It’s not really that subtle, is it? BBC lead story is McDoom defending his strategy of under-equipping our military in Afghanistan. In McDoom-speak this means claiming our military are better equipped than they have been for decades. All fantasy, of course. The BBC then segues into a story concerning alleged abuse carried out by a British soldier in Iraq. Simple equation; British Army = bad. The beat is always the same – pretend to be concerned about our Armed Forces then do everything possible to undermine them in order to get the desired result – withdrawal from Afghanistan.
UNDERMINING OUR MILITARY
Bookmark the permalink.
Interesting that the ITN poll was totally different in outcome to the BBC/Guardian one.
The BBC would clearly like to go down the same anti war route they did with the Liar man, but they know that McGay holds the BBC's balls here.
Without Liebour winning the next election the BBC knows that they are probably doomed. But they also know that they can't undermine McGay as no one has the bottle to stand up to him in the Liebour party.
So the BBC just goes along with the lefty press (like the Guardian and Independent) to try to rubbish the Tories.
I mean look at the whole Coulson thing. What a total non story.
As for the forces, it's well known McTwat HATED giving them money when he was Chancellor and that during the first years of Afghanistan the British were totally starved of funds. Here's a link to the story which probably passed some by. Who was Chancellor in 2006?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-418123/British-troops-supplied-defective-ammunition.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417304/Our-troops-need-guns–visit-Brown.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561333/Gordon-Brown-attacked-over-Forces-funding.html
The soldier's father, Anthony Philippson, of St Albans, Herts, said after the inquest: "He (the coroner) laid into them (the MoD) particularly badly for the lack of equipment.
"I do hold the MoD responsible for James's death but it is not just the MoD, it goes much deeper than that.
"The Treasury and the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, will be really to blame for what happened. The MoD was starved of cash by the Chancellor."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7245533.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/16/military.afghanistan
As I pointed out in the general thread we won't be sending more Chinooks as the RAF only has about 40 or so. Probably 10 of those will be in maintenance, several will be down for spares and the others for training pilots and in other theatres.
McShit is a blatant liar and I'm sick of the media not calling it to his fat ugly one eyed jock face.
Col. Bob Stewart has finally made it onto Labour/BBC World with an arty farty lefty author.
Was he there to give his opinion on this socialist regime's wilful underfunding of the armed forces?
Not a bit of it. The resident bimbo was asking about how the military informed the relatives of the KIA.
Then it was onto the part press propaganda plays in conflicts. Various theatres were mentioned. Then we got to the Falklands.
Cue bimbo to say "British tabloids ran jingoistic headlines while the BBC wanted to broaden the debate into the Falklands Malvinas war"
Labour/BBC always forget that they are funded by a tax levied on the BRITISH taxpayer. As such they should always put British interests first.
"Falklands Malvinas"?
Says it all.
I remember the BBC "broadened the debate" in the run-up to the Falklands landing by running a Panorama programme entirely devoted to opponents of the war. At the end of the programme, the presenter Robert Kee, clearly uncomfortable, said: "And we hope to bring you some different viewpoints next week." He was promptly sacked by the BBC.
Not quite the sort of "broadening" they had in mind.
Anonymous
Indeed – and the BBC seem to have the same policy now as then.
"During the rumpus the BBC had been tough in its own defence, declaring, for example, that "it is not the BBC's role to boost British troops' morale", and that "the widow in Portsmouth is no different from the widow of Buenos Aires". "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/resources/pressure/falklands.shtml
This is the first time I have heard this, I don't think it was in the news that year.
The BBC did worse than that. They actually tried to get British soldiers and sailors killed during the Falklands war.
Leaking the attack on Goose Green BEFORE the attack started and then letting slip that the Argies were not arming their aircraft bombs correctly when attacking our ships.
Several senior Military commanders have written that the BBC were basically scum.
The BBC is worse than scum.
Newsnight has been ace tonight – Rory Stewart, Margaret Everson & Dicky Holmes rock. I seriously recommend Rory's essay in London Review of Books – awesome, 10 out of 10 – honestly chaps. It's online and shit.
Evison – I apologize.
Brig put the boot in too. No disrespect intended; he had a job to do. Don't hit that rank being a shandy arsed civvy.
"n McDoom-speak this means claiming our military are better equipped than they have been for decades."
Well all I can say is they must be getting their equipment from Nettos.
In 1997 defence spending was 3.09% of GDP. In all the years from 2001 until 2009 it was less than 3%.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1890_2011&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2009&chart=30-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=Defence#copypaste
Even though we are fighting in 2 wars.
Yet this "independant" think tank want us to give even less to the Armed forces.
"The UK should consider slashing defence spending by up to £24bn and revisit plans to renew its Trident nuclear deterrent, a think-tank report says."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8125466.stm
votes in NHS spending
votes in benefit spending
votes in spending on Olympics
no votes in extra spending on defence;
thus ends the sermon from Gordon.
How about scrapping the TV tax and the billions we pay to the EU and spend that on defence?
Just a thought.
For the BBC, a fair debate on British Defence would include at least one person putting a pacifist position, and no-one even allowed to put a case for increasing the UK Defence Budget from 2.5% of GDP (as now), to 5% of GDP.
Not just the forces but a lot of other areas are having to do with much less money.
This Labour government has indulged in gerrymandering on a vast scale by bringing in millions of people, most of them Muslims, who are fundamentally hostile to the values of Britain, as voting fodder.
Most of these bogus asylum seekers, illegal entrants, criminals, cousin marriage immigrants etc, are dependent on the state. The Welfare budget has thus grown out of all proportion, but yet has to be financed. This quite unnecesary burden is now affecting the abilitry of our armed forces in the taks that they have been assigned.
Nulabour government state that it is fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan to prevent terrorism in the UK, but then why have they have allowed in tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Taleban to enter the UK?
Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 was asking which of the front line services would need to have their funding slashed in these austere times- education, hospitals, firemen, nurses etc.
The overpayed publicly financed BBC never entered his mind.
we need more immigrants, we need thousands of them to form a new ifantry regiment – The Martya's
if they survive thru no fault of their own, rather than die a martya, they can stay
Given Labour's and the BBC's enthusiasm to get 75 million Muslim Turks into the E.U., this is a scenario for the near future:
"Young Turkish males mired in grinding poverty would no doubt be attracted to the EU wages paid by the barely disguised future European army. Indeed, as the ratio of military age Turks is almost double that of the EU population, Europe could find itself with an army whose ranks contain a significant minority of Muslim soldiers. What would be the situation if the EU felt compelled to attack Iran, or the army was called in to put down Allahu-Akbaring adolescents in Andalucia, mutinous Muslims in Malmo or insurrectionary Islamists in Istanbul? The potential for inciting World War Three hardly bears thinking about."
('paul weston 101 blogspot.com').
Same predictable tactics …..
It serves to confirm the 'ruling party's contempt for those paying their salaries.
I actually watched that video of the so called "torture" of prisoners very carefully, not once but four times.
My analysis? An excellent demonstration of TQ in the field, designed to disorientate the prisoner and thereby obtain much needed information which could help to save soldier's lives.
It' nothing to what some of us go through in training. In fact are you sure it is not just a training video. I wish I had these snivelling whingers in my care for just 15 minutes:)
thats not torture, it happened to me everyday for 19 weeks when i was in training in the Army, its called discipline
how do these ppl launch court cases against squaddies? do they have brothers and sisters of the religion in this country?
in fact it was harder for us cos we had to hold our rifle out in front of us with our arms straight
As well as the video, BBC News at 10 last night treated us to a "reconstruction" of the treatment meted out to the Iraqis. Why was that necessary (except to spend a bit more of the taxpayers' money)? Presumably the audience had already seen what the BBC wished to show us so what point was the BBC trying to embellish?
The bBC, Tali-luvies and half the story.
Afghan helicopter crash kills six
At least six people have been killed in a helicopter crash in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, Nato says.
The passengers were all civilians on board a private aircraft, a spokesman for Nato-led forces said. It is not clear what caused the incident. The helicopter crashed near Sangin military base in Helmand. The district governor, quoting locals, told the BBC it had been shot down by insurgents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8149073.stm
so the world reknowned bBC brings to the plebs its version of how its freedom loving fighters in Afghanstan have shot down a chopper according to the local district governer and some of the locals.
Really?
Here is how the Chinese are being informed of that very same story.
A helicopter of NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) crashed in Sangin district of the troubled Helmand province in south Afghanistan on Tuesday, said Fazal Haq, the district chief of Sangin.
"The helicopter was supplying two packages apparently food staff to ISAF base in Sangin district when it crashed some 2 km west of the district headquarters this morning," Haq told Xinhua. He did not say if there were any casualties. But he ruled out the involvement of any hostile fire in the incident, saying there were no insurgents in the area. Meantime, Taliban purported spokesman Qari Yusuf Ahmadi claimed responsibility. In talks with media via telephone from unknown location, he said the militants shot down a Chinook helicopter of foreign forces in Sangin district.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/14/content_11706032.htm
So the taliban who appear to have the bBC on fast dial state they shot down a CH47 (Chinook) the thing is the Helo which crashed was a white painted (UN) Mil 26 (Russian) and it did so on location at a base and not in the air as the bBC would like you to believe.
The bBC, Tali-luvies and half the story.
According to Jock Stirrup, Britain's chief of defence staff, – “British forces have positively identified 197 insurgents killed since the British-led operation known as Operation Panther's Claw began” – he adds “The real number is probably more like double that,"
No mention of this in the BBC's news coverage of course. But details of the 8 british deaths are given saturation coverage.
BBC journalists abuse their position to give news coverage that is biased in way that supports their own personal opinions. In this case the news is clearly being reported by a journalist with an anti war ideology..
At best this is incompetent journalism at worse it is propoganda. In either case the entire BBC news team should be sacked.
David Vance, come on surly you don't really believe the BBC wants British troops out of Afghanistan ASAP, do you?
To believe such a thing is IMO to show that you have been a victim of BBC propaganda.
The BBC knows just as well as I DO, that perception is one important thing, but reality is very often a very different, and even more important thing.
It is an understandable act of perfect ignorance to believe that the powers that control things, such as international or national warfare actually, give a tinkers fart, what ordinary people think. The only thing these people care about is US, finally understanding quite how profoundly EVIL they are, seeking them out, and ripping them publicly into tiny little bits.
I ask you seriously, WHEN WAS IT NOT SO? Certainly not anytime during, before or after the last two world wars. The Somme ANYONE?
The ruling elites of this world have NEVER given a flying f..k about the lives of any ordinary people. Not giving any sort of f..k about same, is, apart from the right parents of course, is there only essential qualification.
These people totally control the BBC, one way or another. As they also control much of our minds, whether we know, or can happily accept that they do, or not.
The BBC reporting on this, or that negative story, concerning the conduct of The British or Allied armed forces is simply the BBC trying its best to retain some degree of credibility with its soft-leftist audience.
We have been told time and time again that it was The American TV networks that ended The Viet-Nam WAR. This is a LIE, largely propagated by the American TV networks, and there blood relatives The BBC.
The Viet-Nam war ended when it was deemed that it had made/created enough money/power for the corporate elites that really controlled ALL of IT, from start to finish. Which is The International Banking System that financed and secretly controlled BOTH SIDES. At some time or another, The law of diminishing returns, stops any particular war, at least for a while anyway.
The media have some role in starting conflicts, but very little in ending them. Surly even a short read of any honest history book, would show this to be SELF-APPARENTLY the case. If not try using your common sense.
ALL wars only ever ended, because the profit eventually ran out of them. Or because the ultimate objective had been achieved by the stronger party. Which is ALWAYS the party that actually started the war in the first place.
With respect; it is historically inconceivable that a few hundred thousand rag heads in pick up trucks. Armed with no more then an AK47 and a dozen RPG's would start a war with the combined might of The US and The UK, with the slightest hope of actually winning anything other then a premature meeting with the Grim Reaper.
The ordinary people of Afghanistan have nothing to gain. We have also nothing to gain. THEY on the other hand, have much to gain for one reason or another. Which is why this war and all other wars……..
Atlas shrugged
Atlas, Welcome back! We've so missed your particular brand of loony paranoia.