It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK upholds complaints on Press TV anti-Israel bias

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Well, Please do remember.......

It was not Isreal that made the complant againt them.....

It was ther British/UK Government that did!!!

("Ofcom, the UK broadcasting authority and communications regulator, has upheld complaints of anti-Israel bias against the English-language Iranian broadcasting service Press TV. ")

So are you saying the the British broadcasting authority are also Ziont's???

Oh, and , of course, the worse possible last point, the UK is correct on this and are not cow-tauing to them.........

IMO, this is the biggest issue for some.

Oh, and Matt, how dare you post logic, intelligence, verifiable facts and fact that this flies right in the face of the Anti-Jewish/Isreal crowd.





posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by mattpryor
 


If the BBC were anti israel they would have mentioned one critical fact that the israeli mouth pieces they let on kept lying about and repeating...that the cease fire was broken and the conflict started via an israeli airstrike...nope didn't hear that from the BBC.Quite an important fact to not mention when interviewing the israeli spokes people,especially when they blatantly lied again and again by saying hamas started it.


Actually anyone who'd been following the news before Cast Lead would see what I believe is termed "escalating violence".

The ceasefire was brokered on 19th June 2008 and lasted until 19th December 2008, when Hamas declared that they would not continue it and proceeded to ramp up their rocket attacks against Israel.

In the meantime 5 rockets and 3 mortars were launched into Israel in June, after the ceasefire.

4 rockets, 8 mortars in July
8 rockets, 3 mortars in August
1 rocket and 3 mortars in September
1 rocket and 1 mortar in October
125 rockets, 68 mortars in November (still during the so-called truce)

And yes the Israelis also launched attacks against smuggling tunnels, an air strike December 18th (killing 6 bad guys), and operated targeting killings of terrorists during this period.

In terms of who ended the truce however, it was Hamas.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 

You mean, of course, Israel’s response to the Gaza’s daily mortar and rocket attacks.


"What this actually boils down to is Israel using the race card and strategically placed lobbyists to suffocate and bury any valid criticism of their offensive. It's called deflection and anyone with half a brain see's it for what it is"

Actually, the Gaza’s are trying to use the race card claiming they are Palestine’s where as they are not.

They are from Gaza which was a territory of Egypt; it was never an independent country.

I know, facts are so inconvient for the anti-Jewish crowd.




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 




A rather large and inconvenient fact that seems to have escaped the American media is that Israel broke the cease fire with Hamas, not the other way around. Contrary to Israel's assertion that it was defending itself, Hamas did not fire a single rocket into Israeli territory during the cease fire, and only began after Israel crossed its border and killed 6 members of Hamas. This is something that Israel amazingly admits, yet refuses to apologize for. It should come as a huge slap in the face to the unabashed supporters of the assault on Gaza, but as yet, no one has stepped forward to take responsibility. Watch below:


Source



[edit on 4/8/2009 by Neo-V™]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


That's just not true.

List of rocket and mortar attacks into southern Israel in 2008

Look between June 19th and November 19th, when Hamas unilaterally declared an end to the ceasefire.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by mattpryor]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 




OP by mattpryor
Or, to put it another way, my own bias towards Israel could make the BBC seem bias in the other direction. It's a fair point, and I apologise for the abruptness of my response. I was trying to point out that media bias is a subjective thing, and is entirely dependent on the observer's own viewpoint.


No worries,and true it is a subjective thing.
The thing with the Is/Pal situation is I know how I would behave if my country/land/area of living was being treated like the palestinians.
And I have a good idea that many Israelis/Americans would behave in the same manner,if they were under curfew/occupation/air strikes.
And it would be pretty much a carbon copy of how the Palestinian extremists behave.
As per any war,the situation is only good for making rucks of money for the arms dealers,bankers and politicians.
But the way human nature is,we are all so easy to manipulate into a war situation-and TPTB know this,as they have demonstrated over and over..



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I like George Galloway, I think his weekend radio shows are some of the best radio you can get. I also agree with 99% of what George believes and he puts a mighty fine case on the Israeli/Gaza situation.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 


The BBC is institutionally biased against Israel though.

Jeremy Bowen was recently removed from his post as Middle East correspondent following an internal ruling by the BBC trust that his reports on the 1967 war were biased in favour of the Palestinian narrative. And that was only after several years of lengthy complaints procedures and the BBC trying to bury the issue.





Wrong.


Jeremy Bowen



From the link:



In April 2009, the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust published a report into three complaints brought against two news items involving Bowen.[13] The complaints included 24 allegations of breaching BBC guidelines on accuracy and impartiality of which three were fully or partially upheld.[14] It was said that "Bowen should have used clearer language and been more precise in some aspects of the piece".[15] Also, on a claim that was found to be lacking in accuracy, the committee accepted that Bowen had been provided with the information by an authoritative source.[15] A website article[16] has been amended and Bowen did not face any disciplinary measures.[2]



On the claim of innaccuracy, Bowen was reporting information given by an authoritive source. He could have used clearer language and been more precise. Not anti-Israeli, indeed, the most he could be blamed for was not being concise and also reporting on an issue from what he believed to be a trusted source of information when it was not.


Jeremy Bowen is still the BBC's Middle East Editor.



I personally believe it's good to have different news sources, if Press TV is anti-Israel, then it compensates for other media outlet's pro-Israel stance.



Personally I think the horrid naked truth about Israel, when reported, will always draw accusations of anti-Israel bias from Israel and it's supporters.


People don't like the truth when it goes against their determined grain of thinking about the subject.


Israel don't like the truth as it takes away the myth it created and attempts to sustain that Israel is a defenceless victimised state of aggression rather than the murderously racist and apartheid militaristic state that it is.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 



guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 5 November 2008 14.32 GMT
A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.

Source



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 



The BBC is institutionally biased against Israel though.

Jeremy Bowen was recently removed from his post as Middle East correspondent following an internal ruling by the BBC trust that his reports on the 1967 war were biased in favour of the Palestinian narrative. And that was only after several years of lengthy complaints procedures and the BBC trying to bury the issue.

BBC online consistently publishes articles that put Israel in a bad light, often leaving the Israeli POV to the last paragraph, whilst ignoring stories to do with Palestinians that do not involve Israel.


One could also view it from another perspective though. That Jeremy Bowen was being an honest reporter but was unfairly removed by pressure from the Zionist lobby. We all know how much dominance the Zionist lobbies has in the UK & the US, as well as in the EU.

Didn't they even persuaded a host of countries to boycott the recent UN World Conference on Racism. It is without doubt their tentacles of power pervade and influence most western governments and their media.

The ground swell of so called anti-Israel reporting grew exponentially because Israel having committed war crimes in Lebanon, thought they could also get away with the holocaust that was inflicted on the Palestinians. I guess they were blinded by their own arrogance and overstep the mark by miles.

The war crimes and atrocities shocked the civilised world which has been complacent with Israel's misdeeds until then. The propaganda for sympathy that the Zionists have been seeding the world since the 70s now rings hollow and reeks of deceit.

The anti-Israel reporting are just honest reporting by journalists with conscience. For Zionists who are used to compliant and subservient western governments and media portraying Palestinians as terrorists, this would come as a rude shock. So any honest reporting is now immediately considered as anti-Israel.

I welcome this awakening of good unbiased journalism. I guess the world is waking up now to view Israel for what it is. A rogue state that is now synonymous with unbridled perpetrator of terrorism.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by A Conscience
 


I couldn't disagree more.

Honest, impartial reporting is representing both sides of an argument and explaining both points of view to the viewer so that the viewer can make up his own mind on the issues.

An honest, impartial talk show involves at least two people with differing viewpoints and debating the issues, without siding with either (or at least being equally hostile to both points of view, as per Jeremy Paxman). "Impartial" is the key word.

At least that's what we're used to in the civilized world. Maybe where you come from it's acceptable to only offer one point of view, and ignore that others exist?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 



Honest, impartial reporting is representing both sides of an argument and explaining both points of view to the viewer so that the viewer can make up his own mind on the issues.


You could say in Israel's case, it pretty hard putting their point of view, that it is necessary to inflict all that carnage and destruction on a civilian population. Targeting women, children and the elders, killing all the zoo animals, dropping white phosphorus and cluster bombs, just so that Hamas stop launching inaccurate and unreliable homemade rockets.

It would really be an extremely biased blinkered die hard pro Zionist/ Israel journalist that could find any justification for Israel's criminal acts.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Conscience
You could say in Israel's case, it pretty hard putting their point of view, that it is necessary to inflict all that carnage and destruction on a civilian population. Targeting women, children and the elders, killing all the zoo animals, dropping white phosphorus and cluster bombs, just so that Hamas stop launching inaccurate and unreliable homemade rockets.


With regards to the killing of animals at Gaza Zoo, this appeared on Youtube before the Hamas video showing the animals dead and accusing the IDF of killing them. Watch it. Now consider who you think more likely to kill these animals, and what their motivation might be.



All of the accusations you made above are directly from Palestinian sources, recycled by the media, youtube activists and human rights organisations, and in some cases the UN itself.

At no point have any of the above organisations stopped and said "is it reasonable that a thinking, rational human being would deliberately kill civilians or zoo animals?". They just accept it, report and condemn it, and move on, without caring for whether these things actually happened. That is bias. And it's everywhere. And it scares the hell out of me.



[edit on 4-8-2009 by mattpryor]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 



At no point have any of the above organisations stopped and said "is it reasonable that a thinking, rational human being would deliberately kill civilians or zoo animals?". They just accept it, report and condemn it, and move on, without caring for whether these things actually happened. That is bias. And it's everywhere. And it scares the hell out of me.


That is precisely what these organisations did. They just can't figure out why rational human beings would commit such terrible crimes. Especially these same human beings who have been subjected to horrible crimes themselves in the past and made it a business to reminded the whole world of it constantly.

These are organisations that sees things and experienced it first hand. They are hardly biased like some of the infos that are quoted often from IDF and Israel government sources.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Conscience

That is precisely what these organisations did. They just can't figure out why rational human beings would commit such terrible crimes. Especially these same human beings who have been subjected to horrible crimes themselves in the past and made it a business to reminded the whole world of it constantly.


No, they didn't. The media didn't question reports of "atrocities" that came from inside Gaza. They just reported them. They didn't give Israel a chance to respond (and when they did the spokespersons interviewed were hardly in a position to know every detail of what was going on on the ground during what was a difficult and confusing urban battle).

The zoo incident was a classic example. When the IDF published this video, not a whisper. Then when Hamas posted their own video showing the animals dead, it appeared on the BBC website along with the accusation against the IDF. No independent verification. No interviews. Just recycled, second hand information presented as fact.

Another example was the UN school which the UN accused Israel of bombing. Straight onto the news with Chris Guinness almost going as far as to accuse Israel of bombing the school on purpose.

Just over a week later, the UN retracted the accusation. Too late, damage already done, and again nobody in the media reported it or if they did it was buried.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by mattpryor]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 


I really can't see what the video proved or disproved. The animals were still alive when the video was shot by the IDF. Are you saying Hamas sneaked past the IDF and shot the animals?

The case of the UN school hardly put a good light on the IDF. The people that were taking refuge in the overcrowded school decided to take a breather outside the school's compound thinking it was safe. They didn't anticipate rational human beings would be so callous as to bomb anywhere near a UN school.

Wouldn't you, if the school was overcrowded, hot and stifling, to venture out to catch some fresh air? Is that a crime that deserved to be bombed to smithereens?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Conscience
reply to post by mattpryor
 


I really can't see what the video proved or disproved. The animals were still alive when the video was shot by the IDF. Are you saying Hamas sneaked past the IDF and shot the animals?


Well that's just as plausible as suggesting the IDF shot the video and then executed the animals just for fun?

Look at it critically and objectively for a moment. Pretend you're Columbo. Means, opportunity, motive.

Sure the IDF had the means and the opportunity. But what's the motive? Just that they're plain evil?

On the other hand Hamas also had the means and the opportunity, whereas they have a reasonable motive, which is garnering support for their cause. And it has already been demonstrated in the above video that Hamas operatives have no qualms at all about rigging the zoo with booby traps, and a frickin' school, hoping that the IDF will trigger the explosives so that they can then blame them for the wanton destruction.

Now if you allow that possibility then it raises some pretty uncomfortable questions doesn't it?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 


I had a look at the video again, and really, by definition a booby trap is meant to be concealed.

Unless you are stating that Hamas are hopelessly inept at setting up booby traps. There was no attempt at concealment. This reeks of staged event for the purpose of the videoing as part of a propaganda tool by IDF.

As you say, be critical and analysed this. What's the motive? Why would Hamas destroy it own infrastructure, when the Israelis are doing such a fine job. Hamas cares for it citizens. Why would it want to destroy something that is part and parcel of the very few things left to enjoy by people in Gaza. Hamas was fighting for survival from the onslaught of the IDF. The last thing in their mind would be to kill the animals in the zoo. Every bullet left would be devoted to killing the Israelis.


Sure the IDF had the means and the opportunity. But what's the motive? Just that they're plain evil?


You taken the words out of my mouth. Lets just look at the modus operandi of the IDF.

Wouldn't you as a decent human being, consider the act of dropping cluster bomb evil? Knowing full well, the likely target would be innocent children who liken it to toys to be picked up and played with. That act alone qualifys the IDF as one of the lowest from of human life.

Not to mention all the other evil deeds the IDF is well known for, like using children as human shield, using white phosphorus in a dense civilian population. The list goes on and on.

It looks as if the Israelis are so hell bent on destroying anything Palestinian that even the animals had to be included in the slaughter.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by A Conscience
 


I'm still not getting it. Explain it to me. Why go to the trouble of staging a video like this for propaganda purposes and then killing the animals afterwards? What possible motivation or benefit is there in doing such a thing? It just doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny.

The only explanation (given your argument) is that soldiers killed the animals just for the fun of it - something which I would never do, and I presume you would never do, so why do you assume Israeli soldiers would do it, without question? Please answer that for me because I cannot for the life of me imagine how a supposedly intelligent educated person can so demonize an entire people?

And yes, Hamas are remarkably inept at everything they do, they are the most stupid, inept bunch of murderers, thieves and child abusers ever to stain this planet.

And you take their side against Israelis and take their word.

And are you seriously claiming that Hamas NEVER stage photo ops and falsify video evidence to make the Israelis look bad? How about some fake CPR and tomato sauce for blood? (which CNN gleefully broadcast)



The reality is more horrific, more cynical, and more disturbing than you can ever imagine.



Or how about the "black out" news conference when the sunlight was shining through the curtains? Or every other piece of video that came out of Hamastan during Cast Lead, which anyone with a critical eye who wasn't blinded by prejudice against Israel could see was a fraud, yet the media happily broadcast for want of anything original of their own?

But you choose not to see it, and happily sit at your keyboard crying about the evils of Israel, because it's easier, more comfortable, to agree with the opinion bullies than it is to stand up for what's right and admit the true horror of what's happening. And what's worse is that your position is so entrenched that you will never cross that line, because to do so is to admit your own gullibility in believing this horse sh*te.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 



I'm still not getting it. Explain it to me. Why go to the trouble of staging a video like this for propaganda purposes and then killing the animals afterwards? What possible motivation or benefit is there in doing such a thing? It just doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny.


The video was staged for the purpose of showing the booby traps, thats all. The zoo was just incidental. The IDF was more interested in showing where the fuse was leading. The whole purpose of the video was not to highlight the zoo. It so happen since they were at the zoo, they might as well kill all the animals.

It is what you call sick motivation. The same motivation that compel them to drop cluster bombs so that children would be maimed or killed. I assume you would find that sickening too, unless you can find reasons to justify it. If they can intentionally do that to cause sickening injuries to children, what are the consequence of a few dead animals? It probably was just for self gratification because they could not find any Hamas fighters to kill.

Why is it that hard for you to come to grips with it? It will be a lot easier than trying to defend the indefensible.

Just take a second to consider your statement of me being so entrenched in my position and being gullible. For a moment, I could have swore you were talking about yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join