Reg Jones wrote to the BBC regarding this link: “War crimes – have we learned anything?” and copied us in. He wrote:
Classic BBC worldview regarding war crimes:
“… Buchenwald last week, Belsen this, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki still to come in August.”
Why didn’t Mr. Simpson have the courage to follow up and explain just how the men responsible for dropping the A-bomb ie Truman, Stimson, and Oppenheimer escaped war crimes trials at the end of World War II. Was it victor’s justice Mr. Simpson or was there a slight distinction to be made between Buchenwald and Hiroshima?
If you’re going to raise Hirsohima in the context of war crimes at least have the courage to follow through. Since no distinction was made we are left with the BBC’s World Affiars editor’s cheap insinuation that there is no real moral/criminal distinction to be made between a Hiroshima –which arguably saved both American and Japanese lives– and Buchenwald.
How nice.
But let us not stop there:
“Haven’t we learned anything? Are we no further forward than we were 60 years ago?…But we haven’t yet managed to persuade those who think they can slaughter people as a matter of policy that they will inevitably pay a price for doing so. True, there is justice sometimes…”
Speaking of “justice sometimes”… did anyone notice Mr. Simpson omission. I know it was a very obscure news story. There was recently a war. The country had a bit of a genocide problem in the past. The leader of the country was not such a nice man. He is in jail now. He and his henchmen will be facing justice.
This country now has the chance to say “Never Again!” and mean it.
Strange that the BBC World Affairs Editor doesn’t mention this. No, on second thought it’s not so strange.
In his email to me he also asks whether Mr. Simpson was a supporter of “enthusiastic action” with regard to Iraq?
I can’t immediately answer that question when it comes to Mr Simpson as an individual. He seems to me typical of the old BBC in both its faults and virtues. Let’s put it this way, we might not care for his views, but he is by no means a favourite of the anti-war left either. I do remember him being joyfully enthusiastic about the liberation of Kabul and they hated him for that. Continuing my partial defence (note to our esteemed commentariat: partial defences where appropriate are necessary if one is to gain assent when attack is appropriate) of Mr Simpson, the headline referring to war crimes was almost certainly written by a sub-editor, not him. His actual words refer only to “past horrors” and “killing on an industrial scale,” and that first paragraph could be read as general introductory hand-wringing over the horrors of war.
OK, end of partial defence. The very significant ommission of recent events in Iraq in a discussion about making dictators and war criminals “pay a price” was unimpressive to the point of black comedy.
A paraphrase of Euclid would hold that “things comparable to the same thing are comparable to each other”.
On the historical facts it is difficult to dispute the comparability of Hamburg and Dresden to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so if Hiroshima is comparable to Auschwitz, then Auschwitz must be comparable to Dresden and we line up alongside David Irving.
For the BBC, which is funded by the threat of kidnap, to lecture about justice is exceedingly rich.
Don’t pay the TV-Tax, starve the beast.
The Today programme found several minutes this morning to give to a very soft interview to Begg, one of the Guantanamo released prisoners. He was fed a series of questions that allowed him to bleat and whine about how unfair the S and Britain are – with a hint thast respect is the party to vote for. NO questions about what he was doing in fghanistan, and why he attended two of bin Laden’s terrorist camps. No real challenges from the stupid wet interviewer. No proper mention of what the claims about his actions were.
Disgraceful editing.
Disgraceful.
http://www.respectcoalition.org/artwork/playmobil.jpg
With regard to respect and the bedwetting left, this pic from the Respect Coalition’s website was presumably posted without irony. Mark Steyn couldn’t have done better.
I thought Simpson’s piece seemed unusually balanced for an article on the BBC website. It includes a quote I defy you to see anywhere else in Beebdom:
“Some people think Argentina and Chile are better off without the generation of left-wingers who disappeared in the 1970s. ”
Well, well.
Re: Begg
Yep, the Beeb News website features an article about Begg as one of the three top stories on the front page no less. Apparently, the Beeb has a very flexible definition of ‘news’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4467825.stm
Needless to say, the article itself is blathersgate, including such logic-tormenting sentances as ‘While Moazzam Begg acknowledges he did visit two training camps in Afghanistan, he says he was there as an observer only. ‘ Uh, that’s Ok then.
At news.bbc.co.uk, the front page for BBC News, the Begg interview is the only audio clip being advertised. Nothing on this morning’s other interviews – for stance on whether or not Blair was lying when he said there are no estimates of the scale of illegal immigrants still in the UK.
There is nothing whatsoever newsworthy about Begg today. Yet he achieves a lot of coverage on the Today prog and on the online site. After many months of the bleating by his father – “My son is innocent” . Yeh, sure, he was just a tourist in Afghanistan.
Its not the first time BBC have thrown softball interviews with the Guantanamites or their families. I have yet to hear an interviewer ask just what the hell he was doing there in the first place.
Could you imagine such a sympathetic hearing if he’d been picked up with for instance an Ulster Loyalist Terrorist organization? Quite rightly no. The same scepticism should apply to somebody who has been rubbing shoulders with Islamic terrorists.
While Moazzam Begg acknowledges he did visit two training camps in Afghanistan, he says he was there as an observer only. Why? To observe how to blow up and murder innocent non- Muslims, these training camps housed some of the most ruthless terrorists the world has ever seen and he dismisses it as a jaunt to a Butlins holiday camp. If the shoe bomber had succeeded in blowing up a plane with 300 passengers would he have applauded, or been totally aghast. He says we are all paranoid against Muslims, maybe we are, and certainly he does not give me confidence not to be. Soft questioning by the BBC does not help matters.
I have a lot of time for Mr Simpson, and I am going to speak up in his defence.
The article does not specifically link Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Buchenwald/Belsen as anything apart from “mass killing”. He makes the initial point about whether we have become immune to death “on an industrial scale” and if this has lead to the current attitude to war crimes.
As the article no longer references Hiroshima/Nagasaki but does cover some more atypical war crimes, I can only assume it is a mistake caused by a few paragraphs being edited out and the choice, probably not his, of a misleading title.
Look at how his “Iraq is no Vietnam” column got messed about with.
OT:
Yet another former Beeboid outs himself as a moonbat:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15544_BBC_Mideast_Correspondent_Drops_the_Mask&only=yes
As a matter of interest, has any former Beeb correspondant ever been found to have pro-Israeli, pro-US or just generally pro-Western views ?
……It may be 32 years since General Augusto Pinochet’s men began killing left-wingers in Chile, and 30 since the Khmer Rouge arrived in Phnom Penh to force the entire population out into the killing fields…….
Spot the difference:
Pinochet: 3.000
Pol Pot: 3.000.000
As dictators go, Pinochet was actually quite a pussy. The left only hate him because the victims were communists. OBL killed this number in one day and the same people blame it on the USA.
I do remember [Simpson] being joyfully enthusiastic about the liberation of Kabul…
John Simpson was joyfully enthusiastic that John Simpson got to march into Kabul ahead of the Northern Alliance, live on radio. That’s what I remember.
In re;Nagasaki & Hiroshima
In a long potracted war,countries put their scientists and technicians to work on weapons.The capacity for death and destruction is far greater at the end of such a war than at the beginning.A losing side is thus more likely to suffer a lot more than the victors.So Dresden would be more devastated than Coventry,but it doesnt mean that the first bombing was done without evil intent.
We should not allow the Imperial Japanese to be portrayed as victims by the BBC or anyone else.
New on the BBC News website – Video and Audio: “Iranians honour Palestinian women suicide bombers”
I didn’t dare click on the video link to watch the propaganda but the picture in itself depicts someone who seems like they’re wearing a “halo” of sorts. They have either messed with the colours intentionally or they’re simply useless. I’m feeling sick!
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41058000/jpg/_41058353_bomber66.jpg
The usual parties represented on Question Time tonight:
“David Dimbleby invites a studio audience to put their questions to former foreign secretary Robin Cook, former Conservative leader William Hague, Baroness Williams of the Liberal Democrats, and Green Party MEP Jean Lambert.”
Why is there no representative of UKIP or Veritas for example???
Natalie:
1. “His actual words refer only to “past horrors” and “killing on an industrial scale,” and that first paragraph could be read as general introductory hand-wringing over the horrors of war.”
Yes, Simpson “could” be read that way. He never *explicitly* says Hiroshima was a war crime. As I wrote to the BBC his mention of Hiroshima/Nagasaki along with Buchenwald/Belsen is a “cheap insinuation”.
2. Isn’t the article’s thesis, “Haven’t we learned anything? Are we no further forward than we were 60 years ago?”
What exactly was the “lesson” of Hiroshima? Natalie, to believe your “hand-wringing” interpretation “60 years ago” refers to only to Buchenwald/Belsen (1945) and not to Hiroshima/Nagasaki (1945)? Within the article’s context I say that’s quite a stretch. Possbile, yes; probable, no.
3. Indeed, Simpson’s insinuation is all the more pernicious because it is not uncommon to hear Hiroshima/Nagasaki described explicitly as “war crimes”. It’s not as though Simpson is describing the “past horrors” and using D-day as his example. With D-day the distinction would have been clear. I don’t believe for a second that Hiroshima/Nagasaki were war crimes but they certainly have a weaker brief then say the liberation of Paris.
4. “…the headline referring to war crimes was almost certainly written by a sub-editor, not him…”
I think the headline is fair and accurate. Congrats to the sub-editor.
[Btw, if it wasn’t fair and accurate does it really matter? The overall effect of the article is the heart of the matter. In the end the company, the editors, and the reporters all have a joint responsiblilty for what is published. Here in the US we have had some big media scandals where the big name reporters have said “I was just reading the news”, “I didn’t do the fact checking”, “it was my producer”, “it was my editors” etc. That may be relevant as to who gets sanctioned by the media organization; but the bottom line is you sign your name behind a story and you and your company take responsiblity for it. They certainly would be first in line to take the rewards.]
5. Finally, “…we might not care for his views, but he is by no means a favourite of the anti-war left either.”
Right. But that’s part of the problem. I’ve heard and read Simpson before. He’s respected. He’s experienced. His writings are often not black or white. In fact he prides himself on his objective nuance.
I’m not so much concerned about obvious journalistic “bomb throwers” with limited readership, limited respectiblity, and no claims of objectivity. Their myths and biases are less toxic. It’s the journalistic high priests like Mr. Simpson et al. who claim to be fair, accurate and objective. Couple this with the vast resources of the BBC or the New York Times and you have a serious problem.
Hope this doesn’t sound too tendentious, Natlie. I’m a big fan of your site(s) and your worldview in general.
Reg Jones
Chicago,IL
USA
At Nuremberg the prime charge was “Planning Aggressive War”. In light of the fact that the alleged reason for attacking Iraq (WMDs) was a lie & the alleged reason for bombing Yugoslavia (massacres by Serbs) was a lie if the BBC were actually concerned about the rule of law, or even honesty, they would have mentioned that that makes Bliar & co unquestionably warcriminals.
Instead the Nazis running the BBC bring up their traditional lie about Srebrinica when they know about, but censor any mention of, the clear evidence that the bodies at Srebrinica are actually those of Serb civilians & children murdered by the BBC’s Moslem terrorist Nazi friends. This, of course, represents the highest journalistic standards of which they are capable.
Neil: Well put. I wish someone in the mainstream European / American media would actually state the facts. But they don’t.
John Simpson, like John Humphries is a “celebrity” journalist i.e. they appear on programmes like Parkinson and have TV events in which we get to “learn what makes them tick” (my money for one thing). All of this comprimises these people as, in any public forum, they go for the line that will get the most applause (always well left of centre) which inevitably obscures the TRUTH of the matter as Truth does not care for plaudits nor does it have Party allegiance. It just exists in its own space. Simpson and Humphries enter this space, observe Spades and reach for the Thesaurus
ot
Hiroshama arguably saved British lives too. My father served in the Royal Navy in WW2. After the war ended in Europe,he was due to be posted to the Far East to face God knows what horrors (my parents even brought the date of their wedding forward so they could be married before he went) but then came Hiroshama….and we have a Diamond Wedding in the family this July
It is a saluatory and moving experience to visit Changi Museum and the Kranji military cemetery in Singapore where so many of those fighting in the Far East are buried….I wonder if the BBC will give as much attention to the
victims of Japanese cruelty and oppression in WW2 as they undoubtedly will to the victims of Hiroshama and Nagasaki
Valid point – and give my regards to your parents.
I still wonder how the people at the Beeb can bring themselves to condemn the Holocaust. After all they don’t recognise Israel’s right to exist – or do they? Did Japan actually attack Pearl Harbor?
What is interesting is that they now that Japan has become a democratic ally – are taking sides of the Chinese. The Beeb should be called what it is – a communist organization.
Joreg
Thankyou for the comment re my parents.
In my view the Beeb is a very left wing if not Communist outfit and will remain so as long as it continues
to recruit staff through advertisements in one particular left leaning newspaper.
I would also like to see an end to neopotism.It would be interesting to know how many staff are there because Daddy or Mummy were. The names Dimbleby and Magnusson come to immediate mind. Can anyone add to the list?
“As a matter of interest, has any former Beeb correspondant ever been found to have pro-Israeli, pro-US or just generally pro-Western views?”
DumbJon, the last reporter in the BBC that I can recall being pro-Israel was Michael Elkins. He was the BBC’s correspondent in Jerusalem for many years and made some vivid reports on the 6 day war. For a sample, go to this site: http://www.otr.com/elkins.html and click on the Real Player link (Elkins was freelancing for CBS on this broadcast). The Palestinians tried (and failed) to get him sacked from the BBC. He was outwardly pro-Zionist but I think was tolerated simply because he was an excellent reporter.
He wrote a book called Forged in Fury, describing the attempts by a group of survivors of the Holocaust to track down and assasinate Nazis who worked in the concentration camps.
Reg,
It doesn’t sound tendentious at all. I hope I did not give the impression that it did. True, I was trying to convey that I had a less definite assessment of Simpson than you did, but I fully agreed with your central point, that the omission of Iraq was unjustifiable. I agreed with you much more than I disagreed with you and I am sorry if that was not clear.
You made a good point on joint responsibility for news stories, too. It got me thinking. There have been cases in the print media when the first a journalist saw of the headline to his own story was when his copy of the paper landed on the mat. However it is different online. Online, if a journalist really objects to the headline he can have them change it. That doesn’t add up to equal responsibility but it is definitely shared.
Off Topic
I noticed at 0915 this morning that there were only two election stories on the BBC ceefax (teletext) service. One related to Labour (104 “Blair turns focus on immigration”) and the other related to the Liberal Democrats (105 “Lib Dems pitch for female voters”). No story relating to the er, um, you know, the whatstheirnames.
Initially I thought perhaps the whatstheirnames were taking the day off, but no, there was brief mention of efforts by the “Tories” at the bottom of each of the main stories (below ‘balancing’ mention of the Lib Dems and Labour in each story respectively).
This situation has remained for over two hours now (I used my trusty free-market digicam to retain proof), so it isn’t a case of me just popping in as they were uploading the pages.
So, today’s balanced election coverage by the state broadcaster’s teletext service consists of relegating the pronouncements of the main opposition party to the arse end.
It may seem I’m treating this lightly, but I’m actually annoyed and disturbed. How can democracy function in this environment? I have contacted Conservative Central Office. Will they be able to anything about this sort of thing?
Can anyone?
.
I guess the woman I spoke to at Conservative Central Office did tell their monitoring department; and they did request that the BBC might fulfil its Charter obligations by giving them appropriate election coverage.
There is now a specific “Tory” story on Ceefax.
I hope they roasted the bastards.
.
Did anyone catch Paxo’s interview of our corrupt, lying and mendacious Prime Minister last night? Paxo started off by questioning the Corrupt One over Iraq. In the course of evading (whoops! I mean answering) the Corrupt One clearly stated that the government had to release Dr David Kelly’s name to the press. Is my memory failing me or did the Corrupt One’s government absolutely deny giving his name to the press back then? Of course, if the Corrupt One’s been caught lying for the gazillionth time I would expect the BBC to be onto it, but I can’t find any reference to it. Must be my memory then.
Pete_London – as you despise Blair’s stance on Iraq, have you signed Galloway’s petition to get Tariq Aziz released? Today Tariq, tomorrow Saddam returned to his rightful place as legitimate ruler of Iraq.
You & Howard give encouragement to the likes of the BBC. Only Ian Duncan Smith appears to be an honourable Tory.
BBC starting to get the message over the UN. Due to those infallible human rights groups, I suppose
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4469249.stm
“UN body fails to condemn Sudan…”
“But the fact that it took so long to agree on a resolution which does not even go as far as the UN Security Council which has already referred Sudan to the International Criminal Court is, human rights groups say, simply another sign that the UN’s top human rights body needs reform.”
dan
You should stop jumping to conclusions where there’s no evidence for them. I despise Blair but fully support the action to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. In fact it’s the only action he’s ever taken which I agree with, even if Blair took it for the wrong reason.
Feel free to apologise.
As for me, Howard and whatever, I only wish I could figure out what you’re going on about.
Compare the number of UN Resolutions condemning Israel to the number of resolutions condemning China’s occupation of Tibet, and you have a good idea of what the United Nations definition of “even-handed” is.
Sudan has lots of friends on the Security Council, and of course in the human rights commission.
I haven’t heard many Human Rights Lawyers commenting on the legality of China’s “anti-secession” law.
Pete_London – I don’t know that I am ready to apologise (like Blair!)
I too support Blair primarily becuase of his action over Saddam.
IDS was pressing for action before Blair, & I have not heard him wriggle since – unlike Howard.
My view is that given the media (inc BBC) hysterical opposition to the Iraq adventure, those supporting the action (like you) cannot show any chink in support as it will be amplified by the stoppers.
So not quite an apology, but friends, eh?
I do get dismayed when i see fellow right wing conservatives supporting Blairs action in Iraq.
I do not like the way our armed forces are being treated by this government. They get sent out to wars in the middle east that have nothing to do with us, poorly equipped as well. The black watch were moved to a more dangerous location at the end of last year then when they finished there they learn that the regiment is to be disbanded.
The americans defend their soldiers and stick up for them while we put them on murder charges when things go wrong (trooper williams). Also many soldiers in the gulf did not receive their voting papers in time..this was deliberate.
Mark
“I do get dismayed when i see fellow right wing conservatives supporting Blairs action in Iraq.”
Why? It was the right thing to do, even if Blair did it for the wrong reasons. That WMD stuff was all a bluff anyway. Supporting the US in the campaign of regime change through a dysfunctional middle east is vastly more important than scoring points against Blair, whose presence in Downing Street is temporary. Howard came close to seriously blowing it with the Republicans in trying play politics against Blair. The Tories and Republicans are natural allies and it’s a damned important, long term relationship for both countries. Blair is a whore. He’d pleasure whoever is in the White House. As soon as he’s gone so does Labour’s relationship with the Republicans. The Tories have to stand fast with the Republicans whether they are in office or not. I’d have no problem in Howard stating that the PM has done the right thing and has full Tory support over what he’s done in Iraq.
As for Blair’s treatment of our armed forces, I couldn’t agree more. I know it’s not how things are done, but I wish our top brass would tell him they will not issue battle orders without guarantees that our forces are immune from prosecution. I’d better not dwell on the matter of equipment levels or my head will explode. The matter of the voting papers being witheld proves yet again that this current bunch in Tory Central Office are spineless losers. Where is the outrage over this? Where are the Tories demanding justice be done? If they have no passion for the fight why should anyone else?
OT. The left’s intolerant ‘tolerance’ given a good kicking at:
http://nationalreview.com/novak/novak200504190839.asp
Neil Craig
I think that you are being disengenious on Nuremburg. The Nuremburg trails had many facets, which indeed did have many counts of war, but they also did include ‘Crimes against humanity’ against certain SS camp guards, so to claim moral equivalence between Blair and the Nazis is a bit of a stretch for me.
Personally I believe Blair got it right on the Iraq issue, despite him being accused of being someone who only listened to ‘focus groups’ I believe that he has stood by his own beliefs. Personally, I have only voted once before in my life. Even though I am right wing in many ways, I will voting for Tony come the election.
Bugger that was me above
Thanks to Anon for the link to the Novak piece, it is most illuminating and apropos.
The BBC has bought into Relativism in a huge way, it cannot last and will, with any luck, lead to its collapse. As they say in Sicily “the fruit ripens slowly but falls suddenly”.
Question: Has there ever been a studying done using the following question:
Do you honestly believe that what the BBC present is the truth?
I would like to know how many people actually do.
I have BBC America on my DirecTV lineup, the ONLY thing i find interesting on it is the reruns of Benny Hill….
“As a matter of interest, has any former Beeb correspondant ever been found to have pro-Israeli, pro-US or just generally pro-Western views?”
Yes, this one: Former BBC reporter acknowledges bias
Lee
Pop your address in the post and I’ll invoice you for my (yet more) increased taxes after the election. Cheers.
And elsewhere, BBC News 24 actually informs us about 23rd April, tells us about what today represents and spreads the creed like only true believers can.
That’s right, according to the BBC 23rd April is Earth Day.
I could’ve sworn it had something to do with a Saint somewhere.
From the top headlines
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
& a phrase at the start of all broadcast news
“Zacarias Moussaoui, the only man charged over the 9/11 attacks”
Why does “only” feature at the head of every report?
Because the US law enforcement bodies must be crap if unable to find more?
Because the al-Qaeda threat is overstated if only 1 more potential terrorist can be found?
I suppose a few more might have been charged if they had not eradicated themselves along with their victims.
OT: Al-Beeb refers to the new Pope as a “German Shepherd” (yes, too clever, isn’t it? Such sharp wit!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4475093.stm
Imagine them being this disrespectful to an Imam.
“Imagine them being this disrespectful to an Imam.”
But that would be dangerous.
Ooops!
HAPPY ST GEORGES DAY
Happy St. George’s Day everybody!
They get sent out to wars in the middle east that have nothing to do with us,
Mark, you are so wrong if you honestly believe your statement. This whole situation has to do with every single person that believes in freedom, and living your life as you see fit.
People needs to realize that this is about your children and your grandchildren. What kind of future do you want to leave them. Do you want them to live in peace and prosperity, or death and destruction.
people truly need understand that EVIL is doing everything it can to ruin all that is good. Folks, WE are the WARRIORS against this evil, and this evil must be irradicated. There are no IF, AND , or BUTS about, this EVIL knows only one thing, death to the infidels, and they consider us the infidels. There is no talking with these terrorist, There is no coming together and understanding each other. This is about Life and Death, No more, No less.
Think about it. Think about your children and your grandchildren.
Anonymous
The charges at Nuremburg were divided into 2 classes. War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity.
War Crimes are further divided into launching an aggressive war (such as the attacks on Yugoslavia & Iraq) & deliberately targeting civilians (such as the deliberate bombing of Yugoslav TV & somewhat less certainly the overall campaign which was aimed at northern cities rather than the armed forces so that 80% of casualties were civilian) – although casualties in Iraq have been higher there is less evidence of deliberate targeting of civilians.
The other counts you mention are crimes against humanity which basically would encompass genocide (for example going to war knowingly to help the KLA in the practice of genocide which Blair certainly did) & various mistreatments including what is now known as ethnic cleansing (the NATO occupiers of Kosovo have helped the KLA to ethnically cleanse 350,000 people). I do not dispute in any way that Blair & Nato have also engaged in such crimes against humanity or that the BBC have knowingly & deliberately censored almost all mention of them.
You are entitled to believe the war against Iraq was justified but it was certainly illegal. I would not say that the rule of law should never be broken but it should not be done lightly. Equally, for the media to safely lie & censor, in defence of criminal acts diminishes all our freedoms.
Neil Craig – Illegal in which particular jurisdiction? There is no international rule of law. Absolutely none. There are treaties, which work as long as both signatories want them to work, and get abandoned when they stop suiting one or the other signatory.
There is no mythical supranational legal body. There is no World Government, however much the BBC and others would like to see one. If you’re thinking of the UN, it has no power because it is not a governing body. No nation has ceded its sovereignty to the UN.