The Boston ‘Tea Party’ Massacre

I posted earlier how the Authorities swiftly move in to manage the Public’s perceptions of an event and thence its reaction….and how the BBC obliges them by ‘managing’ its news output.


The horrific attack on the Boston Marathon is an example of this in operation.  Here it is the US government but there are certain elements to the situation that make the BBC want to control your idea of events, even those in the US.

As usual it is intended to damp down speculation that it might be an Islamic terrorist attack….but to do this they quite readily point the finger at ‘domestic’ causes…and narrow it down to the Republicans.  Of course you might want to rein in that speculation when you think that the  Administration is Democratic and maybe all too ready and willing to blame their opponents…with the pro Obama/Democrats BBC eager to help them.

The Democrats are in power and the President is black….the BBC look to defend the Democrats at all costs.  The immediate thought in most people’s mind would be that this is probably an ‘Islamic’ terrorist attack.  The BBC and government don’t want that link made and work hard to disassociate Islam from terrorism in your mind…whether at home or abroad….remember the BBC telling us that the Muslim Brotherhood is a ‘moderate’ organisation.

The Today programme repeatedly said it had no idea who was to  blame for the bomb blasts.

However….they then went on to list other violent mass attacks in the US that took place ‘this week in history’.  Apparently it is the ‘chosen’ week for ‘domestic’ attacks for those with a grudge against the State….or so the BBC tell us.

Evan Davis decided that the evidence was pointing towards a ‘domestic’ attack and not an, er, ‘international’ or ‘imported’ attack…not sure what that evidence was…other than similar events happening previously in this week…but you could look at terrorism throughout the year in the US and find lots of events occuring in other ‘weeks’ and make that significant. 

The Waco Siege actually began in February…and the World Trade Centre bombing, by Muslims, was also in February…so what do the BBC conclude from that?

Justin Webb, whilst not mentioning Islam at all, started to lay the blame at the door of the Republican Party…politics being so ‘divided’ in the US…you know that terrible thing where some people have one idea on how to run the country and others have their own idea…not allowed in Webbs world…we must all side with the Democrats.

Webb blamed the Republicans for the divisions….apparently the Democrats are always willing to compromise, and have the right ideas anyway… is the disagreeable Republicans that spoil things and cause division and argument.

Webb, the Webb who has a poster of Obama on his study wall, also went on to say that the Republicans hate Obama….is he suggesting it is because Obama is black?  .

I think he was.

So there you have it.  Whilst there is no evidence, other than several reports that a Saudi national was in custody and of a home being searched already, the Today programme has firmly pinpointed the real culprits…..the Republican Party/Tea Party extremists who have stirred up anti-Obama hatred and incited ‘domestic’ acts of terrorism.

But as they say…nobody knows who carried out the bombing yet.


But it was the Republican Party fanatics.



Wikipedia lists terrorist attacks in the USA….amongst many attacks, often by Left Wing terrorists, even some Jews, there is the Leftist anarcho environmentalist ‘Unabomber’ who was also active  days after the Oklahoma City bombing…the BBC don’t mention him.

But he had something interesting to say about the government attempts to manipulate perceptions of why he carried out his terrorist acts….just as here in the UK Muslim bombers are labelled criminals or insane, anything but ‘Muslim’, the Unabomber was similarly diagnosed….as he says for ‘political’ reasons……

Kaczynski recalls two prison psychologists, Dr. James Watterson and Dr. Michael Morrison, who visited him almost every day for a period of four years, who told him that they saw no indication that he suffered from any such serious mental illness, and that the diagnosis of his being paranoid schizophrenic was “ridiculous” and a “political diagnosis.”

 The similar diagnosis for Muslim bombers is clearly meant to diassociate Islam as the inspiration…and note the BBC have also used  the same technique to attackand discredit climate sceptics.


Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to The Boston ‘Tea Party’ Massacre

  1. George R says:

    You are right, Alan, on BBC-NUJ’s political predisposition on reporting ‘its’ America.


  2. MartinW says:

    Yes, indeed. Justin Webb was notably (and typically for him), biased in his reporting of the
    Boston bombs incident. Throughout the program he repeatedly referred to the Oklahoma unibomber, and the fact that it was Patriot’s Day, speculating that an extreme right-wing group might have been involved. Never a word about a possible Islamic terror attack and, though a possible ‘foreign origin’, was mentioned, it was dismissed. Does he not realise we had already read in other news sources about a Saudi national being questioned, and that the police are looking for another ‘dark-skinned or black’ person?
    At 06:53 this morning, Webb departed from his role as presenter to give us his opinion of the Fort Hood massacre. In an extraordinary and deceitful little peroration and warping of the truth, he said ‘no one knows the motive for the massacre’. No mention that the perpetrator was a Major Nidal Hasan, no mention that he was giving out Korans that morning, no mention that he yelled ‘Allah Akhbar’ as he murdered his fellow soldiers, and no mention that Hasan was in communication with the al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki. Plenty more on
    In short, Webb’s behaviour on the Today programme this morning gives ample grounds for an official complaint to the BBC for biased reporting. He should not be able to get away with this.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The BBC’s own “profile” of the Ft. Hood murderer suggests that he was driven to his crimes by the racism he experienced at the hands of fellow soldiers, plus run-of-the-mill anti-war sentiment.

      Although the BBC does admit near the end of the piece that the FBI was aware of someone with the same name posting jihadi stuff on the internet. I wonder if Justin Webb thinks it’s a case of mistaken identity.

      I’m writing a complaint, anyway.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Mardell was pushing the same lie during the aftermath of the Ft. Hood murders. He was on air telling people there’s no evidence that Hasan was doing anything out of religious conviction, and then continued the same Narrative in his blogging and other reports.

      Yet, other more honest media were reporting at the same time that Hasan was yelling that specifically Mohammedan mantra, and handed out business cards with the abbreviated title after his name:“SoA(SWT)”, which stands for “Soldier of Allah”, followed by the Arabic for “Glory to God”. Not quite your average anti-war luvvie.

      Note to defenders of the indefensible: If you want to dismiss this simply because of the source (Fox News), you’ll have to first prove that this is a fake. Shooting the messenger won’t work this time.


      • noggin says:

        bbc speak – waco – or mc veigh – or far right – or lone wolf – or dis affected republicans – or unhappy gun lobbyists – or homegrown terrorists – or breivikites – or, or, or,
        sshhh! … don t mention islam, mardell mentioned it once, but i think we got away with it.


    • chrisH says:

      And note his comment after 8am that whatever happened in Boston, really is not THAT much to fuss on, since Iraq would have had the same killing of kids yesterday.
      Outrageous-truly wicked from somebody who did rather well out of reporting from the USA.
      As you say-he must not be allowed to get away with these nasty little “just sayings”


  3. noggin says:

    terrible terrible attack.
    bbc as usual, to their shame, hypersensitive to mentioning islam but lots of ahem! inferences to others … whats new?

    mind you lots of “criminal act” coming from obamedia too
    as well as the bbc … hmmm
    Fort Hood shooter – work place violence,
    Benghazi – video s fault
    CIA/FBI – taking out all references to islamic and jihad from their literature.
    … a pattern emerging? …


    • noggin says:

      nearly 5pm .. return home to find, 5live drive still talking on and on about, waco – lone wolf – far right – unhappy about gun law – ya da ya da,
      oh! …taking in the periphery do you know, there have been nearly 50 attempts at terrorism linked to the far right since 9/11? … stats eh! (which actually i find hard to believe)
      what planet are they on? … 20,707 deadly terror attacks (not attempts), since 9/11 all islamic, which means if you have over 416 terrorist attacks then one is possibly not islamic.
      bbc eh! .. absurd out of touch waffle, with no basis in reality …
      hmm all things considered, i think i ve got that just about right 😀


  4. George R says:

    BBC-NUJ’s censoring of Islamic jihad in Ford Hood cases.

    Robert Spencer’s analysis is as relevant to BBC-NUJ as it is to U.S. political attempts at Islamic jihad whitewash.

    “See No Jihad: U.S. Still Treating Fort Hood Jihadis as Criminals.
    “Determined to ignore reality.” (2012.)


    • noggin says:

      george … really hate to say it, but i think a “fix” might be in ….
      ala fort hood shooter, benghazi, the 3 blind monkeys of political protectionism- (obama/hagel/brennan)
      s emerson yesterday stated it has all the hallmarks of more recent afghan ied s, and a jihad attack …

      surely … it not been missed that, if jihadists just stay silent about an attack those “useful idiots” in the white house and media, will sooner thrash themselves to death on theories, sooner than be objective.
      the overt clamour to point the finger everywhere else, is frankly astounding.


  5. David Lamb says:

    Too early to draw conclusions but we can predict the BBC will protect the ROP. Was a warning given before the explosion?
    Alaistair Stevenson, coach and eye witness, draws attention to something unusual.


  6. AsISeeIt says:

    Let’s keep in mind last night and Mark Mardell’s hint about ‘homegrown’ ‘right wing’ terror backed up by his reference to ‘security chatter’.

    I’ve no idea who did this. My personal guess would be different to Mardell’s hint – but let’s wait and see. However, let’s not forget Mardell’s little hints.


  7. DJ says:

    Yep, the BBC is double-dipping again: tut-tutting about irresponsible speculation on the bomber’s identity, but how about those crazy Tea Party people, huh?

    And no, I don’t recommend holding your breath for anyone to point out that this must mean the Obamamessiah is ‘divisive’.


  8. David Lamb says:

    Sarah Palin has been making some encouraging remarks about US sports men and women of late. Perhaps the BBC could link this with the Boston killings and run another protracted HYS as they did in response to the Arizona shooting when moderators allowed comments that accused her of endorsing homicide.


  9. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I’ve submitted a complaint via the online process about Webb’s lies, but I’m not happy with it. There is now a severe character limit, and I couldn’t give half the evidence I wanted to. The best I could do was say that there was evidence proving Webb was wrong, and I could provide links. It’s almost as if they don’t want you to do it properly.

    Worse, at the end of the process, the instructions said that this was meant to provide a brief complaint so that the BBC team could then see it in full later. Makes no sense.

    I’ll probably be dismissed out of hand the same way the BBC has dismissed two other complaints: this wasn’t a US broadcast, so shut up.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘I’ve submitted a complaint via the online process..’
      One salutes your indefatigability.
      ‘There is now a severe character limit…. It’s almost as if they don’t want you to do it properly.’
      Shocked, one tells you, shocked.
      The fun part comes when you are limited, so they say they don’t know what you’re on about, and when you get back to explain they then say it’s all too much and to save wasting licence fee payers’ money (much better directed at firing, hiring, pay-offs, buy-offs, hush monies and legals) they are taking their ball away… because they can.
      ‘Makes no sense’
      If you are presuming the process is to resolve complaints vs. make them go away, no.


      • Martha says:

        Actually to tranlate, they told you they werent going to keep relying to you because you were wasting their time and resources, and that most of the time they couldnt understand your point.

        Imagine that. Shocked, shocked I tell you!


        • Guest Who says:

          So, this time round it’s ‘Martha’?
          Taunt and flaunt away, CECUTT; if you (they) think it serves the BBC to do so in such a manner.
          ‘they told you they werent going to keep relying to you ‘
          If this is the level being operated at and committed to here, the inability to understand anything in English, especially a point, is explained if still not excused.
          Also maybe best not to hit the predictive text after getting back to night shift from the pub?


  10. chrisH says:

    What`s all this crap about Thatcher being “snubbed” by the USA.
    Isn`t Hillary Clinton coming-and isn`t she the very peak of knicker -wetting liberal fantasies?
    Oh, I see-sick old President Bush isn`t coming…that`ll be a slap in the face to Thatcher for cosying up to Reagan won`t it?
    Just make it up, slap it on Twitter-can I be a BBC hack now mummy?


  11. Alex says:

    UNBELIEVABLE! I am sick to death with Left wingers bandying around terms like ‘white right wing extremists’, ‘Christian radicals’ (I know, I can’t believe it either), ‘fascists’ simply because they are petrified of offending Muslims.


  12. london calling says:

    Funny, I had posts in BBC HYS rejected due to the inclusion of the word “Islamofacist”. Apparently no such possible linkage of two political ideas exists. Or it is offensive, to Facists, I assume.

    Auntie is tied in knots obsessing with social cohesion taking priority over reporting news, which is the primary purpose for existence of BBC News.

    Perhaps its time for a name change.


  13. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Mark Mardell has done a new blog post about the aftermath of the bombing. A parade in Washington, DC in celebration of “Washington DC Emancipation Day” (no, me neither – it’s the day when the Emancipation Proclamation was signed into law, but I never heard it called that before. Adding the city into the name seems rather tasteless, but what do I know?) inspired Mardell to make the keen observation that the public tone has changed since 9/11. Everyone is reacting with sadness after this first successful terrorist act on US soil since then, instead of anger or what he describes as “amped-up patriotism” (a cardinal sin). I wonder if it’s because we don’t know anything yet, and we’ve been instructed over and over for the last twelve years not to react that way. The BBC’s US President editor actually acknowledges that we don’t know anything yet, which makes his observation rather pointless. But still, he’s well-paid and so must crank this stuff out.

    However, much to his apparent chagrin, the President has now described the bombing as an act of terrorism. Yes, the dreaded T-word passed His lips. Mardell says this:

    He used the term terrorism, which he had avoided on Monday night.

    There was another event not too long ago which the President didn’t describe as a terrorist act until it became politically expedient to claim that He did: Benghazi. Considering how that became a pretty major issue in the run-up to the last election – including a big incident during the second presidential debate, remember – that’s something about which Mardell should be making “compare and contrast” remarks. Yet he makes no mention of it.


  14. Germanicus says:

    I’d say the US authorities are going to play this out as some sort of white supremacist, Republican good ol’ boy attack. Notice how in it’s reporting the BBC is alluding to the Boston Bomber as singular? i.e not a terrorist cell, but a lone bomber, contrary to the evidence of this being a well co-ordinated group attack.