BBC World Service on Wikileaks: “Are you glad this information is public?” (No bets being taken on how the BBC would answer that question – almost all the reporting has been solemn but with that classic BBC edge of implicit approval. The Beeb loves leaks unless, of course, they are about their top level salaries, bonuses and expenses…)
The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel have published more than 92,000 secret military files from the website Wikileaks detailing the war in Afghanistan. The news has got you divided.
mmmm….no need to read the comments, almost all from Dave and Deirdre Spart.
But so far haven’t noticed much about this aspect of the leaks from the lovable Swede, Julian Assange, in the BBC.
Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks’ publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.
Expect Taliban revenge attacks on many individuals soon. Moreover how many Afghans would now be willing to work covertly with coalition forces now they realise that Mr Assange will always be willing to finger them?
Never mind, although many individuals and their families will die as a result of this (quickly if they are lucky, more slowly if the Taliban stick to their preferred modes) the chattering classes in NW1 who the BBC exists to serve will rest easy. As the Coalition weakens in its resolve (the main aim of the BBC over Iraq and Afghanistan for these last few years) an exodus of pro Coalition Afghans will provide a nice source of cheap labour for the chattering class’s servant pool
I remember tosspot Roger (I’m not a science expert) Harrabin continually referring to the CRU emails as ‘stolen’ even though there’s no evidence EVER that they were, clearly the BBC were not happy their bum chums at the CRU were outed as twats.
But now the BBC doesn’t even suggest that this data might be ‘stolen’
an essay suggesting that Afghanisatan is not necessarily a hopeless cause, “graveyard of empires” is actually a myth :
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/26/bury_the_graveyard?page=full
Yes, the first British expedition was a disaster. But not the second – and Britain never sought to hold the country, just as it never sought to win and hold Nepal.
Great article. Thanks for posting.
One of John Humphrys’s favourite arguing points goes up in smoke. It might be fun to e-mail that article to him.
Craig, as long as noone else has read it Harrumphrys wont care. Humphrys and the phrase ‘impartial search for truth’ are as antonymous as you can get.
Hippiepooter, John Humphrys replied “Thanks. Very useful”.
Like you though, I don’t think for a second that he will use it!
The nation waits with baited breath! On past form he might slip it in to get it knocked down and then it will be normal service resumed! Woe that historical fact and national imperative should inform the country’s debate on Afghanistan!
If it is the case that thousands of Afghan informants have been exposed by Mr Assange, I hope that the families of those who fall victim to the Taliban are given Mr Assange´s address and helpful tips on how to reach him.
I say this, because one simply can’t imagine the US’ current Commander-in-Chief seeking his extradition from Australia. Let’s hope the rendition programme is still covertly running. It should be no-holds barred on destroying this terrorist intelligence network.
Apparently the creep jeeps moving around. His PR this week was from Sweden. That figures.
He already believes he is a marked man. He must know he will now have blood on his hands.
Notice the resemblance to another creep, Bill Maher.
These STOLEN files have highlighted BBC bias far better than we could ever hope.
The BBC in their fanatical partisan fervour forgot to at least engage in the pretence of wise and impartial caution when dealing with these STOLEN files, they have broken cover too early and too quickly and with far too much pleasure and excitement, the BBC hacks have the story of their dreams which meshes perfectly with their political beliefs.
If these STOLEN files had contradicted their corporate political narrative in any way they would have ignored/downplayed/censored and they would have attacked the messenger as has been proven.
The result is that this will be seen as a massive error by the BBC, no longer can people at the top ignore what the BBC has become because it is plain for all to see.
Compare it also to the case of John Venables, twice-convicted homicidal pervert. Anyone at the BBC questioning his right to anonymity?
David’s link shows that the Times‘s 2-hour long investigtion is being reported in America. It was reported hours ago in Australia too:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/leaked-details-put-informant-lives-in-danger/story-e6frg6so-1225898206990
Sky News‘s website updated the story over 6 hours ago, so they’re reporting it too.
The BBC’s silence is shocking. They had their couple of days of fun now and they’re moving onto something new. I can’t see anything about Wikileaks on the BBC website at all, only by using ‘Search’ – where you’ll find Kirsty Wark and her question to Assange about his “swashbuckling…Jason Bourne”-like existence, which just about shows the depths of their superficiality.
Why didn’t the BBC carry out the sort of simple check that the Times carried out? Have they so little sense of journalistic integrity left?
Spot on, the standard of BBC journalism is just pure shite these days, when it’s not mong boys like Greg Palast spouting crap and lies, as you say it’s superfisical cobblers vomited upout by hag faces like Wark.
The simple fact is the BBC has long since given up on professional journalism, they simply cobble together made up stories lazily trawled from hate sites like the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Media Matters or the Guardian.
The BBC are more interested in sucking up to left wing politicians and twisting stories to suit their personal political agendas.
We see this in their endless support for Barry Obama, their continual spouting of hate stores about Sarah Palin, their defence of the one eyed mong’s blatant lies and of course the BBC’s attacks on the Tories.
Isn’t it interesting how we don’t even get mong boy BBC apologists on here any more? Even those turd chewers can’t defend the crap their own journalists churn out.
How the BBC like to humiliate Cameron, Gavin ‘the twat’ Essler just said of Cameron “Why would India take notice of the leader of a small island off the coast of Europe?”
Can ANYONE ever remember the BBC putting the one eyed jock mong down like that when he was going around the world telling everyone he was right on the economy?
Perhaps the BBC might like to ask why a one eyed retard who is also a violent twat should have been taken seriously?
But not once did the BBC ever dare to declare that Brown was irrelevant even though Barry Obama made it clear HE also thought Brown was a mong.
Is this the same “small island” which has the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world , even after a deep recession ?
Had to laugh at the BBC’s total f**k up on the spelling of the Isle of Wight on Newsnight.
The BBC really has hit a new low in journalism.