If you tuned in to the Today programme at 08:41 today you would have had a fascinating insight into the evolution of the anti-Israel movement as supported by the BBC. Biased BBC’s Alan carefully notes..
You may be surprised as they were talking about Sudan….but if you listen you might think they were talking about Israel and the Palestinians. There has been a long civil war in Sudan with over 2 million dead and it finally resulted in the creation of South Sudan which split off from its northern Islamic neighbour recently.
South Sudan is mostly Christian.
The report started off with Mike Thomson giving us the run down on events in the region….though in a somewhat one sided manner. Thomson failed to mention some important facts….that Sudan had forced the closure of South Sudan’s oil pipelines, was bombing her oil fields and was using the Heglig region to launch attacks against South Sudan.
Thomson told us that Sudan’s President made a speech calling for the liberation of certain areas from the ‘insects and vermin’ of South Sudan and that the only language they understood was that of bullets and bombs.
Now where have we heard such language before, could it be from Hamas and Fatah?
Thomson then tells us that the South Sudanese president issued these ‘chilling words’….’the government of Khartoum has declared war against the Republic of South Sudan.’
Why would Thomson characterise these words as ‘chilling’….are they not fact? Is he blaming the South for the violence perpetrated upon it?
The report then switches back to the studio with Humphrys interviewing Baroness Cox who has just been to Sudan. Humphrys opens by saying ‘in proportioning blame you are more sympathetic to the North than to South Sudan.’
Baroness Cox soon puts him right telling him ‘Not at all’ before going on to explain at length what she calls the ‘barbarous policies’ of the North. She tells us that the area of Heglig was used as a base for attacks against South Sudan and that the South were therefore justified in taking action against it.
She states there is no moral equivalence between the two states as Humphrys tries to blame the South for the violence…she says the North is the major perpetrator of violence.
Humphrys asks ‘has the creation of the South made things better or worse?’…forgetting there has already been a war that killed 2 million. Cox says the South desperately needed independence.
She states that Khartoum is running a racist policy, wanting to turn the North into a United Islamic Arabic state and expelling anyone with relations in the South…it is carrying out ethnic cleansing.
The whole charade seemed set on blaming the South for all the violence and excusing the North’s actions. You can see the genesis of the anti-Israel feeling at the BBC in Humphrys approach…asking is the creation of South Sudan a problem?, missing out important reasons that explain the South’s actions as well as the inversion of truth when Thomson quotes the North’s president calling for the extermination of the South but says the South’s President’s own words were ‘chilling’….despite just being a mere statement of fact.
All this and more you can see in the reporting of the Israel/Palestine conflict where one side is the villain and the other the blameless victim of Jewish aggression….the attempt to make some moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians whilst all the time not reporting Palestinian violence nor their real beliefs about the future of Israel’s existence….that is they aim to wipe it out.
Of course the North is Muslim….which could go a long way to explaining the BBC’s attitude.
Yes, the South have been asking for it some time now.
Only last year a few of them were wandering around thinking that the North were a bunch of nutters.
But thank God for the BBC’s Mark Thomson’s impartial take on the situation, they will now be able to convert to Islam and avoid catastrophe.
The only good thing is that Messrs Norty and Humphrys are getting on a bit and we shall soon see the end of them. The bad news is that the bbc tends to breed its own replacements.
JIC
How about Shouty & Ruddled Brand ?
or
Dez & Scott.
You obviously want me to vomit.
Went to a “Community/Diversity Celebration” Day in a local park here in a hideously-white county town.
Noted all the flags of the world there-even including that of the recently-formed South Sudan.
You`ll not be surprised to note that there was no Israel flag up…but there were Palestine ones a plenty.
Very little note , too from our hate crime monkeys in regard of anti-Jewish attacks…Allah knows there were figures and graphs a-plenty showing Muslim/Roma themed incidents…as well as the usual grievance farming lobbies.
My point-that the South Sudan flag won`t be getting put up anytime soon if Tory Christians like Caroline Cox are seen to support it.
Heard another attack on Africas catholics for rejecting contraception-so says “Lord” Adonis on Any Questions.
Seems not to worry too much about womens education or life chances-let alone their reproductive ones-in North Sudan and similar countries…any ideas why?
Of course attacks on the South have been happening for some considerable time now, but fro some reason the BBC news dept (£350 million pa budget, 3,500 staff) couldn’t find the time to cover it. Or any other Muslim wars and attrocities in Africa. Nor has the BBC ever covered the spread of Islam by force through Africa.
I’m sure it’s a coincidence
It’s just incredible how the default position of the BBC is to support the Muslim side of any conflict, anywhere on the planet.
I imagine that the only time there is any balance in the reporting is when the conflict is Muslim against Muslim.
“It’s just incredible how the default position of the BBC is to support the Muslim side of any conflict, anywhere on the planet.”
Any suggestions why?
Several.
They are scum – derived from succumb.
The militant element of Islam scares them to death, the very purpose of terrorism.
The BBC sees itself as the world’s media outlet. Unless they appease all the Muslim nations comprising it, they cannot fulfil this very well.
The BBC serves it’s own agenda – not those who pay for it.
So rabid is the new left’s hatred (bred in the BBC bone) of what they perceive as the old ‘Great Britain’, & the West in general, they will align themselves with anybody who opposes the ‘capitalist imperialists’, even if they are muslim fascists: NAZISLAM. And, so bent are they, that overlooking the atrocities of their medieval, obscurantist, moon jockey pets, becomes an imperative.
To these warped little beeboid minds, there’s also a certain cachet to be had by being seen hanging out with the new cool gobs on the block. The Rageh Omaahs, the Salma Yaqoobs, the Tariq Ramadans, yakety, yak. Not the bombers of Walthamstow, or groomers of Oxford. No: don’t want to talk about that. Nasty truth.
These perverts, traitors wallowing in privilege, these Chaise Longue Guevaras, minds twisted from an early age, deserve to be dropped right into the violent, chaotic, backward, dark heart of Islam. And made to stay there, with the ones they so revere. Never to be seen, or heard again. Amen to that.
Well said Jarwill!
Sadly, the vulnerable young men of Wlathamstow…the Candymen of Rochdale or Oxford….they too will be rehabilitated as soon as one of them doesn`t get halal beef on his pepperoni pizza as delivered by Ken Clarke etal.
For that`s when Shami, Tariq etc come flailing in and wailin` with Gareth Peirces prospectus in hand.
These martyrs for Islam will yet be telling Bacon(he`ll have to change that name surely!) that their efforts to clear terminal 5 of queues, to reduce the airmiles for Gaias sake…and to warn kids off eating too many sweeties…were all pioneering campaigns that the Racist Man turned into crimes…oh the humanity.
Next up-will mortuaries and hospices now have to provide conjugal rooms for the local imam…and will minarets be compulsory or merely “best practice”…what does Bunglawalla have to say, PBUH?
If it’s Muslim against Muslim then the Beeb will, as they do with everything else, impartially choose to demonise the side which tends to be pro-Western in it’s outlook.
Well nobody at the Beeb (or here) has mentioned Saudi Arabia yet, they are investing heavily in the north.
In 1977 I was working in South Sudan and met a man from some UK Christion organisation who was assessing the cost of rebuilding all the churches destroyed by the Muslim government in Khartoum.
Typical BBC, backing the Islamist aggressors, despite the genocide committed by them the past few decades. It is almost as if the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia is leading the wretched organisation. A single report on RT would lay out the facts within seconds:
1) The muslim north has waged a violent campaign of genocide and oppression against the mainly Christian South, killing around 2 million.
2) The South vote for independence returned a 99% ‘yes’.
3) The North is out for more blood.
No doubt if Israel was ever wiped out the BBC would portray it as a reaction to some sort of imagined grievance, and we would have a question time (similar to the one post-911) with Medhi Hasan and Polly Toynbee telling the few remaining Jews that they probably deserved it.
It’s revealing to read the BBC ‘offering’ on this story which shows their agenda in a nutshell.
Dispossessed: the South Sudanese without a nationality
In the entire article there is not one mention of the fundamentalist Islamic nature of the North, or the Christian element of the South. It should certainly be a central point in understanding events there, and for the BBC to purposefully avoid mentioning it shows their twisted reporting.
last night’s 10 pm news on BBC1 talked about the South Sudanese racing up to the border and attacking an oil installation – this is the cause of the fighting was the impression given by the nation’s broadcaster – nothing to do with religion at all.