Right then, we can all argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when discussing the degree of BBC bias but one area that really angers me is when the State Broadcaster uses its unique position of influence to recklessly undermine the brave men and women who serve in our British armed forces in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. My colleague Pete Moore over on A Tangled Web has made me aware of the forthcoming Panorama programme which claims that British troops murdered six Iraqi civilians (including a 14 year old boy), that they tortured others and mutilated the bodies of terrorists killed after ambushing Our Boys. According to a senior officer, the accusations amount to “the most serious and provocative made against the British Army in modern times.”
The allegations will be set out in detail at a Press conference tomorrow by the British solicitor Phil Shiner, representing the Iraqis involved and who collaborated with Panorama in the making of this complete propoganda. The programme will then be broadcast despite investigations by the Royal Military Police and International Red Cross both of which declared the allegations to be unfounded. Phil Shiner appears to make a living out of investigating Our Boys and was was made “Human Rights Lawyer of the Year” by the Joint Liberty and Justice Awards in 2004. That tells you all you need to know about this particular character. But what he does is for him and his concience, if he has one.
The BBC, however, will try – yet again – to blacken the reputation of our troops on the back of the contents of our bank accounts and under pain of imprisonment. It will do this knowing that these allegations have been investigated and discredited and it will do this knowing that its own programme will be used throughout the muslim world to rally more terrorist dupes. It’s quite possible that British troops will be attacked – killed maybe – because of the lies the BBC will broadcast on Monday. Why does the BBC have such visceral hatred of our military? Is it because they are revolted at the patriotism and bravery that runs through our armed forces? Might it be that the idea of people actually being prepared to risk their lives in defence of this United Kingdom appals the left wing rabble that made this programme? Throughout the period of the war on terror, the BBC has consistently shown itself prepared to believe the worst of our soldiers. In this regard, it is more dangerous than even the likes of Aal Qu’eda’s broadcaster of choice Al Jazeera – it is the enemy within and shows its true colours with this Panorama programme. Right beeboids, let’s hear you justify the unjustifiable when it comes to this calculated betrayal of the British Army.
I’ve already posted why I think the BBC hates our armed forces, but basiclly they are mostly white working class hetrosexual males. Just about every stereotype the BBC hates (oh and moslty English and non Muslim as well)
I really do hope that if the BBC goes ahead with this load of bollocks that people do write to their MP’s demanding that the BBC issue an apology.
Additionally people MUST write to every newspaper and also demand that the scum at the BBC are brought to account. If these BBC arsewipes want to do this sort of thing, it should not be done with public money. I would use stronger language but this post would get pulled.
To contact your MP start here
http://www.writetothem.com/
This crap with the BBC has gone far enough.
The effing BBC should also remember that the “British armed forces” are also TV tax payers.
When I served in the armed forces (many years ago now) we despised the BBC even then. Their betrayal of our armed forces in the Falklands war (like announcing the attack on Goose Green before it happened and that the Argentinian bombs that were hitting our ships are not fused correctly) was the final straw along with the crap over the Belgrano.
The BBC is little more than a pile of excrement. I just wonder how many BBC employees have relatives serving in the armed forces? I suspect not many.
beeboids better watch out when alone with squaddies as “negligent discharges” happen and weapons go off accidentally.
Mr Anon: I can assure you that when I served BBC types were NOT welcome, people often maing it clear to their superiors what they thought of the BBC’s reporting.
Like I said for me it was the Falklands and it was no surprise that the MoD didn’t want journalists around, not that it stopped the BBC telling lies and dropping our servicemen in the crap.
It is perfectly legitimate for the BBC to mount an investigation of a matter which is of genuine public concern. The possible murder of civilians by the British military is one of these matters.
However, the BBC will not be content to leave it there and leave the conclusions, methods of investigation, contrary conclusions, conflicting evidence etc etc, to be discussed subsequently. On the contrary, if the past is any guide to the future, the conclusions of the programme will probably be featured in BBC news broadcasts on the days before and after the transmission (ie the atrocities and the fuss caused by the programme will be “news”) and will probably be a staple of the Today programme for days.
Even if the investigation turns out to be seriously flawed or its conclusions, as drawn by genuinely impartial observers, completely wrong, it will be too late: a story of British soldiers murdering civilians will enter the Guardianista canon of atrocities perpetrated by the West to be regurgitated at frequent intervals when appropriate. This is what happened in the Lebanon “atrocity” reporting by Guerin and others and is a characteristic of the BBC’s approach to “investigative” journalism which is “choose your target (eg Israel or the BNP or our soldiers) and go for it but whatever you do find them guilty”.
Martin, i’ll write to my MP as well. For me it was 2 years in ireland listening to Al Beebs PIRA propaganda.
Wonder if any beeboid considered a forces day to raise awareness of the army’s role, or do they just want to raise awareness for earth day and other green, trendy, lefty issues.
Why the hell is a human rights lawyer even allowed OR asked to co-operate with the BEEB in making his case, furthering his career and eventaully lining his pockets? This reeks to high heaven.
I gather that the case they will present is very far from conclusive and I hope the Mail will at least go all out to present the army’s side. It tells you a lot when they push something like this on flimsy eveidence and refuse to cover topics like Red Ken fleecing Londoners or powers handed on a plate to the UK where damning evidence is pretty easily available.
BBC – you stink
powers handed on a plate to the EU I meant – apologies for the typos
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/phil_shiner/profile.html
Why is it that every miserable looking prissy faced leftoid scumbag has got a pair of those trendy little glasses ?
Are Specsavers doing a 2 for 1 deal specially targeted at traitorous onanists ?
“Why is it that every miserable looking prissy faced leftoid scumbag has got a pair of those trendy little glasses ?”
I’m with Glenn Hughes on this one. Paramilitary with style.
Most of the reality concerning wars in the middle east, I think some will agree, has now become largely of no particular interest to a great mass of the public.
A fact that is at least as much a fault/problem of the BBC as the rest of the media.
The attention span of the public at large is limited, to say the least. Especially as many of them are far more concerned with paying the mortgage these days.
The only way to get back this interest as any good/bad terrorist/journalist is very well aware of, is for something back home in the west to blow up rather sharpish.
But it seems that things have not been blowing up much lately. Not in Briton or America anyway.
Which begs the following Questions.
Have the secret services suddenly become very very ‘good’ lately, because they were it seems clearly crap, only a 6-8 years ago?
Have the terrorists all but gone away?
Where Muslim terrorists not really around much in the first place, if at all?
If they are still around and dangerous. Are they planning something big?
If they are planning something big. WHAT EXACTLY WOULD THE POINT BE, of them doing so?
If they are not planning something big WHAT EXACTLY IS THE POINT OF THESE WARS, continuing?
However often or not the media and the BBC cover this issue, these types of questions never seem to be debated, in a clear manner.
I can think of some reasons why the western powers may want to continue an almost infinitely long conflict. But can not understand what Muslim terrorists hope to gain from such.
That does not mean there is no reason, but simply that I for one, have little nice idea what it could possibly be.
I do have my own personal theory, but I don’t think many of you would want to hear it right now.
I estimate that our enemy are currently going down at a rate of 100s to one, possibly much more. This is clearly insane, as no enemy can either sustain such loses, or if they can for some while yet, should ever want to. As they PLAINLY can not win ANYTHING, and never could have.
In short these wars for one reason or another do not make any rational sense on any media stated level that I can understand. ESPECIALLY now that they have being going on longer then either the 1st or 2nd world wars did respectively.
REMEMBER THIS, because many of our population do not have an education, by which to remember anything important.
The combined powers of the US and British armed forces pushed the Axis powers right out of Italy, The Medd, The Pacific, North Africa, and western Europe in little over 2 years. But seem not to be capable of sorting out a few rag heads in pick up trucks armed with a few APGs and AK47s, in over 6 years.
Not only this but they also gained peace in these areas, quickly subdued the public, returned economic stability, and then prosperity. To the point that the respective populations often welcomed their own horrendous and utter bloody defeat.
We should, even if the media and the BBC do not EVER, ask ourselves why given the above, we are at best still only holding our own.
Again especially as we now have, the most advanced weapons, well trained specialist troops, and the most vast amount of spare cash available, ever known to mankind?
Very much the same could be said about the present never ending conflict in Israel and Palestine, and the past 13 year one, in Viet-Nam.
Panorama is made by a corporation whose main business is manufacturing trash like Eastenders and Flog It. I’m unconcerned what politically motivated crackpot ‘news’ they also dream up to match the dreadful quality of their non-news output. I just hate having to pay for it all because I want to watch football on Sky TV.
When we were forced to pay the government to fund a car company we got the Austin Allegro. We are forced to pay the government to fund a broadcaster and we get Panorama and Eastenders. If Red Robbo and his pals had been Oxbridge educated and from the home counties they’d still be on the public payroll making Allegros.
Why is it that every miserable looking prissy faced leftoid scumbag has got a pair of those trendy little glasses ?
Are Specsavers doing a 2 for 1 deal specially targeted at traitorous onanists ?
____________
Oh the shame…. I actually have a pair (although I never wear them anymore because they are a 4 year old precription)
(they were 2 for 1 at specsavers)
Anyway, back to Panorama:
The BBC are scum.
This is even worse than their appeal a few years back for information on the movement of British forces in Iraq.
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country,” when the guns begin to shoot;
It is jealousy. The services are professional, the BBC is amateur.
I like the part in the online report where the BBC concedes that “Panorama has seen no proof that prisoners died at the hands of their captors at or after the Battle of Danny Boy”.
No reason not to make a programme about the claims to give them maximum publicity, though, eh?
“Why is it that every miserable looking prissy faced leftoid scumbag has got a pair of those trendy little glasses ?”
Apart from the specs, was there ever a face so constipated with spite and pettifogging nastiness?
David Vance’s strongest point is that the BBC are threatening our national security with tripe such as this. This is all that truly matters.
They will not stop for one second to think of the possible ramifactions of such reporting. A few more British muslims teetering on the brink will quite probably see this and be pushed over the edge.
When another bomb goes off in this country the BBC will have blood on it’s hands.
A six part series called “Ross Kemp in Afghanistan” was recently broadcast on Sky One. Excellent viewing, Ross Kemp was out with the troops and you could hear the disgust in his voice when he spoke to the camera “the enemy who is currently trying to kill us with RPG fire, is firing from a mosque and therefore the lads have been told they cannot engage him”.
I thought the whole tone of the programme was very respecful towards the difficult job that our troops have been asked to carry out.
You’d never get anything like this on the BBC, it would be dripping with sneering and left wing pacificm.
Clip on site here:
http://www.skyone.co.uk/rosskemp/
Once Al beeb broadcast this trash, it dosnt matter whether its true or false, some sick fcuk from the religion of peace will use it as an excuse to blow up trains, a bus or whatever with a lot of innocent ppl on as well.
Blood on their hands, but so long as they get good ratings eh
This is a disgrace. Panorama needs to investigate itself.
So shall we all just sit back and let them shit all over us again?
Yes, let’s all do nothing about it as always.
i’ve emailed my MP. I doubt she will do anything about it as shes nulab and part of the government, but at least i tried
The British army is one of the few remaining vestiges of the old Britain that the Beeb hates….really hates.They are determined to destroy it and rebuild it in their own image as a multicultural peace keeping force at the beck and call of their fellow traitors in nulabour and the U.N.
I noted that in the Independent and Guardian Ross Kemp was attacked fot NOT making political points or showing the “other side” of the argument.
This is typical of the camp little leftie journalists that work at these papers.
Ross Kemp never set out to make a political point on any side, but to simply show the life of soldiers. Soldiers sent there by a SOCIALIST Government.
Ritter: “You’d never get anything like this on the BBC”
I’m certainly not defending the Panorama programme, but Alastair Leithead spent months on the frontline with British troops in Afghanistan.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ExclusiveFromFrontRoomToFrontLineHuwEdwardsOnTheChallengesOfReportingFromAfghanistanvideo.htm
Link here to the Panorama programme that aired.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/6187660.stm
Leithead also reported regularly for BBC news and radio while on the same assignment.
It’s now displayed on the news website as if it’s something new that has just happened very recently, not 3 years ago. It also leaves until the very end of the report the fact that the claims have already been investigated and dismissed.
What a disgrace.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/72…/uk/ 7258374.stm
FOR GOD’S SAKE YOU REACTIONARY – NO BODY COMMENTING HERE HAS SEEN THE PROGRAMME YET – WHY DON’T YOU WAIT AND THEN MAKE UP YOUR MINDS?
just read “sniper one” by sgt dan mills. the book mainly deal with the battle of cimic house in al amarah.
it mentions the battle of danny boy incident in the book.
this has been investigated and completely rejected. The battle of danny boy was fought by heroes.
true account set out below. the guys are absolute heroes who risked their for what !! for some poxy meeja tart of a human right lawyer to pour shit on this once great country.
“After a bloody battle which raged for four hours at least 28 of the enemy lay dead. Fleeing cohorts are thought to have dragged away at least the same number of bodies.
Just two of Our Boys were slightly wounded. Last night the brave troops — members of the same regiment as the private tipped for a Victoria Cross — told of the desperate fight.
Private Anthony Rushforth, 23, said: “We were pumped up on adrenaline — proper angry. It’s only afterwards you think, ‘Jesus, I actually did that’.”
The terrifying bayonet charge by the members of the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment — nicknamed The Tigers — saw trench after trench taken from the enemy.
It was led by Sgt Major Dave Falconer, 36. He said of his men: “I am very proud of them.”
The other heroes were Sgt Chris Broome, 35, and privates John-Claude Fowler, 19 and Matthew Tatawaqa, 23. The men, from C Company, raced to the rescue in Warrior armoured vehicles after an ambush by rebels loyal to rogue Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
Two Land Rovers transporting Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders had been pinned down by heavy fire south of Al Amarah, 150 miles from Basra.
As the Warriors arrived, they too were targeted by machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and small arms.
Sgt Major Falconer, from Portsmouth, said: “Our Warriors were vulnerable to attack from the side by the enemy hiding in ditches.
“The only way you can hold ground in that situation is by having boots on it — so that’s what we did.”
That is military-speak for sending in infantry. Private Rushforth, from Southampton, said: “When the order came to dismount and attack, it was just like what we’ve done dozens of times in training.
“We sprinted in ten-metre bursts, then hit the ground to put down some rounds, and then carried on again for the last 30 metres. We broke into pairs and finished off the trench.”
The fight was dubbed the Battle for Danny Boy — after the name of the remote checkpoint where it took place.
First Sgt Maj Falconer’s men defied enemy fire to charge 200 metres across open land.
They leapt into the first trench, killing three enemy with SA80 rifle bullets and “cold steel”. Four were taken prisoner.
Then they took two further trenches as the Warriors provided covering fire from chain guns and 30mm cannon.
Eight more enemy were killed and four surrendered.
Diehard rebels continued to hold out. Finally a Challenger II tank was summoned to blitz their bunker. The five were hailed heroes along with a sixth soldier Lance Corporal Brian Wood. He has since been posted back in Britain.”
jeez i’m angry now.
this programme had better abck up everyhting they say about body mutilations with a UK qualified pathologist.
this is a junk science programme. these bodies were mutilated because they were killed with bayonets, 20mm cannon rounds and rounds from the main gun of a challenger tank.
peter – i have read about this incident already to know this is garbage.
do you trust the word of the families or doctors in an insurgent held town over who was and above the prince of wales regiment ?
you probably do which is a sad sad thing. best thing would be for the MOD to back our boys in the libel courts so the truth does come out and these heroes can be exonerated.
The BBC admit their Panaroma report vindicated British troops.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7258374.stm
“A BBC spokesman said: “Panorama has spent over a year talking to battlefield survivors, medical staff and Iraqi former prisoners in Iraq, Turkey and Jordan.
“The programme critically examines claims made by lawyers who are representing the Iraqis in their action against the British government.
“Of all the allegations they make, the programme concludes that the evidence is strongest that prisoners were mistreated. (Mistreated isn’t executed)
“Panorama has seen no proof that prisoners died at the hands of their captors at or after the Battle of Danny Boy.”
Oh, the headline for the revealing BBC report?
“Claim UK troops ‘executed’ Iraqis ”
A claim they admit they found no evidence for after investigating for over a year.
Just add this to all the other lies and fabrications the BBC has put out over Iraq.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html
I too have felt compelled to write to my MP.
I have also read Sniper One, it is a very good book.
To those on this discussion list, and elsewhere, who have served I would like to thank you for protecting us.
The BBC, Chinese whispers and half the story.
China defends arms sales to Sudan
China has defended its sale of weapons to Sudan, amid growing criticism of its alleged failure to help resolve the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. China’s special envoy on Darfur told the BBC that Beijing accounted for just 8% of Sudan’s total arms imports. Liu Guijin said the US, Russia and UK were the biggest arms exporters to developing countries including Sudan.
…..
“Sudan is the third largest conventional arms producer in Africa next only to South Africa and Egypt.
And there are seven countries selling arms to Sudan. So even if China stopped its sale, it still won’t solve the problem of arms in Sudan,” he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7258059.stm
The BBC conducts an interview with Chinas special envoy to Darfur and allows him to makes statements which for some reason the BBC doesn’t address?
So want to see a chart from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute which explains just what weapons Sudan has bought in the last ten years?
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/8569/image1mh3.jpg
The above is a list of every major weapon system bought by Sudan since 1997. Anybody from the BBC wish to pick out the UK or the US from that list?.
So what about that unanswered claim (so favoured by Tony (I ruined British industry) Benn.) That the US and Uk were the biggest sellers of arms to the developing world.
I collated a large number of developing countries and ran a search what they had bought in the last 10 years from 4 major arms suppliers as per that article;
The UK;
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/8650/image12ex7.jpg
The US;
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6797/image4yf7.jpg
Now contrast that with what China sold that group;
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6687/image2sm2.jpg
and what Russia unloaded;
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3911/image3bf0.jpg
and Russia’s vassal state Belarus
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9355/image1ez2.jpg
All of the above searches were ran with the same countries. Yet visible differences can be seen in what has been sold. In a nutshell the Chinese and Russians supply a large number of developing countries around the world with weapons as they ask no questions about their use. The UK and US not only ask questions but stick to the rule book. Which may help explain how out of all those sales the only weapons system sold by the US and Uk to a developing country is a bunch of anti-aircraft missiles by the US. Sounds wrong doesn’t it. Have a look, if fact If you wish to conduct your own search on who sold weapons follow the link.
http://armstrade.sipri.org/arms_trade/trade_register.php
The BBC, Chinese whispers and half the story.
“Peter:
FOR GOD’S SAKE YOU REACTIONARY – NO BODY COMMENTING HERE HAS SEEN THE PROGRAMME YET – WHY DON’T YOU WAIT AND THEN MAKE UP YOUR MINDS?
Peter | 22.02.08 – 1:43 pm | # ”
Because the BBC made this using the lawyer, Shiner who is representing the alleged victims.
Friend of Shami’s is he?
I am intrigued that the report on the website seems to be making much of the injuries found on the bodies.
“For example, quite how so many of the Iraqis sustained single gunshots to the head and from seemingly at close quarter, how did two of them end with their eyes gouged out, how did one have his penis cut off [and] some have torture wounds?”
This has already been investigated and there is no evidence that these wounds were inflicted by British troops. Has it occurred to the people who are intent on pinning this on the troops that these sort of injuries JUST MIGHT have been inflicted by the sort of people who think nothing of.. oh I don’t know.. strapping bombs onto mentally handicapped civilians and blowing them up in a market? Allegations of abuse should be taken seriously of course but as there has been no evidence to suggest that British troops caused this couldn’t it be the case that the impartial civilian witnesses JUST MIGHT be either
a) not impartial
or
b) frightened for the lives of their families if they don’t toe the insurgent line?
It may be the case that the soldiers mistreated some prisoners and they should be subject to the appropriate MILITARY discipline if found guilty. We should not forget that these are soldiers and not policeman and whatever the rights or wrongs of Britain’s involvement in Iraq, they have been sent there to fight a brutal enemy and such lapses (if they did happen) in the heat of battle are sadly inevitable.
If allegations are made against British Troops we have a moral obligation to investigate them of course but I’m just a little bit pissed off that the tone of this report and the (yet to be broadcast) programme seems to be suggesting that our troops are behaving like the murdering savages they are fighting despite the fact that the evidence does not support this (and let’s be honest – my gut feeling tells me this is not true as well but what the hell is that worth).
Perhaps the terrorists themselves mutilated the corpses before they retreated – after all, the West would immediately assume that the British soldiers did it. People who use babies and retarded women as suicide bombers aren’t going to baulk at mutilating corpses if the long term political gain is big enough.
Sorry posted my last on the wrong thread. Mod any chance you can remove it.
Once again sorry
Simon – wow – posted the same stuff at the same time. Weird.
I waffled too much Rob – you got to the point!
I remember this happening. In fact I’m having coffee with a friend of mine who was there next week. Funny enough I bought him the book ‘Sniper one’ for Christmas. He offered to get the author to sign it for me. Personally I would rather have a book signed by R E Fiest. (Silly me I have) But I refused saying it was a present and I wasn’t an Indian giver. (Looking in the Mirror it appears I am)
Anyway back to this incident. The troops were ambushed time and time again. The Rapid reaction force were sent out and slugged it out with the natives. The reason the troops debussed was because a mortar base plate was on the reverse side of a hill. (In other words out of sight)
I remember a Rupert on the scene not long after complaining about just who the terrorists were recruiting. (Untrained men) so when faced with trained men of a very high quality the writing was on the wall.
So the question we have to ask is Why is the BBC doing this? Could it be because the war in Iraq isn’t following the path they desire? Could it be that no negative news is coming out of the region? Could it be the BBC has to invent stories in which to achieve their aim of getting the British public to force the government to remove our troops and leave the Iraqi people at the hands of the religious bullies, despots, which will lead to civil war and give the BBC something to fill the front page for a long time.
The media plays a very dangerous game in trying to report a non story In an age where actual negative stories about Islam are frowned upon by the establishment as it may lead to Islamaphoba (The bombings in London/The failed bombings in London/The failed car bomb in London/Glasgow). Shouldn’t the same standards be applied on rehashing old incidents which will only appeal to the wannabe jihahists who have only need to hear the word ‘victim’ in which to becoming willing to die for the cause. I’m sure the BBC clones will agree that if a terrorist incident arises from this program then the BBC should rightly be hauled before the courts for inciting an outrage. Corporate Manslaughter anyone?
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/manslaughteractguidance.htm
pounce | 22.02.08 – 3:03 pm,
Good post. The BBC has been involved in a despicable conspiracy of silence for years regarding China’s role in supplying weapons to the Arab Islamist government in Sudan for genocide of African Muslims in Darfur via the Jangaweed.
Time after time I read a BBC article on Sudan with no hint of China’s complicity in the genocide, or Russia’s, for that matter. When Spielberg dropped out as artistic director of the Olympics over China’s involvement in Sudan, the BBC suddenly became interested in the story and mentioned China more times in this connection in a few days than it had in years.
But we all know if the US out of concern for oil interests had been pumping Sudan full of weapons and aircraft with which to attack innocent villagers the BBC would have been the first to shout it from the rooftops. Bloody hypocrites.
I grew up in Wiltshire and a lot of my friends’ fathers were in the army/RAF. After the Falklands similar accusations were made by the BBC.
My friend’s Dad (who had fought in the Falklands) explained things something like this:
“In the heat of battle when you are advancing upon your enemy and they are shooting at you, killing your friends, throwing grenages and then you finally manage to close the distance and get in their fox hole, it is too late to surrender. You are so pumped up and angry that you just open fire. If they wanted to surrender, they shouldn’t have waited until they were staring down the barrel or a gun”
I’ve never been to war, I can only imagine the gut wrenching terror of a bayonet charge. Seeing your friends getting killed and wounded. The noise, confusion, smell, fear, hatred, loyalty. How can anybody condemn somebody for something that happens in the heat of battle.
Ultimately, so what if a British squaddie failed to take the surrender of the enemy (very different to killing a prisoner in cold blood).
I think Ross Kemp would understand, because he has actually been out there himself. Just what qualifications do these BBC pacifist/leftist/anti-British shits have to pass judgement on our troops.
As I said earlier, SCUM.
How the BBC would like the British army to be.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/mdu0080l.jpg
Shouldn’t the same standards be applied on rehashing old incidents which will only appeal to the wannabe jihahists who have only need to hear the word ‘victim’ in which to becoming willing to die for the cause.
pounce | 22.02.08 – 3:31 pm
I think they should apply far stricter standards to programmes likely to encourage terrorists. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes about where the BBC stands in the war on terror – a war they pretend not to acknowledge by continually putting it in quotes.
I wonder how our squaddies would like to discuss this with the vile, pampered, extorting, propagandist BBC?
Now that WOULD make a programme worth watching….
Ultimately, so what if a British squaddie failed to take the surrender of the enemy….
Grimer | 22.02.08 – 3:40 pm
Especially when you are fighting an enemy that plays tricks like pretending to surrender so they can kill you once your guard is down.
I wonder if the BBC will ever get to the point where they will have the guts to do a John Ware Panorama again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4727513.stm
instead of the limp-wristed, bleeding-heart nonsense they have been putting out recently:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/7148670.stm
The BBC, British army executions and half the story.
Anybody noticed the photo that the BBC is using in which to illustrate their;
Claim UK troops ‘executed’ Iraqis
British troops executed as many as 20 Iraqi prisoners after a gun battle in May 2004, lawyers claim.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7258374.stm
Here is the photo the BBC use;
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44444000/jpg/_44444035_soldier_pa203b.jpg
What image does that photo in light of this claim of execution present?
The BBC, British army executions and half the story.