I wonder why the BBC bothered to post this programme on its own webpages and edit it when it is freely available on Al Jazeera's own site, unedited. This programme has nothing to do with the BBC so why provide a link?
so does anyone have a transcript to what she was saying?? id like to see what they edited
*edit*.. oh i see it thanks
The original LIVE interview was broadcast on Al Jazeera and recorded and posted on various sites.
The BBC version was broadcast on BBC World after the Osama bit was removed seemlessly.
Whatever way you look at this the BBC have exposed themselves as censors. The news that OBL died in 2002 may not be a surprise to those in the truth community, nor is it a surprise to most Afghans and Pakistanis who already seemed to know. But it should have made front page banner headlines across the 'free' world EVEN if it was not true.
It was blatantly censored meaning it is true.
Anyone of us who was in any doubt that 1984 has really happened should now be convinced.
I wonder why the BBC bothered to post this programme on its own webpages and edit it when it is freely available on Al Jazeera's own site, unedited. This programme has nothing to do with the BBC so why provide a link?
James, I am not intentionally hounding you but I feel you need to get a firmer grip on who owns what in this psy-op-drenched world.
To get you started here's a corroborated quote from a relevant blog entry:-
Quote:
Please watch the documentary "Control Room" to get a sense of Al Jazeera that is vastly different from our highly propagandized image. It is an excellent, illuminating film. One is left with little doubt that U.S. forces attacked their headquarters to intimidate their journalists.
Here is a snippet from the Wikipedia entry on "Control Room."
Freedom of the media
One of the central focuses of Control Room is on the alleged friendly fire attack against the Baghdad headquarters of Al Jazeera, on 8th April 2003. The film shows footage of the attack, including the firing of a missile by an American A-10 'tankbuster'; the film reports that the alleged target was a group of insurgents who opened fire on coalition forces from within the Al Jazeera building, thus justifying retaliatory fire.
Some doubt is expressed within as to whether such an explanation is viable. During the attack, one correspondent working for the news network, Tariq Ayoub, was killed; the film records one subsequent episode during a press conference, when the late Ayoub's wife beseeches journalists to 'tell the truth' concerning her husband's death, for the sake of those innocents already killed during the war. The same day that witnessed the attacks on Al Jazeera also saw attacks on other news networks: a strike by US troops on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad killed a Spanish TV cameraman and a Reuters cameraman. Claims that US troops were returning fire upon a sniper were 'greeted with incredulity by reporters on the ground, including Sky News reporter David Chater, and at central command in Qatar.'[2]
On the same day, Abu Dhabi TV was also hit, 'which means the US forces [had] attacked all the main western and Arab media headquarters in the space of just one day'[3]. The aftermath of the attack saw a number of allegations: Al Jazeera claimed to have sent the Pentagon details of their staff's position via GPS co-ordinates, as did several other news networks. At the time, sources from the BBC noted with alarm that 'the Pentagon did not seem to pay heed to information they had been given by al-Jazeera and every other TV organisation based in [Baghdad]'[4].
The overwhelming majority of opinion amongst the Arabic media seems to be that the US acted in order to prevent the reporting of war crimes perpetrated by American personnel[5]; the attack on Al Jazeera was thus deliberate, a theory which seems to have support from Robert Fisk [6][7]. In Control Room, the situation is remarked upon by a senior member of Al Jazeera, who remarks that a small news network cannot hope to combat the forces of the United States; in the face of such an apparent censure by so mighty an opponent - he laments - what may one do but 'shut up'?
So much for Wikipedia, coyly avoiding naming names - over to you to find out just how BBC & Aljazeera 'intertwine'.
---
And to whoever confused Richard Perle with Daniel Pearl - two sides of the same neocon coin, only the former has done so much more obvious damage to world peace...
James, I am not intentionally hounding you but I feel you need to get a firmer grip on who owns what in this psy-op-drenched world.
Well, you're welcome to your opinion and I can see where you're coming from. For the record. I believe very much that psy-ops is common within all aspects of our news media. However, although Al Jazeera was born out of the BBC's Arabic channel, there is nothing to suggest the two have a common propaganda policy in force today. In fact this is exactly my point, why did the BBC choose to show an edited clip of this interview when Al Jazeera English has openly documented the full version on YouTube?
why did the BBC choose to show an edited clip of this interview when Al Jazeera English has openly documented the full version on YouTube?
Because they know darn well that orders of magnitude more ordinary people watch TV in the UK than youtube, let alone liveleak or brasscheck!
They're cynically banking on keeping such disturbing facts as Bhutto dropped so casually from the 'power of the great British nightmare' that swallowed the Beeb wholesale post-Dyke.
Maybe pop down your local or whatever and ask the first 10 strangers you meet 'Do Aljazeera or PressTV mean anything to you?'
Welcome to Orwell wrote large. _________________ "We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl
"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
Firstly, we are not talking TV here and secondly, why post an edited version at all and risk courting so much controversy? This is what I find hard to understand if the BBC is trying to rule our lives as you appear to assert. The Orwellian vision has been around far longer than his famous book - he wrote it based upon, amongst other things, his experiences working for the Ministry of Information in WWII. In fact, I'm sure it must be quite easy to prove that propaganda has played a key role in the media during all the wars and world conflicts for the last few centuries.
Actually, as a recovering alcoholic I don't tend to go to my local anymore but the people I mix with certainly do know who al jazeera is, even if they don't realize it has regional differences across the globe. The fact this video is only available on a certain web page of the BBC's enormous website suggests it is not going to be found by the general surfer making the chances of seeing it just as small as watching it on YouTube.
Don't get me wrong, I am quite aware that the world's power lies in the hands of so few and propaganda plays a key role in our lives but I don't support the view that every little detail as presented by the BBC or any other news programme is controlled in such a calculated way like in the 'The Truman Show'. I believe the same can be said about 9/11 and that only a few people understood the whole picture and those who carried out much of the dirty work were just pawns playing a part without appreciating the true intent of their role.
Matters are always more complex than most of us can ever comprehend. I haven't visited any Beeb bods since the Bush House(!) days but my understanding was that it was a hive of cliques, some of whom were doing their damndest to push their take on the world - for good or evil. A morass of conflicting desires, indeed.
Contrast the team who brought us 'Power of Nightmares' with the present lot wriggling frantically out of the WTC7 'sting'...
No, for the most part the BBC has become V's BTN - they have no morals, only a bottom line. Fortunately they are oh so fallible... {;-) _________________ "We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl
"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
Firstly, we are not talking TV here and secondly, why post an edited version at all and risk courting so much controversy?
This is what I find hard to understand if the BBC is trying to rule our lives as you appear to assert.
The BBC could offer a hundred reasons to explain its apparent censorship of the Frost/Bhutto interview. That's why, no doubt, it was willing to cut out the sensitive part of the interview, possibly under pressure from the Foreign Office. It was willing to court controversy because it knew it had explanations in hand to refute any accusation of censorship, so it had no concern over doing so, I'm sure. No plausible excuses, mind you. Anyway, what controversy? Have you heard anything about this in the mainstream media? No. Awareness about it is confined to the Internet, in particular to a few forums, bloggers and alternative news websites. The BBC knew that that would be the case, so that it could safely get away with censorship because none of the other mainstream media would make an issue out of it.
The BBC is not trying to rule our lives. However, you are very naive if you think - post Dr Kelly - that it is not susceptible to pressure from Whitehall.
The fact this video is only available on a certain web page of the BBC's enormous website suggests it is not going to be found by the general surfer making the chances of seeing it just as small as watching it on YouTube.
You have got to be kidding! Far more British people visit the BBC website and catch up on news than those who regularly watch the news at al Jazeera. The BBC was not concerned about the 'general surfer.' It was only worried about Mr & Mrs Average Brit watching BBC News 24 and learning that a former Prime Minister of Pakistan said that Osama bin Laden was dead, thereby implying that all the bin Laden video tapes were phony disinformation, and much, much more. Now that's really something the powers-that-be don't want the British public ever to catch on to. Heavens forbid that they should ever get to know what the war-on-terrorism is really about ...
Well, all the criticisms of my argument are fair and I accept that my view is a minority and perhaps blinkered one. I absolutely agree that this issue is highly suspect.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject:
An interesting video that proposes, convincingly, I believe, that Benazir Bhutto made a simple slip of the tongue when she said Osama had been murdered, meaning to say Pearl:
An interesting video that proposes, convincingly, I believe, that Benazir Bhutto made a simple slip of the tongue when she said Osama had been murdered, meaning to say Perle:
First of all, the link is wrong, so you offer no evidence for your hypothesis. Secondly, the spelling is Pearl, not Perle. Thirdly, why would the BBC remove the passage from the interview if she had merely misspoken?
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject:
Micpsi wrote:
outsider wrote:
An interesting video that proposes, convincingly, I believe, that Benazir Bhutto made a simple slip of the tongue when she said Osama had been murdered, meaning to say Perle:
First of all, the link is wrong, so you offer no evidence for your hypothesis. Secondly, the spelling is Pearl, not Perle. Thirdly, why would the BBC remove the passage from the interview if she had merely misspoken?
I suggest you have nothing convincing to offer.
Quite right, my link was wrong (now corrected); quite right, also, my spelling of Perle (should have been Pearl).
Why would the BBC remove the passage? Although I would be the last person to argue that they were interested in the truth in general, on this occasion they may have just corrected a perceived slip of the tongue.
Re your last point, your 'suggestion', it would have been more prudent on your part to await my corrected link, methinks. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
always copy the url from the bo to the right it saves the confusion of if its the right one or not
also if it has UK in the code just delete it and put www in its place to embed
An interesting video that proposes, convincingly, I believe, that Benazir Bhutto made a simple slip of the tongue when she said Osama had been murdered, meaning to say Perle:
First of all, the link is wrong, so you offer no evidence for your hypothesis. Secondly, the spelling is Pearl, not Perle. Thirdly, why would the BBC remove the passage from the interview if she had merely misspoken?
I suggest you have nothing convincing to offer.
Quite right, my link was wrong (now corrected); quite right, also, my spelling of Perle (should have been Pearl).
Why would the BBC remove the passage? Although I would be the last person to argue that they were interested in the truth in general, on this occasion they may have just corrected a perceived slip of the tongue.
Re your last point, your 'suggestion', it would have been more prudent on your part to await my corrected link, methinks.
it still bothers me to this day why didnt David Frost ask her to repeat the question, or ask questions further on what was concidered global information, instead he ignored it, and later this was removed altogether.
Any journalist of merit would have seen this as either manor from heaven or a opertunity to place his guest on a back foot regarding her having to make the correction.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
it saves the confusion of if its the right one or not