I was struck by this BBC headline “Rare suicide bombing hits Israel” prominently displayed on its Middle-Eastern news page. Consider the details and then ask yourself if “Rare” is the word you would choose to describe what has happened.
“A suicide bomber has killed a woman in the southern Israeli town of Dimona, the first such attack in over a year. Police said a second suicide attacker was shot dead before he was able to detonate his explosives belt. “We heard a large explosion and people started to run. I saw pieces of flesh flying in the air,” a witness told army radio.
Several point here. Despite what the BBC alleges, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terror group is an integral part of the Fatah organisation, led by Mahmoud Abbas. So why does the BBC try to distance it from their favourite “man of peace”, the holocaust denier Abbas, by claiming it is some sort of “violent off-shoot”? Next, this is a SAVAGE terrorist attack. The frequency of it is neither here nor there. By suggesting this is a rare event (which it isn’t since Palestinians have carried out many homicide bomber attacks over the years) it is in danger of being seen to try and somehow ameliorate the barbarism and naked hatred that lay behind this outrage. Finally, I note that both Hamas and Fatah get to comment on this, both of them predictably explaining that the bad Jews brought it upon themselves. Curiously, comment from the Israeli government is missing. Fair and balanced????
p.s I also note that the BBC initial report makes no mention of those other people who were injured and traumatised by this vicious act of terrorism. More amelioration?
Update by Natalie:The word “rare” has now been stealth-edited out.
Biodegradable’s Ghost | 04.02.08 – 6:18 pm
The BBC doesn’t show us this:
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/sl…1478808195.jpg/
Why not?
Actually the BBC does show this. You mention it yourself in Biodegradable’s Ghost | 04.02.08 – 5:18 pm http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7220000/newsid_7226300/7226313.stm?bw=nb&mp=rm&asb=1&news=1&bbcws=1
The BBC even uses the headline Terror returns to Israel although they blot their copybook slightly by the phrase described as a senior militant – by whom?
Robin…Bias oozes from all your leftie pores.Why are Palestians murdered but Israelis killed? Tosser!
Robin | 04.02.08 – 6:49 pm
The Israelis have murdered 15 Palestinians for every Israeli killed.
How many Israelis would you prefer the Palestinians to kill?
Intriguing BBCesque use of language, Robin. Israelis have murdered -loaded language vs. Israeli killed – neutral language.
Are you sure you’re not a plant to make certain defenders of the BBC look as biased in their choice of language as possible? Take heart, you may be a ‘rare’ plant.
The Israelis have murdered 15 Palestinians for every Israeli killed.
Robin | 04.02.08 – 6:49 pm
Israel has killed 15 Palestinians for every Israeli murdered.
There, fixed.
jeffD | 04.02.08 – 6:54 pm
SNAP 🙂
Reith ‘Or are you going to go all David Vance on me and claim a cabal of senior editors with a visceral bias against Israel gathered at dead of night and after ‘carefully considering’ the range of possible headlines, chose this one so as to do the most damage to the Zionist cause?’…….Well yes!
deegee | 04.02.08 – 6:51 pm
The BBC does not show that still or mention “Palestinians” celebrating the attack by handing out sweets and flowers in it’s web site report.
Robin; the point isn’t who kills the most people. It’s about the BBC calling the most recent of many suicide attacks “rare”.
Somebody finally woke up!
Israeli killed in suicide bombing
Are you happy Robin? That Israeli wasn’t murdered according to you and the BBC, just ‘killed’.
Obligatory bottom line:
Israel argues that restrictions it imposes on about four million Palestinians in Gaza and large parts of the occupied West Bank are crucial in preventing such attacks, though the blockades have been condemned as “collective punishment” by the UN.
… the R word has gone now.
Biodegradable’s Ghost | 04.02.08 – 6:57 pm
Israel has killed 15 Palestinians for every Israeli murdered.
There, fixed.
Regrettably, wars involve killing people. Usually the side that kills the most of the other side’s armed combatants wins. Israelis are quite aware that the explosive belt wearing Palestinian; the expensive suited Palestinian who sends him and the T shirted 14 yr old Palestinian traveling in the car taken out by the IDF are all people.
BioD, don’t make a joke of it. Robin, I will try not to be rude but your amateur use of dubious statistics does you no credit.
This is a comment that I sent to the BBC’s Robin Lustig blog, the specific blog was entitled ‘Gaza Breakout’.
At 12:02 PM on 27 Jan 2008, Joseph (Maastricht) wrote: At last a blog on the BBC which allows all sides of the story to be heard, the first time I have ever read an article on the BBC which does not portray Hamas as some kind of romantic group of freedom fighters.
The blockade by Israel cannot be supported, however, I have yet to hear the Guardianistas coming up with a solution to stop the continued rocket attacks on Israel.
From my perspective this entire saga has been a clear attempt at propaganda by Hamas, the fact that the BBC had to tone down its own reports showed that the BBC overplayed its anti-Israeli bias, it took Al Jazz to actually provide real balance in the initial reporting.
The BBC also failed to report the fact that Egypt suffered numerous injuries and some deaths to its border police due to Hamas gunmen shooting at them, if it had been Israeli troops doing the firing we could have expected Bowen to be on all BBC news reports telling us all about it, yet because it was Muslim shooting Muslim the BBC failed to report it, what a shocking indictment of BBC bias.
I also note that the BBC has managed to win its appeal against releasing the Balen report, again the stench of anti-Israeli reporting seems to grow.
………………………………
This morning I read the BBC website and saw the lead headline was ‘Rare Suicide Bombing hits Israel’, this headline proves beyond doubt to me that the BBC is either A, Anti-Israeli in it’s reporting or B, Needs to release the Balen report to prove that this is not the case.
Shocking headline and a huge jolt to my belief that the BBC is broadly impartial.
Glad you lot woke up and took the bait.
“fucking” “Lefty” “Twat”…that sort of language denies those people the right to argue in a civilzed way and I trust doesn’t typify the attackers of the British Braodcasting Corporation.
Supposedly this blog is a protest about what some see as a bias, however I see it as a front for a rag tag group of folk who:
Really think the BBC is biased.
Cannot see that all media is biased, most far more than Auntie.
Object to paying a fee for the BBC.
Hate Palestinians and Gazans and Lebanese and Egyptians and Jordaniens etc.
Defend Israel for better or for worse
Defend Israel for better or for worse
Defend Israel for better or for worse
I really wonder if this is an Israeli funded site.
I really wonder if this is an Israeli funded site.
Robin | 04.02.08 – 7:34 pm |
LOL, of course – you are finally on to us. It is all ziocon/nazi-israel/bushitler conspiracy.
Robin,
The fact that your comments are allowed to be published on this site shows how flacid your argument is.
I have made it perfectly clear that in my opinion the BBC is broadly impartial, however, with headlines that demean the Israeli suffering it has forced me to take a step back and re-evaluate my opinion of the BBC.
Israel has clearly carried out actions that cannot be defended, and at the same time so has Hamas, Fatah etc, neither side can claim the moral high ground, yet the BBC seems (again my opinion) to feel that attacks against Israel and it’s citizens is not as bad as IDF attacks against Palastinian terrorists.
Finally Robin, remember we are talking about innocent citizens, and personal views on the Middle East should not allow us to distract from this fact.
deegee | 04.02.08 – 7:11 pm
I most certainly wasn’t making a joke about anything.
I’ll accept that targeted assassinations of terrorists may be classed as murder, it is after all the intentional taking of a life, any civilians killed on those occasions are unfortunate casualties of war. But I insist that every single Israeli ever killed by “Palestinians” has been murdered, no doubt about it.
Dear oh dear. Robin, Robin.
Only a troll would try and claim the moral high ground then totally undermine their position by quoting dubious at best statistics which include those Palestinians murdered for want of a better word by their own side. Namely ‘innocent’ bysiders such as children who are encouraged to play on missile launching sites or beaches where Palestinian munitions are stored. Also I wonder how many Palestinians have been killed by the Lebanese Army recently which the BBC and the lefties seem to have forgotten about…?
Not many around here defend Israel for better or worse (unlike the BBC and the likes of leftie trolls who defend Islam to the hilt despite Islam being a far worse enemy to the left, gays and women than fascism!). We prefer to point out cases where we perceive the reporting is unbalanced or biased. On occasion we have also praised BBC reporting when they get it right.
Your own narrow mind that refuses to accept that that might be another side to the Israeli/Palestinian story and intolerance shines with every word you write. I believe Israel has to be the first country to occupy and then GIVE BACK lands without gaining anything in return except increased rockets attacks! I’ve worked with the IDF during Gulf War 1 doing liaison (dodging Scuds in Tel Aviv and elsewhere) and to be frank some of them are really arrogant and annoying to work with! But then they are under a constant stage of attack as well. Any chance you could see their point of view?
Now go away and try and get some real facts and figures on BOTH sides and engage in the debate rather than trying to be a clever clogs will you? Thanks.
Oh well, it only took ten hours. That’s the beauty of online news; it can update you minute by minute. Worth noting that the £3.5 billion BBC was entirely alone among news groups in having trouble producing a straight-forward headline for this story.
Yeah, this is an Israeli-funded site. My name is Col. Avi Goldberg and I’m a Mossad agent. Don’t worry, I’ll come quietly. What’s next?
Robin, I only speak for myself and do not attempt to encompass all the posters here with any overall description. For what its worth:
Really think the BBC is biased.
Agreed
Cannot see that all media is biased, most far more than Auntie.
You do not appear to have read much on this site or you would know that many people who comment here, myself included are well aware that most of the media are biased. So! There is no law against it – Ah, oh yes there is the BBC Charter which makes Auntie very, very different. It has a statutory duty to be objective. Hence this site.
Object to paying a fee for the BBC.
Not me guv, I would be happy to pay a fee for the BBC just as I pay a fee to Mr Murdoch. What I object to is paying a poll tax over which as a ‘customer’ I have no control, and then being bombarded with biased output in flagrant disregard of the Charter obligation.
I also think Israel is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
Robin | 04.02.08 – 7:34 pm |
I have an alternative suggestion for you. This blog is a rag tag group of people who:
Really think the BBC has many biased, actually misinformed, employees.
Can well see that all media is biased in some way, none of which are the government sanctioned official national broadcaster of the country.
Object to being forced to pay a fee for the BBC, even if it does not speak to them, when it promotes a socialist or collectivist or totalitarian agenda, when it actively insults them, and does not represent their views, even if they never, ever watch or listen to it. (And foreigners who object to having the minds of their friends – and their children and grandchildren – corrupted by bias, and/or being submitted to propaganda and attempts to influence the national elections of a sovereign nation by the official national broadcaster of an allied country, paid for unwillingly by the taxpayers of said allied country.)
Hate Palestinians and Gazans and Lebanese and Egyptians and Jordaniens etc., who do not, in fact, want peace with Jews but do want to exterminate the lot of them (or at least work hand in hand with those who do), teach that to their children, broadcast it on their television shows, and put it in the charter of their organizations.
Defend the right of Israeli Jews to live without fear of extermination, for better or worse.
Defend the right of Israeli Jews to defend themselves from extermination, for better or worse.
Defend the right of Jews in the rest of the world, especially region in which the BBC is available, to live without fear of violence against themselves and their families being incited by the BBC’s demonization of Israel, for better or worse.
Or does that not jibe with what they taught you at Bournemouth Poly?
Robin:
“I wonder whether Israel’s theft of its neighbours’ lands has anything to do with the indignation of these suicide attackers.”
Robin | 04.02.08 – 5:56 pm | #
Robin, this and your subsequent remarks are an embarrassment to yourself.
The people defending Israel against BBC anti-Israel bias start from the assumption that we have reasonable knowledge of the subject. You may have absorbed the BBC’s output, or your passion may come from elsewhere, but you are cringe-makingly ill-informed and your contribution underlines the damage misinformation does, and makes our point for us.
Robin “Cannot see that all media is biased, most far more than Auntie.”
Actually, I don’t think that’s true. I think both Reuters and Sky do a better job of balanced reporting overall, and on any number of stories I’d go with the broadsheets to give me a less partial take on things.
Robin,
Seeing as you can’t be bothered to do the simplest thing and actually read the blog you comment on I’m not certain why I should waste my time answering you, but I will just this once for others enlightenment.
“Really think the BBC is biased”
Yes I do, it is.
“Cannot see that all media is biased, most far more than Auntie.”
Totally irrelevant, actually I can see that all media is biased, but the state broadcaster has a legal duty not to be, the BBC is in a different position to the other media in the UK. Even the BBC apologists know that, it seems its just you who doesn’t get it.
“Object to paying a fee for the BBC.”
No, object to paying a compulsory fee enforced by fine, criminal record and eventual imprisonment. If the BBC were good enough and priced competitively I would consider subscribing as I do to Sky, only at the moment it certainly isn’t.
“Hate Palestinians and Gazans and Lebanese and Egyptians and Jordaniens etc.
Defend Israel for better or for worse
Defend Israel for better or for worse
Defend Israel for better or for worse
I really wonder if this is an Israeli funded site.”
This ridiclous slander is so pathetic that I wonder if you are funded by by a state in the middle east that wishes for Israel’s annihilation, Iran perhaps?
That’s enough of answering your trolling, if you can’t do better no doubt the moderators will have you banned off, I’m not wasting another moment of life on you.
Just noticed they’ve changed the title of hte story….Sorry if someone else has already said this….
At last! A little intelligent response.
Joe has some good points worthy of respect.
Bio. Agreed Israelis have been murdered. I stand corrected with my lax use of language.
Gibby. Very droll.
Arthur Dent. Good posting.
Dave T. Oh dear! Calling me names again. At last someone talks about Israel occupying others’ lands. However occupying the Gaza Strip then withdrawing doesn’t gain any points Dave. Shouldn’t have attacked in the first place. Israel might get some faint praise when it withdraws from the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Sheeba farms and East Jerusalem–all stolen lands. Until then Israel is clearly an agressive expansionist state.
Dave P. Same old, Same old. Nothing original here.
Interestingly you only defend Israeli Jews’ right to live in peace…what about the many Israeli non Jews, Dave?
You wouldn’t happen to be a Zionist would you?
So what is wrong with the BBC being paid for by what amounts to general taxation? Are you unaware that your government receives bribes (err…lobbying) from AIPAC? Is that democracy? US Politicians who receive hard cash from lobbyists are understandably beholden to them.
Israel well deserves its bad reputation I´m afraid.
Has Highhunt returned under an alias?
Please, everyone, ignore the troll.
All of the stuff about the ‘stolen’ lands can be cleared up by reading palestinefacts.org as opposed to something like prisonplanet.com or whatreallyhappened.com, but regarding the AIPAC thing, here’s something I wrote about that a few weeks ago on digg.com:
‘Where did this myth about the ‘Z0MG Israel lobbyz!!1!’ being the biggest special interest group in Washington come from anyway? Is it the product of the same type of thinking that leads some people to assert that the Jews are responsible for all of the wars and the other bad things to’ve happened in the history of humanity including that time you were pootling along on your BMX with Soundwave (the Transformer) clipped to your belt, pretending he was a real Walkman, and you went over a bump, and Soundwave fell to the floor and got scratched to shit, and you went into a deep funk for a few weeks ‘cos he was your favourite? Is it just Anti-Semitism?
According to opensecrets.org the biggest special interest groups/lobbying sector is Finance/Insurance/Real Estate, which spent $258M in the last election cycle (2006). Then comes the Ideology/Single-Issue – which the groups which make up AIPAC belong to – which spent $227M in the last election cycle. Of that $227M, the Pro-Israel groups spent $10.8M in donations, 4.8% of the total, ranking it 34th overall. 34th. Over the past nine election cycles, going back to 1990, it’s ranked, on average, 37th. 37th out of one sector (granted, the second largest) of all of the sectors of special interest groups.
Or maybe if you count groups which happen to have an employee who is either Jewish or of Jewish parents or who has Jewish ancestry somewhere in their family tree working for them as being part of the Pro-Israel lobby. That might just work. So for example, if every lobby and special interest group has at least one Jew (or person of Jewish heritage) working for them, then that’d make the entire lobbying and special interest industry Pro-Israel, which’d bring it in line with the accusations from the Anti-Semites.’
Lobbying – whether you agree with it or not – is integral to the US political process. Are you saying that the Jews should be barred from participating?
If ‘Zionist’ means someone who supports the creation and maintanence of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East – and it does – then yeah, I’m a Zionist.
By the way, I really am a Mossad agent. Tango-whiskey-foxtrot.
(NB, B-BBCers: Anyone bored with the Israel trip should scroll down to the section in bold)
Robin | 04.02.08 – 8:44 pm
Interestingly you only defend Israeli Jews’ right to live in peace…what about the many Israeli non Jews, Dave?
You wouldn’t happen to be a Zionist would you?
Interestingly, you are unaware that non-Jewish Israelis are not, and never have been, in any danger. Nobody is planning the extermination of non-Jewish Israelis. You are mistaken. While there is admittedly some discrimination against them in the work place, they serve in the military and in Parliament without impediment. Equally interesting is that you seem to believe that non-Jewish Israelis are somehow endangered by the Jewish ones.
I can be considered a Zionist, by some definitions of the term, yes. You use that term as a pejorative, obviously. I bet you believe that Zionism equals genocide, right? Speaks volumes. Come see the bias inherent in the system.
So what is wrong with the BBC being paid for by what amounts to general taxation? Are you unaware that your government receives bribes (err…lobbying) from AIPAC? Is that democracy? US Politicians who receive hard cash from lobbyists are understandably beholden to them.
Oh dear. You seem to admit that the BBC is biased towards government policy,and is thus a mouthpiece for it because that’s where the money comes from. Anyone else want to pile on here?
Aside from that, my government does not enforce a specific tax to pay for any national broadcaster. My government does allocate money out of my taxes to spend on arts and the Public Broadcasting System and NPR, but those are not the official broadcasting network of my country. If my countrymen and I object to taxes paying for biased crap put on PBS or NPR, we can complain to our congressmen. This can occasionally affect what taxpayer money is spent on.
So what if AIPAC lobbies my government? That has nothing whatsoever to do with any news propaganda supporting and encouraging any government policy, no matter who pays for it. There is no national broadcaster paid for by my taxes. Your argument is completely baseless here. It does smell a bit of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, though. Charming. If you are a BBC employee, then everyone needs to be even more concerned.
Israel well deserves its bad reputation I´m afraid.
Deserving of a bad reputation, or a deserving of destruction and extermination? Which one do you really mean, Robin? I wonder if, when a couple million Jews are wiped off the planet by a nuclear attack from Muslims, you would shed even as many tears as Barbara Plett did when Arafat was airlifted to hospital. I wonder if you have one tenth the concern for the physical safety of British Jews as you do for non-Jews living in Israel or the surrounding territories? Come on, Robin, spell it all out for us. Tell us what you really think should happen.
Gibby Haynes | 04.02.08 – 9:16 pm |
I too am with the Mossad, although under double-secret probation. My call sign is Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot. WTF? for short.
The huge omission that it is in fact the so called ‘Apartheid Wall’ that has in the past protected ordinary Israelis from murder and mayhem, is almost criminal!
And to imply that such a rare event is due to the peaceful nature of Fatah!
In the past Jews were forced to pay taxes to those who sought to destroy them. Today they pay the BBC.
Actually Robin (like the crap BBC series which starred his namesake) is getting boring now. Almost too much like hillhunt in fact….so I intend to ignore the silly chap. Doubtless he will get shriller and sillier in his attempts to wind people up….very sad.
‘Where did this myth about the ‘Z0MG Israel lobby!!1!’
In the minds of the self important ,arrogant liberal BBC types who imagine they hail from the seventh Heaven of enlightenment it is important to inflate the “power” of Jews everywhere so thy can never qualify again as “Victims”. So they distribute “protocol” type material about “Lobbies”, “Jewish cabals” secretly running the world for their own greedy aspirations.
This type of conspiratorial propaganda is nectar to the brain dead as we have seen from the Kennedy assassination to ‘Bush was behind 911,’ -VIA prince Phillip had Diana done in.
Nothing would hurt the western Israeli haters more than Jews being once more regarded as victims of western and Islamic oppression, so the Pals must remain the “Victims of all victims” and the Jews as a sinister powerful group who hide their immense power.
In the end such ideas will bite those shameful British pseudo intellectuals who also invariably prostrate themselves before Islamic supremacism in the ass as we see the Islamization of the UK jump into another gear.
“I really wonder if this is an Israeli funded site.”
They got good value, then. Blogger is free.
The BBC, its clones and a history lesson.
Robin wrote;
“At last someone talks about Israel occupying others’ lands. However occupying the Gaza Strip then withdrawing doesn’t gain any points Dave. Shouldn’t have attacked in the first place. Israel might get some faint praise when it withdraws from the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Sheeba farms and East Jerusalem–all stolen lands. Until then Israel is clearly an agressive expansionist state.”
Interesting you base your illegal occupation by Israel on the 4 examples you quote. (actually its 2 as Sheeba is part of the Golan and Jerusalam is part of the West Bank) and please don’t quote Wiki if you reply as their entry has Sheeba as part of Lebanon , which is strange as only Hezbollah used that example in which to wage war and thus carry weapons. The UN says it belongs to Syria and thus is part of the Golan)
But anyway back to the History lesson. The Jews were the first people to set up shop in the Levent and call it home. In fact they did so around 2000 years before Mohamed woke up drunk in a cave (with a sore arse) and invented a new religion in which to explain just where he had been. After meeting the ancestor of a BBC radio presenter the night before (Hence the reason why Islam hates Alcohol, women and gays)
Now if the Jews were there first that disables any claim Muslims have, Now remind me again just when Islam arrived in the region.
But it gets better. You talk about the West Bank, yet if you read any historical accounts of the 1967 war, it was the one place where Israel was attacked. Yes matey. While the Jews got the first punch in with Eygpt. The Jordanians pitched in while the IDF were going head to head far to the West. Read how troops had to be redeployed from the front line in School busses in which to stem the advance of the Jordanian army (the best in the region and the only ones who bloodied the IDF in those 6 days) in other words the Jews were attacked. If Jordan hadn’t attacked they wouldn’t have lost the West Bank.
As for your claim of Israel’s aggressive stance. Read up on how Nasser and Assad were planning to kick the jew into the sea once and for all.
Read up on how they build up their armies, how Nasser sent his armies into the Sinai, how he blockaded Israel by sea. How he asked Iraq to send the 8th Armoured div (which fought at Damiya bridge) Lets not forget the Saudi Forces who for some reason stopped at the border and refused to take part in the fighting.. But best of all, read up on the Egyptian Operation Dawn scheduled for the 27th of May 1967. 8 days before the 5th of June 1967. On that day Eygpt was ready to launch an attack on Israel, yet at the last minute bottled out after 6 officers got lost and ended up in Israeli hands hours before the attack. So much for Israel being an aggressive expansionist state.
What people like you forget is that the Israeli actions were pre-emptive, and why were they pre-emptive because the Russians had spun a lie to both Eygpt and Syria that Israel was going to invade Syria. So both countries bought lots of Russian weapons invited their friends along for the ride and told the whole world that Israel was going bye,bye.
Now here’s a salient point always omitted by the jew hater, Israel after the success of the 6 day war offered all the land it had won back to the Arabs on the condition they recognised the state of Israel. But at the Arab conference of 1967 in Khartoum the answer back to Israel was the infamous 3 NOs.
NO peace with Israel
NO recognition of Israel
NO negotiations with Israel
That closed the door on any prospect for peace until round 4 in 1973 where the Arabs states did get the first punch in, but ended up losing even more land to Israel.
As I mentioned yesterday to somebody who waxed lyrical about the Liberal version of history that they try to pass off as fact.. Some of us sad gits on this board have read up on the history of the region not only that but some of us have actually lived in the region and thus read up on the history in order to better understand just why people just can’t live in peace there.
Please feel free to reply.
During the Second Intifada, when the security barrier was in its early stages, some BBC hack arrived at the aftermath of a suicide bombing. This is how he reported the reaction of the Israelis at the scene:
They were quick to blame the lack of a wall for the attack.
Only someone steeped in anti-Israel bias could write that of people who had just witnessed the horrific aftermath of terror.
Well, that biased, judgemental hack has been proven wrong regarding the effectiveness of the wall in preventing terror.
I learned today that a fence is going to be built along the Israel-Egypt border. I almost expect negative reports on that barrier from the BBC.
For those from the BBC I want to sum up this thread:
A true classic of misguided pro-Islamist and blatantly anti-Israel pseudo-journalism appeared in form of an article on the bbcnews.com after the suicide attack in Dimona.
The full text of the original is here for posterity:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/7990691462160730650/#382989
It was probably written by a junior editor – a braindead Leftoid, or possibly a misguided member of RoP.
We correctly predicted that it is going to stay on the site until a senior editor sees it and decides it is a bit overboard: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/7990691462160730650/#382986
The fact that, at the end, it was silently edited to a much more moderate article, proves beyond reasonable doubt that at least some senior people within the BBC know when something is wrong.
However they do not have either the courage or the inclination to post a retraction with an apology and to force a change of the BBC culture.
Nothing new here. Just another work day at the BBC.
HonestReporting noticed Al beeb’s original headline:
BBC Minimizes Suicide Attack
Includes a link to a list of other rare suicide attacks:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hN-kNF9mk2HrLtmhdAIKz1WNK7OAD8UJK5QG5
A piece for Robin to chew on:
Hamas Leader Absolves Occupation
Dr Azzam Tammimi commentates on the suicide bombing on BBC news 24.
“The Israelis have to agree to release prisoners, and have to agree a truce”.
Yup. Showing true balance in BBC usual style. No Israelis asked to comment.
And we have to pay for this garbage.
Alan you may like to keep these links;
http://bp0.blogger.com/_Gf65NLuwWsU/R6cMAlyd76I/AAAAAAAAAYk/KMGTKZTz33Y/s1600-h/Image4.jpg
http://bp2.blogger.com/_Gf65NLuwWsU/R6cMLFyd77I/AAAAAAAAAYs/gdjtY1Pu9KM/s1600-h/Image5.jpg
Alan may like to bookmark this too:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/94341/diff/8/9
note that there were a couple of early versions that didn’t say “rare”.
We really must insist that the BBC STOP using this weasel word ‘Militant’ to describe terrorists. The word ‘militant’ has a prfectly good and positive historical sense in ‘the Church Militant’ to describe Christians alive in this world resisting evil, as opposed to ‘the Church Triumphant’.
A person who deliberately sets out to blow him- or herself up and thereby indiscriminately kill civilians is not a ‘militant’ (i.e. a soldier in combat with another army) but plainly one employing the tactics of terror.
It is nothing but dishonest obfuscation to say otherwise.
Edna | 05.02.08 – 1:29 am,
Interesting that Tamimi is on the BBC right after the suicide bombing. A few years back he was interviewed by Tim Sebastian on Hardtalk. Sebastian pinned him down and got him to admit his support for suicide bombing and that he (Tamimi) would carry out a suicide bombing himself on behalf of the Palestinians. Sebastian asked why he didn’t, then. Tamimi tried to squirm out of that one by saying that he wasn’t allowed into Palestine.
Tamimi is a Hamas supporter who propagandises endlessly for terror. He was on a World Service HYS Hamas vs Fatah programme last year that was so weighted in favour of Hamas that Fatah hardly got an oar in. (The Hamas groupie Crooke whatshisname was on the same programme.)
So here’s the question: Does Tamimi simply have automatic access to the BBC whenever he feels the need to spout some pro-terror propaganda? Did he simply pick up the phone and tell the BBC that he wanted to talk about the suicide bombing? And did the BBC simply say, “Yes, sir, when would be convenient for you,” or did the BBC initiate the contact?
Those prepared to grit their teeth and observe pure evil trying to justify itself and pass itself off as something reasonable can watch the Hardtalk interview here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/04/hardtalk/altamimi02nov.ram
Don’t watch it after a big breakfast.
Sometimes this site really opens my eyes. Until I read this thread I hadn’t realised that right and wrong could be measured strictly by the number of fatalities: more Palestinians die than Israelis, thus we know that the Palestinian cause is just and Israel is evil. I can see how much sense this principle makes now: more German soldiers and civilians died in WWII than their British counterparts, so I think we need to recognise that the UK was clearly the aggressor, and a rogue illegitimate state while we’re at it. Similarly, while the occasional policeman gets killed on duty or kidnapped, just look at how many criminals have been killed or held in prisons down the years – maybe if some of these prisoners were released we wouldn’t see so much crime on our streets! No wonder criminals are angry when they see so many of their colleagues imprisoned.
Oh Robin – to think that you sit there looking for replies worthy of your great intelligence. You muppet.
Bryan | 05.02.08 – 7:43 am |
Can’t seem to get that link to work.
glj,
This might work:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/3985403.stm
I think these old BBC programmes only work on Real Player so if you don’t have it you have to download it.
Here are the Tim Sebastian Hardtalk pages:
http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=programmesukfs&tab=programmes§ion=hardtalk&q=Tim+Sebastian&x=12&y=6
Anyone remember Red Robbo ?
Now he really was a militant
Ah yes, the Longbridge Brigade of the People’s Revolutionary movement. Wonder what happened to Robbo after the Soviet Empire cut his funding? Joined the BBC?
Frankly, now people remind me, I miss Hillhunt, the plonker without a clue.
Frankly, now people remind me, I miss Hillhunt, the plonker without a clue.
Phil | 05.02.08 – 10:38 am
I do wish you hadn’t said that!
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4376966130741263702/#383156
This is one of the best threads I’ve read for a while. Judging by his silence following the many good rebuttals of his comments, Robin is either
1. A horrible little troll intent on spoiling the board (think Korova), or
2. Someone who is genuinely surprised by some of the facts brought to light by this thread.
For what it’s worth, I’m inclined to believe that it’s the second option, for the simple reason that I once thought the same, because that’s what I was told by the media. Now at the time I wasn’t much of a political animal, and I forget what caused me to read up on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I can certainly remember how shocked I was when I found out the truth. I hope Robin is going through a similar experience now.
When I look at the BBC’s motivation in it’s often one-sided reporting, I just don’t see an organisation full of raging anti-Semites – though I have serious reservations on Bowen on that point. So why the pro-Palestinian coverage?
Here’s my take.
I don’t think even John Reith could argue that many at the BBC have a bit of a one-dimensional approach to people who are poor and oppressed. THey are always treated with the utmost respect, tend to be absolved of any blame, and it is usually the fault of the rich and privileged. So it is with Israel and Palestine. Israel’s greatest fault is that it has made a success of itself, against all odds, in an area where, shall we say, countries are not noted for their excellent GDP figures. They’ve built a thriving economy, a good defence force, and are at the forefront of innovation and invention worldwide. Some achievement in my opinion. The Palestinians, on the other hand, not to mention the Lebanese and the Syrians, are riddled with poverty, are poorly educated and struggle to provide even the most basic provisions for the people.
From what I have read, the Palestinians have been given serious amounts of money in aid, mostly from the USA, but rather than spend it developing their country, they spend it on black market weapons, missiles, and propaganda against the Jews. The reflexive reaction from many Beeboids, and from those on the Left, though, is to say: “Look at what the Israelis have got, now look at what the Palestinians have got, and all the Israelis can do is build a wall, occupy them and let them rot.” Of course this misses the point. Israel does provide Palestinians with healthcare, the wall would not be there if it wasn’t for the incessant attacks by people over the border, and the territories would not be “occupied” had the Arabs not started, then lost a war. (Oh and why on Earth should Israel give the territories back – surely that passes a message on that it’s ok to attack them because if you lose, we’ll give you everything back anyway. An invitation to attack again if ever I heard one).
We hear the same from the BBC elsewhere. Africa, for example, where, instead of examining the corruption of the African governments (well, until they start with the genocide anyway), we are given a constant guilt trip about how we could all “do more”. Like what? Poor yet more money into the corrupt coffers of murderous tyrants; yeah that’ll work. Even this week we hear about how many Scottish children live in poverty – the definition of which appears to be, to paraphrase Peter Kay, that they have to make do with a car each, are allowed only one holiday a year that they have to book on teletext, and that they have to drink Roller-Cola instead of proper Coke. Once again it’s spun as the rich peoples’ fault. We hear it with crime, where burglary and muggings are spun as desperate acts brought on by poverty.
Sorry to digress, but Israel’s fault is that it’s made something of itself. If it were a poor basket-case, do you think we’d hear so much about it? Me neither.