Conflict

The Guardian/BBC symbiosis has produced a cuddly pledge from Hamas to the effect that they would not help Iran militarily in any conflict with Israel.
The BBC’s Jon Donnison and Harriet Sherwood of the Graun have been speaking to Mahmoud Zahhar, a senior leader of Hamas. He has told them that Hamas are not, to coin a phrase, “ideologically wedded” to Iran.
But according to FARS news agency and Haaretz, Mahmoud al-Zahar has “strongly rejected the BBC claim as unfounded and a lie.”

“………any Israel or US attack on Iranwill be reciprocated by Hamas’s crushing response to the Zionists.”

Someone’s gone wrong somewhere.
H/T Bio and Elder of Ziyon

OPEN THREAD…


Been away so just back home and time for one of these. As you may have seen from ASE’s post below, we have a technical problem on the comments thread. If there is anyone out there with a technical bent, please drop me a line as we figure out how to fix things. In the meantime…please detail bias here.

Administrivia

Due to unforeseen technical circumstances (it broke without anyone touching it, honestly!) the Google Friend Connect option has been temporarily taken off of the Echo comments login list.

Well, actually that exact option is permanently off because Google seem to have retired it. Ooops.

We are currently chasing Echo to see if there will be a Google alternative via them. We’re also looking at other ideas up to and including other comment systems…all options are up for discussion; offers of assistance or just good old fashioned sympathy/suggestions/abuse in the Comments below.

Apologies for the inconvenience. Hopefully a solution will be found quickly.

The BBC Sides With Illegal Immigrants While Pretending Otherwise

Before I even get into this, I have to call attention to what appears to be the title for a series of reports: “Altered States”. This is bias right up front, as it’s a theme we keep hearing from the BBC and the Left-wing media in the US, that the US has somehow suddenly become more divided and vicious since 2008. I wonder why that is, BBC? Could it be that nothing has really changed except the occupant of the White House? Have we forgotten the constant outrage about Bush, and before him Clinton, and before him (skipping a Bush), Reagan, and before him….well, you get the idea.

In short, this is a BS Narrative being pushed by the BBC, in the long run-up to November, just to reinforce the notion that opponents to the President have made things worse. Not Him, mind you. It’s the fault of His enemies, those who want to tear Him down. Of course, that’s really about racism, right? So, with that in mind, let’s examine what’s sure to be a story involving a racial angle.


Illegal immigrants take taxis to avoid deportation

Here’s the blurb to this in the Top News Story featured links on the main news page:

Illegal immigrants take taxis because to avoid getting pulled over while driving and having their papers checked. “The BBC investigates why.”   I’ll tell you why, BBC: they broke the law. In other news, bank robbers avoid the police because they don’t want to get arrested for heroically redistributing wealth.



“They have their life blocked because of the immigration issue.”

And there you have it. No need to listen further, really, unless you just want to get hit over the head with it repeatedly. Their life is ruined because they broke the law, BBC. They all deliberately broke the law, in many cases repeatedly. Even if we’re to sympathize with the heroic idea that they’re just looking for a better life, I have to ask the BBC why Hispanics are elevated above my own family, who came here legally. There is no embargo, no blockade stopping these people from entering legally and going through the correct process. They don’t because people with whom the BBC sympathizes – and whom the BBC is abetting with this report – enable this illegal behavior.

In the tiniest possible gesture towards balance, we also hear from a white person who tells us about people from Kosovo, who had to go through the legal process. So that’s one voice on the side of the law. Next up, a man who is against the law. Then – the classic trick – a child, to appeal to your sympathy. Then another Hispanic who is against the law.

We next hear from another Hispanic taxi driver, who also shares his concern. And so on.

The blurb accompanying the video report itself says this:

But critics call it a civil rights issue and warn it stokes a climate of fear and division. Ironically, all eight of the cab companies in Gainsville are operated by Hispanics.

Ironically? And there’s the race angle. The fact that they have brown skin and speak Spanish is irrelevant to the legal issue. But that’s the real agenda here, the real Narrative from pro-illegal activists: that it’s about race. Typically, the racialist-minded Beeboids see ethnicity before they see a person’s character. There is a racial angle here, though: brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking people helping other brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking people to break the law. I’m not sure that’s ironic at all.

By the way, BBC, where are all the hand-wringing stories about illegal Chinese immigrants who get deported? Or don’t we care about them because they don’t have the same powerful activist base, and Chinese people don’t get the same sympathy about race discrimination?

Does your head hurt yet? Did you get the message? In case you didn’t, and that lone voice in favor of the law out of ten against somehow held your attention, the closing line is “We just gotta learn how to do it the right way.”

This is a propaganda piece, full stop. Paid for by you.

BBC BEHIND THE TIMES..

Vince Cable
Whoops. B-BBC contributor Alan detects a rather fishy smell about a BBC claim leading their news today,,, 
“BBC are claiming that their hero Vince Cable’s letter was leaked to them:

‘Vince Cable has called for Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) to be split up, in a letter leaked to the BBC.’ 

But according to this comment in the Telegraph the letter was published in full by the FT over 3 weeks ago.

‘This was published in full in the FT three weeks ago, so pray tell me how and why is this now ‘news’.
You’d expect it from the comerstose BBC but the DT really!’ 

The FT: (behind paywall)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/db4adf08-558c-11e1-9d95-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1oMhmwOab
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/db4adf08-558c-11e1-9d95-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1oMhvchKd

DRUGS, SEX AND RACISM

Biased BBC contributor Alan notes…

You’ll never hear Bruce Springsteen on the BBC again…..

 ‘Just a few minutes of listening to mainstream rock music such as Bruce Springsteen and the White Stripes is enough to make white students focus on the interests of other whites at the expense of back people and latinos.’

 Wonder what happens when they listen to Rap? David Starkey has the answer to that one!

Revealed: The President Lied About Burying Bin Laden At Sea. BBC: ZZZZzzzzzzz

So the hacking of Stratfor’s emails by Anonymous and published by WikiHacks has revealed that, contrary to what we were told, Osama Bin Laden’s body was not buried at sea but was in fact flown to a military facility in the US for examination. I remember well when the BBC reported what they were told by the US, and nobody questioned it. Of course, we were told, they needed to get rid of the body as soon as possible lest it become a target for fanatics, and to deny his followers a shrine. As of his writing, silence from the BBC. I’m not ready to label this one “BBC Censorship” just yet, as I understand it takes time for BBC producers to figure out how to react to reality in cases like this.

When they discussed Mohammedan burial practices after Ghaddafi’s death, the BBC took great care to remind us that the US bent over backwards to follow the religion’s customs with Bin Laden’s body. We were reminded that his body was washed and wrapped in white linen before being tossed to the fishes. Mark Mardell wrote a blog post explaining how wise the President was for not making a big speech about the targeted assassination and instead flying up to Ground Zero for a highly publicized laying of a wreath. Laura Trevelyan’s analysis made it appear triumphant:

Caricatured as a foreign policy wimp in the 2008 election campaign, Barack Obama is now a warrior president. Americans who gathered here feel their sense of national pride, which was so damaged by Bin Laden, has now been greatly restored. It took almost 10 years, but America kept her word.

No sneering or rolling of the eyes when The Obamessiah has somebody killed and is feted with chants of “USA! USA!” No quotes from angry Muslims complaining about the illegality or threatening revenge.

The BBC even fretted over some salvage diver who wanted to find the body. Of course, he was really questioning whether Bin Laden was actually dead, and wanted to find the body as proof. Heaven forbid anyone assume the President might not be telling the truth, eh?

So now we know that the President lied to the world about what happened. Will the BBC follow up on this? Will they even care? According to their own explanation of Islamic burial rights, this is a violation, an offense to all Muslims everywhere.

And if any defenders of the indefensible complain that Russia Today isn’t a reliable source, how about NBC or the Telegraph or the Toronto Star?

I’ll be updating this post as the BBC gets around to dealing with this. If they dare. All I’ve seen so far is a link appearing in the “Elsewhere on the Web” section. And that was a link to a Pakistani paper. So somebody at BBC News Online knows about this.

HOMS REDUX

The BBC has been replete with reports on the situation in the Syrian town of Homs. However a Biased BBC reader suggests that we are not quite getting the full picture from the State Broadcaster;

“You will be aware of the BBC reporting on the Syrian government attacks on Homs and the killing of innocent civilians, however there seems to be no mention of the “freedom fighters” who are forcing civilians to remain in the town to act as human shields (just like the failure to report the use of civilians as shields in Gaza) nor of the wave of kidnappings that Christians in the town are now subject to (presumably from the same islamist “freedom fighters) see the information of this reported by the Barnabus Fund (extract below):

“The situation in the besieged city of Homs, Syria, is horrifying and becoming unbearable for Christians who are caught in the battleground. Many thousands are trapped in the city though others have managed to flee to the surrounding villages. Families are in desperate need of food and basics; prices have rocketed, supplies are running low, and it is often too dangerous to go out in search of food. More than 200 Christians have been killed, and the community has been beset by kidnappings. Two bombs were discovered in a church yard in Homs, although thankfully they did not explode. Christians were even blocked from leaving Homs by anti-government forces who were keeping them there as “human shields” in a bid to protect the areas they were controlling.”


Odd how the BBC seem to have missed this aspect, isn’t it? What with all that world class journalism, you might have thought someone would have thought the above worthy of comment? No?

MOCK JESUS, NOT MOHAMMAD

Startling admission here by Mark Thompson;

“The head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, has admitted that the broadcaster would never mock Mohammed like it mocks Jesus. He justified the astonishing admission of religious bias by suggesting that mocking Mohammed might have the “emotional force” of “grotesque child pornography”. But Jesus is fair game because, he said, Christianity has broad shoulders and fewer ties to ethnicity. 

Mr Thompson says the BBC would never have broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera – a controversial musical that mocked Jesus – if its target had been Mohammed. He made the remarks in an interview for a research project at the University of Oxford. Mr Thompson said: “The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.”

This explains a lot. The point is that the State Broadcaster has one standard for how it deals with Christianity but another for how it deals with Islam. I suggest that it is not just the “emotional force” that concerns Thompson should the BBC offend Muslims as it does Christians but rather the “cutting edge” that the Religion of Peace offers to all who dare demean it.