The following BBC story, Three killed at Turkish publisher, describes how three people have had their throats slit at a publishing house in Turkey that produces Bibles, or bibles as the BBC puts it. All the bold type in the excerpts below was added by me.
Nationalists had protested at the publishing house in the past, accusing it of involvement in missionary activities, local media reported.
There is a rising wave of nationalist feeling in Turkey, the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford reports, with Christian minorities complaining of pressure and harassment.
In the most serious incident so far, a Catholic priest was killed last year by a teenage nationalist gunman as he prayed in his church.
[…]
Malatya is known here as a very nationalistic city, often with an extreme religious undertone, our correspondent adds.
It is the hometown of Mehmet Ali Agca, who in 1981 shot Pope John Paul II.
Turkey’s Christian community comprises less than 1% of its population. More than 99% of the Turkish population is Nationalist.
I changed the very last word of the article.
So where did these Christians come from? Could it be Turkey?
“Turkey’s Christian community comprises less than 1% of its population. More than 99% of the Turkish population is Muslim.”
So could this murder have anything to do with Muslims.
I wish the BBC web site would print the name of the person who wrote this “piece”. Do they now leave names off so that an individual cannot be challenged?
Thank you for posting the above Natalie. (Beat me to the punch)
The BBC and half a story.
Nigerian army attacks Islamists
Some 25 Islamic militants have been killed in an offensive near the city of Kano in Nigeria’s north, the army says. Militants held an area after attacking a police station on Tuesday. Nine Islamists have been captured, as well as a quantity of arms, the army says. Police say the militants came to avenge the assassination of a radical Islamic cleric shot dead last Friday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6566841.stm
So if you simply read the above. would you get the impression that the police just went out of their way in which to attack a bunch of innocent plumbers who it appears were repairing the waterworks at the local police staion in Kano.
Also why has the BBC not linked in the ealier story where the headlines was how Muslim terrorists attacked and killed 13 people. A story that was on the BBc web page this morning, but for some strange reason has gone the way of the dodo.
Nor to worry other news outlets don’t have the problem the BBC has in misplacing stories about how A muslim mob attacked a muslim police station and killed 13 people.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article1668291.ece
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/04/17/nigeria.killings.reut/index.html
Amazing. Kill two birds with one stone.
1. Nationalism. Link this with unprovoked mega-violence where possible. Continue underming British national sovereignty as a prelude for EU anschluss.
2. Play down – hide altogether – the role of Islam.
I couldn’t have done it better myself. Fiendish.
Plus the BBC continues its agenda for cultural leftism by declining to mention that the Catholic Church is now controled by John Lennon.
Ha yes saw this article earlier, thought exactly the same thing.
They now have a wonderfully lop sided anti-israel piece up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6552701.stm
Here’s another one that could easily have come (seriously) from the BBC:
The BBC has long replaced the hard word terrorist in stories with the weasel word militant. In replacing the correct term Muslim or Islamic with Nationalist, in ‘Three killed at Turkish publisher’, it is telling not half a story but a false one.
In General Principles of the Turkish Constitution ARTICLE 2. The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law; bearing in mind the concepts of public peace, national solidarity and justice; respecting human rights; loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the Preamble.
Nationalism in Turkey is secular not Muslim.
Nationalists are the new militants. IOn view of previous Al Beeb euphemisms they are probably plumbers.
They now have a wonderfully lop sided anti-israel piece up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr…ent/6552701.stm
j0nz | Homepage | 18.04.07 – 11:56 pm
From that article:
Four unarmed observers – from Finland, Canada, Austria and China – were killed when the UN’s observation post was bombed to smithereens by Israel at the height of last summer’s fighting.
The background Paul Adams’ report ignores – a week prior to his death in this tragic incident Canadian Major Hess-von Kruedener sent an email to CTV:
“What I can tell you is this,” he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. “We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.
“The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity.”
Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.
“What that means is, in plain English, ‘We’ve got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces),” he said.
That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It’s a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he’s seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.
j0nz | Homepage | 18.04.07 – 11:56 pm,
Yes, I heard that on the World Service a few days ago.
It is not the only cenotaph of its kind in southern Lebanon. More than 250 UN peacekeepers have died since 1978.
Will Paul adams tell us who killed them? No, he’ll let it be assumed that it was the Israelis.
And naturally he doesn’t mention that Hezbollah was launching rockets from right next to that observation post where the four UN personnel were killed by Israeli retaliatory fire.
But this bit really sums up Paul Adams and his BBC:
Israel apologised, saying it was a mistake, but eight months on, UN personnel barely conceal their contempt.
And Adams barely conceals his contempt for Jews….er.. I mean Israel. In fact, it is the terror-friendly BBC which is worthy of contempt.
And talking of “nationalists”, yesterday on the World Service Nick Childs described the terrorists murders of Iraqi civilians, including the car bomb that killed more than a hundred, as guerrilla-type attacks.
This is not ignorance of the English language. It is deliberate falsification in order to try to present terrorists in a good light.
The BBC should hang its collective head in shame.
“guerilla-type attacks”… this is BBC-type moral obscenity.
Regarding the article on the UN Peacekeepers, can anyone clarify one point for me: I think I read somewhere that there is no legal responsibility on Party A to safeguard the lives of human shields used illegally by Party B, and that in the result of their deaths, the legal (and therefore, one would suppose, moral) responsibility lies solely with those illegally using human shields.
If anyone can shed any further light on that, I’d be grateful.
And Bryan has it right; they should absolutely hang their heads in shame.
If anyone can shed any further light on that, I’d be grateful.
I think you’ll find it here:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000170.html
Both Protocol I and Article 28 of the Geneva Convention (IV) make clear that “the deliberate intermingling of civilians and combatants, designed to create a situation in which any attack against combatants would necessarily entail an excessive number of casualties is a flagrant breach of the Law of International Armed Conflict,” according to international law scholar Yoram Dinstein (see his The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 129 – 130).| In short, Hezbollah is in violation of the laws of war when it places missiles and rockets in villages and homes in order to shield them from Israeli attack.
Article 51(7) of Protocol I states: “The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations.” And the Geneva Convention (IV) holds that “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points of areas immune from military operations.” (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, Laws of Armed Conflicts, 495, 511.) Moreover, the Rome Statute is clear that “utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations is recognized as a war crime by Article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii)”. (Dinstein, p. 130)
…
The above considerations pertain to the norms deriving from treaty law (e.g., the Geneva Conventions). But there is another set of standards which are relevant to the question of proportionality which derive from another source of international law, known as customary international law. Together with treaties, customary law is one of the main sources of international humanitarian law (IHL), or the laws of war. Dinstein explains that “Customary international law is certainly more rigorous than the [Geneva] Protocol on this point. It has traditionally been perceived that, should civilian casualties ensue from an attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent [party] placing innocent civilians at risk. A belligerent…is not vested by the laws of international armed conflict with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm’s way.” (Dinstein, ibid). In short, Hezbollah is legally (and morally) responsible for any Lebanese civilian casualties which result from Israeli bombardment of villages, homes or urban areas containing missiles, rockets or armed Hezbollah guerrilla forces—so long as Israel is aiming at these military targets, as it has.
Dinstein further notes that “An obvious breach of the principle of proportionality would be the destruction of a whole village–with hundreds of civilian casualties–in order to eliminate a single enemy sniper. In contrast, if — instead of a single enemy sniper — an artillery battery would operate from within the village, such destruction may be warranted” under the laws of war. (pp. 122-123
See also:
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/18/lebano13760.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/09/isrlpa11106_txt.htm
Bio – many thanks for these thorough and comprehensive references. That clears things up for me 100%
In fact – could we send these links to Mr Bowen? Dozens of us? Anyone have his email address? (I mean Jeremy, not Jim, naturally. Jim Bowen has his faults, but this has nothing to do with him.)
If I can add my two pennyworth.
The people who wrote the Geneva Conventions were not the sentimental cretins that are ubiquitous today. They were aware that people would try to take advantage of them and get the other side blamed.
In non legal terms this is how it should work:
If side A bombs or shells a hospital belonging to side B that is a war crime committed by side A.
If side B stations a mortar post in that hospital carpark and the hospital is hit then that is still a war crime but it is side B which has committed it.
Perfectly staightforward isn’t it?
To normal, rational, sane and decent people who can make precise and informed moral distinctions between right and wrong, Gordon, it absolutely is. But we’re talking about the BBC here…
Gordon
“Perfectly staightforward isn’t it?”
Yes it appears so. But suppose you are a BBC “journalist” and side B happens to be Hizb’allah. You’re in a bit of a quandary there since straightforward non-editorial reporting might fix criminality on your militant of choice as well as – horrors – making Israel and those pesky Jews the innocent parties. Reporters have 4 ways to go: you report all the facts as you know them (unwelcome to you personally or not), you report only the facts which make your friends look good, you distort the facts or you plain lie. Suppose it’s Guerin or Bowen reporting – I don’t think there’s much doubt which route they would follow.
Bio – many thanks for these thorough and comprehensive references. That clears things up for me 100%
gharqad-tree | 19.04.07 – 12:29 pm
You’re very welcome 🙂
Alan Johnston wrote a report of the Palestinians using themselves as human shields after the IDF gave advance warning that it was about to bomb the home of a terrorist. He failed to mention that far from being those brave heroes, as he depicted them, they were in fact commiting a war crime, and he also failed to point out that the IDF, having given prior warning, would have been within its rights to bomb the house anyway.
Of course the Arabs have the get-out-of-jail card (I sincerely hope not literaly!) in that Israel is not officially “at war” with “Palestine”.
Here it is:
Palestinians’ high-risk human shield tactic
From militant leaders to schoolgirls, Palestinians can unite in confronting their enemy and the passive resistance of the human shields will be admired from around the world.
Also: Human shield deters Israel strike
See? Far from accusing them of commiting war crimes in breach of the Geneva Conventions and The Laws & Customs of War they are ” admired from around the world”
Of course when the IDF place a couple of “Palestinians” in front of their jeep while others hurl boulders at them the IDF is condemned from around the world.
In addition to all this, I noticed how the article, as always, fails to mention that the UN outpost was overrun by Hezb’allah soldiers. There were radio transmissions from the UN nosepickers stationed there that they were essentially surrounded, and then overrun by Hezb’allah. That’s why Israel fired on them in the first place. The IDF was firing back at those who were shooting at them. If the UN nosepickers had just buggered off when the going got tough (I won’t even bother to say “defend themselves”), this wouldn’t have happened. Instead, they sat there with their thumbs planted deeply.
I don’t see how the point of view clearly presented in the article can be understood as anything other than offering support to Hezb’allah. This must be one of those “stories” the BBC feels it’s so important to tell to it’s license fee slaves.
Natalie
If we may return to the topic of this thread for a moment:
I must say that I too sat up sharply when I saw this report. I haven’t been in Turkey for a few years and like some commenters here I assumed that Turkish nationalists were secular types in the Attaturk tradition and should be sharply contrasted with Islamists.
It seems that’s out of date.
The International Herald Tribune in its report of these killings entitled:
Nationalism suspected in 3 deaths in Turkey
explains that:
Change is opening up Turkish society, and a nationalist fringe – xenophobes for whom the ethnic and religious purity of the Turkish state is worth killing for – have been using violence against its proponents more often in recent months……….
…….”Nationalism is on the rise in Turkey,” said Ali Bulac, a Turkish newspaper columnist in Istanbul. “It stands against the U.S. and the EU.”…….
……Turkish nationalists tout their Muslim identity, but often have more in common with hard-line secularists of the state elite than with Islamists. The distinction is important….
It would seem that there are, indeed, a number of differences between this new breed of nationalists and the run of the mill Islamists we’re used to discussing here.
The ‘nationalists’ kill Christians, it would appear, not simply because they regard them as infidels, but because they see them as somehow polluting the purity of the Turkish nation. Same impulse, different emphasis • you might say.
One imagines, therefore, they’re not so concerned with establishing caliphates, introducing Sharia and extending the Dar-al-Islam as with moving Turkey from being 99% Muslim to being 100% Muslim.
This may be weird and wacky but no more weird and wacky than the more conventional Islamist objectives.
And, it may well be that they are bluffing • and aim to get onto the rest of the Islamist agenda in due course.
Meanwhile, though, they have to be considered as a distinct phenomenon.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/18/news/turkey.php
The Turkish press seems to back this up.
The Turkish Daily News says:
The Zirve (Zenith) publishing house, in the city of Malatya, has been the site of previous protests by nationalists…….A local journalist, speaking to the TDN, gave a detailed account of the publishing house, and the threats against it “Zirve was seen here as the continuation of ‘Kayra’ publishing house, which was targeted by various nationalist groups on the grounds that they were missionaries,” said the journalist, on condition of anonymity. “Some ultra-nationalist local papers here, plus nationalist organizations demonstrated against them.”..
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=71087
Hurriyet, by contrast, focuses on the religious element of the killers’ motivation, quoting a statement by the one of the perps:
Our religion is escaping from us. Let this be a lesson to those who are enemies of our religion.”
I should add that other reports suggest the crime may have been committed by other groups • Kurdish Hezbollah or Turkish Hezbollah. We’ll see.
In short, Christians can’t be Turkish so, ipso facto, only muslims can be Turkish.
JR
I have read your comments over the past months and congratulate you for your continual efforts to make us poor souls realise that the Corp. is a paragon of balance. However, on this one you are clearly clutching at organic straws.
After the BBC so happily reported the demonstrations promoting a secular Turkey, I find it strange that it can report what were clearly religiously motivated crimes as nationlistic.
Are we to expect the Archbishop of York’s attacks on the collapse of christian British society to be descibed as “nationlistic” soon?
err “nationalistic” of course!!
TURKEY: MURDER OF CHRISTIANS.
Islamic suspect:
“We didn’t do this for ourselves, but for our religion….Our religion is being destroyed. Let this be a lesson to enemies of our religion.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org
There are references to SIX recent articles on Turkey’s politics and religion, highlighted on the Home Page of ‘The Middle East Forum’
http://www.meforum.org/
What I can’t figure out is how the BBc can link the killings of Turkish Christians to Nationalism – Do the Christians want a break away state all 1% of them? – the more you look at this piece the more ridiculous it becomes.
” TURKEY declared ‘unfit for EU'”(20 Apr.)
Title of article in ‘The Australian’.
First paragraph:
“Italy’s opposition today demanded the Government block Turkey’s European Union bid, saying the killing of three Christians at a Bible publishing house proved the country could not control violent Islamists.”
I wonder if Al Beeb will reflect such strong feelings in Europe now against Turkey’s application.
Mr Reith
It would seem that there are, indeed, a number of differences between this new breed of nationalists and the run of the mill Islamists we’re used to discussing here.
and
This may be weird and wacky but no more weird and wacky than the more conventional Islamist objectives.
(my bold emphasis)
Can we please not forget that joe Muslim is a good guy, or at least as good a guy as joe Jew and joe Christian. It’s the unconventional and not run of the mill who are murderous fascists.
I think John Reith has a point here.
There are precedents for nationalism using religion as a peg to hang its more tribal actions on. I’d suggest Northern Ireland as one such example.
Although Catholic and Protestant were too often used interchangeably with Republican and Loyalist, it’s clear that most of those who committed atrocities on members of the other community (and on their own for that matter) were more interested in turf war than holy war.
There have been extraordinary examples of people deeply involved in paramilitary organisations having a complete change of heart and lifestyle when they had religious experiences which caused them to rethink their traditional alliegances. Billy McCurrie’s name springs to mind.
http://archive.thisislancashire.co.uk/2001/2/22/691808.html
Dictators like General Franco, Caetano and even Hitler were also prepared to use religion as a tool to further the nationalistic wing of their philosophies.
Perhaps it will turn out that Islamism is at the root of these incidents, but I’m prepared to keep an open mind at this stage.
There’s a ‘have your say’ box at the bottom of the ‘nationalist’ article on the BBC website. Why don’t we have our say there about about ‘nationalist’ being the new ‘militant’?
Peregrine | 19.04.07 – 7:07 pm
I find it strange that it can report what were clearly religiously motivated crimes as nationalistic.
Jon | 19.04.07 – 10:18 pm
What I can’t figure out is how the BBC can link the killings of Turkish Christians to Nationalism
Well, I did explain here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5938408292385785705/#338329
Alas, it seems you intend to persist with your silly conspiracy theory.
Perhaps you will kindly explain to me how come all these other news sources from diverse countries picked out nationalism as a possible motive?
The International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/18/news/turkey.php
Deutsche Welle
So far, 10 suspects have been arrested. They are ultra-nationalists from Malatya.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2448198,00.html
Middle East Times
Police have yet to make a statement on the motives for the murders, but the press Thursday agreed that nationalist and religious zeal were the likely cause…… a recent series of attacks has raised concerns that nationalism and anti-Christian hostility are on the rise.
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070419-072623-2339r
The Daily Zaman (Turkey)
“They say this is a religious attack; this, too, is wrong,” Bumin told Today’s Zaman. Bumin asserts that recent attacks against minorities are the result of a long process wherein certain segments of society were gradually turned against missionaries. Bumin underlines that recent murders are the result of a process and not the doing of organized provocateurs. A youth group influenced by neo-nationalism with Islamist overtones gradually emerged.
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=108957&bolum=101
The Turkish nationalist project – of converting as large an area as possible of the dwindling Ottoman Empire into a nominally mono-ethnic state – involved the mass expulsion and extermination during WW1 and its aftermath of the indigenous Christian peoples of Asia Minor – the Ionian Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians (all of whom had lived there for centuries long before the Turks set foot there). Intermittent pogroms against the remaining Christians have taken place as recently as the ’50s (when the remaining Greek inhabitants of Constantinople were attacked), and the nationalists have tried their hardest to erase them from
history through censorship and the destruction of countless churches and other cultural monuments.
Islamist fanatics (the cult of Islam) certainly exist in Turkey, but so do nationalist fanatics (the ‘modernising’ state-promoted cult of ‘Turkishness’) – both groups of course hating Christians. The difference is like that between the anti-semitism of medieval Christians and the anti-semitism of the Nazis – there are cultural threads connecting the two, but they are ultimately distinct phenomena.
(since the ’20s the nationalists have also tried to assimilate the non-Turkish Muslim population of the area that became ‘Turkey’ to Turkish language and ‘culture’, an effort that has been conspicuously unsuccessful and produced a long-running insurgency in ‘Turkish’ Kurdistan)
Hmm….
Ultra nationalist as in the “Grey Wolves”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Wolves
They seem to drink from the same watering hole as Al Qaeda and other Chechen ‘freedom fighters’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
And a strangly simliar minset to the IRGC:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/qods.htm
Phil Hellene | 20.04.07 – 10:39 am,
If the nationalists welcome non-Turkish Muslims into the fold while oppressing and even killing Turkish Christians, then surely their devotion to Islam trumps their nationalism.
And if that is in fact true, how different are they from those Turks who are driven by Islam alone?
I think Natalie’s point remains. The BBC has jumped on the term nationalism in this instance because it will do everything it possibly can to avoid casting Islam in a negative light.
If the nationalists welcome non-Turkish Muslims into the fold while oppressing and even killing Turkish Christians, then surely their devotion to Islam trumps their nationalism.
You misunderstand. They only accept non-Turkish Muslims as long as they assimilate to the Turkish language and identity. Before the cosmetic reforms introduced to placate the EU, Kurds could be officially imprisoned and/or unofficially ‘disappeared’ for such awful crimes as teaching the Kurdish language or referring to themselves as Kurds (as opposed to ‘mountain Turks’, their government-approved identity).
The big power struggle in Turkey at present is between the ‘modernising’ secular Kemalists (essentially ethno-fascists in Western terms – they dominate the army and the ‘deep state’ which uses the likes of the Grey Wolves to do its dirty work) and the Islamists. Both hate Christians, but for slightly different reasons, and both are fundamentally enemies of the West and all it stands for (and most especially their immediate neighbours and former colonial subjects, the Greeks and Armenians).
The ‘nationalists’ are certainly all at least nominal Muslims as well, but what differentiates them from the Islamists is that Turkish ethnic chauvinism and neo-Ottoman imperialism are the primary drives of their hatred rather than Islamic religious chauvinism.
Know your enemy…
Well, thanks for that. I can understand that nationalists would want non-Turkish Muslims to adopt Turkish culture.
People here have been following the BBC’s evasiveness on the Islam issue for quite some time and the article under discussion really did seem like more of the same. We have seen the BBC minimising the role of Islam in atrocities from the beheading of Christian girls in Indonesia to attacks on nuns and the destruction of Coptic churches in Egypt to the slaughter of Christians and destruction of churches in Iraq. And we have seen the BBC remain mum on the oppression of Christians by Muslims in Lebanon and the nascent Palestinian state.
However, this might be one of those rare occasions on which I’ll have to concede that the possibility exists that the BBC didn’t have a softly, softly approach to Islam in mind. I’m sure John Reith and others will find it in their hearts to forgive us if we erred in assuming that this was just more of the same from the BBC.
Perhaps the BBC would be so kind as to give us some of its own diligently researched background info on Islam vs. nationalism in Turkey.
Well done JR, it is possible to get through to these people with a little bit of logic and reason. Long, long way to go though.
Joe, if you weren’t so self-absorbed you might have noticed that John Reith made a (rare) admission that his thinking on the nationalist vs. Islamist issue was also out of date.
Time and time again on this site we have provided evidence that the BBC goes out of its way to minimise and disguise the ugly fact of worldwide Islamic terror, highlighting the BBC’s Orwellian and deliberate excising of the word terrorist from the English language – even when (mis)quoting others who use the word.
Do you have anything to add to the debate instead of putting your nose in the air and making dismissive comments?
“Turkey: Christians were tortured for three hours before being murdered”
http://www.jihadwatch.org
This update at Jihadwatch does NOT appear on Al Beeb’s site, so far; but its: ‘In depth: M….. in Europe’, continues its ‘Mousetrap’ run, just to remind us, as if we didn’t know full well, where Al Beeb’s sympathies are.
even in the far flung post (relic?) of empire in which i languish, the religious aspect of the irish ‘nationalistic’ conflict was always plainly reported, unlike this example in which the religious underpinning, which is also a sine qua non, is left to appear as merely concomitant. why so?
I googled the sentences in the BBC which natalie highlighted using the word ‘nationalist’.
Apart from the one credited to the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford, all the others seem to have been copied almost word for word from an article written by Benjamin Harvey of the Associated Press and used in newspapers round the world.
Pauls:
copied almost word for word
Another black-eye for Natalie and B-BBC then? Not bias merely plagiarism.
🙂
YET ANOTHER FALISFIED VOX POP PIECE BY THE BBC
When it comes to giving positive coverage to the Islamic Republic of Iran the BBC never gives up.
After squirming over the debacle of the 15 UK Personnel taken hostage (where the AlBeeb was caught between its Islamic Bias and FO masters) things have again reverted to type.
For example this puff piece showing the reaction to the annual re-enforcement of the Islamic dress code in Iran.
The lengths they must have gone to get 3 people to give mixed reactions to the universally hated dress crack down is astounding.
To see the truth reaction of Iranian women look here
an assult on an “under-dressed” young girl who is then forced into a police car and taken for interrogation and probabley lashing
this brave woman at great risk to herself hits back
you can see more here
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=iranian+police+woman
All you get from the Al Beeb is the santised pro-Islamic Government version of the people’s reaction to this brutal practice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/6596363.stm
Tehran dress code: Iranian views
ZAHRA ANSARI, 36, MOTHER OF TWO CHILDREN
I believe that dress should be a personal choice and people should have the freedom to wear what they want.
Of course, it is desirable to wear clothing that does not conflict with social values and ethics.
I believe in personal choice but also in modesty, as modesty is a virtue that our religion advocates – for both from men and women.
HS, BUSINESSMAN, TEHRAN
As an Iranian man I am happy with the way I can dress in my country.
Generally speaking, men here are as comfortable in what they wear as men in Europe.
For women, since we live in an Islamic country, they should wear something polite and modest and respect Islamic rules. But I do not believe in police enforcing these rules!
Next we get a fictitious character as Shirin is a woman’s name … but she/she is classified as a businessman.
SHIRIN, 38, BUSINESSMAN, TEHRAN
I think men and women should dress as they like as long as it fits the occasion. For example, I like wearing sports gear, but I have to dress more formally for work.
I definitely do NOT agree with this police enforcement. But there are many who believe people should wear dark clothes and that women should hide their hair and their body, in the Islamic way.
Bryan, I was interested in your statement that ‘Time and time again on this site we have provided evidence that the BBC goes out of its way to minimise and disguise the ugly fact of worldwide Islamic terror’.
Perhaps you can point me to where I can see this?
I treat your allegations with the contempt they deserve. (nose in the air)
I came across your comment by accident. Not too many people scour the depths of the page for stray new comments on old dead threads. What are you doing down here in the dark with your contempt? Reluctant to debate on a new thread up in the light?
If your question is really serious, look at the BBC’s “coverage” of Islamic terror. That is, really look at it.
I lived in the MIddle East, and have grown to distrust any religious people. Jews or Muslims. String me up if you insist.
However, I seem to get a vibe here that somehow “This Blog Believes” that the BBC thinks all Muslims are great and that Sharia Law is cool.
That’s because “This Blog” LOOKS for those bits on the BBC. I can think of many examples where the BBC has reported on the ridiculousness of Sharia (sp?) Law and has been critical of it.
The attacks on 9/11 were done because of Israel. They happened BEFORE the war/s. Until the problem of Israel pissing off Arabs is fixed, the nutty Muslims will always have an EXCUSE to hate the West.
So Jews are dodgy and Muslims are nuts. You know I’m right.
Now to my other point.
Seems like you want your cake, and you want to eat it.
On your youtube page you include, amongst your “favourites”, a video (from “the Daily Politics) titled “Andrew Neil grills Ed Balls on inflation”.
A BBC show who’s presenter is critical of the government.
Hmmmm.
This is included on your page, the “subject” of which is the fact that the BBC is not critical enough of the government.
Am I missing something?
Guess you were so delighted to see this Labour politician “grilled”, you forgot that it contradicts your biased BBC theory.
The problem with having an agenda, like you, is that you never let the truth get in the way of a good theory. You probably subconsciously look for stuff on the BBC that backs up this theory. And are subsequently blind to every programme or presenter that criticises the war, economy, politicians or anything else that is government-related. Open your eyes and ears, because there’s an awful lot of it in the BBC media.
Put that copy of The Daily Mail down, and step away.
Problem is that if you selectively choose (here, or on your youtube page) the bits from the BBC where they are uncritical or they somehow flatter the government (and are therefore being “biased”), you are by default NOT showing the other bits: the bits where they are critical. So ironically, you are biased. Biased against the BBC. This blog has a note at the top that says: “Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments”, and perhaps what you really mean is “Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments that back up my BBC bias theory”, because, if you think about it, if this blog is some kind of wannabe repository of examples of BBC aberration, examples where they get it right are unwelcome here.
Conclusion:
Next time you get up on your high horse, make sure it’s not a mule.