I notice the BBC is getting very excited about the election taking place in Iran between what it describes as the “ultra-conservative” Ahmadinejad and the “moderate” Mousavi. Let’s leave the attachment of the word “conservative” to Holocaust denying Jew hating Ahmadinejad aside for one moment and consider Mousavi’s “moderation” – shall we? He is in favour of Iran’s nuclear programme (Objective; Wipe Israel off the map and gain regional supremacy); he has been an adviser to Khamenei; he has been described as a “firm radical” -and of course he has a track record of anti-Americanism. None of this is touched on by the BBC in their fluffy endorsement of the moderate Mousavi. Moderation and Iranian leaders under the jackboot of the Mullahs are mutually exclusive but you would never know that from BBC coverage.
THOSE IRANIAN ELECTIONS…
Bookmark the permalink.
David,
Actually, I had the impression that the BBC were, for once, being fairly even-handed (in itself, suspicious), but will be interested in other posters comments.
Moussavi's wife was interviewed by the BBC this week – all sweetness and light, until the end. "We want peace with every nation. But not Israel" – with audible venom.
Moderate, huh ?
The BBC want to ensure that whoever wins the Iranian election has been given a positive spin by them. To slur the Conservative party at the same time is a bonus.
I've put the following comment on the open thread, before noticing this one. So I hope nobody will mind if I repeat it here.
The HYS on the Iranian elections, — of which top votes went to comments truthfully exposing this sham for what it is, — disappeared from the Beeb site in less than 24 hours. I could not find any link to it anywhere in the website, not even in the HYS archives, but only through my own comment list.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=6578&edition=2&ttl=20090612110511&#paginator
The same thing happened a few weeks ago with a thread concerning Obama, which likewise went against BBC expectations.
Pravda at best.
A really exciting election – who will win – the one who wants to nuke Israel or – um – the other one who wants to nuke Israel? Actually, Iran already has rockets/missiles capable of reaching Israel so the further development of their nuclear & missile capability should have us all quaking in our boots. It's not justIsrael that's in their sights – but the BBC doesn't mention this….
JohnA,
Having said that maybe it would be political suicide in Iran to mention making peace with them stinky jooos?
Perhaps she is only saying what she has to say so as not to give Dinnerjacket something to attack her husband with?
On the other hand, this could be the same as them peace loving Lebanese also saying they wont make peace with Israel?
I dunno, maybe its just me but I reckon if peace is to ever be achieved in the middle east then these arab/persian governments are going to have to make peace with Israel, whethere they like it or not.
Mailman
Mailman
Maybe. But the woman is presented as some sort of enlightened feminist. She SPAT out her comment about no peace with Israel.
Nowhere does the BBC give us the flavour of how toxic the Iranian politicians really are. How much hate there is towards Israel, how much that hate is turned into active and massive support of terrorism.
So if, as looks likely, Israel is forced to try to take out the Iranian nuclear capability, the Iranians will be seen by the BBC as innocent victims
Everything is relative. Denis Skinner would be considered a damn capitalist scumbag in North Korea.
I was going to say that this post is ridiculous given that pretty much all Iranian's, whether they're "conservative" (sorry) Islamic extremists or rampant pro-Westerners who just want to wear miniskirts and listen to the Killers, support the nuclear programme and think Isreali policy is a bit of a bummer. Suggesting the Beeb slams any candidate not committing outright political suicide is a bit off.
But then I recalled the Beeb's hostility towards any US candidate not committing electoral suicide by pretending to be a French socialist/green ultraliberal so hey, fill yer boots.
The BBC is hoping for an Obamessiah victory, but need to be able to spin it as "not His fault" if it goes the other way.
If Mousavi wins, it will be because The Obamessiah's personal magnetism and inspiring speechifying (and "smart diplomacy", right Justin?) convinced the Iranians to choose freedom and light. The Beeboids have been denying all week that Iran will still be run by the mullahs who hate Israel and want the bomb.
On the other hand, if Ahmadimjihadi is kept in the big chair (not really "in power", if we're honest), then it will be because Iranians felt so threatened by Israel, and all those grim years of the Bush Administration demonizing Iran and trying to crush their honest, innocent nuclear goals. Which means that they can report that it had nothing to do with Iran being emboldened by displays of weakness from the US. If Ahmadimjihadi wins the election, it will not have any connection to the Cairo speech, or the video love letter He sent a couple of months ago.
Leyne is a fool who is, once again, caught up in the superficial and not the substance. If they vote for Ahmadimjihadi, will you still be so enthusiastic about those young men and women?
Hey, Sir Richard Dalton keeps saying that Mousavi Mousavi is a firm believer in the Islamist regime in Iran, and reform is not on the table. So why does the BBC keep saying that Mousavi is a reformist?
The BBC's indulgent, dhimmi approach to the Islamic Republic of Iran's elections, continues ( e.g. on BBC 'Middle East' pages).
IN CONTRAST, a view avoided by BBC is expressed here:
'frontpagermagazine.com':
"Iran's Sham Elections"
[Extract]:
In the final hours before Iran’s 10th presidential race, some political groups inside the country and abroad were urging Iranians to boycott the election, calling it a 'sham,' 'another means to consolidate the religious fascism’s domination over the country' and 'already been predetermined by the mullahs.' These were some of the reasons cited in a statement put forth by the National Council of Resistance of Iran in support of their boycott of the election, one of a long list of opposition groups working to keep Iranians out of the polls.
"This year’s election, to be held today, Friday June 12, has been a unique one in the 30-year lifeline of Iran’s Islamic regime. The race is between four candidates who have been under-examined and oversimplified into a neat package of two conservatives—incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Mohsen Rezai and two so-called moderates—former Prime Minister Mir-Hussein Mousavi and former Speaker of the Majles Mehdi Karoubi.
“'The common denominator for factions is their involvement in murder and suppression of the Iranian people, plundering the national wealth, as well as exporting terrorism and fundamentalism abroad,' said the Secretariat of the NCRI. 'That is why the Iranian nation’s response to such theatrics, which are performed under the banner of elections, is nothing but a boycott.'"
A new book – Jamie Glazov's:
"United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror" (WND Books)
– has, implicitly, some relevant comments on section of the British political left (which includes chunks of the BBC).
An extract from a review at: 'freerepublic.com'(5 June):
"'United in Hate' begins with a brief survey of the many leftists who since 9/11 have rationalized jihadist terrorism and blamed the United States for the attacks: 'From Noam Chomsky to Norman Mailer,' Glazov writes, 'from Eric Foner to Susan Sontag, the Left used 9/11 to castigate America,' seeing the 3,000 dead in Manhattan as 'merely collateral victims of the world’s well-founded rebellion against the evil American empire.' But similar attitudes are also found in the Democratic Party itself. From Jimmy Carter’s courtship of Hamas to the Democratic congressional leadership’s eagerness to declare the Iraq War a failure—even as millions of Iraqis voted in free elections—the presumably 'moderate' Democratic leadership has regularly created obstacles to defeating a murderous jihadist ideology that opposes every ideal the liberal Left supposedly embraces.
"Before returning to the subject of Islam and the Left in greater detail, Glazov surveys the long history of the Left’s 'useful idiocy.'”
[..]
"The Left’s flirtation with Islamists is particularly bizarre. Unlike Communist tyrannies, which at least paid lip service to the ideals of social justice and equality, the jihadists in word and deed continually displayed their contempt for feminism, human rights, cosmopolitan tolerance, and democratic freedom—everything the Left claims to stand for. Yet American feminists, who can become enraged over a single masculine pronoun, find all sorts of rationalizations for gender apartheid, honor killings, genital mutilations, wife-beating, polygamy, and other medieval sexist abuses sanctioned by Islam, Glazov shows. Duke professor Miriam Cooke, for example, asserts, 'What is driving Islamist men is globalization,' and she praises female suicide bombers for manifesting 'agency' against colonial powers. In response to the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women, Professor Unni Wikan of the University of Oslo recommends that Norwegian women wear a veil. And 'Nation' columnist Naomi Klein calls on leftists to join in solidarity with Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi Shiite who has fomented violence against the American military and fellow Iraqis. The only villain in the leftist melodrama remains the capitalist, colonialist, imperialist, Christian West."
Cockney @ 2:50 PM
But then I recalled the Beeb's hostility towards any US candidate not committing electoral suicide by pretending to be a French socialist/green ultraliberal so hey, fill yer boots.
My thoughts exactly. Here's Katty Kay at Pew Forum last summer featruing Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee:
Do you understand, Governor, that when you say that your politics are driven by a Christian conservative faith – and it's really picking up on what you were saying about the world's opinion of America – that it might be a scary thought for many people around the world? And slightly related, there are some times, I think – a perception in many other countries that the social conservative – Christian conservative – movement in America is homogenous. Are there issues, though, on which you're seeing fracturing? One issue I was thinking of as having movement was climate change.
Funny how religious conservativism is announced as a negative for some, but not others.
Here's Katty telling fellow panelists on one of those political talking heads shows that:
I haven't heard a sensible Republican idea other than tax cuts in four months," and goes on to say that Americans and young Republicans want to talk about health care and education.
And back during the US elections, Katty did exactly as you say. She was interviewing Republican Baptist candidate Mike Huckabee and told him to commit electoral suicide and change his positions on certain issues because, in her opinion, the voters want someone who is "pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-gay marriage". When Huckabee told here that didn't sound like a winning Republican combination, she told him it "sounds like Rudy Giuliani", a rival candidate at the time.
David Preiser (USA)
It should surprise no-one about Katty Kay's leanings. After all, how did she join MSBBC?
"I went out to live in Zimbabwe to work for an aid agency, and a friend of mine came out one day on holiday, and he brought him a little tape recorder, and that friend was Matt Frei, so this was when I was about 22, and Matt came out to say, 'Katty, it's crazy, here you are in Zimbabwe with all these great stories around you, you should be a journalist', and so Matt actually introduced me to the BBC and so that's how I got started."
http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/169/kaycast.jsp
By the way, has anyone noticed how Obama, having been given credit for his silken words turning the result of the Lebanese election, is now being set up as the man who, with a few choice phrases, swept Ahmadinejad from power. Is there nothing this fellow can't do?
John Bosworth,
See my comment above @ 3:09 PM.
Nick Griffin will be a 'moderate' now then will he?
Iran is not a Democracy the way the BBC shrills, it is a Theocracy. Allah has already won. There is no need to wait on the counting of votes. 700 Mullahs are waiting to interpret what the literal word of God from the Koran, so "policies" are irrelevant.
Its part of the BBCs love affair with Terrorists, and Islam. "Over now to the latest on Teheran's Mullah-Lite" Expenses Scandal. Apparently Allah has been caught red-handed claiming expenses for a second-Mosque which belonged to a Shiite relative. More on that story later…"
Further To AndrewSouthLondon's post – Dame John Simpson's expert opinion on the Iranian political system was expressed thus
Is it true that a handful of religious extremists holds the entire population of Iran in thrall?
No. Iran is, within narrow limits, a kind of democracy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4800986.stm
Really? Sipmson is a prisoner of his own ego, as are most of the BBCs talking heads. I'm still waiting for Matt Frei to crack an anti-Obamah joke: "Don't mis-underestimate me…?"
So if Ahmadimjihadi wins in a landslide (which seems increasingly likely as time goes on), will Jon Leyne and all the other breathless Beeboids still be discussing the youth movement looking for…um…innocent nuclear power and women's rights?
For the last week we've been hearing about all these young people, especially young women, who were all excited and inspired like never before, etc. So, if the flower of Iranian youth voted to keep the status quo, will the Beeboids suddenly go all quiet about the youth vote and all that "Hope for Change"?
Following on from Anonymous at 8.30 am (Open Thread 12), the pre-recorded Brzezinski interview on ‘Today’ must have alerted many a listener that there really is a BBC narrative & that it’s coming unstuck.
I bet nearly all 'Today' listeners experienced a jolt as the Brzezinski interview began with "We're seeing something that we have been unwilling to see; namely, the fact that there is in Iran a certain degree of genuine democracy. Not quite a democracy in general, but a sufficient degree of democracy to the point that we do not know the outcome of serious elections until they have actually been held. Consider the difference between Iran and Russia in that regard." (All this is an uncanny echo of John Simpson).
The Brzezinski interview followed on straight away (and without the batting of a Beeboid eyelid) from the news that the Iranian election seems to have been a sham after all, with Ahmadinejad's backers appearing to be stealing the election from the cuddly Mousavi. Leyne and some professor could hardly believe their ears on hearing the ‘results’!
This shows that the BBC were so taken in by their own propaganda that they had old Brzezinski (who must have been interviewed hours earlier) all lined up, ready to back the BBC line, even before the ‘results’ were announced.
The unpleasant reality about Iran & its fake democracy – and the fact that Hugh Sykes and Jon Leyne’s promises of a better future for us all appear to be wishful thinking – didn’t stop the ‘Today’ programme from carrying on regardless with an already out-of-date interview.
Surely even the ‘Today’ show must have realised that the cognitive dissonance between the interview and what had gone just before was too big not to be widely noticed. Or are they now so taken in by their own spin that they still can’t even see it?
I am certainly not pro Iran policy…. BUT….who are we to actually tell a country NOT to develop nuclear capebilities? Iran has a tremendious history and rich cultural heritage…. while 90% of the population don't have adequate electricity. – To reduce everything to the notion Iran=anti-Israel is both simplistic and primitive. There is a whole world out there and our view (the western european) is only one side of the medal. You expect a pro western world Candidate to run for office in Iran? – Oh yeah, he would surely get the majority vote.Even the recent EU elections showed a right move across Europe…and we want Iran to do what…. go left/liberal ? – It would be advisable to look in front of one's own doorstep before venturing out to make such one sided statements.
No wonder you're anonymous, 'Anonymous'. Typical liberal tripe without facts to back up your assertions.
I'll spell it out for you. The IDF destroyed a clandestine nuclear plant in Syria in September 07. This plant was neither designed for research nor energy generation, but was designed by North Korea, who had used this design in their own country to produced weaponised material.
Strong evidence (the IAEA discovered traces of Uranium there a few days ago) points to this plant being used to weaponise Iranian material to help provide plausible deniability or redundancy to Tehran (although Iran does have its own enrichment plant at Natanz).
If it's only thinking about its energy needs, how do you account for the existence of any weaponisation capability?
And you accuse others of making one-sided statements?
On this morning‘s ‘Today’, Jeremy al-Bowen was typically reluctant to give an inch to Israel.
Ed Stourton asked him, "If what happens in Tehran develops as it appears to be developing & we have an Ahmadinejad presidency – particularly if there are suspicions that he got there by dishonest means – that's going to strengthen Mr Netanyahu’s argument considerably, is it not?”
A good question.
This was al-Bowen’s reply: “Well, he certainly would hope so, I would have thought”.
How’s that for a side-stepping answer!
I found Brzezinski's comments on the radio refreshing and intelligent. It would be nice to hear less about demands and conditions, and just see Governments getting on with negotiating and horse trading to pursue their own interests.
I personally doubt that either Israel, Iran or anyone has an interest in raising the spectre of a nuclear war. Israel seeks survival above all I think. I'm not sure what Iran seeks but I don't think it's war with Israel.
BBC's Dame John Simpson says of the protests following the Iranian election result
It all depends on how the government responds – if they use violence, that could inflame the situation.
'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8098305.stm
So in the BBC's view, thrashing the protesters with batons does not constitute police violence in Iran, just when used against anti-globalists & other lefties in the West.
We all know Obama supporters would have crowed about a Mousavi victory, claiming it was achieved on the shoulders of the Messiah's Cairo address. Now Ahmadinejad appears to be back in power, can we assert that once again Bazza's flowery speeches achieve nothing?
Poor Lyse Doucet, in attempting to conform with the ayatollah's rules, she wears a headscarf, leaving her looking like Peggy Mount's working class chum in a 1950s British film.
Lyse Doucet works for the BBC. Poor is the wrong adjective.
Anyway, she looks like a hamster that's recently eaten. I'm glad she's wering traditional Islamic Repression Garb whilst in Iran. Maybe she can convert to the Religion of Peace and wear it all the time so I don't have to look at her face.
Christopher Booker, on Iran (and incidentally, the BBC)-
'Telegraph':
"Iranian elections a 'loathsome charade'"
[Extract]:
"The reality is that Iran's election was a sham battle between rival factions of a regime as ruthless as any in the world, in which the real power is exercised by the gang of hard-line mullahs, says Christopher Booker.
"On Friday, while listening to the BBC Today programme reporting on the Iranian election, I had a call about the election from someone in Tehran. They could have been describing two totally different events. Getting very excited about how the election had in recent days come alive, the BBC portrayed it as a democratic battle between the hard-line reactionary Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the 'moderate reformist' Hossein Mousavi, supported by all those idealistic young Iranians who want to put an end to poverty and see their country opening up to the West.
"The reality is that this was a completely sham battle between rival factions of a regime as ruthless as any in the world, in which the real power is exercised by the gang of hard-line mullahs round the 'Supreme Leader', Ali Khamenei. In an election riddled with fraud (six million more ballot papers were printed than there are Iranians eligible to vote), all four regime-approved candidates had long been personally involved in the regime's murderous reign of terror.
"The final "choice" seemed to be between the regime's favoured man Ahmadinejad, formerly head of the Revolutionary Guards, Iran's KGB, who believes it is vital for Iran to export terrorism across the world, and Mousavi, once responsible for ordering the execution of 30,000 Iraqi prisoners, who equally believed in Iran exporting terrorism across the world." (Christopher Booker.)
The BBC reporting is all post-Bush delusion.
According to the Obama-love Bush-hatred dialectic, Bush was a warmonger (overlook Al Queda and facts) , and the Muslim world was just angry with the West for invading it. All it required was for Obama to talk to the Muslim world and say sorry and he didn't hate them (as Bush had already done).
The liberal template requires the future to go according to this myth. Everything was Bushes fault, Bush has now gone, now we can all hope and change.
Except the real world was never like what delusional George Sorros and Michael Moore said, and a snake-oil Chicago lawyer can't deliver it.
The BBC script is Obama beat Bush, hope and change, Ahmadjinedad is a relic of Muslim cold war against Bush, and Mousavi is Obama in a dishdash, hope and change, and Iran is experiencing its orange revolution, and the future is orange, and love and peace are in sight. Except it is all delusional fantasy. As is everything else emerging from this "Not-Bush" President.
A superb piece of condescending hypocrisy in the report on the Iranian elections on the PM programme. It was reported that the filling in of ballot papers took place at a table in public view. The comment was then made that this could lead to intimidation. Of course no intimidation ever takes place in Britsih elections. No Moslem wife has ever been told to apply for a postal ballot and then vote as her husband tells her.
Mousavi – quoted in 1981 – whilst mid way through murdering 30,000 people in cold blood – “We are ready to participate within an armed force to fight Israel… We have repeatedly announced that we are ready to have an actual, real and military presence in Southern Lebanon and on the borders of the occupied Palestinian lands…we believe that with the support of the popular forces in Lebanon we shall be able to gradually find effective and powerful bases in the area for fighting Israel …we believe if the flow of oil in Muslim Lands is in the hands of Muslims and if the ideology of Islam controls the opening or closing of the oil valves we shall be able to bring the World Arrogance to its knees, to strike Israel and to destroy it.”
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:2JLoWGQy4qgJ:babak.marzeporgohar.org/tag/mousavi+mousavi+iraqi+war+crimes&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
The reports about the Iranian election remind me of a quotation by Josef Stalin :
"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
In islam there is no such thing as 'democratic values' islamism and democray are mutually exclusive and it will remain that way untill the muslim world undegoes its own 'reformation'.
The iranian poll was false from start to finsh, there was only ever going to be one winner, ballot stuffing and rigging with imadinnerjacket declared winner before the votes were counted.
Contrary to the breathless BBC reports of an 85% turnout it now seems that 85% stayed away, the BBC taking direct copy from the mullahs again and reporting it as fact, the BBC only had to engage observers at regional polling stations to find out a few facts bu they didnt.
The Obama Clinton axis has been a disaster for the Western world and they continue to wreak havoc on the strategic interests of the West, as soon as Iran has enough nuclear warheads he will use them, he would and will sacrifice every single Iranian to further his evil agenda.
The storm is coming!
Critique of BBC reporting of Iranian elections ('eureferendum.com'):
"A 'loathsome charade'"
[Concluding extract]-
"All the BBC will now allow, as a concession to the reality, is Jon Leyne to report that the result has been greeted with surprise and with deep scepticism by many Iranians.' Quite how this once respected institution manages to get its reporting so skewed, and so wrong, is one of those modern mysteries. But, it is coverage of Iran, it seems to be excelling itself."
BBC and its invented 'democratic' narrative for Iran; now, the BBC's preferred demonstrators in Tehran are 'reformists':
"Iran reformists held after street clashes"
(BBC 'Middle East' page.)
Plenty of excitement in Iran at the moment.
It looks like the moolahs are degenerating into the same sort of farce regime that the Shahs regime was.
They won't survive if the population turns on them, no way.
$150 oil here we go again.
Obama should roll Jimmy Carter back onto centre stage to complete this party.
It was interesting that the BBC TV news referred to the 'Iranian reformist movement' this morning. They also mentioned the reaction of the 'Hamas movement' to the forecast election results. Later in the bulletin there was an item on EEC officials talking to representatives of the 'Hizbollah movement.'
Has the Beeb been using this word for these groups for some time or is it some new verbal game of their's.
Perhaps it's me, but off the top of my head, the word movement has connotations of trade-union, arts and craft, romantic, solidarity, the co-op: not of a bunch of murderous thugs like Hamas. Are they trying to sanitise – even give a benign image- to groups like Hamas and Hizbollah or am I attaching too much positive baggage to the word 'movement' and being overly suspicious?
Anonymous @ 5:26,
Sound like an accurate assessment to me. Those terms aren't used randomly. There's an editorial decision behind it, and no mistake. The BBC editors don't think they're actually promoting Hamas or Hezbollah, really: they actually view them both as populist movements, close to the hearts of the people.
The BBC refuses to accept that Hamas and Hiszbollah are terrorist organisations. Period.
JohnA,
Natalia Antelava said only last week that Israel is at war with Lebanon, so it was understandable that many Lebanese would vote for the Hezbollah-led faction.
They view Hamas and Hezbollah as freedom fighters. Never mind that Israel is not, in fact, at war with Lebanon, and both Hezbolllah and the BBC are lying when they say they're a self-defense populist organization, fighting to liberate their country from Israeli oppression.
The Hizzies are all that stands between Israel and the Litani, which is the only major water supply in the region Israel doesn't control.
The Lebanese army aren't much use and the international community are a joke as far as helping Lebanon is concerned.
So Hezbollah now has a job for life.
BBC should mention Iran's military and financial support every time they mention Hizbollah. Context is everything.
There have been reports that some of the "police" acting brutally in Tehran are speaking Arabic not Farsi – so could be Hizbollah thugs.