Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
if you have the telly on, switch over to c4 now. dispatches. its about muslim extremism in the uk.
if you have the telly on, switch over to c4 now. dispatches. its about muslim extremism in the uk.
archduke | 06.08.07 – 8:14 pm
Unfortunately it’s by arch pillock Phil Rees – former BBC journo. This review of his book Dining with Terrorists gives a good introduction to the man. He was one of the architects of the BBCs refusal to call a terrorist a terrorist. His programme was insiduous – with one message – the West’s foreign policy is the ‘root cause’ of Islamic extremists who are justified in carrying out any terrorist action in ‘retaliation’.
AMIR TAHERI REVIEWS “DINING WITH TERRORISTS” BY PHIL REES
by Amir Taheri
Telegraph
March 27, 2005
For almost a quarter of a century Phil Rees, a British television journalist, has been pondering the question of whether anyone could be called a terrorist. Despite the title of his book which assumes that there are people who could be labelled “terrorist”, Rees’s answer to the question is an emphatic no. He claims that he has been “witness to every major conflict” in the world and he prefers such terms as “militant”, “insurgent”, “activist” and “guerrilla”.
The only terrorism that Rees recognises comes from governments, especially the United States, Britain and Israel. “It is often the case,” he writes “that the origin of non-state political violence, when traced back, is the United States. Even hijacking, the pioneering symbol of ‘international terrorism’, was probably instigated as a political tool by the CIA.”
Rees blames the US for “political violence” – his euphemism for terrorism – from Colombia to Burma, passing by Kosovo and Kashmir, not to mention the Middle East. In a rare show of magnanimity he suggests the following compromise: “If we do not want to describe America and Britain as terrorist nations, the only principled alternative is to purge the word from the lexicon of journalism.”
Rees reminds us that many “respectable news organisations” such as the BBC and Reuters, have already banned the word so as not to allow the United States “as the sole military superpower to impose a definition of ‘terrorism’ and ‘war crime’ upon the world.”
Rees laments the fact that Slobodan Milosevic, the deposed Serbian despot, could be sent to the International Criminal Court whereas “no American leader is likely to end up there”.
Mocking President Bush’s “Axis of Evil” phrase, the author first denies the existence of evil, both as noun and adjective, and then suggests that, if it did exist, it all came from the United States.
For Rees recourse to “political violence” is an inalienable right. Even in a democracy where elections exist, citizens have the right to use violence in furtherance of their causes. In Spain, for example, Basque “freedom fighters”, who know they could never win free elections in their neck of the woods, have the right to kill innocent people in the name of their cause.
Rees’s book reveals that although he did travel to many trouble spots he hardly met any major terrorists – sorry, “users of political violence” – anywhere. At one point in the book he whets our appetite about meetings he says he had with the leaders of the Groupe Islamique Armée (GIA), the deadliest of the Algerian terrorists. But what he offers is an account of one encounter with underlings in the Armée Islamique du Salut (AIS), a less murderous organisation which had nothing to do with the GIA. On the same page Rees makes three differing claims about the GIA. First he says it was created by the Algerian army to discredit the Islamists. He then suggests that the Algerian secret services had infiltrated it. Lastly, he claims that the GIA was only manipulated by Algerian services.
Rees’s one regret is that he never met Osama bin Laden. His book is interesting for two reasons. First, it is the most exhaustive exposé of the ideas of the Noam-Chomsky-Michael-Moore school of Blame-America-First. His attempt at impartiality fits Jean-Luc Godard’s definition of moral equivalence: “five minutes for the Jews, five minutes for Hitler!”
Had Rees been a lone voice one might have dismissed him with a smile. But he is not. He represents the views of large chunks of the Western media.
Oscar – Yup! That about summed up the programme.
I particularly liked him eavesdropping on a seminar at the United Services Institute. Rees dismisses the assembled experts, as they never mentioned UK foreign policy as the driver of Islamic miltantism. The root cause he had determined before the start of his programme’s travels.
” In fact, if you consider the range/scope of actions permitted, a British PM is arguably more powerful than a US President.”
You can say that again! Our president can’t change the composition and numbers of the upper house of our legislature – it would take a constitutional amendment to do that, and good luck with it.
“will | 06.08.07 – 10:08 pm”
i concur. the program was a bit of a whitewash alright – very quick to blame “foreign policy” and ZERO mention of Sayeed Qutb/Muslim Brotherhood nor any mention of Iranian support and backing of islamic terrorism.
still, i found the bit with the al qaeda supporter interesting- he didnt mind being called a “terrorist” because the koran tells him to “terrorise” the infidels.
so if the terrorists themselves dont mind being called terrorist, where does that leave the bbc’s “misguided criminal” policy?
I’ve thought for a long time that they have no objection at all to being called what they are. By pretending to be offended by it, they are simply playing on the sensibilities of the guilt-ridden West.
Your average self-respecting terrorists must roll on the hot desert sands in helpless laughter at the spectacle of the BBC and co. earnestly scanning dictionaries for alternatives to the T-word and coming up with guidelines that delicately skirt it.
And in between waves of mirth they use the useful idiot media to maximum propaganda effect.
The BBC’s new radio logos.
Cost – £120,000.
Scotland’s Sunday Mail:
LOTTERY show presenter Eamonn Holmes is spending thousands on private planes to film his show in Scotland.
Busy BBC star Eamonn has already splashed out £14,000 of his own money for seven London-Glasgow return flights.
He made the decision when filming of the aptly named National Lottery Jet Set show was moved to Glasgow in June…
One friend said: “He gets a private jet but it’s purely a logistical thing because of his gruelling schedule.
“As well as getting up to Scotland on time, he has to be back for his Sunrise show, so couldn’t trust normal airline flights.
“He does not need the money but he does like to be busy” …
BBC Scotland said: “Eamonn arranges and pays for his own travel to the show.”
Eamonn’s spokesman said: “In order to make his intense schedule possible, he makes his own private travel arrangements.”
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_headline=jet-set-star-s-pound-14k-flight-night&method=full&objectid=19537130&siteid=64736-name_page.html
Quite a bit of PR spin going on there, as the previous day’s Sun had already revealed the following:
To make sure he gets to the BBC Scotland studios on time, the Irish presenter hires a jet for the 700-mile round trip, at a cost of around £3,000 a week…
A BBC spokesman insisted Eamonn paid for his own transport — but admitted the BBC reimburse him through his salary.
He added: “Eamonn is paid a fee for appearing on the show and that takes into account any transport costs he may incur.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2001320029-2007351005,00.html
And what about all those lectures on the environment we get from the BBC? It’s like this guy says: “What chance does me using my recycling bin stand against airplanes spewing out whatever they spew out?” (Eamonn Holmes, Sunday People column, 15 April. He is billed as the “Man of the People”. Just an ordinary guy, with ordinary private jet requirements.)
BBC – £20m in staff bonuses, with one unnamed person receiving £100,739.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2001320029-2007360302,00.html
The BBC hates fatties and reviles americans, but whenever they get the chance to have a go at both they are in hogs heaven.
Its not the first time it has been pointed out (see earlier threads) but here they are at it again and even have the affrontery to contradict their own story within the the same article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6934263.stm
You will notice that at the start of the article in bold we have
“Women who are obese when they conceive are more likely to have babies with birth defects than are mothers of normal weight, a US study suggests.”
But then later in the same article the truth begins to show
“The researchers are not sure how to explain their findings.
The defects may be a direct result of obesity but could equally relate to other factors, like diet.
Those questions will be addressed by further research.
Professor Nick Wald at The UK’s Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine said the defects may not be related to the actual weight of the mother.”
and
“The women in this study may not be getting adequate nutritional intake, he said.
And while they have tried to exclude diabetics, there may be many cases of Type 2 which have gone undetected, and this has long been known to pose a risk in pregnancy.
Professor Michael Patton, the medical director of BDF Newlife, said: At present there are no increased concerns for mothers who are overweight but the best advice is still to eat a healthy balanced diet before and during pregnancy.”
So for statement of ‘fact’ it moves quickly to they do not actually know and on the contrary medical advice is there are no increased concerns.
So apart from having yet another go at ‘fat Americans’ what was the point of this article?
BONUSES for what? What is this BBC “exceptional performance”,when most of the BBC programs are rubbish. Working for the BBC has to be one of the cushiest numbers going and with the benifit of a fat index linked pension.
“BBC PAYS OUT NEARLY £20M IN BONUSES”
“The BBC paid out nearly £20 million in staff bonuses last year, it has been revealed.
Director-general Mark Thompson and members of the executive board waived their bonuses.
But other employees received bumper payouts to reward “exceptional performance”, The Sun revealed.
The Corporation handed out £19,429,853 during the period from July 2006 to June 2007. Most bonuses were paid last August.
Nearly half the BBC’s 23,000 employees received bonuses and the average amount was £1,805.
But one employee received £100,739 and others took home five-figure sums.
The revelation comes at a time when public confidence in the BBC is at a low as a result of fake phone-in scandals and the “Crowngate” affair in which the Queen was wrongly said to have stormed out of a photoshoot.
A BBC spokeswoman said: “Bonuses are a regular part of the BBC and we don’t make any secret of that.
“They are extra recognition for exceptional performance, for staff who have gone above and beyond the call of duty for the BBC.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/view/15825/BBC-pays-out-nearly-£20m-in-bonuses
BBC News24 deskman to Liberty spokesperson re move to bring British residents from Guantanamo, “Is this a change in the special relationship?”
Rather OTT.
It’s just a change of attitude by the UK government, as the US have always been ready to release detainees on the condition that the receiving government undertakes to prevent the jihadis rejoining the battle.
I’ve started a new open thread – please refresh/reload your browser if you can’t see it.