The Today programme like to think that they don’t just report the news, that they “help to set the agenda” – and to a great extent they’re correct. You can hear Humphrys or Naughtie worrying away at a point like a terrier with a rat. hoping to get an admission which will make the NEXT news headlines.
“In an interview on the BBC Today programme, the Minister revealed that …”
But there are scoops and scoops. The BBC has an institutional bias towards a pro-abortion viewpoint – I’m sorry, the approved BBC term is ‘pro-choice’, and against the pro-life viewpoint – I’m sorry, that should have read ‘anti-abortion’.
Which might explain why this remarkable interview (RealAudio, 25 minutes in) with ‘pro-choice’ Dr Stuart Derbyshire wasn’t the main headline at nine-o’clock, and would just have been quietly forgotten before the Web.
Dr Derbyshire argued that babies did not feel pain until they were up to several months old, an argument which seems to fly in the face of common sense and human experience, as John Humphrys acknowledged. Such a bizarre claim made by a proponent of an unpopular (to liberals) ideology would have been picked up and amplified by the BBC, used to discredit their cause. The two sides of bias are promoting that which supports a view and ignoring or suppressing that which discredits it.
I can imagine how a pro-life BBC would have spun it.
“A pro-abortion doctor today claimed that babies cannot feel pain until up to several months after birth. Controversial psychologist Dr Stuart Derbyshire – who has previously claimed that vivisectionists have no duty to care for laboratory animals beyond what is necessary for successful experimentation, said that …”
Here’s the transcript (note Humphrys’ self-correction of ‘baby’ to ‘foetus’, so characteristic of the BBC):
John Humphrys : “Right – so your contention is that the baby – er, the foetus, cannot feel pain until … ?”
Dr Stuart Derbyshire, psychologist : “Until it’s had an opportunity to undergo some sort of learning process – until it’s had an opportunity to undergo a process whereby pointing and showing occurs”
Humphrys (interrupting) – “But that would suggest it’s weeks – possibly months – after birth – and surely that’s nonsense, isn’t it ?”
Derbyshire : “It possibly is weeks, possibly months – I mean it’s very difficult of course to ever draw a line as to precisely when it happens – but I do think we can draw a line and say that it is vitally dependent upon a process that’s going to take place outside of the womb. Pain – in the same way – all experience is in a sense social – it’s dependent on other people, and that doesn’t occur until the point of birth.”
Humphrys : “Dr Derbyshire, many thanks”
Dr Derbyshire was propounding an identical theory in the magazine Living Marxism ten years ago. Why is the BBC suddenly publicising him ?
“The US is considering legislation to make doctors tell women seeking an abortion it will cause the foetus pain.”
Ah, the Great Satan. Now I understand. Happy Easter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4908940.stm
Meanwhile the US Marines are alleged to have caused major damage at Babylon in the aftermath of the war. They have apologised and said they’ll sort it unlike say the Russians, Chinese or many other military forces worldwide who would just have shrugged, shot the complainers and carried on. But the missing link in this story which any decent journalist would have spotted since it was on Dan Cruickshank’s recent BBC2 TV programme about the Middle East and its buildings is that the so called “Babylon” is practically all brand new and the bricks have Saddam’s name imprinted in them. Even the picture the BBC use shows the ‘newness’ of the buildings! In fact I recall Cruickshanks showing us that Saddam had ordered the few remaining ancient bricks to be replaced by new ones……so this would be the equivalent of someone accidently damaging the pyrmid Al Fayed is supposed to be building on the roof of Harrod’s and then claiming the Egyptians are angry at the destruction of the Great Pyramid at Giza………never miss a chance do they?
Even in the most ridiculous of stories the BBC dig deep to find something to whine about. Twits.
GCooper
Why am I paying the BBC to project their fears, phobias, and prejudices on to me, a mentally stable and healthy individual?
Is the BBC trying to breed a nation of anxious depressed individuals hooked to the BBC for a fix?
This is old,
Monday, 13 September 2004 10:07
The Times · http://www.the-times.co.uk
£50,000 AT 24: WHY TOP GRADUATES GO TO WORK IN THE NHS
Public service jobs have become more popular with university graduates, as employers appear to have successfully exploded the myth about poor pay and career prospects to lure the best candidates.
For the first time, the National Health Service has come fifth in The Times Top 100 Graduate Employers list, published today. It is one of four public sector employers in the top ten, including the Civil Service, the BBC and Army.
Yes, the BBC is up there in the top ten, I wonder who is paying for these inflated salaries?
I don’t mind paying for a service but I do object to getting ripped off.
A lurker | 15.04.06 – 12:35 am
Why do the (justified) attacks on Kember rattle you so much?
Do you know anything about him and his fellow-travellers?
Here’s some info:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Christian+Peacemaker+Teams&btnG=Search
Christian Peacemaker Teams: committed to reducing violence by “Getting in the way.”
Christian Peacemaker Teams UK, Sue Rhodes standing in front of a tank in Hebron.
Here’s the cherry on the top:
For Palestinians, the events between 1947 and 1949 are remembered as a time when Israeli military forces destroyed over 500 Palestinian villages and expelled between 700,000 and 900,000 Palestinians from their lands.
All lies, of course, including their statistics. For one thing, even those largely ignorant of the “events” of that time know that the surrounding Arab nations issued calls to the local Arabs to leave Israel, and return once the Jews had been “driven into the sea.” Besides, the Jews appealed to the local Arabs to stay and defend the land. Very few were “expelled”. There were those who did stay. I wonder where Norman Kember and his friends think the Israeli Arabs come from. There are numerous documents and news reports of the time available to substantiate these facts.
Kember and company of CPT have no business involving themselves in the dispute, especially since they apparently don’t know the facts. But I suspect they do know, but have decided to buy into, and bolster, Palestinian propaganda.
They are worthy only of contempt.
Uh… I forgot, A Lurker is in hit-and-run posting mode, so there’s no use trying to debate this issue with him/her.
Bryan
Lurkie is in hit run and MISS mode….8-)
On Any Answers a caller cites the rants and threats of the Iranian President – but Eddie Mair cuts across him saying “maybe he doesn’t mean all that ?”
What the hell is Mair playing at ? The BBC fails to report the President’s threats clearly most of the time – and then tries to excuse them away.
Just looking at the BBC “Science/Nature” section (perhaps that should just be “Nature” section?) and practically everything on the top page is about climate change:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4897252.stm
Sorry, that didn’t work properly. Apologies for the double post.
———————–
Just looking at the BBC “Science/Nature” section (perhaps that should just be “Nature” section?) and practically everything on the top page is about climate change:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4897252.stm
– Britain “eating the planet” – Yes, this article really IS as bizarre as it sounds. It contains some truely baffling statistics, including a claim that we would need “3.1 earths” to sustain Britain’s lifestyle worldwide. What does this mean? How could they possibly have calculated this? I imagine if they provided any methadology, it would be ripped to shreds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4888946.stm – The “Stark warning over climate change” thing that was their headline all of yesterday.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=1538&edition=1 – Have your say about climate change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4907036.stm – Weekly article about climate change from an Environmentalist perspective (how the hell do they justify this being a self-proclaimed “objective source”?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4903392.stm – Article on a competition on how to combat climate change. Proposes a “regional climate change competition”. Note the caption unsurprisingly showing England losing and Scotland winning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4906692.stm – Article about a lake drying up in Chad. Blamed on global warming, even though the true cause of desertification has long been known to be over-cultivation. The fact that Chad pumps out massive amounts of water for its internal needs might just also be part of the reason.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/newshomepage/int/bpuff/-/climatechange – Link asking people to donate their computer to climate change research (no, BBC, computer models are NOT experiments, they are predictions!)
So out of 11 “major” links on that page (the ones with pictures next to them and a caption), 8 of them are about climate change. THe other three consist of an article about a telescope designed to spot light emitted by “alien civilisations”, an article about research into an anti-scarring drug and something about some new service Google is launching (isn’t this avertising, rather than news? interesting that Google are the ones who do the BBC’s search engine).
They have completely ignored the story about 60 Canadian scientists calling Kyoto useless and computer models of climate change flawed (as have all of the British press except the Telegraph). This Environmentalist bias is truely ludicrous – far more blatant than any of their other biases. Sadly, I think it will also be by far the most damaging to Britain in the long term.
“A swan in Fife reduces John Humphrys and the BBC news department to gibbering hysteria”.
Nice remark by Simon Jenkins in his Guardian article, recalling the medieval doomsayer Savonarola after a falcon flew against the door of Palazio Vecchio.
I doubt if Humphrys will get the same treatment in the end as Savonarola !
He’ll just smirk his pedantic clever-clogs way into retirement. Sooner rather than later, I hope, because it is getting increasingly hard to comprehend his mumblings much of the time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1753807,00.html
Meanwhile Mary Hockaday has been promoted to a very senior position at BBC news. Oddly, there is no biog of her on the bloated BBC website. But they seem to manage a biog on HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of BBC staff. Amazing really – just a sign of how truly self-regarding the BBC is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/
Dave t,
Lurkie is in hit run and MISS mode….8-)
Yeah, you gave me an idea: How ’bout miss and run mode?!
Here is the BBC biog of Carolyn Quinn, the token-woman Today presenter. The vacuaous look matches her on-air performance. Her journalistic training and expertise looks minimal – compared with someone of the calibre of Sue McGregor. Quinn started as an amateur in hiospital radio. Frankly she hasn’t moved far.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/news/carolynquinn.shtml
And Sarah Montague sounds just as amateur, little sign of hard-bitten reporting or depth of expertise :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/news/sarahmontague.shtml
It would be interesting to see how many of the BBC types listed on the News Dept biog page, for instance the Today team of presenters/interviewers, would get a political reporting job at senior level on a national newspaper. People of the likes of George Jones, Matthew Parris etc with real political understanding and breadth would make mincemeat of them.
re the BBC’s attacks on Rumsfeld, proxy for Bush. Every time Rummy speaks to gatherings of the troops he seems to get a hugely favourable response – which the BBC never mentions. The same applies to Bush. And re-recruitment rates are running well above targets. Imagine the sort of response Geoff Hoon used to get.
Finding a handful of dissidents among hundreds of US generals is not hard. Especially if you include some who had NIL direct experience of dealing with Rumsfeld, or who left the military before the period which the are criticising. Or the guy who was in charge of training the new Iraqi army in 2003/2004 – precisely when the training was failing.
The BBC notably failed to report the explicit statement supporting Bush by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 14 April, still available on C-Span.
And this letter seems to be a more representative view of what the military serving at the sharp end (as compared to desk-warriors) think of Rumsfeld :
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/04/an_officer_responds_to_david_i.html
dumbcisco,
What the hell is Mair playing at ? The BBC fails to report the President’s threats clearly most of the time – and then tries to excuse them away.
The BBC appears to have an a friendly, even affectionate relationship with the thuggish Iranian regime. I’ve seen plenty of evidence over the past year to back up this impression.
And then of course there’s the BBC’s Persian Service.
Reminds me of a CNN reporter in Iraq – I forget her name – during Saddam’s regime. CNN admitted that her reporting had been submissive to the regime, but insisted that it was OK that she misled CNN viewers because of the need to maintain a presence in the country.
She was subsequently promoted, I believe, to head CNN’s Baghdad bureau.
Ain’t that just typical.
Now I don’t know how the BBC looks at itself in the mirror after cuddling up to a regime run by a warmongering group of ‘religious’ thugs that hangs teenagers from cranes for having sex and that is the world’s biggest sponsor of terror.
And I don’t know how it can live with its collective self, knowing that it helps legitimise the regime by continually inviting it for tea and sandwiches and a chat.
dumbisco
A swan in Fife reduces John Humphreys and the BBC news department to gibbering hysteria
I should look this up to confirm but I remember reading that the swan in question turned out to be a foreign migrant and not a native mute swan .
Bryan
The boss of CNN admitted they covered up for Saddam.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/CNNs_Iraqi_Cover-Up.asp
And the BBC is on a major mission to get its new service into the Middle East. Al-Jazeera actually includes statements from US spokesmen, which the BBC usually fails to do here in Britain when it is attacking US policies or trying to present Bush as the Great Threat to World Peace.
Reuters and Associated Press are also guilty of appeasement and dodgy reporting from the Middle East. AP are currently caught up in allegations that one of their favourite Iraqi stringers was totally in league with the “insurgents”, helping stage stuff to grab news attention in the propaganda war.
Summary of pointers to heavy liberal bias in the US media :
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp
The BBC always takes its US story lines from the liberal side of the US press. I see little sign that it even scans the opposing views or newspapers and news channels.
For those who haven’t yet read the HAMAS charter here is a good site to visit
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm
Euro news ( not the BBC) viewed at 1630 hrs watch them stabbing car tyres of motorists
News 15 April 2006
15/04
12:31 CET Palestinian Territory Palestinian security forces on rampage
Palestinian security forces have gone on the rampage in Gaza to complain about a backlog of unpaid wages.
The masked protestors briefly occupied government offices in the central town of Khan Younis to make their anger clear.
http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=354199&lng=1
I am so disappointed that I missed BBC3’s re-enactment of the Passion. I am quite sure that, given the furore over the Mohammad cartoons, the BBC treated the subject matter with sensitivity and good taste – it was, after all, one of the holiest days on the Christian calendar.
Yeah yeah.
I look forward to the BBC’s version of Mohammad’s flight to Jerusalem. The Beeb could set the play in Bradford, Lemmy from Motorhead could direct, and a death metal soundtrack could provide a stirring musical accompaniment.
Now, I am no god-botherer and I am sure Manchester Passion had a great deal of artistic merit, but it seems to me somewhat odd that the corporation – which did not screen the Mo cartoons out of ‘respect’ for Islam – excises all religious content from its schedules on Good Friday, but chooses to air this bastardisation of the Passion instead. I like James – though I loathe Sit Down with a, excuse the pun, passion – but what was the BBC trying to do with this Manchester thing (apart from giving work to its Nations and Regions personnel and to Keith Allen)?
I am sure it was very tasteful and all, but for a corporation that makes a decision not to show a cartoon (lest it offend a religious minority) subsequently to take such liberties with another belief-system is arrogant, to say the least.
Some might accuse the BBC of double standards. I have a feeling it was taking the piss.
Israel rails against Iran threats
“Rail” gcide “The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48”
Rail Rail, v. i. [F. railler; cf. Sp. rallar to grate, scrape,
molest; perhaps fr. (assumed) LL. radiculare, fr. L. radere
to scrape, grate. Cf. {Rally} to banter, {Rase}.]
To use insolent and reproachful language; to utter
reproaches; to scoff; — followed by at or against, formerly
by on. –Shak.
[1913 Webster]
And rail at arts he did not understand. –Dryden.
[1913 Webster]
Of course the Iranian president doesn’t threaten, menace or rant. He merely “speaks”, “says”,”talks”, etc., ad nauseum
“What the hell is Mair playing at? The BBC fails to report the President (of Iran)’s threats clearly most of the time – and then tries to excuse them away.”
This is the issue that got me interested in Biased BBC in the first place. The BBC tends to ignore what the President of Iran says for a week or so; and then it alludes to the President’s remarks in a follow-up story.
Typically the follow-up story is about a potential US nuclear strike on Iran, and I suppose we are supposed to feel bad about the imminent radioactive deaths of millions of Iranian film-makers, writers and intellectuals, just because of some harmless words that just happened to come out of the President of Iran’s bearded lips.
When the President of Iran says that Israel should be wiped off the map, it’s just words, whereas when George Bush raises an eyebrow, it’s an affirmation of his fundamentalist Christian=evil desire to murder children haliburton oil cheney hitler ku klux blood klan.
I exaggerate.
Perhaps the BBC believes that the President of Iran’s utterings are par for the course for middle eastern politics, and thus not worth reporting. I would rather that the BBC does not make this decision for me.
I’ve just read a book about the Six-Day War. It’s called “Six Days of War” and it dates from a time when people generally liked Israel. Iran doesn’t feature, of course, because Iran was on our side in 1967. Whilst reading the book I got the impression that politicians and statesmen today are probably nostalgic for the days of President Nasser and King Hussein of Jordan and Moshe Dayan and the Shah of Iran etc; the modern Middle East seems to be even nastier than the Middle East circa the late 1960s.
Biodegradeable: Israel rails against Iran threats.
I noticed that too.
Sorry – I meant “Biodegradable”.
Re: Shimon Peres’ response to Iran.
“Rails” has just been changed to “condemns”. Nifty work by the Beeb.
Ashley – I agree that the modern Middle East is getting nastier – but aren’t the current alignments horribly reminiscent of the 60s – then: Soviet Union backing Nasser’s Egypt backing PLO and (later) Arafat’s Fatah. Now: Putin backing Ahmadinejad’s Iran backing Hamas. Not that the BBC will give this the analysis it deserves – because they’re intent on playing down the threat from Iran and grossly setting up the US as the ‘warmongers’.
(Bryan – miss and run – must remember that one….)
PS: still on the topic of Peres’ retort to Ahmadinejad.
The BBC has reported the words of one former Israeli Cabinet minister, Mr Peres, yet its headline says “Israel Condemns Iranian Threats”.
This is very silly. If former Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd said, “Iran’s president is not very nice”, would the BBC then quote him and attach a headline saying “Britain Condemns Iran”?
Mental.
On the PM programme Martin Bell says sleaze is worse under Labour than it was under the Conservatives.
At last some truth from the man who wears the white suit with a wide yellow streak down the back.
Is he implicitly admitting that he now agrees that Neil Hamilton was framed?
See:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%205/page2.html
PS Was the famous suit made from a flag manufactured by CND in anticipation that their pro-commie strategy would be successful?
TAoL. Quick work, but it was spotted!
DFH – It looks like posting here is more effective than complaining directly to the BBC. We do get results 😉
R5 News last night led on Rumsfeld & a few items later got around to Iran.
But it was not the President’s rantings but a plea for funds for “the Palestinian people“, because, we we told, the West had stopped funding since the election success of Hamas.
No mention of why Hamas caused a re-think. & also misleading?
a) Are we not still providing humanitarian aid?
b) Was Iran wanting donations to the “people” or the government.
And the PA was already in financial crisis before the West ‘stopped funding’ them – due to gross mismanagement and corruption (that doesn’t get talked about). In fact that was one of the main reasons Hamas got elected in the first place.
Dear BBC stealth editors, news gatherers and sundry sinecurists all,
Now we have your attention, would you please explain to us why, in an interview with your Gaza correspondent today on BBC World Service News, when asked why the “Palestinian security officers” protesting non-payment of their salaries were dressed as “militants”, rather than in their uniforms, your correspondent evaded the question and mumbled something about “protests about unpaid wages are nothing new…”?
Could it be that members of the “Palestinian” security forces are in fact also, and at the same time, “militants”?
Isn’t it true that the “Palestinian” security forces are in fact in large part made up of “militants” previously released from Israeli prisons in “gestures of good will”?
And isn’t it true that previously Arafat, then more recently Abbas, both integrated “militants” into the “Palestinian” security forces under the guise of “reining in armed groups”?
Your replies are awaited with less than baited breath.
“PS: still on the topic of Peres’ retort to Ahmadinejad.
The BBC has reported the words of one former Israeli Cabinet minister, Mr Peres, yet its headline says “Israel Condemns Iranian Threats”.
This is very silly. If former Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd said, “Iran’s president is not very nice”, would the BBC then quote him and attach a headline saying “Britain Condemns Iran”?
Mental.
TAoL | 15.04.06 – 6:22 pm | # ”
Not mental;
It actually shows how fourth rate reporting prospers in a monolithic, unaccountable organisation run along the lines of MinTruth.
They are letting their thought-world intrude into news gathering: Peres=Israeli Politician=Israel.
Slip after slip after slip.
You pointed out the mistakes;
Some they will correct – for the others they will simply think “F*** You!” and justify their position.
But it will happen again and again – through laziness. And they won’t understand 🙂
DfH – I think it was changed as I read the story.
The report itself is quite good. I can’t think why that headline was added though. I spose it’s a case of shoot the sub, not the messenger.
I really do have too much time on my hands. I think I shall go and stand outside KFC and rant at passers-by instead.
In pictures: Gaza police protest
Last picture’s caption: The new administration is facing a financial crisis as foreign donors have cut off aid
Poor diddums!
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa…
I heard part of the discussions on Any Questions (Radio 4 as repeated Saturday afternoon) in which Tony Benn was ‘answering’ the question put about Iran’s nuclear intentions – and he promptly attacked the US. He re-stated the lie about who armed Saddam Hussein and then said that this was done by the US who induced Iraq to attack Iran following the deposing of the Shah. It is established fact that over 90% of Iraq’s arms were supplied by Russia, China and France – yet Mair says nothing to correct Mr Benn.
Gordon-Bennett:
Thanks for the plug for my website http://www.guardianlies.com I appreciate it.
If you really want to know what a rotten black-hearted posturing smug self-regarding shit Martin Bell is, read “The Little Book of Bell”.
Here’s the URL: http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%205/page7.html
He’s the only person I’ve come across in my life who denounced his own vicar because he voiced support for a man whom he (correctly) believed was innocent of grave corruption charges that our wonderful Brit media had levelled against him.
There’s a link at the top of the first page to a Rich Text Format (RTF) doc.
Enjoy!
It is established fact that over 90% of Iraq’s arms were supplied by Russia, China and France – yet Mair says nothing to correct Mr Benn.
Benn is as mad as a hatter. Did you know Margaret Rutherford was related to him ? So you cannot expect sanity to have been passed to Little Lord Fauntleroy as he pretends to be prolier-than-thou.
Eddie Mair is no worse than Jonathan D – they both wallow in limited knowledge and unlimited prejudice.
Whatever weapons the Iraqis had they and the Iranians were no match for the technology unable apparently even to operate laser rangefinders on tanks. So it was a case of oil rich peasants given kit they couldn’t use to fight a war they couldn’t win.
Actually it was the entire Middle East which backed Iraq against Madcap Khomeini – why noone thinks of Saudi’s contribution to propping up Sunni regimes in the Midle East and beyond beats me…..they had no wish to see Shias in control in Iraq so Sunni Saddam was their best mate
hmm…
Dr Who on TV now.
quasi-islamic, green crescent symbol used as the universal hospital symbol, instead of the usual red cross.
(look into my eyes.. not around the eyes…look into my eyes….. you will believe islam is peaceful & wholesome & good for you)
drip drip drip.
Oscar
(Bryan – miss and run – must remember that one….)
‘Twas a united effort. Dave t was also involved.
dumbcisco | 15.04.06 – 4:20 pm
Interesting. I sometimes feel that the BBC is more Palestinian than the Palestinians and more al-Jazeerian than the al-Jazeerians. And the AP is just as bad.
Biodegradable and DFH
Good work on the headline. Funny, when I read that quote of Peres right at the end of the article I thought there was just a hint of ‘railing’ there:
“The Iranian president represents Satan and not God. History has rejected these sorts of sword-brandishing lunatics,” said Mr Peres.
But point (whoever made it) taken that Mr. Peres is not ‘Israel’.
Well and good. Madmood I’monajihad needs some railing in response to his
railing.
And on DFH’s site there was an interesting comment by ‘Anonymous’:
Nice bit of stealth editing from the Beeb. Once again they don’t update the edit time.
I have a theory about this tactic. I think they put up stories that peddle their agenda. Leave it there until enough people have seen it and then change the article to show ‘they’re not biased’. Of course, everybody has by now read the original and doesn’t get to see the new version. The BBC gets to ‘brainwash’ the casual reader, but deflects any investigations into bias.
I’d just add one thing: they rely a lot on the blogosphere to see how far they can and can’t go with their propaganda.
“It is established fact that over 90% of Iraq’s arms were supplied by Russia, China and France” – and from what I remember from playing old Microprose computer games, it was pre-revolutionary Iran that got most of the American kit.
And I’m sure there was a scandal during the 1980s with something about Contra, which was an arcade game. I think a man called Oliver Stone was trying to sell Contra to the Iranians, because they didn’t have an arcade game industry of their own. Or was it Cointreau that was being smuggled? I can’t remember.
Apparently Israel even supported Iran with military equipment:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm
Probably old captured stuff from the various Arab-Israeli wars. If you click on “Israel” in the text you can see a timeline of Israel’s size. It starts off small, and then it goes big, and now it is small again with green splotches.
I remember the Iran-Iraq war being on the television news all the time when I was a kid, usually near the middle of the bulletin. There’s not much about it on the internet because it was surprisingly dull, but there’s an article about it here:
http://www.exile.ru/2003-November-13/war_nerd.html
It contains what appear to be the only two decent photographs taken during the entire conflict (judging by Google’s image search). The war itself seems to have been as dull as the various African wars that were happening at the same time, i.e. mass unavenged death of innocents, horror beyond imagination, but no grand sweeping military thrusts or anything to excite the people who write those fascinating Osprey books.
JBH
I make a point of referring to your site from time to time here because the framing of NH (as completely proven in your exemplary website) gets right up my nose.
To see the axis of evil (grauniad, beeb and bell) get away with their lies makes my blood boil.
They are the worst type of unprincipled, lying lefties and so smug in their belief that they have gor away with it.
What particularly gets my goat is bell’s hypocrisy in posing as whiter than white while knowing within himself that he is a fraud (to put it politely).
Pass the sickbag.
I think most Israeli weapons in Iran actually got there in the time of the Shah pre-79. How can one forget the irony of revolutionary guards waving their Uzis around, well not me anyway.
Ashley Pomeroy – I always found the Iran-Iraq war interesting, the nearest thing to WW1 or WW2. Its a shame that Osprey et al couldnt be persuaded to take more of an interest.
On your site, this page:
http://www.ashleypomeroy.com/hitech.html
has a pic of the lovely Annabel Giles (married to Midge Ure). Whats happend to her these days?
“Mr Kember said he “continues to thank” his rescuers.
“They were brave. I disagree with their profession, but it is ironic, isn’t it? You go as a peace activist and you are rescued by the SAS, which is perhaps the most violent of all the British forces.” BBC website
And if not for them you would be dead you stupid twit! What were your kidnappers, nice peaceful chaps who wouldn’t hurt a fly? So why did Tom Fox die then? Run over by a bus was he? Give me strength!
PS Can someone please explain why CND, Bruce Kent et al are supportive of Iran – wasn’t their role meant to be something to do with stopping nuclear weapons not fighting to allow raving loonies to obtain them? Or are they truly Stalin’s useful idiots; only trying to stop the West having them not the Communists or fanatics?
At least (despite the overall volume of left wing comments being higher) the right wing comments tend to rise to the top of the ‘Most Recommended’ list regularly, although I’ve heard reports about recommendations “mysteriously” disappearing, too
which must be solid evidence of bias?
the only bias-free explanations i can think of are 1) most commenters are “leftwing” or “other” in their own comments, yet recommend comments that are “rightwing”, or, 2) the majority of recommenders are “rightwing” yet choose not to express their own comments…hmmm…i don’t think i can really convince myself or either of these…am i biased, then?
BBC Liberal Bias aint working
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=CBAOQANCKRO3NQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/16/nbnp16.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/16/ixportaltop.html
Go on, give the Socialists a good thrashing!
I’m not British and I’m not allowed to vote over there but if the only possible “protest vote” is to vote for the BNP then so be it. I’m not saying we need the BNP in office but if it makes the Conservatives conservative again it has to be a good thing. Our Western civilisation is at stake and it’s time something’s been done to protect it.
Massive fraud hits tsunami aid
Save the Children and Oxfam were both targeted by unscrupulous building contractors who took their money, only to build structures so flimsy that a new wave would wash them away.
Save the Children may have to write off more than £400,000 worth of building contracts. Oxfam, which counts its losses in “tens of thousands of pounds”, has stopped its construction work around Banda Aceh until investigators establish the extent of the abuse.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2136598,00.html
Perhaps these charities should expend more effort in the field, rather than using the public’s donations in order to employ lobbyists who are constant visitors to BBC studios, pressing for more taxpayer funds.
The BBC quick to make much of Halliburton’s etc mis-spending of mainly US tax dollars in Iraq, have been beaten to this story by the Sunday Times & have not yet cribbed it for BBC Online – there’s a surprise!