Binyan Mohamed – that well know “British resident” – must be so thankful for the BBC. Today Al Beeb leads the news cycle with Mr Mohamed’s scurrilous allegations that he would not have faced torture or extraordinary rendition but for British involvement in his case.Modestly, Binyam would also like to see former PM Blair and former US President George Bush put on trial for their crimes. You can understand why he so engages BBC sympathy, can’t you? Anyone surprised that our favourite Ethiopian illegal immigrant chose the BBC to give his first major interview? I wonder how much he was paid for it? Isn’t it disgraceful to see Jihadists getting all this oxygen of publicity care of our license taxes?
I wonder if his immigration lawyer has advised him to be as outrageous as possible so, if the government decides to deport him, it would look like they’re doing it because they have something to hide rather than because it is the right thing to do.
The BBC should be checking out this angle…. fat chance.
I swear that beeboids just get aroused with these people around.
The reason he got locked up was that he was caught wondering around Afghanistan and Pakistan with a false passport.
Oh and have you seen the beeboid that interviewed him? What a camp looking tosser.
” . . that well know “British resident . .” or “British man” as described on Radio 4 8:30 am News.
The “Today” interview at around 7:40 am was the softest I’ve heard since, oh yes, the one of that other “Briton” Moazzam Begg who is now a distinguished commentator on matters political. One nugget: apparently St Binyan was in Afghanistan (on a forged passport by the way) as a Moslem in the same way that Buddhists go to India.
On the Today programme this morning Mohamed was referred to as a ‘British man’.
What can one say?
Why did all the BBC coverage on the Today prog fail to list the very serious allegations about bloody Binyan ? About his training as a jihadi, about his meeting with senior Al Q people, about the association with Robert Reid the shoe bomber etc ? Why was he not even asked why he was caught with a false passport – the most simple question of all ?
The BBC is the enemy in our midst when it behaves like this. The jihadists in Britain and abroad must be loving all this coverage.
I cannot believe that there was not a string of emails to the prog complaining about their wall-to-wall headlining. 2 separate slots in the prog, plus the main headline every 30 minutes. Why did the BBC not end their prog with a couple of emails ?
World economy in dire straits, terrorism and deaths in Northern Ireland, stunning British football successes, the Red Cross archives touching on so many lives – all of these and more should have taken precedence over the snivelling Binyan. Many, many BBC staff who are conniving with his self-promotion, it is all of a piece with their downplaying of the Luton scum and the glorification of the Iraqi shoe-bomber.
Top management at the BBC needs to get a grip.
JohnA: I’m convinced Beeboids really do get sexually aroused by bushy beards and beheading.
But they don’t show the beard he has now – they show a sanitised picture of the creep.
”you can understand why he so engages BBC sympathy, can’t you?”
David, the BBC are reporting his claims because they consider it newsworthy, it DOES NOT mean that they support whatever he says. You are the one who assumes that the BBC support him. It is your OPINION that the BBC support him. Would you rather they didn’t interivew him at all, and ignore him? That would be bias because they would be ignoring a story that might be harmful to the government. Surely by interviewing him and listening to his story (however truthful it may or may not be) they are just performing their role as a broadcaster.
Nowhere does it suggest the BBC give him ‘support’. That is your interpretation, your opinion. So please stop disguising your views as though they are facts.
Gus
If the BBC does not “support” Binyan, why the completely unchallenged acceptance of every one of his assertions in his interview on “Today”? Why tell us that he’s so keen to get the “truth” out there that he contravened doctor’s orders to get to a BBC microphone? Why no mention of the forged passport used in his Afghanistan trip? Why refer to him as a “British man”?
He is a failed asylum seeker and a criminal (travelling on forged passports is a criminal offence for the rest of us – I assume it is for him also). He may very well have been tortured with the connivance of MI5 and, if so, it is a major subject for concern and comment. Nevertheless, this is not the whole story which, in the BBC’s treatment of the case, is left coyly out of focus.
Time to put all Binjams back into their orange jim-jams.
One thing is clear • Mr Binyan Mohamed • has been advised how to answer (or not answer) certain questions. For instance, on the BBC website we are told…
“The former detainee told the BBC he had never been involved in any plots and had not attended terrorist training camps before 9/11”.
The key phrase here is of course, ‘before 9/11’. What did he do after this date? Now some liberals like Gus Haynes etc… may claim that I’m reading too much into his answer – but just ask yourself – would a totally innocent man frame his reply so carefully? If the same question was put to me or you, I’m sure we’d just answer • No, I’ve never been involved in any terrorist or Islamist Jihad activity. So why the evasion?
Here is another example of Mr. Mohamed’s less than crystal clear answers…
Asked if he had been an al-Qaeda operative, he replied: “I don’t even know what that means because how am I supposed to be an al-Qaeda operative? “How do you become an al-Qaeda operative?”
Now this sounds like a denial; it’s supposed too, but it doesn’t encompass all of the charges against him. A categorical denial would sound something like this – I had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden. I have never wanted nor have I undertaken any military, terrorist or Jihadist training. I do not even support the objectives of the above groups.
So why has Mr. Mohamed been taking lessons from our political masters in partial denials and more to the point, why didn’t the BBC interviewer follow up on these obvious evasions? Moreover, why didn’t he ask the obvious question(s) • do you support the Taliban, al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden? Do you reject the philosophy of holy Jihad? What did you think of the 9/11 or 7/7 bombings etc… Of course, the interviewer should have also questioned Mr Mohamed’s presence in Afghanistan. Especially his possession of a false passport etc… But we got none of this from Al-beeb. Instead our National Broadcaster provided an uncritical platform for a suspected terrorist / Jihadist sympathiser to lay the platform for his compensation claim from the British GVN. Hence the – I blame the UK for mistreatment- line taken by Mr M. throughout the entire interview.
As mentioned elsewhere • any body here surprised that Mr M chose the BBC to give his first interview?
No me neither 🙂
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7940958.stm
Excellent posts Jonathan and John A. I switched off after listening to the headlines – I had heard enough. And now I am much better informed on the subject of Binyan than if I had listened to the BBC. As with the climate change threads and the Israel threads and the Northern Ireland threads – BBC bias is a vital source of information.
The Today leading story was the bbc at its most disgraceful and agenda driven worst. Every inconvenient part of the story which does not fit their version of the narative absolutely air brushed out. Shameful !
BBC are getting hammered on the texts. So they won’t be reading any out.
The bias is the prominance given to this mans claims, the tame questioning of his very dubious convoluted story as to what he was doing in Afganistan (tameness never afforded to a number of people, lets say conservatives, Israelis, GW deniers – a very long list) and even if one were to accept his claims of MI5 involvement, the unopposed supposition that somehow Britain is complicit in torture is so tenuous as to be a tacit support of incitement – something the BBC takes rather seriously especially as applied to democratically elected Dutch polititians.
I listened to 2 BBC interviews – the sum total of his allegations of MI5 involvement are that he was shown pictures of ‘british’ muslims and asked if he knew them. It would be daft and negligent wouldn’t it if on learning that here was a man captured in a training camp who left Britain with false documents that MI whatever would not supply photos (if available) of people known to the detainee, random photos of no one in particular and photos of known terrorist suspects and guauge his reaction to test the honesty of his story. he himself said that this part of his interrogation was apparantly ‘to help him’ – which if given satisfactory answers it would have done.
The real worry is that by it’s approach the BBC is not just guilty of slack investagative jounalism by its ‘soft’ approach, but giving impetous to just the sort of sick demonstration we have witnessed in Luton. Hence to Gus and your ilk the BBC is laughably naive and icompetently dangerous or there is some agenda at work – take your pick!
No-one is suggesting that the BBC should not give SOME coverage to blody Binyan.
But they are shoving HIS side of the story down the audience’s throat, avoiding proper and forthright questioning of him, failing to cite fully the various allegations against him, and giving him total celebrity treatement, umpteen headlines and mentions and articles etc.
That is obvious bias to anyone but the blind. And Haynes.
This is a set up.
The Sharia British Broadcasting Corp were obviously the first place for Dust Bin Man to rehearse his “groomers” story.
The Sharia channel have learned their lessons well from their masters – a timeline of propaganda expertise that started with Goebbels and led to straight to ZaNuLab’s “it’s a good day to bury bad news.”
It’s interesting that no other media outlet picks this as it’s lead story.
It doesn’t it seem remarkable to me, that in a week of bad publicity for the Sharia broadcaster’s Muzzie mates – Ahmed, Luton, hate preachers that the Bin Man pops up as the LEAD story on Sharia TV.
Note also: today they alsop work hard to bury the story that Muz terrors suspects have just been arrested in Holland using classic BBC Newspeak: “Dutch citizens of Moroccan origin” in the description of Muslim terrorist plotters. As usual, the rest of us are left to join up the dots.
It all reminds me of the similar attempts by the Soviets to indoctrinate the proles, who became pretty adept at misbelieving almost anything the State organs like Izvestia and Pravda had to say.
Sharia BC likes nothing more attacking the West, our intelligence agencies who are up against it, the Bush regime and our way of life. The Bin Man story provides a platform for all of this.
The BBC hates our country, yet still hasn’t yet changed it’s name to Sharia yet, despite their “deal” with al Jazeera in 2003. That’s because it’s enemies – the British people – pay for this subversive and dangerous agitprop nonsense. For now.
Haynes is back trolling again, this time in behalf of bloody Binyan.
Click to access mohamed_full210808.pdf
Anyone suggesting that binyan was not mixed up in planning for terrorism is a fool. The BBC is behaving terribly on this, its approach is alien from its audience.
But who gives a monkey’s about the licence payers – they need to be indoctrinated by yet more BBC propaganda on behalf of this evil foreigner.
And I noticed the BBC gave no prominence to yesterday’s top story in the Times – ex Gitmo inmate now top figure in the Taliban. How many have died because of this man’s release? Why aren’t they investigating that?
“This fear of upsetting Muslims certainly extends to the BBC. On last night’s Question Time a question is asked thus “Should Muslim protests against our returning troops be banned?”.
The BBC’s David Dimbleby always repeats the question being asked, except this time where he drops the M word to say “Should these protests be banned?”
I wonder why the BBC and many other organisations go to great lengths to dilute or cover up events where Muslims are involved.
– L. G., Berkshire, 13/3/2009 7:19″
Comment Littlejohn column.
Oscar
As you say – the omissions of the BBC news “coverage” is part of the bias. And I have heard nothing from them about the arrests this week of Muslims accused of bomb-plotting in Holland. All part of the sanitisation of terrorism.
Gus, I really don’t see why you bother commenting on these threads. You won’t change anyones mind on here by simply defending the BBC.
The BBC does have a case to answer where this chap is concerned. His story does seem a little suspect don’t you think? For example, in the Grauniad interview he states that those nasty Yanks played Emminem’s music very loud into his cell for a month. Now, I don’t know about you, but if I were a journalist presented with such a claim I’d get him to recite the lyrics of, say, 3 of the songs that were ‘played’ to him. After all if these songs were played repeatedly for the period of a month even someone with a poor memory would find it hard not to remember them and remember them in detail. So why does nobody ask such a simple question? Are they afraid that he will somehow have a memory lapse?
As to Mohammeds claims about MI5 and Government involvement well he may well be right. This government lies all the time so any denial from them would be difficult to tell from the truth. He was on a false passport? How do we know? If it was presented to us now would we recognise it as false, is his photo hand drawn for instance? How do we know that this is not a lie by our government?
The problem with this is that when a government lies or is as dishonest as the BBC is capable of being, we, the public, have very little chance of finding the truth.
That is why the BBC should challange Mohammed and challange him stroingly. If his story holds up we know our government is, once again, lying to us. If his story folds (as I suspect it would) we know that he is just another propagandist.
Perhaps that is why they don’t challenge him too hard, they don’t want us to discover either ‘fact’?
I’ve been watching the BBC World coverage this morning in the USA. Once again – omission. Maybe I’ve missed it but has any even asked, “Hey, what was this plot you were involved in?”
Jonathan at 11.04 commented:
“…. Now some liberals like Gus Haynes etc… may claim …..”
Islam is not liberal and people such as ‘Gus Haynes’ and organisations such as the BBC who support islam and its doctrines cannot be liberal by any reasonable meaning of the word. Apologists, facilitators, collaborators and even traitors: these are more pertinent terms. Let’s call them as they are.
Shame on you BBC
Allowing someone who will not answer questions, free reign to make all sorts of claims without evidence is not news.
It is propaganda.
It is not just propaganda, it is BBC propaganda.
Radio 2 8 a.m. news – “British man”. 10 and 11 a.m. – “Former terrorist suspect” Former terrorist maybe, terrorist suspect maybe but now the BBC declare him innocent.
I did not hear the 7.50 a.m. Toady broadcast. Did the reporter labour the subject of just how and why he went to Pakistan, who paid for it, what “training” he received there etc.
Allan@Oslo:
I understand the point that you are making. The unholy alliance between Islam and the western liberal elite is fascinating to behold. It’s probably built on a mixture of self-loathing, distain for western capitalism/globalisation and simple appeasement. But quite how Beeboids square their promotion of gay and disabled rights, feminism, and secularism with their love affair for all things connected to the Islamic Jihad movement, is beyond both reason and parody. Who says • Turkeys would never vote for Christmas (or should that be Eid).? 🙂
One further point – the BBC on-line story does not state whether Mr. M has or has not been paid for his story. Does anybody know if Radio 4 or 5 have mentioned payment? And if there was a donation in lieu to a charity – which charity?
The Binyam Mohamed story is not of great interest to the general public,most are sick to the back teeth with the story.Once again the BBC makes the news and decides what the story is.
A good question.
“How does an Ethiopian born former British resident obtain a false passport in Afghanistan”?
He speaks no Urdu or Pashtun,probably speaks English A junkie with little money,does he just wander into the bazaar and drop in Fake Passports R Us?
Why does Mohamed need a false passport since he was “returning” to Britain?
There are so many question the BBC should have asked instead of whitewashing their poster boy.
If the state were an individual,any judge would rule that the publicity had rendered the case as impossible to try fairly.
Jonathan: “..But quite how Beeboids square their promotion of gay and disabled rights, feminism, and secularism with their love affair for all things connected to the Islamic Jihad movement, is beyond both reason and parody. Who says • Turkeys would never vote for Christmas (or should that be Eid).?..”
easy. Self denial. The BBC just don’t report anti homosexual attitudes in Muslim countries, nor anti women stuff as well.
Can you remember ANY outrage that Muslim men in the UK can claim for 4 wives?
Where is the feminist outrage that 14 year old Muslim girls get taken out of school and sent off to Pakistan to marry some inbred goat herder then bring back his entire family?
The other day we had the fat sisterhood whining on about domestic violence, totally ignoring the fact that Islam promotes violence to women.
sj1
I think the BBC, by going totally over the top with this Ethiopian creep – especially in a week when tempers have been raised by the Luton scum protestors – are shooting themselves in the foot with their enforced licence-payers.
Garden Trash:
“Why does Mohamed need a false passport since he was “returning” to Britain?”
Good question. The answer is simple. Mr M needed a false passport, because he was no longer a British resident. He had voluntarily renounced his ‘right to stay’ status the moment that he boarded the plan to Pakistan (at the beginning of his Islamic journey of discovery). A point accepted and repeated in Parliament by our own Foreign Secretary • who admitted under questioning from William Hague that Mr M has (or had whilst he was in American custody) no legal right to renter this country i.e. he no longer possessed British residency status.
Not that this ‘inconvenient truth’ stopped the BBC from campaigning for the release of this ‘British Man’, ‘British Resident’ or as Anita from 5 Drive called him ‘British Citizen’. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a story?
On the BBC site he’s now simply known as “Binyam” joining that small elite of stars who need just one name. Like Elton or Prince. We may be seeing that private jet again.
Garden Trash wrote:
“Why does Mohamed need a false passport since he was “returning” to Britain?”
Because the bBC left out he was then to proceed to the US on his clean Ethiopian passport to stay with his non Muslim family and start killing as many Americans as possible.
His Non Islamic background, his knowledge of the US and the fact the US would be looking for people who had visited Pakistan ensures that the bBC leaves out any information which may paint this inncoent man as maybe somebody to keep an eye on.
I for one just wish to thank the bBC for the headlines they have used in which to promote this mans cause.
Binyam blames UK for mistreatment
At aa stroke the bBC have ensured that 99% of the population are going to say. Yeah right.
As I said it my earlier post, the Sharia/BBC are championing the Bin Man as a “spoiler” story to deflect the bad news this week about Muslims – in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Luton, in Holland… etc etc etc etc etc.
It’s a classic propaganda trick.
Protecting Muslims and Muslim terrorists is now a Sharia BBC “given”.
The News Teams, in the early morning meetings across the Sharia BBC colluded with Editors, production staff, in-house journalists, web writers, radio and tv staff to beef up this story and to switch the blame from the perpetuator to the victims.
A similar technique is used by the BBC time and time again. i.e the Israelis have only got themselves to blame for the rocket attacks etc…..
pounce: He’s blaming the UK as he’s after some compo. The yanks would tell him to eff off. Our leftie loons like scumbag Shiner and that bloke who dresses up as a woman (Gareth Pierce) will be in the feeding frenzy.
Oh and add in that creep Clive Stafford Smith.
Ironic how it’s called the British broadcasting corporation, when there’s nothing British about it any more.
It’s an outpost of Saudi Arabia
I hope his 72 virgins are all butch hairy blokes….mind you that might suit him!
Bobzilla | 13.03.09 – 1:46 pm | #
Too right. We should call it by name: The Sharia Broadcasting Service.
Soon all pork recipes will be banned on the channel for fear of offending……
Many ex BBC staff now work for al Jazeera and in 2003 Sharia (aka BBC) also stitched up a “deal” with al Jazeera (who are, it is rumoured, planning a take over bid for the ailing ITV). If so, we are all doomed.
This man’s ‘treatment’ is, I expect, the number one topic of conversation at political class dinner parties, so it becomes the headline of the BBC World news website.
The news agenda is set by what the political class believes is important, not what is actually important. The BBC is absolutely a core part of the political class, or the liberal establishment if you want another term.
They are utterly divorced from what the other 99.99% of the population think and feel.
Pounce,
Thank you.That is what I thought.Binyam Mohamed was being laundered as a “lilywhite”.Does this not make the BBC even more culpable? This has gone beyond admiration for a bit of rough and into the realms of complicity in treason.
Read his life story, check out his career path, and then tell me he need a surname. We all know what it will be.
on R5 this a.m the journalist who interviewed “binyam” ( we are all on first name terms now !) said that binyam’s lawyer stepped in at one point during the interview to stop questioning about the training camps.
we need to hear the full, unedited tape not the binyam mohammed sanctioned version.
did binyam mohammed’s lawyers demand copy approval on the interview ? was it granted – it seems so.
would anyone else have agreed to copy approval ? is this why al beeb got the exclusive ?
the best myth busting article i have found on this parasite terrorist can be found at the long war journal
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/02/binyam_mohamed_the_f.php
what kind of innocent does his media interviews with his brief present ?
Remember Buzz Lightyear? Order now this Summer’s must-have toy, Gitmo-Man. Fully pose-able, clip-on beard and change of jump suit, comes with a set of matching false passports. And when squeezed by its life-like testicles Gitmo-Man squeals “Torture!” Hours of fun for the whole family.
Ricky
I hope you like Wahabiism, sheeps eyes
and women who look like Saddam Hussein
…
because it’s coming!!
Viva hairy ‘wimmen’
I tried to post on Have Your Say a comment I made here earlier on another thread.
Apparently “cock and bull story” is bad language.
Huh?
AndrewSouthLondon:
Remember Buzz Lightyear? Order now this Summer’s must-have toy, Gitmo-Man. Fully pose-able, clip-on beard and change of jump suit, comes with a set of matching false passports. And when squeezed by its life-like testicles Gitmo-Man squeals “Torture!”
I’ll have TWO Please.
One for the dartboard, one for the dog.
David Vance
That link by jimbob ought to be included with every post you have to make about the Ethiopian intended terrorist.
To show how much the BBC is deliberately hiding from its audience.