BBC Blog Network

User Profile

adamant1980

Listed below are comments made by adamant1980 between Wednesday, 2nd July 2008 and Monday, 26th January 2009.

«Newer
Older»

BBC and the Gaza appeal 9:08pm on 26 Jan 2009 Post #990 SPOT ON!!!

"DialSquareDomination wrote:

Where was the BBC's impartiality when they broadcast this?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HzJhbIkWH_o

---------

From the above post it is blatantly obvious that Mark Thompson and the BBC are quite "partial" to showing aid appeals in conflict zones where blame is contested and there are debates over the cause of the humanitarian crisis. The BBC claims do not hold up to logic nor to their recent history.

I am seeing a worrying trend of the BBC becoming complicit in the Israeli agenda for isolating and starving the Palestinian people.

1. Israel has a blockade on Gaza's land, air and sea borders. It is illegal and an act of war to blockade another country's airspace and waters, yet the BBC never mentions the extent of the blockade nor the legalities, instead they restrict their coverage to stressing that some aid is allowed through the land border.

2. A while ago, Interpal, the largest UK charity dedicated to Palestinian aid was accused by right wing and Zionist media of supporting Hamas. The UK charities commission investigated and cleared Interpal of any wrongdoing, the allegations were withdrawn.
Subsequently the Jewish Board of Deputies accused Interpal of terrorism, the US accused Interpal of funding Hamas (but chose not to present any evidence) the BBC also ran a panorama programe challenging the Charities Commission verdict and strenuously tried to link Interpal with terrorism. The UK charities commission investigated again, and again cleared Interpal of any doing.
Recently, Lloyds TSB Bank have also come under pressure to blockade Interpal's charity aid to Palestine.

3. Now there is a very uncontroversial DEC aid appeal which deliberately avoids any mention of blame, avoids any graphic images of Palestinian suffering, avoids images of weapons or fighting, even avoids mentioning the blockade in order to appear completely impartial, yet the BBC takes the stance to block the screening of the aid appeal.

Every license fee payer expects the BBC service to deliver the whole truth. The coverage of the conflict itself has been completely one-sided with no interviews at all with the Palestinian side, and with a tremendous about of self-censorship as was explained on John Snow's excellent "Gaza Unseen" footage. Despite Israel only suffering 3 civilian deaths compared to the 1400 Palestinians, we heard and saw more stories about Israel's casualties than we did about the Palestinians. This kind of bias is expected in the US where the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC has so much influence that the prime minister of Israel need only telephone the president of the US and tell him how the US will vote at the UN, I hope they do not have the same kind of influence over the taxpayer-funded BBC.
BBC and the Gaza appeal 8:19pm on 24 Jan 2009 The BBC's decision not to allow an appeal for aid to the people of Gaza is as scandalous as their decision not to allow the truth about the atrocities committed in Gaza.

The BBC cannot hide behind it's claims of impartiality when it consistently presented a biased view of the conflict itself.

1. We saw all the Israeli victims (all 3 of them) of Hamas rockets, we heard their family and we saw their funeral. Where was the corresponding coverage of Israel's rockets, and bombs? Where were the cries of the thousands of Palestinian families? Did the BBC attend a single funeral of any Palestinian? No. Where is the impartiality of that?

2. We heard Israeli spokespeople claim that Israel was returning fire against Hamas who use human shields. Did the BBC speak with a Hamas spokesperson to rebut these claims? No. Where is the impartiality of that?
When the UN proved that Israel was lying, Israel changed its story. Did the BBC challenge the Israeli spokespeople the next time they bombed and killed children? No. Where is the impartiality of that?

3. We heard the Israeli spokespeople complain that Hamas was lobbing rockets Israel even during the 6-month ceasefire. Did the BBC point out that the publicly available Israeli intelligence document praised Hamas for maintaining it's ceasefire and stopping other groups from shooting rockets? No. Did the BBC point out that the 6-month ceasefire agreement required Israel to lift the siege on Gaza, when in fact Israel did the opposite and tightened the siege? No. Where is the impartiality of that?

4. Did the BBC point out that attacking airplanes and ships in Gaza's airspace and water is an act of war? Did the BBC mention that the blockade on Gaza existed before Hamas was even elected? No, where is the impatriality of that?

5. Did the BBC point out that in the West Bank where there is no Hamas and no rockets, that Palestinians are still being killed by Israel anyway? Did the BBC point out that the Israeli settlements are illegal, the Israeli checkpoints are illegal and the Israeli wall are illegal? No.

6. Did the BBC point out that International law considers Palestine is to be under occupation by Israel? No. Did the BBC point out that International law allows armed resistance against an occupation? No.

Throughout the entire conflict, the BBC News (otherwise known as Mark Regev's propaganda channel) has consistently presented Israel's version of events without any challenges or alternatives.
The BBC, uniquely for this conflict,has interpreted impartiality to equate to showing the two sides as equals.
Western leaders called Israel's actions a "disproportionate response", the BBC failed to even present the disproportions.
The president of the UN assembly called this an act of genocide. The UN is calling for investigations of war crimes committed. The UN is warning of the desperation of 1.5 million Gazans living on the edge. The charities are appeal for aid to help the widows and orphans and ordinary civilians in Gaza. This is the extent of the disaster which the BBC has censored from our screens and is further censoring again by refusing to run the Gaza aid appeal.

This is not impartiality, this is censorship to maintain consistency of biased coverage. The rest of the channels did not "break with the BBC" as your headlines claim, it is the BBC that broke with British values and it's charter to provide a fair and balanced service to the British people when it refused to broadcast the truth during the conflict, and refused to help dying children after the conflict.
Health care heartbreak 11:53am on 05 Jan 2009 My Best wishes to your son and your family and prayers that a cure is found to alleviate the suffering.

The US's lack of a national health service is quite startling for the most advanced and wealthy country in the world. Especially when you consider how many trillions have been spent on their illegal wars, or the billions in "aid" that is given to dictators in Egypt and Jordan, and the billions of aid and weapons given to the illegal occupiers Israel. With the recent attacks on Gaza, and the images of tiny sisters laying dead under the rubble of an Israeli attack, I can't help but wonder: The US taxes used to build and supply these weapons to Israel's use on Gaza's children, could easily be used instead to treat America's children.
The American people need to look at their priorities and take stock of where their taxes are spent: Abroad filling the coffers of murderers and dictators? or at home curing the sick and feeding the poor?
Just like the dying children of Gaza, every American child that suffers because of the prohibitive cost of treatment, is a victim of a flawed policy that spends more on death abroad than on cures at home.
The veto that wasn't meant to be 12:42pm on 14 Jul 2008 What has Mugabe done that other pro-Western dictators have not been doing for decades already?
Mugabe oppresses, beats, kills and intimidates the opposition. He gets chided by the West who try to impose sanctions on him.
Mubarak (of Egypt) oppresses, beats, kills and tortures the opposition. He gets Billions of dollars of US aid and weapons. 37 years is a long time to torture people. Where are the sanctions against him?

Two summers ago, when Israel was bombing Lebanon. The UN tried to put an end to the bloodshed. The US and UK vetoed the UN and even went to supply Israel with more cluster bombs. Not to mention the endless US vetoes on all other UN resolutions against Israeli crimes and the continuing supply of money and weapons to support the illegal occupation.

The illegal invasion of Iraq... the UN was totally ignored and called "irrelevant" by the same leader who is trying to push sanctions through it.

The US, and West in general, does not have the moral credibility to criticise Russia and China. They are all alike. They all look after their own greedy self-interest even if it means trampling over the lives of the innocent. That is how a super-power is created, and that is why it inevitably becomes hated and falls.
Impossible conspiracies 12:25pm on 11 Jul 2008 More Americans have been killed in the Iraq war than have been killed in 9/11.
The Iraq war was based on the conspiracy that Iraq had WMD (and was ready to use them in 45 minutes according to Blair), and that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and was working with Al-Qaeda. In all the years since the Iraq war, not once has anyone from the government or CIA "leaked" that this evidence was fabricated, (even though the whole world and their dog knows that it was.)
The suggestion that "The more high profile and outrageous the act the more difficult to keep it secret" doesn't hold water. When people blindly believe anything and everything they are repeatedly told by their leaders, it is easy to discredit the truth.
It was outrageously easy to convince the American public of the lies that Iraq had WMD and was linked to 9/11. But it was even easier to convince the American (and world) public that Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11. It only took a few hours after the planes crashed to have "all the evidence needed" to point to Al-Qaeda. Maybe they did it, maybe they didnt. The point is, the public are lied to, the public believe the lies, the public don't need evidence to believe the lies. The closer the lies are to their pre-held prejudices, the easier it is to believe the lie.
That applies equally to the believers of the "official" story as well as the "Conspiracy" story.
Controversy and conspiracies II 3:47pm on 02 Jul 2008 One thing (of the many) that bugs me is how quickly the conclusions were drawn after the event.
Within hours, they had all decided that Osama bin Laden was to blame, despite their being no evidence at all of any involvement. The only evidence of foreknowledge about the attacks on 9/11 was the "5 dancing Israelis" who had setup their cameras to record the crash before they happened (and subsequently danced for joy once the planes crashed), who reportedly had boxcutters, fake passports and plenty of explosives. Mainstream media, including the BBC, have erased all records of these 5 Israelis.
I'm not saying that Israel was involved in these attacks, but it does illustrate the gagging power of the media to whitewash important events and block the rest of us from accessing all the facts.

Can we trust the BBC to tell us the truth? Remember what happened the last time they tried?
Before the Iraq war, there were many who cast serious doubt over the motives for war and the WMD claims. They were all called conspiracy loons, just like the 9/11 doubters are called conspiracy loons. The BBC uncovered the truth about the "dodgy dossier" when a single brave man involved in the whole conspiracy attempted to expose the lies of the government. That man quickly comitted suicide soon after (after another all-too hasty investigation), the BBC were dragged before enquiries and were all but destroyed. They have never recovered from that day and have yet to ask the same hard-hitting questions as they used to. They are all too happy to tow the official government li(n)e.

I think it is unrealistic to expect a pro-Western news agency to come up with anything to undermine the West's official stance, just like it would be unrealistic to expect a pro-terrorist news agency come up with anything to undermine their stance.
Propaganda is about brainwashing people into agreeing with your plans.
The neocons had a plan, one which (by their own admission) required a massive national traumatic piece of propaganda to spur it into action. If it was an inside-job, I doubt the truth will become mainstream in our lifetime. Whether we like it or not, the majority of people only believe what's on mainstream news channels, whether it be facts or outright lies like the WMD.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

adamant1980