Interesting report on the BBC Today programme this morning concerning the nature of those “rebels” fighting the Assad regime. You see the BBC has embedded a reporter with the “rebels” fighting for the “Syria Free Army” as they cross from Lebanon into Syria. It appears that those who seek to bring down Assad fall into two groups; the first is Muslim but it wants to see a pluralist Syria that will take care of minorities such as Christians; the sec0nd is Salafist that wants to see an Islamic Emirate created. It’s clear that the BBC have taken the side of the “rebels” and as Peter Hitchens opined yesterday in his column in the MoS…
” Could this be why the BBC, which has cast aside all impartiality over the Syrian crisis, behaved so repellently when a terrorist bomb killed several leading Syrians on Wednesday?
There was an exultant tone in its coverage of these killings, summed up by the phrase ‘a stunning development’ to describe the murders on Radio 4’s The World Tonight. The tone of voice used was not coldly neutral, but excited. I thought we were against Islamist terror. Not so long ago we were engaged in a war against it. I also thought we were against assassination as a weapon of war. I also thought the BBC had admitted it got carried away over the Arab Spring. It’s doing it again now in Damascus, but there’s still time to grow up and calm down. The same goes for Foreign Secretary William Hague, who seems weirdly anxious to abandon the Christians of Syria to some horrible Islamic regime, probably preceded by some real massacres.”
When British troops go to places like Iraq and Afghanistan to try and liberate people from Saddamite and Taliban tyrannies, the BBC are there to oppose them in moral hectoring tine. But when Islamic tyrants move against regimes like Assads the BBC is there to cheer lead for them. Isn’t that odd?
Agreed. I thought that Al Qaeda were supposed to be evil terrorists? However William Hague is enthusiastically supporting them, and criticising Russia and China for vetoing a resolution in the UN which would have had our forces fight alongside Al Qaeda as their strategic partners, against the legitimate, though brutal, sovereign leadership of Syria.
I feel sorry for those Syrians caught in the middle.
You would think that Hague, being from Rotherham, might have a clue about Islamic enrichment just by viewing the shithole his home town has become due to our dusky friends, as I do to my town of birth, Oldham.
Only a complete idiot i.e. a Beeboid would think these ‘rebels’ were interested in democracy or freedom. They want to settle a few scores with Assad and his supporters because in that part of the world they have long memories. These ‘rebels’ are just the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood who Assad sr virtually wiped out thirty years ago. They’ve been lying under the radar but now with the help of naive fools like Clinton, Hague, al beeb and much of the MSM they’re close to toppling the regime. Expect more massacres and persecution if they win because that’s all they know.
knobama, shillary clinton, william vague, david scameron
they re not naive, they are wilfully ignorant, how can it possibly suit? unless they are in the pockets of the saudis and can t get out? …
they don t know the implications? come come 😀
I know the facts show, the white house is infiltrated by the MB, but looks like No 10 too
I don’t know what possible benefit it would be to Britain to continue drawing the dots for the MB in the middle east, there has got to be more to it than Haig etc being “useful idiots” ? Whats the bigger plan?
Here’s a thoughtful piece by Charles Crawford which gives another view of what’s happening in Syria. Guess what? Russia and China might not be deranged after all: they are looking out for their own interests (as should we, but when did the FCO last do that?).
Crawford also quotes with approbation a comment on the piece linked above which opines that, contrary to the fairy tales indulged in by Hague & Co, the Turks are certainly going down the Islamist/extremist road. It also appears that our and the USA’s governments are gravely mistaken to consider that Turkey is doing anything except supporting the Islamic nutters in the Moslem Middle East. I have yet to hear a discussion on the BBC where the opinion, that maybe it would be in our interests if Assad stayed in power, is put.
Hague has manifestly chosen the lose-lose option: if Assad survives, he’ll owe it to the Russians/Chinese and Turkey’s local “great power” status in the region will suffer accordingly: that’s actually good news but will result in a redoubled effort to get Turkey into the EU. If Assad falls, the nutters will have won: Turkey – the burgeoning local loony – will be confirmed in its Islamism and we will be told – not so politely – to f*ck off while Turkey prepares for the destruction of Israel.
Isn’t it wonderful to be ruled by these pillocks?
If the BBC is neutral shouldn’t reporters be embedded on both sides?
I guess Assad doesn’t want to embed enemy propagandists with his forces.