In praise of terrorists.

The role of the media in general and the BBC in particular in perpetuating the malignancy of the Northern Ireland “peace process” cannot be sufficiently emphasised. The British Government has relied heavily on the BBC to retail the idea across the world that placing bloodthirsty terrorists in positions of power is a good idea if it helps buy peace! It’s a Chamberlain-scale act of appeasement that has necessitated the full power of the State broadcaster to help convince the gullible and wavering. Today the BBC reports, matter of factly, that Martin McGuinness – the Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly – has stated that he would like to have killed every British soldier in Londonderry in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday, if he had had the opportunity. Now there are three obvious questions that strike me an intrepid BBC journalist would want to ask Mr McGuinness.

1. Given that he was, by his own admission, an IRA terrorist before and after the events of January 30th 1972, how many soldiers did he in fact kill?
2. Given the many murders of innocent civilians in Londonderry during his tenure as an IRA warlord, how many of those deaths did he oversee?
3. Given this admission of murderous intent, in what way is he suitable to hold ANY office?

You’ll not be surprised to know that none of these questions have been posed by the BBC. Nor will they. You see what has happened in Northern Ireland – the installation of terrorists in the very highest spheres of government – is a victory for the left-wing mindset epitomised by the BBC. Can you imagine the furore the BBC would have created if, in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings in London, Tony Blair had declared he wanted to kill every Islamist in the United Kingdom? The BBC has shilled for the IRA for decades now, and shows a serial sense of immorality and journalistic bias.


The BBC has long been a convenient echo chamber for left-wing propagandising over the war in Iraq. For years now all we ever heard from Al-Beeb is the steady drum beat that the war was “illegal” and “immoral.” The talking heads were declaring that it was going to be “another Vietnam” scarely after our forces went in. Then we were told that Iraqis did not want our military there, that the Ba’athists were not really that bad , and that it was all doomed to be a quagmire anyway. I often thought that poor old Saddam must have had friends in the BBC such has been the outrageous revisionism of the Baghdad Butcher’s reign of terror. He got what he deserved of course and Iraq is the better place without Saddam and his thuggocracy. But of course we all know that Al Queda have declared this the front-line in their war on civilisation (Well, all of us except Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the “troops out” siren chorus) and so it is vital we prevail.

The US surge, so ably led by Gen Petraeus, has worked wonders over the past six months, to the evident chagrin of the “cut and run” brigade. But it is impossible to completely eliminate the sheer evil of Al Queda and this has become evident in the massacre that took place in Baghdad yesterday when the Jihadi used two women suffering from Down’s syndrome, getting them to wear explosive vests and then detonating them by remote control – causing carnage. The malign intent behind such an act is almost beyond words.

But I wonder why the BBC seems unable to accept that Al Queda would stoop so low? In their report of the massacre yesterday the BBC stated categorically that the two women used in this attack were mentally disabled. Today, I note that the BBC is now suggesting instead that “allegedly” two mentally disabled women carried out this. I was wondering if the BBC fear Al Queda sueing them? Why so coy?

I am also interested in the statement the BBC makes that these atrocities have “shattered” the “fragile peace”which has descended on Baghdad care of the actions of the US military and local Iraqi forces over the past six months or so. Obviously they have caused a temporary and understandable sense of horror but the truth is that Baghdad has been transformed by the Surge and there is no evidence that all of this has been lost despite these horrific Al Queda terror attacks. But to admit this runs contrary to the BBC “Quagmire” narrative and that is the problem. The BBC fails to define Al Queda as terrorists even as they conduct this sort of depraved act. If detonating women suffering from Down’s Syndrome is not terrorism, what is it? What stops the BBC accepting this?

How the BBC reports

good news from Iraq.

Ham-fisted editorialising of the news: “Reporting from Baghdad, the BBC’s Jonny Dymond says the IMF and UN statements amount to a coincidental chorus of approval that tops off what have been, by Iraq’s dismal standards, a good few weeks.”

False attribution of progress: “The change in the political mood is largely down to the passing of a law on Saturday, enabling some members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussain to re-enter the military and bureaucracy, our correspondent says.

No mention of the real cause of progress:

see here

Ends with a flourish: “Violence continued in Iraq on Wednesday as a woman suicide bomber killed eight people in Diyala Province, and three US soldiers were shot dead in Salahaddin Province.”

Violence continued (news-wise)after a four day gap during which no US or coalition soldier perished. source.

(hat-tip to David Vance)

Unsurging the surge. Surgemania.

“Not one call has been aired suggesting that there might, just might, be some improvement as a result of the surge.

And that’s absolutely not because that’s the view that all callers to the programme have taken. I know that for a fact – because I called in to redress the balance. And have I been put on air? Of course not.

It is thus an editorial decision to air only calls which say nothing is improving and the Americans are lying.

We pay our license fee for this.”

So Stephen Pollard comments.

An aside: it could be just an accident of wordplay, but I did admire the BBC’s chutzpah in putting on their front page simultaneous to their “surge ‘working'” headline (which was just quoting Petraeus), this article, Al-Qaeda resurgent six years on? (highlight mine; thanks to commenter Heron for the Pollard link).

Re-thinking their position

Reflecting on the BBC’s current coverage of Iraq and the Petraeus report which is due today, I was led to have a nostalgic look at the much-missed LastNight’sBBCNEWS blog, which gave panoramas of Panorama and other BBC programmes during its existence. Here’s an interesting post.

It reminded me of the old BBC line that the trouble with Iraq was “the Sunni insurgency… a nationalistic struggle against foreigners”. That was yesterday’s despair.

Now, I also note that the BBC have chosen to present their own news ahead of Gen. Petraeus’ remarks today, revealing what their busy-beaver, wholly impartial and fully trained Iraqi pollsters have found about Iraqis’ views on “the surge”. I don’t know how big the Iraqi media’s coverage of “the surge” has been- but I doubt whether this represents a distinct difference for Iraqis. A few more American occupiers around in Baghdad and the West of the country. So what? Well, the BBC thinks it fits nicely with the ground they’ve been preparing for Petraeus’ report.

But what I said about yesterday’s worries is relevant, extremely so. For what the BBC forget is that yesterday’s enemies have become today’s allies- in Al Anbar and the Sunni triangle. The minority that the BBC saw as a nationalistic resistance is now replaced in terms of threat by the majority Shia with its factional interests and Iranian involvement. So a poll that interviews proportionately may well reflect the fact that the US is no longer seen as a wholly backed subsidiary of the majority interest.

This might be seen as good news from Iraq, but ah, I see those distant goal posts being shifted yet again. No goal! No goal!

It’s not the data, it’s how you present it…

The BBC managed the spectacular headline “US army suicides hit 26-year high”. The BBC go on to add some colour relating to psychology and the like. What they don’t mention is that “the overall suicide rate for the United States was 13.4 per 100,000 people. It was 21.1 per 100,000 people for all men aged 17 to 45, compared to a rate of 17.8 for men in the Army.” (CNN)

In other words, the average US male of age to serve in the military is more likely to kill himself than those who actually serve. So, a big non-story to put on the BBC front page with accompanying dramatic headline.

The BBC also report that “The highest number recorded was 102 in 1991, the year of the Gulf War – but more soldiers were on active duty then, meaning the rate per 100,000 soldiers was lower than in 2006.”

Helpful explanation you’d think, except that the 1st Gulf war only lasted about 6/7 months and involved very little ground combat. So not such a helpful comparison after all. The BBC, as usual, can’t resist an anti-American story.

(main data, thrust of argument, and headline, via this site. )