Comments on: Glasgow Bomb Irony

By: sachin

sachin — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:25:02 +0000

It is truly shocking how the media always takes sides with the aggressor and the stronger powers, in the case of the US and UK, it appears that the media have
always given these nations of unbridled greed, terror and aggression a sympathetic response to any problem
on their shores. So while Bilal an angry Iraqi doctor, “indoctrinated” Kafeel and cousin’s Sabeel Ahmed and Mohamed Hanef to “pan Islamic fundamentalism (whatever
that might mean), convincing them to undertake the suicide mission at Glassgow airport… I want someone to stand up and just explain to me in clear words, “what is the “pan _______fundamentalism” which has convinced Bush and Blair to openly murder more than a hundred thousand
innocent Iraqi, maiming thousands more, destroying their homes and lives?”
Rather than bullshitting me with all sorts of crap on how “Islamist Terror” is actually harming the position of the “Moderate Muslims”.

While condemning all acts of individual terrorism the media and all of us must never loose sight of the primary issue in
Iraq and in the rest of the world, it is Bush (The USA) and Blair/Brown The UK) which are the biggest and most dangerous terrorists of them all. If the USA and
UK do not follow these rules of engagement, invading any country at
the drop of a hat to “protect” their interests, its time the world got together and invaded the UK and USA
to teach them a lesson on how much hurt pain and anguish they have caused to the world. And the world would not need to do this through individual acts of
terror.
The Iraqi’s have a fundamental right to resist any aggression by a foreign power on their land and that resistance does not have to be Gandhian or by flower
power, neither must resistance only be on the occupied soil.
Seeing the current international political developments, my biggest fear is that our spineless political leadership, our spineless ruling classes and our spineless media will
not dare utter a murmur of protest if Bush and Co. decided to do an Iraq on India, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Philippines etc., instead I can clearly see them calling those have the courage to resist “terrorists”.
We must never forget that the British did not lord and rule over India and the rest of the world, on their own, it was exactly this same class of people, which actively supported British Colonialism.

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:29:16 +0000

How about that when the BBC appear to be wrong about something they still report on it if its worthy of news coverage? That seems pretty unbiased to me!

By: Hugh

Hugh — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:53:14 +0000

Hi Russ,

I think the way the BBC works is that when something doesn’t quite fit in with their world view they demand loads of proof and confirmation before they will air it. When it does fit in with their thinking - such they jump to conclusions with almost no proof at all. So for instance, they don’t apply much rigor to Rock Star proposition that Africa needs tons and tons of aid being poured into it.Equally, Al Gore will get a very easy ride. But the proposition that two Asians driving a burning car into an airport might be Islamic terrorists needs to be absolutely confirmed before they will air it without lots of questions and caveats, if at all. This came across very strongly in the BBC’s early coverage of the breaking news in Glasgow. When Peter Sissons asked his boss HB a question along those lines, she replied “I’ve no idea’ in a almost sarcastic voice. After that his questions of witnesses became ultra ultra cautious to the point of tedium, at which point I switched to Sky.

By: Russ

Russ — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:50:04 +0000

Interesting point about the BBC. Is this why they report the Middle East the way they do? They’ve already decided that whatever Israel does is wrong and so they only report on stories that confirm it. That’s probably why they were not so quick off the mark on 7/7. Didn’t sit very well with the “religion of peace” line.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 18:31:58 +0000

If you don’t think that the news coverage of terrorism is a hugely important dynamic then I’m afraid you don’t understand these events.

By: Billy

Billy — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 18:22:15 +0000

Are you sick in the head? You’re rejoicing at some journalist or the BBC getting their coverage wrong/right. Who cares? There has been a suicide attack for God sake! Who cares if one channel or another gets the story in a few minutes quicker. People have been deeply affected by this. What worries me even more about your mental state is that you are holding a grudge against a journalist from the 7/7 bombings news coverage! Your mental pal, mental. I really don’t want to give you any sort of platform by writing more, but your comments about “planned ahead in a meeting” are so outlandish I must. So you, Hugh, think the BBC plan the future news in meetings do you? They can see into the future, your saying, just like you can I expect. No they cant, and neither can you, you inconsiderate, ignorant, wanker. I’m sure they have meetings, and I expect you are attacking BBC bureaucracy, but is this an appropriate time to do so? And does anybody care apart from you? No is the answer. People care about the hurt caused and the effect this could have on all our futures. Anyhow, meetings in which people predict a suicide bombing at Glasgow Airport are unlikely, even at Sky whom you seem to love. Nobody seen this coming…..oh, maybe you did in your own wee planet you live on. In future, hide your obvious prejudices against the BBC and have a little more consideration for the families of the people involved in these events. When I searched for a blog on the Glasgow bombings I was planning to pay tribute to the emergency services and the public involved, and I expected others to have done so. But I come across you, you tosser, ranting about the news coverage! And at number one in google search rankings! My faith in the human race is even more diminished. I know suicide bombers existed, but I didnt know twats like you did.