I see that the BBC is pushing the government line that Syria could be “a force for stability” in the Middle East. That’s a bit like saying that Haringey Council could be a force for child protection. Or Labour could be a force for low taxation. Apparently Syria and Britain have been holding high-level intelligence talks in order to combat terrorism, Syrian officials have told the BBC. And such outrageous pro-Syrian propaganda is then duly spewed out by Al Beeb. It seems that Syria – a central player in the nexus of evil – is getting a make-over and the BBC is doing its best to portray Boy Bashar’s thugocracy in a favourable light.

Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to SYRIAN STABILITY?

  1. Pete says:

    Just another bit of BBC ‘analysis’ made with as much regard to quality as most of the corporation’s output.

    Top Gear. Casualty. Eastenders.


  2. mikewineliberal says:

    It’s a factual report of a newsworthy event. There’s no bias or propagandising here. What an utterly bizarre interpretation


  3. Kill the Beeb says:

    “It’s a factual report of a newsworthy event. There’s no bias or propagandising here. What an utterly bizarre interpretation.”

    Wanker. You never get it do you? Bias by omission as always from the BBC. Read the report carefully and you’ll see it spun like no other news outlet will spin it. They totally downplay Syria’s involvement with Hamas and omit all the juicy details so as not to paint an unattractive picture on their good buddies.

    How is it the BBC drag on a report omitting vital info that the Canadian Press can do more effectively with this short report:-

    “Britain sees ‘constructive role’ for Syria in the peace process

    1 day ago

    DAMASCUS, Syria — Britain’s foreign secretary says Syria can play “a constructive role” in the stalled Middle East peace process.

    But David Miliband warned that rocket attacks by the Palestinian group Hamas on Israel will hurt Syria’s role in the region.

    That’s because Syria hosts the exiled leaders of Hamas.

    Miliband spoke to reporters in Damascus on Tuesday after holding talks with President Bashar Assad.

    Miliband is the first senior British official to visit Syria since former prime minister Tony Blair’s visit in 2001.”


  4. another anonymous says:

    I see whining boy is in favour of dictatorship.


  5. John Bosworth says:

    I’m sure the following will add a little context to the BBC’s report on David Miliband’s visit to the Dentist of Damascus. Frank Gaffney, CEO of the independent Center For Security Policy brings us this on his website:

    An aide for Robert Malley, who served as a junior Middle East aide to president Bill Clinton and is now working for Obama, told Frontpage magazine this week that acting on Obama’s instructions, Malley traveled to Cairo and Damascus after Obama’s electoral victory to tell Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Assad that “the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests.”

    In a related story, Hamas terror operative Ahmad Youssef told the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper that in the months leading up to his election, Obama’s advisers held steady contacts with the leaders of the terror group in Gaza, and had asked that Hamas keep the meetings secret in order not to harm Obama’s chances of being elected”.

    A little later Gaffney adds this:

    “What is most disturbing about Obama’s emerging foreign policy is not simply that it ignores the reality on the ground – a reality that clearly demonstrates that Iran and its Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese surrogates are implacable foes of Israel and America and therefore not interested in being appeased. It is also not just the fact that it sends a signal of American weakness to Iran and its proxies just as Iran reaches the nuclear threshold. And Obama’s emerging foreign policy is not merely disconcerting because by speaking with Iran and its proxies, Obama will be legitimizing the genocidal regime in Teheran.”.

    I wonder if our friends at the Beeb, who were so fond of calling Blair Bush’s poodle will do the same with regard to Obama and Brown?


  6. TPO says:

    In the last 30 years the BBC has had its own agenda which, in many instances, runs counter to the national interest of Great Britain.
    This article just reaffirms that agenda.
    Missing are the host of quotation marks that usually accompany their website dross.
    Missing also is the phrase, ‘the BBC has been unable to verify’.
    Only the naive in the extreme could be taken in by this BBC story on Syrian intentions. Amusing to see one such individual posting above.


  7. Ben Hur says:

    Prophet cartoon row in Indonesia

    The Indonesian government says it has called on a blogging website to take down two cartoons which depict Muslim Prophet Muhammad in sexual situations.

    The communications minister said the drawings were “very inappropriate”, and said if necessary he would ask internet service providers to block the site.

    The cartoons, which appeared on the website last month, have provoked fierce debate among viewers.

    Many Muslims believe it is forbidden to depict Muhammad in any form.

    The two cartoons, which are several pages long, each tell a sexually explicit story involving the Prophet, interspersed with verses apparently lifted from the Koran.

    Indonesia’s communications minister described the cartoons as “very unethical and very inappropriate”.

    He said the ministry was asking the website to remove them. And if necessary, he said, it would ask internet service providers to block access to the website itself.

    A ministry spokesman said the cartoons were offensive, not just to Muslims, but to all religions.

    There were protests in Indonesia two years ago when cartoons depicting Muhammad appeared in a Danish newspaper.



  8. NotaSheep says:

    Just because the Syrians assassinate Lebanese politicians, occupy Lebanese land and are believed by many to have been behind the Lockerbie bombing, why should the boy Miliband (if it’s good enough for Peter Hain…) not give in to their requests. Don’t be fooled by our Foreign Secretary’s jewish roots, he would sell out Israel in a minute if he thought it would be to the advantage of the UK and more importantly the Labour government.


  9. David Preiser (USA) says:

    NotaSheep | 20.11.08 – 7:26 am |

    The problem is that Miliband and his kind don’t even think they would be selling Israel down the river. They honestly believe that the Muslims will settle down and let Israel alone if the get massaged enough. If they didn’t think Israel was a threat, they wouldn’t be so belligerent, once they’re assured the Palestinians have their own homeland, blah, blah, blah.

    Actually, this is probably why Miliband is over there now. Syria was very helpful early on, and then quit when the US caught them abetting foreign terrorists coming through their border into Iraq. It now seems that, as always, the terrorists are starting to cause some internal unpleasantness. So Syria is opening up again. It’s the same thing as Saudia Arabia: they’ll dine with the Great Satan if it means temporarily protecting their own fat asses.

    But I agree that saying that Syria could be anything like a force for stability is dishonest at best.


  10. Sue says:

    David Miliband is doing his bit to perpetuate the Palestinian interpretation of history with which this country has chosen to align itself.
    Given that there are two diametrically opposed versions of almost every myth and fact according to either the Arab or Jewish narrative, and given that there is copious evidence that versions peddled by Palestinians are unreliable and often fabricated*, and given that acts of terror in the middle east and the rest of the world are real and terrifying and visibly perpetrated by Islamist extremists, and given that the stated aim of Islamist ideology is the destruction of Israel, ……the conundrum is, why is it that the British consensus, and that of the BBC, still remains, steadfastly and unendingly, with the Arabs and against the Israelis?

    * Islamofauxia!.html

    I can see no other explanation for this than our old friend antisemitism, of which there is still a definite streak in certain circles in this country. There’s a certain look, a certain drawing back, an underlying unspoken hostility that suddenly appears when one comes out and the J** word is mentioned.

    After John Humphrys’s interview this morning with Michael Smith
    and his comment that the British government was not sufficiently concerned about what was going on in Germany in the thirties and the British establishment’s feeling that “The Jews were making a fuss,” I thought about the comparisons people are currently making between now and the thirties. Especially chilling to me to hear that the BMA lobbied to keep Jewish doctors from coming to Britain. More on


  11. hippiepooter says:

    Can’t wait for a glowing report on the next car bomb assasination of an anti-Syrian politician on the BBC.


  12. hippiepooter says:

    Sue, the beeb like to trundle out these reports on 30’s anti-semitism as a disclaimer to the fact they’re in the driving seat behind today’s anti-semitism.

    Holocaust remembrance on the BBC should be called Hollowcaust remembrance. It becomes more empty and hypocritical every year. ‘ ‘Never Again’ – well, if its not done by us, at any rate’ could easily be the Beebs slogan.


  13. Anon says:

    Many in the BBC would probably rather see 1,000,000 Israelis die in a nuclear holocaust than have a Conservative government in the UK. In fact the BBC might even prefer a nuclear attack on London, so long as White City and Notting Hill were untouched, rather than have a Conservative government in the UK.


  14. Ms. Know says:

    If they’re a force, under the weak leadership of the liberal illuminati, what does that make us? Toast I guess.