And it doesn't take long for the Islamist apologist to rear his head. Interesting that you think you have a more accurate take on the situation than the British Ambassador to Iran has. Your talents are wasted here on the Forum.
Now it would be interesting if they arrested embassy staff and held them indefinitely without charge. International outcry, calls for war etc etc.. but its ok when the Americans do it to Iran isnt it?
Was it ok in 1979 when US diplomats were held "Hostage" for 444 days? Not "arrested", no pretence of a good reason, just good old fashioned hostage taking. The fact that you are continuing to deflect or condone what happened here is a joke.
The people who stormed the embassy did not take TVs though Jacky, in fact if it was a simple protet why nick anything? Are you now suggesting the Rioters in England were rioting to voice thier protests or opposition to something?
Deflecting from what? You keep calling it a drflection but I dont really see it. The 1979 incident is not acceptable but you have recognise is that at that time we are talking about a very angry nation. They had just overthrown a brutal regime imposed on them by America because the previous democratically elected regime would not dance to America's tune. The human rights abuses of the Shah's rule would make Amin wince. The population knowing that the Americans were a direct cause of these being inflicted upon them are certainly not going to be very sympathetic to American government staff present in the country now they have the chance to get them. Certainly an element of vengeance involved but still inexcusable nonetheless. Certainly not an excuse to "nuke" them however
Ok they stole phones, laptops, computers etc. How many staff had iPhones, id say alot. You can get good money for them, same with the undoubted top of the range computers and laptops in the embassy. Just because they are protesting doesnt mean they are going to turn their noses up at an opportunity to benefit themselves financially at the same time.
So are they still an "very angry nation" now and that makes it ok? From what most "Neutral" observers can see they are always ****ing angry and that's why they are pariahs on the international stage.
Libya are a very angry nation at the moment, Egypt likewise as are many others. Are they going to be treated as perennial pariahs under the assumption of once angry always angry? Edit - there is rarely ever such thing as a neutral observer. A neutral observer sounds to me like someone who doesnt really care either way about it and so are not going to spend any time looking at different sources of information on the subject. Therefore the only information they will pick up will be from the mass media and tell me are they neutral observers? So while a "neutral observer" may begin the debate in no camp they will essentially have their mind made up for them through the limited sources of information they have available to them so will not actually be a neutral observer
I believe that should be "Western" and not "Neutral". Seeing as China and Russia don't seem to give as much toss as the "Western" nations. Arab countries are not "Neutral" either in this. As "Neutral" would mean they are not taking sides. So you could say Western and Arab states.
Do you think they are neutral? They have to form their stories to conform to suit the political affiliations of their employer. Have you seen fox news, have you read the Daily Mail, have you seen the similarities between the opinions of Murdoch's various rags? While The Independent tries to pride itself on being free of political or proprietal bias I would be very surprised if this was the case.
Let's look at what research shows about the BBC's reporting of Iraq. Media Tenor, the non-partisan, Bonn-based media research organisation, has examined the Iraq war reporting of some of the world's leading broadcasters, including the US networks and the BBC. It concentrated on the coverage of opposition to the war. The second-worst case of denying access to anti-war voices was ABC in the United States, which allowed them a mere 7 per cent of its overall coverage. The worst case was the BBC, which gave just 2 per cent of its coverage to opposition views - views that represented those of the majority of the British people. A separate study by Cardiff University came to the same conclusion. The BBC, it said, had "displayed the most pro-war agenda of any [British] broadcaster".
Newsnight's Kirsty Wark asked General Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of the General Staff, if "coalition" troops "are really powerless to help civilians targeted by Iraqi forces in Basra". Clearly, she felt no need to check the veracity of the British claim that Iraqi forces had been targeting civilians in Basra, a claim that proved to be baseless propaganda.
Heard the name before but had to google him to find out exactly who you were talking about. Dont think I have ever come across any of his work before so cant really comment
When a US missile killed 62 people at a market in Baghdad, BBC News affected a fake "who can tell who's responsible?" neutrality, a standard technique when the atrocity is "ours". On Newsnight, a BBC commentator dismissed the carnage with these words: "It's a war after all . . . But the coalition aim is to unseat Saddam Hussein by winning hearts and minds."
He did a documentary where senior reporters and journalists spoke about how they were NOT allowed to report things He also broke the news of the agency in Israel that bombards any Israeli negative news and is successful in getting it removed He spoke to the heads of BBS, ITV etc and got them to admit bias But Russ doesnt accept that evidence Funnily enough he cites the guardian in some of his 'evidence' that is 'real', yet this is the same guardian who along with the telegraph reported that Osama had died in 2001 due to kidney problems etc Say that now and russ will say its a conspiracy theory
