|
Posts:
1,250
From:
UK
Registered:
6/1/06
|
|
(1 of 16)
The BBC isn't anti-Israeli after all
Jan 24, 2009 8:24 AM
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7848673.stm
Geneh, any comment?
--
'Downed all over Kent, just like the Luftwaffe' - draft, but never used advert for Spitfire bitter.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
|
Posts:
1,250
From:
UK
Registered:
6/1/06
|
|
(3 of 16)
Re: The BBC isn't anti-Israeli after all
Jan 25, 2009 8:05 AM
|
ather than posting a link to a 6 year old partisan website, why don't you comment on the story I have posted?
--
'Downed all over Kent, just like the Luftwaffe' - draft, but never used advert for Spitfire bitter.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(5 of 16)
Jan 27, 2009 4:04 AM
|
An Israeli soldier is killed and three are injured in a blast near Gaza's border in the first real test for an Israel-Hamas ceasefire.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
If that would be opposite - a Palestinian would be killed then BBC would write differently (correctly):
A IPalestinian is killed and three are injured in a blast near Gaza's border in the first real VIOLATION of an Israel-Hamas ceasefire
This was the first real test for BBC (since ordeal about ad) after it claimed impartiality and BBC failed that test miserably
|
|
|
Posts:
1,250
From:
UK
Registered:
6/1/06
|
|
(6 of 16)
Re: The first test for BBC
Jan 27, 2009 12:54 PM
|
I doubt it as that text would suggest bias.
Furthermore in the report you quote it goes on to say:
It was Israel's first air strike since the end of its offensive against Hamas. There has been Israeli artillery and naval fire against Gaza targets since the ceasefires were announced.
If there has been Israeli artillery and naval fire (before this incident) isn't that the 'first violation' of the ceasefire?
--
'Downed all over Kent, just like the Luftwaffe' - draft, but never used advert for Spitfire bitter.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(7 of 16)
Re: The first test for BBC
Jan 27, 2009 4:10 PM
|
If there has been Israeli artillery and naval fire (before this incident) isn't that the 'first violation' of the ceasefire?
That is the whole thing: BBC does not report the truth.
The key word here is "REAL", not jus "first violation".
BBC wrote "real TEST", in reality it was "real VIOLATION" , not "test".
BBC is a an anti-semitic propaganda machine.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059156.html
The Israel Air Force attacked targets in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday afternoon, hours after an Israeli soldier was killed and three others were wounded in a Palestinian-rigged bomb attack near the border.
(do you see the word "after"?)
Palestinian witnesses also said by late Tuesday afternoon that Israeli tanks could be seen rolling into the Gaza Strip.
The incident near the border was the FIRST DEADLY ATTACK carried out by Palestinian militants since a cease-fire went into effect in the coastal strip 10 days ago.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(8 of 16)
Another example of BBC "unbiased" report
Feb 9, 2009 5:13 AM
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_7875000/7875431.stm
THis site called: 'Mid East timeline" supposely presents the hiistory of Arab -Israeli conflict.
But how it presents it?
In the first section called "Divisions" it tells about beginning of the conflict in 1948 and ends by saying:
Israel defeated the Arab armies resulting in it expanding its borders beyond the UN partition plan. The war also created thousands of Palestinian refugees and the period is often referred to as al-Nakkba, the catastrophe, by Palestinians.
That is it. But what about "creating" thousands of Jewish refugess who were expelled by Palestinians from Jerusalem, Gush Etzion, Neve Yakov, etc? Why "unbiased" BBC does not want to inform the reader about their existance and tries to make an inpression that only Arabs became refugees?
In the next portion called "Six day war" "unbiased" BBC once again omits parts which it does not want readers to know about.
Here it states:
The UN passed resolution 242 which stressed 'the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war' and called for Israel to withdraw from 'territories occupied in the recent conflict' as well as an end to "all claims or states of belligerency and respect for? the sovereignty? of every state in the area and their right to live in peace? free from threats or acts of force."
We can leave the part which refers to 'the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war' since it probably ment to say that it was inadmissible for USA to acquire Texas or for Russia to acquire East Prussia or maybe for France to acquire Alsase or maybe one of the other 100 states which acquired territory by war. Lets concentrate instead on the Middle East.
called for Israel to withdraw from 'territories occupied in the recent conflict' as well as an end to "all claims or states of belligerency and respect for? the sovereignty? of every state in the area and their right to live in peace? free from threats or acts of force
I invite everybody to look at resolution 242:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Did you notice the difference between resolution and its representation by BBC?
BCC claims that resolution calls on Israel to withdraw from(some) territories while in reality resolution calles on withdrawal of Israeli armed forces only. Which means Jewish settlers are not affected by it. Why BBC had the need to lie?
Then, in its presentation of resolution 242, BBC arbitrary removed part of it which calls for countries to live in SECURE and recognized borders, without specifying where those borders should be.
Why BBC omitted this part? By accident? Or to create an opinion (wrong) that resolution 242 demands from Israel to be within 1967 "borders"?
If you want I could continue this with other sections of the "unbiased" report. But I think it could be seen by now by anybody who does not have prejustice that BBC is not a "news source" but source of propaganda and indocrination.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(9 of 16)
Apr 2, 2009 7:38 AM
|
Mr Netanyahu's foreign minister has declared his government will abandon the Annapolis agreement and go back to the so-called roadmap for peace.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7978699.stm
He did not say that. He said: "Israel is not bounded by Annapolis agreement".
At the handover ceremony at the Foreign Ministry Thursday afternoon, Lieberman sounded an aggressive foreign policy stance, emphasizing that the new government is not bound by the Annapolis process
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1075563.html
"Not bound" does not mean "WILL abandon", it means MAY abandon.
Although it looks like a harmeless misquotation but in reality it is a Goebels style propagada intended to decieve naive BBC readers that Israel is abandoning the "peace process".
BBC is a propaganda outlet.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(10 of 16)
Re: The BBC isn't anti-Israeli after all
Apr 7, 2009 3:03 PM
|
Yet another one.
Police kill Palestinian motorist http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7987317.stm
But:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1077080.html
Police kill Palestinian assailant at demolition of terrorist's home
Border Police officers on Tuesday fatally shot a Palestinian man as he tried to ram into them with his car during the demolition of the East Jerusalem home of a terrorist who killed three Israelis with a bulldozer last July.
So, who was he: "motorist" or "terrorist"?
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
7/8/09
|
|
(11 of 16)
Re: The BBC isn't anti-Israeli after all
Jul 8, 2009 12:38 AM
|
|
A news channel usually doesn't support any particular country, and I'm am pretty confident that BBC cant do it.It just brings the real picture of what happening in Israel and Palestine. If Hamas attacks its also on news and if Israel makes a massacre its also on news.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(12 of 16)
Re: The BBC isn't anti-Israeli after all
Jul 10, 2009 6:08 AM
|
A news channel usually doesn't support any particular country, and I'm am pretty confident that BBC cant do it
BBC does not support any particular country but it does support one particular ideology: the so called "socialist-liberal" ideology. It is the way of how BBC stuff looks at the events. Socialist-liberal ideology, for example, strongly opposes old forms of colonialism (but supports new ideological colonialism). Therefore if BBC sees Hamas as a fighter against old forms of colonialism it calls a Hamas terrorist - a "motorist", and if not, then "motorist" becomes a "terrorist".
This is called PROPAGANDA: a brainwash of an ignorant. Since cup could be half-full and half-empty you can call it either way. Hitler could be called " the leader of the German nation" and a "murderer". If you don't know who he was (if you are an ignorant person) (which you are) then your opnion about him would be estalished depending on how he was presented to you: as a "motorist" or as a "terrorist".
And your opinion about future events will be strongly based on these assumptions.
That is how Goebels acted. That is how Soviet propaganda worked. And that is how BBC now presents the "news".
|
|
|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(13 of 16)
Re: The BBC isn't anti-Israeli after all
Jul 13, 2009 5:23 AM
|
Another example of BBC propaganda is the line it repeats over and over again, almost every time it mentiones the name "Israel":
"Some 500,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, areas captured by Israel in 1967. Israel wants to be able to keep building within existing communities there, although all such work is illegal under international law. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8147477.stm
In other words to indocrinate naive readers BBC follows teaching of its mentor and teacher dr. Goebels: "If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth in the minds of ignorant people".
|
|
|
Posts:
1,250
From:
UK
Registered:
6/1/06
|
|
(14 of 16)
Re: The BBC isn't anti-Israeli after all
Jul 18, 2009 9:10 AM
|
> In other words to indocrinate naive readers BBC
> follows teaching of its mentor and teacher dr.
> Goebels: "If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes
> truth in the minds of ignorant people".
You're guilty of what you acuse others: just because you keep repeating Israel's claim that the settlements are legal doesn't make them so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlements
International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, every major organ of the United Nations, and the European Union have declared that the settlements are a serious violation of international law.
--
'Downed all over Kent, just like the Luftwaffe' - draft, but never used advert for Spitfire bitter.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(15 of 16)
Re: The BBC isn't anti-Israeli after all
Jul 21, 2009 6:59 AM
|
International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, every major organ of the United Nations, and the European Union have declared that the settlements are a serious violation of international law.
Which one? Please name me it and I will agree with you. Otherwise you will have to agree with me that "every major organ of the United Nations, and the European Union" are liars.
Besides, your quote from wiki has little to do with my original post about BBC propaganda. Wiki states that "every major organ of the United Nations, and the European Union consider EXISTANCE of the settlements to be a violation of international law, while BBC claims that "building WITHIN EXISTING COMMUNITIES is illegal under international law"
Check out:
Some 500,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, areas captured by Israel in 1967. Israel wants to be able to keep building within existing communities there, although all such work is illegal under international law. "
In other words, if let say, group of people illegaly occupyed building in your town BBC claims that not only occupation of the building was illegal but also whatever has been done by occupants inside that building (like moving furniture, adding rooms, giving births, whatever) was also illegal. Or, if let say, illegal immigrants are in your country not only their presence is illegal but whatever they do is also illegal.
I ask you to produce such "international law" which states that not only existance of settlements is illegal but also " building WITHIN EXISTING COMMUNITIES" is also illegal.
Or to admit clear and loud that BBC is nothing else but a tool of propaganda which is trying to deceive naive readers by spreading lies.
|
|
|
|
|
