And so the sad landmark of 100 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan is reached and it provides the BBC with yet another opportunity to undermine the morale of our Armed Forces. Soldiers from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, were on foot patrol in Helmand Province when a scumbag Jihadist detonated himself. The blast killed three of our boys. Instead of examining what sort of deranged mindset encourages these homicide-bombers (Islam) the BBC’s defence correspondent Paul Adams instead questions the veracity of the progress our military is making and complains at the corruption of the Afghan government. I’m sure the next of kin will find this most reassuring – the subtext of course being that their men died in vain. Shame on Adams and the rest of the defeatist anti-military BBC.
100, NOT OUT?
Bookmark the permalink.
not sure about this – the overall tone of the article is one of gratitude for the troops and optimism about progress (including an opinion that its declining afghani support which is requiring the taleban to resort to suicide bombings and criticism of the UN)… however it’s a bit strange that the sole contribution by a BBC employee is the less optimistic quotes. I think something along those lines is required for a balanced and realistic article (unless, as would be entirely reasonable, they just wanted to do a big up to the troops piece without looking at the wider situation) but surely they could’ve used a third party to put that view.
I just heard the defence sec Des Browne congratulating the BBC for its fair and balanced coverage of the Afghanistan situation on the Today programme.
Cockney.
It is the BBC comments that I take issue with since as you point out they are at odds with what those directly involved say.
Well I guess the beeb has to do something since their other “best bet”, Iraq, hasnt gone to script (ie. too much good news to report).
And anyway, we all know that these deaths are tragic BUT its 100 deaths in 7 years of active service! Imagine going through all of WWII with only 100 deaths!
The lack of casualties should be something that should be celebrated, not used to shore up anti-war support for the terrorists!
Mailman
Wouldn’t it be nice, as this a NATO operation, if some of our compatriots in that organisation felt the need to assist in or perhaps taking a turn ‘in the hot seat’.
That they are always up for a ‘bit of free defence’, is well recognised. What I find rather dismaying is that most of them are also our companions in that ‘Gilded Trough in the Sky’, the EU.
I wonder if they will expect us to be the only ones to ‘do our duty’, when we eventually dissappear into the swamp they are so busy creating?
After a week in which the MOD has been roundly criticised for the poor conditions our troops have to endure, it was utterly revolting to hear Brown offering condolences on the recent deaths.
He spouted hypocrisy of the most devious and nasty kind, it was a wonder that he managed to keep a straight face.
He gave a new definition to the term ‘crocodile tears’.
Yes. Notice the BBC never attacks Muslims for detonating a suicide bomb in a market or using people wit hlearning difficulties to act as mules.
You’ve been busy since I was last here.
Now I wish I hadn’t, I feel dirty after reading this shit.
I notice you are still running away from answering the point about Livingstone, pathetic coward.
Gil, I was listening to the radio this morning (Classic FM), and Liam Fox was on the news saying exactly the same as you re:NATO.
It’s rather telling that only the BBC and the Guardian are leading the 100 deaths story as ‘Brown pays tribute too…’.
David,
The level of obscenities on this blog has proliferated dramatically, it has become everyday for some posters and yet it is still unacceptable.
It does not enhance this blog at all.
Is something going to be done about it.
I am embarrassed to read some of the threads.
I noticed it too. All about the future viability of the operation. Nothing about the barbarism of the Taliban. Pathetic!
David,
Not, ITV mid day news led with a story on the 100 deaths in Afghanistan “with no end in sight”!
Interestingly enough, ITV also threw in the old “more soldiers are dieing in Afghanistan than in Iraq”…but forgot to tell us that there is only good old Jock and his terrier left in Basrah now!
This is the other thing that gets on my tits…no end in sight! For fecks sake, how hard is it for people to understand that the armed forces will be there UNTIL the job is done…and not tied to some artificial timeframe that everyone agrees on except the terrorist scum (who in all honesty only has to outwait us until Al Beeb has manipulated popular oppinion enough to force the UK to surrender, like they surrendered in Iraq.
Mailman
Hi David,
Exactly my point!
BBC uses every opportunity to reduce the morale of soldiers.
Reading BBC stories inspires muslim-jihadi scum to carry on more suicide-bombings.
An old story but worth a read:-
‘Jihad on accountants’ man jailed
A man has been jailed for two years for sending dozens of letters to mosques around the UK urging their members to launch terror attacks on accountants.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7253780.stm
The court was told he wrote in the letters: “Brothers, you are right to kill the infidels but you are making a mistake to try to attack planes and other targets.”
He said Muslims should instead focus their “jihad” on four accountancy bodies.
“Brothers, striking at these targets will be striking at the infidels where it hurts most,” he said.
This is a typical jihadi mindset i.e. kill infidels who didn’t do what you say….
But, BBC points the blame (desire to kill infidels) to somewhere else. —–he is suffering from “seriously abnormal mental
condition”
BaggieJonathan,
I do not want to see ANY profanities on those blogs with which I am associated. Here’s the problem, I do not have the time to read every thread and take action against those who swear. It depresses me that the language used here is not up to civilised standards at time.
So can you all PLEASE not use profane language? It would help me – encourage visitors to hang around more, and make B-BBC a more professional web location. Thanks for your consideration in advance!
BBC’s latest HYS Item:-
Is Afghanistan a worthy battle for Britain?
David,
The level of obscenities on this blog has proliferated dramatically, it has become everyday for some posters and yet it is still unacceptable.
It does not enhance this blog at all.
Is something going to be done about it.
I am embarrassed to read some of the threads.
I think this blog has plenty else to be embarrassed about.
Such as your presence.
“I think this blog has plenty else to be embarrassed about.
korova | 09.06.08 – 3:18 pm”
“Such as your presence. Nearly Oxfordian | 09.06.08 – 3:19 pm”
N.O. has got that right about you korova.
I recall this weekend the BBC said broadcasting the Talibans opinion was legitimate.
The BBC thinks ISLAMOFASCISM is morally equivalent to stopping ISLAMOFASCISM and homicide bombings.
Liberals do not see Britains’ goodness. But it does see the Taliban as legit.
Joel, you are dirty.
Hmmmmmm. I wonder why the media doesn’t report the number of ISLAMOFASCISTS sent to hell by Britain and the U.S. or the number of children blown up by ISLAMOFASCISTS.
Joel can you help me out with this one?
The BBC has clearly taken sides on this issue. They have been triangulating their attacks for some time, from different angles, but it all seems to have come together now.
The World Service had a piece saying the same thing: it’s hopeless, everyone wants out.
Nobody dares consider the consequences. The BBC doesn’t want you to, either.
David, my grandfather was shot at El Alemein, (Scots Black Watch), he was in his 40’s when he joined the service for a second stint. He had to.
Today’s mamby pamby post modern hippy journalism school graduates have no idea what war is about. They have no idea what military service is about. Their only concern is that their paycheck is on time and their Chardonnay is chilled. When London subways are bombed, when World Trade Center 110 story buildings are torn down by fully fueled jet airliners, they wring their hands in astonishment that we could have made these poor Muslims angry.
Islamofascism is a cancer. We cut it out, or it grows until we succomb to it.
Gus, I think I’ll take a break from this site for a while. Reading recent posts has made me sad. Debate is all good but I’m sickened by some of what I’ve read.
Anyway, to answer your question, it would seem to me that there are practically difficluties in reporting Taleban fatalities.
It’s not like any reliable source is keeping count, or that BBC journalists can crawl over battlefields under fire, to count the dead. Nato forces can make estimates, those are reported but the reality is, the BBC doesn’t know. Nor does anyone else.
(Whent he Taleban were launching direct assaults though, coverage I saw made it pretty clear that they were dying in their hundreds, maybe 100 for every Nato casualty?)
It would seem to me that the 100th British death in Afghanistan is a reasonable time to take stock, review how it’s going, the success of the mission, what the future holds etc.
But this site and this post, isn’t about bias anymore, its about providing a forum for people to give their personal opinions on the Taleban, Muslims etc. I think the BBC is just the messenger.
Besides the merit or otherwise of any of these ‘examples’, don’t you think its completely insane to think that the BBC is biased in favour of the Taleban or Islamofacists. Even in the coverage of the death of one of its own reporters.
Anyway, I’ve had enough for now, I’ve tried to reason with people in the past, but its proved pointless. Then I thought I would put an alternative view for those who view the site but don’t post, but I think they’re capable of making up their own minds based on the kind of bile and ignorance written here.
I agree Joel. You post bile and ignorance. Run along, you mama’s calling you.
Joel’s sweeping generalisations won’t be missed.
He laments what he claims is a failure to discuss genuine bias, yet not once have I seen him address the issue of the BBC’s rampant bias over ‘Green’ issues, which we have repeatedly raised and which neither he nor the other Leftists have the guts to discuss.
Like them, all he really wants to do is come here and wring his hands in anguish at how ‘horrible’ everyone here is.
Small wonder, faced with such pusillanimity.
or that BBC journalists can crawl over battlefields under fire,
No need. The BBC Journos (in Afghanistan) work for taliban [and if they don’t, they will be killed]…so no doubt they get full details..
Joel | Homepage | 09.06.08 – 4:51 pm |
Besides the merit or otherwise of any of these ‘examples’, don’t you think its completely insane to think that the BBC is biased in favour of the Taleban or Islamofacists.
Yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that so many Beeboids are just that. They do see this now as just another pointless Bush war. There is no factual, objective analysis. Its only opinions about bad news, and they are slyly re-writing the history of how we got there in the first place.
That is bias, and I find it completely insane that the BBC News people think this way. But they so clearly do.
Maybe it’s just a symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome, which will pass once Obamessiah is elected. Or not, as the real reason we’re in Afghanistan will have gone down the memory hole by then, thanks to the BBC.
Joel:
“Anyway, I’ve had enough for now, I’ve tried to reason with people in the past, but its proved pointless”
You have run away from debate, little boy. You have been challenged to say why Livingstone’s corruption is not more important than Spelman’s nanny – and you ran a mile.
Coward!
.
N.O. Joel is merely practicing what he preaches.
Retreat and surrender.
Yep.
It’s very easy to say ‘Answer my question, and if you don’t it proves that I was right!’.
I can’t answer every point myself, sometimes mummy wants her PC back.
As to Red Ken, I don’t have a clue. It’s not a subject I know much about, and I really don’t have the time to investigate and read all the links provided. You might think that a cop-out but I don’t have the time or inclination to look at every single issue. I comment on the subjects I know something about.
The tenor of many comments has become childish and abusive. This is distracting the blog from its serious purpose, which is that of taking the BBC to task for its failure to maintain balance and objectivity. I know I have gone off topic myself at times, but can we not at least avoid personal attacks and the kind of language we would not like our own children to use?
If the UK gets a new government in the near future, there may be the possibility of reform of the BBC (capping the licence, followed by privatisation in 5 years’ time would be my preference). We should not hand ammunition to the enemies of freedom by personal invective and tangential ramblings. Please, everyone: keep civil and keep focused.
Joel, if you want to comment on things you know about, why not go to the gay/bi/transgendered boards.
You are a lib surrender monkey.
Libertus, why not lead by example. We don’t need a lecture from you. If you have sincere gripes as to content. please say so.
When you have a moment look up “sanctimony”.
Korova,
Think what you want but I don’t notice you persuading too many to your point of view.
Joel, what a pathetic cop-out. You claim that the BBC is not biased. All we are asking you to do is explain your position: is a story about Livingstone’s corruption – I am not even saying, for this purpose, whether the corruption really happened, merely that it is a major story – LESS important than one about Spelman’s nanny 10 years ago? The latter was splashed all over the BBC, whereas the one about L a year ago was not.
You don’t need to be knowledgeable. You merely need to put your money where your big mouth is.
You are running away. Fine. We won’t miss you.
Gus, I must say I agree with that comment.
Sorry, I mean yours, Gus.
OK, Gus, I’ll yield the floor to you.
Nemo te lacessit impune.
(My uncle – my late mother’s beloved brother Bobby – was in the Black Watch too. He died aged 21 of wounds received in the North African campaign and is buried near Tripoli. RIP)
Farewell for now.
It’s not a recent problem; this country has a long record of neglecting its soldiers in peacetime (I don’t know whether are technically “at war” or not but the UK as a whole is not obviously on a war footing).
Rudyard Kipling wrote the poem “Tommy” which summarises the position very well I think:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”;
But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2100201/Parachute-Regiment-in-Afghanistan.html
14 photos of the Parachute Regiment in Afghanistan.
Not a Leithhead is sight.
Silly me, he never leaves Kabul.
If Britain and other NATO countries did leave Afghanistan tomorrow, how long do you think it would take the BBC to attack the West for ‘abandoning the Afghani people to the Taliban’?
To the bigots at the BBC, whatever the West does it’ll always be in the wrong.
“Silly me, he never leaves Kabul.”
Run a search on the BBC News website for “Leithead and Helmand” and you will see this is nonsense.
Actually, Libertus, that was said at least partly ironically 😉
Run off back to the BBC Roland.
Debate the point, TPO.
Are you asking or telling?
I don’t take orders from the BBC
By the way was Leithhead with the paras. No he was not.