The BBC flagship news programmes, news channel, online news service and radio news outlets have spent several days in constant hysteria about the probability of a second vote on Syria, after parliament rejected military intervention last week. Why is the BBC obsessively attempting to answer a question only they are asking? A look at the interests and characters running the organisation help explain their seemingly rabid hunger for war.
Who Runs the BBC?
The BBC Trust is responsible for granting licenses to all BBC outlets and stations, managing value for money on license fee payments and ‘the direction of BBC editorial and creative output’. The Trust consists of 12 Trustees and is headed by Lord Patten.
Lord Chris Patten is a conservative peer and former governor of Hong Kong; he also happens to have 13 others jobs besides chief of the BBC. These include an £80,000 year role…
View original post 1,596 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
“Why is the BBC obsessively attempting to answer a question only they are asking?”
It sounded as though the news was trying to create the news. They appeared a bit disappointed not to have a “war” to report on, no moral high ground to take.
Despite the PM saying that’s an end to it, they pushed the story of another vote on the off-chance of getting the bigger story.
Perhaps I’m just a bit cynical???
Not sure that I buy their oil story. Proven Syrian reserves are pitiful:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sy&v=97
I think the “short guide to the Middle East” is a reasonable summary, though there is at least one other notable player missing from the equation 🙂
That letter reminds me of the scorpion and the camel.
A camel standing at the bank of a wide river is approached by a scorpion. “O Camel,” says the scorpion. “I wish to cross the river, but if I try I will surely drown. Will you carry me across on your hump?”
“O Scorpion,” answers the camel. “If I carry you across on my hump you will sting me and I will surely die.”
“O Camel”, responds the scorpion. “But if you die I will surely drown too.”
So the camel begins to carry the scorpion across the river, and half-way across the scorpion stings him.
“O Scorpion”, cries the camel. “You have stung me, and now we will both surely die. Why did you do it?”
“Because, O Camel,” answers the scorpion. “This is the Middle East.”
Uh-oh, the Obama narrative is unravelling…
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/09/04/the-story-rush-limbaugh-discussed-on-sept-3-mounting-evidence-raises-questions-about-syrian-chemical-weapon-attack/
General Wesley Clark says he met with Paul Wolfowitz in the early nineties. Wolfowitz told him they had planned to take one nation after another. Irak, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria etc.
What we are seeing is their long planned war on “terror”.
TB:
The Obama narrative may be unraveling but it won’t have an impact on anything. The story hasn’t been picked up by the MSM, and even if it had Obama probably would never have gotten to see it. So he has to act on the US and French reports which tell him that Assad did indeed lob chemical shells at his fellow Syrians. (Did he? I think probably yes, but on the other hand the people who are now swearing black, blue and blind that he did are basically the same people who swore black, blue and blind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.)
And while I’m here let me make a suggestion. When you re-post articles like this from other blogs do it the way Judy Curry does it. Give a brief description of the provenance of the original post so that the reader knows something about who wrote it (in this case something like “Scriptonite Daily is written by a young lady named Kerry-anne Mendoza who describes herself as a brown, gay activist coming at the world from a lefty feminist perspective, who believes that “neo-liberal capitalism is morally and literally bankrupt” and that “there is no such thing as society,” and who is a strong supporter of the various “Occupy” movements and of the Balcombe fracking protest.” Then provide your comments on the article, pointing out in particular where you agree or disagree with the conclusions. If you don’t do this people will tend to assume that you agree with all of it.
🙂
Roger A: Rush Limbaugh is listened to by 20m US Americans a week. That is “mainstream media” IMO.
I try to post informative stuff that stands on its own merits, regardless of what else the author says or believes. I disagree with Mendoza about Balcombe, and other things too, but also think people should know who controls the media they pay for, and what their conflicting interests are.
Witty twitty:
Jon Schwarz @tinyrevolution 6h
“I don’t know a member of Congress whose e-mails and phone calls are in favor of [bombing Syria]”—Rep. Brad Sherman http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/04/rep-brad-sherman-explains-how-the-white-house-could-win-the-syria-vote/ …
The other interesting ‘factoid’ not taken up by the MSM is the large naval build up in the Eastern Mediterranean, which started three weeks ago – including at least one troop carrier.
Convenient that, almost as if they knew they would be needed to help their paid Syrian terrorists who are losing out badly to Assad’s superior Russian weapons, intelligence and advice. They just needed some humanitarian pretext to get their citizens on-board as they stampeded in.
I would not be surprised if both Russia and Iran become directly involved if the US and France choose to commence an illegal (non-UN authorised) attack on Syria. Don’t know what the end-game will be, but things are not looking good.
Regarding the MSM, they are in the pocket of several vested interest. They have little relevance since the internet revolutionised communication and their usefulness in a propaganda role is much diminished. Few people trust the opinions of the BBC.
michael hart says:
September 4, 2013 at 8:15 pm
“…Not sure that I buy their oil story. Proven Syrian reserves are pitiful…”
I think the oil connection is incorrect. However, this from the Guardian provides a similar motive…
‘…In 2009 former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria after Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of his ally Russian, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas”…’
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines
Back in April, one of the UN team, Carla del Ponte stated the rebels had used Sarin
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-05/news/sns-rt-us-syria-crisis-unbre94409z-20130505_1_chemical-weapons-sarin-syria
But Obama just gave the rebels a thousand tonnes of weapons. Double standards much?
The West had the chance, early in the Syrian civil war, to positively impact the outcome by strengthening the secular rebels. Instead, the ‘leaders’ apparently chose to let things fester. Perhaps they thought Russia and Syria would not move to strengthen Assad? Perphaps they thought that the Al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood types would bleed more, and be weak later. Whatever their analysis, events have shown the Western ploy to be wrong: Assad was strengthened, and the worst elements of the rebels have survived and seemingly taken over the war. Now Obama shows up, inconsistent as always, telegraphing every move. And using a very questionable conclusion about just who was using Chemical weapons under whose orders. But look at Obama’s overall Mideast policy: Abandon Iraq. Wreck Libya. Destabilize Egypt. In each place where Obama owns the outcome, things are worse for those forces seeking a civil society. In Egypt and Syria, anti-Christian attacks escalates. In Libya, the country is wide open for Al Qaeda. In Egypt and Syria known terror groups like Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda grow in strength. Arab spring is now an Arab nightmare. Food-for-ethanol policies make food supplies tight and expensive in poor Arab states. Obama’s dithering on Keystone leaves the US vulnerable to Mideast pressure. And Obama’s incredible about face on his famous redline is simply another nail in his credibility, and sadly the security of the West. Not to mention the hopes for an emergent civil society in the Mideast.
As for major media: The BBC is basically state controlled, just like NPR in the US. It is not possible to have a free media that is state controlled. It is long past time for all media to be cut off from all government ‘aid’.
BP wants NG to flow through this : http://www.trans-adriatic-pipeline.com/
from the Caspian to EU http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=9006668&contentId=7078987
Rather than Iran NG through this : http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/7449471.html
Or Qatar’s.
Roger Andrews says:
September 5, 2013 at 5:28 am: “…people who swore black, blue and blind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.)”
Roger please look into the city of Halabja and the gassing of thousands of Kurds. Saddam did have WMD and used them. The world just didn’t get that excited about it then. Maybe some of what Assad has now are the ones removed from Iraq and driven over to Assad for storage.
mkelly on September 5, 2013 at 9:46 pm:
And just who is supplying these weapons in the first place? Are we supposed to infer from your comments that maybe Saddam’s missing weapons were used last month? Please substantiate your WMD claims because your theory sounds like an Iraq dossier all over again – not to mention many here have alarm bells go off when a dodgy script is repeated (usually following a heatwave but lacking that any half decent storm in a tea cup will do). 😀
mkelly:
“Roger please look into the city of Halabja and the gassing of thousands of Kurds. Saddam did have WMD and used them.”
Sorry, should have put some dates in. The Halabja gassing took place in 1988 (Saddam used gas extensively in the 1980s war against Iran). The people who swore black, blue and blind that Saddam still had gas WMD when he didn’t did so fifteen years later in 2003, just before the US/UK invasion of Iraq.
From wiki about WMDs used by Irak in the eighties.
“Despite the removal of Saddam Hussein and his administration by American forces, there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western nations that helped Iraq develop and direct its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war. For example, the United States and the UK blocked condemnation of Iraq’s known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council. No resolution was passed during the war that specifically criticized Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, despite the wishes of the majority to condemn this use. On March 21, 1986 the United Nation Security Council recognized that “chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces”; this statement was opposed by the United States, the sole country to vote against it in the Security Council (the UK abstained).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
TB:
Yesterday you said: “I try to post informative stuff that stands on its own merits, regardless of what else the author says or believes. I disagree with Mendoza about Balcombe, and other things too, but also think people should know who controls the media they pay for, and what their conflicting interests are.”
I interpret this to mean that you think Ms. Mendoza’s article tells us who controls the BBC’s reporting on Syria.
Well, who? According to Ms. Mendoza it’s Big Oil and the Israel lobby (and I’d always thought the Beeb had a leftist bias):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10235967/BBC-is-biased-toward-the-left-study-finds.html
And who are these Big Oil lackeys and Zionist apologists who’ve hijacked the Beeb? There are three of them – Lord Chris Patten, who admits to being an advisor to BP, and James Harding and Raffi Berg, both of whom have expressed implicit or qualified support for Israel at least once in the past.
And that seems to be the sum total of Ms. Mendoza’s supporting evidence.
Somehow I don’t think Mendoza (2013) is going to make it through peer review. 😉
Gen. Wesley Clarke is another leftard tool who managed to get himself fired under the Clintoon administration!!!
http://www.militarycorruption.com/wesleyclark.htm
Basically Wes has an issue with veracity among other things.
Oh, I should probably mention that there was NO ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, by the Serbs at least!! The UN report that was going to show us all the mass graves found a total of less than 3000 bodies over half of which were considered to be normal combat deaths!! No way of telling who killed the rest. My money is on the KLA having done most of them!!
“This was despite the fact that Israel broke a ceasefire when it attacked Gaza on 14 November, a ceasefire which the Palestinians had been observing — firing no rockets into Israel.”
If this is true and there was NOT a provocation and there was an accepted cease fire (Jihadis like to announce cease fires when it benefits themselves and the press can make a big deal out of how they have magnaminously granted a cease fire even though it is their own violence that started the shooting…) that would be what, once in over 50 years?!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hmmmm.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/10/09/328375/saudi-may-fire-bandar-over-syria-report/