Rapid Response Media Alert: Targeting Iran – The BBC Propaganda Begins

[kyser_soze]

No it isn't. You have misrepresented what the prog actually said. The loose affiliation of jihadis tapped OBL for cash and one chap went on to plan and execute 9-11, after which point they started calling themselves Al-Q, as have several groups that have no direct contact with OBL but share his aims and ideas.

Whether there is a 'credible terrorist network' or not is a moot point - Al-Q exists, even if it's just OBL and his buds in a cave somewhere. The difference is that the image of Al-Q is of an organised network - this is the falsehood.

This might be splitting hairs, but there is a group who have supported and planned terrorist actions that post 9-11 calls itself Al-Qaeda. That the name was invented and the image it has is far in excess of it's potential capabilities is a moot point - it exists, and you are twisting what the doc said to fit your own beliefs and prejudices.

 

[nino_savatte]

No it isn't. You have misrepresented what the prog actually said. The loose affiliation of jihadis tapped OBL for cash and one chap went on to plan and execute 9-11, after which point they started calling themselves Al-Q, as have several groups that have no direct contact with OBL but share his aims and ideas.

Whether there is a 'credible terrorist network' or not is a moot point - Al-Q exists, even if it's just OBL and his buds in a cave somewhere. The difference is that the image of Al-Q is of an organised network - this is the falsehood.

This might be splitting hairs, but there is a group who have supported and planned terrorist actions that post 9-11 calls itself Al-Qaeda. That the name was invented and the image it has is far in excess of it's potential capabilities is a moot point - it exists, and you are twisting what the doc said to fit your own beliefs and prejudices.

Perhaps your reading of the program is different to mine but I stand by what I said: AQ is a fiction and the programme didn't leave any grey areas in my mind. OBL is not a leader of a vast terror network either and I think the programme made that quite plain.

Sorry but I do not agree with you but thanks for helping JC, I'm sure he's grateful to you.

 

[kyser_soze]

1. I'm not saying he is the leader of a vast terror network - read what I wrote about the difference between image and reality

2. After 9-11 OBL took to calling his little band Al-Q, therefore it exists by his own words. that the name was gifted to him by the USG is neither here nor there. There exists a group that call themselves Al-Q, ergo it exists.

 

[nino_savatte]

1. I'm not saying he is the leader of a vast terror network - read what I wrote about the difference between image and reality

2. After 9-11 OBL took to calling his little band Al-Q, therefore it exists by his own words. that the name was gifted to him by the USG is neither here nor there. There exists a group that call themselves Al-Q, ergo it exists.

Please, I know the difference between image and reality. The fact remains that AQ are not the SPECTRE they imagined to be, nor are they a worldwide network.

I'm not certain if OBL has used AQ to describe himself or anyone else and from what I remember I don't think he has, but how well do you understand Arabic? I donm't speak it at all, therefore I have to rely on 'translations' from the intelligence services or the BBC's own Arabic section.

If AQ exist then I'll start paying more attention to Jeff Rense or Joe Vialls.

 

[nino_savatte]

Furthermore...

I will accept that OBL and his mentor (the doctor) act as an inspiration to others and their Manichaen dogma finds purchase in the minds of certain types of people. But I would not go as far as to suggest that OBL is the head of a vast terror network. He may provide some people with money but he is not a mastermind (like Ernst Stavro Blofeld).

 

[kyser_soze]

PoN made it very clear that OB-L started referring to his little band as Al-Q in the aftermath of 9-11 - he's not so stupid that he can't see the benefit of using a name and image already conjured up by the USG for his own ends, as no doubt will other groups that are Islamist if there are more bombings or spectaculars or whatever - they won't be affiliated or have had any contact, but they will see the benefit of aligning themselves with an existing 'brand' of terrorist group...and of course it then becomes easier for the CIA to claim that there is a global network calling itself Al-Q.

The irony of course is that this is exactly what they want - they created the image of Al-Q, OBL took the name up as being a useful communication tool in certain contexts and so, no doubt, will other Islamist groups using terrorism as a means of protest which, regardless of the reality of their ties to OBL, helps both sides in the spread of fear...which is the ultimate goal of both 'sides' in this.

And no, like you I would never say that OBL is another Blofeld

 

[Main Street]

On a personal level when I saw the PoN when it was first aired on TV I thought blimey this is great stuff.

My understanding of the doc was that Al Q didn't exist prior to 9-11 as an organisation. It existed in name only, a creation of the USG. Sorry for repetition of the above posts and not that I know every statement that OBL has ever put out but I can't recall either a connection between OBL and Al Q just like i can't recall a connection between OBL and Saddam.

One connection that might exist and to my understanding did exist is that of OBL and Dubya. Could it be that they have some grand scheme to redesign the ME and the whole war on terror and Al Q/OBL is one huge smoke and mirrors job.

It is easy to see that Bush has set his sights on the oil in the Caspian and having already gained control of the oil in Iraq it would appear that the cards are stacked in his favour and he aint going to back down. War on terror bullshit. We all know that. I think even the pro-war people who believed that the US/UK troops would be freeing Iraqis from a brutal dictator and the alleged threat of the development/or supposed existence of WMD now realise and agree with the anti-war movement that the invasion of Iraq was a big con.

Just by looking at a map it easy to see that Iran is definitely the next target and that Bush is going to go for it. They did Afghanistan on the right and Iraq on the left. To say that they done both of those countries aint quite correct though is it - because Bush said it was a war on terror but the terror still exists and has increased. The threat of attacks around the world has increased, like the anti-war movement said it would. Whether another attack like 9-11 will actually happen is another matter. Security in the States, just one country alone has been stepped up big time.

The CT that Bush could have been behind 9-11 or certainly aware of it and then let it happen is something that I doubted for a very long time. But now looking at the aggression of Bush and the words coming the USG about Iran and how that country is a threat I am beginning to think that maybe there is something to this CT. I always believed that it was a war for oil and not a war on terror but I didn't believe that Bush/the US was trying to redraw the ME. Now, I think that I have been naive in my past thinking and beliefs and that it is time to step up the war of words against US foreign policy.

A friend told me about a book called the Grand Chessboard published pre 9-11 which I aint read yet, but I will, in which the central idea is the US needed a major event to happen, and for it to be on live TV, in order that it could mobilise public opinion to commence what we now know to be war on terror and which in reality is the start of the next phase of US imperialism - a move for all out control of the world.

A real war on terror imo and it ain't really my opinion it is just what I have learnt in recent months and realised from the culmination of all that I have mentioned in this post is that the anti-war movement needs to commence a war on terror. A war on US terror. And I aint talking about a military war because the enemy is too big. I am merely talking about a war of ideas/a philosophy that there is an alternative to the Bush/USG agenda. We all know that right. It is why spaces like u75 exist cos we know there is an alternative.

The question is what do we do? I've made up my mind - I am going to fight.
Anyone else?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

you are lying again, and misrepresenting my words - very poor show, but entirely true to form. I NEVER said what the Taliban truly wanted or desired; I NEVER claimed to know this; I merely pointed out their OFFICIAL statements; as reproduced on al-jazz, the Beeb, CBS, etc.
Stop lying, Johnny. That or reproduce where I claim to be privy to the innermost intellectual workings of Mullah Omar. Or stop claiming an apple is an orange.

I'm not lying: I'm just giving your own words back to you.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I am lucky because I have earned the right to have a bit of luck.
...

Sorry pk, but I think that is a load of crap.

You're lucky if you're lucky. Being lucky or getting things is not necessarily related to merit or deservedness.

I have some of the things you've talked about, and I thank my lucky stars for it, but I don't pretend that I am somehow a better or more deserving person, because of it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Wasn't that some sort of 19th century philosophy: having money was obvious proof of your moral superiority?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

you are lying again, and misrepresenting my words - very poor show, but entirely true to form. :

When my kids were about five years old, they'd sometimes say about people: "He's lying!". They had yet to learn that falshoods or whatever can be uttered as a result of error, or for other reasons.

I'm not saying that that is the case with me, but I find it interesting that in the circumstances, you call up the moral logic of the five year old.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What it actually made clear - and what you're having difficulty in explaining to JC2 - was that Al-Q as an organisational group was the contruction of a paid CIA informant, and that the loose, unnamed group of jihadis that had drifted back to Afghanistan after the failures of the Islamisc revolutions and disbanding of Islamic Jihad itself, congregated around OBLs money in order to plan 9-11.

AT THIS POINT they didn't call themselves Al-Q, only the USG and other media sources did. They only started calling themselves Al-Q after 9-11 when they realised the name had a form of 'brand equity' of terror.

I'm not surprised JC2 called you what he did - you've misrepresented what the programme said completley by saying 'Al-Q doesn't exist' and it does look like you swallowed a line.

Of course you didn't and given the progs contributors (CIA and various other spooks, use of USG documents etc.) I'd say it has more than a ring of credibilty...but not if you go round saying things like 'Al-Q doesn't exist'. That isn't what the programme argued.

Thanks. You've actually made it sound like the program might be worth watching.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

1. I'm not saying he is the leader of a vast terror network - read what I wrote about the difference between image and reality

2. After 9-11 OBL took to calling his little band Al-Q, therefore it exists by his own words. that the name was gifted to him by the USG is neither here nor there. There exists a group that call themselves Al-Q, ergo it exists.

'Suddenly, kyser found himself in the labyrinth, and there was nino up ahead, with - a blindfold on!'

 

[pk]

Sorry pk, but I think that is a load of crap.

You're lucky if you're lucky. Being lucky or getting things is not necessarily related to merit or deservedness.

I have some of the things you've talked about, and I thank my lucky stars for it, but I don't pretend that I am somehow a better or more deserving person, because of it.

I don't know what you refer to in the things I've talked about, I talk a lot! but the deservedness of which I speak comes from the fact that I have worked my arse off for a long time.

Currently averaging 15 hours a day, working. 24 hour shifts snatching 3 hours sleep are not alien to me, and without drugs.

I'd say any luck appropriated along the way was well fucking deserved.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't know what you refer to in the things I've talked about, I talk a lot! but the deservedness of which I speak comes from the fact that I have worked my arse off for a long time.

Currently averaging 15 hours a day, working. 24 hour shifts snatching 3 hours sleep are not alien to me, and without drugs.

I'd say any luck appropriated along the way was well fucking deserved.

I'm talking about the expense accounts, etc. Taxi accounts. Hotel accounts.

All that lucky stuff.

 

[phildwyer]

I will accept that OBL and his mentor (the doctor) act as an inspiration to others and their Manichaen dogma finds purchase in the minds of certain types of people. But I would not go as far as to suggest that OBL is the head of a vast terror network. He may provide some people with money but he is not a mastermind (like Ernst Stavro Blofeld).

We can be pretty sure OBL isn't providing anyone with anything material at the moment. What he's providing is inspiration. For example, I'd bet he didn't even know about the Bali or Spain attacks until after they'd happened. But that doesn't mean they weren't carried out by 'al-Qaeda,' if by that term we understand the idea of which he was the most prominent proponent in the 1990s.

 

[bigfish]

Rapid Response Update: Bbc Apology On Iran

January 26, 2005

On January 21, we published a Rapid Response Media Alert, 'Targeting Iran - The BBC Propaganda Begins,' in which we noted that the BBC's diplomatic correspondent, James Robbins, had reported that US relations with Iran were "looking very murky because of the nuclear threat". (BBC1, 13:00 News, January 20, 2005)

Robbins also spoke of Iran as a place "where the President is confronting the nuclear threat". (BBC1, 18:00 News, January 20, 2005)

This Media Alert produced a massive and impassioned response from readers all over the world who sent many complaints to the BBC. Emails in support of our complaints were sent by Richard Keeble of the University of Lincoln, and John Theobald of the Southampton Institute. Former cabinet minister and Labour MP, Tony Benn, wrote to us:

"Dear David
Thanks
The build up of lies about Iran is going on apace to prepare us for war or to explain an Israeli attack if they do.
When I was Energy Secretary and the Shah - imposed by the Americans - was on the throne they kept trying to persuade me to sell nuclear power plants to Iran which I would not do.
Please add my name to letters you send to the BBC." (Benn to Media Lens, January 22, 2005)

On January 24, we received the following response from Helen Boaden, Director of BBC News:

"Dear David Cromwell and David Edwards,

I am forwarding to you the following from our diplomatic correspondent, James Robbins:-

'I accept that it would have been better to have said "alleged nuclear threat". I am sorry that my wording was not as precise as it could have been.

Yours sincerely,

James Robbins'

I trust this addresses your concern.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News" (Email to Media Lens, January 24, 2005)

We are grateful to both Helen Boaden and James Robbins for such a gracious response.

The problem, however, is not imprecise use of language but a deep pro-establishment bias within the BBC. It is a bias that leads journalists to talk reflexively of themselves, the government and the government's armed forces as "we". It is a bias that assumes the government and its allies are motivated by fundamentally benevolent intentions - "we" merely seek security at home and freedom and prosperity for others abroad. It is a bias that accepts that officially designated "rogue states" represent serious and current, rather than merely alleged, threats to the West.

As a result, government warnings of threats and statements of benevolent intent are taken at face value rather than subjected to the exacting scrutiny and scepticism that recent events simply demand. Always hanging over the BBC is the reality of power - the fact that senior BBC managers are directly appointed by the government of the day, and the fact that managers and journalists who cross the government can be, and recently have been, 'disappeared'.

continued

 

[editor]

FFS, yet more comment-free cut and paste. This is your final warning. Do it again and you'll be banned.

These are discussion boards not a repository for reams of copied text.

 

[nino_savatte]

Thanks. You've actually made it sound like the program might be worth watching.

The only reason you say this is because you feel, now, that it doesn't challenge your contention rather, it supports it.

That must give you a nice warm glow inside.

 

[kyser_soze]

Hey, at least the Beeb replied...can you imagine trying to get the same answer out of Fox?

Finished reading Hegemony or Survival last night...fuck me. JC2, if you ever thought for one second that US policy was or is in any way shape or form benign, benevolent or remotely interested in allowing countries proper democracy (as opposed to what democracy thew US tells them to have...you know, the whole self determination trip) it'll diasbuse those notions quicker than you can say 'jack rabbit slims world famous twist contest'.

While appreciating Chomsky has his own agenda, as Barking Mad writes on the 'Condi' thread, his approach of 'look at what people do, then judge their actions' and his always nigh on immaculate sourcing from freely available govt documents doesn't lead you to a specific conclusion, you come to one yourself.

The most obvious come back is 'selective use of materials and sources'...which would be a good one until you see the range of sources and the consistency of behaviour by the USG from the Monroe Doctrine up until the present day.

And the stuff he writes about US Space Command and DARPA's plans for it in the next 20 years did something that policy has rarely ever done to me, and that's scare me. George Bush wants to 'Go to Mars'...I'm half guessing that at the back of this there's some loon/visionary (delete as applicable) military blue-skyer who's thinking 'Hmmm, loads of big fuck off rocks in the asteroid belt...tow a few into orbit...use a mass driver to properl the earthwards...a nuke without the chronic problems of radiation but that can wipe a city out...'

I still don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy tho.

 

[X-77]

Hey, at least the Beeb replied...can you imagine trying to get the same answer out of Fox?

you can't compare the two, the BBC is funded by the public and is therefore accountable to them. In theory there's no excuse for propaganda from the bbc in the first place.

Incidentally, I lost count of the amount of times Rageh Omaar referred to the 'terrorists' in Iraq in his report the other night..

 

[pk]

In light of the anti-democratic attacks, the suicide bombs and car bombs, in Iraq - he was right to refer to "terrorists".

Anyone killing innocent people with bombs to try to change a political course is a terrorist.

This of course includes Bu$h, but certainly doesn't mean Rageh is incorrect when he refers to the more radical insurgents.

They are terrorists!

How the hell does this represent BBC "bias".

Bigfish is talking shit, I guess if he talks enough, some will stick...

 

[X-77]

In light of the anti-democratic attacks, the suicide bombs and car bombs, in Iraq - he was right to refer to "terrorists".

Anyone killing innocent people with bombs to try to change a political course is a terrorist.

This of course includes Bu$h, but certainly doesn't mean Rageh is incorrect when he refers to the more radical insurgents.

They are terrorists!

How the hell does this represent BBC "bias".

Bigfish is talking shit, I guess if he talks enough, some will stick...

In which case I'll look forward to the day when Rageh/bbc refers to Bush as a terrorist...but I won't hold my breath

 

[editor]

the fact that senior BBC managers are directly appointed by the government of the day, and the fact that managers and journalists who cross the government can be, and recently have been, 'disappeared'.

If bigfish has finished battering his CTRL+C and CTRL+V keys, I'd be grateful if he could produce a list of these 'disappeared' journalists and managers and their exact circumstances of their supposedly politically motivated removal.

 

[kyser_soze]

Hur hur...you know that say that those in conflict come to resemble their enemies?

How about this...on PoN, there's a bit where Wolfowitz and co got to look over some CIA intel and came up with their famous 'They might have these kinds of weapons, and altho we have no proof of it, the fact is that they could have developed them in secret, altho we can't proove that either'

and the fact that managers and journalists who cross the government can be, and recently have been, 'disappeared'.

See the similarity?

 

[pk]

Bigfish is quoting from Medialens, which at best is a stream of idle opinions from no more than two people, mainly a chap called David Edwards.

Hardly a consensus of opinion.

At worst Medialens is a hysterical reaction to what are well known and well placed guidelines.

Of course Rageh Omar isn't publically going to refer to Bu$h as a terrorist - or he'd lose his job, but he could say that some US government actions are tatamount to terrorism.

Let's not forget the Hutton report:

Downing Street demands included that Rageh Omar, the BBC’s Baghdad correspondent (who was in Iraq before the campaign began) be withdrawn because of alleged bias in his reporting and constant complaints about John Humphries, the Today programme presenter.

I could ask John Humphries myself what he thinks. If I get a chance.
And I'll pass on his thoughts regarding Rageh Omar.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't know what you refer to in the things I've talked about, I talk a lot! but the deservedness of which I speak comes from the fact that I have worked my arse off for a long time.

Currently averaging 15 hours a day, working. 24 hour shifts snatching 3 hours sleep are not alien to me, and without drugs.

I'd say any luck appropriated along the way was well fucking deserved.

i wouldn't question how hard yr working; just the long-term benefits which accrue from working yrself so hard. i can't see it doing yrself any good in the future, such long hours. how d'you find time for the other things in life you enjoy, or the energy therefor?

 

[bigfish]

If bigfish has finished battering his CTRL+C and CTRL+V keys, I'd be grateful if he could produce a list of these 'disappeared' journalists and managers and their exact circumstances of their supposedly politically motivated removal.

Andrew Gilligan - 'disappeared' for revealing the governments willful sexing up of the now infamous spudcheese WMD dossier.

Greg Dyke - Hung out to dry by the BBC Board of Lackeys for backing Gilligan.

Gavyn Davies - Likewise, hung out to dry by the BBC Board of Lackeys for backing Dyke.

Richard Sambrook - Former head of BBC television news, shuffled off into the backwaters of the BBC World Service.

 

[Pickman's model]

Andrew Gilligan - 'disappeared' for revealing the governments willful sexing up of the now infamous spudcheese WMD dossier.

if anything he's a higher media profile now than before, working for the spectator and a couple of newspapers - and people now listen to what he has to say.

 

[kyser_soze]

Andrew Gilligan - 'disappeared' for revealing the governments willful sexing up of the now infamous spudcheese WMD dossier.

Greg Dyke - Hung out to dry by the BBC Board of Lackeys for backing Gilligan.

Gavyn Davies - Likewise, hung out to dry by the BBC Board of Lackeys for backing Dyke.

Richard Sambrook - Former head of BBC television news, shuffled off into the backwaters of the BBC World Service.

You're equating being demoted, moved sideways or sacked with the word 'dissappeared'?

You sick fuck. I'd like to see you justify this usage of the term to the Chileans and every other country where there have been 'dissappeared'.