I note that an Afghan journalist working for the BBC in the country’s southern Helmand province has been found shot dead. Abdul Samad Rohani had been abducted on Saturday and his body was found on Sunday afternoon in Lashkar Gah. As I mention on another thread, this brutal murder is to be condemned. It is wrong and just because the guy concerned was working for the BBC does not in any way make it right. However when I read this report on Mr Rohani’s murder there are a few missing words. Nowhere does the BBC make clear that Mr Rohani has been killed by fellow Muslims. Nowhere does the BBC make clear that this is Jihad in action – an attempt by Islamists to silence the voice of a free press. The irony is that the US and UK military – whose very presence in Afghanistan is a constant source of BBC carping – risk their lives daily to try and protect the very liberty and freedoms which the the Jihad boys would take away, just as they took away Mr Rohani’s life.
NAME THE KILLERS.
Bookmark the permalink.
I can barely accept that there was any ‘terror’ to start with
52 people murdered and 700 injured, followed by a series of further terrorist plots by our Islamic friends and korova can barely accept that there is any terror. One wonders how many innocent civilians would have to die before conviction sets in 700, 7000, 7000000.
Arthur Dent | 09.06.08 – 11:29 pm
you took the words right out of my mouth
Apparently korova doesn’t believe that this has anything to do with a multitude of attacks, including the one that killed nearly 3000 in one day, including 30 people from my street.
Afghanistan is all about that last one especially, and the BBC is trying to make you forget it.
David Preiser:
Afghanistan is all about that last one especially, and the BBC is trying to make you forget it.
They’re not trying very hard…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/
…The first link which comes up when you put 9/11 into the BBC News search.
ColinChase | 10.06.08 – 12:16 am |
They’re not trying very hard…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english…/day_of_terror/
…The first link which comes up when you put 9/11 into the BBC News search.
And this mentions the connection to Afghanistan where? This is irrelevant. I didn’t say the BBC is trying to make people forget about 9/11, but rather are trying to erase the connection between that and the current activities of US, UK and NATO troops in Afghanistan.
More specifically, I’m talking about the news reports the BBC actually does on Afghanistan. Didn’t you understand that? Would you care to address the issue properly?
They haven’t made you forget though have they David? You must just be super clever, thank God all the plebs have you to look after them.
“I can barely accept that there was any ‘terror’ to start with”
You need professional help, dear.
Clearly Nearl Oxfordian et al are living in ‘terror’. I refuse to accept that there is any terror. I certainly don’t live my life in fear of ‘terror’ and most people I encounter do not seem to be living in ‘terror’. God only knows what some of you would have done in World War II during a period of real terror.
As I said, I can barely accept that there was any terror to begin with, except in the minds of those on either side of this ‘war on terror’.
As I said, I can barely accept that there was any terror to begin with, except in the minds of those on either side of this ‘war on terror’.
Good for you. You go girl.
Joel | Homepage | 10.06.08 – 9:07 am |
They haven’t made you forget though have they David? You must just be super clever, thank God all the plebs have you to look after them.
Actually, I’m not, and they don’t. But can you provide any actual defense for the BBC to continue to report that the British presence in Afghanistan is a waste of time, must end, and without any thought to the consequences, yet they fail every time out to mention the reason why the troops are there in the first place? All these reports lead the audience to believe that this is really just another of Bush’s mad wars. This is false, yet you have no problem with the BBC giving that impression.
The report about the 100 killed milestone said, essentially, that there are now too many casualties, but gives no actual reason for them to even be there. How is that not biased? How many reports about ending the British presence in Afghanistan can the BBC do without mentioning why they’re even there, but rather denigrating it by calling it merely a “Bush war”, before you will see bias?
Korova, do you think the War on Terror might, rather than referring to the fact that we’re all terrified, be a way of phrasing a campaign against terrorism?
David Preiser:
can you provide any actual defense for the BBC to continue to report that the British presence in Afghanistan is a waste of time…
No need. That’s not the consistent theme of BBC reporting.
…continue to report that the British presence in Afghanistan… must end..
Must? Says who?
…without any thought to the consequences…
Really? How?
The report about the 100 killed milestone said, essentially, that there are now too many casualties, but gives no actual reason for them to even be there.
Really? How about Caroline Wyatt’s linked piece headed Long fight ahead for British troops
“Britain deployed troops to Afghanistan shortly after the attacks of 11 September, 2001.”
There’s more from you:
How many reports about ending the British presence in Afghanistan can the BBC do ….denigrating it by calling it merely a “Bush war”, before you will see bias?
There are 7 linked reports on the 100-deaths milestone. Not one uses the phrase Bush war. Where did you find it?
And what is terrorism Hugh? ‘The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear’? Well, if it is, these are pretty low grade terrorists as they certainly don’t instil me with fear.
You’re pretty safe in your Amnesty International T-shirt, Korova, for now.
No mention of why here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7423275.stm
Nor was any reason given in the accompanying HYS (closed within a day, comments also filled with gospel). Only “…since 2001”.
Certainly this report from Alex Dunlop is filled with vox populi dutifully repeating the gospel: “It’s an illegal war…it was something we got led into….we need to get out.” I wonder where they learned that? All this goes uncorrected and unremarked by Dunlop.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7444398.stm
None of this mentions the consequences of pulling the troops. You ask “how”, and I say, “by not discussing what would happen.”
On Today, Des Browne makes a valiant attempt at getting across a bit of the truth about progress in Afghanistan, and what is being achieved. The BBC line of questioning is completely negative, and even references comments from the previous guest, who had a negative opinion. Even after Browne gives positive answers to the negative questions, backing them up with figures, Stourton rushes through a litany of more negatives, which is the last word on the subject.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7443000/7443404.stm
You found a rare example mentioning 9/11 and Afghanistan in the same report. Certainly what I keep hearing when they discuss it is that this is part of the “so-called war on terror”, which is really Bush’s war.
Here’s one other article mentioning the link between 9/11 and the military presence in Afghanistan:
“a href=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/country_profiles/1162668.stm”>Country profile: Afghanistan
But, oops, they say things like this:
The emergence of the Taleban – originally a group of Islamic scholars – brought at least a measure of stability after nearly two decades of conflict.
‘Islamic scholars’ being a relative term, apparently.
But their extreme version of Islam attracted widespread criticism.
Here it comes….
The Taleban – drawn from the Pashtun majority – were opposed by an alliance of factions drawn mainly from Afghanistan’s minority communities and based in the north.
n control of about 90% of Afghanistan until late 2001, the Taleban were recognised as the legitimate government by only three countries.
They were at loggerheads with the international community over the presence on their soil of Osama bin Laden, accused by the US of masterminding the bombing of their embassies in Africa in 1998 and the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.
And here we go again. Only “accused by the US”? They did it, admitted it, made videos about it, and some have been tried and convicted for attacking the World Trade Center the first time. By leaving the Taleban’s complicity in question, this opens us up to:
After the Taleban’s refusal to hand over bin Laden, the US initiated aerial attacks in October, paving the way for opposition groups to drive them from power.
US aggression, invading a country just because we “accused” somebody. None of the linked articles on the right of the page are any help, either. “Under strain” mentions 2001, but just makes it seem like we invaded out of the blue.
Not even during all the Prince Harry noise did they say anything about the reasons for the troops to be there other than the peacekeeping and rebuilding stuff.
That’s the pattern. This creates a different context for the UK troop presence in Afghanistan than what it actually is. So this is how they set up calls for withdrawal from guests, opinion pieces, and vox pops, and presenters gently nudging their interview subjects in that direction.
David Preiser:
Boy, do you like to use your tunnel vision.
Here’s the BBC quoting the PM re the 100 deaths:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7443331.stm
They were helping turn a “lawless region sheltering terrorists into an emerging democracy”, he said.
Not enough? Des Browne is next, saying that the (Afghan) campaign was “the noble cause of the 21st Century”.
Then there’s the commander of UK forces in Helmand pointing out that the Taleban … no longer enjoyed support amongst ordinary Afghans.
Then we hear from a prof from RUSI, who makes clear the mission end would be when they could genuinely say that whatever happened next was in the hands of the Afghan people.
Next David Cameron gets to praise the troops before Nick Clegg hammers home the message: “The consequences of failure in Afghanistan would be unimaginable – a boost to terrorists who seek to harm our way of life, an increase in hard drugs on our streets and terrible instability in an already unstable region.”
All of this defines the mission, outlines current thinking and praises the troops’ qualities and bravery. Making a totem out of demanding that each article contains a mandatory reference to 9/11 doubtless brings a rosy glow to your cheeks, but it’s not essential. Or even interesting.
korova: “And what is terrorism Hugh? ‘The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear’? Well, if it is, these are pretty low grade terrorists as they certainly don’t instil me with fear.”
Far be it from me to point out you might feel differently living in Afghanistan, Iraq or even Israel, but you must bear in mind that evidently even in the UK not everyone is as tough as you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4744139.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/26/july7.uksecurity3
ColinChase | 11.06.08 – 2:33 am |
All of this defines the mission, outlines current thinking and praises the troops’ qualities and bravery. Making a totem out of demanding that each article contains a mandatory reference to 9/11 doubtless brings a rosy glow to your cheeks, but it’s not essential. Or even interesting.
Yes, you quote Browne and Clegg very well. That’s not the BBC talking. Not everything the BBC allows on air is in lock-step with their groupthink, just most of it. They tried to corner Browne, but he was having none of it. What you leave out is the fact that Dunlop tried to walk all over nearly every one of Browne’s statements, to the point of concluding the interview with a list of more negatives. The producers look at that as a failed interview, because Dunlop did not achieve the desired result.
Clegg expressed a positive sentiment, but I must have blinked and missed the Conservative voice in the piece.
You have apparently also decided that there is nothing wrong with the BBC leaving the door open for those who believe that Bush just led the UK into an illegal war. Except for the one example you pointed out, none of the other reports mention the reason why troops are in Afghanistan. I don’t demand that every single one mention it, but I do demand that it should be there in the most important reports, such as the one about 100 deaths. It should also be mentioned any time the BBC asks if there is any reason for the troops to be there.
It is very disingenuous, if not outright misrepresentation, to continually do reports and HYS bits asking whether or not people think British troops should be in Afghanistan, and not give the real reason they’re there in the first place. If somebody missed that one report, they would have no idea why British troops are there other than to aid a Bush war.
Can you explain why the fact that British troops are in Afghanistan is connected to the attacks of 9/11 is uninteresting, and not worth reporting any more? Is there some other reason that might be valid instead?
David Preiser:
Can you explain why the fact that British troops are in Afghanistan is connected to the attacks of 9/11 is uninteresting, and not worth reporting any more? Is there some other reason that might be valid instead?
It may well have been part of the original reason, but we are 7 years on, and the purpose now is to bring stability to a country which has been ravaged by decades of tribal wars, religious extremism and external intervention. The ambition is to establish the rule of law and a viable form of democracy. 9/11 was part of the spark but is not the fuel keeping the flame of the campaign alive.
You quote Browne and Clegg very well. That’s not the BBC talking.
I would be very troubled indeed if the BBC did take formal positions on a matter as sensitive as the conduct of a war. Your issue is about the extent of debate and whether the BBC has reported it fairly. Complaining that they quote other people is missing the point.
The producers look at that as a failed interview, because Dunlop did not achieve the desired result.
Are you:
1. Clairvoyant?
2. Hacking the BBC’s editorial computers?
3. Making this up?
Clegg expressed a positive sentiment, but I must have blinked and missed the Conservative voice in the piece.
That would be the bit with name David Cameron attached to it.
The BBC blares these questions out on its Have Your Say:
Should British troops be in Afghanistan?
and
Is Afghanistan a worthy battle for Britain?
They were told this:
“Should British troops be in Afghanistan?”
This question should be turned around and aimed straight back at the subversives at the BBC:
Is there ANY conflict, present or imaginary, where you think British forces should be?
Or would you try to discourage and undermine British forces WHEREVER they are?
Interesting that they published it. The moderator probably doesn’t know what “subversive” means.
I would be very troubled indeed if the BBC did take formal positions on a matter as sensitive as the conduct of a war.
Then be troubled, indeed, ColinChase. The BBC not only takes a formal (and violently prejudiced) position on anything from global warming to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but a good proportion of its hacks are actively, consciously and implacably on the wrong side in this War on Terror. Here is one example among the many that have been documented on this blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/06/bad_phrase.html
Why do you think that the BBC insists on telling us that the War on Terror is “so-called,” i.e. simply Bush’s paranoia?
Have Your Say is now officially being edited by Polly Toynbee. Today’s topics, comrades:
-Is the time right to withdraw UK troops from Iraq?
-Is Afghanistan a worthy battle for Britain?
-Is Colombia’s war becoming history?
-Can Obama win the White House?
-Can the UN summit tackle the global food crisis?
-Yves Saint Laurent: Your reaction
-Is it time to reconsider GM food?
Strikes me that it would be a useful exercise to draw up a list of potential HYS topics from a right wing or even centrist position. That would highlight the absurdity of the agenda-pushing of the BBC.
It’s not tricky on current stories:
Is 42 days right?
Should the Irish vote no on the EU constitution?
Could the government do more to protect against flooding?
Should we do more for our injured troops?
Is Britain’s government spending too much?
What next for Nepal?
How about:
With terrorists on the run, what next for Iraq and Afghanistan?
Is man-made global warming a myth?
Will Obama’s dubious past lose him the presidency?
How best to stem the immigrant flood.
What to do about no-go Muslim areas.
Have you been mugged?
LOL, as they say in the classics.
ColinChase | 11.06.08 – 7:59 am |
It may well have been part of the original reason, but we are 7 years on, and the purpose now is to bring stability to a country which has been ravaged by decades of tribal wars, religious extremism and external intervention. The ambition is to establish the rule of law and a viable form of democracy. 9/11 was part of the spark but is not the fuel keeping the flame of the campaign alive.
9/11 was the only spark (an unfortunate word choice here, but never mind), not only part of it. Until that happened, everyone was happy to let the Taleban do as they please. Although only like 3 countries recognized them as the legitimate government, it was only a matter of time before everyone else did. If not for 9/11, they’d still be in charge.
It’s true that the original purpose of the military action was to remove the Taleban government. That has been achieved, and the current main purpose, as you say, is to create a new one. However, the Taleban and their Al Qaeda associates (I’m sure there’s a very fuzzy line between them in that region) keep trying to take it back.
The situation is slightly different from Iraq in that Sadaam and his followers are not trying to take Iraq back. There is an entirely different combination of groups fighting against us in that country. If we follow the BBC dream and Obama does pull all the troops next year as he says he will some of the time (when his foreign policy advisers aren’t telling people he doesn’t really mean that), Sadaam and the Baathists will not be in charge again.
In Afghanistan, however, the Taleban will be in charge again, and the country will revert to exactly as it was before. Big difference.
The main problem with your contention is that all there is left is “regime change” in a vaccum, out of context. Which is generally considered unacceptable and most people call that an “illegal war”. So, if we accept your position that 9/11 is irrelevant, there is no legitimate reason for troops to be there at all. Unless that’s your point as well.