Islamic State

chalkitdown wrote:Did Nick just say thank god for Assad?

And Putin.

What a strawberry floating joke.

NickSCFC wrote:65 dead in Lahore suicide attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35908512

The BBC have been hideously mealy-mouthed about possible motives for the attack all day. Sky, not so much:

The attack was carried out as Christians, many of them women and children, gathered to celebrate the Easter holiday in Lahore.

http://news.sky.com/story/1667941/talib ... n-Pakistan

Fox News even less so:

An explosion ripped through a crowded Pakistan park where Christians were celebrating Easter on Sunday, killing at least 65 people, officials told the Associated Press.

A Taliban faction, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, claimed responsibility for the attack and said Christians were the target of the blast, Reuters reported. The mostly-Muslim country has a small Christian community, accounting for less than two percent of Pakistan's total population.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/27 ... tcmp=hpbt1

So, Muslim terrorists murdering Christians. Anyone know why the BBC seems to have a problem reporting this significant fact as clearly and unambiguously as other major news outlets?

The BBC front page, in the opening paragraph, is blaming the same Taliban faction, at Easter, as Fox News is.

Are you so bored that you think no one will think to check your claims or so blinded by your own internal agenda that you actually believe the direct lies you post?

Yeah, in that BBC article also, they quote a spokesperson for this Taliban splinter group who said "We claim responsibility on this attack on Christians as they were celebrating Easter".

Regarding the victims, it also mention: "the park was crowded with families, some celebrating Easter" and that "many victims are said to be women and children" trying to escape. So it matches your Sky News quote in content. It also is fairly similar to the Fox News one - it says the park was crowded with people celebrating Easter, it name-checks the Taliban group, quotes the spokesman and says they have claimed responsibility for the attack.

Will you take back your statement about the BBC being mealy-mouthed?

Also, if the BBC are scared of speaking frankly, perhaps we can attach headlines to each of our posts to get straight to the point. Let's not be afraid of being mealy-mouthed ourselves right, and quoting other sources to make insinuations.

Cal, I've done one for you: "BBC deliberately hiding religious reasons behind terrorist to avoid putting blame on Islam".

And for me: "Parksey accuses Cal of reading those three sets of news with an agenda, and only seeing what he wants to see, which is evidence of the BBC deftly avoiding putting blame on anyone remotely Islamic, despite quoting a terrorist who openly says the religious reasons for attack and the Islamic terrorist splinter group behind it".

Mine's less catchy, I admit.

Alvin Flummux wrote:

chalkitdown wrote:Did Nick just say thank god for Assad?

And Putin.

What a strawberry floating joke.

Parksey wrote:Yeah, in that BBC article also, they quote a spokesperson for this Taliban splinter group who said "We claim responsibility on this attack on Christians as they were celebrating Easter".

Regarding the victims, it also mention: "the park was crowded with families, some celebrating Easter" and that "many victims are said to be women and children" trying to escape. So it matches your Sky News quote in content. It also is fairly similar to the Fox News one - it says the park was crowded with people celebrating Easter, it name-checks the Taliban group, quotes the spokesman and says they have claimed responsibility for the attack.

Will you take back your statement about the BBC being mealy-mouthed?

No, I won't. I was monitoring the BBC all day as it struggled to word its p*sspoor 'journalism' so as to avoid making it clear the target of these Islamist attacks were clearly and unambiguously Christians, while other outlets were immediately pointing this fact out in their reporting.

Parksey wrote:Also, if the BBC are scared of speaking frankly, perhaps we can attach headlines to each of our posts to get straight to the point. Let's not be afraid of being mealy-mouthed ourselves right, and quoting other sources to make insinuations.

Cal, I've done one for you: "BBC deliberately hiding religious reasons behind terrorist to avoid putting blame on Islam".

And for me: "Parksey accuses Cal of reading those three sets of news with an agenda, and only seeing what he wants to see, which is evidence of the BBC deftly avoiding putting blame on anyone remotely Islamic, despite quoting a terrorist who openly says the religious reasons for attack and the Islamic terrorist splinter group behind it".

Mine's less catchy, I admit.

Also less accurate. As I said, I was monitoring the BBC news from practically the moment story broke. I was actually watching News18 (an Indian/English news channel on Sky) at the time of the bombing and it was clear from the start that the target of the bombing was a Christian celebration. Even as the BBC coughed and spluttered into its skinny latte, struggling to find a way to generalize what was clearly a specific attack on Christians by muslims, Indian TV was not holding back at all, live from the scene.

The BBC: some of the news, some of the time (while they work out how best to word the bleedin' obvious in order not to cause offence to You Know Who).

The current headline on the BBC website:

Pakistan Taliban faction claims park attack on Lahore Christians

What part of that is Cal moaning about now?

I do love that he accuses the BBC of being mealy mouthed while also posting things like "while they work out how best to word the bleedin' obvious in order not to cause offence to You Know Who".

"Savage cuts" is my favourite BBC News phrase, not impartial at all

NickSCFC wrote:"Savage cuts" is my favourite BBC News phrase, not impartial at all

Link?

Moggy wrote:

NickSCFC wrote:"Savage cuts" is my favourite BBC News phrase, not impartial at all

Link?

Don't you have access to Google?

Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34867564

Midlands Today is the worst for it.

NickSCFC wrote:

Moggy wrote:

NickSCFC wrote:"Savage cuts" is my favourite BBC News phrase, not impartial at all

Link?

Don't you have access to Google?

This is a [DISCUSSION] thread, you need to be prepared to back up your claims without expecting other people to do your leg work for you.

Edit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34867564

First, the government should be commended on its commitment to carry out a defence review every five years. Before, defence reviews were done ad hoc.
But ministers will still have to overcome a high degree of scepticism as to whether this latest SDSR is genuinely "strategic" or if it matches Britain's global ambitions with the resources needed.
SDSR 2010 may have been strategic in name but it'll be remembered for the savage cuts that followed.
It wasn't just the scrapping of iconic names, it left gaping holes in Britain's defences - with no aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy and no maritime patrol aircraft to hunt down Russian submarines.

David Cameron announced that Harrier jump jets, the Navy's flagship HMS Ark Royal and planned Nimrod spy planes were to be axed
42,000 MoD and armed forces jobs were to go by 2015
The RAF and Navy were to lose 5,000 jobs each, the Army 7,000 and the MoD 25,000 civilian staff
Overall, defence spending was to fall by 8% over four years
Mr Cameron denied it was a cost-cutting exercise and said the UK had to be "more thoughtful, more strategic and more co-ordinated in the way we advance our interests and protect our national security"

While "savage cuts" does present the opinion and bias of the writer (well done btw on actually finding something obviously biased on the BBC, I've asked Cal for years to find something like that and he has been unable to!) I don't think it is necessarily wrong. Those cuts are pretty savage. The BBC ought to be more careful though and shouldn't use language like that.

I rarely read the BBC News site, but I opt for BBC's evening news as ITV's local news is frankly appalling.

Moggy wrote:This is a [DISCUSSION] thread, you need to be prepared to back up your claims without expecting other people to do your leg work for you.

Yeah, Nick, you need to remember in these [DISCUSSION] topics that the idea is to paralyse the argument - the overall aim being to nullify whatever opinion you wanted to make by employing a sort of war of attrition on you until you either agree with your opponents, revise your opinion in their favour or admit that you are wrong and they are right, or simply surrender to the assault.

This is how the left operate. They love what they call 'facts', but 'facts', to them, only work one way: their way or no way. It's a beautiful system and practically impossible to win against. You see, anyone can find 'facts' to 'prove' their point-of-view. I can do it; Moggy can do it; you can do it. We can all do it (and we all do). But when the system is weighted in only one direction (i.e. some facts matter more than others) then it's a fool's errand to keep trying to win your argument within it.

When I say the BBC has taken fully 24-hours to finally arrive at a truthful headline about the Lahore suicide bombing (i.e. that it was a Christian Easter festival and because of this fact it was specifically targeted by Islamic terrorists) - during which time countless other major news outlets were not hesitant at all about reporting the true motive of the massacre - nobody here will accept that. For the longest time yesterday - right up to 1am this morning (when I made my post alleging the BBC's reluctance to report the facts) the BBC were still prevaricating on the issue while others (including live Indian TV news channels which I was watching) were not.

There has been a similar level of obfuscation and misdirection from the BBC reporting on the so-called 'hooligan march' in Brussels yesterday. So much so, that the BBC have had to retract an earlier gross misreporting:

Water cannon fired at Brussels protest

Belgian police have fired water cannon to disperse a group of protesters who stormed a central square in Brussels on Sunday. People had gathered at the Place de la Bourse to pay tribute at a makeshift memorial for victims of last Tuesday's deadly attacks. The group involved in the demonstration actually call themselves Casuals against Terrorism - not Fascists against Terrorism as earlier reported. The BBC's Anna Holligan and Shaun Ley in Brussels were watching as the scenes unfolded.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35907469

Guess I'm just making it up to fit my narrative.

Moggy wrote:The current headline on the BBC website:

Pakistan Taliban faction claims park attack on Lahore Christians

What part of that is Cal moaning about now?

I do love that he accuses the BBC of being mealy mouthed while also posting things like "while they work out how best to word the bleedin' obvious in order not to cause offence to You Know Who".

Why are we concerned about Voldemort's opinion on Islam?

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:This is a [DISCUSSION] thread, you need to be prepared to back up your claims without expecting other people to do your leg work for you.

Yeah, Nick, you need to remember in these [DISCUSSION] topics that the idea is to paralyse the argument - the overall aim being to nullify whatever opinion you wanted to make by employing a sort of war of attrition on you until you either agree with your opponents, revise your opinion in their favour or admit that you are wrong and they are right, or simply surrender to the assault.

This is how the left operate. They love what they call 'facts', but 'facts', to them, only work one way: their way or no way. It's a beautiful system and practically impossible to win against. You see, anyone can find 'facts' to 'prove' their point-of-view. I can do it; Moggy can do it; you can do it. We can all do it (and we all do). But when the system is weighted in only one direction (i.e. some facts matter more than others) then it's a fool's errand to keep trying to win your argument within it.

That's one hell of a long rant just because I asked Nick for a link to the story he mentioned. Do you think it is a problem of "the left" to ask somebody for a link?

Nobody is trying to paralyse an argument. You just don't like being asked for facts because you are full of gooseberry fool and have no evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.

When I say the BBC has taken fully 24-hours to finally arrive at a truthful headline about the Lahore suicide bombing

Ahh so you are angry that the BBC waited for all of the facts to be in and didn't just put up a headline that you approved of instantly?

Personally I would prefer news organisations to not speculate and to wait for the facts before assuming that they know what is going on. I realise though that you don't really like facts and you really hate it when something doesn't fit in with your warped idea of the world.

Moggy wrote:

'Ahh so you are angry that the BBC waited for all of the facts to be in and didn't just put up a headline that you approved of instantly?
Personally I would prefer news organisations to not speculate and to wait for the facts before assuming that they know what is going on.'

Correct. Just got back from spending two weeks abroad. This meant watching and comparing various satellite TV world news programmes as I do not speak fluent Portuguese..... BBC only put things up when the facts have been confirmed; Fox and the like just stick up their wild guesses just as soon as. I know which approach I prefer. Speculation is not news.

Cal wrote:

Water cannon fired at Brussels protest

Belgian police have fired water cannon to disperse a group of protesters who stormed a central square in Brussels on Sunday. People had gathered at the Place de la Bourse to pay tribute at a makeshift memorial for victims of last Tuesday's deadly attacks. The group involved in the demonstration actually call themselves Casuals against Terrorism - not Fascists against Terrorism as earlier reported. The BBC's Anna Holligan and Shaun Ley in Brussels were watching as the scenes unfolded.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35907469

If only the BBC had held off and waited for the facts to be established. Or do you not want that?

Old school teletext (or whatever it is now called) with breakfast this morning and BBC clearly stated the attack was supposedly against Christians for Easter, so don't see what there is to argue about, move on.

nvm.