I would urge you to be sitting down as you listen to Jeremy Bowen’s latest report from Gaza. It’s amazing, isn’t it, to listen to such naked partisanship dressed up as reporting? Jeremy is nothing more than a pro-Palestinian talking head, doing everything possible to diminish the Israeli response to the savagery of Hamas. He concludes his ever so world-weary diatribe by saying “let’s hope there is a cease-fire soon”. Why? He is now offering opinion which favours one side (Hamas) in the conflict, is this not bias? And while we are at it, I notice the BBC is STILL pushing the death statistics of those in Gaza as one BIG media friendly number, whilst they breakdown Israeli deaths by military/civilian. We hear how many kids have allegedly died in Gaza, we never hear how many Hamas terrorists have been killed. Isn’t that a little odd? The BBC seem determined to portray the deaths of all those in Gaza as being the deaths of innocents. It’s sickening to behold.
GAZAN UPDATE.
Bookmark the permalink.
Dave,
Can you PLEASE set your links so they open in a new browser session…please…pretty please…with sugar and strawberries and cream on top?
Not only is it a pain in the arse to close a session without thinking but more importantly the way your page is set up means that anyone who clicks on a link is taken away from this excellent site (more so for people who just stumble upon the site).
Regards
Mailman
For BBC and Bowen:
‘Jihadwatch’
“Israeli politicians, 2004: Disengagement from Gaza will bring peace” (video clip)
[Extract]:
“This is what happens when public officials ignore and deny the Islamic doctrines of jihad and Islamic supremacism. These politicians were all wrong, and what we were warning here — that the withdrawal from Gaza would only embolden the jihadists — was right. But it appears that in Israel, as in America” [and the UK], “the political and media elites don’t ever seem to face serious accountability for their errors of judgment and willful ignorance.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024367.php
Mailman,
I am always happy to help – can you let me know how I do what you ask please?
Open a new window to display a linked site:
[a href=”http://site.domain” target=”_blank”]site description[/a]
(The target=”blank” tag inserted right after the web address will take the user to the linked site opened in a new tab)
By the way David (wanted to say this for a long time, here’s a chance), your contribution here in relentlessly exposing those frauds is greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work.
Bowen just insults my intelligence.
Apologies if everyone has already seen this but the Sackur interview of the Hamas spokesman is actually very good – the terrorist apologist basically gets his head handed to him on a plate. Link to a great site below
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/
Mailman
If you click any link with the middle button of your mouse, it will open in a new tab (assuming you’ve got a 3-button mouse).
That certainly works in Firefox, and I *think* it works in newer versions of IE too.
HTH.
I’m afraid Mads is set for a long run on the BBC.
Meanwhile, Jenni Murray on WH refers to Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell as “the quite wonderful Steve Bell”. Perhaps she was referring to today’s offering:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
Dave, do you have an email addy I can contact you on?
AB, I think the town in the distance is Siderot š
Regards
Mailman
Mailman,
You’ll ind david V’s address on his website; http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/
Sorry, David V’s š
d’oh!
Find not “ind”
mike | 13.01.09 – 12:39 pm | #
I hadn’t, so thank you for the share.
It’s a shame that a few more in the MSM reporting/interviewing infirmament can’t be moved to notice and dissect a poor argument by virtue of being in thrall of some admittedly pervasive group think.
There’s also that tall, elegant Asian lady who also won’t be subbing for Andrew Marr again any time soon.
It’s shame one can’t give these more dogged adherents to the principles of great news gathering and sharing more support to allow them to succeed on merit and audience appreciation, as opposed to box ticking and sucking up to the diversity csars, their senior masters and notions on how ‘events’ need to be ‘interpreted’ ‘correctly’.
Yesterday someone commented on the Jeremy Greenstock interview on the Today programme in which he made a series of amazing statements about Hamas.
Today, Melanie lets rip:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3229771/sir-jeremy-greenstock-says-hamas-is-only-about-resistance.thtml
Mailman | 13.01.09 – 11:11 am | #
All you have to do is right click on the link and select “open in new window” or “open in new tab.” That stands for Firefox anyway, I’m pretty sure it’s similar in most browsers.
I know it’s a matter of personal preference, but I think it’s generally considered bad web practice to have links open in new windows unless the intent is expressed to the user clearly – and that would mean extra clutter which would detract from the flow of a page. Since the vast majority of web links open in the same window (if they didn’t, a browser session would quickly become unwieldy), any deviation from this is liable to cause confusion to anyone who isn’t fully aware of what’s going on. I mostly prefer links to open in the same window but there are some cases, for example this blog, where I prefer them to open separately and for this purpose I have gotten into the habit of just right clicking and selecting this option myself.
On his latest War Diary drivel on al-BBC
online Abu Bowen drags up the Northern Ireland comparison for the 100th time. “Britain never used heavy weapons in Northern Ireland and now there is peace….the Israelis use heavy weapons and there were never be peace.” What this moron doesn’t discuss is the difference between Hamas and the IRA….Hamas are a fanatical islamist group whose goal is the extermination of Israel. They also want islamic rule across the globe…whereas the murderers of the IRA were “content” to establish a quasi nationalist/Marxist state with no global ambitions. That Bowen doesn’t have the intelligence or honesty to mention this speaks volumes either about his anti-semitism or his frightening lack of knowledge concerning the Middle East. Joe The Plumber could do the job better but then he isn’t a pro-Palestinian hack…..
Jason,
Yes, thats what I really meant, to open in a new tab session.
Honestly…thats what I meant š
Regards
Mailman
Terry,
By all accounts Joe the Plumber is doing a better job reporting on the war from Israel for pj media.
Mailman
Terry Johnson | 13.01.09 – 4:27 pm
Another reason why any comparison of the IRA with Hamas is ridiculous is that the IRA didn’t fire scores of rockets (home-made or otherwise) daily across the border at Belfast, or somewhere like Fishguard.
But the BBC, and above all Abu Bowen, don’t let silly facts like that get in the way of their efforts at spreading anti-Israel propaganda.
I got your address, thanks.
Jeremy Bowen and the vast resources of the BBC may be unable to get into Gaza to check facts, but somehow the New York Times got somebody in there:
Fighter Sees His Paradise in Gaza Hospital
Of course, you won’t learn the following from Bowen and his ilk:
A car arrived with more patients. One was a 21-year-old man with shrapnel in his left leg who demanded quick treatment. He turned out to be a militant with Islamic Jihad. He was smiling a big smile.
“Hurry, I must get back so I can keep fighting,” he told the doctors.
He was told that there were more serious cases than his, that he needed to wait. But he insisted. “We are fighting the Israelis,” he said. “When we fire we run, but they hit back so fast. We run into the houses to get away.” He continued smiling.
“Why are you so happy?” this reporter asked. “Look around you.”
A girl who looked about 18 screamed as a surgeon removed shrapnel from her leg. An elderly man was soaked in blood. A baby a few weeks old and slightly wounded looked around helplessly. A man lay with parts of his brain coming out. His family wailed at his side.
“Donāt you see that these people are hurting?” the militant was asked.
“But I am from the people, too,” he said, his smile incandescent. “They lost their loved ones as martyrs. They should be happy. I want to be a martyr, too.”
This mindset does not negotiate for peace. The dead and wounded lying around this guy in the hospital are as much victims of as kind as they are of Israel. But the BBC thinks this guy is more worthy of their respect.
I should remind everyone that, while the NY Times isn’t explicitly anti-Israel like so many BBC employees, they are so afraid to appear to favor Israel that they often end up offering comfort to the other side. For sure the NY Times nearly equaled the BBC’s championing of Hezbollah two years ago. But they’re more honest lately than the BBC.
On DHYS today the anit-Isreali thread stands at 15475 in the moderation queue.
Yet the latest post is dated Tuesday, 13 January, 2009, 17:58 GMT 17:58 UK
15475 in the last hour and a half? Goodness! Ever get the feeling the posts they don’t like get held back and not just rejected …
David Preiser,
It says a lot when the NYT is more fair minded than the BBC!
“We hear how many kids have allegedly died in Gaza, we never hear how many Hamas terrorists have been killed. Isn’t that a little odd?”
Not unless you can give us a number, no, it’s not odd in the slightest.
Alex,
Have you no interest in the fact that the BBC does not carry estimates of Hamas terrorists being killed? If not, why not? If so, why post the comment?
David Vance,
It’s desperation hour at the NY Times, so they woke up a little bit. Their circulation is way down, their ad revenue is a fraction of what it was a year ago.
Things are so bad with them that, in these times of economic crisis caused by a mortgage/debt bubble, they’re…er…rem-mortgaging their fancy new building. Otherwise, the evil Rupert M. can get his mitts on them.
The Times has gotten so many wake-up calls about their lying, shoddy journalism, and partisanship that they’ve finally stop hitting the snooze button. A little bit, anyway.
Until the BBC has a real wake-up call, well, there’s no chance.
The New York Times was a supporter of Stalin, that’s all you need to know about it. In fact the Times’ Walter Duranty’s photo still hangs in the lobby of the Times building in New York – the man who was awarded a Pulitzer prize for his false reporting from the Soviet Union,
Here’s the link to Timeswatch.org – kind of like Biased-BBC but for the Times and with no reader comments.
http://www.timeswatch.org/
David: “Have you no interest in the fact that the BBC does not carry estimates of Hamas terrorists being killed? If not, why not? If so, why post the comment?”
It is a very interesting topic, but your question is a fairly simple one, which the BBC pretty much answers here. We don’t know how many Palestinian dead are Hamas because we’re not exactly sure who are civilians.
Terrorism is a tricky business. Israel is targeting non-uniformed paramilitaries and uniformed police officers it believes to be affiliated with them. Neither of those fit the mould of combatant or civilian perfectly, besides that, try asking a dead guy in civvies if he was in Hamas.
Now, as I said, find me any reliable and disinterested estimate of how many Hamas fighters have been killed and we can discuss that. Or I can ignore it and get on with what I’m meant to be doing.
BBC Bowen’s moral stance is shoulder-to-shoulder with the Islamic jihad HAMAS, while Israel is his moral enemy.
His political position colours everything he says and writes about the Middle East. What is the difference between Bowen and the Iranian regime’s propaganda on PRESS TV, the satellite TV station which it finances?
The moral and financial problem for British BBC licencepayers is that we still have to subsidise the BBC and Bowen to present that propaganda.
‘New English Review’-
“Then you would be a fool, wouldn’t you?” (Hugh Fitzgerald)
[Extract]:
“Nothing is as infuriating as the way in which the very same speakers and speakerines on the BBC, the ones who do everything they can, so malevolently and consistently, or at best, sometimes merely out of fantastic ignorance, to undercut Israel, to misrepresent or ignore its case, and to present, too consistently to be unwitting, Arab propagandists, and those who, while not Arabs or not Muslims, have swallowed mostly whole the Arab view of things, and sweetly present it to the largely credulous, because largely ill-informed, listeners.”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/18862
Alex,
!Terrorism is a tricky business.”
No, It is an evil business and the Hamas spawn that are being killed by the IDF should be registered by all those wonderful UN types.
I wonder who they are REALLY worried about:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1115163/Ring-steel-guard-BBCs-HQ-car-bombers.html
The BBC is planning to put up a ‘ring of steel’ around Broadcasting House, its headquarters in central London.
It has applied for permission to install more than 200 fixed bollards around the building as well as eight hydraulic retractable bollards and seven large concrete planters.
The move comes amid concerns that Broadcasting House could become a target for terrorists.
anton
Irony of ironies: Beeboids plans to defend themselves from Islamic jihad supporters, while the BBC itself supports e.g. Islamic jihad Hamas, and the BBC practices dhimmitude at all times!
The next time a Beeboid criticises Israel’s wall..
And surely the BBC Arab TV Service at Broadcasting House, London, will not need a barrier against Islamic jihad supporters?
‘Evening Standard’:
“Ring of 200 bollards to save BBC HQ from car bombers”
[Extract]:
“A similar technique has also been used at the nearby American Embassy, in Grosvenor Square, to prevent car bombers from getting close. A BBC spokeswoman said today: This has always been part of the plan for the redevelopment. I cannot say more than that – we never discuss security matters'”.
After all the Beeboid cynicism about the ‘fortress’ of -the -soon to- be- moved American Embassy in London, late in the day, the BBC needs similar security against Islamic jihad.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23618827-details/Ring+of+200+bollards+to+save+BBC+HQ+from+car+bombers/article.do
I caught the coverage of the Pro-Hamas London demos on BBC World. I’m not sure if this incident in Duisburg, Germany, was reported by the BBC or back home? It has caused quite an uproar that German police removed it so (insensitivies, etc) and that they were actually applauded by Hamas supporters. And there is talk of immediate sackings. It doesn’t really fit into the left media view, and would no doubt have been applauded anyway by many BBC pundits and journalists (“quite right!”, “Good show” etc.), and so they probably decided not to report it.
Duisburg – Israelische Fahne wird von der Polizei unter Beifall der Hamas und Hisbollah Sympathiesanten rechtswidrig entfernt!
For BBC’s Bowen, Plett, Doucet, etc., and for those in charge of building ‘fortress’ Broadcasting House, London (3:33 pm above):
“Hamas: In their own voices” (video)
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=Announcement8909
The move comes amid concerns that Broadcasting House could become a target for terrorists.
anton | 14.01.09 – 3:11 pm
On Harry’s Place a week or so ago there was a mention, I don’t remember if it was in a post or a comment, about comments on a UK jihadi website in which threats were made to attack BBC buildings.
Then again my memory may be playing tricks and the threats may well have originated on a Quaker website :-/
“– Terrorism is a tricky business.
“– No, It is an evil business and the Hamas spawn that are being killed by the IDF should be registered by all those wonderful UN types.”
You know David, things can be two adjectives at a time. Even if one of those adjectives is “evil”. Look at Hitler. He was evil and funny-looking. And Darth Vader: evil and tall both at the same time. It’s been over seven years since this Global War on Terror started, and terrorism hasn’t stopped. Implies it might be something quite complex and problematic as well as just evil.
Now, this UN project to count dead Hamas terrorists: how would they know which were terrorists and which were civilians? If they only counted the ones found uniformed or bazooka in-hand, they would miss an awful lot, grossly underestimate the total and incur even more of your wrath.
how would they know which were terrorists and which were civilians?
Perhaps we could find out whether they voted for Hamas and/or supported their aims?
/sarc
Biodegradable | 14.01.09 – 5:04 pm |
Actually, somebody did a drive-by comment about that here just the other day, under the alias of “The Truth”. They also mentioned the “Zionist police” or some such.
Coincidence?
Probably the BBC is just afraid of being attacked by angry Tibetans who are sick of their sucking up to China.
Biodegradable:
Rather than the Quakers, might the website have been that of the Provisional Salvation Army?
“Perhaps we could find out whether they voted for Hamas and/or supported their aims? /sarc”
Sarc you may, but if we’re dealing with attacks on police targets, whether they worked with Hamas would probably be enough to tip them from civilians to combatants.
BBC uses accusations of Israel using phosphorous bombs, earlier this week:
“Israel denies banned weapons use”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7823078.stm
And nowhere is there to be found on the BBC site, reference to HAMAS using phosphorous mortor shells to bomb Israel.
It is necessary to turn to non-BBC, non-Bowen information sources, or we will simply be fed Hamas propaganda, like Bowen’s latest instalment:
from BBC’s Gaza page:
“Bowen meets Syrian President Bashar Assad, a key supporter of Hamas” [like Bowen].
‘Jerusalem Post’: (video clip at link is inoperative)
” Terrorist fire 16 rockets at Israel ”
[Extract]:
“Palestinian terrorists continued to attack Israeli civilian areas on Wednesday, firing 16 projectiles by late afternoon, including a PHOSPHOROUS mortar shell that hit the Eshkol region.” (Emphasis added.)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231917083226&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[Not reported by BBC.]
Actually, somebody did a drive-by comment about that here just the other day, under the alias of “The Truth”. They also mentioned the “Zionist police” or some such.
Coincidence?
David Preiser (USA) | 14.01.09 – 5:17 pm
Well spotted!
Maybe that’s what I was thinking of, but I’m sure there was something at Harry’s about threats to attack the BBC.
They say the memory is the second thing to go as we age…
Rather than the Quakers, might the website have been that of the Provisional Salvation Army?
RR | 14.01.09 – 5:27 pm
What’s provisional salvation? Either you’re saved or you’re not.
š
Alex | Homepage | 14.01.09 – 5:36 pm |
but if we’re dealing with attacks on police targets, whether they worked with Hamas would probably be enough to tip them from civilians to combatants.
Why only if it’s police targets?
A news report, necessarily, given the subject-matter, from a non-BBC source:
“Rockets fired from Lebanon into northern Israel”
http://www.france24.com/en/20090114-rockets-fired-lebanon-israel-no-casualties-gaza
‘I notice the BBC is STILL pushing the death statistics of those in Gaza as one BIG media friendly number, whilst they breakdown Israeli deaths by military/civilian.’
I can’t decide if you are just thick as shit or if you are deliberately trying to mislead. This point of yours has to rank up there with the ones about the use of the word ‘conservative’ or the appearance of stories from ROI on the BBC NI website. I was going to explain it for you again, but my time is better spent elsewhere. And to suggest this as evidence of bias only convinces me further that you should seek professional help. That or stick to Newsround you muppet.
Most BBC ‘news’ presenters reveal their pro-Islamic jihad Hamas, and anti-Israel political stance not only from the biased content, but also the MANNER of their interviewing methods.
Such is the visceral, but ill-informed nature of most such BBC interviewers, that when interviewing an Israel spokesperson, the common tactic is to CONTINUALLY INTERRUPT, in a hostile manner soon after that Israeli spokesperson begins to answer a hostile, politically biased question.
Where is the BBC hostility towards the Islamic jihad Hamas? Of course, nowhere.
As for the BBC moan that Israel has limited the number of journalists allowed into Gaza. Let them moan. Could Israel rely on BBC journalists not to reveal battle information detrimental to Israel and beneficial to the other side, which most Beeboids support?
The BBC does have at least one reporter inside Gaza anyway, one Rushdi Abu Aluf, a BBC producer (he seems to serve the BBC World Service as well) is located in Gaza City and comes up with reports which do not question the Hamas version of events. I don’t think he knows, or is allowed to use, in Hamas-controlled territory, phrases such as ‘Hamas claims’, or ‘unconfirmed’, or ‘possibly’. Of course, he is treated in a very friendly manner by his BBC colleagues in all interviews.
Alex, let me put to you a thought experiment which serves as a vehicle to explain the ethical dynamic behind Israel’s actions and the issue of civilian casualties.
In this thought experiment there are two houses, some distance apart, nothing else. In one house, you and your family. In the other, another family you have no ill will against whatsoever.
As it transpires, a terrorist takes up residence in the other house and holds the other family hostage. He begins to fire rockets at your house. They’re exploding to the left, to the right – pretty soon one is going to make a direct hit and wipe you and your family out.
However, you have at your disposal a missile which can be targeted at the other house with perfect accuracy. The threat to your family can be neutralized with the press of a button – with the cost of the innocent lives of the other family, who are sure to perish along with the terrorist. What is the ethical thing to do and why?
The answer is that you should fire that missile and feel no guilt whatsoever. The reason being is that the terrorist has forced upon you a situation in which you have no choice but to choose between the survival of your family or another family. You did not ask to be put in this situation and therefore the consequences of the actions you are forced to take are entirely the responsibility of the terrorist. You feel sadness at the unavoidable death of the other family and wish with all your heart that it didn’t have to be that way, but at the end of the day the terrorist bastard who took them hostage is to blame for their deaths, not you.
So it is in Gaza. When terrorist organizations like Hamas deliberately hide themselves within civilian neighborhoods, when their very nature is that it is hard to distinguish between them and innocent victims, then the blame for the deaths of any innocents lies squarely at the feet of the terrorists, not the people who are forced to have to take those steps to neutralize the threat against them.