Left 50, Up 200
The BBC withdrew an open request for the public to spot the location of Coalition troops after officials objected it was endangering the troops. A BBC spokesman "was unable to offer a detailed explanation of why anyone at the BBC should be seeking such information or whether any details on troop movements had been received." The Telegraph reports:
The request was removed from the website after it sparked furious protests that the corporation was endangering the lives of British servicemen and women.
But according to accounts last night, a story on a major operation by US and Iraqi troops against al-Qa'eda somewhere north of Baghdad contained an extraordinary request for information about the movement of troops.
Last night the BBC confirmed the wording of the request was: "Are you in Iraq? Have you seen any troop movements? If you have any information you would like to share with the BBC, you can do so using the form below."
Nothing follows.
posted by wretchardthecat at 6/20/2007 05:13:00 PM
15 Comments:
BBC - Spying for AQ.
reminds me of this post and joke: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/06/which-side-is-it-on.html
"This rather reminds us of the old joke, when a young officer – a stranger to London – was walking down Whitehall looking for the MoD. Unsure of which side of the road the building was, and seeing a fellow officer, he asked him: "Which side is the MoD on?" "Ours, I hope," the joke went.
Now, we can't even be that sure."
This is why I'm kinda hoping the Islamists kill that BBC hostage.
Not anti-war. Just on the other side.
This brings to mind a couple of incidents from Desert Storm in 1991.
One was “for real.” I believe it was Tom Brokaw reporting in Scud strikes on Israel. An expert explained that while the missiles were not that accurate the Iraqis could adjust the guidance systems based on where they first ones came down. Brokaw then asked the expert how the Iraqis knew where the Scuds were landing and the response was “Well, all they have to do is watch you when you report. You’re telling them.”
The look on his face was priceless when he realized that NBC was acting as a forward artillery observer for Saddam’s forces.
The other was a famous Saturday Night Live skit, in which “reporters” at a DoD news conference wearing Arab dress were asking things like “Where are your forces and can we go there and count them?”
Come on now, no matter what the BBC has done, the correspondent is an innocent man and has a family.
S'Truth
C'mon UK, snap out of it!
Why is this happening, i.e. the BBC openly working for Al Qaeda to get British and American troops killed?
Because the BBC and Al Qaeda are on the same side. Both profoundly threatened by individualism, freedom, liberty, and social mobility of the average person, they aim to destroy the West.
Most of the BBC would be happy to work for Osama as slaves, if only the West and it's horrid individualism, liberty, freedom and upward mobility could be destroyed.
Re: BBC correspondent Alan Johnston:
He hasn't been released yet, even after statements from Hamas that he would be released last Saturday. This brief article suggests that Hamas really really wants him released (or at least they really really want us to think that they want him released):
Member of clan holding Johnston killed
The ironies regarding the hostage held by Hamas, Gilad Shalit, are mind-boggling.
“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”
—William Tecumsah Sherman, 1863
The UK Government is pathetic.
If it had the balls it would fire the entire board of the BBC.
The devil take the hindmost.
ADE
[i]"Come on now, no matter what the BBC has done, the correspondent is an innocent man and has a family."[/i]
I am not going to wish anything on this man, and I think its rather harsh to do so, but it does bring up an important point:
If and when a news organization takes the side of the enemy, what then are we to think and do? Biased reporting is bad and damaging enough (and one can make a case that those things ARE siding with the enemy) but when they are actively trying to garner intel for the enemy, what then? And when they enter that phase, if they have not done so already, can someone who is in their pay and participates in their enemy-allied activities be called "innocent"?
Yes, it does lead to some really uncomfortable lines of thought, but we have brought here, haven't we?
/rgr that, 6 digit grid for BBC follows... fire for effect
The 90+% of journalists who are far-left liberals ruin the reputations of all the journalists.
They decry any infringement on their free-press rights when they want to reveal the details of the government's latest terrorist surveilance program, but won't say a word against their twin heroes Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro when they shut down opposition news channels or round up and jail dissident journalists.
Whenever I think we may lose the great war between civilization and the islamofascists, my one cheerful thought is that at least Katie Couric will be forced to wear a burqha.
Post a Comment
<< Home