The BBC encouraged the world to think that they had some stunning new information about the Boston Bombers that would utterly change your opinion of their motivations and beliefs.
The BBC told us in letters bold that they had discovered the bombers, or Tamerlan alone, were ‘subscribing’ to white supremacist, right wing literature….from which the BBC concluded they were not jihadists but angry young men attacking the government.
As we know that is not really the case…the material alluded to was in reality mainly left wing/Islamist conspiracy theory and anti-semitic literature.
We had news stories all day, stories that were sent around the world based upon the BBC’s highly misleading presentations, that the bombers were in all likelihood ‘white supremacist’ in some shape or form.
From the Daily Mail based on the BBC hype:
But watch the Panorama programme and where is that evidence? We get a few seconds of narration (19 mins in ) saying they subscribed to anti government and white supremacist material and a glimpse of a newspaper (without a title…DB says it is in fact an anti semitic left wing rag)…and that conclusion…that they are deeply troubled young men who latched onto Islam….but Andersson does not tell us that that comment actually came from another Muslim who was trying to distance the bombers from the religion (Andersson does mention it in her web article though)….they were not true jihadists.
But listen to the rest of the programme and it is clear they had extensive interests in Islamic radicalism….so why does the BBC completely ignore the overwhelming evidence of jihadist inclinations and opt for a conclusion based upon a tiny amount of evidence of what they imply is right wing literature..but isn’t?
Why is it when they mention that there may be a link between the bomber and the murder of three Jews the BBC fails to mention the fact that the murdered men were Jewish? Relevant or not when discussing Islamist jihadists? Andersson mentions the date of the killing Sept 11, 2011…no mention of the significance….the 10 year anniversary of 9/11….again possibly relevant to a jihadist.
We were told Tamerlan became angry and disillusioned with the US when he was refused citizenship…his ‘dreams crushed’…but no reason was given as to why he was refused….could it have been his radical, Islamic views? And he wasn’t just angry with the US but with Russia too….the Russians having warned the US that he was a potential threat….that is, an Islamic radical.
We are told his brother Jahar was warm and funny, intimidated by his older brother who ‘rammed hotheaded religion into him’…..despite the fact that even as he lay badly wounded in the boat Jahar wrote anti-American, pro -Islamic phrases on the side of that boat.
The BBC tells us that they were not your stereotypical jihadist bomber…really? They pretty much fit the pattern of those here in the UK. Aren’t they all just ‘misguided criminals’ as John Simpson called the 7/7 bombers?
The BBC tuts as it tell us the US public have already found them guilty….the BBC of course has pronounced them innocent…oh they might have done the deed but they were turned into angry young men by US foreign policy or the crushing of dreams.
However the parting comments lays to rest the BBC conclusion of ‘angry young men’…..Jahar, the younger, allegedly ‘intimidated’ brother, was, we are told by someone who knew him well, a ‘good, well balanced kid…he showed no ‘cracks.’
In other words he knew exactly what he was doing and fully participated in events willingly and with full knowledge of what he was doing and the reasons why. His calm actions in the days immediately after the bombing all play into that conclusion….and his final words written on the boat confirm that.
Hilary Andersson’s final words say far more than she intended as she spoke of America having to face up to a new threat…‘The Enemy Within’.
The BBC never changes:
Just whose side was John Simpson on?:
The first British response to IRA violence was the worst. The IRA was identified as an enemy which had to be destroyed.
In 1972, the British Army fired into the crowd at a big demonstration in the city of Derry, killing 14 innocent people.
There were undercover killings of IRA volunteers later, and a team of three IRA people were summarily executed when they were caught on an operation in Gibraltar.
All these things did was to convince many people in Northern Ireland that the British Government operated on the same low moral level as the IRA itself.
there is a chance,and i mean a small chance and it would be clutching at straws that these 2 nice young muslim lads was victims of a terrible mistake,heh there fitness trainer even said they was lovely lads who admired the american way of life,surely hilary andersson was thinking that herself when she made this programme,ok obama,admit the truth,you set these lads up and the true terrorists were some rednecks from the deep south who was part of some crazy right wing white militia,umm i wonder if i should apply for a job at the panorama team.
Simpson’s “innocent people” were throwing acid and nail bombs at the troops, egged on by a sub-machine gun carrying McGuinness. What were the soldiers meant to do – lay down and die? And it’s “Londonderry”, not Derry.
This, plus I’ll put good money on Anders Brevik never being referred to as a ‘volunteer’ (??????)
Both sides were at fault.
The paras were out of control. They were especially good at shooting people in the back. They managed to get five like that.
It was the greatest single act of IRA recruitment that anyone could have devised.
And it will be Derry again before too long, and 80% of the people who live there call it “Derry”.
“They were especially good at shooting people in the back.”
The paras should not have been sent there in the first place. Totally unsuitable. Unlike the low-life IRA, however, they do not have a reputation for cowardly attacks.
There was momentary mention of Tam having now been reckoned to have murdered three drug using acquaintances in 2011 (throats slit) which was news to me. Hilary did not dwell on this chilling detail.
More police incompetence to add to the Russian information being largely ignored?
As I understand it Tamerlan was refused citizenship because he had been convicted of assault against a previous girlfriend which made him ineligible i.e. he had a record. The younger brother was a US citizen I believe. Presumably because he didn’t have a record.
But its America’s fault of course. Probably for a different, badly researched reason.
The USA gets a lot of things right. Why do we Brits allow convicted felons to gain citizenship? The charge was for beating his girlfriend up – typical for a coward body-builder boxer to use a small girl as a punchbag.
He was turned down because he had previously been questioned by the FBI after the Russians alerted us to his associations with radical, violent Mohammedans in the Dagestan area during his visits to his country of birth. The BBC tried to convince you that innocent lambs are easily led to naughtiness by some unsavory types over there, which dovetails nicely with Hillary Andersson’s Narrative. There was different BBC article paraphrasing claims in another publication that Andersson’s Right-wing, white supremacist already held radical Islamic views, and the good Mohammedans of Dagestan actually tried to talk him out of jihad.
Whom to believe, then? Anyone but the BBC.
Is this INBBC ‘see-no-Islamic-jihadist’ political agenda on Boston murderers to be applied to those of Fort Hood, and of Woolwich?
‘There were undercover killings of IRA volunteers later, and a team of three IRA people were summarily executed when they were caught on an operation in Gibraltar’.
Yes, before they could plant their bomb which would have killed and maimed dozens of innocent people. A clear message at the time, along with the storming of the Iranian embassy, that terrorism wouldn’t be tolerated.
But note the Simpson’s use of words: ‘undercover’, IRA ‘people’, ‘summarily executed’ – whilst at the same time leaving out the inconvenient facts. He leaves little doubt as to who he thought the aggressors were.
Don’t forget though, this is the same John Simpson who liberated Kabul all by himself. According to him anyway. And it’s the same BBC who continually refer to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as gunmen or fighters, rather than terrorists. The operation on the rock was entirely justified, unlike the ‘summary executions of two soldiers in civvies shortly after. It was self defence. Simpson and the Beeb never mention those two poor souls.
So when is Obama going to declare ” They could have been my sons.”
“The BBC tells us that they were not your stereotypical jihadist”
I wonder whether the Beeb class the men going off to fight in the Syrian civil war as ‘White Supremacists’ instead of the Jihadists that they really are.
I am pro – Israel. Among the many websites I visit are pro – Palestinian sites. I am a conservative with a small c. I visit left wing/liberal websites. One has to read what the other side are thinking and saying. Know your enemy is a basic tenet of war.
This is the whole point of the BBC’s utterly sinister use of the word ‘subscribed’, of course they mean read a bit but that isn’t what they want the reader to understand. As Pounce so often says, BBC, the traitors in our midst.
Why was the senior Bomber Brother turned down for US citizenship? Because he was already under FBI scrutiny for his known ties to unsavory Mohammedan extremists in Dagestan. You know, the big red flag the Russians waved in our faces, which we then ignored.
If the BBC censored this key fact while suggesting that this citizenship denial is what turned him to mass murder, it’s a brazenly dishonest report. Putting effect before cause just to push a Narrative is pathetic. Craig’s analysis shows that Andersson’s was pushing the Narrative that the US was developing a home-grown terrorist problem because of the awful way we treat people like poor, nearly innocent Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Deliberately misleading the audience about when and why he was denied citizenship must have been necessary to support it.
I don’t remember the BBC suggesting that Breivik or the Tucson murderer were alienated, troubled young men who had merely latched on to Mark Steyn and Sarah Palin, respectively. No, in those cases the Beeboids rushed to judgment and blamed right-wing voices for directly inspiring mass murder. It turned out Breivik actually was a nationalist who hated Socialism, but the Beeboids were speculating long before any facts were known. Come to think of it, a couple Beeboids initially suspected the Boston bombing was a Right-wing act (Patriot’s Day, etc.). As they did for the Toulouse killer. Yet when it was already being reported that Maj. Hasan was shouting the magic words while murdering his co-workers, the disgusting Mark Mardell still insisted that there was “very little to suggest” any connection to radical Islam.
It’s an intellectual failure, plain and simple, and it seems to be – as these things always are – spread across the spectrum of the BBC. An institutional bias, occurring naturally. What next with this silliness?