When you know the history of Bosnia and the context of events in Srebrenica you get to understand that the BBC is hiding an important truth about this conflict….the result of that deceit and that false narrative will be more radicalisation of Muslim communities and terrorism as it perpetuates a myth of Muslims persecuted and ‘under siege’.  The BBC takes the easy, non-controversial line that also suits its own narrative.

Fraser Nelson in the Spectator criticises the BBC’s failure to challenge the ‘consensus’ and air controversial subjects or opinions…

Benefits St was indeed a landmark in the debate; she’s right about that. But wrong to suggest that it somehow backfired on Ch4. Its documentaries are distinguished by picking controversial topics that the BBC shies away from: Ch4 lives up to its remit of challenging, rather than reinforcing, the consensus….[the BBC] lives in fear of the inevitable complaints. Ch4 has no such fear.

 

In 1995 around 8000 Bosnian Muslims were killed in a massacre by Bosnian Serb forces.

This has become a ‘genocide’, a ‘Holocaust’…..a deadly narrative pushed by Muslims and picked up by the BBC and promoted with a relentless and deadly determination….a narrative that serves to radicalise Muslims.

There is another narrative….’the crimes were quite “extraordinary in the region committed by those Muslim soldiers made the Serbs’ desire for revenge inevitable…… the Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric, “engaged in attacks during Orthodox (Christian) holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants.  He stated… “One can’t be bothered with prisoners” .

The narrative of innocent Muslims being victims of murderous non-Muslim Serbs is incredibly important to both Muslim activists and the BBC.  Muslims use a narrative of Muslims being persecuted and murdered as a recruiting tool for the Jihadists and as a stick to beat the West with to induce feelings of guilt and Liberal angst…this serves two purposes, firstly to give Muslims political influence and secondly to try to close down debate about the incompatibility of Islam with a Western society by claiming that any such talk will lead to another ‘Srebrenica’ which gives a free ride, cover, to Islamist who work to Islamise Europe.  The BBC is fully on board with that second narrative but also knows that it is a recruiting tool for the Jihadis and yet the BBC made the decision to carry on pushing the narrative knowing the consequences…as I’ve said before the BBC is prepared to see ‘collateral damage’ on the streets, and beachs, of Europe and beyond, if it means that Muslim sensibilities aren’t upset in any way by a good dose of reality….

The BBC has decided that a bit of ‘collateral damage’ is acceptable…the BBC has decided that in order to maintain that fiction about Islam it is willing to sacrifice, not just that very precious liberal, free, democratic society that is increasingly the victim of creeping Islamisation, but it is also prepared to see dead bodies, non-Muslim ones, in the streets as the necessary murders that are the price to be paid for ‘peace’.

Here is the BBC’s latest bit of, what can only be described as Islamist propaganda, warning us of a new Holocaust, Muslims beng the new Jews of Europe, allegedly, if we don’t keep quiet and don’t stop raising awkward truths about Islam and its effects upon a secular, democratic, liberal Western society……

A Deadly Warning: Srebrenica Revisited

Journalist Myriam François-Cerrah travels to Bosnia to mark the 20th anniversary of one of the worst atrocities in Europe since World War II.

In July 1995, in the midst of war in the former Yugoslavia, around 8,000 Muslim men and teenage boys were massacred at Srebrenica.

She tells us ‘how easily prejudice can take hold and why this story has important lessons for us all in multicultural Britain today.’

Firstly to describe Myriam François-Cerrah merely as a ‘journalist’ is the BBC hiding an important fact…she is a fanatical convert to Islam who is a ‘professional Muslim’ making a living campaigning and agitating for Muslim influence.  To allow her to front this programme on such a sensitive and highly politicised subject is unforgiveable….why not let David Irvine do a documentary on the real Holocaust?  He wants to deny it ever happened whilst François-Cerrah wants you to believe in one for highly problematic reasons.

Second..how about that title, A Deadly Warning: Srebrenica Revisited?   Fairly obvious what that is intended to say…and if you weren’t sure here’s that end sentence again….‘how easily prejudice can take hold and why this story has important lessons for us all in multicultural Britain today.’

The BBC is pushing the dangerous Jihadist line…here’s the Islamist IHRC peddling the same propaganda that Muslims are persecuted and threatened with ‘future atrocities’….

It’s been 20 years, with paltry recognition meanwhile of something that should be memorialised, at the very least, as a cautionary reminder. A reminder that Europe has not learned from the Holocaust. A reminder that the idea of Europe is created by the idea of unity against a heathen Muslim and Jewish ‘other’, and that it does – it must – repeat its cycle of violence periodically to cleanse its soil of the ‘undesirable’.

By all means remember and respect Srebrenica’s dead in Westminster Abbey, the Vatican and wherever else will acknowledge their names. But understand that this is neither enough, nor good enough, because Europe and its minions repeat – in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, in DRC, Pakistan and well beyond. Not to understand that fails to respect the dead. It simply keeps that ‘potential for future atrocities’ alive.

Ironically the BBC is right in a way about that ‘Warning from History’ (Curious how the warnings are all about the Right and not the Left which has killed millions upon millions with its ideology)… it’s not though the warning that they intend.

What lessons can we take from the history of Bosnia?

That a small group of fanatics, prepared to use terror and murder to further their aims to impose a regime upon a reluctant populace is a danger we must all watch out for.

The title of this post is ‘Srebrenica-A Deadly Myth’.  Certainly 8000 or so men were killed at Srebrenica but does the BBC narrative tell the real story or the story that they and the Islamists want you to hear?

For instance…genocide?  The people killed were all men, supposedly those considered to be of fighting age…the women and children were not killed in this massacre.  So mass murder not genocide….not an attempt to wipe out a race or ethnic group.

Muslim?

The BBC et al refer to the murdered men as ‘Muslim’ but they were Bosnian Muslims…the BBC refers to their killers as Bosnian Serbs so why use the term ‘Muslims’?

They weren’t killed because they were ‘Muslim’ but because they weren’t Serbian…an important distinction, one to hide if you have a narrative to spin of Muslims being persecuted for their religion.  Here’s one quote that illustrates this…

Throughout the afternoon of 12 July 1995, Serb soldiers mingled in the crowd . One witness recalled hearing the soldiers cursing the Bosnian Muslims and telling them to leave; that they would be slaughtered; that this was a Serb country

A Serb country not a Christian country.  If the ‘Muslims’ had been Methodists or Protestant Christians their fate would likely have been the same.

The BBC conveniently forgets history.

The Balkans has always been a boiling pot…

It was here that the First World War began with a Bosnian Serb terrorist, Gavrilo Princip, murdering the Austro-Hungarian ArchDuke Ferdinand.

Why? Here’s a quote from the Telegraph in 1914 that reports his actual words and reasoning:

‘Although I was born in Bosnia, the Big Servian idea has always existed in me since my earliest childhood.  I considered it unjust that a foreign power should be established in Bosnia, where the Serbs, on account of their numbers and commercial economic position, should take part ingovernment.  It pained me that Austria should oppress us, for she is the old and eternal enemy of Servia.  I also knew, though, that the first place amongst those who were hated by Serbs was occupied by the Archduke, Franz Ferdinand’

I knew that he is the sworn enemy of all Servian aspirations, and that he had sworn to destroy Servia and the Servian dynasty. I hope that the fatal revolver shots will open the way to the Servian army to march here to occupy Bosnia, for this land is destined by its inclinations and traditions to belong to Big Servia.’

That makes it quite clear the context for Serbian aggression against anyone it considers not Serbian and in the way of Serbian rule over Bosnia….nothing to do with religion or a particular hatred of Muslims.  The old and eternal enemy were the ‘Austrians’.  It also makes it quite clear how the Serbs view Bosnia as part of their territory.

Do the Austrians now also have to be aware of this  ‘warning from history’?

Here is the modern version of the same reasoning…

For the Bosnian Serbs, control of this region was necessary in order to achieve their minimum goal of forming a political entity in Bosnia. As stated by General Radovan Radinovic, the Defence military expert:

Serbs intended to preserve Bosnia and Herzegovina as a component part of the former state. That was indeed their fundamental, long-term, and political objective in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why? I don’t think it is very difficult to understand that. They wanted to live in the same state with other Serbs, and the only state that could guarantee that was the former Yugoslavia.

And what was the reality of Srebrenica? 

Were the Bosnian Muslims the innocent victims of a genocide?

Srebrenica was a Bosnian Muslim military base that was supposed to be demilitarised but wasn’t….‘a consistent refusal by the Bosnian Muslims to abide by the agreement to demilitarise the “safe area”.

What was the catalyst for the massacre?  The Bosnian Muslims had just massacred thousands of Orthodox Christians in surrounding villages…the BBC doesn’t seem too interested in that fact.

Here is a Sky report from the time that illustrates some of what was happening……

A few inconvenient facts for the BBC and the Islamist narrative of innocent Muslims….

A few other indisputable facts should not be overlooked:

Shortly before the Bosnian Serb attack on Srebrenica, the Muslim troops stationed in that enclave carried out murderous attacks on nearby Serb villages. These attacks were certain to incite Serb commanders to retaliate against the Srebrenica garrison.

Meanwhile, the Muslim high command in Sarajevo ordered the Srebrenica commanders, Oric and his lieutenants, to withdraw from Srebrenica, leaving thousands of his soldiers without commanders, without orders, and in total confusion when the foreseeable Serb attack occurred. Surviving Srebrenica Muslim officials have bitterly accused the Izetbegovic government of deliberately sacrificing them to the interests of his State.

And…

Here is the report of French General Philippe Morillon, the UNPROFOR commander who first called international attention to the Srebrenica enclave, he is adamant that the crimes were quite “extraordinary in the region committed by those Muslim soldiers made the Serbs’ desire for revenge inevitable. He testified at The Hague Tribunal on February 12, 2004, that the Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric, “engaged in attacks during Orthodox (Christian) holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region.”

Morillon also recounts how “the Serbs took me to a village to show me the evacuation of the bodies of the inhabitants that had been thrown into a hole, a village close to Bratunac. And this made me understand the degree to which this infernal situation of blood and vengeance […] led to a situation when I personally feared that the worst would happen if the Serbs of Bosnia managed to enter the enclaves and Srebrenica…I feared that the Serbs, the local Serbs, the Serbs of Bratunac, these militiamen, they wanted to take their revenge for everything that they attributed to Naser Oric. It wasn’t just Naser Oric that they wanted to revenge, take their revenge on; they wanted to revenge their dead on Orthodox Christmas.”

The Bosnian Muslim commander, Naser Oric, stated that “One can’t be bothered with prisoners” .

There is the suggestion that the Bosnian Muslim President wanted a massacre in Srebrenica…from the very left wing ‘Counter Punch’…

From the the U.N. Secretary General’s 1999 Report on Srebrenica, it emerges that the idea of a “Srebrenica massacre” was already in the air at a September 1993 meeting in Sarajevo between Bosnian Muslim president Alija Izetbegovic and members of his Muslim party from Srebrenica.

Some surviving members of the Srebrenica delegation have stated that President Izetbegovic also told them he had learned that a NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina was possible, but could only occur if the Serbs were to break into Srebrenica, killing at least 5,000 of its people.”

Izetbegovic later denied this, but he is outnumbered by witnesses. It is clear that Izetbegovic’s constant strategy was to portray his Muslim side in the bloody civil war as pure helpless victims, in order to bring U.S. military power in on his side. On his death bed, he readily admitted as much to his ardent admirer Bernard Kouchner, in the presence of U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke.

It goes on…

Like the Bosnian Serbs, the Muslims also herded their adversaries into “horrible” camps at the start of the civil war, on the way to expulsion. Unlike the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims enjoyed the services of high-powered U.S. public relations experts in the Washington-based Ruder Finn agency who knew how to “spin” the Bosnian conflict in order to equate the Serbs with the Nazis-the quickest and easiest way to win public opinion over to the Muslim side. The news media and political figures were showered with press releases and other materials exaggerating Serb atrocities, whereas Muslim atrocities (such as the decapitations of Serb prisoners, fully documented) remained confidential. To the public, this was a one-sided conflict between a Serbian “fascist aggressor” and innocent victims, all unarmed civilians.

And…David Owen knew of this other narrative….

The general public did not know that Srebrenica, described as a “safe area”, was not in fact simply a haven for refugees, but also a Muslim military base. The general public did not know what Lord Owen knew and recounted in his important 1995 book, Balkan Odyssey (p.143), namely that in April 1993, Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was extremely anxious to prevent Bosnian Serb forces from overrunning Srebrenica. “On 16 April I spoke on the telephone to President Milosevic about my anxiety that, despite repeated assurances from Dr. Karadzic that he had no intention of taking Srebrenica, the Bosnian Serb army was now proceeding to do just that. The pocket was greatly reduced in size. I had rarely heard Milosevic so exasperated, but also so worried: he feared that if the Bosnian Serb troops entered Srebrenica there would be a bloodbath because of the tremendous bad blood that existed between the two armies. The Bosnian Serbs held the young Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric, responsible for a massacre near Bratunac in December 1992 in which many Serb civilians had been killed. Milosevic believed it would be a great mistake for the Bosnian Serbs to take Srebrenica and promised to tell Karadzic so.”

So there we have an important context for explaining the Bosnian Serb actions and mindset….were they ‘anti-Muslim’?  No….just pro-Serb.  Certainly they wanted to clear the area of anyone not Serbian but that is not the same as being ‘anti-Muslim’.  Were the Bosnian Muslims innocent victims of murderous Bosnian Serbs whilst they themselves committed no such crimes? No, they were also the perpetrators of massacres and the running of ‘concentration camps’.  To ignore the crimes of the Bosnian Muslims whilst only reporting those of the Bosnian Serbs is to paint an utterly false picture of events and more importantly the motivations and reasoning behind them allowing Islamists, unhindered by the facts, to conjure up that politically useful myth of Muslim persecution.

The uncomfortable truth is that the Bosnian Muslim leadership wanted a massacre and they got it with 8000 unsuspecting ‘Shahids’ sacrificed for political ends….and now the same can be said for the BBC and the Islamists who know that they can use this event as a lever for political, cultural and religious influence.

Every cloud has a silver lining. Every dead body a currency.

Congratulations to Joe Root for being named ‘Man of the Match’ in the Ashes…have to say it here because you’d hardly know it if you relied on the BBC’s website which hasn’t got a single headline about his achievement.

The Telegraph says…

The Ashes 2015 day four report: England win one of their most surprising and flawless victories to take series lead

England 430 & 289 beat Australia 308 & 242 by 169 runs: Man-of-match Joe Root takes final catch as hosts thrash tourists in opening Test

It was not so much a pigeon that came home to roost as a pterodactyl. Brad Haddin had dropped Joe Root before he had scored on Wednesday morning, when England would have been close to capsizing at 43 for four. Instead, England won one of their most surprising and flawless victories, and Root was the Investec player of the match.

The Daily Mail…

England storm to memorable win over the Aussies in first Ashes Test as Root caps man of the match display with winning catch

The Independent…

Ashes 2015 live: Joe Root stars as England win the First Test by 169 runs to take 1-0 series lead over Australia

And again…

Ashes 2015: Joe Root embodies New England’s air of abandon

It had to be Joe Root…He had set up the victory with a first-innings century of cathartic abandon, and eased fourth day nerves by taking two wickets, moonlighting as a part time off-spinner. There could be no more appropriate man of a match.

England close to collapse until Root put some steel into them at the start of the match and provided the base for the victory….he ‘set up the victory’ with his first innings.

The BBC…not interested…or not much. Nowhere near as estatic as they were about Moeen Ali.

The only mention of Root being ‘Man of the Match’ in this BBC match report is a caption on a photograph….

Joe Root was named man of the match after scoring 193 runs and taking two wickets in the match

Not a single headline proclaiming Root’s brilliance on the cricket page even though he’s  run up some impressive stats as the BBC admitted …

Joe Root had the highest score for the eighth time in his 28 Test match career (29 %). Don Bradman is the only player in history with a higher percentage.

Have to ask why the BBC has such a different reaction to Root and Moeen Ali.

Wonder what Root would look like in a beard?  Might be more photogenic in the BBC’s eyes.

Did the BBC, and much of the media along with it, have a message and what was it ?  You, the Public, might have a bad opinion of Islam and lack trust in Muslims due to everything that’s going in in the world but look, here’s a Muslim, with a big beard, he’s playing for England and he’s doing well….you can love Muslims and trust them….ignore the hoax of the Trojan Horse and the bombs and Tower Hamlets and the pressure groups agitating for Islam to be accepted as a parallel system in the UK…ignore all that….a Muslim can play cricket for England…so what’s not to like about Islam!

   Sidney Bottocks ‏@arsegrape Feb 26    @anjemchoudary You need a positive role model for your life. Try Moeen Ali. Opening cricket batsman, devout Muslim and loves this country.

And if you think that that isn’t the message that the BBC wants to impart, or at least a major reason behind the highlighting of Moeen Ali you are mistaken or kidding yourself….

The Daily Mail admits that Ali is to be used as a role model for Islam….a ‘bridge across harmful cultural divides’.…

Actually, he’s representing England and himself – and that means he is also representing his faith and using his status as a bridge across some harmful cultural divides. I feel he is very much to be admired.

And there we were thinking it was all about the cricket….or as Moeen himself says..

His quest beyond cricket is to place what seems foreign, or even threatening to western eyes, in the mainstream. He wants to be the friendly face of that Taliban beard.

‘I know people aren’t sure about men who look like I do,’ he says. ‘People don’t see the beard as a bit of hair. I’ve been shouted at, called some horrible names, and when I first came to Worcester I noticed people crossing the road to avoid me. So, yes, there are a lot of bad Muslims giving us a bad name, but all I would say is that it isn’t just Muslims who need to change. There are a lot of ignorant people, too. 

There is enormous pressure on the Media to conform and to only show ‘good news’ stories about Muslims…just Google ‘The Media and Islam’ and you’ll get a torrent of articles about the ‘demonisation’ and ‘victimisation’ of Muslims….

The Guardian…

Study shows ‘demonisation’ of Muslims

A “torrent” of negative stories has been revealed by a study of the portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the media, according to a report published yesterday.

Research into one week’s news coverage showed that 91% of articles in national newspapers about Muslims were negative. The London mayor, Ken Livingstone, who commissioned the study, said the findings were a “damning indictment” of the media and urged editors and programme makers to review the way they portray Muslims.

The Huffington Post…

The Criminalisation of Islam in The British Media

British Muslims should challenge the government and the media without hesitation on its definition of “British values” and “extremism” – terms which have become political yardsticks to censor and criminalise established Islamic beliefs.

Moeen Ali is undoubtedly a good player but let’s keep the politics, and faith, out of sport as well as the BBC’s social engineering and the attempts to ‘maintain civil society and cohesion’ using Moeen Ali as the ‘role model’….or at least not make it so obvious and give the white boy just as much of a cheer  and recognition as the Muslim player.

Being an unbiased site about BBC bias we bring you the alternate claims to the substantiated ones we usually bring you ….

The God fearing IHRC organised a protest yesterday about the BBC’s coverage of the Israel/Palestinian conflict…amongst other concerns..

Palestine activists will highlight the BBC’s pro-Israel bias in an annual protest against the occupation of Jerusalem, which coincides with the first anniversary of the Gaza War.

Activists marched from the BBC’s Broadcasting House at Portland Place to the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square as part of Al Quds Day demonstrations, held annually on the last Friday of Ramadan.

The Islamic Human Rights Council (IHRC), which organized the protests, said the US Embassy was selected as a rallying point because of Washington’s “heinous support of Israel.”

Speaking to RT, IHRC Communications chief Nadia Rasheed said the BBC was chosen as a starting point of the march because of its “pro-Israeli” bias.

“We’re starting near the BBC in protest of what we deem to be the bias in their reporting of the situation in Palestine and their pretense of impartiality when in reality their coverage is pro-Israeli,” Rasheed said.

Here’s little Owen Jones from a similar protest last year...BBC reliable as ever in acting as Israel’s propaganda foghorn for Gaza attack

And yet more protests in August…Belfast demonstrators protest at BBC Gaza coverage

Tony Hall fends off the mad rush to buy BBC subscriptions

The BBC is thinking of introducing subscription for the over 75’s….though it’s voluntary and you can still watch the BBC if you don’t cough up regardless of your income.  However if you are a poor, bedraggled single mum with 18 kids, impoverished and made homeless by the Tories cruel welfare reforms, the BBC will still seek to have you banged up for non-payment….and blame the Tories for it.

BBC urges pensioners to voluntarily give up free licence fee

The BBC is to urge pensioners to voluntarily give up their free licence fee to save the corporation and protect their favourite programmes.

The BBC is to ask the over-75s to opt out of their entitlement to free licence fees, hinting that it will help secure the future of television or radio programmes.

A senior executive at the corporation said the elderly will be invited to pay at least £145.50 each year to the “cost of the BBC’s services” after it takes over responsibility for funding free licence fees in the years to come.

Curiously the cost of any largesse towards pensioners has suddenly shot up from £650 million…

Heath has now warned the cost of the over-75s television licence will amount to £725million per year carved out of the BBC’s budgets; substantially more than the £600m regularly quoted previously.

Another shot across the bows from the BBC in the propaganda war it fights so relentlessly on its own behalf using licence payer’s money to defend its entrenched privileges and over-dominant, ‘imperial’, position.

If they can have subscription for one group why not everyone?  I imagine most people would still buy it so what’s the problem….are the BBC not as confident in their own quality of programmes as they claim…..

The case for the BBC doesn’t rest on ideological arguments, nor on debates between economists. It rests on what we do.

We’re here to make great programmes and services. That’s why people like the BBC. That’s why they enjoy it. That’s why they trust it. That’s why they value it. That’s what they pay us to do.

.

Tony Hall….Put your confidence where our money is then…..test that assertion without threats of court action, fines or prison to encourage us to buy into your product.

The Tunisians are building an anti-terror wall, as are the Saudis…I wonder if they had Israeli advisors?

Nary a peep from the usual suspects about these apartheid walls….unlike for Israel’s ‘wall of shame’.

We looked at the BBC’s hypocrisy when it comes to Israel’s security barrier before…..they must ‘avoid the political connotations of ‘security fence’ (preferred by the Israeli government) or ‘apartheid wall’ (preferred by the Palestinians). ‘

Never mind that it is a ‘security fence’, and it is mostly a fence, and is there to stop Palestinians murdering Israelis in terrorist attacks….the BBC’s ‘impartiality’ and balance is in reality partiality.  As I say below...’.all very difficult if you have an agenda whilst trying to appear not to have.’   All ironic considering John Humphrys has said (H/T True Too on this site and Craig at Is the BBC biased?)…

My point is, if we shy away from words we feel might cause a bit of offence….if we try to find euphemisms then it’s a dangerous road to go down. We’re not exactly where Orwell was but we’re taking those tiny little baby steps towards that unhealthy state of affairs.

By using the term ‘barrier’, ‘separation barrier’ or ‘West Bank barrier’ the BBC hides the nature and source of the violent threats that made the wall necessary.  It hides the fact that Israel is under terrorist attack by an orgainsation that wishes to wipe it off the map, literally.

From Biased BBC last year….

Degrees Of Separation

Look familiar? That’s not Israel or the West Bank but Northern Ireland

What’s in a name?

Build a wall and it seems the most pressing problem is how to define what that wall is intended to do….what to name the construction…..all very difficult if you have an agenda whilst trying to appear not to have.

In Northern Ireland walls that keep the warring parties apart are ‘Peace Walls’…and they’re still being built….as this BBC report from 2013 reveals:

New ‘peace fence’ at St Matthew’s Church in east Belfast

and here explains the history of these ‘Peace walls’ as the BBC is happy to call them:

Peace walls were first erected in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s as a temporary measure to minimise violence between nationalist and unionist communities.

Four decades later many are still in place.

Belfast’s ‘peace walls’ treble after ceasefires

Funny that the BBC, so willing to recognise that the walls in NI are there to stop terrorism and violence, but can’t bring itself to admit the same motivations are what caused Israel to build its own ‘Peace Wall’.

The BBC’s advice to journalists on what to call the security barrier?

Barrier

BBC journalists should try to avoid using terminology favoured by one side or another in any dispute. 

The BBC uses the term ‘barrier’, ‘separation barrier’ or ‘West Bank barrier’ as an acceptable generic description to avoid the political connotations of ‘security fence’ (preferred by the Israeli government) or ‘apartheid wall’ (preferred by the Palestinians). 

The United Nations also uses the term ‘barrier’. It’s better to keep to this word unless you have sought the advice of the Middle East bureau.   

Of course, a reporter standing in front of a concrete section of the barrier might choose to say ‘this wall’ or use a more precise description in the light of what he or she is looking at.  

By using such non-descript terms the BBC is in fact using ‘terminology favoured by one side’…the Palestinian terrorist …because the bland, inoffensive, anodyne phrases strip the ‘Barrier’ of all meaning….and imposes another…the suggestion that this is about ‘separation’….feeding into the activists loaded ‘favoured terminology’ of  Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state.

This is a deliberate attempt by the BBC to play down Palestinian violence…just as it does with Palestinian rockets…invariably described as ‘homemade’ and ‘inaccurate’…the intention being to suggest they are essentially harmless and not a justification for Israeli retaliation.

Stripping away the real reason for the construction of the security barrier, to stop Palestinians bombing Israelis or shooting at them (hence the concrete sections), is a political intervention by the BBC on behalf of the Palestinians.

The BBC is hiding the fact that Israel has been under attack for over 60 years and is using language favourable to Palestinian terrorists.

(Remind me…why did the BBC spend £300,000 hiding the Balen report?  Does it say in effect ‘BBC News kills Jews‘?  Just which journalists and management are being protected?)

Perhaps the BBC should take note of what a Palestinian called the ‘Separation Barrier’….

Mohammed Assaf, winner of the Arab Idol says:

‘There  are many ways to make a difference in life, but my way is as an artist,” said Assaf, a graduate of Palestine University who has just become a UN youth ambassador. “I’ve always wanted to make my voice heard around the world, to sing about the occupation, about the security walls between communities, and about refugees. My first ambition is a cultural revolution through art. Palestinians don’t want war – they are tired of fighting.”

‘Security Wall’….So called because it provides security to Israelis from Palestinian terrorism.

Simple really…unless you have a political agenda and want to send a message.

Those perverters of religion, they’re everywhere….

A crucifix sculpted in the shape of a hammer and sickle presented to Pope Francis in Bolivia has caused a stir among Catholic commentators.

The Pope was given the item, combining Catholic and communist symbols, by left-wing Bolivian President Evo Morales.

One Catholic bishop suggested that Mr Morales had sought to “manipulate God”.

Does this mean that Morales isn’t a Christian for having ‘politicised’ Christianity, and what of Giles Fraser that turbulent priest?  Allegedly he has a copy of ‘Christianity for Dummies and Marxists’…proof that he has no idea of what Christianity really means.

Shameless Milne in the Guardian shows why religion, of all kinds, is an ally for the Left...Religion is now a potential ally of radical social change.

Of course possibly not quite so harmful when you get into bed with Giles Fraser but when you also take to your bosom the godly men and women of ISIS and its ilk such alliances take on a different hue and potential for danger….the Left should of course learn from Iran which is a goood illustration of what seemed like a good idea of  siding with your enemy’s enemy but which turned out not to be such a good idea.

‘Render unto Napoleon’

Talking of Giles Fraser and Marxism….he recently gave us his Thought for the Day and chose as his subject the Battle of Waterloo…or rather the missed opportunity in not allowing the anti-Establishment revolutionary ideas from France to land on our shores.  Curiously he tells us that the Church should not be the voice of the State, he worships the Prince of Peace and not the Duke of Wellington…but paradoxically that doesn’t seem to stop him praising Napoleon and championing his beliefs and ideas on what shape a State should take.

Fraser tells us Napoleon would have ‘Proclaimed a republic and the abolition of the nobility and the house of peers, and brought liberty, equality and sovereignty of the people’ to England.  Fraser suggests many Christians would applaud such beliefs.

Unfortunately Fraser wasn’t being strictly honest in telling us what Napoleon actually said…certainly he said those words but there was a lot more…

“What a ballad my life has been,” he once proclaimed, as he insisted that “the laws of morality and convention cannot be applied to me.”

“If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.”

And in relation to the invasion of England in particular he said…

I would have published a proclamation (which I would have had ready) declaring that we were only come as friends to the English nation, to render them free and to relieve them from an obnoxious and despotical Aristocracy, whose object was to keep them eternally at war in order to enrich themselves and their families at the expense of the blood of the people. Arrived at London I would have proclaimed a Republic , Liberty, Equality, Sovereignty of the people, abolished the Monarchical Government, the nobility and the House of Peers, the House of Commons I would have retained with a great reform, the property of the nobles I would have declared to be forfeited and to be divided amongst the people, amongst the partizans of the Revolution, a general equality and division of property. By these means I hope to gain a formidable party, to be joined by all the “canaglie” in such a great city as London, by all the idle and disaffected in the kingdom and that, perhaps, I might ultimately succeed.”

I would cautiously have avoided saying anything about annexing England to France, on the contrary, I would have declared that we came only as friends to expel a flagitious and tyrannical aristocracy and to restore the rights of the people. That when we had done that, we would depart as friends. The hope of a change for the better, of a division of property, would have operated wonderfully amongst the “Canaglie”, especially of London. The “Canaglie” of all nations are nearly alike. There are traitors to be found amongst all nations. I would have made rich promises and could have had a great effect to “Coglionare” them all.

I would have “coglionato” you with treaties and their other means.

‘Coglionato’?  ‘In O’Meara’s letter to Lowe of 5 June, 1817 (British Library, Ms Add. 20214 fol. 82v) it appears that ‘coglionare’ was translated by the British on Saint Helena as ‘to humbug’, or to trick or con.’

So Napoleon’s strategy was to promise the English whatever it took to get them, or at least as many traitors as possible, on his side and then do what ever he liked once in control.

‘Promise everything and deliver nothing’…a man of his word.

Hardly the ‘People’s’ champion celebrating equality, liberty and the sovereignty of the people as Fraser wants us to believe, just another lying ‘politician’ saying whatever it takes in order to con the people.

On the Today programme (08:33:30) a while back we also had a look at the legacy of Waterloo and they also seemed rather disappointed that Napoleon had lost…..though apparently the battle was a useful illustration of the benefits of a united Europe which scorns nationalism and borders…we ‘have a lot to learn from co-operation…and the consequences of the battle’ they told us.  Mishal Husain pressed her own point that suggested that Europe today was the united Europe that Napoleon dreamt of.  Another reason to celebrate the crushing of Napoleon….how much worse would things be now if he had won!

Husain says that the unintended consequences of the defeat was the rise of German nationalism.

Apparently the victory over the dictator Napoleon was not a victory for democracy and a fairer society but was one that led to Hitler’s rise and the evils of nationalism which is rather curious as the general belief is that it was the Napoleonic Code of laws that led to the unification of Germany and thence nationalism and ‘the rise of Hitler’…and Mussolini…..

Dieter Langewiesche described the code as a “revolutionary project” which spurred the development of bourgeois society in Germany by the extension of the right to own property and an acceleration towards the end of feudalism. Napoleon reorganised what had been the Holy Roman Empire, made up of more than a thousand entities, into a more streamlined forty-state Confederation of the Rhine; this provided the basis for the German Confederation and the unification of Germany in 1871.

The movement toward national unification in Italy was similarly precipitated by Napoleonic rule. These changes contributed to the development of nationalism and the nation state.

Good old BBC, rewriting history once again to promote the ‘European dream’…of the great dictator Napoleon.

Don’t know if anyone caught the BBC News on Radi0 4 at One but they managed to find a UK tourist in Tunisia who took exception to the Foreign Office advice to leave that country due to the “highly likely” nature of another terrorist attack. The gentlemen concerned said “It’s what you would expect from a Tory Government”. Now then, last time I checked, it was a Tunisian Islamist who massacred 30 of our fellow citizens of the beach in Sousse. Nothing whatsoever to do with OUR Government. Just how does the BBC hunt down these visceral Conservative haters even in places like Tunisia?

Mark Mardell must have dropped dead when he saw this piece by Nick Bryant…and if so will be steadily rolling in his grave at the blasphemies being uttered by Bryant….The decline of US power?

Its fairly standard stuff about Bush and his wars, Guantanamo and economic woes dragging the US’s reputation down and its influence in the world down with it.

However there is a long blast at Obama, the usual stuff about his lack of interest in foreign affairs and unwillingness to engage….but there is one thing of unique interest….

One of the reasons why the world has become so disorderly is because America is no longer so active in imposing order……Washington has lost its fear factor.

World leaders nowadays seem prepared to provoke the wrath of the White House, confident that it will never rain down on them.

It explains why the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, after unleashing chemical weapons against his people, continues to bombard them with barrel bombs.

Why Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea, and also offered a safe haven for the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Assad’s flouting of American warnings is especially noteworthy.

In killing so many civilians with chemical weapons, he flagrantly crossed the “red line” imposed by Obama, but escaped punishment.

The president was unwilling to carry through on an explicit threat, in what was the biggest foreign policy climbdown of his presidency and also one of the most significant in the past 50 years.

Even supporters of Barack Obama believe he made a fatal strategic mistake, because it demonstrated endless flexibility and a lack of American resolve.

Needless to say, despots around the world took note.

Powerful stuff and a ‘damning indictment’ as the phrase goes.

But there is something missing from the picture. No mention of the man who promised to tackle Assad but then backtracked on his promise and told his party to vote against taking any military action against Assad.  That man being Ed Miliband…the man who claimed it was a great victory and whom the Left has applauded for his cowardice….a cowardice that then spread to Obama who also backtracked on his determination to bomb Assad leaving him free to continue his murderous rampage.  Not tackling Assad also had the unfortunate side-effect of boosting ISIS as Assad released members of that group from his prisons and left them to their own devices as they became a proxy army for him attacking the other ‘Free Syria’ forces who were fighting Assad.

So Miliband’s betrayal has allowed Assad to continue his vicious war and led to the rebirth of ISIS…..Just think, he could have been our Prime Minister!  Obama has followed on and used Miliband’s betrayal as cover for his own reluctance to tackle Assad in any meaningful way.

And the result is….as said above by Nick Bryant…’a fatal strategic mistake of which, needless to say, despots around the world took note.’

The BBC always seems reluctant to mention Miliband’s role in the Syria vote….I wonder why?

Good that the BBC uses its own ‘news’ and analysis resources to once again promote its case for maintaining the licence fee and its privileged, pre-eminent position…

Free-to-air broadcasters around the world are finding it tougher to afford the spiralling costs of sports rights at a time of mounting competition and demand from pay TV. In the UK, the emergence of BT Sport as a true challenger to Sky has pushed up the value of rights.

Sport has become one of the few remaining ways of offering must-see content in today’s fragmented, multi-media environment, enabling broadcasters and advertisers to reach significant audiences. It is the ideal way for media companies to drive subscriptions towards other related services such as broadband and phone lines. The result is inflation. As recently as the 1970s, the BBC was able to pay just £5,000 for each rugby international it showed live. Those days have long gone.

Many worry about sport’s migration towards pay TV. They argue the country’s biggest sporting moments are cultural events, like a royal wedding or Last Night of the Proms, and should, by their very nature, be available to as many people as possible.

Sport, by this logic, ultimately belongs to us all. The concern is that taking sports away from free-to-air platforms invariably means smaller audiences, a lack of visibility and the removal of a crucial source of inspiration for young people who don’t happen to have parents who can afford pay TV.

The BBC has its supporters though…

It is instructive that in the wake of the Six Nations deal, Clive Efford MP, Labour’s shadow minister for sport, said: “In the face of significant cuts to the BBC’s budget this sort of partnership between broadcasters may be the only way that major sports events will be shown on free-to-air TV.”

The BBC wants more sport to be handed to it on a plate…

But as well as more collaborations between rival networks, another result of this will be a renewed debate around regulation, and the list of ‘crown-jewel’ events the government ensures must be shown on free-to-air television. Currently, only the Olympics and Paralympics, football’s World Cup, European Championship and FA Cup final, the Grand National, the Derby, Wimbledon singles finals, the rugby league Challenge Cup final and the Rugby World Cup final must be broadcast on free-to-air TV.

But at a time when terrestrial broadcasters are under unprecedented pressure over the cost of sports rights, some would now like the government to step in and help by having a longer list.

A clue as to what sticks in the BBC’s throat…..

For some, Australia provides a sound example. There, much to Rupert Murdoch’s annoyance, 1300 sports events – including Test cricket – appear on an ‘anti-siphoning list’, which must be offered first to free-to-air networks.

The government must do what the BBC wants…

New Sports Minister Tracey Crouch is working on a landmark new sports strategy for the UK, designed to tackle falling participation rates……perhaps Crouch should also look at the way sport is delivered to us, via a broadcasting environment that is changing before our very eyes.

And then what?  Fix it so that the BBC gets the ‘Crown Jewels’?

All that’s missing from this bit of special pleading is an explicit final plea for you, the Public, to contact your MP and push the BBC’s case for them…..I imagine though that is what is expected of you,that being the whole point of this ‘analysis’.

Judging by the headlines today I’d be pretty hacked off if I was Joe Root….the BBC is far from alone in pushing this line….you have to ask why so much is made of Moeen Ali’s contribution….

Ashes 2015: Moeen Ali gives England the upper hand in Cardiff

Apparently Moeen is the ‘main man’…. Pint-sized Ashes: Moeen the main man …….he scored 77 and took two wickets.

What of Root?  England were pretty much in free fall and it looked the usual story until Root, and Ballance, stabilised the team and set them back on the road  to respectability with Root scoring 134….almost double what Ali scored.  The BBC acknowledges that Root was actually there and scored some runs but that is the only mention in this match report….

In the bowling Ali took two wickets but cost 67 runs in 14 overs whilst Anderson, in 16 overs, cost only 36 runs with 6 maiden overs….so is the BBC’s assertion really true?…..’Moeen is England’s key man’

To paint Ali as the saviour of the England team seems somewhat disengenuous when his record, in comparison to his team mates, whilst good is not quite as inspiring as the media are portraying.

Can only think ‘pressure’ has been applied on editors by certain activists to show Muslims in a good light and the result is a higher profile for a Muslim player and the attempt to turn him into a role model…play cricket not Jihad.

Never mind his open support for Hamas and a ‘free Palestine’.…of course it’s only natural that he show concern for the outrages inflicted upon the world by the dastardly Jews/Israelis…such as this……

A good role model indeed.