AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
"Anyone watching or listening to our coverage will hear the word 'terrorist' used many times - we attribute it to those who are using it, for example, the UK Government’
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Sick sick world what is wrong with people
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
"Anyone watching or listening to our coverage will hear the word 'terrorist' used many times - we attribute it to those who are using it, for example, the UK Government’
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
It can be both. Israel is defending itself. That doesn't excuse it's actions, and overlooks it's own part in why in wgy it was attacked (not the sole reason it was attacked. Arguably not part of the reason at all. It's more than likely Hamas because they want to wipe out Israel as hideous ideologues. But they could also be freedom fighters in response to Israels actions. Either way, its irrelevant - both Israel and Hamas are hideous in how they act. Now Israels government is democratically elected, so the electorate has influenced the position.)
3% is around 150k people - that's quite a significant number.
They voted for an organisation whose top stated aim is to end the existence of Israel. Whether or not the UK were late to the party in officially recognising them as what they were, they voted for terrorists. Hamas had been sending suicide bombers for more than a decade before they took power in Gaza.
Research better.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/328922.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/1705890.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7319501.stm
If you take the BBC at their word, of course you'll end up agreeing with them.
dawaxman
Gheorge Popescu
Do you know this from first hand sources or tiktok?
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Do NOT apologise for saying that.
I think you're 100% correct.
Sadly, this is an era where everyone has to have an opinion on everything, regardless of what they do or do don't know.
I think the ONLY thing we ALL know and agree on, is that murder is a terrible thing whoever is being murdered, and everyone on this forum hopes for peace, freedom, and happiness for all.
dawaxman
Gheorge Popescu
Can I ask a genuine question of those people who are arguing in favour of the atrocities of Hamas (or as you'll phrase it, against the atrocities of Israel):
What is your skin in the game? Do you have Palestinian relatives or friends impacted by this?
If not, which I assume is likely the case, do you debate at length on any other world incident like this one?
What is your opinion on the DRC? How about Mauritania? Yemen? Syria?
There is a side conversation happening above where Scara is talking about the Irish conflict and is being corrected by someone who seems to be more knowledgeable than him
Is it frustrating to you when you see someone misrepresent the situation in Ireland through ignorance?
Personally, I'd not have a view there because I just don't know enough
Curious why there are so many Palestine experts on a Spurs football forum.... weird innit????
What is your skin in the game? Do you have Palestinian relatives or friends impacted by this?
If not, which I assume is likely the case, do you debate at length on any other world incident like this one?
What is your opinion on the DRC? How about Mauritania? Yemen? Syria?
There is a side conversation happening above where Scara is talking about the Irish conflict and is being corrected by someone who seems to be more knowledgeable than him
Is it frustrating to you when you see someone misrepresent the situation in Ireland through ignorance?
Personally, I'd not have a view there because I just don't know enough
Curious why there are so many Palestine experts on a Spurs football forum.... weird innit????
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
Also, a general thing on a side question.
People comment more now as the world is so much smaller, information and communication is free and everywhere. It’s normal to be in contact with people all over the world every day.
First hand experience trumps everything, but second hand experience is so much easier to come by than it was 20 years ago.
People comment more now as the world is so much smaller, information and communication is free and everywhere. It’s normal to be in contact with people all over the world every day.
First hand experience trumps everything, but second hand experience is so much easier to come by than it was 20 years ago.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
First link - 'following police warnings that the terrorists responsible for the latest attacks may strike again' - so using the words as described by the police
Second link - The programme title for a Panorama episode? So not news reporting. Investigative doco content if we're aiming for accuracy. That's like pulling up an episode of Dr Who that uses the term 'terrorist' in an episode.
Third link - Title describing the content of people convicted under terrorism offences.
Let's pretend that these three could be contentious. You mentioned that the BBC breaks guidelines 'often'. Would you mind pulling up another 1000 or so as we're searching back throughout the entirety of it's online content publications and we can go through them together. Much obliged.
Craig_J
Mido
Do I know from first hand sources that when Israel was created hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were evicted/killed and their homes destroyed?
No I wasn't alive then but I trust historical records.
Same as I trust the common internationally recognized knowledge that Israel has pushed beyond its agreed borders and does so more and more each day/ week/ month.
I'm white British. I am not Jewish or Muslim.
I debate different things - but I do not debate any world incidences like this because you are allowed to condemn and criticize the policy of every other country in the world.This issue is extremely unique. t's only Israel who can never be cirtcised without being accused of being racist. Any other of the 300 odd countries around the world I could criticse freely on human rights issues.
It's only the state of Israel which is seemingly beyond reproach no matter what international laws they violate.
who here is arguing in favour of the atrocities of Hamas, what are you reading that I’m not?
Because I’m not seeing that at all.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
So true.
What a problem for the world, as second hand experiences become tweets, and tweets become 'facts', and 'facts' get recycled (to be clear, I am saying this about life - and life events- in general)...
spurspinter1
Steve Carr
The notion of needing skin in the game to be be concerned enough to discuss it is an odd point as well. Being human should be enough to warrant being concerned about the plight of other innocent humans on whatever side.
Everyone knows there's countless issues across the world that are harrowing and you don't need a family member directly affected to be bothered about something. For example I don't think I've ever knowingly met a Uyghur Muslim but I'm devastated reading accounts and reports from China regarding the genocide. However as I'm not personally involved it will admittedly not be something I think about for a while but I still believe I'd be allowed to share my thoughts on the matter, but from some people's POV the information I have seen would be labeled as propaganda to make the Chinese government look bad.
It makes one feel quite helpless as what can you really do apart from read about it and then discuss? It seems distasteful to block it all out but it's also not productive to read article after article or follow the threads of posters apparently in the know going back and forth (or choosing not to reply when asked uneasy questions as has happened here). I recall reading George Orwell's account of going to fight in the Spanish Civil war, a choice to risk his life in another country's conflict, it's a staggering notion, like the Brits and other nationalities that went to fight with Ukraine, I don't know if it is brave or reckless, ideally you can look back and see you were on the right side of things but so many obviously can't having given their lives for one cause or another.
Relating to the Israel Palestine conflict calls for people to educate themselves are from the right place, as I've said early on both "sides" will have their own scholars and account of events you could spend a lifetime wading through it. It's going to sound mighty ignorant but even just this thread is a lot to get through, and as usual the subject instigates people making sweeping assumptions, accusations of racism/ antisemitism. It's just mad to think that individuals are able to commit such atrocities whether it's intentionally starving civilians or gunning down attendees of a music festival.
(This post is a tad vague and broad simultaneously but in my defense this isn't an outright Israel Palestine conflict thread, it might not be a bad idea to have one)
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love... Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding.
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I truely wish Isreal would heed Martin Luther King. The bombing of Gaza is almost an emotional knee-jerk, to appease a democractic angry grieving people. You can understand it. But violence begets violence. Isreal should take the moral high ground. Should find other ways than bludgening Gaza for the sake of retribution. Yes their attacks are targeted at Hamas and they phone innocent people in buildings to try and get them out, that is something I guess.
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I truely wish Isreal would heed Martin Luther King. The bombing of Gaza is almost an emotional knee-jerk, to appease a democractic angry grieving people. You can understand it. But violence begets violence. Isreal should take the moral high ground. Should find other ways than bludgening Gaza for the sake of retribution. Yes their attacks are targeted at Hamas and they phone innocent people in buildings to try and get them out, that is something I guess.
great post.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
It seems like you don't believe Isreal should exist. More or less the same as Hamas. Do you apply your logic to other nations that have been formed out of war, or it is reserved for Isreal? It does seem like you have a deep seated hatred of Isreal. You only focus on one side - trying to paint a picture of how evil Isreal is. Are you able to understand the other side? The reason there is such ingrained conflict without the prospect of peace is simply because there are too many people with polarised views on both sides. Such people are not able to see things from the other side, and difuse, build bridges and create peace.
Rather than criticise, what is it that should be done now? Do you think Isrealis should leave Isreal? Give up the nation they were given by your nation, that they have built up? Where are you going with your vitriol, what outcome are you looking for?
Last edited:
I'll save us both the bother and post the guidelines:
"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacker', 'gunman', 'kidnapper', 'insurgent' and 'militant'." (From an article on the BBC)
Now the definition of terrorism is:
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
Now if we apply the term terrorists to Hamas you can see that it would be both specific and accurate.
So the BBC can refer to Hamas as terrorists and still be within its own guidelines. Yet it chooses not to.
We didn't take it, we were given it.
As with every inhabitable piece of earth on this planet (and plenty of uninhabitable), "ownership" has changed hands for as far back as history goes. You can pick any parcel of land and find someone else who should have it if you go back far enough.
The Ottomans didn’t give it to anyone, it was taken from them.
the second paragraph is spot on though.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
Here you go, the actual guidelines which explain everything nicely so I don’t keep having to engage in your nonsense.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/pdfs/reporting-terrorism.pdf
They’re guidelines. Not laws. The choice is always there. Like you have a choice to fill out a complaint form or not as you care so deeply about this subject.