I see that my old pal George Mitchell and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana are in the Middle East to help “bring peace.” You can expect to see the BBC give the efforts of this pair of jokers a sympathetic hearing – they have always been kind to Senator Mitchell following his work in Northern Ireland. Now that Obama has recycled this Clintonian bagman him into this role I am certain that the BBC will use the Northern Ireland peace process as the preferred template for creating stability in this region. On News 24 last night I heard someone insist that Israel would “have to” talk to Hamas, just like the British government “had to” talk to the IRA. It’s a completely misleading analogy but the BBC are wedded to it and you can be sure that Israel will be cast as the intransigent villains if they do not set down and enter dialogue with the genocidal Islamic savages in Hamas. The BBC coverage of the brutal murder of an Israeli soldier by Hamas should have re-assured everyone that BBC faux protestations about its’ much vaunted “impartiality”on this issue are as shallow as they are insubstantial. Once again the narrative is that “both sides” have broken their cease-fires and so Hamas get a pass for their act of murderous aggression.
SEND IN THE CLOWNS…
Bookmark the permalink.
Calling them anti-semites up front doesn’t compute
Well, no, to them it doesn’t. See the last sentence in my previous post.
Your approach is different from mine. Fair enough. I try to break through the sneering, superior complacency barrier (one that is often encountered in Britain) by putting them on the spot. Maybe the shock of having a Jew actually talk back to them without deference may do the trick. It often does IRL, in my experience.
One does, sometimes, hear the argument that annoying people who are ‘only a little antisemitic’ will put their backs up and make them even more antisemitic. I don’t believe it does. It may cause the hidden antisemitism to come to the surface, but I don’t see that as a bad thing: I prefer to see it come out into the open.
My agreement with Sue’s comment about ‘not coming here’ would be expressed along similar lines.
Chuffer, do yourself a favour and see a shrink. You are one sick camper.
“So you lot going on killing each other forever and a day. Whatever you do, refuse any help offered in case of resolution. Insult anyone who has a different view to your own on the subject.”
This is clearly aimed at both sides in the conflict. And is is sarcasm, in keeping with my posting.
“You have turned reality on its head, attributing a long history of Palestinian behaviour to Israel.”
Not at all. Yor are blinkered so you read things to suit you.
“You are a perfect example of the antisemite who refuses to accept that he is one: “How can I be antisemitic? I am only insulting Joos, FFS!”.
If I am antisemitic, I am also anti-Muslim by you definition. And if anyone I disagree with is Christian I am anti-Christian.
“It is a sickening display of sneering antisemitism.”
No it isn’t!
You really have a problem don’t you!
Keep ranting and I will keep replying.
Feedback on Radio 4 – I did not catch the whole programme, but from what I heard they used the Israel/Palestine share of the programme as an excuse for a lot of self-congratulation on how upright and independent they are; merely seekers of the truth.
I think those posters who said the appeal ban was intended to prevent a proper discussion on their whole coverage were proved right.
The presenter poses as a seeker-out of any faults he can find in the BBC, boldly challenging producers. In fact he is a trusted BBC employee trying to do a PR job. One letter he read out even said something like ‘I love you guys at Radio 4’
I always think of the Ministry of Truth from the book ‘1984’ when I hear such a contrived program as that.
Sue | 30.01.09 – 4:55 pm |
Talk to Hamas, but don’t talk to B-BBC?
I’ve said before that I don’t think their reasoning is valid. But that’s what they say, I know people who think just like that, and so I take them at their word. It’s not just the “A” word thing, either. In fact, I would say it’s more things like people saying “mozzie bint” or whatever when live-blogging QT, or seemingly homophobic remarks, or arguments that lose the plot and fall into boring patterns of name-calling. (David Gregory was, I think, a unique case.)
I’ve also said before that I don’t think it’s valid for people like them to dismiss everything simply because some minimum number of us doesn’t smack down every comment they find offensive. That’s just silly, and unfair to everyone. But my view is that taking it down one notch isn’t too high a price to pay to get the message across. One notch decrease is all I’m talking about, not bland PC mewlings with no edge. Actual trolls still deserve the full treatment, though.
“Chuffer, do yourself a favour and see a shrink. You are one sick camper.
Nearly Oxfordian | 30.01.09 – 5:09 pm”
What, no ‘Abu’ Chuffer anymore? And no swear words? Never mind me going to the shrink – you need a doctor; you’re sounding almost human.
Nearly Oxfordian | 30.01.09 – 5:07 pm |
Understood. We can always do a “good cop/bad cop” routine.
I’m sorry if this got too personal. The anti-semite thing is really just one part of the larger point about language.
Maybe we should have an agreed definition of antisematism. Then we all know what the boundaries are.
This is clearly aimed at both sides in the conflict
So you are patronisingly racist towards both sides. And you see this as a positive aspect?
You are the one with the problem. But then, most racists have this problem.
David,
I don’t think it got personal between us. I believe we were talking about issues.
Actual trolls still deserve the full treatment, though.
Problem is, trolls come in different shades. For me, ‘(Not – LOL) chuffer’ is a troll.
“So you are patronisingly racist towards both sides. And you see this as a positive aspect?”
What are you on about? You’re relentless, aren’t you.
David (Vance’s) posting which started this thread is sneering and dismissive. I responded sarcastically as, in my opinion sarcasm was what it deserved.
I happen to believe that any effort to try and get resolution is better than no effort. I want peace in the Middle East with a safe and secure Israel. I want the Palastinians to live in peace with their neighbours.
You reply to my sarcasm with your usual scatter-gun approach.
Now I am antisemitic and racist according to you.
“You are the one with the problem. But then, most racists have this problem.”
And what is my problem exactly?
You are argueing for arguements sake.
Keep ranting and I will keep replying
And this specimen calls me relentless.
Now I am antisemitic and racist according to you
Yes. And acc. to Sue.
.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]
This could apply to you NO
“Yes. And acc. to Sue.”
Sue is wrong as well!
Hero From the Future | 30.01.09 – 5:17 pm
Feedback R4.
Gaza fiasco. Discuss. “The BBC is partial. Not only that, it is officially partial. According to that directive or survey that ‘John Reith’ used to bring up, the one that he used as evidence against us, you know, the one that was done many years ago and is very precious to the BBC because it proves conclusively that it is not biased against Israel, it’s biased towards Israel! Yes, the BBC is impartial, but if it were to be perceived to be partial it would be partial in favour of Israel. It’s official, because it was in a report of some kind. Or a review.
To put paid to any lingering doubts about which way the impartiality is slanted – by refusing to show the appeal, the BBC has shown further partiality.
Towards Israel.
Because if it suppresses the appeal by not showing it, it means that it doesn’t want to help the Palestinians, and that means it wants to help the Israelis. There you have it.
So the BBC must preserve its impartiality by not being seen to be partial towards the Palestinians even though that makes them seem to be partial towards Israel which they have documents to prove that they are so they must be. But they aren’t”.
Feedback R4.
I’ve been reading this site for a long, long time, and I have never seen ya’ll like this before. I’m a little bit embarrassed and all the wonderful reasons I come here – for information, wit, insight, humor where it’s needed because some things now a days are too much to bear without a good dry dose of British humor – are now missing. And I’m saddened to see it.
This could apply to you NO
Reading comprehension issues again, dear?
Sue is wrong as well!
Yes, those bloody Jews – what do THEY know about antisemitism?
Oh dear – is it time to ban some people ?
Anonymous (Not Chuffer) | 30.01.09 – 5:17 pm
“So you lot going on killing each other forever and a day. Whatever you do, refuse any help offered in case of resolution. ….
This is clearly aimed at both sides in the conflict.
Well it shouldn’t have been. ‘A plague on both their houses’ is a dismissive remark made by those who don’t know much about the subject. It is grossly inaccurate and unjust to disregard the Palestinians’ determined and continuing obstruction to peace and continuing commitment to the destruction of Israel, and equate it with Israel’s desire to be left alone to exist undisturbed. You don’t see it like that. You may just see two sides fighting over something nasty. Just imagine, WW2. “You lot going on killing each other for ever and a day.” A bit dismissive then wouldn’t you say? A bit superficial, a bit ‘can’t be arsed to find out about it.’
“Not at all. Yor are blinkered so you read things to suit you.”
Why do you think it would suit me?
“Insult anyone who has a different view to your own on the subject.”
Pot-kettle-Black?
(What happened to him?)
David Preiser (USA) | 30.01.09 – 5:25 pm
I agree again.
People seem to slip in and out of trollness at the drop of a hat these days. One day a troll, next day back to abnormal, as my late mother used to say.
Lets draw a veil over live blogging QT.
I don’t like people screeching at each other ad nauseam, but if making their point necessitates a bit of venom, so be it. We all get carried away from time to time.
Some of us literally, probably.
HAVE YOUR SAY
Just how do the BBC decide which HYS should be leading comment on a regional page ❓
Today’s Middle East page displays the following comment:
“All of this didn’t solve the Palestinians’ real problem, which is the Israeli occupation of their lands”
Abdallah, Gaza Strip
The comment was received on Monday, 19 January, 2009, 10:34 GMT 10:34 UK. It wasn’t even the first comment.
I tried following the links and scanned 61 Reader’s recommended pages to see just how many recommended this one. Eventually I found it – recommended by 3 people!
BTW Does someone a bit more computer savvy than me know a quick way to locate a HYS comment?
Sue, I was not aware of that report, but I am sure they will use it for all it is worth.
As a non-Jew I am puzzled by the level of hostility amongst the muslims towards the Jews. Are they not embarrassed every time they see a map and they see the size of muslim countries (complete with free oil) then they see the size of Israel.
Just imagine the situation reversed. Imagine 600 million Jews surrounding 6 million muslims. Would the BBC be saying ‘Although the Jews have plenty of land and oil, we cannot ignore their legal claim on that tiny bit of muslim land, so sorry muslims, you cannot have a homeland.’
I think at the root of all the muslim hostility is a desire for the ‘honour’ of victory in conquest. It is a combination of an inferiority complex, a strange concept of honour, an obsessive nature, narrow interests (no time for gardening or learning an instrument with all that religion to attend to) and a medieval outlook on life.
Muslims Wars:
Very good assessment, good insight. We call it “hair splitting”. But you can’t tell a muslim he’s hair splitting. He’ll split your hair, all right!
I think the hostility is due to the fact that the race of “Jew” – once many tribes now only Judah – has been around more than 5,000 years (almost 6), and Islam’s measly little bit of plagarism has only been around 1,300. Also, the Torah reads like genius poetry, while the Koran is pretty much the worst sort of literature – fine perhaps in their own tongue but untranslatable, while the Torah, in any language, is more obviously divinly inspired due to being gorgeous in prose, deep in subtlty, no matter who reads it in what tongue.
It’s called jealousy, and poor Islam does have a deep insecurity.
NOW – N.O. please see how betyangleo, an angel and that’s how I got my name others gave to me, I did not give it to myself – utterly insults without baseness. Even being a yank and all.
Tick tick tick…..
Surely this must offend the BBC guidelines for fairness?
Appeal of Israel’s Avigdor Lieberman Katya Adler
Lieberman is intensely controversial and I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him despite agreement on some but far from all issues. But surely this From Our Own Correspondent piece offends every reasonable concept of fairness and impartiality?
Some Gems:
Israelis concerned above all with defence and security appear to be turning to the right and to Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Israel’s ultra-nationalist Israel Beitenu party
The latest poll suggests that Israel Beitenu (Israel Our Home) is likely to win 15 seats in the 120 seat Knesset. That puts him behind Likud (predicted 32 mandates); Kadima (22); and equal to the Labor party. Shas follows with 11 mandates. To put this in even better perspective Israel Beitenu hold 11 seats in the current Knesset.
Mr Lieberman looks like he could have stepped straight from one of those 50s B-movies about the American underworld. The ones which feature men in shades with some charisma but a few rather-too-sharp and shiny suits in their wardrobe.
In short, he looks like a gangster. I can’t recall a similar BBC comment about another politician, ever.
I saw him recently at a Jerusalem conference surrounded by fawning aides, a steely, striking, strawberry blonde Russian PA and a host of paparazzi.
I assume the blonde was a woman. Was she fawning and steely at the same time? Why is her hair colour relevant and his colour (do gangsters have ‘salt and pepper’ hair like George Clooney?) doesn’t warrant a mention?.
You might then be surprised to hear that one of his political opponents recently described him to me as “Israel’s new Jesus”.
I, for one, would be very surprised. Comparing anyone with Jesus is very unusual among Jewish politicians. A Google search finds no record of this extraordinary comment.
How come when a centre-left government launched an assault on Hamas, hoping to improve its popularity at home in the lead-up to a parliamentary election, the only party to benefit dramatically is Avigdor Lieberman’s?
This isn’t the first time this charge has been raised by the BBC. No proof in the form of a checkable statement; a leak from the Cabinet or even an off-the-record comment has ever been produced to justify making it.
The odds are on it’s being false.
Hamas effectively decided on the date of the conflict by refusing to renew the so-called ceasefire and launching rocket attacks. In addition centre/left government is a coalition with the current Kadima PM not running in the elections and the Defence Minister from the competing Labor Party. One would think that if the operation was a political stunt the opposition Likud would strenuously object but instead it cooperated fully as did (the article acknowledges) just about everybody.
Those following Lieberman and Israel Beitenu’s campaign would see that they, alone among the parties, are attacking Israel’s Arab politicians and by extension the loyalty of the Arab minority. There is an implied threat of violence – “Lieberman speaks Arabic”. But he says that in Hebrew. Ms. Adler presumably doesn’t understand the language or she might have mentioned it.
Israel Beitenu’s website.
Sue | 30.01.09 – 7:19 pm,
This was the one:
http://www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/rev_israelipalestinian.html
This Camera article is also interesting:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_article=1096
Reith insisted that the panel was “independent” and ignored people here who pointed out that it had been appointed by the BBC.
I think that was the panel that recommended that the BBC revisit its refusal to use the ‘T’ word, but I ain’t in the mood to plough through it to find it right now.
People seem to slip in and out of trollness at the drop of a hat these days. One day a troll, next day back to abnormal, as my late mother used to say
I think that was me, Sue, not DP 😉
Excellent reply to the sneering ANC!
betyangelo, what can I say? You have an angelic tongue, deep analytical understanding and honesty in expressing your highly sensible views (I mean all this quite literally). Not everyone has been so blessed. Some of us have the gift of oratory, some don’t. Some can aspire to it, and maybe succeed sometimes. Just be happy that you are gifted, without putting down those like me who are not.
And peering much much further down into the mire, spare a thought for poor Chuffer: he has been reduced to trolling for the sake of it, stalking and muttering and hurling insults and lying his head off for a crumb of attention. Aren’t we both lucky to have been born with some intelligence and sanity, unlike that poor soul?
Comparing anyone with Jesus is very unusual among Jewish politicians
To put it mildly 😉
It doesn’t happen. End of.
And the bit about Gaza being about ‘improving ratings’ is the worst kind of antisemitic propaganda from the vile, rotten, antisemitic through and through BBC. I regard it as racist, and a criminal offence.
Muslim Wars 8:32:
Brilliant post.
BTW Does someone a bit more computer savvy than me know a quick way to locate a HYS comment?
deegee | 30.01.09 – 8:00 pm
I don’t think there is any way you can find an individual comment quickly. They used to have a search facility in Have Your Say but it was for topics, not individual comments.
Great first page of highly-recommended comments:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=5924&start=0&tstart=0&edition=2&ttl=20090130213026#paginator
deegee | 30.01.09 – 9:07 pm
Katya Adler is among the most biased of the motley Middle East crew.
I just thought I would offer a few observations on blog interactions. Please do not think this is aimed just at N.O.: it is for anyone who is interested to read and comment on if they wish.
1) Sometimes people make jokes at someone else’s expense just for fun, and they don’t mind if the other person jokes back.
2) Sometimes people make jokes at someone else’s expense because they think the person deserves it for comments they have made. In this case it is an alternative to swearing.
3) If Someone makes a joke at your expense, the best tactic is to act like you are amused, even if you are not. Remember Mrs Merton’s fun-poking programme? All the guests who used the best tactics were the ones who just laughed as if they were highly amused. The same applied to Dame Edna’s shows, although her shows were less cruel.
2) If someone says something deliberately provocative, sometimes it is best to ignore them. Everyone reading the posts will think ‘despite provocation, he is not replying’ and respect them for not responding. This makes the person making the comments look like he is arguing with himself.
3) If someone says something provocative and everyone completely ignores that comment, the person making the provocative comment feels foolish. That is because it appears that the provocative comment is not worthy of a response.
4) The blog is a strange virtual world. In it you have an impression of what the people are like, based on a few written clues. So it is easy to misread people’s intentions as all the other signals of communication are missing eg facial expressions, tone of voice. Sometimes people write things which appear aggressive, but in their head the writer is in a pub-type situation enjoying harmless banter and making wisecracks. You have to distinguish genuine hostility from a cross remark or bad taste joke. One person might be having an innocent joke and smiling, the other person might be going apoplectic and the first person does not even realise it.
5) Without the visual signals words easily get misinterpreted. I have seen a misunderstanding arise, for example, because one person put another person’s name in quotes and the person erroneously thought the poster was being sneering.
6) As an example, if someone responds to this post saying ‘You boring ***** now f*** off this blog’ I will not be angry in the slightest and I would not care, unless I had read previous posts from that person and respected their opinion. If I did not respect that person, I would certainly ignore them. Let them feel like they are being ignored. The person could be a drunk kid for all I know or a BBC HYS Censor for all I know, so why should I care what one anonymous person thinks or says?
7) If the moderator issues instructions or guidelines, everyone should obey them.
8)If you are going to post a link, include a couple of lines of description as to what it is about. Don’t just say ‘here is a great article’
9) Avoid the use of common names such as Anonymous or Bob unless you are making a one-off comment, as there might be three of you around at the same time and you can hardly claim ownership of such a name.
N.O. – thanks
A wise old owl,
Thanks for those comments, v interesting and worth reflecting upon.
Dunno if this is just me, but it seems Haloscan has swallowed a whole bunch of comments on this thread.
And now it has regurgitated them back again. For a while I couldn’t see anything past about 5:00 pm on this thread, despite refreshing.
Haloscan is a nightmare – one reason I moved away from it on my own site.
David Vance,
Weird, an hour or two ago the no. of comments under this thread was given as 237 and now it’s back to 216. It’s like rowing against the tide.
So why did you mention N O,
(Not So) Wise Old Owl?
Hey, I was just going to say that, MT!
It’s an example of several things: ‘special pleading’ is one, ‘figleaf’ is another, ‘retaliating first’ yet another, and ‘making yourself look ever so wise and important’ on top of all that.
Nearly Oxfordian | 31.01.09 – 12:52 am |
A bit like the BBC’s famed “impartiality”.
Good grief!
I’m in complete agreement with N Ox!
Why did you mention N.O., Wise Old Owl? We all knew who you meant, even if he (see posting above) didn’t.
Sure is!
Betyangelo – Re plagiarism that you refer to. I must admit I have a little smile to myself every time I hear of yet another incident that is common to the Bible and the Koran.
If only the muslims could just calm down a bit they would be a lot happier.
Hi Bryan,
thanks for that.
Hero from the Future, (30.01.09 – 8:29 pm) there you are!
http://www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/rev_israelipalestinian.html
and as per Bryan’s link
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_article=1096
Owl:
See what you get for breaking up a fight? Always happens. They make it up and turn on you. Hahaha.
“Avoid the use of common names such as Anonymous or Bob.”
Better get my coat?
David Vance
Re. Haloscan. I like it. I like the font and the spacing I think they lend gravitas, and I use the preview facility which gives you a chance to spot your grossest howlers before they go off into … wherever they go.
Sometimes it does strange things with disappearing parts of threads, but if you wait patiently they come back.
I’ve said this before though, something happens with Haloscan and my Mac. to do with swearing. Somehow it won’t let me post or preview anything that might have swearing. What is their problem?
It’s so prudish that if it senses a rude word it refuses the whole lot, even if it’s just the juxtaposition of the word “British” and “it,” even if there’s a space in between.
Sue,
He wasn’t trying to ‘break up a fight’. He was just being self-important.
Please please don’t use the word ‘gravitas’. It makes me come out in a rash. It’s the term used by BBC heads as short-hand for: “This bloke is my kind of bloke, he talks sense, in other words he agrees with my hallucinatory world view, which shows how intelligent he is”.
Sue | 31.01.09 – 11:54 am,
The BBC, with all its vast resources, has no Preview facility on its blogs, except for Have Your Say, on the occasions that they let you have it.