The BBC’s top man in the US, Mark Mardell, has some questions for the FBI in the aftermath of the Boston bombing. And I have some questions for the BBC’s wrongly-titled North America editor.
Questions begin for FBI over Boston
The relief was palpable in a city where 19 April 2013 had been cancelled, paralysed, because of the manhunt for a terrorist.
When the news broke that the second suspect had been caught Boston residents who’d been cooped up under a day-long curfew poured onto the streets whooping with joy.
That raises a question before we even get to Mardell’s questions for the FBI. Why no mention that the only reason the second suspect was found is that the owner of the boat where he was hiding was able to find him only because the lockdown was lifted and he stepped outside for a smoke? Why no question from him as to why the lockdown in the first place? It clearly hindered the goal of finding the suspect, not to mention the ominous overtones of the government forcing citizens to remain indoors not because they were in danger but simply to make things easier for government officials to move around.
Mardell remarked in a previous blog post about how surprising it was to find the entire city shut down like that. But he felt it was necessary, and worried only that people wouldn’t feel safe again until the perpetrator was caught. Not that people got a bad impression from the government ordering them to remain indoors in a situation that wasn’t something immediately threatening to everyone, such as an imminent nuclear attack, but that this made them feel even more scared of the bad guy. The extreme exercise of State power didn’t bother him at all. Why not?
Back to Mardell’s “analysis”:
When President Obama spoke, the normal level of chatter returned and no-one seemed to be paying much attention. But he had something important to say.
Naturally, the President must be brought into the conversation, even if it’s just as a launchpad for the real point Mardell wants to make. Actually, it’s probably more than just his reflexive response to view everything through the prism of Him. Normalcy started to return not when news broke that one suspect had been found and killed while the other was now running scared, but because He spoke to us.
Now, about that point Mardell wants to make. The President asked the rhetorical question of “why did they do it”.
“How did they plan and carry out these attacks, and did they receive any help? The families of those killed so senselessly deserve answers. The wounded, some of whom now have to learn how to stand and walk and live again, deserve answers.”
The president might be wise to start by asking President Putin. I have no evidence that the “foreign government” asking questions about Tamerlan Tsarnaev was Russia, but that is my strong suspicion.
It’s not His fault, you see. These young men were not radicalized by the Iraq War or Afghanistan, and definitely, no way in hell, never in a million years were they radicalized to murder their neighbors by seeing all those fellow Mohammedans get killed in cold blood – innocent women and children included – by drone bombs under the President’s orders. Nope, they’re Chechens now, not home-grown US terrorists anymore. So of course Putin must bear some responsibility because of that whole Russia/Chechnya scene. I do hope this won’t make any Beeboid start to have second thoughts about the theory that these people are all radicalized by Iraq/Afghanistan/US Foreign policy. To think that there might be some sort of global, pan-Islamist connection regardless of which country is oppressing them is one of the most unapproved thoughts imaginable.
Whoever it was, they warned the FBI that Tamerlan was a strong supporter of radical Islam. The FBI say they investigated, interviewed him, and found no links with terrorism. This is quite remarkable. Let me repeat it. The FBI had been warned that the man who apparently carried out the first terrorist attack on an American city since 9/11 was a strong supporter of radical Islam.
It’s actually not at all remarkable to anyone who follows reality outside the Beltway bubble and far-Left blogosphere. I don’t remember Mardell finding it so remarkable that the US Army knew for some time that Maj. Hasan was going radical and expressing disturbing thoughts. As most people here have known for some time, the FBI purged language about Islamic terrorism from their materials. (Actually, one change to the guidelines made at the same time is right on the money: the bit about how there really is no more international functional Al Qaeda super-group any longer, and it really is a hodge-podge of gangs and cells and freelancers and inspired lone wolves and wannabes.) Aside from that, it shouldn’t be remarkable to anyone who follows reality outside the Beltway bubble and far-Left blogosphere because even the Washington Post reported that Russia told the FBI about Tamerlan.
Why is Mardell being so coy? Why pretend he doesn’t know? Is there some BBC legal eagle keeping him from saying it out loud? Or is he just that far behind the times again? He knows Tamerlan traveled to Russia last year, because his colleagues mention it on the “Chechen links” section of the special feature on the bombers. So it’s silly for him to play this game. Maybe there’s just some legal reason he can’t say it, even though he and his colleagues can speculate all day long about right-wing connections.
People will want to know how far they delved, how hard they tried, how seriously they took the information. Some of the criticism will be unfair, based on hindsight – they must get thousands of such warnings ever year. Or perhaps they are quite rare. That is another question.
No, Mark. The real question is: who gave the order over a year ago to make the FBI turn a blind eye to the specific radical Islam component to these things. And why. One suspects that Mardell won’t be asking any of either his or my questions any time soon. Nor will anyone at the BBC, because that’s not what they do.
One last question for Mardell: Will you and your colleagues finally learn the lesson and not only stop speculating that these attacks are probably from Right-wingers, but also stop speculating that it can’t be connected to radical Islamists? Speculate about everyone or no one.
The BBC demands to know why the US govt ignored warnings about a man being an Islamist?
‘This is quite remarkable. Let me repeat it. The FBI had been warned that the man who apparently carried out the first terrorist attack on an American city since 9/11 was a strong supporter of radical Islam. ‘
You have to be kidding.
This is the BBC who has spent the last week denying any association between Islam and terror.
Last week, and of course the last 12 years.
ah …. a week is a long time in politics … oops i mean at the bbc
you know you literally couldnt make it up.
the minute it wasn t made clear it was an islamic mass murder attempt by MSM… the bbc started their fix.
this shows two things, 1/. total lack of journalistic integrity – 2/. astonishing ignorance of anything to do with islamic jihadi mass murders, the device was similar to afghani devices, the method totally islamic, the tactic employed in accordance with previous islamic jihadi attacks,
you know, taking into account over 20,750 recent islamic terrorist attacks, (at a rate of nearly 5 a day) by the law of averages, overall if there are 416 attacks one is possibly, yep possibly not islamic.
so why the bbc inferences?
the doctoring of the dialogue?
This tool was on News 24 as soon as I switched on after hearing of bombing – “Blah blah blah Timothy Mcveigh, blah blah blah Anders Breivik, blah blah blah domestic, blah blah blah homegrown”
If the USA visa authorities are that stupid as to give the likes of Mardell permission to spout up a shit fountain, then maybe they deserve him there.
Listen to Justin Webb-took full advantage of the great USA and daily spits in its face these days.
Hopefully we`ll get a Sarah Palin type next time, and we can take the USA seriously once again…I love the country, and it hurst to see these elected quislings trashing the concept that is the USA.
Albaman’s comment deleted because he invented a quote from me and made false claims about the editing of a post.
I will accept a reasonable criticism but alleging I made such quotes or made edits to ‘correct’ those supposed ‘errors’ invented by Albaman is completely unacceptable.
I liked the bit where one poster identified the brothers in the FBI pictures as “clearly Saudi”. They are actually from the North Caucasus region. They are as Caucasian as it is possible to get. But you know, “muslims” is always secret code for “brown people” round here.
And domestic a secret code for white at the BBC?
Or have you forgotten what that post was actually about already?
‘They are as Caucasian as it is possible to get.’
As are Saudis, because Arabs are… Caucasians.
Please do keep the evidence of your ignorance a-coming.
Code for brown people ATC? Like Hindus, Sikhs and Cape coloreds?
Your snide charge of racism would carry some weight if BBBC spent a great deal of time talking about the brown people above and the superiority of whites.
But they don’t do they? Islam is discussed here because Islam is murdering, maiming, raping and torturing on an industrial scale all around the planet – just as they have been since the 7th century.
What level of propaganda have you been subjected to in order for you to utterly ignore reality? And what will it take to awaken you? Being forcibly seperated from your nearest and dearest dearest at a future concentration camp railhead?
If only we all had a highly paid bbc editorial team to administer our posts ad the flokkers on here have!
I see the flokkers are out of their editorial committee meeting atbthe beeb.
Don’t work for the BBC, never have worked for the BBC and don’t know anyone who does.
No editorial team working for me either.
Just a Leftie, then, and therefore sympathetic with, if not actually working for, the BBC.
So amounts to the same thing, you see.
“A photograph that others will then claim is a good likeness to the FBI released images of the actual suspects.”
No claim about it take another look
Sssssssshhhhh, move along, nothing to see here.
I do apologise – the post was in fact made by DB.
boston-bomb-update (won’t let me post the link)
Still does not change the fact that Biased BBC erroneously named and posted a picture of Sunil Tripathi and when the error became known did not change the post.
Didn’t change the post? Rubbish.
‘DB’ apologised and updated the post….hence the title…’Boston Bomb update’….as you know full well….inventing things again?
As for where DB got his information you’ll have to ask him.
This site is not a news site, it is not run by journalists, it doesn’t have a £4 billion budget…it gets its information from the MSM…..
Do you agree that the BBC got their reporting badly wrong?…and if not explain why.
Seems your only defence of the BBC is to criticise a post on this site…you cannot defend the BBC’s massive failure, a result of deliberate political bias, by any coherent and valid argument.
Is Alan censoring posts he disagrees with now? Wow. He really has driven this site off a cliff.
A new day and a new name eh?
Still same old shit from you whatever name you choose eh….
As for ‘censoring’….no, deleting a comment in which Albaman falsely attributed something to me.
‘… Alan censoring posts he disagrees with now? Wow. He really has driven this site off a cliff.’
Given the actual circumstances, as explained but now being spun ridiculously by the whole flying circus as one self-detonates mid-air in their midst, having the offending, inaccurate post alone removed seems pretty reasonable.
But given you see this response as akin to driving off a cliff, your thoughts on the BBC’s unique, secret modding & comment closing censorship policies would be a joy to hear articulated.
The biggest question is how more than 10 years into a war that president Obama refered to “this tragedy”.
But I guess it’s too much to hope for for Mark to touch on that tragedy.
In a lighter vein the Chechen community of Boston have at least cleared up the controversy between Pamela Gellar and CAIR over the true meaning of “jihad”.
There’s a good take on that in: “My Jihad” at:
(References a deleted comment from Albaman…deleted because he falsely attributed a quote to me)
Albaman….Might help if you read and understood a post for once….and got the date right:
presumably you mean this post:
The one which illustrated that the FBI were not only looking for white, right wing, domestic terrorists as the BBC try to imply……who published the photo as stated by me?….‘The New York Post says this photo has apparently been released by US authorities in the course of the investigation’…followed by my statement that…‘Now there is absolutely no evidence that these two were involved in any way’
You really need to understand the point of any post…that one was not to say these two were terrorists but that it wasn’t just good old rednecks under scrutiny as proposed by the BBC.
No, Alan, I refer to your “Boston Bombing Update” which you posted on Friday rather than yesterday as I mistakenly said in my original comment. I would post the link but for some reason this site won’t allow me to do so.
Apology above – the post was by DB not Alan.
You mean the post by ‘DB’….yes he got it wrong….and he admits it:
‘Looks like I could have fallen into the speculation trap’
Which is kind of the point…DB admits getting it wrong and goes on to apologise and correct that.
Something the BBC has notably failed to do….in fact they have gone on to attack bloggers whilst keeping mum about their failure as professional, highly resourced journalists.
Strange you should criticise him for updating and correcting his cock up.
‘References a deleted comment’
By way of a test, I just posted a reply to DavidP, who knows who is posting what, to ask how he does.
If it does appear, and in multiples, apologies, because for now it has not appeared for my browser, at all.
I normally ignore BBC World and BBC Canada, but yesterday when flicking through the channels I noticed that Dateline London was being aired. The last time I saw this was when Janet Daly was on. It was on that occasion that the pompous jackass Esler declared that, “The BBC doesn’t have an opinion”
Well yesterday I looked to see if the preposterous terrorist flag waver, Bari Atwan was on. No he wasn’t, quelle surprise given that the first topic was always going to be Boston.
The usual gaggle of gaga loony lefties were there including a woman who was clearly Arab and cleary muslim.
Put aside for one moment that three people were murdered including a little boy who was blown to pieces by islamic terrorists and a number of other people have had their lives changed irrevocably by loss of limb or brain damage, one would have expected the discussion to stray to how the two perpetrators had been brainwashed by islamic extremists.
Not a bit of it. No we were treated to a rant by the arab woman who declared that it was America’s sick society that was responsible for the carnage in Boston.
Esler of course gave his tacit approval to this disgusting nonsense.
How did it end up. Well they all got wound up over some ficticious nonsense called “islamophobia” and how muslims were going to suffer.
It was rounded off with outrage that an ‘Arab’, somewhere, had been made to get off of a bus because he was talking in Arabic.
Of the little boy blown to pieces there was not a mention.
All very reminiscent of the outrageous question time broadcast on the 13th September 2001.
goodness … just catch R4s “doctored” oops!, i mean “any” answers … sadly … strikingly similar.
I looked to see if the preposterous terrorist flag waver, Bari Atwan was on. No he wasn’t, quelle surprise given that the first topic was always going to be Boston.’
So what? He’s not on every episode, think you might be reading something into it, that just isnt there.
‘The usual gaggle of gaga loony lefties were there including a woman who was clearly Arab and cleary muslim.
Put aside for one moment that three people were murdered including a little boy who was blown to pieces by islamic terrorists ‘
Are you saying Muslims should be banned from TV for a week or two so as not to offend your sensibilities?
Nabila Ramdani was the female journalist, seems she has a journalistic CV . Superior to yours I would hazard:
Her initial comments were followed bu Saul Sadka who stated the acts were purely motivated by ideology and religion and that one brother was trained and given orders by Ansar al-Sharia last year.
‘one would have expected the discussion to stray to how the two perpetrators had been brainwashed by islamic extremists’ This was the discussion that followed, although it was somewhat deeper.
I didnt hear a rant by Nabila Ramdani , I don’t agree with her at all, and she was challenged by the Daily Mail journo (I’m guessing he’s not one of the ‘loony lefties’ you’re referring to)
‘Esler of course gave his tacit approval to this disgusting nonsense.’
He must have done this telepathically?
I prefer to be informed, to hear different opinons. Only by understanding can we prevent these things from happening.
Run along donald, there’s a good boy.
Are you unhappily married? Asian catalogue bride? Sad divorce? Lonely single? You’re a bloke posting on biased-BBC you must be one of the above. Lets just go with bitter and tragic. Or repressed homosexual.
I’m really at a loss to make head nor tail with your drivel.
I rarely post here as I ceased to have much interest in what the BBC has to say about anything.
But I can see one thing where you are coming from, anyone who has the slightest criticism of the BBC must be mentally deranged.
Obviously another BBC drone with too much time on his hands
As opposed to those BBC icons of manhood (and I suspect your role models) Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris etc.
‘Are you unhappily married? Asian catalogue bride? Sad divorce? Lonely single? You’re a bloke posting on biased-BBC you must be one of the above. Lets just go with bitter and tragic. Or repressed homosexual.’
Posted before I even arrived at this thread.
Interesting trash job based on tribal prejudice too. Are you a BBC Newsnight editor on side-step leave on double pay?
I wonder if the current two likes are from any fellow Flokkers who are usually quick to scream generic accountability if everyone does not commit to public disavowal?
Scott? Dez? Albaman?
Feel the BBC’s defensive cause is well served by this?
Or staying silent due to one of those nifty clauses the BBC introduces where attack is the only permitted defence?
The last one involved one of your colleagues knowing where my daughter was, and how she could expect to be treated.
As accurate as it was coherent.
Gandhi of course identified this as a sign of concern in the Farce so I should be flattered, but when family is dragged in it suggests a new, lower level.
To the site owners… One more like this and I will be having to ask who these people are who stalk, taunt or threaten with such impunity.
Here you go, Guest Who…
You are most welcome.
Gibberish Buster says:
April 22, 2013 at 11:24 am
Here you go, Guest Who…
You are most welcome.
And another ‘burner’ name joins the fray.
If with another post that says nothing, ironically. Rattled much?
Here’s one for you (all):
Thanks for the site link.
‘….members of our ‘hall of fame’ to recognise outstanding personal contributions to the fight against gobbledygook.’
‘Adrian concentrates on making sure every guest on the show gives a straight answer, whether they bring good news or bad for consumers.’
Good for him.
One imagines colleagues, in private, may now be less ‘straight’ with him, mind.
A true BBC hero.
“The last one involved one of your colleagues knowing where my daughter was, and how she could expect to be treated.”……………………… Not me as I don’t have any colleagues (to use your own terminology: I am a lone “Flokker”) and have no idea (nor interest) where either you or your daughter are.
“I wonder if the current two likes are from any fellow Flokkers…………..Scott? Dez? Albaman?”…………….. Again, I plead not guilty to liking the comment to which your response relates.
Though directed at ‘Guest Who Fan’ the distancing by another who often finds my views contrary to BBC interests is appreciated.
And I know it was not you, as I have it preserved as it was likely to get removed, if only after ‘job done’. Very BBC.
‘I plead not guilty to liking the comment to which your response relates.’
As with all claims and protestations, who can know, but I take you at your guilt-free word. Unexpected, as I was mainly teasing those who rather selectively do expect mass support in censure when it suits.
Like you, I prefer to simply ‘not like’, so the extra effort prompted here is welcome but not of course a precedent-setter.
You don’t mention, but guessing you don’t feel the BBC’s cause is best served by such contributions?
Still quacking Donald.
Oh and just so your aware, that fact that someone is employed by the Daily Mail does not make them a screaming right wing extremist.
Many a journalist has moved between the Mail and the Guardian and vice versa.
Careful, Donald. Facts are kryptonite to most commenters on this blog. It is a little mean of you to ruin their playground.
Pity he didnt stick to them then
You need to look up the meaning of the word ‘tacit’ old boy. Chin, chin.
The Left thought process is totally baffling.
We have 2 terrorists who indiscriminately planted and detonated crude IED’s in a crowd killing 3 and injuring many others.
They then shoot a policeman in cold blood and injure many others.
The 2 are then cornered and engage in a fire fight resulting ultimately in the death of one and capture of the other.
So the concern of MSM is for the victims of this attack? Oh no, its concern is portrayed by way of analysis that these two young men were somehow alienated and made to feel like outsiders by the locals and this why they behaved like this.
Lets ignore the obvious; Islamic radicalisation. The sooner the separation of cultures is addressed the quicker this is going to be resolved. The Muslim communities need to be tackled head on. The West is where we live and enjoy a ancient and successful heritage and culture based on civilised behaviour and law and order. The Muslim communities that live amongst us must be pushed to accept accountability for renegades and deal with those in their communities that don’t want to behave. If they feel unhappy with the pressure they know where the exit points are.
Be careful what you wish for Tiger, some will interpret what you say as a justification for those who demand their own sharia versions of law.
Well said. The governing/media elites cannot face the reality of terrorism without bringing to an end the entire structure of post war liberalism.
To deal with it in a rational way is impossible for them so we are subjected to endless expert and media analysis that is designed to avoid facing reality.
The stakes are high. It is not just over this situation .The whole edifice of liberal thinking would simply collapse and our society would undergo one of it’s periodic complete transformations .
Ending the terrorist threat can be done. Maybe, as you say, the answer is to accept the inevitability of the clash of cultures and in the interests of all opt for separation whatever the economic and personal cost to us all.
That would be a last resort but we are entitled to ask of our leaders that they act to defend our culture and not just indulge in platitudes and doomed morale boosting speeches.
Our culture is, like all others, an amalgam of influences some local and many foreign. It is continually evolving taking in new influences and discarding others. Our culture is all about taking useful things from abroad. We use Roman letters, a variant of Arabic numerals, speak a language with multiple roots, have a national drink that comes originally from China, and our history is global.
On terrorism the proven most effective way of countering it is to beat it to the negotiating table. The worst way is to make our friends into our enemies by going over the top.
Arts graduate, Ralph? Can’t understand quantification? Go negotiate with suicide bombers, Ralph. It’s good to talk, apparently.
History, an Arts subject I believe, is full of examples of how to deal with terrorists. You don’t talk to the bombers, suicide or not, you kill them. You talk to the leadership, but only after you’ve made life rather unpleasant for them.
Bit tough to speak to suicide bombers to be fair bud…unless you do it through a medium.
But you can, as I suggested above, put a round in their skull before they press the trigger. You will then have to deal with the BBC complaining that you denied them their human rights.
History, an Arts subject I believe
Nope. Humanities subject.
Same thing surely?
worth checking article nine
INBBC is part of the global ‘left-Islam’ political alliance, as is reflected in INBBC propaganda on Boston Islamic jihad.
“Unholy Alliance Comes Out of the Shadows and Into Your Living Room.”
By Robert Spencer (Jan 2013).
A not so incidental act in Boston, which INBBC may care to report?:-
“Israeli uses lessons from intifada in Boston attacks.”
‘How did it end up. Well they all got wound up over some ficticious nonsense called “islamophobia” and how muslims were going to suffer.
It was rounded off with outrage that an ‘Arab’, somewhere, had been made to get off of a bus because he was talking in Arabic.’
Ha, no they didn’t and No it didnt. Heres the programme if anyone wants to make up their own mind:
Ha ha, yes they did and yes they did.
Now the BBC Iplayer can be edited in any way the BBC wishes.
Here in Canada the BBC aired Dateline London with them frothing about “Islamophobia” and the loony tune at the end whining about some Arab who’d been made to get off of a bus because he was speaking in Arabic.
How very naive of you Donald. Do you by any chance quack as well?
I see. Did the BBC pick up on your comment and go edit the programme before putting it on iPlayer then?
Maybe they’re listening right now…..
Probably because one of the few BBC employees with half a brain realised how damaging it was to the BBC.
No mention of the child who was blown to pieces, just wittering on about some Arab, somewhere, who was removed from a bus for speaking in Arabic.
Yes I can see how for the BBC blowing a child to pieces pales into insignificance when compared to throwing some noisy arab off of a bus.
Funny how you never even considered that child. Must be a BBC drone.
I made the mistake of liking your first comment, it sounded reasonable but then I took your advice and watched the link (I recomend all should do it).
If anything it was worse than TPO had described.
The only thing Nabila Ramdani is superior at is dissemblement and hypocrisy ‘Its nothing to do with Islam its the American dream gone rotten,to many guns in America (but not enough pressure cookers?) and its so violent’. Nothing like Chechnya,Pakistan,Syria or home Algeria then? Twice Esler let he carry on with this ludicrous diatribe unchallenged.In fact the only person he did shut down was Saul Sadka.
And yes the whole sorry episode was rounded up exactly as TPO indicated.In future I will treat your posts with some cynicism.As I said on early post Its not the deconstructionist ideology of the bourgeois left I cant tolerate so much as their rank hypocrisy
I didn’t agree with her view either, I alos think it is bullshit, but that doesn’t equate to bias. Just one view among others that you don’t agree with.
I agree that Esler allowed her to speak.
And if there are no views that ‘I’ agree with, is that not de facto ‘bias’?
Surely they should represent a range of views (the point of your initial post) but clearly don’t
And what of that penultimate point,upon
which they all agreed,that the media should not jump so quickly to conclusions? Did they mean the BBC constantly banging the ‘white supremacist drum (or are you denying that to) No not a mention of it.
It wasn’t news analysis so much as sub Brechtian agitprop – ‘Its all the wests fault’-
‘And if there are no views that ‘I’ agree with, is that not de facto ‘bias’?
No. Every shade of opinon cant be representated by 5 people. The ‘David Icke’ view wasnt there either.
‘Surely they should represent a range of views (the point of your initial post) but clearly don’t’
Then you need to go watch it again. There were.
‘And what of that penultimate point,upon
which they all agreed,that the media should not jump so quickly to conclusions? Did they mean the BBC constantly banging the ‘white supremacist drum (or are you denying that to) No not a mention of it’
Did they all agree? If they did, not surprising a group of journalists might agree that journalists shoudnt jump to conclusions.
But I cant pretend to know what they were thinking about something which they didnt express a view on. Perhaps there was no mention of it because its an issue largely for bBBC? Are you suggesting they were instructed not to mention that (although there seems no particular reason they would) because you cant sunstantiate that, and the idea itself doesnt hold weight.
And No, I don’t agree that the BBC was banging the ‘white supremacist drum’.
“not surprising a group of journalists might agree that journalists shouldn’t jump to conclusions” but surprising that not one of the five called the BBC to account over their constant domestic terrorist theorising”
Are you suggesting they were instructed not to mention that”
No I am suggesting an unconscious conspiracy,that the BBC chooses only those who’s views are compatible with their own and dismiss (like you) any view that challenges their constructed volksgemeinschaft as a tin foil conspiracists.
” And No, I don’t agree that the BBC was banging the ‘white supremacist drum” In the same way dateline debate didn’t finish with a sermon on islamaphobia?
I watched it all right but I’m beginning to doubt you did
Not surprising at all. Has it been discussed elsewhere in the media? (I mean of course media not controlled by the BBC’s constructed volksgemeinschaft?)
But you believe the BBC invited these Non BBC journalists on knowing they specifically wouldn’t mention something which isnt particularly relevant? Wow. It’s not just Esler who’s telepathic then?
It seems that you can watch any programme and come to any view on it such is the prism of your own bias.
No something that is entirely relevant to “journalists shouldn’t jump to conclusions” especially when it was perpetrated by that news leviathan the BBC’
And your right the media not in tune with the BBC hymn sheet, their constructed volksgemeinschaft ( I do like saying that word) have called the BBC and others over their relativist wish fulfilment,But the journalists in question were not from the truly independent press by design
“It seems that you can watch any programme and come to any view on it such is the prism of your own bias”
(You would know this how?) While you watched this specific program through Nelsons telescope
I give up!!!
‘I give up!!!’
Now, now, don’t tease.
Or was this exclamation in accepting Stewart’s point, rather than the parting shot(s) that can with your predecessors often end up a rather protracted affair?
Thank you stewart. I haven’t renewed my proxy IP address in a little while and so am unable to see the BBC Iplayer so I had to take Donald at his word that it wasn’t there.
Seems Donald is not averse to lying then as it is still there.
Must be a BBC drone.
I tend to find that you read into a sentence all sorts of interpretations that simply aren’t supported by the sentence.
Take this for example:
‘The president might be wise to start by asking President Putin. I have no evidence that the “foreign government” asking questions about Tamerlan Tsarnaev was Russia, but that is my strong suspicion.
….So of course Putin must bear some responsibility because of that whole Russia/Chechnya scene’.
The sentence doesnt support that at all, that’s not what he’s saying and you’ve read something into it that which just isnt there.
Donald, can you give any other reason why Russia might be involved where a Chechen is concerned? What is Mardell saying, then?
Sure, that’s an easy one. And I’m only really repeating whats in the article.
Obama asks “How did they plan and carry out these attacks, and did they receive any help? ‘
A foreign Gov (the Russians) had warned the FBI that Tamerlan was a strong supporter of radical Islam. So, ‘The president might be wise to start by asking President Putin.’
Does that make it clearer?
Judging from the time stamp, that video was posted before Mardell published his blog post (or last updated it), or at around the same time. This only further calls into question why he was playing coy, no? Pointing out that the BBC has done a video report about it plus the mention in the “Chechen links” section that the older brother went back there doesn’t explain why Mardell was either behind the news curve, or being curiously coy about it. Maybe he was just trying to be cute instead of spelling it all out.
Now, please explain how my suggestion that a radical Mohammedan would be under Russia’s scrutiny is probably connected to Putin’s war on the Chechens is not a set-up for shifting blame. A Chechen Islamist would be angry at Russia for reasons you well know, so blame for his original radicalization won’t have much to do with the President’s drone attacks on Mohammedans in Pakistan or Yemen or elsewhere. Thus, bringing Russia into the picture means that the usual reasons we’re fed for Islamist radicalization – Iraq, Afghanistan, US foreign policy, Israel – don’t enter into it.
Asking Putin why the lads might have become radicalized means that no blame will be placed in the usual way. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to blame Russia for a Chechen becoming radicalized, by the way. It makes perfect sense to ask if that’s the case. So how do we square anger at Russia with the murder of people in Boston, and possibly elsewhere in the US? There is no connection between the US President’s foreign policy and what Putin has been doing in Chechnya, unless one sees it from the global jihad point of view, meaning the US must share blame. The US President must share blame.
The reason for the original radicalization (if we’re assuming Russia/Chechnya for the sake of argument) must have grown into something else. So while Mardell may be correct in saying that we should ask Russia why the older brother originally became radicalized, he’s not correct if he thinks that’s where it ends. As it stands, one could easily read it as looking to Russia for the reason for the Boston bombing. Why they became radicalized and why they did this specific act are two different questions, which Mardell seems to conflate into one.
And an experienced, world-class journalist like Mardell should be raising an eyebrow at what appears on the surface to be an uninformed President. It’s an editorial blog, so Mardell is allowed to express his opinion. Yet he turns a blind eye to it.
I don’t know what you think he was being coy about, and I’m sorry but I don’t see how what you’ve written is in any way relevant, to what is in Mardell’s Blog.
The US authorities want to know why the bombers did what they did. The Russians had previously flagged them up. The US might want to ask the Russians why, and what else they knew about them. That’s it. There’s nothing there about drones, Iraq, Afghanistan etc
I always find it difficult to understand how you can write a novel like that based on a couple of lines. What you’re discussing just isnt there. Like I said before, you take a couple of lines and read all kinds of things into them that just aren’t supported by whats written.
I’ve explained twice already why I said Mardell was being coy. The news was already out on the BBC and elsewhere that the older brother went back to the region and, as you’ve shown, that Russia already warned us about the older brother, It’s no mystery as to why a Chechen Mohammedan would be flagged up by the Russians. You can deny this is the case, but please don’t expect me to do the same. Also, how can Russia say why they killed US civilians, as the victims in Boston have nothing to do with Russia/Chechnya? There might possibly be other reasons for a radicalized Mohammedan to do such a thing, which is why I brought up drones, etc. When Mardell says we should ask the Russians “why”, that presumes it’s all about Russia/Chechnya and not about anything the US has done. It does. This is not an isolated incident without any context. There are two different questions we need to ask here: why were they radicalized in the first place, and why kill innocent civilians in Boston. Mardell is writing as if they are one and the same, which is wrong.
We can argue about why Mardell said it that way, in which case we can both have our own interpretations. Mine is based on following Mardell’s output for four years in the US (plus occasional observations of his reporting from Europe before that), including incidents directly relevant to this one, like Ft Hood and the Times Square attempt, as well as watching the video of his appearance at the BBC College of Journalism where he was quite open about his own political beliefs and personal opinions on the US and several issues. He didn’t talk about Islamist terror in that video, but he revealed enough personal opinion, and has done so in his blog posts, that it’s no longer possible to claim that I’m making it up on a number of other issues.
I’m glad you finally feel strongly enough to comment on something I’ve said, after apparently lurking for some time. Hopefully you can help me improve highlighting and exposing the BBC’s bias.
Someone tells you they’re worried about a neighbour of yours they used to know. He’s behaving a bit oddly, and they think he could become an axe murderer.
Skip forward a few years and that same neighbour kills someone in your street with an axe. Don’t you want to ask your friend a few questions?
‘It’s no mystery as to why a Chechen Mohammedan would be flagged up by the Russians. You can deny this is the case, but please don’t expect me to do the same’
No, no mystery. And I didnt deny it??
‘Also, how can Russia say why they killed US civilians, as the victims in Boston have nothing to do with Russia/Chechnya?’
Mardell doesnt suggest the Russians could. I dont know where you’re getting that.
‘The president might be wise to start by asking President Putin’
Start by asking, start. He might also want to ask the FBI what they knew about the brothers. The headline being: Questions begin for FBI over Boston
They might also want to talk to their friends, neighbours, family, people they associated with in Chechnya. I guess that’s how you begin to answer some of those ‘unanswered questions’ Obama asks.
‘the video of his appearance at the BBC College of Journalism’
Wasnt that a few hours long? It was originally for journalists in training, not for the public, you must have thought it’d be a gold-mine, a smoking gun. And if I recall out of those hours of video, you picked out a couple of sentences. None of what you said was supported by what was said in the video though. Admittedly, that was a while ago and I dont recall all the details (and cant be arsed looking).
Donald, you’re being a bit disingenuous about asking Russia merely being an innocent practical move, aren’t you? In this situation, Russia would know a hell of a lot more about what the bomber was up to and why than I would about the shy neighbor boy. Not an apt analogy at all.
The President – not Mardell – asked why they did it. I didn’t make it up.
“Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?”
The President then went on to ask how they planned it, after which Mardell suggested he should talk to the Russians. You can’t claim that he was referring only to one of part of the President’s statement and not the “why”.
As for Mardell’s video, it was just short of one hour, and yes, I saw it as something of a gold mine. He admitted plenty of things, and I picked out more than a couple of sentences. Among other things, Mardell showed his unrealistic and Beltway Left-wing expectations for John Hunstman, that the BBC would drop everything to make room in the news cycle if Sarah Palin opened her mouth years after she was out of office and not a candidate for anything, that there was great resonance in Britain for what he described as the President’s Keynesian policies, that Beeboids aren’t expected to follow official guidelines on Twitter, that the former producer of BBC World News America actually wanted to ban bad stories about blacks committing gun crimes because it didn’t suit his agenda (What a shock, that’s just like what Helen Boaden was referring to here, page 67), and that even though he saw no evidence of overt racism in the Tea Party movement, it was still driven by racism, only not in the conventional sense, and that they actually opposed only redistributing money to people not like them. Mardell also mocked a Southern woman in a manner which would not be permitted if she had had an accent particular to certain other demographics. Plus we saw the groupthink of his BBC colleagues equally interested in John Hunstman and Sarah Palin.
I’m sure you can’t be bothered to see it again, but I believe that everyone else should be able to see it and judge for themselves.
Not sure if this was picked up yet, but prior to knowing who the perpetrators were the BBC ran this article:
Boston marathon bombings: Possible lines of inquiry
In which their first offering was
A home-grown US operator with a domestic agenda
As of Wednesday, this is thought to be the most likely culprit.
The attack appears to have come out of the blue and it is notable that it was aimed not at government but at the general public”
The FBI maintains a long list of potential threats emanating from US individuals or groups harbouring violent intentions towards the federal government, civil organisations, or society in general.
The list includes white racial supremacists, fundamentalist Christian extremists, animal rights activists and anti-abortionists. So-called “lone wolf” operators – individuals not belonging to any known terrorist group – are far harder for the authorities to detect and track.
As of Wednesday, this is thought to be the most likely culprit.???
This is thought…?
I believe most people hearing about this attack suspected radical Islamists as being responsible, whether they voiced this opinion or not. Even the BBC felt the likelihood was high which is why they made sure they ran the articles showing how Muslims feared a backlash should the bombers turn out to be of their flock.
Yet they claim WHAT IS THOUGHT is that it is most likely a different mindset.
The insidious Ministry of Thought at work.
O’Brien says: ++ ungood verging on crimethink.
Eh, the FBI, and those investigating. Its in the part you quote and the first lines of the article.
Oh, and the article is entitled: ‘Boston marathon bombings: Possible lines of inquiry’
ie. its those who are doing the inquiring. Its under the tab entitled ‘Investigation’.
Need I go on?
Donald Dickhead or should I say Albaman
The BBC only quote the lines of enquiry they want you to hear, leaving out the obvious culprits. They edit the list and highlight their targets. But you are so clever you clearly believe everything the BBC say.
Why would I want to call myself Donald?
…because you come here with a lot of quack comments ?
From the same article, under possible suspects:
‘A home-grown US operator with an international, jihadist agenda. This is still an active line of pursuit. The explosive devices used follow a model broadly similar to ones promoted by al-Qaeda in an online magazine in 2010 that encouraged jihadists to make their own bombs.
But experts say it is a relatively basic model that predates al-Qaeda. The US has recently escaped a number of attempts by lone jihadists to carry out attacks in New York and elsewhere.
Unlike the huge, centrally directed attacks of 9/11, solo operators need only be inspired, not trained, by the core leadership of al-Qaeda.
America has long been their favoured target, but there are reasons to question whether this was the work of jihadists.
There is no suicide element, the explosive used was relatively low power and, most importantly, there has been no claim of responsibility.
I’m not that clever, but you guys do make me feel like a f**king genius!
‘I’m not that clever, but you guys do make me feel like a f**king genius!’
Not sure which guys are ‘in’ or out’ of the ring, but kudos on the self-lauding ‘tell it often enough’ punt, with ** points for the temperate expletive to sway the kids.
There’s market rate potential as a CECUTT director… at the very least… there.
Keep up the good work.
Simply poiting out simple facts which some seem to have a hard time with, maybe literacy isnt their strong point.
But thanks for the compliment!
‘Simply poiting out …. maybe literacy isnt their strong point.’
Whilst suspecting the likes of Mr. Buster & Hector may not be so forgiving in their spelling bee invigilator roles, I’ll simply poit out that Karma is again here a bit of a minx. Isnt she?
Oh you scamp, GW. I never once alluded to your spelling capabilities. I did however make a point about your mangling of the English language and penchant for convoluted and aimless prose.
Perhaps you could read what you type before congratulating yourself on your wit and wisdom. Although it may look very differently on the screen to us mere mortals than it does inside your head.
If that is the case, then I am sorry. I can follow most comments on here with ease even those with spelling mistakes etc. Yours however are beyond me.
What ‘follow’ you can not or indeed can, afraid help you I can not.
You are however unique, redacted.
Sorry, help myself I couldn’t!
‘Scamp’ is a nice word; I’ll go with that.
Interesting how much time and effort is still devoted to how I write over what, by those who keep being attracted to my posts to claim they are either irrelevant or cannot be understood…. in great detail (with homaged word checks… uniquely not redacted) without apparently knowing what they are talking about.
Also it seems a bit odd to devote so much to the incomprehensible. On blogs I would simply ignore or, if intrigued, probe further (and beyond ‘Wha?’).
Such huffing and puffing reminds me of a pompous deputy head (and a few earlier Flokk incarnations) trying to make a petty disciplinary point and simply going beetroot in the process, looking even sillier.
Given there are some on BBBC I’d gently claim are more ‘robust’ in views and on topics I too see as outside the site remit, who attract much less attention, such undermining (to the point of creating dedicated nicknames) would be flattering if not so daft… and a bit creepy.
‘Oh you scamp, GW. I never once alluded to your spelling capabilities. I did however make a point about your mangling of the English language and penchant for convoluted and aimless prose.’
Well for that paragraph alone I’d have to say… welcome aboard the penchant patrol!
And with such epic semantic selectivity too. It’s not the spelling… it’s all the other stuff you meant. Uh-huh. Yet, here we are… still… communicating away and you evidently understanding everything I write and being happy if not dedicated to engaging point by point on every line.
That is commitment above and beyond, if a little shy on coherence or logic.
Which given the person I am communicating with, and on what, makes perfect sense.
If I am serving to keep you occupied with me, then you are not off distracting other posters, which makes me a trollers troll? And a noble calling, if a lonely, poorly appreciated one. Que sera.
‘Perhaps you could read what you type before congratulating yourself on your wit and wisdom.’
I do. Well, the first bit. Do you? If, perhaps, with your irony appreciation switched off.
‘Although it may look very differently on the screen to us mere mortals than it does inside your head.’
These ‘mere mortals’ being the variety epitomised by the GW Fan remora attracted here in support of ‘Gibberish Buster’? If so, I’m happy to be placed at a higher level.
‘Yours however are beyond me
And yet, and yet.. here you are, again and again, showing frustration with my inability to put things in a form you are able to comprehend. Whilst still avoiding the actual topics or point by obsessing about the person.
Interestingly, that is a technique often used, as shared here, by BBC CECUTT when they have run out of ways to avoid answering questions and fall back on internal, secret ‘comfort’ and ‘belief’.
Then they simply avoid dealing with things in pulling the plug by playing very, very dumb.
It can work if you control the ballpark as they do with the BBC Complaints System.
Here, it just makes you look dumb too in complement, to a wider audience.
Which is a pity, as I don’t think you are.
‘Teddy Bear’ suggested the BBC was using ‘It is thought’ to give their own view, and asked who it was doing the thinking.
As I pointed out, the article makes it pretty clear.
My hero Captain Kirk then states that ‘The BBC only quote the lines of enquiry they want you to hear’.
That’s odd because the article lists as a chief suspect those very same people that apparently the BBC has ignored as suspects.
So that’s who in and out of the ring.
Am I wrong?
I just love it when Beeboids think they’re being really clever justifying BBC coverage, when in fact all they show in their zeal to respond, is they lack the comprehension skills necessary to understand the comment they respond to.
YOU are meant to assume that the security organisations of the US really believe it’s the work of a home grown Christian or anti-Abortionist, preferably something the BBC despise, despite the bomb used being something that comes out of an Islamist jihad manual.
So who do you think the BBC asked to find out the consensus for ALL the security organisations at work on this? AND even assuming they did, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE RESPONSE WOULD HAVE BEEN?
I would think if a reporter asked the question to the FBI. CIA, or whoever, the response would have been “Errr, it’s too early to say at this point but we are leaving all options open. I would also make a guess that if the head of the FBI or CIA or similar organisation would be putting money on it at that point, it wouldn’t be on Christians or anti-Abortionist.
But you are the proof that BBC bias works a treat if you can’t think for yourself.
Here’s something for the future:
Answered as above. Your original post is still there for all to see. Unlucky.
‘Errr, it’s too early to say at this point but we are leaving all options open.’
Indeed. Which is why it was a list of possible suspects.
What you have to tell us Ducky is just how the BBC were able to claim that the first theory was thought MOST LIKELY?
Did they poll EVERY security agent?
Did they ask the heads of these agencies?
If it was the latter, don’t you think they would have identified this as the source for their claim?
I can tell this is too much for you to get your head around as you still haven’t understood the point being made, and you still cling to what the BBC told you.
This idiot really reminds me of Scott.
I understood your point fine, its in your original post. You can change it if you want though, that’s cool.
Try answering it then if you understand it.
Well, after seeing, hearing and reading a lot of neutral and unbiased world-class output from our beloved BBC across television, radio and the internet this weekend, I can tell you something.
It’s that poor, immigrant teenager that I feel sorry for. Such a nice looking boy, judging by his photos. He fled oppression by those bloody awful conservative Russians under Putin. Only to wind up in some horrible crypto-racist “community” in America where he no doubt was made to feel like some kind of second class citizen.
Also, I heard that both his mum and dad think he was set up by the FBI. I mean, the FBI knew what his brother was up to all along. And he was oh so conveniently killed in a “shoot out”, so he won’t be saying anything very soon.
No, I reckon if you want to look for reasons for why the Boston bombing happened. you need look no further than the political dinosaurs who perpetuate hatred and intolerance in the USA. You know who I mean.
The arrogance of the BBC:
BBC News readers headlines a report on Boston with the words : “WE ask what the authorities might have done better….”
Bearing in mind these events happend in a foreign country
Actually, the real question is ‘what could have been done to prevent this attack but wouldn’t have caused the BBC to go into a hissy fit about Islamophobia’?
We know right now that it was a Jihadist attack but the BBC is still pushing the Islamophobia….
….which leads to the second question: if it *had* been a white-supremacist, tea party, gun nut, SUV owner, would the BBC now be inviting writers from Aryan Stormfromt Weekly onto its shows to talk about Naziophobia and explain how the ‘Final Solution’ really means an internal struggle against Original Sin?
One realistic answer would be to have never permitted the terrorists to live in the US in the first place. That, of course, would mean giving up the liberal dream of one world and open borders.
Can’t have that can we . it would be judgemental and discriminatory and just about everything elses a good little liberal is trained to abhor.
As “Uncle Jo” Stalin said, justifying liquidation rather than exclusion, “No person, no problem”. But this of course goes against the brainless liberal universalism, which ignores deep cultural and religious differences. Harold Evans was particularly stupid on this subject on the US edition of “Any Questions?”, arguing for open borders.
The parents weren’t/aren’t terrorists, nor did they have any desire to be. There’s no good reason to have stopped them from moving here, especially since it was a different world back then. This radicalization was something that happened to their sons later on. Stopping jihadi imams from coming here and spreading their poison would be a start, and just might have prevented this. That’s a discussion worth having, without taking an extreme route of banning everyone except Irish bartenders and Chinese college students.
Listening to the World at One today they asked somebody why they thought these brothers did it. The response was along the lines that in their culture they are very tied to their family and clan, and forces within this probably pulled them away from proper integration.
I don’t think the BBC realised they were actually airing a view to show why multiculturalism doesn’t work with certain mindsets, and just which types our society needs to be wary of importing.
Does the mother thinking the US perpetrated 9/11 themselves to justify going into Muslim countries have anything to do with affecting her children?
INBBC (inc Mardell), being part of the ‘left’-Islam political alliance, is active in censoring out any Islamic motivation in e.g. the Boston Islamic jihad massacre.
In the many years in which Mardell was employed by BBC in Brussels, he managed to hardly ever mention the ‘elephant in the room’ of Islamisation there.
-for the politically flummoxed Mardell and co :-
“Islam’s World War Came to Boston”
By Daniel Greenfield.
excellent article. “True” Islam requires war against all of us. The great bulk of MI5’s work and cost these days is to try to track which of the Muslims now amongst us is a real danger.
The Tories have failed to curb immigration to any real degree – over 500,000 newcomers last year – not counting unknown numbers of illegals.. What proportion are Islamic ? 50% ?
We continue to make a rod for our own backs.
Mardell knows this, which is why he was being so coy about the chatter regarding Russia. He just can’t say it out loud, because editorial policy prevents him. It’ll be fun watching the Beeboids figure out how to blame another country’s foreign policy for an attempted mass murder in this one. But this does have the benefit of shifting blame away from The Obamessiah, so they won’t have to mention His Nobel or the drone attacks.
‘It’ll be fun watching the Beeboids figure out how to blame another country’s foreign policy for an attempted mass murder in this one. But this does have the benefit of shifting blame away from The Obamessiah’
I expect you’ll repeat this now Ad infinitum, with references to it in every post about Mardell, even though he didn’t say that or even suggest it. I’ve pointed this out to you now though so you can desist.
It’s too early to tell what I’ll repeat, Donald. I should point out that here I was talking about BBC reporting overall, across the spectrum of broadcasting, not just Mardell.
Are you suggesting that there will be no need to explain why someone radicalized by Russia’s involvement with Chechnya decided to kill people in the US?
I expect we’ll learn more about their motivation as we go.
I’m sure we will. Perhaps you might want to hold the BBC to a similarly high standard regarding speculation.
It’ll be fun watching the Beeboids figure out how to blame another country’s foreign policy for an attempted mass murder in this one.
Not really, they’ve had lots of practice with Israel.
I’m just waiting for the ‘justification’ for this bombing on the basis that Israel didn’t allow Gazans to travel to the West Bank to participate in the marathon there, and seeing how the US supports Israel….
I’ve no doubt that the BBC will find somebody in the Muslim world to make this assertion.
Hang on, we’ve all missed the obvious: they’re Lib Dems! Has anyone looked into whether there’s a connection between Boston, Montreal, and Denbigh? There’s apparently no global jihadi problem with the former, so why not look for something else?
Guessing the meetings rooms from White City to Salford to Washington are already huddled trying to get this as a ‘domestic’, given the white male prayers have been answered.
It will be interesting to discover how ‘right wing’ is shoe-horned in.
When you import large numbers of people from backward, savage third world countries, who bring with them their own codified doctrine of social, economic, and political governance, you will end up with trouble.
Ignorance and an ideological agenda can be a dangerous mix, especially when an international news organization pushes it. I’m putting this here since it’s relevant to the topic of my post.
Boston debates legal treatment of bombing suspect
It seems that US authorities have decided for the moment not to read the surviving Boston murderer his Miranda Rights. The BBC is all over it, giving air time to both sides. It’s 3 to 2 condemning the government’s decision, naturally, but who’s counting? I’m being churlish, of course, because it’s actually beside the point, as the three people in favor of reading Miranda seem to be vaguely aware that it’s related to national security, but ignorant of what’s actually going on.
One assumes that the Beeboids who produced this didn’t inform them, or include details in their questions, because that’s not really their job. On also has to assume that the Beeboids don’t actually know themselves, because there is no explanation in the accompanying blurb of what the Miranda Rights are, how they work, or what they’re for. It’s as if this was made for an audience educated by TV cop shows, and both the British and US audiences already know what the term means.
This tells me that this is meant for the BBC’s ever-growing US audience and not so much for license fee payers, which makes it even more aggravating.
So, the Miranda Rights. You’ve all probably heard them on TV or the movies, so take the actual text as read and move on to the details of what they are and what they’re for:
Miranda Rights were created in 1966 as a result of the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda warning is intended to protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions.
It is important to note that Miranda rights do not go into effect until after an arrest is made. The officer is free to ask questions before an arrest, but must inform the suspect that the questioning is voluntary and that he or she is free to leave at any time. The answers to these questions are admissible in court.
If the suspect is placed under arrest and not read Miranda rights, spontaneous or voluntary statements may be used in evidence in court. For example, if the suspect starts using excuses justifying why he or she committed a crime these statements can be used at trial.
I can see how, in a vacuum, someone can easily state that the Boston murderer should be given his Miranda Rights, he’s a citizen, we shouldn’t give away our freedom so easily, etc. Except this isn’t in a vacuum, but instead is a very specific circumstance. The authorities aren’t questioning the young man to get incriminating evidence with which to prosecute him. They already have loads of evidence for trial. This is in fact about the larger investigation into whether or not there really is a sleeper cell or others involved, which is a matter of national security and has little or no bearing on the trial to convict him of being one of the bombers. That’s why the reason for waving the rights is being given as a threat to public safety. It’s not really about getting the bomber to incriminate himself to bust him at trial, but about learning more about the bigger picture.
But the BBC isn’t interested in that fact. They’re interested in a superficial, sexy story about human rights which is in reality unrelated to the situation. Instead of presenting the facts of what the Miranda Rights are for, and providing context in which to ask the question to the Bostonians, the BBC misleads the audience.
Are other media outlets or blogs complaining about this in the same out-of-context way the BBC is presenting it? Probably, but so what? Why does that excuse the BBC for publishing this false narrative?
Fox News had former NY Mayor Rudi Giuliani on to discuss this following the youngers capture. Giuliani is a lawyer so relatively conversant with the subject.
He was of the opinion that there was no need for Miranda as both individuals had bragged to the car jack victim of having detonated the IED’s and of possession of other IED’s and weapons and their intention to continue their campaign. Since they have a confession Miranda is not necessary and may inhibit further questioning if the subject survives.
Exactly. Don’t trust the BBC on US issues, even if they have US-born Beeboids doing the reporting.
Thanks for your explanation about Miranda. You’re right about films: I first came across Miranda (and Escobido) in “Dirty Harry” (1971) where Harry Callaghan was being reprimanded for the way he had treated the suspected roof-top sniper called ‘Scorpio’.
Mark Mardell is also pushing the false Narrative about Miranda Rights in his inset “analysis” on this page.
The charges mean Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could face the death penalty if convicted.
It has been decided he will be tried in a normal criminal court, not by a military tribunal. He will not be treated as an “enemy combatant”, which would mean he wouldn’t be allowed the right to remain silent but would be interrogated to gain intelligence about the background to the attack.
The first decision is not particularly controversial, the second is. Several Republican politicians have already attacked the decision saying that it will limit the authorities’ ability to gather vital intelligence.
When Mardell says the “second” decision is controversial, he means the decision not to treat the surviving bomber as an enemy combatant. I have to give him a thumbs up on this one, because this just might be the first time he’s ever called one of the President’s decisions “controversial”.
I think Mardell mixed himself up here, though, because not being treated as an enemy combatant and instead as a civilian criminal actually would normally mean he’d get the Miranda rights. Enemy combatants don’t get Miranda or most other rights, which is why so many people condemn Guantanamo, remember? The Republicans are complaining about not making him an enemy combatant because they think dealing with him as a civilian criminal would complicate the investigation. Which it could, and withholding Miranda rights might help alleviate that.
The problem with the message he’s trying to get across is that it’s wrong. As explained in my comment above, Miranda rights are in general about preventing someone from incriminating oneself in trial. There’s already plenty of evidence to make the charges stick without trying to coerce a confession out of the lad. The further investigation has nothing to do with the charges of attempted murder, and everything to do with the bigger picture of other potential crimes and jihadis running around. Miranda rights are irrelevant to that, and would be an obstacle to it. It’s correct for the President to order the withholding of those rights in this case. Mardell, though gets it muddled. I’ll chalk this one up to rushing out copy, and not just that he’s utterly clueless.
So the BBC is now pushing this same incorrect Narrative in three places: that video report, Justin Webb on Today, and Mardell here. The institutional bias occurs naturally. I shouldn’t be mean, though. At least they’re at last willing to go against a White House talking point. But I’d rather they got the reporting correct.
I guess since he didn’t add anything to his first sentence, the death penalty isn’t particularly controversial, either. Maybe Mardell has been in country too long, and it’s starting to rub off. 🙂
message to bBC
IT’S THE JIHAD, STUPID.
I have a sense the BBC will be circling the waggons tonight.
In a couple of hours or so from now the RCMP will be holding a press conference to announce that a major terrorist plot has just been thwarted by arrests in Toronto and Montreal following an operation involving the RCMP, CSIS, provincial police forces, the FBI and the US Homland Security Agency.
Just musing on what headline the BBC could run. Maybe “Islamophobia breaks out in the RCMP as dusky looking innocent men have their human rights violated”
Or will they try and pin it all on the Amish or Hutterite communities that abound here and whose malign influence radicalised the poor, misunderstood plotters.
So America is looking at a religion it does not understand, says Mardell. Fortunatly Obama does.
This is a mess. Generalizations, smearing millions of people not on the Left with the extreme brush in exactly the way he says liberals say we shouldn’t do with “millions of peaceful followers of a religion and a violent fringe”. “The strong hand of al-Qaeda”? Please.
And I wish Mardell would stop referring to opponents of the President’s policies as “His enemies”. That’s partisan language, not helpful.
But my favorite part:
I, and I am sure other BBC colleagues, have received quite a lot of messages accusing us of, from one side, wilfully ignoring the role of radical Islam in this attack and, from the other side, saying we are fanning the flames of intolerance.
They know. This may or may not be the beginning of an honest debate, but this from Mardell is classic “complaints from both sides” fare, usually taken as proof that they get it about right.
What he left out are the complaints that he and his colleagues openly speculate every single time that the killer is probably some sort of Right-winger, while at the same time trying find ways to show that the killer is not Mohammedan, and when it turns out he is (except in the case of the Norwegian nutbag), religious belief has no bearing on their actions. They did it with Toulouse, they did it with Breivik, they did it with Ft Hood, and they did it with Boston. It’s not really willfully ignoring it so much as it is willfully denying it, as the BBC’s US President editor himself did for the Ft. Hood murderer.
They should deal with that first before addressing whether or not they subsequently tend to play down the Islamist connection.
And Mardell wasn’t so concerned about “how America looks” when it summarily dealt with a US citizen without due process of law back when the President ordered the killing of al-Awlaki. In fact, I’m struggling to find any mention of that from him at all on the website, even in other pieces where he expresses concern over drone warfare.
At least he isn’t pushing the same false Narrative about Miranda Rights, although this hand-wringing over hard-won rights is nearly the same thing.
And how can Mardell claim that the concept of some kind of global war on terror is “alien” to the President’s world view when He keeps expanding His drone war? When he was expressing concern over the President’s drone war doctrine last year, what did he imagine that was about?
It does distract from His domestic agenda, oh, yes. That’s the only thing He’s ever cared about anyway, and Mardell knows it.
Canada, a country which BBC-NUJ barely reports, (perhaps because British white people have many relatives and friends there). is the subject of this self-censored BBC-NUJ report this evening:-
“Canada ‘thwarts major terror plot'”
“Major jihad terror plot thwarted in Canada.”
“The Canadian authorities are briefing Muslim leaders: once again we see the solicitousness of Western non-Muslim officials toward Muslims — a solicitousness that is never, ever reciprocated.
“How many of these jihad mass murder plots do there have to be before authorities stop denying that the Islamic jihad against the West exists, and start taking real steps to defend us from it?”
Watching the press conference now.
Was an AQ plot to blow up an Amtrac train travelling between the US and Toronto.
BBC confused as the terrorists have Arabic sounding names and they were expecting some extremist Christian sect such as the Hutterites to be behind the plot
Those arrested are Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser.
BBC confused as they cannot find anyone in the Amish community with such names.
It gets better. Both are foreign nationals with links to Iran and with support from AQ. Planning to derail train close to Toronto.
Those pesky Iranian mormons get everywhere.
Whose side is INBBC on?:-
a.) Islamic Republic of Iran,
I thought this was all going to end once the President ended Bush’s illegal wars. What gives, BBC?
Never mind, George. According to Mardell, the concept goes against the President’s world view. If we start talking about it, He will have lost.
If this incident isn’t officially, directly connected to the Boston bombing, then there’s nothing to see here, move along. Even if the authorities in Canada are gathering leaders from the Mohammedan community to discuss it. Hey, maybe they’re just reassuring the imams that those nasty white supremacists can’t hurt them now.
The FBI actually has it right, while the BBC has it wrong.
INBBC will be clamouring to interview the two Muslim victims who were planning the train plot in Canada.
“‘Canada: Islamic jihad terrorists planned to blow up U.S.-Canada rail line — “It was meant to be spectacular and there would have been a lot of carnage.'”
“These noble warriors of Islam hoped to sow even more death and destruction than they have already sown. “Meanwhile, Muslim communities in the U.S. and Canada say they condemn such jihad activities, yet have nary a single program to teach against this understanding of Islam that they ostensibly reject and abhor. Authorities don’t seem to mind, and after jihad attacks or jihad plots like this one rush to prevent a never-appearing ‘backlash’ rather than call these Muslim communities to account. And so we will see many more such jihad plots.”
Staying on the theme of Muslims; Breakfast this morning was in sombre and outrage mode as they screened Burmese footage of the followers of religion of peace getting a pasting from locals.
Oh the horror, Burmese Buddhists (no problem naming the religion there then or value judgments) beating up peace loving Muslims and burning their village and, oh shock horror Burmese Police just standing around watching and not doing anything to protect the peace loving followers.
Background; apparently there was trouble involving a Muslim watch maker, that turned violent. Now if my knowledge of the followers of peace is correct, the locals have just had enough of being swindled and are letting the local Muslims know they have had enough and the Police know it.
By setting fire to them?
Donald dear man you clearly don’t follow the bias. In this instance I have highlighted how the BBC have tagged on to an incident perped against Muslims. The BBC highlight Muslims and then against all their principles make an instant judgement call against Buddhists.
You have lit my touch paper mate. Lets run through some recent events which the BBC have been ever so careful to avoid involving the religion of peace.
Lets start in the UK; gangs of muslim men of Pakistani origin engaged in systemic paedophilia and child trafficking. There is a case in Oxford of which we have heard nothing. No judgement or investigation of the effect of religious beliefs in these cases.
Yesterday; St Stephen Lawrence anniversary; BBC tag line; Met Police still institutionally racist because more blacks are being stopped and searched. Well a quick Google search reveals that in our prison population 22% are of Afro/Caribbean extraction. However they only constitute 5% of the population. Ergo blacks are 4 times more likely to be involved in crime than any other race group. BBC; no critical reference just a rush to judgement of the Police.
Since Burma is a third World country and not the UK, things tend to be a bit less civilised. Lets examine some recent events in other 3rd World countries of which you have heard nothing because they involve Islam. Nigeria; for some years there has been systematic murder and destruction of Christians and their churches. Has occurred throughout the region and exploded into view in Mali with revelations of the extent of Islamic terrorism. BBC; nothing.
Eygpt; systematic murder and brutality against Christian Copts. BBC nothing.
Pakistan; Systematic attacks against Christians. BBC; nothing.
South Africa; (the latest most heinous crime of the left; racially motivated hate crime). There are cases running into 5 figures of Black criminals carrying out armed robberies on White families. But they are not ordinary robberies. No these are really nasty. These usually involve tying up the whole family and then gang raping the women in front of the family including husbands and young children. Then not content with that the victims are then tortured using electric irons and boiling water. If they are in a really bad mood they shoot them.
I posted a video link last year of a Black community outside Cape Town that detained 3 black petty criminals that had stolen a generator. They were put on trial immediately, found guilty, stripped, beaten with sticks and then in the South African ANC tradition were covered in car tyres filled with petrol and set on fire. All 3 died. This all videoed and available on the Internet. BBC nothing. Why because it would put St Nelson in a bad light.
Want more? I’ll provide plenty; I haven’t mentioned Isreal yet. With the BBC its all about what they want you to see and hiding all the inconvenient stuff that screws their narrative of the World.
‘Now if my knowledge of the followers of peace is correct, the locals have just had enough of being swindled and are letting the local Muslims know they have had enough and the Police know it.’
By setting fire to them?
Buddhist murders in Burma – highlighted by the BBC.
100 times more atrocities by Muslims against Buddhists, Hindus and Christians in nearby Thailand, Indonesia and the Philipines- no coverage by the BBC.
-May as well bypass INBBC’s self-censoring ‘reporting’ on this, and go straight to ‘Jihadwatch’ for updates:-
“Muslim arrested in Canada train jihad plot a PhD candidate; Linkedin page features jihad flag”
“A PhD student? But…but…we’re always told that Muslims who misunderstand Islam enough to think it exhorts to violence are all poor and uneducated!”
“Canadian security forces arrest two and thwart terrorist plot to derail New York to Toronto trains with the help of al-Qaeda leaders in IRAN”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313125/Canada-terror-plot-Authorities-thwart-al-Qaeda-backed-attack-trains-Toronto.html#ixzz2RE9sdVhT
Hand wringing from the BBC
“Boston bombings: Muslim Americans await bomber’s ID”
Just love this bit:
“The day after the Boston Marathon bombings, Yusef was treated differently.
The 10-year-old went to his Ohio school and was surprised by a question from a classmate, according to his family. While the class was discussing the explosions, the classmate is said to have asked: “Does that mean Yusef is going to blow up the school?”
A confused Yusef, whose family asked that his last name not be used, says he repeated the classmate’s question. But the teacher apparently only heard Yusef’s end of the exchange, a misunderstanding that resulted in detention and having his locker searched.”
Oh really, poor Yusef. My bet is that the BBC have deliberately misrepresented what Yusef actually replied.
“Tucson shootings: Tea Party activists await shooter’s ID”
“Toulouse shootings: Le Pen supporters await shooter’s ID”
“Boston bombings: Gun rights supporters await shooter’s ID”
“Boston bombings: Federalism and States’ Rights supporters await shooter’s ID”
Yeah, me neither.
Perish the thought that a ten-year-old, punished for misbehaving, might deny he did it and come up with a story to cover up.
The hard truth is that this is just a fact of life that Muslims in the US and elsewhere will have to live with. Don’t like it? Then speak up more and start putting pressure on other Muslims to integrate or move somewhere more to their liking.
Has anyone here ever heard the bBC report the verses from the Qur’an which support the Jihadists views and guides their actions?
We are always fed the line that they have been ‘radicalised’ and that the majority don’t support their jihad. What they don’t tell people is that most Muslims haven’t got a clue what the Qur’an says because they learn it in the original Arabic which is a dead language. They only know what the Iman tells them which to be honest is a pretty dangerous state of affairs.
It’s a good job they don’t understand it though or we’d have even more problems than we do already with them.
What a silly question ! Of course the BBC will NEVER EVER tell its captive audience what the Koran teaches some 2 to 3 million people in Britain.
And I doubt if nore than a handful of BBC news staff know that are the frequent murderous instructions of the Koran and the hadith.
The people at the BBC who do know what the Koran and the Hadith preaches are Muslims. Scores of them, always someone there to spike any story that criticisews Islam, or to amend any story that puts their death cult in a bad light.
I am currently on holiday in Greece. Most of the time I have seen only Greek channels, which I cannot understand. But last week one French channel in its report used the word Islam a dozen times in 5 minutes. From what I read here at BiasedBBC, the word Islam is still virtually forbidden at the BBC.
BBC struggling to find a motive behind the Boston bombing? I’d have thought it was obvious….
Head in sand comes to mind!
Willful blindness is more serious than head in sand. This is the biggest funded national news broadcaster, who opines the bombers motives “remain unclear”.
Strange, they seem pretty clear to everyone else. The motives of the BBC on the other hand are crystal clear. Can’t bring themselves to say M-word or J-word or I-word.
“Robert Spencer and Michael Coren on the Boston jihad bombings and media denial”
“Toronto jihad plot: would-be mass murderers were ‘religious men.’
“Again and again we see that Islamic jihad terrorists are devout Muslims. Yet to explore the implications of this and try to formulate ways to resist it would be ‘Islamophobic.’ ‘Toronto terror plot: Suspects were religious men, according to colleagues, neighbours,’ by Jennifer Pagliaro and Allan Woods for the Toronto Star”
It’s now Tuesday, and INBBC is STILL in denial on Boston jihad!:-
“Boston Marathon bombing: Mystery remains over motive”
A reprise for INBBC:-
“Islam’s World War Came to Boston”
By Daniel Greenfield.
Part of the Tiny Minority™.
More denial. A lone wolf, how did he become estranged? BBC finding it hard to understand what motivated the Boston bomber. Maybe the answer is obvious. Why does a mad dog bite? Because it is a mad dog.
The BBC is deeply disturbing.
Tuesday morning: Today programme. In the news – Boston Islamic Jihadist bombing – 4 dead, scores injured. Also, arrests in Islamic Jihadist plot to derail a Toronto – New York train; hundreds of potential casualties.
In the first case we hear plaintively that the only word the injured teenager was able to muster was “no” when asked “Can you afford a lawyer” followed immediately by us being told that he could face the death penalty [poor teenage bomber; he’s going to be put to death after a show trial with no legal representation!]
In the second case, we’re told that it’s something to do with Al Qaeda, but that police acted after a tip-off by a Muslim Imam.
Nothing about the perpetrators in each case being Muslim nothing about the probable motivation being Islamic Jihad. Indeed, the only mention of the word “Muslim” in relation to both case was a positive one – that a Muslim Imam (is there any other kind??) provided a tip-off.
Later, we hear that some architect has won a business award. She’s a Muslim, doncha know? In fact, she’s so definitely a Muslim that the word is used twice in quick succession. Again, the use of the word “Muslim” is used strictly in a positive fashion.
On TV news, we hear and see Muslims as victims in Burma, complete with subtitled translations of what the “Buddhists” are saying and heart-rending freeze frame images “too graphic to show” and of wide-eyed Muslim children as poor little minority victims. And yet we have never, to my recollection seen the same footage showing Muslims as aggressors, despite there being innumerable examples from all over the world.
Numerous gangs of child molesters are only ever “men” or sometimes “Asian”, but never “Muslim” even though there are compelling reasons as to why it would be relevant to report the religious connection (Mohammed’s favourite wife being a lot less than a teenager when he popped her cherry).
What we have here is a deliberate and sustained effort to associate “Muslim” only with positive things, or portray them as victims, and to dissociate the word from terrorism or anything else bad. Instead, in the case of the Canadian plot, the only reference is to “Al Qaeda”, and in the case of the Boston bombers, well, it’s a complete mystery; nobody has any idea.
It strikes me as similar to the way in which National Socialism/Nazism (and the BNP today) was dissociated from the left, even though it arose out of the left (or is of the left in the case of the BNP). Rather than taint the left, it was rebranded “far right” and used actually to damage the right by association. We can see this continuing in, for example, the recent Panorama on North Korea with its pathetically weak attempt to rebrand North Korea as a Nazi, (far-right) state in order to dissociate it from the left.
So returning to Islamic terrorism, we are invited to conclude that this has nothing to do with Islam or Muslims. “Muslim” and “Islam” are reserved primarily for positivity or for engendering sympathy. That it is a peculiar corruption of Islam called “Al Qaeda” which is not Islam at all, just as Nazism was a corruption of the left and therefore not of the left at all. How long before Al Qaeda morph into “far right extremists”?
What we are seeing here is not news reporting. It is positively contriving and managing a narrative; it is story telling, indeed story-CREATING. It is denial of the truth. It is propaganda.
“Again, the use of the word “Muslim” is used strictly in a positive fashion.”
Funny that! A few years back the BBC were caught out doing much the same thing with the NHS.
When there was negative coverage of the NHS then film footage would show white people.
When it was a positive story then the film footage would show black people.
Some things never change for the BBC
So there were attacks in Burma on ‘Asian’ men by ‘Asian’ men BBC?
Now, Tripoli jihad bombing:-
“Francois Hollande: Libya bomb targets us all”
Mardell won’t appreciate this excellent critique of his Obamessiah’s dhimmi foreign policy:-
“When America Is Weak, Its Enemies Attack”
By Daniel Greenfield.
Now, SPAIN –
“Spain holds two North African ‘al-Qaeda suspects'”
– and so the global Islamic jihad goes on; BUT, Beeboids implore, irrationally: ‘don’t draw any conclusions about the violent nature of Islamic motivation.’
“Boston jihad bomber:
My brother planned attack because he wanted to defend Islam.”
“And he decided that committing mass murder at a crowded sporting event was just the way to do it. “Meanwhile, many of the bombers’ fellow Muslims and their Leftist allies are busy defending Islam by denying that it had any significant role to play in the bombings, and continuing to demonize and marginalize those who tell the truth about this threat.”
For Mardell to investigate?:-
“Saudi Connection to Boston Bombing?”
By Matthew Vadum.
“NATIONAL SECURITY NIGHTMARE:
SAUDI STUDENT ENROLLMENTS SKYROCKET FROM 11,116 IN 2006 TO 71,026 LAST YEAR”