I thought that General Nick Parket did rather well in this interview with the BBC this morning. In true patriot style, the BBC narrative was to get the General to “admit” that all those lost military lives in Sangin were in vain and now we are retreating, leaving it to the Americans. The BBC appears to loath our Armed Forces and never misses an opportunity to try and diminish them. For that alone, it deserves to be axed.
A WASTE OF LIFE..
Bookmark the permalink.
Dear Mr Moat,
if on the chance you get the chance to read this I wish to inform you that the bBC’s Middle Eastern editor was having an affair with you ex.
Your’s
Pounce the concerned.
Funny!
Pounce,
Classic !!!!
Hi DV, I didn’t find anything overtly untoward in the interview, although the approach should be different, and when I was growing up in the 70’s the BBC had a different approach to conflicts such as N. Ireland: It was about we need to win this to defeat terrorism and unequivocal support and empathy for our troops putting their lives on the line for their country. Our troops in N. Ireland had no doubt that the country was behind them and thinking about them by the coverage the BBC gave. Within these parameters that any democratic broadcaster should have, coverage was objective.
What stands out in Afghanistan – or would if the BBC covered the campaign objectively – is that many of our US Coalition partners in ISAF such as Spain and Germany are ducking their responsibilities and leaving British, US and other allied serviceman to take the vast brunt of the casualties.
This is a disgrace and outrage that the BBC should be onto like a dog with a bone, but they barely pay it lipservice. Instead they’re looking to constantly snipe and undermine our deployment there.
Obscene.
Afghanistan is winnable to protect our security. Its absolutely critical that we do if we’re to avoid a whole string of 9/11’s across the free world. If so many of our fairweather allies were shamed into pulling their weight, on the propaganda as well as military fronts, we would have a crushing victory over Islamic terrorism within no time.
For the type of people who now have their hands on the BBC, that is like a nightmare to them that they will do all they can to prevent. I’m not saying they want Islamic terrorism to win, but they dont want to see us defeat it. To defeat it we need the type of values that the BBC loathe. They’d much rather see a bloody stalemate till we fully embrace the values of cultural Marxism and reach an accommodation with terrorist Islam centred on giving them free rein to wipe out Israel. They’re on the way to achieving their dhimmi dystopia.
The BBC were pushing this line yesterday. One exception was Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics who really tore into Jim Murphy for his governments lack of support for our troops, especially. Murphy accused Brillo of “besmirching” the troops, either because he didn’t understand what Brillo said or deliberately confusing the two issues.
Brillo almost exploded ! I thought he was going to physically attack Murphy. He made the point that he was attacking Murphy’s government, not the military and he knows a bit about it as his father was an Army major.
Murphy backed down quickly.
Really , what on earth would we do without Andrew Neil on the BBC ?
Andrew Neill is one reason for hope that impartiality might yet be restored to the BBC.
I’ll say again – the only way I can see the BBC restoring political impartiality is to appoint Andrew Neil as DG – or as editor in chief, which is what the DG role used to be.
Neil has the clarity of mind and political nous, plus management experience, to know what impartiality means – to be able to crack down real hard on miscreants, and to tighten up the entire BBC news effort.
Hippie and John,
Quite agree. Andrew Neil is one of the few journalists who has a grip on reality. If the government are serious, they would appoint him as BBC DG and get rid of that useless muppet, Thompson.
I’m really surprised at this article. For years now the left (and Islamic world) have been telling the West to get out of Afghanistan. That peace will only come about with the withdrawal of Western troops. So why the duplicity in bitching about what you claim is a British withdrawal. Isn’t that what everybody wishes for?
But the fact of the matter, this isn’t a withdrawal and to anybody who has been keeping their ear to the ground they would know that with the actual withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan next year troops have to be found in which to cover the area they are currently in charge of . Add the fact of the Obama mini surge of troops to Afghanistan of which the target area is Helmand then it makes military sense in which or relocate British troop s to Kandahar (the current Canadian area of responsibility) and allow one single nation to run with Helmand. Which simplifies matters such as resupply, communications, state of purpose and the chain of command.
What really gets my goat is how the anti-western crowd are crying out “This has been all in vain” do so not in any real concern of the deaths that have transpired but rather in which to promote their message of “All troops out” by proclaiming they all died in vain. This angle is given further leverage by the likes of the bBC by omitting any negative viewpoints about the Taliban. Such as blowing up schools, killing road workers and the like. Act of which are enacted on a daily basis in Afghanistan yet from the coverage provided by the bBC you are given the impression that only NATO (ISAF) is killing innocent people.
Of course the irony is that the left supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Now the use that failure as evidence that the coalition will fail. Never pointing out that the Russians were a conscript army ,
poorly equipped, poorly led and with low morale.
How many casualties did the Russians suffer ?
“they use ” should read.
To answer my own question, after a bit of googling, the Soviets own figures suggest about 14000 killed and 300-350 helicopters lost. So you can double that to get close to the real figure.
Er . . did anyone notice that, effectively, 7/7 has been excised from the BBC’s memory? Yesterday there was a small item on BBC1 London News (at 10:30 pm) and, AFAIAA, that was it. The dreaded words “Islam” and “Moslem”, let alone “terrorist”, were not used. I assume it all just “happened” and that 4 bombs found their way into London and blew themselves up after a row with the local rabbi. The BBC did devote some of its scarce resources to tell us
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leeds/10535443.stm
that there was an event at a Leeds mosque to mark the bombings.
http://medialens.org/
BBC = BIN AND BYPASS COMPLAINTS
The BBC doesn’t hate the military, per se. It’s more a childish, emotion-based outlook which has little connection to reality. They’ve raised the bar of success so high over the years, that at this point the death of one soldier equals total failure.
Spoiled children today don’t like feeling bad about anything. There’s a complete absence of perspective of what’s actually happening, and of history. The only history these anti-this war Beeboid knows about the region is that the Russians lost and that the British had a difficult time of it generations ago. But there is no grasp of the history of wars and how they work. Things break.
Today’s Beeboids don’t even realize that their attitudes would have required them to want all the occupying troops out of Germany and Japan after WWII. Come to think of it, everyone objecting to the invasion and subsequent war in Afghanistan would have equally to object to the UK’s participation in the Pacific Theater in WWII. Japan was no more threat to the British then than the Taliban are now, according to their knowledge and understanding of the world.
It’s all emotion-based; no rational thinking involved. This makes them feel bad, so it must be bad and should stop. That’s as much depth as there is to it, I think.
I should also add that the Beeboids are really ignorant of military affairs. This is the same astute international news organization which thought it was possibly a controversial big deal that UK troops would be working under US command for a while as part of NATO operations. They had no idea that this kind of thing is common, as it’s basically how NATO’s chain of command is set up. But the Beeboids didn’t know, and scared up a non-story about it.
While at some level I think this is the case, I think overall you are being over generous to the BBC. What motivates their coverage overall in my view is overriding ill-will to the cause of western values.
Yes , the idea that the coalition troops today are equivalent to the Soviets or British in the 19th century is ludicrous , but pushed relentlessly by the scum at the BBC , who , as Hippie says, just hate western values, while at the same time reaping all the benefits. Beeboids are truly the pits of the earth.
Actually the BBC were very quiet about the disgraceful way the one eyed mong treated our soldiers over the last 13 years.
They were sent into Iraq and Afghanistan badly under equipped and under strength.
Cameron is doing the right thing in my view, Afghanistan can’t be saved, it’s a shithole. I also don’t see why we’re there. Where is Bin liner? In Pakistan probably.
Who gives a shit if girls don’t get educated in Afghanistan? Women are treated like shit in every Muzzie Country. The BBC fail to point this out.
If we know where Bin Liner is just drop a frigging nuke on it, I don’t have a problem with that.
Our real threat comes from the shit holes of Bradford, Leeds, Blackburn, Burnley, Manchester, Birmingham and so on.
We are taking out 1000 soldiers and the yanks are putting in 18,000. Why? Because they know that you need such huge numbers to provide not only effective forces but sufficient numbers for self defence as well.
I’ve never understood our tactics out there. Our troops go out with a few Afghan idiots with AK-47’s. They wonder around a few deserted villages and wait to get ambushed, they eventually do, end up having to take cover whilst a 2000lb bomb is dropped on some empty field, before the Taliban simply bury their guns, get a taxi and go home.
What the hell is that supposed to achieve? It’s not the fault of the soldiers but the pathetic way our politicians have tried to fight a war without killing anyone.
If someone can bring the severed head of Bin Liner and stick outside the tower of London I will call THAT success, anything less is a joke.
Do you think we’re there so that Bin Laden doesn’t come back? Seems a very good reason for being there to me, for however much we’re fighting the war half-cocked.
Thing is wwe’re not hunting Alky Ada, we’re building schools. I want Alky Ada killed I don’t want soldiers dying for a few bricks.
The Taliban were removed from Afghanistan by paying off war lords, aerial bombing and special forces. Why all of a sudden do we need to start building schools?
Martin you are correct. The neocon/liberal view of war is that it needs to be “constructive” I think they appease their consciences that way. Build schools, create democratic institutions etc. War is an unpleasant dirty business and the only reason to go to war is to win.
Now we could quite simply withdraw from Afghanistan. Allow whoever wants to run that country in their own way but , and this is the critical point, use our vastly superior firepower and technology to devastate the country if it ever steps out of line again without ever putting a single man on the ground
No aid no nothing just let them be but for their sakes they must learn to leave the West well alone.
It would never suit the neocons and the libleft would be horrified but it might well be the only answer. The Taliban would have to make a choice. Run the country as they see fit in peace or suffer the consequences of any hostile act.
Nation building is a critical part of making sure Afghanistan is a functional state that wont see the return of those vermin. However, this aspect of the War against [Islamic] Terrorism has obscured the fact that our first reason for being there is to protect our security. If the Afghans prove to feckless and dissolute to be able to help them to build a nation, then just occupy it using the ruthlessness necessary. Unfortunately, public opinion just isn’t prepared for such an approach. Would that Liam Fox was Tory leader, not Cameron.
I want Alky Ada killed I don’t want soldiers dying for a few bricks.
I absolutely agree. Army is there to kill people and break things.
We have successive governments who seem to think the military is an off-shot of Meals On Wheels and the Social Frackin’ Services.
We were asked by our American allies to join them destroying al- kayda after they plotted the murder of 3000 people on 9/11, while Bin Laden was holed up in Shitistan. I supported that effort. It’s what you do when friends ask for help.
That meant smashing the Taliban. Somewhere down the line, that turned into a fatuous nation building exercise.
President Bush should have levelled the country. And left with the warning, do it again and we’ll come back and leave this place a radioactive wilderness for the next 5000 years.
“Our real threat comes from the shit holes of Bradford, Leeds, Blackburn, Burnley, Manchester, Birmingham and so on. “
Exactly. Hasn’t a recent report just confirmed this? And if we actually reform Afghanistan, how do we ensure that it stays ‘reformed’, given the lack of control we seem to have over parts of our own towns and cities?
Martin,
I am quite sympathetic with your view , and realise you have a military background which I don’t. Also Hippie makes some good points. I rather agree that for whatever reason we are there, if we have to stay, the allies have to be totally ruthless, including with the Afghan government.
Anyone else catch my mate Sheena Easton the BBC news? Well nice to see he’s no longer just parroting Government propaganda as fact, shame it had to take a Tory Government to be elected to stop sheena doing that!!!
So let’s get this right, the Government have done away with Police powers that ‘might’ have been used to harass Muzzie’s or blacks, so you’d think this was a good idea in the eyes of the BBC? Er no, we get Sheena sneering about no longer being safe because of it followed by a Liebour sond bite (so two anti Tory views)
But wait! Where was Shami? Imagine if this had been the other way around and the Tories were planning to toughen up Police powers and Sheena thought Muzzie’s would be targeted by this, they’d have Shami on the BBC 24/7 but today she’s MIA
“SHAMI SHAMI SHAMI..where are thee”
Oh and nice to see ITV news covering the barbaric torture of a Muslim woman in that bastion of freedom Iran. As ITV called it “Medievil” something we tend to hear a lot away from the BBC when describing Islam.
Yet over at the BBC zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I thought the government was forced to change the law because of some European Court ruling. If so, that should be the big story at the BBC.
OK time for me to eat humble pie. Simon Mayo, come back all is forgiven.
Richard Bacon, a man (just) who is so camp he makes Louis Spencer (or whatever his name is) look like a real man is just SO CRAP on Radio 5.
Bacon really is a himbo he no intellect at all, is obsessed with 3rd rate celebrities (and assumes we are as well) and his interviews of gays is just so fawning.
There I said it, come back Simon Mayo!!!
Fortunately, living in Spain, I dont have to endure Richard Bacon. I did Mayo though. Whew, if that’s how you feel, Bacon must be bad of the richter scale.
He’s got the right politics though. Key to a future at the BBC.
Tory MP Uneasy as BBC “Spreads Taliban Propaganda’
“Many years ago during the Gulf War, I accused the BBC of being the Baghdad broadcasting corporation,” he told MPs.
“I am very concerned that there is now a similar situation with the Taliban, in that they are getting far too high a profile.”
H/T Melanie P
About time the BBC was rapped over this. They love creeping to terrorists everywhere for juicy quotes.
“But Dr Fox told the Bosworth MP in the Commons that it was “good counsel” for the BBC to use “reasonable language” and have “balanced” views when discussing the issue.”
So what is he saying? That the BBC is balanced?
On the whole I think he is saying ‘Yeah, I think the BBC are a bunch of twats who need a good kicking but I can’t say so out loud ‘cos my leader is a bit of a twat as well’.
Hippie,
Ha ! Yes, I can’t believe Liam Fox is so stupid as to not know what the BBC is up to.