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

[Pickman's model]

This came damn close:



Of course the BBC was befuddled - as any UK daily news organisation was bound to be, by the existing structure of "news values" - by Blair's smokescreen of pressure for a second resolution. Which was what it was, I think, for.

True, I came across a later interview with Straw that signally failed to pick up the point - it was all about when the shooting would start. And there is a phenomenon whereby editors go into "musn't betray our boys" mode when there's any risk the bullets will be flying imminently. This is bad. But it's universal in the UK and US media, not a specific failing of the BBC.

For some reason Newsnight didn't post the transcript of the interview with Powell in which he made the claims for 1441, so I can't tell whether he was challenged.

the final line of 1441 (the 'resolves' bit) says that the security council resolves to keep an eye on the situation. it is clearly not an authorisation for war, it clearly states that 1441 is just a "we're keeping an eye on you" resolution. if i can understand the language, there's no fucking excuse for someone as intelligent as paxman or whatsername wark - or gavin essler - not making it crystal clear to the politicians they interview'd that their alleged "we've already a resolution" basis for war was a load of fuckwittery.

 

[laptop]

there's no fucking excuse for someone as intelligent as paxman or whatsername wark - or gavin essler - not making it crystal clear to the politicians they interview'd that their alleged "we've already a resolution" basis for war was a load of fuckwittery.

You were asking about challenges to Ministers, and that's not the way the rules of the game work (especially the interview game). The rules for the ways in which they attempt objectivity rule out theit making such pronouncements of What Is True (bar the Paxman raised eyebrow... shame these aren't recorded in the transcripts). They need someone speaking authoritatively - not a journalist - to make it crystal clear.

Newsnight did have such authoritative talking heads, as I recall it - but appearing separately from Ministers.

The ideal would be to have a UK Minister and some UN expert - or a UK Minister and Jacques de Villepin - at the table at the same time. I would be surprised if they didn't try. I'd be surprised if the reason they failed wasn't that no UK Minister would agree to show up and be shown up in such a way. Thus they play the rules of the game.

Note that I'm not saying BBC coverage was wonderful. Just that the attempt to identify it entirely with the war party is silly - more worthy of Dungeons and Dragons game than of a discussion of the infinitely messier world.

(And @ bigfish: I have no idea what conspiracy. That's your self-apppointed task.)

 

[Pickman's model]

if the bbc is a publick service broadcaster, wouldn't their pointing out the alleged reasons and authorisations were a load of bollocks have been within their remit? as a publick service, i mean.

 

[laptop]

if the bbc is a publick service broadcaster, wouldn't their pointing out the alleged reasons and authorisations were a load of bollocks have been within their remit? as a publick service, i mean.

Oh yes. But the question - going to the root of how governments lie - is how they can do that.

Take this morning's story about some charity calling for an inquiry into the link between cannabis and (onset of) schizophrenia. If Paxman were interviewing an anti-criminalisation person and came out and said "but surely that's dangerous - cannabis causes schizophrenia" he'd be (a) getting it wrong, not being an "expert" and (b) showing appalling bias, as defined within the rules. Same applies to him thus challenging a bleeding liar you hate, unfortunately.

So they need someone else to say "1441 does not authorise anything more than keeping an eye..."

So when Ministers are invited onto the show, their people try their damnedest to control the questions. Paxman's people say "of course you can't". Then Minister's people ask who else will be on the show.

If Minister's people detect the faintest whiff of someone who could show up their lie while they're there, Minister remembers an important haircut and doesn't show for the show.

They don't care nearly as much about someone appearing at a different time saying "1441 does not..." because then it's "just political debate" (and it's lost half the audience - even the Newsnight audience - anyway, being separated in time).

I'm thinking this is starting to show up a weakness in the rules of attempting-journalistic-objectivity. Journalism needs new and imaginative ways of confronting liars.

Newsnight can ambush Ministers. They do look stupid when they storm out claiming that it was agreed certain questions would not be asked. They also call mass boycotts of the show after such events.

If I were them, I'd be thinking of a pointed roundup at the end of the show: Minister saying "1441 authorises"; cut to Dreadfully Eminent Lawyer saying "like fuck it does". But given how Ministers deliberately waffle around difficult subjects that'd be an interesting editing job...

Print has its advantages

Meanwhile, and off-topic, I was amused by Paxman's diary, especially this:

Kelvin Mackenzie once invented something called the News Bunny for the fabulously catastrophic L!ve TV news service. Grizzled old Fleet Street veterans were required to struggle into a furry nylon jumpsuit with enormous ears to report upbeat stories.

They disliked it not so much for the affront to their dignity but because of the appalling smell left by dozens of previous inhabitants....

The News Bunny soon disappeared to the celestial carrot field, but was rumoured for a long while to be presenting one of the BBC's major bulletins, disguised in a suit, a friendly smile and a belief that what we all needed was more "good news".

Certainly, 4pm editorial meetings were regularly punctuated with requests that someone stick a new battery into his backside.

Wonder who that could be about?

Newsnight presenters like to pretend they're different. But all they are is a bit more pompous. For the sad truth is that on many a day they are just pathetically grateful for whatever they are given.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

Just a little note prompted by seeing the names 'Blair' and 'Paxman' in the same paragraph... now where have I seen that before...?

Thanks for that link Backatcha, it was very enlightening.

The British American Project - its aim is to "create, at a time of growing international strains and stresses, a closer rapport between Britain and the United States among people likely to become influential decision-makers during the next two decades". Delegates are nominated by existing fellows. They include George Robertson, Chris Smith, Mo Mowlem, Peter Mandelson, Jonathan Powell, Trevor Phillips, Charles Moore, James Naughtie and Evan Davis. Critics of BAP, such as John Pilger, have suggested that it constitutes a type of right-wing "casual freemasonry".

Its membership reaches beyond formal politics to include rising figures in finance, industry, academia, the military and the civil service....

The BAP journalistic membership includes senior BBC journalists such as Jeremy Paxman and James Naughtie and leading figures from The Independent, The Economist and, almost inevitably, News International. What better for the international status quo than a well-heeled freemasonry of politicians and journalists setting the news agenda?​

Hmmmm ...

 

[Raisin D'etre]

...more on BAP - Friends in High Places

 

[editor]

Editor: For the record (and out of interest); Is it true (as the BBC suggest) that you are "happy to be considered a 'web anarchist'"?

Is a 'web anarchist' different from an ordinary 'anarchist' in some way?

I've no idea what a web anarchist is and I'm not particularly bothered to find out - especially considering that the article is eight years old.

Why's it important to you? Haven't you got more important things to be concerned about?

 

[editor]

Just a little note prompted by seeing the names 'Blair' and 'Paxman' in the same paragraph... now where have I seen that before...?

From the meta tag info on their homepage:

In the last days perilous times shall come; for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy: without natural affection, unappeasable, slanderous, uncontrolled, brutal, hateful of good, traitorous, headstrong, swollen with conceit, loving pleasure rather than loving God, as they retain the outer form of religion but deny its power. Stay away from these people - 2 Timothy 3:1-5

WTF?

And check this out: Attacks on my website... and me: urban75

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I've no idea what a web anarchist is and I'm not particularly bothered to find out - especially considering that the article is eight years old.

Why's it important to you? Haven't you got more important things to be concerned about?

It's not important to me, I was just idly curious as to whether the BBC were telling the truth.

Shame you can't answer the question, though. I guess we'll never know, now.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

From the meta tag info on their homepage:

WTF?

And check this out: Attacks on my website... and me: urban75

Well, I posted a link to an article that contained information that originally appeared in Lobster.

Since the article is no longer available from the original source for non-account holders, I posted that one.

Simply attacking the hosting site rather than addressing the information is what we call 'ad hominem', and is generally regarded as a logical fallacy.

What possible relevance is it to anyone what biblical quotes some guy puts in his meta-tags or what Butchersapron called him? How fucking desperate to find anything to deflect from the fact that Paxman and Blair were in 'Bilderberg Cubs' together are you that you even bother looking at the meta-tags?

 

[editor]

Simply attacking the hosting site rather than addressing the information is what we call 'ad hominem', and is generally regarded as a logical fallacy.

Where was I "attacking" the site? I merely wondered what the fuck that text was doing on a site that you linked to.

And yes, I feel it is beneficial to take a good look around sites that people link to. It's called research. You should try it some time.

Mind you, I note that you seem to feel at liberty to drag up EIGHT year old interviews in an attempt to discredit me with irrelevant, wildly off topic nonsense about "web anarchists".

What possible relevance has that to this debate?

Be sure to cuddle up tight to that pot and kettle now!

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

The relevance to the subject under discussion (the reliability of the BBC) is that here we have the BBC publishing a statement about yourself.

I was hoping that you could either confirm or deny the veracity of the statement, as this would perhaps assist us all in establishing the credibility of the BBC's output.

I find it curious that you would be "happy to be considered a 'web anarchist'" when by your own admission you have 'no idea what a web anarchist is' and are 'not particularly bothered to find out'.

Obviously, you won't answer my simple question (whether you are indeed, as the BBC proport "happy to be considered a 'web anarchist'") because to confirm that the BBC made it up suggests that the BBC don't tell the truth, which rather undermines the notion that they can be trusted.

To admit that you told them you were "happy to be considered a 'web anarchist'" - even if you don't know what one is - opens up some other questions which are beyond the scope of this thread.

Perhaps the answer is somewhere between the two - maybe you were "happy to be considered a 'web anarchist'" EIGHT years ago, but are not now, or perhaps they have inferred it or taken something you said out of context.

Whatever. You are the only one who can clear up this confusion. I'm not banking on it, though.


Back to the Lobster article:

Do you have any comment on the contents of the article?

Are you comfortable knowing that Paxman is/was a member of a transatlantic right-wing think-tank concerned with 'defense and security issues'?

Might this lead to potential 'conflicts of interest' when it comes to impartiality in his role within the BBC?

 

[laptop]

Paxman is/was a member of a transatlantic right-wing think-tank concerned with 'defense and security issues'?

BAP is not and never has been a think tank. (I haven't read the Lobster article. I have read the State Research articles on which I presume it is based - or rather hope it is, because then there'd be some facts in it.)

It was an attempt to build influence among rising young stars. Not much more sinister than Fulbright Scholarships and whatever the reverse flows of undergraduates are called.

Its proudest moment was, indeed, the formation of the Social Democrats - many whose right-wing-Labour founders were beeficiaries of BAP trips and so forth.

Its purpose is to build such networks of future politicians, so that the "downhill path" in their careers is Atlanticist; part of the price it pays is that some of them turn out not to be politicians after all.

Might this lead to potential 'conflicts of interest' when it comes to impartiality in his role within the BBC?

How tight are the rules that you would propose on freebies?

If invited to a conference sponsored by Glaxo, should Paxman bring his own sandwiches?

How should he get to work? Driving would make him the beneficiary of tax breaks; cycling would make him a de facto member of a green lobby; public transport would make him the beneficiary of tax subsidies; and as for walking, he might as well join Reclaim the Streets!

 

[pk]

How can anyone hope to judge an organisation on the basis of one comment made by a low level web reporter regarding the Editor, 8 years ago?

How can anyone judge the impartiality of the BBC based on one example of an unhelpful comment that is unlikely to have been approved or scripted by the controllers, the one that Bigfish is salivating over his tinfoil hat over after he found it on another one of his biased anti-Semitic conspiraloon websites?

Of all the hours of material the BBC output - it's inevitable there will be some mistakes. You should perhaps be reassured though - that most of the news scripts are written by journos, not handed to them by the editors or producers, thereby making it practically impossible for there to be any kind of propaganda machine at work.

As it's plainly clear that Bigfish has no fucking idea how newsrooms actually work, his input on this matter is somewhat questionable, to say the least.

The fact that he's in love with tales of holograms, Joe Vialls-esque stories of deep high level conspiracy (all of which proven to be absolute bollocks) makes it very hard for me to consider him anything more than a daydreamer with delusions of authority and grandeur at best, and an unwitting tool of the genuine conspirators looking to further muddy the waters at worse.

 

[laptop]

How can anyone hope to judge an organisation on the basis of one comment made by a low level web reporter regarding the Editor, 8 years ago?

It'd be easier if they were a "conspiracy theorist" or otherwise differently sane...

 

[editor]

The relevance to the subject under discussion (the reliability of the BBC) is that here we have the BBC publishing a statement about yourself.

I was hoping that you could either confirm or deny the veracity of the statement, as this would perhaps assist us all in establishing the credibility of the BBC's output.

FFS, are you still going on about this?!

Look: if some journo liked to describe me as a 'web anarchist' EIGHT years ago, what the fuck does that prove?

People talked all sorts of bollocks about the web (me included) then and maybe he honestly and truly believed that I was a 'web anarchist' (whatever they are). I maybe I was wearing a big badge with "I'm Britain's Number One Web Anarchist" on it. I can't remember. I can't even remeber who the journalisst was or if the journo was even employed by the BBC. He could have been freelance for all I know (or care). He could be working in a bakery now.

I'm neither offended or bothered about his description - it seems a reasonable enough moniker given the context of the piece and the main political thrust of urban75 at the time - and why you're still going on and on about it is anyone's guess.

It's utterly irrelevant to the debate.

 

[editor]

Perhaps the answer is somewhere between the two - maybe you were "happy to be considered a 'web anarchist'" EIGHT years ago, but are not now, or perhaps they have inferred it or taken something you said out of context.

Out of curiosity, can you vividly recall the precise and exact details of brief conversations from eight year ago?

I certainly can't.

 

[bigfish]

You say I'm anti-union? Bollocks. I just don't want to join the one for my industry.

So, let me see if I've got this straight: on the one hand, you deny being anti-trade union, but on the other, you say you don't want to join your industry trade union!

So that must mean that I was right all along and that you really are anti-trade union, as evinced by your refusal to join the organized union representing your fellow workers in your own industry. Thanks for clearing that one up for the forum so succinctly.

Islamophobic? You stupid cunt, you know nothing about me. I lived in the biggest Islamic area in the country, and helped them out with their Mela, did a shitload for their community in many ways - you just see what you want to see beneath your tin fiol hat though don't you, Bigfish.

Well, I think you should go and award yourself a Blue Peter badge for all your efforts. If anyone deserves one, you do. But what I see is what you write, psycho. Here's some of your commentary from a few months ago, for example:

Pickman's Model, if you're trying to drag up evidence that I am a facist, you are a class one bell-end, and you know it.

I'm no facist as you well know, I am against all forms of facism - which is why I want the immam you refer to ... destroyed via copious injections of pigs blood so that in his idea of afterlife, Allah won't want him, or have him sent back to Jordan where he would be put to death.

I want him dead, mainly because he stated that attacks on British schoolchildren were justified (even though several of his own kids are in the British school system at the taxpayers expense), but also because he is a facist by popular definition.

He is a disgrace to mankind, and certainly to Islamic thought.

You want to use this opinion of mine to illustrate my supposed facist nature?

Then you are scraping the barrel, like I said.

Hmmm, destroying the Imman "via copious injections of pigs blood so that in his idea of afterlife, Allah won't want him", sounds like something Hitler himself would have been proud of. But you're not a fascist, you say?

And racist - such a cheap word to use, from such a bullshitter as yourself. I'm not fucking racist, if you had a fucking clue you would know that. YOU WERE THE ONE MAKING SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF RAGEH OMAR'S SKIN COLOUR, YOU DUMB SHITHEAD!

As a matter of fact, I said that Rageh Omaar was born in Somalia, which indeed he was, that is according to his BBC profile. The only person, so far, who has mentioned the words Omar, skin and coulour in the same sentence, on this thread, is... well, you.

He ain't a "chum" - I worked with him a few times is all. I'd certainly defend him against a poor deluded lying piece of shit like you.

So, you'll defend this old school tie, wonger trousering, makey-uppy broadcaster, merely on the basis of having "worked with him a few times", is that right? Absolutely incredible stuff! Keep it coming.

You think he dislikes trade unions?

Well, he didn't appear to be very fond of them back in the mid 1980's, when he was daily breaking the NUJ picket line of his fellow worker's outside the BBC White City studios so that he could scab the news and trouser the wonga.

LMFAO! You really don't have a fucking clue about any of this shit do you Bigfish.

So you knew all about Witchell scabbing the NUJ picket line back in the eighties then?

I don't have to answer your points, because it's clear you're just a wanker trying to wind me up, but you're the one floundering because you have no proof that the BBC are engaged in propaganda, and you've NEVER been inside a newsroom, never mind a BBC newsroom.

You have no fucking idea what a newsroom is - would you be surprised to learn that in a war zone stories are often fed live, or turned around so fast there's no time to edit them, to supervise the script, the pictures, what you see is what is fed from an all too often terrifying environment, yet you, with your half baked ideas about 9/11 and fucking holograms, you piece of shit sat in front of a computer think you have all the answers when you're just a sad conspiranoid cunt with nothing approaching a remote grasp on reality.

Let me see if I'm reading you right? According to you: because I have "NEVER been inside a newsroom", then I "have no ... idea what a newsroom is". But then I've never been inside a blast furnace either, psycho, and yet I know pretty much to a fine detail what a blast furnace is and how one works. So how do you square that with your arrogant cockeyed logic?

While it is certainly true to say, that I have never set foot inside the BBC's White City newsroom, nonetheless, I am obliged like everyone else to assess the BBC's 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock nightly sermons in a critical manner, by squaring what the BBC claims to be "news" (about such things as al-Qaeda - bil Laden - Saddam Hussein - Dr Kelly - WMD's - al Zarqawi - Iyad Allawi - not to mention the war being fought by the Iraqi people for the liberation of their country from a barbarous gang of imperialist bandit oppressors, for example), with the circle of observable reality, which I try hard never to set foot outside of.

And guess what? By performing this simple daily routine, I am able by my own efforts to find all the "proof that the BBC are engaged in propaganda" that I need in order for me to be able to make my case in free and democratic open debate, such as this one, for example.

All your past threads are in the bin - any idea why?

I don't suppose it could be due to an element of censorship could it?

Oh yeah, of course, because the Editor once did some work for the BBC...

Is that why? Well, I never!

You're a fucking minnow in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, that's right, I am a minnow in the grand scheme of things... I've never really thought of myself in any other way, or at least not without mishaps. But better a minnow than a flatulent baboon, like yourself, swinging in the branches of the dead tree of your own delusions, howling hysterical obscenities at the moon.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

For heaven's sake - I can't see the relevance of all of this. In fact, "you're only saying this because you've got a vested interest in the BBC/hate unions/whatever" is classic ad hominem (in the real sense rather than the BBS "you said something nasty about me" sense).

If there are arguments against someone's position it doesn't matter what the reasons for their position are. All this background stuff is irrelevant and a distraction.

 

[editor]

I don't suppose it could be due to an element of censorship could it?

Golly! Censorship? How beasty!

So exactly when have you been prevented from freely expressing your opinion here or had words "censored" from your posts?

 

[pk]

It wouldn't be because Bigfish's threads are always sourced from anti-Semitic conspiranoid sites would it?

What do you do for a living BTW, Bigfish?

Apart from trawl the net for bollocks websites that prove nothing, that is?

 

[redsquirrel]

Well, he didn't appear to be very fond of them back in the mid 1980's, when he was daily breaking the NUJ picket line of his fellow worker's outside the BBC White City studios so that he could scab the news and trouser the wonga.

Do you have a source for this?

 

[bigfish]

Do you have a source for this?

This was before the days of the internet RS. But why not try dropping the old toad a line down at the BBC and ask him for yourself if it's true, his old work mate pk will probably have his email address and who knows he may even be able to dig up the actual footage of him doing the dirty on his work mates out of the archives. Or alternatively, write to the NUJ whose picket line it was the "poison carrot" (as he became 'affectionately' known) was crossing at that time.

 

[pk]

What do you do for a living Bigfish?

Are you a member of any union?

Or are you just doing your usual trick of giving it the large one, from a position of total ignorance?

 

[editor]

This was before the days of the internet RS.

Seeing as what you've posted up is potentially highly defamatory, I insist that you either find a credible source for your claims or withdraw them please.

This is not a personal attack on you, but these boards are widely read by the BBC and I don't fancy legal action, thanks very much.

 

[pk]

I'd still like the BBC reference removed from the title of this thread, on the same basis - that Bigfish is unable to produce a shred of evidence supporting his laughable conspiranoid theory that the BBC is involved in some kind of pro-Government propaganda exercise regarding American interference and sabre-rattling towards Iran.

It's simply not true.

And Medialens, his ONLY source, is a bunch of one-sided anti-Semitic crap, published by a disenfranchised ex-Guardian writer with nobody in the real world wanting to print his bigoted ideas.

I don't care that much for the BBC in general, and am surprised at the level to which I have defended them myself, but against Bigfish, I'd sooner trust a crackhead on Coldharbour Lane to give me straight facts.

This isn't really a BBC issue at all, hence the noise of the scraping of the barrel coming from Bigfish.

I'd still like to know what he does for a living and whether he's a union member or not.

I seriously doubt it.

 

[bigfish]

Seeing as what you've posted up is potentially highly defamatory, I insist that you either find a credible source for your claims or withdraw them please.

This is not a personal attack on you, but these boards are widely read by the BBC and I don't fancy legal action, thanks very much.

Differences aside editor. I appreciate that as the owner and editor of the site you have to consider your legal position. However, I am completely confident Nicholas Witchell broke the NUJ picket line during the union's mid 1980's industrial dispute with the BBC. I seriously doubt anyone will, but should the BBC or anyone else contact you regarding what I have said, then I would respectfully ask that you inform them that I am willing to defend what I have said and my right to say it by legal means if necessary and refer them to me directly.

I was an active trade unionist myself back at the time and recall that the dispute received a great deal of attention, not least from ITN, who I remember showed footage of Witchell breaking the picket line and entering the White City premises on their news programs. The print media also covered the dispute and so I am absolutely confident that a lexus nexus search of the media archive covering that period would easily prove my case. Witchell and he BBC know this of course and so no one will trouble you, I feel sure.

 

[laptop]

I am willing to defend what I have said and my right to say it by legal means if necessary and refer them to me directly.

If you had the faintest idea what you were talking about, you'd be offering to indemnify editor for his costs in defending any action - which would undoubtedly be taken against the site as well as you.

Are you prepared to do that?

A "yes" is meaningless unless you are worth at least £500,000 by the way.

 

[X-77]

And Medialens, his ONLY source, is a bunch of one-sided anti-Semitic crap, published by a disenfranchised ex-Guardian writer with nobody in the real world wanting to print his bigoted ideas.

Is Medialens anti-Semitic? How?

 

[bigfish]

Oh look! What's this about Medialens!!??

Medialens in censorship shocker!

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=326

Censorship?!

It looks like psycho's dropped it into overdrive with his on going slander campaign against the medialens people. The blog piece he copied over, minus a link, was actually penned by one Johann Hari. Hari, a noted scribbler of low grade state propaganda in the Independent, is a regular issue, right wing hack who supported the invasion of Iraq and yet claims to speak for the left!! (Ain't that a hoot!).

Those of you who pay attention to how the Fleet Street pack hunt, might recall that Hari was also among the first wave of snarling mainstream hyena's to lend his support to what subsequently turned out to be an assassination attempt on the character of the prominent anti-war campaigner and MP, George Galloway. The story, based on fabricated documents, first appeared in the Daily Spookegraph. In his 27 April 2003 column Hari was quick to seize on the allegation. Hari wrote that: “it wasn’t a great shock,” to hear of Mr. Galloway being implicated and then went on to assail the actions of antiwar demonstrators: “If you cheered Galloway at the anti-war rally, now is the time to pause and ask yourself: what did I do?”

As one might expect, this right wing, pro-war mediocrity has been taken to task by medialens who have issued 2 recent alerts on him.

Part 1. Johann Hari And The Aftermath Of Invasion http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2004/041029_Siding_with_Iraq.HTM

Part 2. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2004/041110_Siding_with_Iraq_2.HTM

Now one of Hari's chums has got himself banned from the medialens forum for incivility, shock! horror!. So, Hari, still smarting, no doubt, from his recent medialens mauling springs to the defence of his associate and scribbles off a vindictive peon to censorship! And this from a man who was actively promoting the invasion of the Middle East on the basis of a pack of lies he'd been spoon fed by the state! Isn't that incredible!?

Medialens writers - (all TWO of them) - are full of shit.

And Hari? What is it that he's full of do you think?

One look at their message boards shows them all up to be the anti-Semitic fucks they are. Sorry Bigfish - it's your beloved Medialens that are racist.

The term "anti-Semitic" is rendered more or less obsolete when it issues from the pen of someone who is on record as saying that he would like to pump an Arab cleric full of pigs blood with a hypodermic syringe. Other than that, rather than simply making the claims of anti-Semitism and racism vacuously, why don't you support your allegations by providing us with the actual material you find so offensive and naming its author? That way we wont have to go and search through the medialens site ourselves, or take your word for it that the site is a hotbed of anti-Semitism and racism.

Just like Joe Vialls himself.

As a matter of fact, my opinion of Vialls is a pretty negative one. Underpinning most of what he writes is the monotonous refrain: "its all a giant Zionist plot". For this and a number of other reasons, I don't search for or cite his material, not withstanding your rather crude attempt at associating me with Vialls here. In fact, I challenge you to produce a single thing by me containing anything at all written by Vialls. Or don't you ever bother with evidence?

It wouldn't be because Bigfish's threads are always sourced from anti-Semitic conspiranoid sites would it?

So, on the basis of a demonstrable sequence of lies and crude associations, you arrive at the assertion that I always source my threads from "anti-Semitic conspiranoid sites," like medialens - which you have now rather conveniently labeled anti-Semitic!

Which is all a bit rich coming from a demonstrable anti-Semite, who believes that 19 Arabs "fanatics" conspired with a "mastermind" in an Afghan cave and turned over a state of the art fucking super power, not once but four times in less than a day!

Why, one could almost be forgiven for thinking that what you are actually doing is projecting your own vulgar anti-Semitism and rather obvious susceptibility to outrageous and untenable conspiracy theories, onto your opponents and also onto any sites they might happen to link to challenging the official orthodoxy - as parroted by the official media - which, of course, is precisely the circle you move in.

What do you do for a living BTW, Bigfish?

I'm a baboon hunter...