Stability Monkeys

The BBC is a firmly ideological organisation. One way you can see that is that the messages they purvey rarely change, even though they may evolve somewhat.

Take the Iranian election this week. The BBC’s John Simpson said when Ahmedinejad was elected in 2005 that Iranian politics was “complex and sophisticated”. The invitation to consider his election as an expression of an intelligent electoral system was clear.

Now, following the latest election in which Mahmood strengthened his position with suspicious symbolic perfection outlined by Amir Taheri here, Simpson describes Iran as “a relatively sophisticated country”. Relative to what he does not say. As I did before, in 2005, I invite you to discover some examples of this “sophistication”, all of which documented by Amnesty International (for which I hold no uncritical admiration) since Mr Simpson voiced his view of Iranian “sophistication” in 2005.

Simpson, now apparently ensconced in Iran as he used to ensconce himself in Iraq when he befriended Saddam’s ministers, makes the case for stability:


“it certainly is not in the outside world’s interest to have a long period of disorder in Iran. Political chaos in a leading oil-producing country would do more economic damage to Western countries.”

In so doing he makes the case for Ahmadinejad’s continuing in office, and breaches the code for impartiality. But that is more or less a stable state with the BBC, isn’t it?

THOSE IRANIAN ELECTIONS…

I notice the BBC is getting very excited about the election taking place in Iran between what it describes as the “ultra-conservative” Ahmadinejad and the “moderate” Mousavi. Let’s leave the attachment of the word “conservative” to Holocaust denying Jew hating Ahmadinejad aside for one moment and consider Mousavi’s “moderation” – shall we? He is in favour of Iran’s nuclear programme (Objective; Wipe Israel off the map and gain regional supremacy); he has been an adviser to Khamenei; he has been described as a “firm radical” -and of course he has a track record of anti-Americanism. None of this is touched on by the BBC in their fluffy endorsement of the moderate Mousavi. Moderation and Iranian leaders under the jackboot of the Mullahs are mutually exclusive but you would never know that from BBC coverage.

LOVING THE MULLAHS.

I had to check if the date was April 1st when I heard the BBC item that our Dear Leader was inviting the Iranians to combat climate change by expanding “peaceful” nuclear energy. Bet the Israelis will really love that! Naturally the paper tiger caveat from Prudence is that there will be (more) strict UN resolutions (the sort that we know don’t work) if the Mullahs do what they are doing anyway and develop nuclear weapons. Truly pathetic stuff from Brown, designed to ingratiate himself with Obama, and all without a second thought for the nation that Iran has clearly within its atomic cross-hairs. Not that the BBC like to talk about that aspect of things. Iran is just a friend we have to meet.


David Cameron to relocate to Iran?

Conservatism may still be strugging to regain a meaningful presence in the United Kingdom but boy is it alive and well in Iran! he BBC’s bizarre obsession with the alleged forces of conservatism in Iran reappears today in its coverage of the Iranian parliamentary elections. This time round though it’s not the 13th Iman’s dining pal and holocaust denier President Ahmadinejad that is the “conservative” – no, it turns out that it is his critics – the uber-fascists – that are now designated “conservatives”! It’s as if the BBC staff-writers have set themselves the objective of labelling the biggest Islamofascists around as “conservatives” in some puerile attempt to demonise that very term. The radical Islamist regime that pollutes Iran can be called many things but as I said yesterday, and as I repeat today, it is in no way conservative. The international left of centre MSM of which the BBC is such a central element, may seek to designate the term conservatism to the Khomeini legacy but the truth is that it is a Nazi-like Islamic theocratic tyranny which curiously enough has created close links with favoured LEFTIST regimes such as Venezuela and Cuba. How long before Hugo Chavez is defined as a leading conservative politician?

THE IRANIAN MAKE-OVER.

When one considers the Islamofascist character of the Iranian government, backed up by deranged Mullahs and their puppet president Ahmadinejad who has an imaginary 13th Imam as a dining pal, only the BBC would conclude that this is a conservative regime and yet that is exactly how it is what repeatedly described on an item on the “Today” programme just after the 6.30am news. Discussing elections taking place in Iran today, the BBC reporter stated that “moderates” might struggle to produce a breakthrough because of the essentially conservative nature of the regime. So just to reprise – hanging gays, enforcing shar’ia, backing terrorism, profound anti-semitism – these are all the hallmarks of a conservative administration, if one listens to the BBC. Is it any wonder that the BBC’s leftwing bias is a target for many of us when we witness this kind of tripe served up as impartial news reporting? Curiously enough, 25 minutes later, the BBC followed up with a story suggesting that the British Conservative party was not showing enough a lead over Labour to win at the next election. Conservatives = bad in BBC worldview, and they sure know how to subtly poison the well, don’t they?

IRAN IS WINNING

Here’s a fascinating insight into Beeboid thinking concerning Iran. The headline announces that “Iran claiming victory despite sanctions” and it covers the Mullahs response to the effete sanctions, passed by the UN Security Council on Monday, which extend the two previous ineffectual tranches of sanctions aimed at tightening the economic and trade squeeze on Iran. The BBC asks Mark Fitzpatrick, a nuclear proliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, for his view and he suggests that the UN Security Council has failed to achieve its stated objectives. The BBC goes on to quote the Supreme Tyrant Ali Khamenei declaring that Iran had “honestly and seriously achieved a great victory”, for which he praised the country’s political leadership. By way of balance, ahem, the BBC then allows well know peace-maker Iranians President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to weight in with his take: “Everyone has understood that Iran is the number one power in the world. Today the name of Iran means a firm punch in the teeth of the powerful… ” I’m guessing you know who he is referring to – and so do Al Beeb. They just love anyone who hates the US, eh? The bit that really gets me is when the BBC author of this report, Paul Reynolds then editorialises that “it remains unclear as to what Iran can do with its “victory”. Wiping Israel “off the map” would appear to be the stated objective – has Paul forgotten what Ahmaddie said a while back? It’s all about finishing what Hitler started for the Mad Mullahs – and yet the BBC seem perplexed about it all! Maybe they believe, along with the Fabulous Baker boys stateside, that Iran can be a force for stability in the region – once Israel is gone of course?