Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/
“U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the suicide truck bombing was carried out by the group Hezbollah with the approval and funding of Iran’s senior government officials.”
As Paul Reynolds is still running a background story on the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilsdon affair, and the BBC will no doubt keep flashing us pieces about them and their lawsuit against people in the White House – perhaps Mr Reynolds could look at this Chris Hitchens piece to get the facts straight. The references in the footnote are also relevant. It is time the BBC started to treat this story correctly, and show the lies behind the Plame/Wilson campaign. So far BBC coverage has taken their line mostly – and has given Wilson lots of airspace :
http://www.slate.com/id/2146475/
The BBC will advertise today for five new non-executive directors to sit on its soon to be created executive committee. The positions will pay £35,000 for TWO DAYS WORK A MONTH.
“The positions will pay £35,000 for TWO DAYS WORK A MONTH.”
sounds great.
where can i apply?
And what’s the betting that they will be chums of the current lot…or Labour supporters?
Should we apply and try and get archduke or someone selected? Anyone fancy pretending to be to the left of Abu Hamster et al just to improve their chances of getting this job?
“anyone fancy pretending to be to the left of Abu Hamster et al just to improve their chances of getting this job?”
ooh – i dunno. you might have a better chance if you were to the right of attila the hun.
the bbc “balance” tickbox would be ticked, and in addition – your views will never be taken seriously.
in other words – a piss easy job.
reith
You quote wikipedia’s article on Hezbollah. But you FAIL to cite the sentence “It is the principal suspect in several notable attacks……the US Embassy…..the US Marine barracks in Beirut …..”.
Now why did you leave that key sentence out ? Your usual cherry-picking ?
You also fail to refer to Wiki link to the separate entry on the barracks bombing, which states that “Most (notably the US Government) believe the Hexbollah militant group…..was responsible….” As it was US Marines who were killed – and as it was the US Embassy that was also hit, the US investigations will have been thorough ? The French also suffered a barracks bombing – they believed Hezbollah was responsible.
But these investigations were not thorough enough for Bowen ? He can choose to ignore them totally ?
This source also puts H in the frame – “Most people believe the Hezbollah militant group was responsible…(for the US and French barracks bombings)”. That is a fair statement, one which Bowen should have used.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
And a couple of years ago a US judge found H and Iran responsible after a lengthy court hearing :
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/
There has been no absolute proof, no court decision, no public admission by the Stephen Lawrence attackers thast they were guilty. But the BBC happily treats them ass guilty.
Likewise, Bowen should at least point the finger at Hezbollah for the Beirut barracks bombings. It is an important issue rumbling in the background, a factor in US policy that should not be ignored by Bowen.
Your defence of his piece is too thin, you are clutching at straws as usual.
More facts and figures that the Beeb refuse to broadcast…
Bill Roggio reports (July 26, 2006 01:31 PM)
at http://counterterrorismblog.org/
“As the smoke clears from the fighting in the Lebanese border town of Bint Jubayl, Hezbollah’s military capabilities become clearer. Today, 8 Israeli soldiers from the Golani Brigade’s 51st Battalion were killed and 22 wounded during a “well-planned Hezbollah ambush on the outskirts” outside of Bint Jubayl. This follows the 4 killed and 18 wounded during Sunday’s engagement in the town.
Hezbollah was reported to have suffered 150 killed as of this morning, and another 40 killed in today’s action after fighting “gun battles at point-blank range.” An unnamed American military officer reports several Hezbollah operatives, whose primary purpose is logistical support, have been captured and are currently being interrogated by Israeli intelligence.
The Hezbollah bunker in Bint Jubayl was taken nearly intact. Hezbollah attempted to destroy the equipment in the bunker, but was not successful in destroying it all, according to an intelligence source. Abu Jaafar, the Hezbollah commander in southern Lebanon, may have killed himself rather than being captured. The Israeli troops seized Hezbollah computers, documents and monitoring devices used to observe the Israeli border, in addition to the “electronic surveillance equipment, weapons and communication devices made in Iran” which was reported yesterday. The bunker served as the equivalent of a Hezbollah headquarters and command and control center for the southern border.
The Israelis targeted the town of Bint Jubayl with the hope of obtaining further intelligence on Hezbollah’s organization and capabilites, as well as the location of their two captured soldiers. The documents and computer seized by the IDF may outline Hezbollah’s command and organizational structure in southern Lebanon, although this is unknown at this time. Israeli intelligence is currently analyzing the data.
The Israelis have confirmed that Hezbollah is fighting like a professional military. Their units are fighting at the company level at the least (Unit size of approximately 100 men), and perhaps in larger formations. Intelligence also confirms there is specialization within the Hezbollah units, including trained infantry, mortar teams, missile squads, and logistical personal. Iran has trained and organized Hezbollah’s army into something far more deadly than a militia force. Hezbollah’s core ‘active’ army is estimated at 3,000 – 5,000, with as many as 50,000 part time militia and support personnel that can be called upon to fight (20,000 is the average estimate).
Intelligence sources also have confirmed that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Qods Force have indeed been killed during the fighting in southern Lebanon.
The Lebanese coastal city of Tyre (also referred to as Sour) has “has steadily fallen more and more under Hezbollah’s influence since the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, and rocket launchers in the city are hitting the city of Haifa and the northern Israeli towns. Israeli air strikes have been focusing on the city, but a steady barrage of about 100 missiles continue to fall in Israeli territory each day.
The Israeli government is signaling their plan to combat Hezbollah is to establish a 1-2 kilometer security buffer along the border and accept international peace keepers without explicitly requiring Hezbollah to disarm in accordance to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559. This would give Hezbollah a monumental political and propaganda victory, while allowing Hezbollah’s army the time and space it needs to rearm, train and improve their tactics for the next battle with the Israeli Defense Force.’
With thanks to counterterrorism consultant Dan Darling for contributing to the information in this post.
archduke
“http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/3…rracks.bombing/
“U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the suicide truck bombing was carried out by the group Hezbollah with the approval and funding of Iran’s senior government officials.”
Sorry, I suspect that your evidence is not good enough for john reith to deserve even a mention of the possibility : first it’s from a tainted (ie US)source and second, it has not been attested before a notary public by an official representative of Hezbollah.
However, if you wish to make mood music (a la Fergal Keane) on the suffering of Lebanon caused only by a nazi IDF acting on behalf of a ruthlessly expansionist Israel, feel free
“Hezbollah was reported to have suffered 150 killed as of this morning”
150 for 8 Israeli dead?
thats some kill rate. in fact, i would call that an overwhelming military victory. all the more astonishing , considering they won that village in hand to hand combat.
thanks for the report Steve E. – its quite clear from that *why* the israelis didnt just flatten the place with artillery – they were after the intell.
meanwhile on the BBC, they spin it in such a way as to portray the battle as an Israeli defeat:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5218926.stm
Steve E,
The IDF has the benefit of some of the worlds best Intel. Israel has known for years what has been going on under the noses of the Lebanese administration, (and in Gaza) so when the time came to attack they knew where ( to borrow a phrase) “the liar of the beast” was located.
Unfortunately they are constrained from cutting off the head and have to fight the many tentacles, which is not an easy task. Ideally they would look to flank the enemy but again due to necessity they are confined to a frontal assault which is the least best option and always results in higher than average casualties.
Further the Katusha rockets are on mobile launchers, a lesson from WW2, when the RAF successfully eliminated static V1 launch sites but was helpless against mobile V2.
Disgruntled
It has also all been going on under the noses of the UN force.
What has Kofi Annan done in all this time ? Why wasn’t he bringing this issue to the Security Council each week until it was resolved ?
And why did he leave those UN troops in the firing line ?
Also, what possible use is Jan Egeland to man or beast ? Is the UN deliberately trying to get in the way, just like it did after the tsunami ?
“john simpson answers some of your questions on the crisis”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/5216708.stm
*********************************
Q: What are the most likely outcomes of this conflict, and who is set to gain/lose from these scenarios?
Declan Dunleavy, London
In my experience, these things rarely turn out as the planners hope. I suspect there’ll eventually be a fudged truce, which will bring secret relief to both sides. But there’s no doubt about the long-term winner, right across the Middle East: it’s militant Islam.
*********************************
oh really John? so what should Israel do – just sit back, and let the Nazis (i.e Hezbollah) cart them off to the gas chambers again?
It’s no doubt that the real loser will be the BBC and John Simpson.
Loads of people are waking up to the lies.
eu referendum says it all
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/theyre-not-even-in-game.html
“they’re not even in the game”
this could equally apply to the BBC
************************************
Decades of “soft power” have rotted the brains of the collective. It has fallen for the belief that because “jaw-jaw” is better than “war-war”, it is necessarily a substitute for it and that sweet reason and diplomacy can overcome the machinations of evil men.
*********************************
archduke
This Washington Post opinion piece puts the onus squarely on the Europeans to front up any peace force for the Lebanon. It is time the blowhards in France and Germany and Italy stepped up – this is THEIR war as well against the terrorists. They should put up – or shut up :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/25/AR2006072501309.html
feargal keane and jeremy vine are cooing to each other now on bbc radio 2.
keane might as well change his name to Abu Fergal Bin Keane.
Bring back Orla Guerin !
Of course Europe is to blame for this…..
If the Germans had not slaughtered Jews on an Industrial Scale 50 years ago….then all would be fine right now…..
Europe has the blood of Millions and Millions of people on its hands……..
And they are too gutless and cowardly to one, admit it, and two, do anything about it but moan and cry like babies….
Europe is dead……..and has no power, thats why they are all screaming at America….becase they know deep down, that Uncle Sam runs the show……..
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_DEAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-07-26-19-19-42
Howard Dean(!!!!!) lays into the Iraqi PM
“We don’t need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn’t have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah.”
no prizes for guessing that the BBC wont be rushing to interview their former darling.
It’s no doubt that the real loser will be the BBC and John Simpson.
Loads of people are waking up to the lies.
AntiCitizenOne
No. They are winning.
Today’s Telegraph poll
63% consider the Israeli response disproportionate.
US/UK response to conflict
Excellent/good 5%(US)6%(UK)
Poor/verypoor 60%(US)53%(UK)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=DVG15TQC1E3URQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/07/27/wmid27.xml
I responded to the poll. A question asked whether I basically supported Israel or (I think) Hezbollah. The Telegraph do not report the result of this question. It may appear later on the published results page at YouGov.com
Sod the BBC.
I salute these brave men today:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153292011004&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
“britain has a big problem”
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21785_Britain_Has_a_Big_Problem&only
“No. They are winning.
Today’s Telegraph poll”
No..they are not wining…..polls don;t win wars…….
….no more than Comical Ally, Saddams Press Secretary, was “winning” when he said that there were “No Amercians Near the Airport”…just as the US Tanks rolled past him……..
What we have is a paradox…….the BBC may “win” the media war….but so what?.
Israel will win the real war…..and then all the BBCs talk is for nothing……they will be seen just as Comical Allie was….as the loser who told the lies……
The BBC is losing, becasue it has no power…….big mouth, but no real power……
if they had “power” they could stop it…..but they don’t so they can’t ……lol… As usual, all they can do is bleat to the man who really IS powerful….
Bush…..
lolol….
Re “britain has a big problem”
Tammimi appeared on last night’s Newsnight. He claimed that the war was initiated by the US using Israel as a proxy. The US/Israel used the kidnapping incident as a pretext for a pre-planned war.
He obviously thinks that crossing the border & kidnapping Israeli soldiers (no mention of the killings) is no big deal. Just the everyday business of a reasonable organisation wanting a prisoner swap – who should object?
(19:30min into broadcast)
dumbcisco:
Bring back Orla Guerin !
dear Orla has been sent to the white man’s grave, the Congo. she reported from there yeaterday. Millions killed. Who cares? I wonder if it will help Orla to put the ME in perspective.
Will
The worrying thing is that “Boom” Tamimi is now seen by the BBC as a mainstream commenter on Middle East affairs.
The BBC’s perspective (and increasingly that of The Daily Telegraph as reported by ex-BBCer Tim Butcher) of the current Lebanon conflict is becoming unbearable. A map of Beirut linked from this thread shows the small-scale targetting by the Israelis of Beirut and only Hizbollah strongholds were hit: nowhere else. The four UN observers (observing Hizbollah rocket launches??) killed by an Israeli shell had their position infiltrated by Hizbollah as confirmed by General Lewis MacKenzie retd. of the Canadian Army on a link to a Canadian radio broadcast posted on this site. Both of these FACTS are unreported by the BBC and their mole in The Daily Telegraph.
Would John Reith be willing to comment on these serious omissions?
What is evident is that the posters to this blog provide more factual and impartial availability of news from the Lebanese conflict than the BBC (and much of the MSM).
http://www.nysun.com/article/36860
Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie
chemical plant hit by hez rocket
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MIDEAST_FIGHTING_KIRYAT_SHEMONA?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-07-27-08-31-12
If the Germans had not slaughtered Jews on an Industrial Scale 50 years ago….then all would be fine right now…..
Europe has the blood of Millions and Millions of people on its hands…….
Twaddle – Zionism was founded long before Nazism………….and Jews were massacred in “Palestine” long before Auschwitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_of_1920
Rick’s link says it all and that means that either the BBC (through omission) and the UN are lying, or General Lewis MacKenzie retd. and his (now deceased) contact are lying.
BTW, has the BBC reported on Radio 4 or main TV news any Hizbollah casualties at all? Or are they all ‘civilians’ killed by those vengeful, murderous Jews.
Rick
What a weaselly bunch of clowns those people at the UN sound.
Part of the problem, not the solution….
Allan
Last night on Newsnight the BBC gave a figure of 420 killed in Lebanon including 30 Hezbollah.
Liars.
dumbcisco | 27.07.06 – 10:52 am |
Your post simply reiterates the endemic vices of B-BBC that I was complaining about.
I did not ‘FAIL’ to cite the opinion of the US authorities on Hezbollah’s culpability. Actually, I linked to the Wikepedia article that contained it. Nevertheless you consider that by not actually reproducing it verbatim in my comment I am guilty of some sin of omission. That’s typical of your casuistic employment of the notion of omission.
In your own comment you FAILED to cite the fact that the Earth is (almost) spherical rather than flat. Can I reasonably extrapolate from that omission that you are a flat-earther? I don’t think so. But the logic of your own argument is that I can and should.
You also fail to understand the obligations of accuracy and impartiality. Yes, the US government think Hezbollah was responsible. So, as it happens, do I. Moreover, I’d guess there was a strong chance that Bowen thinks so too.
But since Hezbollah have denied it and another group have (to some extent) plausibly acknowledged responsibility, the BBC has to choose between two options: either go into the whole question of whether they did it or not, giving both sides of the argument; or, ignore the question altogether and use an alternative form of words like ‘suicide bombers’.
Bowen • in a short item probably leass than 2 mins in length • chose option 2. You think that’s committing a sin of omission. I say it’s demonstrating the virtues of verbal economy and accuracy.
You also claim that:
“There has been no absolute proof, no court decision, no public admission by the Stephen Lawrence attackers that they were guilty. But the BBC happily treats them as guilty.”
No the BBC doesn’t. It scrupulously minds its legal Ps and Qs on that one.
Which is more than you do • ‘the Stephen Lawrence attackers’ ! Pot, kettle, black.
Re: UN – any news on further response from the countries concerned. Alright Finland isn’t going to do much but I’d have thought the Chinese would be spitting blood. If I was the bloke who ordered the assault I’d be watching my back.
When is ANYONE at the BBC going to tackle the proposterous statements, and dangerous inactions, of Kofi Annam ? He and the UN bear a lot of resaponsibility for the current mess.
http://tinyurl.com/fybl5
Complete Email from Canadian Major
reith
So what was that BBC programme about the CID detective about ? Wasn’t the tone of all the mass of BBC publicity for it that he had let the guilty people get away ?
You chose to cite one sentence from the wikipedia erntry – you should have included the other as it was totally relevant. (It just happened to undercut what you had posted.)
The general view is that Hezbollah was resposnible for the barracks bombings in 1983, the US and the French barracks. Bowen has lots of time on air, this is a very relevant issue when peacekeeping forces are being talked about. Bowen should have mentioned it when he referred to the 1983 bombings, it would have taken a second ot two – if only to point up the potential danger to any new force. He did not have to say categorically that Hezbollah was guilty, merely that most people regard them as guilty.
Your attack on the original post by Chris was over the top – and wrong.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060726-100852-3998r.htm
note that UNIFIL has chinese troops amongst it ranks.
yeah – the chinese. sellers of the C-802 missile to Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-802
John Reith,
Hezbollah don’t admit it therefore the BBC don’t report it? Despite the sheer weight of evidence that Hezbollah were responsible? I shouldn’t be surprised, afterall the BBC took Osama at face value when he said he wasn’t responsible for 9/11.
It sums up the problems with the BBC’s appeasement of terrorists. Al-beeb take everything said by terrorists at face value and draw equivalence between them and democratic, pluralistic and secular governments.
meanwhile, a form of pondlife crawls out from under a rock in Pakistan, exhales some methane, before scurrying back under the rock again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5220162.stm
“It sums up the problems with the BBC’s appeasement of terrorists. Al-beeb take everything said by terrorists at face value and draw equivalence between them and democratic, pluralistic and secular governments.”
EXACTLY! Well said Chris!
Chris | 27.07.06 – 2:27 pm |
“Hezbollah don’t admit it therefore the BBC don’t report it?”
….no. That’s not what I said. YOU say the BBC should attribute the outrage to Hezbollah. Some leading commentators – inclusing those held up by National Review no less to be top experts on Hezbollah – say Hezbollah as such didn’t even exist at the time, but was still coming into being. Another group said it did it. My point is that the BBC should EITHER go into all this in depth and give all sides of the unresolved question OR – if there isn’t time on this particular occasion – take a body swerve round the whole vexed issue and deal with it another time properly.
What beats me is why people flying the B-BBC banner wants the BBC to throw all considerations of accuracy and impartiality to the winds and report AS FACT things that it has no way of knowing are true or not and which are widely contested.
dumbcisco
Far from undercutting my comment the sentence you are so attached to would have strengthened it by pointing up the fact that there are a variety of views on this one.
The BBC should simply say “Most authorities regard Hezbollah as responsible.”
Why do you keep ducking that ?
It is a FACT that most people regard Hezbollah as responsible. The BBC should not omit that important FACT. It takes half a second to say it. You cite a couple of exceptions – so what ?
I thought Bowen’s job was to provide some context ?
The barracks bombings are part of the context – Bowen himself raised the issue. But ducked the fact that Hezbollah are blamed by most people.
John Reith
Stop obfuscating. It has been widely accepted for years that Hezballah is responsible for those attacks.
Let’s get back to pounces point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5211930.stm
Explaining who one of the convicted Hezbollah terrorists in detention in Israel, the BBC stealth edited that piece from :
Chief among those is Samir Qantar, serving five life sentences for murder after attacking a civilian apartment block in Nahariya in 1979. Danny Haran was killed in front of his four-year-old daughter; the girl’s skull was then crushed with a rifle butt. Cowering inside, Smadar Haran accidentally smothered her two-year-old daughter to death as she hid in a cupboard trying to stay silent.
To:
Chief among those is Samir Qantar, serving several life sentences for murder after attacking a civilian apartment block in Nahariya in 1979. A policeman, another man and his four-year-old daughter were killed. A baby girl was accidentally smothered by her mother as she hid in a cupboard.
Tell us, please, why did the BBC edit that statement? It wasn’t to tidy it up. The edited piece is barely shorter. It wasn’t to explein the facts further, as the piece actually removes detail. So come on, open the door to the BBC mindset for us and explain just what the point of that was.
dumbcisco | 27.07.06 – 3:12 pm |
“It is a FACT that most people regard Hezbollah as responsible. The BBC should not omit that important FACT. ”
I suspect that if the BBC ever did say ‘most people’ believe this or that, you would be the first out of the traps shouting ‘how d’ya know Al-Beeb what most people think? Have you asked everyone in the world, then?’
Actually, it is NOT a fact. It’s an unsubstantiated claim. Your proximate source for it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
BUT as you would yourself put it- you FAILED to give the important context represented by the sentence immediately preceeding it:
“The responsibility for the bombing is uncertain. “