WHICH SIDE TO BELIEVE.

I was interested in this BBC article covering what it claims to be “Rival claims over Basra Battle” The content of the story strikes me as being hypercritical of the claims made by the democratically elected Maliki government and its progress in Basra, whilst simultaneously accepting the words of Shi’ite tyrant Moqtada Sadr and his Mehdi terrorist army. The “fierce” resistance of these thugs is singled out for praise with further tributes to them “fighting to a standstill” the lawful Iraqi military. Can’t the BBC ever do a report from Iraq which actually praises the progress being made, no matter how imperfect? I think the answer is NO because in the BBC narrative, understood by all reporters, this was an “illegal” invasion by the Great Satan after precious Iraqi oil. The rest is all detail. Through this perverse prism, there can be no real progress – it’s all a quagmire. The BBC admiration for the likes of Al Sadr is sickening. Can you imagine what these latter day BBC types would have filed had they been around in WW2 – I’m betting we would have been reading about the fierce courage of the Nazis and the heroic resistance of the Japanese.

Bookmark the permalink.

108 Responses to WHICH SIDE TO BELIEVE.

  1. Abandon Ship! says:

    “Can’t the BBC ever do a report from Iraq which actually praises the progress being made, no matter how imperfect?”

    I think such reports do exist, but are outnumbered by criticism by at least 10 to 1 (at a conservative* estimate).

    *term used in a non-pejorative manner

       0 likes

  2. Anonymous says:

    It always amazes me how the BBC, a left-leaning organisation, can give even tacit support to islamic fanatics such as Al Sadr. His views on such things as religious tolerance, women’s rights, homosexual rights, etc., are a long way away from theirs (and as for their view of those who drink and abuse drugs…)yet they persist in giving support to anyone, even the wildest nutcases, as long as they are anti-American. In the eyes of the BBC, being anti-American trumps absolutely everything else, no matter how vile and disgusting it may be (See M. Al Sadr, Hamas, et al).

       0 likes

  3. Martin says:

    The BBC report “claims” that air strikes were hurridly arranged. I don’t think so. The USA and UK provided air and artillery support (plus other support not mentioned) and that would have been planned in advance of the operation. The BBC has NO evidence to back up the claims it made in that respect. It was probably “opinion”.

    The BBC report also claims that Maliki’s comments on the fighting have been “widely disputed in Iraq” yet no evidence is provided for this? Was it in the media, or by other political groups, the USA or UK?

    The BBC crowed about the Northern Ireland peace process, yet we never physically disarmed the IRA.

    Finally, the BBC claimed the battle in Basra “didn’t go as planned”. No shit BBC. A military battle that didn’t go as planned. Well I never. What next?

       0 likes

  4. Martin says:

    Anonymous: The BBC always supports any murderer or terrorist that opposes the USA, UK or the evil “Joows”

    I bet there was a loud cheer in the BBC news department on 9/11.

       0 likes

  5. Anonymous says:

    Abandon Ship! | 04.04.08 – 9:36 am | # 3

    Did you ever get a response from your MP about Ms Naseem?

       0 likes

  6. Anonymous says:

    That should of course be Nasreen Suleaman

       0 likes

  7. Abandon Ship! says:

    Anonymous

    I think you must be mixing me up with someone else, as I have not contacted my MP or anyone else about this BBC reporter. However this is interesting:

    http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/04/03/did_nasreen_suleman_perjure_herself.php

       0 likes

  8. Cockney says:

    I thought that was a really good article. Brings the influence of Iran into the open, questions the personal motives of Sadr (i.e interest in power rather than some patriotic desire to remove the coalition forces), talks of progress in Iraqi government autonomy but limitations thereon. US quotes, government quotes, Sadr quotes.

    Good stuff.

    How the Hell you conclude from that that the Beeb is ‘supporting’ Sadr is beyond me.

       0 likes

  9. Steve E. says:

    “Mr Maliki returned to Baghdad this week, calling the operation a success. It is a claim that is being widely disputed in Iraq.”

    Not least, of course, by the BBC itself. One of their ‘reporters‘ claimed that Maliki’s forces had been “defeated by a rag-tag militia.”

    The only defeat their actually interested in is that of the USA and its allies.

       0 likes

  10. thud says:

    Sadrs abrupt cave in to the Iraqi army came as rather a shock to the beeb and its allies and left them scrabbling around for excuses such as tactical withdrawal.They died in their hundreds….things have changed and not in a way the beeb will like.

       0 likes

  11. Hillhunt says:

    Martin:

    I bet there was a loud cheer in the BBC news department on 9/11.

    What is the bitterness in your soul?

    Envy? Disappointment? Misanthropy?

       0 likes

  12. Joel says:

    Either resistance was ‘fierce’ or not. They either fought to a ‘standstill” or they did not.

    To perceive this as a compliment to Sadr is perverse and shows a retarded understanding.

    Also from the article: “For the Iraqi government and the Americans it is evidence of the growing confidence of the state to exercise power, even though Mr Maliki and Ambassador Crocker have said they were taken by surprise by the scale of the resistance.”

    So Maliki and Crocker were surprised by the resistance! perhaps David Vance should let the Coalition know that the Iraqi PM and the US Ambassador are dhimmis too.

    “For the Iraqi government and the Americans it is evidence of the growing confidence of the state to exercise power” – Yet another compliment to the Imperialist crusaders, the BBC must be stopped!

    One other thing. Few things irk me more than reference to the Iraq war as ‘illegal’. I think its a total nonsense. But I have never, never heard the BBC refer to it in this way. If it did, I would be the first to criticise. You must surely know by now that a guest on the BBC expressing an opinion does not mean it is the opinion of the BBC. This is fairly basic stuff folks.

       0 likes

  13. Greencoat says:

    Anonymous:
    ‘It always amazes me how the BBC, a left-leaning organisation, can give even tacit support to islamic fanatics such as Al Sadr. His views on such things as religious tolerance, women’s rights, homosexual rights, etc., are a long way away from theirs…’

    I think the Left is playing (or thinks it’s playing) some kind of long-haul game where Islam is used as a cats-paw to fatally undermine the West.

    Once this is done, the Left will apply the same creeping barrage of secular/humanist tactics that have worked so well in demoralising the Christian Church.

    Ultimately – voila – we will have the perfect Marxist, machine world-state that every Beeboid wets his/her pants dreaming of.

       0 likes

  14. Sarah Jane (20% BBC) says:

    I bet there was a loud cheer in the BBC news department on 9/11.
    Martin | 04.04.08 – 9:53 am | #

    Dear oh dear oh dear.

    I should be glad actually, your comments persistently drag the credibility of this blog into the gutter. They are far more effective in negating its effect than any defence any BBC supporter could put up.

       0 likes

  15. Anonymous says:

    Slightly off topic but anyway – to those on this blog – Hillhunt etc., who claim that the views expressed by contributors on here, in relation to the BBC and it’s treatment of Islam and Muslims, are skewed or non representative of most people then the Readers Most Recommended on this topic may enlighten you. Here’s a link

    http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=4571&edition=1&ttl=20080404114429&#paginator

       0 likes

  16. Martin says:

    Hillhunt and Sara Jane: Perhaps you two idiots might like to take a look at this apology from the BBC?

    Your reaction shows I hit a real never. Truth hurts does it?

    I say it again. I bet on 9/11 there was a massive cheer in the offices of the BBC.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1544897.stm

    http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2007/09/bbc-apology-that-is-y-thin-g-but.html

    The BBC has “form” over 9/11. Something you BBC loving idiots don’t get.

    I won’t even get into the crowing of the BBC over the terrorist acts committed against Israel.

    The BBC love a good terrorist.

       0 likes

  17. Sarah Jane (20% BBC) says:

    Keep digging Martin.

       0 likes

  18. Ben says:

    Anonymous | 04.04.08 – 12:00 pm | #

    It’s an interesting point but I think over simplifying a bit. To state that UGC could be seen as representative of the general population would be misleading. If you look at the comments for say The Times, they are from what I’ve seen pretty extreme compared to the views of the people I know to read the Times (myself included). Even people on this board have stated recently that the FT and Economist are left wing.

    Those who have a problem with a particular issue are as far as I’m aware more likely to make the effort to protest about it. Additionally, from I’ve read before (sorry, I can’t reference at this point), the more conservative end of the political spectrum are more active on the internet.

    A good example that taking these things at face value is the BNP website, which is one of, if not the most visited website for a political party. The reason for this is more likely down to be down to people being inquisitive rather than down to support for the party (and lets face it, most party sites are dull dul dull). I’m not for a minute comparing conservatives to BNP supporters by the way, it’s just a good example (besides, anyone who has read their policies will know they aren’t right wing)

       0 likes

  19. Martin says:

    Sarah Jane: I don’t need to. You Beeboids provide the ammunition without me needing to go get a shovel.

       0 likes

  20. Martin says:

    Ben: I think you will find that the reason the BNP website is visited so much is simply that the BNP get no airtime off the mainstream media. It’s the only way people can find out what they are saying.

    Same applies I bet to those that oppose the climate change lot like the BBC. As they get no airtime, you will find people access their website to get the info.

       0 likes

  21. Bryan says:

    Keep digging Martin.
    Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 04.04.08 – 12:21 pm

    Some argument you have presented there, Sarah Jane. Nothing to say in rebuttal? What a weak comment.

    From Darfur to Egypt, from Indonesia to Libya and from Iran to Lebanon to Gaza the BBC have demonstrated the most abject grovelling to Islamic terror.

    It’s not surprising in the least that the BBC has virtually banned the ‘T’ word.

    Very occasionally a BBC journalist will come up with an article or a radio interview which demonstates a deviation from this extraordinary dhimmitude. I have noted some of these instances on this site, but they are becoming more and more rare.

    Anyone who can see light at the end of the BBC tunnel is facing the wrong way.

       0 likes

  22. Ben says:

    True Martin, that’s one big reason, but it doesn’t make them any more popular than Labour or the Conservatives does it?

       0 likes

  23. Martin says:

    Ben: No. But how do you know if they don’t get airtime? Only “some” will bother to go and look.

    How popular would McLiebour be if they didn’t have the BBC acting as their official broadcaster for example?

       0 likes

  24. Sarah Jane (20% BBC) says:

    Anyone who can see light at the end of the BBC tunnel is facing the wrong way.
    Bryan | 04.04.08 – 1:25 pm | #

    Bryan an accusation that there were cheers in the BBC newsroom on 9/11 will not get the dignity of a justification.

    Do you think posts like that help the blog?

    (Actually I’d rather now know the answer to that as I tend to give your comments some credence.)

       0 likes

  25. Sarah Jane (20% BBC) says:

    not know the answer

       0 likes

  26. WoAD says:

    I think you’ll find that people repeatedly visit the BNP site because they like BNP politics.

    Many people find Goatse intriguing but they dont look twice.

    This whole Al-Sadr reporting is truly strange. It has been as though the liberals are hoping for the Shia Militia to be victorious..

    Here’s my moderate explanation: The Iraq war was begun on the basis of an intelligence hoax. CIA America has admitted this. This makes many reasonable people inclined to mistrust the American authorities and oppose the war. Shia militias in Iraq are also opposed to the American backed state created in Iraq. So the Libs are put in an impossible position of either supporting the American backed secular state created on the basis of an intelligence hoax or supporting Al-Sadr’s merry men.

    Sadr interview excerpts here.

    “There are plans to divide Iraq • to divide what has already been divided, if I may say so. The Al-Sadr movement must oppose this, and strive to maintain the unity of the Iraqi land and people under any circumstances. Another important goal is to make society religious, rather than secular. People keep talking about an “Islamic government” and so on. What is more important is to make society, not just the government, Islamic. An Islamic government without an Islamic society cannot.”

    Lol, moderate Islam in action. No really, put like the above, the aims of Al-Sadr seem almost mundane.

    My extremist explanation: The finality and Utopianism inherant in Liberalism creates hollow excuses for human beings: “I am a sick man, I am angry man, I believe my liver is diseased.”

    La Wik on Notes from Underground:

    “The first part also gives a harsh criticism of determinism and intellectual attempts at dictating human action, which the Underground Man mentions in terms of a simple math problem two times two makes four (see also necessitarianism). He states that despite humanity’s attempt to create the “Crystal Palace,” a reference to a famous symbol of utopianism in Nikolai Chernyshevsky’s What Is to Be Done?. The real Crystal Palace, a vast exhibition hall of glass and iron, was built in London for the Great Exhibition of 1851. The structure used the most advanced materials and technology available at the time. Utopian socialists and other architects of the “Crystal Palace” cannot avoid the simple fact that anyone at any time can decide to act against what is considered good, and some will do so simply to validate their existence and/or to protest that they exist as individuals. This type of rebellion is critical to later works of Dostoevsky as this type of rebellion is used by adolescents to validate their own existence, uniqueness and independence in the face of the disorder one inherits under the understanding of tradition and society.”

    Liberals actively will the failure of Liberalism in Iraq because they secretly hate it.

    Further reading: The Millenium People by J.G. Ballard

       0 likes

  27. Ben says:

    Well, it’s a catch-22, the point is that it would be wrong to take such a simplistic approach.

    How did the Conservatives gain and retain power for so long if the BBC is so biased against them and such a driving influence?

       0 likes

  28. Martin says:

    Sarah Jane: Why don’t you take a look at the utter bile the BBC pours out about the USA and “evil Joows”

    The anal licking that BBC types give a vile religion like Islam day in and day out?

    Oh and as “I pay your wages luv” perhaps you should have a little respect?

    I tell you what Sarah Jane. You get a proper job where your wages are NOT funded by an unfair tax that threaten to put people in prison for non payment and I’ll be nice. In fact if the BBC was totally funded by those that wanted to pay for it I wouldn’t care what you lot at the BBC got up to. But until that day I’ll say what I like.

       0 likes

  29. Martin says:

    How did the Conservatives gain and retain power for so long if the BBC is so biased against them and such a driving influence?

    _____________________________________

    Well lets take a look shall we?

    The dead left unburied

    Rubbish littering the streets

    The Winter of discontent

    Michael Foot

    Neil Kinnock

    The feelgood factor of the 1980’s

    No amount of BBC bollocks could hide the fact that Foot and ?kinnock were a pair of utter twats that no one wanted to see in power.

       0 likes

  30. p and a tale of one chip says:

    Martin: just an observation but you’ve got a bit of a bum/anal/gay obsession going on there.

       0 likes

  31. Gog says:

    “How did the Conservatives gain and retain power for so long if the BBC is so biased against them and such a driving influence?”

    Do you remember the seventies much? Unions holding industry to ransom, endless strikes, serious disruptions to everyday life like food shortages and power cuts…

    Labour back then really were pisspoor and basically couldn’t govern. Huge sections of the population said (and will probably do so again) never again to socialism, in spite of the BBC’s heroic efforts.

       0 likes

  32. Bryan says:

    In fact if the BBC was totally funded by those that wanted to pay for it I wouldn’t care what you lot at the BBC got up to.

    Martin | 04.04.08 – 2:46 pm

    Here I disagree. The BBC has established a worldwide propaganda network. But not satisfied with that, it is intent on increasing its range and influence. So whoever does or doesn’t pay for it, the BBC has to be fought on all fronts at every opportunity. Its bias has to be challenged.

    In the old days there wasn’t much a member of the public could do to counteract media bias apart from writing a letter which would be unlikely to be published. How the BBC must hate the Internet.

       0 likes

  33. p and a tale of one chip says:

    “How the BBC must hate the Internet.”

    One of the core criticisms of the BBC is that its heavy investment in the web stifles commercial concerns. so no, it really doesn’t hate the internet.

       0 likes

  34. Martin says:

    P and a take of one chip: I think it’s the BBC that has a gay/anal/bum thing going on.

       0 likes

  35. Bryan says:

    Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 04.04.08 – 1:50 pm

    I can handle the occasional bit of hyperbole from my fellow contributors. People are angry, and rightly so, about the creeping dhimmification of the BBC. Now how about providing some evidence that it is not happening?

    The BBC needs to wake up quickly to the realisation that a large number of its journalists legitimise Islamic terror by bestowing on it an aura of respectability. Otherwise it should hardly be surprised if people conclude that the BBC as a whole is actively and consciously in sympathy with the aims of the terrorists.

    It is almost too late.

       0 likes

  36. Bryan says:

    p and a tale of one chip | 04.04.08 – 3:27 pm,

    Well obviously the BBC realises the vast potential for the spreading of its propaganda and the boost to its influence and power through the Internet. But like all propagandists, it must be concerned by the thorough and speedy exposure of its biased agenda through the instant fact-checking facility of the Internet, including the bloggers.

    So I should qualify my earlier statement by saying that the relationship is one of love-hate.

    Here Peter Horrocks, head of BBC Newsroom, agonises over the “value of citizen journalism,” clearly unhappy about the powerful voice of public opinion and determined to do something to limit it when it contradicts the narrow agenda of the BBC:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/01/value_of_citizen_journalism.html

       0 likes

  37. Martin says:

    Bryan: You are so spot on. For example, most of the killing that takes place in Iraq is Muslim on Muslim.

    The BBC never did any detailed reporting of the use of children in Islam as suicide bombers or women with mental disabilities.

    All of that is “excused” by the BBC. They say things like “well it’s a few extremists” or “it doesn’t represent Islam”. How do they know? How often have we seen Palestinian women saying they are “proud” their child has blown themselves up killing lots of innocent civilians?

    It’a sll done in the name of THEIR religion, THEIR god and THEIR prophet. The BBC ignore the executuons of women and homosexuals, except in Basra. Funny that the BBC point out women are killed there, but ignore the killings in Iran and also the killings done by the Taleban in Afghanistan.

    The BBC and the left continually say we invaded Iraq for oil, but how does that work with Afghanistan, Bosia and Kosovo then? Not much oil there is there?

    Why can’t the BBC just point out that in the 21st Century any group of people that believe in the bollocks writen down in a book from 1300 years ago and believe every word of it are a little mad?

       0 likes

  38. p and a tale of one chip says:

    “The BBC needs to wake up quickly to the realisation that a large number of its journalists legitimise Islamic terror by bestowing on it an aura of respectability.”

    Do you understand how pompous that sounds?

    The assumption that only you and your fellow travellers have the foresight to see things as they really are and working journalists in the BBC spend no time thinking about their role and impact as a journalist is breathtakingly arrogant.

       0 likes

  39. p and a tale of one chip says:

    If this blog is a fact checking facility then I’m Elvis.

    This blog is an opinion reinforcing facility.

       0 likes

  40. Martin says:

    Bryan: So spot on again with the comments by Peter Horrocks.

    What an arrogant twat he is. Just because he ponced about at some University for 3 years.

    What makes these arrogant people think “they know better?”

    Some of the best reporting has come from internet bloggers, who often dig up the truth that the likes of the BBC hide.

    Horrocks is just typical of the poncy leftie liberals that run the BBC.

    They hate the idea that people might have an opinion that does not meet with the approval of the BBC and so should not trust it.

    For 3.5 billion a year the BBC should be getting it right all the time.

    Far too much BBC journalism is full of “opinion” and not on factual reporting.

    Take climate change. There is plenty of opposition to the BBC view that man made climate change is real, but the BBC will not give it airtime.

    Why not? The job of the BBC is to report the facts and let “us the people” judge it. Too many idiots like Horrocks hate that idea. They ponce around at thier Islington dinner parties and chunter on about the lastest Robert Fisk report in the Independent and totally ignore the people that pay their sodding wages.

       0 likes

  41. Martin says:

    p and a tale of one chip: What you mean is this blog doesn’t fit with YOUR view of the BBC and therefore it’s wrong.

    Even when facts about the bias of the BBC (even from it’s own staff) you spin it away.

       0 likes

  42. Phil says:

    Chippy, old chap
    “an opinion reinforcing facility” is precisely what the BBC looks like once one has the opportunity to read other news sources. The lack of any diversity of opinion in stuff put out by the BBC, and the brass-bound assumptions it brings to any issue involving America, Israel and Islam means that it incresingly looks like an organisdation dedicated to talking to itself in order to reinforce its own unexamined assumptions (aka prejudices).
    My grouse is that I have pay for it on pain of a fine – otherwise I’d let them get on with it.

       0 likes

  43. p and a tale of one chip says:

    “What you mean is this blog doesn’t fit with YOUR view of the BBC and therefore it’s wrong.”

    No. Sometimes it’s right.

    Many times it’s wrong.

    But in both cases it’s rarely a fact checking blog.

       0 likes

  44. Mike_s says:

    I personaly thought that this article was a more balanced article than normal bbc articles. But there were some assumptions which were not backup by evidence;
    “But resistance by fighters of the Mehdi Army, loyal to the cleric Moqtada Sadr, was unexpectedly fierce.”
    If you send 15000 troops do you expect an easy ride. And how does BBC know what Maliki expected.

    What exactly happened is unknown.
    That said, I think you can conclude that Maliki scored a political victory. And that the iraqi troops performed as could be expected.

       0 likes

  45. Martin says:

    p and a tale of one chip: This blog is about opinion. Just like climate change,we all have an opinion. Opinions are based on evidence.

    Problem with the BBC is that far too much of it’s output is based upon opinion and not fact.

    The story about Basra contains a lot of opinion not backed up by facts.

       0 likes

  46. Sarah Jane (20% BBC) says:

    Martin:
    Sarah Jane: Why don’t you take a look at the utter bile the BBC pours out about the USA and “evil Joows”

    If the BBC thinks Jews are evil why do so many of them enjoy succesful careers here?

    I guess they could have been brainwashed as part of the New World Order/global conspiracy etc

    PS 80% of me is not dependant on telly tax to earn my keep, and that 80% is at liberty to say what it likes. But still no need to be nice luv.

    Bryan – do you or do you not think that people cheered in BBC Newsrooms on 9/11?

       0 likes

  47. TPO says:

    Bryan – do you or do you not think that people cheered in BBC Newsrooms on 9/11?
    Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 04.04.08 – 5:13 pm |

    I doubt it very much, but one has to wonder given the atrocious Question Time broadcast two days later and the fact the the BBC were forced apologise for it and then it transpired that they had even rigged the ‘audience’ to make it into a baying mob.

       0 likes

  48. Bryan says:

    Martin | 04.04.08 – 4:00 pm, and

    4:08 pm

    Interesting that Sarah Jane and p with the chip and so many other BBC apologists simply cannot see what the BBC is becoming. It is turning into a monstrous propaganda machine. And the more monstrous its growth, the narrower the PC constraints it puts on itself. What a weird contradiction. Really incongruent.

    The assumption that only you and your fellow travellers have the foresight to see things as they really are and working journalists in the BBC spend no time thinking about their role and impact as a journalist is breathtakingly arrogant.
    p and a tale of one chip | 04.04.08 – 4:02 pm

    That assumption is all in your own head, p. I make no such assumption. And yes, I realise that BBC people think about these things. You might notice I used the word “agonises” in connection with Peter Horrocks at 4:00 pm. Problem is, the thinking is within a PC cocoon. I see little evidence of the BBC being able to think independently on these issues.

    Now maybe it would be constructive for you to go back over your last dozen or so posts on this blog and observe how your contribution has been mostly to trash others’ opinions without offering anything to the debate about BBC bias.

    Bryan – do you or do you not think that people cheered in BBC Newsrooms on 9/11?
    Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 04.04.08 – 5:13 pm

    Rather than trying to interrogate me, why don’t you just read what I said at 3:46 pm?

    TPO | 04.04.08 – 5:30 pm,

    You’ve put it in a nutshell, TPO.

       0 likes

  49. Martin says:

    Sarah Jane: Are you seriously suggesting the BBC isn’t anti Semetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!

    Jews have successful careerss because they work hard (something Beeoids would know sod all about)

    The fact that 20% of your income comes from the TV tax means you should still understand that the BBC has a duty to the public to present information and not try to make up the minds of the public on its behalf. WE have enough fat stupid politicians who try that trick.

    I still stand by my view that on 9/11 there would have been much rejoicing in the newsrooms of the BBC. The BBC hardly showed compassion towards America after 9/11 did it?

    After all the BBC rejoiced after McLiebour got elected in 1997 Sarah Jane. Did you join in that party then?

       0 likes