Am I the ONLY person in the United Kingdom who gets annoyed that the BBC gives maximum publicity to the claims of Ethiopian illegal immigrant aka Cockney Geezer Binyam Muhamed concerning the “crimes” allegedly committed by our security services against him yet NEVER once enquires as to the serious crimes of which Bambi himself stands accused by the US government? It seems to me that the BBC is very quick to embrace the claims of an illegal immigrant but also quick to dismiss the detailed allegations of the US Government. Al Queda must give thanks every day for the wilful complicity of the BBC in going alone with the “torture” claims of every Gitmo resident. I bet they will all get stuck into this one on QT tonight – including the Tories – with Britain in the dock instead of the Jihadi vermin that were rightly interned in Guantanamo. Our military and our intelligence do all they can to try and keep us safe and yet time after time they are portrayed by the BBC as the bad guys whilst Islamic terrorists are presented as benevolent kind-hearts. It sickens me.
BAMBI – A HERO FOR OUR TIMES.
Bookmark the permalink.
Just a reminder:
The items Mohamed admitted include the following:
1. The detainee is an Ethiopian who lived in the United States from 1992 to 1994, and in London, United Kingdom, until he departed for Pakistan in 2001.
2. The detainee arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan, in June 2001, and traveled to the al Farouq training camp in Afghanistan, to receive paramilitary training.
3. At the al Farouq camp, the detainee received 40 days of training in light arms handling, explosives, and principles of topography.
4. The detainee was taught to falsify documents, and received instruction from a senior al Qaeda operative on how to encode telephone numbers before passing them to another individual.
His lawyer’s explanation:
“He wanted to see the Taliban with his own eyes,” Mohamed’s lawyer claimed. “I am not saying he never went to any Islamic camp,” the lawyer conceded, but he “didn’t go to any camp to blow up Americans.”
That’s alright then.
Folks, as usual the BBC is being played like a violin
The sheer number of stories linked off the BBC’s page of disgrace without any mention of his dodgy activities is damning evidence of bias and bad quality journalism.
Isnt it just typical of the BBC that it gives more sympathetic airtime to this scumbag terrorist than it gives to British soldiers killed and maimed by this b*****ds friends and allies, Isnt it sicknening that our national broadcaster wholly and full supports this foreign jihadist as he wages his new jihad against the UK!
This lying cheating scumbag pretends to be a victim, he indults real victims everywhere, he is sabotaging and hurting our nation just as much as if he were wielding an AK47 and hacking off heads with a butcher knife or laying the mines that kill and maim our forces, the difference is and this is the most sickening, he is being helped and assisted in waging his jihad by ambualnce chasers and yuman rites vermin and his jihad is being financed by the British people!
The BBC still haven`t asked him how he funded his drug habit while in the UK and whether the asylum seekers that come here from Afghanistan are bogus, after all he went there so either he is lying about it or they are.
David. You should know by now that when beeboids have their lefty noses to far up someone’s backside they can’t see what they were up to.
Bet this is question 1 on QT tonight.
Wait, wait, I thought Obama was “Bambi”. If you’re going to have childish nicknames you could at least keep them consistent.
I wonder if the Beeb would have been so sympathetic and obsessive if the guy’s name was Avi Goldstein?
James,
I’ve moved on. Plus Bambi is so much more refined than Jihadist scumbag?
Obama is not “Bambi”. The problem with Obama is that no-one really knows who he is.
Cassandra 8:25
As usual , you are right on the button. Talk about lemmings ….
John 9:21
The problem with Obama is that even he doesn’t know who he is.
It seems to me that the BBC is very quick to embrace the claims of an illegal immigrant but also quick to dismiss the detailed allegations of the US Government. Al Queda must give thanks every day for the willful complicity of the BBC in going alone with the “torture” claims of every Gitmo resident.
David.
As you seem to think you know what Terrorists believe about the REAL motives driving the words and actions of The BBC, could you also answer this question.
What exactly are the ACHIEVABLE goals of this or any other terrorist organization?
In my well read and historically based opinion.
Terrorism achieves nothing but the following.
1 A lot of dead and injured innocent, and not so completely innocent, human beings.
2 A job for our military and military intelligence services, who would otherwise be unemployed and unemployable.
3 A job for our police force, that would otherwise be decimated or have to deal with properly protecting the public from what is known as organized crime. Or what I call, “very serious crime which only exists because it works in conspiracy with government.”
4 Extra taxes.
5 Extra authoritarianism, very possibly leading to the compulsory use of universal ID chips.
6 Ever more fear and resentment between ordinary people, who otherwise would have perfectly nothing to conflict with each other about, ie racism of the worst possible and very real kind.
7 Lot of things for the BBC to spout highly dishonest and extremely divisive utter crap about, on an hourly basis. Likewise the entire tightly CONTROLLED MSM, without exception.
8 Absolutely ONLY ever what our own world/national establishment allows or greatly desires terrorism to achieve.
All of the above are ONLY good for ONLY one very small group of virtually anonymous, almost infinitely powerful and influential people.
These people are not exclusively Muslims, Jews, or Christians. However they have one thing in particular in common. They are the ruling class elites, of this world of THEIRS.
When a crime is committed the first question a detective asks themselves is this. WHO stands to benefit, or has benefited from the particular crime in question, ie MOTIVE?
It has long since been a self confessed FACT that our ruling elites have in place a plan to bring a New World Order to this planet.
( The likes of Gordon Brown and George Bush use the term on a regular basis, usually but not always in private. The BBC however NEVER uses the term New World Order, because the BBC is a bunch of lying scumbags on a mission from hell, namely the EU and The UN.)
If these elitist psychopaths therefore did not assist by covert means to literally or indirectly create International and National Arab Terrorism, then 9/11 was one of their very lucky and timely days. If they did, then it was simply ‘business as usual.’
Personally I gave up believing in coincidences or the law of unforeseen consequences a long time ago. Not quite as long ago as I stopped believing in Father Christmas, but a long time ago all of the same.
My advice is this.
Trust your own government and especially its establishment mouthpiece The BBC, as much as you would a second hand car salesman, with a serious drink, drug and gambling habit, and a criminal record as long as a major motorway.
I cannot believe that this is still the main headline on the Al Beeb website. They really have a bee in their bonnet about him don’t they.
Shame for them that the majority of the public couldn’t give a rat’s knacker about this failed terrorist and, I’m sure, most would like to see him tortured some more!
“The case of Binyam Mohamed, the former British [sic] Guantanamo detainee, is to be investigated by police after a recommendation by Baroness Scotland QC (Labour).”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5055099/Binyam-Mohamed-Baroness-Scotland-statement-in-full.html
Her statement: “On 23 October 2008 the Home Secretary referred to me papers relating to allegations of possible criminal wrongdoing in relation to Binyam Mohamed, in order for me to consider whether further action should be taken. The matter was referred to me in my capacity as an independent* guardian of the public interest and the rule of law. I perform this function wholly independently* of Government.”
“Scotland was born in to Antiguan and Dominican parents, but her family moved to Walthamstow (E17)when she was three, where she went to Walthamstow School for Girls. She is the tenth of twelve children. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroness_Scotland
(Check the poster in the background “Lesbian Gay Bi History”)
* Independently of the Antiguan, Dominican and Scottish governments.
Whenever Binyan is mentioned on the BBC, the phrase “British resident” is always tacked on. That status is, to put it mildly, debateable.
John Bosworth – at the head of this thread – describes Binyan’s world tour which illustrates that (in the absence of a specific declaration by the Home Office) if Binyan was ever a “British resident” (according to the latest high court judgement he was so resident in 2002) he probably isn’t now and wasn’t when he claims to have been tortured by the CIA. After all he had been refused asylum and had left the UK of his own volition and, moreover, was travelling on a forged UK passport.
It is possible – although the BBC apparently does not admit the possibility and never mentions it – to be tortured and, at the same time, to be a criminal and terrorist. Binyan is certainly a criminal although, on those grounds (or any grounds), does not merit torture. The BBC is careful never to distinguish between the torture issue and the evident scumminess and criminality of its hero.
The same BBC mindset applicable in Binyan’s case (ie the BBC chooses its favourites and “impartial” reportage is forgotten) is evident when it comes to the economy. The BBC endlessly and mercilessly excoriates bankers for the state of the economy. It brings on the same band of commentators to reinforce that view: Will Hutton, for instance, is on the BBC more often than Marcus Brigstocke – mind you Hutton at least has a sense of humour even if he is a crap economist. Also, by inordinate publicity about demonstrations in the City, the BBC not so subtly encourages the anti-capitalist thugs to do their worst next week. However, the responsibility of Brown for the mess – with his failed regulatory regime and failed economic policies – is conveniently brushed under the carpet with a few powder-puff interviews (like the one with Robinson this morning).
In the same way the endless stream of interviews with Stafford-Smith never broach the matter of Binyan’s criminality nor, while I think about it, who is paying for Binyan’s legal team. I don’t believe Stafford-Smith is acting in a pro bono capacity in this case and I’d be fascinated to know exactly how much he is receiving. I don’t think the BBC will bother to find out that piece of information.
Binyan is certainly a criminal although, on those grounds (or any grounds), does not merit torture. The BBC is careful never to distinguish between the torture issue and the evident scumminess and criminality of its hero.
Umbongo | 27.03.09 – 12:21 pm |
_________________________
I quite agree with you — during the entire course of this entire campaign (for that is what it is) on behalf of this ex-detainee, the whole issue of BMs credibility has never been explored. But of course the aim here is not to provide balanced coverage; rather, it is to drum up the maximum amount of sympathy for those charging the US and its allies with ‘war crimes’.
In any case, if it’s innocent detainees they’re seeking to highlight, they might be better off looking at some of the indigenous Afgans who perhaps (as has been suggested by more credible critics) were either over-charged or victims of mistaken identity. Ironically, it is precisely those detainees whose cases have attracted the most attention and sympathy because of their supposed ties to Western countries who are likely to be among the most committed jihadists. But again, this really isn’t about justice or due process as far as the campaigners are concerned –it’s about using whatever tool is at hand to accomplish the wider objective.
Rather than being a love-fest for Islamic terrorists, isn’t this more an example of the BBC’s slavish devotion to base, partisan emotional issues?
All the Beeboids see here is someone who was “tortured”. This immediately makes it a story they want to tell. Facts are unimportant, because the concept of torture itself is the story, nothing more. At least as important is the fact that this is all part of one of the most important stories – in the minds of Beeboids and their kind – in the world: George Bush’s “so-called War on Terror”.
Let’s fact it – if not for the evil neocons and Booooosh, Binyam would never have gone to Afghanistan, and this never would have happened. The BBC sees his story in the context of something very, very important to them, and so they focus on their emotions and not on the facts.
All they see is somebody who was “tortured” as part of a greater conflict which they believe is illegal and morally wrong. They don’t give a damn about anything else.
Now, let’s imagine for a second that it’s not 2009, but 1999, and Binyam was picked up traveling on a false passport at the Kosovo border. Would this be a BBC lead story for days and days? I bet it wouldn’t be.
And when the next terrorist atrocity is perpetrated, the usual suspects will be wringing their hands and shedding those crocodile tears, led by Al Beeb.
They just don’t get the fact that we are in a global conflict with Islam, do they?
David H | 27.03.09 – 5:37 pm |
No, they do get it. They just don’t think it was started by the Islamo-maniacs. They honestly believe this is all a response to nasty US and Israeli policies.
The BBC belief is that the violence is due to anger over either Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They don’t buy the claims that there is a goal of putting the whole world under Islamic rule. The Beeboids simply don’t believe it. To them, all Islamic violence is a reaction to our nastiness, was never started by them, nor would it ever be.
Well David Davis is rentamouthing for an independant enquiry and kowtowing to the BBC.
The man should never be let near office under any circumstances.
If Davis is on the Conservative team I refuse to vote Conservative, simple as!