Israel, getting away with it again...

[Don Rogers Shop]

Herthabs a bald prick

[Ironside]

That doesn't make any kind of fucking sense?

You've got irate about other people using the word "terror" elsewhere in the thread, I'm just pointing out some possible inconsistencies in the use of language here.

For the record I'm pretty fucking clear that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, I'm just also clear that because some violent actions were a long time ago and the people that carried them out are now in senior positions in a new nationa state, that doesn't stop them being terrorist actions. I'm also clear that nation states are also perfectly capable of carrying out actions that are terrorist in nature.

What the fuck that has to do with the BBC I don't know. Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance?

Lumpy I was pointing out that auntie, and the rest of the media quite often lie.

When was the last time you heard auntie refer to the likes of Hamas/Hezbollah etc etc as terrorists? They don't, they refer to them as "militants".

Conflation of Hamas "militants" killed and "Palestinian" deaths giving the impression that all the deaths are those of "innocent civilians"

When was the last time you heard the BBC use the word recession? They don't, they refer to it as a "downturn".

BBC (and other media) double-speak.  Big fan of Auntie are you?

[janaage]

We sent troops to northern ireland jan.

Yes we did and the Bloody Sunday style of reposnse to terrorist activities got the British forces no where.  All it did was breed contempt for the British.   It played no part in the eventual peace process. 

[Ardiles]

When was the last time you heard the BBC use the word recession? They don't, they refer to it as a "downturn".

To be fair, if the BBC started reporting 'the recession' before it had been formally called (as it will be when the Q4 2008 growth figures become available later this month), they would be accused of talking down the economy.  I would be very surprised if the BBC did not change the 'downturn' to 'recession' in their reporting when it becomes official.

[leefer]

Personally i would of loved to see Moira Stuart ruffle her papers and say in her posh voice here is the news..its freezing in Britain and we are all fucked...Goodnight.

[flammableBen]

In fact they often use the word "recession" as well as "downturn", in phrases like "expected recession", especially when talking about the growth figures, or even just the economy as a whole, "as we head into recession".

They also use the word "terrorist", especially when reporting about the Israeli reasons behind there current actions. They do also use the term "militant" when reporting from a more neutral view though, it's less of a loaded term, either way.

I've definitely never heard them use the term "Child Murderers".

[Simon Pieman]

A recession is just a temporary economic downturn anyway.

[Ironside]

Are you watching News at 10 FB?

George Alighia didn't use the frase "child murderers" but he bloody well implied it. Jeremy Al Bowen's report just re-said it.

[spacey]

Maybe it was the coverage of the child that had been murdered that influenced them?  If an innocent person is killed whether it be a child or an adult, it can't be just dismissed as an unfortunate consequence of war. I don't give a fuck what side fired the missile and I don't give a fuck about their reasons. It's murder! Now if you don't mind, I have some trees in my garden in serious need of a hug, so I'll bid you good day.

[flammableBen]

Spacey you knob. I'm going to have to go cut down some trees to restore balance to the universe. It's fucking cold outside.

[pauld]

If you want to be a "we" that includes the incapable yanks that please do  ;-)  I think the British forces, from what I've seen in Afghanistan would not launch a 10 day terror campain on say Kabul's residential areas.  If they did I'd be as disgusted as I am today.

You may want to start being disgusted then and perhaps a little less smug about "the incapable yanks" versus our own troops who've also been responsible for civilian deaths in Afghanistan. To pick just a couple of headlines from just the first page of a brief googling:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/26/military.afghanistan1
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/women-and-children-killed-in-afghanistan-by-british-air-strike-794994.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/2576271/British-troops-kill-four-Afghan-civilians-in-Helmand-province.html

Sorry, but this idea that you can have "clean" wars that don't kill civilians is just bullshit, particularly in the kind of assymetric warfare that fighting terrorists/insurgents/militants who necessarily blend in with the civilian population. And the British smugness that our lads manage to surgically take out only the bad hats while those crazy cowboy yanks blow the shit out of all and sundry bears equally little examination. And no I'm not having a go at the British troops serving in Afghanistan - I'm damn sure they take every step they can to avoid civilian casualties, but the fact is, you can't conduct this kind of war without civilian casualties and deaths. This idea of "clean wars" is, I'm afraid, one more piece of bullshit the politicians dreamed up so we wouldn't feel so bad about cheering on our boys.

Even if you were right in the "ooh, don't worry it's only the cowboy yanks, our hands are clean" I think you'll find most Afghan civilians don't differentiate between British carelessness, NATO carelessness or US carelessness when it comes to killing civilians - they just see Western forces killing their kids, wives etc.

So unless you're arguing for total pacifism (and fair play if you are - not a view I agree with, but I'll respect it), I think you're being a bit smug tbh in dismissing Phil's comparison with Afghanistan. In fact, you could argue the Israelis have considerably more justification in chasing down terrorists/insurgents/militants right on their borders than we do chasing them down half a world away.

[pauld]

Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance?

No-on reads the Daily Mail - they have it read to them

[Reeves for King]

Politics on the te... this is mint.

I am inclined to side with the Palestinians, but neither side is blameless. Israel did not keep to the terms and land it was given when the state was created (about half and half between Israel and Palestine and Jerusalem as an independent city). Furthermore I am pretty disgusted by the US and France - one sides with Israel, one with Palestine - do they not realize that in an area as volatile as this they need to use pacifying words?

[pauld]

Politics on the te... this is mint.

I am inclined to side with the Palestinians, but neither side is blameless. Israel did not keep to the terms and land it was given when the state was created (about half and half between Israel and Palestine and Jerusalem as an independent city).

And to play devil's avocado, if the Arab states who cry such bitter crocodile tears for the plight of the Palestinians were that concerned, they could of course have carved out a Palestinian homeland out of their own land. For example, Jordan as a large chunk of Jordanian territory is historically "Palestinian", but they couldn't kick the Palestinians out into refugee camps in Lebanon etc quick enough. The Palestinian plight (and it genuinely is a plight) should be a problem for the whole region but the Arab states have played politics with the Palestinians just as much as the Israelis, arguably more so given how often the Palestinians have been used as a frontline proxy by Arab League states for a war they daren't declare on Israel directly. And now the Palestinian civilians are being used as human shields by their own terrorist government.

[Lumps]

I'm always amused by this Israeli "human shield" argument.

I'm not sure what the Israeli's, or anybody else for that matter expects Hamas to do. They're living in a massive ghetto with a population of over 1.5 million, all jammed into a narrow strip of land with an area of about 145 sq miles, meaning it's got a population density similar to the inner London boroughs.

So there's not a whole load of fucking room for these people to be that isn't in a civilian populated area.

There is a narrow strip of land immediately inside the 1950 Armistice Line between the Gaza city suburb of Kuba and Bureij that's a bit more rural. But that's basically saying "can the people we're trying to kill please come and stand in the open in front of this border so that we can shoot them".

By the same argument Hamas could argue that if only the IDF would assemble a few thousand troops each day to stand around in the fields between Kfar Azaz and Mfelsim, for them to aim their rockets at then the Israeli civilian population local to the border would be a lot safer.

Anyway a lot of the Israeli's targets are not military in nature, but are members of the Hamas leadership. In other words the government of the Gaza Strip region. So saying that they're using the civilian population as "human shields" is like saying that the British Government are risking the lives civilians by basing themselves in London. They are after all terrorist targets, surely they should be living and working in an area well away from the rest of us.

It's a load of old propaganda bollocks basically.