Gordon Carera in the US was more balanced than the team in the Today studio (8:13)…mentioning the ‘dark skinned’ suspect and that a Saudi Student was being sought.
However other conclusions have already been drawn.
After the wise words of Rick Nelson, from US Homeland Security and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Evan Davis said ‘Everything points to keeping calm, play it slowly, be accurate and don’t jump to conclusions.’
All very good advice.
All that went out the window suddenly when Davis carried on….
‘After all the words of Mr Nelson there warning us to be cautious, looking at this all the evidence points towards domestic terrorism rather than a Middle Eastern related event.‘
He later goes onto say that most significant in the speculation is the unhappy anniversaries of several other events, such as the Waco Siege…which may tilt you towards concluding this was domestic terror rather than imported.
Even Sherlock Holmes had to leave the comfort of 221B Baker Street to investigate crimes….Davis goes one better and does it sat on his backside in the Today studio and all without spilling his latte.
Now that’s all fine…it could well be ‘domestic’ but the point is that Davis has already assigned blame on the most spurious of grounds…and isn’t prepared to go down the road of blaming the ‘jihadists’ in a similarly outright fashion based on similarly tenuous evidence.
Here’s another ‘conspiracy theory’ for the BBC:
The Boston Marathon’s Final Mile Was Dedicated to Newtown Victims
“In the first twenty miles we’re honoring the twenty Sandy Hook first graders,” Laura Nowacki, a spokesperson for Newtown Strong, explained to WBUR Boston. “When we crest Heartbreak Hill, and we’re coming back towards Boston, we run the final six for our six fallen educators, including their lives, to protect our children.”
There was a 26-second moment of silence for the victims before the race started.
Update, 4:07 p.m. Eastern: Newtown families were reportedly seated in the VIP section right by where the explosions went off. There’s no word whether they are among the 23 injured and two dead from the explosions.
That just shows how easy it is to speculate and draw conclusions from just about any supposed link.
Not something you’d expect though from the BBC…..blaming the ‘Right’ seems more like wishful thinking by the Today team than anything else.
If you are looking for patterns for ‘evidence’ of the BBC’s propensity to downplay Islamic terror then look no further than Mark Mardell’s abysmal downplaying of the role of religion in the murders by Major Nidal Hasan:
‘Senseless Tragedy’
The crux was this: who was responsible?
Was this the work of a lone madman? Or of a terrorist? Or of several terrorists?
The truth is of course cloudy. The alleged murderer was clearly a Muslim, but there is very little to suggest that he adhered to a hard-line interpretation of his religion or that he had political or religious motives.
He may or may not have posted something on the internet defending suicide bombers. But he also appears to have been traumatised by the idea of being sent to a combat zone.
We search for certainty and for answers. Some will go down blind alleys: reports of his “religious attire”, for example, may turn out to be a red herring.
For some, nothing less than a conspiracy will do as an explanation. On the website of a respected newspaper, I see one poster has blamed Barack Obama, whom he calls “that Marxist thug”. It’s not that it’s hard to follow the logic; it’s that there isn’t any.
Still, searching for patterns and for answers is part of what it is to be human. I loathe cliche, but perhaps, for once, this is a “senseless tragedy”, devoid of deeper meaning.
I really liked your Sherlock Holmes comparison…. He does make a remarkable and some might say astute observation that it was `Domestic` … but only in the fact that it was an attack on US citizens within the US itself…
Maybe he was ‘exercising his little grey cells’ a la Hercule Poirot
Or he just used Twitter account belonging to an Al-Jazeera affiliate as his source becouse he was too busy stealing another laptop to bother with any of that journalistic integrity stuff….
IIRC the 19th of April has a special significance to some US extremists and as any BNP member will tell you the next day is Uncle Adolfs birthday so …
… they set off a bomb on the 15th!
Maybe they were objecting to the founding of McDonalds?
Oh, and it was/is Israel’s Independence day too.
I’ll bet Gerry Adams has a good idea who set of the bombs. The bbc was quick enough to interview him about things of which he knows little, why don’t they ask him about things in which he has expert knowledge?
Terrorism is never justified, no matter what. No exceptions. This might turn out to be Islamic extremists, might turn out to be far-right militia types, or just a deranged lone-wolf. We don’t know sitting here at our computers – let’s just let the police get on with it. The problem with the TV news (not just the BBC, though given we all pay for their broadcasts they do deserve special mention) is that they want to have rolling coverage on this but have nothing new to report. So they speculate and waffle on, and inevitably start getting way ahead of themselves in guessing what’s really going on. It’s clearly terrorism – whoever responsible should be brought to book. No point saying anymore till we know what’s what.
“Terrorism is never justified”!?
Utter nonsense!
Justin Webb bizarrely tried to define terrorism as an act which involves contacting Al Qaeda, as if the term never existed without them. If the bomber didn’t contact them, it can’t be terrorism, according to ol’ Justin.
If so, in those words, he’s silly, and well below market rate.
Listen to him on this morning’s Today, beginning @ 6:53am. He said that Maj. Hasan’s act of mass murder was not terrorism because there’s no evidence that he contacted Al Qaeda. Even though there is evidence. He also said that there was no evidence that Hasan thought that his religion directed his actions, as if Hasan had not shouted “Allah Akbar”.
Defenders of the indefensible will remain silent.
‘He said that Maj. Hasan’s act of mass murder was not terrorism because there’s no evidence that he contacted Al Qaeda’
OK, tx.
No immediate access to the show audio, but if in those terms that goes well below silly through bonkers to venal.
And any so-called ‘news’ medium that remains astoundingly uncurious in support of such interpretations may find this strategy may well serve poorly later on.
Call it the Niemoller Principle.
Can’t think why they figured their new office needed a bomb-proof bunker.
No access to the audio? Here’s the link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rvpg3
Scroll forward to 53 minutes in.
Tx.
Actually, the verbal gymnastics the two of them were navigating around to not say things, or claim others had or had not said them… but not that they were saying it… and what it all may or may not mean, were rather special.
David Preiser,
“He said that Maj. Hasan’s act of mass murder was not terrorism because there’s no evidence that he contacted Al Qaeda.”
Erm, no he didn’t. This is what he said;
“Fort Hood is a classic example of where Americans have been dividing recently on the subject of terrorism… …the issue is whether or not it was a terrorist attack, whether or not he had been in touch with Al Qaeda, whether or not he was motivated by Islamic extremism. And the view of the Federal Government has been that that wasn’t necessarily the case; that it was potentially just a case of mass murder.”
He then went on to give the case for those who disagreed with the Government’s view, too long to quote here.
At no point did he say it was “not terrorism” or there was “no evidence”.
Or perhaps you can provide a quote where he does say those things?…
You seem to possess a remarkable ability to mishear or misinterpret what anyone says in order to confirm your preconceived opinion. This is a classic example.
BBC seem to be fantasising openly that the attack was “domestic” ( white “extreme right wing” perpetrator )
If it transpires that this is not the case will The BBC offer an apology ?
they never have before
This report talks about previous attacks by “militant white extremists”. Presumably that’s a reference to the Oklahoma bombings, but then what relevance was race to that attack and their motivation for committing it?
People opposed to gun control aren’t usually racists, whereas 100% of “men” the BBC talk about are Muslims with their religion a key factor in their crimes.
The BBC won’t call Muslim terrorists Muslims and cover up their ethnicity too in most cases, yet they call white ones white, regardless of relevance. Pure BBC racism.
here’s the video of the statement in question being used:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22164040
Its interesting that they have reach back nearly 20 years to find their skin-headed boogeyman,passing over, with barely a mention, the worst terrorist atrocity in history
Evan Davis said ‘Everything points to keeping calm, play it slowly, be accurate and don’t jump to conclusions.’
He should have a word with his colleague…
What with Ceri T & Mr. Sweeney, and now this, the BBC ‘left hand, lefter hand’ thing appears operating at its customary level of consistency.
Maybe CECUTT could change the dismissal mantra to ‘We have got it about any way we think it needs to be’?
If, as the written examples thus far show, the BBC has certain irons in certain fires erring more on Mr. Mardell’s beliefs and hopes vs. Mr. Davis’ honest ignorance and cautions, they would again seem to be serving their reputation for watertight oversight poorly, other than honouring in the breach.
Too early for conclusions, but let’s spread the Narrative anyway. If they’re going to speculate, mention all the possibilities, like I did yesterday. Don’t declare that it can’t be one group before any evidence comes out.
On the R4 World at One (though the World may refer to Mars) Ms. Karney mentioned recent terror attacks in the US. Well 2 in fact. 9/11 was quickly skipped over and then she turned to Timothy McVeigh, a hundred or so dead, Patriots Day so could it have been some right-wing domestic group?
This question was posed to a US security expert. Much to my surprise after hearing the Today Programme this morning (but again from which planet) I though we’d get an expert following the lead from the Quisling and focusing on US domestic (meaning white) terror groups.
Not one bit of it. Kearny was totally put in her media studies box and told in no uncertain terms there was virtually no connection between Boston and Oklahoma as a right-wing group would be targeting a government building. Also there was the sophistication of the attack (they penetrated the most secure part of the race) which almost certainly pointed to the men from the Religion of Peas.
At the moment if know one knows then it is not the role of the BBC news reader to push one particular group as possibly/probably being responsible for the attack. I believe that is called bias.
Pretty depressing that the words ‘sophistication’ and ‘Religion of Peas’ should appear in the same sentence.
The ultimate oxymoron.
The BBC of course is now well and truly in thrall of twitter as a means to garner or disseminate news.
I for one was impressed, if remain still a little confused, by what was the message intended from this:
BBC Newsnight @BBCNewsnight
BBC North America editor Mark Mardell: Police are treating Boston attacks as deliberate … it may just be a precaution #newsnight
There’s no surprise there, paxo said on last nights Newsnight ” we don’t even know if it was a bomb! “
To be fair, in the spirit of watertight oversight, for a period the presumption that these were bombs would have been unconfirmed.
I am simply intrigued at what an ‘attack’ that was not ‘deliberate’ would be in such context.
And if there’s an attack resulting in an explosion, ‘precaution’ as a means of treating the response seems rather laid back.
Two go off within 15 seconds. It kills, maims, blows people to bits. You’ve heard it, seen it, seen the effects.
It’s ” unconfirmed” ?
So maybe not a bomb?
I despair.
A new BBC drama: “The Accidental Bomber”.
You need only listen to the Today show this morning between 7`.15 to 8.15 to know what Evan and Justin like to think.
Just before 7.30 Evan gave us his two cents..anniversary of Oklahoma, Waco etc…so it`s best to consider it to be whitey with his guns and anti-Obama prejudices for now.
As for the fact that it was Israel Independence day( well, if you`re throwing up anniversaries that might lead to bombs, then why not?)….not a peep.
Jsutin follows up with the disgraceful comment just after 8 a,.m that losing a kid in Boston is not really THAT bad when set against what happened in Iraq yesterday( I heard nothing, but there you go)…he was “just saying”.
Despicable equivocating and set painting, so we`ll not leap to conclusions about the ROP…but feel free to dream that whitey in his white van with guns would do this…dream on!
If the BBC hasn`t been pointing to Mecca with their arses in the air, then I`ll be surprised.
Look-it`s not anything to do with Islam…it`s a cry for attention .Got that?…the BBC has spoken!
If they’re going to wildly speculate to fill air time, then they should speculate about everyone, and not try to dismiss suspicion about one specific possibility. No evidence means no evidence either way, BBC. It’s just as wrong for them to remove one group from suspicion as it is to point fingers at everyone else.
The BBC almost make me ashamed to be British, so predictable is the bias. I listened closely from 7:00 this morning on Radio 4 and there was hardly a mention of the word “who?”
They were at it again on The World Tonight: trying to frame the (speculative) discussion in terms of the danger of people (right-wingers, of course) using the Boston tragedy against the President. The trick is to listen to what comes after their “… but” – that will be the framing. Did anyone else notice the special highlighting (viz. “Re-PUB-lic-an”) after the interview with the American?
If it bothers you that much why are you using discussion of this tragedy to try and cast Alan in a bad light and shut down debate. Quite repugnant and incredibly hypocritical. I also find the use of public forums to try and show what a sensitive caring sole you are by offering your condolences to people who are hardly even likely to read them dreadfully self indulgent and sycophantic. What a low life – but I’m sure you think you are wonderful and that’s all that counts right!
That was aimed at Nathan
Vine also wasted no time reminding us that the US produces it’s own non Islamic terrorists in the form of Timothy McVeigh – and he is much worse than who ever set these explosions because he killed more people.
Because I couldn’t believe what I was reading I twice re-read Mardell’s take on the Nidal Hasan killings and each time come to the same conclusion – Mardell is acting as apologist for what was clearly an Islamic terrorist attack.
‘On the website of a respected newspaper, I see one poster has blamed Barack Obama, whom he calls “that Marxist thug”. It’s not that it’s hard to follow the logic; it’s that there isn’t any.
‘One poster’. Irrelevant, then, except as the exception for Mardell to prove his rule for smearing the American Right.
Still, searching for patterns and for answers is part of what it is to be human. I loathe cliche, but perhaps, for once, this is a “senseless tragedy”, devoid of deeper meaning’.
Unbelievable Leftist, pro-Islamic bias. Let’s look for the words ‘senseless tragedy’ if the Boston bomber does turn out to be far-right and white.
Evidence?..I think not!
Another example of the BBCs blinkered eye being applied to the peephole was its repeated story this morning about sex offenders not getting enough “therapy”( nice word for sex education, I think!) in a prison in Sheffield.
Some “charity foundation” do gooder tells us that , if only we`d pay him more and send more of his chums into prisons then up to “50%” of said offenders no longer deny that they`re perverts and sickos.
Splendid lads…that`ll be no better than tossing a coin and randomly showing porn to half of them, and begging the other half not to “deny ” that they`re still sickos and perverts…and then crowing about whatever happens.
if a few kids and women suffer as a consequence-well, that`ll be regrettable, but (to quote the BBC), a “price worth paying”.
Evidence,,,schmevidence….free porn for crims…NOW!
Ah, that therapeutic culture that pays out each time…and Evan purred at the charity chugging fop, not presuming to question him once.
50%…toss a coin…far cheaper!
Evan D would be a good “tosser”, if you need one for the coins.
We might not know who did it, but we know who are celebrating and handing out sweets to mark the occasion.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/16/muslims-celebrate-with-sweets-praise-to-allah-over-boston-bombing-62151?fb_action_ids=10200523795889423&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210200523795889423%22%3A505862566141471%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210200523795889423%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D
According to my better half their at on face book as well
http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/16/a-short-history-of-pressure-cooker-bombs/
“As it happens, pressure cookers have a nefarious reputation in counterterrorism circles. In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security was concerned enough about pressure cooker bombs to issue an alert to federal and state security officials: “A technique commonly taught in Afghan terrorist training camps is the use/conversion of pressure cookers into IEDs,” the bulletin warned.
That bulletin cited several plots from 2002 to 2004 to use pressure cooker bombs in France, India and Nepal. But more recently there have been at least three other instances of would-be terrorists in the west, all of them Islamic radicals, in possession of pressure cookers for reasons that seemed not to involve having friends over for dinner. “
I cannot believe Mark Mardell’s comments on the reaction of the American people to the Boston terrorist attack. He says perhaps people have changed as there does not seem to be the same anger and outrage that followed the 9/11 atrocities.
Excuse me, Mark, has no one told you that over 3,000 people were murdered on 9/11?
Maybe the BBC has been running moral relativism seminars, in light of their frequent, if oddly skewed atrocity accounting methods?
Sadly, while the death of one in such a manner is every bit as terrible, and murder of any innocent an assault on all, realities of result will govern coverage and hence reaction. There was a genius quoted on Newsnight that this was designed to ‘get attention’. Well, yes. Terrorising needs profile to do its dirty work. And while some will get noticed and provoke through innovation or scale, others will simply join an ignoble series.
The longer facts remain elusive, the harder the 24/7 news void fillers will find it to say anything of value.
So they’ll seek refuge in such dire ‘analysis’ as this from Mr. Mardell, backed by ever more desperate guest guessers, and then we’ll be moved into the grief-wallow phase, that can often string out a week or more.
I am intrigued as to what now brings grieving relatives, raw still from their loss, to the microphones and facing the cameras to read out stuff that doesn’t sound like they penned it.
If it serves their coping processes fine, but I find it discomfiting and stage-managed often, for purposes unclear.
And I wonder if the reaction of perpetrators ready to kill or maim kids is sober reflection and guilt, or quiet satisfaction at how their dark aims are still inflicting public pain.
“Maybe the BBC has been running moral relativism seminars”
Isn’t that what they pay ‘common purpose’ for
Moral relativism at the BBC ?! What could you mean? They are extremely judgmental (i.e. morally absolutist) on: racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, man-made climate change, etc. Their moral relativism only cuts in when it suits them e.g. drugs, theft, unmarried mothers, the 2011 rioting, Islamic terrorism, etc.
And that is the locus of the liberal inquisitions hypocrisy
Not for those of a nervous disposition, and certainly not for those of BBC thinking:
http://www.moneyweek.com/endofbritain
‘In recorded economic history, every single country with debts as big as ours – every single one – has suffered a devastating economic collapse. There are NO exceptions’.
Very scary indeed but serious food for thought – thanks.
Alan,
Employing your typical dishonesty again I see. You quote Davis saying;
“…looking at this all the evidence points towards domestic terrorism…”
You even use; “All The Evidence Points to…” as the title of your post.
Except Davis never said that did he Alan?
What Davis actually said;
“Gordon [Corera]…looking at this it seems as though the evidence is tipping towards some kind of domestic terrorism… I don’t know; is that the way you feel the security industry in the US is heading in it’s mind?”
Why are you lying Alan?
Funny because the BBC news site is saying this:
According to US government guidance for security officials in 2004: “A technique commonly taught in Afghan terrorist training camps is the use/conversion of pressure cookers into IEDs [improvised explosive devices]”. An update in 2010 records that pressure cooker bombs have been frequently used in Afghanistan, India, Nepal and Pakistan.
Oh Dez…dear, dear Dez.
No need to check the literalities here, my friend.
If you yourself have not noted the countless efforts by all involved at the BBC( as well as Obamas pals and Sky etc) begging us all NOT to assume that Islam could have anything to do with all this, then I`d be surprised.
Two examples.
7.20 or so yesterday morning..Evan Davis has a thirty second ad hominem hoping that whitey did this due to Patriot Day, like a Mc Veigh or a Waco( and not Israel Independence day, of course)
8.10 or so yesterday morning-Justin Webb reckons that what happened in Boston is no worse that what usually happens in Baghdad, but there`s more fuss.
That ought to get him sacked, but being the BBC it`s what you`ll be wanting to hear.
It`s called direction of travel Dez….I`m far from specific, but I heard them both…maybe you can tell me that it`s not agenda setting anti-US/Islamist cringe and fawn.
But I`ll not believe you…the BBC do this too often now for me to believe a word they say anymore.
chrisH, Alan lied about what Evan Davis said.
“No need to check the literalities here, my friend.”
Obviously.
“But I`ll not believe you…”
You don’t have to believe me, you could listen for yourself:
http://bbc.in/17Hhllc (at 2:18:40)
” The Epic Failure of the Intel Agencies on the Boston Bombing.”
By Pamela Geller.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/04/pamela-geller-the-epic-failure-of-the-intel-agencies-on-the-boston-bombing.html
A question is worth a thousand words!
“Now, when the murderers who are responsible for the deadly explosions in Boston are apprehended, will anyone dare suggest that they get an independent state in the heartland of Massachusetts?”
“Steve Emerson:
Saudi national questioned in Boston Marathon bombings to be deported on national security grounds next week.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/04/steve-emerson-saudi-national-to-be-deported-on-national-security-grounds-next-week.html
“Authorities circulate photos of two men spotted carrying bags near site of Boston bombings.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/04/authorities-circulate-photos-of-two-men-spotted-carrying-bags-near-site-of-boston-bombings.html#comments
As a website owner. Do you think like owning a web-site or perhaps website is profitable?
Also how do you get visitors to visit your blog post?