Category Archives: Uncategorized

There is much discussion on Instapundit of a three-year old but still interesting story originally from the Jerusalem Post. A BBC correspondent, Faid Abu Shimalla, was described on the Hamas website as having said at a function attended by no less a dignitary than the late Sheikh Ahmed Yassin that journalists and media organisations were “waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.” (Via Free Will Blog.)

A quick search for “Shimalla” on the BBC website gave me no results.

UPDATE: New commenter Janus (followed by regular commenter PJF) has complained that the quotes originally round the headline to this post had no business being there. He’s absolutely right. They got there by means of an drafting change (from a quote to my opinion expressing surprise that the BBC rep was exchanging compliments with the leader of Hamas) that wasn’t followed through carefully enough. I have also now added a dash, to better get across the notion of surprise.

While I’m here, I gather that an alternative English spelling of the name Shimalla is Shamalla.

unless you are, like the Beeb, willfully ignorant. Why else would Jonathan Marcus or Jon Leyne consider that the 9/ll Commission has weakened Bush’s case for going to war? Reporting on this story has been very selective. The 9/11 Commission has found circumstantial links to Saddam and al Qaida. What they have not been able to discover is a hand-in-glove linkage. To say “Probe Rules Out 9/11 Links“ is to mislead.

Anti-terror expert Andrew McCarthy exposes the shaky findings of the Commission here. John Hinderaker does what one of those fabled BBC ‘analysts’ could easily have done if so inclined — simply report and reflect on the numerous instances of contact between al Qaida operatives and Saddam. This is an exchange from yesterday’s 9/11 Commission hearing between Commissioner Fred Fielding and US Attorney, Pat Fitzgerald (who indicted bin Ladin in 1998 as a Manhattan federal prosecutor). See how quickly his testimony exposes the weakness of this report with which the BBC is so enamored.

This testimony is “regarding the allegation in the 1998 bin Laden indictment about an understanding between Iraq and al Qaeda:

FIELDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For the panel, I really have very specific questions about a specific subject.

One of the hazy questions that surrounds Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida is really its relationship, if any, with Iraq and with Saddam Hussein. We’ve often heard that Osama bin Laden would not have been a natural ally, for religious reasons, for the composition and nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime. And our staff report, as you just heard, basically says there’s no credible evidence of any cooperation between the two. However, there seems to be some indicia that there may have been. And, Mr. Fitzgerald, I’m delighted you’re here, because this first question really I wanted to ask specifically to you, because it relates to the indictment of Osama bin Laden in the spring of 1998.

This is before the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa and the administration indicted Osama bin Laden. And the indictment, which was unsealed a few months later, reads, “Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al Qaida would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”

So my question to you is what evidence was that indictment based upon and what was this understanding that’s referenced in it?

FITZGERALD: And the question of relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida is an interesting one. I don’t have information post-2001 when I got involved in a trial, and I don’t have information post-September 11th. I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May [1998] and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.

We understood there was a very, very intimate relationship between Al Qaida and the Sudan. They worked hand in hand. We understood there was a working relationship with Iran and Hezbollah, and they shared training. We also understood that there had been antipathy between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein was not viewed as being religious.

We did understand from people, including Al-Fadl — and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can’t tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago — that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn’t work against each other and that we believed a fellow in Al Qaida named [Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, aka Abu Hajer al-Iraqi], tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn’t work against each other. Sort of, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

And that there were indications that within Sudan when Al Qaida was there — which Al Qaida left in the summer of ’96 or spring ’96 — there were efforts to work on joint — you know, acquiring weapons. Clearly, Al Qaida worked with the Sudan in getting those weapons in the national defense force there and the intelligence service. There were indications that Al-Fadl had heard from others that Iran was involved. And they also had heard that Iraq was involved.

The clearest account from Al-Fadl as a Sudanese was that he had dealt directly with the Sudanese intelligence service, so we had first-hand knowledge of that.

We corroborated the relationship with Iran to a lesser extent but to a solid extent. And then we had information from Al-Fadl, who we believe was truthful, learning from others that there were also was efforts to try to work with Iraq. That was the basis for what we put in that indictment. Clearly, we put Sudan in the first order at that time as being the partner of Al Qaida.

We understood the relationship with Iran but Iraq, we understood, went from a position where they were working against each other to a standing down against each other. And we understood they were going to explore the possibility of working on weapons together. That’s my piece of what I know. I don’t represent to know everything else, so I can’t tell you, well, what we’ve learned since then. But there was that relationship that went from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other.

FIELDING: Thank you. That’s very helpful.

Very helpful indeed. I wonder if the BBC will report any of this 9/11 Commission news?

Jeff Jarvis catches the Nanny State defending the BBC against Fox News even though what Fox reported about the Beeb was true! Well, someone’s got to defend the little guy. (Via Andrew Sullivan)

UPDATE: John Gibson of Fox News replies to the ‘censure’. He notes that a BBC intern was one of the 24 complainants to OffCom. (Hat Tip: B-BBC commenter, StinKerr)

The Beeb’s tribute sours (further).

Tom Carver, familiar to viewers of NewsNight, has a supercillious air about him. There’s a sneer never far from his upper lip. Check out this combination of suggestion and anti-Bush sarcasm in an article which manages to insult former president Reagan as ‘illusory or insubstantial’, while dismissing Bush as nowhere near his equal (what, less even than ‘illusory’?):
‘The president’s biggest problem is that he is no Ronald Reagan, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen’s famous put-down of Dan Quayle.

Can you imagine a website with George Bush’s top 10 speeches?

Though denounced at the time as inflammatory, Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire” remains an undeniably influential phrase, whilst George Bush’s “axis of evil” already seems like a cheap rip-off with no coherent logic.

There are more references to Reagan’s phrase than those of Mr Bush on his own website.’

Well, I can imagine such a website, I don’t equate GWB with Dan Quayle, I do consider Bush’s “axis of evil” phrase to have been necessary and resonant, I don’t think it was a ‘cheap rip-off with no coherent logic’, and, finally, I don’t expect a speech made in the last couple of years at the beginning of a conflict to appeal the way one made twenty years earlier does with the benefit of glorious hindsight. Why I should pay for this alienating garbage?

But I am not the largest broacast news organisation in the world, famed for depth of knowledge and providing a global picture.

The BBC reports that Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais has been invited as a guest preacher to the opening of the East London mosque. Some unexceptional remarks of his are quoted in the story. However David T of Harry’s Place made the connection with the the preacher called Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudays (also sometimes transcribed as Sudayyis) who has been banned from Canada and who said,

“Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels, distorters of [others’] words, calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers… the scum of the human race ‘whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs…’

and urged Muslims to turn from all peace agreements with Jews.

Whether the BBC failed to make the link that David T successfully made between Sudais the advocate of cohesiveness and Sudays the advocate of hating the Jews, or chose not to make it is an interesting question. Probably the former, but it is a characteristic failure.

Fair play to Sarah Brown and the Beeb for this story on Iraqi blogs, especially since their coverage is a prime example of why ordinary Iraqis had to find alternative means of publishing news.

While reconstruction in Iraq remains fraught with violence and political infighting, the country is experiencing a surge in popularity of online diaries, or weblogs.Written by ordinary Iraqis keen to tell the world about life in the troubled country, the sites are also attracting the attention of a global audience keen to learn about the lives of local civilians.

One such blog is Iraq The Model, an online diary focusing mainly on politics and reform which is written and run by three Baghdad-based brothers – Mohammed, Omar and Ali.

Ali, a doctor, told BBC News Online that he and his brothers developed the blog because he wanted to send out a more positive message about events in his home country.

“More than 90% of major media outlets have a rather negative agenda and what’s the benefit of us doing the same?” he asks.

“We do feel optimistic about the future of Iraq, but we see many facts about Iraq that are not covered, which is a shame.”

“They [the media] ignore pictures of good relations between the Iraqis and the coalition and the good interaction between both sides, they only focus on bad events – like what is happening in Abu Ghraib.”

Let’s hope Sarah holds on to her job!

It’s been a long hard road, brothers and sisters. Years of patiently explaining that we’re aren’t necessarily particular fans of Liberace. Now at long last we have reached a level of public recognition where we get smeared by the BBC. In an article about the Bilderberg conference I read:

And while hardline right-wingers and libertarians accuse Bilderberg of being a liberal Zionist plot, leftists such as activist Tony Gosling are equally critical.

Emphasis added (on orders from ZOG delivered by thought-beam to the receiver in my left upper second premolar.)

On Today’s BBC One O’Clock News bulletin Anna Ford reported the following: “The three Italian hostages kidnapped in Iraq have returned home to a hero’s welcome. They were met by their families and friends at Rome Airport and will now be questioned by government and military officials about their two month ordeal”.

And that was it – cue jaw dropping in our household. What about the fourth hostage who was cruelly murdered? Isn’t he worth a mention? What about the fact that the hostages were rescued by a special forces operation, rather than by, say, the benevolence of their captors?

A similar item running on Sky News just now mentions all of this – yet the BBC One O’Clock news didn’t. It’s also covered properly on BBC News Online. This was amongst the usual One O’Clock news mush – some real news, some filler (e.g. ‘Titanic treasures under hammer’), so it’s not as if time or space was the reason for missing out these facts.

Again we must ask, especially since the BBC is paid for by the compulsory BBC Tax, is their penchant for this sort of editorial omission conspiracy, cock-up or just lazy incompetence?

I said earlier the BBC’s coverage of Reagan’s death was OK. The same cannot be said for Greg Palast, who describes himself as a “BBC investigative reporter”. As USS Neverdock reports Mr Palast exults in Reagan’s death.

I think this guy is a freelance rather than a regular employee. He obviously writes to shock, and is probably rather looked down upon by the urbane types at Broadcasting House. But ask yourself whether his equivalents on the right would ever in a million years be employed by the BBC even as freelances. Kilroy-Silk was sacked by the BBC for much less. (Though don’t forget that KS was actually once a Labour MP.)

“Monica” in the comments to a post below directed me to this link to LGF and the post below it.

The value of LGF, the thing that keeps me coming back there, is that it tells you stuff you don’t hear on the mainstream media. The worst part of it is that some (certainly not all) of the commenters lack human sympathy and are undiscriminatingly hostile to Islam.

The facts are these: on Monday a BBC cameraman, Simon Cumbers, was murdered in Riyadh by Al-Qaeda. Another reporter with him at the time, Frank Gardner, was severely injured in the attack and may die.

(I have just seen that while I was writing this post, Kerry Buttram was independently writing another on this topic.)

This story raises several issues so close to the heart of what this blog is about that they cannot be ignored. I am sorry that lack of time obliges me to list them in a less organised way than the seriousness of the subject merits.

When Frank Gardner was shot, he called out to the bystanders, “Help me, I’m a Muslim.” It seems they did not help. Some say this is because there is a law in Saudi Arabia forbidding bystanders to come to someone’s aid before paramedics arrive. Others say that the crowd were sympathetic to the killing of a foreigner, whatever his religion. Still others say that the crowd may have been afraid of reprisals from Al-Qaeda.

There is some doubt as to whether Gardner actually is a Muslim. [INSERTED LATER: The Australian, quoted by Tim Blair in an update to the link below, says that he was not.] Some say that claiming to be Muslim is a survival trick well known to reporters. In either case it reflects ill on Saudi society that such a strategy is thought necessary.

The BBC did not report the words “Help me, I’m a Muslim!” and has not commented on Mr Gardner’s religion.

If he is not actually a Muslim – i.e. it was a desperate ruse – I don’t blame him for trying it in extremis, and I see the BBC’s point in keeping quiet. It might endanger other reporters to have it publicly known that this deception is practised. However the point is moot, as the Arab media have certainly reported his words widely.

If he is a Muslim, it is still a difficult matter to know whether the BBC ought to have mentioned it. Do we really want to get into obliging people to disclose their religion before writing in public? When some green activist made a list of all the prominent “neo-cons” who were Jews it was considered distasteful, and would have been so even had the list been accurate. On the other hand, as Tim Blair points out, the BBC has made enough of George W Bush’s religion and Tony Blair’s. Sometimes religion is undeniably part of the story.

Frank Gardner’s reporting seems typical of the BBC. He is certainly knowledgeable about the Middle East. If his stance is affected beyond normal BBC sympathies by his possible Muslim religion, it is not apparent to me. In this report he is sympathetic to oppressed Moroccan women – I approve. In this one he calls the late Sheikh Yassin a “spiritual leader” and says that “What I have found from my personal experience is that people in the US state department tend to have a very good understanding of the problems of the Middle East and why al-Qaeda is so popular and they tend to steer a relatively middle course” – I disapprove. I do not know anything significant about the opinions of the cameraman, Simon Cumbers.

On March 13th, in the aftermath of the Madrid train bombings, there was a bitterly controversial post (controversial among both Biased BBC posters and commenters) by Patrick Crozier on this blog in which he said he said, “I want these people to feel pain” (specifically referring to those who excused terrorism on the Channel 4 coverage of the train bombings, but by extension to the moral equivalence tendency in the media generally), it was the only way they would wake up. In an exchange of emails and later a phone call I asked him if he meant it literally. He said no, but he defended the general sentiment that only personal experience of its evil would ever stop some minds sympathising with terrorism

I find two thoughts inescapable. One is that I don’t want anyone to feel that sort of pain, ever. (To be fair I don’t suppose Patrick does either, outside of rhetoric said in anger.) I would not wish it even on our actual enemies, Al Qaeda, though I am happy to see them dead or captured in the course of defeating them. Far less do I wish harm on unarmed reporters and cameramen doing their job. This whole blog is about the BBC in part because it is, or was, or could be an institution of our civilisation worth being (metaphorically)fought for.

The other inescapable thought is that the BBC did suddenly rediscover the word ‘terrorist’ when it was their own people being killed.

Going back a few days, when the acting Israeli ambassador to Britain Zvi Rav-Ner used the word “terrorist” the BBC paraphrased it as “militants”. They did not say they had done so; in effect putting words he did not say into the Israeli ambassador’s mouth.

In contrast, in “Manhunt after attack on BBC crew” the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sherard Cowper-Coles, is quoted thus:

Sherard Cowper-Coles said the area had seen “a number of clashes” between security forces and terrorists.

Not only were this ambassador’s words not edited, the terrorists have even escaped outside the quote marks. This is correct. The attack on Simon Cumber and Frank Gardner was terrorist murder and attempted murder. And the other victims of Al Qaeda, be they Americans, Israelis or Iraqis; be they Christians, Jews, atheists, Sunni or Shia Muslims; or whatever nationality or religion you care to name, are also victims of terrorism, not “militancy”. The indiscriminate nature of the killing is what makes it terrorism. That is one more reason, along with common humanity, to hope that Frank Gardner makes a full recovery and that the murderers of Simon Cumbers are caught and punished.