Anti-Semitic BBC Strikes Again? Or just incompetence?

[Razgovory]

Lee Harvey Oswald arrested for suspicion of murder.

[DGuller]

This thread is like a French indie film.  You watch it and go: "Huh?  What the fuck is going on?"  Unfortunately, this thread doesn't have any nudity in it.

[HVC]

Unfortunately, this thread doesn't have any nudity in it.

so you think

[grumbler]

This thread is like a French indie film.  You watch it and go: "Huh?  What the fuck is going on?"  Unfortunately, this thread post doesn't have any nudity Hinkley in it.

BYPFY

[crazy canuck]

And you dont understand that stating a reason for a course of conduct is antisemtism is in fact an allegation.

And you don't understand that a question isn't a statement.  You don't need a lawyer to correct that misapprehension; any handy fourth grader should be able to set you straight.

Nice try but the question mark does not take away the inference.  The "or" means you are alleging one of two explanations for the conduct.

[The Brain]

This thread is like a French indie film.  You watch it and go: "Huh?  What the fuck is going on?"  Unfortunately, this thread doesn't have any nudity in it.

You should watch Swedish films instead. They finish with a slut.

[ulmont]

If a man tries to kill his neighbor Joe and is set up in a sting operation where he can't possibly harm Joe but goes through with the act thinking he going to kill Joe, I don't see a problem with a newspaper story claiming he tried to kill Joe (even if Joe was out of the country or in FBI protection).

The actual equivalent in your scenario is for the man to attempt to kill an FBI agent who he thinks is Joe, and you having no problem with the newspaper headline reading "Man Attempts to Kill Joe."  I would have a problem with that headline - it would be a lie.

I don't see how that would be a lie.  The man intended to kill Joe, and took steps towards that goal...therefore he attempted to kill Joe.  In the same way, Stewart Nozette intended to sell secrets to Israel and took steps towards that goal...attempting to sell secrets to Israel. 

This is the same as someone attempting to buy drugs from a police officer; they attempted to buy drugs, notwithstanding that no drugs were there to be had.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't see how that would be a lie.  The man intended to kill Joe, and took steps towards that goal...therefore he attempted to kill Joe.  In the same way, Stewart Nozette intended to sell secrets to Israel and took steps towards that goal...attempting to sell secrets to Israel. 

This is the same as someone attempting to buy drugs from a police officer; they attempted to buy drugs, notwithstanding that no drugs were there to be had.

I was thinking of Abscam.  The perps were attempting to bribe members of Congress.  Even though they didn't meet anyone from Congress.

[Admiral Yi]

Oh shit, Abscam was the other way around wasn't it?  Takes backs.

[crazy canuck]

This thread is like a French indie film.  You watch it and go: "Huh?  What the fuck is going on?"  Unfortunately, this thread doesn't have any nudity in it.

You should watch Swedish films instead. They finish with a slut.

So boring boring boring, cut to women briefly  - the end?

[dps]

And you dont understand that stating a reason for a course of conduct is antisemtism is in fact an allegation.

And you don't understand that a question isn't a statement.  You don't need a lawyer to correct that misapprehension; any handy fourth grader should be able to set you straight.

It isn't a statement, but just asking it does carry certain implications.  That was the M.O. of that allegedly Icelandic guy--I forget his name--who used to post here.  He'd post something in question form, such as, "Well, hasn't it alway been the policy of the US government to torture enemy POWs?" and and get everyone all riled up, then, after 4 or 5 pages of arguments about what does or doesn't constitute torture (and usually, a lot of tangents, too), he'd break out the, "I never said that the US has ever tortured POWs" post, and we'd get 4 or 5 more pages of people arguing that he did;  while technically, he was correct that he had never outright stated that the US had tortured POWs, he had clearly implied it.  It was pretty obvious that he had intended it to be inflamatory, but he always tried to give himself some wiggle room.

[dps]

Oh shit, Abscam was the other way around wasn't it?  Takes backs.

Yeah, it was members of Congress (and some other officials) agreeing to take bribes from foreign nationals.  Only they weren't foreigners, they were FBI agents.  Still, the principle is the same--they thought they were taking bribes from foreigners, but their mistake in identifying who they were dealing with didn't change their intent, nor their guilt.

[grumbler]

I don't see how that would be a lie.  The man intended to kill Joe, and took steps towards that goal...therefore he attempted to kill Joe.

  Intent /= attempt  Logic fail

In the same way, Stewart Nozette intended to sell secrets to Israel and took steps towards that goal...attempting to sell secrets to Israel. 

Nope.  Nozette intended to sell secrets to a man he thought was an Israeli.  There is no evidence Nozette inteded to sell secrets to Israel per se.  The FBI guy could have said he was from France, and the exact same thing would have happened.

This is the same as someone attempting to buy drugs from a police officer; they attempted to buy drugs, notwithstanding that no drugs were there to be had.

That's not the way the law works around here - you must "possess with intent to purchase" an actual drug to violate the law... but that doesn't matter.  The analogy that would apply is if you buy ecstasy from an undercover cop thinking it is cocaine, and get charged with (and the newspaper headline reports you as having been charged with, even knowing differently) the buying of cocaine.  That's not going to fly.

[DGuller]

Ni hao!

Oh sorry, I just got a vision of grumbler digging any deeper.

[LaCroix]

I did argue that mentioning Israel in the story is legitimate since it's reasonable to ask who he thought he was selling secrets to.  Since Grumbler is arguing with me, I take it that he disagrees.

i think mentioning israel in the story is perfectly fine, and i don't see grumbler disagreeing with that. however, the way they--and other sites--went about it is simply wrong and poor journalism. these aren't the tabloids, and they shouldn't post horribly misleading titles that sort of condemn a nation that millions across the globe already have problems with. a lot of people skim articles, or simply don't read them, so when they see such titles it leaves an impression that they could later fallback on when engaging in circle-jerks about israel's evilness months down the line

i don't get the hostile reaction to this thread (well, actually, i kinda do). the complaint is well justified. israel, in this story, is pretty meaningless. the reason why fbi agents posed as israeli operators is because the man had a connection to israel and not, say, china. explaining why the fbi used israel as their cover rather than another country is perfectly fine. what isn't fine is that some news outlets have taken the story and, on purpose or sloppy writing, placed a sort of blame on israel