Ex-PM: Abuse as bad as Saddam era

Sunday, November 27, 2005; Posted: 9:24 a.m. EST (14:24 GMT)

LONDON, England -- Human rights abuses in Iraq are as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein if not worse, former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has said.

"People are doing the same as (in) Saddam's time and worse," Allawi said in an interview published in Britain on Sunday.

"It is an appropriate comparison," Allawi told The Observer newspaper. "People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things."

[more (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/27/iraq.allawi/index.html)]

Not of real suprise, to be honest. Poeple have always lived the same way and will continue to do so for at least a generation or three. Just now they know things are a little chaotic so they are going take advantage of it and do thing even more/worse.

It's litterally going to take at the least 3 generations for things to pan out the way everybody wanted it to.

Did they serious think all they had to do is snap their fingers and everything would be "perfect"?

There's enough of a human rights standard in the world that it shouldn't require THAT much work for a new democracy (such as it is) to figure out you don't torture and kill people you don't like. But then again, the Bush administration hasn't exactly set a great example to follow in that area.

There's enough of a human rights standard in the world that it shouldn't require THAT much work for a new democracy (such as it is) to figure out you don't torture and kill people you don't like. But then again, the Bush administration hasn't exactly set a great example to follow in that area.
That and lets not forget according to their faith, torture, killing, etc IS VALID as long as it get your end results. Ie; the ends completely justifies the means.

When your parents and grandparents are grown up believing that, it's going to take generations to remove that belief.

That and lets not forget according to their faith, torture, killing, etc IS VALID as long as it get your end results. Ie; the ends completely justifies the means.

Nope. Killing an innocent in Islam is a heinous crime. The extremists just seem to have redefined an innocent person down to almost nobody.

Nope. Killing an innocent in Islam is a heinous crime. The extremists just seem to have redefined an innocent person down to almost nobody.

Its not the extremeists...unless the average middle easterner is an extremist now.

Its not the extremeists...unless the average middle easterner is an extremist now.

Well you know that they never thought the Israelis were innocent.

Well... Iraq was invaded because Saddam had WMD and was developing nuclear technology.... oooops... got that one wrong.

The spin doctors do an impersonation of Yosemite Sam after being blasted by Bugs Bunny.... "Retreat, retreat."

Now what would be another good reason to attack Iraq? Oh yeah... Saddam was a murderous dictator who ruthlessly killed his own people.

What's that you say? The ruthless killing of Iraqis by Iraqis is continuing? Oh fudge...quick, come up with another good reason why we invaded Iraq.

Hmmmmmm... oil anyone?

Gosh gee! How about....





OIL! :p


Thicket, I like it when the teach gives a pop quiz then hands out the answers! :D

Hmmmmmm... oil anyone?

Killing Jihadists in its own right is good enough reason for me.

The oil is just cream.

The only thing better is getting them to kill themselves. If it is part of their culture to do so on their own without our help, which it appears, so be it. Even more cream.

Some of you look at this, like it is a bad thing. I don't care who they are killing, as long as it is not us. Inferior culture of humans living in the middle ages bowing down to a schizophrenic child molester 8 times a day.

Good riddence.

Inferior culture of humans living in the ....

Good riddence.

These are comments a racist bigot would make. Racist bigots are scum of the earth.

I would think an intelligent bunch like we have here would not be so gullible. If you see a lot of murders and crime on TV news do you automatically assume that the murder rate has gone up? Most people do. Because MSNBC has 24/7 coverage of kidnappings of pretty white girls, are more white girls being kidnapped?

So because you all have seen radical muslim extremists commit acts of terror, and insurgents, all muslims are blood thirsty murders and should be exterminated because their culture is inferior.

To me, that line of reasoning indicates inferior culture. Its the sort of thing that lead to... uh, I can't say it without invoking Goodwin's law.

Well you know that they never thought the Israelis were innocent.

Right, because those kids at the dance hall or at the pizza parlor, on the bus to elementary school were so evil.

I would think an intelligent bunch like we have here would not be so gullible. If you see a lot of murders and crime on TV news do you automatically assume that the murder rate has gone up? Most people do. Because MSNBC has 24/7 coverage of kidnappings of pretty white girls, are more white girls being kidnapped?

So because you all have seen radical muslim extremists commit acts of terror, and insurgents, all muslims are blood thirsty murders and should be exterminated because their culture is inferior.

To me, that line of reasoning indicates inferior culture. Its the sort of thing that lead to... uh, I can't say it without invoking Goodwin's law.


Some of us have been following the bloody actions of the muslim world longer than our news has made a big deal out of it. Of course, if you're British the news never makes a big deal out it. /spit BBC.

These are comments a racist bigot would make. Racist bigots are scum of the earth. I mentioned nothing of race or pedigree.

Culture, that which is different about us, but that is the same about us.

Culture is not the same as race.

You are incorrect in your opinion, it is inaccurate.

To me, that line of reasoning indicates inferior culture. Its the sort of thing that lead to... uh, I can't say it without invoking Goodwin's law.

The Jewish culture is superior to most of the world's cultures, (though it does have its notable flaws).

You may draw the NAZI comparison all you like, but it is a flawed one.

Just because you are unable to make valid qualitative differentiations between cultures and which are superior and which are inferior. Hell, your friends in the other threads where the ones to bring up Muslim/Islamic Honor Rape as a form of punishment held within that culture. If all cultures are equal, then you must obviously agree that that culture is just as good as yours, and deems protection as much as any other. It is also Muslim/Islamic Honor which decrees that clitorectomies must be performed on female infants and young girls to help protect their virginity. I am sure that you know you must equally support this cultural affectation(if you believe, as you imply that all cultures are equal).

Funny how no one ever thinks there's anything wrong enough with their culture to warrant genocide.

"Oh dear, we're faulty. Please wipe us out, superior culture."

If all cultures are all equal, how do YOU separate which ones to preserve and which ones to change, Pan?

Are the customs of that culture acceptable to you, really. Or just on principle.

Funny how no one ever thinks there's anything wrong enough with their culture to warrant genocide.

"Oh dear, we're faulty. Please wipe us out, superior culture."
hehe, I've been saying that about Americans for so long. :lol:
Sadly the American government has gotten to corrupt, it's hard to imagine it getting back to normal anytime soon. :(

(And yes, I am an American, too)

If all cultures are all equal, how do YOU separate which ones to preserve and which ones to change, Pan?

Are the customs of that culture acceptable to you, really. Or just on principle.

No, in my opinion not all cultures are equal in all ways. That'd be stupid. But I don't think it is any other culture's job to decide which cultures deserve to die. Look at what happened the last time a bunch of whities decided they were superior. They wiped out native Americans, Mayans, Incans and anyone else that looked inferior (or had stuff we wanted for free). And then there was that whole slavery thing.

Jordanians, they're fairly peaceful people. Iran and Iraq both have christians in their midsts (Khaldeans and I think Coptics). Muslims live in the S. Pacific, and India are seem pretty peaceful.

Most of the people in the middle east are very similar to us. They're more worried about raising their families, earning a living, their hobbies, eating good food, than they are about whatever crazy ass religious fundamentalist movement has taken hold of some of the less stable people. Just like we don't spend a whole lot of time trying to prevent our own religious extremists who are shooting abortion doctors and blowing up buildings. Thankfully our extremists are pretty rare. If they weren't so rare and perhaps took their extremism on the road, how'd you like it if other people thought all of us should die for their craziness?

Fyyr, I think what you're spouting is the sort of evil that people use to justify genocide. Have you taken up trolling for a hobby or is this genuine?

No, in my opinion not all cultures are equal in all ways. That'd be stupid. But I don't think it is any other culture's job to decide which cultures deserve to die.
Cool, I have at least gained an inch. Why do you think that you can not judge another culture(forget the die rhetoric for a bit)?

Look at what happened the last time a bunch of whities decided they were superior. They wiped out native Americans, Mayans, Incans and anyone else that looked inferior (or had stuff we wanted for free).
That was different.

And then there was that whole slavery thing.
Which one. There were a lot of them. My Viking ancestors captured Brits and made them slaves. I have no ancestors who owned black slaves.

Jordanians, they're fairly peaceful people. Iran and Iraq both have christians in their midsts (Khaldeans and I think Coptics). Muslims live in the S. Pacific, and India are seem pretty peaceful.
Cool, I like them already.

Most of the people in the middle east are very similar to us. They're more worried about raising their families, earning a living, their hobbies, eating good food, than they are about whatever crazy ass religious fundamentalist movement has taken hold of some of the less stable people.
I did this one already, and you said I was wrong. Anyway I have met and talked with Jihadists, and they are not like you say they are.

Just like we don't spend a whole lot of time trying to prevent our own religious extremists who are shooting abortion doctors and blowing up buildings.
They are not mine. I don't care if you are a Christian or a Muslim, I will cut your throat if you threaten me and my own. Not you, Panamah...you abortion doctor firebomb sniper peoples.

Thankfully our extremists are pretty rare. If they weren't so rare and perhaps took their extremism on the road, how'd you like it if other people thought all of us should die for their craziness?
True but your extremists are anomolies of your culture, they are abnormalities. And they are severely punished. That is not true in the Middle East.

Fyyr, I think what you're spouting is the sort of evil that people use to justify genocide. Have you taken up trolling for a hobby or is this genuine?
If Hitler made a law against eating babies, would you eat them just to spite him? Maybe, I am wrong, and it is not ideology which prevents you from telling the difference, but ability.

If you can admit that not all cultures are equal, then you must admit that some are better than others, and that there are some which are worse than other. Regardless of the judging criterion, it is logical.

Franz Boas invented Cultural Relativism not out of ethics and compassion, but because he wanted to preserve and support his job. He made it up to make money off you.

Fyyr, still don't know if you're just an avid troller or are a genuine nut-case. But I don't think I would have gotten anywhere debating Hitler, that Metzger guy, or the guys who committed genocide in the Balkans or the dudes in African. I'm sure they felt just like you do, probably smart people with persuasive arguments that some how lost, or never had, the ability to distinguish good from bad and convinced a lot of other people to do the same. People utterly lacking in empathy or connection with the human race with delusions of their own superiority.

Anyway, I can't fix you and I see no point in debating about it further. I'll never agree that genocide is right.

Some of us have been following the bloody actions of the muslim world longer than our news has made a big deal out of it. Of course, if you're British the news never makes a big deal out it. /spit BBC.

Since I watch the BBC news every day, I'm sort of surprised by that. I can't remember many terrorist attacks on Israel going unreported, or uncondemned. We seem to hear the bloody reports from Iraq every day too.

Perhaps you're reading some news that like to smear the BBC. Fox does, for sure.

Jordanians, they're fairly peaceful people.

While, relatively speaking compared to most other arab nations, Jordanians are relatively peaceful...that is, in large part, because since the '48 war Palestinians have made up close to a majority of their population and until the '67 war the 'occupied territory' of the West Bank was, in fact, occupied by the Jordanians. Palestinian organizations have been trying to topple the Jordanian Monarchy for decades now through a few different assassination attempts. Israel, seeing the chance to make friends with a nation somewhat bullied into its participation in the Arab-Israeli wars, passed along intel on those various attempts.

Iran and Iraq both have christians in their midsts (Khaldeans and I think Coptics).

Coptics are Egyptian. Khaldeans, I think, are Iraqi and Syrian.

Muslims live in the S. Pacific, and India are seem pretty peaceful.

Tell the non-mulsims of Malaysia and Indonesia that the muslims there are pretty peaceful. If you can find a non-muslim malaysian anymore, after the pogroms of the '90s.

And of course the Muslims of India are peaceful. They are outnumbered by orders of magnitude. However, the Muslims of the Kashmir certainly aren't peaceful.

Most of the people in the middle east are very similar to us. They're more worried about raising their families, earning a living, their hobbies, eating good food, than they are about whatever crazy ass religious fundamentalist movement has taken hold of some of the less stable people.

No, really, they are not. They are taught from elementary school about the devil Jews in Israel and the corrupt American infidels. They hate Americans..and want to slaughter the Jews. They care about their families, earning a living, eating...and their hobbies fequently consist of rallies decrying the evil Western World (and chess). Oh, and they love nothing more than watching a good show on TV about Jews dying or about the Blood Libel.

Since I watch the BBC news every day, I'm sort of surprised by that. I can't remember many terrorist attacks on Israel going unreported, or uncondemned. We seem to hear the bloody reports from Iraq every day too.

Perhaps you're reading some news that like to smear the BBC. Fox does, for sure.


I hate Fox.

But the BBC is so blatantly anti-Israel its sickening.

And I can assure you there are attacks in Israel you never hear about. Of course noone in the US does either. Small incidents just aren't news enough unless its a very slow news day, or you live in Israel.

But the BBC is so blatantly anti-Israel its sickening.

I'm sure that any program with equal represenatation for Palestinians and Israelis shows far too much of the Palestinians for your liking.

Yes. Any program that depicts Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, Hezbollah, Al Asqe Brigade, etc. as anything but the terrorist organizations they are is showing too much bias.

How often does one see a BBC editorial piece depicting the devastation the Palestinians have wrought on Israel? You see the reverse with frequency (and never do they offer more than blurb on Israel's POV). How often does the BBC investigate the problems these organizations have wrought for their own people...or investigate how the money given to the PA ends up as weapons in the hands of terrorists?

Every article I've read coming out of the BBC has had such a huge Palestinian slant to it as to disgust me.

How often does one see a BBC editorial piece depicting the devastation the Palestinians have wrought on Israel? You see the reverse with frequency (and never do they offer more than blurb on Israel's POV). How often does the BBC investigate the problems these organizations have wrought for their own people...or investigate how the money given to the PA ends up as weapons in the hands of terrorists?

Often. Whenever there was a suicide bombing and the helicopter gunships delivered retaliation, both were shown. Go look at the BBC middle east page and see how many sickening and disgusting articles you can find today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/default.stm

We know that public donations given to the PLO or Hamas have a high risk of going into the hands of terrorists. We don't need the BBC to investigate that.

Often. Whenever there was a suicide bombing and the helicopter gunships delivered retaliation, both were shown. Go look at the BBC middle east page and see how many sickening and disgusting articles you can find today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/default.stm


Well, today is a slow news day for Israel...but I found one article, with relative ease:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4450284.stm

Lets see here. It paints Israel in an antagonist light. Portraying its concerns as hostile or petty arguments. The vague mention of Palestinian violence was a reference to gun battles between Israeli forces and 'militants'.

There is much talk about how much the Palestians hated to have to 'pass through Israeli hands, and mention of Israeli 'assassinations, incursions, and settlement expansion', yet not a mention of suicide bombers, rocket attacks, or the harboring of terrorist leaders in Gaza.

There is much talk about how the Palestinians view things, on a personal level...with a nice little picture with the snippet of how Palestinians view it as a struggle about land...not commerce. Nowhere do they give mention to how Israel may view things.

All in all, the piece quite clearly portrays Israel as this faceless monolithic coldhearted regime who (for no apparent reason, other than a few lines of about what Israel 'claims') keeps the poor Palestinians down. Meanwhile it portrays the Palestinians as downtrodden suffering people...with no mention of any of the regular violence created the situation.

The article further implies that Israel is the sole cause of the economic problems in Gaza, giving no mention to how it was the Palestinians themselves who looted and destroyed many of the economic structures they would depend upon, both before and after the Israeli withdrawal.

There is nothing evenhanded about this article...it is rather blatantly biased towards the Palestinians.

Fyyr, still don't know if you're just an avid troller or are a genuine nut-case. But I don't think I would have gotten anywhere debating Hitler, that Metzger guy, or the guys who committed genocide in the Balkans or the dudes in African. I'm sure they felt just like you do, probably smart people with persuasive arguments that some how lost, or never had, the ability to distinguish good from bad and convinced a lot of other people to do the same. People utterly lacking in empathy or connection with the human race with delusions of their own superiority.

Anyway, I can't fix you and I see no point in debating about it further. I'll never agree that genocide is right.

Well, you are quite good at proving one of my points really. That Liberal aversion to characterizing one culture over another is directly related to NAZI guilt.

That is to say, that if it remotely appears like something came from a bad ideology that it must be bad...Or rather, "I don't do it because bad people did it, people don't like bad people, and I just want to be loved, so I won't do what they did, because I don't want people to call me a NAZI, because I am not a NAZI, I am a good lockstep Liberal see, and therefore people will love me."

I, on the otherhand, don't care if people like me or not. I really don't. Which may be why you are confusing me with a troll.

I once believed and ascribed to Cultural Relativism. Wholeheartedly, I was a freaking flaming Liberal at one time. Until I figured out logically, it was a stupid ideology based and founded on fear and guilt, and non-logic.

Your ideology does not allow for critical thinking.

Cultural Relativism is a fallacious system. It is illogical. It was only invented by an Anthropologist for Anthropologists to secure their jobs. You holding onto it, to prove that you are a good person and because you want people to like you, does not give it any real intrinsic value.

If all cultures are equal, then CR requires you to treat all of them with equal respect, support, and tolerance. I don't like that. When Liberal Feminist Cultural Relativists want to change other cultures from being hateful and mutilate their daughters genitalia because of cultural reasons,,,that just screams illogic and hypocrisy to me. If all cultures are good and equal, then these self same Liberal Feminist Cultural Relativists MUST support other cultures which remove the clitorises of their daughters. MUST, by the ideology.

And that is absurd, you know it, and I know it.

So.

That then leaves only one alternative...That cultures are NOT Relative, there are good cultures and bad cultures. And you can JUDGE them. And you can CHANGE them, if you can.

Here is the rub, though, a bad person said that you can do that too. But just because a bad person said it, and did bad things with it, does not make it wrong for YOU to do it. The right way.

And it just seems stupid, and has nothing to do with Franz Boaz or Margaret Mead, or Adolph Hitler. If I can not hate people who want to KILL me, for no other reason than that I exist, who the fVck are you going to ALLOW me to hate?

That is the stupid part. You are telling me, that I can not hate people who would KILL me the very first chance they were given. And I think that is just plain stupid. That you equate Hitler killing Jews with genocide, and me hating those who wish to kill me. I think that is a stupid analogy, I know that it works in first year Sociology courses you took. But there is no thinking required in Sociology courses, we must all admit. Which, of course, conflicts with critical thinking and forming one's own conclusions.

Therefore my conclusion is that if there are cultures of people, who wish to kill me, or kill those of a culture I think is a superior one, that I can HATE that culture. If those of that culture want to kill me, I can, I am allowed, I am permitted, regardless of your opinion of me(which I don't care about anyway), to kill them, and to support the killing of them. For they are an inferior culture. And that is an ACCURATE conclusion.

And just because you can not come to that conclusion, does not make your position correct. It only means that you are a willy nilly namby pamby liberal fence sitter who does not critically think nor forms their own conclusions(ie a sheep). What amazes me is that these Neo Liberals can form their own conclusions that a Venti Americano with 5 shots of Espresso, and 4 Splendas is superior to a Venti Americano with 4 shots, and 3 Splendas but they can not come to the conclusion that a people who want to kill them is an inferior culture.

And all because of the guilt of appearing to be a NAZI(which is absurd), and they want people to Looovvveee them(which is pathetic).

If the entire people, as you imply in your last sentence is correct. That EVERY member of a culture wants to kill me. Then genocide is moral required. It is a matter of self preservation. And that makes it the right thing to do. I support the killing of EVERY person who wants me dead, or who wants to destroy the State of Israel, and every Jew, just for their existing. Every member of that Jihadist culture DESERVES to die, unless they change their belief. If your moral system does not allow for you to kill in defense of those who which to kill you, then your moral system is an inferior system, and accurately so. And I don't care if you agree or not. People who have inferior belief systems rarely know that they are inferior, but that does not mean that they ARE NOT inferior.

Just an afterthought.

Any woman who has ever taken birth control pills MUST be a NAZI because all the technology for their discovery was from NAZI experiments on Jewish women during the Holocaust.


Women on oral birth control pills support genocide and are NAZIs.
Everyone MUST hate women on oral birth control pills, because we must hate NAZIs.


See how stupid that sounds.

There is nothing evenhanded about this article...it is rather blatantly biased towards the Palestinians

Wrong Aidon. It is all factual. It has quotes from Israelis as well as Palestinians. All opinion is stated as opinion, whether Palestinian or Israeli.

There is much talk about how much the Palestians hated to have to 'pass through Israeli hands, and mention of Israeli 'assassinations, incursions, and settlement expansion', yet not a mention of suicide bombers, rocket attacks, or the harboring of terrorist leaders in Gaza.

It is true though. Palestinians hated going through Israeli checkpoints on the Palestinan-Egyptian border. How do you expect that to be reported? The article does even state that Israel kept the border closed to prevent terrorism.

There is much talk about how the Palestinians view things, on a personal level...with a nice little picture with the snippet of how Palestinians view it as a struggle about land...not commerce. Nowhere do they give mention to how Israel may view things.

Correct. An interview with a shopkeeper 300 yeards from the border seems appropriate. Opening up the Palestinian-Egyptian border doesn't change the Israeli economic situation at all, does it?

All in all, the piece quite clearly portrays Israel as this faceless monolithic coldhearted regime who (for no apparent reason, other than a few lines of about what Israel 'claims') keeps the poor Palestinians down. Meanwhile it portrays the Palestinians as downtrodden suffering people...with no mention of any of the regular violence created the situation.

No, it portrays the Israelis as a regime that kept gun towers on the Egypt-Palestine border during the infitada and at intervals prevented Palestinians from passing through the border for security reasons. Do those facts show an oppressive regime, in your words? The Palestians are actually in poverty and Gaza does have economic problems, for whatever reason. The article can be read as a positive improvement in co-operation, but you choose to only read the facts in the worst light.

The article further implies that Israel is the sole cause of the economic problems in Gaza, giving no mention to how it was the Palestinians themselves who looted and destroyed many of the economic structures they would depend upon, both before and after the Israeli withdrawal.

The article actually says that free trade across the border will help relieve Gaza's economic problems. Isn't that also a fact? I'll admit that the quote from the head of world bank was selective, but it is from an impartial source.

There is nothing evenhanded about this article...it is rather blatantly biased towards the Palestinians.

It is about Palestinians, not the Israelis. It is factual. Interviews with Palestinians will not be flowing with tributes to Israel, so you either censor them or portray them as they are. The article has comments from Israeli spokesmen for balance. Your interpretation of a generally accurate piece about Palestine and Palestinians is to reject it, as it doesn't portray it as all Palestinians as terrorists or maniacs. I'm sorry, the BBC can't help you with that.

Perhaps I'm just better at noticing written bias.

It doesn't take any great skill to write a piece using only facts which is horribly biased. Attorneys do it all the time. I've done it more times than I can count.

Journalism should not.

If it truly wanted to be unbiased, it would have mentioned the reasons behind the closures and the reasons behind the gun towers. It would have asked some man in the street questions of Israelis concerning the boarder crossing. It would have mentioned a quote from one of the Palestinians who do hold the terrorists and PA corruption as at least a partial cause of their troubles (as most articles from the 'Israeli POV' will quote Israeli doves).

When speaking of the closure of the Gaza sea port, its use of simple 'security reasons' is dismissive. No mention of the shiploads of weapons intercepted by Israel which lead to the closure of the port.

The entire tone of the article is such that the average reader will see Palestinians as innocent victims, because none of their transgressions have been outlined, even in broad terms. Whereas Israeli actions were, relatively specifically, mentioned.

If it truly wanted to be unbiased, it would have mentioned the reasons behind the closures and the reasons behind the gun towers.

It did. It said the Israelis closed the border for security reasons.

It would have asked some man in the street questions of Israelis concerning the boarder crossing.

It would have mentioned a quote from one of the Palestinians who do hold the terrorists and PA corruption as at least a partial cause of their troubles (as most articles from the 'Israeli POV' will quote Israeli doves).

Israeli doves like Netanyahu? From the article

"You can't treat the Palestinian Authority like a properly run state," said the former Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. "It's a failing regime that does not fight terror, and the security ring around it cannot be loosened."

No palestinian in the article gave any quotes about Palestinian Authority, Hamas, the PLO, or any other organisation at all. One Palestinian official was quoted as saying the deal was the "best that could be hoped for", which is great for Israelis and Palestinians alike surely? I'm not sure why there needs to be any "balance" by adding attacks on those groups.

The entire tone of the article is such that the average reader will see Palestinians as innocent victims, because none of their transgressions have been outlined, even in broad terms. Whereas Israeli actions were, relatively specifically, mentioned.

To be fair, the article is about a Palestinian border issue and their voice is very prominent. Not surprisingly, the majority of Palestinians in Gaza will not have kind words for Israel and not many will blame their own elected authority. After a few years of democracy I'm sure that will change :).

It doesn't take any great skill to write a piece using only facts which is horribly biased. Attorneys do it all the time. I've done it more times than I can count.

Journalism should not.

Not many people hold journalists in high esteem, so where does that put lawyers? :)

It did. It said the Israelis closed the border for security reasons.

But it doesn't explain, even in the slightest, what those security reasons are. Stating 'security reasons' is dismissive.





Israeli doves like Netanyahu? From the article

"You can't treat the Palestinian Authority like a properly run state," said the former Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. "It's a failing regime that does not fight terror, and the security ring around it cannot be loosened."

Quoting Netanyahu is like quoting President Clinton, he's not a 'man in the street'. It may as well have been a statement from the Government of Israel (he'll be part of the Government again soon enough).

The true purpose of that quote was to portray Israel as harsh and cold.

No palestinian in the article gave any quotes about Palestinian Authority, Hamas, the PLO, or any other organisation at all.

Of course they didn't. I particularly said that.

One Palestinian official was quoted as saying the deal was the "best that could be hoped for", which is great for Israelis and Palestinians alike surely? I'm not sure why there needs to be any "balance" by adding attacks on those groups.

Its not the best that could be hoped for. The best that could be hoped for is that Israel not have to fear from an open border between Egypt and Gaza. That such a border wouldn't have to be monitored because it wouldn't be used to smuggle in explosives and rockets and terrorists themselves for terror attacks. The idea that you even think its great for Israelis shows your own bias.

The fact is, in the end, there shouldn't be a 'balance' between the PoV's regardless. On one side is western democracy. The other side is muslim terrorism. It seems like a simple ****ing decision as to right and wrong, to me.

This isn't great for Israelis. Withdrawing from Gaza was simply better than continue to pay for it, and a good chance to give the Palestinians a chance to prove to the world if they actually give a crap about peace, or simply scream for it when they are losing.



To be fair, the article is about a Palestinian border issue and their voice is very prominent. Not surprisingly, the majority of Palestinians in Gaza will not have kind words for Israel and not many will blame their own elected authority. After a few years of democracy I'm sure that will change :).



Not many people hold journalists in high esteem, so where does that put lawyers? :)[/QUOTE]

The fact is, in the end, there shouldn't be a 'balance' between the PoV's regardless. On one side is western democracy. The other side is muslim terrorism. It seems like a simple ****ing decision as to right and wrong, to me.

Well exactly. You don't think there should be balance in reporting Palestinian issues. The article did not in any way condone, promote, or express opinions on terrorism. It was an article on economics, not about terrorism, and that is an issue that will need to be resolved if peaceful Palestinians are ever going to be more than refugees. The Palestinian issue is not only about terrorism.

Well exactly. You don't think there should be balance in reporting Palestinian issues. The article did not in any way condone, promote, or express opinions on terrorism. It was an article on economics, not about terrorism, and that is an issue that will need to be resolved if peaceful Palestinians are ever going to be more than refugees. The Palestinian issue is not only about terrorism.

The Palestinian issue is inseperable from terrorism. To treat this as a seperate issue, is effect, a bias against Israel.

The border crossing is not an economic issue. Its a safety issue.

You cannot speak of the economic repurcussions and issues (such as port closings) without also speaking about the actions which caused them to be closed in the first place. Doing so, as this article did, is dismissive of Israel's views and concerns. It glosses over the reasons (or simply doesn't address them) as if it is of no import that Israel had very real and legitimate reasons rising from the inability of the Palestinians to control themselves or refrain from attacks on Israeli citizens.

You cannot speak of the economic repurcussions and issues (such as port closings) without also speaking about the actions which caused them to be closed in the first place. Doing so, as this article did, is dismissive of Israel's views and concerns.

No. Not at all. It had both the factual reasons for the closure and a comment from Netanyahu about the closure, which is fitting for a small piece about the benefits of the open border. It does not need to have the full history of arab-israeli relation to be balanced.

You're blinded, like the typical European.

It doesn't have any reasons for the closure. It lists nothing. The entire tone of the piece is pro-Palestinian. /shrug.

Continue to live being led by the nose, if you so desire.

We'll just have to disgree on this one. You can keep CNN and Fox and I'll keep the BBC.