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.
WHICH SIDE TO BELIEVE.
Bookmark the permalink.
Thank you WoAD there are bits of the beeb that could do with more infiltration by B3TA.
As you are such an authority on this matter that you can make such bold claims without recourse to facts – perhaps you could tell me what form this infiltration takes so next time I am in there I can keep an eye out for it.
Sarah Jane | 07.04.08 – 4:35 pm
As I said, the list I provided is a small fraction of the BBC’s appeasement of radical Islam and it would take months to compile a comprehensive one. I’m wondering what you mean by “facts” and what more evidence you want.
…which is mainly surprising because the UK press would have crucified the BBC for that, if they could, so something else must be at play, more than a gullible researcher and producer.
Sarah Jane | 07.04.08 – 5:09 pm
Do you see what you just did there? You used the absence of something as proof of the existence of something else. And no, Hillhunt has not “deconstructed” my list. He hasn’t even dealt with the majority of the points I raised. If I can find the time, I will de-deconstruct his attempt to pull the wool over people’s eyes and represent the BBC as an ethical, impartial organisation.
Bryan – all I am saying is that there is something fishy about the Osama Bin London thing that doesn’t stack up. But I don’t want to go all Atlas Shrugged on everyone…
Yes, I know what you are saying. But I find it quite disturbing that the worst of Islamic society appears to have a hotline to the BBC. Please don’t tell me that this cosy relationship is due to naivete on the part of the BBC.
Report (9 April 08) from Paul Wood, BBC correspondent on the death in action of an SAS soldier north of Baghdad:
‘Pointing at the rubble and wagging his finger, he (unnamed Iraqi man) said the coalition’s actions were more brutal than those of Israel against the Palestinians.
“This is Islamic soil, the Prophet’s ground. I swear to God that we won’t rest until we are liberated, until every last dog and pig of the coalition forces leaves this country.”
PW: ‘Those deaths may be the fault of the insurgents but they are laid at the coalition’s door. The SAS killed two “bombmakers”. They may have created many more.’
Thanks BBC, for reminding us how hopeless it all is. If only we’d known that back in 1940, we could have surrended straight away and saved an awful lot of bother.
Sorry – don’t know where that bloody smiley came from.
It’s a glitch in the system. Happens when you type in an eight followed by a bracket.
Your point is well taken. That’s the BBC speaking through the Iraqi.
“That’s the BBC speaking through the Iraqi.”
I’m pretty sure that the BBC don’t have advanced powers of mind control that they can tell Iraqis what to think.