The conspiracy theory BBC "documentary"
"The Power of Nightmares"
(2004)
by Adam Curtis.
Basically claims that the endless Islamic terrorist attacks in the West
are not important, and are hyped by Western governments for their own sinister reasons.
See review:
The Power of Bad Television,
Clive Davis, October 21, 2004:
"It is a sign of how fevered political debate has become in Britain's media-land
that such lurid, Michael Moore-ish notions are given a prime-time slot on the channel
that once gave us Kenneth Clarke's Civilisation."
Hilarious parody of Adam Curtis style documentaries.
The BBC has a soft
pro-left, pro-Arab, anti-Israel, anti-America and anti-west
bias.
The problem isn't BBC bias per se
- It's the fact that people are forced
to pay for it.
If the BBC was private (like Sky and Fox)
this bias would be fine.
It's the fact that people are forced
to pay for it that so angers people.
Andrew Gilligan is famous for his
sneering, cynical reporting of the Iraq War on BBC in 2003.
His sneer at the American claim to have taken Baghdad:
"But then the Americans have a history of making these premature announcements."
sums up why people hate the BBC.
Gilligan's weak excuse in Jan 2011 for working for Iranian state TV as recently as May 2010.
He's hardly in any position to criticise Ken Livingstone.
A comment says instead of excuses:
"How about just "sorry"?"
As well as their biased news service,
there has been a severe lack of serious
documentaries on BBC analysing the War on Islamism.
Instead of a serious analysis of Islamism, its goals,
its links to hatred preached in mosques and schools, especially in the west,
and its links to Palestinian terror,
we get Chomskyite nonsense like
"The Power of Nightmares".
"The war party",
Panorama, BBC, 18 May 2003
(anti-neocon polemic).
The Last Enemy, BBC TV, 2008
- The real threat is not Islamic terror,
but rather British government surveillance (of course).
I was going to link to this
BBC map
of the
Afghan "Koran burning" riots of Feb 2012
to illustrate the lunacy of the rioters.
And then I noticed the BBC are asking protesters to send in footage!
That is, they are treating the protesters as if they are not mentally insane.
"Are you in Afghanistan? Are you planning to take part in protests?"
"Then you are a complete lunatic"
is what the BBC should say.
But that would be a different BBC, a BBC that took the side of good against evil.
British jihadi dies fighting for
Al Qaeda in Syria, Oct 2014, and BBC weeps for him.
Richard Littlejohn
compares the story of the two dead brothers to Saving Private Ryan, and finds a difference:
"Unlike the fictional Private Ryan, the Deghayes boys weren't fighting fascism, they were fighting for fascism."
Sunday Worship ... of Obama!
The BBC and Church of England unite to produce "Learning to Dream Again", a
service of worship of Obama at his second inauguration, 20 Jan 2013.
As the blogger
"Archbishop Cranmer"
says:
"Did they ever do this for President Bush? Margaret Thatcher? Or even David Cameron? Is it only Socialist-Democrats who are deemed worthy of a national BBC broadcast in the context of prayer and divine worship?
...
Would thay have commissioned a special anthem (at what cost and met by whom?)
if we now had a Republican back in the White House?"
"Surrey teenager" bombs London Tube, according to BBC, Mar 2018.
In reality,
he was an Iraqi born jihadi who came to the UK in 2015 and bombed it in 2017.
"Surrey teenager".
Weeping for Yassir, November 1, 2004.
The BBC's West Bank correspondent
Barbara Plett
actually wept for the butcher of Jews
Yasser Arafat
when he was taken to hospital during his terminal illness:
"when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound,
I started to cry ... without warning."
The BBC says:
"Abu Jihad - whose real name was Khalil al-Wazir - founded the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) with Yasser Arafat
and was blamed for a string of deadly attacks on Israelis."
"Was blamed for"??
As if there is some doubt!
As if this is something Israel merely claims.
As
BBC Watch
points out, the Palestinian Authority has quite openly celebrated Abu Jihad carrying out these attacks!
The PA openly declares he was a terrorist killer of innocent Jews, and is proud of him for doing that.
And yet to the BBC, he is merely "blamed for" these attacks.
They interviewed a Gaza "protester" who said:
"The revolutionary songs, they excite you, they encourage you to rip a Jew's head off."
The BBC subtitles translated this as:
"rip an Israeli's head off".
Because they want to hide Palestinian racism (the cause of the conflict).
When challenged, the BBC did not apologise but rather defended their subtitles.
The sad fact is that the BBC cannot be trusted to tell the truth on Israel. It is their own fault that people do not trust them.
"In 63% of the stories about Israeli operations, Israel or the IDF were named directly. Typical headlines were: 'Israelis kill militants in Gaza', ...
and 'Israeli strike kills four in Gaza.'"
"On the other hand, of the 7 stories concerning Palestinian attacks, none were written in the same style. The headlines took the responsibility for the attacks away from those who instigated them. ... typical headlines such as: 'Rocket injures dozens in Israel,' 'Gaza explosion kills two children', ... 'Two killed in clash in Gaza Strip,' and 'West Bank clash leaves three dead.' ... Since terrorist groups took responsibility for the attacks, why weren't they named in the headline?"
BBC's biased headlines almost never mention that the Palestinians
carried out the violence.
Israel just gets hit by "attacks" from somewhere:
The episode "Frankie's Story", BBC, 22 Nov 2010.
About vicious bullying in the British army in Afghanistan.
Because that's more interesting than stories of heroism fighting the jihad.
Tendentious drivel, James Delingpole, 27 November 2010, on "Frankie's Story".
The bully justifies his behaviour
"in a long speech about how squaddies are basically the scum of the earth, and how the only way to make them risk their lives in battle is to so terrify them by making an example of some of their comrades ... that even death is preferable to such humiliation.
Does McGovern really believe that this is how the British army works?
... this certainly doesn't gel with anything I have heard from the many soldiers past and present I have met or read
...
the plot of this Accused episode was based on .. entirely false premises ... that it would be in any front-line unit's interest to allow such a state of affairs to arise, when happy, loyal soldiers with a strong esprit de corps inevitably perform so much better in action."
John Humphrys is probably the most prominent face
of the soft left bias of the
BBC.
It would be fun if he was related to me
but he is not.
Not in the last 300 years anyway.
More on John Humphrys:
"Humphrys argued that:
"If we were not prepared to take on a very, very powerful government indeed
there would be no point in the BBC existing - that is ultimately what the BBC is for."
No, Mr Humphrys, it is not. The purpose of public service broadcasting is precisely the opposite:
to provide an analytical, unbiased and serious alternative to the supposed free-for-all of commercial broadcasting.
That it is now ITV and Sky to whom one turns for unbiased coverage
is thanks to John Humphrys and his BBC ilk."
John Bolton v. A sneering John Humphrys, 17 May 2007.
God, Humphrys is annoying.
Snide, sneering, patronising, condescending, obnoxious.
Asking offensive loaded questions based on an unthinking left view of the world.
And yet convinced he is neutral and objective.
As a comment says:
"Notice how touchy left-wingers are getting about being called left-wingers."Another comment
parodies Humphrys' questions:
"Just because they ask questions like -
"Isn't it time you stinking American neocons left
the world which has learned to hate you so much alone?"
doesn't mean one can draw nasty conclusions about political bias."
Humphrys thinks settlements are the problem in Gaza!
"Humphrys did however promote his own personal - and jaw-droppingly irrelevant - proposals as to how to stop a plethora of terror organisations in the Gaza Strip from indiscriminately firing military grade missiles at Israel's civilian population.
"But you know as well as everybody else that in the end you've got to talk and you've got to talk seriously and you have to make concessions - for instance stop building settlements - as a beginning."
As Ambassador Taub pointed out, Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip nine years ago and what the BBC terms 'occupied territories' are not the issue as far as Hamas is concerned.
...
Whilst audiences learned little about the actual topic to which this interview ostensibly relates, those with existing knowledge of the issue did gain insight into the irrelevance of the BBC's grasp of what lies behind the conflict between Israel and Hamas."
Al-Qaeda is unhappy with America and other countries getting involved in places like the Middle East.
What a load of leftie propaganda!
Why not say to the children:
Al Qaeda are a group that hates all people who are not Muslim.
They even hate some groups of Muslims, such as the Shia.
Al Qaeda believe that Jews and Christians
are engaged in plots against the Muslim world.
They believe that all non-Muslims
must be destroyed in order
to make the world a better place.
They believe that Muslims should reign supreme on the earth.
They have killed tens of thousands of people.
Many Muslims oppose Al Qaeda.
Most of Al Qaeda's victims so far have been Muslims.
If you can't see my point, consider the following:
Which would be the better explanation by the BBC during the Second World War
of why the Nazis were
attacking the Jews?
This:
The Nazis are
unhappy with the Jews' involvement in the world economy
and the German economy.
or this:
The Nazis are an organisation
that hates all Jews.
They also hate many other groups of people, such as gypsies, gays and Slavs.
The Nazis believe that Jews
are engaged in plots against the world
and against Germany.
They believe that all Jews
must be destroyed in order
to make the world a better place.
They believe that Germans should reign supreme on the earth.
They have killed 20 million people.
7 million Germans have died in the wars the Nazis started.
Page 1:
"Islam is a religion of peace in which fighting and war are seen only as a last resorts".
Rubbish. They are first resorts.
The Palestinians never tried Gandhi-like peaceful protest with Israel.
(Which would have worked very well against a democracy.)
Instead they went straight to violence and terror.
The Iraqi "resistance" never tried peaceful protest after 2003.
(Which would have worked very well with Americans.)
Instead they went straight to violence and terror.
They even suicide bombed voting stations.
Whether in response to "blasphemy", or cartoons,
or some alleged "grievance",
angry Muslims tend to go straight to violence
because their religion encourages that.
There is no evidence that their religion encourages violence as a last resort.
And if Islam is "a religion of peace"
then why is it the most violent religion in the world?
Page 2:
"The idea of Jihad is often misunderstood by non-Muslims who then see Islam as not being a pacifist religion.".
It is misunderstood
also by the vast number of jihadists who
slaughter thousands for Islam every year all across the world!
Oddly, far from being "a pacifist religion",
Islam is in fact
the most violent religion in the world!
Page 3:
"Muslims may fight in self-defence but are forbidden to begin a fight."
Rubbish.
Almost all Muslim war and terror is aggressive
- to impose sharia law.
"The aim of fighting is to create a situation where Muslims are free to worship Allah and live in peace.".
Rubbish. The aim of fighting is to impose sharia law
(i.e. end religious freedom).
"One aim of Holy War may be to create a democracy
where people are free to live their lives without beliefs and politics being imposed on them."
What??
What is this person on??
When has that ever happened?
Name just one time in human history when that has ever happened
- when the aim of Holy War was to create a
democracy
or a place with religious freedom.
The aim of Holy War is always to oppose these ideas!
The BBC broadcast the most hilarious program called
Don't Panic, I'm Islamic
in June 2005.
(The 2005 program is not to be confused with several other programs called
"Don't Panic, I'm Islamic".)
This ludicrous BBC program
was designed to assure us fear-gripped Islamophobes
that there is no Islamist threat, and it is all lies
cooked up by the media, or the neo-cons, or somebody.
Unfortunately, the program had a few flaws:
First, the program was an endless parade of twisted, paranoid and aggressive
British Muslims.
One of the Muslims supposed to "reassure" us was
a member of the pro-jihad
Respect
party!
Another was
Asghar Bukhari
of the extremist
MPAC.
Another was the appalling
Lord Ahmed,
who blames the victim of Islamist violence for the violence.
Another idiot claimed Bin Laden is not evil, and is very "spiritual".
Another said many Muslims admire Bin Laden,
and she more or less believes that America carried out 9/11.
Another,
Shahid Butt,
has a terror conviction.
No Muslim on the program ever said anything like:
"I love the West because of its Enlightenment values of freedom of religion,
free speech
and freedom of sexuality."
Instead it was an endless series of leftist or Islamist complaints about Britain
and western democracies.
What planet do the BBC team live on?
Couldn't they find a single decent, attractive, liberal Muslim to present to us?
Why do they have to confirm all our prejudices with this parade of
unattractive characters?
This deeply stupid program laughed at the supposed media "hysteria" about Islamic terror,
and ridiculed the idea of an attack on Britain.
It read out newspaper reports of plots in funny voices.
However, only weeks after the program aired, on 7 July 2005,
Islamic terrorists bombed London,
killing more people than in any attack since 1945.
Finally (and this is the act of pure leftie genius
that makes this perhaps the worst BBC program ever):
They featured a cheerful, unthreatening, Muslim cockney called
Mohammed Hamid,
and his paintballing pal Muhammad al-Figari.
Later, unfortunately,
it turned out that Mohammed Hamid
(or
"Osama Bin London"
as he liked to call himself)
knew the 21 July bombers!
The bombers
Ramzi Mohammed
and
Osman Hussain
went paintballing with him
days before the attack!
He also knew the bomber
Muktar Said Ibraihim.
This all emerged in Dec 2007 when
Mohammed Hamid and his pal Muhammad al-Figari
went on trial on Islamic terrorism charges!
Mohammed Hamid was charged with
recruiting and grooming the 21 July bombers.
You couldn't make it up.
Mohammed Hamid is found guilty, Feb 2008.
"Mohammed Hamid told young Muslims the 52 deaths in the July 7 attacks on London were "not even breakfast to me" as he urged them to prepare for jihad".
"Hamid exchanged 155 calls and text messages with the four July 21 bombers."
He sent the July 21 bombers
"a text on the night of July 21 and attempted to ring both of them the following day."
Muhammad al-Figari was also found guilty.
A relative of Mohammed Hamid says:
"he hated Britain and told his nephews the whole country should be Islamic
and they should kill non-believers."
Well done, BBC.
Your program now suggests that if you pick random British Muslims,
they will as often as not
turn out to either be terrorists,
know terrorists,
or support terrorists.
To actually feature someone who is a terrorist
is real genius.
Surely, you would think, the first qualification for the program telling us
not to "panic" would be no connection with terror at all.
If I took the BBC's ludicrous program seriously, I would think all or most
British Muslims were terrorists.
But luckily I don't, and I do not.
"Don't panic, it will make it harder to kill you"
might have been a better title in retrospect.
Here are lots of
funny alternate titles for this absurd program, including:
Hold the consternation, practice female genital mutilation.
Why do you fret? I'm boarding your jet.
Criticism of the ludicrous BBC program
"Don't Panic, I'm Islamic".
Why I often prefer blogs to the BBC
Muslim supremacists attack innocent Christians in Nigeria for no reason, May 2011, killing 17 including an entire family.
The
BBC
hides the news.
Everything is passive voice.
There is a vague clue that
"Hundreds have died in clashes"
since a Muslim lost an election,
but they won't explain further.
The
Jihad Watch
blog tells the story straight. "Muslim Attackers Kill Fifteen Christians"
Why can't the media tell news stories this way?
At no point does this article ever mention
Islam, Muslims, jihad or sharia.
A wave of Islamic terror across the West
and this article completely ignores it.
But it gets even more comical.
See below.
The article never mentions Islam once, but
it does find time to mention Brexit (!) as a threat to the West.
But this is the best bit:
What makes this article a true masterpiece is that it
blames the Syrian war
on climate change and capitalism.
Yes that's right.
The Syrian war - involving a democidal Baathist dictatorship,
blood-soaked Sunni jihadis from the Iraqi "resistance",
the mass murdering Shia regime of Iran
and its terrorist proxies Hezbollah
- was caused by climate change and capitalism!
"Capitalism" is real genius here.
Syria is one of the most statist countries on earth.
The BBC can surely never produce anything more ludicrous than this article.
British jihadist killers
are motivated by anti-terrorism laws,
or British "oppression" (*),
or the liberation of Iraq, or something
- not by the powerful, global ideology of jihad.
Peter Kosminsky
asked following the 7/7 bombs:
"How was it that a group of second-generation British Muslims, born here, raised here, educated in British schools,
steeped in British culture, could have become so angry, feel themselves so powerless and disenfranchised,
that they would strap explosives to their bodies and set out to kill and maim their fellow British citizens?"
Even in the way he asks the question he shows that
he does not understand the answer.
The 7/7 killers of innocents were driven by hope,
and religion, and bigotry, and hatred, and utopianism,
not by despair.
(*) Muslims are freer in Britain than in any Muslim country on earth.
Only in the West, and in no Muslim country,
can every single Muslim thinker and sect practice, write, debate,
speak and publish in freedom.
Peter Kosminsky and Channel 4 make
The Promise (2011),
about the foundation of Israel.
Channel 4 fantasises
about the capture of Prince Harry by the Taliban.
To balance the endless dramas that Channel 4 have made about heroic British troops in Afghanistan.
The opening lines summarise the war effort in Afghanistan as costing lives and money.
(Rather than, say, as a heroic decades-long struggle against the evil of the global jihad.)
Though in fairness, it's not all bad.
Harry is shown as pretty strong.
He faces his death bravely and with honour.
And in the end, he aids his own escape.
In Jan 2014,
"edgy" Channel 4 covered the
Maajid Nawaz
"Jesus and Mo"
story
...
and censored the Muhammad cartoon.
If they said they were just afraid of Islamic violence, that would be fine.
But their left-wing piety means they cannot say that.
So they came out with a
defence of censorship
on the grounds that
showing the cartoon
"was not integral to the story"
and was
"likely to cause offence".
Good response:
"Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, commented: "The claim that showing the entire illustration was 'not integral to the story' is ludicrous. It was the story. The truth is that Channel 4, like so many others, is intimidated and afraid of the reaction from violent extremists.
...
We may have abolished the blasphemy law, but who needs it when the same effect can be achieved by terrorising people?"
Mr Sanderson said that Channel 4 should be ashamed of itself for capitulating in this way to supposed 'sensitivities' that it does not respect in any other context. "Channel 4 does not hesitate to create controversy and offence in its other output, indeed it prides itself on doing so.""
The anti-Israel
Jon Snow of Channel 4, 8 July 2015, tweets a picture of a wheelchair at an Israeli crossing and claims Israel would not let it through.
Over 2,000 retweets, but zero proof is provided.
In fact, it seems likely
that it is an emergency wheelchair for general use at the crossing.
"Says it all" about Jon Snow and Channel 4.
There is a hilarious parody of left-wing media in this.
In week one after UKIP winning the election and Nigel Farage becoming PM,
lefties (again) attack UKIP as "racist".
A journalist then asks about UKIP:
"Who can solve their image problem?"
Eh, hello?
They just won the election!
They won it.
By any empirical definition, they don't have an image problem.
The parties that lost have an image problem.
The program
portrays leaving the EU as an economic disaster for Britain.
Was this program funded by the EU?
It shows a huge surge in support for the EDL
after UKIP take office.
This inverts the reality, which is that the rise of UKIP has destroyed the EDL
by providing a sane alternative.
You'd think the left would be grateful.
In contrast, the pro-jihad, pro-terror
Socialist Workers Party,
a group far more extreme than the EDL,
are portrayed as good guys.
The bad guys in this program are
UKIP, the white British, ex-soldiers, border control, the WI and even Israel.
I'd love to see a program where all those are the good guys
and people like
the SWP and
the racists who bombed London
are the bad guys.
"UKIP: The First 100 Days" (at 27:45)
takes a swipe at Israel.
Socialists and communists (again) protest UKIP as "racist".
There is a counter-protest:
"By the afternoon, some far right demonstrators were trying to disrupt the march."
And the only sign visible is an Israeli flag.
the very first
episode of the BBC TV show
Bonekickers,
in 2008,
a Christian extremist
beheads a Muslim.
