The BBC is eager, as we have recently seen from its behaviour when covering the Boston Marathon bombings,  to suppress any speculation that Muslims may have been involved.

This is merely a continuation of a policy that it has adopted and carried out in the UK for a long time in the hope of breaking any association between Islam and terrorism or indeed any activities that would reflect badly upon the ideology in the minds of non-Muslims.

A similar exercise in news manipulation is seen in its reporting of immigration, or  when not reporting the damaging effects mass immigration has had on UK society and infrastructure.

However, as I noted in this previous post, when looking at other countries a more clear sighted and authentic picture appears of the effects of immigration and cultural tensions between different ethnic or religious groups.

One of the most recent such ventures was ‘Frank Gardner’s Return to Saudi Arabia.’.

This was followed by John Ware’s ‘Israel:  Facing The Future’ in which Ware examined the problems facing an Israel with increasing polarisation of its populations between extremes of religion and an increasing secularism.

One stand out comment was this:

‘The Palestinians have found that a more powerful weapon than guns is a receptive Media.’

Just how receptive we’ll never know until the BBC publishes the Balen Report…but Ware makes the point that Israel’s image was tarnished by the use of overwhelming force in Gaza in 2009 in which a watching world only saw dead Palestinians.

There is a reason for that…because that is what the likes of the BBC determinedly emphasized and focused on….and continued to publish the casualty figures for a couple of years after the conflict at the bottom of most reports about Israel.

How fair was this programme though?

Firstly Ware, avoiding upsetting the Arabs, called Jerusalem ‘Israel’s spiritual capital’…no it is its actual capital.

He told us that Israel had been fighting wars for 60 years…..well, only because they have been under attack for 60 years….it’s not a voluntary thing.

Although it accurately pictured the internal pressures upon Israeli society, though not detailing the very successful secular side much at all, it skated over the hardcore Muslim opposition that Israel faces.

Israelis were presented as the bigger part of the problem whilst Palestinians and Israeli Arabs were generally presented as reasonable, undogmatic people just looking for a peaceful life.

It was unfortunate that one Israeli Arab slipped out that ‘we are in a war’…against the Israelis…a comment that Ware left unremarked.

The Israeli Arabs were allowed to present a very one sided view of things, with likeminded, left wing Israelis agreeing.

However the main point about the programme that I want to make is that Ware looks closely at the effects on Israeli society of the rise of religious extremism amongst Jews themselves as well as the presence of Israeli Arabs who make up 1/5th of the population.

In the programme he describes what is going on as ‘religious nationalism’…i.e.  Zionism…though just as applicable to Hamas et al.

That’s interesting…he makes the link between religion and politics….Something that is taboo when discussing Islam in the UK or the West….. here we are told ‘Islamists’ are violent extremists who use Islam to further their political intentions whilst ‘Muslims’ are peace loving, spiritual people.

Ware expands on that comment later saying…..

‘Biblically inspired nationalism is challenging the secular and democratic values of Israel’s founding fathers.  Upon the outcome of this battle will depend the next chapter in the history of the Jewish people.’

Now that’s a pretty interesting comment….were the 7/7 bombings ‘Koranically inspired’? 

You’re not allowed to say they were, and the BBC will deny it till the cows come home.

Does Islam challenge the secular and democratic values of a liberal, secular Britain?

We know Christianity challenges it…on the matter of gay marriage and women’s rights for instance.   Islam also of course challenges the Christian Church itself…..but even the Church is too cowardly to stand up for itself in the face of an insurgent Islam….so perhaps you can’t expect the BBC to do so for it.

You have to ask why is Ware allowed to class the Bible as the driving force behind the politics in Israel when Muslims who express a similar view about the Koran, citing it as their inspiration and guide in life, are dismissed as criminals and madmen who pervert Islam?

And of course it isn’t just that differing approach to handling different religions but also the fact that Ware recognises and highlights that there is a ‘clash of values between secular liberals and the religious’…. and that tensions are growing, with ever more conflict.

That same view could equally be applied here in the UK with the rise of  Islam which is an ideology that opposes most of the values and culture of a secular/Christian Britain.

Or is there no ‘clash of values’ in Britain today between the religious and the secular….or Islam and Western values?

If there is shouldn’t someone be talking about it?  The BBC and the Establishment would prefer you didn’t.

If it is possible to talk about such ‘clashes of values’ in Saudi Arabia or Israel it should be possible to debate them here without the usual charges of racism or Islamophobia being bandied about in attempts to close down the debate.

It is a necessary debate to have.

Man made climate change is the result of fossil fuels burnt in Western Industrial nations……developing nations are to be ‘allowed’ to burn fossil fuels because it is only fair that they catch up on the ‘progress’ of the developed nations who otherwise would have an entrenched advantage for the foreseeable future.

Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ graph was said to be the ‘smoking gun’ in the evidence draw that revealed just how guilty the West was in creating global warming.

Set aside the fact that the Hockey Stick was shown to be wrong you could be justified in asking what is the evidence that the industrialised West caused the rise in temperatures?  Are there any other possible causes?

One factor might be population.  Indeed the BBC itself recognised this, up to a point….making no cogent conclusions from the fact.

The question is which population has increased?

Population in the West has been declining rapidly for decades…but that of third world and developing nations is rising massively…..in 1800 the world population was 1 billion,  in 1930 it was still only 2 billion but by 1999 it reaches the staggering number of 6 billion.

What is interesting is the graph that illustrates this:

Notice anything?  Pretty similer to the infamous temperature ‘Hockey Stick.’

The vast, vast majority of population growth since the 1950’s has been in third world and developing countries…..they all need to cook food, warm their homes and heat water amongst a myriad of other uses, including their own industrial processes that burn fossil fuel….and with such an increase in population comes large scale deforestation…one of the biggest causes of climate change.

So who is to blame for climate change if you accept ‘man made’ causes?  Is it the West who began industrialising in the 1700’s or is it the Rest whose population increase coincides with the same increase in temperature?  We were told recently that it is  a mere 25 years before CO2 causes warming….and yet the climate lobby admit that only global warming since the 1940’s or so is caused by man.   For nearly 200 years of massive industrial activity there was little warming…in fact it often became very cold….but increase the population massively and bingo…almost instant temperature change on a massive scale.

If the West is not to blame why are we closing down our efficient and much cleaner industry to save the planet when other countries are continuing to pump out massive quantities of CO2?

If things are so urgent…how many times have we been told we have ‘X’ months to save the planet?….why is it then OK for massive ‘pollution’ from China and India and Brazil to continue?

What’s the theory behind that policy then…the planet is going to die…but at least the Chinese and Indians will die having had a little bit of wealth induced happiness?

As with other subjects the BBC’s reporting is coloured by its  own politics…anti-Western, anti-industry, anti-capitalist and pro-green, pro socialist world view.

It takes a simple measure…a coincidence? that temperature rises as CO2 levels rise (in fact temps rise usually before CO2…as CRU’s very own Phil Jones admitted)…and constructs a theory from that upon which we base our whole industrial and social policies.

But as shown here it must be equally valid to compare the rise in population with that of temperature and work out a theory from that…….but that would be pointing the finger of blame at ‘The Rest’ and not the West…which is a political no-no for the BBC.

And so it begins….Operation Smokescreen.

When the 7/7 bombs went off the BBC went into overdrive to blame British society for the actions of the bombers….asking ‘What turned such bright, young British Muslims into terrorists?’

They had to change their tune fairly rapidly when they realised that wasn’t playing well with a Public that had just seen 52 people murdered and over 700 injured by men claiming to be doing it in the name of Islam.

Guess they haven’t learnt that lesson….here they are doing the same…blaming America itself for turning such a decent, hardworking, young man into a terrorist.

Nice photo though…..

He was so good, hard working and determined to succeed

People who know Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are trying to understand what happened. How did a bright, ambitious teenager turn out so badly?

In a lifeguard-certification course at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had a hard time staying afloat – at least when he had to tread water while holding a heavy brick in his hands.

“That was his main struggle,” says his friend, Mark Faria, 19, who took the course with him. Still, Dzhokhar stuck with it – and passed the course.

Mr Faria says they took a violence-prevention class together in high school – STARS, which stands for Students Teaching and Advocating Respect. “He was a good student,” Mr Faria says.

Such a nice lad…someone must have forced him to do these things

People who know Dzhokhar cannot believe that he is responsible.

They say he must have been under the influence of someone – his brother, perhaps, or a terrorist group.

“My personal opinion is that those guys are just pawns and it’s a bigger thing than what we’re seeing,” Ms Aiguier says. “And it will someday be revealed.”

Heading toward the front steps of his house, Mr Faria tries to defend his friend. “I don’t know if he had an actual motive – or if he was kind of forced into it,” he says.

Mr Faria steps out of his apartment building to talk to me. He says he is “dumbfounded” about his friend.

“We’re watching the news all day and we see his face on TV,” he says. “It doesn’t sit.”

It’s  America’s fault

Dzhokhar came here in 2002 with his family – immigrants with a Chechen background – who had once lived in Central Asia.

Dzhokhar became an American citizen in 2012. At a certain point, though, he no longer seemed optimistic about the future.

“About a week and a half ago, I saw him walking kind of fast on our street,” says Ms Aiguier. “He looked sort of reclusive, inward, and he was wearing a hoodie.”

Another Russian immigrant, Konstantyn (“Costa”) Morozov, 27, points out that not everybody finds their way in the US.

Not everyone likes it here.

There is no consideration at all that he may have been influenced by Islam. 

He may have been influenced by a  ‘terrorist group’…OK…so which one, and what is their motivation, what is the end result that their terrorism is a means to attaining?

To avoid mentioning Islam and the attempt to spread its influence as a possible motivation here is once again not news but propaganda…by omission.

You couldn’t make it up……this from the BBC:

Boston bombing: How internet detectives got it very wrong

For the past 48 hours, internet users have been working with each other to piece together clues about the culprits of the Boston bombings. The result? They got it wrong – and left innocent people fearing for their safety. Many are now asking: should “crowd-sourced investigations” be stopped?

Is this the same BBC whose prestigious current affairs news programme ‘Today’ told us that the evidence was pointing towards  ‘domestic’ terrorists?

Is this the same BBC whose expert, specialist security correspondent told us this:

‘So what lines is the Boston investigation following and why?

A home-grown US operator with a domestic agenda

As of Wednesday, this is thought to be the most likely culprit.

And that: 

‘America has long been [Jihadists] 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.’

Is this the news organisation which boasts of having more journalists than any organisation outside of China, that has billions of pounds to invest in indepth, accurate journalism but gets it badly wrong and then attacks the auld enemy…the Bloggers?

Guess the BBC’s new Director of News, James Harding, was right when he said the BBC doesn’t do investigative journalism.

No s**t Sherlock!

A final quote from the article:

“It’s been a kind of a media literacy seminar – people are learning to be less stupid. You don’t want to be the person who names a suspect who turns out not to be right.”

He added: “I doubt that when we write the history of this event that the intelligence services will be thanking social media over this.”

Won’t be sending the BBC a bunch of flowers either I’m guessing.

The two Boston bombers are reported to be two Chechen brothers.  They have apparently lived in the US for nearly a decade.

Some background digging by the Atlantic Wire here:

Note ‘Beliefs’….Islam

The BBC made some startling claims, including that by their specialist security correspondent Frank Gardner, that the Boston bombers were most probably domestic, meaning white, right wing  terrorists.

This was based on no more evidence other than that the attack occured at a similar time in the year to previous terror attacks…some by right wing extremists.

In effect the BBC has reported news it knew to be false for political reasons….it was a deliberate attempt to play down the likelihood that Muslims could be involved in the Boston bombing…..the use of ‘imported/international’ terrorism rather than Islamic also points to news management.

Why did the BBC jump so readily to this conclusion?

The BBC amongst others, is desperate to deny any connection between violence, especially terrorism and the Islamic ideology.  It does all it can to manipulate people’s perceptions of that ideology and the result of that is that the airwaves are full of programmes or reports such as ‘Muslim Driving School, ‘Don’t Panic I’m Islamic’ and ‘ Hijab for A Day’….all designed to make you think Islam is harmless fun.

Here is the most recent piece of what is outright propaganda for one section of the population:

‘As the investigation into who was behind the Boston bombings goes on, Muslim communities are braced for a backlash should the perpetrator share their faith.’

No such similar emotive, and very lengthy, tract for any similar groups under suspicion on the ‘Right’ such as Christian Evangelists or anti-abortionists…whom it is apparently OK to tar with a broad brush and implicate as a whole community or group as likely terrorists.

Essentially the BBC has puts aside its scruples and deliberately shifted the emphasis of a news story to point the finger of blame for a terror attack onto a group of people, which the BBC is quite ready to demonize and blame without concrete evidence because it fits in with their own political agenda.

The BBC has not been impartial, it has not been balanced, it has not been truthful.

It has deliberately and cynically manipulated the news for poltical reasons in support of a particular ideology….prepared to blame one ‘community’ in order to protect another…against a supposed ‘backlash’.

Which probably makes this Tweet by Mardell somewhat ironic:

Mark Mardell ‏@BBCMarkMardell 17 Apr  CNN very post modern right now – fragmented versions of reality from multiple unreliable narrators

The BBC have given over acres of broadcasting real estate to the critics of Mrs Thatcher who claim that she destroyed the mining industry.

I can’t say that they’ve given equal prominence to the fact that, as stated many times across other media, that Labour closed more mines than Mrs Thatcher.

They do have space for this though:

Why the fuss over George Osborne’s tears?

Are they merely trying to make Osborne look in some way foolish or a cynical spinner crying crocodile tears?  Why the fuss indeed.

What the BBC don’t tell us is this….an ex-miner, now a Tory minister comments on the myths being propagated and buttressed by the likes of the BBC.…and yet, so far, the BBC have ignored him.

‘“As a cabinet minister now and a miner in the 1980s, I have been listening to the debate about Baroness Thatcher with particular interest.

‘The BBC ignores a government minister, a miner himself at the time of the strikes who has something strikingly relevant to say about them?

Why does the BBC ignore him?  If nothing else he is a prime example that social mobility isn’t dead…and that the cabinet has genuine working class men in its ranks.

Normally something that the BBC would leap at.

Half the story all the time from the BBC.

Warrior and healer

Obama has a tough task as innocents die, says Mark Mardell

Mardell doesn’t say he believes Obama is an inspirational warrior prophet but clearly he thinks Obama is heaven sent….leaving us with this thought about Obama…..

‘He is at his best when his words seek to leave the world a different place.’

Get a room!

The BBC are continuing down the road of pointing the finger of blame at white, far right groups or individuals  and other domestic possible candidates for the Boston bombing…..you have to ask on what evidence?….other than the coincidence of the date of the attack there is nothing else to go on.

The German centre left publication Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

“Hysteria is the triumph of terror, but America has responded remarkably unhysterically to the bombs in Boston. This demonstrates a new maturity.’

Shame the BBC haven’t displayed the same maturity as they rush to judgement for their own reasons.

The New York Post says this photo has apparently been released by US authorities in the course of the investigation:

Now there is absolutely no evidence that these two were involved in any way…but it shows that the following claim by Frank Gardner is, er, somewhat premature and that the investigation is still open to many possible scenarios.

The Telegraph has noted that a ‘witch hunt’ is in progress for the culprits…it can’t help when the BBC join in…..

FrankGardner has made up his mind though….it’s a Redneck Rampage:

‘So what lines is the Boston investigation following and why?

A home-grown US operator with a domestic agenda

As of Wednesday, this is thought to be the most likely culprit.

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.’

Perhaps Frank Gardner should read the FBI’s own statement:

Contrary to widespread reporting, no arrest has been made in connection with the Boston Marathon attack. Over the past day and a half, there have been a number of press reports based on information from unofficial sources that has been inaccurate. Since these stories often have unintended consequences, we ask the media, particularly at this early stage of the investigation, to exercise caution and attempt to verify information through appropriate official channels before reporting.

Where’s the evidence for his claim?

He has no evidence to back it up but here the same lack of evidence is used to deny the involvement of Jihadists:

‘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.’

As far as I am aware no such statement has been made by US officials as to the effect that this is a domestically inspired attack.  As the New York Times says today they are pursuing a broad range of avenues…..

‘While investigators have focused on the images of the possible suspect, they are continuing to pursue a broad range of other avenues, one law enforcement official said.

“We try not to get tunnel vision about it,” the official said, adding, “we’re working a lot of other possibilities.”’

‘Tunnel Vision’…the trouble with the BBC is that they only see one thing at the end of that tunnel…an angry white man.

Such quick and easy judgements based on pure conjecture with a good dose of wishful thinking thrown in for good measure sparks off the usual witch hunts against the Right which if it happened to Muslims the BBC would be outraged about.

The BBC feeds that frenzied witch hunt  by making claims that have absolutely no truth to them at the time made.   The bombers could well be over taxed, angry white men, or it could have been Jihadists or anyone with a grudge about something.

We don’t know, even the US government probably doesn’t know yet…and the BBC certainly doesn’t know.

A perfect example of how this type of reporting gives the excuse to anyone with a bee in their bonnet to whip a frenzied attack on the Right  is an article from ‘Salon’:

Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American

This is an incredibly partisan, highly ideological, not to mention intensely racist tract.

It suggests that white, right wing groups do not get the same attention as for example Muslim groups do.

Really? Tell that to the FBI:

‘The FBI will continue to enhance its crucial partnerships with federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement agencies; other members of the U.S. intelligence community; and the private sector to combat the unrelenting threat of domestic terrorism.’

If you have ever looked at the list of what constitutes a likely terrorist in the US it covers just about anyone who has said anything about government being too big, or taxes too high or mentions the Constitution….white, Christian, anti-abortion, animal rights activists are all targeted….fly the US flag upside down and you get arrested as a terrorist….or having a missing finger, shaving your beard off, paying with cash, bulk buying food:

Read Der Spiegel and you will know that the Neo-Nazis are under constant observation and security attention in Germany.  In the UK  the EDL et al in this country are the subject of similar attention from the security services.

The Far Right in no way has a ‘free pass’ to do as it likes nor a ‘get out of jail free card’.

Thatcher couldn’t reform the BBC, Kim Jong Un hasn’t been able to….let’s see what you can do….

Peter Allen relates to Nicky Campbell how when as a young journalist he asked Mrs Thatcher this (5 mins 30 secs) about the Falklands War:

‘Why are you bothering to fight this war when you  know perfectly well that you will have  to give them back to the Argentinians eventually.‘

Give them back?  The Argentinians never owned them.   And if anything Spain has a stronger claim than anyone else…other than Britain of course.

‘Give them back, surrender quietly without a fight’ is a fairly typical attitude of the Left that has served this country so badly for decades….do not stand up for your own rights, do not defend your own lands, do not defend your own values and beliefs….but do celebrate every other culture, belief, value or territorial demand however daft, however unfounded.

Peter Allen was followed shortly after by historian and frequent BBC presenter, Dr Kate Williams who called the Falklands ‘Islas Malvinas’….and claimed that  increasingly across the rest of the world they were using that name and that it’s going to be very difficult for the Prime minister who has to hand them back as he will have to eventually.

Not the first time the BBC has handed the Falklands over to the Argies:

Anger over ‘Malvinas’ gaffe on BBC

The lives of 257 ­servicemen were lost to ensure that the Falkland Islands remain a British dependency. But perhaps someone should remind the BBC.

For, to the astonishment of the ­Falklands’ hardy residents and soldiers who fought to liberate them almost 30 years ago, the islands were re-­christened ‘the Malvinas’ — the contentious name for the islands used by Argentina — by the writers of children’s TV show The Sarah Jane Adventures.

No less a figure than Major-­General Sir Jeremy Moore, who accepted the Argentinian ­surrender, refused to allow the use of ‘Islas Malvinas’ in the ­documents signed in 1982, dismissing it as a propaganda term.

John Humphrys has long thought along the same lines as Peter Allen and Kate Williams:

‘So the time has come for Britain to negotiate. A deal should be struck which establishes Argentinian sovereignty over the islands while allowing the islanders to remain British and which perhaps shares the spoils of oil exploration.’

If you Google BBC ‘Islas Malvinas’ you will find out that the BBC refers to the Falklands as ‘Islas Malvinas/Falklands’ on their foreign language service.

La población de las islas Malvinas/Falklands terminó de votar en un referendo de dos días sobre si quieren seguir siendo un territorio británico.

I suppose the BBC has a history of this type of rebranding and relocating sovereignty of particular countries as it suits….Londonderry becomes Derry to suit the IRA, Jerusalem is stripped of its status as capital of Israel to suit Palestinian terrorists, the Scottish ‘Administration’ becomes its ‘Government’.

The names all have massive political symbolism and the BBC seems all too ready to side with those it has decided it likes best regardless of international law, custom or tradition.

Once again the BBC, the oh so impartial BBC, plays politics.