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.
The point was the original poster said he never ventures outside Kabul. 20 seconds research on the BBC site showed that to be tripe.
In fact I recall Leithhead seriously misleading people last December by giving them the impression that he was with ISAF forces when they re-took Musa Qala.
There was only one journalsit with the ISAF forces and he was corresponding for either the Times or the Telegraph.
Given the BBC’s piss poor reputation with UK Armed Forces I doubt very much if they would have invited Leithhead along any way.
Now back to the BBC with you Roland.
Our posts crossed Roland.
So you believe the BBC site do you.
I’m afraid I have to have what the BBC puts out independently verified.
Yes, they seem to have.
How exactly do you do that?
With my lawyer’s hat on, either the reports on the BBC website which indicate that he has reported from outside Kabul are telling the truth, or they are not. If they are telling the truth, then the original post I was replying to is, as I said, tripe.
If they are not, you could presumably blow the BBC right out of the water in the current climate if you can supply proof that this is the case.
Libertus, nothing personal friend. My Grand-dad survived El Alemein, was held prisoner for 2 years and was crippled for life. Both ankles were blown away by machine gun fire.
My Great Grandad, Michael Manning was killed OCT 13, 1918, and still resides in Damascus. (also Black Watch). My father is buried at Arlington in the U.S., my brother fought in the Iraq war, USAF, and is now a body guard for Dr.Condoleeza Rice, he is in Britain all the time.
My nephew USMC is in Iraq currently and was wounded at age 20 Dec ’04 Iraq.
I have no time for CUT AND RUN SISSIES like Joel. Our Dads, brothers, Grandads, Greatgrandads and nephews have paid a dear price for our freedoms. Being a coward and not facing evil IS NOT AN OPTION.
Take care friend.
mr vance – you do know that the new afghan constitution excludes anyone who is non-muslim from becoming president.
just google it.
now, i’m not part of the anti-war crowd, but i do wonder now in gods name did such a law be introduced under OUR watch…
endless quagmire because of political correctness..
its obvious that our trident nukes are not being brought into the equation – which begs the question – what the fuck is the point of our nuke detterent if we’re not prepared to use it?
Gus: ‘I have no time for CUT AND RUN SISSIES like Joel.’
I try to restrict my comments to the BBC and its coverage. I don’t believe I have ever expressed an opinion here on Brtain’s role in Afghanistan. I have certainly NEVER suggested Britain or NATO should pull out.
For what it’s worth, I feel the opposite. We should stay. I believe the vast majority of the Afghan people want us to stay. Leaving now would mean disaster for the country and we would reap the repercussions. I would like to see the Taleban wiped off the face of the planet.
It’s interesting though that you assumed I was a ‘CUT AND RUN SISSY’ from my comments. Is this the same way you read this into the BBC news coverage?
For once I think the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation may have a point: we are wasting our time in Afghanistan, stirring up trouble for ourselves by preventing nice Afghans growing Opium.
What we should be doing is laying waste to Tehran & Riyadh… that’s where the trouble is really coming from.
Joel, I apologize, you are not a cut and run sissy. I must take you at your word. You are however a sniveling sissy. Of that I have no doubt. Again I apologize for error.
p.s. By “sissy”, I mean you are a baby.
Does that make you feel better?
…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.
Joel | Homepage | 09.06.08 – 4:51 pm
Yet the BBC have interviewed the Taleban. And that model of PC, Mark Byford, said he was “immensely proud” that they had done so. I think it’s far more likely that the BBC have been instructed by the Taleban not to report Taleban fatalities. I wonder why the BBC doesn’t ask the British and Americans. Who else, apart from the Taleban itself, would have a better idea of the death toll?
Remember Hezbollah? I recall that during the Second Lebanon War a few years back the BBC made one attempt to ascertain Hezbollah casualties, got lied to, and never mentioned the subject again. And they were supposed to be “reporting” on the war. No doubt in my mind that they were warned off by their Hezbollah masters.
Hang on a moment – I thought both Roland whatshisname and Joel had announced their retirements?
Can’t tear yourselves away, chaps?
Strange, when it’s such a worthless blog and everyone here is quite mad…
GCooper | 09.06.08 – 10:12 pm,
Yes, I wonder what on earth can be keeping them here.
Bryan, I think Joel is simply too stupid to understand what I meant by my rhetorical question.
The BBC says that “broadcasting the Taliban’s opinion is legitimate”.
It seems that the Taliban is not so “forthcoming” as the American and British governments. This issue is so simple that the “mentally handicapped” (is that PC enough?) could understand it.
The TALIBAN is not legit and is not morally equivalent to the U.K. ARMED FORCES. Yet they are being treated as equal by the liberal media, and LIBTARDS like Joel don’t seem to see a difference.
gus – that is because people of Joel’s persuasion have been ‘educated’ by fools steeped in the work of malign idoiots like Derrida et al who have constructed an intellectual Tower of Babel in which there can be no valid judgements.
So, quite literally, they see a moral equivalence between the Taliban and the US or UK governments.
Ideally, you have to be French and a pseudo-intellectual madman to really get the idea.
Calm down, guys, and stick to the point. BBC bias.
‘I think it’s far more likely that the BBC have been instructed by the Taleban not to report Taleban fatalities.’
Bonkers.
Interviewing the Taleban, does not suggest a moral equivalence. How can you have an understanding of who they are, what they want and so on without hearing what they have to say?!?! If I was a British soldier, I’d want to know my enemy. I find it difficult to understand the mentality of those who object. Dr Liam Fox described it as ‘obscene’. He’s supposed to be an educated man.
Besides, do you think the average British viewer is going to hear the Taleban talking and be suddenly concerted?
The BBC is a news broadcaster, it broadcasts news.
I menat: ‘suddenly be converted’, sorry.
I don’t have a problem with the Beeb talking to the Taleban (in fact I think it’s fascinating), as long as their overall coverage implies support for our troops which is a duty of the national broadcaster.
I don’t think overall the Afghan tone is as bad as the Iraq tone, where backing for our soldiers got completely submerged beneath reporting the various strategic cockups and carnage. There have been plenty of features showing how incredible the boys out there are.
Interviewing the Taleban, does not suggest a moral equivalence.
Bonkers.
It’s not just an interview; BBC reports how it is a just war by Taliban and how good are they in doing that.
The Pakistani Taleban speaks
Pro-Taleban militants have been imposing their own strict Islamic rules in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and that’s now spreading to the rest of the country. Recently the BBC’s Barbara Plett had a rare meeting with one of these local commanders, Qari Sarfraz, who has since been arrested by the authorities. Here is the full transcript of his interview.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6678237.stm
Check these Questions by BBC Reporter
Q: Some of these British Muslims, instead of fighting in Afghanistan, they get explosives training and go back to try and attack Britain. What do you think about that, do you see Britain as a legitimate target because it’s taking part in the war in Afghanistan?
Q: If British Muslims came here for help to prepare for an attack against Britain, would the Pakistani Taliban feel they should help them, given that British Muslims feel that Britain is an anti-Islamic force?
“Interviewing the Taleban, does not suggest a moral equivalence.”
Wrong ! Giving these murdering scum airtime to vent their propaganda is
completely insane. To give the lunatics who stone women to death, get 12 year olds to behead prisoners and blow up innocent children suggests a moral equivalence of the most loathsome kind. It’s like giving interview time to the death squads of the Waffen SS. Evil deserves no polite interviews or promotional publicity.That Al-BBC are proud that they talk to these vermin speaks volumes about the Korporation’s pandering to islamofascism.
Transcript: BBC Taleban interview
The Taleban in Afghanistan have told the BBC that the group is changing its tactics by targeting the capital Kabul. Taleban spokesman Zabiyullah Mujahed was speaking to BBC world affairs editor John Simpson:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6224990.stm
“JS: Are you experiencing any problems in getting people to be suicide bombers? ”
ZM: We have a lot of people who are ready to carry out attacks. The numbers are growing. A lot of people are coming to our suicide bombing centre to volunteer. We have a problem with making sure they attack the right targets, avoiding killing civilians. It takes time to train them properly.
“JS: Are you experiencing any problems in getting people to be suicide bombers? ”
Good quote, froogle. Note that the loathsome anti-American, anti-Israeli
Simpson makes no attempt to show any disgust at suicide murder. He makes it sound as innocuous as asking the Salvation Army if they’re having problems recruiting younger members. The sickening thing is that dhimmis like Simpson actually have sympathy for the islamofascists.
“I try to restrict my comments to the BBC and its coverage”
But you are too scared to comment on the relative importance of Livingston’s corruption v. Spelman, compared to the BBC’s relative coverage.
Lying coward.
“With my lawyer’s hat on”
LOL. That’s supposed to impress us?
“The BBC is a news broadcaster, it broadcasts news”
Drivel. It broadcast editorial opinion, aka lies and propaganda, masquerading as news. We have given you scads of examples. You must be either too stupid to understand them, or a beeboid.
.. broadcastS, as in: every day.
Thanks Terry.
Check this:
The BBC’s Haroon Rashid meets pro-Taleban militant leader Baitullah Mehsud in the Pakistani tribal area of South Waziristan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6292061.stm
After visiting the site of the bombing, we were done with the basic purpose of the trip. I asked the militants if I could see their leader, Baitullah Mehsud.
” Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders ”
Militant leader Baitullah Mehsud
BBC crew know the hide-outs of taleban/millitants/terrorists.
“In Mir Ali, we bade farewell to the rest of the journalists since the interview with Baitullah was for the BBC only.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6292061.stm
Why BBC? coz BBC loves Terrorists.
I hope you remember this programme:-
Travelling with the Taleban
The BBC’s David Loyn has had exclusive access to Taleban forces mobilised against the British army in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan.
And it starts with this phrase of PRAISE:-
“There is no army on earth as mobile as the Taleban”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6081594.stm
The BBC said it was “entirely legitimate” to air the Taleban’s views.
During the interview, with the BBC’s David Loyn, other members of a Taleban group in Helmand province were also filmed vowing to fight to the death against the British troops.
In the film, broadcast on Wednesday, a Taleban fighter who gave his name as Mullah Assad Akhond said: “We see the English as our enemy since the time of the Prophet Mohammed. They are our enemies now and they were then. ”
“We will fight them to our death. We will not let them into our country. They can’t deceive us about their propaganda that they are here for reconstruction or rebuilding this country.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6086276.stm
From the time of mo? And bbc airs his view?
Well researched, Froogle.Seems Al-BBC can’t get enough of that Taleban propaganda.
Hey, here’s an idea…why not get one of their “leaders” on Question Time so that Al-BBC’s hand-picked audience of Leftists can applaud everytime he condemns America and the Jews.
Al-BBC – helping to spread the global jihad..one interview at a time.
I think the Taleban interview was done for the purpose of “understanding” the other side. However, the anti-Western tone of the BBC’s coverage in the Middle-east is giving a wrong impression on Muslims about the West. If the BBC continues this tactic, what’s the point of them giving airtime for the Taleban or other Islamic terrorists in particular? I mean given that the BBC continue spilling out anti-West propaganda, it doesn’t really some rocket science to know what the Muslim reaction will be.
Quite so. I don’t know if Al Beeb is doing this deliberaty – this must be the case to some extent – but I think by and large they simply don’t understand the Muslim / Arab mindset. They think that appeasement works. It doesn’t.
Thanks Terry..
The point is BBC loves to convince the viewers that Islamic terrorists are genuinely good people. If there is anything wrong with them i.e. mass murders, suicide bombings etc. it is because of us.
I would see no problem with interviewing Nazis. Nor would I see a problem interviewing Bin Laden. I don’t see what it’s got to do with bias, or with a left leaning mentality.
If you really believe this stuff about a pro-jihad BBC then I don’t anything will convince you otherwise. You must know though that the vast majority of sane, sensible people will think that nuts.
Froogle | 10.06.08 – 11:57 am
From the time of mo? And bbc airs his view?
Why not?
I can’t think of a better way of exposing how stupid these crackpots are than giving them airtime to spout their nonsense… anachronisms and all.
“I would see no problem with interviewing Nazis. Nor would I see a problem interviewing Bin Laden. I don’t see what it’s got to do with bias, or with a left leaning mentality.”
Having seen George Galloway and Anthony Benn giving Saddam Hussein a tongue job,I can imagine what that would be like.
The BBC may be able to bully bully weedy Western politicians,but wouldn’t fare well with those who would happily hang them from meat hooks or behead them alive.
Still it is awfully nice of you to give mass murderers a say on the British Broadcasting Corporation.
PaulS:
Yes, You are correct on that.
It’s one thing to expose such retards but what BBC does is to convince the viewers that the taliban’s view is true, legitimate; we should be sorry for their crimes;……nonsense
” I would see no problem with interviewing Nazis. Nor would I see a problem interviewing Bin Laden. ”
Soldiers who fought against Nazis are turning their graves
Soldiers who fought against Nazis are turning in their graves
Joel is still running away from the Livingstone challenge. What a coward.
He is still here despite telling us he is taking leave of absence from the site. What a liar.
Joel:
I would see no problem with interviewing Nazis. Nor would I see a problem interviewing Bin Laden. I don’t see what it’s got to do with bias, or with a left leaning mentality.
Of course you don’t.
The BBC is a news broadcaster, it broadcasts news.
If only. ” News” is events that have happened, either that day or quite recently.
The BBC “News” divisions spend most of their time broadcasting speculation about what might happen, and editorializing/pontificating about the meaning of “stuff” that has happened.
Usually from leftbots who can’t find their arse with the lights on.
That’s NOT “news.”
….then the original post I was replying to is, as I said, tripe.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 09.06.08 – 8:55 pm | #
In one sense you are probably right Roland.
I fully expect Leithhead to be the recipient of first class airline seats on his regular forays from Kabul to the dangers of Heathrow.
The BBC loves to hang out with terrorists and the Taleban footsoldiers because they think it’s “controversial”, and will get a rise out of the audience. It’s sheer storytelling to them, and they have no moral center when they do it. To the Beeboid breathlessly reporting on how rough and tumble the Taleban are, there is a moral equivalence between what they want and what the rest of us are trying to do there.
The BBC editors think they are being impartial by simply reporting on the Taleban. The fact that the reporters have to get close to them is just part of that process, and it’s not really taking sides.
The sad thing is, while the BBC may not actually want jihad, they do want the US to lose to them. They do actively work to undermine the determination to take care of business in both Afghanistan and Iraq. However, they fools really do not think there are any consequences. They honestly believe that if the US just pulls all the troops out (you know, it’s what fools like Hillhunt mean when they say we should engage in dialogue and “offer them something concrete”), then that would be the end of the troubles.
Nobody at the BBC, outside perhaps of a couple of dissenters in the corner of the news room, really believe that the global jihad movement is much more than a protest movement against an encroachment of Western values and power. I would guess that many BBC defenders here think similarly. They don’t make the connection between the Islamic problem in the Philippines with that in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They don’t believe there is really a connection between Somalia and Algeria and Iraq. In their minds, the Philippines, Somalia, and Algeria are internal struggles, entirely up to the locals, with no effect on the rest of us ever. Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are clearly only troubled because of US aggression. Once that aggression ends, the logic goes, this jihad we keep hearing about won’t have a purpose, and will die down to something manageable at the local level.
So, the folks at the BBC will never see how they often promote the side of the jihadi rather than just reporting impartially.
Some good points, David (USA) but I think you may just underestimate the amount of self-loathing that many of Al-BBC’s middle class, leftist hacks actually have for themselves and their culture. They detest Christianity, white society, the USA and Israel so much that I think some of them really believe that a global caliphate couldn’t be much worse. I hate to tell you this but a nuclear attack on Israel by the Iranians or another 9/11 would see much quiet rejoicing in the corridors of Broadcasting House.
so the bbc are quite able to stomach, at arm’s length and with nose pinched (/sarc), talking with the taliban in the interests of impartiality and completeness in broadcasting, but all the airfreshener and aids to digestion in the world can’t help them bring themselves to deal so proudly with the likes of the bnp?
Worth a Read
BBC’s Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief
Britain’s former spy chief accused the BBC of “parroting” Al Qaeda propaganda to children as young as six.
Dame Pauline Neville Jones, who is also a former BBC governor, is infuriated at the stance the corporation’s Newsround programme took on the September 11 attacks.
She accused the flagship children’s news bulletin of feeding an “ugly undercurrent” which suggests the terrorist outrage was somehow justifiable.
Newsround is aimed at viewers aged between six and 12.
On its website it answered the question concerning 9/11, “Why did they do it” by saying: “The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al Qaeda – who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.”