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.
India isn’t British.
The British government class Hizb’Allah as a terrorist group.
So how should The British Broadcasting Corporation, fundied by a government mandate describe the Terrorist group Hezb’Allah?
Anon, I know your next comment will be ‘ but Israelis commit acts of terror‘.
No they don’t, to protect themselves they work on intelligence and they target areas where terrorists hang out. It’s not their fault that the terrorist cowards hide amongst other civilians, their own people. Your Arab terrorists attack indiscriminately, they don’t target military bases, they’d rather cause terror by letting off a bomb on a bus with no intention of killing military personnel.
Right then so lets all be clear about this. You want the BBC to be a mouthpiece for the government of the day ?
MINE
Your Arab terrorists attack ..
Less of this please. This is typical of your logic “he wont criticise the BBC for not calling Hizb. terrorists, so he must think the same himself”.
Whatever you may think of the Israelis, there is much condemnation of their actions around the world. Just because you think they are whiter than white and everone else is to blame doesn’t mean that the BBC should report on it from that angle.
Finally :
“Anons. It’s not about following majorities or minorities, it’s about labelling people “terrorists” if they commit acts of terror.
Absolutely wrong. That is moralising and the BBC shouldn’t do it.
MINE
I said “Israel kill a lot more arabs”
You quoted me as saying “Jews kill more arabs”.
Dishonest.
So, I’m sure you can work out when it’s since. And yes, it’s a fact.
Is anybody else getting fed up with “Anon” and his/her/its infestation of just about every thread here, or is it just me?
“Anons. It’s not about following majorities or minorities, it’s about labelling people “terrorists” if they commit acts of terror.”
Interesting point, but it just shifts the debate a little: who gets to define who commits terror. Also, do you define a terror group by its tactics alone or exclusively as a *non-state* actor specific tactics?
Would you include national armies in this designation under any circumstances, for example?
Would it be sufficient that a single government defined a group as terrorist, or would you adopt the position of a particular body (e.g. the UN, EU) or government without reference to any others?
Did anybody see Dianne Abbot play the race card on ‘This Week’ last night?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/default.stm
14 minutes 30 seconds in.
Anon:
Right then so lets all be clear about this. You want the BBC to be a mouthpiece for the government of the day ?
That’s right, cloud the issue as normal. You have to extend this to be an ALL or NOTHING affair. You extrapolate the desire for the BBC to adhere to the British government classification of Hezbollah as a terrorist outfit to mean that the BBC should report all and everything the government states, you really are very silly you know.
The BBC should not be a mouthpiece for Iran/Syria either.
Biodegradable | 06.10.06 – 2:42 pm,
No, it’s not just you. I’m also getting tired of this sort of cliched nonsense:
It’s the same old people popping up thread after thread, each with their predictably similar ideas, each lining up to spout their outrage at the “moonbat” lefties who run and work for the BBC.
Anon | 05.10.06 – 2:03 pm
Now since we’re all so predictable, would you like to predict my next comment?
You obviously don’t know much about this site. Open your eyes, look around and you’ll notice plenty of calm, intelligent analysis of BBC bias from a widely-divergent bunch of people.
DifferentAnon | 06.10.06 – 10:12 am
I didn’t make the following statement to indicate that I was helping the BBC – I just made it to indicate to John Reith that I’m not who he considers me to be:
“No, I’m not a free-loader, Mr. Reith. I pay my service provider for the internet time.”
Perhaps my post was too subtle for you. Reith is waxing self-righteous and pompous – as he’s done before on this subject – and I’m simply trying to get him to understand that when he comes onto this site and insinuates that someone’s opinion on BBC bias is somehow invalid because he’s not subsidising the BBC on pain of imprisonment people are going to see through his bullsh*t.
I wouldn’t pay the license fee if I lived in the UK either.
And whether you believe it or not, I don’t enjoy the BBC. In fact, I’m tired of the mind-numbing bias – though in common with others like GCCooper and Archduke, I think it was, the BBC does seem to be slowly waking up out of its decades-old fantasies and starting to moderate its allegiance to the left and Islam.
Now if you would actually like to challenge any point I’ve made about BBC bias, instead of assuming that you know me well enough to analyse my motives, that would be a welcome change.
if i throw a bomb into a busload of schoolchildren which is carrying out its intended purpose, surely that makes me a terrorist?
i think it is disengenuous to talk about the validity or otherwise of my political motives. It is a terrorist act, pure and simple. i may well be a freedom fighter, but so what? now i am a freedom fighter who uses terrorism. so i am a freedom fighter cum terrorist. but still a terrorist.
Bryan
John Reith was one of the few people who actually picked apart your arguments, notably with the ludicrous claims by pounce that BBC were stupid not to know that Iceland had a military when they quite clearly and even officially do not. Due to the fact he’s been abused by the likes of Biodegradeable and yourself I doubt he’ll be back. The loser here is this site since the comments will now be just be a bunch of right wing xenophobes back slapping each other.
Perhaps I’m missing how calling muslims “ragheads”, or claiming that all Muslim women who wear the veil are forced into doing so, none doing it through choice – is part of an “intelligent” debate.
I’ve pointed out that BBC are merely expressing the views of the vast majority of the international community when they don’t call hizb. “terrorists” and the response is about morals. It’s not the job of an objective organisation to moralise and yet here you all are attempting to demonstrate that the BBC are biased percisely because they are not being moralistic. It beggars belief sometimes.
Bryan:
It interesting you ask people to refrain from analysing your motives just after coming out with:
“the BBC does seem to be slowly waking up out of its decades-old fantasies and starting to moderate its allegiance to the left and Islam”
Why bother asking Reith not to analyse your motives when you are quite happy, apparently, to concoct an entire backstory for BBC employees like Reith in which they have been fantasising for decades and [all] adhere to both the left and Islam.
anon
Icelandic peacekeepers, who are highly trained and armed members of the police and coastguard, are considered soldiers by NATO and international law.
If they are classed as military in international law then who are you to argue?
The ugly hatred of Israel that has recently come out of the anonymous chorus of BBC apparatchiks who are trying to spam these threads into oblivion is the most revolting and clear demonstration of their real identities. So, you morons, a tiny nation of a few million people, surrounded by about a billion sworn enemies is a “terrorist” if it identifies and deals with those who would kill its citizens? You are the scum of the Earth and do not deserve British citizenship, if indeed you have it. You ought to be deported to South Lebanon, to enjoy Hezbollah government. Yes, I am very angry. You BBC shit have demonstrated with the very arguments you presented that Melanie Phillips is right: you are not just appeasers, but sympathizers and supporters of Arab murderers, propagandists for Hamas and Hezbollah, Jew-baiters of the kind who pretend that they are not because they are only “anti-Zionist” – as if there was a difference. You reek of concentration camp, of butchered children and old men, of indiscriminate murder. No wonder you hide behind your burqa of anonymity: if you were identifiable, you could be described in terms that would horrify even your friends – granted that you have any, and not just accomplices. You are the worst kind of murderer – the kind who stands by, claps his fat little hands at the stormtrooper or Hezbollah bayonetting children, and then goes home and writes an apology explaining why they had to do it. Have you got the point yet? You are humans only for zoological identification purposes.
Anon,
That’s the Reith tactic: pick on one small aspect of a commenters post, like “raghead” and use it to discredit him. Try another one.
Reith will be back. He doesn’t work weekends.
There’s no evidence that the vast majority of the international community don’t consider Hezbollah terrorists. What terrorism is, and how the BBC should be reporting on it has been made abundantly clear in many of the comments above. I don’t need to add anything.
DifferentAnon,
You’ve twisted my post way out of shape there. You know little or nothing about me and you are therefore unqualified to make any judgement on who I am. On the other hand, I know a good deal about the BBC. I’ve been following it and like-minded MSM for decades.
You’ve also twisted what I’ve said about the BBC in general and reduced it to personal figures like Reith. In fact, I don’t think every single BBC employee is a dhimmi. No doubt there are a few who don’t bow to Islam and/or the left. I’ve made this clear in some of my posts.
You guys have moral equivalence on the brain. There is no equivalence between professional journalists backed by billions in extorted licence fees and reaching into households worldwide through TV and radio on the one hand and a bunch of amateurs on the web on the other with no way to spread their message except through the web.
And there is no moral equivalence between terrorists and their victims. The BBC and others who think there is have lost their moral compass – if they ever had one to begin with.
This is precisely why the BBC has to curbed. It has tremendous power and influence. And so often it uses it for evil.
AntiCitizenOne –
The British government class Hizb’Allah as a terrorist group. So how should The British Broadcasting Corporation, fundied by a government mandate describe the Terrorist group Hezb’Allah?
Oh no, ACO, China, India and Latin America don”t call’em ‘terrorists’. so why should the BBC?! His own link shows that much of the Anglosphere, including GB, designates them as terrorists, so of course we should follow China’s example.(sarcasm/off)
I look forward to Anon coming in to tell us why the Chinese state executing thousands of prisoners each year means that we should follow suit.
Grimer –
Did anybody see Dianne Abbot play the race card on ‘This Week’ last night?
What a horrible, nasty bitch that woman is. She’s lucky that Peter Hitchens was sitting across from her and not someone less restrained. Without the slightest justification, she accused Hitchens of being a racist. She’ll be paid the BBC’s shilling again next week.
I look forward to Anon coming in to tell us why the Chinese state executing thousands of prisoners each year means that we should follow suit.
Pete_London | 06.10.06 – 6:11 pm
Or at least why China isn’t a terrorist state (don’t mention Tibet!) while Israel is.
Or why there is no state terrorism in Sudan (don’t say “Darfur”!) while Israel terrorizes “Palestinians”.
Or why Israel is guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing while the population of the “Palestinian” territories rises as their infant mortality rate drops to the lowest in the region (don’t mention Rwanda or Sbreniça but keep repeating “Sabra and Shatila”!)
Anon –
I use [deleted] to describe the [deleted] in here. It my vernacular, innit, and I resent you not respecting and accepting my culture. I think we’d all get along better if we accepted the diverse and multicultural nature of this site. If you can’t do that I’m gonna get really angry and call you a ‘bigot’.
Edited By Siteowner
Biodegradable –
Steady on, that would require Anon to apply consistent principles and look at facts. I think we’ll be waiting a long time for the lefty in him to do that.
It my vernacular, innit, and I resent you not respecting and accepting my culture. I think we’d all get along better if we accepted the diverse and multicultural nature of this site. If you can’t do that I’m gonna get really angry and call you a ‘bigot’.
Pete_London | 06.10.06 – 6:24 pm
‘ere Pete me ol’ china plate. Being Friday night an’ all that i fink we oughta go darn the rubbadub for a pint or eight… I’ll even let you call me “yid”. 😆
Pete and others,
Stop using offensive terms here.
Slight expansion of that: discussion of the use of racial terms of abuse is permitted but not encouraged. Do not use them in your own voice.
It can be difficult to tell when the former stops and the latter starts. But that’s OK. I can just delete doubtful cases. The loss to history is not great.
As ever, persons unhappy with this can always go away and talk about the subject on one of the many thousands of other blogs or start their own.
Anon: wrote;
Bryan
John Reith was one of the few people who actually picked apart your arguments, notably with the ludicrous claims by pounce that BBC were stupid not to know that Iceland had a military when they quite clearly and even officially do not.
Actually you are wrong. I happen to have a very good memory and knew what I wrote. For those of you who don’t here is what I wrote;
Oh by the way BBC Iceland has a Iceland Defence Force while not an army in first world or third world terms I’m sure it would put up more of a fight than the Saddam did in 2003.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115933829585186782/#309171
Please note Anon I wrote “Defence Force” and not military. I think the line;
“while not an army in first world or third world terms “
Kind of points to the direction I was aiming at.
Please feel free to reply.
(I will post this on the current board in case you don’t come back here)
Pounce, this is what I wrote to anon earlier in this thread:
anon
Icelandic peacekeepers, who are highly trained and armed members of the police and coastguard, are considered soldiers by NATO and international law.
If they are classed as military in international law then who are you to argue?
billyquiz | 06.10.06 – 5:42 pm |
No reply, of course.