BBC Fake News kills Jews?
The BBC has been one of the prime providers of fake news about the Palestinian’s 70 year war against the Jews of Israel, this fake news creating a febrile atmosphere that generates massive hatred towards Israel, Israelis and Jews. Jews die as a result of this across the world. The BBC’s Tim Wilcox admitted as much when he suggested that Jews should expect to be attacked because of what Israel does to defend itself…thus in one stroke he denounces Israeli actions as bad and then links Jews in Europe to those actions making them guilty of them by association..ie being Jewish.
Here’s one example of that fake news that sets the world against the Jews and makes it ‘OK’ to target them….
Remember Jenin back in 2002 when the BBC insisted there was a massacre of Palestinian civilians by Israeli troop, such a massacre that the troops had to cover their faces to guard against the stench of death?
‘The smell of death pervades the Jenin refugee camp’
Turned out it wasn’t 3,000 civilians massacred, not even 500…in fact a grand total of 52 Palestinians were killed in the operation, nearly all of them terrorists. The BBC still hinted there was a massacre even as the UN investigation drew its conclusions and announced there was no massacre…the BBC dismissed that as nothing to see here…
The BBC’s Greg Barrow at the UN says the report offers few conclusions and merely reports allegations that have already been made.
We were also told at the time of the battle by the BBC that…
Palestinian claims of an Israeli massacre in the camp have been denied, although British forensic expert Prof Derrick Pounder has said that the evidence points to large numbers of civilian dead.
Odd how other news organisations knew straight away that the Palestinians were lying….
By contrast on the very same days, American reporters in Jenin – unlike their British counterparts – reported accurately. Molly Moore of The Washington Post wrote there was “no evidence to support allegations by aid organizations of large-scale massacres or executions.” Newsday’s reporter in Jenin, Edward Gargan, wrote: “There is little evidence to suggest that Israeli troops conducted a massacre of the dimensions alleged by Palestinian officials.”
The Boston Globe correspondent reported that after extensive interviews with “civilians and fighters” in Jenin “none reported seeing large numbers of civilians killed.” On the other hand, referring to the deaths of Israeli soldiers in Jenin, Abdel Rahman Sa’adi, an “Islamic Jihad grenade-thrower,” told The Boston Globe “This was a massacre of the Jews, not of us.”
The BBC’s reporting was the subject of a complaint…
Our first such major issue in this Submission-I below is on the BBC News’ coverage of the Battle of Jenin in April 2002 and on until today, which spread many times the false ‘news’ and ‘data’ on the ‘Jenin massacre’ – that never was. We submit this case now because the terrible damage and pain this libel caused has never been properly undone and the’massacre’ libel sticks on Israel until today, November 2005.
The facts of our complaint on the BBC News coverage of the Jenin Battle
The infamous case of Jenin started in March 2002. In this one single month 16 Palestinian terror bombings and other acts targeted and deliberately killed 102 Israeli civilians. For most of the killings Palestinian organizations sitting in Jenin proudly took responsibility. In the next month, on 3d April the IDF – Israeli Defence Forces – entered the city of Jenin, as part of ‘Operation Defensive Shield’, to capture the perpetrators.
Since the first day of this operation the BBC radio and TV news and special reports “informed” the world on the “Israeli massacre” of the Palestinian civilian population of Jenin in at least half-hourly sensational reports. The BBC News and World Service gave the microphone to and quoted unchallenged the Palestinian Authority spokesman, Saeb Erekat and other Arab sources to talk on an ‘Israeli massacre’, starting with “data” of 3000 and switching later to 500 or 520 Palestinian civilian casualties. The BBC broadcasted very intensively the big story of the Israeli ‘massacre’ of Palestinian civilians, through reports, unchallenged quotations and renewing reminders. False allegations of massacre and false data were actively repeated literally thousands of times (see data later), at least until 29.10.2002, their traces and repetitions by others are on the net until now, November 2005.
The BBC mentioned rarely and then downplayed or even ridiculed the dry official Israeli statements – which came of course somewhat late, because a democracy can not speak without fact-finding done before – on ’52 Palestinians dead; 5 women, one child and 46 adult males mostly wanted terrorists’.
By mid-April most major media organs, i.a. AP, CNN or the Washington Post, found out that the Palestinian statements on a massacre in Jenin were unfounded and therefore stopped the ‘massacre’ story. Not so the BBC.
Not so the BBC…but oh so so the BBC.
This is my correction of the BBC,s fake news:
This ‘post-fact’ era, or “era of the assumption” or “era of the left-wing wishful thoughts”. Is an era constructed by the BBC, through the censorship of scientists, science and scientific debate.
Hopefully with UKIP and Trump, the ‘post-fact’ era is coming to an end. In fact this could be brought about next year with another planned London conference of causational climate scientists, and a judicial review of the BBC ‘post-fact’ era, censorship of facts policy.
Also, people who follow the crowd, who don’t think for themselves, are regarded as part of the consensus. This can make them look like idiots to people with high IQ,s. Intelligent people rebel against the consensus once they reach Adulthood, but the BBC is obviously dominated by middle-class morons who went to Arts college instead, and where paid by mummy and daddy up to their first BBC pay packet and probably beyond that.
Also, the BBC could have a politically balance debate about Climate Change if it invited all the two scientists in the House of Commons. Tory MP, Peter Lilley, versus, Labour MP, Graham Stringer.
But even better would be for the BBC to invite as many scientists with PhDs in Atmospheric Physics as possible, to have a free live two hour uncensored debate, without any invitations to environmental activists, and a legal guarantee of free speech without any consequences for their employment prospects, with prosecutions against any persecution by left-wing environmental activists or the BBC.
You would then get science 2,000 times better than on the BBC, like this below.
Me a UKIP supporting Mensa member, an uneducated lover of a populist tyranny of the majority.
For me:
(1) Educated, means: Science, Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy
(2) Uneducated, means: Art, Drama, Philosophy and Media studies
(3) A Populist tyranny of the majority, means: The elite don’t like Democracy
(4) An Unpopular tyranny of the minority, means: Dictatorship by an anti-democratic elite, which confirms my view of the EU, with facts from the BBC.
The BBC should be thankful for democracy, as without democracy we would have had a restart of the English Civil War, with the abolition of the House of Lords and state Media. Followed by the Lord Protector, Nigel Farage, allowing Parliament to purge the remainers, and allowing the extension of the free media gained in the first English Civil War, to be extended to broadcast media.
The BBC, of which I am ashamed exists in our country, would never take it upon itself to acknowledge that the Middle East would be far different, if not actually relatively quiet today if the Arabs had not been such rejectionists in 1948 and on through the years.
If they had accepted UN Partition Resolution 181, subsequent Arab defeats, 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, intifadas, etc., might not have occurred. Dictators like Assad, father and son, and the previous warlike leaders of Egypt would not have had such facile reasons to embark on destructive wars; and maybe the civil wars in Lebanon and Syria would not have broken out.
All that is admittedly speculation, but wouldn’t it be a nice breath of fresh air if al Beeb at some point in the last 68 years would have acknowledged their hatred for Israel and their support for Arab terrorism.
Richard Pinder
Its a nice idea, but unfortunately, the waters on the “debate” on Climate Weather AGW, have been so poisoned, that no honest debate can take place. Even in the forum you suggest, one side will not listen to the other, and hang fast to their opinions. So too will the audience. It will end where it started.
The way forward is to withdraw all funding from Climate Change AGW topics. Now the issue will be debated without money poisoning the debate. The majority of the people who are interested in AGW etc are ones who are either getting funding for it, or those who are making huge amounts of money, as subsidy. That is some 90% or more of the people involved, will simply vanish from the debate, as there is no money in it.
As far as the emperical evidence is concerned, there is no rise in Global temperature. No rise in sea levels. No evidence of Pacific islands under water. So thats that.
And this is where Donald Trump comes in. If Trump trumps AGW Climate Change funding, the real debate can start.
This will take place within the group who are genuinely and honestly interested in which theory could be correct – Man made, Cosmic rays, the sun, orbital mechanics, cows farting hypothesis etc.
And the best thing, it will be so unimportant to leftist BBC types, as there is no money to be spent in Africa etc, we wont even hear of it, unless one subscribes to the particular Transactions.
Richard Pinder
The paper presented is good.
1.Solar radiation – yes.
2. No mention of the hot magna of the earth. Strange.
“Yet more BBC fake news”
Boy, if Ann Frank was still alive and still listening to the BBC Radio from Holland methinks she would be having all her complaints of anti-semitism to auntie deleted.
Methinks the BBC doth protest too much about fake news.
As the saying goes: If you want to know what the Left worries about itself, see what they accuse you of.
By bellowing “fake news” in every direction, they hope to avert people’s eyes from one of the biggest swamps of fake news, located squarely in Broadcasting House.
Given the ammount of “fake news” the BBC pushes out nowadays as real news the BBC would struggle to identify real news/facts when asked to broadcast. Fake news just one of many reasons that I now no longer watch or fund the BBC and why I prefer the internet/social media {For example I have seen more facts or acurate news in 140 letters on Twitter than hours of BBC etc} alternative media where one can access multiple sources of news analyise them and make up one’s own mind as to what is false and what it fact, You cant do that with dire MSM outlets like the BBC or Al-Guardian
PS
In the old USSR Pravda called it propaganda, In the UK the BBC calls it news, in reality be it the BBC or Pravda its the same thing