I can't believe they made it a public poll. What a bunch of arrogant bastards. Maybe, along the same lines, they will poll if Osama bin Laden should be buried at the Arlington National Cemetery...Originally Posted by Semsem
The BBC can no longer deny that they are blatently antisemitic and biased towards terrorists.
BBC reporter cried for Arafat
By DOUGLAS DAVIS
Senior editors at the BBC are understood to have remonstrated with their correspondent, Barbara Plett, over her "misjudgment" in revealing on air that she had cried when Yasser Arafat's Jordanian helicopter carried him away from Ramallah en route to hospital in France.
The BBC has received some 500 complaints about Plett's broadcast, which was broadcast on its Radio 4 program, "From Our Own Correspondent."
In her report, Plett said: "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry . . . without warning."
She went on to reflect that, "in quieter moments since I have asked myself, why the sudden surge of emotion? I suppose there was a pathos about the strong contrast between this and other journeys Yasser Arafat has made."
In her report, entitled "Yasser Arafat's unrelenting journey," Plett noted that "foreign journalists seemed much more excited about Mr. Arafat's fate than anyone in Ramallah We hovered around the gate to his compound, swarming around the Palestinian officials who drove by, poking our microphones through their dark, half-open windows."
She lamented that amid all the media activity just a few hundred loyalists turned out to see him off from Ramallah, "waving and calling out one of his favorite sayings: 'The mountain cannot be shaken by the wind'."
Where were the people, she asked, "the mass demonstrations of solidarity, the frantic expressions of concern?" Then she answered her own question: "I think this history explains Palestinian emotions better than mine.
"For me, it was probably the siege. I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah.
"I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: 'Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege'. And so was I. Maybe that gives me some connection to the man whose presidential compound became a prison.
"I know what it is like to stare at the same four walls and find them staring back; to watch tanks swing their turrets outside my window; to scan rooftops for snipers during brief hours of freedom between curfews. I could understand why Palestinians responded to Mr. Arafat then the way they did."
It is thought that such sentiments will fuel accusations that the BBC is incorrigibly pro-Palestinian, despite the October 2003 appointment - with support from Israel's Foreign Ministry - of an ombudsman to oversee its reporting of Middle East affairs.
The contract of the ombudsman, Malcolm Balen, was recently extended for a second year.
This is not Barbara Plett's first brush with controversy over her alleged bias in covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Three years ago, she was the subject of an Israeli embassy protest to the BBC over Palestinian celebrations following the 9/11 attacks. The then-press secretary D.J. Schneeweiss charged that Plett and her colleague, Orla Guerin, "went to great lengths to put the pictures 'in context' and insisted that the celebratory pictures did not reflect the sentiments of the majority of Palestinians."
"My question," he wrote, "is whether these blatant and apparently coordinated attempts to guide the British audience away from making its own judgments about the pictures on their screens did not derive from the BBC's correspondents bowing to Palestinian pressure.
If this is not the case, then it would appear that we have an equally grave situation in which the BBC's correspondents willfully and of their own accord see themselves as champions of the Palestinian cause, mobilizing at a time of a [Palestinian public relations] crisis to limit the damage to the Palestinian image abroad."
To bad it was a yes or no question. I was hoping for multiple choice with a French garbage dump as one of the options. Your 110% percent right on the Arlington point. The kind of double standard the Jews in this world are required to stomach is beyond belief.Originally Posted by KettleWhistle
If that was OBL in France what do think would be happening right now?
Its monsters like Arafat that make me hope there is in fact a heaven and a hell.
As ever we can rely on the Times to give The British public the desired comment needed to confront the BBC.Weep for BBC news
By Stephen Pollard
THIS IS news? A few days ago Barbara Plett, a BBC Middle East correspondent, broadcast a report about the airlifting of Yassir Arafat to Paris. She informed her listeners: â€œWhen the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry . . . without warning.â€
She went on to talk about Arafatâ€™s â€œambivalence towards violenceâ€ (an interesting phrase for the man who effectively invented modern-day terrorism) and to castigate Ariel Sharon for having â€œdemonisedâ€ the man responsible for a campaign to murder as many Israeli citizens as possible.
For some reason, Ms Plettâ€™s words have prompted a series of news reports. I am at a loss to understand why. There is nothing remotely newsworthy about her having expressed her adoring view of Arafat and her contempt for Israelâ€™s attempts to defend itself from terror. Certainly, her tear-jerking might not convey the impartiality which license-fee payers ought to be able to expect from the BBC, but her sentiments are so straight-down-the-line a representation of the BBCâ€™s bias against Israel that they are in no way newsworthy.
The BBCâ€™s world view is ever present across its airwaves. Anyone who disagrees with its left-liberal clichÃ©s is at best an oddity and at worst deranged. Last Thursday, for instance, I took part in a discussion about the American elections. The presenter, Natasha Kaplinsky, began the slot with this: â€œIt seems that the polls throughout the election were right, but nobody really wanted to believe them; that George Bush was going to get re-elected.â€
â€œNo oneâ€ wanted to believe them? Not in White City, for sure. The programmeâ€™s researcher had rung me the night before to ask what I would say in response to a variety of questions.
Researcher: â€œWhy do you think the exit polls were wrong, so that we were all so disappointed by the result?â€ Me: â€œWe werenâ€™t all disappointed. Not everyone shares the BBCâ€™s anti-Bush leftie bias. I was delighted and relieved that the free world will continue to be led by a man who understands the threat we face.â€
Researcher (giggling, and clearly mystified that such a person existed): â€œOh gosh, Iâ€™m sorry, I forgot you were pleased by the result.â€
As a sympathiser for Palestinian terror, Ms Plett need have no fears about the incompatibility of her views and her job as a BBC reporter. The former is a prerequisite of the latter.
Burying the mass murderer Arafat on the temple mount is approximatly similar to burying a pedophile child molestor in the church of nativity.
Seriously, if Arafat were cremated and his ashes dumped in Jerusalem, possibly the only symbolically suitable place (that I can think of) would be Gehenna (the Hinnom valley, W and S of Jerusalem).
Its ill repute emanated from its ceremonial defilement land (worship of foreign gods) from the detested and abominable fire of Molech (child sacrifice), and from the everburning funeral piles. The Jews applied the name of the valley of Hinnom as Ge Hinnom, "Gehenna," to denote the place of eternal torment (or hell). All the rubbish of Jerusalem was burnt here. It's also interesting to note that Aceldama (Field of Blood) was here in this valley.
or better, at ground zero.Originally Posted by KettleWhistle
Geologically you are correct, but I was talking symbolically. Geologically there really is not a good a place in Jerusalem. In fact, I don't really think it would be a good idea to dump Arafat anywhere in Israel--we would not want to pollute the ground water, nor pollute the ocean for that matter (if thinking about plopping it into the sea). The best thing would probably be retain his remains in the cesspool of a swine collective (aka France).Originally Posted by KettleWhistle
They should grind him up for pig feedâ€¦ for French pigs, of course!
They should bury Arafat in France to polute the country and bring them the same luck he brought the Palistinian people.Originally Posted by Robby
He'll be burried in Ramallah, Israel agreed. Probably the funeral will be in Cairo with dignitaries of the entire world to attain the funeral and maybe a second time in Ramallah for the Palestinian people.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)