: “the AG could read from the phonebook and the New York Times would run the headline, ‘Ashcroft Lists Innocent Americans to be Interned.'”
Who cares what the article says – this is just a great line
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir April 26, 2024 at 11:13 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Anyone historically minded would suspect the above has either 1) sentenced himself to death via an unfortunate accident / suicide...
- Zephir April 26, 2024 at 10:38 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Goodness sake SG I would rather call Lucy an optimist, and in the near future maybe a close rival to...
- StewGreen April 26, 2024 at 10:30 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024The Twitter thread shows Sadiq spun a tale to be able to claim Islamophobia but the tale was not based...
- Deborah April 26, 2024 at 10:23 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024I used to listen to Today when Monty Modlin did the humorous segments. It wasn’t easy to give up for...
- Eddy Booth April 26, 2024 at 10:22 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024Some JS Bach for the weekend - from the creative 1960s The Swingle Singers providing the vocals alongside Johann himself...
- tomo April 26, 2024 at 10:19 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024https://twitter.com/TomSyvret/status/1783919885493453047
- StewGreen April 26, 2024 at 10:13 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Calvin did a sorry not sorry apology 30 mins after Lucy posted but Lucy was bad cos multiple replies to...
- Fedup2 April 26, 2024 at 10:07 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024From the DT - the BBC v GbNews STARTS watched the action unfurl, my heart in my mouth. Spooked by...
- Deborah April 26, 2024 at 9:58 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024First For the last forty years or more give or take I have been to ar least one prom concert...
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
O/T
The battle for Falluja
All the bbc seems to care about are the residents, who had the opportunity to leave, but didn’t and now find themselves in a tight spot. duh. All you get here are photos of cowering arabs, typical whiny women with tea towels on their heads. Yep, typical bbc nonsense whereby the arabs are suffering through US aggression rather than their own stupidity.
9/9 ‘meanwhile…’ the quagmire grows ever deeper i think we’re supposed to infer.
Rather, ‘meanwhile’ the bbc continues its shoddy reporting and campaigning on iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4010467.stm
They’ve got Yasmin Albhai-Brown on ‘Dateline London’ at the moment, ranting about the Fallujah ‘insurgents’ being freedom fighters.
The opposite end of the spectrum is being represented by an anti-war American journalist and an anti-war French journalist.
I had to turn the sound off, I was so sickened by it.
The French troops killed in Ivory Coast a week ago are always referred to as “peacekeepers”.
Would the casual listener assume that the dead were aid workers rather than troops?
O/T – Boris
Jeremy Whine (sorry – “Vine”) on Radio 2 is having a debate on “should someone be sacked for lying about an affair”.
Doesn’t the morally relativist BBC get it? He was sacked for (allegedly) lying – period. Whether it was about an affair or selling state secrets to Iran, he (allegedly) lied to his boss and got sacked because of it.
Colin Powell resigns and Radio 5 live immediately get on the phone for comment…..
drum roll please………..
Robin Cook.
You know the rest:-
Fought courageously against the hawks (aka neocons) in the US administration…
Was let down by Bush….
Stabbed in the back by Cheney….
His sensible approach became increasingly isolated in the administration…
blah blah blah
No doubt the BBC couldn’t get hold of Ming, so the virtual gnome had to do.
So when he comes back as VP later, will the BBC remember cooks words?
Too many cook interviews spoil the beeb?
Eamonn
What a surprise, eh?! This nonentity, who is known more for bending over and taking it when a spin doctor told him to dump his wife immediately than for any domestic or foreign policy triumph, is invited back by the BBC time and time again! Do you think its for his experience? His insight into goe-political affairs? His standing as a statesman? His looks (ehem)? Or do you think the BBC may, just may have an inkling that he’ll trot out the same, tired bullshit?
Pete
I rather fear the latter.
The BBC has an ‘approved’ list of interviewees for any situation; each knows the script and can be trusted to provide the correct answers to the questions. On Radio 4 this morning we had the dubious pleasure of Douglas Hurd (now Lord Hurd) bemoaning the situation in Iraq. If I remember correctly, this was the dolt who (with Rifkind – now prospective candidate for a safe Tory seat) was instrumental in ensuring that the Muslims in Bosnia were denied the arms to defend themselves. The safe Tories are worse than Ming and Robin; their list is Heseltine, Clarke, Hurd, Patten, Rifkind, Brittan. They reek of treason and failure. Have I missed anybody?
The above was from me – forgot the address.
Have to have a think about that one, Allan. There mayy well be a few more irrelevent old Tories out there who are only too ready to toe the BBC line. Peter Oborne is one in the making.
A thought now; it seems to me that since Bush was re-elected (or un-redefeated, as someone so memorably put it) the BBC has decided to go to town on him. We know of BBC News of course but each and every one of those comedy/quiz/panel shows (Have I got news for you etc) which I have watched I have turned off. I can take a bit of Bush-bashing if its not over the top and the programme is funny but the gloves really seem to be off now.
Ceefax tells us that “anti-US insurgants” attacked a police station is Mosul.
The insurgents could be described as anti-democratic, or opposed to the interim government. But no, they demostrate their anti-US credentials by attacking Iraqis.
cont’d …
All the time its “Bush .. blah blah .. idiot .. dimwit .. Americans .. blah blah ..” Frankly I find it boring most of the time but its now seriously getting up my nose. If we’re going to be confronted with this crap each time Light Entertainment goes to air I’ll need suggestings for what I can do in disgust; its not like I can return my licence as I’ve never bought one!
Dan
Stop interrupting me!
Radio 5 live doing it again about Powell on “Drive”, where we have statements like:-
He (Powell) was seen as a moderating influence on the more hawkish members of the US administration.
He was humiliated by his appearance at the UN
etc etc ad infinitum.
Interesting that the BBC have not interviewed anyone who would criticise Powell. Just compare this with the BBC’s coverage of John Ashcroft’s resignation (“to his critics, he undermined liberties in the US in a way that had not been seen since the internment of thousands of Japanese Americans after the attacks on Pearl Harbour in 1941”).
Of course pervading all this is the BBC view, that things would be even worse if not for Powell, and that now without Powell those nasty neocons such as Ashcroft can really mess up the world.
BBC’s man at Camp Dogwood reported on Radio4 “PM” (& here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4014373.stm )
that “senior military sources in Iraq” (must be Black Watch officer as he is at Dogwood) say Black Watch should be withdrawn from Iraq in next few days (ahead of planned end of deployment) & that no further UK troops should be deployed outside Basra area.
How depressing we now have mutinous troops conniving with the anti-UK government BBC.
Look at “http://bayman.blogspot.com/”
Hannah Bayman is a BBC journalist, who is militantly campaigning using communist ideas. Have a look at her latest anti-democracy links and you will see why she was employed by the BBC in the first place.
The roots of BBC bias are in the consciences of the presenters.
Should we add Michael Portillo to the list of licensed Tories allowed to speak by the BBC?
I agree Oborne – a complete bufoon – is one in the making thanks to his raving anti-Americanism.
I’ve now had some time to digest the 10 o’clock news tonight featuring the shooting by an American soldier of a wounded insurgent inside a mosque. The BBC reported that the incident is a serious setback for US policy in Itaq etc – hearts ‘n’ minds and all that… I beg to differ and, like a contributor elsewhere on this blog, I find the BBC’s comments on appropriate conduct in a dangerous situation quite unlike anything previously encountered by Allied troops to be utterly repellent. These insurgents are hellbent on blowing themselves up and taking any American with them. I hope that the US Army decides that the soldier in question has no case to answer unlike our craven Crown Prosecution Service which is pursuing one of our soldiers in a clearcut self-defence incident.
Congratulations to the soldiers of the USMC – your bravery is a beacon to us all!
Allan
Nowhere in the BBC output have I seen any proper recognition that the Marines have won a signal, fast victory over thousands of entrenched and determined fighters in Fallujah.
Semper Fi
Oh – and I swear I saw them giving a lot of TV time over the weekend to the clown entertainers who were in Fallujah, praising them to the skies. The gang who were riding around in ambulances – including a couple of well-known British pro-Palestine nutters. Probably friends of dear Orla.
Re Falluja shooting – both ITN & Newsnight in headlines show video of man on floor waving arm & soldier pointing rifle. We are led to believe that this is the insurgent killed. Only in fuller coverage we find that this not the case. The person actually shot was already looking dead.
Doesn’t excuse killing of a wounded man, but headlines make it look even more callous than it really was.
Has anyone else noticed that the BBC prior to any report about Iraq says the phrases: “more deaths” “more violence”?
This is as strategic as the words “American Led” before any military action is mentioned in Iraq, or indeed Palestine.
The ‘primacy effect’ comes into play here. The impact of these common phrases stick to the consciousnesses of most who watch the BBC, and this determines that their opinion is against the coalition forces.
I’ve just seen the footage on BBC News 24, although the scene was blacked out to save my delicate sensitivities. You saw the weapon raised and heard the shot. It didn’t half put a smile on my face, I can tell you! 🙂
Whoops sorry, was anyone offended?
My view on the killing of the Al Queda soldier is as follows:
1. If the facts are as described there probably has been an unlawful act and due process should follow despite every sympathy one has for the battle-stressed American soldier.
2. The amount of time being given to this single act is out of all proportion to the offence. After all, they’ve hardly given any time to the Iraqi victims of the Al Queda soldiers. So why all this attention? Two reasons I suggest:
(a) the failure to get the “civilian victims of US military action” story going, which was obviosuly what the BBC were salivatingly wanting to to do and (b) decision that this is a useful wedge to undermine the victory in Fallujah.
David, Yes. The lack of evidence of civilian genocide in Fallujah has given the BBC and others a “what do we do now?” moment. But all is OK now.
I switched on the Today programme this morning to hear Naughtie speaking in shocked, outraged tones. Had the Americans dropped an atomic bomb fallen on Baghdad? No. An American marine had shot dead a wounded man in Fallujah. This act was
possibly criminal act, possibly murder. No doubt the man in question will be investigated and court martialled (not something that happens with the Baathist and Al Qaeda head hackers by the way).
But does it merit this sort of outraged coverage, particularly when the barbarous killing of Iraqis by the “insurgents” gets little mention.
Of course, Al Jazeera gives wall to wall coverage of this, but it would, wouldn’t it? Let’s hope the BBC doesn’t do the same.
The BBC mindset about Colin Powell’s resignation is perfectly captured by Steve Bell in the BBC’s in-house magazine:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/0,7371,337484,00.html
Pete, you serious? That put a smile on your face?
PD
Like a fat Cheshire cat.
I know that a spineless liberal like you will be holding a vigil outside the Guardian building in remembrance of the fallen militants of Fallujah. But a group of armed men, in a mosque, in Fallujah when the USMC come rolling in are up to no good. They were wounded the day before in a fire fight with Marines. Dead and cold is how I like a terrorist to be.
Let’s have no mention of the Geneva Convention; it covers only uniformed militia in the service of a recognised state actor. All we need now to round off a resounding victory is for the mopping up to include an unfortunate case of friendly fire against a certain NBC journalist.
I with Pete, cold dead Ts are the best kind. They wouldn’t give an wounded American soldier any respect, so we shouldn’t either. He had his chance. No loss.
I’m reminded of the phrase “hearts and minds” at this point.
“Let’s have no mention of the Geneva Convention”: When has America ever bothered to adhere to international law? I believe they still owe Nicaragua a fair whack on that score.
Allo redken
‘Hearts & minds’? Do you seriously believe that Islamic terrorists can be weaned from their ways by the site of squaddies in berets handing out sweets? Maybe you refer to the mass of the downtrodden Iraqi people. Newsflash: most are on our side already and won’t squeal for the terrorists. Read a few Iraqi blogs for their opinion.
International law? There’s no such thing. One day the left will have to face up to the fact that it doesn’t exist.
Can I assume you also direct your questions to Bin Laden, al-Zarqawi et al?
“Iraqi blogs”? You’re having a giraffe my East London friend. I mean, this one’s hardly a shining example of objectivity is it? I wouldn’t be prepared to say where your average Iraqi’s loyalties lie but I’m not sure if seeing an unarmed and injured man being shot will necessarily sway them toward to the ‘Coalition’.
“Can I assume you also direct your questions to Bin Laden, al-Zarqawi et al?
Why are you juxtaposing Bin Laden with US forces? Shooting an unarmed man is the behaviour you’d expect from a terrorist, not a professional army who are supposed to be upholding the law of the land.
theghostofredken the Geneva Convention does not apply to these ‘insurgents’. Read it.
The BBC is beyond parody.
This morning Radio 4 described the Madrid bombers as ‘militants’.
Errr, Pete less of the name calling please. Not exactly sure what I’ve said that qualifies me as a spineless liberal.
He was lying there wounded and unarmed, he didn’t need to be killed. That wasn’t the job of the soldier.
Don’t get me wrong though I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. Its just I’ve just always thought the methods that we use and hold dear are what set us apart from these people and their actions.
We’re constantly told we’re at war, but as there are no soldiers the Geneva convention does not aplpy? If this is the case then what rules are there?
The whole episode does not bring a smile to my face, I just fear that its another incident that will cause us more trouble in the long run. I wish the reporter had kept his mouth shut.
Rules apply, but these ‘insurgents’ aren’t protected by the Geneva convention, the logic being (in my opinion) that the price for not obeying the rules of war is losing any protection from them. The US forces have their own RoE and these are what count in this case, and only then internally.
PD
“He was lying there wounded and unarmed, he didn’t need to be killed. That wasn’t the job of the soldier.”
You need to be careful. Was he unarmed? Are you sure? Was he wounded? If he was playing dead, why was he playing dead? Was he a threat or not? Did he have a grenade with him or not? And remember, you have a few seconds to decide.
Not so easy or straightforward now is it?
Then there is the marine. He has been wounded. He has seen booby traps on corpses. He has seen suicide attacks. He may have seen insurgents using all manner of dirty tricks to kill Americans.
Is it a life or death situation? Or are we sat in our armchairs repeatedly replaying Wayne Rooney going down in the box, in order to decide if the ref was right or not?
The bbc (News24 midday) kept referring to the dead terrorist as an unarmed ‘iraq soldier’. Funny I thought the iraq army were fighting alongside the US troops. Anyway how do they know he was even an iraq? he could well have been a syrian, chechen, saudi… etc. etc.
Maybe next time the nasty US soldier will say to the nice wounded terrorist ‘Hi, would you like a nice cup of tea and by the way is that a grenade in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me!’
Thank you Andrew, I will re-read the Geneva Convention if it makes you happy. I actually read it at school when I did a project on POW’s held by Japan in WW2 and the suffering they endured.
No offence intended there theghostofredken but it’s pretty clear cut that the Iraqi terrorists don’t get protection, just as it was clear cut with the Guantanemo detainees. We’ll have to wait and see if people choose to ignore the facts again though.
It’s a tough call to make either way so I would refrain from making snap judgements. But the images that we’re talking about draw an interesting parallel with Vietnam, to my mind at least. The US did struggle to win ‘hearts and minds’ in Vietnam and it ended ultimately in defeat. Now I’m not saying that’s going to happen in Iraq but it could have serious ramifications for the political process when they eventually manage to get the elections on.
Eamon, totally know what you’re saying. I’ve not studied the tape in any detail and I’m no military expert. I fully accept that someone could explain to me why this guy was shot dead by the soldier.
I was just generally letting it known that it doesn’t make me smile that he was killed when it looked to me like it wasn’t necessary.
I also take the point that the tactics of the enemy lead to us changing our reactions….
I remember saying after 9/11 that you’re gonna see no more plane hijackings by those who are not suicidal. Because if anyone were to hijack a plane now everyone is going to assume they are now flying in a missile, so will do anything even sacrifice themselves to prevent any similar destruction. Before you start jumping on me, in no way am I saying they would be wrong to make such an assumption. I’ve no doubt I would do the same.
“it’s pretty clear cut that the Iraqi terrorists don’t get protection, just as it was clear cut with the Guantanemo detainees.”
Well, the US Federal Courts have their doubts:
http://www.findlaw.com.au/news/default.asp?id=22153&task=read
Same story :http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-08-gitmo-bush_x.htm
If a US Marine really did shoot an unarmed, harmless prisoner he should be punished for it; end of story.
Anybody who believes that the Iraqi people will be up and arms over the killing of one of the ‘insurgents’ who has been killing them by the dozens is delusional.
The US federal courts are entitled to wonder over how the detainees are handled in respect to US law, but when it comes to the Geneva Convention they can’t quibble: they are not entitled to POW status as a right.
“US Court Condemns Guantanamo Bay Trial:
A US court decision has cast doubt on the likelihood of military commission trials for Australian Guantanamo Bay detainees David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib.
Judge James Robertson of the District Court of Columbia, described the military commission tribunals currently set up to try Yemeni detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan as unlawful.
He found that Mr Hamdan, as a prisoner of war eligible for protection under the Geneva Convention could not be tried by a military commission.”
http://www.findlaw.com.au/news/default.asp?id=22153&task=read
“Why are you juxtaposing Bin Laden with US forces?”
For one simple reason; Following countless atrocities by terrorists the left has not raised one finger in objection, in question, in opposition. Yet before the dust had settled after 3000 were killed on 9/11 the left was stating that the US ‘had brought it upon itself’. The moment a US, British or Israli soldier MAY have committed a wrong act, the left crawls out of the woodwork again. Where is the left when a film maker in Amsterdam is murdered by Islamic terrorists? I didn’t hear them.
So I’ll say what I really think. I think the left is on their side. Its on the side of the terrorists, the head hackers, the mass murderers of innocent civilians. Stating here that the left is on the side of civilisation is not enough; it has too long a track record of silence in the face of atrocities to overcome.
There’s little doubt that the left is completely at odds with the values of the West and they will support anybody, absolutely anybody, who shares their antipathy. I can hear the outrage in Naughtie’s voice if Dubya makes a move against Kim Il Sung or the mullahs in Iran. These regimes are evil defined.
On Falluja, the USMC demonstrated that they can do the necessary to the head-choppers; no drug-addled hippies amongst these volunteers. BTW, who’s keeping an eye on the French down in the Ivory Coast?