Author Topic: Is the BBC totally compromised?  (Read 2465 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13514
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2018, 05:51:PM »
I was thinking of everything Maggie. Not just Corbyn but Russia, Syria and everything.
I know but think it all stems from the insecurity and feer of Corbyn being elected. There has always been aN understanding about protecting the Establishment and their power and wealth from the left as well as the right but there seems to be a collective attack on JC because he doesn't dance to that tune.  :-\  I don't really go much on conspiracy theories but there does seem to be a joint enterprise.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40034
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2018, 11:00:AM »
I just despair at the anti-bombing campaigners during this last attack on the chemical factories. Left to Corbyn,thousands more children would have perished and this country would have been up in arms about it,but because the " job was done " to destroy these factories that's not right either ??
So what was it to have been ?
The difference was that the air-raids didn't attack civilians !! Corbyn would still have been dithering while children were being murdered. I found it difficult to watch such news on the children of Syria---perhaps Corbyn didn't !

It's a disgrace that the PM has to face questioning on this. Nobody questioned Blair when he took all our troops NEEDLESSLY to Iraq !!

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13514
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2018, 11:33:AM »
I just despair at the anti-bombing campaigners during this last attack on the chemical factories. Left to Corbyn,thousands more children would have perished and this country would have been up in arms about it,but because the " job was done " to destroy these factories that's not right either ??
So what was it to have been ?
The difference was that the air-raids didn't attack civilians !! Corbyn would still have been dithering while children were being murdered. I found it difficult to watch such news on the children of Syria---perhaps Corbyn didn't !

It's a disgrace that the PM has to face questioning on this. Nobody questioned Blair when he took all our troops NEEDLESSLY to Iraq !!
Children are being murdered every day by bbarrel bombs and all kinds of unimaginable horrors. I have a friend who's partner is Syrian, his family are either in Idlib or Turkish refugee camps. They have heard stories and seen phone videos of absolute horror which has stopped them sleeping and functioning properly.  I haven't got the courage to look at such things and neither do most people but we do need to accept the true horror of Syria. True the bombs by Trump, May and Macron probably didn't kill anyone and chemical weapons are a scourge and illegal but people young and old will still die horribly.  We have flexed our muscles ... Jeremy Corbyn has campaigned against nuclear and chemical weapons all his life. He was against war in Iraq. Worked for peace in Ireland.  However much people may disagree with his politics I don't think anyone can condemn him for being uncaring.  The only answer to Syria is talking however difficult otherwise this will end in a world war. It is horrendously dangerous.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40034
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2018, 11:57:AM »
Children are being murdered every day by bbarrel bombs and all kinds of unimaginable horrors. I have a friend who's partner is Syrian, his family are either in Idlib or Turkish refugee camps. They have heard stories and seen phone videos of absolute horror which has stopped them sleeping and functioning properly.  I haven't got the courage to look at such things and neither do most people but we do need to accept the true horror of Syria. True the bombs by Trump, May and Macron probably didn't kill anyone and chemical weapons are a scourge and illegal but people young and old will still die horribly.  We have flexed our muscles ... Jeremy Corbyn has campaigned against nuclear and chemical weapons all his life. He was against war in Iraq. Worked for peace in Ireland.  However much people may disagree with his politics I don't think anyone can condemn him for being uncaring.  The only answer to Syria is talking however difficult otherwise this will end in a world war. It is horrendously dangerous.







 It'll be far more of a dangerous situation if there is an outcry over the bombing of the factories. I think people should just hold their tongues as a sharp shock to the likes of Assad is more productive saving days/weeks of negotiating and dithering. I couldn't watch the news with those children suffering,so it has to stop.
The only other alternative is to totally ignore anything that goes on in other countries and their regimes. In fact in the Syria case,Assad's regime won't be compromised---just his methods of chemical destruction which would/could have a wider effect than just his own country. Other than that should we ever interfere in those countries which have monstrous rulers ?   Particularly places such as the Middle East.

Offline Jon2

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2018, 12:18:PM »
When you bomb chemical factories , do any chemicals escape ?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40034
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2018, 12:27:PM »
The news that came from those involved in the airstrikes had stated that there was no escape. I would assume that the aircraft used would also be equipped with " seekers " during chemical strikes ?

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13514
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2018, 02:37:PM »
When you bomb chemical factories , do any chemicals escape ?
I'm not absolutely sure Jon2 I have heard that claimed and no one has disputed it but no actual proof.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13514
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2018, 02:46:PM »






 It'll be far more of a dangerous situation if there is an outcry over the bombing of the factories. I think people should just hold their tongues as a sharp shock to the likes of Assad is more productive saving days/weeks of negotiating and dithering. I couldn't watch the news with those children suffering,so it has to stop.
The only other alternative is to totally ignore anything that goes on in other countries and their regimes. In fact in the Syria case,Assad's regime won't be compromised---just his methods of chemical destruction which would/could have a wider effect than just his own country. Other than that should we ever interfere in those countries which have monstrous rulers ?   Particularly places such as the Middle East.
With respect I don't believe Assad will take any notice, he is apparently reckless like his father before him and the rest of the family.    In many ways he is fighting for his life. Like Gaddafi, Saddam and others they believe they will win by crushing all before them but he is doomed just like the others. Using the Syrian people to maje a point is wrong imo.  All we can do is fight for peace by talking imo, whether it seems hopeless or not you need to keep going and never give up. Nothing is resolved by war They all have to talk in the end.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10550
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2018, 03:40:PM »
Isn't all this falling in to the hands of the very media we are discussing?  Former British ambassadors have gone on record in very hostile media interviews (Sky and BBC radio), questioning both the Salisbury and Douma incidents.  Where is the proof that Russia was involved in the former and Assad in the latter?  This is very point I am making.  The media are running with a narrative across the board, like it's preordained. There's no dissenting voice and any interviewee who dares to dissent is treated with contempt and mockery.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 03:41:PM by Roch »

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13514
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2018, 05:04:PM »
Isn't all this falling in to the hands of the very media we are discussing?  Former British ambassadors have gone on record in very hostile media interviews (Sky and BBC radio), questioning both the Salisbury and Douma incidents.  Where is the proof that Russia was involved in the former and Assad in the latter?  This is very point I am making.  The media are running with a narrative across the board, like it's preordained. There's no dissenting voice and any interviewee who dares to dissent is treated with contempt and mockery.
I agree Roch but isn't it always so?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40034
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2018, 05:10:PM »
Should we really care about how other countries are run/governed ? Too much media is bad for us,methinks.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10550
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2018, 05:48:PM »
I agree Roch but isn't it always so?

Possibly - but it seems worse since Cameron era and Savill scandal.  Something has changed.  We used to always hear the tories complain about (non-existent) anti-tory bias in the BBC. They don't seem to complain much these days though. It seems they solved the problem.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2018, 07:36:PM »
Isn't all this falling in to the hands of the very media we are discussing?  Former British ambassadors have gone on record in very hostile media interviews (Sky and BBC radio), questioning both the Salisbury and Douma incidents.  Where is the proof that Russia was involved in the former and Assad in the latter?  This is very point I am making.  The media are running with a narrative across the board, like it's preordained. There's no dissenting voice and any interviewee who dares to dissent is treated with contempt and mockery.
   The lies pumped out by the BBC and establishment figures generally about Corbyn, Syria, Assad, Russia would be laughable were it not so serious.
    Regarding Syria and Assad firstly. The Western countries who are interfering, funding and arming these so called "rebels"; in reality Islamist groups such as Al Nusra Front, Jaish al Islam, Al Qaeda et al. are guilty of the most serious war crime of all, the Crime of Aggression.
    The so called "civil war" would be long over were it not for the interference, funding and arming of foreign sponsored terrorists attempting to overthrow the legitimate government of a sovereign state.
    It is no civil war, it is a foreign sponsored war of aggression sponsored by and on behalf of, in no particular order, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, US, UK, France and Israel plus various other vassal states coerced, bullied or otherwise into this blatant aggression.
    The accounts of gas attacks from "sources" and "activists on the ground" are simply regurgitated terrorist propaganda. "Activists on the ground" is, by the way, simply a euphemism for terrorist. No journalists are allowed to operate in rebel/terrorist held areas and none enter these areas. These "accounts" are then repeated by our politicians and media as if they are objective facts rather than the unsupported and self serving allegations from members of internationally recognised and proscribed terror groups that they are.
     The former diplomats that Roch refers to are voices that should be heard by all. Craig Murray who has an excellent and very informed blog at https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ , was former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and was eventually hounded from office after whistleblowing about illegal rendition and torture undertaken with UK government complicity. There is much information on this particular subject including Mr. Murray's own book "Murder in Samarkand" but a primer is linked here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jul/15/foreignpolicy.uk
     He is in short someone who dares to "speak truth to power" unlike our cowed and pathetic media who merely "tell lies for and on the behalf of power".
     The second Ambassador in question is Peter Ford who was Ambassador to Syria from 2003 to 2006 who has been very outspoken and is also, by magnitudes, better informed on events unfolding there than the propagandists and Jihadi apologists masquerading as journalists at all MSM outlets. There are interviews available and worth searching out for a few truth bombs.
     These voices as well as many others including the excellent John Pilger, independent journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett are silenced in the media because their facts don't fit the narrative being pushed. Peter Hitchens, George Galloway are other voices not asked for their views lest they dare to speak too much truth.
     All of these voices interestingly enough were amongst the most prominent speaking out against western interventions in Iraq and Libya; the objective amongst us would surely agree that history has proven them to have been correct then, along obviously with Jeremy Corbyn himself.
     Those attempting to now convince us of Assad's cruelty and the "humanitarian" need to drop some bombs are also, coincidentally, the same usual suspects who were in favour of western military interventions in Iraq and Libya, well anywhere really. Again the objective amongst us would agree that history has shown these voices to be not only wrong, including the "intelligence" agencies, but spectacularly wrong. For fuck's sake they even wheeled out that nice Tony Blair, who would never lie about intelligence assessments to start a war on a Middle East country, would he?
      Why would anyone imagine that those, who have been shown historically to be poor judges of geopolitics and apparently blind to obvious and foreseeable consequences of this poor judgement, are now credible commentators on current events. They are at best uninformed and lacking in even the most basic modicum of intellectual curiosity or at worst knowingly lying and propagandising for war, for money. I suspect the latter.
      The most unheard voices of all in this are the voices of the Syrian people themselves.
      Do the Syrians want Western "humanitarian" intervention? No they don't by an overwhelming majority as anyone can discover.
      Do the Syrians agree that Assad should be removed from power? Again and by an overwhelming majority the answer is no. This assessment is shared also by NATO hence their insistence that any future democratic election cannot have Assad as a choice. He enjoys the support of 70% plus of the Syrian people and would win any election held today or tomorrow.
     How could this be if the media reports of him "gassing his own people" and him being a "brutal dictator" are true? Are Syrians masochists and stupid or could it be possible that they know more than our bought media are telling us? What do you think?
     The hostility and aggression towards Russia goes back much further but was ramped up to hysterical levels in 2015 when they had the temerity to help defend the sovereignty of Syria against foreign sponsored and armed insurgency when asked for help by the Syrian government( not regime).
     Russia's intervention has been decisive and Syria is on now the verge of total victory against the
 foreign sponsored aggression hence the near total meltdown of the media and those interests served by the governments of the above mentioned Western and Arab countries.
     We need the brave voices to be given prominence now so the public can hear the unvarnished truth about NATO aggression and who it serves. The cowards currently propagandising for war because it is their "job" are leading us to war with Russia based on lies and propaganda.

     
     
     

Offline Jon2

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10550