THREE SCHOOLS…

The BBC has lovingly lingered on UNRWA condemnation of Israel for hitting a THIRD UNRWA school. It’s all part of the “damn-Israel” meme that the BBC has spewed out during the latest conflict. However, for some reason, none of the world class BBC journalists felt inclined to ask UNWRA why it has allowed at least THREE of its schools to be used to store Hamas missiles. Further, why has the BBC not questioned UNWRA as to why it handed BACK the missiles to Hamas having discovered them? I fully understand that Chris Gunness is a poster boy for the BBC as he damns Israel from morning to dusk but surely the BBC has an obligation to make viewers aware that UNRWA has many serious questions to ask – none of which it is asking!!!!!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

154 Responses to THREE SCHOOLS…

  1. Alan says:

    Have the BBC reported this?

    Inside Gaza, Hamas has booby-trapped hundreds of homes and installations with improvised bombs. One such IED killed three Israeli soldiers on Wednesday in a building labeled as an UNRWA clinic in the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, where IDF soldiers were searching for a tunnel shaft.’

    Also:
    ‘Very little face-to-face fighting is taking place in Gaza. Mimicking the tactics used by Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas heavily relies on two types of weaponry: anti-tank missiles and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The anti-tank weapon of choice is the Russian shoulder-launched RPG-29, and is used against infantry troops and armored vehicles.’

    The RPG 29 is extremely powerful and took out a British Challenger tank in Iraq piercing its frontal armour…and that tank has probably the best armour in the world.
    If you are in a tank in Gaza and someone is firing that at you you are going to have to fire back or else your tank will get blasted and you along with it….and if the RPG is fired from a school what are you to do?

    Also:
    ‘The digging of tunnels began four years ago and has demanded 40 percent of Hamas’s budget, The Times of Israel has learned.’

    40% of the budget in Gaza? No wonder people are starving and hospitals and schools are short of facilities.

       52 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      In one street in Gaza over half the houses were booby-trapped with explosives. That is what caused much of the damage to property in Gaza. All the terror-tunnel entrances were inside buildings – homes, UN facilities, mosques etc. Searching for tunnel entrances inevitably caused more damage.

      At root – most of the deaths and destruction in Gaza were caused by Hamas.

         53 likes

      • Nat says:

        Where’s your proof coming from again? Ah yes, the Times of Israel. Because that’s obviously far more unbiased and trustworthy than, say, the UN.

           4 likes

        • deegee says:

          Be practical here Nat. The only news sources are Israeli or Hamas. The UN presence is compromised to the point of zero credibility.

          Due to restrictions in Gaza (and/or support for Hamas) the best we can expect from ‘independent’ journalists is confirmation or denial of Israeli or Hamas claims. The BBC doesn’t even give us that.

             11 likes

          • Nat says:

            What is it with people thinking all Palestinians support Hamas? Before this whole conflagration, support for it was at 20%. No-one would bat an eyelid if Israel restricted themselves to taking out actual terrorists.

            Even if you’re correct, both Israel and GAZA (not Hamas) tell us that over a thousand Palestinian civilians are dead and a staggering number of that are children and women who couldn’t have ever been mistaken for terrorists.

               3 likes

            • Pounce says:

              Folks,
              Have a look at how NAT talks down to people.
              Sorry, I forgot I was dealing with morons who think that Hamas is synonymous with Palestine. It isn’t.
              Now, for somebody new to this board he seems to have had a lot of dealings with everybody. Now who do we know on here has a habit of being a rabble rouser, a habit of using IDs in which to try and give the impression of support from the ranks and who loves to bitch. The same person who has been outed as a Racist and whom people have been told not to feed.
              Yup it BNP Scott doing what Racists do best. Leave the racist bastard to stew in his own shite.

                 8 likes

    • DP111 says:

      why has the BBC not questioned UNWRA as to why it handed BACK the missiles to Hamas having discovered them?

      Are you suggesting that a BBC journo ask this question while in Gaza?

      Have a heart. If he/she did so, his/her body will be found by some passing shepherd, minus the head.

         1 likes

    • JIMJFOX says:

      Thursday, July 24, the 17th day of the IDF’s Gaza operation, Israeli ministers were discussing a possible “humanitarian ceasefire” in IDF-Hamas hostilities, which could last up to five days. According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, it is Hamas which, behind its tough stance, is keen on a pause – and not just out of sudden concern for Gaza’s civilians. Its tacticians are desperate to find a chink in the Chariot-4 tank’s Armored Shield Protection-Active Trophy missile defense system, known as the Windbreaker. The 401st armored brigade is the only IDF unit with this armor.
      Hamas has tried to stop these tanks with two kinds of advanced guided anti-tank missiles, the Russian Kornet-E, and the 9M113 Konkurs. But Windbreaker repels them and blows them all up.

         5 likes

      • John Anderson says:

        Yes, that tank anti-missile defence is apparently the biggest revelation of the conflict. As far as I know, there were incidents where personnel carriers were destroyed in the streets of Gaza by terrorists with RPGs etc emerging from tunnels, but no tanks were destroyed.

           2 likes

  2. Andy S. says:

    I saw one of the early reports of this so called “outrage” and in the middle of images of walking wounded and the wailing and gnashing of teeth, there was a quick shot of a small hole in the middle of the roadway, before a shot of the UNWRA school. The hole wasn’t made by an explosive shell as it was too small. It looked more like an image of the small holes made by Hamas rockets after they have landed in Israeli streets. These rockets explode on contact and scatter shrapnel and ball bearings – more anti-personnel munitions than the kind of shell fired from tanks or gun batteries.

    Strange that later broadcasts of the report seemed to have had the image of the hole edited out, so we go straight from the usual images of the wounded to the shot of the school. Why would that be I wonder?

       39 likes

    • David Jones says:

      Pallywood is alive and well – the UNWRA school becomes a filmset

      http://www.thomaswictor.com/two-pallywood-duds/

      This explains what caused the small hole in the road which is where the mini-missile hit. The school was not hit. So bBC, Ban Ki-moon, Gunness would you like to retract?

         15 likes

      • Guest Who says:

        ‘Other images show western photographers at the scene. ‘
        Make that 41 questions they and their apologists will move heaven and earth to not even hear much less answer.
        The other night I saw some silly ‘We’re all doomed’ disaster special on mega-tsunamis that had added news ‘acting’ for effect, in this case I think Sophie Raworth.
        Frankly that fictional outing had more credibility than any real time BS her colleagues are coming out with on this.

           10 likes

      • Teddy Bear says:

        Brilliant link David!

           2 likes

  3. stuart says:

    war is a nasty business,and we all hate war, but anybody that suggests that the idf went out of there way to target this school is just quoting from the hamas propaganda manual book,funny how all these journalists including the quiet biased ex bbc economics editor channel 4s own paul mason always seem to be just yards away from these schools in there flak jackets when these shells explode,i find that very strange indeed,very strange paul mason.

       27 likes

  4. Proteus says:

    Israel has hit another school?! Sssh, nothing to see here, move along eh?

       9 likes

    • Roland Deschain says:

      I agree. The BBC seems astoundingly incurious as to why Israel keeps attacking these schools.

         26 likes

      • Guess Who says:

        The BBC had a piece recently offering the choice between IDF soldiers being inept, and hitting schools, or psychotic, and hitting schools.
        As one presumes Gaza is not just one big school, and a general acceptance that relative precision is more or less possible post warning (certainly enough for Western journos to whinge that the nasty bangs all around their hotels were harshing their mellow), it seems odd that another reason for counter fire hitting schools is never even considered.
        It’s not the fact of the target location, but reasons.
        However astounding uncuriosity is now an established top-down BBC trait and they seem to manage the first but avoid the second.

           23 likes

      • Ralph says:

        A bit like how air strikes in Afghanistan always seem to hit ‘weddings’.

           15 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      Far from ‘moving along’ the above is a valuable insight into what is really going on in these ‘UN schools’ and the barbaric practices of Hamas. It is a side to the story that you will never hear from the BBC as it doesn’t quite fit its pro-‘Palestinian’/Hamas narrative.

      Think before you type.

         12 likes

  5. deegee says:

    Hamas not only hides missiles in schools it fires them from schools.

       8 likes

  6. Corinium says:

    Did anyone hear Sarah Montague interviewing the Israeli Ambassador on Today this morning? Disgraceful beyond words. She basically accused Israel of being baby killers for fun and not interested in peace because they won’t go and meet Hamas and other terror groups in Egypt.

    If I’d have been him I’d have said it’s a bit rich for a country which went out of its way to kill German civilians during WW2 as a deliberate act of war (and not just in Dresden) to complain about Israel being forced to defend itself from terrorists who hide behind civilians.

    What is so extraordinary about the BBC is that it is either incapable of understanding or is not interested in why Israel is being forced to take the action it has.

       19 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      The BBC is not interested because it is anti-democracy, as its support of the EU and the global warming/green movement (to name but two) only too clearly testify.

         14 likes

    • Sceptical Steve says:

      Since the 1980s, no-one in Western Europe has faced the possibility of military conquest and the appalling practical consequences, so we’ve lost the ability to empathise with the people whose very existence is under threat.
      By the way, I went to follow up the reports from the UNWRA that they had discovered and returned weapons found on their own premises in Gaza. They all seem to have been “disappeared” from the UNWRA website. Did anyone manage to get a screen dump?

         12 likes

    • Nat says:

      Israel is being ‘forced to take action’ because, as anyone with a shred of history knows, they are currently occupying land that is not their own. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.

      Good Lord, I’m glad we don’t have people like you in positions of power.

         7 likes

      • The Beebinator says:

        how can u say the land isnt theirs?

        some jew called jesus was born there 2014 years ago, and i dont think that evil war criminal rapist and murderer mohammad came into to existance till over 600 years later so i think its the jews land.

           12 likes

        • Nat says:

          Israel is Jewish. No-one is debating that.

          What’s not Jewish is Palestine, because everyone knows it’s being settled.

          Find out what the issue is before taking potshots at long-dead historical figures, hmm?

             6 likes

          • The Beebinator says:

            i think you’ll find that palastinians think israel is palestine and wont be happy till all the jews are dead and israel is wiped off the map and replaced with the word palastine

            try reading the hamas charter before u start trying to be a smart arse

            all im saying, the jews were in that area for over half a millenium before musrats arrived, try reading a history book rather than spouting off left wing bollox

               11 likes

            • Nat says:

              Sorry, I forgot I was dealing with morons who think that Hamas is synonymous with Palestine. It isn’t.

              Besides, it agreed to return to pre-1967 borders a few years ago but was ignored by Israel.

                 6 likes

              • Span Ows says:

                WRONG! They have consistently and completely refused terms. They have turned down all efforts and offers including the 1967 borders (the borders of the armistice I might add from when Jordan attacked!) mainly because they DO NOT WANT PEACE or a two state solution, they want a ‘final solution’ as Hamas readily admit!

                   10 likes

                • Nat says:

                  You think they WANT to live the way they are now, dehumanised and stripped of their dignity? Just how racist are you?

                  http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-finally-speaks-his-mind/

                     4 likes

                  • richard D says:

                    I personally don’t think that Gazans (because we are really only talking about Gaza here) want to live this way at all. But I believe that Hamas and its devoted supporters do want Gazans to be dehumanised and stripped of their dignity, because, as we have seen, it plays well on TV – at least to the blindly unthinking..

                       8 likes

                    • Nat says:

                      I agree, Hamas should be removed. Utterly fine with most Gazans. There wouldn’t be any problem if Israel only took out Hamas people. But they’re not even trying to limit civilian deaths.

                         2 likes

                    • richard D says:

                      How on earth do you come to the conclusion that Israel is “…not even trying to limit civilian deaths.?

                      Anyone who has the slightest inkling of the situation is well aware that, if it didn’t care about civilian lives, Israel could flatten Gaza any number of times over, taking out any tunnels as well, without even thinking of using other than conventional weapons.

                         3 likes

                    • Nat says:

                      Israel would lose every bit of justification it currently has if it simply wipes out Gaza. I hope you don’t think it should do that.

                      I admit this is utterly unrelated, but is your opinion of my intelligence now going to plummet knowing I am female? The sexist comments have begun already.

                         6 likes

                    • richard D says:

                      Good grief – yet another ‘straw man’ argument (look it up – educate yourself about debate – the phrase has nothing to do with sexism). It should be obvious to anyone that I never implied that Israel should use it’s weapons capabilities at all – I simply pointed out the vacuity of your argument, namely that Israel was basically behaving with no regard for civilians – if that was the case, then they could kill all Gazans without drawing breath. It is self-evident (or should be) that they are not doing what you say – your argument fails before the first hurdle (another analogy….perhaps you need to look that up as well, and perhaps the definition of the word analogy ?)

                      But why do I get the feeling I have had these sorts of discussions before, I wonder ?

                         4 likes

                  • richard D says:

                    Ah – and I have just seen where you believe sexism has come into play. My misunderstanding about what you were saying.

                    And by the way….without knowing anything about me, and seeing no evidence whatsoever, you start asking ‘Just how racist are you?’. ????

                    I guess this is a new variant on Godwin’s law. Game over.

                       4 likes

                    • Nat says:

                      Please don’t misunderstand. I don’t actually believe all your comments are fed by sexism; I just had a typically sexist comment on this site moments before I replied to you, so I was understandably irritated.

                      I know nothing about you, except your opinions. I did say Israel seemed to have no regard for civilian life, and even if this is not 100% accurate, the death toll is so much higher than it has any business being if they were completely invested in saving life. Pointing out they COULD utterly destroy Gaza and commending them for not doing so is pointless.

                      The ‘just how racist are you’ comment was not directed at you.

                         4 likes

          • Fixby says:

            Oh dear Nat ! The land was under the Ottoman Empire for centuries and even then Jews were living there. There are plenty of historical records to support the fact. It may have been referred to as Palestine but what is now called the Jerusalem Post was first called The Palestinian Post and it was a Jewish paper.

               8 likes

            • richard D says:

              ‘The Palestine’ was/is a geographical construct, not a country, in the same way as is the Sahel in Africa and The Urals (the area does not just include the mountain range of the same name). Just because ‘the Palestine’ has been around for some time, does not mean that a country or a nation has existed for any length of time. In fact, I guess one could argue that it only came into existence at the same time as Israel did.

                 7 likes

              • Nat says:

                So you’re now denying them the right to have living space? They’re already the ‘largest open-air prison in the world.’ And if we’re looking at history, it was captured by the Islamic Empire in 634 C.E. and has been Ottoman since 1516.

                   2 likes

                • Rufus McDufus says:

                  Umm, it’s not Ottoman any more.

                     4 likes

                  • Nat says:

                    True. But neither is it Israeli – even they call those in the West Strip ‘settlers.’

                       2 likes

                • richard D says:

                  Stop with the ‘straw men’, Nat. I was not “…denying them the right to have living space” I was simply stating facts – which I note you are not disputing.

                  And as for the latest, greatest, Hamas phrase-of-the-week ‘largest open-air prison in the world.’, give me a break. Palestine (both parts) still has, even after around 70 years, refugee camps….. when all it took to get out of that mentality was a bit of hard work – as opposed to using so much of its assets attempting to bomb the neighbouring country out of existence. An absolute paucity of leadership, and as for Hamas providing Good governance, well I guess Yasser Arafat was a hard act to follow.

                     6 likes

                  • Nat says:

                    Living under a blockade, in one of the most densely populated areas on Earth – what ‘hard work’ would you propose they do?

                    Hamas, as has already been established, is a problem – though they are comparable to freedom fighters in some cases. But nobody is denying Israel the right to remove the problem.

                       3 likes

                    • John Anderson says:

                      Have you seen the maps of Gaza showing all the tunnel entrances right through civilian areas. Did you know that Hamas booby-ytapped up to half the houses ? Have you any clue at all about the problems of urban warfare where Hamas sought to have the fighting going on in areas where there were civilians ? You really seem very naive.

                      As to the “blockade” – Israel was forced to put very strict controls on entries to Israel after Hams and others in Gaza were sending suicide bombers into Israel, and bringing in materials to make rockets and tunnels. Any nation has the right of self-defence, and that is what Israel did.

                      I expect your naive ideas do not accept that Hamas leaders live in tunnels under houses and hospitals ? And that there are no shelters for normal Gaza civilians ? Now – might that be because Hamas revels in civilian casualties, they are its main objective – to push its propaganda and get naive people like you to criticise Israel.

                         4 likes

                    • Nat says:

                      I suppose you consider yourself wordly because you swallow the Israeli government’s lies. And the blockade has been in place for decades, long before Hamas started gathering steam.
                      Israel only has the right to self-defence if it accepts responsibility for ensuring Gaza is habitable, which it is denying. A conundrum to fool the truly naive. Of course there are shelters – full-to-bursting UN ones targeted constantly by Israel.

                         1 likes

          • Chop says:

            No “Potshots” taken, you progressive knob, everything that Mr Beebinator said about Mo’ was factually correct according to the Qu’Ran & the Hadiths.

               5 likes

            • Nat says:

              Are you a genuine, certified Muslim? Can you give me these Quran and Hadith extracts?

              Note: Normal Muslims do not consider ISIS, Boko Haram etc. to be actual Muslims. Muhammad never condoned slavery, rape, or any of the assorted crimes done in his name today.

                 2 likes

              • Chop says:

                Rape:

                Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, – desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. S. 4:24 Y. Ali

                Murder:

                Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

                Bukhari (52:256) – The Prophet… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

                Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.” Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad’s men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

                That didnt take long, did it?

                   7 likes

                • Nat says:

                  Most people realise that there is a gap between the Arabia of 1,400 years ago and today. I have Muslim friends who wouldn’t dream of rape and murder.

                     2 likes

                  • John Anderson says:

                    So what. You claimed outright that there was nothing in hadith or the Koran to support rape, plunder, slavery etc. You were flat wrong. You obviously do not know what you are talking about.

                       9 likes

                    • Nat says:

                      The first paragraph referrred to a dowry. Not rape, which is not condoned in Islam. And this plundering business was necessary in a time without law and order – the Quran also states that none of this should be done if not necessary to defend oneself with the warring tribes.

                      ‘It is better to lie for peace than tell the truth for war’

                         2 likes

                    • Chop says:

                      It is against Islam to rape Muslim women, but Muhammad actually encouraged the rape of others captured in battle. This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):

                      The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.
                      Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

                      Try again Nat.

                         4 likes

          • Rufus McDufus says:

            Not all of Israel is Jewish. There’s a large proportion of Muslims (very content ones), Christians etc. Palestine was predominantly Jewish long before the Arabs (guess where they’re from?) came along.

               7 likes

      • London Calling says:

        And your solution is, Nat?

           2 likes

        • London Calling says:

          …”a “Final Solution”?

             4 likes

        • Nat says:

          PRE-1967 BORDERS.

          With Jerusalem either international or capital of both. For God’s sake, it isn’t even ‘my’ solution.

             3 likes

          • Span Ows says:

            That has already been REFUSED by the Palestinians in 2008 (or was it 2000, or was it…)! Get with it Nat!

               8 likes

            • Nat says:

              It seems Netanyahu never had any intention to allow Palestinians to rule themselves, as recent comments have shown, so there’s no point blaming an entire race who have been systematically stripped of their rights.

              It’s people like you who need to go live in Gaza for a few days.

                 1 likes

              • richard D says:

                Which ‘entire race’ has been systematically stripped of their rights, Nat ? You really need to think before making statements like these.

                   4 likes

                • Nat says:

                  Obviously, the Palestinian race. The phrase ‘collective punishment’ has been continuously used.

                  Yes, once the Jews were stripped of their rights too. I’m not an anti-Semite. But like I said, that’s no justification for treating the Gazans the same way they were.

                     1 likes

                  • richard D says:

                    ‘Palestinian’ is not a race.

                       4 likes

                    • Nat says:

                      If you’re right, then I shouldn’t have used the word ‘race’. I’ll substitute it with ‘people’. Because there are Palestinian people who deserve to have their own country and own accepted government.

                         1 likes

                    • richard D says:

                      You might have an argument with Hamas about that…Hamas seized power in Gaza by literally killing its opponents… and if, as you say on another thread, you believe Gazans shouldn’t be ruled by Hamas, I really can’t see what real choice of government they are going to have by a border change.

                      Now, what I am not saying by that is that ‘Palestinians’ should not have their own country and government, but simply reverting to 1967 borders will not change the political situation in Gaza, and that, in turn will mean that Gaza will still likely be in precisely the same position it is in today.

                         5 likes

                    • Nat says:

                      The political situation in Palestine is clearly complex and may take years to solve. But the average Palestinian will be happy to forget about Israel once they can actually say their land is their own. It won’t be in precisely the same position – Israelis won’t be forcing their way into the country, so people in general will feel free. Only Hamas should be fair game. Also, just the victory of removing the illegal settlers may spur them on to create a completely new government.

                         1 likes

                    • richard D says:

                      Fine, Nat – only Hamas should be fair game…. then get them to come out from behind the children and the women, out from behind civilian areas (and there’s plenty of space in Gaza), out from behind and under hospitals and mosques, libraries and schools, and then you might just have a claim that Israel shouldn’t kill civilians.

                      But that ain’t gonna happen, there is no bravery in firing from behind a child – they are cowards…. and until such times, to get to Hamas terrorists firing at you from behind these human shields, I am afraid there are going to be casualties amongst these human shields – but make no mistake – they are only in the firing line because that’s precisely where Hamas wants them to be.

                      Unfortunately too many of the world’s media are anti-Israeli and looking to find fault only on Israel’s part, holding Israel to a standard infinitely higher than the so-called Heroes of Hamas, and buckling under Hamas’ news control to the extent that they are pretty much seeing and mouthing only what they are told to see and say by Hamas…. and there are too many people gullible enough to absorb the crap they are pumping out.

                         2 likes

                  • Span Ows says:

                    The “Palestinian race” – if it actually existed – would be the Jews.

                       8 likes

                    • Nat says:

                      I’ve already substituted it with ‘people.’ And Palestine, everyone can agree, is a different country to Israel.

                         3 likes

          • Rufus McDufus says:

            Pre-1967, so you mean 1948 borders? The Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank will have even less land because they stole those areas.

               7 likes

            • Nat says:

              But they will still have land where they are not controlled and corralled like animals in a pen.

                 2 likes

              • richard D says:

                Really ? The 1949-67 borders of Gaza look remarkably similar to today. Gaza would still only be bordered by Israel and Egypt (neither of whom have any truck with Hamas/Gaza)…so what’s going to change ?

                   5 likes

                • Nat says:

                  The fact that they will no longer be blockaded by Israel and subject to its every whim, which is a powerful motivator for the average person.

                     3 likes

                  • richard D says:

                    Again, why do you think that will change ?

                    Can you really see Israel allowing munitions and armaments flow freely into Gaza via the sea, and Egypt will have no truck with Hamas, and Israel will likely allow only (as it does today) free flow of what it considers to be non-threatening materials (humanitarian goods, medicals, food, etc.). It might now look very closely at where construction materials are going to be used before allowing free flow of building materials which can be used to build attack tunnels under Israeli towns and countryside. I really can’t see much changing fro Gaza simply because there is a reversion to earlier borders.

                       5 likes

                    • Nat says:

                      Currently, the humanitarian aid and food they let through is a tiny fraction of what is really necessary. I doubt the Palestinians are going to quibble about having weapons – they’d be happy to settle for adequate medicine. And being able to live without fear of Israeli bombing and govern themselves would doubtless give them much more happiness in life. Of course, there will always be dissidents – only those Israel should be able to kill.

                         2 likes

                    • John Anderson says:

                      Nat seems to have no clue. Why does she not know that medicines have been on offer from Israel for 3 weeks now – but have been refused by Hamas. Because they WANT a medical crisis.

                         7 likes

                    • richard D says:

                      Nat, you really need to do some reading here, and forget the headlines, I mean really think about the situation. If Hamas were not interested in weapons and would rather have medicines and food, why on earth does it have stockpiles of rockets and missiles, and why has it built attack tunnels using the materials they claimed were for building houses, etc…you know, for the people in the 70-year-old refugee camps ? And, of course, they were bringing into Gaza almost anything they wanted from Egypt (before the Muslim Brotherhood was tossed out), so they made their choices clear – and they weren’t interested in anything but war-making capabilities. I have seen estimates that Hamas been spending something like 40% of its annual budgets on preparing to strike Israel….40% of billions goes a long way to buying humanitarian supplies, and building materials for proper buildings for the people of Gaza. At least it would do, if that was what was really wanted.

                         4 likes

                • John Anderson says:

                  Once again, Nat shows total historical ignorance.

                  And no – I don’t just “swallow Israeli propaganda”. I have watched events in the Middle East for over 50 years, and in the current situation I see news of the conflict presented pretty accurately by the IDF – with very little challenge even from the extreme left in Israel – whereas much of what Hamas puts of is a pack of lies. A pack of lies mostly endorsed or unchallenged by the BBC.

                     9 likes

                  • Nat says:

                    How do you see the conflict then? As the eleventh strongest military in the world against a bunch of unarmed, defenceless civilians with many under 18? Or even 10?

                       1 likes

                    • John Anderson says:

                      What a stupid sentence. The IDF are not trying to fight with civilians – they want to deal with Hamas, which is hiding among the civilians.

                      And why does Israel need a strong defence force ? Because Israel has been surrounded by hostile states since 1947, has had to fight several wars, and still faces endless rocket and now tunnel attacks as well as the earlier suicide attacks from Gaza. You want Israel to roll over and let the likes of Hams – which has a genocidal charter – have its own way ?

                         5 likes

                    • Nat says:

                      For an army which claims to deal with Hamas, an awful lot of civilians are dying. It’s been described as ‘incremental genocide’ itself. Hamas wouldn’t even exist without Israeli occupation.

                      Palestine’s the one who needs a strong defence force.

                         1 likes

                    • richard D says:

                      Nope, Nat – I see it like this….there has been an unbelievable amount spent on arms and attack capabilities in Gaza, rather than on its people. Then, a country which, quite frankly, has little in the way of leadership, except fananticism, picks a fight it knows it cannot win, and hides its military capability amongst unarmed and defenceless civilians, and continues to try to terrorise its neighbour with rockets and terror attacks through tunnels; then runs screaming to the world’s media like the cowards they are, when fire is returned on them. Now what’s that all about ?

                      Maybe it has something to do with Egypt shutting down their ‘tax’ tunnels, so they now can’t smuggle in any more weapons, etc., and they know the game might be up – so perhaps they say to themselves….let’s just have one last fling at trying to get the world’s sympathy, and the heck with how many civilians get caught up in this – in fact, the more the merrier.

                      Unfortunately, it’s not just limited to Hamas supporters in Gaza- I noticed the West Bank Palestinians were about to kick off the other day…. that says a lot about the number of Palestinians who actually do support Hamas and its suicidal actions.

                      Who knows, but anybody stupid enough to try to pick a fight with the nearest country that really does have the wherewithall, and the determination to defend itself, really are a bunch of nutters.

                         4 likes

                  • Guess Who says:

                    Sorry. May have swiped past ‘report’ by accident as I scrolled the latest series of a bot being schooled by very patient people keen to share fact it ignores. Actually serves a purpose in rounding out complex issues the one liner, sound bite generation are stalled on.

                       0 likes

      • deegee says:

        One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist is and always has been, nonsense. You are confusing intentions with methods.

        Anyone with a shred of history knows, they are currently occupying land that is not their own. You are right! Even a blind archer hits the target occasionally. It was British Mandate for 30 years. Ottoman for 500 years before that. Mamluk for 300 years before that and conquered, invaded and occupied by Arabs from Arabia before that. Other conquerors preceded.

        One thing it never was. It was never Palestinian! Your statement makes about as much sense as saying the British shouldn’t have defended themselves from the Germans because they were occupying land that really belonged to the Celts.

           9 likes

        • Nat says:

          Nelson Mandela’s methods were sometimes controversial and he was then sometimes called a terrorist, but is now hailed as a freedom fighter. When the cause is just – like his was – the ends can sometimes be justified.

          Palestinians are Arab! They do have a right to their land!

             2 likes

          • John Anderson says:

            What have ANY of your dozens of comments got to do with issues of BBC bias ? This is a blogsite about bias. Not about the pros and cons of Israel and the Palestinians.

               7 likes

            • Nat says:

              The pros and cons of Palestine and Israel are steeped in bias. But this is sapping my will to live, so never fear – I’ll be leaving soon. I’m just glad you people make up a tiny fraction of the world in general.

                 4 likes

              • John Anderson says:

                If you think that huge numbers of Arabs – including the Palestinians – don’t have a deep hatred of Israel and of Jews, you need to go learn some history. Go visit Egypt or Jordan or the Gulf States – or speak to Arabs in Israel – you will hear the visceral hatred very quickly.

                   6 likes

                • Nat says:

                  Perhaps because Israel is currently suppressing Palestine?

                  Besides, anti-Muslim sentiment is almost as strong as anti-Semitism.

                     2 likes

                  • John Anderson says:

                    The Arabs mostly have a visceral hatred of Jews. The Jews mostly do not have a visceral hatred of Arabs, even though many Arab states have treated the Jews atrociously..

                    Why should Arabs in the Gulf States have this hatred ? Or Pakistan ? They are not affected by Gaza any more than you or I.

                    If you cannot recognise the irrationality and extent of this hatred, you really should not be commenting on these issues in such a naive, Polyanna way

                       7 likes

                    • Nat says:

                      Because you consider yourself so worldly, you’re more susceptible to propaganda. And we’re not talking about Pakistan etc. – we’re talking about Gaza. I’m not denying anti-Semitism exists; the Gulf states and others are wrong to tar all Jews with the same brush. But all Palestinians are being tarred with the Hamas brush.

                         2 likes

              • Guess Who says:

                “…this is sapping my will to live, so never fear – I’ll be leaving soon. I’m just glad you people…”
                —-
                ‘You people’? Now that does bring back unwelcome memories.
                What constitutes ‘soon’ is a worry, but any departure, at least in current guise, will be missed by some, to be sure, given the unique level of contribution.
                You blundered into a forum on BBC accuracy, objectivity and integrity, calling people morons and flaunting intellectual superiority, trying drag things off into areas of geo-political debate instead.
                Actually I can live with the latter, but not when conducted on a drive-by dogma basis, especially when you have been countered successfully too often and slewed off elsewhere to try create heat over light.
                And now an attempted Warsian flounce with an echoing ‘you people’?
                Textbook. Until the next time…

                   4 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        ‘…as anyone with a shred of history knows, they are currently occupying land that is not their own. ‘

        Where on earth did you learn your history?

        The state of Israel was formed in 1948 legitimately through UN Resolution 181. Arab countries vigorously opposed the resolution and refused a two-state solution, despite the Jews willingness to agree a very generous settlement, the Arabs believing instead they could instead ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. They tried and failed, resulting in the Arab (note: not ‘Palestinian’ – that was term invented by Yasser Arafat circa 1964) refugee problem, though a third of Arabs in the new Israel chose to stay.

        Between the end of the first world war and Resolution 181 this was land under British – it was not a ‘Palestinian’ state.

        Prior to that it was under the Ottoman Empire for several hundred years.

        The Arabs are not indigenous to the Middle East – they invaded and colonised it as part of the first Muslim jihad in the 7th century.

        Go and re-learn your history and understand who the real victims have been over the last couple of thousand years.

           5 likes

        • johnnythefish says:

          Corrections: one too many ‘insteads’ and ‘Mandate’ after ‘British’.

          Doh!

             1 likes

        • Nat says:

          Yeah, and we aren’t indigenous to Australia or America either. We destroyed the native and Aboriginal population.
          So stop casting stones from our glad house.

             3 likes

          • John Anderson says:

            Nat. This site is meant to be about BBC bias – or non bias. Please stick to this subject.

            It is NOT about your bleeding-heart naive Polyanna view of the world.

               5 likes

            • Albaman says:

              “This site is meant to be about BBC bias………..”

              Obviously no one has informed David, Alan or their merry band of “followers”.
              A cursory look at the topics (and the contents of any open thread) would suggest it is more about Islam than anything else.

                 6 likes

              • Guest Who says:

                Here’s a freebie to feed a ‘stalker!’ whinge, albeit from an irony free obsessive stalker grand wizard of the craft… maybe better to have posted that cursory comment on a thread that helped make your point rather than on the one that makes John Anderson’s about your new mission perfectly?
                If one may ‘suggest’?
                Of course, comment on UNRWA’s role in this whole sorry mess, and the BBC’s diligent investigative reporting of this, is still welcome.

                   3 likes

          • johnnythefish says:

            Great answer Nat – liberal self-loathing and historical denial in one easy move, neatly wrapped in leftist moral equivalence.

            Yep, you tick all the BBC boxes.

               4 likes

  7. Rufus McDufus says:

    Just a test comment

       0 likes

  8. Alan Larocka says:

    These fuckers must be really clever with all these schools…………

       4 likes

    • Nat says:

      Sure, if they weren’t being constantly BOMBED.

      Moron.

         4 likes

      • Span Ows says:

        what has a Venezuelan town (well, more than one actually) got to do with anything?

           0 likes

      • Alan Larocka says:

        Lefty shitehouse.

           3 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        Perhaps they and the rest of the Arabs should have accepted the 2-state solution in 1948 instead of invading the new, legitimate state of Israel and trying to ‘wipe it off the map’? Do you not think that might have been a tad more reasonable and thus saved all this bloodshed?

        Or maybe you are just too dim to see ‘The Palestinians’ have been used as pawns and cannon fodder by the Arab Islamo-nutters to pursue their cause i.e. the destruction of Israel After all, they had another 2 goes at it after 1948, however your BBC/left liberal version of history has erased those inconvenient facts, thus explaining your ignorance.

           4 likes

  9. Pounce says:

    People,
    Have a look at how NAT talks down to people.
    Sorry, I forgot I was dealing with morons who think that Hamas is synonymous with Palestine. It isn’t.
    Now, for somebody new to this board he seems to have had a lot of dealings with everybody. Now who do we know on here has a habit of being a rabble rouser, a habit of using IDs in which to try and give the impression of support from the ranks and who loves to bitch. The same person who has been outed as a Racist and whom people have been told not to feed.
    Yup it BNP Scott doing what Racists do best. Leave the racist bastard to stew in his own shite.

       6 likes

    • Chop says:

      Hmmm….no, I don’t think it is to be fair to you Pounce mate.

      Nat is a newbie, or seems to be, probably a long time lurker, and this subject has drawn him/her out.

      Nat has actually reversed him/herself when presented by facts, something Scotty or Alby would never do, they just skulk off, and refuse to answer.

      However, he/she has been brainwashed to a progressive, liberal way of thinking that stems from Al Bee-ham-b.

      The truth might actually dawn on him/her, eventually, as she/he could acknowledge errors…but it was like debating with a 6th former.

      Everyone who told him/her to read up on this subject may have, in the long term done her/him a favour.

         4 likes

      • Scott says:

        To be really fair to Pounce, pretty much everything he claimed as fact in that post is false. As indeed, it was false the other time he posted it in this thread, and in the current open thread.

        To be absolutely fair to Pounce, he’s especially prone to concocting wild flights of fancy to try and justify his own temper tantrums.

        To be 100% fair to Pounce, nobody else on Biased BBC ever calls him out on his obvious lies. Now why is that, do you think?

           4 likes

      • Nat says:

        Her, please. Just out of curiousity, are women so rare on here that it’s usual to automatically assume you’re all male? And fish/slag comments actually get likes?

        Yes, I’ll admit to facts, if they stem from proper sources. I’m a progressive liberal and proud of it. Being entrenched in my opinions is not the same thing as acting like a teenager because in that case, every single one of you is guilty of reverting.

        I don’t consider wanting to be a diverse, multicultural country brainwashing. I call it a good thing.

           4 likes

        • Chop says:

          What makes every other culture, including the savage culture that Muslims practice, better than our enlightened way of living Nat?

          I have shown you what the Quran and Hadiths state, this is what the Ummah want and follow, this is in practice right now with the new caliphate.

          I am not saying you are stupid, but if self preservation is a trait you have, i’d advise you to read the Quran, the Hadiths and so on, and not listen to Taqqiya that your Muslim “friends” (They are not) tell you.

          And I quote:

          Qur’an (5:51) – “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

             5 likes

        • Alan Larocka says:

          You are not a progressive liberal – you are a self-loathing product of Tony Blair.

             5 likes

          • Nat says:

            Ouch. That burned. .. somewhere.

               1 likes

            • Guest Who says:

              There are creams, as can be gathered from US daytime TV ads. Apparently.
              Now, about the BBC’s lack of accuracy, objectivity and integrity…?
              Or is it going to be mor on spelling still?

                 3 likes

              • Nat says:

                Why, my spelling slur really bothered you, didn’t it?

                   1 likes

                • Guess Who says:

                  “Why, my spelling slur really bothered you, didn’t it?”

                  I do notice slurs, yes, especially when part of a new attempted doe-eyed seeker of truth deluge that is oddly familiar.
                  You seem a bit more bothered on the spelling front, but maybe that’s because you pinned your pride and educational superiority on it.
                  Mor on this later?

                     1 likes

            • Alan Larocka says:

              In that space where a conscience used to be?

                 1 likes

  10. Philip says:

    I think Nat expresses her views well. I don’t agree with much of it but you can feel her anger and frusteration in a war zone that is engineered by Hamas & co. aided and abetted by the BBC (as usual) on the war media front. There is no solution to the crisis but a kinder non-hostile face of Gaza will win more ground than firing rockets into Israel. Nat is educated enough to lead her people to safer outcomes rather than pick a fight with her immediate neighbours. It is possible to disagree and coexist although Muslim fanatics don’t obviously and that’s the problem.

       6 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      I think Nat’s views are inaccurate and misguided – but it is understandable that we should all be concerned about the human suffering during conflict – especially when as appears in Gaza the civilians are being pushed into the firing line.

      Above all – Nat needs to realise that Hamas WANTS civilian casualties, and does not declare its own casualties which look to be at least bhalf the claimed total figures. Has Nat read that Hamas document that gave guidance on how to hoodwink the media? (reference, anyone ?)

         8 likes

      • richard D says:

        The worst about all of this is the craven way in which the BBC unquestioningly accepts figures put out by so-called ‘authoritative’ people from Hams’ government. They ask no questions, do no investigation of the numbers, and basically toddle along in Gaza with whatever Hamas wants them to see and say about what they see.

        Now, if the BBC, like so many of their left-wing hangers-on, want to hold Israel to a standard far higher than that for Hamas (and why on earth is that an acceptable position ?) then I think we have the right, as payers of the BBC tax, to hold BBC and their employees to an infinitely higher standard than Hamas poodles.

        (I make no apology if the mere mention of poodles affects certain peoples’ sensitivities the way Scotty dogs seem to have done recently, but it’s a western analogy I am using.)

           5 likes

        • Nat says:

          But as has been constantly pointed out, Hamas is a poorly-armed terrorist organisation created to let the Palestinians have some breathing space. Not condoned, but justified. And some – like David Norris – say Israel created Hamas in order to have a scapegoat.

             2 likes

          • Chop says:

            eral worl views
            that I am supposed to listen to in progressive (mental disorder) liberal world?

            Barking right up the wrong tree here love.

            As much as you might not like it, some folk, me included, do not share progressive, liberal values…thank god…well, lets not thank god, because he/she don’t exist (chop-chop)

               5 likes

            • Chop says:

              FFs, my apologies, I have a rather restless infidel kitten who likes to walk all over my keyboard whilst i type, the pre text, to my last post was:

              Who is David Norris?…Is he someone I am supposed to listen to?

              Or is he a 70 year old, Belgian born homosexual activist, whose progressive (mental disorder), worldviews (dreams) I do not share?

                 1 likes

            • Nat says:

              Meanwhile, I’ll thank God(dess) who may or may not exist that most of us are like me.

              What is your problem with homosexuality? Does this extend to a problem with feminism? My money’s on yes. And Norris came a hairsbreadth from being President of Ireland. I doubt you can say the same.

                 2 likes

              • Chop says:

                No, because I have never stood to be president of Ireland you dolt.

                   4 likes

                • Nat says:

                  I notice you don’t answer the rest of my post…

                     0 likes

                  • johnnythefish says:

                    That’s pretty rich coming from you (see above).

                       3 likes

                  • Chop says:

                    I mentioned homosexuality basicly because this bloke you speak of centres his whole life around being one (Sounds familiar):
                    (David Patrick Bernard Norris (born 31 July 1944) is an Irish scholar, independent Senator, and gay and civil rights activist.)

                    I do not shout from the rooftops that I am hetrosexual, do I?…No
                    I do not make a living based on it, do I?…No.

                    I do not have a problem with homosexuality, even if I do find it odd for another man to want to impregnate a turd…
                    Each to their own.

                    I have never even touched the issue of feminism, so you can keep your lies about me on that subject to yourself, as I assume you are mistaking me with someone else.

                    I like women…my mother is one….if that helps.

                       2 likes

                    • Scott says:

                      I’ve always found people who genuinely “don’t have a problem with homosexuality” don’t need to refer to it in the terms chop does. Rather, it’s more the people who do have a problem with it, but want to pretend they don’t, that use the sort of scatalogical terms that chop does.

                      I do not make a living based on it, do I?

                      This sort of assumes that standing up for gay people, wanting them to have the same rights as others, is some form of profitable exercise. Which I suppose is no more ludicrous than any other of chop’s assertions.

                         0 likes

                    • Chop says:

                      Scott:

                      Because you like to stick your dick up another mans arse, it does not make you special, sorry it don’t, in exactly the same way as me having vaginal sex with my girlfriend does not make me special.

                      got it?

                      I am sick to death of hearing about what gay folk want, what gay folks likes are, it does not fucking iterest me one bit.

                      Do you want me to protest about things I want, as a hetrosexual, even though I have the right to do them anyway?

                      No, you don’t.

                      It is 2014, not 1962.

                      What can YOU as a gay bloke NOT do that I as a hetrosexual bloke CAN do?

                      You are not special.
                      I am not special.

                      Hetrosexuals do not make an issue of their sexuality.

                      Homosexuals do about theirs.

                      End of story.

                         3 likes

                    • Scott says:

                      And yet you say you “do not have a problem with homosexuality”? Hmm.

                         0 likes

      • Nat says:

        There’s also an Israeli handbook for the same. And if it wants civilian casualties, why is Israel giving it to them?

           1 likes

    • Nat says:

      Thank you, but yes, it’s the FANATICS who are unstable. If Israel restricted itself to picking off Hamas and lifted the blockade your average civilian would, I’m sure, accept it. And Israel has said they want to bomb Gaza back to the Stone Age. So the hostility is a two-way street.

         1 likes

      • Simon says:

        sorry but where have they said that? They actually COULD bomb Gaza back to the Stone Age if they wanted to but clearly aren’t as otherwise there would be a lot more dead.

           6 likes

        • johnnythefish says:

          As I’ve said on a previous thread, if Israel are deliberately targeting civilians they must have the worst armed forces in military history, given the resources at their disposal and the number of air strikes and sorties they’ve made.

          Pity the moronic BBC and its followers can’t draw this simple conclusion.

             2 likes

        • Nat says:

          What, so they’re to be commended for NOT wiping out an entire people?

             0 likes

  11. Larry Dart says:

    Time for another outing of Nekama’s Troll Hammer ( after 11 years)

    #19 Nekama 8/17/2003 06:10PM PST
    #7 Leesider
    Congratulations. You are the first to receive the memo:
    MEMO
    This is an automated reply from the Bulls–t Detector at Little Green Footballs.
    Your recent post contained troll-like characteristics which resembles the type of message sent by spoiled ISM members on summer holiday, college students who have recently inhaled Noam Chomsky’s foul rantings, Adam Shapiro wannabes, Nazi sympathizers, or genuine Koranimals.
    In order to prevent another thread being hijacked, and to send your message to the appropriate department for response (FOAD, GAZE, Go Away Gordon, or The Bus To Rachel Corrie’s Tomb Is Leaving – Be Sure You’re Under It), kindly reply to the following questions:
    1. Are you aware that the Disputed Territories never belonged to the “Palestinians” and only came into Israeli possession as a result of the 1967 six day war in which Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon all massed forces at Israel’s border in order to “push the Jews into the sea”. The Arabs lost and Israel took control of the land. Do you agree that if the Koranimals don’t want to lose territory to Israel, then they shouldn’t start wars? Do you agree that there is justice that Israel, who as far back as 1948 has always sought peace with her far larger neighbors, should live in prosperity – making the desert bloom – while the residents of 19 adjacent Arab countries who are blessed with far more land as well as oil wealth live in their own feces?
    2. Did you know that the “Palestinians” could have had their own country as far back as 1948 had they accepted the UN sponsored partition plan which gave Israel AND the Palestinians a countries of their own on land which Jews had lived on for thousands of years before Mohammed ever had a wet dream about virgins? The Arabs rejected the UN offer and went to war with the infant Israeli nation. The Arabs lost and have been whining about it ever since. Do you agree this is like a murderer who kills his parents and asks for special treatment since he is now an orphan?
    3. Can you tell us ANY Arab country which offers Jews the right to be citizens, vote, own property, businesses, be a part of the government or have ANY of the rights which Israeli Arabs enjoy? Any Arab country which gives those rights to Christians? How about to other Arabs? Wouldn’t you just LOVE to be a citizen of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, or Syria?
    4. Since as many Jews (approximately 850,000) were kicked out of Arab countries as were Arabs who left present day Israel (despite being literally begged to stay), why should Arabs be permitted to return to Israel if Jews aren’t allowed to set foot in Arab countries? Can you explain why Arabs can worship freely in Israel but Jews would certainly be hung from street lamps after having their intestines devoured by an Arab mob if they so much as entered an Arab country?
    5. Israel resettled and absorbed all of the Jews from Arab countries who wished to become Israelis. Why haven’t any Arab countries offered to resettle Arabs who were displaced from Israel, leaving them to rot for 60 years in squalid refugee camps? And why are those refugee camps still there? Could it be that the billions of dollars that the UNWRA has sent there goes to terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, El Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, or Hezbollah? How did Yassir Arafat achieve his $300 million in wealth? Why aren’t these funds distributed for humanitarian use?
    6. Did you know that the Arabs in the disputed territories (conquered by Israel in the 1967 war which was started by Arabs) and who are not Israelis already have two countries right now? And that they are called Egypt and Jordan?
    7. If your complaint is about the security fence which Israel is finally building in the Disputed Territories, are you aware that it is built solely to keep the “brave” Arab terrorists out so that they can no longer self detonate on busses, in dining halls or pizzerias and kill Jewish grandmothers and schoolchildren? Why are the Arabs so brave when they target unarmed civilians but even when they outnumber their opponents they get their sandy asses kicked all the way to Mecca when they are faced with Jewish soldiers? Why do Arab soldiers make the French look like super heroes?
    8. Please explain why you are so concerned about Arabs, who possess 99% of the land in this region and are in control of the world’s greatest natural resource, which literally flows out of the ground? Can’t their brother muslims offer some of the surplus land and nature’s riches to the “Palestinians”? Or is it true that Arabs are willing to die right down to the last “Palestinian”?
    9. Why do you not exhibit the same level of concern for say, people in Saudi Arabia who are beheaded, subject to amputation, stoning, honor killing etc.? What about women who are denied any semblance of basic civil rights, including the right not to be treated as property for the entertainment and abuse of her father, brothers, or husbands? What about the Muslims in Sudan and Egypt who are still enslaved, or the women there whose genitalia are barbarically cut off? How about the oppression of Shiites by Sunnis, the gassing of the Kurds by Iraq, or the massacre of “Palestinians” by Jordan (Black September)? Why doesn’t this concern you?
    10. Did you ever stop to wonder how much better off everyone in the region would be if Arabs stopped trying to kill Jews and destroy Israel? What would happen if the Israelis gave up their weapons and disarmed? Would they live to see the next day? But what would happen if the Arabs completely disarmed? You know the answer: They would all be AT PEACE! And if there is no war to rile them up, the Arabs would be forced to look at their own repressive, pre-medieval societies. Why would they want to do that when there are Jews to kill?
    11. Have you heard “People who define themselves primarily by what they hate, rather than who they love, are doomed to failure and misery”? Can you see the parallels to the Arabs, who are blessed with land and oil, but still gladly train their children to kill themselves in order to kill Jews? Have you heard Golda Meir’s words to the effect of “There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours”? Why do the Arabs hate so much?
    – See more at: http://1389blog.com/2010/09/19/nekamas-troll-hammer-where-it-all-began/#sthash.oAH4xIYJ.dpuf

       7 likes

    • Nat says:

      Who was that intended for? Because if it’s me, pare it down to a manageable length or I won’t even consider reading it.

         4 likes

      • Chop says:

        “pare it down to a manageable length or I won’t even consider reading it.”

        And therein lies your problem, and it also shows why the BBC’s 15 word headlines carry so much weight.

        Because you progressives can’t be arsed reading the truth, even when put in front of you in plain sight.

           5 likes

        • Nat says:

          Truth is subjective, as you neo-cons argue till you’re blue in the face.
          Just answer this single question: do you or do you not feel horror/sadness when confronted with the image of a decapitated child?

             4 likes

          • John Anderson says:

            Stop being an idiot, Nat. Accusing all and sundry of being heartless is false and offensive.

               6 likes

          • Simon says:

            “Won’t somebody please think of the children”

            That kind of emotional nonsense doesn’t work here or if you feel that way then what are your feelings on the Fogal family?

               4 likes

            • Nat says:

              Obviously, that it was a tragedy.

              But incidents like that are so rare they get actual names. 20 members of the same Palestinian family was wiped out.

                 0 likes

          • pah says:

            do you or do you not feel horror/sadness when confronted with the image of a decapitated child?
            Yes indeed it’s very sad that that poor little might had his head hacked off by that ‘Palestinian’ madman in Itamar. Or did you mean the child of the BBC reporter that was killed by Israel Hamas?

            Similarly thousands of children are being slaughtered in Syria and Iraq at the moment. Funny how all the progressives rush to condemn Israel but turn their backs elsewhere isn’t it?

               5 likes

          • johnnythefish says:

            ‘Truth is subjective…’

            So which of the above 11 points do you wish to dispute, or is your attention span in such serious deficit you can’t even bring yourself to read them?

               4 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        ‘…pare it down to a manageable length or I won’t even consider reading it.’

        Ah, at last, we have the explanation for your piss-poor grasp of Middle Eastern history.

        Q.E.D.

           5 likes

  12. John Anderson says:

    Maybe Nat should read this :

    http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/08/04/captured-hamas-combat-manual-explains-benefits-human-shields/

    And should pay particular attention to the deployment of Hamas sites and munitions withing the crowded Shuja’iya district

       6 likes

    • Nat says:

      It comes from the IDF, meaning I’m not going to take it as Gospel truth.

         2 likes

      • Chop says:

        But you take the BBC, Guardian & “Palestinians” as gospel?

        Ouch.

           10 likes

        • Nat says:

          The IDF website shows a bunch of Arabic text which could, frankly, be saying anything. And no Gazan – who’d know better than us – has said Hamas had forced them to stay.
          Whereas the other websites show pictures of dying civilians. A tad hard to fake.

             2 likes

          • John Anderson says:

            Come on, the IDF is held to account by Members of Knesset – including Arabs – and also by a vociferous press which would pull apart any attempt by the IDF to publish a false document, or try to misrepresent the translation of the Arabic text. Any reasonable open-minded person would say that it is highly likely that that document is valid evidence of the way Hamas seeks to operate.

            And if you think the people of Gaza are free to speak their mind about Hamas, or the press are free to report truthfully and fully from Gaza, you are really very gullible.

               10 likes

            • John Anderson says:

              and, Nat, you have failed to comment on the map showinmg a huge concentration of Hamas tunnels, munitions storage and rocket-firing sites in that crowded suburb of Gaza city. Please comment on that map.

              In the Battle of Britain when RAF bases were under targeted attack by the Luftwaffe, RAF stations were out in the countryside. There are plenty of green spaces in London with flat land large enough for Spitfire and Hurricane takeoffs and landings, I don’t recall any RAF stations inside London or even on the edge of heavily built-up areas outside London.

                 7 likes

          • Thatcher Revolutionary says:

            ‘A tad hard to fake’ ????? Come on are you THAT stupid?

               6 likes

  13. John Anderson says:

    Nat – this site is about BBC bias. It is not a site to argue the pros and cons of the Hamas case. Especially when you appear to be so ignorant of so many facts.

    Please talk about BBC bias or non-bias. Or go away.

       7 likes