Islam Does Not Hate You.

[Red-Robbo]

The BBC is the political mouthpiece of the ruling Lib-Lab-Con, David Camoron and his toady Haig wanted war with Syria's President Assad and the BBC were putting out subliminal propaganda transmissions in support of a strike against President Assad. We had the same before the Iraq War where the BBC were the mouthpiece of the Blair regime in talking about weapons of mass destruction etc.

 How were they putting out "subliminal" transmissions? Via CIA microwaves??  Did you not have your tin-foil hat on?!!

 

You need to be able to back up your clownish statements with some actual evidence.

[chipdawg]

Syria is being used as it is a conflict that would have been over by now if it were not for Muslim jihadist pouring into the country... We have a whole area being torn apart because of conflict between two versions / interpretations of the Muslim faith...

Over as in Assad would have killed everyone that opposed him?

[Mr Mosquito]

Syria is being used as it is a conflict that would have been over by now if it were not for Muslim jihadist pouring into the country... We have a whole area being torn apart because of conflict between two versions / interpretations of the Muslim faith...

 

Exactly. Anyway, for those of the Judea-Christian faith, it does say in the Bible that the destruction of Damascus Syria will mark the beginning of the end times.

[Mr Mosquito]

 How were they putting out "subliminal" transmissions? Via CIA microwaves??  Did you not have your tin-foil hat on?!!

 

You need to be able to back up your clownish statements with some actual evidence.

 

With your contacts with the BBC, why can't you post a few of the BBC news and views transmissions where the BBC were constantly highlighting the views of David Camoron and others and their quest for weapon strikes in Syria against President Assad's regime. The rest were subliminal transmissions with the BBC constantly showing injured Syrian children and the need to stop the war via action against Assad's regime. The BBC should not be giving moral and ethical viewpoints in what is a civil war in a foreign nation.

[Davros]

Exactly. Anyway, for those of the Judea-Christian faith, it does say in the Bible that the destruction of Damascus Syria will mark the beginning of the end times.

 

Your ok for a little while yet Tony Blair didnt make it to EU President.

[Mr Mosquito]

Your ok for a little while yet Tony Blair didnt make it to EU President.

 

Indeed, Tony Blair is the Judas of modern times in selling his country (the UK) down the river of EU subjugation in the hope of a few pieces of silver and the EU presidency.   Tony Blair got half way there by installing his High Priestess - Lady Catherine Ashton - into an unelected position of high office within the EU.

[kevinmabbuttshair]

Didn't davors create the Daleks?

Exterminate!

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Indeed, Tony Blair is the Judas of modern times in selling his country (the UK) down the river of EU subjugation in the hope of a few pieces of silver and the EU presidency.   Tony Blair got half way there by installing his High Priestess - Lady Catherine Ashton - into an unelected position of high office within the EU.

 

and according today's papers not only in bed with the Murdoch press.

 

 

[Davros]

Didn't davors create the Daleks?

Exterminate!

 

Dont talk to me about that my Daleks were sold out in last nights Dr Who they were promised a leading part!

[Red-Robbo]

With your contacts with the BBC, why can't you post a few of the BBC news and views transmissions where the BBC were constantly highlighting the views of David Camoron and others and their quest for weapon strikes in Syria against President Assad's regime. The rest were subliminal transmissions with the BBC constantly showing injured Syrian children and the need to stop the war via action against Assad's regime. The BBC should not be giving moral and ethical viewpoints in what is a civil war in a foreign nation.

 

So, in your view, broadcasters should not report the fact that the PM of the country was seeking a vote to give a mandate for possible military sanctions against Syria. Should they never report Cameron's views if you disagree with him? Maybe they should ring you before the 1, 6 and 10 and you can tell them whose comments to censor because you disagree with them.

 

If you can show me a broadcast or web piece from the corporation where Cameron's POV is not balanced by the views of his opponents you will start to have some credibility, but at the moment you are just spouting rhetoric without anything other than your prejudices to support it.

 

Likewise, the showing of the war [which of course is not happening, according to that berk on the BNP website you highlighted]. Would you imagine any news organisation would not report on a conflict in a country on the fringe of the European mainland, that had killed thousands and displaced millions? What do you want the news broadcast to focus on- the openings of garden fetes and Katie Price's tits? Again, show me a BBC report where the views of Assad's opponents are not balanced by the views of his supporters. You won't find one.

 

As for "subliminal messages" you may need this....

 

[Mr Mosquito]

So, in your view, broadcasters should not report the fact that the PM of the country was seeking a vote to give a mandate for possible military sanctions against Syria. Should they never report Cameron's views if you disagree with him? Maybe they should ring you before the 1, 6 and 10 and you can tell them whose comments to censor because you disagree with them.

 

If you can show me a broadcast or web piece from the corporation where Cameron's POV is not balanced by the views of his opponents you will start to have some credibility, but at the moment you are just spouting rhetoric without anything other than your prejudices to support it.

 

Likewise, the showing of the war [which of course is not happening, according to that berk on the BNP website you highlighted]. Would you imagine any news organisation would not report on a conflict in a country on the fringe of the European mainland, that had killed thousands and displaced millions? What do you want the news broadcast to focus on- the openings of garden fetes and Katie Price's tits? Again, show me a BBC report where the views of Assad's opponents are not balanced by the views of his supporters. You won't find one.

 

 

Katie Price's tits.   Anyway, the fact that the Lib-Lab-Con had a vote in the House of Commons that stopped Camoron being able to slam missiles into President Assad's regime proves my point. The BBC is a Lib-Lab-Con propaganda machine because we've had no anti Assad propaganda transmissions from the BBC since the vote went against Camoron. Prior to the vote, the BBC were building up the hype in favour of missile strikes.

[Red-Robbo]

Katie Price's tits.   Anyway, the fact that the Lib-Lab-Con had a vote in the House of Commons that stopped Camoron being able to slam missiles into President Assad's regime proves my point. The BBC is a Lib-Lab-Con propaganda machine because we've had no anti Assad propaganda transmissions from the BBC since the vote went against Camoron. Prior to the vote, the BBC were building up the hype in favour of missile strikes.

 

Once again, prove your assertion.

 

Here is the BBC's special report on Syria  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17258397

[Paddy31]

[TRL]

[Paddy31]

Reached your own conclusions on what?

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I have reached my own conclusions as to whether what has been posted is racist or not.

[Mr Mosquito]

Once again, prove your assertion.

 

Here is the BBC's special report on Syria  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17258397

 

That BBC article in your link is dated 16 November 2013 - months after the House of Commons vote stopping Camoron and his cronies giving the order to attack President Assad's regime. The BBC transmissions I remember - from before the House of Commons vote - were pushing for war with President Assad's Syria.

[Mr Mosquito]

 

For further details: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/criminal-law-restrictions-on-freedom-of-expression/racial-hatred.html

 

 

From your link.........

 

"There are other offences of publishing or distributing material; presenting or directing a play; distributing, showing or playing visual images or sounds; broadcasting a television programme, except programmes transmitted by the BBC; or distributing a cable programme with the same characteristics - that is, being threatening, abusive or insulting - and which is either intended to stir up racial hatred or likely to have this effect."

 

.....so, BBC programmes are exempt from the Act? This is discriminatory in itself.

 

[TRL]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I have reached my own conclusions as to whether what has been posted is racist or not.

Interesting, your link is trying to bag or should I say is bagging religious hatred in with racial hatred. Completely wrong imo.

I could hate say catholics, does that mean I hate all caucasians, negroids and mongoloids? It is a bloody stupid way of trying to package up hate crimes, and it should fall flat on its face.

[TRL]

From your link.........

"There are other offences of publishing or distributing material; presenting or directing a play; distributing, showing or playing visual images or sounds; broadcasting a television programme, except programmes transmitted by the BBC; or distributing a cable programme with the same characteristics - that is, being threatening, abusive or insulting - and which is either intended to stir up racial hatred or likely to have this effect."

.....so, BBC programmes are exempt from the Act? This is discriminatory in itself.

Starts to back up some things you have been saying about bbc. Looks like they can do what the want. I wonder what else the bbc are exempt from?

[Mr Mosquito]

Starts to back up some things you have been saying about bbc. Looks like they can do what the want. I wonder what else the bbc are exempt from?

 

Discovered totally out of the blue thanks to Paddy31's weblink. Indeed, I'm also wondering what else the BBC is exempt from - maybe Red-Robbo can help us on that.

[Red-Robbo]

That BBC article in your link is dated 16 November 2013 - months after the House of Commons vote stopping Camoron and his cronies giving the order to attack President Assad's regime. The BBC transmissions I remember - from before the House of Commons vote - were pushing for war with President Assad's Syria.

 

It isn't an article, Gobbers it's a collection of all articles from before and after the vote. Nov 13th will be the date the collection was last updated.

 

Once again you fail to provide any evidence for your assertion. Can I suggest you get your memory checked....

[Paddy31]

Interesting, your link is trying to bag or should I say is bagging religious hatred in with racial hatred. Completely wrong imo.

I could hate say catholics, does that mean I hate all caucasians, negroids and mongoloids? It is a bloody stupid way of trying to package up hate crimes, and it should fall flat on its face.

The link is summarising the law in the UK. 

 

The act: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/contents

 

The wiki summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006

 

By the way, are you aware that the scientific concept of race has been discredited as a useful way to describe human variation? The terms Negroid and Mongoloid are commonly associated with notions of racial typology which are disputed by a majority of anthropologists.

[Mr Mosquito]

It isn't an article, Gobbers it's a collection of all articles from before and after the vote. Nov 13th will be the date the collection was last updated.

 

Once again you fail to provide any evidence for your assertion. Can I suggest you get your memory checked....

 

The Role of the BBC in the Syrian Conflict......

 

[Red-Robbo]

Discovered totally out of the blue thanks to Paddy31's weblink. Indeed, I'm also wondering what else the BBC is exempt from - maybe Red-Robbo can help us on that.

 

Nope, it's news to me too. Seems a bit bizarre. i wonder if Liberty got that bit right?

 

Only thing I can think of is that in return for a royal charter to operate as the UK's PSB, the BBC has to adhere to a rigid code of standards. Maybe the charter requirements cover the same ground as the act anyway, rendering it unecessary for the organisation?

[TRL]

The link is summarising the law in the UK.

The act: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/contents

The wiki summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006

By the way, are you aware that the scientific concept of race has been discredited as a useful way to describe human variation? The terms Negroid and Mongoloid are commonly associated with notions of racial typology which are disputed by a majority of anthropologists.

My point still stands. You cannot lump religious hatred with racial hatred. They are both hatred of course, but very different types. One you can do nothing about, the other is a choice.

[Mr Mosquito]

Nope, it's news to me too. Seems a bit bizarre. i wonder if Liberty got that bit right?

 

Only thing I can think of is that in return for a royal charter to operate as the UK's PSB, the BBC has to adhere to a rigid code of standards. Maybe the charter requirements cover the same ground as the act anyway, rendering it unecessary for the organisation?

 

That's the first post in hours where you've not questioned my sanity, refered to me as a cretin, or questioned my memory.

[Paddy31]

My point still stands. You cannot lump religious hatred with racial hatred. They are both hatred of course, but very different types. One you can do nothing about, the other is a choice.

Are you saying that it is OK to hate people because they chose their religion?

 

I can't accept that. 

[Paddy31]

Nope, it's news to me too. Seems a bit bizarre. i wonder if Liberty got that bit right?

 

Only thing I can think of is that in return for a royal charter to operate as the UK's PSB, the BBC has to adhere to a rigid code of standards. Maybe the charter requirements cover the same ground as the act anyway, rendering it unecessary for the organisation?

I know what you mean. I have read the act, and can't see any exemptions for the BBC.

 

However, I'm surprised that some posters have focussed on that rather than the main point of the article.

[TRL]

Are you saying that it is OK to hate people because they chose their religion?

I can't accept that.

Nothing of the the sort. I am however pointing out that religion and race are very different things and cannot be lumped into the same category.

Trouble is people do not like things, be it sprouts, race or religion. It is what you do about it that is the problem if you hate in silence and do nothing fine. If you hate and are vocal or violent not fine.

People have the right to irrationally hate , or rationally for that matter.

[Red-Robbo]

The Role of the BBC in the Syrian Conflict......

 

 

So you can't find an unbalanced BBC report but instead post a YouTube clip posted by a pro-Syrian government source and quoting one "Italian author" who no-one has ever heard of, saying that in his opinion this one report - in the very many hundreds of such reports - was fabricated or at best misinterpreted.

 

Of course neither you nor the "Italian author" were there, whereas Panorama were. And they are experienced at reporting such conflicts. The report did not call the substance alleged to have been dropped Napalm, but a Napalm-like substance and an incendary bomb.  British and other doctors from various charities attended the victims so I'm not quite sure how these unhurt children were meant to have kept up the "hoax" according to that video's Arab narrator.

 

If you have followed this conflict at all you'll know it is being fought as much by the propogandists as the soldiers on the ground. Every claim garners a counter claim and picking through them is a minefield, sometimes literally! The Panorama programme refered to in the YouTube clip - which was incidentally screened a day after not before the Commons' vote - carried the official denials of involvement.

 

The attack was also carried by Sky, the Daily Mail, Express, Sun, Guardian as well as various foreign news agencies. I'm interested in your take on this. are they all "government mouthpieces" or just the BBC?