Is the BBC’s militant. Thanks to Mr Free Market for the graphic.
One Man’s Terrorist …
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- JohnC Dec 19, 05:51
Midweek 18th December 2024
Syria not a threat to world, rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa tells BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c05p9g2nqmeo Jesus H Christ, this is another absolutely… - atlas_shrugged Dec 19, 05:18
Midweek 18th December 2024
So they found him a razor to chop his beard off then. - Zephir Dec 19, 03:04
Midweek 18th December 2024
The liars caught out over and over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZX3XFzmTww - BRISSLES Dec 19, 00:58
Midweek 18th December 2024
Perhaps they’re looking to give Chopper (Ive done this, Ive done that ..) Hopeless his own show – he infiltrates… - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:25
Midweek 18th December 2024
GBnews new lineup statement doesn’t mention Dolan https://www.gbnews.com/shows/gb-news-makes-2025-programming-announcement - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:24
Midweek 18th December 2024
Foreign funded Client Earth have been using lawfare trickery to usurp democracy on UK enviro policy, for years They are… - wwfc Dec 18, 23:08
Midweek 18th December 2024
I wonder why this is happening more and more now let me think !! His 61-year-old father collapsed and died… - wwfc Dec 18, 22:50
Midweek 18th December 2024
Well looks like this site will not be around much longer happy heart attack and you paid for it yourself… - atlas_shrugged Dec 18, 22:39
Midweek 18th December 2024
A Turkish crime boss said to be one of Britain’s biggest drug dealers has won his human rights battle against… - Fedup2 Dec 18, 22:20
Midweek 18th December 2024
Me . Every year – I used to get flu and it took me out for 2 or 3 weeks…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
I couldn’t agree with this picture.
As I’ve posted elsewhere. If I think y is a terrorist, but x doesn’t think y is a terroist, the BBC by its charter has a duty to either present both my and X’s opinions on Y, or ignore both us (and presumably the story) – all in the name of balance and neutrality. By ignoring my opinion and only promiting X’s opinion, the BBC is no longer being neutral or non-biased, but is advocating X’s opinion – which is BIASED. Based on recent experience, the BBC is charged with institutional BIAS, and it is a charge which based on logic, can only be found to be guilty.
No defence based on ‘social cohesion’ basis should be put forward, because in my opinion, the continuation of the BBC to put its head in the sand in support of the gross inadequacy and abuses of the British multi-culturism society by certain societies will only result in civil war in the United Kingdoom one day. Maybe not in my lifetime, but my Grandchildren may well be fighting for the values which were fought for and won by brave men and women in this great country over the last 2000 years. Such a rich history and values were brilliantly outlined by Winston Churchill in his “History of the English Speaking People” (over 4 volumes) and should be read and digested by every Dhimmi emplyed at the BBC. The society that the history of Great Britain created is FAR superior to anything outlined in the Koran or it’s unchanging laws and values accepted as God’s final word and teaching by Muslims. The BBC should be proud of the British heritage, from the Romans, to the Vikings, and the Christian influence. We should be proud of the British achievements, scientific, and political over the last 2000 years. We led the world in ALL fields for a number of centuries. We seeded the United States, potentially the greatest country the world ever known, and certainly has even known. All countries today learn from our science and philosphy, from Africa, to India and China. We have SO much to be proud of. Yet none of this would be known by the average reader of the BBC. Hence my gross hatred of the BBC. And hence my mission in life to destroy the BBC. One day Parliament will VOTE for the death of the licence fee, and the death of the BBC as we know it, and the liberal/socialistic dimesion which works within the BBC. I campaign for it. And one day the BBC will be no more, unless its leaders of today wake up.
Bugger, blatent typo in the first sentence of my above comment. I meant I couldn’t agree more with the picture.
Sorry to say this again. But it has to be said
Have any of you people ever considered that the BBC is deliberately winding you people up?
You claim that the BBC is causing racism. But you seem to be incapable of even thinking that this is being done deliberately.
In order to spread alarm confusion division racism and all the other bad things YOU yourselves keep saying it is doing.
When will you lot start to understand the establishment of this country is pulling your plonker.
This is why they monitor this site. Because they do not bother to monitor virtually any others. Guido’s for example.
They do it to see if this winding up is working.
All most of you lot do, is confirm to the BBC that they are doing a perfectly great job.
I ask again
If the BBC is not part of the BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT then what the fuck is it part of?
The MUSLIM one????????????
And you lot think I am the crazy person.
i truly believe that if one brave soul were to refuse to pay the licence fee and then go to court with the plethora of bbc-employee quotes and other evidence – nay, proof – of constant, consistent and one sided bbc bias to justify his non-payment, the bbc would either be forced to go to court and try to fight, exposing for all in a very high-profile manner all its real (not “real”) biases, or decline to fight with all that that would entail.
any takers?
(let’s assume i’m not volunteering because i’m one of those non-britsh non-licence-fee paying world citizens whose opinion of the bbc, when positive, allows the bbc to brag of being respected world-wide, but whose opinion, when non-flattering, can be dismissed precisely because i’m non-licence-fee paying)
Yes, I think you are missing something.
A licence fee manifesto plunked down in front of a magistrate would disappear without trace, absorbed into the belly of the beast, with oily BBC silks acting as laxatives. (Have you met any magistrates recently? — not the brightest bulbs in the box, nor would you want one to watch your back.)
Your country’s facing a pervasive systemic failure of government. The BBC is one of the main reasons. Comfortable middle-class solutions — letter writing and harrumphing in front of a bewildered magistrate — haven’t worked and won’t work.
It has been said before.
My problem is not just the BBC’s refusal to use the word terrorist when that is the clearest and best word in a particular situation. Nor is it just their weaseling around when the word is unavoidable. Israel which saw him (Yasser Arafat) as a terrorist, implying that no one other than Israel, including the BBC, saw him that way.
The thing that really gets my goat is when they use a direct quote from an official who would have used the word terrorist and the BBC uses the word militant. The cartoon is spot on! :+:
‘Militant’ is strong language from the BBC. They call members of Hamas and Hizbollah ‘activists’. You know, ‘activists’, those enthusiastic young people who work for political parties, stuff envelopes and generally do the tedious admin work at elections. The BBC uses the same term to describe people who strap eplosives to themselves, walk into a restaurant filled with women and children, and detonate themselves.
That’s the BBC.
amimissingsomething | 18.02.08 – 4:18 am |
I recieved a red letter from TV licencing this week threatening to take legal action if we don’t pay up.
This is due to an oversight on our part rather than than a deliberate decision.
To be honest, I don’t really see myself in a Wolfie Smith ‘smash the system’ type role.
I think Mrs Rockall will have paid it by now, but if they end up taking me to court can you send me a list to read out? 🙂
Since they are so timid about calling terror terror, perhaps the BBC should come up with a brand new word. I suggest militrist.
Definition:
A terrorist disguised as a militant by the BBC and other dhimmi propagandists.
Rockall – you could always try not paying it….
Right let me clarify this –
1. I do not pay my TV licence – I have several TVs – I DO NOT have a working TV ariel or any TV receiving set top boxes – in short I do not watch TV. I watch legally purchased pre-recorded DVDs and I watch items (from legal sources – eg BBC iPlayer on the internet – which even the BBC say DOES NOT require a TVL). My understanding of the law plain and simple is that it is an offence to use TV receiving equipment to receive LIVE TV broadcasts. I have receieved many threatening letters from TVL and I ignore them all. If they want to come round they will be refused entry. If they threaten me with obtaining a warrant I wish them luck when they present their reasonable suspicions of my law breaking to a magistrate. Most people who do get “caught” by TV licensing are people who have a TV on in plain sight of the TVL representative when they visit or people who ADMIT to watching TV without inviting the representative to prove it. Considering that most of these visits are very intimidatory in nature people are often frightened and incriminate themselve needlessly OR invite the fuckers in to have a good nose around (usually to switch on a TV set to obtain a live picture and PROVE your guilt).
2. If you do watch TV then of course you should obey the law of the land and I AM NOT SUGGESTING YOU DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT… BUT hypothetically – just supposing someone LIKE you in your exact situation was to choose not to pay then they could very likely get away with it. Remember not to have a TV visible from doorways or windows and refuse entry to anybody from TVL (and rememeber that TV detector vans ARE A MYTH – and if they do exist there are only one or two of them to prove the concept exists – they don’t patrol the streets). I don’t know if any have been used to prove a case but I suspect the number of successful cases brought with TV detector van evidence is somewhere between diddly and squat. (Does anybody know different?).
So if you genuinely don’t watch broadcast TV like me then don’t fucking well pay the bastards. If you do then pay up of course and COMPLY WITH THE LAW… but I hope you find my observations of how the law is an ass and how someone could hypothentically not pay interesting.
The BBC its anti-Semitic stance and half a story.
The BBC continues down the path of promoting the agenda of those who have no problem killing in the name of Allah and demonising the victims of said ‘Millitants’.
Today the BBC airs a story about how those money grabbing Jews have hatched a plan in which to steal all the bases on the Monopoly game .
“The manufacturers of Monopoly (which, they claim, is the best-selling board game in the world) are holding an online poll to decide which cities should be in their forthcoming “World Edition” of the game. As of 18 February, “Jerusalem, Israel” was fifth on the leader board, sandwiched between “Riga, Latvia” and “Paris, France”. This is no accident. The campaign group One Jerusalem is determinedly encouraging people to make Jerusalem number one, by the time voting closes at the end of the month.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7250326.stm
No accident, wow and I suppose its no accident that Istanbul, Montreal, Cape Town and Riga are all in front of Jerusalem. But hang on there are very few Jews in Riga.. What with Nazis era, the Stalin era and the exodus to Israel in the 1990s I wonder how the people of Riga are above Jerusalem in the pecking order on that list.
But it gets better the BBC then runs an article on how the brave Hezbollah freedom fighters are going to stamp Israel into the ground.
Iran guards predict Israel demise
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7250894.stm
Yup strange how little Kosovo (A muslim country) is afforded pop star status by the BBC and the country that lost them as evil (Serbia) Yet Israel which wears the same shoes of Kosovo is always deemed the baddy what is strange is the fact that the people who are fighting for the right of Kosovo to exist are deemed as heroic and yet the Jews of Israel are not. Double standards yet again from the BBC.
The BBC its anti-Semitic stance and half a story.
I like the cartoon. Millie Tant!
Meanwhile the c.o.g. goes into full propaganda mode, as befits the role
of chief obama groupie (though relying on others’ work to prop him up!): http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/
You may be surprised, as I was, to read that there are only two major British newspapers. I thought the BBC is supposed to inform, not misinform.
These BBC/MSM euphemisms have now become tired and threadbare and are due for a makeover.
My own personal favourites are ‘wanker’ and ‘nutter’ – e.g. (based on real BBC snippets – re-worded of course)
“News – Middle East – Egypt arrests ‘wankers’ from Gaza
The arrests came as Egyptian government officials held talks with the Palestinian ‘wanker’ group, Hamas, on how to re-establish border controls.
1 Feb 2008”
“Programmes – Newsnight Home – Hezbollah’s camera-shy ‘nutters’
No filming Hezbollah had delivered an edict: no filming of their ‘nutters’. We continued south to Bint Jbail, scene of a bitter battle, and there found 14 Hezbollah ‘nutters’ being buried.
24 Aug 2006”
Feel free to come up with your own alternatives.
————————————
By the way – ‘militant’ makes me think of this –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Millie.jpg
and ‘fighter’ of this –
http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/images/F22.jpg
(yee ha, go get em boys).
Simon | 18.02.08 – 2:00 pm |
Yes, thanks, very interesting..
pounce:
Iran guards predict Israel demise
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…ast/ 7250894.stm
………………
“…accused of involvement in a string of militant attacks since the 1980s.”
I don’t think they actally mean militant attacks, ie fighting attacks or aggressive attacks, but attacks by terrorists or attacks by militants.
militant
: adjective
1 : engaged in warfare or combat: fighting
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative
synonyms see aggressive
pounce | 18.02.08 – 2:36 pm |
Good spot, pounce. The BBC clearly stated their position with this one, didn’t they? Not only is the bottom half of the article dedicated to a story about how racist Jews are in Jerusalem, but did you notice the photo of Jerusalem they show?
Good old BBC. The “Jerusalem from the air” is a classic shot. Half the picture is taken up by the Dome of the Rock. A perfect riposte to the nasty notion of a united Jerusalem.
It’s rather disgusting for the BBC to give the two-fingered salute to the Jews of the world like this. Whenever I see postcards of this famous view, I am reminded that Judaism is the only world religion that is not in control of its holiest site. Not only that, but should a Jew wish to go into the actual grounds of the most sacred site in his religion, he must not show his traditional religious garments.
The adherents of no other religion in the world are humiliated in this way. Yet the BBC – ignorant of this I have no doubt – thoughtlessly chose a photo that directly contradicts the concept behind the subject of the article.
I’m guessing that someone has already spotted this?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203019394805&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
“In an uncommon act of journalistic contrition, the BBC has apologized for equating former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri and Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh as “great national leaders.” The BBC took the unusual step after Don Mell, The Associated Press’s former photographer in Beirut, lambasted the parallel, drawn by BBC correspondent Humphrey Hawkesley in a BBC World report last Thursday, as “an outrage” and “beyond belief.” “
Sarah:
I’m guessing that someone has already spotted this?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Sat…icle% 2FShowFull
“In an uncommon act of journalistic contrition, the BBC has apologized for equating former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri and Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh as “great national leaders.”
……
Yes: deegee.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
General BBC-related comment thread:
Thanks Lance.
Good grief the BBC apologize?!
That they possess even one iota of humility means there is hope yet…
They only apologised after being torn off a strip by a journalist who actually knew what he was talking about.
The BBC, faster than a speeding bullet and the news.
After 8 days (and nights) the BBC finally reports on its website about the riots that have gripped the nation.
Danish arrests after youth riots
More than 20 people have been arrested in Denmark following eight consecutive nights of youth rioting and vandalism across the country, police say. They are suspected of setting fire to buildings, schools, cars and rubbish bins in Copenhagen and other cities. Police say the unrest, which started on 10 February, appears to be subsiding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7251178.stm
For those of you who don’t know. (Pointing the finger at the clones here) Denmark is a small country in Northern Europe.It is also a part of Scandinavia, which has played a large part in the development of the Modern mobile phone. My point.The BBC can bring you breaking news within minutes whenever the Taliban strike in darkest Afghanistan, the same applies to Iraq or Gaza. Not only that but they can even tell just who died. (courtesy of a phone call from the guilty party) I mean Hezbollah terrorist ‘Mughniyeh’ nobody knew what he looked like the BBC posted this about him;
“The FBI’s picture of him on its most wanted list was 20 years out of date, and he is believed to have undergone plastic surgery to dramatically alter his appearance since then.
Yet where the FBI fails the BBC has a recent photo of him (how?) on its obituary to him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7242383.stm
Talk about sleeping with the enemy.
So on that note how come the BBC can bring you news from all the corners of the earth when it concerns radical Islam faster than a speeding bullet. Yet news from across the North Sea takes 8 days?
The BBC, faster than a speeding bullet and the news.
…. or maybe the riots only became newsworthy BECAUSE they went on for eight days?
The BBC and how to rewrite a terrorist as a victim
The ringleader of a plot in which to terrorise the few Muslims serving in the British armed forces is given the makeover treatment by Al beeb and rewritten as some sort of victim.
The jihadi and the beheading plot
Five men have been convicted for being part of an alleged terrorist cell in Birmingham. The group’s leader has been jailed for life. Alleged BBC, the group were found guilty, there is even a transcript of this idiot speaking about how they would cut off a mans head on the BBC website, he is guilty nothing alleged about it)
In any other business, Parviz Khan would have been known as the fixer – the guy to go to when you needed something done.
But in reality he was the frustrated jihadi who got tired of being told to know his place.( Since when has frustration been an excuse to commit murder BBC?)
Khan did not raise money for guns. Over two years he and three of his co-accused bought cheap electronic goods and other kit that could be used for a military purpose, say police. (Wow a man willing to cut off a mans head didn’t raise money for guns but was willing to wire over ÂŁ19000 to Pakistan in which to buy equipment in which to wage war.)
“But he had a sick mother to look after. (Poor man having a sick mother to look after, didn’t stop her going to Pakistan on holidays. Not bad for somebody living off benefits. Why do I think of Norman Bates?)
Yet again the BBC excuses the ugly behaviour of a terrorist in which plug the line that maybe just maybe this Terrorist could be fighting a worthy cause.
The BBC and how to rewrite a terrorist as a victim
The BBC and how to rewrite a terrorist as a victim
The ringleader of a plot in which to terrorise the few Muslims serving in the British armed forces is given the makeover treatment by Al beeb and rewritten as some sort of victim.
The jihadi and the beheading plot
Five men have been convicted for being part of an alleged terrorist cell in Birmingham. The group’s leader has been jailed for life. Alleged BBC, the group were found guilty, there is even a transcript of this idiot speaking about how they would cut off a mans head on the BBC website, he is guilty nothing alleged about it)
In any other business, Parviz Khan would have been known as the fixer – the guy to go to when you needed something done.
But in reality he was the frustrated jihadi who got tired of being told to know his place.( Since when has frustration been an excuse to commit murder BBC?)
Khan did not raise money for guns. Over two years he and three of his co-accused bought cheap electronic goods and other kit that could be used for a military purpose, say police. (Wow a man willing to cut off a mans head didn’t raise money for guns but was willing to wire over ÂŁ19000 to Pakistan in which to buy equipment in which to wage war.)
“But he had a sick mother to look after. (Poor man having a sick mother to look after, didn’t stop her going to Pakistan on holidays. Not bad for somebody living off benefits. Why do I think of Norman Bates?)
Yet again the BBC excuses the ugly behaviour of a terrorist in which plug the line that maybe just maybe this Terrorist could be fighting a worthy cause.
The BBC and how to rewrite a terrorist as a victim
Good post pounce. I can’t get the words out. This BBC report has really made me angry.
“But in reality he was the frustrated jihadi who got tired of being told to know his place.”
Eh? awwww duddums, poor frustrated terrorist. Did the nasty police arrest you and lock you up?
The BBC are scum.
and the link:
The jihadi and the beheading plot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7241778.stm
That they possess even one iota of humility means there is hope yet…
Dogpatch | 18.02.08 – 5:00 pm
My original query remains unanswered. Where did the BBC publish the apology?
If a tree falls in the forest, …?
You know the rest
Great graphic!!
Off topic: does anyone know how long do they take on the BBC website to review and finally post one’s comment???
What would be the caption for this photo on BBC:
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//080217/481/ttw10102171348/
“Militants waving flowers”, perhaps?
The BBC and how its rewrites rioting Muslims in Denmark as victims.
Danish Muslims despair at portrayal
In the wake of the reprinting in Denmark of one of the 12 cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad, BBC religious affairs correspondent Francis Harrison finds the country’s Muslim community dismayed but determined.
“We will keep on working for integration, to build bridges. If you don’t know who is Muhammad I am telling you please read about Muhammad,” said the imam. He was leading prayers in a small overcrowded building in Copenhagen used as a mosque – with the faithful forced to pray outdoors in the courtyard on plastic mats in the icy wind. Danish Muslims have bought land for a purpose-built modern mosque, but they say their application somehow always gets stuck in the planning stage. It is one more grievance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7251378.stm
So the BBC has Fatima Harrison of Iran fame do a write up on the appalling conditions that Muslims have to endure in Denmark. I did like the part about people having to pray outside as the Danes won’t let them build a mosque in Copenhagen
Well a quick internet search on the Danish Muslim site tells me there is purpose built mosque why they even publish details on their site on how to get there.
http://www.islam.dk/content.asp?art_id=28
So what mosque is Fatima talking about, Could it be the grand mosque that the Danish authority approved in 1992.
So why isn’t it built yet. Here is something the BBC doesn’t wish to share with the plebs;
“The Islamic Cultural Center and a coalition of Muslim embassies submitted the first proposal for the mosque in 1992. A majority of the City Council gave the groups permission to construct a mosque, despite significant local opposition on Amager.
However, the construction never began and the proposal was eventually abandoned due to internal disagreements. The Islamic Cultural Center and the Muslim embassies stopped renting the land and the debate died.”
Click to access Goldberg__Krasner,_2001.pdf
So it is actually internal politics within Danish Muslims rather than Danish procrastination which is holding up this mosque. Yet that isn’t the image the BBC presents.
“Denmark has about 250,000 Muslims – from Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey, Iraq and many other countries. It is a small figure, but Muslims make up 5% of the population.” Well according to the Danish version of the MCB they say 3% and 160,000 but hey it’s only the BBC inflating figures yet again.
I do like this subtle threat the BBC allows Feisal to make to his fellow non Islamic country men.
“The Danish press should have learned from their previous mistakes”
Now imagine if a Jew had made the very same remark about the BBC, why they would have the Old bill knocking on that mans door demanding justice.
In a nutshell the BBC does an passive makeover for the Danish Muslims. Lets be serious while they allow Every Mohammed and his dog to bitch about the Danes the BBC leaves out just why the Muslims feel angry about the country that gave them sanctuary.
Lets see;
In 2001 the most liberal government in Europe for over 70 years was replaced by most conservative government Demark has ever seen, since then they have;
They have limited immigration
They have banned forced marriages
They have cut back on benefits. (But that applies to everybody) This came about it was revealed that the Islamic population of Denmark (3%) consumed 40% of Denmark’s welfare budget.
Now the person behind the vast majority of all the above is immigration minister ‘Rikke Hvilshoj’ (well she said in 2007 she was leaving) and in 2005 after a muslim got shot a certain iman Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family, stating that the family’s thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4074044.stm
In light of the above I wonder if the Fatimia Harrison would like to amend her closing statement on her article;
“So far Muslims in Denmark have been talking about discrimination and the need for more respect. But the more they feel nobody is listening to their anger the more susceptible they will be to the message of radical political Islam.”
The BBC and how its rewrites rioting Muslims in Denmark as victims.
“The Danish press should have learned from their previous mistakes”
I think I remember that the Danish President gave support to the Danish press’ right for freedom of speech. What makes the BBC think they have a right to say what the Danish press should have done. Was the BBC elected by the Danish as the knights of conscience??? or by the British???
Maybe the BBC ought to stick to their jobs, in case they forgot, it is reporting.
Pounce – you are my hero.
The BBC, reporting from the Caucasus’s and half a story.
Anybody read the article from the BBC about the stalemate between Armenian and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Conflict overshadows Armenia polls
The frozen Azeri-Armenian conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh is one of the most fiercely debated issues in the campaign for Tuesday’s presidential election in Armenia, the BBC’s Matthew Collin reports from Yerevan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7250235.stm
So hands up if after reading the above you know what the fighting was all about.? Instead of telling it how it is, the BBC confuses the reader into how they think it should be. Armenia bad, Azerbaijan victim.
So here is what the BBC isn’t telling you. The dispute is about religion Armenia is Christian , Azerbaijan is Muslim and the disputed area (Nagorno-Karabakh) well that is a Christian enclave in a Muslim land. After the demise of the USSR the Christians in NG wanted to be part of a Christian country and not a Muslim one. Hence the reason little Armenia kicked the much larger Azerbaijan into touch. They had the support of the locals.
Which in light of how Ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo have now ceded from Serbia you’d think the BBC would explain to the great unwashed just why there is a problem in Caucasus’s. But apparently the BBCs mission statement of only painting Muslims as victim’s stops it from reporting the truth. Which may explain why that map they use only imparts half the story;
http://www.economist.com/images/20071201/CEU993.gif
The BBC, reporting from the Caucasus’s and half a story.
They say a picture tells a thousand words. (in my case f-ing ugly)
So ref my last here is a JPG which explains the situation in the Caucasus;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Caucasus-ethnic_en.svg
Shame the BBC couldn’t do the same.
Anon: Re your photo caption. The tossers at the BBC would probably claim it is a BNP rally.
Ritter:
Good post pounce…link:
…And the bugging evidence in the trial revealed him to be someone the police say was a paranoid fanatic, capable of indoctrinating his own small children to hate…
…….
So, was it revealed by the bugging evidence or not?; or was it something the police say?
Lance wrote;
“Good post pounce…link:”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7241778.stm
and the transcript;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7242891.stm
Sorry..
Another hopelessly depressing thread.
Sorry but when I see people posting up here about how one day there will be a civil war (but not in our lifetime – god no, let’s hope someone else has to do it), another poster telling us about how he forgot to pay his license fee and will do so as he doesn’t want to get into trouble (not a Wolfie Smith character indeed), this really does hammer the final nail into the coffin of this country.
When you so many intelligent free thinking people up here, too scared or just too lazy to do anything other than whinge, whinge, whinge about the BBC, you realize what little hope there is for us.
pounce:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7251378.stm
It starts with this hectoring:
…”We will keep on working for integration, to build bridges. If you don’t know who is Muhammad I am telling you please read about Muhammad,” said the imam.
Why? That’s not integration.
And the BBC sees fit to end the propaganda with this:
So far Muslims in Denmark have been talking about discrimination and the need for more respect. But the more they feel nobody is listening to their anger the more susceptible they will be to the message of radical political Islam.
………..
So it’s the Danes’ fault if people are fanatics, angry for domination over the world.
Is the BBC nuts?
Off topic: does anyone know how long do they take on the BBC website to review and finally post one’s comment???
diana | 18.02.08 – 6:25 pm
Depends on how many coffee and smoke breaks they take.
Seriously, keep a record of the time you sent your comment. If you see comments appear that have been posted after yours, it’s almost certain that yours wont make it and will languish in the “Moderation Queue” until the debate is closed and that will be it.
On Kosovo, the World Service has been droning on sympathetically for days on independence without once metioning the words “Islam” or “Muslim”. Dunno why.
Another funny thing. The World Service went on and on today on the Fayed person waxing eloquent at the Diana inquest. They mentioned that he called prince Phillip, I think, a “Nazi” and a “racist” and said Charles wanted Diana dead so he could marry that “crocodile” Camilla.
Now the first time I heard this I was thinking is the BBC a publishing house for this Fayed imbecile or is it the British Broadcasting Corporation? And I was wondering if anyone else was at the inquest because apparently nobody but Fayed had much to say. But the cherry on the top was when the BBC reported that Fayed said that someone at the inquest was, “Talking out of his backside.”
Does the BBC have any trace of pride in being British? If so, why would it lower its standards to obediently report the foul attacks on British royalty by a foreign Muslim with such detailed devotion?
The dhimmi BBC makes me sick.
The BBC, its extensive coverage of the Pakistani elections and half the story.
Have you seen how much coverage the BBC has given the election in Pakistan. Christ almighty you’d think they were reporting on the elections in their home country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7249455.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7250020.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7250031.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7245493.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7244817.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7240819.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7243366.stm
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4308&edition=1&ttl=20080219023202
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7248614.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7244610.stm
I’ve given up linking in BBC articles on the elections in Pakistan as there are simply far too many to list;
Here is the search link
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=ns&q=Pakistan+election&edition=d&start=1&scope=all
and you have to go to page 6 (11 links to a page) before you find an entry not from Feb of this year.
Anyway my point while the BBC is more than happy to tell you how the Pakistani folks are voting here is a story they don’t wish you know;
Women stopped from voting in Pakistan
VOTING stopped at women-only polling stations in parts of northwest Pakistan after elders decided that women should not cast ballots, police and officials said. Peshawar district mayor Ghulam Ali said voting had to be discontinued in Maryamzai, Budaber and other areas on the outskirts of Peshawar, which is close to the Afghan border where al-Qaeda and Taliban militants are active. Men and women vote at separate locations throughout Pakistan, an Islamic republic. “I have reports that elders in the area decided that voting by women is against our culture,” Mr Ali said. “This is their tradition. We can do nothing.”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23236877-23109,00.html
and here is the BBC version of the above;
1615 local time: Khazana, Peshawar: Shaheen Zeb:
We have finished early at the polling station so we have just left. It was very nice today. In the morning we were very tense. Now there is no tension. It was very easy. It wasn’t as stressful as I thought it was going to be. Not a single woman turned up and I feel that women didn’t have permission or encouragement to turn up from their husbands. One party boycotted the election and so that might make a difference. There was nothing to do for the female polling officers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7244610.stm
The BBC, its extensive coverage of the Pakistani elections and half the story.
Bryan:
“Depends on how many coffee and smoke breaks they take.”
A typo surely. You mean coke breaks.
“I have reports that elders in the area decided that voting by women is against our culture,” Mr Ali said.
pounce | 19.02.08 – 2:46 am
I wonder how they decided that. By vote?
A typo surely. You mean coke breaks.
The People’s Front of Judea 19.02.08 – 4:28 am
Dunno about that. The moderators are apparently mostly poorly-paid students. Could be that they have a “toke” break.
On the Fayed story, you mentioned on another thread that what he said could be defamatory. Which makes me wonder if he is protected from being sued because he flung his insults in an inquest. Because if he can be sued and they don’t sue him, then the royal family has no remaining guts. Or maybe Prince Charles has converted by now and wont sue a fellow Muslim.
Any chance of opening up a new General BBC-related comment thread
Bryan:
“Which makes me wonder if he is protected from being sued because he flung his insults in an inquest.”
Nothing would surprise me when it comes to British libel laws.
“…if he can be sued and they don’t sue him, then the royal family has no remaining guts.”
They shouldn’t have to – as numerous commentators have pointed out, there’s an obvious case of criminal libel to be investigated here.
Well, I dunno how it works, but I imagine if the Crown Prosecution Service could independently contemplate charging Channel 4 over “undercover Mosque” then presumably they could charge Fayed, though he doesn’t have British citizenship.
This could get complicated.
Bryan:
“Dunno about that. The moderators are apparently mostly poorly-paid students. Could be that they have a “toke” break.”
Don’t be fooled by that ‘poorly paid’ cliche those so-called BBC students propagate.
The BBC pays them poorly, because it knows there are crowds of foaming lefties being pumped out of the university’s with no greater desire in life than to dictate their views to the world, because they believe their opinion is more important than anybody else’s. And where better to enforce that then at the BBC.
They’re just serving their apprenticeship in Newspeak and doublethink media publishing, so the BBC management can see which ones are most likely to carry the flame of multiculturalism around the BBC circuit of propaganda.
Besides, all these BBC student types live out of each other’s pockets, and are always guaranteed to be pocketing a nice little allowance from Mummy and Daddy whenever their excesses get the better of their incomings.
The BBC is one big country club. It only employs middle class wankers who think alike, act alike and know each other. And there’s not a single one of them that could cope on their own without the financial and career support from their nepotistic little community.
String them up I say!! Hang the lot of them!!!
Court is a priviledged environment so people can say what they like without fear of getting sued if they were to get their facts wrong. Reporters can then report those proceedings, as long as the report is fair and accurate.
So Fayed was free to say whatever he liked, and it can be reported, without fear of a libel action. And he knew it…
So it isn’t “an obvious case of criminal libel” at all.
Parliament is another priviledged environment.
Yes, I know; I read law. But they wouldn’t need to rely on what he has said in court. He’s said the same outside.