Just to remind you that myself and my Biased BBC colleague Hippiepooter will be live via videolink on the BBC1 Sunday Morning Live programme starting at 10am (I think). They want to talk about “torture” and whether it is ever justified? I want to talk about how the media is the Jihadists greatest asset. We shall see how we get on.
The allegation of “torture” from captured Islamic Jihadists is simply that – an unproven allegation right out of the Al Queda guidebook for gaining the interest of gullible media outlets. If we want to discuss torture, let’s talk about the unbelievable torture carried out by Islamic killers. Of course robust and lawful interrogation of any terrorist is something of which I fully appprove if it can save innocent lives. It is insulting to insinuate that our professionals in the military would use unlawful practises and of course the very discussion diverts attention away from those who throw grenades into vehicles containing defenceless women, those who decapitate and video their savagery. The essence of the discusson is to distract attention from a broader issue – why do we not focus on the torturers and killers who do so in the name of Islam.
Here’s the image the BBC to set up the interviews in the morning.s
“As trials at the infamous Guantanamo Bay resume we ask were its brutal methods really the wrong response to terrorism? Or is torture – sometimes – justified?” Note the use of infamous and brutal. It’s an ambush folks…
Great post DV!
Spot on.
‘Jihadwatch’:
Some articles on ‘Gitmo and torture’
http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=gitmo+torture&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20
BBC leads on this sort of thing:
Eurodhimmis halt extradition of bloodthirsty jihadist to U.S. because long jail term might violate his human rights
I hope you’re allowed to get those views across!
Very good, David. Hope you get a chance to put those cogent arguments and to ask why certain media (who could they be, now?) view everything through the lens of Alky Ada and suchlike terrorists rather than through the eyes of us, the people whom the State and its publicly funded outlets should be concerned about.
Hope it goes well for both of you.
There is no need to get dragged into any time-wasting on the torture of the guy currently in the news. It’s an emotional will o’ the wisp argument, intended to get you off the path of the real issues. Any talk of torture is heresay, you do not need to waste your time on it. Don’t bother with comparing anything to the ugliness the barbarians get up to. Again, that’s a distraction from the real issue, wastes time, and keeps the focus on the imagined torture instead of where it belongs.
The larger philosophical issue of torture as a means of last resort to get life-saving info from a terrorist is totally irrelevant to this young man, so why is this a topic for today, anyway? Ask the presenter if there’s a reason the BBC wants to flog this dead horse and not talk about the real issue of the day. Make the audience realize this is hand-wringing over an imaginary situation and not over a problem that actually exists.
Why is the BBC wasting everyone’s time talking to you about waterboarding or whatever? There are – if any of it is real and not just boasting to keep enemies guessing – maybe a couple of top-level mass murderers who were waterboarded, and that’s it. Remind them constantly of that fact. Any larger discussion of the justification of torture is based on fantasy and nothing else, as there is no widespread torture issue to actually talk about.
Now, it the BBC somehow thinks that sleep deprivation and loud music is “torture”, just make a joke about how half the drunken hoodies in the village square would consider that a good night out.
If you are allowed to talk about the young man currently going on trial, put Crawley on the defensive right away by asking him how many 15 year-olds in UK prisons for murder or serious violence he’d like to set free, or thinks should not be charged as adults or sympathizes with due to unhappy childhood circumstances.
Full respect to hippiepooter for taking the challenge as well. I hope it’s available on Listen Again because it will be about 5am for me.
Would be nice if you could get the them to show some of the real torture perpetrated by islamists which has been collected here http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2178
DO NOT CLICK on the link if you think that torture mens sleep deprivation.
VERY GRAPHIC, but unfortunately, it’s one of many videos, most of which are accompanied by shouts of “allah akbar”.
Just seen this and I do wish the white liberal elite at the BBC and everywhere would recognise that this does happen. What other group of people would do this and film it? Im not saying that the BBC should show this kind of barbaric act on TV, it will be going too far to show what happens. But they could acknowledge it and also acknowledge that as far as anyone knows, no Christians have done this to Muslims.
Best of luck David & Hippy, hope you get your say without too many interruptions or the BBC closing you down quickly before you can make your points. Hopefully I will be up in time, if not I’ll catch it later.
Good luck to both of you!
The BBC are always engaged in narrative construction then defends that politically motivated and artifically constructed narrative, the key is to probe the BBCs motivation and why they think that these allegations have any substance simply because claims are made, it is obvious to any sensible person that claims without evidence is not proof.
The key to undermining the BBC narrative is to reveal their determination that different standards must apply to the west and the islamists where the west must on one level hold an equality of intent and purpose with the islamists and on another that the west must attain and hold higher standards because the west is somehow superior to the islamists.
The Geneva convention was designed to offer moral and actual protection for both comatants and civilains, it was designed for nations to engage in conflict while upholding civilised standards BUT it only works if both sides are signarories and wish to be held accountable on an equal basis and where both/all parties wish to uphold minimum civilised standards of humanity.
The islamists/taliban/al qaeda do not apply the spirit or letter of the convention in any way, they fight like savages and kill llike savages therefore they should be treated in that manner.
By applying a human moral code to one side only while handing the other a free pass to war crimes and abuses is criminal, the islamists should be given an ultimatum,act and fight as civilised human beings OR be hunted down and exterminated like vermin and the survivors brought before a military court where the maximum penalty is death.
The BBC is vulnerable to common sense argument, they realise this and take steps to protect those vulnerable flanks but there are weak points.
Best wishes
Cassie K
Is there a way people outside the UK can watch this either live or after the fact?
What about some kind soul recording it and uploading it to YouTube?
Hi TrueToo, I will be uploading it to YouTube.
Check out:
http://www.youtube.com/user/WinstonSmith46
Thanks Marky. Nice site. Just watched it.
I don’t watch ANY BBC television output.
Non the less I wish you both well.
However, be prepared to be railroaded big style by big style left wing interupting BBC “journalists”.
I look forward to your account, but I think I could write it for you before the Video link is established.
Muslim accusations of torture against Westerners is a classic case of using their opponents beliefs against them: Mohammedans themselves can have no objection to torture. Their prophet personally ordered the torture of a Jew named Kinana in order to obtain the whereabouts of hidden treasure at the captured town of Banu Nadir. Since the ‘prophet’ is the perfect man and a model of ethical behaviour for all time, no believer could possibly regard the practcice as wrong. I believe the Koran instructs Muslims to imitate his behaviour, even in the smallest dtail, about seventy times. This explains why it is almost impossible to deport a Muslim troublemaker back to his country of origin – because he is almost certain to be tortured.
apologies: Banu Nadir was the name of Kinana’s tribe: the torture took place near the oasis of Khaybar.
Hi, thanks for the good wishes, but as things stand they should be reserved for DV. I got a call from the programme this afternoon saying they were going to have Colonel Bob Stewart on instead. I have to confess, after the call I punched the air with delight. The most likely outcome of having a gabbling tit like me on is .. well, I’d be a gabbling tit.
Having limited access to the BBC and never having seen the programme before or come across the presenter Suzanne Reid, I was prepared to keep an open mind about the show and take it from there. However, I have just read the wantonly biased terms in which the ‘debate’ is being framed. Under the heading ‘SHOULD THE BBC BE PROSECUTED FOR TREASON?’ I have emailed advising them I dont care whether they can slot me in or not, I am more than happy to make myself available as previously planned and would like them to ring me tomorrow @ 8.30 as had been arranged. We’ll see if I get that call or not. I will be ringing them shortly after if I dont.
One of the points I had made to the Assistant Producer I spoke to yesterday was that that the recent not guilty verdict on a Judge’s directions of activists for vandalising an arms factory that supplies the IDF on grounds they were saving innocent lives in Gaza does appear to set a legal precedent that would justify the security services torturing genocidal terrorists to save innocent life.
I asked her about where Mr Kadr figures into the show, and she said ‘he has been tortured’. I corrected her that it was only an accusation and not a fact, that one of the problems with media outlets, especially the BBC, is that they report accusations by terrorists as facts and the way the BBC is covering the War on Terror it is batting for Al Qa’eda.
There is no doubt that the Honourable Colonel Bob Stewart MP is a far better guest to have on supporting DV in the ‘ticking bomb’ argument, but nevertheless, one does feel compelled to try and contribute something worthwile in the face of standard BBC Treason in the War on Terror before the ‘debate’ has even begun.
Given the above, it seems reasonable to surmise that the BBC did eventually try a little harder to get a fellow ‘heavy hitter’ alongside DV after he called their bluff that they couldn’t find one person in the whole of the UK to join him by putting an ad out on B-BBC. It would have been rather embarrassing for them if the reason emerged why I was there.
“As trials at the infamous Guantanamo Bay resume, we ask were its brutal methods really the wrong response to terrorism?”
Let’s do a little textual analysis, shall we? What this statement is saying is: ‘Guantanamo Bay was set up as a torture centre and trials currently underway at this infamous place are on the basis of tortured confessions’. What the BBC are trying to do, it certainly appears in my view, is discredit in advance any guilty verdicts that might be reached. They are promoting enemy propaganda.
Any place set up to extract tortured confessions does of course deserve to be called infamous, but Guantanamo was set up to hold captured terrorist combatants, as you do when your fighting a war and capture the enemy.
Once again MI5 has grounds to sweep upon a BBC Editorial Team at their respective addresses at the dead of night and take them on long hooded drives to interrogations centres for a cosy chat about the meaning of the word Treason – then leave them alone to think about it for a few hours in a dank, dripping cell before letting them go. I can’t see the Government ordering this, but if MI5 officers took it upon themselves to do this, following the recent Court verdict in Sussex as per above they’d have an excellent defence. Discouraging the BBC from egging on Al Qa’eda can only save lives.
I firmly believe that you would have been a lucid and intelligent asset to the debate, at least you were able to express your concerens to a bebboid researcher.
The BBC employ researchers in a political strategy to weed out guests who upset their narrative, it seems their job is de fang the ideological enemy, break up a feared assault and get rid of anyone who may just make the BBC look like the muppets they are.
Stewart is a safer bet because he plays by the BBC rules and he does not make them appear total assholes, if you play by the BBC rule book they are happy and if the guest can be relied upon to exhibit reliable reactions then all the better for their fabricated and pre planned narrative eh?
A normal and honest media outlet would desire a genuine dialogue with a free interchange of opinions whereas that frightens the BBC more than anything else because it would spoil their carefully prepared construct, like the show trials of old the BBC only wants to hear what it wants to hear and it moves heaven and earth to make sure the listener/viewer only sees/hears what the BBC desires.
The BBC narrative can be destroyed, they fully realise this and take great care to ensure it just does not happen, I believe you may just have frightened the BBC into falling back on a reserve stock guest who could be relied upon to react in the desired way.
Best wishes
Cassie K.
As a general rule my advise would be “Don’t wrestle with pigs. They like it and you get dirty.” Having said that there is always the hope that you can bring some enlightenment to the audience on these topics so you probably shouldn’t pass up the chance.
If they try the old interruption game to throw you off stride or cloud an issue please go on the attack about rude and unprofessional behavior and then politely ask if they would permit you to make your point befoe they interrupt. More guests should attack the interruptions and maybe they would stop that tactic.
Good luck
OK, I ended up using the video gizmo I’d been sent and spoke to the Asst Producer I’d been speaking to before. I let her know that given the wanton bias with which the ‘debate’ has been framed I am more than happy to make myself available on the video feed whether I’m called or not. She said she’ll speak to her producer and they’ll ring me back. …..
Just got a call back from the producer of the show. It sounded like he was treating me as if I was throwing a strop because Colonel Bob is on instead of me. I made it abundantly clear it is obvious Colonel Bob is a far better guest than me, the reason I am now so keen to have a video link to the programme whether I’m called on or not is the “wantonly biased, treasonous way you have framed the debate”. He went into waffle mode about how their byline for the debate has been cleared by their Editorial Guidelines Committee and I told him I dont care, the BBC is institutionally biased, it is batting for the enemy. I told him that as he is on the programme’s Editorial Team he has committed Treason the way he has framed the debate. He made some very plausible explanations on the bandwidth problems it would cause them to meet my request when it was very unlikely I would be on the show which I fully accepted and I fully accepted as he’s going live soon he can’t speak to me further. I said to him “Please bear in mind what I’ve said. We’re a nation at war”.
Nice one.
I’m not going to be able to follow the programme live, but one of you may wish to videocall the programme using the link below and ask the following question:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/features/sundaymorninglive/aps/webcam.shtml
‘This programme has framed the debate by treating as fact allegations by Al Qa’eda terrorists that they have been tortured. As Colonel Bob Stewart now sits as an MP for the governing Party, does he believe the War on Terror can be won without Treason prosecutions at home and will he be offering his advice to the Prime Minister on the matter?’
OK, get this, I’ve just videocalled the programme and asked if even though I can’t view the programme whether I can leave a question? (the above one obviously). The call receptionist said “Yes” but then told me her Producer has just said I can’t! Looks like if noone else manages to ask the above question I’m going to have to ask Colonel Bob personally myself when he gets home after the show. I hope that DV gets a good chance to chat with him about the issues of Treason raised by the show’s framing of the debate on its website.