I know this was posted on a previous thread but it is so apt, and so sums up the willingness of those such as the BBC to believe the Pallywood productions in their quest to demonise Israel. Hamas – they can bring the dead back to life but the BBC manage to miss that.

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

33 Responses to BRING OUT YOUR DEAD…

  1. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

    A pity that they can’t do the same for some of the Muslim psychopaths’ victims, like James Foley or Lee Rigby.


  2. AngusPangus says:

    Didn’t you know? Videos lie; Hamas spokesmen tell the 100% cast iron truth. Hence why the authenticity of a video depicting a defenceless man having his head sawn off (released BY THE PEOPLE WHO DID IT) can be called into doubt.

    Whereas a video showing a victim of disproportionateIsraeliJewishaggression with an itch that he’s just GOTTA scratch (him being recently deceased notwithstanding) causes not a JOT of concern in the World’s Greatest News Organisation that, just maybe, these guys are not entirely on the level….


  3. George R says:

    Bowen’s, and INBBC Arabic ears’ burning?:-

    “The Left’s romance with Hamas”

    (Video discussion, 34 mins).


  4. Katabasis says:

    Not directly BBC related but I suspect this is going to become an ongoing issue that I think we all may be concerned about:

    – this is the first reference I’ve seen in non-UK media that British people will need to start being held to account for their ISIS “countrymen”. I suspect we’ll see a lot more.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘British people will need to start being held to account’

      Responsibility by association is a tricky thing, but definitely gets tried on no matter how tenuous; witness the ‘you lot’ attempts on occasion here.

      I hate to say it, but as one who gets a bit sniffy with over-inclusivity attempts dragging me in, I fear I must shoulder some small part in this. I didn’t personally want to go near any of the various politics of least bad shambles on offer, but rather clearly democratic process has saddled the electorate of Britain with an unwelcome bond to the governments we have ended up with. And these pond-dwellers have either created or worsened the whole sorry environment that sees these charmers spawn and deploy.

      Ably assisted of course by such as the BBC, who I most certainly did not vote for and who seldom if ever speaks for me, such that I have done all in my power to distance myself from it.

      Certainly they get no money from me where I can still ensure this.

      However, even if eventually separated from any compelled bond of this nature, it will still irk that the brand will remain and trade on an affiliation with the British public I certainly do not share.


    • Guest Who says:

      A reply in the comments that sees the BBC fully credited, has some stats others dispute but also a worthy point on BBC debate modding:

      mucas t. wainright
      6:32 PM GMT+0100
      The BBC recently reported that over 600,000 ethnic Brits have moved out of London. The largest ethnic group in London are now ‘Asians’. Predictably, BBC editor Mark Easton spun this as a positive development, arguing that all this relocation is a sign of “working class aspiration and economic success.”

      They received over two thousand reader reactions before shutting down comments. A large percentage of them were removed for violating the “house rules.” Of those that were permitted to remain, the following expressed what was by far the majority view:

      • “Native Londoners are being driven out because their neighbourhoods are being overrun by cultures that are very different to, and sometimes openly hostile to their own….Politicians continue to sell this country’s future to advance their own political careers.”

      • “Labour mis-sold multiculturalism as a pipe dream of diverse, thriving communities enriching each other’s cultures, when in reality it is much, much different.”

      • “I challenge any MP (preferably Labour or Lib Dem) to go live in Peckham for a week, without your drivers or bodyguards, and then come back and tell me that multiculturalism is a good thing.”

      • “Only this type of BBC/Guardian liberal could put the gloss of ‘success’ and ‘aspiration’ on this story….People are sick of this social experiment. They are voting with their feet.”

      I wonder if the US audiences will grasp what a £4Bpa force-funded propaganda-backed-by-censorship machine can do to skew public will in driving policy?

      Again, ‘our’ problem, ‘our’ responsibility. Like a Gazan widow, it’s possible that with little realistic choice or ability to create change, we will simply inherit the consequences no matter how unfair that may be.


      • London Calling says:

        Brilliant dissection of the garbage we are fed and then forced to pay for. Wake up Cameron you dozy git. Execute the BBC! The enemy within!


        • Ken says:

          Cameron considers the BBC as a jewel in the British Establishment’s crown, even if it is a bit down on the tories occasionally. He considers Islam to be the religion of peace, and that those educated Imams in the self-styled Islamic State, who have studied the Quoran and Sunnah on a daily basis since they were old enough to read, and who have dedicated their entire lives to knowing and understanding every part of it, and of implementing it in as literal a way as possible and who eat, live and breathe Islam 24/7 and who consider EVERYTHING in the world to be to do with Islam, do not understand it and misinterpret it. No. ISIS is NOT a misinterpretation, nor a perversion of Islam. ISIS is the most literal implementation of Islam possible.

          Cameron is the man who still believes our national interest is best served by being in an EU hell-bent on starting a war with Russia. This is a man who voted to invade Syria on ISIL’s side and would have handed Syria, and all their chemical WMD to ISIS on a plate right on Israel’s border.

          Thank God there was a grown up in the room one year ago who managed to intervene through diplomacy and act on Syria’s chemical WMDs…

          Oh whatever happened to those Syrian WMDs, by the way?

          You would not know it from the BBC, but within one year of Putin’s intervention, all the most dangerous chemical weapons have been successfully and peacefully destroyed. That is something to celebrate, but the BBC and British establishment are not interested, because it was their failure which led to Russia’s successful intervention to ensure it.

          There is no point in asking Cameron to awake, when he already is awake and acting consiously in the interests of our enemy’s agenda.


  5. Techno says:

    Unintentionally hilarious.

    I am grateful to the people who take the trouble to point these things out.


    • Innocent Civilian says:

      I suppose you think beheading a US reporter is hilarious too. What ever is going on in your head eventually it might sink in that Islam is going to destroy civilisation as we know it. Fortunately for me I will be dead by then.


  6. stuart says:

    see, i like to link the narrative here betreen hamas and isis,the un have declared these organisations as terrorist groups,the bbc and its presenters on order from the top brass at bbc hq refuse to use the word terrorists in describing these groups in fear of upsetting supporters of these group in the uk,oh yes,you know what coming here and thats the word militant,all bbc presenters are describing isis and hamas as militants, so by calling that name proves beyond doubt that isis and hamas are 2 cheeks of the same backside since there both militant groups.personally speaking,i get the sick bag out when i hear these bbc and radio live pc presenters use this nice word militant when mentioning isis and there terrorist cousins hamas.


  7. Katabasis says:

    That’s an interesting point that bothers me a great deal stuart – I didn’t notice the persistent use of ‘militant’ or ‘fighter’ instead of ‘terrorist’ on the BBC until I saw someone mention it previously on here.

    That’s pretty insidious to my mind especially as I’m routinely sceptical of any output from the BBC-Guardian axis.


    • TheHighlandRebel says:

      A ‘militant’ is someone who hides behind women and children.
      A ‘fighter’ is someone who ties up women and children and old men and lay them in a ditch face down and puts a bullet through their head.



    • John Anderson says:


      There is a BBC policy / style guide that says the word “terrorist” should be used with great caution – they may be freedom fighters yada yada yada.

      BBC uses this policy as a total cop-out. NO-ONE is a described as a terrorist – except that the BBC was forced to describe the London bombers and the like as terorists after they tried to get away with their weaselly “militants” etc euphemisms.

      So – 200 killed in Bali was not terrorism, Mumbai was not terrorism, endless suicide bombings all round the world are not terrorism, tourists killed on holiday in Egypt is not terrorism, Boko Haram is not terrorism, Al Shabab in east Africa is not terrorism etc etc. If a local police or government spokesman describes an atrocity as terrorism the BBC might use the T word – in quotes – but will often still change it to one of their weaselly words.

      Thisd is a particlularly disgusting BBC policy. But they blithely get away with it. Even at the ISIS level of deliberate terror.


      • The Beebinator says:

        I heard Frank Gardner descibe the peaceful chaps that shot him as terrorists. i think its the only time he’s used the word.


  8. stuart says:

    see the thing is. i would call that loonie with the tin foil hat called scott who comes in here and annoys people and is a figure of fun as a bit of a militant and a pain in the backside. but.describing head cutting mass murderers like hamas and isis as militants just demeans that very word.


  9. Scott says:

    Hamas and ISIS are freedom fighters against the evil west.


    • Mark says:

      You cannot be the “real” Scott. If Hamas and ISIS were freedom fighters, they would invite you to organise a Gay Pride Week in Gaza and an Outfest in Mosul, rather than choosing which crane you’d want to be hung from, or which knife you’d be beheaded with.

      ISIS and Hamas are not exactly the most tolerant of organisations when it comes to sexuality. They don’t understand “live and let live” like the evil West does.


    • London Calling says:

      Scott you are a total prick, go away, why do you waste your foetid breathe here?


      • hippiepooter says:

        Hi, 1) I’m sure it’s not Scott) 2) Hasn’t DV published entire posts asking for civility and ignoring trolls?


  10. deegee says:

    Boaz Ganor claims (and I agree) that it is impossible to fight terrorism if there is not a shared, widely accepted definition of terrorism. Surely it is a worthy goal to persuade the BBC to use one? Suggestions?

    His definition is, Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed at civilians or civilian targets aimed to achieve political goals.

    Read about his message in more detail in Defining terrorism


    • Teddy Bear says:

      The BBC would surely have a problem with that definition.
      If you look at their webpage International terrorism since 1945, first on their list is Early Israeli Terrorism

      They clearly have no problem defining those Israeli groups that targeted British troops in an effort to get them out of Palestine, as it was called then, as terrorists, even though they weren’t targeting civilians but soldiers.

      So if the BBC can’t vilify Israel, even before its inception, there’s no way they would adopt a definition which would now make it appear that they were really ‘freedom fighters.


      • deegee says:

        Israel will also have to change its definition of terrorism as it always refers to attacks on soldiers as terrorism.

        The lines are more than a little blurred on both sides. Most Israelis serve some time in the military and the bulk of troops are reservists. A Hamas fighter could wear Izz ad-Din al-Qassam uniform for the videos and flaming hoop jumping; police uniform for his day job and do the rocket launching in civvies.

        I doubt Ganor would describe them as ‘freedom fighters’ even if not defined as terrorists. How about war-criminals or assassins? In most cases when the terrorism charge is unclear I prefer to call them fighters. They are no less dead when Israel fires back.


      • deegee says:

        The British, the Jewish Agency and the the 1946 Zionist Congress all branded the Irgun as terrorists, albeit for different reasons. The Irgun committed acts that would by Ganor’s definition be terrorism but the BBC choses to focus on the King David Hotel, the hanging of the sergeants and Deir Yassin. These were acts that by Ganor’s definition would not be terrorist although with the Geneva Conventions, two years later, might be war crimes.

        Perhaps it is like the BBC condemning the beheading of Foley but yawning at hundreds of other killings by IS? The closer it gets to them the more the BBC is prepared to use the word ‘terrorist’.


  11. George R says:

    INBBC Bowen, INBBC Arabic won’t want to hear this truth: Hamas = ISIS.

    “Netanyahu Likens Hamas to the Islamic State Militants”

    (1 min video clip)


    • deegee says:

      At the risk of playing devil’s advocate – no they are not. They have much in common but each regards the other as heretics and rivals. We note that although Hamas talks about establishing a Caliphate they are not exactly rushing to join the Islamic State Caliphate.

      The Brotherhood embrasses modernity while IS rejects it. This may not make much of a difference to someone about to lose his head but the two groups are much aware of it. Who will kill who first?