Conveying and endlessly repeating the idea that “the west” is failing in Iraq and Afghanistan is central to the anti-war dhimmi leftwing narrative put forward by the BBC. Perhaps this might explain why the BBC leads with the heading “West warned over Afgan failure” before revealing in the very next second sentence that “the west” is in fact not failing! This story revolves around the reluctance of most NATO members to send troops to the southern part of Afghanistan, where the majority of the fighting takes place. The US, the UK and Canada are doing the heavy-lifting here and the likes of the Germans and the French wish to keep their soldiers well out of harms way, thus invalidating the very effectiveness of NATO. The BBC has been enthusiastic in running a series of stories demonstrating that the Taliban are confident, that the winning of the war is questionable and that everything but a military solution must be considered. This all helps shape the general mood of the population, turning it against the idea that the UK is right to be helping lead the fight to the Taliban and assorted Jihadi in this region. In this way it undermines the role of our soldiers out there whilst buoying up the enemy.
WHAT FAILURE?
Bookmark the permalink.
i saw a bbc news report a week or two ago.
the cameraman was with a group of taliban showing how they move freely in the mountains, gaining confidence etc etc ad nauseum. the film clearly show them training and was quite upbeat about their successes.
just how upbeat does the bbc have to be before the fall foul of the terrorism act?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006
attendance at a training camp for terrorism carries a prison sentence.
there is no defence
extract –
“3) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section—
(a) whether the person concerned receives the instruction or training himself; and
(b) whether the instruction or training is provided for purposes connected with one or more particular acts of terrorism or Convention offences, acts of terrorism or Convention offences of a particular description or acts of terrorism or Convention offences generally.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;”
how can al beeb film the taliban training in afganistan and not be caught by this law ?
Because the BBC does not see the Taliban as “terrorists” unlike the British army which it hates and enjoys seeing the bodies of dead soldiers lined up.
Smug BBC wankers.
Maybe it is simply that someone at the BBC has worked out that less taxes spent fighting an illegal war = more money for the BBC?
Any sign of those WMD yet? Seems like we’ve given up looking for them, in order to concentrate on the oil fields instead.
Please read
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JB09Df01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA30Ak01.html
and then tell me you think we will win.
I don’t watch the news too much, so I haven’t really heard anything about any illegal wars. But, I am aware of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which, of course are perfectly legal according to the United Nations (as if their opinion mattered, what with them being a massive, bloated, useles bureaucracy…like the BBC) and the countries instigating them, but I must say I am concerned with all of the pictures we see of soldiers carrying jerrycans of stolen oil out of the ME which they’ve syphoned out of the ground with party straws. And the invisible, massless, insubstantial oil pipelines that snake out of the ME are cause for concern too.
With all of this oil that we’re stealing, it’s no wonder that the price of oil is so low, energy is so abundant and the economy doing so well.
Martin:
Because the BBC does not see the Taliban as “terrorists” unlike the British army which it hates and enjoys seeing the bodies of dead soldiers lined up.
Smug BBC wankers.
Martin | 07.02.08 – 8:59 pm | #
watch this – if you dare to have your opinions challenged…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7071859.stm
Sarah-Jane: linking to a web page where our BBC reporter recounts how friendly fire from a moronic Apache pilot kills six Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers when he’s meant to be targeting the Taleban, is not the best defence I’ve seen to charges that the BBC is biased against the UK and its allies.
A few key passages to give a flavour:
“The Apache was making me more nervous than the Taleban”
“…the ANA had been attacking the hedgerow. They were angrily gesticulating towards the compound and getting up and walking towards us.
‘They’ve killed six of ours, not Taleban. We’re going back.'”
“…crouching up against the wall were an old man and six kids. The kids were crying and were more terrified than I have ever seen any child look.
They didn’t get any reassurance from the ANA soldiers, who helped themselves to the family’s grapes and started smoking spliffs.”
“I still don’t understand how, but the only casualties the British suffered were due to heat exhaustion.”
“The following morning, the interpreter heard the Taleban talking on their radios. They had retaken all the compounds that had been fought for.”
I haven’t been able to watch it, but it doesn’t sound particularly jingoistic.
Hugh – the text on the web-page does not do the film justice, if you haven’t watched it, don’t dismiss it.
If you cannot be arsed to watch it, then you are only selecting those bits of BBC output to support your argument…
I didn’t select it; you did when you linked to it.
Whatever the merits of the programme (or otherwise) this is what the BBC is currently choosing to highlight. Since this piece would seem to confirm the criticisms made of the BBC, and since you are saying this extract should be ignored, who exactly is selecting those bits of BBC output to support their argument?
Because the West was warned not to ‘fail’ in Afghanistan and headlines have to be short? Have you at any point considered that possibility?
After all, “West warned over Afghanistan” sounds a lot like “West given ’til the count of three to get out or else” and “West told to win in Afghanistan” sounds like they were deliberately losing on purpose, which is exactly what Karl Marx (aka Al-Beeb) wants.
Hugh – It is a flagship current affairs programme – do you think it is higher in the league of importance than a bit of text on the website? No you don’t, so either watch it, or don’t, in which case keep those blinkers on.
I knew I should have used the youtube link!
One for the BBC’s front-line reporters in Afghanistan:-
“Spy planes take on Talibrum”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article786803.ece