comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to know when these guidelines came in then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66218928.amp
This was July this year for example.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
BBC should call Israel an Apartheid state that they are.
Or the BBC bitesize for GCSE students which refers to Al qaeda and the RIA as terrorist groups.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to know when these guidelines came in then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66218928.amp
This was July this year for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
???
"It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately."
Agree. I'm not sure why everybody feels a need to pick a side in this conflict, both sides are at fault, both have committed atrocities and neither are willing to back down or negotiate a peaceful compromise.
Imagine how Palestinian feels hearing that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
John Simpson who has probably forgotten more about foreign policy and wars than any of us will ever know.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to know when these guidelines came in then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66218928.amp
This was July this year for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't called any person or group a terrorist in that article.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to know when these guidelines came in then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66218928.amp
This was July this year for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't called any person or group a terrorist in that article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I read through and they quote one person using that term, but it’s clearly quoting someone verbatim.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read your post above again. You have compared a Palestinian news source reporting on Israel neutrally with the BBC reporting neutrally here. That indicates you want some bias.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to know when these guidelines came in then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66218928.amp
This was July this year for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't called any person or group a terrorist in that article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good lord. What attacks are they referring to? Oh yes terror attacks.
The clue is in the word terror. Yet they did not call 7 October terror attacks which were carried out by Hamas and therefore…..wait for it…..Hamas are terrorists.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to know when these guidelines came in then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66218928.amp
This was July this year for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't called any person or group a terrorist in that article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good lord. What attacks are they referring to? Oh yes terror attacks.
The clue is in the word terror. Yet they did not call 7 October terror attacks which were carried out by Hamas and therefore…..wait for it…..Hamas are terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True it should have read " Terrorist Hamas carries fatal attacks against apartheid Israel"
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read your post above again. You have compared a Palestinian news source reporting on Israel neutrally with the BBC reporting neutrally here. That indicates you want some bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know what inverted commas are, don’t you?
Seeing as you have so forensically read my posts. Perhaps you noticed a comment of mine prescribing acts of terrorism to Israel? Aaaaw nah missed that one didn’t you? How convenient.
No I don’t want bias I don’t have some opinion that I want the bbc to agree with. I want consistency.
BBC have labelled IAR, ISIS alqaeda as terrorists /terror attacks etc yet what we all saw on October 7 - they decide that it’s not right to use the word terror anymore. That’s the inconsistency which none of you can explain.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read your post above again. You have compared a Palestinian news source reporting on Israel neutrally with the BBC reporting neutrally here. That indicates you want some bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know what inverted commas are, don’t you?
Seeing as you have so forensically read my posts. Perhaps you noticed a comment of mine prescribing acts of terrorism to Israel? Aaaaw nah missed that one didn’t you? How convenient.
No I don’t want bias I don’t have some opinion that I want the bbc to agree with. I want consistency.
BBC have labelled IAR, ISIS alqaeda as terrorists /terror attacks etc yet what we all saw on October 7 - they decide that it’s not right to use the word terror anymore. That’s the inconsistency which none of you can explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole discussion is about an opinion you want the BBC to agree with.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go Tam.
Now as mentioned to you very recently, try reading what is written before wasting peoples’ time, including your own. Ok?
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read your post above again. You have compared a Palestinian news source reporting on Israel neutrally with the BBC reporting neutrally here. That indicates you want some bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know what inverted commas are, don’t you?
Seeing as you have so forensically read my posts. Perhaps you noticed a comment of mine prescribing acts of terrorism to Israel? Aaaaw nah missed that one didn’t you? How convenient.
No I don’t want bias I don’t have some opinion that I want the bbc to agree with. I want consistency.
BBC have labelled IAR, ISIS alqaeda as terrorists /terror attacks etc yet what we all saw on October 7 - they decide that it’s not right to use the word terror anymore. That’s the inconsistency which none of you can explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole discussion is about an opinion you want the BBC to agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go waste someone else’s time you moron.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read your post above again. You have compared a Palestinian news source reporting on Israel neutrally with the BBC reporting neutrally here. That indicates you want some bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know what inverted commas are, don’t you?
Seeing as you have so forensically read my posts. Perhaps you noticed a comment of mine prescribing acts of terrorism to Israel? Aaaaw nah missed that one didn’t you? How convenient.
No I don’t want bias I don’t have some opinion that I want the bbc to agree with. I want consistency.
BBC have labelled IAR, ISIS alqaeda as terrorists /terror attacks etc yet what we all saw on October 7 - they decide that it’s not right to use the word terror anymore. That’s the inconsistency which none of you can explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, the difference here appears to be that the 👁️ RA, ISIS and Al Qaeda all committed terror attacks on UK soil. That may be your difference here Satters?
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read your post above again. You have compared a Palestinian news source reporting on Israel neutrally with the BBC reporting neutrally here. That indicates you want some bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know what inverted commas are, don’t you?
Seeing as you have so forensically read my posts. Perhaps you noticed a comment of mine prescribing acts of terrorism to Israel? Aaaaw nah missed that one didn’t you? How convenient.
No I don’t want bias I don’t have some opinion that I want the bbc to agree with. I want consistency.
BBC have labelled IAR, ISIS alqaeda as terrorists /terror attacks etc yet what we all saw on October 7 - they decide that it’s not right to use the word terror anymore. That’s the inconsistency which none of you can explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, the difference here appears to be that the 👁️ RA, ISIS and Al Qaeda all committed terror attacks on UK soil. That may be your difference here Satters?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for me personally. A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack. Hence why I think the same could and should be given to some of Israel’s actions and its ‘settlers’.
I just don’t get why x y and z would be called terrorists but not Hamas?
It’s either that their guidelines changed at some point in the middle, which I doubt.
Or they fear some backlash
Or they are not being impartial and tend to side with the Palestinian cause. Which is fine, but that’s not the BBC and don't pretend to be impartial.
All spokespeople from both sides should have their voices dubbed by actors like the good old days.
Mark Regev voiced by Ian Paisley jnr and Husam Zomlot by Gerry Adams.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for me personally. A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack. Hence why I think the same could and should be given to some of Israel’s actions and its ‘settlers’.
I just don’t get why x y and z would be called terrorists but not Hamas?
It’s either that their guidelines changed at some point in the middle, which I doubt.
Or they fear some backlash
Or they are not being impartial and tend to side with the Palestinian cause. Which is fine, but that’s not the BBC and don't pretend to be impartial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortening for everyone’s sanity.
The BBC have come out and said they try to refrain from using words like “terrorist” as it is triggering, particularly in complex situations where without lots of context it can be difficult to fully convey situations.
I’ve suggested it may be attacks in the UK versus elsewhere, so for example when you have far right terrorists in America, do they refer to those perpetrators as terrorists? I use that example as it is something that we haven’t had in the UK (much).
I think for a global news organisation to refer to either side as terrorists, in the highly complex situation which is Israel and Palestine, is pretty reasonable editorial policy. I am not sure how one can view it as “siding” with either side, given as you’ve mentioned you could argue both sides could be referred to as terrorists. Both sides being Hamas and IDF btw.
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 minutes ago
All spokespeople from both sides should have their voices dubbed by actors like the good old days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOUeauLWEaE
Sign in if you want to comment
BBC news page
Page 3 of 5
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to know when these guidelines came in then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66218928.amp
This was July this year for example.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
posted on 26/10/23
BBC should call Israel an Apartheid state that they are.
posted on 26/10/23
Or the BBC bitesize for GCSE students which refers to Al qaeda and the RIA as terrorist groups.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to know when these guidelines came in then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66218928.amp
This was July this year for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
???
posted on 26/10/23
"It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately."
Agree. I'm not sure why everybody feels a need to pick a side in this conflict, both sides are at fault, both have committed atrocities and neither are willing to back down or negotiate a peaceful compromise.
posted on 26/10/23
Imagine how Palestinian feels hearing that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
posted on 26/10/23
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
John Simpson who has probably forgotten more about foreign policy and wars than any of us will ever know.
posted on 26/10/23
*mine
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to know when these guidelines came in then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66218928.amp
This was July this year for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't called any person or group a terrorist in that article.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to know when these guidelines came in then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66218928.amp
This was July this year for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't called any person or group a terrorist in that article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I read through and they quote one person using that term, but it’s clearly quoting someone verbatim.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read your post above again. You have compared a Palestinian news source reporting on Israel neutrally with the BBC reporting neutrally here. That indicates you want some bias.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to know when these guidelines came in then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66218928.amp
This was July this year for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't called any person or group a terrorist in that article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good lord. What attacks are they referring to? Oh yes terror attacks.
The clue is in the word terror. Yet they did not call 7 October terror attacks which were carried out by Hamas and therefore…..wait for it…..Hamas are terrorists.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I can’t believe I’m even having to debate this. What a joke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it depends what you think you are debating. Personally I agree with the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. I also agree with the BBC's reporting on it.
As you believe that the BBC are taking a side by only reporting that they are prescribed as a terrorist organisation, perhaps you'll be able to find where the BBC have reported that they are not terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well thank fk for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341.amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't said that Hamas aren't terrorists there.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
"The BBC's job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting."
I agree with their stance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they just decided to do this recently? Just with Hamas? Not with ISIS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their editorial guidelines say they should avoid using the word terrorist. They can report someone else doing it, but shouldn't do it themselves. They have reported correctly in this case
I don't know when that guidance came in, but it is in their guidelines. Therefore they shouldn't be calling ISIS a terror group either now, but reporting that they are designated one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to know when these guidelines came in then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66218928.amp
This was July this year for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't called any person or group a terrorist in that article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good lord. What attacks are they referring to? Oh yes terror attacks.
The clue is in the word terror. Yet they did not call 7 October terror attacks which were carried out by Hamas and therefore…..wait for it…..Hamas are terrorists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True it should have read " Terrorist Hamas carries fatal attacks against apartheid Israel"
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read your post above again. You have compared a Palestinian news source reporting on Israel neutrally with the BBC reporting neutrally here. That indicates you want some bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know what inverted commas are, don’t you?
Seeing as you have so forensically read my posts. Perhaps you noticed a comment of mine prescribing acts of terrorism to Israel? Aaaaw nah missed that one didn’t you? How convenient.
No I don’t want bias I don’t have some opinion that I want the bbc to agree with. I want consistency.
BBC have labelled IAR, ISIS alqaeda as terrorists /terror attacks etc yet what we all saw on October 7 - they decide that it’s not right to use the word terror anymore. That’s the inconsistency which none of you can explain.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read your post above again. You have compared a Palestinian news source reporting on Israel neutrally with the BBC reporting neutrally here. That indicates you want some bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know what inverted commas are, don’t you?
Seeing as you have so forensically read my posts. Perhaps you noticed a comment of mine prescribing acts of terrorism to Israel? Aaaaw nah missed that one didn’t you? How convenient.
No I don’t want bias I don’t have some opinion that I want the bbc to agree with. I want consistency.
BBC have labelled IAR, ISIS alqaeda as terrorists /terror attacks etc yet what we all saw on October 7 - they decide that it’s not right to use the word terror anymore. That’s the inconsistency which none of you can explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole discussion is about an opinion you want the BBC to agree with.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go Tam.
Now as mentioned to you very recently, try reading what is written before wasting peoples’ time, including your own. Ok?
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read your post above again. You have compared a Palestinian news source reporting on Israel neutrally with the BBC reporting neutrally here. That indicates you want some bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know what inverted commas are, don’t you?
Seeing as you have so forensically read my posts. Perhaps you noticed a comment of mine prescribing acts of terrorism to Israel? Aaaaw nah missed that one didn’t you? How convenient.
No I don’t want bias I don’t have some opinion that I want the bbc to agree with. I want consistency.
BBC have labelled IAR, ISIS alqaeda as terrorists /terror attacks etc yet what we all saw on October 7 - they decide that it’s not right to use the word terror anymore. That’s the inconsistency which none of you can explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole discussion is about an opinion you want the BBC to agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go waste someone else’s time you moron.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read your post above again. You have compared a Palestinian news source reporting on Israel neutrally with the BBC reporting neutrally here. That indicates you want some bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know what inverted commas are, don’t you?
Seeing as you have so forensically read my posts. Perhaps you noticed a comment of mine prescribing acts of terrorism to Israel? Aaaaw nah missed that one didn’t you? How convenient.
No I don’t want bias I don’t have some opinion that I want the bbc to agree with. I want consistency.
BBC have labelled IAR, ISIS alqaeda as terrorists /terror attacks etc yet what we all saw on October 7 - they decide that it’s not right to use the word terror anymore. That’s the inconsistency which none of you can explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, the difference here appears to be that the 👁️ RA, ISIS and Al Qaeda all committed terror attacks on UK soil. That may be your difference here Satters?
posted on 26/10/23
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 seconds ago
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
This is exactly what Hamas is and does.
===
Doesn't Israel do the same thing though? Genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, it could very much be argued as such, yes.
Personally, I would say the expansion and actions of the so-called ‘settlers’ to be fitting of that description, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That means this whole issue of BBC labelling is just a sideshow, another stick to beat the BBC with IMO. It really doesn't matter what the BBC refer to them as so ling as they report them news accurately.
Some things are so stoopid. Imagine the BBC actually siding with Hamas. Even the people making this claim know the BBC isn't siding with Hamas by their reference to them. What will we gain when they call them terrorists? Some people just love drama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drama? Mate I think you need to have a lie down.
Imagine for a second a Middle Eastern pro Palestinian news outlet reporting about Israel ‘neutrally’ and how the families of all of the victims would feel.
Now imagine how all of the families of victims of hamas, here in this very country, watching their national news channel refuse to call hamas terrorists.
Yeah they just love drama….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the BBC should be pro-Israel? I think the problem here is that you want them to pick a side you agree with and don't like the neutrality. You are trying to disguise this as them opposing you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. That’s what I want.
Have you even read what I have written? Why do you keep doing this honestly? Why are you wasting your own time and yours posting such nonsense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to read your post above again. You have compared a Palestinian news source reporting on Israel neutrally with the BBC reporting neutrally here. That indicates you want some bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know what inverted commas are, don’t you?
Seeing as you have so forensically read my posts. Perhaps you noticed a comment of mine prescribing acts of terrorism to Israel? Aaaaw nah missed that one didn’t you? How convenient.
No I don’t want bias I don’t have some opinion that I want the bbc to agree with. I want consistency.
BBC have labelled IAR, ISIS alqaeda as terrorists /terror attacks etc yet what we all saw on October 7 - they decide that it’s not right to use the word terror anymore. That’s the inconsistency which none of you can explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, the difference here appears to be that the 👁️ RA, ISIS and Al Qaeda all committed terror attacks on UK soil. That may be your difference here Satters?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for me personally. A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack. Hence why I think the same could and should be given to some of Israel’s actions and its ‘settlers’.
I just don’t get why x y and z would be called terrorists but not Hamas?
It’s either that their guidelines changed at some point in the middle, which I doubt.
Or they fear some backlash
Or they are not being impartial and tend to side with the Palestinian cause. Which is fine, but that’s not the BBC and don't pretend to be impartial.
posted on 26/10/23
All spokespeople from both sides should have their voices dubbed by actors like the good old days.
Mark Regev voiced by Ian Paisley jnr and Husam Zomlot by Gerry Adams.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for me personally. A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack. Hence why I think the same could and should be given to some of Israel’s actions and its ‘settlers’.
I just don’t get why x y and z would be called terrorists but not Hamas?
It’s either that their guidelines changed at some point in the middle, which I doubt.
Or they fear some backlash
Or they are not being impartial and tend to side with the Palestinian cause. Which is fine, but that’s not the BBC and don't pretend to be impartial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortening for everyone’s sanity.
The BBC have come out and said they try to refrain from using words like “terrorist” as it is triggering, particularly in complex situations where without lots of context it can be difficult to fully convey situations.
I’ve suggested it may be attacks in the UK versus elsewhere, so for example when you have far right terrorists in America, do they refer to those perpetrators as terrorists? I use that example as it is something that we haven’t had in the UK (much).
I think for a global news organisation to refer to either side as terrorists, in the highly complex situation which is Israel and Palestine, is pretty reasonable editorial policy. I am not sure how one can view it as “siding” with either side, given as you’ve mentioned you could argue both sides could be referred to as terrorists. Both sides being Hamas and IDF btw.
posted on 26/10/23
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 minutes ago
All spokespeople from both sides should have their voices dubbed by actors like the good old days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOUeauLWEaE
Page 3 of 5