Shocking loss of life in Uganda as football fans watching the World Cup final last night were blown to smithereens in terrorist attacks. But in THIS BBC report, reporter Will Ross is determined to cast doubt on the overwhelming likelihood that Islamic terrorists were behind it. The modus operandi fits the Al Queda template, as does the inhumanity of it But through the Islamic-friendly prism of the BBC, why it could be anyone who was responsible.
IGNORE THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM..
Bookmark the permalink.
eh?
That’s a strange reading of the report. The very first section describes that the police suspect al-Shabab militants and then states clearly that they are linked to Al-Qaeda. Hardly ‘ignoring the elephant’…
The paragraph you refer to is buried three quarters of the way down the article and it states this:
“But the BBC’s Will Ross, in the Kenyan capital Nairobi, says there is no proof as yet that al-Shabab was involved. The blasts could be linked to next year’s elections in Uganda, our correspondent adds.”
If you actually read it in context, it is in between a paragraph stating the reasons why it was likely to have been an al-Shabab attack and then a quote from the Islamic militia approving of the attack.
The paragraph from Will Ross is obviously in just as balance to show there is no clear proof yet as to who was responsible and to point out that there are other possibilities.
To pull this one paragraph out of a report, to show it completely out of context and then to hold it up as evidence of bias just makes you look a little foolish.
Paulo, the camp male beeboid was giving what appears to be HIS opinion rather than fact. Perhaps evil Jews did it?
camp male beeboid
Marty — you should trademark that phrase!
Paulo
I report the views expressed by the BBC reporter. He seems to adopt a uniquely benign attribution of guilt. As I recall, and perhaps you may also, when Islamists slaughered masses in Mumbai (Bombay) the BBC was also uniquely reluctant to point to Islamic guilt. I do not therefore accept your criticism and rather suggest that the BBC has form on this and does not change much.
“Will Ross is determined to cast doubt on the overwhelming likelihood that Islamic terrorists were behind it. “
“He seems to adopt a uniquely benign attribution of guilt.”
Oh come on, who are you kidding? This was a single quoted paragraph in a report which is full of inference that the al-Shabab militia were more than likely behind the attack. With no proof as yet and an al-Shabab spokesman not claiming responsibility for the attack whilst simultaneously praising it, it is entirely legitimate for the BBC to point out the possibility that other forces could potentially be behind the attack. And this is a single paragraph towards the bottom of the article.
And do you really think that he was “determined to cast doubt”? This is one quoted line in the midst of an article which states quite clearly in its title and opening paragraphs that Somali militia were probably to blame. And then clearly links those militia to al-Qaeda.
Whether you think the BBC ‘has form’ or not, this is another clear case of you striving so hard to see bias everywhere that you jump at shadows.
DV — I think the “camel” in the room is a better metaphor!
DV — there is massive persecution of Christians by Mohammedans occurring right now in Pakistan.
Extreme violence, rape and murder of men, women and children.
I’m sure paulo will be able to point out the extensive coverage of that by the BBC.
Panorama must have covered this dozens of times.
Of course, while this cannot be excused, it does mirror exactly the type of violence Muslims face in the UK on a daily basis.
When you think about it, saying you don’t think much of the organized death cult that is Islam, is EXACTLY like murdering a ten year old Pakistani christian boy boy for insulting “the prophet”.
Ho hum.
The references in the early part of the report suggest the obvious suspicion – that this was an Islamist terror attack – but do not state this as known fact. So the remark by Will Ross was entirely superfluous, and his reference to the possibility that the incidents have something to do with internal elections is absurd. But still the BBC stick Will Ross’s bit in.
The BBC takes a very dim view of “denialism” in relation to climate change. But it practises it every day in its reporting of affairs concerning Islam and terrorism.
Here’s the way the BBC (and other media) ignore some recent evil remarks by their “moderate” Palestinian leader, Abbas :
http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolineGlick/2010/07/09/fit_for_the_new_york_times
Jack, an American citizen was killed in this attack with several others injured. I would hope that you understand how the media works (not just the BBC) as to why this item has made headlines in this country over the top of all the other violent killings which happen all over the world every day.
This story made headlines because it’s connected to the World Cup, and nothing more than that. And, while I agree that this report is operating under the assumption that Somali Islamo-nutters are responsible, laying out all the reasons why it’s probably them, Will Ross is being very disingenuous when he suggests that bombing an Ethiopian restaurant might actually have some connection to an upcoming Ugandan election. That really is a superfluous, dishonest disclaimer. The kind of automatic disclaimer we don’t generally see in reports on Israeli actions. In those cases, we’re lucky to get an “although Israel denies this”, with no official disclaimer statement from a BBC correspondent.
Paulo
You really come with utter tosh at times !
You post to Jack looks like a gnat trying to swallow a camel. Or an elephant.
John
Yip – Abbas is a “moderate” and reality must not be allowed to fracture this. The BBC tout him as a Mandela figure such is their depravity and bias.
Paulo
The bit you miss is that I am quoting directly what a BBC reporter thinks. Hard to avoid that, isn’t it? As John points out, the comment by Ross is superfluous.
DV.
No, you are not ‘quoting directly’, nowhere have you actually quoted the reporter so, ah, it is actually quite easy to avoid. Instead you said he was “determined to cast doubt” (here I am quoting you directly) which I found an interesting choice of words. I clicked through expecting to see a full report pointing the finger of blame at another non-islamic group. I was very surprised to find it was a single quote towards the bottom of a BBC filed report which actually puts the blame fairly squarely onto al-shabab. The comment by Ross isn’t superfluous mainly because the al-shabab spokesman interestingly didn’t claim responsibility when you would expect them to. This raises the possibility (however unlikely) that other motives may be behind the attack and this eventuality is briefly covered by the quote from Ross. Fairly straightforward journalism 101 as the Americans would say.
and your latest post is just one more squirm about Ross’s entirely superfluous comment. His suggestion that it all has something to do with Ugandan elections looks ridiculous – for instance in relation to ealier condemnation of the World Cup by the terrorists :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/10307512.stm
It is NOT automatic that terrorist groups immediately claim responsibility for their attacks. If the Somali Islamist terrorists do claim responsibility – no doubt you will return to acknowledge how silly all your comments on this have been ?
John ,
“Claim responsibility” ? I am surprised at you. That is Beeboidspeak !!
when bbc first reported it on radio yesterday, i immediately thought that there must be an islamic group behind it. but there was no mention of religion. otherway round, if muslims are killed, you would immediately have the whole poor muslims killed by horrible jews, christians , nasties etc. i ccould not believe it initially but now more and more i am convinced that the bbc like to condone these acts and always believe that there must be some sympathetic cause behind it
Paulo
Sorry but Ross is following the BBC imperative to always give Islam the benefit of the doubt. This is consistent, documented, and unfortunately predictable.
PS Try the Telegraph for more honest reporting,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/uganda/7885111/Al-Shabaab-Islamists-suspected-in-deadly-Ugandan-World-Cup-bombings.html
On this subject of the BBCs on sided reporting of all things “Islamic”, to be portrayed in an ever positive light:
Both the E.D.L. and National press blanked the “March for Ummah” in Cardiff on Saturday, so it seems that the BBC have simply used poetic licence to show their Anti British, Anti Christian sentiment. In spades. The video itself comes from B.N.P. video makers bit they’re only pointing a camera, (cue BBC supporting allegations of “Nazi”) but the two pieces of information below seen in unison, highlights exactly BBC methods of crass misinformation..
First the BBCs reporting of the event to a Worldwide audience.…..http://www.globenews24.com/EN/news,muslim-demo-at-anti-islam-laws
Now what happened, shown in video form, something that the BBC didn’t realise existed…….
You make the mistake Paulo of using logic and evidence. It doesn’t actually matter what the BBC report says, the BBC likes Islamic militants wjho blow people up and it’s also biased in favour of lone, crazed gunman, full stop.
I would say you couldn’t make it up, but David Vance seems to make a good living at doing just that.
BBC TELETEXT has al-Shabab “Militants”
SKY TELETEXT has Islamic “Militants”
What the eff is an al-Shabab (a camel meat kebab?)– and what the eff do they have to be “militant” about?
You can’t make this shit up. But the BBC can.
Sky is almost as bad. Apparently it’s not terrorist to blow up a bar killing 70.
Is that because the victims are BLACK? Sky and BBC?
Try that shit on British TV next time more Britons are blown up in the UK.
You dipshit arseholes.
Erik
As ever you shed light in the darkness.
The BBC only report Islamic terrorism if they absolutely can’t avoid it and , even then, try and avoid using the words “muslim” or “terrorist” preferring “militant” or ” freedom fighter ” etc.
It doesn’t matter how anyone tries to dress it up, the BBC is , at the very least, soft on Islam and soft on Islamic terrorism.
It is blatant bias and it makes me very angry that I have to pay for it.
Somali terrorists now claim responsibility for the Uganda bombs.
Expect utter silence from Paulo. And probably no deletion by the BBC of those utterly stupid remarks by Will Ross, the BBC reporter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/12/uganda-bombs-blasts-world-cup
John,
Are these Buddhist Somali terrorists ?
“And probably no deletion by the BBC of those utterly stupid remarks by Will Ross”
And probably less coverage of the atrocity now the culprits are known.
Even the politically left-leaning Channel 4 has:
“Somali jihadists ‘admit’ Uganda bombings”
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/africa/world+cup+fans+killed+in+ugandan+explosions/3707707
For BBC news this is reasonable objective. They use the I-word. But for Will Ross to suggest that the bombing could be linked to next years election is wildly speculative. It could be disappointed dutch fans. It could be the israeli’s. It could be the CIA. Or all three together.
Now al-Shabab has claimed resposibility for the carnage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10602791.stm
After wild speculation the BBC goes to the next strategy “root causes”;
“Addis Ababa backs Somalia’s government against the rebels. And Ethiopian troops invaded Somalia in 2006 to oust an Islamist movement, stoking an insurgency that still rages.”
I see Al -Kebab have now admitted they did it, but the camp male beeboids are still trying not to admit this themselves. Blame the Jews you beeboid twats, you normally do.
Well I have heard theories that the Israelis themselves were behind the Entebbe hostage-taking. Can’t remember if it was from the BBC. If not, let’s hope they don’t hear about it, otherwise we would geta one-hour “documentary “.
Marty — which sect of al-Kebab dunnit?
Was it the Shishka or the Do’nna
bBC news 24 last night had somebody (SOME BLACK AID WORKER???) Anyway he was allowed to rant on about how this was all the fault of the US, that they funded genocides in the congo, the AU in Somalia and that they were to blame and not the terrorists.
All the stupid bBC presenter could come up with was:
“Do you think the Au should pull out”
Now where have i heard something similar?
There’s a good thread on Harry’s Place about Islam re Paul Berman’s book ‘The Flight of the Intellectuals’. The comments discuss Islam, Islamism, and the link with Nazis etc etc. I hope she wont mind if I paste her comment here because it’s about the BBC, it sounds a bit like the interview you describe.
Amie 3:09pm
amie 3:09 pm
“I just heard the head of police in Uganda being interviewed on BBC world service about the bombings. His BBC interviewer asked if it wasn’t the case that the bombings were the result of Uganda having peacekeeping troops in Somalia, and therefore shouldn’t they get out of Somalia. Police chief responded that fighting international jihad and Al Queda was not just a Ugandan thing and that the African Union, the whole of Africa, was united in opposing the Islamists. It was also vital for Ugandan security not to have a failed state, Somalia on its border. He refuted very effectively the BBC man’s constant refrain of upside down cause and effect. I will try and get the link as soon as it is on listen again- the BBC man’s attitude had such resonance for the choir in the UK for whom e;g 7/7 is the fault of British foreign policy, the fault of UK troops in Afghanistan etc.“
The cat’s got Paulo’s tongue ?
Hi John, I’m afraid not. I thought I’d give it a bit of time to let you all enjoy your circle-jerk of ‘liking’ each other’s comments for a little while longer.
So, Al-shabab have claimed responsibility for the attack and now me and Will Ross have egg on our faces for pretending it was otherwise.
Or not.
My issue with DV’s post was that he thought Will Ross’s quote meant the reporter was “determined to cast doubt” on Islamic militants responsibility. This was a complete and blatant misrepresentation of the article and the quote’s place within it. DV felt the reporter was “following the BBC imperative to always give Islam the benefit of the doubt.” Taken out of context of the rest of the piece he may have had a point but as it was, the quote formed part of an article which clearly pointed the finger at the islamics. To claim that this was ‘ignoring the elephant in the room’ is truly laughable. Do you honestly think that that was all Will Ross had to say on the incident? Surely by saying that there was not ‘yet’ any evidence to implicate Al-Sabab the reporter was implicitly concurring with the rest of the article and implying that evidence would likely surface soon.
Anyway, events have moved on, the article has been updated accordingly and we can all get back to twitching the pages of our copies of The Daily Mail.
Yet another B-BBC post with little substance or evidence of bias. Still, it is as always a comedy goldmine. This is consistent, documented, and brilliantly predictable.
Paulo
As far as I know, Will Ross is the only person in the media that suggested that the possible cause was internal politics regarding the Ugandan elections. That is pointing the finger AWAY from the Islamist terrorists (whom the BBC never call terrorists) – and it was total rubbish from the start.
ONLY a BBC jounalist would come up with such crap, only BBC editors would include it in such a headline story – and only mugs like you would seek to defend it.
You use the vulgar term “circle-jerk”. That is an apt description of much BBC “reporting”.
John,
Quite agree, but it is nice to have Paulo posting here adding to the gaiety of the website.
we can all get back to twitching the pages of our copies of The Daily Mail.
Friggin’ hell. You think most conservatives here rate the Mail?