?
But hey don’t believe my word here is what the Egyptian information ministries take on the above;
On October 6, 1973, both Egyptian and Syrian armies simultaneously launched a battle for liberating Arab lands from Israeli occupation. A few hours after the start of the war, the Egyptian army victoriously crossed to the east bank of the Suez Canal where the Egyptian banner was raised high. In the October War, Egyptian forces scored an outstanding victory. This prompted President Anwar as-Sadat to contemplate a radical settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the establishment of just and lasting peace in the Middle East. There followed the peace treaty with Israel (Camp David Accord) in March 26, 1979, with the participation of USA. This treaty was preceded by President Sadat’s visit to Israel in 1977. On April 25, 1982, Israel withdrew its forces from the Sinai Peninsula and later from the frontier strip of Taba pursuant to arbitration by the International Court of Justice.
http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/History/Modern/080700000000000001.htm
But back to the allegation of where my intellectual honesty is eroding on a daily basis. Really? Please If you BBC clones have to attack my character in which to defend the BBC. Why do you have to pick the smallest points in my posts in which to shout foul play. Every one of your posts defends the BBC as innocent of every allegation presented by this board. (Even the Guardian doesn’t have that many people who defend it.) Yet not once have you said, well maybe the BBC are out of order here.On that note what does that tell me about your day job?
Maybe there lies the real reason you feel fit to attack my post. You are paid to do so.
Pounce & Mister Minute
MisterMinit | 04.10.06 – 12:09 pm
“I can’t help but think that your {Pounce’s} intellectual honesty is eroding by the day.”
I’ve been thinking that for some weeks. Never could be sure though whether it is intellectual dishonesty or intellectual incompetence. Let’s see if pounce’s reply offers any clues:
pounce | 04.10.06 – 5:44 pm
“Tell me which war is missing?
The only one which the Arabs started and lost.
Yet in term of geopolitics that war (Yom Kippur) was the most important…”
It seems Pounce is telling us that the Arabs didn’t start the war in ’48. Interestingly off-message – the consensus is that Israel’s Arab neighbour’s invaded immediately upon the declaration of the State of Israel to strangle the infant at birth. What can he mean?
Then he attacks the BBC for not including a before-and •after map of the Yom Kippur war.
What’s he thinking of? The Bashan salient?
The Israelis pulled back from that to the Purple Line at the ceasefire.
Maybe he thinks there ought to be one about Sinai being returned after Camp David……but here’s the rub: the BBC map feature he’s criticising isn’t about Israel’s relationship with Egypt or the wider Israeli-Arab peace process • it’s explicitly about the ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict’. What significant changes to the shape of Israel/Occupied territories map were made by the Yom Kippur war? If there were any at all, were they worth a map?
I’m baffled.
John Reith wrote:
“but here’s the rub: the BBC map feature he’s criticising isn’t about Israel’s relationship with Egypt or the wider Israeli-Arab peace process”
If the maps are about Israeli-‘Palestinian’ conflict, the maps should only start from Six Day War, which is not the case.
The ‘Palestinians’ did not exist as a people before that (or the founding of PLO in 1964).
So the argument made by John Reith is not valid.
The BBC is trying to present an argument that Israel has gradually expanded its territory on the expense of ‘Palestinians’. This argument is greatly helped by omitting the Camp David agreement. Once again desired impression is given by giving only half of the story.
That argument doesn’t work John. If the BBC were to include all Palestinian-Israeli conflicts then the invasion of Lebanon should be included as it had a specific purpose of removing the PLO threat from Israel’s northern border.
The Yom Kippur war (or Ramadan war as the BBC also mentions that it is called) was a turning point in the politics of the region and ensured peace on the majority of Israel’s borders. It was also a vital element in the creation of a Palestinian identity as opposed to a displaced Arab one.
As such it should have been mentioned; although the reason why it isn’t is probably down to incompetence rather than conspiracy.
Peregrine
The purpose of the map feature was to chart the changing shape of how the former mandate territory west of the Jordan has changed in terms of Israel’s borders / lands allotted to Palestinians – in the context of the dispute (over land) between the two and in terms of territorial conquest.
The 67 war was significant. 73 wasn’t. Nor was Lebanon.
Lebanon would of course feature (along with YK) in a feature about WARS in the region.
This wasn’t that.
Israel has never fixed its borders….so these things are helpful.
If anything was conspicuous by its absence it was the UN partition map.
correction: sorry, the UN partition map was there.
Alan Man | 04.10.06 – 8:10 pm
“If the maps are about Israeli-‘Palestinian’ conflict, the maps should only start from Six Day War, which is not the case.
The ‘Palestinians’ did not exist as a people before that (or the founding of PLO in 1964). ”
Under the Mandate everyone who lived there was called a Palestinian – Arab, Druze and Jew.
In Israel until very recently it was common to refer to Jews native to the territory as Palestinians.
Arab Palestinians have kept the monniker. To say they ‘did not exist as a people’ isn’t really true, is it?
Why should people be labelled exclusively by racial identity? We don’t do it here.
John Reith wrote:
“The purpose of the map feature was to chart the changing shape of how the former mandate territory west of the Jordan has changed in terms of Israel’s borders / lands allotted to Palestinians – in the context of the dispute (over land) between the two and in terms of territorial conquest.”
Why is this not mentioned in the BBC article?
War in Lebanon is not a separate incident, since PLO used Lebanon as a base for attacks against Israel ever since they were expelled from Jordan after Black September of 1970.
Lebanese Civil war and Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 both have their roots in expulsion of PLO from Jordan.
And I think the BBC bias in this case is a combination of poor journalism and a leftist world view.
Alan Man | 04.10.06 – 8:54 pm |
‘Why is this not mentioned in the BBC article?’
Read the title. It makes it perfectly clear.
By banging on about the PLO in Lebanon, you prove you still don’t get it.
Go and sit down at the kitchen table with a pad of paper and draw the map you would use to illustrate the effect of Israel’s expeditions into Lebanon changed the borders of Israel.
At a pinch you might add the Shebaa Farms in diagonal stripes with a box explaining their status.
But that still wouldn’t have anything to do with the Pallies.
But try it anyway – and let’s see your map.
Pounce: “Oh please, The BBC makes it quite plain on how it portrays Israel, the US and UK when it comes to discussing a certain religion. Don’t believe me. Once again I will bring to my defence the infamous BBC news web article on the History of the region;”
Ok, I’ll ask again: how on Earth can that article be seen as “slating Israel and the US as the bad guys”?
Mr Reith wrote ;
“It seems Pounce is telling us that the Arabs didn’t start the war in ’48.
Now, now Mr Reith please point out just where I allege just that. Please I’m really curious for somebody who just has to try and prove me wrong in almost every post of mine I’d like you to substantiate the above.
But now that you’ve set the ball rolling about the war in 1948 lets have a look at how the BBC describes that event from that History web site of theirs?
“War broke out in 1948 when Britain withdrew, the Jews declared the state of Israel and troops from neighbouring Arab nations moved in.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/israel_founded.stm
Moved in?
So in the same tone the jews moved into Lebanon the other month, they again moved in during 1982. How about if I transfer the description used to the six day war. Here is how it would sound.
Israel moved into Eygpt which led to Syria and Jordon moving in.
And here is how the BBC actually describe my last;
In a pre-emptive attack on Egypt that drew Syria and Jordan into a regional war in 1967
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/six_day_war.stm
Tell me Mr Reith is right for the BBC to describe the Arab armies as Moving in and the Israeli army as attacking.
Do you not think that the BBC should rewrite the former to “Armies from the neighbouring Arab nations invaded the fledgling state of Israel
I mean it would be factually correct.
And also could you point out where the article suggests that the American airlifts saved the day.
Mr Minute wrote;
“Ok, I’ll ask again: how on Earth can that article be seen as “slating Israel and the US as the bad guys”?
Simply because the BBC always writes about Israel and America in the negative when it comes to Palestine.
Just look at the latest about C rice to see what I mean;
“But the BBC’s state department correspondent Jonathan Beale says while Ms Rice poured praise on the Palestinian leader, she appeared to have little to offer him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5404998.stm
Please feel free to reply.
Mr Minute you wrote the following;
And also could you point out where the article suggests that the American airlifts saved the day.
Please be so kind where I allege the above?
Here is what I actually wrote;
”The myth that the American tanks saved the day is one that needs smashing into the ground. “
And
“The American airlift did help I don’t dispute that at all. But the north was won by sheer hard guts and the south by ingenuity and a bit of luck.”
Now is there anything else you’d like me to furnish you BBC clones on this board?
Everyone hates the BBC….lol.
http://jamesstgeorge.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=UKdomestic&action=display&thread=1159972607
“Simply because the BBC always writes about Israel and America in the negative when it comes to Palestine.”
So there is nothing wrong with that particular article you cited as far as “slating Israel and the US as the bad guys” as such? It’s just that the BBC are always against Israel so that article must be slating Israel?
It’s just that you said “The BBC once again tells half a story in which to slate Israel and the US as the Bad guys.” I.e. you are accusing the BBC deliberately missing out facts in order to make Israel look bad in that article.
Yet as far as I can tell, the article doesn’t make Israel look bad at all. If anything it makes them look good: they fought off a numerically superior force in a war they didn’t start. Even the headline is: “Arab states attack Israeli forces”
“Please be so kind where I allege the above?”
So why did you feel the need to debunk that myth all of a sudden?
Pounce
1. “It seems Pounce is telling us that the Arabs didn’t start the war in ’48.
Now, now Mr Reith please point out just where I allege just that. Please I’m really curious for somebody who just has to try and prove me wrong in almost every post of mine I’d like you to substantiate the above. ”
Easily done. The article about the maps refers to the ’48 war and to the ’67 war. Referring to the Yom Kippur war you wrote:
“Tell me which war is missing?
The only one which the Arabs started and lost.”
If you believe that Yom Kippur is the ONLY war the Arabs started and lost – then it is perfectly reasonable to infer that you think someone else must have started the war in ’48 – ‘cos not even you, with your casual disregard for truth, is going to claim the Arabs won it, surely?
2.”Armies from the neighbouring Arab nations invaded the fledgling state of Israel” would be fine by me. ‘Moved in’ would be okay too. A bit slangy, but we know exactly what it means. No-one would get the impression they were popping by for tea.
3.Mister Minute asks you a straight question:
Ok, I’ll ask again: how on Earth can that article be seen as “slating Israel and the US as the bad guys”?
MisterMinit | 04.10.06 – 9:13 pm
How do you reply? By alluding to a completely irrelevant article about Ms Rice. No wonder people are noticing that you are constantly practising some sleight of hand.
Mr Reith wrote;
cos not even you, with your casual disregard for truth
I see. So tell me Mr Reith out of the BBC and myself who is guilty of re-labelling a Scottish Girl called Molly Campbell as Misba. Renaming her mother from Louise Campbell to Louise Fairley.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5400860.stm
How about keeping quiet on the court case of the killing of Kris Campbell
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5406912.stm
Tell me was the murder of that child a racist one. If so why isn’t the BBC shouting out like it does for every white on black incident.
Do you wish me to carry on. You have yet to prove me wrong on even one topic. yet you shout out to all and sundry that I am wrong every time. Mr Reith. Tell us all why you shout out so Mr Reith. Is it because you cannot have me (I refer only to my posts here and in no way disparage the other posters) opening the eyes of people who wander on here to see what the BBC is all about. So instead you try to paint me black in which to stop people from reading my posts.
Mr Reith I think you will find the only person who has a total disregard for the truth is you.
There is none so blind as he who will not see
It’s depressing to think of the murder of Kris Donald in terms such as this but the geographical location is perfect for the BBC. The murder was reported quite widely on BBC Scotland BUT NOT on the wider UK news broadcasts. If the trial of the accused is likewise widely reported on BBC Scotland, it would allow John Reith and other apologists to state that the BBC did give coverage to the trial. Nonetheless, the trial and the details (particularly gory) will not be reported in the UK as a whole, unlike the murder of Anthony Walker. This is constructive censorship a la (allah?) BBC.
pounce
pounce | 04.10.06 – 10:25 pm
you say reith hasn’t proved you wrong on any one topic.
It seems to me he pretty comprehensively proved you wrong on the question of who started the 1948 Arab vs Israel war.
And come to think of it, almost every day he manages to trip you up on point after point of fact.
Slow down a bit. Check before you push that button.
The six Ps remember. You said it yourself.
davep: Bollocks
J.R. is an expert at misrepresentation and fraudulence but that is after all the BBC it’s what they do.
Ok, I’ll ask again: how on Earth can that article be seen as “slating Israel and the US as the bad guys”?
After all it was you that said “The BBC once again tells half a story in which to slate Israel and the US as the Bad guys.”
DaveP wrote;
It seems to me he pretty comprehensively proved you wrong on the question of who started the 1948 Arab vs Israel war.
Again I ask point out where I say who started the 1948 war. If you followed my thread you will see I point towards the Yom Kippur war in my post .The fact that Mr Reith has to add this to the start of his rebuttal;
If you believe that Yom Kippur is the ONLY war the Arabs started and lost – then it is perfectly reasonable to infer that you think someone else must have started the war in ’48
You will see that Mr Reith placed that statement into the argument in which to try and gain the high ground. Not I.
So tell me, why did you post this snippet into your post;
And come to think of it, almost every day he manages to trip you up on point after point of fact.
Really, I wonder why you have to defend Mr Reith from little old me. (Feeling the heat BBC clone)
I’ll put money on the fact that you and the other defenders of the BBC at this time are one and the same.
Ok pounce, I’ll ask again: how on Earth can that article be seen as “slating Israel and the US as the bad guys?”
After all it was you that said “The BBC once again tells half a story in which to slate Israel and the US as the Bad guys.”
Note that this question cannot be answered by simply saying “but look at all of these other articles that the BBC has written about Israel.”
John Reith says:
Arab Palestinians have kept the monniker. To say they ‘did not exist as a people’ isn’t really true, is it?
Yes it is true. As you correctly state the Brits called all inhabitants of what they called “Palestine” whether Jews, Arabs or whatever “Palestinians”, however whereas the Jews have always existed in the area as a people the Arabs had not: there has never been a “Arab Palestinian” state – there could have been but the Arabs turned the offer(s) down since 1948 until the present day.
Do I really have to quote the Arabs themselves at you yet again?
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”
(PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)
And more recently:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52279
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ stated recognition of Israel’s right to exist is part of a “political calculation” aimed at ultimately destroying the Jewish state, a terror group leader and member of Abbas’ Fatah party told WND in an interview.
The leader said the Fatah party does not recognize Israel and that any final accord that doesn’t include flooding the Jewish state with millions of Palestinians will not be supported by the Fatah party and will lead to Palestinian civil war.
“The base of our Fatah movement keeps dreaming of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa and Acco,” said Abu Ahmed, Fatah member and leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip. “There is no change in our position. Abbas recognizes Israel because of pressure that the Zionists and the Americans are exercising on him. We understand this is part of his obligations and political calculations.”
When will the BBC begin to report interviews such as the above instead of continuously giving the impression that Israel alone is responsible for all the wars and lack of peace in the Middle East?
John Reith wrote:
“Arab Palestinians have kept the monniker. To say they ‘did not exist as a people’ isn’t really true, is it?”
The word Palestinian originally referred to people living in the region that the British decided to call Palestine without considering their ethnic or religious differences.
Perhaps I should have said they did not exist as a nation. I am not a native English speaker, so I am not necessarily aware of all the subtleties related to words such as people or nation.
Palestinian national identity has clearly helped to legitimize the Palestinian cause and it can be argued that this identity is artificial and its creation has been politically motivated.
“Why should people be labelled exclusively by racial identity? We don’t do it here.”
The term Arab does not refer to a race. There is no significant difference between Palestinian Arabs and, let’s say, Arabs living in Jordan in terms of language, culture and religion.
Ok pounce, I’ll ask again: how on Earth can that article be seen as “slating Israel and the US as the bad guys?”
After all it was you that said “The BBC once again tells half a story in which to slate Israel and the US as the Bad guys.”
Note that this question cannot be answered by simply saying “but look at all of these other articles that the BBC has written about Israel.”
I see the scum that run the BBC are manipulating the news again….
Their headline is “Straws comments spark anger”….
When it could have said “Straws Comments have HUGE SUPPORT”!!!!!!!
BBC = Muslim arse lickers……
MisterMinit | 05.10.06 – 11:15 am |
If you read pounce’s post right the first time, you wouldn’t need to keep asking the same question. He’s already answered your question here – pounce | 04.10.06 – 12:32 am |
billyquiz | 06.10.06 – 12:22 pm | #
No he didn’t.
… he just gave a list about how American tanks didn’t save the day, which is almost totally unrelated to the article as it devoted only 4 words to it “strengthened by US airlifts”.