When it came to removing Saddam, the BBC were to the fore in the Stop the War movement. When  it came to removing the Taliban, the BBC were to the fore in urging restraint. But when it comes to Syria, and Assad, they are to the fore in demanding his head. BBC support for the so called “Free Syria Army” is blatant and Today had yet another report from those BBC embedded with Al Queda the Free Syrian Army. It strikes me that the Assad thugocracy and those who oppose him are equally repulsive and I am unsure why the BBC thinks that we have a dog in this fight. The entire Arab Spring meme seems to be the driving force here with the BBC knee jerking into presuming that Islam is benevolent once it gains power despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to THAT FREE SYRIAN ARMY…

  1. geyza says:

    Correct. I am disgusted by the way we are being played for fools. In the late 1990s, Al Qaeda (under the guise of the KLA) were good and we armed and trained them. Then from 2001 they were evil and we “smoked them out of their holes”, now apparently we are expected to believe that they are good again under the guise of the “Free Syrian Army”

    They are the same hate-filled, extremist, women hating, liberty destroying, murdering butchers that they have been since the Islamic Jihad started in Egypt in the 1950s.

    The West exploits them for our own use, but it is an immoral and dangerous game and we do suffer what Ron Paul called “Blow back”

    I feel so sorry for the millions of innocent Syrians who do not care for either side, who are caught in the middle in our proxy war.


  2. Richard Dell says:

    The dynamics of the Syrian situation are complex and fractious – the facile BBC view of bad Assad and good FSA ignores the Kurds, Iranians, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Turks and Russians. If you want some real detail, read this. As anyone with any intelligence would have worked out there is some serious power politics going on, involving smart but ruthless people. And, contrary to the brainless BBC position, they don’t all wear black hats.

    Why, oh why, when the BBC report on war zones do we get long minutes of some (no doubt brave) reporter standing in some bomb shocked street showing people struggling to get on with their lives, with the narrative essentially “isn’t this awful and shouldn’t WE stop it”, occasional interviews with the “freedom fighters” (i.e. ruthless thugs who know the power of the media) and utterly no serious analysis of who is fighting who and why.

    “WE”, by the way are the venal, imperial, slave trading, exploitative, capitalist West, who seriously need to do everything we can to expunge our multiple sins of the past.


    • Alex says:

      Yes, totally agree. Can you remember the last time the BBC had discussions with, and in-depth analysis from, both parties? Every BBC news feature revolves around the progress of rebel forces with hopelessly one-sided accounts from fighters with vested interests. I am no fan of the tyrannical Assad regime but the disgusting propaganda from the BBC and Western governments which is fueling the likes of al-Qaeda and the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, is a disgrace; this is an Islamic revolution NOT an Arab Spring.
      The BBC and the rest of the ‘radical’ socialist Left want to see Islam spread throughout Europe… hence they’re pushing this sickening pro-rebel agenda. The UK MSM, however, are very quiet on what our good old peace fighters are doing in Egypt and Libya regards Christians and religious minorities! Can anyone recall when we last heard the concerns of the large Christian minority in Syria on the BBC? Reports state that the minorities are terrified of what might happen should Assad fall… No-one in the controlled MSM seems to care, though.
      On a similar theme of rank hypocrisy, I recall that the BBC were running a piece last week hysterically bemoaning the fact that the Assad regime was being provided with weapons by Russia; however, they failed to mention what our special forces might be up to! Hypocrisy? I certainly think so.


      • geyza says:

        The Russian arms supplies are not new and they are long term on-going rolling contracts.

        The helicopters that were being shipped are helicopters which Syria have had for a long time, but which had been returned to Russia for routine servicing, which were being returned.

        The BBC made it seem like Russia were suddenly rushing lots of new arms and equipment in for Assad to murder civilians on a large scale.


  3. If the “rebels” win I wonder how soon those chemical weapons we’ve since heard about will drop off the map. We don’t know what happened to the alleged weapons that disappeared in Libya. Will the Syrian weapons go walkabout as well. Where will those weapons wind up next. What if they find their way into a rocket that fires from Gaza, what then? How will they spin that one. Do these pople delude themselves that if such weapons rock up in London the chemical particles in them will somehow only burn the lungs and eyes of anyone who isn’t a BBC or Guardian reporter?


  4. +james says:

    “When it came to removing Saddam, the BBC were to the fore in the Stop the War movement”

    I have to disagree with that statement. The BBC mind pumped the public with plenty of propaganda into excepting the invasion of Iraq.

    Remember all those over excited embedded reporters who claimed that it was so wonderful that Tony had liberated the Iraqis from the wicked Saddam. It was so sickening that I had to turn over and watch the news on Sky.

    It was only after Gilligan’s revelations that the BBC became anti-war.

    So I suppose they were a bit like the Italians during WWII that changed sides at half time and wanted to string up their glorious leader from a lamp post.


  5. Michael says:

    I have to say that this is rather poor analysis. In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no popular uprising that was being crushed by the people. To say they are comparable is a mistake. Yes, they were brutal dictatorships, and I agree that we should have removed them as we did, but you can hardly blame the BBC for treating the issues differently, because at their heart they are different.

    In terms of the people doing the fighting, yes there are Islamists amoung the crowd, but many analysists have pointed out that none of these revolutions have much of a standard Islamic thread to them. The people doing the fighting are often Muslims, but with some extreme exceptions, the majority of them are not doing so “for Islam”. They are doing so because their homes have been destroyed, because their family and friends have been killed etc. This isn’t like the Iranian revolution. This is a very different beast.


    • Alvin DeLottery says:

      My goodness, some sweeping generalizations there, old chap… my favourite being ‘But many analysists have pointed out that none of these revolutions have much of a standard Islamic thread to them’. Care to name a few of these impartial analysts?
      You obviously don’t follow current affairs closely because there have been numerous accounts now (Libya and Egypt both providing abundant evidence of Islamic fanaticism) of Islamic fundamentalism being at the forefront of these uprisings… I mean, come on Michael, the very fact that the Muslim Brotherhood have come to such prominence is all the evidence one needs! William Hague, in the House of Commons, no less, and indeed Hilary Clinton both stated that Islamic militants were manipulating the situation heavily not to mention George Galloway’s admission on RT the other day that al-Qaeda are infiltrating and inflaming the events in the East (and he’s an extremist Lefty for goodness sakes!). Moreover, Russia, China and countless international countries who do not reside on the Left also voice concern over the composition of the ‘rebel’ forces.


    • Backwoodsman says:

      Probably entirely tribal based power politics at the root.
      As pointed out elsewhere , any blue on blue in the middle east, should be left entirely to the protagonists to knock the stuffing out of each other.


  6. ltwf1964 says:

    moslems knocking the living crap out of each other and leaving !srael alone

    can only be a good thing!


  7. DP111 says:

    Syria is/was among the best of moderate secular dictatorships, considering what is on offer in the rest of the ME from Saudi Arabia and the rest. Syria is a “beacon” of freedom of opportunity for religious minorities and women (comparatively). Christians can practice their faith publicly and without fear. Women can get an education and job, drive cars and do just about anything. What exactly do the opposition MB offer?


    Syrian Rebels Plundering and Destroying Churches


  8. Roger says:

    And today on the opening day of Olympics, the day when many are remembering the Israeli athletes massacred by the PLO in Munich (the butchery that IOC refuses to even recognise), the Today programme thought fit to air a propaganda puff piece for Hamas by running a story on how Palestinians are kept in slavery by the Jews of Israel.


  9. Doyle says:

    Thursday – Newsnight finally got round to asking ‘just who are the Syrian rebels?’ Only about 18 months too late. It was shown as the third story which is an indication of how important Newsnight regards the question they finally got round to asking. I can imagine the beeboids now – look we covered it, there was no bias, we got it about right. Puke.


  10. Asherpat says:

    “BBC knee jerking into presuming that Islam is benevolent ”

    not exactly. Like all the lefties, BBC chooses what to support as follows: what is worse for the Judeo/Christian civilisation.


  11. DavidLamb says:

    Any news about the mother of all battles? Something is happening in Syria but no news. I am anxiously awaiting the Beeb interview with Ahmed the on the spot activist who reports on government atrocities. I’m sure he lives in Salford, its the accent.