We all know the BBC’s corporate view of the Great Satan America, but I think this is going beyond rhetoric.
“Politicians reacted in disbelief to the revelation that for over two hours yesterday, the BBC News website carried a request for people in Iraq to report on troop movements. The request was removed from the website after it sparked furious protests that the corporation was endangering the lives of British servicemen and women.
But according to accounts last night, a story on a major operation by US and Iraqi troops against al-Qa’eda somewhere north of Baghdad contained an extraordinary request for information about the movement of troops. Last night the BBC confirmed the wording of the request was: “Are you in Iraq? Have you seen any troop movements? If you have any information you would like to share with the BBC, you can do so using the form below.”
The BBC confirmed last night that this form of words had appeared on the website from “late morning” until early afternoon.”
The request was more likely to endanger the lives of US and Iraqi forces, being appended to this piece on the Diyala province offensive north of Baghdad.
Thanks to the glories of Revisionista, we can see that the request for troop information was there from revision 3 at 09.30 GMT up to revision 10 at 13.40 GMT – more than four hours.
The squaddies at ARRSE aren’t best pleased.
“Did you realise the BBC are now helping insurgents in northern Iraq with their intel ??”
I do hope if the BBC are going to request this sort of info that all their staff are security cleared. One wouldn’t like to think of such information falling into the wrong hands. Alternatively, could they try a radical new departure and request information on the movements of “militants” and “insurgents” ? And what would they say if Al-Jazeera asked their viewers to report on the movements of BBC staff in Gaza, Iraq or Afghanistan ?
Hat-tips to Max, Heron and David in the comments (via Tim Blair).
UPDATE – I think this is what’s called disingenuous.
“However, yesterday we used the phrase “have you seen any troop movements” in this request for information. The Telegraph and some others wrongly interpreted this as an attempt on our part to seek out military detail.”
What on earth could give that impression ? How could anyone think that asking about troop movements is an attempt to seek out military detail ?
“We phrased it badly, and as soon as we realised what we had done – a couple of hours – we removed the form.”
Four hours and 10 minutes according to Revisionista. Is Vicky Taylor not even capable of putting the corporate hand up honestly over the timing, is Revisionista wrong, or has she been inaccurately briefed ? Alas, I can’t ask her, because I’m banned from commenting – at least that’s how I translate “you are not allowed to comment”.
And off topic, but kudos to Nick Reynolds for his continuing ‘mission to explain’ and David Gregory for his contributions to an interesting discussion on the reporting of climate change in the comments to this post.
Sorry last post was me.
David Gregory: I doubt you’d report it were there any demonstrations by muslims in Birmingham. After all your organisation didn’t report the “demonstrations” in London either. That’s exactly why we call you Al Beeb.
How does it feel to be in bed with jihadists?
Well I’m in Birmingham. But I haven’t seen anything so far. I’ll keep my eyes open.
Universities are closed for the weekend, aren’t they?
David Gregory
Are you a traitor as well?
phoebe:
A bit OTT don’t you think?
Hello Phoebe:
Well I’m in Birmingham. But I haven’t seen anything so far. I’ll keep my eyes open.
David Gregory (BBC) | 22.06.07 – 11:47 pm
I think this is black humour from Mr. Gregory. When I last looked, Birmingham was riddled with Jihadis.
Problem is, of course, that it’s not funny – especially in the light of the fact that the BBC itself is riddled with Jihadi sympathisers.
John Reith always insists that the BBC consists of a wonderfully diverse bunch of journalists, with widely-differing political persuasions, who robustly debate the important issues of our times and who are certainly not dhimmies cowed by Jihadis.
Which makes me wonder why it’s possible to predict, with a large degreee of certainty, how the BBC will report on any event involving Islam. We can write the BBC’s script for it – the careful avoidance of the ‘M’, ‘I’ and ‘J’ words when covering the latest atrocity, the minimising of the scope of the atrocity, the omission and distortion of facts and the insistence on portraying Jihadis as ‘militants’ boldly fighting for a justified cause.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the BBC’s coverage of “militant” atrocites against Jews. Witness how its “journalists” (mis)reported on the Israeli-Hezbollah war last year and how they are currently throwing their weight behind Hamas, with Middle East “editor” Jeremy Bowen leading the baying pack.
When the Palestinians voted Hamas into power, Bowen claimed that “conditions were not yet right” for Hamas to renounce its intention to destroy Israel. We had a debate with Reith at the time on this site. Naturally he defended Bowen. Uncharacteristically for Reith, the defense was feeble and brief.
Currently Bowen’s hacks are doing everything they possibly can to legitimise and sanitise Hamas while snubbing Fatah. A prime example was last week’s Have Your Say programme:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/talking_point_programme/default.stm#
(Click on Watch Have Your Say under What’s next for Gaza. Link will be valid about until tomorrow afternoon.)
Hre’s the cast list for this wonderful BBC pro-Hamas propaganda exercise:
We were joined by director of the UN Relief and Works Agency, John Ging in Gaza, former Middle East adviser to EU, Alastair Crooke in Beirut and author on Hamas, Azzam Tamimi, in London.
The dust from the Gaza fratricide had barely settled and here was the BBC giving the Hamas side all the space and time in the world to burden said world with its terrorist ideology while denying same to Fatah.
The point is often made here by BBC apologists that we have to look at the coverage over time before jumping to conclusions about bias. I have, and there’s no doubt that the BBC’s horse in this race is Hamas. Fatah has discredited itself in BBC eyes by being a touch more “moderate” in its terrorist stance than Hamas and by trying to strike a bargain with the hated West.
Of course, BBC apologists here are welcome to try to prove me wrong. Give us a senior Fatah terrorist representative as the only studio guest on another show and give him all the uninterrupted time in the world to propagandise on behalf of Fatah. Link up to another pro-Fatah guest elsewhere and also let him ramble on endlessly and allow only a few feeble e-mails and brief calls from the Hamas side.
Sounds ridiculous? Of course it is. This is the BBC we’re talking about here.
‘Are you in Gaza? Have you seen anyone trying to rescue Alan Johnston? If you have any information you would like to share with the Army of Islam, you can do so using the form below’
we’ve all contributed to the cost of your education
While I was not educated in Britain I don’t think there is much difference between funding in ‘Oz’ and in ‘Blimey’.
My education was paid for by:
• Government subsidies (i.e. by the taxpayer);
• My parents (who also paid taxes);
• Myself (didn’t pay taxes at the time because income too low);
• Charming ‘coloured people’ who paid exorbitant ‘full’ fees for the privilege of studying in Australia (and effectively subsidized the Australian students);
• Various NGO’s, corporations and individuals who felt that donating money to institutions of higher education was somehow a good thing (or a good tax exemption).
Education is what you make of it 🙂
http://thumbsnap.com/v/spb8c3QM.gif
Note that the IDF and Israeli Police provided security for the annual Gay Pride March in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv this week to protect them against (a) daft Orthodox Jewish groups and (b) terrorist attacks. I now await the BBC reporting the fact that gays can march in Israel but if they try the same in Gaza they get their heads chopped off… I find it amazing how lefties can scream and rant at the UK/USA and Israel etc yet ignore the deaths of so many gays, women and children caused by Islam. Moral compass on the left is spinning wildly methinks as they try to be good little socialists yet ignore the worst destroyers of democracy or liberty going!
Who needs an education anyway?
http://www.cabarfeidh.com/maths.jpg
Charming ‘coloured people’ who paid exorbitant ‘full’ fees for the privilege of studying in Australia (and effectively subsidized the Australian students);
Absolute b*llocks! A government sets fees for studying at Uni and will then subsidise their own – it’s what being a country is about. Australian students were not and are not subsidised by any poor coloured people who pay “exorbitant full fees for the ‘privilege’ of studying in Australia”. If these fees were so exorbitant, those poor coloured people wouldn’t be there!
Someone seems to be of the impression that communications in 1982 were identical to modern-day ones. Firstly anything that the BBC tried to report had to go back to Ascension Island on a military transport on tape and was very closely scrutinised before onward transmission to London (BBC have a big TV and radio centre on the north side of Ascension). The Brian Hanrahan report (counted them all out, counted them all back) was only allowed because it showed a certain amount of inventiveness but a hell of a lot of BBC reports that certainly would have been of use the Argentinians were cut. One famous BBC report was about a mercy killing at Goose Green where an Argeninian conscript had fallen wounded into an ammo pile and set it ablaze. A 2Para NCO shot the unfortunate man but the BBC reported it as ‘shooting enemy prisoners’ which would not have helped with the assault on Longdon, Wireless Ridge etc. if the Argentinians had heard that. The Argentinians had already worked out the bomb fuse problems without Aunty Jazeera’s help – when you’ve lost over 20 Skyhawks to ground and naval SAMs for little effect you begin to realise that maybe your tactics need to improve.
Personally speaking I thank God we didn’t have the likes of John “Walks-On-Water” Simpson, Kate “Where’s my contact lense” Adie or the myriad of other presumptious BBC newsteams in the South Atlantic. It was bad enough having bloody Max Hastings there, what with the SAS fawning over that self-important poppinjay.
Bryan:
That “Have-Our-Say-dressed-up-as-Have-Your-Say” to which you linked is beyond parody. And to think that the British taxpayer and bloody foreign office is financing this seditious tripe:
Afghanistan: Why is the situation deteriorating?
What do you make of Taleban threats to target Kabul? …
Are you in the region? Is the presence of Nato troops making the situation worse? What more can be done to protect civilians caught up in the fighting?
The BBC is an utterly lost cause – it’s staff have lost the ability to see right from wrong, truth from lies, justice from injustice. Their “radical-impartiality” ethos, equating the forces of brutal suppression with the forces of liberation, will undoubtedly result in more people being drawn towards the cause which all freedom-loving people wish to see defeated.
The Afghan newspaper “Weesa” put it in a nutshell:
BBC radio [as published] recently interviewed the Taleban spokesman, Mohammad Hanif. Some of the aspects of this interview are noteworthy because of their effects on the nation. … we do not know why … an international media outlet like the BBC should act as a platform for such a dangerous movement to carry out their propaganda campaign. The question is, if the Taleban, Al-Qa’idah and their supporters are terrorists, and if their power and strength will be dangerous for Afghanistan and the rest of the world, then why should they be promoted by the media in this way? Does this not foster the growth and development of terrorism? … Isn’t this an intentional attempt to recognize and to give prestige to those opponents who are on the one hand pursued by the whole world and are known as leaders of terrorism who turned our country into a cave of death in the process of chasing them while they, on the other hand, rank in the media on the same level as those elected by public vote? If there are no rules or regulations for freedom of speech, the media and democracy, and if the field is open to all, then this means that freedom of speech and democracy has turned into a strange drama. … The more the media ranks both sides the same, the more national mentalities will change and finally the limits of which side is legal and which is illegal will be lost, which will be a giant disaster for humanity.
The Beeb won’t be happy until the entire country has turned into a blood-and-guts-strewn hell on earth. If I was a British soldier out there I know what I would train my sights on – BBC transmitters.
Hi Phoebe:
Erm, you asked a question and I answered it. It was directed at the BBC and I’m 1/22000th of it.
Traitor? It’s very hard to respond to that because clearly I’m pretty obviously linked to the BBC and I really don’t want to appear rude while engaged in a public discussion. So can we assume if I could I would respond extremely strongly to that question in no uncertain terms. But since that would be impolite I just ask that you apologise for that comment and take it back.
And no, I’m not the NBC White House Correspondent David Gregory. He has much better hair.
Count the number of occurrences of the word “occupied” or the phrase “occupied Golan Heights”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6230468.stm
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 23.06.07 – 11:16 am
That “Have-Our-Say-dressed-up-as-Have-Your-Say” to which you linked is beyond parody. And to think that the British taxpayer and bloody foreign office is financing this seditious tripe:
I was actually directing people’s attention to the extraordinary bias in favour of Hamas during last week’s Gaza Have Your Say – which can still be linked to from that page. But I’m glad you grabbed the baton and ran with it because now I’m going to watch them to see if they present the Afghanistan HYS in an equally biased fashion.
On the other hand, the BBC could grit its teeth, go against all its instincts and present a programme that doesn’t favour the Taleban. We’ll see.
They’ll broadcast it tomorrow at 14:00 GMT on the World Service and TV (not sure which channel) and anyone who misses it can also catch it throughout the week on the website.
If it continues with its bias the BBC is going to have to rename its programme Have Our Say.
Biodegradable | 23.06.07 – 12:04 pm,
Without opening the link, let me guess:
Seven?
Seven?
Bryan | 23.06.07 – 1:18 pm
Close!
I counted ten and eight respectively 🙂
[Deleted on grounds of offensiveness]
Edited By Siteowner
With all the universe & all time as their oyster the Dr Who team find it difficult to get away from present day No 10 or the White House.
Back tonight with a new UK PM, his manifesto
The Manifesto
Harold Saxon is the man who can finally restore Britain to the position of greatness and global significance it once took for granted.
As Minister of Defence, his agenda has already had a major impact.
Military recruitment is now at its highest for decades, and unemployment is sinking as a result. Harold Saxon has put the pride back into Britain and made us an international force again.
His diplomacy has earned us allies around the world, and the Union Flag is welcomed as never before. All politicians have their critics, but there can be no doubt that Harold Saxon has silenced his completely. Leaders of all three major parties • and even some Scottish Nationalists • defected to his banner of unity, bringing most of their parties with them.
All that remains of those once august institutions are a few old soldiers, unable to change with the times and clinging to past glories. The rest of us look forward to a future of more effective and efficient government.
And why is Dr Who stuck in time & space?
The BBC hopes to inspire an interest in parliamentary politics among apathetic teenagers
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article1975159.ece
Phoebe and Ultraviolets – your comments aren’t mature or helpful.
Here’s an interesting question.
The BBC World Service is a part of the BBC that is funded directly by UK taxpayers, via the UK government.
It costs £300m year. The spending has always been justified by saying that by broadcasting “neutral” news to the world, it helps the UK’s national interests. – Listners come to associate Great Britain with decent, cricket playing chaps, who play up and paly the game. Look after the underdog and all that.
Of course the reality is
1.Where the service is recieved (and reception is and always has been VERY patchy on SW) the users use Jap/Chinnese radios. Listerners don’t seem to have been persauded to buy Rovers or any other kind of British goods or foreign policy.
2.Nobody seems to associate Great Britain with “honesty”. They view us as imperialists, or a soft touch for welfare/imigration 60 years after empire and £15bn(current values) later.
3. When the British army appears, listerners don’t seem to associate them with the “BBC”. (Or if they do they still try and shoot them.)
4. The World Service does not seem to prevent union flag burning in Pakistan.
So what do we get, as UK tax payers, out of providing the World with a free news service?
I finally got around to reading Melanie Phillips’ The Hamas, M16, BBC axis and found this:
….Conflicts Forum — the organisation set up by none other than the ubiquitous Alastair Crooke, and which boasts on its board of advisers none other than the equally ubiquitous Azzam Tamimi(whose most memorable public apercu was that he would consider becoming a ‘suicide bomber’). Its website reveals that it stands for rather more than merely ‘engaging’ with Islamists such as Hamas. It actually promotes them as fine and upstanding people.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1555
There was no mention on Sunday’s Gaza HYS, about which I commented here,
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3861044074615880734/#361887
of the link between the two Hamas supporters. Neither was there any mention of the fact that Crooke was such a strong fan of Hamas.
For the BBC to present the two terrorist supporters as independent of one another is inexcusable. Unless they didn’t know about the link, which would then represent plain incompetence. But I doubt that.
The BBC is allowing itself to be used here to legitimise and promote a terrorist group. That is unsurprising. But it’s no less despicable.
Amazingly the BBC world service costs more to run than the 5 BBC domestic national radio stations do in total.
Where does the money go?
-Keeping a bunch of International non-right trash journos and media types in lifestyles to which they have become accustom in central London.
Alas, I am not a PhD, but I fail to find anything droll about people parading in the streets of our capital city on a more or less regular basis now with only their eyeballs showing, cursing our Monarch and hurling insults and abuse at our government and police, and our state broadcasting company fails to bring this to the attention of the British public.
What do these people need to do to gain the attention of auntie? Fire their AK-47’s in the air!
Sissons on News24 chooses to embelish this report
The US Central Intelligence Agency is to declassify hundreds of documents detailing some of the agency’s worst illegal abuses from the 1950s to 1970s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6229750.stm
by telling us that the files relate to the period of “cold war paranoia”.
That would be “Paranoia is a disturbed thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.
So we were never at war with Eurasia, they were never a threat.
‘Cold war paranoia’? Doesn’t the BBC realise that historians have had access to the KGB’s archives now for over ten years, and the Mitrokhin archive for longer?
The threat to the west was real and now fully detailed. BBC – what a bunch of f*cking idiots!!
Why would you think Al Beeb would have considered the Soviet Union a threat, Allan?
By the way: I guess a new open thread would be quite useful.
“By the way: I guess a new open thread would be quite useful.”
Ja! Bitte!
Where political correctness gets us:
Ashley Bateman, a driving examiner in Nottingham, explained that it could be difficult to spot those trying to cheat the system.
“If their face looked the same shape and they had the same colour eyes and things like that, there is a chance then that it would be difficult for the examiner to identify there’s a problem,” he said…
On Monday, two men from Oldham, Greater Manchester, were convicted of obtaining driving licences by deception.
Shazad Akhtar, 34, of Bolton Street, was sentenced to 200 hours of community service and ordered to pay £500 costs after pleading guilty to 22 counts of obtaining and attempting to obtain driving licences by deception.
Mushtaq Ahmed, 37, of Roundthorn Road, was fined £200 for obtaining a driving licence by deception.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6231892.stm
Same menatlity at work as with the student loans scams:
The recent case of Adeleke Adebayo, dubbed “the fat man” by investigators, finally prompted the education department to introduce stricter rules for would-be students applying for loans.
Despite being 22 stone and 5ft 8in tall, Adebayo, 32, was able to walk around one of the UK’s largest universities, London Metropolitan, and enrol for five different degree courses using five bogus identities.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6624019.stm
The BBC won’t join the dots but I will. White people have been beaten into submission by the propaganda of the race relations industry and now choose to look the other way rather than risk the inevitable accusations of racism.
re above menatlity = mentality
I really can’t be bothered anymore.
Can someone give me a shout when hillhunt fooks orf please?
BBC employee Bullshit detective wrote this:
TPO, Its amusing to me that you brand me a ‘liar’ when what I did was provide a link to an article and told you what it said. It is written in black and white for all to see. Your accusations only provide further evidence of your irrational state of mind.
BBC Bias: “Stop the world, I want to get off.”
Bullshit Detective | 22.06.07 – 10:11 pm |
Now lets examine the evidence.
In response to gharqad-tree | 30.05.07 – 7:59 pm | Bullshit detective wrote this:
’………………Great, because let me clear this up then and set you straight. The BBC, unlike every other national broadcaster and national newspaper in the UK DID show the cartoons. Let me repeat that and maybe put an end to that facile argument once and for all: The BBC DID broadcast the Danish cartoons of Muhammed. Something, unlike most of the drivel here, that can be proven. Broadcast despite thousands of complaints from Muslims all over the world, threatening placards and demonstrations……………’
Bullshit Detective | 30.05.07 – 9:14 pm |
Them we had Bullshit detective wriggling and squirming with this bit:
‘……………………….”which incorporated brief shots of the pages and the images on them.”
Crystal?’
Bullshit Detective | 31.05.07 – 5:15 pm |
I responded with:
‘……….Semantics as usual.
The BBC used the subliminal approach to these cartoons.
Did the BBC portray the cartoons so that the viewer could absorb, with his own eyes, the content.
The BBC did not.
You must be the clown who, not so long ago, was insistent that the BBC had reported something and, to prove his point, provided a link to a Pashto webpage.
And I am compelled by law to pay the wages of a crapologist.’
TPO | 31.05.07 – 5:35 pm |
Definitions:
Show; be or allow or cause to be visible, offer, exhibit, or produce (something *) for scrutiny or inspection.
* Be it a cartoon or photo
Subliminal; of a stimulus or mental process below the threshold of sensation or consciousness.
Its’ all here:
gharqad-tree | 30.05.07 – 7:59 pm |
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5025720886435139483/#351120
Bullshit Detective | 30.05.07 – 9:14 pm |
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5025720886435139483/#351132
gharqad-tree | 30.05.07 – 10:12 pm |
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5025720886435139483/#351135
sick-of-it-all | 31.05.07 – 9:10 am |
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5025720886435139483/#351219
TPO | 31.05.07 – 10:38 am |
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5025720886435139483/#351227
Bullshit Detective | 31.05.07 – 5:15 pm |
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5025720886435139483/#351293
TPO | 31.05.07 – 5:35 pm |
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5025720886435139483/#351301
Cont/..
Continuation:-
Then we have on this thread discussing “Are you in Iraq ? Have you seen any troop movements ?”
Bullshit Detective | 20.06.07 – 11:17 pm | accusing this blog of being disingenuous
‘Perhaps you should read this and then apologise for being so disingenuous.’
BBCBias: Never letting the facts get in the way of a good rant’.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3861044074615880734/#361362
Then this contribution:
Bullshit Detective | 20.06.07 – 11:42 pm |
‘No grown-ups here though. No details of troop movements were published, errr…what part of that don’t you understand?’
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3861044074615880734/#361375
Then Bullshit Detective | 21.06.07 – 4:10 pm | being offensive
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3861044074615880734/#361552
Then Bullshit Detective | 21.06.07 – 5:45 pm | being unfunny and stupid.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3861044074615880734/#361583
Then Bullshit Detective | 21.06.07 – 7:08 pm | indulging in his trademark ad hominem
‘BBCBias: Crazy like a bijan daneshmand’
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3861044074615880734/#361612
Then me totally exasperated with the bullshit clown TPO | 21.06.07 – 7:26 pm |
‘You’ll be the same bullshit detective I caught out lying the other day over to (sic) motoon issue.’
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3861044074615880734/#361616
Bullshit Detective | 21.06.07 – 7:26 pm | living up to his own ethos:
‘…I love this bit ‘If you repeat a distortion long enough…it can become a reality’…’
‘BBCBias: Trust no one…except Fox.’
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3861044074615880734/#361617
And the finale:
Bullshit Detective |21.06.07 – 7:32 pm |
‘TPO,
I think I know what your talking about but I dont think you proved any such thing.
Maybe your talkin about the article which people can make up their own minds about. I saw no point in continuing the debate given that we could not agree with what was stated in the article in black and white.’
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3861044074615880734/#361619
Bullshit Detective |21.06.07 – 11:38 pm |
To Random • ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3861044074615880734/#361643
TPO | 22.06.07 – 7:37 pm |
‘I see the liar shite detective has been back. To explain to all contributors, this particular liar was adamant that the BBC had shown the Mohammed cartoons which kicked off half the cretins around the world.
No the BBC did not. What the BBC did was to show the newspapers which had. However the BBC chose to rush the pages across the screen in such a manner that the viewers eyes could not take in the content. This process is similar to the discredited subliminal advertising techniques of the sixties.
For the intellectually challenged: Subliminal; of a stimulus or mental process below the threshold of sensation or consciousness.
Makes you wonder how often the BBC use this technique.’
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3861044074615880734/#361830
This is not feeding the fool it is pointing out to all what the original statement from bullshit was. Bullshit by name and by nature.
I despair that I am still compelled by law to pay the wages of a Grade A, triple distilled ,crapologist like bullshit.
bryan – you may be interested in a book called elusive peace by ahron bregman. Alistair Crooke is featured throughout but his standout moment is at page 222 when he is the intermediary between the palestinian “militants” in the church of the nativity in may 2002. 13 of those involved in the siege were to be deported to Cyprus. Alistair Crooke was involved in their surrender. This is what he said to the author, Bregman;-
“The Israelis took them [the terrorists] to a dramatic hanger. There were 13 chairs in the midle of this hangar…people with weapons all around..tanks everywhere…The (prisoners) were formally handed over to me. They all came out and said “Oh Alistair!” I knew at least half of them ! I thought i was going to end up on a fourteenth chair. Some of the Israeli’s whom I didn’t know, gave me very evil looks…(continues)”
i’ll leave to draw your own conclusions as to what this reveals about him
i’ll leave to draw your own conclusions as to what this reveals about him
jimbob | 23.06.07 – 6:14 pm |
No doubt Crook(e) has an emotional relationship with terrorists and sees them as heroic guerillas fighting for the “resistance” and the Israelis as Nazis.
I remember thinking at the time that it was extraordinary that those terrorists could get away with a slap on the wrist like deportation.
archonix | Homepage | 22.06.07 – 11:15 am | #
Faced with an absolute truth that he cannot argue against, hh takes the only option left: he ignores it.
How typical.
Well, in relation to nothing, perhaps we can assume certain things about Mr hunt. So far he has demonstrated that he is over 50, probably retired and generally left leaning. He likes to keep up with the latest ‘culture’ and believes the BBC offers a genuinely good service all round in this regard.
Given his general tenor and behaviour I would speculate that he probably worked, or works, in a mid-level maangement position in a government institution of some sort. More than likely a department of a city or county council, probably in an arts related field. It’s likely he drives a nice car, eats well, doesn’t smoke, drinks only moderately and is prone to indulging in the occasional barbeque. Highly unlikely to listen to radio 3 or classic FM, and probablly prefers to listen to radio 1 in order to maintain his touch with the latest banal output of the modern music industry hiding beneath the cloak of ‘culture’. Probably not married, no kids, but has an ongoing relationship. Lives in an urban area appartment or flat. Likes to do his bit for the environment by recycling.
If I get more than half of this right I’ll be very surprised. 🙂
Getting back to the original thread…
I was watching a military history program about the British land campaign in the Falklands last night.
The story was about 2 Para’s fight for Goose Green.
As the British were getting ready to jump off, the BBC broadcast a news item that the British Army had a parachute regiment in position to move against the Argentines.
This caused the commander of 2 Para to go ballistic on the hapless BBC correspondent embedded with the force.
Fortunately, the narrator wryly commented, the Argentines discounted the BBC news report as propaganda—-feeling no nation would be incompetent enough to allow a news organization to broadcast troop movements…
It does not matter how many times the BBC says the Golan is occupied,:
The Golan is Israeli
AND THAT IS FROM HAARETS, NO LESS
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/871980.html
TPO: bang on the money. Why argue with a compulsive liar?
Phoebe and (even more) Ultraviolets,
Certain of your comments have been deleted. If you wish to continue to comment on this site, please do not repeat comments of this type, particularly when directed at named individuals.
Yeah, I work for the BBC and youre absolutely right that the ‘Beeb won’t be happy until the entire country has turned into a blood-and-guts-strewn hell on earth’. Oh yeah, bring it on, thats what ever leftie wants isnt it??
Dick | 25.06.07 – 7:06 pm
Can we quote you on that?
Regards to Tom and Harry 😆
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4678100/4678186.stm
Above is the article which caused TPO such consternation. As I said previously, people can read it and decide for themselves what it says.
There seems little point arguing about what is written there in black and white for all to see… or accusing each others of being ‘liars’.
Mr. Detective,
You claimed the BBC published the cartoons. It didn’t. Rather than trying to wriggle out of it, try being big enough to admit it. It’s called honesty.
In other words, stop bullsh*tting us.
Bullshit Detective,
In black and white, the BBC admit they did not show the cartoons in any legible format. Or do you merely claim that the BBC broadcast a few frames of video that included images of the publications which printed them?
Is it your contention that the cartoons needn’t be legible or even identifiable as such to count as a win for your side?
If so, how can that be defined as actually broadcasting or publishing the cartoons?
For all the academia being lobbed around on forums attacking the BBC – are there many, or any who are attacking the BBC in the way that hurts them the most.
Their pockets?
If the entire nation got wise to this fifth coloumn that is nothing more than a propaganda factory for Islam, and stopped paying the licence fee, everyone of these people would drop their rightsist ideology like a tonne of hot bricks.
Every journo, editor, manager and dogsbody of the BBC are all fired from the same middle class elitist gun barrel that worships money over ANY other cause.
People, if you’re willing to spread the word to stop feeding the pro BBC trolls on these boards, then why not spread the word to stop feeding the BBC trolls at Broadcasting House.
All the discourse in the world will not stop the inevitable, that the BBC are the focal point of a massive and bloody Islam implosion that will shatter Britain as we know it within the next 5 to 10 years and rob most of us of our civil liberties.
The only way you can possibly stop these treacherous, self-serving western hating Beeboids is to destroy the licence fee.
Anything else is just a waste of time.
I dunno about that. We are helping to spread the word about the poisonous BBC. Hopefully more and more people will turn it off and tune out. That can only be a good thing. Long live the internet.
Bryan, you are right, but as I just spent the last 15 minutes typing out a long response that then vanished when I hit the publish button, I wouldn’t put too much faith in the power of the internet to bring anything new to the mind of those who don’t actively go out of their way to seek it.
Yes, you can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
(Having lost a bit of material on the net in the way you describe, if I have a long comment to make I type it on Word first, while continually saving it, then copy and paste it to the blog.)