Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
Atlas shrugged | 27.12.07 – 7:19 pm
I came across this in the context of the recent Newsnight/Policy eXchange spat over dodgy mosque receipts.
It reminded me of you.
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4309/8/
I’d always been sceptical of BBC as Islamist mouthpiece until I came across this…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7158907.stm
Yes, you read it right, a hagiographical account of the Islamification of our vulnerable children.
As the BBC denigrates the touchstone of liberal Civilisation, Christianity, it promotes this.
If the BBC had the interests of journalism at heart it should have been asking “how is this person in the country”? “Why are they letting him into schools to indoctrinate children”. But no, instead they promote his activities. Here’s a sample of his lyrics..
“stone hearted terrorists,
in quest for global control, slaughtering the innocent for iraqian soil
the mess that they done
theres much more to come,
poison factories owned by sadam?
up to now they found none.
i think about the innocent killed,
the blood that was spilled
all the atrocities commited
for their dreams 2 b real.
deep inside i know theyre nothing but voltures
corrupting our cultures
invading our lands
and then robbing our folders
they’ve done it for yrs
dropping bombs inafghan
leaving the children in tears…”
The licence fee would seem to be little less than money for promoting terrorism and those antithetical to this country. Time to shut the BBC down.
John Reith | 27.12.07 – 1:00 pm
I accept your point that this is a dispatch from your Egyptian correspondent, hence the Egyptian angle of the report. However, that still does not excuse a free kick at the “Israel controls the US Gov’t” goal. In fact, it’s not even a legitimate news story. It is only a statement by Mubarak that Israel has control over the US congress. It’s not that there is a powerful Israel lobby (which there is), and it’s not that the US favors Israel over Egypt (which it does). It is a statement that the US Congress does what Israel tells it to do. This is presented unchallenged, and out of context.
There is no legitimate news reason for this report to even exist, quite frankly. If you wanted to pretend to make a balanced report, the least Saleh could have done is provide an actual quote from a US official. But no, we just get told that Egypt is angry, and Israel is bitching without knowing the facts.
You have already assured me that there is no deliberate anti-Israel/Jew attitude on display in things like this. I think Alan’s post above sums up rather nicely that there are reasons why such an attitude may be more the result of a larger (wrong-headed) world view, rather than conscious venom.
So let’s just assume that there is no conscious anti-Israel bias in your Egyptian correspondent’s mind. There is still a real problem with this, and so many other articles on this topic. The entire tenor of the article – even if it comes straight from Mubarak’s mouth – has “Protocols” overtones, and plenty of statements to point everyone’s minds in that direction. And let’s not forget that portraying Egypt as doing its best is completely false. Printing a gripe from Israeli officials is not the same thing as providing a true view of the situation. Unless, of course, this report is intended to be just to make the Egyptian and Arab/Muslim audience happy. Is that the case here, and I should stop worrying about fairness?
I have commented elsewhere – and there are plenty of other more respectable people who take a similar position – that even if there is no intent to create an anti-Israel impression, or to paint Israel or Jews as baddies, these articles still have the same effect.
The BBC never, ever honestly discusses what goes on at the Egyptian border with Gaza, and always portrays Israel as the sole guardian of all of Gaza’s borders. This may be accidental, or just sloppiness by individual reporters who fail to mention Egypt when doing stories on the oppressed Gazans. Still, the result is an unfair, untrue portrait of a nasty Israel.
Even if we all learned in school that a criticism of Israel is not an anti-Jew statement, we should still be able to appreciate that demonizing is different from criticism, as is false representation.
But we can discuss details and perceptions of reports forever and get nowhere, obviously. So, let’s discuss what we know actually does happen with BBC reports.
Social cohesion is a laudable goal, and I support considering it when doing reports or special shows, or whatever. However, it doesn’t work when you only do it in one direction. I put it to you that the majority of non-Jews who have read the article in question will come away with the impression that Israel can tell the US Congress whether or not to give funds to Egypt. This isn’t Just saying Israel has influence, even undue influence. This is a statement of control, full stop. That suspicion already exists in most people’s minds (that’s not my paranoia – that’s reality), and this and so many other articles only serve to encourage and inflame that suspicion.
If the BBC is truly interested in true social cohesion, and not just keeping the Mohammedans from getting so upset that they send a car bomb at White City, then you are not taking your responsibilities very seriously. If you truly wished to educate people in such a way, you guys really ought to take similar care with reports about Israel and Jews as you do with Arab countries and Muslims.
It is irresponsible to go to great lengths to ensure that the British Public accept the Muslims living amongst you and do not think they’re all barbarian terrorists, and not make similar efforts regarding the Jews. Demonizing Israel in the way this article does only serves to encourage anti-Jew behavior amongst Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I don’t mean reporting on Israel’s faults or serious mistakes or anything with honest criticism. I am talking about the dishonest representation of the entire region that can be found in so many BBC reports.
I say again that there is no actual news reason for this report. There is a small news value in reporting that the US has frozen aid. If anything, that would be an acceptable focus of the story, rather than Egypt’s “Protocols” gripe. But no, nobody at the BBC cares if things like this might inflame anti-Jew passions. It may not be biased, but it is highly irresponsible and thoughtless.
The BBC ought to take more care in the way it researches and writes these stories and headlines. It’s time to apply the same respect you have for Muslim sensitivities to the sensitivities of others.
“I came across this in the context of the recent Newsnight/Policy eXchange spat over dodgy mosque receipts.”
Yes you completely missed the hateful,inflammatory literature depicted in the film Lord Wraith.
” Muslim-on-Muslim violence is the largest untold story in the politically correct West ”
( Phyllis Chesler, 27 Dec. )
Does this include the BBC, I wonder?
‘ R.I.P. Benazir: A Modest Proposal for preventing Islamists from killing the rest of us.’
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/2007/12/27/rip_benazir_a_modest_proposal.php
“As the BBC denigrates the touchstone of liberal Civilisation, Christianity…”
No it ain’t. Christianity is quite capable of unspeakable acts of oppression, terror, fascism and the suppression of basic human rights as a good look at the “Christian” history of the UK and Ireland will readily show.
For those reasons, as a reaction to the sectarian nature of the British state, the American Founding Fathers promulgated a secular state with what Jefferson called “a wall of separation between Church and State” and a First Amendment to the Constitution banning Congress from “establishing any religion”.
I can’t help but feel that the flinging around of the words “fascist”, “liberal”, “anti-semitic” and “racist” on this site without any comprehension of history, the Beeboids are laughing into their lattes at the kneejerk ignorance displayed by a few commenters on B-BBC who claim to represent a silent majority.
“The Secular State is quite capable of unspeakable acts of oppression, terror, fascism and the suppression of basic human rights as a good look at the history of the America and USSR,Germany will readily show.”
You have really got to read all of history.
Why is the BBC’s coverage of the Pakistan crisis so poor?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/420426/why-is-the-bbcs-coverage-of-the-pakistan-crisis-so-poor.thtml
come on guys,do you think we could have more regular updates and articles than this.on the day pakistan begins to implode,and the bbc refuses to mention the”m”word i would have thought biased bbc would have something to say.beginning to lose interest.
PeterUK | 27.12.07 – 11:35 pm
You have really got to read all of history.
Just don’t learn it from the BBC. JR may have done O levels at least, but precious few of their reporters or junior editors seem to have much knowledge or understanding of history.
I’d still agree with Steve Edwards.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla…don/ 7158907.stm
This piece is horrific, in my opinion. Here we have Muslim rappers proselytising in a two-thirds non-Muslim primary school but instead we have a BBC correspondent cheerfully presenting this as “a fusion of Western culture with Muslim spiritual values”. No, this is ‘dawa’.
As was pointed out earlier, the only controversy – in the eyes of the reporter – is that the deeds of these individuals may be considered ‘haram’ in the eyes of other Muslims. No other objections are expressed yet I shall wager that there are plenty of parties who would take exception to this sort of activity in primary schools.
You have to ask yourself what sort of reaction would be provoked if Christian evangelicals carried out similar activities in a predominantly Muslim primary school; or, worse still, if Jewish or Hindu activists did the same.
This is a deplorable piece of propaganda.
The BBC, arming Saddam and adding 150% to the story. (sorry it’s long)
Has anybody seen this thumbprint of a story which leads to a BBC major article
Arming Saddam How the UK sold £70m of defence equipment to Iraq in one year
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/4048/image2ap0.jpg
So does the image the BBC present here promote the image that Great Britain armed Saddam?
Lets flick to the article.
UK arms sales to ‘respectable’ Iraq
In light of the subsequent history of Iraq, it seems almost unthinkable that 30 years ago Britain sold millions of pounds of military equipment to the country’s Baathist government. Foreign Office papers, just released by the National Archives in London, show that defence sales to Iraq in 1976 amounted to an estimated £70m.
At this time, Saddam Hussein was the de facto leader of Iraq – taking on a more prominent role than the ageing president, Gen Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr – before formally taking power in 1979.
…………….
The documents show that, in 1976 and 1977, a variety of equipment was sold to Iraq, including 20 Cymbeline mortar-locating radar – at a cost of £11m – combat support boats, and £7.4m of weapons effects simulators.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7156645.stm
There is so much wrong with the above I just don’t know where to start but hey;
1) Armed Saddam? Sorry I know that history isn’t a strong point with the BBC but even they could have stated that until 1979 Saddam was the second in command and not the leader. So how the BBC can say the Uk armed Saddam when Al-Bakr was President of Iraq from 1968 to 1979 and those arms sales were during 1976-7 kind of stinks of a BBC lie.
2) UK arms sales to ‘respectable’ Iraq Nice emphasis from the BBC there, respectable strange how the governance from 1968-1979 didn’t invade any country, didn’t involve the persecution of huge tracts of the Iraq populace (other than the Kurds) and even actually improved the lot of the Iraq people. So why the double entendre from the BBC?
3) it seems almost unthinkable that 30 years ago Britain sold millions of pounds of military equipment to the country’s Baathist government. while I can’t speak for what the archives have dug up here is what the Arms Transfers Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute says the Brits sold Iraq. From 1970 to 2003;
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/9351/image3jc5.jpg
Fill in the blanks to find the arm sales of whom you wish at;
http://armstrade.sipri.org/arms_trade/trade_register.php
So since when has 10 Cymbeline mortar-locating radar become 20 BBC?
4) But the above sale of a defensive radar isn’t my main gripe. It is this statement which the BBC makes which gets my goat. Combat support boats, which got me thinking seeing as I was on the trials for the CSB on the River Medway during 1981 and was on the second ever course for CSB operators at Upnor in 1982. So how the UK sold CSBs to Iraq in 1976-7 when it only came into service 6 years later kind of puzzles me.Now somebody could say well maybe the previous model. Which is wrong as the CSB replaced the small Tug boat whose sole purpose was to push bridging pontoons into place. The CSB which the Army brought into service in 1982 was a totally new design which utilised hydrojets instead of props.
5) Fire engines and fuel tenders are not military equipment. Neither are Shirts they comes under clothing. Last I heard the only time clothing has killed anybody is when a pile of shirts tipped over and killed a blanket stacker.
6) The reservations of James Callaghan’s Labour government about its Iraqi counterparts had led to a Memorandum of Understanding being signed between the two countries in March 1976 restricting the types of weapons that could be sold to Iraq. Excluded items included tanks and aircraft including fighter planes and helicopters.
…………
But in April 1976 – a month after the Memorandum of Understanding was signed – a note from the British foreign and defence secretaries seems to contradict the idea of restricting the supply of defence equipment to Iraq.
So on that note could somebody from the BBC point out to little old me just what weapons sales contradicted that Memorandum of Understanding seeing as the Cymbeline radar system order was signed in 1975 and the only other significant arms sale was in 1981 where we sold them 29 ARVs (Armoured Recovery Vehicle )not exactly a weapons system as such But hey It was illegal at the time.
7) It adds: “In light of the above considerations, it is recommended that we should¿ tell the Iraqis that we would be prepared to supply the optical version of Rapier [surface-to-air missile], the Scorpion family of armoured vehicles and the 105mm Light Gun.
The above which is the last paragraph in that BBC smoke and mirror job paints a picture that the UK sold Rapier, The CVR(T) family and the 105 Light gun to Iraq. The thing is Britain never did sell any of the above to Iraq.
Strange how the so called world renowned BBC lies so badly.
The BBC, arming Saddam and adding 150% to the story.
You have really got to read all of history.
It looks like PeterUK hasn’t read any.
The notions of freedom of conscience, separation of Church and State, and all of branches of the State being subject to the law of the land derive from the Founding Fathers of the United States, from revolutionaries like Thomas Paine and were brought in reaction to the British sectarian state.
Back to the main event: Pakistan is imploding in yet another sectarian civil war between moderate and fundamentalist factions of the same religion (something the UK has plenty of experience of). The death of Benazir Bhutto can only accelerate the collapse of the single nation state that is Pakistan.
The destabilization of Pakistan can only be a source of grave concern to its immediate neighbours, especially India and Iran.
A
It looks like PeterUK hasn’t read any.
The notions of freedom of conscience, separation of Church and State, and all of branches of the State being subject to the law of the land derive from the Founding Fathers of the United States, from revolutionaries like Thomas Paine and were brought in reaction to the British sectarian state.
“The Secular State is quite capable of unspeakable acts of oppression, terror, fascism and the suppression of basic human rights as a good look at the history of the America ”
American which only recently gave civil rights to blacks,which ethnically cleansed the American Indian,dropped the worlds first atomic weapons.All done by a “non-sectarian state”,
You miss the point that with or without religion, states can do evil things.
“You miss the point that with or without religion, states can do evil things.”
No, really?
States commit evil acts with or without religion, but to suppose that Christianity is somehow a bastion of liberal democracy to go against the witness of 2000 years of history, British or otherwise.
The British case is a some egregious example of how unification of Church (or Mosque, Temple or Synagogue) with the State can and does collapse due process of law, the civil rights of minorities, the rights and freedoms of all citizens to seek redress against the Government and the State, freedom of speech and expression and the principle of limited government by democratic consent of the governed.
Also, the secular state is not an atheistic one. The secular state seeks separation between religious beliefs which are often in conflict with each other, and the due process of democracy and law. The United States, for example, may be a secular state but it is most certainly not an irreligious one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7162290.stm
Tiger death zoo walls “too low”
Another set of eccentric quotation marks from Auntie. Nobody is quoted as saying that the walls were “too low” – the story is actually about the zoo’s director admitting that the walls were lower than the height recommended for tiger enclosures by a zoo quango – which is not at all the same thing as “too low.” It may turn out that the wall was indeed “too low” – ie sufficiently low that the tiger jumped over it, but at the moment the BBC’s “too low” is not a fact and it’s not a quote. It’s a leap to a conclusion. I know that there can be problems fitting stuff into headlines, but that’s no excuse.
Lurker in a Burqua | 28.12.07 – 12:45 am
Why is the BBC’s coverage of the Pakistan crisis so poor?
Why is the BBC’s coverage of most of the world’s around 190 countries so poor! Some countries make news gathering difficult but many countries have press freedom, cultural, economic, historic or local ties with Britain and yet receive little or no coverage on the BBC.
Why is the death of a ‘militant’ or two in Gaza headline news while the death of tens in Thailand or Indonesia or Egypt not news? What makes Paris Hilton ‘news’? Would the BBC pay more attention to a fence jumping Los Angeles tiger than a Tamil Tiger? Would Tiger Woods get more coverage if he was number 50 in the world but born in Leicester? Would he receive more coverage if born in Ramallah?
What are the BBC guidelines for headlining world news?
John Reith
I read the link.
Call me stupid if you wish. I call you and your organization much worse then that and very often.
Reasonably interesting, but I fail to see any connection to myself whatsoever or to much that I write.
My thinking should be very easy to understand. But I fully understand why an employee of the BBC would find it almost impossible to.
I am a LIBERTARIAN pure and simple, thats all. I hardly ever read newspapers and I watch the BBC only by accident.
I seriously don’t like being lied to and only sightly less do I like my fellow human beings being lied to either. However I am truly disgusted beyond comprehension that I am forced to pay for collectivist state brainwashing like the BBCs in your face agenda, from wherever it comes from.
You work for the BBC. Therefore you should know that the BBC tells very important lies. You also spend much effort denying this to be the case. So therefore YOU are also a lier, and a paid lier at that.
Sorry if this offends your sensibilities but so do you offend mine and your employer does even more so.
If you seriously did not know as a matter of fact that MI5 and 6 censors some of your news content. Especially some of the really important bits. Then you should ask around at your own offices a bit more and find out the truth for yourself.
Only don’t ask to obviously or you will suddenly find yourself surplus to requirements, possibly permanently.
Has the pressure already gotten to our moderator, or was he kidnapped by BBC enforcers? There’s a commenter here who’s surplus to requirements.
A new thread would be nice, too.
jgm: “Has the pressure already gotten to our moderator, or was he kidnapped by BBC enforcers? There’s a commenter here who’s surplus to requirements.”
Out of curiosity — who is the commenter that’s surplus to requirements?
Armed Saddam? Sorry I know that history isn’t a strong point with the BBC but even they could have stated that until 1979 Saddam was the second in command and not the leader. So how the BBC can say the Uk armed Saddam when Al-Bakr was President of Iraq from 1968 to 1979 and those arms sales were during 1976-7 kind of stinks of a BBC lie.
pounce | 28.12.07 – 1:54 am
That’s a classic case of the BBC twisting the facts to fit its agenda: “Well, OK, so Saddam wasn’t actually in charge, but he was up and coming so we’ll just make it seem like the same thing,” goes the thinking of the propagandist as he/she takes an inconvenient fact and tries to force-fit it to a preconceived agenda.
The BBC is not worthy of respect. Perhaps it never was, but more and more people are now coming to realise that.
a:
The one who, in the post just above mine, uses the phrase “surplus to requirements.”
Notice who wrote the “muslim hip-hop” story. Its Frances Harrison. She was the BBC correspondent in Iran and is married to an Iranian govt official. Unsure of if she is herself a muslim or just a wannabe.
BBC Radio 5 has more or less been given over to people of Pakistani origin to talk about Pakistan from their viewpoints. As if the vast BBC Asian network was not enough.
The mass of UK ‘Infidel ‘non-Pakistani listeners (and licence-payers) are laregely excluded from this take-over. In the meantime, the majority of us are expected to accept endless Pakistanis talk about the chimera of Pakistani ‘democracy’ and the further imposition of Sharia law.
We Western infidels are opposed to the imposition of Sharia law, and oppose Islamic jihad.
Despite the BBC’s multiculturalist propaganda in this, the interests and values of Islamic Pakistanis and Western democratic poeple are utterly opposed to each other.
She recently posted a similar “product placement” article about muslims helping err, …. muslims.
It was muslims visiting other muslims in jail. There is a huge proportion of muslims in jail – something like 5 times their percentage of the general population. Of course this was someone else’s fault – there were several paragraphs copied straight from the PC handbook about poverty and unemployment and racism. Of course none of the muslims in jail had been in front of a judge or jury or actually committed any crimes of their own free will. No sir.
It’s a Christmas miracle! A environmentalist writes that people should give money to political propagandists like her rather than to feed the poor and all of the (limited) commenters agree with her!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7153676.stm
It’s truly amazing!
It’s free propaganda for rich environmental corporations like Greenpeace and its paid for by the British television viewer! What wonderful people they are!
I wonder what all the ex-BBC staff now at Al- Jazeera (and those thinking of moving there), make of this sort of propaganda with which they are complicit?:-
Al-Jazeera ran this kind of ‘Have Your Say’ recently:
“Do you support al-Qaeda’s attacks
in Algeria?”
(Response: 57.7% said ‘yes’.)
http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/features/2007/12/26/feature-01
At least the BBC would never, ever consider something like that, would it?
Typical ‘Labour party shoots messenger’ story here.
The story: ‘The Conservative Party have released figures showing that less money will be spent on the NHS in Wales than in England’
The BBC spin: “Row over Tory Welsh NHS figures ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7162032.stm
‘But the Welsh Assembly Government said it “did not recognise figures provided for NHS expenditure for Wales”.
It said the method of analysis that had been used by the Tories was always likely to produce “misleading results”.’
The BBC have done this numerous times before – they never report the Tory attack on the government, instead they twist it round, bizarrely, as a “Row over Tory Welsh NHS figures”. It’s not ‘Welsh people being short-changed’, it’s ‘Tories are nasty liars’ (says the Labour party).
There is NO other story on this on the BBC, just the bizarre reverse attack on the Conservative party.
Spot anything odd about this BBC report?:
‘God help us’ – Pakistanis react
As mourners bury former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Pakistanis across the country share their shock and grief at her assassination.
“She was a liberal force, a hope for a Pakistan overrun by militancy.”
NABEEL ARSHED, STUDENT, RAWALPINDI
“During Musharraf’s rule we had an economic boom. After last night, I believe this country is being handed over to militants. … I hate to say it, I might be condemned or killed, but we need to take extreme security measures to curb whatever the militants are doing. I had high hopes for Benazir Bhutto. It was one of her main agendas to control the militants.”
FAISAL MAMSA, PSYCHIATRIST, KARACHI.
“Our image abroad is bad, people believe our women are suppressed. But none of the men in this country were as qualified as her, she would have been a great candidate. These militants cannot bear a woman. My great fear is that they want to suppress women’s rights across Pakistan.
UZMA SHARON, TEXTILE LAB TESTER, LAHORE
So, out of five ordinary Pakistanis three describe the terrorists as militants and none – not one – uses the terms “terrorist” or “terrorism”.
I’ve never heard ordinary people term terrorists as “militants” before, not even in the Beeb’s PC-brainwashed host country. There wouldn’t be a bit of “Minitry of Truth”-style rewriting going on here, would there? Is there anyone with the time to seek out Mr. Faisal Mamsa and co. to find out what they really did say?
Unfortunately, like many of the Beeb’s perverse reports, this one carries no byline.
pounce | 28.12.07 – 1:54 am
Bryan | 28.12.07 – 8:39 am
The only people lying here are you two.
Sorry I know that history isn’t a strong point with the BBC but even they could have stated that until 1979 Saddam was the second in command and not the leader.
That’s exactly what the BBC did do.
Paragraph three of the story says:
At this time, Saddam Hussein was the de facto leader of Iraq – taking on a more prominent role than the ageing president, Gen Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr – before formally taking power in 1979.
And anticipating that there’d be a few like pounce who are a bit slow on the uptake, they reinforced the point in a picture caption.
That’s a classic case of the BBC twisting the facts to fit its agenda: “Well, OK, so Saddam wasn’t actually in charge, but he was up and coming so we’ll just make it seem like the same thing,” goes the thinking of the propagandist…
Did you actually read the story Bryan? Perhaps you skimmed too fast to notice the relevant quotation from one of the documents:
A letter to the UK government – dated 14 February 1977 – from Archie Lamb, the British ambassador in neighbouring Kuwait, notes that …it appears “that Saddam is pretty firmly in the saddle….”
And if pounce is really puzzled as to why the word ‘respectable’ was included, he need only refer to another direct quotation from one of the recently released documents:
The most likely development in Baghdad is a continuance of Baath socialist government even, I submit, without Saddam Hussein – who is in any case, I believe, one of its more respectable figures…
Then pounce asks:
So since when has 10 Cymbeline mortar-locating radar become 20 BBC?
Since the declassification of previously unreleased documents, pounce. Duh…that’s what this story is about.
…the last paragraph in that BBC smoke and mirror job paints a picture that the UK sold Rapier, The CVR(T) family and the 105 Light gun to Iraq.
No it doesn’t. What that quotation from a government document does demonstrate is that two senior ministers thought we should.
As is so often the case, the BBC’s report is perfectly accurate, but the ‘reading’ of it by pounce is dodgy.
But then he can’t tell the difference between combat support boats and Combat Support Boats.
Hi, John. Did you enjoy the Hajj?
Reith…..Please answer this one ,and no twaddle about you having to be careful because you are a bbc employee.
On bbc news24 yesterday and today,correspondents repeatedly mentioned President Bush’s ‘SO CALLED war on terror’.Whats so ‘SO CALLED’about it?
Also,to the bbc’s eternal discredit, another correspondent stated (about Bhutto’s murder),SAD TO SEE SHE IS ANOTHER CASUALTY OF THE WAR ON TERROR’.Absolutely disgusting!!
John Reith | 28.12.07 – 1:38 pm
pounce | 28.12.07 – 1:54 am
Bryan | 28.12.07 – 8:39 am
The only people lying here are you two.
Well, Reith, we may occasionally get things wrong, but lying we leave up to the BBC. The latest example of the BBC’s endless lies is in a short video clip on Gaza “militants” – the standard BBC lie, but that’s not the focus of my present observation. Here’s part of the droning BBC voice over on the clip:
Abbas and Olmert….failed to resolve a row over Israel’s plans to build new Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. The Palestinians are demanding a total freeze on settlement building but Israel refuses to stop construction within existing settlements.
Anyone interested can find that little gem by clicking on
Six killed in Gaza clashes under VIDEO AND AUDIO NEWS on this page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Note the lie Reith? I made it easy for you by putting it in bold. As for the Palestinian demand and the Israeli refusal, the two sides have long agreed on construction consistent with natural population growth within existing settlements. They also agreed on complete cessation of Kassam fire. Tricky, though, now that the terro…er, militants are in total control of Gaza.
You, and the BBC in general, really need some serious education on the facts of the Israeli-Arab conflict. You could start with the Balfour Declaration, which set aside Palestine, as it extended at the time to both sides of the Jordan river, as the Jewish National Home.
Taken from that starting point, present-day Israel is a small sliver of its intended size. You’ve scoffed at this idea before. Maybe you should do some research before you scoff again.
Bryan | 28.12.07 – 2:06 pm
Hi, John. Did you enjoy the Hajj?
Can’t honestly say I noticed it. Never struck me as likely to be a barrel of laughs anyway. I suppose the bit where they chuck stones at the Devil might have appealed when I was in short trousers but………
jeffd | 28.12.07 – 2:07 pm
Zbig argues that using the phrase War on Terror undermines America.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html
jeffd | 28.12.07 – 2:07 pm,
David Gregory is the one who tells us he has to be careful. The anonymous Reith has no such cares. This is why he feels he can be as insulting as he likes as he attempts to discredit people here by means of personal attacks, hoping thereby to discredit their observations of BBC bias.
The BBC will never accept the fact of the war on terror if it is waged by the West on the Muslim East, since the BBC’s sympathies lie with the terrorists in this instance. However, if the war on terror is within a Muslim country, the focus shifts. I recall that some time ago the BBC used the war on terror phrase without the usual scornful quotes on the subject of Indonesia’s struggle with its own Islamic terrorists and I heard a timid mention or two of the “T” word on the World Service yesterday on the murder of Benazir Bhutto – though it was quickly smothered.
The BBC is utterly without principles on this issue.
Bryan | 28.12.07 – 3:04 pm
Bryan, you really need a history lesson.
Here’s the text of the Balfour Declaration (my emphases):
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour
Now to specifics:
You could start with the Balfour Declaration, which set aside Palestine, as it extended at the time to both sides of the Jordan river
No it didn’t. The Balfour Declaration was dated 2 November 1917. At that time the territory now known as Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. Gaza was captured the following week, Jerusalem about a month later but Amman • not until the following Spring.
Note carefully the ‘in Palestine’ clause. If I promise to give you a house ‘in London’, you should not complain if I fail to give you the whole of London.
If you take a look at the Macmahon correspondence, you’ll find the British had already promised what is now Jordan to Sherif Hussein.
Oliver Kamm picks up on some poor journalism in a piece about national archive files:
“The same BBC report ventures, by the way, an ill informed and obtrusive piece of editorialising, when referring to the concerns of the Ford administration about the UK’s defence commitments:
‘Also released by the National Archives on Friday is a letter from Donald Rumsfeld – during his first spell as US defence secretary between 1975 and 1977 – to UK defence secretary Roy Mason.
In it, Mr Rumsfeld, who served in the same post under President George W Bush from 2001 to 2006, expresses his dismay at planned UK defence cuts.
Referring to Nato’s Cold War concerns about the power of the Soviet Union, Mr Rumsfeld stresses “how vital it is that all of us in the alliance avoid public actions and precedents which will create a discordance between the reality of the growing threat and any lack of resolve to meet it”.
The letter, dated 19 July 1976, adds: “Any reductions that would weaken or appear to weaken your defences would impinge adversely and directly on the collective security of every ally.”
Critics of the current government would argue that Mr Callaghan’s Labour cabinet of the time was not as easily influenced by the US as its modern-day equivalent…'”
Evidently, the journalist couldn’t be bothered to actually find a critic of the current government to argue this – or perhaps he struggled since the current government (led by Brown) has been at pains to distance itself from the US, unlike the previous government (led by Blair). Never let the facts get in the way of a strongly held opinion, though.
See the blog: http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog
and the BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/.stm
I’m not terribly good with links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/.stm
….oh and Bryan, on the settlements issue..you write:
As for the Palestinian demand and the Israeli refusal, the two sides have long agreed on construction consistent with natural population growth within existing settlements.
Here’s the text of the road map agreement. Note this bit:
GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989783.stm
The BBC, the ‘so-called’ fight against terror, and anti-Americanism
Brown to ‘step up’ terror fight
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7163327.stm
“Gordon Brown has vowed to “step up” efforts to defeat terrorism in Pakistan in the wake of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto’s assassination.”
When Bush talks about fighting terrorism (the reasonably named war on terror), he gets the ridiculous “so-called war” thrown at him from the BBC. When the great leader Brown talks about “stepping up the fight against terror”, that’s ok, no “so-called” required.
How come? Surely an impartial and consistent approach would be to preface any ‘fight against terror’ with a “so-called”?
Or is it just Americans who deserve to be killed by terrorists?
The BBC. So-called impartial broadcaster
John Reith | 28.12.07 – 3:37 pm
At that time the territory now known as Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire.
I guess you meant then known as Palestine. Under the Ottoman Empire or not, it still doesn’t diminish the area under discussion or what was envisaged under Balfour.
Yes, the Arabs came out of the demise of the Ottoman Empire with 80% of Palestine, i.e. Transjordan, which then became free of Jews. Not a bad deal for those who had backed the losing side. Many Jews had previously been driven out by Arab violence. Now they were forbidden from living in Transjordan by law.
Imagine the furious opposition that would have been raised against Israel if the newborn state had insisted on being free of Arabs.
“Politically correct ‘non jobs’ cost the Taxpayer £600 million a year”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23429751-details/Politically+correct+%27non+jobs%27+cost+the+taxpayer+%C2%A3600million+a+year/article.do
Of course, there should be a separate list giving the cost to licence-payers of politically correct ‘non jobs’ at the BBC,(most?) including the monitoring of B-BBC.
Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).
John Reith | 28.12.07 – 4:45 pm
Fair enough, but the latest building is within the boundaries of the settlements, i.e. no expansion. This was clarified a few days ago by Israel govt. spokesman, Mark Regev. What next, are the Palestinians going to insist that Mr. and Mrs. Cohen don’t add a third bedroom to their house?
Meanwhile we don’t hear much, if anything, about the Palestinians complying with their obligations under the Road Map.
Ritter | 28.12.07 – 4:54 pm | #
As far as I’m aware the UK has distanced itself from the use of the phrase the “war on terror”, beginning with a speech made by Hilary Benn in april. I’m not so sure that the Bush administration has followed suit.
This is most obviously demonstrated by the fact that nowhere in that article does it mention a “war on terror” or any other campaign that could have “so-called” put in front. Has Brown used it anywhere recently?
I am reminded of Hugh Fitzgerald’s piece on ‘Palestine’, and the BBC’s role in all that:-
…”but the word ‘Palestinians’ and the invention of the ‘Palestinian people’ was a deliberate construct…”
“The most important thing was to redefine the conflict. No longer all those Arabs against a tiny Jewish state. No. Now, by an act of optical illusion, the tiny Jewish state would be transformed into a vast empire, this Greater Israel (why, the same BBC newscasters who routinely refer to Lebanon as that ‘tiny country’ and to Jordan as that ‘tiny country’ – I hear it all the time -for some reason never use that epithet with Israel. Never. Not once )…”
‘Moral Neutrality’ (by Hugh Fitzgerald)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/11552
Ben:
Ritter | 28.12.07 – 4:54 pm | #
As far as I’m aware the UK has distanced itself from the use of the phrase the “war on terror”, beginning with a speech made by Hilary Benn in april. I’m not so sure that the Bush administration has followed suit.
This is most obviously demonstrated by the fact that nowhere in that article does it mention a “war on terror” or any other campaign that could have “so-called” put in front. Has Brown used it anywhere recently?
Ben | 28.12.07 – 5:30 pm | #
——————————————————————————–
Ben, some politicians can ‘distance themselves’ from the phrase ‘war on terror’ if they like. Some do, some don’t. That’s politics. As far as I am aware, Hilary Benn doesn’t yet have the power to mandate semantics to the BBC, which according to it’s charter, is required to be impartial.
Why do the BBC take a line by prefacing only the phrase ‘war on terror’ with the words ‘so-called’?.
Why is a ‘war on terror’ ‘so-called’?. If Bush says it, just quote him. If Brown doesn’t, the BBC won’t have to (quote him).
I don’t understand the logic of the application of the words ‘so-called’ (if there is any).
Can you enlighten me?
Brzezinski in his WaPo article uses the BBC “Power of Nightmares” argument against the so called WoT
Constant reference to a “war on terror” did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear.
I do not see the people of the West altering their lifestyle or habits (other than at airports) or exhibiting signs of fear.
Rather than being fearful, I think we are angry, especially in respect of the enemy within.
Mr Reith once again you befuddle the debate by using that well worn tactic of yours of scorning and deriding your target in which to receive a heated response so as to:
A) Start off a slagging match
B) Divert attention away from the topic at hand
C) Fill the board up with SPAM so as to diffuse the impact of this board.
D)
Now returning to the subject at hand. The BBC headlines promote this image that the UK armed Saddam. Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq from 1979-2003
Before that he was Vice-president. From 1968-1979. Now tell me why the BBC has to say he was the De-facto leader, when he only took power in July 1979. Why didn’t he take power in-between the years 68-79? Why did he wait 11 years? The guy was a megalomaniac he wouldn’t play second fiddle to anyone. So why wait 11 years?
Anyway lets move onto the meat of that BBC article. ‘UK arms sales to ‘respectable’ Iraq’ Now if you wish to play the semantic game with me, be prepared for me to do like wise. Using whatever information you have at hand highlight any weapon sold by the British government to Iraq from 1970- 2003.
A radar system isn’t a weapon. It can guide weapons onto a target. But it isn’t a weapon. Neither is a ARV, or for that matter is a CSB. Discounting my KF shirt example none of the stuff the UK sold the Iraqi actually kills people so therefore cannot be classed as weapons.
Lastly As much as you cried foul play over what I wrote, could you be so kind as to explain just why the BBC included this last paragraph in that so called enlightening post of theirs.
“It adds: “In light of the above considerations, it is recommended that we should¿ tell the Iraqis that we would be prepared to supply the optical version of Rapier [surface-to-air missile], the Scorpion family of armoured vehicles and the 105mm Light Gun.” Pray tell Mr Reith which of those actual weapon systems the Uk sold to Iraq. Because I get the impression from the inclusion of that snippet in the BBC report that the Uk did. When I know for a fact they didn’t. Strange how you kept away from that little snippet when I exposed it for the sham it is but instead tried to use your so-called superior degree in which to play Allah and look down at us so-called plebs.
Please feel free to respond.
The BBC, exposing government secrets and half a story.
The BBC gives you this;
UK arms sales to ‘respectable’ Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7156645.stm
but keeps mum on this;
How Benn encouraged sale of nuclear reactors to the Middle East
Tony Benn, secretary of state for energy, encouraged Britain’s nuclear industry to export reactors to Middle Eastern countries.In a letter to the prime minister in early 1977 he explained: “Both Kuwait and Iran have expressed definite interest in buying from the UK and [I] have encouraged NPC (the Nuclear Power Company) to compete.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/0,,2232765,00.html
But then the BBC can’t have anybody giving Tony (I ruined British industry) Benn getting a bad name can we. Lets invent a story and call it we armed Saddam in which to take the heat of spoilt little richboy.
The BBC, exposing government secrets and half a story.
John Reith | 28.12.07 – 3:37 pm |
“….The Balfour Declaration was dated 2 November 1917. At that time the territory now known as Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. Gaza was captured the following week, Jerusalem about a month later but Amman • not until the following Spring.
Note carefully the ‘in Palestine’ clause. If I promise to give you a house ‘in London’, you should not complain if I fail to give you the whole of London.
If you take a look at the Macmahon correspondence, you’ll find the British had already promised what is now Jordan to Sherif Hussein.”
It’s all very easy to do names and dates, and get basic chronology when you do GCSE-level history. But when you get to A-levels, you have to understand the big picture, and truly see what the names and dates represent in the larger context. I think you’ve missed that here.
Yes, Balfour wrote his letter even before the British had control of the area in question. It’s easy to take his words at face value, out of context. However, Balfour was well acquainted with the Zionist ideals, which included the creation of a Jewish state encompassing roughly the area of Biblical Israel (not counting Jerusalem, though, as it everyone knew that was far too problematic).
Now to put this in its proper context. Balfour could very easily write with this in mind before the British had even gotten through Gaza because the whole thing had been worked out a year earlier. Balfour knew perfectly well what he meant by “in Palestine”.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 was worked out with the French and Russians to divvy up the whole region after the eventual expected defeat of the Ottomans. If you look at the map on the linked page, you’ll see something which tells you mostly stuff you already know about who was supposed to end up controlling which area. However, there is a separate purple area, the “Allied Condominium”, which is the relevant bit. The British pretty much knew that they’d have to cede a chunk of the B Zone to Sherif Hussein. You knew they gave that to him, but it was considered a given years before it happened.
Of course, Lloyd George had Zionist sympathies, having worked with and on behalf of Zionists prior to his rise to power. He would also have contemplated a Jewish state with similar boundaries. At first, everyone except the Zionists were thinking more along the lines of that purple zone being a sort of protectorate for all Jews under the aegis of the Allied Powers. Lord Rothschild was complaining about this as early as May of 1917.
The basic boundaries of what the British and everyone else expected to be the Jewish state are laid out in a statement to the Cabinet by the always interesting Lord Curzon, in September 1917. Curzon was not a Zionist, and was critical of what he saw as chaos caused by the Balfour Declaration. Curzon was not anti-Jew or anything, but he did have serious – and understandable – reservations about the whole concept of a Jewish state in Palestine.
The whole statement can be found here:
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/l-george.html
(Sorry, but you’ll have to scroll a little way down the page, as it’s all text and nothing to anchor a link. Just scroll past the first chunk with bold text, and you’ll see “THE FUTURE OF PALESTINE”.)
Curzon’s memorandum is very insightful, even prescient. He didn’t think this stuff up out of thin air, or in a vacuum. He was concerned about exactly the point of contention between you and Bryan:
“But let us assume that in speaking of Palestine in the present context we mean the old Scriptural Palestine, extending from Dan to Beersheba, i.e., Irom Banias to Bir Saba. This is a country of less than 10,000 square miles, including 4,000 to the east of the Jordan, i.e., it is a country which, excluding desert lands, is not much bigger than Wales.”
At the time, everyone was thinking that Sherif Hussein’s faction would get land starting at the Jordan River. So, even though Balfour did not specifically say that, this is the context in which he was speaking. He meant that purple zone. When Curzon speaks of the “Scriptual Palestine”, he meant the territories of the ancient Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. I’m sure you are aware of those boundaries.
When Balfour said “in Palestine”, he didn’t mean anything less than something more like what ended up as the 1948 boundaries. Everybody expected at the time that the Arab land would begin at the Jordan River.