I’m sure you will all have noticed the blazing BBC headline “Israel has 15o nuclear weapons”. Or at least so says Hamas’s best pal and America’s worst ever President Dhimmi Carter. Carter is soooo on-message for Al Beeb, you can just see the Beeboids drooling when Carter gibbers that Israeli treatment of Palestinians is “one of the greatest human rights crimes on earth”. Any chance to bash the Jews, eh? When you consider the sympathetic hearing that the Mad Mullahs in Tehran get, the endless apologising for the Palestinian savages in Hamas, and the propagandising for Hezbollah, it’s no surprise that the anti-Semitic ravings of Carter get blown up to nuclear proportions by the BBC .
GET CARTER.
Bookmark the permalink.
It’s a sad indictment of an uncaring society that sorry old f***ers like Jimmy Carter are allowed to drool around unsupervised.
The crazed, anti-semitic Carter is Al-BBC’s ideal of what an American president should be. Weak, ineffectual cowardly, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, anti-military and a friend to murderous Leftist and Islamist terrorists everywhere. Basically a white, senile version of that other Al-Beeb favourite, Barack Obama
It’s a sad indictment of an uncaring society that a sorry old bugger like Carter is allowed to roam unsupervised.
Sorry for (almost) duplicate posting. My haloscan is really playing up.
My response to Carter’s paranoid musings is ‘so what?’
That Iran, Syria, North Korea, Al-Qaeda etc seem hell bent on procuring the same and urging their followers to Bite the Big One is not an amusing thought however.
Carter let the mad mullahs of Tehran come to power.
Jimmy Cater the peanut farmer. I remember him being President.
What an asshole he was and still is.
Reading that particular story it’s difficult to read beyond the pathetic, and totally unwarranted claim that “One of the greatest human rights crimes on earth is the starvation and imprisonment of 1.6m Palestinians,”.
After all, if that particular claim is true then they are only prisoners of their own regime, and not prisoners of the Israelis, as is the intimation.
Carter is a sad hollow shell of a man…that the beeb takes time to air his inanities speaks yet again of the beebs ill will towards Israel.
Carter knew back when he was promoting murderer and boy-lover Arafat for his Nobel that the Arab leaders were mostly responsible for what had become of their brethren known now as “Palestinians”. He’s conveniently forgotten that now, and has never been as lionized for anything in his career as when he demonizes Israel.
And the BBC is only too happy to help, because it fits the world view on the fourth floor, and in the minds of most presenters.
Carter knew back when he was promoting murderer and boy-lover Arafat for his Nobel that the Arab leaders were mostly responsible for what had become of their brethren known now as “Palestinians”.
Still, could have been worse, he could have supported Yassin like the Israelis.
“One of the greatest human rights crimes on earth is the starvation and imprisonment of 1.6m Palestinians,”.
After all, if that particular claim is true…
glj | 27.05.08 – 12:14 am
That claim is not true:
Is Israel Bound by International Law to Supply Utilities, Goods, and Services to Gaza?
International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel’s Right to Self-Defense
Same old Carter, same old Jew hater.
By the way, on the off chance his old friend, the nasty old pedo Yassir Arafascist is reading this blog…
Is it a dry heat in hell?
bio — and of course, there’s always the border with Egypt for the Gazan arabs.
That must be open 24/7 with total freedom of movement across, right?
korova | Homepage | 27.05.08 – 12:32 am |
Still, could have been worse, he could have supported Yassin like the Israelis.
In your rush to score points and start another fight, you completely overlooked the fact that all of us here are going to think that what Carter did – and is still doing – is infinitely worse than any indirect credibility the Israeli government may have given Hamas at one point in history.
So you’re being foolish and a troll. No desire to do anything other than start pointless fights just to make yourself feel better, I see. Just like a schoolyard bully.
Do not feed the troll.
Name these BBC anti Semites so I can pressure them. These scum are traitors to UK. They hate the Jews so much they would rather have a an atomic Hizbullah that would destroy Israel and UK rather than a disarmed Hizbullah.
I would bomb the BBC so they can see what carnage a suicide bomber does, give them a taste of their own medicine.
The BBC, reporting the news and reporting the news.
“Ex-US President Jimmy Carter has said Israel has at least 150 atomic weapons in its arsenal.. “The US has more than 12,000 nuclear weapons; the Soviet Union (sic) has about the same; Great Britain and France have several hundred, and Israel has 150 or more,” he said.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7420573.stm
Well loking up those stats i came up with
US 6000 nukes
Russia 16000 nukes
Great britian 160 nukes.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/doctrine/sdr06/index.html
France 350 nukes.
You’d think that a so called major news agency such as the BBC would clarify the facts before it reports them.
pounce: The BBC check facts, come on… The BBC is about creating an impression, a “narrative”; checking facts comes a long way down the list of priorities.
Your opinions on Jimmy Carter are all very interesting…of course they’re nothing to do with the BBC. This is reflected in the response of the posters.
Criticism of Israel’s policies is not in itself antisemitic.
I’m curious. Has there ever been a case where a former British P.M. has openly worked to undermine the policies of his successors (outside Parliament)?
Has there ever been a case where a former British P.M. has conducted negotiations with a group that the current Government considers to be terrorists?
“I would bomb the BBC so they can see what carnage a suicide bomber does, give them a taste of their own medicine.
Lemar | 27.05.08 – 6:53 am | #”
Anyone awake at B-BBC? Anyone else think that this statement not only brings this site into absolute disrepute, but is also potentially illegal and could see the site face possible legal action? (I’m no lawyer, but I thought that kind of comment was illegal when made by muslims outside embassies?)
Not only is it a vicious and irresponsible thing to say, it immediately gives anyone reading this page every excuse they could possibly need to ignore our valid arguments.
***
I really think that in a country as sensible as the US, where there is a limit to the terms of office a President may serve, there should also be a legal acceptance on the part of any President that, once out of office, and no longer democractically accountable for their words or actions, they should be obliged to shut the hell up. Most former Presidents abide by this unwritten rule – but it looks strongly as though some form of legal formulation may now be required in order that former Democrat Presidents in particular follow suit.
Or perhaps the legal obligation should be on the BBC: no Jimmy Carter article or interview without John Bolton present to expose his lies.
OT here but worthy of a new topic in its own right:
You have to follow this BBC report about child rape and abuse in Africa quite some way before you discover the perps are ‘UN peacekeepers’, with no indication of their nationality. Somebody not doing their job, obviously. Another reason why the BBC is worse than useless as a news organisation: it obscures rather than informs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7420798.stm
Note also the apologia for the UN at the end. ‘You can’t espect us to keep tabs on 200,000 people etc.’
Somehow I can’t believe the same would happen if it was US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners.
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
And if Save the Children really said this, shame on them:
“After research involving hundreds of children from Ivory Coast, southern Sudan and Haiti, the charity said better reporting mechanisms needed to be introduced to deal with what it called “endemic failures” in responding to reported cases of abuse.”
Absolute bull. You don’t need ‘better reporting mechanisms’, you need standard wartime military discipline, including the execution of rapists.
gharqad tree:
“I would bomb the BBC so they can see what carnage a suicide bomber does, give them a taste of their own medicine.
Lemar | 27.05.08 – 6:53 am | #”
gharqad tree: reply
Not only is it a vicious and irresponsible thing to say, it immediately gives anyone reading this page every excuse they could possibly need to ignore our valid arguments.
Lemar response:
So I cant be vindictive and say bomb the BBC yet the BBC can promote anti Semitism that makes Muslims attack Jews. The BBC is a worldwide media outlet that incites others to do anti Semitic acts.If Hitler had not incited the Germans to kill Jews there would have been no holocaust. Do not confuse my ‘one’ opinion on a site read by 100 people to what the BBC do on their site read by up to a billion people.
Your response shows you are not as clever as you think you are and it is you that brings this site into disrepute by your moronic intellect
gharqad tree | 27.05.08 – 8:57 am ,
Agreed. The comment at 6:53 am should be deleted. It has no place here or anywhere else on the web.
On the Carter thing, the BBC probably gives him more coverage than the current president. They certainly snubbed Bush on his recent visit to the Middle East, giving him as little coverage as possible and totally ignoring the unqualified support he gave to Israel in his historic speech to the Israeli Knesset, playing a tit-for-tat game since in his speech Bush barely mentioned the BBC’s friends, the Palestinians. The BBC is adolescent in its reporting. Infantile, actually.
So you’re being foolish and a troll. No desire to do anything other than start pointless fights just to make yourself feel better, I see. Just like a schoolyard bully.
David Preiser (USA) | 27.05.08 – 1:25 am
Spot on. It has proven itself as a troll and I’m going to try not to waste any more time on it.
Well, Joel it’s a great relief that you have finally lost your homepage:
Joel | 27.05.08 – 8:11 am
Criticism of Israel’s policies is not in itself antisemitic.
When Israel alone is singled out for criticism, when it has so many neighbours who richly deserve criticism, that certainly is anti-Semitic.
Libertus,
i agree and saw what you have pointed out – it’s been blogged over at my site A Tangled Web. The problem here is that the BBC worships at the shrine of the UN, and the UN is a cesspit of corruption hence thw avoidance of the terms UN in the key elements of the story!
gharqad tree | 27.05.08 – 8:57 am
Isn’t Lemar a troll whose intention is to undermine this blog? I’m assuming so.
deegee | 27.05.08 – 8:49 am
“Has there ever been a case where a former British P.M. has conducted negotiations with a group that the current Government considers to be terrorists?”
No need, Current M.P.s do it for them.
So the BBC is allowed to spew out anti Semitism yet I am not allowed to reciprocate. Typical argument of appeasers and the cause of most of the worlds problems. Russia totally crushed Chechnya in a short period, much better than the USA UK never ending war in Iraq where many more thousands than in Chechnya will be killed
You still do not understand the harm the BBC does probably because you personally have not been affected. BUT if a suicide bomber killed one of your family your mood may change and you would agree with me.
deegee | 27.05.08 – 8:49 am
Has there ever been a case where a former British P.M. has conducted negotiations with a group that the current Government considers to be terrorists?
Can’t think of a case involving a former PM, but former Northern Ireland Secretary Michael Ancram (Conservative) has also been meeting Hamas leaders.
And perhaps Blair will be the first.
Criticism of Israel’s policies is not in itself antisemitic.
Joel | 27.05.08 – 8:11 am | #
True. But it is fascinating how many “critics” of Jsrael turn out to be the same old, same old anti-Semites.
Lemar:
“So I cant be vindictive and say bomb the BBC yet the BBC can promote anti Semitism that makes Muslims attack Jews.”
Yes Lemar, that’s absolutely right. You can’t. It’s called incitement to commit a criminal offence, and where the BBC are very careful to use subtle language in their demonisation of Israel, you have been rather clumsy and blatant. We loathe the BBC because it gives soft support for terrorists: when we – by which I mean you – advocate terrorism openly, we lose all moral legitimacy. Moral legitimacy does not, after all, depend on the size of your audience. What are saying? – “Yes, I suggested that mass murder would be a useful tactic against BBC bias, but I didn’t think many people were reading the website so I thought it was ok?”
You don’t have anything to teach me about Hitler or the Holocaust, nor about the BBC’s treatment of Israel – as I hope my username would suggest to anyone with an education in anti-Semitism.
“Your response shows you are not as clever as you think you are and it is you that brings this site into disrepute by your moronic intellect”.
I am undoubtedly not as clever as I wish I were, and I can only apologise for bringing the site into disrepute by suggesting that incitement to commit murder goes rather beyond what most of us think of as being its remit.
Lemar: “You still do not understand the harm the BBC does probably because you personally have not been affected.”
I do understand. It is the principal reason why I would love to see nothing more than the dismantling of the BBC into a small subscription service. Understanding the harm that indiscriminate murder causes is one of the principal reasons why, additionally, I am opposed to indiscriminate murder.
“BUT if a suicide bomber killed one of your family your mood may change and you would agree with me.”
No, I believe I would be more firmly than ever opposed to indiscriminate suicide bombing. I would not come to believe that the catering staff at White City deserve to be blown to pieces.
Lemar,
I’m sure you know that many of us here share your contempt for the BBC as so many of its “journalists” edge closer and closer to open support for Islamic terrorists against the West in the War on Terror. But until such time as Broadcasting House becomes the operational centre for Islamic terror, any calls for violence against the BBC are simply wrong.
There are plenty of other ways to fight the BBC. Like commenting on this site.
dittos Bryan.
Sounds to me as if someone is posting nutty calls to violence and is trying to elicit support for some trollish purpose to discredit this site.
Just a thought.
JB – “nutty calls to violence” is the sweetest phrase, and would make a superb headline.
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 27.05.08 – 11:18 am
I said something like that here
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/7808777349784768390/?dt=1211900935#400594
But I see now that although it looked a bit like something that Hillhunt would do, Lemar means it.
Violence is not good. Only if the BBC uses it would such retaliatory actions be justified. The day I meet Jeremy Bowen I might retract that.
Korova and co crave attention. I hope they find a way to get it elsewhere, not at our expense. Trolls deliberately try to ridicule us by tempting us into arguments that make us look like a bunch of Mr. Angries.
We recognise bias when we know there is more to a subject than the BBC report is telling us, and we see that over time the cumulative effect of omissions and insinuations has given out a one sided and dangerous message.
Some people, however, are resistant to the very concept of the BBC’s infallibility.
Now I fear the need to do something about it is getting urgent.
What can we do. Writing to our M.P. or complaining to the BBC is a start but seems hopeless. The BBC resists, the MP has other priorities.
Society in general is breaking down.
Some commenters have pointed out how often the Middle East crops up in dedicated threads, and frequently creeps into others.
The vilification of Israel, the misrepresentation of Jewish people and the complacent acceptance of Islamisation of the country is relentless. and is growing apace.
Calm down, dear, I hear you say.
Talking to each other is cathartic, but can it effect change? Some advocate abandoning the sinking country.
Has it come to that? Must we really seek asylum elsewhere?
Please don’t bomb the BBC, but quick, somebody! Do something!
“Still, could have been worse, he could have supported Yassin like the Israelis”
Still the same unproven claim.
“Your opinions on Jimmy Carter are all very interesting…of course they’re nothing to do with the BBC. This is reflected in the response of the posters.”
If you don’t like the discussion, you know where the door is.
“Criticism of Israel’s policies is not in itself antisemitic”
Not per se, but Carter is still a screeching antisemite.
Lemar, bugger off. All of us (except a few dumb trolls and brainwashed beeboids – yes, you know who you are) feel nothing but contempt for the BBC and its antisemitism, so please don’t teach your grandma to suck eggs. But we don’t want to be in the company of people who want to bomb it.
Off course I don’t literally mean ‘Bomb the BBC’ but cant see much difference in blatantly saying ‘Bomb the BBC’ than the BBC inciting violence against Israel
Sue — I think your halo link is the wrong one, as it links to this thread.
Wasn’t a car bomb set off outside BBC White City a few years back. I believe the beeb referred to the perps as “terrorists.”
Lemar – I’m glad you don’t really advocate murder, and I never thought for a moment you really did. But we must not give hostages to fortune in our language.
For the record – I have lost a close friend in a terrorist atrocity. A good schoolfriend was aboard the Pan-Am flight brought down over Lockerbie. I also have Israeli friends, and Jewish friends who sense an increasing atmosphere of hostility here, and whose lives would be very different if they did not have one small sliver of land in the world they could go to and not be part of a resented minority.
So I do know how absolutely serious and disgusting the BBC’s demonisation of Israel is. We are hopefully on the same side re Carter and the BBC, so let’s stick together and work out some way of effecting change without resorting to the semtex just yet! 🙂
Sue:
Jack, sorry about halo, all I meant was this:
gharqad tree | 27.05.08 – 8:57 am
Isn’t Lemar a troll whose intention is to undermine this blog? I’m assuming so.
Sue | 27.05.08 – 9:47 am
Remember when Kenny Everett called for a bombing. That didn’t go down very well either.
Lemar,
Your 6.53am is a disgrace. I expect a higher level of engagement. Either contribute properly or else out the door…
And while you are at it, you could kick out hillhunt, who is back and is stalking me (see the Eurovision thread).
Ditto korova.
On the subject of the Middle East – I’ve been out of the country for a few days, so could anyone who has been following things closely let me know whether or not the BBC have deigned to mention the overturning of Karsenty’s conviction over the faked footage of the death of Al Dura?
I’m guessing they haven’t mentioned it, but if they have could someone give me a link to the coverage?
The Beeb keeps up its sanitization project in the Middle East.
Hezbollah head urges co-existence
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7420674.stm
How nice of him, no?
However, take a look at what the Beeboids chose to ignore…
Hezbollah ‘to back Iraq resistance’
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4BD47DA2-ED57-41D4-8B06-57EF3A0BFBB1.htm
Jimmy Carter’s mother, Lillian, once remarked, “When I see my two boys I sometimes wish I’d stayed a virgin”