You have to laugh at the BBC’s slavish devotion to the world’s MOST corrupt organised hypocrisy – the United Nations. No sooner does the US reveal that North Korea and Syria have been working together to produce Boy Bashar’s very own nuke facility than the BBC rushes out to tell us that the UN is going to have to “investigate” this claim and that the International Atomic Energy Agency has already criticised the US for withholding this intelligence until seven months after Israel bombed the site. (Mm, I wonder why that might have been then?) Note how quickly Israel and the US get criticised and the charming “ulterior motive” sub heading towards the end of this pusillanimous report.
SEND IN THE UN!
Bookmark the permalink.
Ah, thanks for that Anat. I remember being impressed by a debate some time back between a Muslim and an ex-Muslim who pointed out the taquia in the saying about killing unjustly, mentioning that it had been initially directed as a warning to Jews who killed Muslims. But I didn’t quite connect the “unjustly” bit. The Muslim had no answer and just remained silent.
From other posts I’ve read of yours you seem to have made quite a study of Islam. I’m wondering if we can get the BBC to ask elBaradei what his real agenda is.
Islam was not founded on intolerance? Ah, well, then it wasn’t a pink quadruped that just flew past my window.
“In which case why is the UN castigating America for not informing it about a Syrian nuclear facility?”
You’re asking why the International Atomic Energy Agency was offended that it was kept in the dark on a rather weighty nuclear issue? I’ll leave you to guess.
Now speculation aside, do you really want the BBC to treat things like this with more certainty than their source did?
He doesn’t get it. He really, really doesn’t get it.
And when one of his pseudo-arguments is pulverised, he simply digs up another one.
You have to laugh. Or something.
Alex,
“I can see the advantages of not building your nuclear power plant near anything valuable.”
What would these advantages be? Modern nuclear energy production is perfectly safe. The containers holding spend fuel rods are immensely strong and would make unlikely terrorist targets.
Stop blundering and come into the real world Mr Alex.
And you need cooling water. And Syria has a long coastline.
Alex,
Do you have opposing thumbs?
Let’s not be too harsh on the BBC here – they evidently admire the way that Syria engages in an active and constructive way with its neighbours in Lebanon, and wants to see that benign regional cooperation strengthened through a nuclear program, tutted-over maternally by the irritated but ultimately powerless UN.
Possibly the BBC also remembers with admiration and nostalgia the proactive and decisive way that Syria dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood at Hama in 1982. That alone would be enough to win the admiration of a BBC always so keen to defend the Western world against the predations of religious fundamentalism.
Fair enough, no nuclear physicist myself, so I’ll concede that Syria may not have picked the most practical location for energy generation. Now how does this translate into the BBC being biased?
Nearly Oxfordian:
Point taken. I don’t mean to suggest that British media should adopt American terminology.
But what is the British convention for referring to the Executive Branch? From my American point of view, Executive Branch, White House, and X Administration would be equally appropriate terms. In the US, “X Administration” doesn’t carry any sinister subtext or overtones.
Peter:
I assume that the President ultimately made the decision about when the photographs would be published without the advice or consent of Congress. In which case, it would be incorrect to attribute this decision to the “US Government” or “Washington.” But perhaps I am mistaken.