http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3112239,00.html

BTW, it's 5 deaths till now in Natania, one of them aged woman that her daugther and grandaugther - seriously wounded.

They are already trying to blame the attack in London on Israel .

www.msnnews.com

www.msn.com

They are already trying to blame the attack in London on Israel .

www.msnnews.com

www.msn.com

That surprising.

In London it's terror, in Israel its terror, but in Iraq, its liberation. In Afghanistan, its "justice"...

I don't like crossing between events, if you know what I mean. I don't think coral was doing this, and I know that my logic is false, but when i saw the thread, I just got the feeling that coral was using one event to get more attention for Israel. Obviously, in both cases, people died, so they both deserve attention, and I don't think coral's intentions were to "use" the death of so many people like this...but that's just what came into my mind...:|

-Rashid786-

Not really .

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3112239,00.html

BTW, it's 5 deaths till now in Natania, one of them aged woman that her daugther and grandaugther - seriously wounded.

Drone drone whine whine.

I see the 90 deaths in Iraq today were relatively unmentioned.

In London it's terror, in Israel its terror, but in Iraq, its liberation. In Afghanistan, its "justice"...

I don't like crossing between events, if you know what I mean. I don't think coral was doing this, and I know that my logic is false, but when i saw the thread, I just got the feeling that coral was using one event to get more attention for Israel. Obviously, in both cases, people died, so they both deserve attention, and I don't think coral's intentions were to "use" the death of so many people like this...but that's just what came into my mind...:|

-Rashid786-



Know what comes into my mind ? How muslems have all of middle-east, yet deny Israel one little 1% of it . God will judge in the end . And if America gets hit by nukes by some mad muslem, you may find a couple places missing in retaliation .

In London it's terror, in Israel its terror, but in Iraq, its liberation. In Afghanistan, its "justice"...

I don't like crossing between events, if you know what I mean. I don't think coral was doing this, and I know that my logic is false, but when i saw the thread, I just got the feeling that coral was using one event to get more attention for Israel. Obviously, in both cases, people died, so they both deserve attention, and I don't think coral's intentions were to "use" the death of so many people like this...but that's just what came into my mind...:|

-Rashid786-

As you can see the link is an article from israeli press, making a point I see as important.
I added the updated number of deaths, which wasn't on the link.
People should understand that terror is the same terror everywhere.

And if you think that comparison of the attack in London with attack in Israel somehow means dismissing the tradegy of London attack - you are just proving my point.

Drone drone whine whine.


Boy, that's frighteningly callous. :nonono:

True Iraq was not mentioned. But neither was Darfur. That other terrible events are taking place in the world does not make this tragedy any less horrible. You should be ashamed.

Not really .

I was sarcastic.

Boy, that's frighteningly callous. :nonono:

True Iraq was not mentioned. But neither was Darfur. That other terrible events are taking place in the world does not make this tragedy any less horrible. You should be ashamed.

Callous? because I am pissed off with Coral constantly whining about the semantics of media reports.

Get a life.

True Iraq was not mentioned. But neither was Darfur. That other terrible events are taking place in the world...

Which was my point, and I think DogBerry's too. DogBerry was not directly "whining" about Iraq, he was pointing out that Iraq goes unmentioned. If he had the time/effort, he could have listed every single place on Earth where someone has died. Would that make you feel any better?

-Rashid786-

dogberry makes an exellent point. none of the terror attacks in Irak are ever reported as such. because its a war zone. just as israel is. unfair? yes, probebly. but concistant.

coral, when someone reads about an attack by militants, that kill 5 innocent bystanders, whats teh differemce? do you think that its looking any less murderous, because they dont say terror attack? that the public is going to judge it as less terrible?

Is it still intended to provoke fear?

Because I've read that it's more intended to keep Israel ANGRY than scared, so that Israeli politicians won't give huge concessions to the Palestinians: They don't want x amount of land from Israel, they want to destroy Israel, and they want to keep the Palestinians angry until that can happen.

do you think that its looking any less murderous, because they dont say terror attack? that the public is going to judge it as less terrible?

Exactly, specially if it's all the time.

dogberry makes an exellent point. none of the terror attacks in Irak are ever reported as such. because its a war zone.

In Israel they are called terror attacks.

I suppose somebody is interested for them to sound less terrible, just like somebody is interested in this about Israel.

Which was my point, and I think DogBerry's too. DogBerry was not directly "whining" about Iraq, he was pointing out that Iraq goes unmentioned. If he had the time/effort, he could have listed every single place on Earth where someone has died. Would that make you feel any better?

-Rashid786-

Actually what he was done is to refer to people that just was murdered in Israel in very disrespectfull way.
Just proving my point by showing how insignificant he sees terror attacks in Israel and their victims.
Without such attitude by your press I don't think he would react this way.

I think i know what has happened ...I have went to hell and don't remember the trip . No way is this the world I grew up in . People have always been dumb and evil , but not the majority like now . Invasion of the body snatchers maybe .

They can't call a dam terrorist a dam terrorist ...it may hurt somebodys dam feelings !!!!!

The attacks have been investigated and justice is in process. I think for anyone to think a country as diversified as the UK.....not to feel confident they would search all angles is a cheap shot. I have great confidence in their ability to make a safe fair call.

Which was my point, and I think DogBerry's too. DogBerry was not directly "whining" about Iraq, he was pointing out that Iraq goes unmentioned. If he had the time/effort, he could have listed every single place on Earth where someone has died. Would that make you feel any better?


Dogberry was not whining about anything, and neither were you. You were both using an irrelevant, tangential point to try to refute Coral's argument, that the press uses different terms for terrorist attacks against Israel. In that, you failed miserably. Does the fact that there are other tragedies in the world somehow justify the press' bias against Israel?
I commented on DogBerry's remark, not yours, because while you at least made your point in a respectful manner, DogBerry did not.

Callous? because I am pissed off with Coral constantly whining about the semantics of media reports.

Get a life.

Coral made a legitimate point about media bias. Does it hurt your leftist sensibilities to have irrefutable proof of that bias shoved in your face? If so, just skip Coral's threads and you won't have to notice.

I'll get a life when you get a soul.

I'll get a life when you get a soul.

Great point Hound.....however....I've learned people have a point of view and some things are too close up to argue about. I had a child of mine in the UK when this happened....and all the friggin excuses in the word (or should I say FROM the world) won't make it any better. I'm just PISSED. I'm tired of the world's excuses.....especially blaming Israel for their own retarded frame of mind.

Great point Hound.....however....I've learned people have a point of view and some things are too close up to argue about.

Agreed.

Coral made a legitimate point about media bias.

ROFL, I dont get called 'leftist' much, on what do you base that assumption?

Coral is obssessed with the subject. See how many threads there are on it.

I say dont watch the BBC if it upsets you so much.

If so, just skip Coral's threads and you won't have to notice.

Nope I will continue to challenge Coral's self pitying whining whenever it appears. It doesnt upset me.

My point is valid. The Iraqi death toll was twice that of London's yet it merited a tiny item on the news. News is relative to the person reporting it and the situation.

Nope I will continue to challenge Coral's self pitying whining whenever it appears. It doesnt upset me.

My point is valid. The Iraqi death toll was twice that of London's yet it merited a tiny item on the news. News is relative to the person reporting it and the situation.

Wow, you are just clueless. If you want to post about the Iraqi death toll, go ahead. Coral's post was about SOMETHING ELSE. Coral said nothing about which was a bigger news item, only that there is a bias against Israel.
Does it bother you if people post pics of their cat, because the post does not contain a reference to the Iraqi death toll?

TheHound seriously you need to stop with this cr*p cos your point is invalid, Dogberry and Rashid have a valid point.

Coral what are they then if they are not millitants?.

TheHound seriously you need to stop with this cr*p cos your point is invalid, Dogberry and Rashid have a valid point.

Coral what are they then if they are not millitants?.

What point is that?

They are TERRORISTS, not millitants. People who willfully target innocent civilians are terrorists.

They are TERRORISTS, not millitants. People who willfully target innocent civilians are terrorists.

No Terrorists are people that use terrorism as a way of fighting for there purpose,
Al qaida did not attack Isreal a Militant group did, that Militant group may have used terrorism but they are still a militant because thats what they are, a militant group, now you can call Al qaida a Militant group because they fall under the definition of a Militant, The IRA was called a militant group, they used Terrorism as a way of fight you can call them a terrorist, they both are simmilar, but a terrorist does not have to belong to a group, were as a Militant has.

(Sorry if that does not make sense).

No Terrorists are people that use terrorism as a way of fighting for there purpose,
Al qaida did not attack Isreal a Militant group did, that Militant group may have used terrorism but they are still a militant because thats what they are, a militant group, now you can call Al qaida a Militant group because they fall under the definition of a Militant, The IRA was called a militant group, they used Terrorism as a way of fight you can call them a terrorist, they both are simmilar, but a terrorist does not have to belong to a group, were as a Militant has.

(Sorry if that does not make sense).

Maybe it makes sense, but I'm not getting you. According to you, Al Qaida is a militant group too. Then tell me: why does the media refer to strikes against Israeli civilians as militant, but strikes against US and London civilians as terror?

Maybe it makes sense, but I'm not getting you. According to you, Al Qaida is a militant group too. Then tell me: why does the media refer to strikes against Israeli civilians as militant, but strikes against US and London civilians as terror?

No Al Qaida is not, but it falls under the definition of a Militant group aswell, They both are simmilar thats the point i was making, as for the attack on Isreal, the Militant group started out as a political group then a militant group then they started doing acts of terrorism,

The media uses the wrong terminolagy, they are both terrorist or Militants.

Wow, you are just clueless. If you want to post about the Iraqi death toll, go ahead. Coral's post was about SOMETHING ELSE. Coral said nothing about which was a bigger news item, only that there is a bias against Israel.
Does it bother you if people post pics of their cat, because the post does not contain a reference to the Iraqi death toll?

Forgive me for being 'clueless' but doesnt the thread revolve around the semantics of BBC reporting?

Yes it does. In which case the Iraqi analogy is perfect. I am sorry if that went over your head. I will simplify it for you.

The BBC report Terrorism and terrorists here in the UK, 'insurgency' in Iraq 'militants' in the middle east and 'Guerillas' in Nepal South America and other places

During the Afghanistan war against the Russians AlQeaida were neither terorist nor insurgents but simply referred to as 'Mujhahadin' then of course they were on our side. (When they were supplied and trained by the US).

In my view it reveals less a bias more a reflection of individual circumstances. Though the end result is the same, people being murdered for little apparent gain.

Anyway, here are some definitions for you:

Militant



Fighting or warring.
Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

n.
A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.

Insurgent

Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

n.
One who is insurgent.

Terrorism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The definitions seem to fit dont they?

The deeper question is why do they bother to report one place but not another|? Why is one death a tragedy worthy of round the clock coverage whilst a thousand deaths elsewehere fails to get a mention?

Is it all a case of bias, or just editorial choices?

But what do I know, I am a leftist :p

The media uses the wrong terminolagy, they are both terrorist or Militants.

Exactly the point. You see, they DON'T use the same terminology. That is the point of the post.

Forgive me for being 'clueless' but doesnt the thread revolve around the semantics of BBC reporting?


No, it was about the semantics of BBC reporting regarding Israel.

In my view it reveals less a bias more a reflection of individual circumstances....Is it all a case of bias, or just editorial choices?


Very unconvincing.

The deeper question is why do they bother to report one place but not another|? Why is one death a tragedy worthy of round the clock coverage whilst a thousand deaths elsewehere fails to get a mention?


I suggest you start a thread about it.

Exactly the point. You see, they DON'T use the same terminology. That is the point of the post.

I guess you might be right but It does not matter what terminology they use, they don't need to use the same ones, they both committed an act of crime, what Coral is saying is that one is far less important then the other, she is wrong just because they use different words it does not make it less of a crime then the other.
They are both similar, the Israeli attacks were by a Militant group, Al Qaeda is not seen as a Militant group yet they are seen as a terrorist group, were as the Isreali attacks were done by a miltant group and thats how they are seen,

Dogberrys definitions are correct.


No, it was about the semantics of BBC reporting regarding Israel.

How is it semitic for using a different word which describes the criminals as a Militant, if the Criminals fall under a definition of Militant then that's what they are.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,...3112239,00.html

That website is so bias, if the media are wrong and the Israelis have got the correct terminology and the Israelis are always right, then why do they call it an Islamic Militant attack. Islam and terrorism does not go, its contradicting so why do they keep on using it, are the Anti Islamic.

I guess you might be right but It does not matter what terminology they use, they don't need to use the same ones


If the terms were used interchangeably, I would agree. But the term Militant is always used for attacks against Israel. And let's face it: The word terrorist simply sounds worse.

Al Qaeda is not seen as a Militant group yet they are seen as a terrorist group, were as the Isreali attacks were done by a miltant group and thats how they are seen,


Seen by whom? As far as I'm concerned, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the PFLP and the whole lot of them are all terrorists. Certainly equal. You can call them whatever you want, just call them by the same name.

That website is so bias, if the media are wrong and the Israelis have got the correct terminology and the Israelis are always right, then why do they call it an Islamic Militant attack. Islam and terrorism does not go, its contradicting so why do they keep on using it, are the Anti Islamic.

Actually, anybody familiar with Israeli media knows that for the most part, it has a heavy tilt to the left (though of course the left will deny this.) And maybe they are Anti Islamic, I never said they weren't.

If the terms were used interchangeably, I would agree. But the term Militant is always used for attacks against Israel. And let's face it: The word terrorist simply sounds worse.

Yeah the word terrorist does sound worse, but a person can be called a terrorist is when they commited an act of terrorism, a Militant can not commit an act of terrorism because thats what a military does, they fight killing innocent people, would you call the US military in Iraq a terrorist, No you would not.

The attacks that happened in Israel was done by a Military group that does not belong to a nation, thats why they are called Militants because they are a Military to a nation that does not exist, which is Palestine.
Were as Al Qaida is not a Militant group because they do not fight for a nation, which they do, they fight for Palestine but all medias see them as a terrorist group and not a militant.

I do not agree with what they do,


Seen by whom? As far as I'm concerned, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the PFLP and the whole lot of them are all terrorists. Certainly equal. You can call them whatever you want, just call them by the same name.


Al Qaida commit acts of terrorism were as the others are Militants because they are the Military of Palestine that uses terrorism.

However Islam does not Allow to kill innocent people, Islam was the first religion to have Rules of Engaments, i do not agree with the Militants.

And maybe they are Anti Islamic, I never said they weren't.

Yeah i know but Coral thinks that they are not.

No, it was about the semantics of BBC reporting regarding Israel.



Very unconvincing.



I suggest you start a thread about it.

*Terrific reply. You put alot of thought into that.

OK, you first comments says:

1. It is relevant for you to whine about anti-Israeli bias by comparing reports on violence in Israel to reports on violence in London in order to 'prove' your point

2. it is however not relevent for me to compare said reporting on violence in the rest of the world to disprove your point.

Anyone else see the hypocricy involved here?

It is your and Coral's bias against the BBC which is at work here. Plus a large dose of self pity.

Which is why you are unable to deploy any counter argument.


*Irony employed here

Anyone else see the hypocricy involved here?

Yeah i do.

*Terrific reply. You put alot of thought into that.


To be honest, it doesn't take much thought to refute your flimsy arguments.


1. It is relevant for you to whine about anti-Israeli bias by comparing reports on violence in Israel to reports on violence in London in order to 'prove' your point
2. it is however not relevent for me to compare said reporting on violence in the rest of the world to disprove your point.


OK, I'll try to walk you through this real slowly.
Coral's point was that the BBC and other media are biased in their terminology when reporting about Israel.

Remember your original post? You said: "Drone drone whine whine.
I see the 90 deaths in Iraq today were relatively unmentioned." I pointed out that the deaths in Iraq, though important, are not relevant to the discussion.

You blustered around for a while, then finally made one substantive post:
"The BBC report Terrorism and terrorists here in the UK, 'insurgency' in Iraq 'militants' in the middle east and 'Guerillas' in Nepal South America and other places
During the Afghanistan war against the Russians AlQeaida were neither terorist nor insurgents but simply referred to as 'Mujhahadin' then of course they were on our side. (When they were supplied and trained by the US).
In my view it reveals less a bias more a reflection of individual circumstances. Though the end result is the same, people being murdered for little apparent gain."

Note that I did not label this last post as irrelevant. You read very carefully, don't you?* In fact, it was the first post of yours in this thread with any relevance at all.

Instead, I claimed that it was very unconvincing. You ask, "Is it all a case of bias, or just editorial choices?" as if the editors of the BBC simply decide, willy-nilly, on a new word for each region where strife pops up. That's preposterous. But hey, it's your subjective opinion, and you're entitled to it.

But as I said, I do not buy it. More likely, the BBC is sympathetic to the cause of Hamas and Co., and biased against Israel, and therefore refuses to label them as terrorists, preferring the more gentle term, "militant."

*Irony employed here.

But what do I know, I am a leftist :p

Sorry for labeling you as a leftist if you're not, btw. It's just that I've come to expect interjections about the deaths in Iraq into nearly every conversation from people on the left.

They range from the plausible:
Me: Good news in Iraq today; did you see the voter turnout?
Leftist: But what about all the deaths in Iraq?

...to the unsound:
Me: Good news about the economy today!
Leftist: But what about all the deaths in Iraq?

...to the absurd:
Me: So hows about them Bulls?
Leftist: But what about all the deaths in Iraq?

No hard feelings, I hope.

To be honest, it doesn't take much thought to refute your flimsy arguments.

:D

OK, I'll try to walk you through this real slowly.

ta

Coral's point was that the BBC and other media are biased in their terminology when reporting about Israel.

Yep got that

Remember your original post? You said: "Drone drone whine whine.
I see the 90 deaths in Iraq today were relatively unmentioned." I pointed out that the deaths in Iraq, though important, are not relevant to the discussion.

Agreed that was what was said.

Note that I did not label this last post as irrelevant. You read very carefully, don't you?* In fact, it was the first post of yours in this thread with any relevance at all.

:confused: Note the words 'not relevent' in the above quote from you.

I can read very well, obviously you struggle a little, even when you have written it yourself.

You also wrote

No, it was about the semantics of BBC reporting regarding Israel.

Wow, you are just clueless. If you want to post about the Iraqi death toll, go ahead. Coral's post was about SOMETHING ELSE.

So your position has consistantly been that referring to the way the Beeb reports other conflicts was irrelevent. Which as we both know is complete nonsense.

Instead, I claimed that it was very unconvincing. You ask, "Is it all a case of bias, or just editorial choices?" as if the editors of the BBC simply decide, willy-nilly, on a new word for each region where strife pops up. That's preposterous. But hey, it's your subjective opinion, and you're entitled to it.

No I never said they decided willy-nilly, read what I actually said again.

But as I said, I do not buy it. More likely, the BBC is sympathetic to the cause of Hamas and Co., and biased against Israel, and therefore refuses to label them as terrorists, preferring the more gentle term, "militant."

I take it you are American? The BBC is certainly less pro-Israel than any of your media that is true but biased towards Hamas? Never.

Well whatever, I personally do not think that the word terrorist or militant makes a h'appeth of difference. Maybe it's a matter of translation.

In actual fact I am not a fan of the BBC. But the 'B' in BBC stands for British. We pay for it what does it have to do with you? Why do you even care?

FOX, CNN, PBS and whatever the Israeli news service is can say what they like in their own countries, If I moaned about the way Hollywood for example portrays the English we'd be here all night.

The Beeb is still one of the more responsible news agencies which is why it is quoted so often on this forum, if it doesnt have the slant you like, dont watch it!

They range from the plausible:
Me: Good news in Iraq today; did you see the voter turnout?
Leftist: But what about all the deaths in Iraq?

...to the unsound:
Me: Good news about the economy today!
Leftist: But what about all the deaths in Iraq?

...to the absurd:
Me: So hows about them Bulls?
Leftist: But what about all the deaths in Iraq?

No hard feelings, I hope.

:lol: :rofl: well said :nice:

One last try for the clinically slow:
"Drone drone whine whine. I see the 90 deaths in Iraq today were relatively unmentioned." = irrelevant

"The BBC report Terrorism and terrorists here in the UK, 'insurgency' in Iraq 'militants' in the middle east and 'Guerillas' in Nepal South America and other places
During the Afghanistan war against the Russians AlQeaida were neither terorist nor insurgents but simply referred to as 'Mujhahadin' then of course they were on our side. (When they were supplied and trained by the US). = relevant, but subjective tripe.

Your cutting and pasting job on my post was masterful, though. A job worthy of the BBS.

In fact, I don't watch the BBC. But since all major news organizations have an effect on world opinion, the bias bothers me. Certainly Coral has a right to point it out

I wonder if all the left wing news agencies (which of course means all the major ones) are afraid to refer to the Muslim Terrorists as Muslims not only to be politically correct, but to naively think that it will give them some immunity from being targetted by the Muslim Terrorists.

I wonder if all the left wing news agencies are afraid to refer to the Muslim Terrorists as Muslims not only to be politically correct, but to naively think that it will give them some immunity from being targetted by the Muslim Terrorists.

Probably some truth in that. Suppose that was what was running through the heads of Spanish voters in this last election. :hmm: A shame, because it's sure to fail in the long run.

One last try for the clinically slow:
"Drone drone whine whine. I see the 90 deaths in Iraq today were relatively unmentioned." = irrelevant

"The BBC report Terrorism and terrorists here in the UK, 'insurgency' in Iraq 'militants' in the middle east and 'Guerillas' in Nepal South America and other places
During the Afghanistan war against the Russians AlQeaida were neither terorist nor insurgents but simply referred to as 'Mujhahadin' then of course they were on our side. (When they were supplied and trained by the US). = relevant, but subjective tripe.

Your cutting and pasting job on my post was masterful, though. A job worthy of the BBS.

In fact, I don't watch the BBC. But since all major news organizations have an effect on world opinion, the bias bothers me. Certainly Coral has a right to point it out

You dont watch the BBC, so you are sounding off about something you know nothing about.

Why doesn't that surprise me.

Once again you are incapable of piecing together a coherent argument, but as you have no knowledge of the subject there is little point in continuing.

You dont watch the BBC, so you are sounding off about something you know nothing about.


I said I don't watch the BBC, not "I've never seen the BBC." I prefer less biased reporting. But I do check up on them every once in a while. Maybe you need glasses or something?

I said I don't watch the BBC, not "I've never seen the BBC." I prefer less biased reporting. But I do check up on them every once in a while. Maybe you need glasses or something?

:D :D I am beginning to see why you love semantics so much.

Are you by any chance related to Bill Clinton? Are you a lawyer?

Remember "I did not have sex with that woman" Remember how it didnt mean what 99.9% of the population thought it meant?

So genius when was the last report you saw on the BBC about Israel?

Do tell.

In Israel they are called terror attacks.

I suppose somebody is interested for them to sound less terrible, just like somebody is interested in this about Israel.I think its in teh interest of israel to claim that everybody is conspiring against them.

I think its in teh interest of israel to claim that everybody is conspiring against them.

And how is this an argument?

By now I saw two relevant arguments here (disagree with both, but that's another question).
One belongs to King, who says that it's OK that those who are blowing up israeli city buses are not called terrorists, because they are not terrorists (what they do is also not called terror, king), and the other to Dogberry, who says that BBC belongs to the british, and as long as it serves their interests, and they are happy with it, it has have the right to lie about what they like, and those who are lied about have no right for an opinion on this matter.

Of cource this Iraq point is not an argument, since it only proves that BBC is doing a lousy job in other subjects, not only about Israel, not that I had any doubt about it before.

One belongs to King, who says that it's OK that those who are blowing up israeli city buses are not called terrorists, because they are not terrorists (what they do is also not called terror, king)

Coral can an Military commit a terrorist act?, No, but they can commit a crime (I dont know what the UN or Genever calls it) a criminal act, could you say that the US military in Iraq are terrorists or the IDF are Terrorits, No, a military can not commit acts of terrorism and thats what Militants are a Military.

I never said i agree with them for them to do that.

Dogberry, who says that BBC belongs to the british, and as long as it serves their interests, and they are happy with it, it has have the right to lie about what they like, and those who are lied about have no right for an opinion on this matter.

When have they lied? The question is about terminology.

Your argument is that despite the BBC reporting the facts they are somehow anti-Isreal because of slight differences in terms they use.

In fact that is your only point.

And besides you and your intellectually challenged friend (who i see has decided not to reply) are just plain wrong.

The quickest search on the BBC news site revealed these two stories which shock/surprise have Israel and 'terror' in the titles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4679373.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4599027.stm

And besides you and your intellectually challenged friend (who i see has decided not to reply) are just plain wrong.

The quickest search on the BBC news site revealed these two stories which shock/surprise have Israel and 'terror' in the titles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4679373.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4599027.stm

LOL Did you even glance at the articles?

1.
Israel 'faces fresh terror wave'
Yaalon (2nd right) is predicting another eruption of violence
Israel's outgoing army chief of staff has warned of a possible new wave of Palestinian attacks after the planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

--> Note the quote marks. It's not terror, but "terror." All citations from Yaalon.

2. A long piece of quotes from Israelis, entitled, "Israelis on living with bombers"

-->Again, not terror, but bombers.

Like I said, clinically slow. Anyway, you've already admitted that the BBC uses bias in their terminology. That's why I didn't answer, and that's why you should quit while you are WAY behind.

And how is this an argument?because your constant attention for anything you view as anti-israeli. if one does that, its easy to dismiss any critisism as anti israel, and you never have to think about anything. quite common populist trick to divert attention.

Of cource this Iraq point is not an argument, since it only proves that BBC is doing a lousy job in other subjects, not only about Israel, not that I had any doubt about it before. even the US gouv. calls them insurgents, not terrorists.

because your constant attention for anything you view as anti-israeli. if one does that, its easy to dismiss any critisism as anti israel, and you never have to think about anything. quite common populist trick to divert attention.

And how this is an argument?

Your argument is that despite the BBC reporting the facts they are somehow anti-Isreal because of slight differences in terms they use.



"Facts" is another problem with BBC.

LOL Did you even glance at the articles?

1.
Israel 'faces fresh terror wave'
Yaalon (2nd right) is predicting another eruption of violence
Israel's outgoing army chief of staff has warned of a possible new wave of Palestinian attacks after the planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

--> Note the quote marks. It's not terror, but "terror." All citations from Yaalon.

The word terror is there, now it's the quotations you dont like?

2. A long piece of quotes from Israelis, entitled, "Israelis on living with bombers"

-->Again, not terror, but bombers.

Yep, like the BBC headlines about the London 'bombers'

Ultimately the piece sympathetic article allowing ordinary Israeli's to give their experiences. But that is not enough for our blinkered friends Coral and Hound who see bias everywhere.

Like I said, clinically slow. Anyway, you've already admitted that the BBC uses bias in their terminology. That's why I didn't answer, and that's why you should quit while you are WAY behind.

Umm no I didnt, and in any case my dimwitted friend I asked you when you last watched a BBC news report on Israel. You didnt answer, I can only presume because you have never seen one.

Therefore you are arguing from a postion of complete ignorance.

"Facts" is another problem with BBC.

Yes, I can imagine facts would be a problem for you.

Yes, I can imagine facts would be a problem for you.

It is a problem for me, but I suppose there are some BBC customers that would like to know some real facts. It's a problem for them also.

Ultimately the piece sympathetic article allowing ordinary Israeli's to give their experiences. But that is not enough for our blinkered friends Coral and Hound who see bias everywhere.


I can repeat it again, untill you will remember - in BBC web site, unlike BBC TV programs, sometimes not anti-israeli articles can be found.

Are you claimimg that the phrase "wave of terror against Israel" is just the same as the phrase "wave of "terror" against Israel".

And how this is an argument? how is it not?

how is it not?

Because what I'm doing or not doing on DA is no way an argument about BBC ways.

Just to point out, Didn't the BBC use the term "paramilitaries" to refer to terrorists such as the IRA, and not always terrorists?

hugs

lilnymph

Because what I'm doing or not doing on DA is no way an argument about BBC ways. but your arguement on bbc is based upon bias from your side. if my commments are no arguement, yours arent eighter.

Just to point out, Didn't the BBC use the term "paramilitaries" to refer to terrorists such as the IRA, and not always terrorists?

hugs

lilnymphyes they did/do.

Just to point out, Didn't the BBC use the term "paramilitaries" to refer to terrorists such as the IRA, and not always terrorists?

hugs

lilnymph

Like the "paramilitaries blow up something civilian in sothern England"?

BTW, I just run into few "Hamas activists" on BBC.
They were not talking about people making tea in a house meating, you can understand.

but your arguement on bbc is based upon bias from your side. if my commments are no arguement, yours arent eighter.

My attutude to them is not changing the facts, you know.

My attutude to them is not changing the facts, you know. where the fact in choosing what term to use for sueside bombers? its just a choice of words. the facts dont change anyway.

Like the "paramilitaries blow up something civilian in sothern England"?

yes actually

hugs

lilnymph

where the fact in choosing what term to use for sueside bombers? its just a choice of words. the facts dont change anyway.

So what do you want from me here?
I don't think that this term is the best suitable term, but I'm not at all emotional about it.

But there is still a big difference about how things are called in main stream press all over the world, and between my personal attitude in one disscution board. The first - at the end do change the world, the second - I wish - but no. :)

yes actually

hugs

lilnymph

OK, you allways convinced me that they are in general madmen.
But they still treat Israel differently, in a madmen way, but differently.

So what do you want from me here?
I don't think that this term is the best suitable term, but I'm not at all emotional about it.

never mind then.

I can repeat it again, untill you will remember - in BBC web site, unlike BBC TV programs, sometimes not anti-israeli articles can be found.

Are you claimimg that the phrase "wave of terror against Israel" is just the same as the phrase "wave of "terror" against Israel".

I have no idea what your first sentence is intended to mean.

The BBC story has the sentence "wave of terror against Israel" what on earth do you see in that which is anti-Israeli?

Just to point out, Didn't the BBC use the term "paramilitaries" to refer to terrorists such as the IRA, and not always terrorists?


Yes.

I have no idea what your first sentence is intended to mean.

The BBC story has the sentence "wave of terror against Israel" what on earth do you see in that which is anti-Israeli?



Yes.

I mean, that I'm not saying that EVERY article on BBC website are not objective, never did. BBC TV is much worse.

Nothing wrong with this, the problem is with "wave of "terror" against Israel".

I mean, that I'm not saying that EVERY article on BBC website are not objective, never did. BBC TV is much worse.

Nothing wrong with this, the problem is with "wave of "terror" against Israel".

Coral get some glasses. It is 'wave of terror' not 'wave or 'terror'.

The connotations are entirely diffrerent.

Coral get some glasses. It is 'wave of terror' not 'wave or 'terror'.

The connotations are entirely diffrerent.

Maybe not in this case.
But I heard not once BBC talking about "so called terror" in Israel.

OK, you allways convinced me that they are in general madmen.
But they still treat Israel differently, in a madmen way, but differently.

How are they treating Israel differently? They call the peopel who attack israel militants, they called the people who attacked the UK Paramilitaries. Why? Because that is what they are. They both use terror tactics. And you can't say that they use stronger terms when its the UK, because I would say both militant and paramilitary sound pretty much the same. You are strangely paranoid Coral. And once again, since both Israel and palestine insist the BBC is biased towards the other, they are probably getting the line just about right.

hugs

lilnymph

How are they treating Israel differently? They call the peopel who attack israel militants, they called the people who attacked the UK Paramilitaries. Why? Because that is what they are. They both use terror tactics. And you can't say that they use stronger terms when its the UK, because I would say both militant and paramilitary sound pretty much the same. You are strangely paranoid Coral. And once again, since both Israel and palestine insist the BBC is biased towards the other, they are probably getting the line just about right.

hugs

lilnymph

I'm not generally paranoid, Lil.
I got it from washing too much BBC during the worse time in Israel.
You are right that "millitans" and "paramillitans" is actually the same.
Anyway you mentioned that those irish terrorists were sometimes called terrorirsts.
I would not mind if they would say that they use terror tactics.
They are not saying this either.
Palestinian terror don't exist in BBC, except from "so called terror",read what they write about "Israel and palestinain terortories", the terror is not even mentioned there.
And they did called terror in London terror.
So there is a difference.

And if both sides says so - it means absolutely nothing. Like two peope can blame each other, and one is really innocent, and second is not.
Anyway palestinians know that they have western press on their side- I run into such remarks on palestinain sites.