Not that I disparage Iranian democracy of course, it just seems that there’s a niche in the market left by certain mainstream broadcasters.
But today the BBC have held the frontpage for Ahmadinejad to proclaim that ‘Iran ‘does not need nuclear arms’
What this is is full-on propaganda from the terrorist-in-chief. What Iran doesn’t need, of course, is nuclear energy. As VDH comments aptly:
‘Any country that burns off some of its natural gas at the wellhead while claiming that it needs nuclear power for domestic energy is simply lying.’
So given that this is obviously an inversion of reality by the Islamofascist, that Iran doesn’t need nukes (by implication needing nuclear fuel instead), why do the BBC broadcast it as though it were a real newsworthy statement? I’ll leave you to supply the reasoning on that one. I just think the BBC are on the other side.
(Originally meant to be posted on 12/01/06)
‘Victorian’ London.
Yes the bien pensants on the Victoria Derbyshire show are at it again.
You hear stories about Iran? No need to panic. Victoria is at hand to soothe your worried brow • oh and by the way, explain how it is all the fault of Chimpy McHitlerburton and the Fascist States of America (boo, hiss).
R5 dealt with the Iranian Nuclear issue in ten minutes.
It was easy;
First you load the dice.
Bring in an Iranian Student and some talking head from the ‘Centre for Peace Studies’.
They spend their time discussing IAEA reports that report what the Iranians wish the IAEA to report. ie ‘nothing there, then’
They skate over the fact of undeclared nuclear installations and the fact that non of the IAEA investigators were Western.
They ignore the manufacture of thousands of gas centrifuges, after the Iranians had agreed with the IAEA to stop at 164
They discuss Iranian projections of failing oil reserves in the next 20 years.
They welcome the Iranian reassurances that the nuclear industry is ‘for peaceful purposes only’.
They also refer, in passing, to the ‘wild remarks’ made by Mahmood Ahmadinejad.
They ponder why the Iranians could possibly want Nuclear Weapons anyway?
They mention, briefly, the new long range(1200km/1.2 tonnes) missiles that the Iranians are developing, ‘probably for protection against Israel’ (the Iranians have had missiles(800km) to reach Israel and beyond for over a decade)
They ponder possible Security Council sanctions: ‘well, Russia’s a bit worried’ but together with the Chinese, will probably oppose sanctions anyway.
Now you get down to the meat of the issue and for this you need your callers. Make sure you get a good selection: – all opposed to western interests.
Highlight how the Iranians are being demonised in exactly the same manner as the Iraqis in the run-up to the ‘Hideous War Crime and Mass Holocaust in Iraq’.
Explain how the ‘Internationally Illegal Overthrow of St. Saddam of Tikrit’ has made the Iranians very uneasy and they have every right to protect themselves.
Note that America and Britain (boo, hiss) are the only countries to have used Nuclear Weapons.
Cheer everybody up with the fact that China will not allow the UN Security Council to impose sanctions against Iran (it is, after all, the most powerful country on earth) because of the strategic oil deals that China and Iran have.
But
(and I mean this most sincerely)
Do not mention Iranian state-sponsored Terrorism.
…….
What’s that you said?
Of course, what a stupid boy I am!
This is the BBC
They don’t use the ‘T’ word.
Problem solved!
How could you evil, evil people ever possibly have doubted the intentions of the wonderful, peace-loving Islamic Republic of Iran?
(This reassuring message was brought to you courtesy of the BBC)
Churchill had a struggle to warn the British people about the rearmament of Germany until it was to late. Can you imagine the present attitude of the BBC in 1945; we would all be talking German now. Not that I have anything against Angela Merkal or her compatriots, I don’t want the PC brigade calling at my door, nor the police for that matter.
O/T, but not unrelated to topic.
(Warning: the following message may contain sarcasm)
TV presenter Mariella Frostrup was great on Question Time last week.
She said it was terribly hypocritical of us (the West) to criticise Iran’s nuclear plans when we (our government) are looking to build more nuclear power stations. She received a round of applause.
She’s right, of course. If we build more nuclear power stations for our energy needs then why shouldn’t Iran develop nuclear bombs? I mean, there’s no moral difference is there?
If we use nuclear power to light up our major cities then Iran should be allowed to develop its nuclear capability in order to light up Israeli cities, surely? It’s only fair, isn’t it?
Fostrup is an entertainer, so is Bragg, and Roger Walters. The BBC are courting the views of the Court Jesters.
Our MPs are providing the entertainnment while Geldof & Bonio are setting the agenda.
No matter, soon raw economics and realpolitik will put everyone back into thier respective boxes. Just remember that when things were in a state of flux, the BBC was
-Anti American
-Pro Islam
-Pro EU (soon this will seem extraordinary)
-Anti Capitalist
-Romantically linked with Fidel Castro
paulc
I heard that segment on R5 too.
It wasn’t so much the lack of the mention of the T word – it was the complete lack of the I word.
We are at war with ISLAM.
I wonder how long it is going to take before we hear that.
well well. the bbc quelches free speach in favour of the muslims. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213236?thread=1917777 its a start to the end of every thing thats been predicted…
Another couple of airhead gems from Frostrup on Question Time (greeted with frenzied applause by the randomly selected audience): 1. Israel isn’t the only democracy in the Middle East – what about …….. Lebanon! Which apparently has become (without anyone else noticing) a fully-functioning democratic state – private militias and all 2. (In response to a remark by a member of the audience that he wanted lower taxes and criminals locked up) Frostrup smugly commented that it’s impossible to have both: implying that locking up criminals and wanting to keep more of your own income is simply too naive for serious consideration.
There would be lots of cash to lock up crimminals if we didnt have to pay TV Tax (from which la Fostrup is paid)
I wonder what Werner Heisenberg was working on in Germany during the war ? I wonder if he really knew either ?
Rick,
Resumably he either knew what he was working on or where he was working on it, but never both at the same time.
“Winston, if you want a picture of the future, imagine Mariella Frostrup, and all of her vapid, impeccably liberal siblings appearing on Question Time – for ever.”
John Simpson sees no need for Journalists to report terrorist activity.
Let’s take a practical example. I have gone to, say, a council house in Bradford with three or four al-Qaeda volunteers who are letting me film a discussion: not necessarily about the making or use of a weapon, but perhaps about ways of setting up resistance cells that might at some future stage use violence. At this point, in the famous old newspaper phrase, I should make my excuses and leave. Then I must hurry round and tell the police what I have seen. And if, instead, I carry on making my programme and broadcast it, I and my colleagues will be liable to a fine or imprisonment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1501.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/01/15/ixop.html
John Simpson in prison what a nice thought. Just a shame their is no death penalty for treason still. How about the whole of the cabinet, Billy, Ken, George, and half the BBC their as well. Then put in all the teachers and social workers. WOW it just keeps feeling better and better. The really great thing is crime would stop. Because no one, not even criminals, would want to be where they are.
“Winston, if you want a picture of the future just imagine Prime Ministers like Tony Blair running your life for ever.”
I think we better get used to it.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1686504,00.html
The Emir of Kuwait has died but, no doubt because he was a US “quisling” in the war on Saddam, he only gets a “your comments” section on the Beeb, not a “tributes” piece.
http://tinyurl.com/a9lwb
Very interesting that John Simpson uses the term “resistance cell” instead of “terrorist cell”. Who, precisely, are these noble warriors “resisting” in Bradford? Democratic government? Secular Western society? The 21st century (even the 18th century seems too much for most of them).
The word “resistance” is, in general, a positive one. In terms of politics and history it is associated with the French resistance or other noble causes. The use of the word tells us a lot about the way Mr Simpson thinks.
Several problems wrong with the John Simpson’s fantasy – then again he probably has never visited Bradford. The “Council Houses” are mainly privatised into housing associations and are predominantly white.
The Kashmiris and the Pakistanis tend to live in private accommodation rented or owned in central Bradford in areas like Manningham, Girlington, Lilycroft, Barkerend – and it is hardly likely that he would find them in council houses.
Further, there are no known cases of terrorists from Bradford – drug-dealers, car-jackers, immigration scam merchants, VAT-dodgers – yes – but the Beeston bombers lived in private housing and the one connection with Bradford was that anm Afro-Caribbean had once lived in Bradford for a short period.
So why do public school liberals like John Simpson suddenly decide Bradford is on the North West Frontier with Jihadis rioting in the streets. In fact the last dose of violence in bradford came because London exported members of a Somalian gang to Bradford to raid an Asian travel agentcy and murder a policewoman.
If policing in London were better she might in fact still be alive. If he wants to find terrorists look in London; if he wants to find apologists for terrorists look in Notting Hill and Broadcasting House/White City
Rick, I’ve seen Islamic Jihad and al aqsa fuckin martyr’s brigade recruiting outside Bradford college for several years now. And remember the riots the other year? I think the BBC might have knowledge of, or a suspicion of, something that’s going to happen in Bradford soon and they’re running a pre-emptive PR campaign.
Or it might be the fact that Bradford is set to become the first city in the UK with an islamic majority population in the next 15 years…
More Frostrup insights.
Mariella Frostrup appeared on Andrew Marr’s regular Sunday morning Labour Party political broadcast to review the Sunday papers. (remember he’s married to Jackie Ashley who is employed by Labour’s broadsheet, Frostrup is a columnist for their Sunday version).
The subject matter was the automaton Ruth Kelly and the failure of her ministerial department.
In the space of two minutes Frostrup mentioned the word ‘witch-hunt’ four times. ‘Witch-hunt’ is leftwing code for “We’ve been rumbled doing something bad/corrupt/criminal/ incompetent/ reprehensible/ unethical so lets fling mud at the messenger”. Messenger in this context is always ‘the tabloid press’.
The same tabloid press that exposed the MP for Barking (how apt) when she used the BBC to smear a young man who had suffered sustained and systematic abuse when in a care home that ultimately had been her responsibility.
And remember the riots the other year?
Those riots were trailed in The Observer 3 weeks beforehand with reports of petrol bombs being stockpiled. The main focus was drug-dealers – since Lister Park BMW was burned down for the second time in 5 years, however the ars had previously been stolen to order and some were found in Lancashire getting new VIN numbers for new customers.
Bradford is NOT set to become the first city in the UK to have an Islamic majority population……..especially since the current level is c. 20% and that is split between warring factions of Kashmiris and Bangladeshis.
I recall in years gone by Socialist Workers’ Party recruiting actively and their acolytes selling newspapers in Broadway but as of yet I have seen no great successes from the SWP apart from Respect and the Anti-Nazi-League.
I frankly doubt your Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade with or without the adjective will get far. They are a bit of a farce like the BNP and Combat18……they need to be ranked alongside the Moonies for wasted effort.
Anyone recruiting for a terrorist organisation on an open street with banners and leaflets is as big a threat as the AA or RAC.
The BBC is clueless and seemed to have no inkling that Somalis would travel all the way up to Bradford from London to kill a policewoman and steal £2000.
You invest the BBC with too much insight – it is just a lumbering bureaucracy trying to catch up with the tabloids and make out it is up there on breaking news. It is a museum, an archive – and could not find breaking news if it was taking place in the studio. They never picked up on The Observer article prior to The Bradford “Riots”.
Mariella Frostrup – I saw her with Marr and thought she must drink a lot – she seemed so bulky. Anyway I think the story that is not getting out is that under Blunkett or Clarke or whichever Secretary of State for Education was a bigger disaster than Rith Kelly, some junior minister – my bet is Margaret Hodge – signed off on these matters and has now gone to ground……….
The typical routine of this Government is for Kelly to take the heat; the teachers concerned to be pressured to quit; a headteacher or two to be sacrificed to the tabloids, and Kelly to be dropped when she cannot get Tony’s Education Bill passed.
Be nice to know just what Margaret Hodge and David Miliband did as Ministers in the Education Dept.
” Liberalism ” is a mental disease and just watch the movie “King of Hearts” to understand who is running the show, a movie about American GIs who enter a French town during WW2 that seems normal except for quite a few abnormalitys found after being there for a month or so. They later find out that evryone fled the town except those from the insane asylum, who are now running the town, from the baker to the mayors office.
I really don’t know how this one is going to break.
The latest lunacy to come out of Teheran is a conference to investigate ‘scientifically’ the numbers that perished in the Holocaust.
-“It is a strange world. It is possible to discuss everything except the Holocaust,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters. “The Foreign Ministry plans to hold a conference on the scientific aspect of the issue to discuss and review its repercussions.”-
Amadinejad is going to question the validity of the evidence.
Ol’ Mad ‘Jad has given the Beeb something of a headache.
They have been working like fury to sell the public on a ‘peace loving Islamic Republic of Iran’, but ‘Auntie’ could never, ever be seen to side with the Holocaust Deniers.
Maybe they’ll stick to what they are doing now – decide the whole business is unworthy of their consideration.
I had to go to
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181703,00.html
to get the story
The latest lunacy to come out of Teheran is a conference to investigate ‘scientifically’ the numbers that perished in the Holocaust.
Here’s a chance for the Trolls in Teheran to completely P*ss off the Gays, Gypsies, Red Army soldiers, Communists, Trades Unionists, in addition to Jews – or maybe they want to start the process all over again since hanging women who kill their rapists seems to lack the scale of mass murder the Iranian regime hungers for.
Paulc
To be fair, the BBC did cover this story, here (though probably through gritted teeth):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4529198.stm
Cheers.
Are we going to have a “Did the Holocaust really happen?” (D)HYS ?
Nah, it’ll be “How exagerated are the holocaust figures?”.
Nah, it`ll be “Should the Holocaust have been more Inclusive?”
‘Hide Your Say’ editors have been running around with a big pair of scissors, snipping away at ‘What impact will Sharon crisis have?’
After the topic attracted a good deal of interest, comments appeared to dwindle to nothing on Wednesday last week, and nothing was posted until Saturday, though I know of at least one comment (mine) that was sent in the interim. I was replying to a comment that made the startling claim that Noam Chomsky is a ‘Zionist Dove’. I pointed out that, though Jewish, Chomsky is in fact an implacable enemy of Israel. The scissors was employed and my comment ended up in pieces in the dustbin.
Then they posted this comment:
Added: Saturday, 14 January, 2006, 13:39 GMT 13:39 UK
Regardless of what us outsiders think or say, the Israeli people will rightly miss Sharon. Maybe he defended them in an extraordinarily brutal & vicious way but he nevertheless defended them resolutely. And there was nothing The World could do to interfere.
Sharon was a mastermind in understanding how to manipulate the world stage – and he knew it: “Every time we do something, you [Shimon Peres] tell me America will do this and will do that… I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
justin timber, london, United Kingdom
But when I had a look tonight the scissors had been busy again and it was no longer there.
I wonder why.
Lurker in a burqua: Classic!
“Wake up to Money”, BBC radio Five, 5.45 this morning: presenter reads out an email from a listener, complaining that we shouldn’t criticse Iran’s nuclear capacity while we don’t protest the Israelis have nuclear weapons, presenter’s comment: “good point!”
There were those who thought it reasonable that the Germans buils the Luftwaffe into a powerful fighting force; and build a whole slew of new battleships from 1935 like The Bismarck and Tirpitz; and reintroducing the draft in 1936 – after all the Russians were such a threat to poor Adolf………….and he was a teetotal vegetarian…………..so obviously he had good intentions.
Funny how studied naivety deprived millions of their lives in the 20th Century which must have killed more in war that the previous 10 centuries combined.
latest BBC report on the Iranian crisis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4615636.stm
Note, that BBC do NOT INTERVIEW A SINGLE ISRAELI representative (who after all, were threatened to be “wiped off the map”)
Instead, they interview a Saudi Prince.
Rather like interviewing Mussolini about Hitler rebuilding his Luftwaffe.
Therein lies a good point, archduke.
On Radio 4 yesterday, the BBC’s Frances Harrison interviewed some “ordinary” Iranians about the nuclear stand-off. As one would expect, the interviewees said that it was not fair that Iran should be barred from having nuclear power while the West stockpiles nuclear weapons. A fair point – and this is the stance that good old Western liberals are taking – but not really THE point. Like Mariella on QT the other day, we are comparing bananas with cheese. Nuclear power is one thing; putting nuclear weapons in the hands of a possibly unhinged leader who is dreaming of the Mahdi and martyddom is quite another.
Iranians are rightly fearful that they will be bombed but their political leaders are not only behaving very suspiciously wrt to the nuclear programme, and their leader is openly and regularly talking about wiping Jews from the face of the earth.
But does the BBC think to interview residents of Haifa or Tel Aviv about their fears of being wiped out in a nuclear strike? Does the average Beeboid make any attempt to try and understand what it feels like for Israelis who live each day knowing that their neighbours want to kill them? Neighbours who believe they will be serving their god if they do kill them? Nah! Israelis are non-people as far as the BBC is concerned.
But this is the BBC’s modus operandi. Israel is not a nation of citizens but an entity.
A common practice in the coverage of the Middle East is to refer to ‘Palestinians’ (thus personalising the ‘nation of Palestine) but stick to ‘Israel’ when talking about the other side. So we have the faceless, ruthless Israel against the Palestinian people.
“martyddom” = “martyrdom”
A bit OT
Why is one not surprised when this story doesn’t make it onto the BBC Scotland website?
Glasgow Muslims voice discontent at Catholic school
16th January 2006
The Campaign for Muslim Schools (CMS) has criticised a Catholic school in Glasgow for forcing Muslim pupils to take part in Christian rituals and prayers.
St. Albert’s Primary School in Pollokshields is officially a Catholic school but over 90 per cent of its pupils are Muslim. CMS spokesman Osama Saeed said parents complained after their children were forced to take part in rituals like the Lord’s Prayer and Mass but the school refused to let children opt-out of such activities.
Saeed said the news follows controversial comments by Cardinal Keith O’Brien saying he would like people of other faiths “to realise they are living in Scotland as a Christian country.”
“It isn’t surprising that a Christian leader should seek to spread his faith, and he is more than entitled to do that. Since his comments though I’ve received a number of complaints from Muslim parents that rather than just promoting values, many of which are common to all the great faiths, this Catholic school is forcing children to take part in actual Christian rituals,” he said.
“The problem for the church is that if they allowed children to not take part in these rituals, the school would effectively cease to practice Catholicism. This does not seem a sound way to justify the existence of a faith school though.
“Clearly the parents of that area find a faith school, even if it is of another denomination, preferable to a secular one. But surely it should be possible for them to have one that is relevant to their own faith. To move towards this would be a fantastic example of good faith • in more ways than one – on the part of the church, and put this week’s controversy to rest.”
The CMS grew from an alliance of all Glasgow’s main mosques and Muslim organisations and has called for Willowbank Primary to be converted into a Muslim school to prevent it from closure. Glasgow City Council is expected to decide on the proposal in February.
A common practice in the coverage of the Middle East is to refer to ‘Palestinians’ (thus personalising the ‘nation of Palestine) but stick to ‘Israel’ when talking about the other side. So we have the faceless, ruthless Israel against the Palestinian people.
Clematis Freud | 16.01.06 – 3:02 pm | #
I’ve always presumed this was done to prevent people complaining (reasonably, and truthfully) “there is no such state as Palestine” which would be the implication of using the word in that way, I think. Saying “Palestinian Autonomous Areas” or something (or area b and area c) is a bit longwinded and confusing/ I don’t see malicious intent in the BBC usage here.
re: palestinians and israel
have a look at the headlines here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/tv_and_radio_reports/1741600.stm
The headlines where the Israelis have attacked:
Fourteen dead in Gaza raid
Israeli missile kills nine children
israeli helicopter strike kills six
Israel hits back after suicide attack
Israel strikes inside refugee camps
Leading Palestinian killed in blast
Note that “Israel” is mentioned four times in those headlines. Also, note the emotive headline that mentions “children”. But if you look at the headlines below, where it is the Palestinians attacking, there is no mention in the headlines of any Israeli children being killed.
The headlines where it is the Palestinians attacking:
Jerusalem bus blast kills 11
Gunmen murder Hebron settlers
Militants bomb Israeli bus
Another suicide bomb rocks Jerusalem
Nineteen dead in Jerusalem bomb blast
Suicide bomber kills 16 Israelis
Bomb shatters Israeli calm
Suicide bomb disrupts Sharon visit
Israel struck by bus bomb
Israeli soldiers die in Jenin ambush
Suicide bomber strikes Orthodox district
Female suicide bomber kills two
Party attack kills seven
See anything wrong here? Here’s a hint : there is absolutely ZERO mention in any of those headlines that the attackers were Palestinian, terrorist or Islamic.
Archduke- I quite agree. I was thinking specifically of the “thematic heading” the Beeb use on their website- “Israel and the Palestinians”
It gets worse. Read the edited selection of quotes from the Iranian President on the BBC website 16th January and, apart from the comment about wiping Israel from the map, which they kept as short as possible, and the Holocaust comments, it reads like a leader from the Guardian. Very unexceptionable. Nothing about Death to America and Zionism. Nothing about being surrounded by a Holy aura at the United Nations. But you get the drift.
yeah, i noticed that Jeffrey.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4616336.stm
latest Iran news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4615636.stm
Looks like the Israeli’s are still non-entities.
“Hamas terrorist shot dead”
ahem.. no – thats not the headline.
the bbc instead call him a “militant”
and of course, its the bad bad bad bad Israeli’s who are to blame – so the headline gets turned into:
“Israelis kill West Bank militant”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4619244.stm
what’s a “militant”? can somebody at the BBC explain what this is? i mean,
i could be “militant” in my protests against, i dunno, the council tax, but i wouldnt dream of setting off a bomb – loud protests, custard pies and such like. you could class that as “militant”.
Peter Tatchell could be classed as a “militant” gay rights protestor – he’s loud , he’s brash, he’s in your face – yeah, that’s “militant”.
so, how the BBC manage to equate that with a group that advocates the genocide of several million Jewish people and advocates the cult of suicide bombing , is beyond me – they cant bring themselves to use the T word – terrorist. By any step of the imagination Hamas is a pure terrorist organisation.
“Olmert : Hostile nations cant own nukes”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361098668&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Olmert is the acting Israeli Prime Minister.
BBC has no mention of this here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/default.stm
instead its tucked away right at the bottom of this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4619828.stm
errr… the iranians threatened to wipe israel off the map – any sane news agency would highlight clearly what the israelis think about this.
not so at the bbc.