I found it interesting that a man who says he is the renegade Afghan soldier who killed three British troops in Helmand province in Afghanistan has contacted the BBC.
The man said he had been angry at the conduct of British troops and that he had acted alone. He said he joined the Taliban after the attack.
Well, he sure knew who to phone, didn’t he? Wonder do the Taliban have the BBC on speed-dial?
He’s the Taliban Moaty.
He knows the BBC will love him. He probably has a Facebook page already.
No doubt some thick chav will Jack.
“Mustava Feel – you are a legend” I can see it now.
Well, who else would the Taliban contact in the sure knowledge of maximum publicity?
RD
“maximum favourable publicity”
I’ve noticed how the bBC are using this story in which to promote the view that ordinary Afghans are dissatisfied with the Uk, that the man only joined the Taliban after he murdered 3 men as they were sleeping and that the only door that is open is the one which says leave.
Now let me put the story in a slightly different context. Say somebody walked into the local bBC studio and murdered in cold blood 3 bBC employers. Let say they slit the throat of Abu Bowen (while uttering Jesus is great) set fire to a certain wheelchaired defense expert and then pushed him into off a six story roof and then raped and killed the girls working behind reception. The man runs off into the wilds of….london and then rings the local bBC studio to explain the reason he did so was because he’s heard that the government is going to allow the bbC to raise its tax and as he spends all his benefits of sex,drugs and rock and roll he was angry and decided to make a stand.
1) Would the bBC even listen to him
2) Would they air his views?
1) Would the bBC even listen to him
2) Would they air his views?
I regret to say the answer is yes. :'(
If the BBC can shill for radical Islam that opposes most of what the BBC say they stand for and the lifestyle of many BBC employees; If they can call the 7/7 bombers ‘militants’ not ‘terrorists’; If they can support known suppressors of press freedom as Chavez, Castro and Mugabe then they would have no problem in airing the views of a murderer of BBC staff.
Pounce,
If only……
Al Qaeda and the Taliban still have John Simpson and Barbara “Tears” Plett on speed dial. Who was it that they contacted to broadcast their statement that they were winning and didn’t want to negotiate? Simpson.
If I was fighting against the US and UK in Afghanistan (or Iraq, or anywhere else, really) and wanted a fair hearing and some air time to express myself, or wanted to convey my humanity to the rest of the world, the BBC is the first place I’d go. If I was a US or UK soldier, not so much.
I bet the Beeboids are proud of that.
Any enemy of Britain’s is a natural friend for the BBC.
That’s been clear since the BBC’s disgraceful treacherous conduct towards British forces in the Falklands War, and has intensified since the first Gulf war.
John Simpson’s refusal in the first Gulf war to move out of the hotel he was using in Baghdad (care of British TV license payers’ money), thereby preventing the Allies from attacking the facilities they suspected the Iraqis had in the basement, marks him out as an enemy of our nation, and he should be dismissed and forced to repay every penny he’s ever been paid by the nation’s supposed flagship broadcaster
Yup, the Islamist friendly Beeb. Who else to call when times get tough.
The BBC have always had good links to terror groups, right back from the days of the IRA, Tamil Tigers and so on.
Remember the only ‘terrorists’ in the eyes of the BBC are the British and American military
The entire state of Israel, man woman and child.
The BBC refuse to answer what legal advice is given their correspondents before dealing with groups others may consider criminal or even terrorist or even whether advice was given or sought.
Not one bit of this can be verified, yet the BBC shout if from the rooftops.
“We should be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/accuracy/
Every bit of it is “unfounded speculation”, but it fits the BBCs agenda so it is “reported”
I’ve seen herpes-ridden, junky whores who show more restraint in prostituting themselves than the BBC.
This monster needs putting down. Fast.
Asuku,
My goodness, you do get around !
I would be very disappointed if the British Intelligence Services are not monitoring everything to do with the BBC.
They are probably as politically correct as the police and perhaps the army.
Patrick Hennessy’s fine book `The Junior Officers’ Reading Club’, detailing his experiences as a junior officer in Afghanistan and elsewhere, is just one of many sources to reveal the sad reality of the BBC’s disgraceful attitude towards our armed forces:
`Embedded’ war reporters completely dependent on protection from our military are willing to broadcast detail unhelpful to our military and compromise our forces in matters that could impinge on national security, all in the name of `journalistic integrity’… never done a day’s soldiering in their lives, don’t know what it is to face in battle a foe intent on wiping out our way of life, but not timid about making dvmb fvck suggestions questioning whether excessive force is used in return etc.
BBC PARASITES