|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 9, 2016 14:17:05 GMT
BBCI remember this murder and how it was represented in the press and this board at the time. It was portrayed as a nice Muslim being killed by a bad Muslim for wishing his customers a merry Christmas. The fact remains that it was a decent guy being killed by a Muslim man because of religious differences, and hardly does the religion of peace any favours. However, the basis of the murder had nothing to do with the dead man's Christmas greeting at the time. What this case goes to show, is how the press will go out of their way to misrepresent a story that is going to work up a frenzy and sell more papers. How many hate crimes were provoked by this story, yet the papers that printed it, will just carry on printing their bile and making their money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 9, 2016 15:05:00 GMT
Another nut job taken off the streets.
Ban all religion that would be a start to peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Aug 9, 2016 15:05:27 GMT
The BBC do the same as in when that guy did that spree in Germany and they called him David when his first name was Ali. They all do it one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 9, 2016 15:44:51 GMT
BBCI remember this murder and how it was represented in the press and this board at the time. It was portrayed as a nice Muslim being killed by a bad Muslim for wishing his customers a merry Christmas. The fact remains that it was a decent guy being killed by a Muslim man because of religious differences, and hardly does the religion of peace any favours. However, the basis of the murder had nothing to do with the dead man's Christmas greeting at the time. What this case goes to show, is how the press will go out of their way to misrepresent a story that is going to work up a frenzy and sell more papers. How many hate crimes were provoked by this story, yet the papers that printed it, will just carry on printing their bile and making their money. The initial misreporting was actually far worse than what you've described - some news outlets went with "Islamophobia" before the identity of the assailant was confirmed. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 9, 2016 16:23:16 GMT
Slightly off topic here ........BBC are nut jobs when it comes to stirring the shit anyway they can conceive. Mentioned this in another thread........yesterday BBC reported they had "conclusive proof" that the SAS are secretly operating in Syria against the IS insurgents. Not only does this hand propaganda to these throwbacks it also feeds their justification for more attrocities across the Middle East and Europe. So what is this "conclusive proof" the BBC have? Well it comes in the form of a photo of 2 heavily armed vehicles somewhere in a desert manned by soldiers with their faces obscured. The DM also picked up on the same story and pictures. Even if it is true wtf are they doing reporting "secret" Military activities handing tactical information to potential enemies. BBC did similar during the Falklands War reporting that 2 Para were preparing for an assault Argy held settlement of Goose Green. Although the Paras took the settlement the assault resulted in the loss of over 20 paras. Wonder how many were due to the BBC.
|
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Aug 9, 2016 16:38:40 GMT
Slightly off topic here ........BBC are nut jobs when it comes to stirring the shit anyway they can conceive. Mentioned this in another thread........yesterday BBC reported they had "conclusive proof" that the SAS are secretly operating in Syria against the IS insurgents. Not only does this hand propaganda to these throwbacks it also feeds their justification for more attrocities across the Middle East and Europe. So what is this "conclusive proof" the BBC have? Well it comes in the form of a photo of 2 heavily armed vehicles somewhere in a desert manned by soldiers with their faces obscured. The DM also picked up on the same story and pictures. Even if it is true wtf are they doing reporting "secret" Military activities handing tactical information to potential enemies. BBC did similar during the Falklands War reporting that 2 Para were preparing for an assault Argy held settlement of Goose Green. Although the Paras took the settlement the assault resulted in the loss of over 20 paras. Wonder how many were due to the BBC. I was thinking exactly the same thing when they reported it on the news last night, someone needs to call these stupid biased bastards to heel, feckin ridiculous behaviour if true they are our troops they are putting their lives in even more danger than they are already. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 9, 2016 17:42:22 GMT
Just a wild stab in the dark here but I'm guessing the presence of several warships, numerous fighters and several thousand heavily armed soldiers might just have given the Argies a heads up that they were about to be attacked and to be on full alert anyway!
Secondly, any war reporting, involving troops in 'legal' overt wars anyway!, is subject to official approval if it can possibly lead to the release of sensitive info which might compromise troop safety or missions. There are things called d notices too.
So draw your own conclusions about the presence of the SAS being reported!
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 9, 2016 20:09:23 GMT
Just a wild stab in the dark here but I'm guessing the presence of several warships, numerous fighters and several thousand heavily armed soldiers might just have given the Argies a heads up that they were about to be attacked and to be on full alert anyway! Secondly, any war reporting, involving troops in 'legal' overt wars anyway!, is subject to official approval if it can possibly lead to the release of sensitive info which might compromise troop safety or missions. There are things called d notices too. So draw your own conclusions about the presence of the SAS being reported! To be fair RWB I was on a ship that was providing gun fire support to the paras at Goose Green. It was the first ground offensive on Falklands mainland and was being kept covert to prevent the Argies from reinforcing the already considerable defence they had in place. The Commander Of the Ground Forces, Brigadier Thompson, was under political pressure to make a move after several days of landings and digging in so a light mobile force of Paras was selected to take on the Argies at Goose Green which wasn't far from the San Carlos landing beach head. The thinking was that by taking Goose Green then British Forces would be in a strong position should the UN vote on a cease fire later that week. The majority of the Argy forces were 50 miles away at Port Stanley and holding Goose Green would give a big advantage to holding East Falkland Island. As it transpired no cease fire was ordered and the rest is history. After the war many senior military officers condemned the BBC for the premature reporting of the 2 Para assault. I understand your point about D notices and maybe the MoD were happy for the leak regarding the SAS in Syria. |
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Aug 9, 2016 21:13:07 GMT
As somebody once said;
'The first casualty of war is truth'.
|
|
