Saturday, September 03, 2005


Who's Pulling Your Strings?

I came accross this must read article from Please read it and send it to as many people as you can.

Naomi Ragen, an Israel journalist wrote back on October 27, 2002: "It was eye-opening for me as an Israeli to listen to BBC World report on the terrorism in a Moscow theater in which 30 Muslim terrorists strapped with explosives threatened the lives of almost a thousand innocent theatre-goers. While the word "terrorist" was used once or twice at the beginning of the siege, when the hostages were saved, the BBC called the terrorists "separatists" and then "hostage-takers." They said that "it wasn't clear how the hostages were killed" prior to the Russian army's action and that "perhaps they had confronted the separatists, a dangerous thing to do." I see, it was the hostages own fault for trying to escape."

Ragen continues: "What is it going to take to get BBC to stop siding with terrorists? IRA "separatists" to blow up their building in London? What? Don't they understand that this constant propaganda which bends over backwards to "understand" those who commit inhuman crimes against humanity, encourages such crimes. Don't they understand that no one is safe as long as this kind of sympathetic spin is put on monsters? Everybody has a beef, BBC. But as long as you say anything goes to accomplish your agenda, the wails of mourning coming from the innocent will continue to shake the world, rising up from Bali, Australia, New York, Kashmir, Moscow, Tel Aviv, the Philippines.
Everyone, everyone, is a potential target. Even Londoners. BBC, you should hang your heads in shame on the unemployment lines."

Reuters' top international editor openly acknowledges that one of the main reasons his agency refuses to call terrorists 'terrorists' has nothing to do with editorial pursuit of objectivity, but rather is a response to intimidation from thugs and their supporters. In every other news arena, western journalists pride themselves on bravely 'telling it as is,' regardless of their subjects' (potentially hostile) reactions.

So I ask: Who owns the BBC and Reuters? Is it bin-Laden with his ability to buy governments or is it British intelligence using the BBC and Reuters as covers for their operatives? Can one really imagine a BBC or Reuters editor or producer interviewing bin-Laden? The age old cover of being a foreign journalist.

Bin-laden is too smart for that.Come on - this guy took down the World Trade Center in New York with box cutters!

I suspect that it is Western intelligence or the lack of intelligence which pressures the BBC and Reuters to use the neutral terms - "militants" and "freedom fighters". I also suspect that by doing so, the BBC and Reuters are now encouraging the global campaigns of Islamic terrorism.
It appears that British intelligence is now actually appeasing those terrorists who attacked innocent civilians in London by using the BBC and Reuters as covers. If you appease a terrorist, then you actually assist the terrorist. You encourage them to perform more acts of barbarism against every innocent civilian who rides a bus, drinks coffee in a restaurant, takes an aircraft or a train for business or holiday. To attack innocent civilians in their shopping centers and in their homes. By appeasing terrorists, you give them a green light to strike all of our children - from the schools of Chechnya to the beaches of Tel Aviv.

It is time the public speaks up. Turn off BBC news. Boycott every newspaper which carries Reuters copy until they call a terrorist - a terrorist.If they don't stop encouraging global terrorism by calling these Islamic terrorists hero "militants", then we and our representatives in Parliament and in Congress must and will take action.

Who owns the BBC and Reuters? Is it bin-Laden or Western intelligence? Surely, we the victims of terrorism have no ownership. (read the whole thing)

Comments: Post a Comment