BBC Propaganda 68

Please read and consider very carefully this brilliant dissection of the BBC’s propaganda blitz on Syria, at the time when the security establishment were trying to propel us into war against Assad, before they decided it was just as profitable to have a war against Assad’s enemies. For the security establishment and arms industry, any dream will do.

I do not agree with every single point made, but I do think every single point is worth considering and agree with a lot of it. My own opinion is that there was a genuine attack, but that the coverage of it was deliberately enhanced and exaggerated to a very large degree. The smoking gun remains the two versions of the soundtrack of Dr Hallam’s “live” interview. The failure to acknowledge that the “charity” featured is directly linked to one of the fighting rebel factions is less spectacular than some of the other possible fabrications, but in itself an appalling dereliction of journalistic integrity.

It is vital to remember the context. This massive propaganda broadcast, entitled “Saving Syria’s Children”, was put out by the BBC just before the crucial vote by the Commons on the government’s request to go to war with Syria, in order to “save Syrian civilians”.

Please do read the main page and I do urge you to follow all the links through because this is very, very important. Particularly in Scotland, millions of people have awoken to the fact that the BBC is purely an organ of state propaganda. The important next step is to acknowledge that the BBC’s dishonesty extends well beyond the subject of Scottish Independence.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

68 thoughts on “BBC Propaganda

1 2 3
  • Mary ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪

    I think your verbal diarrhoea qualifies for this – ‘I think you allow your eagerness to post on here to over-ride the application of a little thought before doing so.’.

  • David Halpin

    Reassuring rozzers. I note that Habbakuk is reassured. He is not bending forehead to prayer mat and is certain that he will not be banged up in Bellmarsh – in solitary and with only a token lawyer.

    He surely sees that the risk of ‘terrorist’ (CIA dreamed up 140 definitions) action to a very large majority of humans is from the psychopaths who run the show. Ask the 10,000 injured survivors in Gaza. These are protected by the fact that only black persons + Serbians get to the Hague.

    The legislators in this epitome of democracy emasculated the Geneva Convention Act of 1957 at the request of Ms Livni and other members of the cabal. This all powerful group sweeps all law before it. I deal with this after emerging from the High Court in an attempt to have UK and European Court law applied to the death of Dr David Kelly. That is to have an inquest hearing.

    Ref. Livni at 8 minutes in this 10 minute video

    Me ‘No mother and child should be in the least harmed anywhere in our still beautiful world’.

    The Sun. ‘You have nothing to fear mate, if you have nothing to hide.’ Or say, or think.

  • johnnyrvf

    @ Mary. Lord Freud’s comments have been deliberately misconstrued for left wing political purposes. Unless you suffer under a severe condition or the result of very bad fortune and understand the mind of someone ‘disabled’ no one else can pass comment. What he was trying to say requires intelligent and sympathetic consideration, not some ignorant rant about something most people have no idea of.

  • Kempe

    ” Could you back that up, starting with your explanation of the different takes of Dr Rola Hallam speaking, ”

    We’ve been over that before although I can’t find the thread. Accusations that the BBC dubbed different words onto the same footage were proved unfounded as activities in the background were different. They asked her for a quote, a soundbite if you like, did two (or more) takes and she said something slightly different each time. How does that prove BBC fakery?

    According to this lunatic’s “brilliant dissection” the whole thing was faked with injuries ℅ the BBC special effects department. It’s no wonder the BBC trust don’t take his complaint seriously, they must get deluged with this kind of rubbish on a daily basis. Far from being very important I’m afraid it’s just typical of the working towards a foregone conclusion conspiracy stuff you can find all over the web “proving” that Sandy Hook, Boston, 7/7, and the Lee Rigby murder etc were all “false flag psy-ops” using a seemingly inexhaustible supply of reliable actors the evil PTB have at their disposal.

    Naturally this plays up very well to the bulk of posters on this thread but I’m surprised anybody with more than two brain cells gives it more than a fleeting glance.

    As an example of the distortions and false logic used in this “brilliant dissection” it’s claimed that one of the doctors picks up a baby which is later claimed to have suffered 80% burns. Where though? I can find no such claim in the film, only a general statement that many of the victims suffered 80-90% burns which appears towards the end of the programme.

  • Cerumol

    The link is in the relevant section of the blog:

    Dr Hallam: “we were working in an emergency department when a baby, a seven month old, came in, with 80% burns, with his dad who also had a burnt face”

    About 22:15 here, at a Save the Children event in November 2013

  • Kempe

    ” About 22:15 here, at a Save the Children event in November 2013 ”

    But not in the actual programme as claimed.

  • Gutter


    The BBC say that Dr Hallam’s interview was edited down in two slightly different ways for broadcast. Because she was wearing a mask, there was no need to insert cutaways at the edits as would normally be done, and the speech and picture were in consequence rather out of synch. That explanation, which even Robert Stuart now appears to have accepted, seems to me entirely satisfactory. It is perhaps not great journalistic practice, but it is not sinister.

    The partisan nature of the ‘Hand in Hand’ organisation should have been made clear, I agree, and that is wasn’t is reprehensible. But that is marginal to Mr Stuart’s thesis, which is that the entire report was fake, the horrific burns were all actually theatrical prostheses, and the victims, many of whom went on to die from their injuries, were all actors.

    I urge you to read this report in full

1 2 3

Comments are closed.