The propaganda is always there, as brought to my attention by an eagle-eyed B-BBC reader;
‘Missile attacks by US drones in Pakistan’s tribal areas have more than trebled under the Obama administration, research by the BBC Urdu service shows. Compared with 25 drone strikes between January 2008 and January 2009, there were at least 87 such attacks between President Obama taking office on 20 January 2009 and the end of June 2010.’
(more than trebled’…Pre-Obama: 25 strikes in 12 months = 2 / month Post-Obama: 87 strikes in 17 months = 5.1 / month)
‘The militant backlash over the same period has been even more violent. Extremists have struck more than 140 times in various Pakistani locations, killing more than 1,700 people and injuring hundreds more, the BBC research shows.’
(‘backlash’ – meaning militant direct retaliation for the strikes, implying that if we stop the attacks they will too.
But…)
‘While attacks by militants cannot be described as direct retaliation for drone strikes, they are firmly part of the battle the US and Pakistani authorities are fighting against radical Islam’s operational bases in Pakistan.’
So militant attacks aren’t direct retaliation. Then what are they? Indirect retaliation? Or a systematic campaign of violence intended to destabilise the Pakistani government, a step en route to the re-establishment of the caliphate.
I was trying to announce the winner of this week’s Arrested Bomb Plotters’ Mohammed Quotient Competition, but I can’t find the story on the BBC anywhere – or, at least, one that supplies their names.
Thanks to other news outlets, though, it has been established that the MQ is 33%, so call the usual number to claim your prize if your guess was 33%.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12081828
…still no word though as to what their motive could possibly be. I’m guessing they just don’t like Londoners, or peoples of the south east more specifically?
And in Nigeria, INBBC is forever censoring the Islamic jihad there. For example, INBBC misses out:
Nigeria: Jihad group claims responsibility for Christmas Eve bombs that killed 32, vows more attacks on “disbelievers”
Instead, INBBC does a Pontius Pilate:
“UN condemns ‘deplorable’ Nigeria violence”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12081785
The BBC takes great pains to present the Nigerian tragedy as a ‘six of one and half a dozen of the other’ type deal with both sides equally to blame.
The truth is somehwat different with rabid islamists intent on murder as Christians try as bet they can to defend themselves, as usaual the victim becomes the target of a biased corrupt BBC.
I wonder why the Western press refuses to portray the Ivory Coast conflagration for what it really is; namely, a battle of Christianity against islam. Laurent Gbagbo is Christian, whereas the pretender to the throne is muslim. Guess who the West are supporting.
I think that it is necessary to be very suspicious of Islam Not BBC (INBBC) reports from Islamic countries such as Pakistan.
Questions which occur:-
1.) What are prime political loyalties of people associated with ‘BBC Urdu service’? To Pakistan? To Taliban? Or to Britain?
2.) How can one trust ‘reporters’ who only describe Islamic jihadists as ‘militants’?
It’s so awesome that the BBC is finally reporting positively on US military activity. Only two years ago they were telling us of the “growing anger” at the US presence in Pakistan, and the concerns about “sovereignty”. If the increase in militant attacks is not due to the increase in drone attacks, maybe the increase in drone attacks is due to the increase in Al Qaeda activity?
Oh, hang on: in both BBC reports I’ve just linked to, they speak of the drones becoming a sort of substitute for US boots on the ground in Pakistan. In other words, the increase in drone attacks isn’t due to The Obamessiah being even more of a warmonger than Booooosh, ot that He’s finally gotten it right where Bush was doing it wrong, but because it’s a change in tactics to appease Pakistani concerns of infidels amongst them – a change begun under Bush.
The BBC’s Urdu service obviously has no idea, nor does the sub-editor charged with cobbling this new piece together. But it’s not the first time the Beeboids have put up some inaccurate news which could have easily been fixed if they had bothered to check their own reporting.
I guess none of that is important here, as the agenda of this piece was to share the excitement about those sexy numbers, and a bit of defense for The President, context unimportant.
“Loving the Caliphate…”
A fellow could get confused as to what you people really thought. It’s a given that mass media propel the propaganda so as to totally focus on the heroism of ‘the Troops’ while ignoring the effects of their activity. This is so effective chances of one noticing little details like the bulldozing of Kandahar are minimal.
I doubt this goes under endearing ourselves to those we are murdering.
Who exactly are you murdering? Who else is committing these murders with you? Should we inform the authorities?
It’s the warmongering war criminal US President who’s doing the murdering, right, opit?
The bBC, and how it reports the news that 2 people were executed in Iran today.
Iran hangs man convicted of spying for Israel’s Mossad
Iran has hanged a man after finding him guilty of spying for Israel’s intelligence service, the official Irna news agency says .Ali Akbar Siadat, an Iranian, was executed inside Tehran’s Evin prison, according to judicial officials.Irna said he was in contact with the Israeli spy agency Mossad for several years, and had passed on information about Iran’s military activities.
Has anybody else noticed the slack Iran is given when it decides to hang somebody, but not only that but in the above coverage more emphasis is placed on the so called Israeli angle than the fact that 2 yes 2 people were hung this morning in Evin prison. You know that notorious Evin prison where intimidation, torture and murder is in a scale that makes Abu Ghraib look like kinder garden japes. Why is that? Also the usual suspects are all missing in which to condemn this state execution, you know the ones who are given lots of air time on the bBC in which to berate the UK for the inhumane way in which terrorist suspects are locked up in the UK ,how murderers who are put to sleep with drugs is consided barbaric or even how banning these people from using the internet at home is a human rights issue because their (101) children cannot access CBeebies.
On that note considering how Iran hangs people. (A noose is put around the person and then they are slowly lifted into the air by a crane in which to make the person suffer) here is a little snippet from the bBC about prisoners rights in the US:
Lawyers representing Duty and two other death-row inmates argued during a court hearing in November that use of the sedative could be inhumane and that inmates could be conscious but paralysed when the other drugs were administered No-one who has been put to death has come back and testified about what it felt like,” said lawyer Jim Rowan, a board member of the Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
Interesting article on Amnesty International from the bBC:
Mid-life crisis for Amnesty?
To understand Amnesty International at all, you need to think of this: an ordinary citizen sits in an ordinary home, writing an extraordinary letter on behalf of somebody they don’t know, to a dictator who doesn’t care. The letter says: “We know you have imprisoned X. We know they are illegally detained. Be warned. We will go on writing until you have freed them.”
So far so good, then Al-Beeb goes into white liberal angst mode:
It is still largely a Northern, white-liberal body with its roots in Christianity, Judaism, and Quakerism. Its members are mostly in Britain, the United States and Holland. It is rather like a secular church, though many would feel uncomfortable with such a thought.
Then the article goes into typical bBC lying through their back teeth mode:
When Amnesty UK began using the released Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg as more than a victim of ill treatment, rather a representative of human rights, it provoked a full-scale row.
Gita Saghal, Amnesty’s long standing head of gender, protested publicly and left the organisation. Amnesty UK faced criticism over its relationship with Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg She charged that Amnesty was soft towards non-state organisations, however violent they might be; and that with Moazzam Begg, it failed to follow its own advice on “making the distinction between supporting what he went through in Guantanamo and treating him as a human rights advocate”.
Silly me and there i was thinking that Gita Saghal exposed how Amnesty’s mission statement was the polar opposite of Beggs religious ideology. (You know kill the white-man,Kill the non Muslim, women as second class citizens etc) and as such they really shouldn’t be paying him to be their poster boy.
But hey this is the bBC where black is white and white is black. Now as I have brown skin and a Muslim name one of you bitches best bring me a rum and coke or else I will ring the bBC and say you are a racist.