• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Israel-Palestine

Oh look. Turns out the BBC are actually biased against Israel.


Must be true, right, because someone said it, and apparently its wrong to accuse the authors of having an agenda, right?

Its tiresome when people simply find sources that say what they want to hear and then parrot them uncritically as being the truth.
 
It cuts both ways, I said. Thank you for proving the point.

Its also tiresome when people are so willfully ignorant that they’ll chuck aside the work done by actual researchers. As opposed to shitty journalists and op-eds at a for profit rag like ToI.

Be specific. What about CFFMUK’s methodology seems biased to you?
 
Too many people define 'pro Israel' as 'They're not anti Israel enough for me'
Israel are committing war crimes and genocide, they have murdered thousands of children, they have lied about how and why they are doing it. They are not letting journalists or consistent aid into Gaza, they are killing starving, unarmed people who are scrambling for food who are starving precisely because of their actions.

So no, I dont believe this country's media particularly the BBC (or you) are anti Israel enough, and I think it's fucking disgusting.
 
Last edited:
Police looking into this already and rightly so, if you want complete free speech accept others will air theirs that you won’t agree with. If you want censorship of “hate speech” accept that you’ll be subjected to the same regulations of those who disagree with you.
I suspect Bob Vylan wants his comments to come under the free speech umbrella and want pro Israeli and reform supporters subjected to harsh censorship.
 
What id like to ask Bob Vylan is what does he think would happen to Israel if the IDF was wiped out? Does he seriously think it would be left alone in peace to exist? If he thinks it would then he’s either delusional or ignorant.
Reality is it would cease to exist resulting in probable genocide and the biggest refugee crisis in centuries.
 
I doubt there's much of a thought process with some people here. You're always likely to get posers, fashionistas or edgy types jumping on the bandwagon and throwing phrases and proclamations around that they aren't fully aware of, consequence-wise.

Same as it ever was though, see people banging on about Mao in the 60s without really knowing the full picture.

Calling for Death not a great look for any anti-war movement though, I presume pacifists like JC (either one) are horrified
 
I doubt there's much of a thought process with some people here. You're always likely to get posers, fashionistas or edgy types jumping on the bandwagon and throwing phrases and proclamations around that they aren't fully aware of, consequence-wise.

Same as it ever was though, see people banging on about Mao in the 60s without really knowing the full picture.

Calling for Death not a great look for any anti-war movement though, I presume pacifists like JC (either one) are horrified
Default position of I said but didn’t really mean it. If you’re advocating something very radical you also need to think about what happens afterwards. Most don’t and most don’t want to.
 
Those chanting yesterday were not calling for violence against innocent people, they were calling for it against those carrying it out. Important distinction.
 
Those chanting yesterday were not calling for violence against innocent people, they were calling for it against those carrying it out. Important distinction.

You guys always know exactly what people you want to defend really meant, just like you know what Corbyn really meant when he called Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends', or what Galloway really meant when his tongue was lodged up Saddam's arse, or that there wasn't really any anti-Semitism in the Labour party.

Seen it all before
 
Last edited:
You guys always know exactly what people you want to defend really meant, just like you know what Corbyn really meant when he called Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends', or what Galloway really meant when his tongue was lodged up Saddam's arse, or that there wasn't really any anti-Semitism in the Labour party.

Seen it all before
Which bit of 'death death to the IDF' was unclear?
 
I'm more intrigued as to why that is actually an acceptable stance to take so publicly.

The actions being carried out by the IDF are cuntish, but they are on orders from Netanyahu and his bunch of hawkish warmongering cronies. Shouting death to the IDF soldiers is like killing the monkey and ignoring the organ grinder.
 
I doubt anyone who’d publicly say “death to the IDF” would leave Netanyahu out of it.
 
I'm more intrigued as to why that is actually an acceptable stance to take so publicly.

The actions being carried out by the IDF are cuntish, but they are on orders from Netanyahu and his bunch of hawkish warmongering cronies. Shouting death to the IDF soldiers is like killing the monkey and ignoring the organ grinder.
I suppose 'Death, death to the IDF' has a more appealing ring than 'Boo, boo to Netanyahu'?
 
Last edited:
Always going to be some disagreements around the definition of free speech, but the hard left’s ‘successes’ are turning full circle now to seriously bite them on the arse. The weaponisation and skillful manipulation in turning free speech into ‘speech I disagree with’, and subsequently into ‘hate speech’, and eventually giving rise to the absurd manifestation of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ has been a shooting in the foot of epic proportions.

Seems a bit rich getting upset when the tables are turned and the other side calls for the same mechanisms to be used to silence people and throw them in jail too.

All been a long time coming and I don’t have a lot of sympathy on either side to be honest.
 
Back
Top