atrocious explanation for the horrific destruction of September 11th, 2001, six years ago. According to CBBC Newsround, Why did they do it?:
The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda – who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.
In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war – called a jihad – against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.
When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.
So children, it was all the Americans own fault you see. Nothing to do with murderous islamic fundamentalism stretching back decades and longer.
CBBC might not want to go into detail about Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood and so on, but their explanation leaves a lot to be desired (does anyone remember the BBC’s version of the holocaust that forget to mention the Jews?).
Don’t bother clicking on the link above – it now returns a ‘404 page not found’ error – someone in BBC La-la-land must be having a rethink. Still, in the meantime you can make do with Google’s cache of the page and, mais oui, this screen shot of the BBC’s self-censored page:
BBC: “It woz the Americans own fault it woz”. Click to enlarge.
Don’t let it be said that we don’t spoil you at Biased BBC!
Update: The BBC’s page is now back after a complete rewrite. It is no longer a ‘Guide’ with several pages – it is now a single ‘what happened’ page, with no attempt at explaining ‘why it happened’ or ‘whodunnit’. Interestingly, the fourth plane, UA flight 93, merely ‘crashed into a field’, with no mention of the resistance put up by the passengers and crew once they knew what the terrorists intended.
Update: For the sake of completeness I’ve taken the time to go back and retrieve the rest of CBBC Newsround’s Guide to the September 11th, 2001 attacks – see the post below for full details.
Thank you to various Biased BBC readers for links.
An aside: Whilst I’m happy to stand up to the BBC in defence of the truth, the USA and other victims of the BBC’s institutional leftism, it is tiresome when the uninformed and ignorant use the BBC as an excuse to spout nonsense belittling the UK and the British people as a whole or to suggest that we’re all going to hell in an islamic handcart. There’s a lot of life left in the old British Bulldog yet – even if it could do with a deworming tablet and a delousing scrub every now and again. This plea for rational debate applies to some of our own commenters too.
Hear hear. I often leave comments on former colonial blogs pointing out that (a) the BBC are ignored by most people depsite their claims to be the top broadcaster etc and (b) DO NOT speak for the vast majority of people in the UK, only the special few in that unholy gang of BBCers, Labour Party people, some Guardian readers and nutty left wingers. I also leave this blog’s url! If we were posting/commenting on a commission basis I reckon some of us would be millionaires by now!
The CBBC news page is not 404’ing any more; the new report is no longer as outrageously biased as the original and has a new headline “What happened on 9/11”. It is now all factual with no opinion at all – the only “fact” missing being the ideology of the perpetrators (obviously).
Maybe that was the real reason for the changes, not to remove bias but to de-Islam it – after all it was the joos wot done it, not followers of the religion of peace.
Excellent news. The only question left is (all together now): How on earth can the BBC hire people who think this way in the first place? Rod Liddle’s recent Spectator article and Helen Boaden’s weak croaking notwithstanding, there is still a lot of explaining left to do.
The BBC would get better value from the tax-payers’ money if they used these people as a toast rack.
‘There’s a lot of life left in the old British Bulldog yet…blah blah’
Thanks for sharing yet another cheap assertion widely at odds with personal experience.
Sorry, but the former colonials (God yes, bracingly amusante there) have moved on. You’re on your own, aside from a little meaningless tea and sympathy. Good luck with all that. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.
Knacker,
You are mistaken.
Knacker, thank you for demonstrating, once again, the sort of tiresome uninformed ignorance I meant. Take a full refund of your subscription and naff off. And see that you really do naff off this time. Ta ta now.
Since I’ve FOUGHT with the former colonials in Gulf War 1 and elsewhere (on the same side I hasten to add..), I thought it was quite amusing meself since they used to refer to me as “the former overlord” 😎
“a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.”
No mention by the BBC that the reason OBL wanted US troops out is because of a particularly intolerant passage in the Koran about infidels in Saudi Arabia – in other words, the central role of Islam in 9-11.
The thing is, it’s not so much about whether or not we former colonials have moved on, or how many of us pay attention to the BBC. The original incarnation of the CBBC article(s) did nothing short of indoctrinate British children into conspiracy theories and religious intolerance.
No way in hell should Americans be expected to sit on their hands while the official state broadcasting network of the government of our most important ally in the world teaches the next generation such horrible – provably false – lies.
So al-qaeda is a Christian group? Or Jewish? Not very helpful is it?
BBC pillocks.
How about M U S L I M!!!!!!!!!!!
If you think that’s indoctrination, you should see how well our British children are now indoctrinated on “man-made climate change”. It’s scary.
Much as I am loath to link to the whiny little prick, Andrew Sullivan has a reader’s reply from the BBC:
Thank you for your email to Newsround. The article you are referring to is an old guide that we thought had been purged from our system. It is my understanding that it was written on the day of the attacks back in 2001. I agree that it is inappropriate and it is now being taken off the site.
In addition to this, I have asked staff to do a thorough search to ensure the guides that remain online are accurate and objective.
I am genuinely sorry that this article has appeared and that it has caused offence.
The author of the email wants us to believe that this was written on the day of the attacks:
When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia…
No, I don’t buy the excuse either. Notice the phrase “It is my understanding that…” in the BBC missive. Political arse-covering if ever I saw it. Instead of holding up its hand and admitting wrong the BBC tries to bullshit its way out. I think the Trust should be informed.
Just had a look at the Google cache links – the whole thing was last updated in June 2007, and yet the Newsround lackey claims: “It is my understanding that it was written on the day of the attacks back in 2001”. Duh!
it was Tom Gross who pointed out that Holocaust guide that didnt mention the Jews. see here:
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000028.html
the original text was:
What was it?
The Holocaust was a mass murder of millions of people leading up to and during the Second World War.
The killings took place in Europe between 1933 and 1945. They were organised by the German Nazi party which was lead by Adolf Hitler.
Most of the victims died because they belonged to certain racial or religious groups which the Nazis wanted to wipe out, even though they were German citizens.
This kind of killing is called genocide.
it always amuses me (in a scared “ha ha…oh dear they really are brainwashing kids” kind of way…) that the CBBC guide page doesn’t mention the biggest religion in the UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/guides/default.stm
hint: it starts with a “C”
of course a certain other minority religion (with less UK adherents than the Jedi) get a mention under the letter “I”.
Considering that the head of the UK state is also head of the ESTABLISHED church, it is indeed remarkable that it doesnt warrant a mention.
They also miss out one starting with ‘J’ (no, not Jedi) and another starting with ‘B’ and another starting with ‘C’ (not the same one as you miss) and another starting with ‘S’.
In fact it misses them all out [i]apart[/i] from the one starting with ‘I’.
But it does mention the Pope.
I think the Newsround site requires some investigation …
“it is tiresome when the uninformed and ignorant use the BBC as an excuse to spout nonsense belittling the UK and the British people”
Well said. Thank you.
As an American I cringe every time one of my jackass countrymen gets on a blog or messageboard and starts ranting stupidly about an entire country that he probably can’t even find on a map. Trust me these clueless people don’t speak for the majority of us. We love and admire Britain very much.
I second g wiz’s contribution. Please don’t pay attention to the idiotic Yanks who think all Brits are the same as Beeboids!