It’s always heartening when an Islamist terrorist warlord gets sent to paradise and the waiting 72 virgins a little ahead of schedule and so it is that the death of Imad Mughniyeh, who has died in a bombing in Damascus, is welcome news. Mughniyeh was a senior terrorist within Hezbollah, and his death has seen him eulogised him as a “jihadist” and as a “martyr” by those who hate Jews and Americans. This monster was involved in a series of bombings that took the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of people. And yet, the BBC headline describes him as a “top Hizbollah leader.” The BBC studiously avoids describing him as a terrorist because as we know that would be judgemental and that would never do. The BBC lets itself down by shying away from calling terrorists by their proper name. In failing in its’ duty to accurately describe Mughniyeh the BBC conveys spurious credibility on this evil man. It’s moral relativism and it is rampant in the BBC.
ONE LESS TERRORIST, ONE MORE EUPHEMISM.
Bookmark the permalink.
We saw the same weasly words with the obituary of george habash. that obit failed IMO to convey the evil of that the PFLP (GC) did. The same goes for Mughniyeh.
the beeb was told in a may 2006 report by an independent panel to use the “T” word but still will not do so and famously did not even on 7/7.
Funny how the “HYS” about this car bomb has disappeared. Last time I looked the responses were not BBC-friendly so they probably removed it in the fair and balanced way that the BBC remove any HYS that doesn’t conform to their right-think (or in their case left-think or anything which offends ROPers).
The New York Times has outdone even the BBC’s headline writers:
Bomb in Syria Kills Militant Sought as Terrorist
Tony T:
it’s here, although I’m not sure it’s the one you mean:
Hezbollah military commander is killed in Syria: Your views
if not more since the late Mughniyeh was never convicted of terrorism?????
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 14.02.08 – 3:49 pm
Clearly suicide bombers are never terrorists. The 72 virgins waiting for them would never put-out for a criminal.
“So by your standard then, it would not be accurate to describe Adolf Hitler as a war criminal or mass murderer since he never had his day in court.”
German National Leader,”Angry Young Adolf”.
Hugh posted:
“The Lebanese group, Hezbollah says one of its top leaders, Imad Mughniyeh, has died in a bombing in Damascus, and has blamed Israel for assassinating him.”
“Group”? What does that tell you. It’s a bad piece of journalism forced on readers because the BBC is worried about offending people who share the views of George Galoway. If you don’t know the background (and a lot sadly don’t) the opening paragraph makes it read like Israel have knocked off the chief exec of an NGO.
———————————-
I completely agree with what Hugh posted earlier. In my opinion, if the BBC omits the term ‘terrorist’ from a description of someone or some group which is worthy of the term, then it is bias. Why is it bias? Well, I think they are terrorists. X however doesn’t think they are terrorists. If the BBC omits the term terrorist from the article, it appears to me that the BBC is siding with X and his view, and ignoring me and my view. That is bias. The BBC are not being neutral by avoiding the use of the term, as they are alienating the viewpoint of millions of licence payers who think they are terrorists – and that is bias.
David:
“a cold-blooded killer, a mass murderer and a terrorist responsible for countless innocent lives lost”.
seems to sum him up pretty well, and this is a fitting epitaph:
“The world is a better place without this man in it,”
Exactly as in the original article.
Now, I really am off for a bit, too much wind-up stuff going on.
“So by your standard then, it would not be accurate to describe Adolf Hitler as a war criminal or mass murderer since he never had his day in court.”
Not 100% accurate no. Even describing Adolf Eichmann as a war criminal would only be around 98-99% because there may possibly have been a mistrial. In fact I challenge you to beat 99.9999% with anything. But with history this sort of thing is academic. With current affairs neutrality is more pressing and there is nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution in the absence of a conviction.
“The Lebanese group, Hezbollah says one of its top leaders, Imad Mughniyeh, has died in a bombing in Damascus, and has blamed Israel for assassinating him.”
This is a fairly poor show. ‘Paramilitary group’ would have been fine. But this is probably to save space and because they assume most people who read the Middle East section know what Hezbollah do, and those that don’t will have found out by the end of the article.
Angry Alex says:
“In fact I challenge you to beat 99.9999% with anything.”
Well I can come up with plenty of things to beat those odds. Most constants of the physical universe are known to an accuracy of at least 6 decimal places worth of certainty… Want more? Go and get a science education…
Even describing Adolf Eichmann as a war criminal would only be around 98-99% because there may possibly have been a mistrial. In fact I challenge you to beat 99.9999% with anything. But with history this sort of thing is academic.
I’d be interested to know what you think about the Holocaust.
On second thoughts, no I wouldn’t.
Talking about the Holocaust…
Apology over Holocaust statement
A council chief has apologised after writing that anyone who “slags off” the authority could be ranked with those who deny the Holocaust.
…
“When taken in context, I would be surprised if people were to take offence at my comments, but if some have, I apologise unreservedly.”
Mr Jones was supported by Amshid Ahmadi, chairman of the council’s Black and Minority Ethnic Employees Network.
He said: “Alan is right to equate the views of those denying the progress of the council in providing excellent services to the people of Somerset with those denying facts demonstrated by the most basic historical evidence.”
The council, which employs more than 17,000, added it had received many comments of support for Mr Jones.
Of course we need to look at other sources to see that not all comments received were of support:
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144125&command=displayContent&sourceNode=232510&home=yes&more_nodeId1=232470&contentPK=19872858
Labour MP Louise Ellman, vice- chairman of the All-Party Britain-Israel Parliamentary Group, told the WMN: “I think this is an outrageous comparison. It shows a severe lack of judgment and I hope he puts the record straight.”
Tory MP Ian Liddell-Grainger said: “I am disgusted that anybody should say anybody who criticises the county council are Holocaust deniers.
“The chief executive must have taken leave of his senses.”
Why am I not surprised?
The BBC, Mr Jones and Angry Young Alex; taking history with a pinch of salt, it’s what they do!
It was moral relativism that caused the extinction of the Dodo.
Joel Joel | Homepage | 14.02.08 – 9:33 am
When was the last time Greenpeace murdered innocent civilians for political purposes? Are you nuts?
Angry Young Alex: “But this is probably to save space…”
It’s an online article. I don’t think they’re struggling to make it fit, and if they’re worried about the length of the sentence they could have replaced the “and” with a full stop.
“In fact I challenge you to beat 99.9999% with anything.”
The chances of B-BBC comments having a completely off topic Israel/Palestine ‘debate’ in any given day.
Do I win £5 🙂
“I’d be interested to know what you think about the Holocaust.”
It didn’t happen and it should happen again. That what you wanted to hear?
Now, surely the fact that I estimated the probability Adolf Eichmann’s guilt in the high 90’s should be enough to tell you what my opinions are.
“The BBC, Mr Jones and Angry Young Alex; taking history with a pinch of salt, it’s what they do!”
Taking history with a pinch of salt is generally a good idea, especially the further back you go. Written by the victors and all that. Not to mention that for most of history, the viewpoint of the illiterate masses would not have survived more than a generation.
Funnily enough though, the Holocaust is one of the few where that maxim doesn’t apply, as due to the Germans’ meticulous record keeping, this part of history could be said to have been written by the losers.
“Angry Young Alex: “But this is probably to save space…”
It’s an online article. I don’t think they’re struggling to make it fit, and if they’re worried about the length of the sentence they could have replaced the “and” with a full stop.”
Sorry, didn’t make myself clear. This was for the preliminary blurb, which they would want to keep as snappy as possible. Since we are soon informed about what exactly this guy got up to in his lifetime, I don’t see the problem with the word ‘terrorist’ not being shoved down our throats from the word ‘go’.
Will the BBC’s chum, Ms. S. Chakrabarti of ‘Liberty’ be voluble on this?:-
“Italy: Muslim women literally living in chains, claims rights activist”
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.1876380527
“The murderous world of Imad MUGHNIYEH” in pictures (8):-
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/?storyID=17608
Re – 99.999% and all that stuff –
Here’s a media based drinking game that’s 100% guaranteed to get you sh*tfaced this weekend –
Drink one shot whenever…
• An opinion piece opens with the declaration, “You can’t criticize Israel without being accused of anti-semitism” (Note: Drink a second shot when the rest of the article inevitably degenerates into anti-semitism)
• Someone mentions the “cover-up” of the attack on the USS Liberty
• An author of a best-selling book criticizing Israel says that it’s impossible to publish a book or article criticizing Israel
etc, etc,
Rest here –
http://judeosphere.blogspot.com/2008/02/official-judeosphere-drinking-game-tm.html
Now, surely the fact that I estimated the probability Adolf Eichmann’s guilt in the high 90’s should be enough to tell you what my opinions are.
Indeed, it tells me that you admit a small possibility that Eichmann was innocent… you even talked about the possibility of a mistrial. That comes dangerously close to Holocaust denial in my books.
Taking history with a pinch of salt is generally a good idea, especially the further back you go. Written by the victors and all that. Not to mention that for most of history, the viewpoint of the illiterate masses would not have survived more than a generation.
I don’t call surviving an extermination camp “victory”.
If you were as old as I am it wouldn’t seem that far back. There are still people alive who were direct witnesses, and the 30 plus members of my family who disappeared were not abducted by aliens, neither were they nor am I part of “the illiterate masses”.
I told you that on second thoughts I wasn’t interested in your thoughts on the Holoacaust, in fact I’m not interested in your thoughts on anything.
Angry Young Alex: “This was for the preliminary blurb, which they would want to keep as snappy as possible.”
As I said, they could have used a full stop mid-way: “The Lebanese group, Hezbollah says one of its top leaders, Imad Mughniyeh, has died in a bombing in Damascus. It has blamed Israel for assassinating him.”
Two short sentences – very snappy. But, to be honest, if you don’t see there may be a problem where a professional journalist wants to give his readers some description of Hezbollah but feels compelled to plump for the almost meaningless label “the Lebanese group”, I give up.
Biodegradable’s Ghost | 16.02.08 – 12:31 pm
I think you misunderstand Angry Young Alex’s position on Eichmann and the Holocaust. If you follow his explosives-laden WTC logic, you’ll see that in fact all those documents with Eichmann’s name on them might really part of a back-up plan to move all the Jews and other problem groups into concentrated areas to save on resources. All part of a plan put in place years earlier to help the war effort in case things went bad for Germany later in the war. You know – worst-case scenario, last resort sort of thing.
He could have been forced to confess by nasty Americans who are notorious for using torture. Isser Harel could easily have been lying, which would be perfectly understandable considering his personal, emotional connection to the Holocaust. Even if Eichmann was involved, he was at least partially motivated by his own fear of being killed by Hitler if he didn’t do his job. A reasonable fear to have.
All of this could be on Angry Young Alex’s mind when he considers Eichmann’s guilt.
David Preiser (USA) | 16.02.08 – 4:03 pm
I find it curious that while Angry Young Alex claims that it’s not fair to claim that Hamas and Hezballah have committed war crimes because they haven’t actually stood trial on those charges, when it comes to Eichmann who did stand trial and was found guilty that’s still not good enough for our young interlocutor to accept his guilt as charged 100%.
I felt it necessary to point out that the history of the Holocaust is not written by the British and US “victors”, but is written in the concrete evidence of those spectacles, shoes and other personal belongings on display at Yad Vashem, the lamp shades made of human skin, the ovens, gas chambers and camps that still exist and of course the testimonies of the survivors.
But yes, perhaps living to tell the tale is the ultimate victory, and that’s exactly what sticks in some folk’s craw.
Three years on from the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and thanks to Syria’s lack of cooperation we’re no closer to knowing who was responsible, yet Syria already knows who killed ImaMadman Mughniyeh.
Syria ‘to name Mughniyeh killer’
“I told you that on second thoughts I wasn’t interested in your thoughts on the Holoacaust.”
This was obviously a lie as you read it and replied to it, and are obviously about to read this.
“Indeed, it tells me that you admit a small possibility that Eichmann was innocent… you even talked about the possibility of a mistrial. That comes dangerously close to Holocaust denial in my books.”
Isn’t a maximum chance of innocence of 2% a little small for Holocaust denial. Surely if I was the sort of person to think the whole thing had been faked, the probability of his innocence would be closer to 100%, if not 120% or 150%? In fact, knowing Holocaust deniers, I’d say 10 000% minimum.
“I don’t call surviving an extermination camp “victory”…If you were as old as I am it wouldn’t seem that far back. There are still people alive who were direct witnesses, and the 30 plus members of my family who disappeared were not abducted by aliens, neither were they nor am I part of “the illiterate masses”.
The fact that I’m writing something for you to read proves I don’t think you’re an illiterate. History, however, goes a little further back. I was actually referring to the little-known historical events before the twentieth century, for example the entire middle ages, where apart from the priesthood, a few aristocrats and the Jews, most of Europe was illiterate.
I also put in an entire paragraph explaining how oddly enough, the maxim of history being written by the victors applies far less to the Holocaust because the Germans kept such meticulous records.
If you read more than a third of the post before filling in the blanks, it makes a lot more sense.
This was obviously a lie as you read it and replied to it, and are obviously about to read this.
So now you’re calling me a liar!
Yes, I read this, but that doesn’t mean I’m interested in what you say. Is that too nuanced for you? (rhetorical question – no reply required)
History, however, goes a little further back. I was actually referring to the little-known historical events before the twentieth century, for example the entire middle ages, where apart from the priesthood, a few aristocrats and the Jews, most of Europe was illiterate.
You are a liar. We were talking specifically about Eichmann and his trial. Slippery little shit aren’t you?
I also put in an entire paragraph explaining how oddly enough, the maxim of history being written by the victors applies far less to the Holocaust because the Germans kept such meticulous records.
Yes that was part of their downfall. It should be a lesson to you too – be careful what you write because one day you’ll be called to account for it.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203019399008&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShow
The BBC,after comparing the terrorist,Mughniyeh,with Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese Prime minister as a great leader was obliged to apologise after a strong protest by an A.P reporter who called the comparison; ‘outrageous’ and ‘beyond belief’.
Actually the BBC said that ‘the scripting was ‘imprecise’ so obviously they still think he was a great leader.
Even though I do not have to pay a BBC tax anymore,(too old), it outrages me that the BBC is allowed its relentless bias.
“You are a liar. We were talking specifically about Eichmann and his trial. Slippery little shit aren’t you?”
Calm down, calm down, you’re getting awfully worked up for someone who’s not interested. Now we were talking about “taking history with a pinch of salt”. So I looked at the whole of history, most, if not all, of which should be examined with a healthy scepticism, and then related it to the specific incident we were discussing.
The other half, well, you’ve still not explained to me how 98-99% certainty of Eichmann’s guilt translates to Holocaust denial.
Now what was it I was lying about?
you’ve still not explained to me how 98-99% certainty of Eichmann’s guilt translates to Holocaust denial.
I said it came “dangerously close” to Holocaust denial.
Now what was it I was lying about?
we were talking about the Holocaust and Eichmann’s guilt – you claim that “I was actually referring to the little-known historical events before the twentieth century, for example the entire middle ages, where apart from the priesthood, a few aristocrats and the Jews, most of Europe was illiterate.”
No mention was made of anything pre-twentieth century, it’s a straw man you’ve invented now. You may have been thinking about but we certainly didn’t talk about, neither is it of any relevance to the Holocaust and Eichmann’s trial. You lie when you say it was part of the discussion.
To remind you, the specific incident we were discussing was this:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6016481029036475446/#385126
That’s quite enough troll food for you. You will not receive any more from me.
Goodbye.
“I said it came “dangerously close” to Holocaust denial.”
Really? I’d allow a 0.5-1% margin of error for any trial, and a 100% fair trial when accused of crimes as heinous as Eichmann’s is impossible.
“No mention was made of anything pre-twentieth century, it’s a straw man you’ve invented now.”
Someone mentioned “taking history with a pinch of salt.” They didn’t limit it to twentieth century history, but I did assume that was the relevant part. Hence my qualifiers of “the further back you go” and the exception I made for the Holocaust. If anything you seem to have made a straw man of my extension of history.
Anyway, troll food is goats.
“I said it came “dangerously close” to Holocaust denial.”
Really? I’d allow a 0.5-1% margin of error for any trial, and a 100% fair trial when accused of crimes as heinous as Eichmann’s is impossible.
“No mention was made of anything pre-twentieth century, it’s a straw man you’ve invented now.”
Someone mentioned “taking history with a pinch of salt.” They might have been talking about a grade A moron from whatever council that was, but they didn’t limit it to twentieth century history, though I did assume that was the relevant part. Hence my qualifiers of “the further back you go” and the exception I made for the Holocaust. If anything you seem to have made a straw man of my extension of history.
Anyway, troll food is goats.
Mandela is a terrorist too,but we have a statue to him,is this not glorification of terrorism?if i were to bomb somewhere ,would i be a terrorist?
If it was a non-military target and you did it for political ends, yes, you would. That’s what the word means.
Melanie Phillips has this on the BBC:
“Whoops! Auntie’s prejudices are showing”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/510726/whoops-aunties-prejudices-are-showing.thtml
“Since when does the BBC have a duty to use the word ‘terrorist’ when you feel like it? It has a duty to report stories in neutral, non-emotive language, ‘terrorist’, accurate or not, does not fit either bill.” — ROFL. What dumb nonsense. The beeboids NEVER report anything about Israel in ‘neutral, non-emotive language’; they ALWAYS show their anti-Israel bias.
“My “agenda” is to have a terrorist described as such. How is that in any way unreasonable????”
— don’t worry, David – anyone with half a brain cell knows who the tossers are on this board 😉
But can we have the header changed to ‘One –FEWER– mass-murdering Nazi’, please?
“But can we have the header changed to ‘One –FEWER– mass-murdering Nazi’, please?”
Now come on, not everybody that hates Jews is a Nazi. Islamic anti-Semitism alone dates back to before old Adolf was a twinkle in the milkman’s eye. And of course Christians, Romans and Ancient Egyptians all had a pop too before that.
“What dumb nonsense. The beeboids NEVER report anything about Israel in ‘neutral, non-emotive language’; they ALWAYS show their anti-Israel bias.”
As I asked Biodegradable’s Ghost, can you point me to just one incident of this happening. I can’t even find one on this blog.
Angry Young Alex | 20.02.08 – 10:40 am |
“What dumb nonsense. The beeboids NEVER report anything about Israel in ‘neutral, non-emotive language’; they ALWAYS show their anti-Israel bias.”
As I asked Biodegradable’s Ghost, can you point me to just one incident of this happening. I can’t even find one on this blog.
You’re so busy playing word games that you haven’t been paying attention. I’ll make it easy for you and give you four glaring examples that have been brought up on this blog:
1. Most recently we had the BBC comparing Hezbollah leader Mughniyeh to a democratically elected Lebanese PM, Rafik Hariri, saying both were “great national leaders”. This is both a lie and biased against Israel.
2. John Reith and I had an interesting discussion concerning the BBC’s refusal to admit to its viewers (or perhaps just willful ignorance) that Egypt had control over its own border with Gaza, thus always painting Israel as being a monster solely responsible for a tragic seige.
3. The CBBC website had it in their kiddie version of the attacks of 9/11 that Israeli Jews are the enemy of Islam.
4. Barbara Plett admitting to shedding a tear saying a couple words in praise as a dying Arafat was airlifted to a hospital.
There are many more examples that have been discussed on this blog. So many in fact that people got tired of the subject. So I say again, you are too busy playing games with everyone and not paying enough attention to reality. Or maybe you do see it and are just being a troll and looking for a fight with people who make you angry.
It’s time to reconsider your goals here.
As I asked Biodegradable’s Ghost, can you point me to just one incident of this happening. I can’t even find one on this blog.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 20.02.08 – 10:40 am
As David Preiser points out it seems you’re not even reading this blog. Practically all of my posts deal with the BBC¡s anti-Israel stance.
Here’s one example; the BBC’s coverage of the explosion in Gaza. AP and other sources mentioned Kassam rocket parts in the rubble indicating the possibility that the place was a factory or storehouse for rockets, the BBC ignored that and gave preference to calls for vengeance from the Arabs.
Even the “Palestinian” press was more honest about, including a warning not to store explosives in residential areas:
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=27856
Or how about bias by omission? No mention of this at al-Beeb:
Egyptian guards kill Sudanese man trying to cross into Israel
Syrian guards shoot and kill Lebanese farmer on border
While the Beeb reports the death of a “Palestinian” child as certainly the fault of Israel (“killed by Israel”) other sources report more neutrally and factually that the child died during a firefight.
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/02/20/per-version-the-supposed-shooting-of-a-palestinian-child/
Biodegradable, I didn’t ask about bias by omission or “praise” for Israel’s enemies. I asked specifically for examples of the use of negative language to refer to Israel, as would be comparable to referring to one of Israel’s adversaries as a ‘terrorist’.
“The CBBC website had it in their kiddie version of the attacks of 9/11 that Israeli Jews are the enemy of Islam.”
I assume you mean:
“America is seen to be sympathetic towards Jewish Israelis, so some Arabs and Muslims think America does not like or understand them.”
It does not at all mention enimity – indeed leaving out the antagonism between Israel and Arab states creates non-sequitur. In fact I can’t really see how this statement portrays Israel in any light, let alone a bad one.
“While the Beeb reports the death of a “Palestinian” child as certainly the fault of Israel (“killed by Israel”) other sources report more neutrally and factually that the child died during a firefight.”
Although this is more a case of factual error and ‘killed’ is a fairly neutral way of putting it, I concede this, unless a genuine mistake, does point to an anti-Israeli spin. That site doesn’t actually mention the BBC. Did you mean http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7253638.stm ?
Biodegradable, I didn’t ask about bias by omission or “praise” for Israel’s enemies. I asked specifically for examples of the use of negative language to refer to Israel, as would be comparable to referring to one of Israel’s adversaries as a ‘terrorist’.
Picky little git aren’t you? Good at shlepping red herrings into the argument too.
I really can’t see what you’re getting at. Israel’s “adversaries” ARE terrorists by and large and should be called by that name. Call Israel “terrorists” and you sound like somebody at CiF yelling about Bush=Hitler.
“America is seen to be sympathetic towards Jewish Israelis, so some Arabs and Muslims think America does not like or understand them.”
It does not at all mention enimity –
It’s for kids Alex! does not like… is enmity in kiddy talk.
Anyway don’t assume I mean anything, I’m getting the impression you’re addressing comments to me meant for somebody else… I haven’t said a word about any of the above before now.
Although this is more a case of factual error and ‘killed’ is a fairly neutral way of putting it, I concede this, unless a genuine mistake, does point to an anti-Israeli spin.
You are taking the piss, aren’t you?
Killed is not neutral; it implies what it says, and the facts do not support that claim. fer chrisakes man, you are the same person who wanted to give the benefit of the doubt to Eichmann yet are happy for unsubstantiated claims to be made about Israel – without a trial!
That site doesn’t actually mention the BBC. Did you mean http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7253638.stm ?
Yes, the BBC report that states:
Gaza boy ‘killed in Israeli raid’
The same report that dedicates most of the report to blaming Israel for just about everything, and as is customary adding a bottom line for good measure.
Separately, Israeli human rights group B’tselem said Israel had imposed severe new restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank over the past two weeks.
The group said the Israeli army had erected many new roadblocks, cutting off northern parts of the West Bank and disrupting daily life for tens of thousands of people.
Three days ago, the United Nations humanitarian chief, John Holmes, urged Israel to relax the closures, saying they increased poverty, unemployment and reliance on aid.
Israel said the measures were necessary for security reasons.
No mention of John Holmes visit to Sderot either in which he criticised hamas rocket attacks and demanded an end to them, but you’ll still maintain that the BBC is balanced.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/955015.html
98% sure he’s guilty is benefit of the doubt now is it? You do know this thing only goes up to 100, don’t you?
“Picky little git aren’t you? Good at shlepping red herrings into the argument too. ”
On every occasion I have asked, specifically, for the use of non-neutral language to refer to Israel. Claims of bias by omission, and so-called ‘glorifying terror’ are ten a penny on this blog. I specifically asked for incidents involving “negative terms”. Until then, you failed to provide. My original question was: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4171987631574816351/#384389
“It’s for kids Alex! does not like… is enmity in kiddy talk.”
Read it again:
“America is seen to be sympathetic towards Jewish Israelis, so some Arabs and Muslims think America does not like or understand them.”
It mentions perceived enmity from America to Muslims, not from Muslims to Israel. Nothing to do with Jews being the enemy of Islam.
“Killed is not neutral; it implies what it says, and the facts do not support that claim.”
The word ‘to kill’ is itself, in terms of emotional overtones and associations, neutral. In this case, as I conceded, the BBC’s use of the active rather than the passive voice implied, as we both said, somethingfactually incorrect. Though it seems even agreeing with you isn’t good enough.
Alex, you are the one who introduced the “emotive” angle, look at the very first post in this thread. Nobody else here is talking about emotivity. You can talk about “emotive” until you’re blue in the face, I will continue to talk about BIAS.
“Killed”, according to the BBC, is what happens to “Palestinians” at the hands of Israelis.
Israelis on the other hand merely “die” when they are victims of Arab terror.
“Kill” is not neutral when attributed to an unproven “killer”, ie: the Jew, but the BBC continue to use it automatically, which is why in this case I will not accept it was an error. It’s BBC standard practice and you are a prick for constantly giving them a free pass.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 20.02.08 – 6:47 pm |
“The CBBC website had it in their kiddie version of the attacks of 9/11 that Israeli Jews are the enemy of Islam.”
I assume you mean:
“America is seen to be sympathetic towards Jewish Israelis, so some Arabs and Muslims think America does not like or understand them.”
It does not at all mention enimity – indeed leaving out the antagonism between Israel and Arab states creates non-sequitur. In fact I can’t really see how this statement portrays Israel in any light, let alone a bad one.
Once again you don’t know what you’re talking about, and haven’t been paying attention. Notice my use of the past tense, “had”. The CBBC article used to say, in an article discussing Osama Bin Laden’s motives for directing this act of mass murder, that “Israeli Jews are the enemy of his religion.” There were other problems with the article as well, including a bit which played into “truther” conspiracy theories, a topic which we know is close to your heart. It got mention here, and even some wider prominence, which prompted lots of complaints. The BBC was forced to redo the whole thing into the version which you are looking at now. If you can be bothered to do a search of this blog (back to last summer, I think?) you will find the original versions and the entire discussion.
How ridiculous of you to leap to CBBC because you immediately assume that I am completely wrong, despite everything I have said in these pages. If the article currently said what you assumed I meant, don’t you think I would have posted the link myself? You’re not reading carefully at all, just reacting emotionally.
If you are so certain I’m a blinkered nutcase, why do you even bother? What do you hope to accomplish?
Can anyone else here help Angry Young Alex with his lessons?
Can anyone else here help Angry Young Alex with his lessons?
David Preiser (USA) | 20.02.08 – 8:08 pm,
He could start with actually reading the blog. BBC negativity about Israel? Where to begin? How about the bulk of BBC reporting on the Second Lebanon War, including the Paul Adams bit about the UN staff who could “barely conceal their contempt” for Israel?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6552701.stm
The angry young one appears to have an extremely short attention span combined with an alleged university education in the “humanities” at the hands of imbecilic lefty lecturers. Hence nothing is more important or valid than anything else, every fact can be disproved if you nitpick long and hard enough and there is no need for a moral compass as you make your way through life.
In short, he’s perfect for the BBC.