The BBC and the T-word

Here's a good quick read into the state of affairs regarding Hamas PM, Haniya , who tried to bring in $35 million in cash, in suitcases in to Gaza.

I found that after seeing the article originally at the BBC, and found myself infuriated at the obssesive 'politically correct' morally relativist culture at the BBC.

Israel says that money, in particular from Iran, goes directly to the funding of "terrorist" operations against Israel.

In the beginning of the sentence the BBC have made it clear that "Israel says..." - so why do they need the "terrorist" quotes? What other kind of "operations" carried out by Hamas against Israel are there?

11 Responses to “The BBC and the T-word”

  1. # Anonymous Anonymous

    where does the term politically correct come from? and who decided it was "correct" ?  

  2. # Anonymous Anonymous

    http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm  

  3. # Anonymous Anonymous

    how shameful on israel to close the border on haniya , the prime minister of the freely electeg government of palestine !!  

  4. # Anonymous Derius

    The BBC’s coverage of Israel, the Palestinians and other issues related to Islam is laughable. The BBC uses loaded vocabulary at every turn: the phrase "occupied territories” (jackbooted German soldiers, marching into occupied Paris) for lands that the Israelis have a legal, moral, and historic claim to that goes far beyond their rights acquired through war. The phrase "Palestinian people" is never subject to the slightest critical examination; no one ever wonders at the BBC where the phrase came from, or why it was never used by any Arab spokesman prior to the Six-Day War. There’s no explanation either that Palestine was never actually a sovereign nation at any point in the past; no explanation of how the “Palestinian People” are not actually culturally or ethnically different from the other Arabs in the area; no explanation that most of the Arabs living in the “West Bank” (formerly known up to 1948 as Judaea and Samaria, and how exactly are the lands of Judaea not Jewish?) have only lived there for three generations, coming from Egypt and Iraq circa 1900-1920. And the reason for all this is clear: it might give people reasons to question the BBC view of the world if it all became public knowledge.

    Here are some other samples of the BBC’s “world news”. The BBC merely reported the Jihad being waged in Thailand against the Buddhists in the south as being a “cultural conflict”. When the BBC has to report the atrocities in Sudan, there is no mention of the connection between the Janjaweed militias and the Sudanese Government (both are Muslim) or how the Government is backing those militias in their violent Jihad against the Christian and Ibo tribes to the south. No, all of this again is “cultural”. And as for the systematic destruction of Christian Churches in Indonesia (2500 in the year 2003 alone), which has been documented by the British based Barnabus fund, which lo and behold is another Jihad being waged by Muslims, well the BBC has decided that even it might not get away with reporting the targeting of churches as merely “cultural” to a Western Christian audience, so they switch to their other favourite option in awkward moments: they don’t bother reporting it at all.

    And why is it that this is the BBC’s stance, for which all in Britain have to subsidise? Is it because of John Simpson, the chief editor of the BBC world News, whose close friend, Peter Hounam, wrote that anti semitic book “Operation Cyanide”, where he accuses Israel of deliberately attacking the USS Liberty, for which John Simpson himself wrote a very enthusiastic foreward? Could that be it? Or is it Barbara Plett, who openly wept for Arafat when he passed away? Or is it Orla Guerlin, married to a "Palestinian" and herself a true believer in the “sovereignty of Palestine”. Or is it one of the BBC’s “advisors” and “experts”, such as Azziz Tamimi, who is an open supporter of Hamas. How about Tariq Ramadan, the “noted scholar of Islam" as he peddles his taqiyya (religious deception, see Sura 16:106) , and whose grandfather, Hassan-al-Banna, formed that very “moderate” organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood. Perhaps it could be the Government meddling in the BBC affairs: after all, the Home Office does has a say in what the BBC reports, and we all know how keen our Government is to keep those oil prices down, and how keen they are not to offend “minority sensibilities” (though of course, one never needs worry about offending the Jews, as they obviously don’t count in the Government’s book, or indeed, the BBC’s).

    What a farce.  

  5. # Blogger DalaiDahmer

    tu gave the URL of an article to inform about PC.

    in that article the author states
    It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished.
    ...yet he gives no source for this, nor any examples of it being the case.
    he has this in common with many proponenets of the term 'politically correct' who often, when presssed, cannot cite many examples of the behaviour they describe.
    there is no such thing as a political correctness movement, and i have yet to see anyone use it as anythiong other than a way to argue against having to give up their right to words that offend and attack those in a position of weakness.
    these are bullies asking to be allowed to bully, and crying persecution when they are asked not to.

    in many cases the person using the term is using it to protect speech they enjoy using against suggestions that they might be better not using said speech. the only restrictions i am aware of relating to free speech are the 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre' aspect (if your speech is in itself an action; in the usual example, an incitement to run for exits that is likely to cause injury for no good purpose) and the hatespeech laws.

    i can't see any rational explanation for attacking either of those, and i am yet to be aware of any explanation that even slightly challenges them.


    the author tells us:


    The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the mentally impaired, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values.


    as you can see, his anger is at being expected to give up aggresive terms for people who have spent much of the last century being persecuted. he mentions the eternal retorical club, the second world war, to remind us that many bigots also died for our freedoms, and that they would be mortified if they had died to protect niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas.

    i would guess, and it is of course only a guess, that the author is from a background that did not require him to suffer at the barbed words or fists of persecution.(edit:i have read his bio-i was correct)

    he talks of 'Australia is Multicultural'(his home country) being a slogan designed to make it sound like 'different cultures are compatible', something he says is 'an attack upon truth [and] clear thinking'.

    he attacks the straw man of PC as an affront to those who wish to speak what he calls 'disliked truths', and holds up arthur tunstall as an example of someone villified and 'persecuted' by an undefined mob(persecution and the mob feature heavily in the assault of this particular straw man - these are terms i feel best describe the suffering of, say, aboriginal australians, not someone being judged by his public for his choice of commentary. that the mob is undefined is also common, and should be informative to understanding how the term is used).

    the 'truths' tunstall spoke were to call disabled athletes an embarrasment and to attack cathy freeman for carrying the aboriginal flag.
    he claimed australia felt the same way, yet his career was pretty much over for speaking these truths.
    if they felt the same way, and if this was a truth, then why did his career end?
    why does the author of that article defend him as a principled man?
    i believe it is because he does not wish to exercise sensitivity and care in his speech when talking about people who his ancestors have a history of abusing.
    his seems to be a position of privelige, one available to him only because his ancestors stole and kept an entire country by murder , and one that continues to be a far better place to live for non aboriginals.

    he is a bully, and defending his right to bully, to pour abuse on those who have historically been abused by many of his ancestors and their peers and who still live in a society thattreats them inequally.

    i suspect that philip atkinson is in a similar position.

    you can read further information on the tired cliche that is political correctness over here.
    i'd suggest that the term PC is at best lazy, and at worst a defence of bigotry.
    many people are unaware of this, having been fooled(as i was) by the propaganda.

    i'd suggest trying to figure out exactly what you mean by the term if you seek to continue using it.  

  6. # Anonymous Anonymous

    lol  

  7. # Anonymous alison

    Indeed. A total farce. Really excellent comment Derius. The point entirely.  

  8. # Anonymous Anonymous

    once again this was only something offered to think about ... not "prove" right or wrong ... yes it says the things you copied, I never said I agreed with everything, but I wonder if you read it all? Since there were also some very strong arguments made and many different perspectives offered.  

  9. # Anonymous Derius

    Alison,

    I'm pleased that someone actually agrees with me!

    I just thought at this point I would explain to you and Jonz who the hell I am!

    I'm Matt, and we all met at Peter Risdon's drinks at the Chandos, about a month ago. I was one of the four who made it to the Chinese at the end of the night!

    Hopefully, there will be another gathering sometime in the new year, so we can all meet up again then. It was also nice meeting you both, and meeting other people too who have a similar outlook towards free speech.

    Incidentally, Nick's forum which I mentioned that night (and who was also there at the Chandos) can be found here:

    www.talkveritas.com  

  10. # Blogger DalaiDahmer

    I wonder if you read it all? Since there were also some very strong arguments made and many different perspectives offered.

    i did read it all, yes.
    i read the one you linked, and the one about the author, and i also read one or two that were linked from the original article. the tunstall one, for one.

    which arguments did you feel were strong? i have to admit to being baffled by that and would appreciate your guidance.

    did you read the article i linked to last?  

  11. # Blogger jonz

    MAtt,
    Not ignoring you mate - been bit busy, only with time for sporadic rage induced posts hehe.

    Yes, will certainly be up for a New Years meet up.  

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link


Looks odd? Use Firefox!

Email drunkenblogging AT gmail.com

XML

Search