The Middle East part 2

[Garcia 0]

The way from "plain evil" to "pure evil" is quite long, at least IMO.

[Commando84 0]

israel is just as terroristic like its neighbours almost

*runs off and hides behind a polar bear...

[Nemesis6 0]

israel is just as terroristic like its neighbours almost

*runs off and hides behind a polar bear...

Which, of course, is wrong.

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]Which, of course, is wrong.

The difference between terrorists killing civilians and the IDF killing civilians is that the terrorists get condemned, while the IDF don't.

Israel should watch it's image, escpecially now that the United States has found friggin huge oil reserves. Without the US need for middle-eastern oil i really don't see why they would keep funding you guys. And if the US stops funding Israel then oh boy...

edit: Link to oil shale finding.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]However, oil prices, which spiked above $70 a barrel this week, combined with advances in technology could soon make it possible to tap the estimated 500 billion to 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels, the report found.

And the Great Satan receives another gift from its underworld sponsor...

[Nemesis6 0]

The difference between terrorists killing civilians and the IDF killing civilians is that the terrorists get condemned, while the IDF don't.

You got it backwards. The reason Israel has such a bad image is because of the tactics of the terrorists - Use civilians as human shields. Attack Israel, and when Israel hits back, it will hit the human shields, and you will win regardless of how much of your resources Israel destroyed because once again, Israel is portrayed as the cold blooded child killing monsters that the BBC, AFP, and AP want you to see them as.

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]Israel is portrayed as the cold blooded child killing monsters that the BBC, AFP, and AP want you to see them as.

Lmao spoken like a true Camera representative,the sooner you realise thats not the case ,the sooner you will have a more realistic outlook on the Middle east.

[Nemesis6 0]

Quote[/b] ]Israel is portrayed as the cold blooded child killing monsters that the BBC, AFP, and AP want you to see them as.

Lmao spoken like a true Camera representative,the sooner you realise thats not the case ,the sooner you will have a more realistic outlook on the Middle east.

Or the sooner I'll get the whole outlook on the Middle-East backwards.

[deanosbeano 0]

well you could start by giving acual quotes and not your own spin on them in order to make "white lies".(source available)

"People in glass houses should not throw stones"

also when using the excuse that THE WHOLE of the BBC is biased because one woman cried at araffats funeral, you could add the following actions taken by the BBC. that is :

Quote[/b] ]The BBC Governors' program Complaints Committee initially cleared Plett after hundreds of listeners complained but upheld part of an appeal and said she "breached the requirements of due impartiality".

But the committee rejected part of the appeal that said the October 30 report broadcast on the Radio 4 station was a "tearful eulogy". The panel said it was balanced by references to Arafat's "obvious failings".

How can you say that the bbc and afp and bbc are portraying the middle east in a bias that shows isreal in a bad light,when you yourself do the same on these forums,to show the arab world (almost), to be blood thirsty terrorists ?

[Nemesis6 0]

Dude, are you that oblivious? That was just me pulling one out of the bag. Do you really want me to start pulling out examples untill you start attacking me personally again?

[deanosbeano 0]

If you can give me some examples of the "truth" ,the whole picture not one moment in time where someone cried, give me the actual quotes with source and any follow repremands , i will gladly take a look , no problem.

But if your just gonna give ,Biased accounts of a story without an un biased unedited point of view, then there is no point ,i can easily go to camera or little greenfootballs.

Quote[/b] ]untill you start attacking me personally again?

Proof please and no statements about right wing left wing

Because i already discounted you from that statement.

and my statement about your youth ,is merely my experience telling me that at 18 we dont know what we know at 36.

and finally, if you look back, the attacks start with words such as Senile and such , none of which came from myself.

[Garcia 0]

Do you really want me to start pulling out examples untill you start attacking me personally again?

You're not exactly too good on that part yourself, seeing all the people you call nutjobs, extremists and other stuff...

[Nemesis6 0]

Alright, you don't want any singled out incidents from something you consider biased, alright, look through what looks like 4 years of documentation of bias within the BBC here. You can also check out bbcwatch.com, bbcbias.org, and BeebWatch.

[Garcia 0]

Alright, you don't want any singled out incidents from something you consider biased, alright, look through what looks like 4 years of documentation of bias within the BBC here.

Oh, you pull out the big evidence? A blog!

[deanosbeano 0]

Sorry m8 ,but i dont think you or that site realise what unbiased reporting means.

you cannot call someone biased because they report events from both sides of a conflict,all that site says is that the bbc are biased because they not only show israels point of view they also show a palestinian point of view, which is not Biased it is just middle ground.

these people will never gain middle east peace merely by drowning the voice of palestinians or anyone else.

sorry mate but that site just smells of aipac

BTW to prove a point, your people at that site say they areanti israeli yet the the people at this blog say they are pro.

just proves a point really how they are middleand will always displease one side at one moment.

bbc are pro isreali blog.

more of the same

I know you wont like the source, but once again, i visit many sites from both view points and in order to know why people think what they do you must read what they read.

And a little insight into your friends from the blog

[Nemesis6 0]

It's a blog, thus, it's invalid evidence. That's logical.... Is that what you're saying, Garcia?

By the way, read the post again, I edited it to include some more sites.

[EiZei 0]

It's a blog, thus, it's invalid evidence. That's logical.... Is that what you're saying, Garcia?

By the way, read the post again, I edited it to include some more sites.

About as valid as say.. indymedia?

[Nemesis6 0]

I wouldn't know, I've never really checked NaziMedia out for obvious reasons.

[Garcia 0]

It's a blog, thus, it's invalid evidence. That's logical.... Is that what you're saying, Garcia?

By the way, read the post again, I edited it to include some more sites.

Oh, I forgot, only the big, noble Nemesis is allowed to do things like that. The oh so big Nemesis is allowed to reject others opinion because the oh so big Nemesis disagrees with that person. The oh so big Nemesis is allowed to reject sources because the oh so big Nemesis disagrees with the source. The of so big Nemesis is allowed to reject sources because he, personally finds them to be biased or something else. The oh so big Nemesis is allowed to reject BBC as a source because a blog says BBC is biased. Nobody else than the oh so big Nemesis is allowed to do such things.

Don't you find it ironic that you can reject BBC because a blog says it's biased (earlier you have used only that blog as "proof" of BBC being biased, and therefor rejected BBC as a valid source), but others are not allowed to question the trustworthyness of a blog? You telling me that if a mate of mine writes a totally fucked up blog, I can use it as a valid source? THAT is logic...Nemesis logic...

And that other source...

Quote[/b] ]December 30th: Surprisingly little BBC coverage of the nationalists' success in elections in Serbia. Could this be because the main cause is a failure by the United Nations - beloved by the BBC - to stop persecution of Serbs in Kosovo?

OH MY GOD!!! BIIIIIAAS...

Quote[/b] ]December 27th: A new survey shows that a massive 2% of people think a ban on hunting should be a priority for the government. Coverage of this on the BBC? You must be joking!

Damn, BBC is really biased...

Quote[/b] ]December 26th: Christmas comes with its own traditions. Morecambe and Wise. The Great Escape. The Sound of Music. And the BBC trying to cover the traditional Boxing Day hunts without mentioning the fact that huntsmen and women outnumber protesters by 1000 to 1.

Horrible...

Quote[/b] ]December 21st: The BBC has instructed its newsreaders to stop calling that scion of humanity Saddam Hussein 'the former dictator', and instead use 'the deposed president'. Soon it'll be wanting us all to send him sympathy cards for having to murder two million people.

Those damn muslim lovers...

Quote[/b] ]December 21st: Ex-Guardian correspondent Andrew Marr has said that the war in Iraq was not part of the war against terrorism. Presumably this is the same Andrew Marr who recently denied any bias at the BBC. It isn't only the Beagle 2 spaceprobe which is on another planet.

How horrible! A bit ironic however, that it turned out that there was no connection between Iraq and terror, thus the war in Iraq couldn't really be a war on terror...

Quote[/b] ]December 19th: Managers of the BBC website were in a mess yesterday. First they denied publishing a letter calling for George W. Bush to be hung. Then someone told them they had copied it, so they admitted it - but said 'it must have slipped through'. Presumably just like that entire anti-American Question Time programme just days after 9/11 'slipped through'.

WOW! BBC wanting to hang Bush! That surely shows their love for muslims!

Honestly, half of the stuff in there is utter crap when it comes to proving BBC being biased...at least when it comes to proving BBC being biased when it comes to the middle east...though I didn't read through the whole thing, mainly because of the many things I read, there weren't really much relevant to the middle east discussion...

[Nemesis6 0]

Honestly, half of the stuff in there is utter crap when it comes to proving BBC being biased...at least when it comes to proving BBC being biased when it comes to the middle east...

Well, then what about the half that you do seem to acknowledge?

By the way, I'm getting the feeling that you're implying I recently denied something because of its source. Care to specify what?

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]By the way, I'm getting the feeling that you're implying I recently denied something because of its source. Care to specify what?

uhhh.... :

Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't know, I've never really checked NaziMedia out for obvious reasons.

Seems about right.

Quote[/b] ]WOW! BBC wanting to hang Bush! That surely shows their love for muslims!

Hah yeah, half of the United States wants to see him gone. What's wrong with loving muslims anyway? They never did anyone any harm.

[Garcia 0]

Honestly, half of the stuff in there is utter crap when it comes to proving BBC being biased...at least when it comes to proving BBC being biased when it comes to the middle east...

Well, then what about the half that you do seem to acknowledge?

I said half of it was utter crap. The other half didn't prove BBC was biased, it just wasn't as crap as the other half.

If BBC chooses to show a report from a gay-parade instead of a speech by some demonstrators or something (which was something like this the other half was like) doesn't mean they're biased...

Quote[/b] ]By the way, I'm getting the feeling that you're implying I recently denied something because of its source. Care to specify what?

That depends on how you define 'recently'. Besides, does it matter if you denied something because of it's source now or 2 months ago? You still have a tendancy to deny stuff because you, personally, got some agenda against the source, too often without really good reasons. You have done it in the past, and I would be very suprised if you won't do it in the future...

Quote[/b] ]Hah yeah, half of the United States wants to see him gone. What's wrong with loving muslims anyway? They never did anyone any harm.

Really, the whole part there was sarcasm. There is nothing wrong in loving muslims, it was just to point out that most of the "arguments" for showing BBCs alleged bias in the middle east that site didn't really have anything to do with neither bias nor the middle east.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

that site is the biggest bunch of crap ever. It dosnt prove the BBC is bais at all. Instead it just criticises the BBC for everything it does. IT just shows that they themselves are biast.

[scary 0]

Quote[/b] ]If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Is that from the book "The Art Of War" ?

Yes it is.

Quote[/b] ]I don't know much about that law in the UK, but from what I could understand is that you can hold somebody in costady for 90 days for being a suspected terrorist.

A suspected terrorist can be held for seven days without charge for questioning, after which the police must either charge them, release them or apply to the courts for another seven day extension, for this they have to convince a judge that there is merit and progress in their investigation. After 28 days there are no more extensions available, a suspect must either be charged or released.

Quote[/b] ]that's funny, because some people calling us "kidnhappers" if we arrest people that they are terrorist.

Unless you are arresting people having escaped prison then you are arresting suspected terrorists. They are not terrorists until they have been convicted as such by due process.

And I don't THINK Iran and Syria are behind HizbAllah. Everyone knows they are and evidence has been uncovered to prove the Syrian government's direct support of HizbAllah. Not to talk about Iran, Iran even has personel on the ground showing the terrorists how to operate Iranian-shipped missiles and hardware.

It's not something I think. It's something that I, and any sane person knows.

Most sane people rely on evidence, not your diatribe on the Internet. I'm not aware of anyone on here denying that Iran and Syria support Hizballah, but supporting them and controlling them, as you have asserted they do, are not the same thing. Unless you have some evidence that the world's intelligence organisations don't then you are making things up.

Quote[/b] ]I mean, seriously, "Made in Tula, Russia. For the Syrian Defence Ministry" was what IDF soldiers found on an AT-3 Sagger missile confiscated in a raid against HizbAllah.

Hizballah have also been using British, American and Israeli equipment. So, do you actually have a point to make?

Quote[/b] ]You got it backwards. The reason Israel has such a bad image is because of the tactics of the terrorists - Use civilians as human shields. Attack Israel, and when Israel hits back, it will hit the human shields, and you will win regardless of how much of your resources Israel destroyed because once again, Israel is portrayed as the cold blooded child killing monsters that the BBC, AFP, and AP want you to see them as.

Israel has the image it deserves, the image it has created all by itself. What are settlers if they're not human shields? Why does Israel place military bases next to hospitals and schools if not for human shields?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]well you could start by giving acual quotes and not your own spin on them in order to make "white lies".(source available)

"People in glass houses should not throw stones"

also when using the excuse that THE WHOLE of the BBC is biased because one woman cried at araffats funeral, you could add the following actions taken by the BBC. that is

Quote[/b] ]The BBC Governors' program Complaints Committee initially cleared Plett after hundreds of listeners complained but upheld part of an appeal and said she "breached the requirements of due impartiality".

But the committee rejected part of the appeal that said the October 30 report broadcast on the Radio 4 station was a "tearful eulogy". The panel said it was balanced by references to Arafat's "obvious failings".

How can you say that the bbc and afp and bbc are portraying  the middle east in a bias that shows isreal in a bad light,when you yourself do the same on these forums,to show the arab world (almost), to be blood thirsty terrorists ?

Dude, are you that oblivious? That was just me pulling one out of the bag. Do you really want me to start pulling out examples untill you start attacking me personally again?

Dude, do you think people on here have the memory of a goldfish? Or do you think the poor search function will stop them from bothering?

That example is not one you just 'pulled out of the bag' it is one you used back on page 198, one that I dismantled for you on page 198. Seeing as you like to repeat yourself, I shall do likewise:

Quote[/b] ]It doesn't take you long to go back to 'Honest Reporting', does it.

So, now your idea of evidence of BBC bias is that in a program broadcast on Radio 4 and the World Service called 'From Our Own Correspondent', that is about the thoughts and experiences of correspondents - and isn't actually a news program - one of them said that she cried. Now, that was not because Arafat was ill, but because she was thinking about her shared experiences of the siege.

Instead of linking to the most banal blogs and revisionist sites you can find on the web, try doing some of your own research and develop your own judgements. People will take you a lot more seriously than they will while you continue to regurgitate and assimilate the opinions of random nut-jobs on the internet.

I'll help get you started with some examples of other episodes of 'From Our Own Correspondent':

Israeli elections.

Qassam rocket attacks

First encounters with a militant family

Life in post-occupation Gaza

The evidence so far suggests that the BBC shows stories from all sides. Try looking some more yourself.

It still is not a news program, she still wasn't crying for Arafat and, even if that had happened, one person in the BBC's 27,000+ employees crying is in no way indicative of bias.

As for your other links: the first one is a blog you have used before and it has been refuted; the second is Israeli flag waving dressed as a critical study; the third, rather embarrassingly for you, no longer exists - it's good to see you are researching and not just copy/pasting from your bookmarks; the fourth, apart from making my eyes hurt, is the rantings of a homophobic, xenophobic Tory that begrudges the licence fee and really needs a good kick in the teeth.

Do you plan on submitting a cognitive argument one day or are you going to continue embarrassing yourself with such nonsensical drivel?

[mp_phonix 0]

Quote[/b] ]I mean, seriously, "Made in Tula, Russia. For the Syrian Defence Ministry" was what IDF soldiers found on an AT-3 Sagger missile confiscated in a raid against HizbAllah.

Hizballah have also been using British, American and Israeli equipment. So, do you actually have a point to make?

He is trying to show you that syria supplied Hizballah with arms.

what is more logical, that Syria was supplying Hizballah or Hizballah "stole" it from them ?