Do you recall the very sympathetic treatment the BBC gave those loutish trash who used the Israeli defence actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon to trail through the streets of London and proclaim that “We are all Hezbollah now”? Funny how the BBC are subdued on the news that Hezbollah and Hamas are supplying thugs to put down the insurrection against the Mullah’s? Cat got their tongue??
WE ARE ALL HIZBOLLAH NOW?
Bookmark the permalink.
unconfirmed of course – but i am reading tweets from Iran on this very issue. reports of "arab speaking" thugs beating up protestors. many iranians saying they are "hezbollah" from "lebanon".
cat got their tongue indeed.
Video of an Iranian protester saying the beaters of women and child are Hezbollah:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/nurses-and-doctors-resist.html
Yes, this puts Al Beeb on more or less a political par with its chums at Islamic Al Jazeera: both broadcasters support Hamas and Hezbollah.
But the BBC are H'izballah
Others are Palestians, and true thugs they are said to be. Iranian protesters have been saying that Israel should deal more harshly with the Palestinian terrorists. That doesn't fit with the BBC narrative.
Duh
Everyone knows that the insurrectionists are Zionist agents
'islamist-watch.org/blog'
"BBC: Television for Dhimmis"
(by David J. Rusin).
"Downplaying the threat of Islamism while simultaneously disparaging Western culture is the stock in trade of countless media outlets, but few have pursued this task with such vigor as the BBC. Though its well-documented bias in covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as Exhibit A, the same worldview is expressed in the BBC's broad deference to Islam.
"Islamist Watch highlighted two examples in 2008: comedian Ben Elton's assertion that 'the BBC will let vicar gags pass but they would not let imam gags pass,' along with a Christian party's protest that the network was censoring criticism of the London mega-mosque. Other cases from the IW archive include Hindus and Sikhs accusing the BBC of favoring Muslims and the head of the BBC arguing that Islam should be treated more sensitively than Christianity.
"News items from May and June demonstrate that the broadcaster has only accelerated its descent into dhimmitude:
"The BBC Trust has rejected complaints against a 2008 Bonekickers episode that, in the words of the Daily Mail, depicts a Christian extremist graphically 'hacking off a moderate Muslim's head in an unprovoked attack.' Telegraph columnist Damian Thompson writes, 'Only a BBC drama series would, to quote the complainant, 'transfer the practice of terrorist beheadings from Islamist radicals to a fantasized group of fundamentalist Christians.'"
"The BBC has apologized to the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and offered £30,000 in compensation after a panelist on its Question Time program accused the organization of supporting attacks on UK troops. The most interesting aspect of this surrender is that the British government largely shares the guest's viewpoint: it suspended links with the MCB in March because one of the group's leaders, Daud Abdullah, had signed a statement endorsing such violence in defense of Gaza.
Most significantly, the BBC has appointed Aaqil Ahmed as its new chief of religious programming. Ahmed's Muslim faith is not a problem in itself, but his work in a similar post at Britain's Channel 4 raises concerns. First, the series Christianity: A History, which he shepherded into existence, has been criticized as a ridicule-filled 'showcase of dumbed-down religion.' Second, Ahmed oversaw the discussion show Shariah TV, which Muslim theologian Michael Mumisa once slammed as a 'fatwa machine.' In one episode, a Birmingham cleric says that 'Islam allows a man to beat his wife'; in another, a Brixton cleric outlines the virtues of female genital mutilation.
"To add insult to injury, British households with color TVs have the pleasure of paying £142.50 per year to subsidize the BBC's whitewashing of radical Islam and besmirching of Judeo-Christian civilization. However, one suspects that the ultimate cost to the UK will be far greater — and not quantifiable in pounds."
BBC of favoring Muslims and the head of the BBC arguing that Islam should be treated more sensitively than Christianity.
It is fear. Fear of Muslims, is the key that drives the BBC. The BBC has reporters in many countries – 55 of them are Muslim None of their lives would be worth much if the BBC did not treat Islam with greater sensitivity then anyone else.
That is a lesson that the BBC learnt well in the civil war in Lebanon.
The thugs beating up Iranians in Teheran and elsewhere are from Hamastan (Gaza). They stem mostly from the Dorgumush and other violent clans and gangs.(There are about 20 of these gangs in Gaza City). Even though they are Sunni, they are still funded by the Shia Iranian government to carry out their mayhem also against Israel.
The problem is the BBC need to be "consistent" – yesterdays villain is todays villain and tomorrows. Hence the narrative and the script to interpret events in a way consistent with previous explanations, other wise they are "lost", have to deal with each event as it arises (its called journalism fellas) Instead we get "news management" – the news is rewritten to fit inside the script.
Philospher Leszek Kolakowski's "In Praise of Inconsistency" said it all forty years ago. How the need to be consistently right generally eventually puts you on the side of the wrong. (Ah the joys of a wasted education…)
democrazy @ 8"07 AM
Could that be an alternate spelling of the same clan which kidnapped Alan Johnston?
The BBC has utopian illusions about the Mousavi 'opposition' in the Islamic Republic of Iran; but the BBC is more concerned with its own agenda and message in Iran being blocked by the Ahmadinejad regime, and the BBC makes this pathetically weak, plaintive appeal to no-one:
"Stop the blocking now"
BBC News website, World Service,
by Peter Horrocks. (14 June)-
[Extract]:
"BBC audiences in Iran, the Middle East and Europe may be experiencing disruption to their BBC TV or radio services today. That is because there is heavy electronic jamming of one of the satellites the BBC uses in the Middle East to broadcast the BBC Persian TV signal to Iran.
"Satellite technicians have traced that interference and it is coming from Iran. There has been intermittent interference from Iran since Friday, but this is the heaviest yet.
"It seems to be part of a pattern of behaviour by the Iranian authorities to limit the reporting of the aftermath of the disputed election."
The BBC reporting on Iran is largely an arm of the Foreign Office. Ok, unsurprisingly the repressive Iranian regime is blocking the BBC. So vapid BBC hand-ringing is useless.
If the BBC were not a dhimmi on the Islamic Republic of Iran, it would:
1.) recognise that the principles of Islam , and the principles of democracy are in fundamental conflict;
2.)demand reciprocity of treatment of the British Labour government towards the Ahmadinejad TV broadcasting propaganda machine operating around the clock from its LONDON studios:
-close down Iran's PRESSTV television station NOW.
So fire one of those radar homing missles at the source of the interference aye? 🙂
Perhaps though we should block that Iranian propoganda channel from being broadcast in to Europe in retaliation?
Mailman
Mailman
Much of Iran's mischief is conducted by proxy – through Hamas and Nizbollah.
But if we blocked the most effective Hamas/Hizbollah propaganda channel broadcast in the UK – we would be blocking the BBC itself.
The BBC plays the dhimmi with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and like that regime, gives sympathetic coverage to Islamic Jihadists, Hamas and Hezbollah.
The BBC does not defend the interests of the British people against Iran's assaults; while the BBC gives a dhimmi report of 'Supreme Leader' speech (not Obama or Brown this time, but the Ayatollah), 'Sky News' has a different emphasis:
1.) BBC headline:
"Ayatollah backs election result"
(BBC 'Middle East' page.)
2.) SKY NEWS headline:
"Ayatollah: 'UK Is Our Most Treacherous Enemy' "
"He [Ayotollah] blamed Great Britain and Iran's external enemies for the unrest, vigorously defending the ruling system.
"'The enemies (of Iran) are targeting the Islamic establishment's legitimacy by questioning the election and its authenticity before and after (the vote),' the Ayatollah continued.
"The supreme leader, Iran's ultimate authority, had earlier urged his compatriots to unite behind hard-line President Ahmadinejad, who won the election by a landslide." ('Sky News'.)
Is the BBC thinking of further appeasing the Islamic Republic of Iran for the British Royal Navy patrol being captured in the Gulf in 2007, so that the BBC can continue with its Persian Service and its habitual condemnation of Israel?
I wish the Tollah geezer would make his mind up. Either we are the great satan or those pesky americans are. He cant have it both ways, its just not fair! 🙂
Mailman
George R
Obama and Brown/Millipond have been utterly spineless in their comments on Iran, appeasing bloody weasels.
Their reactions have been shameful.
And STILL they get attacked by Khomeini. Of course. Poor fools, they really think that you can negotiate with tyrants.
Obama's weak comments have attracted so much criticism that even the BBC is finally reporting the concern. But NOT reporting that the Obama's appeasing is because he stupidly thinks that he can negotiate away the nuclear threat.
Mailman,
We're all the Great Satan now.
While Brown is in Brussels, selling out the remains of British national sovereignty to the European Union, he finds time for yet another inadequate soundbite on the Labour government's lack of resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Brown's inadequate, and weak-kneed response to Ayatollah's insult of Britain, dutifully reported, without demur, by BBC.
Late in the day, the BBC catching up with 'Sky News', has new headline:
"Protest at Iran's 'evil UK' claim"
(BBC 'Politics' page.)
[Extract, of Brown's comments]-
"What we want is to have a good relationship with Iran in the future but that depends on Iran being able to show to the world that its elections have been conducted fairly and that there is no unfair suppression of rights or of individuals in that country."
And Brown makes no criticism of the Islamic Republic of Iran's:
1.) attack, arrest and imprisonment of British Royal Navy patrol team in the Gulf, in March, 2007;
2.)military support for Hamas and Hezbollah;
3.)continuing nuclear weapons' programme, and continuing threat to annihilate Israel;
4.)using its ownership of PRESSTV, and its studios in LONDON to criticise, and interfere with political activities in the UK; even the dhimmi BBC's broadcasting is being blocked in Iran for not being sufficiently pro-Ahmadinejad.Brown should reciprocate, and BAN IRAN'S 'PRESSTV' OPERATION IN UK, NOW.
+
One small step for anti-dhimmitude by UK government?:
"UK freezes $1.6b in Iranian assets"
[Extract]:
"The United Kingdom yesterday announced that it had frozen $1.64 billion in Iranian assets under EU and U.N. Security Council sanctions targeting the Middle Eastern state's nuclear program, Reuters reported (see GSN, June 18).
"'The total assets frozen in the U.K. under the EU (European Union) and U.N. sanctions against Iran are approximately 976,110,000 pounds,' British treasury official Ian Pearson said in a written statement to lawmakers.
Pearson did not elaborate.
"The United Kingdom, United States and other Western powers have expressed concern that elements of Iran's nuclear program could support nuclear weapons development, but Tehran has maintained that its atomic ambitions are strictly peaceful." (Reuters/Haaretz, June 18).
[Source here: 'globalsecuritynewswire.org']
No report spotted on BBC.
I thought it might be revealing (if not necessarily interesting!) to use the internet to check out all the non-BBC commentators called in by the ‘Today’ programme throughout the last week to discuss events in Iran.
Here’s the list:
Prof ALI ANSARI of St Andrew’s University. He writes for the ‘Independent’, ‘Guardian’ & ‘New Statesman’ &, reading his on-line articles, takes a robustly anti-Bush, anti-’Neo-Con’ position.
TURI MUNTHE of citizen journalism website Demotix, which ‘partners’ – among others – the ‘Telegraph’ and our old friend ‘The Huffington Post’.
MATTHEW RICHARDSON of PRESS TV, a state-funded English-language Iranian TV channel, which includes Yvonne Ridley & George Galloway among its hosts and has been accused of allowing the promotion of Holocaust denial & planting misleading anti-Western stories.
REZA MOLAVI, director of Centre of Iranian studies at Durham University. All I can find about him, besides his writing of a book of oil & gas privatization in Iran, is a recent article in ‘The Independent’ where he says that “the West should stop regurgitating the old line on lack of democracy and human rights (in Iran)” and that we should now “move on”.
MOHAMMED SHAKEEL, Iran analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit.
PATRICK COCKBURN, anti-American commentator who sits alongside Fisk at the ‘Independent’.
ABDEL BARI ATWAN, nutter-in-chief of Al-Quds – a man who said that Saddam Hussein "will go to the gallows with his head held high, because he built a strong united Iraq without sectarianism" and of 9/11 that “the events of 11 September will be remembered as the end of the US empire. This is because all empires collapse when they pursue the arrogance of power." Most infamously of all, he said “If the Iranian missiles strike Israel – by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square, and dance with delight if the Iranian missiles strike Israel."
Craig
Great stuff. Western ideas of democracy and the rule of law are trash to the BBC.
John
Thanks. That bug-eyed loon Abdel Bari Atwan was back on 'Dateline: London' (12.30, BBC News 24) today. Thankfully, for once, his unpleasant ravings were countered by a wise head, that of Iranian-born Nazenin Ansari.
Atwan, after being shamed into saying that he admires the bravery of the protesters (he was very reluctant to do so), came out with the line "I admire the Iranian authorities too" & was in the midst of a ridiculous rant about their gentle behaviour as contrasted with British police brutality at the G7 Summit when Nazenin jumped in and informed him that the Iranian police were attacking people in their own homes, off camera, & that, contrary to what Atwan was claiming, there has been a lot of police violence across Iran. She saw off all his attempts to dig his jackboots in over the issue. Wonderful!
She also rounded on him when he tried to blame all Iran's economic woes on American sanctions, saying that corruption, government incompetence and a whole host of other factors were really to blame. Again, Atwan had to give up. He was literally (and I mean that literally) left flailing by her. Wonderful!
Usually this anti-Western, anti-Israeli bigot is allowed to talk as much crap as he likes, & is heard with nothing other than friendly respect by Gavin Esler & co. Thank Allah for Nazenin Ansari's presence.
Will she ever be invited back onto the BBC?