Private Eye magazine’s regular Lookalikes feature this fortnight highlight’s the striking resemblance between Vladimir Putin and Andrew Marr of the BBC, rather in line with the observations of BBBC aficionados:
Sir,Have you noticed the sinister similarities between these two?
I have heard that one has his roots in a subversive organisation involved in the dissemination of enemy propaganda. The other is a former head of the KGB.
Should we be warned about these double agent doubles?Yours,
TOM HOYLE,
Leeds.
I think we know all about Andrew Marr, but was Vladimir Putin really head of the KGBBC? I think we should be told…
OT: Omar over at Iraq the Model has translated and posted numerous pro-American comments from Iraqis made on the BBC’s Arabic site. From an American standpoint, it’s nice to know that the state-controlled broadcaster of our “closest ally” is encouraging the Arab world to vent their hatred of the US, as Omar reports.
Omar’s Translations
Interesting OT post.
Susan: The BBC is “encouraging the Arab world to vent their hatred of the US”.
Omar: “I’ve found that all Iraqi participants (except for two) carry no hatred for America, not to mention the admiration and gratitude for America that were clear in some Iraqis’ comments.”
The statements Omar has translated are very revealing, as are many of the comments left by visitors to his site. Hate? Bias? Your call.
Omar posts: “…the BBC opened a forum for Arab readers to allow them to voice their feelings about the “hatred wave against America”.”
I’m assuming the quotes are from the BBC site. If so, I would consider that they have indeed invited if not encouraged Arabs to vent their hatred.
It appears the invitation was loaded in one direction to begin with rather than a neurtal “how do you feel about America?” or even more neutral “how do you feel about your situation today?”
OT: If you want to see a Putin look-alike, go to your local video store and rent a copy of Alfred Hitchcock’s Saboteur (the 1942 movie starring Bob Cummings and Priscilla Lane, not to be confused with Hitchcock’s earlier film Sabotage) — the main bad guy looks surprisingly like Putin.
OT StinKerr: I haven’t seen a full translation of the page, but if the BBC had directly invited comments about people’s hatred for America, that would be a bigger story than Rathergate and Gilligangate put together, and they would rightly be condemned.
I also doubt Omar has lost anything in translation, although we do have to remember this is just that, a translation, therefore what I suspect is missing is some context around the words quoted.
I suspect the BBC page has asked for comments following the recent resurgence of bombings and violence against Allied forces in Iraq, which could be described and/or then translated as a “wave of hatred against America”. Factually, that isn’t too wide of the mark.
Almost all the comments are positive, so it seems the understanding among Arabic writers has been very different to that expressed here.
I therefore question where the bias is – is it in on the BBC site, or in the eye of the beholder?
Putin looks more like Brit comedian Jasper Carrott.
Off topic, Pilger’s latest rant in the New Statesman
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=6238
contains this gem
“BBC reporters never report Israelis as terrorists: that term belongs exclusively to Palestinians imprisoned in their own land”.
When was the last time the BBC used the word ‘terrorist’ about a Palestinian ? As we all know, they’re ‘militants’, ‘fighters’ or ‘gunmen’.
Reith,
Since neither of us read Arabic I suppose we’ll have to depend on others to tell us what the Beeb is saying.
One note though. Most of the bombings lately are directed against the Iraqi civilian populace, more particularly against those who are attempting to join the police force or the Iraqi National Guard.
Judging from the way they phrase and present their “(Don’t) Have Your Say” topics in English, I would say that Omar’s translation is probably pretty close.
StinKerr – yes, you are right, but in the warped minds of the terrorists, they are Americans, and represent the American-backed interim government, so they strike at their own to get at the US.
Susan: I don’t doubt Omar’s abilities, and I believe his translation is very likely accurate, but that’s not the point is it.
I don’t think that these people see the Iraqi volunteers for Police and ING as Americans. I see them looking at them as a threat to their own plans for taking over Iraq for their own purposes. They do not want democracy to flourish there, they want to take power for themselves.
Here’s a pretty good analysis of three of the factions: http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ with an Iraqi’s view of what they want.
They have been deliberately and indiscriminately killing Iraqis for months now to further their aims.
OT:
Further anti American and pro European Union bias at the BBC. Look at the amount of attention given to the Ryder Cup. Surely an impartial news organisation would devote that space to saying nice things about President Bush.
Scumbags. Etc. Etc. Etc.
I think sometimes Westerners like to over simplify Arab resentment of the US. It’s true that this does manifest itself in the extremism of the few, but the majority of reasonable, non-fundamentalist Arabs also harbour deep concerns about US involvement in the Middle East. It is not simply a case of small number of terrorists trying to scupper Democracy in Iraq, anti-US feeling runs deeper and is more widespread in most countries in the Middle East. I think Reith is right in saying that anything that represents American occupation is symbolically a target, however I would also concede that that there are several groups who would like to exploit any vacuum of power a collapse of the administration would bring about. However is the BBC attempting to stir up anti-US sentiment? I would argue that BBC is simply giving a platform for Iraqi’s and other Arabs to put forward the completely reasonable arguments and opinions like on Omar’s website translations
The bias in the Middle East is generally directed against the (Christian)west as a whole.
They make no bones about it. They want to reconquer what they had conquered in Europe and maybe add some just for interest. Consider how close they came to capturing Vienna. I believe the weather was the final factor in defeating them.
Remember that they had the Iberian Penninsula under Moslem control. You should remember because they will never forget.
You can call it ani-American if you like and feel comfortable because you in Europe are not a target, but it would be wise to realize that it’s anti-Western Civilization as a whole. You are not safe in Europe either.
Perhaps instead of Christian West I should have said non-Moslem West. That’s the sin, being non-Moslem.
“Remember that they had the Iberian Penninsula under Moslem control. You should remember because they will never forget”
I remember reading the names of the towns from which the trains from the Madrid bombing were travelling. I believe 3 out of the 4 (can’t remember exactly) left from towns with historically Arab place names (i.e. beginning witht the prefix Al-).
I think there was some sort of symbolic significance there, although I never saw anyone mention it. But then again, most people can’t look farther than recent Middle Eastern/Arab history to look for root causes for the problems…Most people look no further than the Balfour Declaration and the (very brief) colonial period.
719 AD. That’s how long you have to go back to justify this ludicrous argument. If you really believe that “they want to reconquer what they had conquered in Europe and maybe add some just for interest” then you might as well say that all Western intervention in the Middle East stems from the Crusades. The fact that you have used “they” to construct Muslims as an “other” shows your true intent behind your rhetoric. This is nothing more than glossed racism masquerading as rational debate.
I think the ‘conquering Europe’ issue is a bit of a red herring.
Sure there are groups with scary websites declaring their wish for a wholly moslem world. There are also scary websites demanding/predicting a whole range of bonkers things – expulsion of all non whites, a libertarian/communist/anarchist government, an independent Cornwall. Should we be unduly worried about them?
We should be concerned with dealing with the real and immediate threats posed by terrorism, not sweating about some impending global war.
“719 AD. That’s how long you have to go back to justify this ludicrous argument.”
The thing is bin Laden himself refers to these historical events including “the tragedy of Andalucia” in his video messages (7-Oct-2001).
How ludicrous of him.
theghostofredken,
Feel free to email me. I have a lovely new race card for you to play whenever you can’t think of a good counterpoint. Yours seems to be wearing out.
It’s a 2k gif file. Not too big and quite handy.
StinKerr: I’m not playing the “race-card” as you put it. I’m just pointing out the language used is trying to separate the notion of civilisation and Western-ism from the notion of what it is to be a Muslim. Why are they mutually exclusive as is suggested by pointed use of “they”? Why are Muslims not considered to be “us”? For all you know anyone who posts here could a civilised, western Muslim? As I hope you’d acknowledge, they do exist. To suggest that these values are somehow opposed is akin to stereotyping and generalisation of the worst kind, it’s akin to saying “all blacks are…” or “all Irish are…” Worse than that, it’s just plain untrue.
Michael: “The thing is bin Laden himself refers to these historical events including “the tragedy of Andalucia” in his video messages (7-Oct-2001).”
To be honest I think the chances of Al Qaeda capturing the Iberian Peninsula are pretty slim, don’t you think?
Ghost,
It’s not a question of their chances for success. It’s what they do in the mean time. Contrary to what many well-meaning people think, their cause is strengthened every time they are successful in killing a few infidels, not when Western powers crack down on them, but when they seem to get away with it. For instance, the change of government in Spain after the Madrid tragedy has shown many disillusioned young Muslims that terrorism is a perfectly valid and effective form of political discourse.
Also, to a seriously devout fundamentalist Muslim WE are a “them” or a “they”. One of the 5 pillars requires submission to the Quran as it is written and there are many passages in the Quran that are inimical to Western life. Not to mention the ones that talk about not putting up with unbelievers etc. The peaceful bits were written in Mecca and the nasty bits in Medina, and many mainstream interpretations of this indicate that when the two collide, Medina takes precedence.(cont’
(cont’d)
I never considered my own other-ness to them until I was asked to handle some security photos for the American bank that I worked at in Frankfurt about a year and a half ago. Two young Middle Eastern men were video’d spending about 30 minutes taking video of the building in which I worked-it’s an unremarkable building and they didn’t look like tourists. Similar sightings took place at other banks in London and New York that week.
It was then that I realised, no matter how much I could understand and perhaps even empathise with them, I was still a target. And so is everyone else that choose to live in a modern secular world. We are going to be their enemy regardless of what we do. And no amount of negotiation, short of capitulation, is going to vanquish such depth of belief.
“To be honest I think the chances of Al Qaeda capturing the Iberian Peninsula are pretty slim, don’t you think?”
Of course and I never said otherwise, but to see the places that “interest” al-Qaeda for terrorist activity just read their pronouncements. Don’t be surprised to see them take action in Italy or Austria.
They may not conquer Iberia, but they’ve effectively helped to change the Spanish government.
James: “It was then that I realised, no matter how much I could understand and perhaps even empathise with them, I was still a target.” Fair point but let’s keep things in perspective. Al Qaeda has only managed to carry out one successful terrorist attack in the US, and none in the UK. While I’m not saying there is no threat, if you compare that statistic to the IRA when they were at their peak in the late 80’s, there really is no comparison. Did people jump at the sound of an Irish accent? No. Did they suspect every person with an ‘O’ or a ‘Mac’ in their name to be a terrorist? No. So let’s not let hysteria, generalisation or stereotyping get in the way of a rational debate.
cont: The threat of terrorism is one which affects every major country in the world, both Arab and non-Arab, but Muslim extremists are not the sole perpetrators of this threat as anyone who grew up in Spain (ETA), UK (IRA), Greece (November 17), Turkey (PKK) or even the US (White Supremacists/Timothy McVeigh) can testify.
Michael: “They may not conquer Iberia, but they’ve effectively helped to change the Spanish government.” There were many reasons why Jose-Luis Rodriguez Zapatero’s Socialist party won the election, but the main one was that most Spanish people were opposed to the war in Iraq (polls that I saw suggested around 70-80% of Spanish people were against the war). The bombers did attempt to influence the result which to some degree it may well have, but Zapatero was always ahead in the polls, well before the Madrid bombing. Not to mention the fact Zapatero ran on a high-profile anti-terrorist policy; “More than always, the national priority must always be the defeat of terrorists,” (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/14/spain.blasts.election/)
“Zapatero was always ahead in the polls, well before the Madrid bombing”
Not according to the BBC…
“Spanish voters rejected the Popular Party three days after the attacks, even though it had led the opinion polls in the weeks leading up to the election.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3560561.stm
Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq intervention, people were reluctant to embrace Zapatero. Reluctant until the 11th March atrocity and Aznar’s botched response to it.
“Al Qaeda has only managed to carry out one successful terrorist attack in the US”
One in which the death toll almost matched the entire Northern Ireland conflict where the casualties were caused by a number of different groups.
Number of dead in 9/11 = Total number killed in attacks (official figure as of 9/5/02): 2,819
from http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm
Number of people killed in N.I. (just N.I., not England) between 1973 • 2003 (note the dates and remember how long the conflict has been going on, think Robert Emmet et.al.): 3,601
from http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/security/security.htm#06
Please check your facts first.
In any case, I was just trying to highlight the hysterical fear of terrorism against the actual reality of situation not an “our terrorist atrocity was worse than yours” type debate. And have you just used the BBC to back up your point? Ah, the irony of it all
…
“Please check your facts first.”
By your figures, al-Qaeda killed on one day 78.3% of the total slaughtered in the Northern Ireland conflict in 30+ years.
Remember, the Northern Ireland conflict casualties were caused by a number of different groups.
So, if you compare that statistic to the IRA when they were at their peak (in the early 70s), there really is no comparison.
We are in an era of hyper terrorism where people will use WMD if they can get their hands on them, or improvise (use jetliners as missiles) if they can’t.
“And have you just used the BBC to back up your point? Ah, the irony of it all”
Yes, that was entirely intentional. Use the precious Beeb to undermine its defenders.
theghostofredken,
I was offering a new race card to you because of this phrase:
“The fact that you have used “they” to construct Muslims as an “other” shows your true intent behind your rhetoric. This is nothing more than glossed racism masquerading as rational debate.”
When people or groups declare war on me and my fellows and attack “us” they become “they” and we the attacked become “us” and are against “them”. Racism is not involved as Muslims come in nearly every variety of humans that exist. Indeed, I am not against Muslims, just the ones who pervert their religion as an excuse to attack and attempt to subjugate others. Their intent is well known and is not assumed as they have declared it themselves.
(cont’d)
(cont’d)
“For all you know anyone who posts here could a civilised, western Muslim? As I hope you’d acknowledge, they do exist.”
There is a thriving, vibrant Muslim community about two hours north of me. I have done business with many people in that city and have no idea who may or may not be part of that community. It was inconsequencial to the business at hand. Indeed, the presence of a large Muslim community was only obvious to me when I first saw the stunningly beautiful mosque pictured here: http://www.toledomuslims.com/center.asp This picture doesn’t do it justice.
Some of the people who have come from this community are Danny Thomas and Jamie Farr. Others are leading figures in other walks of life including education, medicine, science and the military.
Are you saying that the ones who are not “western Muslims” are not “civilised”? I’ll point out that Mesopotamia (Iraq) is considered by many as the “cradle of cizilization”.
No really, lets leave the N.I. – 9/11 comparison well alone now, as I said earlier it wasn’t my point to have “who’s got the most dead?” competition but more highlight the differing attitudes of the Governments/people/countries involved. I’m not sure I understand your “use the precious Beeb to undermine its defenders” comment though. I’m not here to defend the Beeb, but to try and give a different perspective on some of the more “rabid” opinions expressed on this forum. If I think a criticism is fair, then I will endorse it, but that instance hasn’t cropped up yet. “We are in an era of hyper terrorism where people will use WMD if they can get their hands on them…”
Please don’t believe the hype, the world as whole is no more or no less danger than it has been since the birth of Atomic power. The faces change, the governments change, and the terrorists change but the threat remains about the same as ever.
“Please check your facts first.”
A good idea. The page you refer concerns only New York City. You seem to have forgotten the Pentagon attack and the people on the plane that was crashed near Shanksville, PA.
http://vikingphoenix.com/news/stn/2003/911casualties.htm
Comparing casualties suffered in a few hours to thirty years of casualties is quite a stretch.
Ghost,
I think that aside from the terrorist threat (which I agree, is much like the lottery, but definitely one I wouldn’t want to win), I think there is a very real threat to the West of Political Islam coming into its own and abusing a liberal system in order to promote practices (such as Hijab, Female Genital Mutilation, arranged marriages) that go against the libertarian spirit of western democracies (much like some Christians do in the US regarding science). It is already being viewed, from the left, as a legitimate, reasonable political force, and to be critical of things such as Hijab, FGM, and arranged marriages is not the done thing (except in the tabloids and the Spectator). If one is, one is labeled as a reactionary racist. Political Islam is dangerous insofar as it uses both violent and peaceful means in many of its various faces.
There’s a good point to be made about the reality of the dangers of terrorist attack. Your average British citizen is far more at risk from being hit by a bus whilst staggering to the kebab shop than from being blown up by an ‘Islamofacist’.
In order to deal with a problem it’s important to quantify it realistically rather than running around screaming about impending doom and Muslim global invasions.
As far as Britain goes, intensive intelligence monitoring, tightening border controls and sidelining political correctness in dealing with suspects seems like a reasonable approach. Staying indoors shaking with fear, writing blood curdling essays about the inherent evil of Islam (and it’s impending takeover of Britain) and bombing Iran doesn’t.
“No really, lets leave the N.I. – 9/11 comparison well alone now”
No lets not, as a “who’s got the most dead?” competition can illustrate just how much the stakes have been raised and what a well financed body like al-Qaeda with absolutely no scruples can carry out.
In Nairobi in August 1998 they killed 200 Africans in order to get 12 Americans (their presumptive target). Some collateral damage!
While the total number of deaths from terrorism is miniscule compared with heart disease, AIDS, cigarette smoking etc., etc., the activities of some depraved, but wealthy, organisation like al-Qaeda can indeed inflict huge casualties.
I for one don’t want to see them ‘improve’ on their record so far.
Well clearly 9/11 is an emotive an issue for you Michael, but I don’t think we’re on the same wavelength here. The US had not experienced terrorism before 2001, unlike most other major countries in the world. Is the average European as seemingly ‘flinch-y’ as you are about the threat of Al Qaeda? No. Our own experience tells us the risks are relatively slim. And let’s not forget that due the UK government’s compliance with the US in Iraq, I’m as much a target as you. Conversely, if you lived in Israel you would probably be more concerned with Hamas, likewise Columbia perhaps FARC etc, etc. The point is Al Qaeda is only the greatest threat to “West” from an almost exclusively US or perhaps now a UK perspective (though I would disagree). But what should never happen is that we allow our own fears about personal safety get in the way of rational debate and the scrutinising of our government’s actions.
James: “It is already being viewed, from the left, as a legitimate, reasonable political force, and to be critical of things such as Hijab, FGM, and arranged marriages is not the done thing (except in the tabloids and the Spectator).” Could you give an example? All I can think of is the French government banning the wearing of religious items/clothing in schools, which suggests the opposite.
“The US had not experienced terrorism before 2001”
The World Trade Center bombing of 1993? Oklahoma City bombing 1995?
“The point is Al Qaeda is only the greatest threat to “West” from an almost exclusively US or perhaps now a UK perspective”
Try telling that to the victims of the Madrid atrocity, the Bali bombing.
People like you and the rest of the non-flinch-y brigade don’t seem to realise the escalation of terrorism that has taken place in the last decade. Once, a bombing at Harrods or Warrington that killed a relatively small number would dominate headlines. Now entire city tower blocks get demolished, hundreds of commuters get massacred on trains.
There are people out there plotting to cause mass destruction. Destroying nuclear power stations, blowing planes out of the sky, you name it they have considered it.
How about if they succeed and destroy a nuclear power station in the densely populated north eastern US or Europe? The human and economic cost will be colo
The last bit should have said “The human and economic cost will be colossal.”
“The World Trade Center bombing of 1993? Oklahoma City bombing 1995?” I was talking in reference to my previous point (by successful, I meant in terms of casualties, just to be clear…), though if I had said 1993 my point would remain the same.
“There are people out there plotting to cause mass destruction.”
Sure, just as there always have been and always will be. I’m not afraid Michael, and I don’t think it’s because I’m being unrealistic or that I’ve got my head in the clouds.
Ghost,
“Could you give an example? All I can think of is the French government banning the wearing of religious items/clothing in schools, which suggests the opposite.”
The recent local elections in the UK where the Respect party, a combination of Islamist and SWP groups came together. The anti-war protests in London where many of the banners were anti-Israel and anti-US and not anti-War. Caroline Lucas, Green MEP, among others, protesting against the headscarf ban. Those are the ones that come to mind immediately. I’m sure that I can come up with a few more. Many intellectuals on the left tend to think that the enemy of one’s enemy is one’s friend, just like the anti-Communists of the early 80s did with the Mujaheddin.
Global Terrorist Attacks Fall to Lowest Level Since 1969
State Department report shows highest number of 2003 attacks in Asia. The total number of international terrorist attacks in 2003 — 190 incidents that killed 307 people — was the lowest since 1969, according to the latest Department of State report on worldwide terrorism. The annual report, “Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003,” shows the number of attacks last year was down slightly from the 199 attacks reported in 2002. At the same time, the 2003 figure is a 45 percent decline from the 346 attacks in 2001.
(http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2004/04-29-8.htm)
James: (Quick reply for now) “The recent local elections in the UK where the Respect party, a combination of Islamist and SWP groups came together.”
Marginal political parties that probably polled 0.8% of the vote between them (I can’t be bothered to check, but suffice to say it’ll be very low), doesn’t really count as mainstream “left” endorsement, does it?
As for the Anti-war protests, that’s just a can of worms which I’m not prepared to open as we’ll end up talking about Israel/US again. I will say “tenuous” as my quick response, although this would be what I would agree as “mainstream left” endorsement, just to clarify. And a Green MEP. Marginal politics would be the phrase that again comes to mind. Sorry if this doesn’t make sense, I’ll clarify a bit more tomorrow.
“Global Terrorist Attacks Fall to Lowest Level Since 1969”
Don’t you think this reduction in terrorist attacks has got something to do with:
a. Bush/Blair/Berlusconi/others coalition that has aggressively targeted terrorist groups and the rogue states that support them
b. The construction of the fence in Israel/Palestine?
Michael: “Don’t you think this reduction in terrorist attacks has got something to do with:
a. Bush/Blair/Berlusconi/others coalition that has aggressively targeted terrorist groups and the rogue states that support them”. Overall, no is my short answer. Iraq was a secular country before the war; it had little if any links with any kind of Islamic extremist group (most of them hated Hussein). Now it seems there is a bomb/kidnapping every day and there seems to have been a large influx of extremists from neighbouring countries like Jordan (e.g. Al-Zarqawi’s group). Iraq has become the focus for the extremists, as some people thought it would before the war. That said, domestic measures taken by the governments in question seem sensible (increased budget for intelligence services) but I’m not convinced that actions in Iraq have made the world any safer, and if anything, perhaps we’ve added more fuel to the fire of the extremists who may increase there numbers as a result.