BBC 'World Affairs': Monstrous Enemy of the Truth

[Anthony Lawson]

In early February, I sent Paul Reynolds (the World affairs correspondent, BBC News website), DVDs of ‘9/11 – In Plane Site’ and ‘Loose Change II,’ but it will come as no surprise that I did not hear anything from him, even though he had agreed, in an e-mail exchange, to watch them.

Last Monday (26 March), I stumbled across an item written by Mr Reynolds headed: ‘New tensions over Iran's nuclear plans,’ dated 26 February, which can be read at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6379611.stm

It was a typically one-sided look at the issue, so I though that I would bring this fact to his attention, and re-introduce the matter of the collapse of WTC7, which had been the subject of some of our previous exchanges. Here is an unedited stream of the exchanges, with only the openings changed for clarity, and the signoffs omitted.

Quote:

Anthony wrote: You've still not got back to me on 9/11 In Plane Site or Loose Change, but I suppose that the whitewash by The Conspiracy Files backs up your position, so you don't really need to take into account what can be seen with your own eyes. (Do you really still think that WTC7 was not a controlled demolition?) With regard to your item 'New tensions over Iran's nuclear plans,' in the interests of fairness, I think that you could have reminded your readers that the United States is continuously breaking its undertakings with regard to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and that the amount of weaponry and firepower imported into Iraq by the United States and Britain would outweigh, by a factor of about 10-billion-to-one, anything which might be reaching Iraqi resistance groups---known, for some reason, as 'insurgents' by the BBC, CNN and most of the rest of the media---from Iran. You shouldn't call such a piece an 'Analysis' unless you can be seen to be taking an unbiased position. If that madman, Bush, does attack Iran, people like you must accept some of the responsibility for what happens thereafter, because you are currently in a position to properly inform those who might be able to make a difference, but you are not doing so.

Quote:

Paul Reynolds wrote: Sorry but where did the bit about 'controlled demoliton' of WTC7 come from? You cannot simply leap from belief to 'fact'!

Quote:

Anthony wrote: Well, why don't you tell me what it looks like to you? Here are the choices: 1. Does it look like a collapse due to random fires? 2. Does it look similar to other videos of controlled demolitions? Here are some clues: Incontrovertible Fact: Even if diesel-fuel fires, enhanced by office papers, plastics or whatever, could melt through the structural supports in such a building, they would all have to melt through and give way at exactly the same moment, otherwise the collapse would be uneven and the building would tip over, instead of collapsing in the manner which is there for all to see in the videos taken that day. (A failed demolition video can be seen at http://www.compfused.com/directlink/1070/ ) Incontrovertible Fact: For all of the support columns in such a tall, wide building to have burned through and given way at exactly the same moment, due to any kind of fire, is manifestly impossible.

Quote:

Reynolds wrote (in two e-mails): http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20F inal.pdf I can only refer you to the NIST report. I am not an engineer. Are you? As for your points. 1. They were presumably not 'random fires' but major impact and heat. 2. Because something looks like something does not mean it is! This statement from NIST was put out in December 06 and outlines the theory. The final report is planned in the spring. A fire (from diesel generator fuel) and/or debris impact on a critical column is now given as a hypothesis. It also says it is studying 'HYPOTHETICAL BLAST SCENARIOS'...though it has found no evidence of a 'controlled demolition event' of the type you ( and others) claim. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf and this http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf

Quote:

Anthony wrote: No, I am not an engineer, but I am not a liar, either, as the NIST engineers appear to be; liars by omission. Examine the excerpt you have isolated. The compilers of this 'WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary' do not point out that hypothetical blast scenarios are necessary because they have no physical evidence to work with; the real evidence being the structural steel from the building—you know, like the body in a murder investigation—all of which was rushed away from the site (along with the steel from the Twin Towers), on the orders of New York's then mayor, Rudy Guliani, kept under guard so that investigators could not access it, then exported to China and Korea. Yet they still have the gall to write: "While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event…" That is a blatant lie by omission, because they know that they could not possibly find any evidence of a controlled demolition without access to the physical evidence. It is like an investigator saying: 'We could find no evidence that the man was shot.' after the body in question had been cremated. And they compound that lie by omitting to draw attention to Larry Silverstein's video-recorded statement, which has been available on the Internet since it was first broadcast on PBS in September, 2002. Silverstein on Camera: I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the [WTC 7] building collapse. (ends) But, clearly, you are prepared to believe people who tell lies, by omission, rather than the evidence of you own eyes, evidence which indicates, if not conclusively proves, that the collapse of WTC7 was most likely to have been caused by a controlled demolition, particularly when the building's owner, Larry Silverstein, admitted as much with his "pull it" statement. Which means that you are prepared to believe the interim findings of an organization that is clearly ignoring a scenario that fits all of the available evidence, visual and audible, while it bends over backwards to make hypothetical evidence the sole basis of its 'investigation', and is quite prepared to adjust the chosen hypothesis, as they go along. Quote from NIST: This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. (P. 4) Which is tantamount to saying: 'We'll keep going until something fits' and a footnote which might as well read: 'But we will never, ever look into the possibility that it was a controlled demolition instigated by the owner, Larry Silverstein, or persons unknown.' Your acceptance, no, your continual promotion of this obviously flawed method of investigating a pivotal incident in a series of events which led to the invasion of two nations, by the United States and Britain, and the deaths of over one million people, in my opinion, makes you a very unreliable person to be reporting on, or analysing anything, let alone having your opinions disseminated by the BBC, an organization which many decent, but misguided people still trust.

Quote:

Reynolds wrote - March 28 I can argue no longer. You do not accept the NIST report, so let us leave it there.

Quote:

Anthony wrote - March 29 Do you actually know the difference between an on-going investigation and a report? The document you have been referring to is headed: ‘WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary’, it is not a report. So how could I possibly agree (or even disagree) with a report which has yet to be published? In fact, you have earlier written, rather ungrammatically: ‘The final report is planned in the spring.’ And the document in question includes the following statement: ‘It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by Spring 2007.’ Not the final report, you will note, but a draft. Furthermore, as a BBC correspondent, you should be able to work out that NIST is not actually investigating what caused the collapse of WTC 7. By its own admission, it is attempting to justify its own pre-conceived hypothesis as to how the building collapsed in the way it did. And if that hypothesis is found to be wanting, it will be adjusted or another one formulated. What NIST will never do is consider the most plausible explanation available: that this was a controlled demolition, as thousands of people, including many engineers, demolition experts and New York firemen believe it was.

Paul Reynolds has yet to reply, as of 6 AM GMT, March 30

Personally, I see little hope for a change in the media’s attitude to 9/11, the War in Iraq or the current stand-off with Iran, which is looking more and more dangerous everyday, unless and until those behind the policies currently being pursued by the president of the United States and his administration are brought into the international spotlight, and carefully investigated, and I can see no other entity which has such a stranglehold on U.S. foreign policy than the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) whose policies appear to be putting the wellbeing and security of the fledgling state of Israel before all else. I use the terms ‘wellbeing’ and 'security' only in the short-sighted sense that those who insist on pursuing these policies use them, not because I believe that where those policies are leading could possibly be good for anyone. Currently, these people have Iran in their sights, and they appear to be successfully getting much of the rest of the so-called developed world behind them. Yet, anyone with half a brain cell in reasonable working order must know that the idea of Iran being an immediate threat is manifestly absurd.

Israel already possesses about 200 nuclear weapons, making it highly unlikely that Iran would risk a nuclear exchange with that state, yet the issue, like Saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, has been blown out of all proportion by the U.S. president, the previous ambassador and the current acting U.S. ambassador to the U.N. backed to the hilt by the American mainstream media, which is almost wholly owned by those who seem to owe at least as much, if not more, allegiance to Israel than they do to their original country of citizenship. And much of the rest of the world’s mainstream media, including the BBC and most of the British press, follows where the American media leads them.

Where it is leading us all, at the moment, is to a place where all of our freedoms will be stripped away, one by precious one.

The mainstream media is a monster, and it is being nourished and protected by those who, for whatever reason, will not tell us the truth about what is really going on in the only world we’ve got. Those who refuse to tell the truth, or insist on ignoring the obvious—people like Paul Reynolds—deserve our utmost contempt, and should be peacefully targeted, at every opportunity, with evidence of our displeasure and disgust at what they are doing.

When you see or read something which is blatantly dishonest or biased, e-mail the person responsible and send a copy of your complaint to your MP. Try not to be abusive, and do not use bad language; this will only bring you down to their level. Spread their e-mail addresses around, so that others can join in.

Here is one to start or add to your list: Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Take care,

Anthony

[ZUCO]

Very well done Anthony, you obviously confused him with such crazy things as FACTS and EVIDENCE which the MSM continue to overlook.

I think this says it all:

[TonyGosling]

What a weasel he is

thanks for posing this and for your persistance with the buffoon

Dolts telling us what to think at licence fee payers expense

Don't give up Anthony - we have to keep plugging away

[gareth]

[Anthony Lawson]

Do You Really Mean Disinformation?

[gareth]

[Anthony Lawson]

Gareth: Where is the Misinformation of Which You Speak?

This has all been gone through before, but to point up your ignorance, or perhaps to help expose you as a mole, I will debunk a few of the points which your web reference leads to. I will concentrate on ‘9/11- In Plane Site’, because the makers of ‘Loose Change’ have already admitted to making some factual errors and other mistakes, most of which I believe they corrected in version two.

Starting at http://911review.com/disinfo/videos.html I next went to what appeared to be the most promising source for your accusation of disinformation against Dave von Kleist. After all, a hyperlink titled ‘Parade of Errors’ should lead to some amazing revelations, shouldn’t it? Well, judge for yourself.

For a start, in the very first sentence, the writer exhibits an inability to form a coherent thought, which gives a hint of what is to come:

[BBC5.tv]

Dude I'm an engineer and I just wrote him this, not sure if you'd agree with how I said what I said but the b****** were getting me down, or maybe it was the beers from last night, anyway who cares I told him my opinion as an engineer anyway:


Dear Paul,

It has come to my attention that you are the World affairs correspondent for the BBC News website. I have been informed that Anthony Lawson has been in contact with you regarding the heinous attacks on September 11th and the mounting evidence that the event was a false flag operation carried out by rouge elements within the current American administration to further their own political agendas.

Your response to the controlled demolition of WTC 7 is to refer Anthony to the NIST report. NIST are not the cleverest of people it would seem, they believe open fires melt steel, or not when asked by people who know the behaviour of steel under high temperature; it depends. Yes the lead structural engineer from NIST, John Gross, who looked into the collapse of the twin towers, denies the existence of molten steel in the basements of the twin towers. This is an admission of a cover up as he can only deny its existence as it is a theoretical impossibility for open fires to melt steel. If he admitted there was molten steel then he has to come up with a reason as to why. Therefore he flatly denies it. Is that ethical? So therefore what energy source caused the steel to melt? The inherent gravitational potential energy in the structure could not have achieved such a result.

It's a no-brainer in my opinion, but that would entail doing some investigative journalism, instead of reguratating the governments own implausible explanation masquerading as fact for the unsuspecting masses. I wouldn’t trust NIST to explain the collapse of WTC 7 further than I could throw them. They deal in illusions it would seem, not facts. You also shouldn’t trust them, not over something as important as this.

Only ignorant or exceptionally naive people can deny they don't understand the problem of the collapse of WTC 7 because they are not engineers. Have you ever played the game Jenga? Surely you dabbled in the laws of nature at school; you might drive a car by the same laws everyday. What does your gut feeling tell you about the collapse of WTC 7? Steel framed structures don't collapse due to fire, never have, and never will. That's why they're built out of steel and concrete see, not combustible materials like wood.

I am an aeronautical structural integrity engineer and can honestly tell you that your blind trust in an organisation with such close links to the government like NIST, which is obviously lying, is tantamount to a surrender of you morals as a journalist. I thought you guys were the ones who asked the questions staring us in the face but it is quickly becoming apparent that this is not true, much to my dismay.

I like a challenge and exposing the corrupt institutions perpetrating this lie is definitely that. It would have been nice not to have to destroy the credibility of the BBC at the same time though (your stance on this issue has been marked firmly in the sand with the Conspiracy Files programme).

I now know that you know, and I will gladly explain to Anthony how I have offered an engineers point of view. If you want to hear it from a civil structural engineer then my flat mate will gladly write you an email also.

I await your response with eager anticipation.

Scott Hudson BEng (Hons)


Anthony hope you don't mind me putting my six pennies worth in.

Rock on guys.

[gareth]

[Anthony Lawson]

Pastoman – e-mail to Paul Reynolds

That’s a good e-mail, and I can’t detect any evidence of the beer affecting your powers of reasoning, but I’d like to have one or two with you if our paths ever cross. I particularly like the paragraph which begins:

[Anthony Lawson]

Gareth, Misinformation & Disinformation Have the Same Meaning

[gareth]

[Anthony Lawson]

Reprinting

Gareth,

Reprinting, as a quote, someone else's entire post, without even attempting to answer the questions directed at you, is wasting space and other people's time.

I am formally making a request that a moderator take a look at your 'contributions' to this web site, to see if they have any merit.

Anthony

[BBC5.tv]

Well Anthony here's his prompt response 31-Mar:


Scott

The final NIST report on WTC7 is due in the spring I think. A draft
conclusion is that a critical column was damaged. Please read that
interim report (from a few months ago).

Paul


10 out of 10 for a quick reply. Zilch for actually answering any of my points. Doh!

The dudes insane man, or really really stupid. Either way he's now fair game in my books as he really shouldn't be doing that job if he's honestly that deprived of reasoning. He obviously hasn't played Jenga as the dude even states the damage was localised! Man can we have some people with some brains and integrity calling the shots sometime soon, pretty please?

Will reply but not sure what slant to take as not really up for a tit for tat email exchange. I already knew he was a waste of space, just wanted to give him one more chance before I took him off my xmas card list. He'll regret that.

Anyway they aint got a chance in hell of getting away with this. In a startling way I'm already feeling sorry for Paul, gees the dude gonna struggle later on in life with that baggage around his shoulders. Rather him than me that's all that I can say.

Summer of Love 2007! Spread the word!

[gareth]

[Anthony Lawson]

Sinister

You come over as the sinister one, Gareth. You have consistently ignored my not unreasonable questions, regarding your accusations about Dave von Kleist and '9/11 - In Plane Site', preferring to swamp this thread with reprints of my posts and web references to the opinions of others.

To totally ignore reasonable questions either demonstrates your own ignorance, or the fact that you have a different agenda from others who contribute, in a positive way to the British 9/11 Truth Campaign. Keeping Paul Reynolds on the run is difficult enough, without someone like you running interference for him.

Anthony

[Anthony Lawson]

Pastoman

That is a typical Paul Reynolds reply, referring you to a government document; not answering you directly. Such reports and press handouts have long been the staff of life for certain people who call themselves journalists; it means that they don’t have to do any actual work. These days, they can scan the handout into an OCR application, rearrange the words, add their by-line, press <Enter> then off to the pub.

There are now very few people who really care about informing others, and that state of affairs can be blamed on their employers and the pressure that they are under from those who control the media.
I’ve be communicating with Paul Reynolds, for quite some time, and I get the feeling that, even if he wasn’t having to toe the BBC policy line, he wouldn’t be out there, up to his neck in muck and bullets, to get a story.
However, I’ve just had another reply from him, which was rather more detailed than heretofore, although I don’t see much evidence of a change in his BBC mindset . I suspect that he may have taken our exchanges to a supervisor, for advice.

I’m not sure that I care to share any more of my correspondence with this website, for reasons that you may understand, if you read some of my exchanges with Gareth.

If you are interested in having a copy, I can post it in your private mail cache. Let me know by writing to mine. But, if you have the time, keep on at Paul Reynolds, maybe something will stick to his thick skin.

Anthony

[Anthony Lawson]

Correction

In my post of March 30th, I wrote the following:

[Jack]

[Long Tooth]

[Anthony Lawson]

Don't Give Up

Hello Long tooth,

Welcome to the 9/11 Truth Movement. First, I would like to point out that my published joining date is incorrect. My original membership was erroneously terminated when I changed my e-mail address. In fact I have been a member for well over a year, and, sadly, about six months ago, I have sensed a loss of impetus, a creeping weariness interspersed with jolts of activity, such as happened when it was discovered that the BBC had prematurely announced the collapse of WTC7, followed by lapse into lethargy.

I would like to thank you for your thoughtful post, but, although I appreciate your compassion for those who have got themselves into a position where they have to toe the corporation line, I cannot agree that they should be let off the hook, or allowed to continue to peddle their phoney wares to a, largely, unwitting public with impunity.

You might be able to view the BBC news as an episode of Monty Python (I’m guessing that your nom de plume may have something to do with your age), but it isn’t. It is still what a lot of people think of as being a trusted source of the truth. I used to trust the BBC, but I now know that it can no longer be trusted with the truth, as people who have joined this movement well know.

You ask, or advise me, to move on, yet I can see no reason to do so. I have children and a grandchild whose futures are, indirectly, in the hands of the people who currently control the mass media. What about them?

Had the mass media done the job it is supposed to do, it is quite possible that the war in Iraq would not have happened; that over one million people would still be alive, and that another million or so would not be under the threat of death and mutilation, if those who profit from war have their way. I’m talking about the build up of world opinion against Iran, four years, at least, before their nuclear programme could produce a weapon of mass destruction, while Israel has at least 200 and the United States continues to develop strategic nuclear weapons in defiance of Mohamed el Baradi’s IAEA.

Actually ‘defiance’ is not the right word, because, to my knowledge, that august body has never called upon the United States to cease its nuclear-weapons research or enhanced-enrichment programmes. It is non-proliferation treaties and U.N. resolutions which attempt to curb Israel's excesses that the U.S. defies, or simply ignores.

We live in a sectionalised, two-faced world, with those who have dictating to those who have-not, and threatening the have-nots with military action if they don’t do as they are told has taken the place of peace talks and diplomacy. Far from being in any way religious, I still agree with one of the sayings from what is called The Bible: As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

What Bush and Blair have sown, in Iraq, will echo down the ages, just as will what Britain did to Ireland, and what Israel has done and continues to do to Palestine. Their legacy will be endless; endless conflict with those whom they have assaulted and robbed of their livelihoods, loved ones and the very will to live, in many cases.

Where do you think suicide bombers come from? The urge for revenge comes from a deep well of emotional despair and a conviction that nothing could be worse than what has been done to them and their families already. I realise this because I know how I would feel if one of my children were to be killed, solely because of someone else’s greed.

Oh, someone is bound to argue that it is the militant mullahs who encourage them with their words of hate. No doubt some are persuaded in this way, but the mullahs don’t have to make up the motives, they are there for all to see, and so are those who justifiably deserve their hate.

They are those who give the orders to crush and mutilate the bodies of their mothers, their fathers and their children; those who give the orders to destroy their homes, their public buildings, their very culture. Families, communities, cities, an entire country dismembered because a cabal of insanely greedy men and a few women know that war and other people’s misery means money. It means profits from the manufacture and supply of armaments, all along the way to the big prize when the victory is won. Oil.

But such a victory is an illusion, as many decent people know it is. The trouble is that not enough decent people are aware of this because they believe the mass media, of which the BBC is a leading light. It would probably only take one of the big ones to give a little, and the whole edifice could crumble under the sheer weight of those who must know that they are prostituting themselves for their pay cheques, at the expense of the future of their own children, not to mention their own self respect.

No! Now is not the time to give up.

Anthony

[Long Tooth]

Anthony, your doggedness and moral fibre is to be applauded, perhaps i should have elaborated on my 'move on' sentance, the 'move on' was to stop wasting your valuble time on media whores such as Reynolds, my little conspiracy theory for you here is that he already knows the score and as you rightly say has sold out.

I agree with most of what you say, having lived in Palastine/Israel for 10 months albeit 18 years ago, i am fully aware of what it takes to be a suicide bomber, i know first hand what the Palastinian conditions are, i have never met a more genuine people than the Palastinians and i have travelled the world a lot. From land grabbed that was multi generations handed down to Palastinians to water wells posioned, i have seen it with my own eyes, along with the aparthied sytem operating there.

I wish you well in your effort to make the media accountable, the reason things are the way they are regarding media whoring is that it works, decades of the good old BBC, they would never lie is indoctrinated into most of us from being small, usually from our peers etc.

The positives you have gleaned from this repugnant odious reynolds are you can now see him and the rest of his ilk for what they really are, media whores as you rightly say, picking up their pay checks for peddling filth, and helping to keep the staus quo.

I was attempting to say move on from this insidious individual as i believe you stated you have been e mailing this leech for months and months? with your motivation i believe you can have a more positive outcome by directing your efforts elsewhere, especially now as this leech is ignoring you now, thats what people like him do with awkward questions after a time, perhaps if he loses someone dear to him in the next 7/7 'bombing coming soon to us all' he may consider not selling his soul for peanuts, i wont be holding my breath on that though.

The sad facts are, they do peddle their filth with impunity, even when caught the kangaroo courts are set up, you know 'independent inquiry' after 3 years and then swept under the carpet, judged by other whores in the network. I dont know how long since you discovered that the BBC is nothing more than a fantasy news channel for sleepers, but sadly its endemic of all aspects of power and influence, from police (de menezes type fantasies of whats suppossed to have happened, as to whats really happened) to lawyers, councillors, judges, estate agents, government coroners brought in for 'delicate cases' to ensure a 'home run', the armed forces etc etc etc. its all corrupt and riddled with secret society menaces. Its just that its buried a lot deeper than in other societies, ie asia where the corruptness is discussed in newspapers openly, (Shinawatra Taksin, the ex Thai Prime Minister, countless articles in the local newspapers years before his exile, discussing his corrupptness and contacts.)

The intellegence agencies control the media constantly, nothing goes out unless by accident of anything too damning, and everything, no matter how ridiculous or incredulous that supports 'government/elite agena' is peddled and repeated ad nauseum, everyone working there is vetted by these hoodlems, and with people such as reynolds, anything which threatens the myth of these fairy story merchants and peddlers is disposed of in a variety of ways, depending on the threat level, from sackings to murders.

good luck DONT GIVE UP just move on from this pillock reynolds.

[Anthony Lawson]

Hello Again, Long Tooth,

Now, I understand what you meant by ‘move on’, and you are probably right. Of course he is not going to fall down in Clapham High Street, or wherever, and see the light, but his conscience might be affected just a little, and he might start to be more circumspect about what he writes, in future. On that score, I have no intention of leaving him in peace.

Thank you for your overview of the situation, it is clear that you have no illusions about the mainstream media, and I hope that you will spread your views around to your friends and acquaintances who need to be jogged out of their complacency about what they read and watch. Trying to get my friends and acquaintances to look further and deeper into what appears in the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and on the BBC and CNN, is something I try to do as often as I can, and it has destroyed a few dinner and lunch parties, I can tell you.

It’s an uphill push, in most cases, but it sometimes works.

Take care,

Anthony

[Rory Winter]

The BBC's Neocon Propaganda War
http://urlsnip.com/421198

Editors: please delete this duplicated post. Thanks, Rory.

[Rory Winter]

The BBC's Neocon Propaganda War
CHIMES OF FREEDOM
http://urlsnip.com/421198




The BBC's approach to war and world affairs is, first and foremost, a reflection of the British puppet state's viewpoint. It is questionable that the BBC was ever an independent organization. But, along with the widespread damage to civil and judicial freedoms caused by the noxious Blair de facto dictatorship, the BBC's reputation has dropped to an all-time low of news-whoring.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I am constantly warning them that the Mainstream Media (MSM) in both the US and the UK --or USUK for convenience-- is deliberately fuelling speculations that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon and that, for this reason, the US and possibly Israel might carry out a 'preemptive' attack on that country.

The BBC's approach amounts to blatant warmongering. No amount of complaints appear to make the slightest bit of difference. Financed by a compulsory tax in the form of a licence fee, payable by anyone owning a television receiver in the UK, the BBC has huge resources to hand and is a major international satellite broadcaster.

BBC 24 News is received across the planet and many viewers mistakenly believe that it practises a balanced reportage. This is nothing more than a myth which the BBC is, itself, responsible for having perpetuated. The reality is that, particularly under the oppressive Blair regime, the BBC has become a servile tool for the broadcasting of USUK war propaganda.

This was reflected some time ago in comments made by Professor Professor Geir Lundestad, secretary of the Norwegian Nobel committee, when he observed that "media organisations could receive the Nobel peace prize in future."

Prof Lundestad mentioned several contenders, such as CNN, the New York Times, Le Monde and El País.

However, he made a notable exception of the BBC. "Some years ago, the BBC would have been an obvious candidate because it was the international model for news organisations. Nowadays, it is more debatable." He added: "We all know about the problems the BBC has had in recent years," without elaborating.

(The Guardian, 7 October 2006).

What he wouldn't elaborate on was the manner in which Tony Blair had fired the then BBC Director, Greg Dyke, for his daring to criticize Blair on the Irak War and the --to say the least-- dubious circumstances surrounding the 'suicide' of the ex-IAEA inspector, Dr David Kelly, who was scapegoated by the Blair regime.

Ever since Dyke's 'resignation' (he was fired on Blair's instructions) the BBC has taken an extreme lurch to the neocon right and the promotion of the Bush-Cheney-Blair-Zionist war party. Greg Dyke was replaced by a leading zionist, Michael Grade.

Two recent instances of the BBC's highly propagandistic news coverage has been its anti-Chávez reportage on Venezuela and a complete news-blackout on the arrest and trial of two members of the neo-nazi British National Party who were caught with what was reported locally as the largest weapons-haul ever made by the British police.

Not to be unfair, that news-blackout affected the entire British MSM and appears to have been at the behest of Blair.

The above are just two instances taken at random. The actual list of the BBC's right-wing bias would be unending.

PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING!

The BBC is preparing Britain and the rest of the world for US military aggression on Iran. Ever since Bush started his vicious propaganda campaign against Iran, the BBC has meekly followed suit. No doubt, on Blair's insistence.

Just last night on its News 24 programme it screamed out that the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) had 'leaked' a document proving that Iran was 'secretly developing weapons-grade' fissile material. It conspicuously failed to say anything more about this document so I conducted my own search and found this Reuters press release.

Can anyone find any evidence here that the IAEA is warning of Iranian nuclear weapons development? The Reuters/Yahoo article goes on to make the customary speculations but evidence there is none.

That didn't stop the BBC in its headlong rush to serve its neocon bosses in Downing Street and Washington, DC. Not only is the BBC sure that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb but that it threatens the continued existence of that famously peaceable nation, Israel, with the nasty terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, provocatively flying its flags along the Israel-Lebanon frontier.

The BBC then interviewed several Israeli 'experts' who, naturally, spoke in the most objective manner of how Israel was victim to threats from Iran and why a 'pre-emptive' attack against its nuclear reactors would, therefore, be the most sensible thing to do.

Of course, no mention was made by the BBC's jejune reporter, Matthew Price, of the terrible radioactive aftermath to which such an attack would lead, making Chernobyl pale into significance, or the even greater holocaust of a US-led attack using so-called 'low-yield' tactical nuclear weapons.

To get things into perspective, these 'low-yield' tactical nukes are capable of anything between a third to six times the destruction caused by the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombs. The US Military now considers this level of destruction to be "acceptable." And so does the BBC apparently which keeps its lips sealed about the US nuclear option.

The BBC has, so far, failed to report on another significant statement from Iran that that country is reluctant to exit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it, unlike Israel, is a signatory.

So much for its 'balanced' reporting.

The BBC's approach to war and world affairs is, first and foremost, a reflection of the British puppet state's viewpoint. It is questionable that the BBC was ever an independent organization. But, along with the widespread damage to civil and judicial freedoms caused by the noxious Blair de facto dictatorship, the BBC's reputation has dropped to an all-time low of news-whoring.

Does it care? I doubt it. It and its employees now see themselves sliding down the slippery slope to privatization so, in the meantime, will do anything to ingratiate themselves with Britain's rulers. It's a very sad day when a well-known British dissident (himself a victim of Blair's tyranny), ex-Ambassador Craig Murray, admits to better treatment from Rupert Murdoch's SKY News than from the BBC.

Those in Britain who are concerned at the rapidity their country is being turned into a police state should, without any further delay, launch a popular campaign to expose the BBC's dirty warmongering. A vital part of such a campaign should be the promotion of a countrywide non-payment of the annual licence fee, the BBC's life-blood.

The BBC should also be subject to a mass letter-writing campaign in which it is warned that it and its employees would be held to be war criminals for their further promotion of illegal military occupations by the USUK and for their gleeful promotion of a possible upcoming war against Iran.

Labels: bbc news 24, bnp bomb factory, dr david kelly, greg dyke, iaea, iran, israel, licence fee, michael grade, msm, nobel peace prize, npt, propaganda, reuters, sky news, tactical nukes, venezuela, yahoo

[Anthony Lawson]

Thai blogsite

Hello venceremos,

I wanted to make a comment on this guy's website, but it is all in Thai. Although I live in Thailand, my knowledge of the language is very limited, and I am unable to read the script, which meant that I could not navigate through to the comments page.

It's a very good article, and thank you for posting it, but could you also supply more information as to how I could get in touch with the writer?

Take care,

Anthony Lawson