Israel 'admits' using white phosphorus munitions

page: 22
21
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Even the BBC said 2/3 of the casualties were Hamas.


I'm really starting to doubt the legitimacy of the BBC in terms of how objective they are. After deciding not to host their aid fundraiser for Gaza, when they had already held such drives for places like Darfur, it really makes me wonder.

The guy on feedback (that show which makes a feeble attempt at holding some of the BBC suits to account) asked the very same question, why Darfur and not Gaza? and the answer was that doing one for Gaza could be an embarrassment for the BBC. I guess it's okay to condemn murder as long as it's by unnamed black men with machetes, but not when it's a Jewish army.

But hey, who said giving aid to people who need it is condemning the other side? I guess that's how the BBC sees it! And we also learn that the company image is more important than people who desperately need medical and food aid.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Lazyninja]




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


You have yet to provide any proof of anything you've posted.

Proof for my assertions have been posted throughout the thread by myself and others.

byeee.



If we're using the definition-

proof=what you believe to be the case

then perhaps there has been proof posted already. If we use the definition of proof=evidence, then I'd disagree.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja

Even the BBC said 2/3 of the casualties were Hamas.


I'm really starting to doubt the legitimacy of the BBC in terms of how objective they are. After deciding not to host their aid fundraiser for Gaza, when they had already held such drives for places like Darfur, it really makes me wonder.

The guy on feedback (that show which makes a feeble attempt at holding some of the BBC suits to account) asked the very same question, why Darfur and not Gaza? and the answer was that doing one for Gaza could be an embarrassment for the BBC. I guess it's okay to condemn murder as long as it's by unnamed black men with machetes, but not when it's a Jewish army.

But hey, who said giving aid to people who need it is condemning the other side? I guess that's how the BBC sees it! And we also learn that the company image is more important than people who desperately need medical and food aid.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Lazyninja]


My point wasn't that the BBC was underestimating the Hamas to Civilian casualty ratio(they most likely have overstated the civilian casualties). It was that the other poster felt that the BBC was an objective source, and so I used his source to make my point.





new topics
 
21
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join