F-15 flies with only 1 wing

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I'm not worried about people trying to convert me Pete, it won't happen. What I am concerned about is that people with conflicting religious views don't tend to be able to have calm and considered discussions (the situation in the Middle East proves that), and the last thing I want is to fall out with anyone here because they feel I have offended them or their religion by telling them what I think.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I am always amazed when people fall for such obviously slanted reporting. Every terrorist group in the world is known to use human shields. That's a fact of life. Hezbollah is no different. They show no regard for innocent human life in the least. If they did they wouldn't be terrorists who kill civilians just to make political statements.

All Hezbollah has to do to make Isreal look bad is to move a few mobile rocket launchers into an area, fire off a few rockets as they know Isreal monitors both by night vision cameras and radar, and then run. They know the Isrealis will respond to their attack so what do they do? They attack from either right beside, or in the middle of, innocent civilians. Isreal responds to their attack and who suffers? The civilians, just as Hezbollah planned that they should.

If Hezbollah actually gave a rip about their fellow Arabs they would make sure they didn't fight from inside the towns and villages of their own people. They would go out of their way to make sure their own people didn't suffer the consequences of their actions. But do they do that? No. They intentionally fight from where the greatest number of civilians will be hurt. IMO, what a bunch of sleaze bags. I have no respect whatsoever for such behavior. It shows a complete lack of conscience and regard for human life.

So, where is the condemnation of such tactics by the BBC? There is none because they have a biased agenda. They consistently report news from the area in a way that makes the Isreali's seem to be the ones at fault. Now, is the BBC alone in their baised reporting? Not at all. Many news organizations show the same anti-semetic bias, but, imo, the BBC is one of the most politically biased news organizations in existence.

What follows are some links that show just how biased the BBC reporting is on this issue.

http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

http://bustingbbcbias.blogspot.com/ Read the post for April 13.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5181628.stm
And for those who won't read this article with a critical eye the following blog points out the blatant bias.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=12&x_article=1161

I can show a whole lot more links than I have, but they are enough to illustrate the blatant bias at work in the reporting.

 

What is the BBC's motive for being biased against Israel Freddy? Maybe that's your perception, but I've seen articles showing the Israeli side as well (not going to bother looking for links at the moment). I don't agree with Hezbollahs's tactics, but I would raise two points. The first is not my own, I've seen it raised a number of times and I whole-heartedly agree with it.

1. The UK has had the sh*t blown out of it by the IRA for years, they've used similar tactics as Hezbollah, and they certainly had many sympathisers in the Irish/Northern Irish population. Did the UK level their country because of this? No. Why? Because the vast majority of Irish people probably didn't care about the politics, all they wanted was too get up every morning, go to work and feed their families. You can't punish a whole nation's civilian population for the actions of a few aggrieved individuals who think that violence is the solution to all their problems.

2. If Israel's actions are justified, please, please give me a reasonable argument for them shelling a UN out-post, despite being told several times what they were doing.

It amazes me how much hypocrisy there is with the Middle-East situation. Yes, the Palestinion militants and Hezbollah are hyprocrites, I agree they don't seem to want peace. But Israel is, IMO worse, in that the Jews have been on the recieving end of mass murder and slaughter but now they seem to be detirmined to inflict that treatment on others. This recent situation started with the kidnapping of two soldiers, is levelling Lebannon a measured response to that? Israel could have easily rescued them with less bloody means.

 

Just to bang on about this a bit more, and on the subject of the IRA, I would like to ask our American members a question. It's a generally help opinion in the UK, true or not I don't know, that Americans saw the IRA as freedom figters (not the murdering scumbag terrorists they actually were) and indeed, it seems to be the case that a lot of their funding came from the US. If this is true, can someone explain why the IRA were freedom fighters fighting the good cause whereas Hezbollah, Hamas et al. are no good dirty, murdering terrorist scum. Can someone tell me where the difference lies please?

 

And if you dont think that the US sympathises with the IRA then what do you call the coincedental meeting of gerry adams and bill clinton (cant remember the exact date).

 

I have no idea what the official position of the US government is on the IRA, but I disagree completely with what they do. They are in the same bag as Hezbollah, Al Queda, and all the other terrorist organizations around the world in my world view.

 

At least we agree on something Freddy!

 

With respect to your #1.

The positions of England and the IRA vs Israel and all the terror organizations arrayed against it are vastly different.

First. The IRA wasn't out to destroy all British culture, government, and citizens. The stated purpose of all the Arabic terrorist organizations is the complete annihalition of Isreal and all Jews. The stated purpose of the IRA was to get Britain out of Northern Ireland. Big difference.

Second. The state of Israel is bounded on 3 sides by enemies committed to their destruction of which there are both nations and terrorist organization cooperating together to overthrow and destroy Isreal. Is Britian vs the IRA in that same context? Hardly.

Third. Let's take a look at your language and attitude concerning the IRA and then your judgemental attitude toward Israel taking offense and feeling threatened by its enemies that sworn to its total destruction.

And you wonder why Israel takes a hard line toward organizations that are willing to kill all its citizens? Why wouldn't they be angry and defensive? Why wouldn't they over-react sometimes? Why wouldn't they take pre-emptive strikes to lessen the arms buildup of the terrorist encircling them when those organizations have massive cache's of armaments that have one purpose for being there: the total destruction of Israel? Hezbollah has fired close to 2,000 rockets into Israel in the last few weeks. And just as an aside, when did the IRA ever have that kind of armament stockpile to use against Britain?

Your comparisons between the two situations are extremely weak.

As to #2 you are once again badly informed by politically biased reporting. Read the following link and see the truth of the story.

http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1160

Now, as far as the following statment goes:

Because the BBC, and you, both have your own politcal bias built in and look only for that which reinforces that which you want to believe.

Take a look, if you'll bother to read anything that conflicts with your biases, (I say it because you couldn't be bothered to read the links that disagree with you so far on this issue), at the links I provided earlier. The bias is so blatant that even someone who loves the BBC ought to be able to see the truth about the BBC being biased.

 

First of all, it may not have been a stated objective to "destroy British culture", but nevertheless, they frequently attacked UK mainland targets with sometimes massive loss of life and infrastructure. If Hezbollah, Hamas etc. had never attacked Israel, would there be this current situation? Either the answer is no and therefore the two comparisons are valid, or the answer is yes which would mean Israel would have attacked Lebanon anyway for which there would have been no defence.

I have no political bias, I am neither Arab, Jew, Muslim or Christian. My bias is against the targeting and death of innocent civilians. In this instance, although I believe the attacks of Hezbollah on Israel to be wrong, the fact remains that far more Lebonese have died during this conflict than Israelis, and if I remember a recent statistic correctly, most Israeli casualties have been military, not woman and children.

To clarify my earlier statement about not being bothered to look at other links, I was on my way out the door so didn't have time. Besides, it's not hard to find coverage biased towards either side. As you say, the ones you read are detirmined by your own views. That goes for you too Freddy.

There's a big difference between willing and able. Is Israel as a nation really under that much threat? They have the biggest milltary force in the Middle-East. Yes they suffer suicide attacks and things of that sort, but more Palenstinians are killed by Israel than vice versa in a year. They opress the Palestinians and provoke attacks, and when those attacks happen they hold up their arms and say "Oh look what we have to put up with, poor little us". They don't mention that the latest suicide bomb was caused by their bulldozing of a whole Palestinian village or something like that. Neither response is acceptable, but Israel's is always totally disproportionate.

As for the link you posted last. OK Hezbollah soldiers were nearby, that doesn't justify shelling the post in my book. I would be interested in how you justify it. Especially as the IDF were told several times that they were bombing a UN station.

There's probably more I could write but I'm at work. I am enjoying this debate though.

 

It now seems like the US and UK are now getting involved

Whats in it for them (US) and us (UK)

 

Freddy those links are very enlightening. That's exactly what I was looking for and it just goes to show how much propaganda is banded around by even respected institutions like the Beeb.

 

I won't go heavily into things, but I've been interested in the Israeli and Palestinian situation for quite some time. I'm not a Jew, or A Muslim or a Christian, so I like to think of myself as somewhat unbiased.

I think the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli's has been pretty terrible over the years. The abritrary shooting of civilians, Palestinian run businesses being taken or destroyed as well as Palestinian lands and homes being taken. (After the initial creation of the Zionist state, that is.) If you take a man's home, his livelyhood, his past, is it not understandable that that will incite hatred?

I don't agree with the suicide bombers in Israel, nor do I agree with the harming of any civilian no matter what nationality, but I can't help thinking that Israel's constant need to assert themselves in the region and their seemingly unquenched appetite for swallowing land (Lebanese, Egyptian, Palestinian) is the cause of quite alot of the hatred.

Right... onto Lebanon. Hezbolla are indeed terrorists. But the thing is, tempers and emotions are always going to be running high in the middle east while the Arabs perceive the Palestinians as being persecuted. (Which in my opinion they are.) Until the Palestinians are given at least some of their own land back, and recognised as a state and that land not again reclaimed by Israel, there will always be sympathisers for the Palestinians. Hezbollah are just one set of sympathisers.

It is unfortunate that the Lebanese Government aren't strong enough to expel, or keep in rein, the Hezbollah army, and of course some action should be taken against them. This doesn't mean that firing on harmless civilains, on blocks of flats housing civilians, on UN buildings and on ambulances is acceptable though. Nor is it acceptable in my eyes for the Israeli army to openly say that for every one Hezbollah rocket launched into Israeli territory that the IDF will bomb ten Lebanese buildings, especially when most of those buildings tend to be civilian housing.

Until Israel stop causing conflict against the Palestinians, they will incite hatred against them by most of the Middle east. Until Israel stop using ridiculously excessive force against Arab civilians and communities, putting people out of work, then the Arab world will still want to band together to support their 'brothers.' Unfortunately, Lebanon have been dragged into it, simply because they have Hezbollah in their country.

To be honest, it is a situation where there are no winners, and the only losers are the people that cant afford to lose anything.




PS - Israel and the US are now citing that the rockets being fired by the Hezbollah are being produced in Iran. But nothing is being said about the military contracts the US has with Israel as far as supplys go. Is this the get out clause the US need to attack Iran, or am I just cynical?

 

My friend showed me an article yesterday in which an Israeli official claimed that the US government told Israel and attack on Syria would not be unwelcome. Of course, this could be Israeli propaganda. But part of me thinks that when (not if) Bush decides to go for Iran and Syria, if they support Israel enough now, Israel will allow the US to use their soil to launch attacks from. That's what's in it for them at the moment I suppose.

As for the rest of your post Lud, I agree 100%,

 

^ I agree 100% too.

 

I've just read the first two links Freddy posted and I am slightly confused as to what some people consider to be balanced reporting. It seems to be the reporting of anything that goes against your own views. With regards to the first blog, the main complaint is that the BBC is repeating statements by pressure groups describing Qana as a war crime. In the same article they also refer to Israeli statements that Qana was justified because there were militants there. That is a balance, juxtaposed article in my book. As for the second blog, apparantley the BBC are failing to report that some Palestinians that are killed were militants thus currying sympathy for the Palestinians. What do they offer as evidence for this? Another news article! One source of news is biased but another is perfectly neutral? Again, it's only neutral if you agree with what they're saying. Besides, the blog is also saying that out of, for example, 16 dead Palestinians, 13 of them were militants. So only 3 innocent civilians were killed, well that's alright then!

When you strip this situation down into numbers, it is a fact that far more Lebanese have been killed than Israelis. Therefore, the balance of reporting is going to be leaning more towards the Lebanese otherwise it would be biased. How many papers in America gave the same amount of coverage to one person being murdered as the thousands that died in the WTC? If any did, they wouldn't have much of a circulation anymore. I am surprised about these claims about BBC bias, because I have always considered the BBC (and most of the British media) to be biased in favour of Israel.

 

LOL. Man are you uninformed. Israel is smaller, physcially, today than it was in 1949. They have been giving up land, not taking more.

Also, the only war that Israel has started is their 1948 war for independence. The 1967 and 1973 wars were started by Israel's enemies.

In 1967 the Egyptians blockaded Israels shipping, put massive amounts of troops on the Israeli border in the Sania, and all the peace keeping troops were withdrawn. Sure Israel fired the first shot, but who wouldn't? If you have 4 guys that are going to fight you are you going to sit there and wait for them to throw the first punch? That's a sure way to lose. Your only chance is to hit first, and hit as hard as you can. Take your enemies by surprise before they can strike. Throw them off guard. I would have acted no different than Israel did. Their national existence was at stake. Sure, they took land, but it was land that was vital for their national defense. Whoever holds the Golan Heights holds a major stratigic advantage. I would have taken it too. Only a fool would not have annexed it. And only a fool would not have limited the ability of Egypt to attack by not taking the Sania up to the Suez canal.

All the land Israel annexed after that was common sense. Any people, or country, in existence today would have done the exact same thing Israel did.

In 1973 Egypt and Syria attacked Israel with the combined forces of what was then equal to NATO. Syria alone put 1450 tanks into their attack against Israel. Israel kicked their butts again. I say, Good for Israel.

As far as this current "war" goes, even many of the Arab nations placed the blame directly where it should be to start with, on Hezbollah. And, Israel has given up, to its own disadvantage, the lands that are vital to its own national defense.

What Israel has done to mollify the Palestinians and the terrorists is the equivalent of Britain giving up its Royal Navy as a means of defense. And yet Israel is being charged on this site as the one at fault. What a bunch of bull. I can't believe the anti-Semitism on this site.

 

Just thought it might be helpful to post a link from the guardian. The History of the Arab/Israel conflict.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,720353,00.html

 

Thanks for that Ludd

 

Hey Freddy,

Everyone has their own opinions on every subject, and after all, wouldn't the world be an uniteresting place if that wasn't the case.

The only issue I personally have is branding people as racist, just because they don't hold the same view. I know AJ called for the thread to be closed, but I thought it was a pretty big thing to let pass.

I've always respected your opinion Freddy, because you are passionate about pretty much everything, but to brand people as 'anti-Jew' because they express their opinion that Israel is, in their opinion, partly to blame for the current situation and not acting in the reasoned manner that they should be.

I know it was probably typed in the heat of the moment and the phrase 'anti-semetic' does seem overly used when people critisise Israel, and we all say things we wouldn't normally when we are het up, so it's no real biggy. But it just bugged me enough to bring up, because the feeling that I'm being branded a racist doesn't really feel right.



PS - Sorry AJ, felt I had to bring that one up.