pap

I'm still left with the sense that you're not arguing for anything, Charlie. Saying that, I did see something on the Stop the War site which seems to enumerate your position. A fairytale narrative of Western foreign policy which includes the following essential components: The world is divided into good guys and bad guys. The good guys consist of all Western governments and their allies, whether taken individually or collectively as members of the ‘international community’. Like Don Quixote, these governments are out there in a perilous world, perpetually slaying dragons, saving maidens in distress, and fighting injustice. On the other side there are assorted dictatorships, authoritarian and undemocratic states, terrorists, jihadists, gangster states like Russia and ‘bad guys’ who are out there doing evil. In this fairy tale world ‘we’ have no aggressive intentions. We do not engage in realpolitik. We have no ulterior motives. Our foreign policy is guided entirely by lofty moral principles. We have no geostrategic or economic interests. Energy resources and pipeline routes do not interest us. We do not and never would conspire to bring about ‘regime change’ or other political outcomes to suit our geopolitical interests, and nor do our allies, and anyone who says otherwise is guilty of ‘conspiracy theory.’ We do not engage in ‘terrorism’ and never ‘talk to terrorists’ or deal with states or organizations that do. We are led by decent folk, who only want to do the decent thing. http://stopwar.org.uk/news/is-a-key-nato-member-plotting-to-fake-a-terrorist-attack-to-justify-war-on-syria#.U-nPPfldXch This is a mere placeholder based on your input. Feel free to disagree and state an actual case.

The bit where he summarises his personal career history has potential. However, the claims of restraint are completely at odds with the damage caused.

That piece is used as a source for this Stop the War article. Builds on the idea that Israel is "mowing the lawn", drawing parallels with the US's 19th century campaign against the Plains natives. http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/how-israel-has-been-mowing-the-lawn-in-gaza#.U-kIw_ldXch

They don't have to biased on the whole, just at the top. I know there are loads of good people at the Beeb, but it hasn't had the same editorial independence since the Hutton inquiry. The tragedy is that it was cut down to size and refashioned into the propaganda tool it has become for trying to do the right thing.

It really isn't much of a ball. Kicked anyway. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/07/the-logic-of-israeli-violence/

Put some fkn effort in, mush. This is the second of your links I'm going to entirely ignore because you present it in the manner of a laconic teenager with half a banana lodged in your gob. Give us a clue, FFS.

On 31 July, when the BBC’s flagship news program Today wanted to discuss whether Israel’s current assault on Gaza had a legal basis, it interviewed, not just one, but two, Israelis. And not a single Palestinian. The first Israeli interviewed was Pnina Sharvit Baruch. Listeners were told she was the “former head of international law at the IDF [the Israeli military], now a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies [in Tel Aviv].” What they weren’t told is that Sharvit Baruch was a colonel in the Israeli army, retiring after Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s attack on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009. They were not told that, in that role, she legitimized strikes on civilians in Gaza during Cast Lead, including the attack on the graduation ceremony of new police officers, which resulted in 180 Palestinians being killed. She was considered so extreme that, in 2009, staff at Tel Aviv University protested her appointment as a lecturer in law. She was not, however, considered too extreme for the BBC. The day before she made her unchallenged appearance on Today, Sharvit Baruch wasinterviewed on the legalities of Israel’s attack by the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), which describes itself as being “dedicated to creating a more supportive environment for Israel in Britain.” On Today she was joined by Yuri Dromi, introduced by presenter Sarah Montague as “director-general of the Jerusalem Press Club, but he used be a spokesman for the Israeli government in the Nineties.” Sharvit Baruch and Dromi enjoyed nine minutes of gentle questioning by Montague. Her acceptance of everything they said and her failure to ask a single challenging or critical question was compounded by the absence of a Palestinian spokesperson who could have made that challenge instead and offered a different viewpoint. It was an extraordinarily biased piece of pro-Israeli broadcasting, even by BBC standards. Montague’s questions seemed to be set up as deliberate cues for Sharvit Baruch and Dromi to set out the Israeli government’s key messages. For example, she asked Sharvit Baruch, “Would you be advising the Israeli army that what they have done is legal?” What answer did she seriously expect? If the BBC wanted a genuinely impartial answer to this question, it could have invited a UN spokesperson onto Today to answer it. To ask it of a former Israeli army legal advisor who has greenlighted previous massacres seemed like a deliberate invitation to propaganda, not an attempt at serious journalism.

Passing off pro-Israel interviewees as independent, lack of Palestinian representation, and more... http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/amena-saleem/bbc-trying-shore-support-israels-assault-gaza Pretty fragile guv. Falls to bits the minute you put any history on top of it.

This is Defamation, a film by Yoav Shamir. Shamir's first movie was Checkpoint. It won awards, but he was also labelled "the Israeli Mel Gibson" for his efforts. He is interviewed in the Guardian about the experience here. It's an exploration of antisemitism, spurred partially by the press he received from Checkpoint, but also because he was born and bred in Israel and had never experienced the phenomenon himself. Shamir visits the ADL and spends a lot of the time shadowing Abe Foxman and his people. Another thread of the film sees him attached to a class of Israeli schoolchildren making their first visit to Poland. He also interviews those that the ADL have denounced for speaking critically, such as Normal Finkelstein, John Meirsheimer and Steven Walt. It's a fascinating, but ultimately tragic watch. Those who've expressed an interest in the Israeli lobby will probably be interested in the glimpses into the way it works. The most chilling thing about it is the attitude of the children, and especially the change they undergo at the end of their trip. What hope is there for peace when successive generations of kids are brainwashed to fear and hate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liJ2v19o46A

Sour Mash enquired what the protestors were asking for in an earlier post. There are immediate answers, such as protesting the BBC for bias or the US Embassy because of its ongoing wholesale support of Israel. Beyond that, though many broad aims are held by all (Free Palestine, Justice for Palestinians, etc) you're going to have independent views about how those aims should be realised. Though it's difficult to ascribe objectives in any detail collectively, you'll get strident views from individuals about what it is they stand for. The same can't be said for those arguing against Gaza demonstrators, something that is evident on this thread. I haven't seen one robust defence of Israel's actions in Gaza, only attacks against those that support the Palestinians. Bit of negative debating on here, but this blog piece over at the Spectator is the worst offender I've seen so far. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/londons-pro-palestine-rally-was-a-disgusting-anti-semitic-spectacle/ I don't think it contains a single substantiated claim.

A subscription or expansion business model seems a better fit for consumers. Don't know how much FM content costs. Presumably whatever the researchers are paid. Most games these days are mini movie productions with the added bother of interactivity and the unspoken arrangement that it doesn't actually have to look photorealistic. Even so, we're talking artists, 3d coders, script writers and voice actors - things FM uses less of, or none at all. Few would moan at a £30 per annum subscription or expansion. FM is effectively a standalone expansion. If you think of it that way, it's not a bad price. World of Warcraft was 9 quid a month for years and they charged £30 for each expansion on top. I will say that I'm getting bored. Too much cruft and too much entropy. For cruft, see all the drop down menus and lists, or my personal favourite, your player is sick. Send home? I've also had a couple of crashes over Steam home streaming, seeing my 3-0 up team get reamed in the resultant restart. My biggest prob with FM is just that it feels too much like a website. I feel as I'm at the gaffer's laptop working from home, rather than at his place of work. Different costs. Sony get a cut, for starters and certification is required on consoles. PC games almost always cheaper than console counterparts.

Not much. About 30 quid, not counting anything spent on travel. Donated to Palestine back in January too. Elsewhere, I donate to PDSA, Children's Society, Greenpeace and anything that my mates are putting actual efforts into sponsorship. Do some from here as well. Not totally altruistic. A small and superstitious part of my brain entertains the idea of karma. It thinks my general luckiness (I am one lucky fk) is a direct consequence of donating. Until I get confirmation either way, will be making no changes

Well, on my way back to Southampton from the national demo. Very well attended. Anecdotally busier than the last couple of rallies. Didn't see any antisemitism, at all, although had discussions with many about the issue. As I suspected, people aren't as terrified of having the charge laid at their feet. A sizeable Jewish delegation was there to protest against Israel's actions in Gaza. Galloway was there, predictably going further than the other speakers, questioning Israel's right to exist in the first place, given the methods some of its citizens have used in the formation or consolidation. Not charged with anything, but did revise his Israel free zone comment a wee bit, but not much. Overall though, superb day and I am left feeling positive. On a day like this, when you see many of the positives of a rainbow society, you realise how blooming close we are to having it sorted, of being a civilised, diverse country that looks out at the world and can justifiably speak out on human rights issues, perhaps better than anyone else. We can't do that if we are unable to look our two million Muslim brothers and sisters in the eye. We can't do that until there is justice for the Palestinians.

I think he's treading a fine line between freedom of speech and incitement. However, he made the comments, stands by them. I do find it difficult to reconcile the two complaints reported in the BBC article with the "great offence" that the minister reckons was caused. I can see why some might be concerned though. Although he exclusively used the term Israel, replace it with the word Jewish and it all starts to look a bit 1930s.

Can't argue with that. I do wonder whether there would have as been much CL interest north of the border without any Scottish representation though, or indeed, if a huge cache of deep-fried Mars bars is now winging its way to a gluttonous Polish match fixer in a very greasy brown envelope

It beggars belief, really. Commercially motivated behind the scenes?

Some background; I've seen the claim that Israel was responsible for the creation of Hamas. This is some pretty good substantiation. Article substantiating Paul's claims. How Israel helped to spawn Hamas http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847?mobile=y Ron Paul is on the money with his description. "Blow-back".

Any answer I gave would be self-serving or self-incriminating, so I will defer that to the judgement of people that have slept with men of various height. (Happy birthday Don!)

As a short man, I won't lie to you and say I've never idly considered Cubans, but I've never done it. I knew a bloke that did. He got proper ripped for it behind his back, just like Tom Cruise does. Problem is, females don't have this compunction, so if we going out as a family for a dressy event, it looks like a bevy of women are taking their little brother out to see Lion King or something. It's only the narcissism that gets me out of bed in the morning, y'know.

The coverage over in the US can be very partisan. Russell Brand has been bouncing off Sean Hannity's self-conjured sense of certainty for a little while now. However, chin up - this Salon article is fairly critical. http://www.salon.com/2014/08/07/joan_rivers_has_more_terrible_things_to_say_about_palestinians_you_deserve_to_be_dead/ She has apparently also issued a statement afterwards, which would suggest she's taking some flak:-

Funny you should say that. Exclusive footage of Cortese's super-secret takeover meetings. [video=youtube_share;63L_qNlCN6U]

Little bit before my time. I went to the next one in 1990. This is a very good write up of 1988. http://everyrecordtellsastory.com/2012/06/05/guns-n-roses-at-donington-88-the-triumph-and-the-tragedy/

Millwall banner for the Leeds United Game Courtesy of Football Away Days https://www.facebook.com/awaydayfootball?fref=photo

I've never seen the film; but I did receive a nice letter from Universal Pictures asking me if I would kindly not pirate it, or any of their other films again. The perils of living in a house with people of questionable taste and track-covering ability, but in possession of enough knowledge to grab files from highly watched public torrent sites. Noobs.