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/

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

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

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Lying BBC’s Statement on its Panorama Programme about Euro 2012 against Wonderful Poland & Wonderful Ukraine

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Lying BBC’s Lying statement on its Panorama Programme about Euro 2012 against Wonderful Poland & Wonderful Ukraine

.

.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2012/06/bbc-panorama-statement

.

June 7, 2012

.

THE BBC has responded to our post on its “Panorama” programme titled “Euro 2012: Stadiums of Hate”. The original post included a statement by Jonathan Ornstein, the executive director of the Jewish Community Centre of Krakow, who felt that the BBC’s interviewers exploited him as a source. Here is the BBC’s response:

The Panorama programme Euro 2012: Stadiums of Hate examined the racist
and anti-Semitic behaviour of some football fans in Poland and Ukraine
ahead of the Euro 2012 championships and in light of UEFA’s publicly
stated policy of zero tolerance of racism. It was not, as Mr Ornstein
suggests, an examination of race or inter-faith relations among the
wider populations of both host nations. 

The context of the programme was made clear to Mr Ornstein both before
and during the interview which he kindly agreed to do with the programme
makers. Panorama disagrees in the strongest terms that his interview was
misrepresented. 

The programme made it clear in commentary that, “Jonathan Ornstein has
lived in Poland for over ten years. He believes most Poles happily
accept other faiths, but that football hooligans are yet to catch up
with wider Polish society.”

The programme used the following sections of Mr Ornstein’s interview in
the programme, all were clearly placed in the context of football
related racism and anti-Semitism.

“I lived in Lodz and I was shocked I remember on the main street there
was ah, a sign Jews to the gas and the people that wrote weren’t the
people that really, it didn’t upset me so much that people wrote it, the
idea that 1000s of people walked past that every day and let that happen

was very disturbing to me.”

“I think they’re (some football fans) looking to demonise the other team
and the imagery that’s used is Jewish imagery and I would call that
anti-Semitic. The stuff going on at the football stadiums is atrocious
and it’s embarrassing and I think it embarrasses the whole country.”

“I think there’s been a push as of late just obviously before the Euro
that you know they don’t want Poland to be embarrassed which we’ll see
what happens with that but no I mean I think there needs to be a more a
much deeper more prolonged effort to eradicate not only anti-Semitism
but I think we’re talking about racism and xenophobia its part of a
larger issue here.”

Mr Ornstein also said in interview, but which was not included in the
film.

“I think it’s appalling I think a lot of these you know what you’ve seen
there and a lot of anti-Semitic whether its banners or slogans or chants
and t-shirts that you can buy are some people that are showing very
intolerant nasty side of Poland that we would certainly like to like
that to be dealt with and like that not to be part of the scene here
today.”

“I think that if a football team can’t control its fans and is somehow
allowing its fans to do that (display anti-Semitic banners then the fan
should either be barred from the stadium or the team should be punished
or relegated or whatever the football association here, you know have at
their disposal to deal with things like that. And I think it’s an
absolutely intolerable situation anywhere especially in a country where
so much difficult and so much bad things happened to Jews in the last
century”.

“I think it’s not too difficult to remove racist anti-Semitic banners
from stadiums, I think there’s a larger issue here which is how to get,
how to remove those ideas and try to remove those ideas from society as
a whole. And I think that’s something that we need to address, so it’s
really two problems, one is the band aid and one is the cure.”

“I mean I think we see Poland going in a very good direction in terms of
Jewish relations and maybe the football stadiums and the football fans
aren’t going in that direction and that’s something we need to work on
as a country.”

This last quote goes precisely to the heart of what the programme was
about and it makes Mr Ornstein’s recent statement somewhat baffling. It
becomes even more baffling in the context of UEFA’s comment to the
programme, that by awarding the tournament to Poland and Ukraine it
would shine a light on such societal issues of racism and anti-Semitism
with a view to improvement. One wonders how UEFA’s stated aim can be
achieved in the light of the continued apparent failure of politicians,
police, football officials and others in either Poland or Ukraine to
condemn the racism, anti-Semitism and violence recorded by the Panorama
team at recent matches in both countries.

Further, the programme featured an interview with Jacek Purski whose
work to monitor and combat football related racism and anti-Semitism in
Poland is funded by UEFA. He told the programme makers that displaying
racist and anti-Semitic banners and graffiti is illegal. The programme
showed him training Euro 2012 stewards to recognise and deal with racism
at football matches. He said this in the programme, “A lot of work has
been already done and the situation is going in a good direction. Of
course we hope to have peaceful non racist Euro 2012, but still around
during league matches from time to time some incidents appear.”

Panorama also takes issue with Mr Ornstein’s comments about the
interview the programme makers conducted with footballers Prince Okachi
and Ugo Ukah. A spokesman for their club Widzew has said that while they
would rather we had not made a programme about football related racism;
they take no issue with the factual content of both players’
contribution to the programme.

Further the Panorama team, while filming at the recent Lodz V Widzew
derby recorded some fans taunting black players with monkey noises, thus
putting their comments in the most up to date context.

Both the programme’s producer and reporter deny refusing the offer to
interview two Israeli footballers playing in Poland because it did not
fit the story.  Neither have any recollection of such a conversation
with Mr Ornstein. Had such an offer been made, both say they would not
have responded in the way Mr Ornstein alleges, in fact they would have
jumped at the chance of interviewing them.

Mr Ornstein contacted the programme makers two days after it was
broadcast in the UK on May 28th and immediately thereafter running on
Youtube. He made none of the comments featured in his statement of
Wednesday 6th June. We note that his statement was made following the
programme’s broadcast on Tuesday 5th June on Polish TV.

Given that Mr Ornstein acknowledges in his statement, “that problems do
exist”, it could be argued that he has now handed those racist and
anti-Semitic followers of football in Poland a big excuse not to mend
their ways, to find “the cure” as he put it, when he spoke to the
Panorama team.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Lying BBC tells “BBC Lies” against Wonderful Ukraine and Wonderful Poland

.

.

.

.

.

.

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

Lying  BBC

.

.

.

.

Lying  BBC

tells

“BBC  Lies”

&

“British  Lies”

against  Wonderful  Ukraine

&

Wonderful  Poland

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Sol Campbell, (Black Footballer) warns

British Fans to stay away from

Euro 2012 in Ukraine & Poland

.

.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18192375

.

.

Lying  BBC

28th  May, 2012

954  Comments

.

.

Euro 2012 should not have been awarded to Poland and Ukraine because of entrenched racism and violence, Sol Campbell has told the BBC’s Panorama.

The former England captain’s advice to fans is to “stay home, watch it on TV… don’t even risk it.”

Uefa, European football’s governing body, said awarding the tournament to the two nations was an opportunity to tackle social challenges like racism.

It said the tournament was a chance for both countries to improve their image.

Panorama spent a month filming at matches in both the joint host nations and witnessed Nazi salutes from the terraces, black players being taunted with monkey chants, rampant anti-Semitism and a vicious assault on a group of Asian students.

.

‘Zero tolerance’

After watching the footage, Mr Campbell said he believes Uefa should not have chosen the countries as hosts of such a prestigious event in the first place.

“I think that they were wrong, because what they should say is that ‘if you want this tournament, you sort your problems out. Until we see a massive improvement… you do not deserve these prestigious tournaments in your country.'”

In a statement, Uefa said: “Uefa Euro 2012 brings the spotlight on the host countries and clearly creates an opportunity to address and confront such societal issues.

“Uefa’s ‘zero tolerance’ approach to racism is still valid both on and off the pitch and ultimately the referee has the power to stop or abandon a match should racist incidents occur.”

Uefa said it was working with both Poland and Ukraine to ensure the safety of travelling teams and their fans.

But despite these assurances the families of two England players, Theo Walcott and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, are reported to be staying away from Euro 2012 for fear of racist attacks.

Uefa said the scenes of racist abuse filmed by the BBC in the last month were at domestic matches and a matter for national football authorities.

But Mr Campbell had this advice for fans thinking of travelling to Euro 2012: “Stay at home, watch it on TV. Don’t even risk it… because you could end up coming back in a coffin.”

.

Racist Attack

On 14 April at the Metalist stadium in Kharkiv in Ukraine – one of the host cities for Euro 2012 – massed ranks of as many as 2,000 fans in the terraces for a match between two of Ukraine’s biggest teams gave the Nazi salute to their team.

Some fans at the match told the BBC that they were saying “Sieg Heil” because Hitler hated “Jews and blacks” and that is how they support their team.

But local police chief Colonel Volodymyr Kovrygin denied that it was a Nazi-inspired salute, saying the fans were “pointing in the direction of opponents as it were, the fans, so it looked like they were pointing with the right hand to the fans, kind of attracting attention to themselves.”

At a match two weeks later, scuffles broke out between rival fans and police arrived to calm things down. But they escalated again as Metalist fans began to attack a small group of their own supporters.

They were Indian students studying in Ukraine. They had sat in the family area of the stadium thinking it would be safe.

.

.

.

  • Chris Rogers presents Euro 2012: Stadiums of Hate
  • BBC One, Monday, 28 May at 20:30 BST

.

In the stadium’s medical room afterwards, one of the injured students said: “We were supporting the home team. It’s horrifying.”

British government advice for Euro 2012 fans of Afro-Caribbean or Asian descent is to take extra care in Ukraine because of racially motivated attacks.

Panorama also filmed matches in fellow host-nation Poland, recording a chorus of anti-Semitic chanting and witnessing black football players enduring monkey chants from the terraces.

Nick Lowles from the UK-based anti-racist monitoring group Hope Not Hate was also in Poland monitoring incidents of racism.

He said that based on what he has seen, he was concerned for non-white fans travelling to support England at Euro 2012.

“Increasingly the positive thing about English football are the number of black and Asian fans that have been travelling and supporting England. I am concerned that they will be targeted by racists and fascists and anti-Semites in Poland and in Ukraine.”

In Poland, Jonathan Ornstein of the Jewish Cultural Centre, said football hooligans in the country are stuck in the past.

“The stuff going on at the football stadiums is atrocious and it’s embarrassing and I think it embarrasses the whole country. I think that most Poles would agree with that,” he said.

.

.

.

.

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

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

BBC’s Crime – Team of “Lying BBC” burnt a Child’s body in Indonesian Tsunami

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Craig Summers of Lying BBC burnt Child’s body in Indonesia

.

.

.

.

Lying BBC’s Bodyguard admits to burning body of Tsunami Baby left on HQ doorstep because it posed a risk to his reporting team — Likening it to a “Blocked Toilet”

.

.

Journalist Ben Brown’s security chief said corpse left on BBC HQ doorstep posed same danger as a ‘blocked toilet’

.

TV executives accused of cover-up after trying to halt publication of book that exposed incineration

.

.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153718/BBC-bodyguard-set-dead-tsunami-baby-thought-posed-risk-reporting-team.html

.

A BBC bodyguard has confessed to burning the body of a baby on a funeral pyre made of rubbish after the 2004 tsunami – because he considered it a threat to the health of his reporting team.

Craig Summers, 52, discovered the body outside the house in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, where he was staying with journalist Ben Brown and his production team as they covered the aftermath of the disaster.

.

But instead of reporting it to the local authorities, he burned the body of the boy and swore two other witnesses, including BBC producer Peter Leng, to secrecy. There is no suggestion that Mr Brown knew about the incident.

Writing in his new book Bodyguard: My Life On The Frontline, Summers compared the body to an obstacle such as a ‘blocked toilet’.

‘I pride myself in my work,’ writes Summers, now head of security at Sky TV. ‘Nobody got sick on that trip. Nobody even came close to diarrhoea and I knew that I had done my job keeping everyone else healthy. I ran a tight ship ensuring everyone always washed their hands with wet wipes.

‘The baby was an obstacle to their health; the next day it would be a blocked toilet. I hadn’t known it was coming but I had to deal with it and I would do the same again.’

The revelation comes four months after the BBC’s Head of Newsgathering, Fran Unsworth, and Head of Safety, ex-Army officer Paul Greeves, tried to persuade Summers not to publish the biography.

According to the bodyguard, they summoned him to a meeting in January after he sent them a draft copy of the manuscript, and asked him to abandon the project.

It is not known what they objected to within the book – although  the confession does not paint the Corporation in a good light.

Summers, a former commando, served with British Forces in the Falklands and Balkans before being appointed the Corporation’s safety and security adviser in 2001, working with the High Risk Team – which ‘provides advice to programme-makers deploying to hostile or dangerous environments’.

.

He spent ten years accompanying journalists to war zones and scenes of natural disaster, working with reporters including John Simpson and Nicholas Witchell. He was with Simpson, in Iraq in 2003, when their vehicle was blown up and their translator killed.

It was also his brief to look after celebrities – including, on occasion, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, Gary Lineker and Matthew Pinsent. Summers, who also carried out undercover operations for the BBC, left the Corporation last July, after accepting redundancy, and now works as Sky’s Broadcast Security Operations Manager.

It was on January 7, 2005, 12 days after the tsunami, when he woke at dawn to find the body of the baby boy, aged between one and two, with matted black hair and closed eyes, lying on the doorstep.

‘There had to be a reason for this,’ he writes in his book. ‘This wasn’t random or down to chance – someone had specifically left this  baby at what they knew to be the BBC house.’

Yet instead of informing anybody in the house, or contacting the local authorities, Summers took matters into his own hands. ‘I picked it up with my bare hands and looked around,’ he added.

.

‘Nobody was watching. I walked over to the rubbish, which night after night would pile high in the streets waiting for the authorities to burn the next day by the side of the roads to stave off the threat of rats. Removing some cardboard from the tip, I covered the baby with it.

‘I heard a voice say, “What’s that Craig?” It was Bob, the Australian paramedic who was staying next door to us. I walked towards him. He didn’t need me to answer. “What are you going to do?” he asked.

‘My response was instant and came from the mouth of a soldier in the zone and on autopilot. My sole priority was to protect the BBC crew from infection.

‘ “I’m going to burn it,” I answered. “That’s the best thing to do.” ’

Bob went to get some petrol from a jerrycan as Summers laid the baby on a box in the centre of the rubbish. The BBC bodyguard then soaked the body in petrol and set fire to it. When the flames burned down ten minutes later, the two men bagged up the smouldering rubbish.

.

‘I didn’t look to see the remains of the baby,’ Summers writes, ‘both our heads were looking down while shovelling.

‘Nothing was said. We just got on with it. We may have left a skull on the floor – I can’t recall. I just wanted it done.’

The incident was witnessed by BBC producer Peter Leng, who was standing in the doorway of the house used by the Corporation’s staff.

‘I had no choice but to come clean,’ Summers continued. ‘I told him we had to keep this to ourselves – I didn’t want anyone else to find out. “I wondered what all the flies were,” he replied. “How do you feel about it?”

‘ “It’s a sad situation but I am surprised someone has dumped it on our doorstep,” I answered bluntly. Only years later did Peter confess that he had told a couple of people – he also said he was grateful and couldn’t have done the same thing.’

Summers remains convinced that he did the right thing that day.

Justifying his behaviour, he writes: ‘I was working and this was the job I had to do. If they were still alive, I couldn’t give the parents that closure because there were no clues on the baby. I didn’t know how it got here but I felt sure it was orphaned and deliberately dumped. I couldn’t change its fate. I did what I had to do. There were no alternatives but to cremate the baby.

.

‘It was the most humane thing to do before it became riddled with maggots and was left to rot in the street. I couldn’t put a sign up outside the house saying: “One ex-baby here – please knock.’’

‘If the parents hadn’t died, why would it be dumped?’

Last night Summers told The Mail on Sunday: ‘At the time we felt it was the easiest and most humane thing to do. There were a quarter of a million dead people there and the majority were being dumped in open pits.

‘The baby was completely unidentifiable – it was infested with maggots and there were no features on it at all.’

A BBC spokeswoman said last night: ‘It’s his account, which he has put into context.

‘From our point of view, we don’t have anything to say. We don’t discuss private conversations but managers sometimes talk to staff, or former staff, who have written books about the BBC – particularly if there are legal or safety issues.’

Last night Peter Leng did not wish to comment and Ben Brown did not respond to calls.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

BBC tells “BBC Lies” about the Mass Graves in Libya

.

.

.

Martin Iqbal
empirestrikesblack
Sept 26, 2011

.

http://www.PrisonPlanet.com/libya-bbc-concocts-mass-grave-story-in-brazen-propaganda-piece.html

.

In a truly stunning display of dishonesty, the BBC has reported, citing no evidence to back its claim, that a mass grave containing over 1,200 bodies has been found in Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison complex. The BBC attempts to tie this ‘finding’ to the equally concocted ‘Abu Salim prison massacre’, as it claims that the bodies are those of the inmates supposedly killed in 1996.
.

In a piece posted today, the BBC uses the headline: “More than 1,200 bodies found in Tripoli mass grave“. Categorically, absolutely, unequivocally, this is an out-and-out lie; 1,200 bodies have not been found.

.

This is revealed to the reader within the BBC’s own concocted report in the paragraphs that follow (emphasis mine):

A mass grave believed to contain up to 1,270 bodies has been found in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, says the National Transitional Council (NTC).
The remains are thought to be those of inmates who were killed by security forces in 1996 in the Abu Salim prison.

Excavation at the site is expected to start soon.

Several bone fragments and pieces of clothing have already been found in the top soil.

While the unelected, illegitimate terror council known as the NTC claims to have found merely ‘several bone fragments‘, the BBC claims that 1,200 bodies have been found in its deliberately misleading headline.

.

Even this weak slew of lies from the BBC exposes the fragile nature of the ‘Abu Salim massacre’ propaganda, as it refers to the evidential basis of the event (emphasis mine):

A few eyewitnesses have talked about the fact they were killed in their jail cells by grenades and sustained gunfire after a protest.
Officials in the new government say they will need foreignforensic help to determine exactly what happened there.

The BBC’s report contains testimony from a ‘Sami Assadi’, who claims to have lost two brothers in the incident.

“Mixed feelings really. We are all happy because this revolution has succeeded, but when I stand here, I remember my brothers and many, many friends have been killed, just because they did not like Muammar Gaddafi.”

.

The inclusion of this testimony is a blatant attempt to twist and distort the reality on the ground. The BBC suggests that the ‘revolution’ has succeeded. In reality the ‘rebels’ and the foreign soldiers & special forces leading them, don’t even hold Tripoli, in addition to countless other locations still held by the Libyan resistance. These include Bani Walid and Sirte – locations now subject to NATO-prescribed blockades in an attempt to starve the resistance into submission, coupled with lethal bombing campaigns.

.

In its crude attempt to deceive the public, the BBC even manages to contradict itself in this one-page report. The testimony it provides above suggests that the alleged victims of the ‘Abu Salim massacre’ were killed because they “did not like Gaddafi“, while the BBC itself claims earlier in the piece, that they were killed for protesting against conditions in the prison.

.

Most certainly, this ‘mass grave’ propaganda will drop out of the news without a retraction from the BBC, as it turns out to be an utter falsehood. The ‘Abu Salim massacre’ is an event toted by globalist-Zionist funded Human Rights Watch as the trump card in the propaganda war against Libya. ‘Abu Salim’ is an event for which there is no physical evidence, and HRW’s report on the event hinges on the testimony of one person who is now residing in the United States. Laughably, HRW even admits that they cannot independently verify a single detail of the man’s claims.

.

.

.

.

Lying BBC hides the truth & tells Shameless lies against Ryan Air

.

.

.

http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/first-bbc-panorama-censors-the-truth-now-it-tells-lies

.

.

First BBC Panorama Censors The Truth, Now It Tells Lies

.
.
Ryanair, Britain’s favourite airline today (11th Oct) accused BBC Panorama of telling blatant lies, in addition to blocking the truth in its ‘Hatchet Job’ programme on Ryanair scheduled for Monday evening, 12th October 2009.  Ryanair has already published all of the correspondence with BBC Panorama on the home page of its website (www.ryanair.com) to expose the fact that Panorama’s claims are lies, and Panorama repeated refused Ryanair’s offer of either a ‘live’ or unedited pre-recorded interview with Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary.
In a statement to the London Times yesterday, a Spokesman for BBC Panorama falsely claimed that: “We wanted to interview Michael O’Leary but he wanted editorial control and that is something that no broadcaster would agree to”.   As the correspondence with Panorama published on Ryanair’s website clearly proves, Ryanair sought no editorial control over this interview.  All Ryanair asked for was that the interview, of whatever length (to be decided by the BBC) would not be edited, censored or cut by the Panorama editors.  Ryanair offered to answer any questions, and believes that the reason that BBC Panorama turned down the interview was because Panorama wanted to cut or edit any Ryanair answers, which didn’t suit Panorama’s ‘Hatched Job’ agenda.
Speaking today Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary said:
“BBC Panorama know that they have no case in this ‘Hatchet Job’ programme.  We have already rubbished their false claims about hidden charges and an agreement with Airbus.  It is a pity that Panorama, with all their resources, investigative journalists and the power of the BBC, were not honest enough to agree to a ‘live’ or an unedited interview with Ryanair, which would have provided Panorama’s viewers with ‘balance and facts’, instead of Panorama’s ‘false claims and fiction’.
 

“Ryanair will be launching another widely popular Seat Sale on midnight Monday to expose Panorama’s false claims, censorship and now sadly lies.  It is a shame that the BBC waste so much licence payers money on investigating why Ryanair is Britain’s favourite airline, when all they need do is take a couple of low fare on time flights like 66 million other consumers will do this year.  These clowns even wasted licence payers money flying to Dublin on high fare, frequently delayed, BMI, instead of flying with Britain’s favourite airline Ryanair”.

See Panorama Correspondence

.

.

.

.

.

.

VIDEO – Neda Soltan’s murder by Lying BBC

.

.

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

.

.

.

.

Neda Soltan’s Murder by Lying BBC

Part – 1

.

.

.

.

.

Neda Soltan’s Murder by Lying BBC

Part – 2

.

.

.

.

.

.

Neda Soltan’s Murder by Lying BBC

Part – 3

.

.

.

.

.

.

Neda Soltan’s Murder by Lying BBC

Part – 4

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Lying BBC, the biggest Liar of the Universe, denies involvement in the murder of Iranian Woman, Neda Soltan

.

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

.

.

.

.

.

“Lying BBC” — The biggest Liar of the Universe denies involvement in the murder of Iranian Woman, Neda Soltan in Iran

.

.

.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/06/ludicrous_allegations.html

.

.

10 Comments

(Click the above Link of Lying BBC)

.

.

.

By,  Frans Unsworth of Lying BBC

26-06-2009

.

.

Some in Iran have been keen to blame foreign media for fuelling the recent protests. This has led to ludicrous allegations about the BBC which have surfaced in the Iranian media.

One Iranian website reported that the BBC had paid hitmen to kill Neda Agha Soltan, the 27-year-old woman who died from a gunshot in an anti-government protest. A newspaper added the flourish that our Tehran correspondent, Jon Leyne, had personally hired the killer.

While I don’t think that anyone takes this allegation seriously, the charge is nonetheless being reported in the Middle East. We state categorically that this extraordinary accusation is of course utterly without foundation.

Since then, another newspaper has reported that our Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen has been calling on Iranian people to “go on strike”. This is not true either.

.

Fran Unsworth is the head of Newsgathering.

.

.

.

. 

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

..

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Neda Soltan was killed by BBC Terrorists

.

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC 

.

.

.

.

Neda Soltan, the Iranian woman

was killed by the

BBC Terrorist

called,

Jon Leyne

.

.

.

.

.

 

Iran has repeatedly claimed that, Neda Soltani, an Iranian woman, who got  shot and later died, was killed by a British Terrorist hired by the Lying BBC. Later, the Iranian authorities named that British terrorist to be the Lying BBC Correspondent in Iran, Jon Leyne

.

.

.

http://dalje.com/en-world/neda-was-killed-by-bbc-reporter/267552

.

.

.

Iranian authorities allegedly threw Neda’s family from their home and did not even give them the girl’s body, but buried her in secrecy.

The video of the murder of young Neda Agha Soltan, who was killed last Saturday during a protest, circulated around the world. According to The Guardian, Neda’s family was thrown out of their home. 

The neighbours of the family say that the police did not want to hand over Neda’s body to her family, but buried her without their knowledge. This information from The Guardian is not confirmed and are contradictory to reports of other media which write that the authorities turned over the body to the family on condition that the burial be carried out quickly and silently.

.

Mass And Commemoration For Angel Of Iran Banned 

The commemorative service for girl known as Neda was supposed to have held in the Niloofar Mosque in Tehran, but was banned, because the authorities feared it might turn into a symbolic event for protestors.

– We just know that the family was forced to leave their flat – neighbours told The Guardian.

–  In Iran, when someone dies, neighbours visit the family and will not let them stay alone for weeks but Neda’s family was forced to be alone, otherwise the whole of Iran would gather here – one of Neda’s neighbours said.

Those who knew Neda said they were shocked that she had been killed during a protest.

– She was a kind, innocent girl. She always had a nice peaceful smile and now she has been sacrificed for the government’s vote-rigging in the presidential election – a neighbour said.

.

Iranian authorities accused protesters for Neda’s death

Reports by Iranian media are completely contrary. The government is accusing the protesters for Neda’s murder and the Javan newspaper went so far as to state that a BBC reporter who was recently ousted of the country by Iranian authorities ordered her murder.

According to Javan, he ordered Neda’s murder in order to film an interesting documentary about the protests.

.

VIDEO: Young Iran Woman Shot In The Heart 

Neda was killed last Saturday. According to her fiancé, she was driving in a car with her music teacher. They got stuck in traffic, so the girl got out of the car for a couple of minutes.

Suddenly she was shot in the chest. Passers-by wanted to take her to hospital, but it was too late. She was probably killed by a Basij militia sniper who aimed straight for her heart. The bullet exploded in Neda’s chest.

.

Neda Loved Music, Travelling And Iran

.

.

.

.

.

.

BBC Terrorist, Jon Leyne of “Lying BBC” is accused of killing Iranian Woman, Neda Soltan

.

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC

.

Lying  BBC

.

.

.

.

.

.

Iranian women light candles in front the image of Neda Agha Soltan in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on Monday. (Photo: Kamran Jebreili, AP)

.

.

.

BBC Terrorist

=

Jon Leyne of Britain

.

.

.

BBC’s Terrorist Jon Leyne of Britain is accused

of killing the Iranian Woman, Neda Soltan

in Iran

.

.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/world/media-blames-bbc-journalist-for-neda-killing/314480

.

.

25th June, 2009

.

.

Iran’s hard-line media sought on Thursday to deflect blame over the killing of a young woman whose final moments were seen around the globe, even going so far as accusing a BBC correspondent of hiring a hit man to shoot her.

Neda Agha-Soltan, who was seen bleeding to death in an Internet video of street violence in Tehran, has become a poignant symbol for the opposition challenging President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election.

“Investigations show that a person shot at several people on Karegar street with a smuggled gun and one of the bullets hits Neda” in the back, several newspapers said, quoting a report by the Fars news agency.

The pro-Ahmadinejad newspaper Vatan Emrouz even accused BBC correspondent Jon Leyne, who was ordered expelled from Iran on Sunday, of “hiring a thug and paying him to kill someone for his documentary.”

Similar allegations against Leyne were leveled on Wednesday in the hard-line Javan newspaper.

Neda’s fiance has said she was an innocent bystander who was targeted by the Basij, the volunteer Islamic militia at the forefront of the regime crackdown against protestors.

The final moments of Neda Agha-Soltan, with blood pouring from her nose after she was reportedly shot in the chest in Tehran on Saturday, were captured on an amateur video flashed around the world on the Internet.

Her fiance, Caspian Makan, told London-based BBC Persian television on Monday that she had gotten out of a car and stumbled into the battles between opposition supporters and Iranian security forces.

“Eyewitnesses and video footage of the shooting clearly show that probably Basij paramilitaries in civilian clothing deliberately targeted her,” he said. 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

BBC Terrorist, Jon Leyne of LYING BBC is humiliatingly deported from Iran

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

Lying  BBC 

.

.

.

.

.

BBC Terrorist, Jon Leyne of “Lying BBC” is

humiliatingly deported from Iran

for intentional misreporting

&

 fabricating notorious “BBC Lies”

.

.

.

.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8111638.stm

.

.

22 June, 2009

.

.

Iran decided that it had had enough of the constant & ongoing invention, fabrication & spreading of  “BBC Lies”  about the Iranian political events.  In direct result of these circumstances, it decided to humiliatingly expel the  Chief Protagonist of  “Lying BBC”, Jon Leyne, who is also accused of killing the Iranian woman,  Neda Soltan

.

.

Iranian authorities have asked the BBC’s correspondent in Tehran to leave the country within 24 hours.

The BBC said the office would remain open despite the departure of Jon Leyne, the broadcaster’s permanent correspondent there.

The request came a day after protests about the presidential election left at least 10 people dead in the capital.

Foreign media, including the BBC, are under severe restrictions, preventing reporters leaving their offices.

Jon Leyne reported for BBC radio, TV and online.

Iran has singled out Britain and the BBC in its widespread condemnation of what it calls meddling by foreign powers in its affairs.

In the days following the 12 June election, BBC Persian TV was disrupted by “deliberate interference” from inside Iran, the corporation said.

In response, the BBC increased the number of satellites that carry its BBC Persian television service for Farsi-speakers in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan.

‘Deeply concerned’

The authorities in Iran have also ordered the Dubai-based al-Arabiya TV channel to close its Tehran bureau for “unfair reporting” of the election.

“The authorities accuse al-Arabiya of diffusing news that is not necessarily fair from their point of view,” said al-Arabiya’s executive news manager, Nabil al-Khatib.

“The channel has not done anything that was in violation of Iranian law,” Mr Khatib said in a statement on al-Arabiya’s website.

In another development, the whereabouts of a Canadian journalist remain unknown.

Maziar Bahari, who works for the US news magazine Newsweek, was detained without charge on Sunday and has not been seen or heard from since.

Newsweek’s editor Jon Meacham said: “We are deeply concerned about Mr Bahari’s detention. As a long time Newsweek reporter he has worked hard to be balanced in his coverage.”

“We see no reason why he should be held by the authorities,” he added.

More than 30 journalists and bloggers have been detained since the protests began, the campaign group Reporters Without Borders says.

.

.

.

.

.

.