Middle East Conflict

cleavers said:
Cancelling it after this event, wouldn't have made it better either, seems the timing of it for both sides was convenient/inconvenient.

A right bloody mess in fact.
Click to expand...
He has made the situation worse, it’s just inflamed a bad situation, now it’s kicking off all over, although it could have been some deal to prevent a ground incursion, which would just light up the region, we live in hope that what looks like a monumental cock up may have been done to save the region, we will soon find out, I think the implicit message from Hezbollah is you go in on the ground we will join in and I honestly don’t think Israel could fight a war on two fronts
 
Scottyboi said:
Interesting read, to make what he thinks could have happened. Israel would have had to take down a hamas rocket make it look like a misfire and then strike the hospital with one of their smaller ordnance. Stranger things have happened but seems abit much to me.
Click to expand...

Not quite, he’s not saying Israel would have had to have taken down anything.
 
Another day, another Israeli massacre, this time at Nuseirat mosque. Reports say the refugee camp there and a bakery was also hit:

ALBAWABA- In a disturbing escalation of violence, Israel has reportedly bombed the Nuseirat Mosque in Gaza, resulting in the tragic loss of around 30 lives, including displaced individuals seeking refuge.

The attack adds to the ongoing series of massacres against the Palestinian people. The deliberate targeting of a place of worship raises serious concerns, as it constitutes a direct violation of international law.

According to Article 8 of the Geneva Convention, such attacks on buildings of worship are deemed war crimes. The international community is urged to condemn these actions and address the urgent need for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the region.
Click to expand...

 
goalmole said:
It'll happen on Mars as well if ever we populate it.
Click to expand...
If this conflict was about religion you’d have a point, but it’s an ethnic conflict about land , prior to the 80d most Palestinian groups were very left wing and totally non religious, the Islamic stuff only came about after the Americans created it as a foil against the Soviets
 
Fiftyyearsandcounting said:
"Hamas are recognised as a terrorist organisation by many nations, including the UK". Because the BBC refuse to directly call Hamas terrorists, Clive Myrie has to repeat this mantra at the start of every news broadcast.
What a pathetic fudge!
Click to expand...

That’s not a fudge, that’s what a news organisation with people on the ground in Gaza risking their lives to report on what’s happening would say in order to be viewed as impartial as much as possible by both of the main actors in the conflict in order for them to report to their best ability. It’s an entirely factual statement that neither Hamas or Israel would dispute, which is also why other news organisations with people reporting there on the conflict do similar.

This idea of them having to call them out as terrorists is driven by morons on Twitter that seem to want the bbc to turn fully into a government mouthpiece rather than an independent public state broadcaster who is respected and broadcasted internationally. It’s also them wanting the BBC to treat the viewers as if they’re morons too.

To take a parallel with the Russia Ukraine war, there’s a reason Steve Rosenberg is able to still be in Moscow getting the interviews he does with the top leadership in Russia and Belarus and is allowed to report critically on it. It’s far more insightful and treats the viewer with respect that they can formulate their own opinion based on it rather than completely spoon feeding what they should think to them, which I’ll always strongly argue is one of the foundations of actual decent reporting journalism.
 
Last edited:
meltonblue said:
That’s not a fudge, that’s what a news organisation with people on the ground in Gaza risking their lives to report on what’s happening would say in order to be viewed as impartial as much as possible by both of the main actors in the conflict in order for them to report to their best ability. It’s an entirely factual statement that neither Hamas or Israel would dispute, which is also why other news organisations with people reporting there on the conflict do similar.

This idea of them having to call them out as terrorists is driven by morons on Twitter that seem to want the bbc to turn fully into a government mouthpiece rather than an independent public state broadcaster who is respected and broadcasted internationally. It’s also them wanting the BBC to treat the viewers as if they’re morons too.

To take a parallel with the Russia Ukraine war, there’s a reason Steve Rosenberg is able to still be in Moscow getting the interviews he does with the top leadership in Russia and Belarus and is allowed to report critically on it. It’s far more insightful and treats the viewer with respect that they can formulate their own opinion based on it rather than completely spoon feeding what they should think to them, which I’ll always strongly argue is one of the foundations of actual decent reporting journalism.
Click to expand...

To be fair you've called a lot of people morons but haven't conceded that Hamas are a terrorist organisation.

It would be perfectly acceptable for the BBC to mention that wouldn't it?
 
mexico1970 said:
To be fair you've called a lot of people morons but haven't conceded that Hamas are a terrorist organisation.

It would be perfectly acceptable for the BBC to mention that wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Not that many people , I just called people on twitter making that point morons, I said they want to treat everyone else as if they’re morons too :)

Not sure I get the question though, the bbc do say that the UK government consider them a terrorist organisation. Or are you saying that they should just say it without that caveat, in which case I think I already answered why they don’t in that post?
 
meltonblue said:
Not that many people , I just called people on twitter making that point morons, I said they want to treat everyone else as if they’re morons too :)

Not sure I get the question though, the bbc do say that the UK government consider them a terrorist organisation. Or are you saying that they should just say it without that caveat, in which case I think I already answered why they don’t in that post?
Click to expand...


Well the BBC had no problem calling ISIS terrorists or ETA and even the IRA.

It does look a bit suss here mate.
 
meltonblue said:
Not that many people , I just called people on twitter making that point morons, I said they want to treat everyone else as if they’re morons too :)

Not sure I get the question though, the bbc do say that the UK government consider them a terrorist organisation. Or are you saying that they should just say it without that caveat, in which case I think I already answered why they don’t in that post?
Click to expand...
Mexico doesn’t do Twitter. It’s just a coincidence that all his posts mirror what is being said on there each day.

Think he uses Schrodinger’s Twitter.
 
Ducado said:
If this conflict was about religion you’d have a point, but it’s an ethnic conflict about land , prior to the 80d most Palestinian groups were very left wing and totally non religious, the Islamic stuff only came about after the Americans created it as a foil against the Soviets
Click to expand...
It was a general comment on the human propensity to create conflict wherever we go.
It seems hardwired into us.
I wasn't particularly commenting with the intricacies of this current conflict in mind.
 
mexico1970 said:
Well the BBC had no problem calling ISIS terrorists or ETA and even the IRA.

It does look a bit suss here mate.
Click to expand...

They did the IRA, Thatcher flooded their board of governors to try and change it. Couldn’t comment on the other two though.

Either way though, that doesn’t change my point on why they do it and it’s validity. I’ll reiterate again the Steve Rosenberg example - who else has access to foreign leaders in a conflict and is still able to report so critically on them? That’s a very very good thing for anyone trying to think objectively.

Edit to that, looking into it more, their reporting was consistent on it. Where did you get they had no problem reporting them as terrorists from, they referred to them both as militant groups?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top