| Author |
Message |
foreverinchina
PopStar
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 1250
Location: 徐家汇
Status: Offline
|
 Posted:
June 28, 2007 - 03:27 PM |
 
|
|
| keayts wrote: |
| ... but this particular incident made me significantly more suspicious of any events photographed or videotaped by the Palestinians. |
You certainly are not the only one. |
_________________
To govern a big country is like cooking a small fish.
Stir as little as possible.
- Lao Zi, Daode Jing 256 BC |
|
|
|
TheDudeAbides
Rocker
Joined: June 21, 2006
Posts: 719
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 28, 2007 - 05:52 PM |
|
|
| sammythepaki wrote: |
The BBC is a case study in A-level politics class as an example of bias. Over 90% of palestinians are reported as "killed in clashes", whereas the vast majority of Isrealis, including soldiers were "murdered, assasinated, butchered, etc"
BBC is pro-Isreali. A classic case study of media bias. |
Really? Once Israel chooses Al-Jazeera over the BBC (happened Oct/Nov last year) because the BBC is too pro-Muslim, then it seems to me the bias leans the other way and you know there's a bit of a problem there.
One of the pillars upon which the BBC is built is to report everything as factually as possible. Last year the head honcho of the BBC admitted there was a huge bias, and a 35 year veteran quit saying it was a sickening state of affairs, that the BBC is just a huge propaganda machine that has been taken over by the extreme left for the past 10-15 years. Political correctness is everything they stand for.
Again, I know it works both ways, I shouldn't have to point that out each time but if I don't someone will jump me and yada yada. |
|
|
|
|
|
foreverinchina
PopStar
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 1250
Location: 徐家汇
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 28, 2007 - 09:39 PM |
|
|
| TheDudeAbides wrote: |
| ...Last year the head honcho of the BBC admitted there was a huge bias, and a 35 year veteran quit saying it was a sickening state of affairs, that the BBC is just a huge propaganda machine that has been taken over by the extreme left for the past 10-15 years. Political correctness is everything they stand for. |
Not just the BBC but almost all media in Western Europe.
One example:
An independant survey some time ago made clear that in belgium 73% of all journalists are left, green or extreme left, while only 3 % are right or old style conservative.
Compare that with the results of the parliamentary elections, 2 weeks ago: socialists, green and extreme-left all together not over 20 %.
Regarding religious viewpoints, the discrepancies between journalists and their customers (readers/TVwatchers) is even more distorted:
22 % atheist/against any religion, 20 % latitudinarian/liberal, 18 % not religious, only 12% is practising catholic, only 25% regard themselves as religious.
No wonder that the last 10 years, the journalists are on lonely heights in the list of the most untrustworthy people, even worser than politicians.
Who is cheating who here ? |
_________________
To govern a big country is like cooking a small fish.
Stir as little as possible.
- Lao Zi, Daode Jing 256 BC |
|
|
|
|
Bluebag
LoopKicker
Joined: Sep 11, 2003
Posts: 877
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 29, 2007 - 01:05 AM |
|
|
"worser"
Ahem.
Yes! Damn them because...
...well, because they can spell!!!
Sure sign of a dangerous leftist reactionary, no?
By the way, exactly how "independant" was the survey you're quoting? That phrase always stinks of the two incompatible expressions "independant" and "think tank" if you ask me. Dig just a tiny a bit and you'll find the vested interest behind it all.
BTW: Hey, Duderino:
I Hope you don't think I'm "jumping" you here, (I certainly don't intend to), but don't you think it's amusing that both you and Sammythepaki seem equally convinced of dismetrically opposed biases on the part of the BBC?
Presumably you've both seen a fair amount of BBC programming, but have come to totally opposite conclusions about their prejudices.
Also, has anybody had a look at the rest of that "zombietime" site? FFS: They seem to be pretty fixated on the important issues - like ridiculing people who put on nude prοtests in favour of the retention of trees.
Oh, and using photos of every protesting fruit-loop in the US to trivialise the entire anti-Iraq war movement. If you were to believe their galleries, there's not a single U.S. citizen opposed to the Iraq war who isn't a bearded, half-nude lesbian with virulent anti-semitic tendencies.
Hardly the web-site of record displaying total impartiality, I would think. |
|
|
|
|
|
keayts
Ranter
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 548
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 29, 2007 - 09:00 AM |
|
|
| Bluebag wrote: |
Also, has anybody had a look at the rest of that "zombietime" site? FFS: They seem to be pretty fixated on the important issues - like ridiculing people who put on nude prοtests in favour of the retention of trees.
Oh, and using photos of every protesting fruit-loop in the US to trivialise the entire anti-Iraq war movement. If you were to believe their galleries, there's not a single U.S. citizen opposed to the Iraq war who isn't a bearded, half-nude lesbian with virulent anti-semitic tendencies.
Hardly the web-site of record displaying total impartiality, I would think. |
How can you believe that an Israeli helicopter fired an missile at an ambulance, only to have it:
1) Not explode, which would turn the ambulance into a pile of shrapnel.
2) Not horrendously deform the ambulance from the impact, or leave any visible signs of damage to the ambulance's equipment or occupants (in the form of bloodstains, scorch marks, or smashed medical equipment).
3) Leave a perfectly concentric hole in the middle of the roof ambulance, exactly where the siren would be if the siren were still attached to the roof.
4) Strike the roof at a 90 degree angle, which would necessitate the missile flying straight down at the ambulance, despite it being fired from a helicopter, which doesn't launch missiles that fall at 90-degree angles upon their targets.
5) Been fired at a heavily-rusted vehicle, which is unlikely to find service in a war zone.
What else can you say? You can ad hominem the zombietime site all day, but the facts they've assembled support the conclusion that the Palestinians faked the story of the Israeli-targeted ambulance. That the BBC reported the story without bothering to check up on its glaring inconsistencies with known facts suggests that the BBC's editorial policies do not filter out plausible stories from fallacious ones.
Impartiality belongs in a court of law. Impartiality doesn't matter when you're trying to find out the facts behind an incident. What happened is what happened; an attitude or principle doesn't change the facts.
In addition, nowhere does Zombietime claim to have comprehensive, multi-faceted commentary on the anti-war movement or "important issues." Stating that they are is a perfect example of a straw man argument that totally misrepresents another party's position. |
_________________
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" |
|
|
|
|
Bluebag
LoopKicker
Joined: Sep 11, 2003
Posts: 877
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 29, 2007 - 10:01 AM |
|
|
keayts:
I think you misunderstood what I'm saying here. I don't "believe" the missile story. Could you please show me where I said that?
Sure, the missile / ambulance thing looks like a total fraud, as do any number of other pieces of wilful misinformation from both sides over the last 90 years. I'm not quite sure how I ended up in your mind as a supporter of the veracity of that particular story, but I'll let that lie for for the moment.
You say:
| Quote: |
| Impartiality belongs in a court of law. Impartiality doesn't matter when you're trying to find out the facts behind an incident. What happened is what happened; an attitude or principle doesn't change the facts. |
Yes, but an attitude or, more properly, an agenda, can decide how and what you choose to report. And I completely disagree that impartiality is unimportant when it comes to finding out the facts. Surely that's exactly the way we get wars based on fraudulent reports of invisible WMDs and non-existent connections to Al Qaeda.
Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers have died purely because substantially impartial reporters on those subjects were ignored. I'm pretty sure they and their families think that the results of that lack of impartiality might be just a little bit important.
If you set out already knowing what you want or need to find, then SOMEBODY is bound to oblige you with a semi-plausible story. Isn't that what you are saying happened with the BBC and the ambulance / missile thing? I think you're pretty much arguing against yourself in that case.
But so what if the BBC and, I believe, a number of other news outlets fell for the faked missile / ambulance story. There's nothing much new in that.
Major news outlets have been falling for BS from both sides of this conflict for nearly a century. On the whole, though, you'd have to admit that the bulk of the U.S. (which are also the most widely syndicated) news organs have been very happy not to dig too deep into how Israel has conducted its war all these years.
As I mentioned earlier, read Friedman or Storrs instead of, say, zombietime.com and you might just get a less slanted view of the situation.
True, there'll be less half-naked dykes with beards to snigger at, but you'll at least get a more complete understanding of how things have got the way they are, rather than just mindless pointscoring: "See! They're much worse terrorists than us. They fake ambulance attacks. Sure, we conduct REAL missile strikes into civilian communities, but hey - at least we don't fake blown-up ambulances... blah blah blah."
What I'd really like to find is contemporary equivalents of Friedman & Storrs, but they seem pretty thin on the ground. |
|
|
|
|
|
keayts
Ranter
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 548
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 29, 2007 - 10:29 AM |
|
|
| Bluebag wrote: |
keayts:
I think you misunderstood what I'm saying here. I don't "believe" the missile story. Could you please show me where I said that?
Sure, the missile / ambulance thing looks like a total fraud, as do any number of other pieces of wilful misinformation from both sides over the last 90 years. I'm not quite sure how I ended up in your mind as a supporter of the veracity of that particular story, but I'll let that lie for for the moment.
|
Well, you never explicitly stated you believed the story, but when I pointed out the story, you responded by attacking the source of the story and suggesting that they aren't "impartial."
Ad-hominem attacks are usually a suggestion that the attacker doesn't agree with the attacked's position, but can't really find an argument or supporting evidence to bolster a counter-proposition.
I'm not saying that the zombietime reporters don't have their own partial view of viewing the world. But their view of this particular incident is supported by the evidence they have accumulated.
Nobody can claim complete impartiality, because such a proposition would require significantly more knowledge than any one person could acquire in a lifetime. But claiming that just because someone's not impartial is a wonderful way of not addressing their arguments or evidence, or offhandedly dismissing it with condescending rhetoric.
| Bluebag wrote: |
Yes, but an attitude or, more properly, an agenda, can decide how and what you choose to report. And I completely disagree that impartiality is unimportant when it comes to finding out the facts. Surely that's exactly the way we get wars based on fraudulent reports of invisible WMDs and non-existent connections to Al Qaeda.
|
Well, of course everyone has attitudes or an agenda of sorts, even reporters. And I think that's a good thing; a reporter without an attitude or an agenda probably lacks any knowledge relevant to the story they're reporting, or any desire to acquire that knowledge.
But what's more important than motives and attitudes is the extent to which the examination of facts, evidence, and arguments are helped and hindered by such motives and attitudes. Certainly, a witness's attitudes towards telling the truth is important in determining whether or not their testimony is true, and such attitudes can be influenced by adherence to an agenda that places truth-telling as a secondary goal to promotion of said agenda, but not everyone with an agenda or a set of principles will knowingly lie to promote their ideals.
Besides, a person putting together a complete and accurate account of what occurred during an incident still needs to face the possibility that the information they have gathered conflicts not due to nefarious motives but due to mistaken impressions, alternative explanations that would resolve seemingly conflicting information, incomplete information, and other unforseeable factors.
Finding out the verifiable facts behind an incident is significantly more important than looking for someone who can "impartially" report on it, especially since such a person is unlikely to exist.
| Bluebag wrote: |
What I'd really like to find is contemporary equivalents of Friedman & Storrs, but they seem pretty thin on the ground.
|
I'll read the Friedman & Storrs book when I find the time to do so. My knowledge of the pre-WWII history of this conflict is admittedly very thin. |
_________________
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" |
|
|
|
|
keayts
Ranter
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 548
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 29, 2007 - 10:41 AM |
|
|
| Bluebag wrote: |
On the whole, though, you'd have to admit that the bulk of the U.S. (which are also the most widely syndicated) news organs have been very happy not to dig too deep into how Israel has conducted its war all these years.
|
On the contrary, my general impression is that most American news organizations hold a very critical view of Israel, and have, through their editorial decisions on which stories to cover and what extent to cover them, spectacularized antagonism towards many unfortunate incidents caused by the Israeli military (such as the deaths of American peace activists acting as human shields, collateral damage against civilians living in close proximity to Palestinian military targets, etc) that would, in an earlier era, be accepted by many as unfortunate consequences likely to be suffered by people whose activities take them into an active war zone.
I can't say this for certain, though, since I don't have access to the editorial boards or personnel in these news agencies. |
_________________
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" |
|
|
|
|
Witch_Pauline
Reacher
Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 305
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 29, 2007 - 11:11 AM |
|
|
| Quote: |
How can you believe that an Israeli helicopter fired an missile at an ambulance, only to have it:
1) Not explode, which would turn the ambulance into a pile of shrapnel.
2) Not horrendously deform the ambulance from the impact, or leave any visible signs of damage to the ambulance's equipment or occupants (in the form of bloodstains, scorch marks, or smashed medical equipment).
3) Leave a perfectly concentric hole in the middle of the roof ambulance, exactly where the siren would be if the siren were still attached to the roof.
4) Strike the roof at a 90 degree angle, which would necessitate the missile flying straight down at the ambulance, despite it being fired from a helicopter, which doesn't launch missiles that fall at 90-degree angles upon their targets.
5) Been fired at a heavily-rusted vehicle, which is unlikely to find service in a war zone.
|
Reminds of me of those 9/11 "conspiracy theories". |
_________________
By Christ and the Cross! |
|
|
|
|
Bluebag
LoopKicker
Joined: Sep 11, 2003
Posts: 877
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 29, 2007 - 11:32 AM |
|
|
A well-measured response, Keayts.
At last someone on this board who wants to discuss the subject instead of just flame.
When I made the comment about the US media's reporting, I was referring to the whole history - right back to the roots of the conflict. Maybe I'm a bit older than you, but I can vividly remember utterly ludicrous reports from US TV and press during the 60s, 70s, 80s and even into the 90s where their agenda was very plain and the reporting a long way short of truthful.
True, it seems to have swayed in the opposite direction in recent years, but there were many decades of opposite bias, so I don't think we're going to reach a situation of "equal time" till about 2050 - not that that excuses either period of bias.
The Friedman book is very illuminating on this score (it's available in bookstores here in Shanghai, by the way). Friedman was in Beirut and Jerusalem as the New York Times correspondent in those places.
A fair chunk of the book deals with his paper's reluctance and even downright antagonism to publishing the events he saw occur in front of him. At the time, the NYT was definitely the U.S. paper of record and led much of the rest of the U.S. media - i.e. if it was reported by the NYT, the other papers and electronic media would cover it, too.
Nevertheless, to their credit, the NYT DID publish some reports by him that were uncomfortable for his Lebanese, Palestinian and Israeli hosts.
As I said earlier, the Ronald Storrs book is fascinating as it gives you a much better understanding of how things got the way they are from quite close to the beginning of the conflict. Storrs was trying to keep a lid on an explosive situation that he couldn't see being improved by shipping in more combatants, so to a degree, there IS a bias in that direction in his writing.
Sort of an "anything for a quiet life" viewpoint and very understandable given the job he had to do and the external and internal pressures he was under.
It's probably the absence of this kind of "how did we all get into this mess" information from US media reports 1950-1990-odd that I find so incomprehensible. If that's all you've ever been exposed to, you could be forgiven for taking at face value the "Terra Nullius" nature of most of the US reporting on the conflict of that period.
At that time (especially in the 50s and 60s), the reports were all about "brave Sabras fighting the desert and marauding bands of nomadic Arabs (who aren't really specifically from around here)" to forge a nation for a group of people who had been horribly persecuted during the Holocaust.
You never got the idea that an ancient settled population had been shunted out of the way to suit the needs of a brand-new non-secular nation.
Media management at its finest.
If the Palestinians are finally successfully doing the same thing to the Israelis in the press and electronic media, then it's probably only because they've learned their trade from the all-time champs of media manipulation. |
|
|
|
|
|
keayts
Ranter
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 548
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 29, 2007 - 12:37 PM |
|
|
| Bluebag wrote: |
A well-measured response, Keayts.
At last someone on this board who wants to discuss the subject instead of just flame.
When I made the comment about the US media's reporting, I was referring to the whole history - right back to the roots of the conflict. Maybe I'm a bit older than you, but I can vividly remember utterly ludicrous reports from US TV and press during the 60s, 70s, 80s and even into the 90s where their agenda was very plain and the reporting a long way short of truthful.
True, it seems to have swayed in the opposite direction in recent years, but there were many decades of opposite bias, so I don't think we're going to reach a situation of "equal time" till about 2050 - not that that excuses either period of bias.
The Friedman book is very illuminating on this score (it's available in bookstores here in Shanghai, by the way). Friedman was in Beirut and Jerusalem as the New York Times correspondent in those places.
A fair chunk of the book deals with his paper's reluctance and even downright antagonism to publishing the events he saw occur in front of him. At the time, the NYT was definitely the U.S. paper of record and led much of the rest of the U.S. media - i.e. if it was reported by the NYT, the other papers and electronic media would cover it, too.
Nevertheless, to their credit, the NYT DID publish some reports by him that were uncomfortable for his Lebanese, Palestinian and Israeli hosts.
As I said earlier, the Ronald Storrs book is fascinating as it gives you a much better understanding of how things got the way they are from quite close to the beginning of the conflict. Storrs was trying to keep a lid on an explosive situation that he couldn't see being improved by shipping in more combatants, so to a degree, there IS a bias in that direction in his writing.
Sort of an "anything for a quiet life" viewpoint and very understandable given the job he had to do and the external and internal pressures he was under.
It's probably the absence of this kind of "how did we all get into this mess" information from US media reports 1950-1990-odd that I find so incomprehensible. If that's all you've ever been exposed to, you could be forgiven for taking at face value the "Terra Nullius" nature of most of the US reporting on the conflict of that period.
At that time (especially in the 50s and 60s), the reports were all about "brave Sabras fighting the desert and marauding bands of nomadic Arabs (who aren't really specifically from around here)" to forge a nation for a group of people who had been horribly persecuted during the Holocaust.
You never got the idea that an ancient settled population had been shunted out of the way to suit the needs of a brand-new non-secular nation.
Media management at its finest.
If the Palestinians are finally successfully doing the same thing to the Israelis in the press and electronic media, then it's probably only because they've learned their trade from the all-time champs of media manipulation. |
Thank you for the equally thoughtful response.
Since I wasn't alive during the period where Israel's security was seriously an issue, I never was exposed to the tone of the media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during those crucial years, so hearing your impressions certainly helps fill in some gaps in my knowledge of that history.
Judging by what I do know about Cold-War era international diplomacy, and my impressions of journalists in general, I find your impression likely to be true. Since Israel was a Cold War ally, and the Arab states were somewhat aligned with the Eastern Bloc, it's likely that western journalists would be more favorably disposed towards the Israelis. General tone of coverage could also be more favored towards the Israelis due to shared cultural and sometimes familial ties.
Also, my personal opinion of journalists is that most of them gravitate towards the most sensational story, and will willingly slant their editorial decisions and coverage to produce the best story, even if the facts themselves don't perfectly line up. The 1948 war, which featured a tiny Israeli army holding off the combined forces of multiple Arab nations (Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, amongst others, if I remember correctly) makes a good David vs. Goliath tale.
In addition, the actions of the Palestinian militants weren't exactly inviting positive portrayals of that side of the conflict. Airline hijackings, the Berlin Olympic murders, and such don't engender much goodwill amongst parties not directly involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One such incident, which incidentally didn't involve any Jews, occurred when the Jordanians took the PLO into their territory. The PLO's security forces began torturing and murdering members of the Jordanian military, in one case even playing a game of soccer with the head of one poor Jordanian soldier. Even if you aren't Jordanian, Israeli, or Palestinian, it's hard not to be disgusted when you hear about such incidents.
Still, I doubt the Israelis ever deliberately manufactured evidence to the extent the Palestinians are doing so today. My guess is that, if the coverage was slanted to favor the Israelis, it was generally due to shared culture and the presence of a good story, rather than due to manufactured media incidents. |
_________________
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" |
|
|
|
|
Witch_Pauline
Reacher
Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 305
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 29, 2007 - 02:31 PM |
|
|
| Quote: |
Still, I doubt the Israelis ever deliberately manufactured evidence to the extent the Palestinians are doing so today.
|
A forbidden topic comes to mind... |
_________________
By Christ and the Cross! |
|
|
|
|
TheDudeAbides
Rocker
Joined: June 21, 2006
Posts: 719
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 29, 2007 - 05:18 PM |
|
|
| Bluebag wrote: |
BTW: Hey, Duderino:
I Hope you don't think I'm "jumping" you here, (I certainly don't intend to), but don't you think it's amusing that both you and Sammythepaki seem equally convinced of dismetrically opposed biases on the part of the BBC?
Presumably you've both seen a fair amount of BBC programming, but have come to totally opposite conclusions about their prejudices.
|
True, that. I'm not sure where he (she?) gets his/her facts from, I'd certainly like to know just from a curiosity point of view, but from all I've read, I could only draw the one conclusion. You just have to look at England these days anyway (no offence meant to any Brits around here), it's basically a police state where big brother has gone nuts and political correctness has gone too far, and in my opinion it is largely perpetuated by much of the media. Though I guess that's another can of worms I don't really want to open right now! |
|
|
|
|
|
foreverinchina
PopStar
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 1250
Location: 徐家汇
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 29, 2007 - 10:19 PM |
|
|
| Bluebag wrote: |
| By the way, exactly how "independant" was the survey you're quoting? That phrase always stinks of the two incompatible expressions "independant" and "think tank" if you ask me. Hardly the web-site of record displaying total impartiality, I would think. |
I know, i know. The word "independant" also here rings a bell. But in this case it was their own organisation who ordered the survey at a university (which is known as somewhat leftist) in an attept to have some factual answers to widespread suspicions of PoCo-ism of the journalists.
And look: the survey proved (to their own deep grieve) that they were even more leftist than they were thinking. Tough luck. Hehe. So during the weeks after the survey was published, they were analysing it and searching for the "but's" the "maybe's" and the "if's"
If you read some Dutch, you can read the full report here:
http://www.internetjournalistiek.be/pdf/profiel_beroepsjournalist.pdf |
_________________
To govern a big country is like cooking a small fish.
Stir as little as possible.
- Lao Zi, Daode Jing 256 BC |
|
|
|
|
jacobbarnes
Barker
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Posts: 127
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2007 - 01:35 AM |
|
|
How about a thread on how alll French are collectively guilty for the treatment of the Algerians (oh I forgot they're really french because Algeria is an integral part of France), or Jews in Vichey France?
Oh they've committed less war crimes recently, perhaps because they don't have the sort of army that can wage wars (one aircraft crrier I think)? Irrelevancy can be galling when you (incorrectly) pride yourself as being the font of democracy and universal human rights, no?
Well then perhaps a thread on how corrupt Jacque Chirac was and what it says about the French character?
No those topics would be glib, flippant, and an insult to all of the French who do not live up to the negative stereotypes that some anglosaxons buy into, wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
|
Witch_Pauline
Reacher
Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 305
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2007 - 03:09 PM |
|
|
| Quote: |
How about a thread on how alll French are collectively guilty for the treatment of the Algerians (oh I forgot they're really french because Algeria is an integral part of France), or Jews in Vichey France?
|
Good one. I see you havent followed the recent news. A few years back, Chirac was made to publicly apologize on behalf of France for Vichy's crimes against the Jews (only them, the others who cares). He bought a few more years in office by doing so. |
_________________
By Christ and the Cross! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Preferences
Watched Topics
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
