Aunty was very anti- the Iraq war. We all know that. Yet, in the wake of Hutton and in the light of numerous gaffes that astounded even their own, she seemed to be learning something. Yet, like a misshapen dingy filled with gas, the BBC keeps righting itself idiot side up.
Today you can find the BBC reporting how Gen Musharraf has come under pressure over the US air strike. We’d already had the (very direct and clear) reporting of the demos. It flabbergasts me how the Beeb can just choose selectively which demos to cover and which not to. After all, in the Middle East we’ve had plentiful anti-Al Quaeda demos largely ignored, despite being nationwide according to the Guardian. When the BBC covered it you probably missed it. After all, who’d think that ‘Jordan Mourns Victims of Bombing’was actually news?
But which is news, really, that Pakistanis from an Islamic stronghold demonstrate against a US bombing, or that Jordanians! reject Al Quaeda’s Jordanian! lieutenant?
But speaking of photos, and Pakistan, why is it that the Beeb can report the demos, report the angry Pakistani minister pleasing the crowds, yet omit the obvious orchestrative detail which is (or would be) news to most westerners? I don’t know who really rumbled the fake bombed-out photograph. I think all of us did, in one collective raspberry. But the BBC? Naaagh, nada. An isolated instance? I think not.
And back to our theme of the BBC learning nothing; reporting little- do you remember how in the run up to the Iraq war the Beeb were always spewing forth messages of caution from enlightened countries like Russia and China, without heeding any of the hidden politics which actually would have been news? Well, they’re at it again, despite the fact that Russia, for one, has been found to have been hand in glove with the Iraqi regime, canoodling through the Oil for Food scam.
As Richard D. North puts it ‘I caught on a BBC bulletin today, a comment that Russia was anxious that economic sanctions should not be imposed on Iran, because “it might damage her trade”, but – of course – the Beeb failed to state that a massive amount of that trade was in arms.‘
Read the rest, because if you’ve been attending to the BBC you might want to catch up on some news.
O/T.
Guardian journo gets knickers in a twist over Google impartiality. Marvellous! 🙂
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,1687771,00.html
Maybe the Beeb will develop a socialist (soviet style) search-engine that automatically filters out unwanted keywords? They do have the money, you know…
The great thing about the BBC is that it is so predictable.
Since the loss of “Radio Peace & Progress – the Voice of Soviet Public Opinion” broadcasting from Moscow there has been a gap in the market which the BBC has endeavoured to fill
on china and its attitude to the iran crisis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4621182.stm
“China also has a deeply-engrained reluctance to takes sides with the US against a fellow non-Western nation.”
what the hell does that mean -“fellow non-Western nation”? Like , did the Chinese suddenly turn into raving Islamo-lunatic nutcases overnight?
China is just after the oil. End of story. The anti-Americanism of Iran is of absolutely zero interest to them – they just want the oil, so that they can keep on producing stuff for the American market.
They dont care about Middle East violence, Islamofascism, or threats to Israel or any of that stuff – they JUST WANT THE OIL – its very very simple. (why should they – the minute any Islamofascist starts spouting nonsense in their country, its the firing squad for them)
The idiocy of BBC geopolitical reporting is maddening sometimes.
“Guardian journo gets knickers in a twist over Google impartiality.”
Dismaid – couldn’t get your link to work.
cheers.
Kulibar,
Strange…the link works in Firefox. Not sure what else to do since I originally just pasted the URL into the comment box which then seems to be automatically re-formatted by the site before it is published. :o(
The link’s worked for me too (IE 6.0, Win 2K) – maybe Kulibar Tree’s using a Mac… his screenname sounds very creative 😉
Thanks, chums.
I’m not using a Mac, but I am now using a different PC, and the link’s OK; obviously some local prob.
Cheers.
Clean your Cache
Rick,
I use Windows Washer regularly – my cache couldn’t be cleaner!
But thanks for the tip.
Cheers.
A fine post. You need to fix the spelling of Qaeda (or Qaida), though. There is no “u” in that word no matter how you spell it.
Thanks. Well, actually, I was thinking about that, Anton. The thing is, it surely doesn’t really matter how we anglicise it since they are arabic words. To me, it seems natural to spell it with a ‘u’, so why not? Kind of feels the undhimmi thing to do (somehow I hear the ‘h’ in that one).
Let me know if I’m just being dim though.
China is just after the oil.
The Chinese are not only deeply involved with those nice chaps running Sudan, also:
China in October [2004] signed a $70 billion oil deal with Iran, and the evolving ties between those two countries could complicate U.S. efforts to isolate Iran diplomatically or pressure it to give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons.
Three years ago, the BBC spent its time broadcasting the efforts of ‘the Dynamic Duo’, Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei as they sought to head off the War against Saddam.
The BBC hailed the way in which the ‘Blix Bunch’ opposed the ‘Warmongering Neo Cons’ in the US and the efforts of ‘Tony Bliar’ in the UK.
Since then, the BBC has shifted its sights to Iraq’s neighbour.
It has warned any who would listen, that the US appetite for military conquest was not assuaged and Iran would be next because of its pursuit of Nuclear Energy .
Then the US ‘stepped back’ and allowed Europe to lead the search for a solution.
From that point onwards, France, Germany and the UK have been talking to Iran to try and find a way to ‘salve Iranian pride’ while preserving International Security.
And the BBC, in its turn, has been cheering on the diplomatic efforts, highlighting every scarce millimetre of progress while blurring the unending series of backward steps.
Seemingly the BBC ‘mood music’ was that Europe could succeed in Iran where Bush led the US to disaster in Iraq, but the counterpoint from the BBC has always been ‘America wants Europe to fail’.
The BBC ‘Poster Boy’ for the negotiations has been Mr Baradei. He has been quiet, undemonstrative and seemingly implacable in his opposition to any answer to the problem save talking.
His words have carried weight with ‘Auntie’ and every time he has spoken, the BBC has echoed his soothing sentiments.
When he won a Nobel Prize, the BBC declared that this was a deliberate slight by the Nobel Committee to G W Bush.
But now something has gone wrong.
Nobel Laureate, Mr Baradei; The man working at the heart of Nuclear Issues, has become an unperson in the eyes of the BBC.
The head of the IAEA may be about to recommend that Iran’s case go before the UN Security Council, and the response from the BBC?
Nothing.
Is the IAEA to feature in this latest development?
For the BBC? Only in passing.
Throughout the past twenty-five years, the world’s despots and double-dealers have treated the IAEA with contempt.
Countries on all continents have been running clandestine Nuclear Programmes without the IAEA having the slightest inkling of what was happening.
Now, as Iran shifts its Weapons Project into high gear, the BBC itself discards all pretence of IAEA relevancy and turns its attention to Russia and China, the last hopes for any opposition to the US aims.
And are there any apologies for this breathtaking cynicism?
Any explanations?
Didn’t think so.
Dhimmitude has nothing to do with conforming to transliteration protocols we anglophones invented. The Arabic quf is never transliterated as “qu”. Have you heard anyone say al-Kwayda?
If Iran with so much oil thinks it needs nuclear energy surely Britain which has far less oil (and approaching zilch) should be thinking of nuclear energy………….funny how the BBC thinks we should not have nuclear energy but Iran should.
Ok, Anton- I was a bit dim about that… but only a bit I think. The first point is that I’m not used to writing anything except ‘u’ after ‘q’- why change now?
I’ll also give you an example of the non-kw pronounciation of ‘qu’- that would be ‘quay’ like ‘key’.
I think my feelings are influenced by the extremely illiberal view Arabs take of other languages as relates to the Koran. The Koran is really only ‘the koran’ when it’s written in English ie. it’s not recognised as holy except perhaps to take advantage of western media on occasions, and to make easy converts. Arabic’s the holy language. Since the words ‘al Qaeda’ are almost certainly (without checking) taken from the Koran, they mean something supposedly ‘holy’ (I’ve heard what but I forget). Why should I extend my allegedly post-colonially guilty hand to that cultural imperialism?
Thanks for raising this point. I hope I’ve been at least a bit clear. Yes, i’m sloppy about Al Qeeda- because I really want to convey my disgust at these guys; my utter disrespect for them too- and it’s a nice, satisfying easy, lazy way to do it. My kind of protest.
I’m usually fairly careful about names, but it costs me sometimes in terms of google searching etc.
Ed,
I’m well aware that English is rife with arbitrary pronunciations. We have “queen” and “quay” and so forth. I suppose that if Osama’s organization were Spanish, then “Quaeda” could be taken to be pronounced as “Kay-da”. But it’s not Spanish.
القاعدة
=
al Qaeda (or Qaida)
I just don’t see how intentionally mispelling Qaeda in a public discussion is going to stop Islamist supremacism. The International Front For Jihad Against The Jews And Crusaders just want to subjugate you, not get you to spell their nickname right.
The consistent spelling is for OUR benefit, not theirs. Nobody mispells “Nazi” as a sign of disrespect.
I’ll add that there is a strong correlation between employing “Al Quaeda” and general ignorance of geopolitics; surely you don’t want to be lumped in with that lot?
Anton- very crisply put:
‘I just don’t see how intentionally mispelling Qaeda in a public discussion is going to stop Islamist supremacism. The International Front For Jihad Against The Jews And Crusaders just want to subjugate you, not get you to spell their nickname right.’
OTHO- have you ever heard of the shibboleth?
How’s it pronounced again? I forget.
I suppose I could always refer to them as ‘you-know-who’. 🙂
But perhaps I misappropriate.
I shall have a think about it though- you’ve touched some very important points there.
Anton,
“Nazi” is allways misspelled. Write National-SOCIALIST to remind people that state worship is the worlds most murderous religion.
“Nobody mispells “Nazi” as a sign of disrespect.”
In Davis Caute’s superb book, The Fellow Travellers, he consistently spells Nazi with a lower case “n” – nazi.
Cheers
I thought with Arabic it was not the mis-spelling of Al-Qaeda (“The Base”) that was of consequence so much as mis-pronunciation in that this would mean “The Wife”).
Ok, Nazi was a bad example. I didn’t realize the term was originally pejorative.
That said, I can think of many better ways to stand up to al Qaeda (and their sympathizers and enablers — Hi, Bush House!) than mispelling their name. Fighting terrorism through affected semi-literacy doesn’t seem like a winning plan. To me it seems like a sure-fire recipe for getting ignored.
The fact that to many of you lot equate spelling ability with ignorence says more about your ignorence than anyone elses. My mother left school at 15 and her spelling is so good she has won crossword puzzel contests and is a wizz a scrabble game but she has not got a clue who George Bush is. I however could NOT READ even half well untill I was 14 inspite of this passed 13 O-levels(grade B english) 3 science A-levels in 1978 by the time I was 18, at the worst school in England.The examiners thought that content was more important than spelling. I Have gone on doing very well since, inspite of still having no confidence in my spelling or grammer at all. People like me run a lot of this country, I have had to fill in checks for millonairs because they have not learned how to do it yet.
Rob read
I really like that. Nice to know someone gets the message.
National Socialist, Exactly.
How often will Socialism have to end in bloody murder before we finally start to treat its adherents for mental illness?
If you would like to learn how socialism could be discribed as a mental illness,read the works of Carl Gustav Jung. I thought there must be a reason why socialists love Fraud and spit there dummys out if you mention Jung.I was right.You have to read between the lines a bit,but if you have not read him before it will change your life.
Soc is nec
The problen is that they do need treatment but we would have to be as mentaly disturbed as them to insist on it. Also I personaly am so sick of intellectual fools that I dont give a shit what happens to any of them. I wish they would stop caring about me and our African friends because their “caring” is killing us both.
Speaking of sanctions and the strange aunty attitudes, I recently put this to one of the lefty loons at the Washington Post:
“The reason there is a military quagmire in Iraq is because bleeding heart liberals in the West could not unify on biting sanctions against the Saddam dictatorship. Iran will cause even more problems if the country is not blockaded and isolated now.”
No link, just me spouting. But I would be interested in your thoughts.
BM
I pretty much agree with you (certainly re: Iraq: and, increasingly, re: Iran, as well) but with the following important proviso:
It was principally France (in the West: and Russia too of course – but let’s not get into the whole debate about whether Russia is part of the West or not today) which impeded sanctions – and whatever Chirac (who as Pres has full responsibility for foreign policy) is he is neither a bleeding heart liberal nor a lefty. He is a self-interested statist. You couldn’t call Putin a liberal nor a lefty either. Statist/authoritarian, yes.
re: Iran – it will be most interesting to see the stance that Italy will take when (not an if – it is a “when”, isn’t it) the situation escalates, as they have fairly significant oil interests there, (I think) uniquely among West European/EU states.
Obviously with elections coming up in Italy in a few months it’s a tough call to predict. I reckon Prodi, if he becomes Italian PM, will be soft on Iran. What stance Berlusconi would take, should he win a 2nd term of office, is an interesting topic of conjecture.
There are other things I might question – eg the tendency, in some circumstances (as in Iraq in the 90s) for sanctions to result in the strengthening of the very government that they are intended to hurt. I don’t know if that is applicable to Iran (which has a much more ethnically diverse and, in some ways, open society than Saddam’s Iraq had).
Incidently, O/T euphemisms of the day from some copies of the Le Monde I’ve been reading;
“jeunes surexcités” (overexcited youths) for the rioters/attackers on that train in the south of France on new years day
and the headline of an article about the former leader of an anti-terrorist group responsible to the French Pres who subsequently became an arms-dealer in West Africa calls him “un `plombier’ en Afrique” (“A `plumber’ in Africa”)
“What stance Berlusconi would take, should he win a 2nd term of office, is an interesting topic of conjecture.”
i’ve no doubt Berlusconi will take a hardline stance to Iran, irrespective of business interests.
His views on Islam are well known.
Ming,
Sure, but the state of Italy’s economy is even more well known. I suspect that economic concerns might usurp principles in this case.
The reason there is a military quagmire in Iraq is because bleeding heart liberals in the West could not unify on biting sanctions against the Saddam dictatorship”
In fact the reason for the war was that sanctions were due to expire in 2003 and France and Russia were working to have them lifted.
The reason for the military quagmire is one word – Rumsfeld – and his doctrine of light forces and flexibility. The US has too small an army and far too much expensive equipment.
The Warsaw Pact invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 with 500.000 troops – Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 with 2.000.000 troops and the USSR invaded Poland in 1939 with 800.000 troops 14 days later.
Iraq is just a big bigger than Poland with fewer cities and much smaller population – the Kurdish areas would not need occupying by Allied forces – but simply having 160.000 troops in Iraq was “war on a shoestring” and that is why “Shock & Awe” is what the insurgents have done to the US rather than a crushing blow being struck against them.
The US failed to destroy resistance during the invasion preferring to have the enemy not fight and melt away to fight another way, another day. When Eisenhower sent troops into Germany in 1944/45 he wanted German divisions engaged in combat to avoid encirclement.
Rick,
I’m not convinced of the need for more troops in Iraq, or that it was a Quagmire.
Look at the occupation of Germany. How many years till elections?
Yes Rob – look at Germany. 5 million killed – and 80% casualties on The Eastern Front. 250.000 men taken prisoner at Stalingrad – 5.000 released in 1955.
If the Allies had invaded Germany in the same dilletantish way they invaded Iraq they would have been destroyed.
You forget that half of Germany was under Soviet Occupation until 1990; and that the West was under threat in 1948, and 1961; and that it was US preparedness to use nuclear weapons over the Berlin Airlift in 1948 and having nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey in 1961 that had an impact and Germans preferred US troops to Soviet.
There were 500.000 US troops in Germany until the 1980s and most of the British Army. They were not as weak towards the Soviets in The Fulda Gap as they are towards Iran today
Rob, FYI
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Occ-GY/
On V-E Day, Eisenhower had sixty-one U.S. divisions, 1,622,000 men, in Germany, and a total force in Europe numbering 3,077,000
The nine-division permanent occupation force planned for Germany soon began to look like an outright extravagance after Japan surrendered. The army expected to be down to two million men by 30 June 1046 and to have “utmost difficulty in obtaining manpower to sustain even that strength.” For the whole European theater, the War Department forcasted a probable strength of five divisions, with further reductions likely after 1 July 1946.75 In October, Marshall asked Eisenhower to consider going over to a police-type occupation similar to one being devised for Japan, in which a native Japanese police force under American supervision and backed by US tactical units would take over practically the entire responsibility for security and order in the country. He also suggested considering whether foreign manpower-German, Polish, Norwegian, Danish, or Dutch-could be substituted for American manpower in the police force and in the tactical units “to reduce requirements for US manpower and expense.” Eisenhower accepted the idea of a police-type occupation but objected to using Germans on the ground of adverse public reaction, anticipated in both Europe and the United States. The War Department thereafter raised the possibility of recruiting other Europeans several times during the succeeding months before finally dropping the whole idea because of various difficulties, among them expense, language problems, and danger of increasing the pressure for the withdrawal of all US forces. 76 In the meantime, USFET undertook to devise a police-type occupation of its own.
–
All of you have been insightful and informed following my remark about sanctions and blockade. And that is my point — this is precisely the kind of discussion the bbc should be airing instead of a whole lot of time spent on the Lib Dems, who will not in this lifetime gain serious power, and their leader who doesn’t seem able to spell or pronounce his name in a modern way.
oops, sorry, “Mingus” is not yet their leader.
well said Big Mouth.
the world is on the brink of World War Three with the Iranian crisis, and all the Beeboids are worried about is the Lib Dem beauty contest.
In order to raise the Liberal profile even further why not elect Campbell and simply call him “M”? Worked for James Bond’s boss.
would the followers of Ming be called “mingers”??
oh dear.
You mean Menziesers? 😉