The BBC opposed the liberation of Iraq before it took place, it opposed it when it was taking place, and as US forces prepare to leave, the BBC still opposes it. This could not be more blatant in this headline “Iraq – doomed to fail?” The BBC has not been a neutral reporter during the years in Iraq, it has used the situation to advance its own anti-war anti-US military agenda and in doing so brings utter disgrace upon itself. Worse still, even as British soldiers gave their lives out there in the cause of establishing a form of liberty from tyranny, the BBC worked night and day to perpetuate the “hopelessness” of it all.
DOOMED TO BE BIASED…
Bookmark the permalink.
It’s long, long overdue that someone reminds Her Majesty’s Government of her powers under the law of Treason.
I found this site while searching for articles on the legalisation of drugs, and found this article on the war in (aka. illegal invasion of) Iraq.
I agree that the BBC is outrageously biased and sensationalist in its news reporting, but sadly your articles are equally bad. They representing exactly the sort of out-of-touch, old-fashioned, small-town Conservative opinions that keep this country stuck in the past.
I`m sure the Mods will give you a full refund, if you don`t like the site.
Give us some examples then?
“Stuck in the past” – So you concede that 13 years of Labour rule aided by appalling BBC Bias, achieved precisely nothing and the mega political machines of both were halted by us old fashioned, out of touch small towners?
Ginger Biscuit…you have clearly been dunked in hot tea and are now sagging/dropping on the carpet. When you read back your message after posting did you suffer any embarrassment? Bit of a hot flush? Anything? Look at what you are comparing…
The BBC gets multiple BILLIONS from a NATION of taxpayers, B-BBC on the other hand is a blog run by a handful of eager people with an opinion that they are free to give, they call a spade a spade instead of not calling a spade a spade in case someone misunderstands, as in the BBC’s case; they don’t claim to be unbiased in their pointing out bias in a massive corporation that DOES claim to be unbiased.
I don’t see the relevance of money in relation to my original comment. I was commenting on the cras Daily Mail-esque standpoints of the articles on this blog, specifically regarding the invasion of Iraq and the legalisation of drugs. If you want to get into the issue of funding, the solution is obvious; stop paying your licence fee and switch off your television. I have, and I don’t miss it one bit.
John, regarding examples: Legalisation of drugs – great documentary here:http://www.channel4.com/programmes/our-drugs-war/4od#3109766
“One in six British citizens have used class-A drugs… The police fail to control supply – in Scotland seizing just one per cent of the heroin consumed – criminals make money, and demand only increases.”
Examples of the illegality of the invasion of Iraq and the inefficacy of Euro-US meddlings in the affairs of other (mainly middle eastern) countries are so numerous and obvious it’s embarrassing. Being associated with it in some way as a British national is the only thing I feel any embarrassment about Span Ows.
Ginger Biscuit,
Anyone who thinks the BBC is outrageously biased is welcome to post a comment, submit a guest post to one of the contributors, or tip one of us off about an incident that you consider warrants scrutiny.
More baffling is your idea that this country is stuck in the past. If you think the BBC is biased to the right, you’re in the wrong place. Try Medialens.That’s not to say no-one here is up for a full and frank discussion.
We’re used to criticism, but it’s usually from people who think the BBC is perfect.
stuck in the past….If it wasn’t for our brave fighting lads and lasses,you wouldn’t be speaking english but german….some people dont know how lucky they are …like i said before itv fodder…..
Yes, davejanfitz; quite right too on a military thread.
If you can read this thank a teacher….if you can read this in English, thank a soldier.
On the Today programme this morning, Hugh Sykes was giving his biased potted memory of the whole Iraq business. He started with “I went on a Stop The War” march.
How clear is that as a reason to doubt his many many reports from Iraq ?
Sykes is at 35 minutes into the programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00thvrx/Today_31_08_2010/
For an “impartial” broadcaster, what is really offensive is that Sykes is able to declare his bias quite freely, yet has been allowed to continue his anti-American sneering reports for year after year.
Let’s bear in mind that this war was pointless, and our Prime Minister led us into the war out of a bizarre stary eyed affection for the American president. War in Iraq has not helped the fight against Islamic terrorism one bit, if anything it has distracted attention/resouces from it – and it has certainly disaffected many mainstream Muslims who might now be more likely to support terrorism in the west.
As Blair said, in a post 9-11 world we just couldn’t take the risk of rogue regimes supplying WMDs to terrorists. I have no doubt that Iraq was absolutely critical to the defence of western democracy. Al Qa’eda’s Al Mouzarri fled Afghanistan and was given shelter by Saddam Hussein. If Bush and Blair hadn’t given orders to go into Iraq we’d be demanding their lynching now for criminal irresponsibility.
Thing is Iraq was a waste of lives and based on a lie. I had no problems with them killing Saddam or his sons (they should have done it after GW1) but look at Iraq now, it’s basically a puppet of Iran, they can’t form any sort of stable Government, their armed forces are still very weak and incapable of dealing with Alky Ada.
The invasion was badly planned and executes, only the surge really turned it round militarily.
Finally the British were defeated in Iraq militarily, we ran away, not the fault of the soldiers but the one eyed mong and scum like Geoff Hoon oh and Bliar of course.
I was listening to come comments on the news and there was talk of needing a ‘strong man’ to lead the Country, here we go again, only this time Iraq will get a puppet of Iran.
Muslims don’t get democracy (neither does the BBC), I don’t blame GWB for the mess, he was advised by people who didn’t have a clue. But we as a nation should know better
Agree entirely. I would go further, and argue that maybe the UK/US should have gone after Iran in the first place – they are the ones who sponsor and protect terrorist groups across the region. Robert Baer, formerly of the CIA, who has written some excellent books on the middle east/terrorism even alleges that Iran was involved in 9/11. I can believe that a lot easier than I can believe Saddam was anything other than a cruel and vicious despot. Problem is, so is Mugabe, and we didn’t invade Zimbabwe.
“Problem is, so is Mugabe, and we didn’t invade Zimbabwe.”
Probably because (a) Zimbabwe is landlocked and its neighbours won’t allow use of their land, something conveniently overlooked by the Left, and (b) Zimbabwe doesn’t subscribe to the death cult that is Islam
anon,
Point (b) . Apart from Mugabe’s genocidal death cult against the Matabele, but who cares about them now ?
As tragic as that is, we can’t expect HMG to put British soldier’s lives on the line when our security isn’t directly threatened. In a post 9/11 world Saddam Hussein was a ‘clear and present danger’.
Withdrawal from Iraq was meant to be flexible – according to conditions in Iraq. Until the new Government is formed in Iraq, it looks to me that the withdrawal should not have been so precipitate – just to meet an Obama election commitment. The General in charge, Ray Odierno, is clearly unhappy about the situation – it still needs some more weeks to get the new Government settled.
The BBC has – as usual – failed to reflect the considerable criticism Obama has faced on this timing issue. He has put politics before practicality,
Critics of the second Gulf war are confused on both its cause and result.
The Iraq invasion was because of Saddam’s continued defiance of UN resolutions to openly abandon his nuclear ambitions. The presence of WMD was a motif for the war, but the more accurate reason was that he held in reserve the where-with-all to start his attempt to have an A-bomb. It’s an incredibly difficult point for the BBC to mention, not to say grasp, but the decision was either to go to war now at known cost, or do it later at incalculable cost. That decision faces the world today WRT Iran’s nuclear ambitions also. BTW, it was nice to think that we got rid of Saddam because of his odious regime, but I doubt it played a significant part in the above calculation. We do nothing about Zimbabwe or oil rich Burma because they have no geo-political significance. The end result was total and complete defeat for Al-Quaeda in Iraq (not to mention snuffing out the Saddam dynasty). They came; they targeted fellow Muslims in a putrid attempt to cause sectarian strife; they died in their thousands. Iraqis turned away from their concept of “involuntary martyrs” even as Al-Quaeda strapped explosives to the mentally handicapped and sent the poor wretches into crowded markets full of busy shoppers. Of course, the BBC took succour from this tactic in their ceaseless crusade to undermine the work of our armed forces and allies.
Exactly, DV. We’ve seen it and seen it.
‘Analysis’ BBC news is not serious journalism. It’s meant for the kind of people who use the BBC for stuff like Eastenders and Casualty and is of the same level of quality.
Expecting quality news coverage from the BBC is as sensible as expecting it from The Sun or the Daily Sport. Along with this type of newspaper the BBC is mainly in the business of providing low-brow, mass market entertainment and celebrity tittle-tattle with a bit of news attached.
Further on this topic, Dame John Simpson has an article in which he assesses the US’s “imperial adventure”. Your prize for guessing his conclusion is an increased license fee.
I’m not going to bother fisking it, except to point out that Simpson condemns the entire operation from the beginning with his use of the term “imperial adventure”. We all know that has negative connotations, as “imperialism” is a favorite shibolleth of the Left. What makes this ridiculous is that Simpson is actually quoting some British writer, claiming that whoever used this term was one of Britian’s biggest supporters of the invasion of Iraq. With supporters like that…..
Also, it’s premature to declare that the idea of a “domino effect” after removing Sadaam is bunk, because that was only supposed to happen once a proper government was installed afterwards. That’s only barely starting to happen now, so it’s far too early to call the game over. Having said that, I would remind Simpson and the BBC that Gaddafi sure as hell started bowing and scraping after he saw Sadaam run for his life. No ripple effect there, BBC?
And Iran is further isolated from the rest of the Muslim Arab world because there is no more Sadaam for the mullahs to play with, and the Saudis and the rest of them now have to face the consequences. Which they don’t like, of course. The mullahs cracked down on their citizens even more, leading to more unrest. Anyone think we’d have seen all those “Green Revolution” protests duirng that last rigged election in Iran if Sadaam was still around?
One last thing that the BBC and all opponents of the invasion of Iraq need to confront: if we had left Sadaam in charge as you all wianted, right about now he would be handing over the kingdom to his two lunatic sons, each more violent and insane than the old man. I’ll leave to the Beeboids and any lurking defenders of the indefensible to explain how that would have led to greater stability and less Iraqi deaths.
The domino effect was kicking in. Remember the ‘Lebanese Spring’? Unfortunately, thanks to the BBC and various other friends of tyranny and terrorism in the West, Bush lost his way under the internal propaganda blitzkrieg against him and the ‘dominio effect’ lost its impetus.
Good point, which ties in with what Martin said about the Iranian post-election uprising.
Leaving Iraq as it is just strengthens Iran. What is being missed here is the REAL STORY (by the beeboids). Barry Obama refused to back the uprising in Iran last year, he should have done so, from Iraq they could have used it as a base to infiltrate Iran and cause all sorts of trouble there.
Iraq used to be a counterweight to Iran in the region, Iran could never really do what it wanted as it had to keep an eye on Saddam all the time. Now that’s gone, Iraq is weak, there is no opponent to Iran in the gulf region.
Why isn’t the BBC asking why Barry refused to support the uprising in Iran?
Just saw Dame John Simpson’s video report about Iraq. Removing Sadaam made things worse than it ever was under his rule, things only changed in 2008. And things still are bad because there are 10 killings per day.
10 killings per day is a disaster? That’s not even half of what goes on in Mexico, but you don’t hear the BBC saying that’s a failed, unstable state.
I guess Simpson doesn’t address the massive propaganda putsch in the West against Bush’s grand vision of democratising the Middle East and what effect that had?
Simpson on BBC 1 talks about the screw ups over Iraq (blaming Bush of course) but funny that Simpson in his report ‘glossed over’ the surge (that of course Barry opposed) just calling it a change in tactics.
Why can’t the BBC admit that yes the USA got things wrong in Iraq but bush got the surge right and Barry opposed it?
And he gives the vague “2008” reference, which suggests that the Change™ happened only after we entered The Obamessianic Age.