The BBC narrative on events in the Middle East has always been that Britain, and actions Britain has taken over the last century, have been to blame for events today….this narrative takes on more urgency for the BBC as the refugees flee the Middle East and head for Europe…the BBC needs to pin the blame for the war in Syria on Britain in order to induce guilt about the plight of the refugees and make them our responsibility…after all we ‘carved up the Middle East’ in a secret agreement with the French, didn’t we? We’ve looked at this several times on this site, just two days ago the latest example, and the BBC’s remarkable ability to ignore the actual facts and make up their own account of history to suit their own agenda.
The Sunday Times by coincidence has published a similar correction to the BBC narrative, a narrative that serves only to recruit terrorists for ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups…..which is ironic really as the BBC is always telling us we need to change the narrative in order prevent the radicalisation of ‘young British Muslims’ as the BBC always likes to describe them. In fact only this Saturday we had the finest and most senior BBC journos giving us the benefit of their analysis of world events and the likely way they will unfold in 2016…they told us that this was a battle of ideas, that we need to battle the narrative that makes those ‘young British Muslims’ act out their religious duty for real. We also heard that launching a war against ISIS would only serve to make Muslims think that once again Muslims were the victims and would result in more recruits for ISIS. This of course is the favoured BBC narrative in its effort to stop military action….unfortunately it doesn’t make the slightest sense….though that didn’t stop Nicky Campbell in an interview with Michael Fallon(39 mins) telling us this would be seen as ‘yet another example of a war against Muslims’.
Firstly you cannot leave an apocalyptic religious cult intent on murdering their way across the world in power. Second why would ‘young British Muslims’ think attacking ISIS was an attack on Muslims? Isn’t another BBC narrative that ISIS is not ‘Islamic’ and has no relation to Islam, Jihaids are not ‘Muslims’ apparently….and no right thinking Muslim believes they are? If they are not ‘Muslims’ how can attacking them be attacking ‘Islam’? And anyway, if they are ‘Muslim’, and they are, why would it be wrong to attack them when they are quite clearly committing horrendous crimes across the world? Why would ‘young British Muslims’ get angry about such a group’s demise?
Back to the Sunday Times and the BBC’s anti-British narrative…..here’s what the Times said about that ‘infamous carving up of the Middle East’ narrative favoured by terrorists and the BBC….
ISIS proclaimed itself as the Islamic State caliphate with two propaganda videos, one of which was entitled ‘The End of Sykes-Picot’.….a gunman in the video said ‘This is the so-called border of Sykes-Picot. We don’t recognise it, and we will never recognise it……Inshallah we break other borders also but we start with this one Inshallah.’
The Sykes-Picot agreement is thus an integral part of ISIS’s philosophy of hatred and resentment…..‘feeding people’s own narratives of themselves as playthings of outsiders.’
However, ISIS’s Sykes-Picot narrative is a myth, as the historian Sean McMeekein has persuasively argued in his book, The Ottoman Endgame.
ISIS’s propaganda ‘bears little resemblance to the history on which it is ostensibly based. The partition of the Ottoman empire was not settled bilaterally by Britain and France in 1916 but rather at a multinational conference in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1923’. Neither Sykes nor Picot played a significant role at Lausanne where the dominant figure was Kemal Attaturk, the Turkish nationalist leader.
‘Even in 1916,’ McMeekin points out, ‘Sykes and Picot played second and third fiddle to Russian foreign minister Sergei Sazonov who was the real driving force.’
‘None of the most notorious post-Ottoman borders were drawn by Sykes and Picot…even the ones they did sketch out were jettisoned after the war.’
In short, the ISIS myth about the Sykes-Picot agreement might animate its followers profoundly, but historically it is simply bunk.
Simply bunk….the ISIS/BBC narrative, simply bunk. Dangerous bunk but bunk.
“why would ‘young British Muslims’ think attacking ISIS was an attack on Muslims?”
It’s not that difficult to understand dear boy. Bombimg “iSIS” from the air will inevitably lead to “collateral damage”. Innocent bystanders (men, women & children) will also be killed. and it doesn’t take too many dead babies for a conspiracy theory to take hold.
It’s akin to bombing the Catholic areas of Belfast in order to defeat the IRA and then being surprised that the IRA is more popular than it ever was before.
Bombs an’killin didn’t work last time; so what we need is more bombs an’killin. This will change everything. Except if it doesn’t go the way we want it to; in which case, it’s nothing to do with us.
http://bit.ly/1Pac2x5
“However, ISIS’s Sykes-Picot narrative is a myth”
Quelle surprise.
The Muzzies whole raison d’etre is based on myth.
Hilarious juvenile myth.
The Muzzies, however are not a myth, they are a nasty reality.
But an alien myth, whereas Islamic Al-Beeb are a home grown bunch of traitors.
I remember reading in the good old days when enemies were were dealt with, as, er, enemies.
Time for the good old days to return, with the good old solutions.
Zero? Is that your IQ, the validity of your “argument”, or the current number of positive responses received?
The Daily Mail has this
Sudanese migrant who walked 31 miles through the Channel Tunnel wins asylum and will be allowed to stay in UK
At the time of the interview in October it was said he could not speak English, nor could he read or write Arabic. Campaigners added that he was daunted by the paperwork needed to apply for asylum.
They also said Haroun felt isolated in his cell and did not understand why he was being treated as a criminal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3383862/Sudanese-migrant-walked-31-miles-Channel-Tunnel-wins-asylum-allowed-stay-UK.html#ixzz3wI7FIqpM
Well this Haroun is going to cost the taxpayer millions, as liberal activists game the legal system. It will go all the way to the European courts. Time – five years at the least. Cost – millions. In the meantime, Haroun, who by the way is illiterate in his mother tongue, will stay in the UK. Finally, he will be allowed in, and live happily ever after on Benefits, while getting his huge family to join him here – all on Benefits.
Yet I’m told that Haroun 40, and many like him, are in fact highly qualified scientists, engineers or OT specialists.
Perhaps Haroun , will win a gold in the new Olympic event of of train dodging. Perhaps he will even become a goodwill ambassador.
What would happen if I walked the other way ?
Would I get a council house and benefits or arrested and prosecuted ?
You’d be mugged (at the very least) half way by the next batch of gimmiegrants trying it on.
Zero has a great non-military plan for dealing with Islamic State.
Do enlighten us…..
“why would ‘young British Muslims’ think attacking ISIS was an attack on Muslims?”
Because ISIS is “Reformation” Islam. It sticks closely to the tenets of Islam, and the example of Muhammed. Therefore Muslims young, or not so, British by passport, or not so, will always identify with ISIS, and support it. That support may be emotional, financial., physical, like demonstrating for ISIS, or actually go off to join ISIS.
Essentially, any Muslim will always support ISIS if it comes to a choice between ISIS and the Infidel , but not actually go to Syria and join it. There many reasons – family, don’t want to leave a comfortable existence in the West, specially if they are on Benefits, danger of getting killed, and also the possibility of supporting ISIS by waging war on the Infidel from within the gates.
Muslims are the most “amazing” group of people in history. No other group of immigrants so desperately tries to get into the Infidel’s nation. But once in, starts to plan and execute all manner of Jihads on the nation that has been kind(stupid) to let him in.
Jihads – Benefits sponging, fraud, criminality, rape of Infidel women, money laundering, murderous violence, and finally mass murder atrocities.
Why exactly do we need these people.
Allow me, if I may. I think it goes along the lines of Al-Beeb continuing to praise and elevate everything Islamic, Socialist and and anti-West until we allow ourselves to be lay down subsumed into their New World Order which doesn’t include, amongst other things, free-thinkers, Christians, Jews, Hindus or anything non-Islamic or capitalists…..
Zero you are right that any attack, in whatever form will lead to reprisals and further recruitment to Jihad, however your view on why that is, is not given, nor is it by the political elite of all western countries. The problem with apologists and deniers is they fail to grasp that these people are not like us. Like a delusional abused spouse, they try and place reason where there is none. Explain what is happening, not by using the actions of the perpetrator, but of what the think makes sense in their world. The inaction of the political elite, driven by the pandering to the Muslims they have allowed into the West is responsible for the deaths of thousands and will be responsible for millions more if they are not stopped
Muslims are constantly at war with everything and everyone because it’s a religion of excepted and expected violence. Violence is the answer to everything that does not conform to the word written by Allah. How can a none believer persude a practicing Muslim to move away from fellow Muslims and the path of lslam when we are given the title of subhuman? It’s laughable and embarrassing when we hear from the BBC that Muslim extremism has nothing to do with lslam. It’s everything to do with lslam. These Muslims believe they are acting out the word of God to the letter. Who are the BBC to say they are bad Muslims? Catholics around the world did not go on a delusional crusade to kill anything that was English during the troubles. The reason for this is because a war against your own people is worth dying for. Every war has a reason and no matter the reason this seams to be a call to Jihad for Muslims. Muslims die and we do nothing – Jihad. We try and help them – Jihad. They want us dead or converted. It’s clear that if anyone believes that Muslims will become more radicalised by bombing Syria, then they have to believe that a Muslims only alligence is to Islam and fellow Muslims, no matter the cause. If you believe this then is the only way to peace completely removing all lslamand Muslims from the west? Should we just allow Muslims to murder, kill, rape and destroy every other none believing man woman and child with no reaction or response? Until the left and the gullible realise that unless the unchangeable word of Allah is changed to accommodate other peoples views and opinions (bearing in mind if any Muslim mentioned this, they would be beheaded as a blasphemous infidel), the only way to peace is forced conversion to lslam or removal and banning of Islam from all but Islamic states
Tothepoint, Well said. The BBC and the Liberal Left, including Cameron and most Tories are like the appeasers of Hitler. Despite the evidence that appeasement never works , they learn nothing from history. It is the cowards’ way and it is doomed to failure.
You are right. That is why I have posted for decades that the only way out from this self inflicted fatal wound, is to exchange populations – Muslims in the West for Christians in Muslim countries.
Its only fair. Christians in Muslim countries will be saved from execution, and we wont have to worry where the next bomb is coming from. Muslims will be happy living under sharia.
Once such a situation is achieved, a Cold War type of boundary will automatically come about – Muslims will not be able to come to the West for any except the most pressing reason, and for a very limited time.
We could then live in peace without the state’s intrusive monitoring of every one’s actions, and the humiliating procedures we are put though at airports etc. Then of course the huge savings in trying to maintain security while allowing Muslims to live in the West. The present situation is like WWII – war against Germany while allowing millions of Germans to settle in Britain. Total Madness.
NCBBC, The exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey after Greece’s failed invasion of Turkey in 1921 is a model. Painful for the Greeks and Turks involved, but helped preserve the peace between the two countries ever since. Unfortunately, Europe has no leader of the stature of Ataturk.
Your idea is the only solution but i doubt if it will ever happen . The Left has a grip on Western Europe and will surrender without a fight .
You are completely right ‘delenda’. Couldn’t agree more. Everything you say makes perfect sense. Look, here’s a biscuit. You like biscuits don’t you. Yes you do. Look at the biscuit. Yummy.
Hilarious.
When are you and Stan Laurel starting that new film Below Zero?
It’s Delenda to you.
It’s kind of sweet you two have found each other in the wee small hours of the night.
Made for each other.
I’m ignoring the silly posts above. The fact is that almost all BBC history, on any topic you care to name, is now a knowingly dishonest interpretation of history from an overwhelmingly liberal left perspective which ignores facts which don’t fit that perspective and bigs up any that do. Of course, history is always an interpretation and historians have always had their particular views and axes to grind. But the BBC has a duty to present balance, so the leftist view should always be balanced by a right of centre interpretation. Such balance is never attempted by the BBC. The BBC always apply the liberal standards of today to any historical even which involves any European power completely ignoring the standards of the day and historical context. BBC history is basically tripe, served up to a largely credulous audience, by people who have a leftist agenda and are given a platform by the biased BBC to proselytize, with no attempt at balance. This barrage of lies will cause untold damage to the UK . It will undermine the confidence of the population in our values and lower our self esteem, which is I suppose exactly what those at the BBC wish to achieve..
The BBC disgusts me.
The BBC’s amateur historians seem unaware of the Ottoman Empire’s end. Quite simply if Turkey had not sided with Germany in 1914 then all would have been very different. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was bound to be a difficult and messy matter.
That Empire had a long and turbulent history . I suppose the revisionist liberal BBC hacks would have preferred the whole ME to have fallen into chaos after 1918.
The chaos today is only partly to do with the post 1918 events. it is much more to do with the intractable nature of Islam and its insistence on sharia and a theocratic state.as superior to any other. In it’s rejection of modernity.
These tensions were always so under the Ottomans but somehow kept in check.
The West is not responsible for this and never was.
Most of the conflicts in the Middle East eg Syria, Yemen plus much violence elsewhere are caused by the schism between Sunnis and Shia – a conflict that goes back almost to the start of the Islam cult. Nothing to do with the Brits or the West. Plus the murderous intolerance and hatred on both sides of the Islamic schism.
Well put Mr Thinker.
If the BBC can`t be trusted to even give us the correct( or at least a fair and balanced) account of the -say Callaghan/Thatcher era…the rise and fall of punk/”noowave” music-let alone the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union…how and why would we ever trust them on anything MORE difficult and convoluted?
The BBC have NEVER done anything of worth on the history of the cults of the European Union, or the Climate Change Greenies…all easily researched, all still available from reputable news sources (thank God for the Internet!)
The BBC have no history, no roots-and rely instead on the likes of Russell Brand, Mark Steel and Russell Howard to provide their own loopy view of things for the next generation.
Hitler Youth tactics were very similar…sadly, for the BBC we were there at these times…and know full well that Pauline Black and the Slits didn`t win the miners strike by playing free gigs in the Chilterns near Marcus` old school…or such.
But the BBC tell our kids this-when not offering us Jimmy Savile without the wrinkles or cigars.
Jeremy Vine stood on a Hulme bridge waiting for his butler to fetch a Joy Division poster for him,before a ride home to Epsom…THAT is the image that sums up the BBCs eternal Good Rebellion, and its trenchcoat tossers.
The Persians and the Arabs have always hated each other, I read somewhere that the mutual loathing even predates Islam; the Sunni – Shia schism is just another facet of that enmity.
Al , yes , Persians and Turks have always felt superior to Arabs and I agree with that. I have dealt with all in business. Very few problems with Turks and Persians. Arabs , I have more respect for dogs. Actually I quite like dogs !
An Abbasid caliph is reported to have said: “The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for one day; we have been ruling for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour.”
(off top of head, I think the source is Spuler, The Muslim World)