Most people here will by now have read that the US is sending 50 marines to help guard what’s left of the US consulate in Libya. The BBC reported it here, and gives a brief mention here. The latter article has an “Analysis” inset by BBC security correspondent (a weird title for a war reporter) Frank Gardner. He says this:
In Benghazi, in eastern Libya, the US consulate was not so fortunate.
The security team there had worked out a fallback plan in case of an attack, evacuating staff to a second building, but this too came under attack and it is clear in hindsight that the consulate was under-prepared for the sort of concerted, heavily armed assault that killed four US staff.
“Security team”. And an admission that the consulate was “under-prepared”. Sure, if it was only a handful of marines, that wouldn’t have been sufficient. But that’s not why Gardner chose the term “security team”, as we’ll see in a moment.
In their time-line of events, the BBC editor who put it together similarly refers to a “regional security guard” and “security team”. Oh, that’s “accurate”, alright, but doesn’t tell you the real story.
Gardner and this editor chose to put it that way because there weren’t any marines stationed there at all, and they don’t want to report it.
Ambassador Stevens killed at site with no Marines
The consulate where the American ambassador to Libya was killed on Tuesday is an “interim facility” not protected by the contingent of Marines that safeguards embassies, POLITICO has learned.
Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed with three other Americans in an attack on the U.S. consulate in the city of Benghazi, where Libyan rebels ousted strongman Moammar Qadhafi last year.
Marine Corps spokeswoman Capt. Kendra Motz said that Marines were not posted to the consulate, unlike the embassy in the capital, Tripoli.
This is in Politico, ladies and gentlemen, which means the Beeboids know about it. Like I said before, a handful of them wouldn’t have made much of a difference against what’s clearly a coordinated quasi-paramilitary attack. But they should have been some kind of security there, given the overall situation. I know it’s only a consulate, and they’re traditionally not so set up, but it’s insane to think having “regional security” (translation: locals who might be about as trustworthy as all those Afghan soldiers who keep turning on and killing US soldiers) in a place like this and at a time like this is a good idea.
Worse, CNN reported yesterday that it’s not unusual to leave these places unguarded (by US marines or other proper troops) because they can be “viewed as politically sensitive”. In other words, it’s not just about how I’m wrong to complain because consulates are never guarded properly. We bowed to caveman sensitivity at the expense of our own peoples’ safety.
This is just another glaring foreign policy fail, a sign of sloppy thinking and poor planning. But we don’t want the audience to know about it, do we, BBC? Yes, the mainstream media in the US is also keeping a lid on this, not wanting to make too much out of it. But the BBC’s top man in the US, Mark Mardell, has already pretty much admitted that most of them are Left-wing liberals. So if the BBC follows their lead as to what’s important and what isn’t, that’s tacit approval of a Left-wing agenda.
This isn’t about my personal opinion of how consulates should or shouldn’t be guarded, or whether or not this is a failure of the current Administration. I’ve given my opinion because I’m not bound by the BBC’s Charter and Agreement, nor am I pretending not to have one. It’s also a way to draw attention to the fact that there don’t seem to be any voices let through by the BBC
censors editors who are expressing that viewpoint.Note, though, that there are people now admitting that this incident – and the one in Egypt – is making people worried about the craziness unleashed by the so-called “Arab Spring”. Suddenly we’re allowed to think it might be a problem, but until the other day there was no reason whatsoever to put real guards on the Libyan consulate? No, I think not.
Really, though, this is about how the BBC follows the Left-wing agenda of the US media on certain issues, and fails to inform you in the process.
Since I don’t work in a news room, so couldn’t possibly understand what Mardell really meant, our news and media professionals who like to defend the indefensible here are welcome to explain it to me.
INBBC’s political line is similar to that of its ‘Guardian’ chums:-
“Guardian calls for free speech restrictions in wake of jihad murder of U.S. ambassador”
As do, today, the LA Times, Washington Times, NYT, and USAToday. USAToday, not content with doubling-down on this position, trebles-down, calling for the film-maker to be arrested, and takes the position that Muslims should be free to trample our freedom of speech laws, and that WE should respect Islamic shari’ah blasphemy laws. How about that??
Reports emerging via Marine blogs that the US ambassador in Egypt wouldn’t allow Marines to carry live ammo to protect the Cairo embassy. If true this is stunning, and would reflect directly on Obama as Patterson was his choice for this key foreign role.
“The Five American Ambassadors Who Have Been Killed”
“Four of the five were killed either at the hands of frenzied Muslim mobs or, as in the case of Ambassador Cleo Noel, by the express order from a Muslim Arab terrorist leader: the man who ordered Noel’s murder was Yassir Arafat.”
It would be useful if you were to find out who Frank Gardner is and why he is not a War Correspondent. I look forward to the apology.
We’re all familiar with ‘I’m a Muslim’ Gardner, thanks.
‘From 2002 Gardner specialised solely in covering stories related to the War on Terror.’
So a correspondent that only writes about war and spent all of his time in a war zones?
Yep that deff aint a war correspondent !
Jah, I just think that “security correspondent” is an odd term, and Gardner covers scenes of conflict. The most minor of quibbles, but glad you latched onto it rather than address the issue at hand.
They just can’t help themselves.
I wonder if any of this gets air time on the BBC …
Some alternative photographs can be accessed, and there are allegations of sodomy against the US staff, including Stevens.
I hope that this all damages Obama beyond recovery.
The account of sodomy is still unconfirmed. But why do I think the BBC will not investigate the story?
They probably don’t see what’s wrong with it!
“BBC is full of liberals afraid to mock Islam (says veteran of the BBC)”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202379/BBC-liberals-afraid-mock-Islam-says-veteran-BBC.html#ixzz26MvGa1Kf
How and why I got shot isn’t the issue here. I am a professional and you layabouts aren’t . I bring the news to the public, something you don’t. The BBC is the most professional news agency in the world it is respected by everybody , including the umma.
Baised BBC what a joke.
Plenty of people on this web site don’t respect the BBC, quite the opposite infact.
I suspect that the real Frank Gardner can spell his own name.
I am ex-armed forces. I was part of a UN peace keeping force.
When I left, I worked for a UK company in the Middle & Far East for the best part of a decade. I worked in war zones. I got shot at.
I then joined the police. I took part in policing some of the most violent inner city riots and spent seven months policing the miner’s strike.
I moved into organisations dealing with international organised crime and had to work in annonimity and secrecy before going into the intelligence world. Now I’m retired and thankfully out of thee UK.
I bought safety and security to people, something that you and the BBC do not.
I can tell you one thing Gardiner, my experiences are that the BBC is not respected by those that really matter. My own dealings with, and knowledge of the BBC are that they are no better or worse than any other “news” gathers and are often used by people with an agenda, including certain government departments, something Tom Mangold was particularly susceptible to.
I object to the fact that the BBC is funded by extorting money from the taxpayer to peddle a liberal left and sometimes extremist agenda.
You can believe the BBC’s own propaganda if you wish. I do not.
Another smokescreen ignoring the issue at hand. Well done.
What you and the wretched BBC brings to the public Gardiner is mostly opinion and spin, very little factual news, call yourself a professional? You are a puppet twitching to your left-wing bosses every whim.
How old are you? Waaay past your bedtime, sonny.
Try going to Gaurdian CIF and post insults, see how long they stay up.
Er, 55 actually, and i was banned from CIF years ago for criticism of Toynbee, Monbiot etc…….. not insulting, but simply pointing out facts that proved them wrong. If that is wrong, well, that’s your problem LC . Gardiner is fair game, he is so partial. Calling us layabouts, that’s a bit rich, so he deserves some flak right back.
Soz what and who are you mouthy? if your are the real war whatever then grow up you bitter man! if not then do one you bitter BBC loving fetishist!
Sorry, is English not your first language?
Sorry who ? I was talking to the made up war correspondent ? this posting system just stuck me blow your comment !
Beck, Barton, Jefferson, Obama, Islam, and U.S Marines.
A video on history; 17 mins (2011).
Radio 4’s ‘PM’ programme devoted a large part of its output yesterday and today (13 September) researching ‘the film’ and its maker.
Apparently this inanimate object was ‘responsible’ for the murder of the US envoy.
“The film is just a pretext. This is an all-out push to intimidate the West into restricting speech so that Islam and Muslims are established as a privileged class beyond criticism. ”
-from:-“Muslim rioting, violence in Israel, Gaza, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Iraq, Iran and Kashmir.”
I think Mark Steyn once asked ‘How many of your freedoms and rights are you willing to give away to appease violent religious zealots?’
I don’t want to be provocative David, but to accuse Gardner of covering up US foreign policy failures because he referred entirely accurately to the ‘security team’ is laughably thin.
Do you really stand by this?
Jim, I said it was “accurate”. But that’s not the real story, is it? The real story is that there were no marines present, which Gardner knew, thus the admission that the consulate was under-prepared. He also knows full well, being an expert and all, that it was a mistake to leave the place practically unguarded, especially since they knew something was afoot, yet won’t say so. There are plenty of other times where a BBC correspondent will offer a critical view in these “Analysis” sections. Yet Gardner chose – and it was a choice – not to mention it.
To be fair, Gardner probably doesn’t think he’s covering up anything. He just believes it’s not worth mentioning because he’s not thinking critically enough. As always, the President gets handled with kid gloves.
I think you’re being generous there, David. The term ‘private security team’ would’ve been even more accurate and ruled out any misunderstanding of soldiers or marines being involved.
This is even more odd, as the Beeb doesn’t usually shy away from pointing out private sector failings.
I think it was a local, as in Libyan guard, not a private security company. Either way it’s still curious that he didn’t add one sentence about no marines being there. It’s entirely relevant, and more informative than “under-prepared”.
One of the other dead guys worked for a private security company.
Remember, marines only do the internal security, actually inside the embassy; external security and control of entry is always locals.
Thanks for the clarification there. No marines anywhere, because it might make the locals want to attack them…..
To be honest I think it has more to do with reducing the number of marines at each Embassy and giving jobs to the locals.
No, the State Dept. has said that they don’t like to use marines too much because it pisses off the locals.
The media handling of all this is classic Liberal Left doublethink – blame the victim, it’s always safer in a democracy to criticise your own side.
They are lapping up the “its all our fault (for allowing a film satirising Mohammed), it’s all our fault (because the embasy wasnt properly protected) .
Obama went all round the world “apologising” for America defending itself (Bush) . Notice the huge impact it has had: none. They hate America all the more.
The Left are still in love with Islam. Useful idiots.
Appeasing Islam has turned out to be about as effective as appeasing Hitler was in 1939. I think anyone with half a brain could have predicted the outcome.
It seems reality is about to break into the fairyland of the liberal left. Let us all hope it does not get too out of hand. And who do we have to rely upon to keep us informed and safe? The same dominant liberal class of fools and knaves.
For years they have wilfully deceived themselves and us.
Now we are seeing things clearly but are they?
They’re not in love with Islam, but there has been a decided intellectual failure on how to deal with the problem. The BBC provides classic example after classic example of this intellectual failure. They really don’t know what to do, so fall back on the reflexive appeasement and turning of the cheek.
There does appear to be some move to ‘robust responses’ in the MSM, if not perhaps in directions that may more deserve their attention currently…
I am not sure I like the way this is headed if we are in the territory of folk sampling a frame with little or no context to pitch a story around.
Especially those with many frames in the archive, looking good, bad and ugly, and a history of unique selectivity on those they show, and those they suppress depending on who it’s covering.
This is perfect. Here’s BBC Diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus spinning Obama’s “Egypt is not a US ally” gaffe as a positive earlier today (see sidebar) :
President Obama’s comments serve political purposes at home and abroad. A distancing of Washington from the new order in Egypt will not upset the country’s new president whose own political background is in the Muslim Brotherhood camp – highly sceptical of US goals in the region.
Amidst riots outside the US embassy in Cairo, Mr Obama is also signalling, as Emile Hokayem, Senior Fellow for Regional Security at the IISS puts it, that “the US cannot be taken for granted. He is looking for leverage over Egypt, putting the responsibility for moving Egypt forward, firmly on Egypt’s own shoulders”.
At home, amidst the strident debate of the US presidential election campaign, Mr Obama loses no friends by distancing himself from the Egyptian authorities. There is a pervading sense of fatigue in the US with the Middle East and a growing public feeling that “the Arab world” is somehow ungrateful for US support during the upheavals of the Arab Spring.
Trouble is, the State Department has contradicted Obama’s statement in a press conference today:
Oh dear – what is a pro-Obama journalist to do now? Best guess – they’ll just ignore it, move on. Look, Romney squirrel!
What a cluster@$%^. I mentioned Marcus’ analysis on your Romney thread, and summed it up as him saying the President was triangulating. I thought he should have added something about how it’s more scrambling than any thoughtful campaign scheming, and it looks like I wasn’t far off.
And to think the Beeboids were convinced back it in 2008 that this President was going to handle it all with aplomb.
It does seem extraordinary that, when there seems a pretty clear and present bunch of anti-American stuff going down, a large chunk of the US media and certain empathetic papers and broadcasters around the world seem so focussed on making excuses, covering up, and ‘dealing with’ political opponents, they seem to have rather forgotten the folk attacking them don’t seem to be letting up.
Brings to mind a History Channel doco I watched recently on the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbour.
By all accounts FDR almost lost the plot but did rally, and with him the nation.
But in political terms, especially as regards military responses, it seems a bunch of his cabinet were more concerned with firing generals even as the planes were still attacking rather than actually addressing the ongoing attack.
The America First rally aspect was also telling, with the ideals of their leader actually causing him to go into denial with what was actually happening.
The contradictions highlighted by that daft BBC article and the video above suggest headless ostrich behaviour at best, which bodes ill for us all.
Interesting the two sets of headlines one wakes up to…
Considering how vague the story, that headline seems ‘optimistic’.
Now, this swivel-eyed right-wing rag seems to have what might be thought of as a bit more a story.
One wonders who may pick it up, and who may suddenly go all watertight oversight.
Popped over to Mr. Mardell’s blog as he cannot be unaware of the story, and its potential consequences politically.
But his last blog on Libya was broadcast only, and since then he seems to think talking domestic money exclusively is the new focus.
Mardell is stuck on the US media Narrative – even as he admits it’s mostly liberal Left-wing – that Romney was wrong, this is bad for Romney, and that the President is going to send in the marines and the drones to placate the baying mob of unwashed United Statesians who worry about that there American Exceptionalism.
It turned out there were Navy SEALS at the embassy, two of them killed:
Read that headline again. It’s two “former” SEALS. Meaning they worked for a security firm. Although they’re as good as it gets, that’s hardly enough considering the State Dept. had a warning that something was going to happen.
BBC reporting on this aspect is painfully uninformative, with much more time spent on the sexy violence and getting out the White House message.
From what I’ve heard the two managed to hold off the mob in a fire fight which lasted over half an hour before sheer weight of numbers overwhelmed them and they were murdered.
Some interesting comments here (the BBC even gets a mention):
What has yet to be adequately explained by those of a more empathetic bent to folks’ sensibilities, is why one bunch of seem able to do whatever they want…. whilst telling everyone else they can neither do nor even say anything that they don’t clear first.
In addition to the BBC, I here of course refer to Middle Eastern mobs and their string pulling masters.
To many uniques in common frankly.
As per usual the bBC is in overdrive in trying to allocate the blame of how the US embassy in Libya was attacked and the ambassador murdered. I quote the current bbC POV:
“The BBC has been told that the US consulate in Benghazi was not given the standard security contract offered to most US diplomatic missions in the Middle East. The allegation came from Western private military contractors. A White House spokesman has said there was no “actionable intelligence” in advance about the Benghazi attack. “
So according to the bBC, the fault lie not with the rampaging Islamic thugs but with the Victims. here is a little something from today’s guardian the bBC doesn’t mention in its attempt to promote those Islamic thugs as the victims.
The bullet holes, smashed masonry and blood on the walls of the burned-out consulate on the southern outskirts of Benghazi are testament to the gun battle that raged through the building, claiming four lives including that of the US ambassador, Chris Stevens.
As the owners of the damaged building and the accommodation block a mile down the road took the Guardian on a tour of the sites on Thursday, reports that the attack was the work of an isolated group seemed to be at odds with the physical evidence and what their staff had told them.
“Better security would not have stopped this,” said Adel Ibrahim, the owner of the accommodation building where blood is now spattered beneath a hole smashed in a wall by a heavy projectile. “A security unit is fine if you are facing 10 persons, but there were 400 attackers. [The Americans] would have needed an army to stop them.”
The bBC, the fifth column in our midst
BAISC FACT: a secular organization like the BBC and its employees can never undertsend people driven by ideology.
Even though they’re driven just as much by their own ideology, which can be compared to religious belief: Warmsim, multi-culturalism, Collectivism, The Obamessiah.