(but you knew that).
What is it with them? As our Canadian friends pointed out (see below post), they ignored a press conference at which the current and fully elected President of Iraq stated that ‘civil war is out of the question and… the Iraqi people will not accept [for] a civil war to take place’ in favour of Mr Allawi, the former President’s comments about civil war being emblazoned across the BBC website all through Sunday.
Then, today, they report Bush denying the case stated by Mr Allawi, as though that were more logical than demonstrating balance with comments from Iraq’s current and elected President. Just who do the BBC think runs Iraq? Bush, from the Whitehouse? Why, he must be a clever chap! There’s something both lazy and patronising in bypassing the elected President’s comments in favour of the former and unelected President’s comments, partially, one feels, because Allawi deigned to make his to the BBC directly.
It’s not balanced reporting to only allow the news to be filtered through the BBC’s own favourite caricature-politician, saying ‘He said there were many voices that disagreed with Mr Allawi’s view, including President Jalal Talabani and top US commander Gen George Casey.’
Look Beebies- we know about these voices disagreeing with Allawi, but no thanks to you! Bush’s comments were not themselves news, but referring to news. They are not opinion expressed by the President of the USA, but facts that the BBC should merely have acknowledged. Some people accuse Bush of failing to state his case, but often all he fails to do is to rip into the sensitive media souls who fail to paint the picture truly and can’t understand why that makes some people, interested people, angry. Bush refers to shadows and the public disbelieve him, and whose fault is that when the shadows in fact are real yet go unrecognised and unreported by the farcical MSM?
See also: The Belmont Club’s analysis.
good lord – Blair was on fine fighting form today. note how he has a dig at the BBC’s refusal to call a spade a spade.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4827680.stm
Mr Blair also launched a broadside on sections of the media who he accused of sitting back and arguing that stability in the world would be promoted by doing nothing.
He claimed they were guilty of “a superficial deal with extremism”, adding that such behaviour must “be confronted and uprooted”
In another controversial statement, the prime minister insisted that religious extremism – including Islamist extremism – should be labelled as such.
Was listening to Classic FM in teh car this afternoon and the news came on (blast!)
Decided to listen for a bit to see whether it’s as bad as teh BBC World Service reports – and it is.
First up was Bush disagreeing with Allawi – no mention of other dissenting voices whatsoever.
Second up was a piece about the trial of a group of men charged with conspiring to commit terrorist acts. The “men” had a load of ammonium nitrate, were aged so and so…and not a mention of their religious affiliations. I’ll have to guess that it’s those dastardly Bhuddists again!
prince charles hys
the top recommended here:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1354&edition=1&ttl=20060321171338&#paginator
is by a chap from India.
fantastic.
You will probably find ClassicFM buys in its news from the BBC………..
Try this
http://home.houston.rr.com/edmayberry/International%20Listener%20British%20Radio.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zpcb2
instead of
“should the death penalty come back”
HYS has
“should the probation service change?”
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=1374&start=0&&&edition=1&ttl=20060321183811
Top comments in the thread are preserved in case of “technical difficulties”:
Why should 95% of a country be told to be tolerant of a religion that shows absolutely no tolerance at all of other faiths .The vast majority of the population have no interest ,need no interest nor want no interest in Islam .Stop trying to shove it down our throats all the time.
Toon Army, Newcastle, United Kingdom
Recommended by 65 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 11:11 GMT 11:11 UK
Would this be the type of tolerance we currently have in the UK whereby Christians are ultra sensitive and tolerant of Islam to the point of suppressing their own believes in order not to cause offence and people of Islamic faith are up in arms whenever they disagree with anything anyone else says ?
Adrian Mugridge, Chester, United Kingdom
Recommended by 63 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 11:06 GMT 11:06 UK
Well, taking the view that Islamic fundamentalism requires the destruction of the West, then the only sort of bridge that needs to be built is a draw-bridge (permanently raised).
Graeme, Reading
Recommended by 58 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 12:30 GMT 12:30 UK
Yes greater religious tolerance should be shown. Muslims need to speak out against the atrocities made in their religion’s name. Where is the outcry from the Muslim world when christians face the death penalty for believing in a different God? Where was the outcry when the buddhist statues were destroyed by the Taliban? Where was the outcry when the churches were destroyed in Iraq? Islam needs to acknowledge that others in the world have a right to believe differently.
[SharonBy], London, United Kingdom
Recommended by 57 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 12:32 GMT 12:32 UK
On the one hand today we have the Bishop of Wales apologising to muslims for a cartoon, whilst on the other we have a former muslim under threat of execution for converting to Christianity.
I’m afraid understanding is all one way. Can you imagine a synagogue or church being built in Saudi Arabia? Not much understanding ther, is there?
[edmundwest]
Recommended by 55 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 12:03 GMT 12:03 UK
No, we need more understanding, particularly of Wahhabism, the Islam of most of the Islamic terrorists. Understanding need not necessarily lead to tolerance (how does one tolerate judicial amputations?) but it may lead to developing adequate strategies to deal with and counter the Islamic terrorists and their supporters in this country who are acting as a fifth column.
[VoiceofStratford], London
Recommended by 54 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 11:41 GMT 11:41 UK
There definately needs to be more tolerance, but tolerance of who from whom?
Generally speaking, most religions are tolerant of others anyway; they don’t need Prince Charles’ encouragement.
On the other hand Muslims appear to be intolerant of most things (including non-muslims, homosexuals and cartoons of their God).
Glen Green, Welling, United Kingdom
Recommended by 53 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 12:58 GMT 12:58 UK
Islam is unique among the major religions for its institutionalized intolerance to the people of other faiths. The Muslims are indoctrinated that even the worst among them is far too superior to the best of other faiths. Educational institutions in countries like Saudi Arabia teaches subject history only of Islam, totally excluding rest of world history. Prince Charles should direct his preaching of tolerance to the inward looking Muslim nations and hope for the best.
NAMAKKAL GOVINDAN KRISHNAN, Bangalore, India
Recommended by 52 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 13:01 GMT 13:01 UK
Tolerance of what? Last time I looked a Muslim is free to worship and live in practically any country on earth. Indeed, in western countries we bend over backwards not to “offend” Muslims even at the expense of our own culture and values. So I am not quite sure what Prince Charles is getting at. If he means we should be “tolerant” of Islamofascism, of suicide bombers crying “God is Great” before they blow up innocents, he can go back to growing organic veg and shut up.
Peter Kohler, Washington DC, United States
Recommended by 52 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 12:35 GMT 12:35 UK
Why should I be interested in Islam, I’m sick of hearing about it day in day out. It bores me rigid. As for Prince Charles, hes doing a good job of ensuring the monarchy ends after Queen Elizabeth.
Nick, Northumberland
Recommended by 52 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 11:55 GMT 11:55 UK
Islam this, Islam that….I would be able to get on quite happily with my ordinary, bog-standard, (western) life if it wasn’t for eminent liberals, of which Prince Charles is a fine example, exhorting me to have more undertanding of Islam. I have no interest in Islam whatsoever…have you got that now?!!
Stephen Richards, London SE1, United Kingdom
Recommended by 51 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 12:07 GMT 12:07 UK
What about the tolerance for people who, like me, do not believe in a supreme being? It looks like some religious people are prepared to be tolerant as long as you yourself have a religion!
And how can Charles speak of tolerance when the alleged law of God, the Shariah, claims a Muslim should be beheaded if he swaps religion?
Pascal Jacquemain, Welwyn Garden City
Recommended by 51 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 11:48 GMT 11:48 UK
When extremist muslims stop burning national flags of western countries and show some maturity maybe we will look for tolerance. Some of these muslims who believe they have the true religion should be setting the finest examples of conduct and not acting with mob mentality. What would Muhammed do?
Christina Pierce, Worcester, United Kingdom
Recommended by 51 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 11:13 GMT 11:13 UK
I think he’s correct, but is it only me or does there seem to be more tolerance from Christians than there is from Muslims?
DJ, Warwick
Recommended by 51 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, 15:16 GMT 15:16 UK
I think the West has shown all the tolerance it can to Islam and now I think it is time for the Islamic world to step up to the mark and show some tolerance towards Western values.
Can anyone name a single Western country where a person would face the death penalty for converting from one religion to another like the man who switched from Islam to Christianity in Afghanistan this week?
Simon, Preston
Recommended by 49 people
BBC Radio Times’ smug comment about tonight’s programme “Our Brand Is Crisis” (BBC4 10pm) has unfortuately been overtaken by events.
Carville – a fiery, bald man from Louisiana – is best known for getting Bill Clinton his first term. Here we follow his team as they carve out a strategy for tackling a wary Bolivian electorate. If you’re not already disillusioned by the way Americans do politics, this will help you on your way.
Susan – some truly excellent, straight to the point, no bullshit comments on the HYS thread. Thanks for preserving them against “technical difficulties” – it does give hope that there are some intelligent people out there whose brains aren’t addled by the incessant propaganda we’re being fed.
the christian convert trial in afghanistan has made it to the MSM – the times… thank god
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2095263,00.html
Blair has some serious explaining to do. this is something the BBC should pin him down on – why are our troops dying over there, only for that sort of crap to happen?
Thanks Susan, I’d never have had the patience to root thru the BBC labyrinth to find that! It reinforces my faith that SOME people are indeed ‘getting it’…
Susan | 21.03.06 – 7:43 pm |
“Technical difficulties” have now occurred – the recommendation numbers are lower than when you saved.
the indian chap who was at number 1 is now gone
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1354&edition=1&ttl=20060321221128&#paginator
huh?
oh wait – i’ve found that indian chap.
he’s on page 2 of “most recent”.
only 39 recommended.
looks like they are editing the recommended numbers so.
my own comments on why this is further proof that Charles should never be King have not been included.
no surprise there so.
Archduke: I was reading a HYS last night, and recommended for a post with 6 yotes, making 7 in total. I looked at some of the other posts, then clicked ‘most recommended’ – and the post I’d just voted on now had 4 votes. Huh?
This morning, all my votes in that thread had been removed, so a few ‘technical’ problems there no doubt.
thats called entering a database and altering a few sql records.
its blatant editing.
i know. i’m a techie by trade.
From the Blair speech story… Blair is clearly on the offensive and on this topic, he needs to be firm to break through the MSM pussy footing.
>> Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said Mr Blair should use his future foreign policy speeches to announce an inquiry into the decision behind the Iraq war “and to apologise”.
my comments got chopped. I commented that Ming is clearly trying to be populist, and failing in a woeful way. How many inquiries have there already been!?
Newsweek story on Iraq.
Interviewed American soldiers at the end of an anti-war rally. (probably organised by communists).
Moonbat ex SAS soldier acting like a pretencious smirking dork.
What really gets me about the HYS vote rigging, is that the Beeb already have total control over what questions are asked, how much prominence the question is given and for how long, what posts are allowed, and then feel they *still* have to fiddle the result of the readers recommends. That really makes it clear what kind of mindset the people working there have.
DofF
Yeah, I just called the bbc complaints line about this piece of crap masquerading as journalism. I used to like newsnight once but now I watch out some masochistic urge! I wish I could stop but I’m attracted like a moth to the flame!
Seriously, they provided absolutely NO evidence and even in the Time story the headline is:
“One Morning in Haditha
U.S. Marines killed 15 Iraqi civilians in their homes last November. Was it self-defense, an accident or cold-blooded revenge? A TIME exclusive”
There’s no doubt for Paxman about what happened. The best newsnight can do, however, is to repeat the claims of a nine-year old girl who didn’t see the faces of the shooters and dig up a couple of moonbats who make some general allegations about bad behaviour.
Cue dark accusations of “systematic” bad behaviour (i.e. massacres) from Paxman. Plus the usual sneering at the token yank and free ride given to human rights lawyer and British moonbat.
Yuk!
i used to watch newsnight too – when it was serious, and hardcore “news”. it didnt pander to me. it was deadly serious stuff. and so it should be. it is on at 10.30pm for gods sake on BBC 2.
now its just an extension of the fluff p.c. crap that is the six’o clock news.
Moriarty | 21.03.06 – 11:20 pm |
My feelings exactly.
The bastards are taking the mickey.
It’s all so “1984”.
Susan
Nice going on the comments post.
Good god, they really are stooping low enough to remove “recommended post” votes for “off-message” posts. The Indian guy should have more than 100 recommendations by now!
Un-freakin-believable!
And they expect no one to notice their machinations. The idiots who run (D)HYS were probably not even smart enough to major in “media studies.”
Thanks guys, but actually, it is not hard to capture the top recommended posts. I just did a big single cut-and-paste of the first page of recommended posts, as they were a few hours ago.
So where is “John Reith”, our little BBC apologist (see earlier threads) when such blatant fiddling is identified?
No evidence of bias, eh?
The Indian guy’s post now only has a piddling 26 recommendations! From a direct copy and paste:
“Islam is unique among the major religions for its institutionalized intolerance to the people of other faiths. The Muslims are indoctrinated that even the worst among them is far too superior to the best of other faiths. Educational institutions in countries like Saudi Arabia teaches subject history only of Islam, totally excluding rest of world history. Prince Charles should direct his preaching of tolerance to the inward looking Muslim nations and hope for the best.
NAMAKKAL GOVINDAN KRISHNAN, Bangalore, India
Recommended by 26 people”
This morning (my time) he had like 80 recommendations.
Shame on you, MinTruth, shame, shame!
oh wait – i’ve found that indian chap.
he’s on page 2 of “most recent”.
only 39 recommended.
looks like they are editing the recommended numbers so.
archduke | Homepage | 21.03.06 – 10:21 pm | #
whereas it is possible to move down the “recommended” rankings, how is it possible for the number recommending to change? is it possible to “unrecommend”? why do you brits allow this blatant fiddling and dishonesty to go unchallenged?
surely some of you could challenge the BBC on this one very specific example and point and expose them, no? why doesn’t someone here publicly advise the bbc of refusal to pay the tv fee, using this and whatever other evidence you have collected, and threaten the bbc you will sue THEM for violation of charter (if they dare come after you or better, even if they don’t?)?
sorry, i know it’s probably easier said then done…i don’t live in the uk so maybe it is easy for me to say…just my personal rant, if nothing else
I don’t pay.
I believe the following points
1 We would be in Iraq right now if we had a Democrate in the white house or a Tory at number 10.
2 It is clear that the British and American goverments are not going to be influenced much for the next few years at least.
3 We can only fail by the force of domestic public opinion.
4 Public opinion does not really give a s..t about dieing troops or lieing politicians. Unfortunately.
5 The left/BBC only get motivated to action, when there is a Tory goverment to be got rid of.
6 Public opinion DOES care however, about their own personal safety and that of their family and friends.
7 Danger concerns the public most, when it comes from the streets of their own country.
So what is the point of these points?
The most dangerous thing that can happen here is a breakdown in civil order. The media is following directions from goverment not to let real RACISM get out of hand. They just dont have the monopoly of infomation anymore in order to “pull it off” properly. How much of this presure comes direct from number 10 is difficult to say, maybe none. However we all know that Tony can tell porkies and still keep a grin. So what ever he says, it could still be a lot.
All this takes is a friendly word in the ear of maybe no more than 10 chief media news editors. Look out for lots of new honers for news editors over the next few years.
It seems to me that the fact that our media is BIAS and is subject to goverment control, has come as a bit of a shock to some of you.
It always has been, its just that there is a Labour goverment now, so the baby is sucking from its mothers tit again.
Why should I be interested in Islam, I’m sick of hearing about it day in day out. It bores me rigid.
Yes I agree….I can recall a time when it was not mentioned daily. Then again Hindus must be fuming in England as they see the squeaky wheel get so much grease.
BTW….it is not all Christian Churches bending over backwards for Islam it is the Church of England………we do not hear the Catholic Church getting so involved. In one diocese twinned with Denmark of all places, visitors from the Danish Church are taken on a tour of Bradford mosques…………..I wonder if this provocative outing is still continuing !
OT: Apparently, and as far as I know the BBC have not picked up and run with this one yet:
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=1752
Esspecially interesting is that the group is trying to associate the BNP with the march as proof of it’s prdjudiced nature.
Also interesting is that this press release is from the “Islamic Human Rights Comission”, who I think are the same group who are so freequently brought on to the 5 live phone in. So surely only a matter of time no? :
“31 towns and cities nationwide to demonstrate for Global Civility on the 25th March
15 March 2006
More protests by the Muslim Action Committee.
Press Release 15/3/06
31 towns and cities nationwide to demonstrate for Global Civility on the 25th March
The Muslim Action Committee (MAC) have today condemned the Freedom of Expression March due to be held on the 25th March in Trafalgar Square whose organisers have said that they welcome bringing placards and wearing t-shirts depicting the abusive cartoons. Shaykh Faiz Siddiqi said “This is an offence against Global Civility and a provocation to 1.6 billion Muslims. The continued irresponsible actions of the BNP in distributing leaflets with the cartoons on across the country are also provoking anger throughout the Muslim community”
MAC is calling it’s supporters to carry on the Campaign for Global Civility in the face of these continued attacks on the Muslim community. 31 towns and cities are preparing to demonstrate on the 25th March in their local town and city centres and the MAC others will join.
The cities and towns already signed up are: Birmingham, Manchester, East London, Bradford, Liverpool, Glasgow, Worcester, Woking, Rochdale, Bedford, Nottingham, High Wycombe, Huddersfield, Stoke, Oldham, Coventry, Peterborough, Keighley, Preston, Dundee, Bristol, Halifax, Bolton, Nelson, Wolverhampton, Middlesborough, Luton, Derby, Banbury, Oxford, Watford, Hounslow and Sloug”
—-
See also from the “Muslim Public Affairs comitee for more spin in …
” Fascists support ‘March for Free Expression’ ”
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4/1461/103/
Appologies to Rick for bringing up the “I” subject again.
As others have noted above, what on earth is happening with DHYS? One day the most recommended might have 90 votes, then the next it is down to 26, whilst 20 other comments now have more votes. Is it BBC incompetence or the removal of votes for certain comments? I guess on Biased-BBC we would suspect the latter, but perhaps the moderators just restart the voting (setting all to zero) every so often, to give newer comments a chance? On long threads the earliest comments tend to get more votes because most people have not got the time to trawl through all the comments. However, I have noticed that this seems to have favoured comments that the BBC would approve of, whilst relegating BBC-unfriendly comments to the outer darkness. Or is this just my perception? Has anyone done a “study” of this over the last few days or weeks?
It was prophesied on this very site a while back that the great brainwashed of the BBC would soon start to mess with the ‘Readers Recommended’ function on HYS.
Alas, it has come to pass.
In this connection, it’s also interesting to observe that the ‘Most Recent’ comment – i.e. the one that first catches your eye on the top of the page when you click on the topic – almost always follows the BBC agenda. And they usually close the debate with a pro-BBC comment on top.
It would be interesting to see just how pervasive this practice is.
Problem is, you have to go through the following torturous process to retrieve a topic from the murky depths of the site once it has been whisked off the main HYS page:
Aim:
Find ‘Israeli elections: your questions’
Procedure:
*Go to any HYS topic, e.g. ‘HYS is crap: discuss’
*Type the topic you want in the search box and click ‘Go’. (If you can’t remember the exact title, an approximation will usually work, e.g. ‘Questions Israeli elections’.)
*This will get you to a summarised comments page of ‘HYS is crap: discuss’.
*Click ‘Go’ again.
*This will get you to a summarised comments page of ‘Israeli elections: your questions’.
*Click on any summarised comment to get to the actual page you’re looking for.
Of course, once they take a topic off the main HYS page, they effectively kill it, because very few people are going to go hunting for it. And even if they find it, and post more comments, they almost certainly wont be published.
However, for purposes of research into BBC bias, amateur investigative journalists on this site and others might not be averse to getting their hands dirty digging into the BBC’s endless propaganda – of which HYS editors are such fine practitioners.
Eamonn,
We’ll just have to keep watching them.
Slightly off-topic…
I was interested in Mr Blah’s comments in the BBC report (follow Archduke’s link at the top).
But he said Muslims who committed acts of terrorism were no more true to their faith than the “Protestant bigot” who murdered Catholics in Northern Ireland.
“But unfortunately he is still a Protestant bigot. To say his religion is irrelevant is both completely to misunderstand his motive and to refuse to face up the strain of extremism within his religion that has given rise to it.”
Of course, Catholic bigots don’t exist do they boys and girls?
1. Yep, a file needs to be sent to the BBC about the recommend comments which myseriously fluctuate down.
2. The Rotty Pup has noticed something odd: the five black men and bearded Albanian illegal immigrant who kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered Mary Ann Leneghan seem to have become changed somewhat. Granted, the hairy Albanian could have had a shave prior to appearing in court but the black five appear to have turned grey, according to the BBC:
http://rottypup.com/?p=572
Michael Brown
There you are one of them had an identity crisis and thought he was “brown”, the BBC artists thoughtfully decided he wanted to be called Michael Gray and we can only be grateful he wasn’t feeling “green” or “scarlett”……………..then we should have had a significant problem getting the correct wax crayon
Deepdiver, Rick
I was wasting my time then when I emailed Classic FM to complain about their news output and requested that they stop trying to ape the BBC.
On the subject of Newsnight, I thought it the funniest yet. Paxman allows free rein to dingbat with dubious connection to SAS and to hooman rites brief before swivelling in chair to screen behind. Man on screen is allowed to say ‘There’s no evidence’ before Paxman screams at him ‘Who says’. At this point I burst out laughing.
This morning on the breakfast bimbo slot a man was discussing urban development and uttered the words ‘socialist planning’ in a disparaging way. Nervous titters from the two couch bimbos and a shuffling of papers before quickly moving on, trying to ignore it as if someone had just farted in church.
Blair yesterday made the speech of his life that has so far been roundly ignored by Al Beeb, even the folks here http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/ give it praise.
Why wouldthe BBC ignore the speech?
mostly because it was a lightly veiled but savage attack on the BBC mindset. The speech is here http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page9224.asp .
I have said before that the BBC is the mouthpiece of New Labour, while I stll believe this to be true, they are clearly now set against Blair (of whom I am no fan, but hes better that the current crop of Tories)and are pushing the Brown agenda hard.
As ever, the BBC are critisizing all political parties from a position well to the left of all of them, and well to the left of most of the British people.
But he said Muslims who committed acts of terrorism were no more true to their faith than the “Protestant bigot” who murdered Catholics in Northern Ireland.
How do we know that for certain ?
True I know of no man of the cloth who extols the valour of killers and bombers; but I do know of bearded wonders who preach hatred to mindless Muslims urging them to kill anyone on the hit-list for sanctification.
So what do we make of a “religion” which incites hatred, urges persons to deprive others of their lives, and glorifies evildoers ? Surely this must be a Death Cult and all Muslims must be loud in their condemnation and revulsion………………..but they are not……………is that because these same bearded wonders hold them spellbound ?
I was wasting my time then when I emailed Classic FM to complain about their news output
Find a journalists blog and ask who feeds them
Well I just don’t know – who do you think runs Iraq? The president of Iraq, or the person with 130,000 heavily-armed troops under his command? You’ll probably be arguing that Vichy France was independent next.
By the way, if you’re going to lambast the BBC for getting facts wrong, you might be wise to get your own facts right. Even a cursory bit of research would give you the fact that Jalal Talabani isn’t “fully elected” [sic], but is in fact appointed by the Iraqi parliament. Not a single vote is cast for the position of president. And, as leader of a Kurdish party, it’s extremely unlikey that Talabani in any way represents the views of the majority of Iraqis.
But, as I often have to comment on this site, never let facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?
Are you a Beeboid Ian Betteridge?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=ian+betteridge+%2B+BBC&btnG=Search&meta=
Luton school wins appeal against Muslim Headscarf girl.
“You’ll probably be arguing that Vichy France was independent next.”
much the same way as Germany wasnt independent post 1945 – after all, there were several hundred thousand American troops on German soil for a good 40 odd years.
Are you saying that post 1945 Germany is equivalent to Vichy France so?
Or have you got inside information on how today’s Iraq is being ruled by a national socialist ideology?
When you have information on how the Americans are rounding up the Sunnis and exterminating them in gas chambers , please let us know.
Are you a Beeboid Ian Betteridge?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?h…nG=Search&meta=
Looks like it. I’d say pretty damning evidence.