Useful web sites

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    « Well, that's nice to know | Main | An agreement that can't be enforced? »



    The drooling schadenfreud at the BBC is palpable isn't it?

    What I resent so bitterly is that we are expected to fund this wickedness under threat of criminalisation.



    So why does the BBC choose this conspiracist, ferociously anti-American kook to comment on what's going on in Iraq?

    For one moment leaving aside the BBC bashing, let's look at one reason, actually given in your post:

    The Sheikh is a supporter of the radical Islamist and ferociously anti-American cleric Muqtada as Sadr.

    Sadr - Muslim fundamentalist with his own army - is now a very important figure in Iraq, with a considerable vote and the ability to make or break coalitions and governments.

    Given Sadr's importance to the politics of Iraq it is unsurprising the BBC interviews his supporters.

    Not for the squeamish though, hey?



    "Given Sadr's importance to the politics of Iraq it is unsurprising the BBC interviews his supporters."

    My point - and I think, Judy's - is not that the BBC interviews Muqtada al Sadr, but that they ONLY choose to interview Sadr, and/or people like him.

    It is the IMBALANCE in BBC coverage which is so consistently infuriating.

    And dangerous, too. Because such one-sided reporting risks dulling public perception of the reality of the threat from Islamofascism.

    Happily a quick glance at the BBC message boards, and the sane blogosphere confirms my hopes that the left/islamist alliance is not fooling everyone all of the time.


    "My point - and I think, Judy's - is not that the BBC interviews Muqtada al Sadr, but that they ONLY choose to interview Sadr, and/or people like him"


    have a look at the "Today" schedule for this morning

    see anyone from the U.S. Military or the Pentagon being interviewed to give their take on things?


    The anti-American angle that the BBC is taking is getting more and more shrill with every passing week, and it is starting to seriously piss me off, to the extent that i will be writing a letter to the BBC governors for the first time in my life.


    I heard this too, and my thoughts were that SURELY even someone who is neutral about what is happening in the Middle East (Which I most certainly am NOT) would be struck by the fact that this man would blame the weather, a hang nail, a hole in his sock, or a dead battery in his car, all on the US, and therefore his comments could be discounted.
    But maybe I am an optimist?

    Eli Tabori

    The BBC also uses very often, the hate filled Al-Quds Al-Arabi Editor 9in Chief Abd Al-Bari Atwan as commntator on the Arab Israel conflict see his recent statement:

    Wednesday, February 22, 2006
    MEMRITV: Al-Quds Al-Arabi Editor: Arafat Told Me Oslo Would be Israel's Curse

    The following are excerpts from an interview by Al-Quds Al-Arabi
    Editor-in-Chief Abd Al-Bari Atwan, aired on ANB TV on February 16, 2006.
    *Clip # 1046 - Al-Quds Al-Arabi Editor-in-Chief Abd Al-Bari Atwan: Arafat
    Told Me He Would Turn the Oslo Accords into a Curse for Israel

    Abd Al-Bari Atwan: When the Oslo Accords were signed, I went to visit [Arafat] in Tunis. It was around July, before he went to Gaza. I said to him: We disagree. I do not support this agreement. It will harm us, the
    Palestinians, distort our image, and uproot us from our Arab origins. This
    agreement will not get us what we want, because these Israelis are

    He took me outside and told me: By Allah, I will drive them crazy. By Allah, I will turn this agreement into a curse for them. By Allah, perhaps not in my lifetime, but you will live to see the Israelis flee from Palestine. Have a little atience. I entrust this with you. Don't mention this to anyone.
    Always remember this. Sometimes, when I would criticize him strongly, he would say to me: Do you remember the promise I made, Abd Al-Bari?




    Might I add a slightly more fundamental point here.

    Many if not most in the anti war movement often suggest that they would have been fully supportive had the Iraqi people themselves overthrown Sadaam Hussein. Taking this a face value (hmm) that means in all probability that those - mainly Shias and Kurds -who had borne the brunt of Sadaam's dictatorship, would have been in the vanguard of those doing the overthrowing, while the Sunni's who were rather more privileged under Sadaam, would have been less prominent in the oppostion to him.

    Let's look a little further on. If the result of an Iraqi revolution had been democracy and/or socialism, then presumably that would have drawn the same opposition from Islamist anti democratic anti secular groups like al Quaeda as Iraq faces at present.

    How then in heaven's name is it logical to attribute the problems Iraq faces today (including any impending civil war)simply to the 2003 war and "occupation".

    One could of course argue logically that it would have been better for Sadaam to have remained in office but very few do.

    The clear implication is that these people want to have their cake and eat it. They want to blame the US and UK for the problems because of the 2003 war yet refuse to accept that the only alternative to the problems now faced by Iraq would have been to leave Sadaam in power.

    The bottom line is that for all that has happened ther is no evidence that Iraqis want Sadamm back and from the high voting turnout, now from all communities,it is now clear that the violent opposition is anti-democtratic sectionalist and fascist.

    Pentagon desk officer

    The Beeb ought to be interviewing modern, decent, democratic, honest, liberal Iraqis like Ahmed Chalabi.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    August 2015

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    9 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 20 21 22
    23 24 25 26 27 28 29
    30 31          
    Blog powered by Typepad