1
   

Sharon wants to boycot BBC.

 
 
frolic
 
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 10:20 am
By Sharon Sadeh in Ha'aretz

LONDON - Israel has decided not to invite a
representative of the BBC to Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon's briefing for senior British
correspondents during his visit to the British
capital next week.

The briefing is due to take place after Sharon's meeting
with Prime Minister Tony Blair, and all the senior editors and
reporters of the British media have been invited.

The BBC has asked for an interview with Sharon during
the visit, but this request is expected to be turned down.

The Israeli government decided two weeks ago to
make it more difficult for the BBC to cover
events relating to this country by, among other
methods, banning official spokesmen from
appearing on the British network. The director
of the Government Press Office, Danny Seaman,
said that Israel decided not to cooperate with
the BBC in protest against "its anti-Israel
coverage, which is characterized by violation
of journalistic ethics and the broadcasting of
baseless claims."

Israel was furious over the repeated airing of a
BBC World film that discussed Israel's nuclear
policy and compared it to that of fallen Iraqi
ruler Saddam Hussein. The film also charged
that Israel has used unconventional weapons
against the Palestinians.

The BBC said in response: "We regret any actions
the Israeli government might take that hinder
our journalistic coverage."

Meanwhile, Haaretz has learned that Blair plans
to depart from diplomatic protocol and invite
Sharon to a personal dinner on Monday evening,
in an effort to improve bilateral ties. Only
two others will participate in the dinner - Dov
Weisglass, Sharon's bureau chief, and Sir David
Manning, Blair's senior advisor and Britain's
ambassador-designate to Washington.

The Blair government has over the past few
months been making efforts to reestablish good
relations with Israel.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,578 • Replies: 70
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 10:24 am
Oh Yeah, that'll do 'em a lot of good. Pouting children . . .
0 Replies
 
Mamahani
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 01:07 pm
I've already started to boycott BBC personally. This because of their glorification and justification of the ruling murderous regime in Tehran.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 01:09 pm
winston churchill suggested boycotting the BBC as well during WWII complaining that they were telling the truth when they should have been telling the government line.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 01:30 pm
I saw the documentary on BBC about the use of illegal weapons by the IDF. Some sort of nerve gass made people tremble like hell.

The cameras just registrated what was going on. There was no story-making. People got the picture just by looking at those people infected by some sort of nerve gas, doctors not knowing how to respond, panic, shouting...

The fact that Sharon makes such a fuzz about it proves there is something wrong with the practices of the IDF in the occupied territories. What's next? (provocatif) Zyklon B?
0 Replies
 
oldandknew
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 01:32 pm
The BBC seem to be upsetting a lot of people these days, cos they tell it how they see it and wont put out anyones propagander.
If they see things happening why shouldn't they broadcast it.
It's called freedom of speech. The BBC is an independant organisation. It's not paid for by advertising nor is it paid for by any government. The public pays for it and get a good service of news and entertainment. It doesn't bow to the British government and it wont bow to any other government either. It opperates under certain rules, the charter. It does not run an editorial news output.

Mamahani
What is wrong with their report on Tehran. I've just been reading it and they report that there have been protests and cops and security people intervened. Now either this protest happened or it didn't. I don't think the BBC would fabricate it, so it must of happened. Are you saying the protest shouldn't of been reported or that it should be massaged to suit certain parameters
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 02:47 pm
Frolic wrote:
Some sort of nerve gass made people tremble like hell.
Nerve gas is a lethal weapon. It was used by Saddam against Kurds, and most of the exposed to it did not just tremble, they died. I do not know anything about the new gas, but if it causes only temporary disruption of muscular functions, then this is a non-lethal weapon intended to put end to mass disorders, just like well-known tear gas. And it has nothing in common with Zyclon, Sarin, Soman, VX, Yperite and other WMDs.
Usage of non-lethal weapons is humane since it can substitute usage of the lethal ones.
Some people get strongly disappointed when the Jews defend themselves against murderers, instead of acting like sheep in the butchery.
About BBC. Three days prior to being drafted to the "Defensive Shield" operation in late March 2002, on the peak of terror attacks on the Israeli civilians, I watched on this channel a "documentary" openly glorifying the terrorists. This was the last time in my life that I chose this channel of the cable TV (I was unable to unsubscribe, since BBC was a part of the so called minimum package). I strongly respect the United Kingdom and its people, but it seems to me that BBC is occupied by the leftist replicas of "lord" Haw Haw.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 02:54 pm
The Russians used a non-lethal gas in Moskow to end the hostagetaking of Nord/Ost.

A maybe more correct name for this gas is nerve-irritant gas. It must have some effect on the nerve-system, how else would you explain the unstopable trembling and many people going into shock. Which is, as you should know, a life threatening condition.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 03:06 pm
frolic wrote:
It must have some effect on the nerve-system, how else would you explain the unstopable trembling and many people going into shock.

Now the definition of shock taken from the encyclopedic source
Quote:
any condition in which the circulatory system is unable to provide adequate circulation to the body tissues, also called circulatory failure or circulatory collapse. Shock results in the slowing of vital functions and in severe cases, if untreated, in death. It may be caused by inadequate pumping by the heart, by reduction of the blood volume due to dehydration or to loss of blood or plasma, or by reduced blood pressure resulting from dilation of the blood vessels.

Nerve-irritant gas cannot produce any of the causes of the shock, it has nothing to do with blood circulation problems. It temporarily disables the rioters, just like the tear gas does (having different mechanism of action). Some of them lose consciousness, but this condition has nothing to do with shock and death threat.
Russian gas was not a gas, but an aerosol spray of phentanyl, the narcotic drug used in conventional medicine as an analgetic means (for example, in obstetrics). Any narcotic analgetic may cause suppression of respiratory center of brain (this is the main cause of heroin overdose deaths). Due to secrecy, rescue medical teams were not instructed on antidote usage, this caused death of hostages.
About the nerve-irritant gas (any, including the tear gas that belongs to the same group of non-lethal weapons): even the Arab propaganda failed to present even one dead body of a victim of this gas.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 03:08 pm
steissd wrote:
Three days prior to being drafted to the "Defensive Shield" operation in late March 2002, on the peak of terror attacks on the Israeli civilians, I watched on this channel a "documentary" openly glorifying the terrorists.


Once again you discriminate evrything, which could oppose your belief of Palestians being 'Untermenschen'.

I saw this documenatry as well.

It was a documentary. (= "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. " from bartley, your favourite source for quotations.)
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 03:13 pm
Oldandknew wrote:
It doesn't bow to the British government and it wont bow to any other government either
Surely, it does not. It has another authority to worship. It bows to the terrorist organizations.
To Mr. Hinteler: Palestinians are not
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 03:15 pm
"a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 03:18 pm
The BBC is one of the greatest gifts to the world from the British besides the English language. The next greatest is tea drinking and a certain self deprecating sense of humer.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 03:19 pm
Dyslexia wrote:
"a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"
This can be applicable to any participant of the current political discussion.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 03:21 pm
steissd wrote:
Dyslexia wrote:
"a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"
This can be applicable to any participant of the current political discussion.


You think, it was only directed to some or one single?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 03:26 pm
Steve4100 wrote:
The BBC is one of the greatest gifts to the world from the British besides the English language.
I would permit myself to disagree with you. Sir Isaac Newton's contribution to physics and mathematics, works of Michael Faraday, James C. Maxwell and Alexander Fleming, geographical explorations of captain Cook and Livingstone, and plays and poems by Shakespeare were much more sufficient British gifts to mankind than this biased broadcasting corporation.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 03:26 pm
That how I see (when being generous) the BBC

Like a Bridge over Troubled Water

Steissd. Are you serious? Can't you tell the difference between nazi or Stalinist propaganda and the BBC?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 03:28 pm
How do you define "biased" ?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 03:29 pm
Edited this date and time.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2003 03:34 pm
Setanta, I am sorry, I confused your posting with this of Oldandknew. It was a technical mistake, and I apologize for it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Sharon wants to boycot BBC.
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 11:50:58