An Israeli court has ruled that the state of Israel was not at fault for the death of US activist Rachel Corrie, who was killed in the Gaza Strip by an Israeli army bulldozer in 2003. Ms Corrie’s family had brought a civil claim for negligence against the Israeli ministry of defence. The judge said the 23-year-old’s death was a “regrettable accident” and that the state was not responsible. She had been trying to stop Palestinian homes being pulled down in Gaza.
Erm NOT quite the full story, BBC. Ms Corrie was a terrorist enabler and grossly stupid. The “Palestinian homes” she was so bravely trying to protect were being used by Palestinian terrorists to fire rockets into Israel and kill innocent Israelis. The truth is Corrie got what she deserved but the BBC plays along with the poor innocent Rachel “peace activist” meme. Sickening bias and elevation of terrorist enabler Corrie.
I seem to recall that certain left-wing female journos have been sexually assaulted by Palestinians too………
There is a theory that relations between the ISM women and the local Rafah Gazans wasn’t the best. The Arabs were upset that their husbands were paying too much interest in the Western girls.
Challenging the bulldozers was a way to re-establish credibility.
David, I don’t agree with your comment “Corrie got what she deserved” as that is too harsh. However, her death was clearly her own fault and no blame to be laid on the Israeli Government.
I hear that the bitch was buried in an envelope.
You can be sure that the BBC is going to milk this story for all its worth given its hatred of Israel and its unflinching bias in support of Palestinian terrorism. Corrie is referred to as a “peace activist” in the headline story on its website. Foreign “peace activists” who adopt the so-called Palestinian cause are often willfully blind to the persistent crimes committed by the Palestinians and are solely motivated by their unquenchable and obsessive hatred of the Jewish state; this rank hypocrisy is also a feature of the twisted leftists working at the BBC, not to mention other news outlets such as the Jew-hating Guardian newspaper.
It might seem harsh but I have to agree with David.
As in Norway we see people calling for the deaths of innocent people yet when the tables are turned on themselves they expect sympathy.
I see the world service is going heavy on it’s bash Israel agenda at the moment. This is to take peoples minds off the Taleban attrocities. It’s not the best time for Al Beeb to push it’s desire that we should love and understand them and believe that they are poetry loving hard pressed freedom fighters.
too true … the mindset of these adherrents is blinded by hate, and their cult, the most violently inspired “peace” activists/useful idiots/enablers going
Ahlam Tamimi Revels in her Attack
shame on the bbc
I had commented in the Open Thread – what possible interest is this case to a UK audience – why did the BBC have two segments on the Rachel St Pancake Corrie case in the Today programme ?
The court decision was quite clear. “Peace activists” like the ISM were simply acting as human shields for terrorists.
On Radio 4 Extra, a lot of the programme links are given by the grating voice of Arfa Smiff – Lord knows how much he and other unfunny comedians leach from that channel. But in the past couple of days, the gap between some programmes has been filled by something described as “poetry from around the world – taken from every country that competed in the Olympics” Funny thing is – the only”poem” I have heard is by a Palestinian (they have no country anyway) – who is bleating about how they all suffer. He spends more time grinding his political axe than on the so-called poem.
The BBC – at every turn, pushing the false and discredited Palestinian case.
I tuned into R4 the other night and I could have sworn it was Radio Trinidad, listening to the continuity announcer.
Yes, he often crops up on Sundays, (I think his name is Neil) and I really have to concentrate hard to make sure I’m listening to Radio 4 (which is often not a pleasant experience, if you are of an unbiased frame of mind).
What with him, and religion being thrust down my throat after an eco-green farming programme, Sunday is not my favourite day for tuning in, Classic FM is much nicer…
“Classic FM is much nicer…”
Especially Myleene Klass !!!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2194737/Myleene-Klass-turns-heads-red-bikini-gets-surf-board-lessons-exchanges-phone-numbers-instructor.html
I know the continuity announcer you mean, his name is Neil Nunes. The accent is fine, I love a West Indian accent and could listen to Michael Holding and Tony Crozier for hours. BUT Neil Nunes drives me mad, his intonation is all over the place, he puts the emphasis on the wrong word in more sentences than he doesn’t. Neil Nunes is not in the right job.
I have no problem with the accent, except I have a strong suspicion it’s all part of the BBC’s ‘rubbing our noses in diversity’.
Have you also noticed how they now use ‘Asian’ reporters in the UK if covering an item involving Muslims, especially if it requires a report from a Muslim area?
One of the new urban breed coined “Afro-Saxons”?
Right now we are spoiled for choice whether to twin London with Mogadishu or Nairobi. Unless you are blind, the streets are full of African women pushing baby buggies. Britain is changing before your eyes, as Cameron has left both the EU and Commonwealth door wide open.
This is just a case of the bully screaming foul when their victim fights back.
And this followed on from a cut and paste hatchet job on an (admittedly useless) Tory Minister of Transport…some facile crap on regional pay and the end of schools/NHS ethos with Evan Harris( don`t like the man at all, but he was correct to point out the idiocy and wilful gullibility of the BBCs chosen slant to the “academic study” cited by Justin Webb).
Any chance of us digging up an equivalent interview with Alistair Darling when HE was at Transport…any sneers about whether HE`D be in the job much longer?…any use of Nick Robinson to set Darling “in context”, so we`d all get to know what the BBC think…not what the Minister actually said…that`s a mere pretext for Radio Gaga/Nowhere…to juts weave and spin, spin and weave…on behalf of Labour and the rest of their Rainbow Alliance of Nice Things.
Webb has form-thick as pigshit in terms of science or maths…so who better to tell us what Bristols academic meant us to conclude.
How many of Jenny Tonges/Cherie Blairs mukkas are already padding out the Green Rooms of the BBC as I write?
Any chance of a media flurry over the Fogels from last year…course nat..wrong religion to possibly be victims unlike this useful stooge Corrie.
A tragic accident…but the BBC will not rest any more than will the Guardian.
Meanwhile…no comment at all from outside the tribal elders tent in Musa Qala…nor will there ever be!
And if I thought I wasn`t correct, I then find the two stories placed right next to each other on Martha`s Muffin of a show this lunchtime(World at One).
Craig Corrie given those gentle lobs into the net by our Beeb Haifa stooge(Jon Donnison)…but Mark Regev( a walking saint, if you ask me!) been given an attempted hard time.
Unfortunately, her facts were all wrong so she got entangled in the netting…but that can be edited out, and takes nothing away from the BBCs view-that Rachel was murdered by a Jewish tractor driver..something like that anyway.
After the Corrie saga-a brief tiptoe through the landmines of Afghanistan…oh, those poor Taliban must have been so sensitive to noise…why else would they cut 17 peoples throats…must have been awful poets eh?..and what are women doing reading poems anyway…Musa Qala is hardly Edinburgh is it loves?…
Corrie was trying to protect Hamas tunnels. She died jumping in front of a bulldozer while trying to prevent Israel from blocking Hamas tunnels.
Notice the BBC left out what was going on underneath those houses – which is the number one and only reason Israel was knocking them down. Could Donnison and his editor have spent any more time promoting the “Heoric Rachel” side of the story here? I half expected there to be an embedded mp3 of the music from the final scene of “Tosca”.
BBC, you are scum for creating this report. The anti-Israel bias amongst BBC employees and the anti-Israel slant in the BBC’s editorial policy makes them demonize Israel and turn her enemies into heroes at every opportunity, although the BBC disputes this.
Not just the BBC either – the UK education system is brainwashing young kids with the same putrid lies. Little wonder this country has moved inexorably to the left over the last 30 years.
If only there was an independent report into the BBC’s coverage of the Israel/Palestinian situation… Oh hold on…
It is ‘of significance’, so I decided to see what there may be ‘out there’.
The BBC seems to have got quite excited about it given the plethora of features…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=corrie
And having made the mistake of checking out the WHYS ‘we want your views’ thread, with about as barking a collection of global pea-brains on FaceBook it would be hard to shake from one’s memory, I figured the Telegraph may at least offer a relatively unmodded, still unclosed thread where some interesting thoughts may be found in the rough…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100178283/what-on-earth-was-rachel-corrie-doing-in-front-of-an-israeli-army-bulldozer-in-the-first-place/
Sadly, not so much.
I could really only come up with my own, rather Frankie Boyle-esque answer to the question posed by the author asking what she was doing there, and that was thinking, per a falling bowl of petunias, ‘Where’s a passing Vogon Constructor Fleet when you really need one?’
Like hunger strikers’ supporters who seem surprised that their talismen suffer their self-selected fates and rail against all for the consequences save the person who opted to risk them, it seems odd no one has pondered what options may be expected if fronting up to a bulldozer in a war zone.
A difficult case indeed, but I do note that the case ‘has been dismissed after due consideration by Israel’s judicial system’.
Any familiar with the BBC’s dealings with and reactions to their own conclusions on complaints might wonder at the overall reaction to this judgement by the hypocrittertwiteratti, where any issued by the BBC on its own conduct are simply accepted as ‘got it just about right’. Then moved on from.
Another unique contrast?
“Israel not guilty over Rachel Corrie, but what of those
who encouraged her to go to Gaza?”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1571/israel_not_guilty_over_rachel_corrie_but_what_of_those_who_encouraged_her_to_go_to_gaza_
David, I notice you have left out the next sentence of the article
“Judge Oded Gershon, presiding at the Haifa District Court, said Ms Corrie had been protecting terrorists in a designated combat zone.”
Does that not count as balance?
No, that doesn’t count. One man’s “terrorist” is another Beeboid’s heroic freedom fighter. To approach honesty and accuracy, they needed to mention that the house St. Rachel was “protecting” was meant to hide tunnels, not to house innocent, heroic Palestinians.
They’ve mentioned that, in the judge’s view, she was protecting terrorists. The assumption would naturally be that the house was therefore being used as a base for the terrorists’ activities.
This comes immediately after the other version of things. In my view that’s as close to balance as is possible in a written article.
Seriously? The judge’s opinion is there only to provide balance? Balance to what, I might ask? And leaving it open for the audience to assume something is a far cry from reporting the facts, which are much more damning that any generalities which might be assumed.
But we sure did get “facts” about how St. Rachel became the subject of songs and plays like Joan of Arc before her.
Is it therefore BBC policy to provide “balance” for all court cases? Or only ones they disagree with? Please explain the journalistic integrity behind producing a report which assumes that the judge’s opinion is only a political opinion and not based on evidence, meaning it’s okay for the BBC to provide a “balance” of viewpoints.
The judge has delivered his verdict, which has been reported, not ‘only to provide balance’ but as the main reason for this article being written. This is a verdict with which the parents of Ms Corrie and their supporters disagree. As it says they plan to appeal in the Israeli supreme court, and will therefore be in the news at some point again, it makes sense to give both viewpoints.
Still not buying it. Sure the parents disagree, as do nearly all parents of all those on the unhappy end of court decisions. I have no problem with an inset of their grieving. But that’s not at all the same thing as making the bulk of the article itself about praise for St. Rachel and the opinion that she’s heroically innocent. Not the same thing at all.
If we accept your verdict, so to speak, then we must equally accept contrary opinions laid out at length for all reports on all court decisions. You’ll have to come up with a better reason for providing “balance”.
And this still doesn’t address the fact of the lack of facts which would make St. Rachel look bad. Portraying her as trying to stop the destruction of houses which were terrorist bases only in the opinion of an Israeli judge doesn’t make her look anywhere near as uncool as trying to protect the cover for tunnels built explicitly for the purpose of killing Israelis.
That’s why the BBC censored that bit: it makes St. Rachel look less heroic, and might appear to haters of Israel that the BBC is taking sides.
The judge has made a ruling and the 5th par clearly states that she had been protecting terrorists in a combat zone. There is no equivocation there. It is stated that that was what the judge said. It was his court, that was the ruling of the court.
What more would you want the BBC to say in their report? What did they miss out? What other source or authority should they have quoted?
I want them to say that the houses were a cover for the tunnels. Period. That’s not so difficult, is it? It’s the reason why Israel had the bulldozer there in the first place. It wasn’t just a naughty zoning violation. Of course, it makes her look bad, which is why the BBC decided to leave it out.
It says it — in the 5th par. She was “protecting terrorists in a designated combat zone.”
It isn’t “only in the opinion of an Israeli judge” it is a ruling by a court. I repeat, what higher authority do you want?
Were this a court ruling in a country that does not have an independent judiciary then you might question it.
Unless there is a suggestion that the court was not a fair one — and as far as I can see no one outside of the usual bonkers brigade is suggesting that — then there is no higher authority. And the BBC has reported it.
No, Nicked. “Protecting terrorists in a designated combat zone” is not the same thing as “protecting tunnelsm specifically”. The judge’s words with no other context could very easily be interpreted as him saying that the houses were terrorist houses and designated a combat zone simply because Palestinians lived in them. Stop with the smokescreen. You know perfectly well that the majority of the readers will see it as the opinion of a biased judge, and it’s not enough. The actual facts of the case deserve mentioning just as much as – if not far more than – the fact that St. Rachel became the subject of song and stage.
This is a highly-charged environment. Many readers will be reading the judges words and think, “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?” This isn’t a run-of-the-mill court report. The bar is set extremely high for Israel as it is, and so the bar should be set appropriately high for reporting stories like this.
I think what is important here is the difference between what the BBC chooses to put on its website (Webbsite?) and what it includes (or excludes) from its broadcasts. My motivation for coming on here resulted from my perception of the bias in BBC radio and TV coverage, as I never use their website for news. Rightly or wrongly, I rate the broadcast content of what BBC puts out far more highly in terms of its ability to influence than I do its website articles.
And I’d just add to that…. surely the two have to be consistent on a topic where it is vital they demonstrate their impartiality.
‘You heard of Rachel Corrie?
The press don’t tell her story,
Caught between a house and bulldozer,
She found out that Israel,
Hates gardens and it will kill,
Americans who help rebuild the Gaza strip.’
So sang lefty US punk band Ten Foot Pole on their 2004 song Rachel Corrie. Before I listened to that song I must confess I’d never heard of her. I assume they’re talking from an American perspective because the beeb usually can’t get enough of these left-wing Pally lovers. In the battle between man and bulldozer, the bulldozer wins every time. One for the Darwin awards.
Corrie got what she deserved
What a disgusting comment. I bet you are the kind of pious hypocrite who goes on about being a Christian, and then comes up with a disgusting comment like that.
What a revolting thing to say. And yes, in this case this is a blatant ad hominem attack because anyone who thinks that a young woman deserves to be crushed to death is a person of contemptible values. No wonder no one voted for you — who would want someone who holds such values representing them.
You disgust me.
Now I can sleep easy knowing you jump for low fruits Nicky!
Sad you see nothing other than this to argue about??
What kind of inane comment is that?
There are plenty of things to argue about, but when someone who makes so much capital about their moral standing suggests that a young woman deserved to be crushed to death by a bulldozer they deserve to be called out for their foul and hypocritical views.
Do you think she deserved that?
It seems quite clear from the ruling — as reported by fhe BBC — that she was accidentally killed and that furthermore the IDF took steps to prevent harm. It seems pretty clear from the judge’s ruling — as reported by the BBC — that the homes she was protecting were being used to house terrorists as it says in the 5th par of the story.
She was wrong and she was a fool.
But to suggest that that merits being crushed to death by a bulldozer is such a contemptible thing to say I am stunned that any parent would say such a thing.
It revolts me.
Nicked, I get the impression that you’re not the typical troll that tends to inhabit this board, and for this I am going to use reason with you rather than simply dismiss your responses. You’ve at least shared some reasoning, and personal objectivity, as opposed to trite unfounded claims, and I will do the same.
Here’s some things to consider.
Have you noticed these ‘peace activists’ don’t venture to places like Afghanistan to stand in front of the Taliban who murder and torture women and children with impunity?
Why do you think that is?
Could it be that they really know they will get no quarter or mercy from groups like the Taliban? So if, as according to them, Israel is so vile and evil, why do they feel empowered to take on the Israeli army, who are protecting their homeland?
Fact is they feel safe ‘standing up to the satanic Jews, and the more Israel is vilified by the media, the braver and more heroic they can present themselves, regardless of true merit.
Israel pulled all of the Jews out of Gaza, some who had been living there for hundreds of years, and turned it over, lock stock and barrel, over to the Palestinians. What did they get in response for this peace gesture?
Rockets and terrorism!
But for the sanction and empowerment of western media and militant Muslim appeasing politicians, the Palestinians wouldn’t dare to take on Israel in this way. You can be sure there are many peace loving Palestinians as well as Israelis who had their lives destroyed or severely undermined by these would be ‘peace lovers’ who are really fuelling the likelihood that there will never be peace in this region.
I remember the video shown on You-Tube at the time that showed the bulldozer driver wouldn’t have been able to see Corrie at the time she was run over. If I think of her mentality, and the lives of sincere people who really want to enjoy peace, and can’t because of the mentality of those like herself – I can think too – she got what she deserved – in truth -DESERVED.
The reason I pity the poor girl is because she lost her life for a cause built on a perverted understanding of the history of the region.
I would say that ignorance, in one form or other, is the cause of most of ‘self inflicted’ human suffering.
At what point doesn’t it become an excuse?
Surely you mean “ad feminam”? Or, perhaps better, “in feminam”?
And yet Nickedemu you’re a supporter of Muslims and Islam…under which 13 year old girls are lashed for wearing makeup, and when they reach 16 strung up in the town square for talking to boys. Or causes 17 people to be beheaded for partying.
Or condones, no insists, that gay people are killed….the only question being how…do they stone them to death or throw them off a cliff? Failing that they can do what the Iranians do and string them up. Meanwhile Tower Hamlets puts up posters saying it is a gay free zone.
Suggest you save your pseudo disgust for the real nasty pieces of work.
Not to mention their penchant for child brides – the number in Iran doubled last year.
But, as we all know, Nick will continue defending the indefensible. I strongly suspect now that he works for the BBC. Who knows, his real name might be ‘Evan’.
Nickers me old fruit, for once I tend to agree with your basic comment although, as usual, your ad homs go too far. You really ought to curb that nasty tendency of yours. If you did you might be taken more seriously.
I must ask you a question though. When you heard about the murder of the Fogel family, including near decapitation of an infant, what was your feeling? Did you feel the same as the average Beeboid that these settlers got everything they deserved because they were Israelis? Or did you feel sorry to hear the news.
I would like an honest answer, as I wouldn’t believe you if you tried to say that you agreed with the condemnations of the atrocity on here. I never saw you show any sympathy with the victims, at the time, on this site; and as you make so many “interesting” contributions here it would have been a good place to express sorrow at such a crime. If not it makes you a hypocrite.
Of course Nickers, if you choose not to reply in the affirmative, i.e. you did unreservedly express your regret about the Fogels on this site, then it shows you were less concerned for an innocent family of Jews than for a misguided terrorist supporting activist who put herself deliberately in harm’s way. And if so; a full apology to David Vance would be appropriate.
Who would not be revolted and appalled by such a grotesquely foul thing to do? Who would not question what kind of person would do that to a family?
Of course it was a revolting crime and it was unbelievable that the BBC failed to report it — for which they have apologised.
I was not aware of this site when that crime happened.
I have been to Israel several times and am going again very shortly. I don’t fetishise the country as some do — I wonder how many people have actually been there and spoken to Israelis. If an Israeli judge makes a ruling I have every confidence in the integrity of the Israeli judicial system.
And as for this stupid suggestion that I am a supporter of Islam, no I am not. I am not a supporter of any religions. Just because I don’t support your witch hunt against Muslims doesn’t mean I support Islam. It is all sky pixie nonsense, fighting over whose make-believe friend is better. It would be funny if it were not so deadly.
What I do support is the right for people to be treated as individuals. What I do support is the view that just because some Muslims commit terrible crimes that does not mean all Muslims are guilty. Some Irish Protestants committed terrible crimes — does that make all Irish Protestants guilty? Of course not.
I have seen people on this site say that Muslims should not read the news. That is nothing put pure bigotry. I oppose such racist comments as I oppose all racism. And don’t come back with the “Muslims aren’t a race” bollocks; you know perfectly well what I mean.
Nicked emus repent before it is to late. Or you will suffer eternal damnation in the lake of fire.
You have been warned
Say hello to Mo for me when you’re down there.
Nicked, while I certainly appreciate where you’re coming from, your first two sentences seem to speak from the perspective that it was done on purpose, or that DV meant that St. Rachel should have been deliberately killed for it. A slight over-reaction?
I once read the an account of someone decapitated after sticking their head out of a moving train carriage in a Victorian edition of the Times: it was headlined ‘One fool less’. Obviously people have grown more humane since this robust callousness was regarded as acceptable although those annual Darwin awards come fairly close but, since they are not put out on websites that a person such as yourself feels a venomous hatred towards, nobody goes so far as to call them vile monsters. Anyone who has worked close to heavy earth-moving equipment knows that it can be hazardous at the best of times and all the onus for one’s personal safety cannot be placed solely on the operator. If the victim had been a young man there may have been more of an attitude of ‘he knew the dangers and took the chance’ sort of attitude towards his incident. The fact that it was a young woman gives people seeking to make maximum emotional impact out of her death (such as you, in your loathing of this site) a chance to jack up the rhetoric.
People who talk about sky pixies, in my experience, find it quite difficult, or feel it unnecessary,to differentiate between one religion and another. Islam is most definitely not a race: it is a set of ideas many of which you cannot call yourself a Muslim if you do not subcribe to. To that extent all Muslims have signed up to a system of ideas which I regard as a force for bad in the world: to describe this as racism and poo-poo any denial is pure smear and innuendo.
Funnily enough, talking of race, a case could be made that Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism and there is certainly a tendency for non-Arab Muslim labour in the gulf to be treated in a way that comes close to slavery. Not connected to anything like that in some way, are you Nick?
Nicked, I am shocked to say that in some things we have quite similar views. I am an atheist but believe that anybody has a right to worship a god if they wish, as long as it doesn’t infringe other people’s rights to believe or not. That’s one of my main criticisms of Islam. It also means that I believe that other people can’t interfere with legitimate religious beliefs. For instance: if a Church wishes to marry gays then that’s fine. If a church says it’s against their religion then they have every right to refuse gay weddings in their churches.
I have been to Israel, and obviously I did speak to Israelis and most of them only want to live in peace. If they hadn’t been under virtually constant attack for so long, then they wouldn’t retaliate so heavily. After the holocaust the Jews decided that they wouldn’t just put up with attacks any more and they would, at last, stand up for themselves.
I don’t care if a Muslim or anyone else reads the news, but it does seem strange how ethnic minorities are so heavily represented in that profession. It could appear to be a deliberate policy.
It is interesting that you chose Irish Protestants as the ones who committed crimes during the troubles. They still came second to Irish Catholics who you didn’t even mention.
If you support the rights of people to be individuals, as do I, then I am surprised that you can be so forgiving of Islam and supportive of Socialism, which do exactly the opposite.
As far as the Fogel massacre goes, I will have to accept your answer if you weren’t on this site then. But I can assure you that Dezzie, Scotty, Gregory etc. who were here then showed no signs of compassion for those innocent victims which is why I assumed you would have been the same. As for the BBC apology, it was far too little, far too late and apparently insincere. The damage was done already and shows why they are so desperate to keep secret the Balen Report.
It will no doubt harm your standing on this site among such orators as Earls Court and the doyen of the Socratic method, Pounce, to be seen agreeing with me, and worse my agreeing with you.
Gay marriage: agree, except if you are the established church in which case establishment carries two-way obligations. You want a say in the running of the country, that comes at a price. Other denominations, and other faiths, up to them. The consultation paper is quite clear on this.
Israel: Yes Israel wants peace. Unfortunately there are few successful instances of a military solution to civil war/insurgency.
However the Palestinians are about the most exploited group on the face of the earth, used as proxies — wittingly and unwittingly — by all sorts of third parties that have their interests, and not necessarily those of the Palestinians, at heart. While it is understandable that some Palestinians look to extremist organisations like Hamas — it is a nugatory strategy and diminishes their chances of peace. Of course there are many in the Mid East, and in the world, who have no interest in their being peace in the Mid East.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for Israel. They operate to different standards to their opponents and too often that is forgotten. They are not, however, saints. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize the country.
That Rabin was murdered was a huge loss to the country and to the efforts to bring peace.
I chose Irish Protestants because David Vance is a vociferous member of that community. To suggest that he shoulders any blame for the heinous acts carried out by a very small part of his community (in response to heinous acts carried out by a very small part of the Catholic community) would be a travesty. So it is for the overwhelming majority of Muslims.
Fogel: What other contributors did or did not do is not my business. The murders were abhorrent and it was extremely remiss of the BBC not to report them.
Islam: I am not forgiving of Islam, I am forgiving of individual Muslims. I unequivocally condemn Islamic terrorism.
Socialism: Who says I am a socialist?
I wasn’t aware I had any particular standing on this site and I will agree with anyone or anything I think is right, even Dezzie once or twice. This isn’t a BBC site where everyone is expected to think exactly the same way, or else the discussion is ended. As far as Earls Court goes, he has his own way of looking at the world which is nothing to do with me and Pounce speaks from personal experience so his criticism of Islam should be listened to very carefully.
Gay marriage: You are discriminating against the Church of England. Singling them out for special treatment as they are the Established Church is a red herring. It is up to the C of E to decide what they want to believe of gay marriage, the same as any other religion.
Israel: “Unfortunately there are few successful instances of a military solution to civil war/insurgency.” However, not resisting people trying to kill you leads to Auschwitz. And that is exactly what Hamas and their fellow travelers in the left-wing Socialist world want to happen in Israel. They won’t be happy until the whole area is Judenrein.
I totally agree with your statement regarding the exploitation of the so-called Palestinians. (See above)
“I have a huge amount of sympathy for Israel.” I agree with you here. Israel can be criticized the same way any other country can be. But it is wrong to criticize Israel unfairly as left-wing groups such as the BBC will always do. They always expect the Jew to not fight back as the majority did in the war, so get very upset that the modern Israeli will defend themselves. The BBC and their ilk need to look at the Arab countries, and other Muslim countries, let alone places like Zimbabwe and Cuba in the same way they do Israel. They would then find that Israel is actually a lot more benevolent than any of the others I mentioned. For instance name two Muslim countries where Jews are as free to live as Muslims are in Israel.
I agree about Rabin, a great statesman. However, the great strides he took when signing away a large part of Israel’s defence when promised peace by Arafat, was lost within a couple of days when Arafat ‘s lot started attacking Israel yet again.
Fogel: “What other contributors did or did not do is not my business.” I’m afraid that I automatically assumed you were taking the same Beeboid positions as the others, as you normally think alike. I will say now that you appear to be able to think a little bit outside the BBC straitjacket, unlike the others I mentioned.
Islam: I know many individual Moslems who I like and respect. But Islam itself seems to be the catalyst for young people to strap bombs to themselves and murder innocent people, fire rockets into churches, murder apostates etc. etc. etc. That’s why I condemn the religion. Until they give their own following basic human rights and stop attacking other people for following different paths then I will feel the same about that one religion.
Socialism: As the BBC is an organ of socialist propaganda, anyone like you who supports them must be a socialist. So I say you are a socialist.
We agree on more than we disagree.
I do not agree with a lot of what Israel does (and nor do a lot of Israelis) but I do agree that it is held to a different standard — or rather that other sides are not held to the same standard.
The problem with military responses is that they don’t tend to work. Peace was achieved in NI through negotiation, not violence. I agree that you have to defend yourself, and that can mean aggressive defence, but without talks it is doomed to fail. Of course talks requires honest brokers — Hamas are not that.
As for my socialism or otherwise — it is an argument from fallacy as the antecedents are false.
If you knew some of the media outlets I had written for and worked for you would think me an arch Tory. I have given them considerably more support than I have ever given the BBC.
Pounce speaks from personal experience
Anyone who resorts to profanity and threats forfeits the right to be taken seriously.
‘The problem with military responses is that they don’t tend to work’.
I think you would find it difficult, were you in Israel’s shoes, to differentiate between the attritional, low level war Hamas are waging, and the all-out wars waged 3 times by the combined Arab nations against Israel since 1948. In both cases the objective was the same, ‘to wipe Israel off the face of the earth’. Of course, the Arab-Israeli wars rarely, extremely rarely, get a mention by the BBC, nor does the opportunity to create a Palestinian state under UN resolution 181 back in 1947, which the Arabs chose to reject (because they could do one of the aforementioned ‘wiping Israel off the face of the earth’ exercises as soon as the state of Israel was created). The reason, of course, is it would disrupt their narrative of eternal victimisation of the ‘Palestinians’.
NE wrote:
“I have been to Israel several times and am going again very shortly. ”
Please say hi to the Bulldozer as it runs over your tiny little head. Yes I admit what I wrote isn’t nice. But why is,cunts like you can throw abuse, and that is deemed ok:
“England,White people,US,Israel,British army,Bankers,”
But when somebody speaks out for the vast majority, they are deemed as evil incarnate. Fucking liberals take your bloody family with you when you leave and enjoy living in a pure Islamic paradise. Just hope you never ever meet me you wanker.
Pounce – I just assume that NE wrote that he was going to Israel because it helped his case…I don’t suppose he has even started looking for his passport.
Pounce — What an impressive display of reasoning and marshaling of an argument; you must be so proud.
As for Deborah — you may, of course, assume whatever you like. Alas for you whether or not you believe me does not alter reality.
I could show you the booking on the EasyJet flight from Luton (for my sins), and my booking in the Diaghilev Art Hotel just off Rothschild Bvd in Tel Aviv, but I don’t suppose it would convince you.
Much easier, after all, to ignore facts that challenge your view of the world.
As long as you are not going to cause trouble and are just going for a holiday, I say have a nice time.
I totally disassociate myself from the comments johnyork put. This thread is becoming as bad as a Guardian one (in reverse).
Diaghilev Art Hotel ? Oh dear.
The 1980’s Comic Strip people were not that funny but I do remember one joke:
Miguel: [complaining to hotel manager] How come there’s no soft toilet paper?
Mr. Bastardos: This is the “Hotel Bastardos”! You want the soft toilet paper? You go to the Hotel Gayboy!
Nick – I am treating your Damascene conversion on here today with a note of scepticism, because ‘Pounce — What an impressive display of reasoning and marshaling of an argument; you must be so proud’ applies to just about every argument on here you have evaded since I can remember, which is why I have no respect for you.
‘I am not a supporter of any religions’.
Can we hear it from you, then, Nick – ‘Muslims believe in a sky pixie’?
A lone voice?…..I have noted that Nicked emus has ALWAYS made it clear he believes in NOBODIES sky pixy! none at all, zero, zilch
Just saying boyos!
Don’t think so, matey, unless I missed something. All I’ve seen from him is condemnation of the Christians’ beliefs.
Reminds me of “Bloody Sunday”. Thanks to MSM and political appeasers, it appears to be our troops’ fault that nail bomb throwing “demonstrators” got killed. No mention of why MacGuinness was standing behind them with a sub machine gun. When it’s terrorism against Brits, the latter are held responsible. Bring on the military coup.
Military coup?
Great about time all the left-wing filth that has been destroying us for at least the last 50 years was eliminated from the gene pool.
I think to talk about military coups is to step outside the boundaries of sane and rational political discussion in a liberal democracy ( and gene pool elimination, is going too far in any -ocracy)
Agree with you Wally.
Yes, who will we get to do our chores if all the lefties are killed off? More immigrants?
tsk some peole just don’t think things through do they?
Doubt he was being that serious, Wally – it’s just the sort of comment I’d bark at the telly when I see yet another example of leftie subversion by the BBC! (usually at which point the missus pops another betablocker in my cocoa)
Have listened to a pretty awful ‘interview’ on 5Live…Peter Allen, with Corrie’s mother….not an interview as such more a one sided polemic for a couple of minutes allowing her to make numerous allegations without evidence..
The Israeli spokeman got about 10 seconds.
Have yet to hear from the BBC why the Israelis were knocking down these Palestinian houses….apparently because they were being used by gunmen to operate from….kind of takes the edge off the story doesn’t it.
Balance, balance… About as balanced as John Prescott and a budgie on a see-saw.
That may depend on whether he was shagging his secretary at the time!
I’ve met some of these ardent armchair fighters for the Palestinians. They infest our schools and universities. Not one of them would be prepared to admit that the Israeli legal system could possibly be fair. Not one of them would be prepared to admit that this was a tragic accident in a war zone. To them it would always be a deliberate act of murder.
They are the natural constituents of the BBC mindset. What else do you really expect from the liberal left these days ?
Gays for Palestine are typical of the modern left. If anyone was gay in Palestine they would be killed ASAP by the natives.
‘They are the natural constituents of the BBC mindset’.
And our education system.
The BBC are just following that centuries old of hating Jews. While people centuries ago hated Jews under the false belief they murdered our lord and saviour Jesus Christ.
The BBC hate Jews because they are an obstacle towards them getting their long hoped for Socialist world government.
It’s more a visceral anti-Israel sentiment based on juvenile, David vs. Goliath-informed emotions rather than actual Jew hatred. But it does inform the editorial policy to a degree. Having said that, the constant stream of demonization and failure to provide enough reality definitely inspires or inflames anti-Jewish sentiment. The Beeboids don’t accept that they do this, because they get complaints from both sides.
Muslims hatred of the Jews goes back to the time of Mo the murderer when he was summoning demons in the caves of Hira (this is all in the quran) and was told to murder Jews and Christians ‘wherever they are found’
Muslims believe it was the angel Gabriel talking to him. Gabriel my ass. The pedo prophet admitted himself that he was demon possessed but although as I said all this is in the quran it tends not to be mentioned in the mosques or around the hallowed halls of Al Beeb.
Did mohammed actually exist. No one heard of him until 100’s of years after his death.
Yes, sadly, he did exist.
But his coming was foretold in the Bible as the False Prophet.
Where in the Koran is this?
I’m only asking because I have a copy and tried to read it but its a bit, well, boring.
A pointer to the action bits would be nice. 🙂
Hadith 111 or
http://www.bible-koran.com/English/Articles/Mohammed/Part_V/part_v.html
My Koran doesn’t have a Hadith 111 which seems to be from another book of mutterings altogther.
Still 111 in the Koran is funny. It’s a curse against some poor chap called Abu Lahab who didn’t seem to like Mo much.
Anyone with any intelligence or common sense doesn’t like mohammed much.
That must mean all BBC employees love the prophet.
For INBBC’s Muslim Brotherhood branch, CAIRO:-
“Egypt’s Mursi using jihadists to mediate with radical Islamists in Sinai.”
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/08/29/234839.html?
This is a bit off topic but there’s a channel 4 doc currently on telly about the early days of Islam. Very surprised with the content so far..seems to be investigating, and almost doubting elements of history of the religion and the Koran. Whoever made it will now have to be given guards like Salman Rushdie I guess!
Yes, Tom Holland is a good `un….and this programme would never have been commissioned by the craven, spineless jelly of a broadcaster that is our current BBC.
It needs saying-and needed saying.
Programmes like this are a start. Why should every other religion be questioned and not Islam.
imaynotalwaysloveyou, what’s this programme called?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/aug/28/the-untold-story-islam-accused?newsfeed=true
“The gap between western liberalism and Islamic liberalism suddenly looked frighteningly large.” Are the Grauniad beginning to realise that their allies in their attempt at World domination are not necessarily the ones they want as allies!
Even the Guardian writer is saying that the presenter is pussy-footing around which he wouldn’t do with other religions. “As if he expects a fatwa on him” and that “he doesn’t want Muslims to take him seriously”.
The last two are not exact quotes as I didn’t follow the link again.
Radio 4 extra have been running a ‘Poetry 2012- the written world’ series with poems, either written or chosen, from a native of every country in the world, now living in this country. Tonight they did Palestine, with numerous references, in the preamble of the reader of the poem, to the struggle of his parents and grandparents.
The website preamble states:
“Palestine’s poem is Seeds in Flight by Khaled Abdallah………read by Iyad Hayatleh, a Palestinian poet who was born in a refugee camp in Syria and now lives in Glasgow.”
At the end he states with pride how Palestinians have started a tradition of naming their children after their former villages in Palestine (Israel?) and after martyrs (terrorists?) in the struggle. How easy it is for these exercises in world culture to turn into partisan propaganda exercises – I don’t notice any signs of Beeboids taking steps to avoid this happening.
Now world music has moved to Radio 3 the occasional Palestinian musician shows up there and is given free reign to talk about the ‘oppression and suffering’ of their people.Rather creepily, a few months ago, one of them had set to music a mediaeval Arabic poem in which the writer expresses nostalgia for his beautiful house in Andalus!.
That Palestinian “poet” has been repeated several times on Radio4 Extra – a pure propaganda spiel.
But I have heard no other poems from any other nation. Funny that – especially as Palestine is not a nation anyway !
They do a new one every week on 4 extra: to be fair I remember a Greek Cypriot whose poem was connected to the Turkish occupation in a partisan sort of way but there are 57 countries in the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation so there are that many more opportunities for ROP friendly propagandising .
There have, on occasion, been mutterings about straying from matters of BBC professional competence and integrity into other areas. I’ve been pretty chilled on OT because on a free, unmodded blog it’s impossible to address so the best thing is just to ignore and let things move on.
So with trolls, and controversial postings by authors and individuals, though it can be hard to resist (I have been guilty too) weighing in to disagree, to defend, to register protest or to take to task.
None of these of course are destined to add much by way of light; while fire, once taking hold, has a nasty way of consuming all. But that serves only those whose aim is to destroy.
This is a topic worthy of discussion, and I think the BBC’s role (their treatment of the case, after all, being the core issue) has not been optimal, with any reference to previous actions, or rather edited (facts enhanced or those that do not serve sidelined) ‘versions’ and too-little, too-late corrective measures simply highlighting the multiples of standards at play. The over-arching key point/difference being they are a paid, in-theory objective broadcaster who should know better.
But even those less governed by certain parameters of good taste and decency, or obligations of paid service, especially in the more robust world of unmodded forum blogging, might even in reaction to the BBC’s excesses do well to ponder what may be best served by expressing naked emotion and knee-jerk reaction in ways that hand opportunity on a plate to those who, without irony, and totally inaccurately blanket choose to refer to disparate individuals as ‘you lot’. Those who seldom appear very interested in a claimed victim as much as what their case can do to serve their own petty agendas.
I passed over an initial phrasing set that I did not agree with, and should have distanced myself from earlier, albeit with it being OT to the forum topic it was possibly a view beyond such scope and best left alone.
Of course this was never going to happen.
With few exceptions, such as those who set out to do so (for ill or, in rare cases, nobler reasons), no one ‘deserves to die’, which I consider at best an unfortunate turn of phrase under most circumstances. Many may choose to, and how and why that happens is a different matter. For instance, the terrorist in the headlines today I consider made such a choice when making the conscious decision to plan and then kill and maim innocents. He will soon get his wish (albeit one made at the time… as it appears he may have, too late, now seen the consequences bearing down). Other deaths are less clear cut.
But lionising any who make that such a choice, controversially, with clearly over-egged, blanket selective editorial on background and pertinent facts, especially ignoring the fog of war and ‘combatants’ who no longer wear uniforms or fight in any way that is possible to deal with in every case without error, is also wrong.
Partisan posturing in reaction simply makes things worse, from any direction.
I value this site too much and respect the vast majority of posts and posters (author or visitor) to flounce off in protest at some of what has been/is said (unlike some who seem so addicted to outrage they can’t seem to wait to return to get outraged even more) by a clear minority, but thanks to two sets of comments, which I will not specify, from two extremes clearly designed to inflame nihilistically, I regretfully now leave this specific thread to run its course.
Like the many flaws of democracy that leave its basic, ‘better than the alternative’ overall standards open to abuse, this may not be the best reaction, but is sincere and the only one I can see open to me.
Were it that leaving other sources of information or education I cannot see value in, an option I could embrace as easily.
But here I look forward to engaging with calmer keyboards, if perhaps on equally feisty topics, on other threads.
All of this just goes to show how an unfortunate turn of phrase can drown out the point at issue, which is BBC bias.
There are one or two posting above who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
I don’t think she ‘deserved to die’ – she was a brainwashed useful idiot – she may have chosen to die but that’s different.
Anyway wasn’t there some suggestion at the time that she was ‘encouraged’ in front of the bulldozer by her friends? i.e. pushed …
Her Arab friends must of realised a Socialist Westerner dying would have a more positive affect on their cause than one on their Arab corades dying.
Well it’s always preferable to get an ally killed rather than yerself isn’t it?
As Confusious didn’t say: ‘Kill friend before friend become enemy.’
No one seems to have picked up on this, yet. The BBC article, Rachel Corrie: Court rules Israel not at fault for death is illustrated with a demonstrably faked photograph.
The man next to Rachel Corrie has no feet. His picture was cut and pasted into the picture.
The woman casts a shadow to her left but the much-larger bulldozer casts no shadow whatsoever in that direction. If you look at the back of the bulldozer blade, the hydraulic piston’s shadow shows that the sun is coming from behind the bulldozer. She and the man in the white T-shirt should also be casting shadows in the same direction but they are not.
The image upload never seems to work for me.
You can find a larger, labelled image and a close up on the man at Rachel Corrie resources on Five Minutes for Israel.
The BBC home page is often an interesting guide to their thinking. The link reads Corrie parents lose Israel case (Screengrab at http://flic.kr/p/d1ZMEf) but the article it links to begins Rachel Corrie: Court rules Israel not at fault for death.
Despite the strange grammar one can’t help thinking how the home page link generates sympathy for the parents. Without reading further i am already on their side.
Always picking at what side(faction) is right, What about the majority of both sides thats innocent, who want an ordinary life. But the propergander suits polycentric communisation to the global financial capitalism(left/right). Corporations at top(gov’, state, court, etc…) and the public at bottom(humans). Is this not a move to remove humans “god giving right”(common law) for the statutory acts which is not law, but rules to be a corporate feudal slave contracted to the birth certificate?
NO MAN! has the power over another unless their consent is given; this is law, true law.
This acknowledges mans God given unalienable rights to do as he pleased as long as no harm or loss was caused.
This is common Law(human) (all humans equal under god)
Or do people like to choose darwins wrong eugenics ideological theroy of RACE?
‘Context’ that you won’t find on the BBC:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2010/06/the-other-rachel/