Dan, lets try again. I was discussing Palestinian action against Israelis in the occupied territories in which I explained why I thought they were legitimate targets so long as the military occupation and illilegal settlements continue. You then used the Maxim bombing as an arguement against that. My point in reply was that Maxim’s was irrelevent to the point I was making as it was not committed in the occupied territories.
Certainly I think the attack was unjustified and to be condemed. It was also unhelpful to the Palestinian cause - if they were more disiplined and restricted their attacks to their occupiers * who are in actual occupation* it would assist them in avoiding charges of being terrorists.
And you Jackmannii need to learn that there is a big difference between a people and a government, and between what a people stand for and approve of now and what lies in their history. If you think because I am British I somehow approve of what we did to Dresden, or that because of what my past government/military have done I have no right to criticise the actions of others you are a fool. It would be like banning any American commenting on genocide because of what happened to the Native Americans…
Finally Beagle, you have not got a clue what you are talking about if you think the European media have an anti-Israeli bias. I have lived in the London, Rome, Houston, KL, Damascus and now Luanda - a pretty good cross section of the world media and the one place that pretty every expat agrees on is media biased is - the good old US of A. I mean have you ever read the biggest selling quality daily in the UK, The Daily Telegraph. I don’t think you would regard that as anti-zionist!
No, I think one has the obligation to understand history and have a sense of perspective, and that it is foolish to pretend that Israel is somehow guilty of barbarism otherwise unknown in modern times.
For example, the war in Iraq (not even taking into account the previous sanctions) that Britain has participated in has probably killed more innocent civilians in a few months than have died due to Israeli military actions in many years. Yet I rarely see the savage bitterness with which Israel is denounced being applied to Great Britain.
Sorry I don’t share your opinion about the “unbiased” world media as regards Israel. As just the latest example, BBC World Service this week introduced a story on the Gaza raid by saying “It was a bad day today for the Palestinians crowded into the Gaza Strip (there’s a loaded little intro for you)”, followed by an interview with “BBC’s man in Gaza” (coincidentally, an Arab), who launched into a full-length denunciation of the Israeli action as brutal, unjustified etc. No counter-opinion was heard whatsoever.
Now, if you agree with all this, you may not see anything wrong in that type of coverage. But if you like your news straight and your commentary separate, you might object. And I think we have a wee bit more tradition here that it is somewhat professional to include at least a fragmentary statement from the other side.
As a slight hijack, the same Beeb broadcast featured an interviewer asking an oil expert if he thought that the U.S. was trying to “force changes down the throat” of OPEC, and a statement by a reporter in a story on the rebuilding of Iraq that “some fear U.S. corporations will loot Iraq of its assets and leave nothing for the people”. Just who “some” are was never explained (“some” apparently just being code for the reporter’s anti-American bias).
I am somewhat gladdened by hearing these sorts of excesses in the foreign press, because it makes me realize that whatever its sometimes considerable faults, the U.S. media as a whole are far more professional than many non-U.S. outlets.
Yes, but there are good argument shit-for-brains (this has been way too polite for the PIT). It is not personal bolstering, it is evidence of personal experience, something which broadens the mind and provides you with data rather than the pig ignorant prejudices you seem to carry around to every thread you visit.
Visiting a country several times does not compare with living there, as a visitor do do not get the chance to get a proper feel for the media and trying out several daily newspapers or weekly/monthly periodicals.
So, you reckon I don’t know shit about the United States after two years living in Texas? Well it is possible, I grant you. It is just less likely, infinitely less likely.
Of course you can live you whole life, it don’t matter where, and if you are blinkered you will learn nothing. Look to yourself.
As to you last waste-of-time post - so would Israel abandoning their occupation and retiring to 1967 lines work, but that is not going to happen either.
I watch the BBC quite alot and rarely do I see anything on the news that could be described as one sided. the Current Affairs programmes certainly do provide both sides on issues.
then again, if you disagree with what they are saying you are bound to call it bias, even though it might be true.
Yes, but this thread is not discussing the United Kingdoms role in the Iraq War, if you want to discuss that there are many other threads and if you want to do a search you can find me expressing my disapproval of my country’s action, even though it may not be be expressed with a sufficient amount of bitterness for you. Stick to the OP, at least vaguely and don’t attempt to disqualify viewpoints from certain sources because of some other moral failing of their country upon which you do not know their opinion.
Don’t start on BBC bias again. You can refer to any number of threads started by December and you see that every quote you can produce of bias on one side can be countered by an example on the other. Individual reporters may indeed show bias on occassion, the best don’t, but the organisation is not as a whole biased, simply balanced overall. I trust that you are not of the opinion it was somehow a good day for them, or that with the deaths of a few of their fellow Palestinians the survivors should be somehow thankful for it no longer being so crowded in the Gaza refugee camps?
I can only repeat, from my experience of world media having lived on several different continents, the most biased has been the USA. If you read “Manufacturing Consent - Thought Control in Democratic Societies” by Chomsky you will find a well supported thesis which you will find hard to find evidence to reject. Many, let me guess including Beagle, will not as they will check out the author and turn their blinkered minds away from the possibility of finding out what he has to say. But I would recommend it.
I started in my youth as a Thatcherite, “neo-con” conservative with an instinctive pro-Israel reaction. I have travelled a long way since then, by being willing to abandon preconceptions when confronted with enough evidence to the contrary, or at least to permit a degree of doubt.
If living somewhere is the criterion, which is really stupid if you think about it, then I’ve lived and worked in Europe. I’ve seen old Austrians sing Nazi songs when they get loaded. I’ve seen Europeans get all creepy when they see a circumcised American.
“Are you Jewish? Are you Jewish? Are you Jewish? Are you Jewish? Are you Jewish?”
“Are you sure?”
Does that mean I consider myself an expert on all Europe? No.
You, idiot, think that somehow you can have it both ways. “Well, I lived in Texas.”
I made it quite clear that I think French media is pro-Palestinian consistenly. I read French a little, and don’t go to Newsmax unless linked there (Euro-idiots), why don’t you find one article written with a pro-Israel bias in the major media.
I read a lot about foreign media, from lots of sources, France is fucked in the head.
Our local public radio station runs a nightly multi-hour news roundup billed only as the BBC World Service.**
[/quote]
I watch the BBC quite alot and rarely do I see anything on the news that could be described as one sided. the Current Affairs programmes certainly do provide both sides on issues.
then again, if you disagree with what they are saying you are bound to call it bias, even though it might be true. **
[/QUOTE]
It’s not the job of a reporter to infiltrate his or her opinion into straight news coverage. If the same individual gets a commentator’s slot and wants to opine as to what is Truth, I have no problem with that.
It’s amazing how many posters (U.S. and non-U.S.) think such distinctions are unimportant.
An admission, being half Polish and a worse-than-lapsed Catholic, plenty of people in my extended family are classic Euro anti-Semites. It’s a great tradition, going back thousands of years.
So, IMO, the burden is on those who are arguing the status quo has changed.
But, in a spirit of cross-ocean cooperation, I would like to – seriously – credit Jacques Chirac for this statement to an Islamic conference.
THAT is ALL that matters right now – finding a way out of this fucking mess. Picking teams is a bad idea.
In other words, you’d rather not address this double standard. I quite understand your reluctance to do so.**
You apparently are laboring under the misconception that you are an arbiter of what may or may not be discussed here, as well as a conscript in the language police upset that there is not enough vituperance here to suit Pit mores. **
[quote]
I trust that you are not of the opinion it was somehow a good day for them, or that with the deaths of a few of their fellow Palestinians the survivors should be somehow thankful for it no longer being so crowded in the Gaza refugee camps?**I trust that you are a profound twit who is completely ignorant of journalistic standards, and should stuff your attempted witticisms up your jumper.
That better?
A Thatcherite turned Chomskyite.
Euggggghhh.
On preview, I’m not sure what “balance” jjimm is getting at, as on his linked BBC page there seem to be approximately three times as many headlines dealing with violence against Palestinians as there are dealing with violence against Israelis.
I also never said anything about US media although I probably read & see more that you think. I get CNBC(I quite like “Meet the Press” but can’t stand John McCloughlan and 2 major news broadcasts (CBS and NBC I think) and read the NY Times and Washington post most days. Doesn’t really matter though as I never claimed anything about US media.
You however did claim knowledge of “European” news services, then lowered the bar by saying France, then said you’re not that familiar with French news services. Now excuse me while I take your opinion with a pinch of salt.
Why the hell should we. You made the statement. If your to pig lazy to try to back your own shit up then I fucked if I’m gonna do it for ya. (Note: I see some links from you on preview I’ll check them out)
So fucking what? You met some pricks. Big fucking deal. I could talk about some of the gun loving redneck yahoos I met in your fine country but why bother they were individual assholes.
Again so fucking what. Read some circumcision threads sometime. Lots of Americans saying that they couldn’t be with a uncircumcised man and finding it icky.
so you met some potential racists on your travels. Again so what? They’re all over the world.
It is not I who have a messed up view of the world or more correctly the US. You however obviously are willing to accept single instances as verification of your prejudices.
This is from the Gaza Strip - a part of the PA that is under complete Palestinian control - including security. And they are shelling Israeli towns - inside Israel proper from there.
OK - thought experiment time.
Say some rockets are launched from around the Mexican border (Tijuana? I’m a bit shaky on the geography there) and hit San Diego.
Say Mexican government doesn’t immediately haul ass and take good care of the perpetrators.
American official response might be?..
If you aren’t american let’s try the the same for, oh let’s say Slovenia (or is it Croatia?) bombing Trieste. Italy does… what?
I have a feeling our reactions here would look tame in comparison. And I think that we are, in fact, definitely practicing restraint in these circumstances.