What if the Israelis had kidnapped a BBC journalist?

Loud would have been the denunciations of the extremist doctrines of Zionism which had given rise to this vile act. The world isolation of Israel, if it failed to get Mr Johnston freed, would have been complete.

If Mr Johnston had been forced to broadcast saying, for example, that Israel was entitled to all the territories held since the Six-Day War, and calling on the release of all Israeli soldiers held by Arab powers in return for his own release, his words would have been scorned. The cause of Israel in the world would have been irreparably damaged by thus torturing him on television. No one would have been shy of saying so.

But of course in real life it is Arabs holding Mr Johnston, and so everyone treads on tip-toe. Bridget Kendall of the BBC opined that Mr Johnston had been "asked" to say what he said in his video. Asked! If it were merely an "ask", why did he not say no?

Throughout Mr Johnston's captivity, the BBC has continually emphasised that he gave "a voice" to the Palestinian people, the implication being that he supported their cause, and should therefore be let out. One cannot imagine the equivalent being said if he had been held by Israelis.

[Update a few minutes later]

And how bad are things in Iraq? Why, they're almost as bad as they were under Saddam? What, you mean the kids aren't flying kites? Did Michael Moore lie to us? Surely that can't be...

So let's see, Rand wants us to take heart that life in Baghdad is
only moderately better then under the hussein regime.

So does that mean the Iranians should invade to save the
Iraqi people from an oppressive regime?

Anon,
it's not moderately better, it is substantially better. I don't need the professors notes or the polls or any thing else. I have the words and actions of people who have been there and who are still there.

People in "occupied" countries DO NOT share their food with the occupiers.

Yet the Iraqi and Afghan peoples are doing just that.

People in "occupied" countries DO NOT let their children associate with their occupiers.

Yet the Iraqi and Afghan peoples are doing just that.

People in "occupied" countries DO NOT help their occupiers build schools, hospitals, parks, etc, and then thank them for doing it.

Yet the Iraqi and Afghan peoples are doing just that.

I have this on the words of my son's and their friends who have had boots on the ground and who still do so.

Why can't CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC follow those guys around for a week and see what they see? Why do they , the MSM, JUST show us videos of IED's shot by our enemies? Why do they show dead indigenous peoples of these two countries every night? Could they have an agenda?

anon, go watch "Network" again and get back to me.

The news is now run by people who want to make a point, and people who want to lead the watchers around by the nose. They do not want to tell a story and let YOU draw your own conclusions. They want American's to drink the kool aid every night from 6:30 to 7:00 and the kool aid is also served 24 / 7 on cable.

Personally, those MSM news reports have made me as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna listen to them anymore!!

Seeing how much of the trouble is due to Iranian aligned factions (Badr, Sadr's Jaish al Mehdi)
or Syrian, Saudi, Egyptian jihadis, I don't think that will work

Why kidnap the media when you own it? ;-)

Why kidnap the media when you own it? ;-)

The BBC is the British Broadcasting Company, you freaking moron. If you want to be a snarking genius, then at least bound your comment with something realistic. Otherwise, you come off like the idiotic buffoon that you are, Shylock.

The news is now run by people who want to make a point, and people who want to lead the watchers around by the nose. They do not want to tell a story and let YOU draw your own conclusions. They want American's to drink the kool aid every night from 6:30 to 7:00 and the kool aid is also served 24 / 7 on cable.

Very well said. I suspect the entity of mass media news won't change, because I truly believe it has always been that way. However, communication is becoming cheap, and people can reach others in a matter of seconds for pennies. As this continues, the influence that mass media news use to have will continue to decline. We can see the decline in their own ratings.

Unfortunately, we still have people, who insist on learning in the easiest possible manner and will trust and rely on mass media news.

Leland, you're out of line, and you owe Shylock an apology.

First off, note the ;-) symbology which denotes a wink, i.e. humour which perhaps you don't understand?

Second, while the extremist Islamists obviously don't own the BBC per-se, it's equally obvious that they do own the souls of many of the Beeb's reporters and editors.

Your other post seems sensible, why the abuse?

Maybe so Eric. I read it as "Jews own the media" thus why would they kidnap their employees. I'm currently reading some historical stories from the era just after WWII and prior to Vietnam. It is interesting how much resentment Americans had of Jews after the war.

If Shylock, didn't mean his comment that way, then I apologize sincerely. I have been falsely accused of things previously, due to failure of a good tag myself, so yes, it can be unfair.

For record, I'm not Jewish, but I find the rhetoric of bashing Jews to be routinely based on long term prejudice that is no better than all other forms of racism. (interesting note, but "ugly @s" is blocked as inappropriate).

Steve

try looking up the german occupation of france before you
decide what an occupation is or isn't.

Anonymous might want to look up Vichy France.