An odd place for bias?

[charmbrights]

Last night (4.xii.14), being a gricer, I was watching Michael Portillo's "Great Continental Railway Journeys" in which he travelled from Haifa to the Negev. I did wonder how he would handle Jerusalem in particular.

Yes - it is not referred to as "the Wailing Wall" but "the Western Wall". More interestingly all the troubles between the Palestinians and the Jews "spring from British politicians promising the Palestinians self-rule, and the Jews a homeland of their own" {my emphasis} at the start of the British mandate in 1923. Clearly the mandate was self-contradictory in the preamble which said ...

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

... but does the British government bear sole responsibility for today's suicide bombers from a clumsily worded declaration almost 100 years ago?

Other than that the treatment of these matters was, by BBC standards, remarkably pro-Christian, even referring to Israel several times as The Holy Land.

[Teddy Bear]

Dec 4, 2014 10:55:04 GMT charmbrights said:

... but does the British government bear sole responsibility for today's suicide bombers from a clumsily worded declaration almost 100 years ago?

There's a fairly good article here that explains the purpose of the Balfour Declaration, which you quoted from, and what else the British wanted to achieve with it.

Alhough Balfour, himself, was in favor of a Jewish state, Great Britain particularly favored the declaration as an act of policy. Britain wanted the United States to join World War I and the British hoped that by supporting a Jewish homeland in Palestine, world Jewry would be able to sway the U.S. to join the war.

As we saw much later, prior to the establishment of Israel after WW2, the British were assuring the Arabs that they should have no problem overcoming Jewish settlers already there. To try and ensure this they then prevented holocaust survivor immigrants from landing in Israel, who would otherwise increase the resistance of Jews against Arabs.

[steevo]

I bet many references to Britain's historical past are looked down upon by present day BBC and for obvious reasons. Reference to attitudes the BBC held back in the day would be looked down upon by their present day descendants.

If there is even a question to be asked it's does the British government bear any responsibility for today's suicide bombers. And the answer is NO.

I find it remarkable how many Brits go into largely irrelevant history with respect to present day cause/effect guilt to gain identity. 20-20 looking-back, revisionism and all the reasoning necessary...

The fact is the BBC of today are more responsible for the lack of blame and acceptance in the name of Islam for holocaust-proportion murder in this 21st century than any treaty ever devised by man.

[Teddy Bear]

Dec 5, 2014 0:53:48 GMT steevo said:

If there is even a question to be asked it's does the British government bear any responsibility for today's suicide bombers. And the answer is NO.

If we look at the purpose of suicide bombers, it is an act of terrorism designed to create dhimmitude or kowtowing to Islam. By doing this it then empowers those perpetrating these actions and makes it more likely that they will use it more and more.

So do many or most of the Western governments succumb to Islamic terrorism? - It appears so.

[steevo]

As much as I despise our present government there have been no suicide bombings here under this administration and the only one I know of was on 9/11. That didn't cause the government under Bush to succumb. But my response was with regard to guilt and being held responsible. I don't believe Britain is to be held responsible for the acts of terrorism and neither is America. I mean truly responsible. On the broader question of Islamic terror I would say nations in Europe may be guilty of intimidation and succumbing but I think the immediate objective for the terrorists is control with the immediate population they are killing and those nations for the most part are non-Western and of course many already have significant Islamic and/or Arabic populations.

[Teddy Bear]

You're right about Bush not succumbing, at least initially. Had the US and world media not vilified him so much for taking that stance the world would be a better place today. But the resulting desire for the US to present themselves as dhimmi, they elected Obama and his cohorts TWICE.

Islamists know for the time being they don't have the power to take on the West directly, though they are using Israel as a foot in the door, as well as problems they can cause in the countries they have immigrated to. All designed to make the population more and more dhimmi.
Question is - how many attempted bombings have been averted in the West by our security services?

Perhaps if we replace the term 'suicide bomber' with terrorist attacks, we can see how Western governments have responded, or failed to respond, except to try and minimise or excuse the source. All this can only empower those who would dominate us - by any means they can.

[steevo]

"But the resulting desire for the US to present themselves as dhimmi, they elected Obama and his cohorts TWICE." That's because of a number of factors and I would say the least of which is suicide bombing/terror. For the most part it was the leftist media doing their darnedest to vilify Bush and compare our soldiers as baby killers etc. It wasn't fear of al Queda. Obama has deep seeded resentment toward white Western civilization and our nation's history. We are the bad guy so his actions are rooted in something altogether different than how most people here feel. And the reasons why he got elected a second time when you break it down, is growing dependency on government by overwhelming minority Hispanic and Black votes, our minds of mush young brainwashed, our big government progressives, and the fact most ordinary middle-class citizens didn't vote.

I agree replacing suicide bombing with plain old terrorism is more appropriate for this discussion. I think the fact so very many attempts have been thwarted actually shows Western resolve and doesn't imply the opposite.

There's always been this difference of perception between us Teddy, something I've tried to emphasize in previous discussion. I don't believe dhimmi is a prime motivator, I believe it's ideological. The Left have a lot to gain.

[Teddy Bear]

First, just to save you time when copying a quote from another comment Steevo, if you highlight the sentence or paragraph you want to copy you should then see a 'Quick Quote' banner pop up, which if you click on it will automatically do it for you - like this :

Dec 5, 2014 19:35:36 GMT steevo said:

I don't believe dhimmi is a prime motivator, I believe it's ideological. The Left have a lot to gain.

I'm curious why you don't believe that's a motivator. They no doubt conceal it from themselves and pretend they do it because they are caring and concerned about minorities and integration, or whatever other virtue they think will work, but their hypocrisy is readily evident. They have no problem sacrificing Israel to make themselves appear caring about Islam.

As to what they have to gain - short lived power that ultimately will lead them to be remembered as stupid and weak and having caused far more deaths on all sides by their 'caring and concern'. Similar to how Neville Chamberlain is remembered for 'peace in our time'.

[steevo]

I'll keep the quote in mind, as you know I'm not much for using scripting

We're really just going over older differences so I'll keep it simple without elaborating on much strategy okay? I believe the authoritarian Left use Islam to further destroy Western values and individual liberty. They want the elimination of Israel because they are an island of democracy and stand contrary to anti-liberty ambition just as do racist Islamists. I believe the media here can easily prompt mass public intolerance toward anti-freedom, repressive and violent Islam any time they so chose, and they KNOW it. Other than if you live on a typical lefty campus most people don't like what Islam represents nor people who don't want to assimilate because they don't like what we are about. But that angle of reporting, would only reaffirm traditional Western values and THAT, is what the media fear above all else. They don't hold your view and neither do I Islam will take over. Now I don't live there and of course that close to Europe so I might feel different if I did but it's hard for me to imagine. 

It's not my intent to challenge how you feel about this I have realized from past disagreement that's impossible  There is the obvious difference in ulterior motivation with many in the media and that can be significant but, that essentially is the difference between you and me with all due respect.

[charmbrights]

Dec 5, 2014 22:44:25 GMT Teddy Bear said:

As to what they have to gain - short lived power that ultimately will lead them to be remembered as stupid and weak and having caused far more deaths on all sides by their 'caring and concern'. Similar to how Neville Chamberlain is remembered for 'peace in our time'.

Haven't you realised that Harold Wilson got it right when he said, "A week is a long time in politics"? No politician looks beyond the next opinion poll on his(her) popularity when choosing a course of action. None of them care how they will be remembered, any more than any of them went into politics to work for the common good.

This is best demonstrated by the discussions in and about the Lib-Dems and which party they will support if they hold a true balance of power after the next gemneral election; they will go along with whoever promises them the most chauffeur-driven ministerial cars. To hell with the fact that the economic policies of the tywo main parties are almost totally opposites, they will support "living within our means" or "living within our means even if we have to borrow money to do it" without the slightest qualm.

Fortunately, I predict, the LIb-Dems will not hold the balance of power in any meaningful sense after the next election. If there is a hung parliament then there will be a mish-mash of small parties, each with its own agenda and each holding a few seats. The reality will be five Sinn Fein never voting, fifteen or more Scot and Welsh Nats never voting on English only issues, perhaps five UKIP, and probably less than 20 Lib-Dems.

[Teddy Bear]

I'll work backwards on your post Steevo.

Dec 6, 2014 1:13:36 GMT steevo said:

It's not my intent to challenge how you feel about this I have realized from past disagreement that's impossible

Challenge away matey
I know we both have a lot of respect for the other gained from an acquaintance of nearly 10 years here. That we don't agree on everything is what makes us individuals, but we do share common values that we both think of as highly important to us as human beings and society as a whole. I don't expect either of us to change our existing views and opinions unless something hitherto unconsidered is presented, which is the purpose of our discussion. As far as I can see, we only stand to gain by 'challenge'

Dec 6, 2014 1:13:36 GMT steevo said:

They don't hold your view and neither do I Islam will take over.

I just want to clarify that it's not that I believe Islam WILL take over, but that is their intention. When potential Jihadists see how well the Islamic agenda is progressing, and I've no doubt Imams make full use of that progress to brainwash further suckers, it increases the militancy that we have to deal with.

Dec 6, 2014 1:13:36 GMT steevo said:

I believe the media here can easily prompt mass public intolerance toward anti-freedom, repressive and violent Islam any time they so chose, and they KNOW it.

That they CAN, I've no doubt. But if they fear being targeted, as we have seen for example with the Danish newspaper over the Mohammed Cartoons then editors and owners might decide they prefer peace and quiet - at least for the time being, and make Islam the 'religion of peace'.

Dec 6, 2014 1:13:36 GMT steevo said:

I believe the authoritarian Left use Islam to further destroy Western values and individual liberty.

I wouldn't express it quite that way that they are consciously seeking to destroy our society and existing values. I can see that it could be interpreted that way, but I think they act from a deep psychological inferiority complex, and conceal their real motive - even to themselves. Without a doubt they seek power, and that is their motivation, and will use every possible opening as a means to increase their power, and that they have no real moral or ethical make-up except how they convince themselves that is what they are really doing it for.
So for example, they want to ensure votes for themselves in future elections, so by becoming a 'friend' of immigrants they know that is more votes they can count on.
Since they lose power if Islam would gain a foothold, then it is not a route that they would pick for the reasons you give. No country would want to contemplate over 1.5 billion Muslims seeking to eradicate them, so they prefer to appease them - for as long as they can, regardless of damage done in the meantime, If the damage is done to Israel - so be it.

[Teddy Bear]

Dec 6, 2014 9:23:07 GMT charmbrights said:

No politician looks beyond the next opinion poll on his(her) popularity when choosing a course of action. None of them care how they will be remembered, any more than any of them went into politics to work for the common good.

I think Charm that you can glean from my reply to Steevo that I do see the Left as very short sighted, which is why they cause such upheaval in their bid for power, regardless of real consequences.

[steevo]

That they CAN, I've no doubt. But if they fear being targeted, as we have seen for example with the Danish newspaper over the Mohammed Cartoons then editors and owners might decide they prefer peace and quiet - at least for the time being, and make Islam the 'religion of peace'.

You've used examples before and I don't agree. For example if it's way beyond one person writing a cartoon with all the others condemning him as insensitive etc. All it takes is a change in regular emphasis, in other words the truth according to western values. Exposing their motivations. Their values and unjust repression, racism, religiout bigotry and gross intolerance to the point of mass murder. Define them the fanatics and haters that they truly are. Completely change the narrative.



I wouldn't express it quite that way that they are consciously seeking to destroy our society and existing values. I can see that it could be interpreted that way, but I think they act from a deep psychological inferiority complex, and conceal their real motive - even to themselves.

I know you've said that before but I don't agree. It could be argued Hitler, Stalin, Hussein... all tyrants are paranoid and insecure etc. thus their drive for ultimate power of control. Most on the Left in the States, in positions of influence, are elitist-minded and intolerant toward those not in agreement. They would love to possess the ability to eliminate and/or, cause gross pain toward those on their wish list. You can call them insecure. I call them bigoted, superior-minded, self-centered control freaks. They're fully accountable and well understand the reasons behind those who disapprove. I judge them morally and guilty. I don't care how they grew up, they have willfully sold out and no matter how much they are confronted will continue to harden.

Btw the quick quote didn't work. Sometimes that happens and I think it's my browser. Sometimes even the emotioncons don't display.

[Teddy Bear]

One possibility for Quick Quote not to show is if you click the Reply button to reply to posts rather than using the Quick Reply section below the initial page of a thread. Test it right now as you read this by highlighting this sentence
I don't know what browser you use. I use Firefox here and it works a treat for smileys.

Dec 6, 2014 21:33:07 GMT steevo said:

You can call them insecure. I call them bigoted, superior-minded, self-centered control freaks.

The funny thing is we don't really disagree, I'm more looking at the cause for their behaviour, you look at the results. Can you see why I say that?

Regarding why I say the Left fear Islam, which motivates their response to it: If we look for example at how the BBC deal with ALL other religions, they seek to marginalise and dismiss them. The reason is religion gives its followers an alternative way of looking at the world which the BBC is seeking to replace with its own. If Islam wasn't so violent and extreme there is no doubt they would be trying to do the same with it, and for the same reason. Instead they give it HUGE respect, which shows their hypocrisy, especially as its the least deserving among religions.

[steevo]

I do see why you say that, I always have however it's been expressed. I still don't agree and for the fact you felt the need to correct or alter the emphasis on my judgment proves real difference.

I think each of us is influenced by our own country. If you lived here I think, you would know a different disposition with the Left than what you know there and with the BBC, and if I lived there I may well see it like you.

So this is how this discussion would end if we continued: just like before. I tell you we differ in ultimate understanding of human nature. You tell me not really. I tell you the Left are quite content to establish power over others and in fact they are so determined. You tell me they are not quite that content and they are not really happy - really and truly happy. I tell you yes they are and can point to many in positions of power and wealth who wouldn't trade shoes with you, me and most. You tell me that doesn't matter because they don't know the truer meaning of happiness. And so it goes...

[Teddy Bear]

Dec 6, 2014 22:51:21 GMT steevo said:

I still don't agree and for the fact you felt the need to correct or alter the emphasis on my judgment proves real difference.

I look from what you reply on whether you appear to understand what it is that I have put forward. If I continue to 'correct or alter the emphasis' as you put it, it is simply because I still see the need to clarify my point of view to you.
It is clear to me that you have been describing the RESULT of what the left do, which I don't disagree with, that's a fact. You are claiming that it is their intention to do it that way, which is where I disagree, I see it as a by-product of deep psychological problems and poor thinking.

An Islamist sees heaven as 72 virgins and serving boys. This shows a personality that believes that being in command of others is preferable to living in harmony and finding deep love. Clearly this concept is missing in their make up - for whatever reason. Does it show an inferior mind? - absolutely.
An open mind seeks answers to life, and finds enrichment in those they find. The Islamist declares they have the truth and the way, and to stop anybody showing up their inferior way of thinking they seek to kill them.
Do I see any real difference between Islamists and the left wing mentality?
Only in the path they use to achieve their goals.

While it is 'normal' for us to try and shape reality to fit what we want to believe, life has its way of showing us up when it is really not harmonious. I wouldn't call what the Left or Islamists have as happiness, no matter what 'gains' they appear to get. Life will ultimately show them their true 'worth', and deep down they know it.

But we can agree to disagree!

[charmbrights]

Erm ... What has the last few replies to do with Portillo?

[Teddy Bear]

I for one haven't seen the programme. I'm only responding to what you wrote and what I felt I could clarify or expand on. What were you expecting?
Good to hear him bring in the British responsibility for what was later to happen in that area.