Still electioneering but wanted to highlight this story for you! Does Al Queda have sympathisers in the BBC?
The files, obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph, disclose that a phone number of someone at the BBC was found in the phone books and phones of a number of extremists seized by US forces.
A detainee assessment, dated 21 April 2007, states: “The London, United Kingdom (UK), phone number 0044 207 XXX XXXX was discovered in numerous seized phone books and phones associated with extremist-linked individuals. The number is associated with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).” Analysis by The Daily Telegraph suggests the number is one for Bush House, home of the BBC World Service.
The assessment continues that US forces uncovered many “extremist links” to this number, suggesting that extremists could have made contact with BBC employees who were sympathetic to extremists or had information on “ACM [anti-Coalition Militia] operations…”
The Pali-leaks content was accepted without question by the glorious Beeb; stand-by for the mother of all contrasts…
Did we all see the BBC report of the destruction of the peace monument on the Turkey Armenia border? It overlooks a muslim shrine. Not that the BBC reported that, instead just referring to it as simply a “shrine”, and referring only to nationalists, not muslims. It’s the religion of peace see?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13199787
oh. And the Beeb didnt report on the artist stabbed for defending it either. Islam – the religion of peace.
The BBC – dangerous, militant, evil, hate-filled propagandaists.
and the BBC failed to identify the race of the electoral fraudsters in Rochdale (see witterings fronm whitney). Quelle surprise.
Presumably in the interests of freedom of information the BBC will reveal whose telephone number that was; after all they could always change it so people don’t call the individual afterwards.
The Telegraph report says its now a dead line. One assumes the US Intelligence found out all they needed to about it. How it does not come as a complete surprise that Al Qa’eda terrorists would have contacts within the BBC.
Osama Bin Laden’s number popped up in the USA vs Bin Laden (in absentia) trial transcript. A satellite Job.
00-873-68-250-5331
I tried phoning it myself a few times but repeatedly got the Number-Vitrified-By-A-Daisy-Cutter Bomb tone.
Al beeb have probably got a a more recent number.
Probably the number of the producer of one of those flak jacket-wearing heels that embed themselves with coalition troops now and again. Prime intel for Al Qaeda courtesy of everyone’s favourite genetically impartial news broadcaster.
“Independance and impartiality are at the heart of all BBC World Service output”.
Well there are a few of us here curious to know when this will break out.
Indeed I wonder if the BBC spokesperson was therefore giving a free pass to BBC TV and Domestic Radio to convert the inhabitants of the United Kingdom into a communist paradise.
If you would like to be a Jeremy Hardy acolyte, please send your telephone number to Bush House, but not the World Service Department (they are far too impartial). Furthermore they are in enough trouble at the moment because of some interesting phone number problems of their own.
Well, thanks for sharing DV. That really was most fascinating.
I’ve just had a random potter around the Wikileaks Guantanamo files to see if I could find the BBC number. No success and doubt its among the files available on their site.
Nevertheless, I pottered about and came across this file of one Shakir Abd Al Rahim Muhammad Aamer. If you have a poke about yourself you’ll see a couple of times – for absolutely innocent reasons I’m sure – he hooked up with Moazzem Begg. Unfortunately Mo’s file isn’t available on the Wikileaks site. However, Binyamin Ahmad Muhammad is, and I am Shocked! Shocked! to find that he isn’t listed as UK citizen but Ethiopan.
The burning question I have, is of the number of detainees who they didn’t have enough evidence to show they were involved in terrorism and were released, how many have subsequently surfaced waging jihad?
It’s the first ever time I’ve moseyed around the Wikileaks site. It’s something I had hitherto regarded as a treasonous act (why I never read Spycatcher either). However, hell hath no fury as a pathological narcissist scorned. Assange had a bust up with his creepy partners at the Guardian and the New York Times and now he’s leaking in the interests of the War Against Islamic Terrorism and has just provided info that supports Bush’s opening of Guantanamo (and Obama’s inevitable decision to do a complete U-turn to keep it open). Or maybe what Assange is now leaking is some sort of deal with the Americans to get out of his Swedish imbroglio?
All the same, just in case – hey, Uncle Sam, I’m on your side – call of the drones!
This by Christopher Hope of the Telegraph who authored the piece:-
“The possible link between extremism and staff at the BBC will anger the national broadcaster, which prides itself on its impartiality.”
Clearly has the jellies about what the consequences will be for embarrassing the BBC like this.
Hey Chris, read what Craig has put and then grow a pair!
INBBC Press report (2003):
“BBC signs news exchange agreement with al-Jazeera”
INBBC’s disingenuous conclusion:
“It [Al Jazeera] is based in Qatar and has built its reputation on its independence which has led to a number of exclusives, including broadcast footage of, and filmed statements by, Osama Bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/01_january/15/al-jazeera.shtml
Also (2011):
“Leaked files accuse BBC of being part of a ‘possible propaganda media network'”http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/34173
Al-Jazeera, “the most powerful voice of the Muslim Brotherhood,” has fans in the Obama White House
‘Daily Mail’ has it. Who next, Islam Not BBC (INBBC)?
Wikileaks accuses BBC of being part of ‘possible propaganda media network’ for Al Qaeda
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380498/Wikileaks-accuse-BBC-propaganda-media-network-Al-Qaeda.html#ixzz1KZgo6err
“WikiLeaks: Guantánamo Bay terrorists radicalised in London to attack Western targets”
[Extract from above ‘Telegraph’ report]:
“The US government suspected the BBC of being a ‘possible propaganda media network’ for al-Qaeda after details of a phone number at the broadcaster was found in the possession of several suspected terrorists. The number, which now appears to be disconnected, was thought to be for an employee of the BBC World Service, which was then funded by the Foreign Office;
• Terrorist recruits from across Africa and the Middle East flocked to London to claim asylum, often after travelling through other European countries;
• British taxpayers’ money was used to bankroll an Afghan politician who was sent to Guantánamo Bay after being exposed as an al-Qaeda aide. Mullan Haji Rohullah received more than £300,000 to destroy his opium crop – but he sold the drugs and kept the money from the Department for International Development.
• Four the Guantánamo detainees were ‘British intelligence sources’ who betrayed their paymasters. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472784/WikiLeaks-Guantanamo-Bay-terrorists-radicalised-in-London-to-attack-Western-targets.html
For UK’s ‘political elite’: where Britain’s sacrosanct , uncuttable ‘foreign aid’ goes:
Useful idiocy at its finest: British aid budget funded key aide to al-Qaeda
I won’t say: ‘for INBBC’s information’; they probably know all about it…
“Al Qaeda hid bomb in Europe”
http://newstabulous.com/al-qaeda-hid-bomb-in-europe-wikileaks-releases-secret-files/9722/
They have sympathizers at the BBC all right. Why else would they describe terrorists as ‘fighters’ or ‘militants’ or ‘Iraqi civilians’? They truly are on a planet we’ve not discovered yet.
Perhaps the BBC could tell which part of the war on terror they DO support. This would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose (see Al-Qaeda, IRA, Tamil Tigers…).
How very rude of the Americans to discover what we already know.
The Guantanamo detainees are not and never have been innocent bystanders detained because of some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. But according to the BBC, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors caught on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror.
And apparently one of the detainees was [gasp!] given a badminton racket that was warped.
Of course the “human rights” brigade are carping about how brutally servicemen in Guantanamo are treating the little darlings who regularly throw faeces at them.
Re. The Tamil Tigers, the first time I heard the BBC use their ‘Ultra-Nationalist’ phrase (now given to anyone in this country who’s not overly keen on seeing it turned in to an Islamic state) was when referring to indigenous Sri Lankans who were campaigning about the UN’s investigation in to the conflict over there.
Obviously Sri Lankans are brown so the BBC are allowed to like them, but in this instance they were burning an effigy of their beloved Ban Ki Moon.
Just to point out the ‘My Site (cte)’ default seems to be spreading. Any hints on getting back to who one was welcome to avoid a Spartacus confusions ensuing.
Yeah, I was wondering that too.
On a lighter note, the BBC have even managed to get hold of some footage of the recently escaped Taliban prisoners celebrating freedom at their favourite club.
Can anyone spot Bowen?
I was about to fuliminate then checked out the link. Very Village People!
Any FOI attempt to find out who was the contact will be blocked by the BBC as information for the purpose of journalism. In a somewhat similar case of a BBC journalist ’embedded’ with a group considered by India to be terrorists I made an FOI request to see what legal advise was given before the interview and whether the BBC followed its own guidelines for contact with criminals. Also refused.
Although no one will confirm it, it seems the BBC only considers criminals to be those convicted in the UK or specifically planning a crime in the UK. Criminal laws outside the UK are irrelevant. For having Obama on speed dial the journalist is more likely to be promoted than punished.
Reminded me of the time the BBC called for info on coalition troop movements in Iraq
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555054/BBC-risked-safety-of-troops.html
and then, when it faced a storm of criticism, made the mealy-mouthed excuse that it was a “bad phrase.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/06/bad_phrase.html
Interesting comments thread to the BBC attempt at damage control, including the BBC’s subversive reporting on the Falklands and Gorse Green, though I haven’t checked that last one out.
Then of course Mark Byford, lately BBC 2IC, said he was “immensely proud” that the BBC had interviewed the Taliban.And Robin Aitken revealed that when the IRA tried to blow Thatcher up, one of his BBC colleagues said, “Pity they missed the bitch.”
That’s the BBC: never met a terrorist it didn’t like.
Apart from the Lehi.
They do seem to be going through an awful lot of difficult phrases, convergent lack of objectivity-wise, and despite Aunty’s sisterhood no long being spring chickens on the media block, they still seem to be ‘learning lessons’ like some sulky teenager who thinks they know best… until it turns out they know diddly squat.
Fine, but paying for this ongoing education at others’ expense seems to last a few decades too long to be credible. Especially when the failures err in rather limited, if predictable directions… aaaaaaall the time.
When the recording is up please catch Frank Gardner on Victoria Derbshire 5Live and his comments on Guantanamo. 1:10 mins in.
I’ve already got my email to him lined up:-
frank.gardner@bbc.co.uk
Dear Mr Gardner,
RE: GUANTANAMO WIKILEAKS – R5L VICTORIA DERBYSHIRE
News Flash! In a War against Terrorism you have Terrorist Prisoners of War.
Of course you only want us to take Police measures to fight Al Qa’eda. You’re a Muslim. You want us to lose.
Was it your telephone number that your terrorist co-religionists were carrying?
…
Heck, I think I’ll send it to Guantanamo too.
webmaster@jtfgtmo.southcom.mil
It’s hard not to conclude that the BBC have a ‘thing’ about terrorists.
BBC1 News yesterday evening.
Barely disguised admiration for the Taliban escapees and almost instant broadcasting of the fugitive’s side of the story.
Over to Ulster. Although the script was anti-Real IRA we still get to see some fine footage glorifying several masked tossers parading flags. BTW they get to put over their present rallying call : that they don’t want the Queen to visit Eire.
And on Guantanamo where we hone in on the apparently innocent hundred.
So to recap: Terrorists are clever and naughty, but kinda sexy chaps, we sure like to hear what they’ve got say, and if they get caught – well they probably didn’t do it anyway.
The BBC certainly employs islamist sympathisers and Jew haters and West haters and useful idiots and leftists and ecofascists and half baked Che waanabes and cod Marxists and terrorist appologists.
In amongst that gang there must be at least one or two al queda fruit cakes.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, did anyone listen to the BBC toady interview about red Andy and his stunning hypocrisy superbly blown apart by that fat litle bloke from private eye/HIGNFY, the towdy tried to frame the story in a totally different way to what really happened trying to protect Marr, didnt work though…ha ha ha ha.
That be Mr Hislop to which ye refer. On radio or tv?
BBC toady this AM.
Yes, you did say before! :-[
Do you have an idea of how many minutes into the broadcast this was?
Lloyd, you can listen to the interview here.
Hmmm…
Reporter profiles
Heather Alexander
New York reporter
[…]
Who would you most like to interview?
Osama bin Laden.
ROTFLMAO! 🙂
Heather Alexander used to be a BBC foreign correspondent before she became a Reiki Master, the name for the most senior level teacher of this form of energy work. Reporting on the Bush administration and its wars took a toll on her well-being, and Alexander embarked on a healing journey that sounds a lot like a Buddhist’s path. Now she’s a leading New York City practitioner.
[…]
Alexander sees energy as something that comprises us entirely, so when she’s working on clients, she’s just facilitating a flow of openness. Crespo says the client “draws the Reiki, or spiritual energy, through the practitioner.”
[…]
… says Alexander. “I’m the battery charger, but you’re the battery,” she says while holding her hands over my head, on my shoulders, and at my feet. I suppose the analogy’s fitting: I usually do feel recharged after a session.
Sounds like another David Icke!
Telegraph:
“A BBC spokesperson said: “Independence and impartiality are at the heart of all BBC World Service output. The service has interviewed representatives of organisations from all sides involved in the Afghan conflict so it would not be surprising that a number believed to relate to the BBC Pashto service was in circulation.”
The BBC goes to considerable lengths to present the other side of the story.
(Impartiality is in their genes.)
Radio 4 call you and yours.
Sir Michael Lyons assures us that for every person who complains about bias to the left there’s one who complains about the bias to the right. (Impartiality is in their genes)
We may as well get our coats.
But the BBC do not keep official figures on this. Any quick Google shows where the complaints are coming from. Lyons lying through his back teeth.
Frankly, I would have been surprised if someone from Al Qaeda didn’t have a BBC phone number since, I would assume, they have access numbers for all the world media. I’m sure the Provisional IRA had a similar collection of phone numbers. Accordingly, possessing such numbers doesn’t necessarily mean that the persons or organisations to which those numbers belong support the PIRA or Al Qaeda.
Similarly, just because the BBC or the Telegraph could contact a PIRA “spokesman” because they had his number doesn’t mean the PIRA supported the policies espoused by the BBC or Telegraph. Contact with those making the news (no matter how distasteful) is the small change of journalism.
This is not to deny that, objectively, the BBC is an enabler for Al Qaeda. Not because the BBC advocates the destruction of skyscrapers in New York but because its reporting/analysis of any Islam-related news is indistinguishable from any outfit supporting the universal Umma which AFAIAA is Al Qaeda’s principal objective. For instance, whenever a possibly discreditable aspect of Islam or its believers’ behaviour is reported, whether it’s grooming white girls in Blackpool or murdering Jews in Israel, the BBC reportage is tailored to minimise (or just ignore) the participation of Moslems. Actually this is more dishonest than Al Qaeda who would, I suspect, big up the perps in Blackpool and Gaza since the victims in these cases, being infidels, are (according to the Koran) manifestly beneath contempt anyway.
Have just wended this of to Frank Gardner.frank.gardner@bbc.co.ukGAUNTANAMO WIKILEAKS – VICTORIA DERBYSHIRE R5LDear Mr Gardner, With regards to your following comments on the above show:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b010n2nv (7 days, 1:10mins) “I think its also worth pointing out that, er, these documents also reveal that around 150 of the inmates of Guantanamo Bay were innocent, which is absolutely outrageous, I mean, uh, I think you know, Guantanamo Bay is an abomination anyhow because its imprisonment without trial, it completely undermines any moral case that the West has, for um, locking up extremists, because they were incarcerated, you know, without due process of law”. Newsflash Mr Gardner. We are at war. In a War against Terrorism you have Terrorist Prisioners of War. Only someone who wants us to lose would want us to only use Police law enforcement measures to fight Al Qa’eda. The BBC is so compromised by Gramscian subversion that there’s no point complaining about your utter contempt for your duty to impartiality to aid and abett the enemy. It is shared in the highest echelons of the BBC. I have instead decided to copy this email to US Military and Department of Homeland Security sources so they can see just how much of a terrorist nightmare we have created for them in Britain with our appalling laxity. Was it your telephone number that your terrorist co-religionists were carrying by any chance?
How on earth does this cretin propose a trial be held for someone found surrounded by suicide vests after a shoot-out in an Afghanistan compound?
How does he actually think a trial could actually take place? I mean IN REALITY?
The fact that these people are detained rather than shot on the spot is evidence of superior moral values. And the fact that there hasn’t been a successful attack on the US since 9/11 proves that the policy worked.
QED.
Meanwhile, it looks like another kook has somehow managed to slip through the BBC’s unbiased recruitment procedures:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100084962/why-is-amnesty-hosting-a-hamas-friendly-publisher-of-racists/
Maybe they should have ignored Llewellyn and hired someone with a proper ‘Anglo-Saxon’ name?
Yeah I read that. Sometimes I think that by doing nothing I’m no better than a German civilian in the 1930’s. I know what’s happening but I just sit back.
Clive Myrie’s phone number was in thepossession of a key ETA terrorist leader because of the reporting Myrie used to do in the region. That’s how he got the alleged scoop when the ETA guy called him up and told him they were calling a cease fire and promised not to do violence anymore. Doesn’t mean Myrie is or was sympathetic to ETA terrorism or Basque independence. He could be or not, I don’t know. But the fact that they have his number isn’t proof.
Having said that, I firmly believe – based on plenty of evidence of BBC reporting – that there are some Beeboids who think Al Qaeda’s reasons for fighting are just, that those who terrorize communities and murder scores of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan are legitimate freedom fighters against an imperialist, illegally aggressive West, even if they don’t approve of all the tactics involved.
I guess the point that the US was making was the number of terrorists with this BBC phone number. They couldn’t all be Al Qa’eda press officers? I guess they believed that someone working for the BBC would be in a position to find things out that they wanted to know. The way the BBC cover the War on Terrorism that wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
I also commented on this story in the blog this morning. So Imagine my surprise as I’m browsing al-Beeb’s news site this evening and see this:
‘Al-Qaeda assassin worked for MI6’, secret cables claim
Now that’s some brass neck you’ve got there, Frank & Beeboids…
Yes; INBBC attempts to bury the Al Qaeda-BBC World Service liaison story, halfway down here, by using the old ruse of putting out a denial without giving details of the initial claim:
“The files (of Gitmo detainees) are also claimed to reveal:
That the US government suspected the BBC of being a ‘possible propaganda media network’ for al-Qaeda, because a phone number for a corporation office was found in the possession of several suspected terrorists, according to the Telegraph. Director of BBC Global News, Peter Horrocks, has written to the newspaper, pointing out that he ‘strongly disagrees’ with their interpretation of the files. ”
(He would say that, wouldn’t he?) He wouldn’t want it to be widely believed that a part of the BBC is in cahoots with Al Qaeda, would he?
There is a BBC Editor’s Blog for this very subject. Go forth and lodge an opinion whilst it stays up ….