State Run Nazi BBC — Lying BBC tells Churchill Lies & Shakespeare Lies against Scottish Independence

.

.

.

BBC & CNN are two Biggest Criminals

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

VIDEO

VIDEO

VIDEO

VIDEO

.

.

.

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

.

.

.

.

Nazi BBC’s Lying Propaganda of Churchill Lies, Shakespeare Lies, Thatcher Lies, Harry Potter Lies, Humpty Dumpty Lies & Marmite Lies

.

.

.

.

State Run, Nazi BBC

& Lying BBC

=

=

=

Churchill Liar

Shakespeare Liar

Thatcher Liar

Diana Liar

Harry Potter Liar

Humpty Dumpty Liar

Marmite Liar

.

.

.

.

State Run, Nazi BBC

& Lying BBC

tells

“Churchill Lies”

and

“Shakespeare Lies”

against

the

Scottish Independence

.

.

.

.

.

State Run, Nazi BBC

& Lying BBC

is

the

Biggest

Churchill Liar

&

Shakespeare Liar

of

the

World

.

.

.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/06/16/367197/poll-shows-43-support-scottish-independence/

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Advertisements

State Run BBC — Nazi BBC tells “Churchill Lies”, “Shakesperae Lies” & “Harry Potter Lies” in favour of the British Royal Family

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

.

.

.

.

Nazi BBC’s Lying Propaganda of Churchill Lies, Shakespeare Lies, Thatcher Lies, Harry Potter Lies, Humpty Dumpty Lies & Marmite Lies

.

.

.

.

Nazi  &  Lying  BBC

=

=

=

Churchill  Liar

Shakespeare  Liar

Thatcher  Liar

Harry  Potter  Liar

Humpty  Dumpty  Liar

Marmite  Liar

.

.

.

.

Nazi BBC tells

“Churchill Lies” in favour of the British Royal Family,  because, Lying BBC is the Biggest “Shakespeare Liar” of the WORLD

.

.

.

.

http://www.RINF.com

.


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

State Run BBC — Angry Syrians tell “Churchill Liar – Lyse Doucet” that Evil BBC tells LIES all the time

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

.

.

.

.

Nazi BBC’s Lying Propaganda of Churchill Lies, Shakespeare Lies, Thatcher Lies, Harry Potter Lies, Humpty Dumpty Lies & Marmite Lies

.

.

.

.

Lyse Doucet of Nazi BBC

=

=

=

Churchill Liar

Shakespeare Liar

Thatcher Liar

Harry Potter Liar

Humpty Dumpty Liar

Marmite Liar

.

.

.

.

Angry Syrians tell

“Churchill Liar – Lyse Doucet”

that Evil BBC is the Biggest Liar of the World

.

.

.


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

State Run BBC —— Nazi BBC’s SEVEN Churchill Lies, Shakespeare Lies, Thatcher Lies, Harry Potter Lies, Humpty Dumpty Lies & Marmite Lies in a Single Article about Libya

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

.

.

.

.

Nazi BBC’s Lying Propaganda of Churchill Lies, Shakespeare Lies, Thatcher Lies, Harry Potter Lies, Humpty Dumpty Lies & Marmite Lies continues unabated & without any Hinderance

.

.

.

.

.

Seven Shameless BBC Lies in a Single Article

.

.

Libya  :  France & Italy to send Officers to Aid Rebels

.

.

State Run,  Nazi BBC’s Lying Propaganda of Churchill Lies, Shakespeare Lies, Thatcher Lies, Harry Potter Lies, Humpty Dumpty Lies & Marmite Lies continues unabated & without any Hinderance

.

.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_62827.shtml

.

.

By, Les Blough,

Editor, Axis of Logic

.

Wed, April 20, 2011

.

.

 

Editor’s Note: Our columnist, Arturo Rosales sends us this shameless BBC article (republished below), writing:

“I recall that this is what the US did in Vietnam in the early 1960’s…..before sending in hundreds of thousands of troops and equipment. Now, where is the UN resolution backing this up? Is this to enforce a no fly zone?”

Original BBC Coat of Arms
Do these images appear to be ‘speaking peace’?

It is said that the original BBC motto, “Nation shall speak peace unto Nation” is “most likely based” on text from the Hebrew Bible, specifically the books of Micah and Isaiah, which state: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” But the BBC’s history as a colonialist, pro-war, land & resource grabbing enterprise tell a different story.

Here, we identify the 7 outright lies in this BBC report:

  1. Ground invasion of Libya by the west: Indeed, Francois Baroin speaking for the French government “reaffirmed that France had no intention of sending a military force to Libya, saying: ‘We do not envisage deploying combat ground troops’.” This in itself is a transparent obfuscation. At the very same time the French mouthpiece says they have “no intention … do not envisage,” a ground invasion, France is appealing to the UN for a new resolution to approve the same, explicitly.
  2. “The real issue” – Baroin went on to call a ground invasion, the “real issue” that deserved consideration by the U.N. Security Council. The only ‘real issue’ is this international war crime is the invasion of a sovereign state as a bulwark against anti-imperialism in Africa and the Middle East and for the theft of Libya’s natural resources.
  3. Massacre of Civilians/Endangering Civilians: The lie about the “massacre of civilians” and “targetting of civilians” by the Libyan government has been shown to be a fabrication by a British fact-finding teammade up of civilians, and in this video titled, Obama lied about Gaddafi’s bloodbath?.With that lie dismantled, now the BBC promotes a new one, saying that the Libyan government is “endangering civilians,” – this following the west’s direct massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Palestine – calling those killed and maimed civilians, “collateral damage.” When a rag-tag band of religious extremists in Eastern Libya, with arms, advice and aerial bombing supplied by foreign countries, attempts to overthrow a legitmate government and that government responds by first offering a diplomatic solution, rejected by the ‘rebels’, then subdues them with force – of course some civilians will sadly be killed and injured. Every nation, every government has the right to use force as defense against treason and foreign invasions. Meanwhile, this video shows who has been indiscriminatnly killing Libyan civilians.

 

  • The use of cluster bombs: Question – After the US, France, Britain and the UN lied about the Libyan government’s “massacre of civilians,” why are we to now believe them with their new attempt to justify their unjustifiable war, i.e. Libya’s use of cluster bombs? Contrast this new accusation with the west’s widespread use of cluster bombs, DU warheads and white phosphorus bombs for over a decade in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine? The story has changed from Libya’s “massacre of civilians” to Libya’s use of cluster bombs.
  • The ‘Rebels’ inspiration: The BBC’s fifth barefaced lie in this article is their claim that the ‘rebels’ were “Inspired by uprisings in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt.” Anyone who understands the history and genesis of this war knows that the so-called rebels were ‘inspired’ by their radical extremism, greed for power and employment by England, France and the United States to overthrow the Libyan government.
  • The Libyan government’s “war crime”. The BBC charges the Libyan government with the “deliberate targetting of medical facilities.” Why should this claim by the over-titled, “UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay” be believed when the UN was conscripted into the war by its western architects? By throwing the term “deliberate” into the statement, Ms. Pillay is asserting something that she nor anyone else could possibly know. When criminals run out of facts to justify their crime, they always resort to their claim to know the evil motivation of their enemy.
  • The Quagmire: The UN’s Ms. Pillay stated, “I urge the Libyan authorities to face the reality that they are digging themselves and the Libyan population deeper and deeper into the quagmire. They must halt the siege of Misrata.”This supports the seventh BBC lie that, “The rebels, based in Benghazi, hold much of the east, while Col Gaddafi’s forces remain in control of Tripoli and most of the west.”

 

‘Col Gaddafi’s forces’, i.e. Libya’s legitimate military not only “holds most of the west” – they have also all but defeated the uprising in the East. Otherwise, Barack Obama wouldn’t “admit a stalemate on the ground while France seeks a new UN resolution” – to invade Libya with ground troops. That corporate media report shows the Libyan government to be overwhelming the western-backed mercenaries and Misrata to be under siege:

As the regime’s rockets continued to hit the beleaguered rebel town of Misrata and Nato forces struck Colonel Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte, France and Britain were still struggling to persuade other members of the organisation to provide additional warplanes. A meeting of [NATO] member countries in Berlin yesterday broke up without any guarantee that military leaders would get the new resources they have asked for.

Moreover, many of Libya’s terrorists (some described as foreign workers) are fleeing East Libya by boat. As early as March 7 they were all but defeated and begging their sponsors for more firepower as reported by Pravda:

“Defeated, the terrorists are begging for the support of foreign troops. A defeat of the royalist insurgents and followers of Bin Laden is a question of hours in Libya. The uprisings – most of them financed by the CIA and organized by Al Qaeda – have ceased. In a few places some terrorists resist with weapons stolen from police, but the revolutionary committees and the Armed Forces of Libya move smoothly and safely, recovering territories and restoring peace and order.

“In defeat, the rebels show their true intentions: “We want a logistical foreign intervention, air embargo, bombing military bases, communications and command in the county, through the UN,” said Queidir Muftah, a rebel in Benghazi. In short, they confess to treason and demand that foreigners come to murder their own people. Indeed, this conspiracy is behind the desire of the U.S. government to steal oil from Libya, along with the interest of Bin Laden to set up a base close to Europe to promote terrorist attacks.”

Mass exodus of US/NATO-supported fighters as Libyan government forces advance in Eastern Libya.

James Petras recent analysis shows what is behind these BBC lies and the photo essay below his article shows the reality of the Libyan government’s success at putting down the west’s mercenaries in East Libya. So it appears that if Libya has become the “quagmire” as the UN’s “High Commissioner on Human Rights” says, it may very well be a quagmire for the U.S., British, French and a conflicted NATO.

The BBC and other corporate media are no less culpable for this war against the people of Libya than its US/European/Israeli architects, the international arms manufacturers and dealers and the besieged band of radicalized killers in Eastern Libya who have been pulling the triggers … and dying.

.

By Les Blough, Editor of Axis of Logic

.

.

.

Libya :

France & Italy to send Officers to Aid Rebels

.

.

By, State Run, Nazi BBC

April 20, 2011

.

.

France and Italy have said they are to send small teams of military officers to advise Libyan rebels who are seeking to topple Col Muammar Gaddafi.

French officials said fewer than 10 would be sent, while Italy’s defence minister announced that 10 would go.

The UK said on Tuesday it was sending a similar team to the city of Benghazi.

Meanwhile, the UN has said the reported use of cluster munitions by Col Gaddafi’s forces in the city of Misrata “could amount to international crimes”.

“Reportedly one cluster bomb exploded just a few hundred metres from Misrata hospital, and other reports suggest at least two medical clinics have been hit by mortars or sniper fire,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said in a statement.

Ms Pillay said the deliberate targeting of medical facilities was a war crime, and the deliberate targeting or reckless endangerment of civilians might also amount to serious violations of international humanitarian law.

“I urge the Libyan authorities to face the reality that they are digging themselves and the Libyan population deeper and deeper into the quagmire. They must halt the siege of Misrata,” Ms Pillay added.

Later, two Western journalists were killed and two were injured, one of them seriously, in a mortar attack in Misrata. It took place around Tripoli Street, which forms part of the frontline.

The city’s hospital said six people had been killed and 60 injured so far on Wednesday. Many of them had been shot by snipers.

One doctor told the BBC’s Orla Guerin that he and his colleagues were exhausted by death and by blood, and asked where the international community was.

‘Real issue’

Inspired by uprisings in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt, the rebels have been fighting Col Gaddafi’s forces since February. The rebels, based in Benghazi, hold much of the east, while Col Gaddafi’s forces remain in control of Tripoli and most of the west.

French government spokesman Francois Baroin reaffirmed that France had no intention of sending a military force to Libya, saying: “We do not envisage deploying combat ground troops.”

However, Defence Minister Gerard Longuet said the idea of such a deployment was “a real issue” that deserved consideration by the UN Security Council.

The BBC’s Hugh Schofield in Paris says that in France, as in Britain, there is concern about the Libyan campaign turning into an open-ended commitment as both governments push to its limits the UN resolution endorsing the protection of civilians in Libya.

 

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

State Run BBC —— A Lesson in Nazi BBC’s Lying Propaganda of Churchill Lies, Shakespeare Lies, Thatcher Lies, Harry Potter Lies, Humpty Dumpty Lies & Marmite Lies —- By, Louis Dowes

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

State  Run  Nazi  BBC

.

.

.

.

Nazi BBC’s Lying Propaganda of Churchill Lies, Shakespeare Lies, Thatcher Lies, Harry Potter Lies, Humpty Dumpty Lies & Marmite Lies

.

.

.

.

A Lesson in State Run,  Nazi BBC’s Lying Propaganda of Churchill Lies, Shakespeare Lies, Thatcher Lies, Harry Potter Lies, Humpty Dumpty Lies & Marmite Lies —- By, Louis Dowes

.

.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/15/324087/a-lesson-in-bbc-propaganda/

.

.

By, Louis Dowes — Media Analyst

49  Comments

.

This week, I watched a BBC political programme. It is very popular. This episode shocked me. Nothing obviously shocking. But as a tireless media commentator, it was shocking to me.

.

The programme series is entitled ‘Daily Politics’ and was recorded and broadcast in the UK on Thursday, 12th September. It only lasts around ten minutes and can be found on Youtube as well. Simply type something like “George Galloway kills Daily Politics’ Jo Coburn on Syria.”

Reminding you of the BBC’s authority

Not too long ago, the BBC used to have an arm known as the BBC Empire Service. Today, the BBC itself is run very much like an empire, using pawns to win a media war, appointing three main categories of troops as follows:

1) Employing thousands of industrious Trolls to produce and broadcast its programmes;

2) Utilising hundreds of elite Advocates of its core policies;

3) Engaging with hundreds of notable Flag-Bearers to dazzle vulnerable civilians.

Of course, the BBC wants us, the pathetic gullible members of the British public to give it money for its survival; feeding it with our Broken Britain money like a demanding media beast. Well, I say the BBC wants us to give it money. Actually, it orders us to give it money; it commands us to give it money; it threatens us to give it money. In fact, if we do not give it money, it will prosecute us, and send us to prison.

Of course, the BBC, with its dazzling Flag-Bearers, convinces us that it is worth it. Ok, fine. It has some good shows. But so does my local circus. Some of the elephants there are amazing. But I don’t have to go to the circus just because it’s worth it. I can choose to go there.

In the alternative, the dazzling Flag-Bearers say that the BBC is a service that is provided, so we should pay for it. And the dazzling Flag-Bearers assign a beautiful name for the money the BBC orders us to pay. It’s called a “licence-fee.” It’s a service – you know – like for a telephone line or a gas bill.

Er… no.

It’s nothing like a telephone line or a gas bill. Because if I don’t pay for my telephone line or my gas bill, I don’t get a criminal record. Whereas if I don’t pay the BBC, not only can I get a criminal record, but I can go to prison!

But surely the BBC, the lover of peace, knowledge and social harmony wouldn’t actually prosecute me, would they?

Yes, they would. In fact, if you’re eating, please stop. If you’re drinking, please stop. Because this statistic may make you choke. I don’t know how to say it, so I’ll just say it. Out of all the criminal prosecutions in the UK, do you know how many of those prosecutions are started by the BBC against people not paying the licence-fee? The answer is hidden in this article. In fact, when you do find it, choke. Because you should not forget the time when you read it.

The BBC’s recruitment of its stampeding Trolls

The recruitment of Jo Coburn herself was not a mistake. She is a Troll, but not just in appearance. Her mind, also, resembles that of a Troll.

Slow, clunky, irrational… dead.

Putting it simply, as Jo Coburn would like it, the BBC loves propaganda. It needs the half-witted Trolls it employs to deliver the well-oiled attacks against people and countries; attacks that were advised by its strategists. It needs the half-witted Trolls to stampede through towns and villages head-butting civilians without caring for damage incurred to their foreheads.

But what the BBC does not love is when a rogue Troll, every now and again, dents the BBC’s image, which the BBC has tried so hard to protect by utilising its dazzling Flag-Bearers.

Where the BBC most needs its propaganda to work is in politics. And one programme that delivers the propaganda for Britain’s daily core politics is the suitably named ‘Daily Politics.’

So important is this programme that the BBC needs to ensure that, as with all the programmes that I have analysed over the past twelve years, the propaganda must be delivered by the Trolls, but disguised behind its dazzling Flag-Bearers; one such Flag-Bearer being Andrew Neil, the accomplished journalist who says his greatest achievement as the editor of the Sunday Times was revealing Israel’s nuclear weapons programme. Did he do this to promote Israel’s military might or to reveal Israel’s aggressive nature? You decide.

Nevertheless, in order to balance this apparent critic of Israel in Andrew Neil, the BBC needed to balance him by employing Israel-loving Trolls for the Daily Politics show.

One of these Israel-loving Trolls to balance Andrew Neil was a woman called Daisy McAndrew.

Who is Daisy McAndrew? Surely she would have to be a Zionist to balance Andrew Neil. Well, yes actually. Daisy McAndrew is a Zionist, even though she has, in the past, criticised Israel’s treatment of children protesting in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, she has described herself on Israeli television as a “liberal” Zionist who “championed” Israel’s defeat of Hezbollah in 2006. Hezbollah was defeated? Oh dear, she must have been watching something else.

In 2010, she repeated her support for Israel as the guest speaker at a Jewish charity event organised by rich businessmen working in the industry of mergers and acquisitions, something that Zionists do best. The charity is called ‘Norwood’ and its team is slightly disturbing.

Who’s on the team of this charity?

Well, a patron of this charity that the BBC’s Daisy McAndrew supported is Cherie Blair, the wife of the yet-to-be-arrested war criminal, Tony Blair, who fairly recently, and quite typically, employed his own Troll for his office. Who did he employ? He employed a former Israeli army intelligence officer. This is while Tony Blair is the so-called Middle East “envoy.” I wonder whose side he’s on.

Another patron of the charity that the BBC’s Daisy McAndrew supported is Zionist Norma Brier. This woman was very supportive of the dead child abuser, Jimmy Saville; himself being a staunch supporter of Israel’s aggression against surrounding Arab nations. Indeed, Jimmy Saville, in 1975, criticised the Israeli Cabinet for being too “soft” after the Six Day War.

An Honorary Life President of the charity that the BBC’s Daisy McAndrew supported is Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. I won’t waste your time telling you about him. The family name speaks for itself.

But then, Daisy McAndrew left the BBC’s Daily Politics, so she had to be replaced. And she was replaced strategically by Jenny Scott. Although Jenny Scott has never, to my knowledge, actually stated that she is a Zionist, we do know that one of her stated goals in life was to help develop Israel’s economy in the 21st Century. Indeed, when she had heard that a mutual friend, Mark Carney, would soon become the Governor of the Bank of England, she applied immediately to become the adviser to the Governor of the Bank of England. And she succeeded. In 2008, she left the BBC and became the Bank of England Governor’s adviser. A few years later, her friend, Mark Carney, became the new Governor. Of course, he had already spent thirteen years at Zionist-run bank Goldman Sachs learning the art of heavy-weight commercial banking.

So, now two Troll presenters had come and gone from the BBC Daily Politics show. But the BBC could not have its propaganda delivered by non-Zionists. So it had to recruit a third Troll. And it did. Jo Coburn – the English Jewish journalist who describes herself as a “liberal” Jew and “sympathiser” of the Zionist movement.

In 2011, Zionist Jo Coburn attended and supported ‘Liberal Judaism Day’ at the Liberal Jewish Synagogue in St John’s Wood, London. Also in attendance was executive editor of the right-wing The Times newspaper Daniel Finkelstein and Liberal Judaism chief executive Rabbi Danny Rich. The event held more than sixty seminars, including discussions about Jewish practices, Zionism and how to make the case for Israel; important subjects to learn to succeed in dazzling ordinary people into believing that there is a valid case for Israel without actually making it look like an argument in favour of Israel.

Jo Coburn’s Troll behaviour

This week, the BBC wanted to make its 4369th case for war on Syria in order to advance its mother’s interests in the Middle East and to protect its ally, Israel.

The BBC’s Troll was Jo Coburn. Its dazzling Flag-Bearer was Baroness Neville Jones, a truly exceptional member of the British elite. After all, she was a career member of the Queen’s Diplomatic Service for over thirty years, from 1963 to 1996. During these years of service to the Queen, she served in British Missions in Washington D.C., Rhodesia and Singapore. She was also recently the Minister of State for Security and Counter Terrorism. For this lady, diplomacy, composure and deception are as easy as dunking a cookie into a cup of coffee.

Of course, no case can be made for war unless it is made against the arch-antagonist of war, George Galloway. Yes, he was on the show as the “other guest” – a big mistake if you want to win a war of words.

But the show began well. The BBC used its Troll, Jo Coburn, to do what it does best – lead you into believing that it is forgiving to Galloway, the anti-British Empire guest. How so? Because the opportunity to speak first was given to Galloway. The BBC doesn’t want to shut down its opponents – the BBC is impartial. Well, that’s nice.

Now, you’re feeling comfortable. With the BBC being this nice, they must be on the right side of morality. Whatever concept they leave me with, it will taste right.

Indeed, whatever concept the BBC leaves you with, it will taste right, the emphasis being on the word leave. Because, by presenting you with Galloway’s views first, it will trigger an order of conversations back and forth between the two guests until the only fair ending is that the other guest be given the final word, in this case, the BBC’s dazzling Flag-Bearer, Baroness Neville Jones. And of course, this is what happened at the end on this show.

So by presenting you with Galloway’s voice first, the BBC succeeds in two areas: firstly, it gives you a false sense of impartiality; and secondly, it ends on its own terms, its own editorial line, in line with its mother, the British Foreign Office.

But this would not be easy with Galloway ready to pounce at every opportunity he could get. At around 3 minutes and 23 seconds into the debate, and in response to the Baroness’s dismissal of President Bashar al-Assad as unsavoury, Galloway confronts her hypocrisy,

“Why did you billet him with the Queen, then? Why did you billet him with the Queen? You were one of the people that advised the Queen to have him in her spare bedroom. Why did you do that?”

Clearly, despite Galloway’s torrent of questions, the dazzling Flag-Bearer Baroness does not quiver at her knees and fall prey to Galloway’s questions by defending her position. In fact, she does not even respond, let alone ridicule him. As we will see later, not everyone shares her skill in composure.

The debate would have probably continued successfully in favour of the BBC had it not been for the Troll that is Jo Coburn being unable to control herself. Because the turning point is at around 5 minutes and 41 seconds into the debate when, in criticising the BBC for its war-mongering output with regards to Syria, which in my opinion has been unprecedented, Galloway says,

“… the BBC, which is funded by public opinion, or public who have that opinion, really ought to wise up, because your role as the war-time propaganda mouthpiece is really infuriating people the length and breadth of this country.”

As this attack by Galloway is intolerable to the Troll that is Jo Coburn, because of the protocols taught to her by the BBC in shutting down people who make any suggestion that the BBC is a mouthpiece of the British Foreign Office, Jo Coburn immediately responds by sticking her hand out at Galloway and rebuking him, saying,

“George Galloway, that’s, that’s just you being deliberately provocative.”

Galloway then remarks that the BBC, by so evidently backing a British war on Syria in its programming, would eventually lose the licence-fee. He says,

“You’re going to lose the licence-fee over this.”

It was patently clear that by using the word “You,” Galloway is referring to the BBC, not to Jo Coburn herself. Yet, so difficult is this type of rationale for Jo Coburn to register, that she takes Galloway’s warning personally and responds by idiotically saying,

“You don’t have to threaten me”

as though she’s in a T-shirt and jeans smoking outside a restaurant having a row with a builder. Her response is immature, irrational and unjournalistic. The BBC’s image in this episode of the show is beginning to crack open.

Jo Coburn then begins claiming that Galloway’s theory that the chemical weapon attack was not committed by either the Syrian government or its military “goes against all of the intelligence”. She first uses the word “all” in relation to the intelligence; not because this is actually true but because she is not really an accuracy-seeking journalist. Rather, she follows her passions, her impulses, her anger. Yes, she is still angry with Galloway’s earlier attack on the credibility of the BBC, and therefore by extension, her own credibility.

[By the way, I’ll give you the answer to the question posed earlier in this rant of mine, which was “Out of all the criminal prosecutions in the UK, do you know how many are started by the BBC against people not paying the licence-fee?” The answer is one in ten. That’s right. One in ten of all prosecutions in the UK is commenced by the BBC for us poor tramps not paying their mandatory licence-fee. One in ten.]

Back to Jo Coburn’s erratic Zionist-led behaviour on the show. Of course, due to her training, she immediately remembers that she must comply with the BBC’s dazzling image of news accuracy. She therefore quickly qualifies her claim of “all” intelligence by now saying that Galloway’s theory goes against “most” of the intelligence, not “all” the intelligence.

Most vulnerable guests would have retreated by now and maybe have changed the subject in order to preserve their image. But not Galloway. He begins questioning her about this “intelligence” that she claims he opposes. Clearly unable to respond to his question, Jo Coburn does what many journalists could not even dream of doing. She begins to act defensive, and, slightly furious. Realising she doesn’t have an answer, she responds by asking the same question back to Galloway. With the maturity of an unintelligent eleven-year old, she asks him,

“Where’s your evidence to say it wasn’t.”

And then again, like a child, unable to realise that repetition does not mean victory, she tries to win the debate, not by actually arguing her position in a coherent and intellectual manner, but rather by simply repeating her question, only this time more forcefully, trying to shut him up,

“Where’s your evidence to say that it wasn’t Assad’s regime…”

Jo Coburn’s blind animosity towards the Assad regime is apparent from her lack of composure. Why does she not just answer Galloway’s question?

Next, is the killer blow. The punch in the BBC’s throat – a simple mannerism – but one that is so telling of this Troll’s mind-set that you almost forget you’re watching a serious programme.

At around 6 minutes and 23 seconds into the debate, Galloway says that his theory about the chemical attack is backed by logic. What does Jo Coburn do? Like a moron, who is unfamiliar with knowing how to challenge someone with argument, she instead rolls her eyes and turns away from him in a dismissive manner, trying to ridicule him.

Who is this woman?

Then, at around 7 minutes and 22 seconds into the debate, the Troll introduces a video clip from a phone-in show that Galloway presents on Press TV, which is an Iranian-based news channel that has had its own fair share of controversy over its relentless coverage of Israeli aggression. In the video clip, Galloway states his theory at the time, which was that the chemical weapons used in the attack by rebels in Syria were supplied by Israel.

Given the poor quality of the video clip, it is evidently clear that Press TV has not provided the clip to the producers of the show. So I immediately think, “The BBC has just ripped this clip from Youtube!”

By the way, following the show, I immediately telephoned the BBC to check whether it had indeed bought the clip from Press TV. After speaking with several admittedly polite researchers, I was passed onto the show’s producer who, in short, told me that he did not have to give me his name as he was a freelancer and secondly that the BBC had not bought the clip from Press TV because it was only a short clip and therefore they did not need to pay for it. He must have thought he was talking to an idiot. I told him that even if this were the case, would it not have been at least responsible to obtain permission from Press TV, or at least inform them. He dismissed my point as irrelevant. I then told him that if he is indeed correct that a broadcaster does not have to pay for short clips, then he should inform all the news providers in the UK to tell them channels don’t need to pay anything for short clips. I corrected him and told him that the length of a clip is irrelevant and it is not a legitimate defence stipulated by the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. I then added that the BBC would not even be able to argue that they had used the footage for critique. Why? Because the actual critique was intended for Galloway, not his show, and Galloway was already sat there in the studio right in front of Jo Coburn available for receiving critique.

No, the real reason for showing the footage was to ridicule Galloway, not to critique the Press TV programme.

At this point, the nameless BBC “producer” on the phone shrivelled up and mumbled the thirty-second remainder of the conversation, which ended with him saying that the BBC’s acquisition of footage is “confidential” at which point I said, “But I’m paying for it” and then he hung up. I am tempted to complain about the BBC’s treatment of me on the phone. But do you know who deals with these complaints? The BBC Trust. That’s right. Complaints about the BBC, which we have to pay for, is dealt with by the BBC Trust. That’s like complaints about the Israel Defense Force being dealt with by the Israel Defense Force Trust.

You see, the BBC treats the British public as idiots. The BBC is comfortable with its guaranteed salaries, paid for by the British public, who themselves are either jobless, redundant or part of the statistic that places Britain the fourth worst in Europe for wage rates. Shocking, I know.

Back to Jo Coburn: following the pirated footage from Press TV, Troll Jo Coburn then poses a question to Galloway but in the manner of a truly unintelligent child. She grudgingly asks, “Where’s your evidence?” Note that she quite embarrassingly uses the same phraseology as that already used by Galloway earlier in the debate. She must, quite unjournalistically, feel scarred by Galloway’s earlier slam-dunk and so she believes that by using the same phraseology, it will now guarantee her own success this time round.

As Galloway begins rationalising his theory about who he really believes launched the chemical attack and by which government the chemical weapons were supplied, Jo Coburn blindly accuses Galloway of just throwing out conspiracy theories.

Galloway then tries to explain to the now deaf Troll sitting in the studio the logic behind his theory, which he had already told her was a theory. And, rather than intelligently finding holes in the logic, she responds by saying, “Your logic.”

Galloway then responds with something that would rattle the pebble of a mind that knocks about in Jo’s head; something to which Baroness Neville Jones sitting quietly opposite would not react. Galloway says,

“You see, you don’t know this because you’re not a specialist in the area and I don’t blame you for that.”

I then see a reaction from Jo Coburn; one that I have never seen in a British journalist. American journalists? Sure. Many times. Particularly on Fox News.

But from a British journalist? Never. At least not recently.

The sin of a chef is to use microwavable food in a restaurant; the sin of a PhD student is to plagiarise; the sin of a U.S. President is to not start a war; the sin of a journalist is to become emotional, impassioned, partial or heated. And that is exactly what Jo Coburn, the BBC’s Troll, having replaced two previous Zionists, does on national television. She becomes impassioned, insulted, offended. She cannot tolerate what Galloway had just said. To say Jo Coburn is not a specialist because of her distressing lack of understanding of matters relating to the Middle East is like telling Anjem Choudary that he’s not a Qur’an-compliant Muslim because, well, his rhetoric belongs to the Umayyad Dynasty, not the Prophet Muhammad’s.

No, that’s not a good example. Because Anjem Choudary, whilst clearly confused, has the level of composure unimaginable by Jo Coburn. Jo Coburn is more like… a spoilt, unintelligent brat. Yep, that’s good enough for me. She’s a brat, excessively unintelligent.

What Jo Coburn does reflects her disturbing lack of professionalism. How she could ever be hired for another serious television programme in the future is beyond me. No one could really take her seriously; certainly not for issues relating to the Middle East. There may be some opportunities for her on Fox News.

Rather than ignoring Galloway’s remark of her not being a specialist, as would the more serious and accomplished journalists of the BBC, the now increasingly redundant Troll, in response to Galloway’s remark that she is not a specialist, looks at the camera and sarcastically scoffs,

“And you are!”

Seriously, what journalist does that?

Not only is she being unprofessionally sarcastic, but rather than looking at him, which would imply he is someone worthy of her stare; or, rather than looking at her notes or the ground, which would imply humility; or even rather than looking at the other guest, which would imply only a silent disregard for Galloway, she looks directly at the camera. This is something that is done only when intending to speak to the viewers. By looking at the camera, Jo Coburn is sharing with the viewers her dismissal of Galloway in order to ridicule him further. This is the psychology employed by snotty teenage girls in school playgrounds around the world in order to sneer their opponents. They have not matured to articulate their position. So instead, they use their bodies to dismiss their opponent’s argument. Like baboons, unable to communicate by way of an advanced system of language.

The childish scoff, “And you are!” is still ringing in my head.

She then rolls her eyes again, immaturely, and looks at her other guest for approval, whilst ridiculing Galloway with her facial expressions.

But Galloway, as the guest, quite rightly responds to her sarcastic scoff by saying that he is actually a specialist, and that this is precisely why Jo Coburn asked him to appear on the programme in the first place. Jo, very stupidly, says, “Is that right?” To which, Galloway very cleverly, and amusingly, says,

“Why did you bring me here then? Because I’m the MP for Bradford.”

At this point, my skull almost cracked as the word, “exactly!” shot across my mind.

What a great juxtaposition! Of course! If Galloway were not a specialist in the area, why would he have been invited for his opinion. Because he’s the MP of a town in England? Jo Coburn has again embarrassed the BBC. She has long lost any hope of recouping any credibility. She has also long lost the point of the programme. She doesn’t actually care about the arguments, or the debate. She heard from someone, somewhere, that the rhetoric from Galloway, Iran, Press TV, anti-imperialism movements, anti-Zionism movements and anti-Marks & Spancers movements must be stopped. They must be stopped. It doesn’t matter how.

Wow.
If it were not for the presence of viewers of this show, she would have probably viciously swung her Troll arms at Galloway to slap his intelligence out of him.

Luckily the cameras were rolling.

Towards the end of the British Foreign Office propaganda show, as I stated earlier, the first voice was given to Galloway to provide you with a false sense of impartiality. This ensures that the final word will now be presented by the dazzling Flag-Bearer to present the final word. And of course, this is what happens.

To conclude the show, Jo Coburn could easily just thank both guests. This way, the BBC may actually end up neutralising Galloway’s victory in this show of bias. But instead, Jo Coburn does something else, which to be honest, no one does. I certainly have never, ever seen it anywhere, nor would I even imagine it to be seen anywhere. For a BBC Troll presenter to invite a guest to come all the way down to the studio, to give his time and opinions, and then instead of thanking him in a mature and respectable manner, she foolishly says,

“George Galloway, a specialist on the Middle East, in his own words, thank you so much.”

In his own words? What!

Seriously, what?

You invited him!
Jo Coburn, you air-headed Troll. You invited him. How stupid and ignorantly malicious could a journalist be?

How can Jo Coburn disrespect someone like that? And not just disrespect someone, but disrespect a guest. And not just disrespect a guest, but do so by repeating the “specialist” slur. This slur was already dealt with earlier in the show. Why bring it up again? And not just repeating the slur it, but doing so right at the end of the show, doing it cowardly, just like a coward, without giving Galloway any possible opportunity of defending himself. Appalling. Simply appalling.

Jo Coburn’s behaviour is a clear demonstration of her unintelligent and baseless approach to Syria, and therefore a demonstration of her ignorantly impassioned bias against Syria, and therefore, by extension, the bias of the BBC, the propaganda mouthpiece of the British Foreign Office.

This has been a lesson in BBC propaganda. But not for you lovely readers. You already know it. This lesson was for Jo Coburn, the unreliable Troll of the BBC.

.

This Article is written by Louis Dowes, Media analyst, in Nazi London, Nazi Britain

.

DISCLAIMER :

The authors’ views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Press TV News Network.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

War Criminal BBC, Terrorist BBC & Lying BBC intentionally misreports “Doner Kebab Terrorism” of Turkey in Syria

.

.

.

.

.

.

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

.

.

.

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

.

.

.

Doner Kebab Terrorism of Turkey in Syria

.

.

.

.

.

War Criminal BBC, Terrorist BBC & Lying BBC shamelessly tells lies about the Fals Flag Attack & “Doner Kebab Terrorism” of Turkey in Syria and portrays it as, “Just a Possible Military Operation in Syria”

.

.

.

.

BBC & Other Media tells lies about Turk pretext in Syria

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Lying BBC & Terrorist BBC supported Tamil Terrorists who terrorized Srilanka

.

.

.

BBC’S & British Government’s Terrorin Srilanka

.

.

http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items08/251208-2.html

.

.

Why The BBC Is A Greater Enigma To Sri Lanka’s War Against Terrorism Than Prabhakaran And The LTTE

.

Insight By Sunil Kumar For LankaWeb

.

23rd Dec-2008

.
A news story posted in the Asian Tribune website refering to BBC bias towards LTTE – states that “yesterday the BBC’s bosses – persuaded by LTTE proxies – have taken upon themselves the burden of imposing their version of democracy and freedom of expression on Sri Lanka by making us listen to whom the majority here treat as vermin. The news report states that all went topsy-turvy when LTTE sympathizers hijacked Sandeshaya and the BBC Tamil Services with the outbreak of the Tiger insurgency. The report states that the whole job of the BBC Sinhala and Tamil Service clowns today is not to educate and entertain the non-English speaking audiences about Europe but to recycle Sri Lanka’s political garbage and send them back to us. SLBC Chairman Hudson Samarasinghe points out that the BBC’s obvious partiality to the LTTE has been further reflected in its Tamil Service broadcasting the deplorable anti-Sri Lankan comments that Tiger proxy Tamil National Alliance MP Sivajilingam had made in India. He further observed that the LTTE is a banned terrorist organization in UK and BBC is that country’s national broadcaster. Yet it airs a despotic mass murderer’s speech commemorating his organization’s suicide bombers.” So is this not cause enough to confront the BBC and make them rescind their attitude towards the realities of what is taking place in Sri Lanka as an illegal, internal armed terrorist insurrection rather than a freedom struggle by the Tamil people which the BBC seems to be suggesting?

.

The Following item was submitted in late November and is being re-posted towards the arguments relative towards exposing the BBC’s pro LTTE bias!!

.

The ‘Enigma’ of Prabhakaran Or The ‘Enema’ That Needs To Be Administered To The BBC To Purge Their Misconceptions!

.

Insight By Sunil Kumar for LankaWeb
A flashback to November 27th 2008 when BBC served up one of its contentiously duplicitous submissions about the Tamil Tiger terrorists of Sri Lanka and its psychotic leader Velupillai Prabhakaran.( courtesy of Mr. Alistair Lawson this time around) The following is a contradiction intended to confound the damning manner in which the BBC tries to portray this ruthless killer as a folk hero and a case in point also for the Government of Sri lanka not to negotiate under any condition with this megalomaniac unless they themselves are demented and deluded into believung that this piece of trash who calls himself a human being could be rehabilitated under any circumstance!

.

Alistair Lawson of the BBC wrote :- that
“From a secret jungle base in the north-east of Sri Lanka, Velupillai Prabhakaran heads the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or Tamil Tigers has a reputation as a fearless and ruthless guerrilla leader and under his leadership, the Tamil Tigers have become a highly-disciplined and highly-motivated guerrilla force fighting for a separate homeland in the north and east of the country.” To confound this somewhat myopic opinion it has to be stated that Prabhakaran is no fearless (albeit ruthless) guerrilla whose indiscipline and lack of motivation has driven him and his motley insurgents to the point of elimination at the hands of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and is a coward who hides behind screens of innocent civilians and undergroung bunkers totally obvious of the concept of Bunker Busters!

.

It seems hallucinatory on the part of Mr Lawson to suggest that “For much of the past three decades his organisation has shown no sign of being defeated militarily by the Sri Lankan army, even though it is vastly outnumbered.” which sound typical pro LTTE propaganda often spewed by BBC and others who support Tamil Tiger terrorism just before an anticipated Tiger crunch as the truth is that for the past four decades despite every attempt to acheive their objectives to form a separate state they have failed miserably and today are running helter skelter in disarray with nowhere to hide as they await their nemesis which is total annihilation at the hands of the Sri Lankan Armed forces!

.

But it seems a reluctant admission by the BBC correspondent (towards duplicity ) that in recent advances by the Army – including the capture of rebel-held eastern parts of the Island in 2007 -it has meant that Prabhakaran is now under more military pressure than at any time which is an understatement as Prabhakaran is literally ‘wetting’ his pants for fear of his life and probably contemplating his options either of surrendering to the Armed Forces or swallowing the cyanide pill which is sealed in a capsule around his neck!” Prabhakaran is reputed to wear a cyanide capsule around his neck, to be swallowed in the event of his capture. It is fair to assume that he expects the same dedication from his troops, many of whom the Sri Lankan government says are either women or children”quoting Lawsons BBC item.

.

It is not merely a strong possibility but a foregone conclusion that the town of Kilinochchi will fall soon where such a loss would be a death blow to the terrorists because the town is assumed to be the rebels’ de facto capital, with political offices, courts, a police headquarters and other administrative buildings which were of no real significance where more thetrics than reality were presented to a gullible world about its real credibilities!

.

It has been concluded by many terrorist researchers that he has been wrongfully depicted as a man whom supportives say is much more at ease fighting in the battlefield than he is sitting around a negotiating table partly true perhaps as a result of his slight acumen to manouver an army of insurgent thugs. Whilst being marginally educated and having his speeches written for him by aides and being more of an incoherent babbling country bumpkin turned criminally insane killer as his track record proves, he also has no intellectual means to communicate with wisdom or compassion and depends on brute force when afforded this by weak opposition towards his ill intended objectives.

.

It is no mere argument but an inalienable fact that any peace process is doomed to failure with Mr Prabhakaran as leader of the Tigers and that even after a Norwegian brokered ceasefire was signed in 2002, the rebels used the lull in fighting to re-group and re-arm as the only means towards sustaining themselves and their pathetic existences as an insurgent group ably backed by dissenting frustrated Tamil Diaspora in a feeble minority although ambitious to attempt overcome the Sinhalese majority comprising of 75% of the nations populace at any cost and what a cost it has been for them for what little gain from the point of view of Sri Lanka’s enemies whose losses have now become unsurmountable!

.

It is a blatant concoction when Prabhakaran’s supporters argue that he fully embraced efforts to secure peace, pointing out that in 2002 he began de-commissioning arms, allowed a land route to be opened to the rebels’ northern stronghold in the Jaffna peninsula and even gave support to his movement dropping its demand for a separate state which has no tangible evidence or proof to corroborate these and mind boggling as to where the BBC and Mr Lawson obtained these fabrications which is what they are, tantamount to cheap rhetoric perhaps picked up from the babblings of dreamers aspiring to overcome the moderators of Sovereign Democratic Sri Lanka! through insurgent means.

.

When in 2002 to 2008 – the The Mahinda Rajapaksha Government announced that it was formally withdrawing from the ceasefire – Mr Prabhakaran suffered a number of setbacks as his means to regroup were disrupted and the security blanket spread around Sri Lanka to secure it from Prabhakarans terrorists proved a cropper against terrorist ambits and set in motion the wheels of destruction carrying the Armed Forces hell bent on wiping out the terrorist scourge which had plagued the Island Nation for nearly four decades!

.

The curtain finally fell on Prabhakaran when in 2004 a renegade Tamil Tiger commander once a Prabhakaran loyalist known as Karuna, led a split in the rebel movement in the East – a huge breach of Prabhakaran’s security was initiated and a body blow to his ranks dealt which has prevailed to this day and is said to have been the turning point in Sri Lanka’s war against terrorism which was then picked up by the Armed Forces under the present commander Lieut Gen. Sarath Fonseka together with the leaderships of the Naval and Air Commands which have equitted themselves to the task of ridding Sri Lanka of Prabhakaran’s insurgents very admirably and efficiently!

.

Thus the BBC’s last litany in a long drawn out list of such conducted by Alistair Lawson continues in it tedious and long drawn tirade of moaning and griping in favour of the terrorist leader Prabhakaran who is also sought after by Interpol and India for the crimes of killing India’s much loved Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the many crimes Prabhakaran has committed against humanity and is certainly not deserving of any accolades where realistically the BBC and Mr Lawson’s broadcast information should be trashed effectively rather than being dispensed as the salient truth which it is the furthest from, to an unsuspecting and at times gullible world! It is an affront to rational thinking based on logical interpretation to even suggest that “Prabhakaran is the dominating force in the rebel movement, and that without his consent peace in Sri Lanka will never be attainable” as to the contrary, he is a very sick puppy suffering from both physical as well as mental impediments rabid on every count who needs to be put out of his misery sooner than later!

.

This in a manner of speaking is the ‘enema’ needing to be administered to the BBC towards purging it from broadcasting trashy bulletins as opposed to the suggestion by the BBC that Prabhakaran is an ‘enigma’ ~ one which might not have been had the jungles of the Wanni been cleared effectively with no though to the civilian population and the beautiful flora and fauna which surrounds it now sullied by his evil presence.

.

And today it has been followed up with the latest BBC posting which is a continuation of all the confounding concoctions put together by the BBC in what seems like a concerted effort to give legitimacy to the Tamil Tiger terrorists and an endeavour which they don’t ever seem to want to desist from albeit with no right to be involved in as it violates many protocols relative to the legitimacies of the global need to wipe out terrorism!!!

.

” Tamil Tigers vow to keep fighting ~ BBC 23rd Dec.2008

.

Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tiger rebels have said they will continue to fight even if they lose their political headquarters town of Kilinochchi.

.

There has been fierce fighting as the army tries to capture Kilinochchi.

.

The head of the rebels’ political wing told the BBC he rejected the government’s offer of talks if the Tigers disarmed first.

.

The Tigers say they killed 75 soldiers in the latest clashes. The army has put its losses at 12 dead and 12 missing.

.

The rival claims cannot be independently verified because journalists are barred from the conflict area.

.

Symbolic target
The battle for Kilinochchi in northern Sri Lanka is getting increasingly bloody. Both sides claim to be inflicting heavy casualties.

.

The rebels insist they can defend the town and the head of the Tamil Tigers’ political wing, Balasingham Nadesan, told the BBC by e-mail that even if it falls, they will fight on.

.

“Freedom… never depends on one city. We can create more communities, more cities and [in] our freedom struggle, we are supported by people.

.

“We have the confidence that we will capture more areas in our motherland and we will create so many communities in [the] future.”

.

He rejected out of hand the government’s offer of talks if the Tigers laid down their weapons first.

.

“This is not a realistic question, we took up arms to safeguard our people, so we will keep these arms until the safeguard is guaranteed,” Mr Nadesan said.

.

Kilinochchi is a hugely symbolic target of the government’s offensive to crush the rebels.

.

In the town, the Tigers, or Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), have assembled the trappings of the independent state they want for the ethnic Tamil minority, including political offices, courts and a police force.

.

Government ministers have been predicting the town’s imminent capture for months, but the rebels are holding out.

.

A military spokesman said the people of Sri Lanka wanted the LTTE to be eliminated.

.

“The military also wanted the same thing and they are doing their level best to capture the rest of the areas” under Tamil Tiger control, said Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara.

.

Sri Lanka’s government says it is on track to win the war but heavy battles are likely to still lie ahead and there is concern about the fate of the large number of civilians in the Tiger-controlled north.

.

The rebels deny using them as human shields and reject allegations they are forcing people into their ranks to fight.”

.

It’s about time the BBC put its money where its mouth is and went to the Legitimate and Official Sri lankan News Source the Government of Sri Lanka to get their information about the Situation in Sri Lanka relative to the war against terrorism at a time when the British Government categorically agrees that the Sri Lankan Government has every legitimate right to rid the Nation of the scourge of Tamil Tiger terrorism and defend her territory and sovereignity from any threat to the nation posed by terrorism.

.

.

.

.

.

.

War Criminal BBC, Terrorist BBC & Lying BBC justifies American Drone Terrorism in Pakistan

.

.

.

.

.

.

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

.

.

.

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

Stop  Telling  BBC  Lies

.

.

.

.

.

War Criminal BBC, Terrorist BBC & Lying BBC

shamelessly justifies American Drone

Terror in Pakistan

.

.

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/1470-how-the-bbc-justifies-obamas-drone-strikes-and-targeted-assassinations

.

.

In support of the ongoing policy of US drone strikes in Pakistan, US defence secretary Leon Panetta stated that “This [policy] is about our sovereignty as well”.

His comment came in response to claims by Pakistan that their sovereignty is at risk as a result of the drone attacks.

Despite the wild suggestion the sovereignty of the world’s military superpower could be at risk from this tribal region of northern Pakistan, the BBC chose to highlight Panetta’s claim, adding to the report the sub-headline (appearing midway through) ‘”Our Sovereignty”‘.

The article, appearing on 6 June, following two weeks of heavy drone strikes on Pakistan, ran with the headline ‘Pentagon chief Panetta defends Pakistan drone strikes’. It would be hard to imagine a similar headline from the BBC if another world power such as Russia or China were to undertake a policy of assassination in the territory of another country – particularly if the orders came from the top, from the President’s own ‘kill list’.

The BBC presents the arguments thus: ‘Pakistan says the drone attacks fuel anti-US sentiment and claim civilian casualties along with militants. The US insists the strikes are effective.’ The report reads almost as a press-release for the Department of Defense, the ‘resentment’ of Pakistani society allowed only the briefest of acknowledgements.

Throughout BBC reporting on the US policy of drone warfare, the ‘effectiveness’ of the attacks is a primary consideration. Where arguments against the strikes are noted (acknowledging that the policy ‘is highly controversial’) the BBC presents as counter-argument the priority of those advocates of drone strikes; the capability for the US to ‘eliminate its enemies’, as Frank Gardner put it.

The emphasis on effectiveness as the deciding factor of the legitimacy of the US’s policy of extra-judicial assassination can be seen in the headline for a report of 30 May by the BBC’s North America editor, Mark Mardell: ‘Is Obama’s drone doctrine counter-productive?’ This mode of reasoning is all too familiar.

The media consistently debates the merits of wars on the basis of whether or not they can be ‘won’. If not, we call them ‘mistakes’. If they are successful, we speak of ‘vindication’ for those who wage war (‘if it is confirmed that Abu Yahya al-Libi has been killed, Washington may feel vindicated’ the BBC’s Aleem Maqbool commented). Considerations of human rights and international law are secondary.

Commenting on the New York Times report that revealed that ‘Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical’, Mardell surmises that the report ‘confirms that the care taken by the president is significant’.

In the NYT report, this confirmation is provided by Obama’s aides: ‘Aides say Mr. Obama has several reasons for becoming so immersed in lethal counterterrorism operations … he believes that he should take moral responsibility for such actions.’ Considering the nature of such a ‘controversial’ policy, one can be assured that the Obama administration would rather the press focus on the ‘care taken’ in selecting the targets for assassination over those civilians who have been murdered in the pursuit of the policy.

Mardell himself ‘cannot believe that as many officials spoke as freely as they apparently did without being given the presidential green light’, in what was no doubt an exercise in handling public perception of the drones policy. (Parroting the language of the White House aides, a reader comment on the NYT article, left by Brad from Arizona, reads: ‘President Obama by directly taking responsibility for these decisions is acting as a leader of the entire nation.’) And yet he writes, in the wake of eight drone strikes within two weeks, that ‘[Obama] believes that they [drone strikes] kill America’s enemies with minimum risk to the innocent.’

Again, it would be unheard of, in the case of another world power, for revelations of top-down orders for killing to be reported as confirmation that ‘the care taken’ by the leader is ‘significant’. ‘Some are appalled’, Mardell points out in a one-sentence paragraph, anticipating perhaps that this may shock the reader. This seemingly natural human reaction is elevated to news-worthy status considering the pragmatic justifications for these targeted killings offered by the media.

‘Plenty of blogs’ tell us that drone attacks are murder, while ‘others argue’ that they ‘are illegal under international law’, Mardell tells us. He doesn’t point out that those ‘others’ who argue the illegality of the attacks are routinely the Pakistan foreign ministry; that is, the country whose people and territory are on the receiving end of Obama’s ‘responsible’ assassinations. But this is a secondary consideration, as Mardell concludes that the attacks ‘have too many attractions’.

Last year (April 2011) on Radio 4’s Today programme, during which John Humphrys remarked that drones could be ‘highly effective’ in the campaign of ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Libya, he was told by Aleem Maqbool that the ‘biggest problem’ with such attacks is that the Taliban ‘use these drone attacks as something of a recruiting tool’. Mark Mardell also writes that Gregory Johnsen of Princeton University ‘says drones strikes have killed women and children and al-Qaeda are adept at using this to recruit people for revenge.’

The murder of civilians does not merit discussion for its own sake, discussed only in the context of potential repercussions in support for al-Qaeda. For example, on 24 May, when a mosque in Northern Waziristan was hit during drone strikes, killing civilian worshippers, the BBC commented merely that: ‘A nearby mosque was also damaged, reports say.’ The

Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that between 2004 and 2012 CIA drone strikes have reportedly killed between 482 and 832 civilians, including 175 children. (In February 2012, the Bureau reported that under the Obama administration alone, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children.’)

The cool pragmatism with which the BBC views the effects of drone warfare reduces analysis to debating the extent to which the objectives of the US have been met. This is premised with the acceptance that the end justifies the means. Civilian casualties it seems will remain of secondary consideration to the media as Obama advances through his kill list.

For more analysis of the reporting of US drone strikes, see the previous article from News UnSpun: The Unworthy Victims of US Drones Attacks.

.

.

.

.

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

War Criminal & War Mongering Lying BBC promotes War in Syria

.

.

.

.

.

 

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

.

.

.

War  Criminal  BBC

War  Criminal  BBC

War  Criminal  BBC

War  Criminal  BBC

War  Criminal  BBC

War  Criminal  BBC

War  Criminal  BBC

.

.

.

.

War Criminal & War Mongering BBC

promotes Unjust  & a Genocidal

War in Syria

.

.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/middle-east-and-north-africa/1464-how-the-bbc-is-helping-stoke-the-flames-of-war-in-syria

.

.

It was supposed to be another “Benghazi moment” – an incident so horrific that it would spark Western military intervention in Syria’s increasingly violent civil war.

The massacre at Houla was reported to be just such a moment: Syria’s security forces stand accused of killing 32 children under ten years of age, and more than 60 adults, by bombing the rebel-held village of Houla.

Photos of the massacre soon appeared on Twitter: and on YouTube, videos of the slaughter, uploaded by anonymous “activists,” appeared on cue. There was just one problem with this “evidence” of a massacre committed by the Syrian government – much of it was completely made up.

Take the photo the BBC used to illustrate the atrocity: it showed a young boy jumping over piles of corpses neatly laid out in preparation for burial. Very dramatic, and very disturbing – except it wasn’t a photo of anything that happened in Houla. Instead, it was a photo taken by Marco Di Lauro in Iraq, in 2003, and appropriated from his web site. The stolen photo was accompanied by a caption that read:

Photo from Activist. This image – which cannot be independently verified – is believed to show bodies of children in Houla awaiting funeral.

“Somebody is using illegally one of my images for anti [S]yrian propaganda on the BBC web site front page,” Di Lauro says, “I almost fell off my chair when I saw it.” When confronted by Di Franco, BBC editors took it down, and, by way of explanation, pointed to the caption as somehow exonerating.

Yet it is the very phrasing of that caption that condemns them out of their own mouths, the key word being believed. Why was it believed by the BBC when they received it from some anonymous “activist”?

Because it suited their propagandistic purposes – that is, the purposes of the British government, which runs and funds the BBC, just as the Syrian government runs and funds their own state-controlled media.

The photo was believed to be an accurate representation of events taking place in Houla because the editors wanted to believe it.

It isn’t just the photos purporting to show the massacre, it’s the “reporting” that is also thrown into doubt: after all, these accounts are all coming from the very same “activists” who have no compunctions about supplying fake photos to the very same media who report their every word as gospel.

It is claimed the Syrian army bombarded Houla, and yet the photos shows people with their throats cut, and shot in the head at very close range: this seeming contradiction required a revision of the “activist”-supplied narrative, which was duly changed to depict government-controlled “militias” coming into the village after the bombardment.

Yet even this hasty revisionist version didn’t cover all the bases: for example, one of the victims was a candidate in Syria’s recent elections who had refused to stand down at the demand of opposition “activists.” He, too, was brutally murdered, and the question is – by whom?

The BBC’s falling for – or enabling – “activist” fakery is hardly the only such incident: there was the case of “Syria Danny,” whose on-camera antics were exposed in flagrante delicto as he staged a Syrian army “attack” for the benefit of CNN.

And don’t forget the fake “blogger” who purported to be “Amina Abdallah Araf al Omari,” a 35-year-old lesbian living in Damascus, supposedly kidnapped by the Syrian regime and abused. “Amina” turned out to be a middle-aged married American schmuck and “Middle Eastern activist,” one Tom MacMaster, studying for a degree at the University of Edinburgh, in Scotland.

The cause of “Amina” was taken up by those ubiquitous Syrian “activists” and trumpeted by their online propaganda apparatus – which has sprung up with weed-like rapidity. That’s what a healthy infusion of money from Western governments will buy you.

Yet even all that money apparently can’t buy competent sock-puppets, with amateurs like MacMaster, “Syria Danny,” and whoever supplied the BBC with Di Lauro’s photo running wild.

Speaking of running wild with enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars, the rebels – already receiving cash, arms, and other emoluments from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Gulf sheikdoms – have already handed a $12 billion bill for “post-Assad development” to the Western “Friends Group,” led by Germany. That, you can be sure, is just the beginning.

With the Eurozone going down into the economic abyss, and the Germans berating their Greek (and now Spanish and Italian) partners as unproductive free riders, one has to wonder about German priorities. The British, too, are on the hook, having just upped the amount they’re sending – at a time when government subsidies to the very needy are on the chopping block.

And of course there’s no telling how many American tax dollars have been funneled in “non-lethal” aid to the rebels-who-couldn’t-get-their-lies-straight, but one thing is clear: their American trainers and advisers have their work cut out for them.

The US State Department has posted aerial photos of Syrian troops massed near the village, which purportedly show the government was in control of the area when the massacre occurred. The Syrians, for their part, claim they were in a defensive posture, and “activist”-supplied videos are unreliable for all the reasons detailed above.

We will probably never know the truth about what happened at Houla – at least, not before the regime-changers in Western capitals and their Saudi allies kick the propaganda ball over the goal post.

Remember that the aim of war propaganda is to create a general impression, not to establish the truth (or falsehood) of any particular disputed fact. The idea is to hurl as many accusations against the target as rapidly as possible, without regard for their source, so as to generate the kind of murkiness where the truth can be created, rather than merely reported.

It’s all about establishing a narrative, and any bothersome facts cropping up and getting in the way are hurriedly kicked aside.

Amid all the loud lamentations over the Syrian regime’s brutality, one fact downplayed by Western media outlets is that there are over 60 different rebel militias operating in Syria, whose activities are indistinguishable from the shabihas, or pro-government militias, which are getting the brunt of the blame. As the Washington Post reports:

As the shabiha’s ranks and violence have grown and widened, groups have sprung up to counter them. Analysts say shabiha-style militias made up of the Sunni Muslims who represent the majority of the population have also started to emerge in regions such as Homs province, where Houla is located and where Sunni and Alawite communities sit side by side, increasing the potential for sectarian violence.”

In funding and arming rebel groups, whose violence is now being unleashed on civilians caught in the middle, the US and its allies are actively undermining Kofi Annan’s peace plan, which the Syrians have accepted. The rebels are determined to destroy the plan, which leaves them out of power: they won’t be happy until they’ve given the West a pretext to intervene militarily. As Hillary Clinton’s public pronouncements acquire a certain shrillness, that prospect is becoming increasingly likely.

By supporting the “Free Syrian Army,” the US and its allies are openly engaged in another Libya-style intervention, with the same radical Islamists as their armed wing, while a supposedly “secular” and “democracy”-oriented “youth movement” serves as the public face of a deeply reactionary rebel army.

Imagine, for the moment, that some group of foreign powers were involved in financing and arming a “Free American Army,” which launched attacks on US army bases and carried out terrorist acts – car bombings, as have occurred in Damascus, for example – in Washington, D.C. Imagine this rebel army had acquired footholds in key areas, and called for the overthrow of the “regime” in Washington. Do we even have to ask what would be the reaction of the US government?

The Western powers are intent on establishing international rules of governance they have no intention of applying to themselves, and, in this instance, are utilizing the United Nations as their chosen instrument. However, it is by no means certain the UN will go along with the game plan, as Annan’s peace plan – which calls for mutual disarmament and an end to hostilities – would indicate.

In which case, the West will do everything it can to undermine the Annan plan and destabilize Syria to the point where they can declare it a “failed state” – and move in for the kill.

The “activist”-authored narrative of a ruthless dictator slaughtering his own people – complete with fake photos, phony videos, and tall tales legitimized as “news” – is aimed at a Western audience.

In Syria – where the majority fears the opposition as much, or more, than the dictator Assad – they know better. Unfortunately for them, they have no power to stop the Western-initiated juggernaut headed in their direction.

.

.

.

.

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Lying BBC should apologize to India for British Nazi, Jeremy Clarkson’s Anti Indian Abuse

.

.

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC

.

.

.

.

Jeremy Clarkson,

British Hooligan of Lying BBC,

tells “BBC Lies” as usual,

by insulting

India & its 7,000 thousands

years old Superb Indian Culture,

when

Nazi Britain & Thief Britain

did not even exist

.

.

.

.

Indian Media demands an

apology from the

Lying BBC,

which is the Biggest Liar of

the Universe

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Lying  BBC

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

India demands an apology from the Lying BBC & Hooligan BBC,  which is the Biggest Liar of the Universe & shamelessly tells  “BBC LIES”  24 Hours a Day

.

.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9007554/India-demands-apology-over-Top-Gear-India-special.html

.

.

A Top Gear “India Special”, which was broadcast twice over the Christmas break, has caused upset in the world’s second most populous country.

During the 90 minute programme, Mr Clarkson, one of the BBC’s highest paid stars, was filmed speaking to locals while operating a trouser press in his boxer shorts and with a Jaguar with a lavatory fixed to the boot.

The programme makers also put banners on trains reading: “British IT is good for your company”. Another said: “Eat English muffins”. The messages became obscene when the carriages parted, ripping the signs.

Now the Indian High Commission in London has formally complained to the BBC, accusing its producers of deceiving them over the nature of the programme, which was jokingly billed as a “trade mission”.

The complaint follows a string of controversies involving Mr Clarkson.

.

.

.

.

Last month the BBC had to apologise after Mr Clarkson told viewers on a live programme that striking workers should be shot in front of their families.

There were further apologies earlier last year to Mexico, after co-presenter Richard Hammond made an insulting parody of Mexicans to describe a Mexican sports car.

In the past few days Clarkson has also caused consternation in China for making tasteless comments in his tabloid newspaper column about the Morecambe Bay cockle picking tragedy in which 23 Chinese migrant workers died.

Last month, MPs told Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, that Top Gear was a “luxury the BBC cannot afford” and should be sacked. Lord Patten said Top Gear was “leading cultural export” and said he would not be sacked. He said: “There are a lot of people who would be disappointed.”

In a letter sent to the programme’s producer, officials at the High Commission condemned the latest Top Gear broadcast as “tasteless”, and accused the BBC of breaching undertakings about the filming.

The letter, which was copied to BBC’s director general Mark Thompson, said: “The programme was replete with cheap jibes, tasteless humour and lacked cultural sensitivity that we expect from the BBC.

“I write this to convey our deep disappointment over the documentary for its content and the tone of the presentation. You are clearly in breach of the agreement that you had entered into, completely negating our constructive and proactive facilitation.”

In the wake of the programme, the BBC said it had received just 23 complaints. However diplomats at the consulate told The Daily Telegraph that its staff had received “hundreds” of letters and phone calls.

One diplomat told The Daily Telegraph: “The BBC has to make amends, particularly to assuage the hurt sentiment of a very large number of people.

“We understand the free press – they are welcome to explain and to challenge as long as it is fair and above the belt. Can this pass as acceptable journalism? The BBC has a global reputation. We expect the BBC to make amends.”

The consulate is furious that an outline of the programme, which was presented to the consulate last July, bore little relation to the finished product. One official said: “It [the BBC] has been less than honest and straight.”

It described the programme as a “light hearted road trip” which was focused on the “idiosyncrasies of the country”.

Specifically, it said that the programme’s “key ingredients” would look at the “beautiful scenery” and India’s “local colour”, making no reference to the toilet humour which littered the programme.

The row threatens to escalate into a diplomatic incident because Prime Minister David Cameron was filmed at the beginning of the programme, waving to Mr Clarkson and his presenters in Downing Street and telling them to “stay away from India”.

However the diplomat said India did not blame the Prime Minister for what was to follow. He said: “I don’t think he had the slightest inkling of what was to come.”

Last night Keith Vaz MP, whose parents are from India, said: “It seems that the reasons given by the BBC in order to obtain their visas to go to India did not disclose the true nature of the content of this programme.”

Mr Vaz, the chairman of the Home Affairs select committee, said there was now a risk that damage could be done to important trade relations with India.

He said: “One ridiculous programme has done a lot of damage to this good relationship. A swift apology from the BBC and Mr Clarkson may go some way towards restoring our good relations and the reputation of the BBC in India.”

Mr Clarkson is one of the BBC’s highest paid stars. This week it emerged that he made £2.14million from his involvement in Top Gear last year, due to a lucrative profit sharing deal he struck with the corporation.

The BBC confirmed that it had received the letter from the Indian High Commission this week. A spokesman said: “We will respond directly to the Indian High Commission in due course.”

21 July 2011

Letter from Chris Hale, producer, Top Gear to Indian High Commission, London

“Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May will travel across India in three cars filming a light hearted road trip focusing on the journey and the inevitable idiosynacies of the cars they will drive, as well as the country and scenary we see along the way.

“There will be spontaneous interaction between the presenters and their environment, and potentially people they meet along the way. This will be in an incidental manner, not interviews.

“Key ingredients of what we film will be beautiful scenery, busy city scenes, local charm and colour within these locations, areas to illustrate the local car culture that exists in India.”

6 January 2012

Letter from Indian High Commission, London to Chris Hale, producer, Top Gear

cc Mark Thompson, director general, BBC

“The programme was replete with cheap jibes, tasteless humour and lacked cultural sensitivity. This is not clearly what we expect of the BBC. I write this to convey our deep disappointment over the documentary for its content and the tone of the presentation.

“You are clearly in breach of the agreement that you had entered into, completely negating our constructive and proactive facilitation. We strongly protest and expect the BBC to make amends, especially to assuage the hurt sentiments of a large number of people.”

.

.

.

.

.