Israel, getting away with it again...

[flammableBen]

I agree that it reflects something about you, certainly. Keep up that insultin' Iron-y.

[Ironside]

I agree that it reflects something about you, certainly. Keep up that insultin' Iron-y.

okay, I will, thanks Ben.

[ghanimah]

If you stand at the North Pole, every direction is south.  In much the same way, isn't everyone (incl the media, apparently) liberal if you happen to be Ironside?

Which kinda proves Ironside's point, it's only your opinion that he stands at the North Pole. Who's to say that it's not you at the South Pole and every direction is North. The implication here is that the media (I think he's only criticised the BBC) can't be biased - because Ironside doesn't agree with it but you do.

For all the BBC's redeeming factors, it clearly struggles with impartiality on certain issues - the EU, Israel, Climate change, George Bush, Sarah Palin etc etc. If the BBC had instead a consistent anti-Labour bias, then similar criticism would have sprung up to identify it. But of course there hasn't, because it doesn’t exist.

In much the same way, Fox News doesn’t have people complaining about anti-republican bias because its obvious where it is coming from.

[janaage]

In much the same way, Fox News doesn't have people complaining about anti-republican bias because its obvious where it is coming from.

I love Fox news, for all the wrong reasons.  It's terrible "news" channel.  Bill O'Reilly can't wait for Obama to take over so he can get stuck into him.  Should be fun to watch, the old irish-american kj.

Actually thinking about it I bet Ironside would enjoy watching "The O'Reilly Factor"

[Ardiles]

Which kinda proves Ironside's point, it's only your opinion that he stands at the North Pole. Who's to say that it's not you at the South Pole and every direction is North. The implication here is that the media (I think he's only criticised the BBC) can't be biased - because Ironside doesn't agree with it but you do.

For all the BBC's redeeming factors, it clearly struggles with impartiality on certain issues - the EU, Israel, Climate change, George Bush, Sarah Palin etc etc. If the BBC had instead a consistent anti-Labour bias, then similar criticism would have sprung up to identify it. But of course there hasn't, because it doesn’t exist.

In much the same way, Fox News doesn’t have people complaining about anti-republican bias because its obvious where it is coming from.

I disagree.  There's more of a concensus than you indicate, I think.  I think Ironside himself would acknowledge that his views are well to the right of the mainstream, and my point simply alluded to the fact that his constant railing against and frustration with those he regarded as being too liberal is, surely, due to his being well to the right of the mainstream.

It's all relative.  I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong (or even that anyone is right or wrong).  But in my humble view, maybe he should try not to get so chopsy with people who don't share his views when, to be frank, his views are on the periphary in the first place.

[ghanimah]

I disagree.  There's more of a concensus than you indicate, I think.  I think Ironside himself would acknowledge that his views are well to the right of the mainstream, and my point simply alluded to the fact that his constant railing against and frustration with those he regarded as being too liberal is, surely, due to his being well to the right of the mainstream.

It's all relative.  I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong (or even that anyone is right or wrong).  But in my humble view, maybe he should try not to get so chopsy with people who don't share his views when, to be frank, his views are on the periphary in the first place.

Nice edit

A consensus doesn't prove anything (the Germans voted Hitler into power).

I'm not agreeing with Ironside here, but just because (in my opinion) some of his views are 'strong' doesn't automatically make all of his views wrong which I think tends to happen on here

Agree about the chopsy bit though, but I think he takes it as well as he gives it out

[spacey]

  but I think he takes it as well as he gives it

Yeah, I've heard that rumour.

[Simon Pieman]

Hopefully one day Palestine and Israel will unite, through Adam Sandlers love of making people's hair silky smooth.

[flammableBen]

They'll replace religious fundamentalism, with fundamental funky disco. Fuck yeah.

[normy]

From a position of relative ignorance, I seem to remember that at one time many thought that Israel was foolish and provocative to continually expand it's settlements in to land which was not theirs by right. Was, and is, ownership of disputed land the main problem between the parties, or have I got it wrong? Someone who knows the truth please educate me

[Lumps]

A consensus doesn't prove anything (the Germans voted Hitler into power).

You might want to check your history there mate. Hitler never won a presidential election, the best he managed was second place with about 37% of the vote.
 
In the March 13, 1932, election there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were:

Hindenburg 49.6 percent
Hitler 30.1 percent
Thaelmann 13.2 percent
Duesterberg 6.8 percent

A runoff election on April 19, 1932, gave the results:

Hindenburg 53.0 percent
Hitler 36.8 percent
Thaelmann 10.2 percent

The Nazis embarked on a campaign of violence and political assassination and general mayhem, resulting in martial law in Berlin, and eventually the disolution of the Reichstag, and new elections in July 1932.

The Nazis became the largest party, with a couple of hundred seats, but even that was only about the same number of seats that the communists and socialists held. The socialist and communist vote held up but the centre parties collapsed almost completely with the Nazi making all the gains from the middle class votes.

Hitler failed to persuade President Hindenberg to make him Chancellor, but after a further period of unrest, (and a further election, where the Nazi share of the vote and number of seats dropped) he was eventually bullied in to the appiontment in January 1933.

A month later the Reichstag was set on fire by a single Dutch communist. The government made a big deal about this being the opening salvo in the German communist revolution, and produced material that suggested that it was part of a string of planned attacks on state property, (plans that had been conveniently left at the scene of the fire but handily had not burned, and that strangely never actually seemed to translate into any actual attacks).

The reichstag were persuaded to pass an enabling bill to to give emergency powers to Hitler to counter this "threat", and presto, Hitler was the German dictator.

Never won an election, never had a parliamentary majority. Never acheived as much of 40% of the popular vote.

[janaage]

You might want to check your history there mate. Hitler never won a presidential election, the best he managed was second place with about 37% of the vote.
 
In the March 13, 1932, election there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were:

Hindenburg 49.6 percent
Hitler 30.1 percent
Thaelmann 13.2 percent
Duesterberg 6.8 percent

A runoff election on April 19, 1932, gave the results:

Hindenburg 53.0 percent
Hitler 36.8 percent
Thaelmann 10.2 percent

The Nazis embarked on a campaign of violence and political assassination and general mayhem, resulting in martial law in Berlin, and eventually the disolution of the Reichstag, and new elections in July 1932.

The Nazis became the largest party, with a couple of hundred seats, but even that was only about the same number of seats that the communists and socialists held. The socialist and communist vote held up but the centre parties collapsed almost completely with the Nazi making all the gains from the middle class votes.

Hitler failed to persuade President Hindenberg to make him Chancellor, but after a further period of unrest, (and a further election, where the Nazi share of the vote and number of seats dropped) he was eventually bullied in to the appiontment in January 1933.

A month later the Reichstag was set on fire by a single Dutch communist. The government made a big deal about this being the opening salvo in the German communist revolution, and produced material that suggested that it was part of a string of planned attacks on state property, (plans that had been conveniently left at the scene of the fire but handily had not burned, and that strangely never actually seemed to translate into any actual attacks).

The reichstag were persuaded to pass an enabling bill to to give emergency powers to Hitler to counter this "threat", and presto, Hitler was the German dictator.

Never won an election, never had a parliamentary majority. Never acheived as much of 40% of the popular vote.

Now that is pretty impressive knowledge!!

[spacey]

From a position of relative ignorance, I seem to remember that at one time many thought that Israel was foolish and provocative to continually expand it's settlements in to land which was not theirs by right. Was, and is, ownership of disputed land the main problem between the parties, or have I got it wrong? Someone who knows the truth please educate me

I'll field this one.

What happened was that some Palestinians and Israelis were playing conkers. The Palestinian champ was taking on the Israeli champ with what he claimed was a 94er. Now the rules of conkers clearly state that you can't play conkers with a conker that has been hardened using illegal methods, a bit similar to ball tampering in cricket. The Palestinian won the game, but Israel claimed that he'd soaked his conker in vinegar and then popped it in the oven to make it super hard. The Palestinians were having none of this and claimed that Israel were nothing but sore losers. They've been at it ever since.

Impressive knowledge I'm sure you'll agree.

[Arriba]

i thought the same as normy really.thanks spacey for educating me with the truth

[Ardiles]

I haven't read this through...but looks like a manageable, bite sized summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict