Author Topic: Is the BBC totally compromised?  (Read 2959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10555
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2018, 10:03:PM »
   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.

     
     
   

Thoroughly depressing yet brilliant post.  Bravo!

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1250
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2018, 11:04:PM »
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html
   I should have mentioned Fisk who has also been excellent in his coverage throughout and has been one of the few brave voices.
     https://off-guardian.org/2018/04/15/voices-of-the-syrian-people/

    OffGuardian linked above would probably interest you too Jon if you weren't already aware of it.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4768
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #33 on: April 17, 2018, 10:26:AM »
   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.

     
     
   

Excellent post.


Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2018, 11:20:AM »
http://podcasts.spiritradio.ie/robert-fisk-from-douma-syria/






Well there you are. It just shows you not to believe anything that is reported. Video's of children in distress will always spark off controversy---------which is why they're shown.

The only picture that has ever remained in my mind was the poor child who'd been burnt by Napalm. That was genuine and also horrific.


Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13525
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2018, 04:20:PM »
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings/audio/international-mainstream-media-failing-audiences/
Very true Jon2 but is it worse than it always was?  I agree they appear to have not learned anything but maybe much of that is because it doesn't suit their agenda to learn.   Fake news is everywhere.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6256
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2018, 04:47:PM »
I have not really followed the Russian poison events lately. Is it the same sort of thing as the cases of Georgi Markov and Alexander Litvinenko?
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13525
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #38 on: April 17, 2018, 05:19:PM »
I have not really followed the Russian poison events lately. Is it the same sort of thing as the cases of Georgi Markov and Alexander Litvinenko?
The Salisbury event is supposed to be Novachok nerve gas while Litvinenko was killed with radium poisoning.  Beyond that who did what to whom is an ongoing argument. 

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #39 on: April 17, 2018, 05:37:PM »
The way that the poison was treated by police/forensics all rigged up like spacemen must have meant that the one who delivered the stuff must also have been cautious too ?? It seems strange.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6256
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #40 on: April 17, 2018, 05:39:PM »
The Salisbury event is supposed to be Novachok nerve gas while Litvinenko was killed with radium poisoning.  Beyond that who did what to whom is an ongoing argument.

IIRC litvenenko was killed with plutonium210 so certainly not the work of amateurs.
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #41 on: April 17, 2018, 06:02:PM »
According to the DM there are 9 sites around Salisbury that could still be contaminated.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13525
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2018, 06:09:PM »
IIRC litvenenko was killed with plutonium210 so certainly not the work of amateurs.
Nerve gas needs professional handling as well.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13525
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #43 on: April 17, 2018, 06:17:PM »
The way that the poison was treated by police/forensics all rigged up like spacemen must have meant that the one who delivered the stuff must also have been cautious too ?? It seems strange.
I agree. I am completely ignorant about the form nerve gas would have been in and how it can be administered without the perpetrator being contaminated  themself.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6256
Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
« Reply #44 on: April 17, 2018, 06:36:PM »
I agree. I am completely ignorant about the form nerve gas would have been in and how it can be administered without the perpetrator being contaminated  themself.

Through letter box?
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."