False dawn

I switch on the radio. “They’re firing from mosques and hospitals” a voice is saying indignantly, “Fighting in a most underhand way. They’re taking off their uniforms and wearing civilian clothing and using women and children as shields”
“At Last!” I’m thinking. “The BBC has finally recognised exactly how Hamas operates, and understands what Israel faces whenever it tries to defend itself. “
But of course I was mistaken. It was not Hamas he was getting so worked up about. It was Gaddafi’s troops in Libya. But you knew that.

Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to False dawn

  1. hippiepooter says:

    If Netanyahu feels like having a laugh today he may wish to declare his support for Gaddafi and offer to supply him arms and anti-aircraft defences.  I suppose that would be irresponsible though, no matter how funny the fall-out.  Too high a price to pay to bring about Gaddafi’s swift downfall.


  2. My Site (click to edit) says:

    OT, but from a similar ‘but that’s diff… er.. unique’ file:

    BBCPolitics BBC Politics Inside Murdoch’s empire http://bbc.in/foqdnH

    Maybe one day we’ll get a sneaky peek inside Aunty’s empire, but I recall they hire lawyers with our money to stop that quiet often.


  3. sue says:

    And Jeremy Bowen is telling us to take the alleged casualty figures “with a huge pinch of salt” and notes that a Gaddafi government spokesman vehemently denies NATO’s accusations that they’ve been employing ‘underhand immoral’  tactics.
    So, the BBC, with Orla, now reinforced by Barabara Plett, batting for the rebels, versus Jeremy Bowen batting for Gaddafi.
    I realise that they neither know nor care if the outcome of regime change is a take-over by rabid Islamism, but what gets me is that all these indignant claims and counter claims are so reminiscent of the ones bandied about re Cast Lead, only this time the boot’s on the other foot so to speak.


  4. David Preiser (USA) says:

    They noticed it for a minute when the Taliban did it, too.  But since they feel that these people are sub-human (not able to control themselves, hence the need to murder when their religion is insulted), it’s not a big deal to them.  The soft racism of lowered expectations.  They’ll report it for a bit, then get bored because it doesn’t help the picture they want to paint.


  5. Geoff Watts says:

    You labelled this “ “. I can’t for the life of me see how this post is anit-Israel. Or am I missing something?


  6. sue says:

    Can’t for the life of you?
    Well, just to save your life, I’ll try to spell it out. Every time Hamas, or for that matter Hezbollah, attacks Israel, especially in an all-out war situation, their standard modus operandi is:
    *Firing from Mosques and hospitals
    *Wearing civilian clothing
    *Using women and children as human shields
    *Doing precisely the things that NATO has deemed underhand and immoral when being done by Gaddafi against the ‘rebels’.

    However, when the exact same tactics are used against Israel, they are never acknowledged by the BBC, let alone deemed underhand or immoral.

    On the contrary, it is Israel which is deemed underhand and immoral, because these reckless tactics guarantee that the Palestinian death toll will inevitably be higher than the Israeli one, although the veracity of the death statistics is disputed when it applies to Libya, but taken at face value when recounted by Hamas, notorious fabricators.
    As bloggers often say – hope that helps.


  7. Biodegradable says:

    According to the WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM the BBC is guilty of antisemitism, on more than one count.

    “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”


  8. George R says:


    We pay INBBC to headline Gaddafi criticism of British government:


    Meanwhile, in Libya, what INBBC doesn’t get:

    Islamic supremacists waging jihad in Libya


  9. JK says:

    Actually – I’m just saying hello. i read this blog a lot, and like it a lot 🙂 Keep up the good work.


  10. sue says:

    Amnesty International has replied to someone who sent a link from Elder of Ziyon’s article about Arrigoni’s girlfriend, an Amnesty worker.
    They think EOZ acted in a deplorable manner by using the tragic death of Mr. Arrigoni etc etc.
    They insist that their sole concern is protection of human rights, and cite a number of their condemnations of Hamas’s conduct to indicate that they don’t single out Israel.
    However as Amnesty partners a number of Israel bashing organisations, their indignant denial looks decidedly disingenuous.


  11. hatethebias says:

    Just rejoining the site after a long period of merely observing.


  12. TooTrue says:

    I switch on the radio. “They’re firing from mosques and hospitals” a voice is saying indignantly, “Fighting in a most underhand way. They’re taking off their uniforms and wearing civilian clothing and using women and children as shields”  

    Sounds like Jon Leyne. He was the one who was practically jumping up and down with excitement at rebel successes in the early days of this glorious “revolt,” acting as a PR agent for the rebels rather than a journalist.