BBC calls terror group 'opposition fighters' Watch

Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
I'm not sure if this is blind ignorance on the BBC's part (especially given this terror group is universally loathed in Iran) or some nasty ultra- extremist liberal wet dream they have where any opposition to the government must simply be 'the opposition' as opposed to murderous terrorists.
The wording of this article rings remarkably similar to the way the 'great', 'noble', 'valiant' fights in Afghanistan were described... until they "apparently" changed :rolleyes:


https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-50339928
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
Islamic socialism? Islazi?

As culty as this org is, it seems like a relative sainthood of the pacifist compared to the Iranian regime and all its militias.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by Ascend)
Islamic socialism? Islazi?

As culty as this org is, it seems like a relative sainthood of the pacifist compared to the Iranian regime and all its militias.
I imagine the countless Iranians it tortured and murdered would strongly beg to differ...
Equally, say what you like about the politics of the militias Iran sponsors or is allied to they do tend to nevertheless be at least moderately popular, the same can not be said for this outfit.
0
reply
Surnia
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by Napp)
I'm not sure if this is blind ignorance on the BBC's part (especially given this terror group is universally loathed in Iran) or some nasty ultra- extremist liberal wet dream they have where any opposition to the government must simply be 'the opposition' as opposed to murderous terrorists.
The wording of this article rings remarkably similar to the way the 'great', 'noble', 'valiant' fights in Afghanistan were described... until they "apparently" changed :rolleyes:


https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-50339928
Did you read far enough down the article to see where the MEK is described as 'formerly a proscribed terrorist organisation in the United States and Europe'?

The terrorist designation was lifted by the UK in 2008, the European Union in 2009, and the US and Canada in 2012. Not ignorance by the BBC....
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Surnia)
Did you read far enough down the article to see where the MEK is described as 'formerly a proscribed terrorist organisation in the United States and Europe'?

The terrorist designation was lifted by the UK in 2008, the European Union in 2009, and the US and Canada in 2012. Not ignorance by the BBC....
No ****.
It is still most assuredly a terror group. Just because lobbying by the group in certain western capitals has worked does not change that fact as strangely enough those 2 do not have a monopoly on whom is or is not a terror group
0
reply
Surnia
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Napp)
No ****.
It is still most assuredly a terror group. Just because lobbying by the group in certain western capitals has worked does not change that fact as strangely enough those 2 do not have a monopoly on whom is or is not a terror group
You are complaining about the way the BBC is representing the MEK by misrepresenting the BBC report in your original post.

You've got your numbers the wrong way round; there are 2 countries that class them as a terror group, but a lot more who don't.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by Surnia)
You are complaining about the way the BBC is representing the MEK by misrepresenting the BBC report in your original post.
Not really, no.
You've got your numbers the wrong way round; there are 2 countries that class them as a terror group, but a lot more who don't.
Not sure what that has to do with the article or my point.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Surnia)
You are complaining about the way the BBC is representing the MEK by misrepresenting the BBC report in your original post.

You've got your numbers the wrong way round; there are 2 countries that class them as a terror group, but a lot more who don't.
Stick to giving careers advice.
0
reply
JWatch
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
The BBC are well known for this kind of thing. There are widespread anti government protests in both France and Venezeula but because the UK has a very different relationship with the governments of both, the BBC coverage of them is markedly different. They refer to the Venezuelan government as a regime and try to personify Maduro as being personally to blame for anything the government does. If a Venezuelan security officer uses excessive force on a protester, the BBC will report it as though Maduro has personally ordered that attack. They ignore or play down any acts of violence by protesters in Venezeula because apparently if the protesters don't like Maduro that gives them a right to do anything they want. Very different story when it comes to reporting on the Yellow Vest protests. There have been plenty of reports of French police attacking anti government protesters in Paris and other major cities, but the BBC don't talk call the French government a regime or accuse Macron of personally ordering attacks on civilians. And although the Yellow Vests are mostly peaceful, the BBC amplifies the coverage of any violence which gives a distorted view of what is mainly a very peaceful but determined anti government movement. It shouldn't be like this, they should report on these matters impartially and not with whatever political slant our government wants put on it.
Last edited by JWatch; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by JWatch)
There are widespread anti government protests in both France and Venezeula but because the UK has a very different relationship with the governments of both, the BBC coverage of them is markedly different.
I presume you're reffering to those yellow vest protests, i wouldnt exactly call their current iteration 'widespread anti government' though.
They refer to the Venezuelan government as a regime and try to personify Maduro as being personally to blame for anything the government does. If a Venezuelan security officer uses excessive force on a protester, the BBC will report it as though Maduro has personally ordered that attack.
In fairness MAduro is a dictator at this point and as is the onus of governmental responsibility the buck stops with whomever is in charge. Whether or not certain outlets tend to acknowledge this selectively or not is a slightly different issue.
There have been plenty of reports of French police attacking anti government protesters in Paris and other major cities, but the BBC don't talk call the French government a regime or accuse Macron of personally ordering attacks on civilians.
Indeed, but im fairly sure comparing an elected (although deeply unpopular) government in France to a government in Venezuela isnt really helping your point due to the rather glaring differences between them.
And although the Yellow Vests are mostly peaceful, the BBC amplifies the coverage of any violence which gives a distorted view of what is mainly a very peaceful but determined anti government movement. It shouldn't be like this, they should report on these matters impartially and not with whatever political slant our government wants put on it.
They arent that peaceful, the number of burning buildings, cars etc. being a fairly good visual display of this.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
What a weird thread.
I expect they are ruled by not what Iran thinks, but whether the group is on the UK/ EU proscribed terrorist organisation list or not.

If it says "MEK - formerly a proscribed terrorist organisation in the United States and Europe" then the BBC are correct.
People dont get their knickers in a twist when Iran uses all and sundry ways to demonise the west, that seems acceptable.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by 999tigger)
What a weird thread.
You're more than welcome to not comment on it then, instead of complaining.
I expect they are ruled by not what Iran thinks, but whether the group is on the UK/ EU proscribed terrorist organisation list or not.
Ah, so it would be okay to call ISIS 'opposition fighters' then?
The point i made, and which evidently eclipses you, is that the BBC are factually wrong to call the MEK any form of an opposition group or deny their terrorist antics.
If it says "MEK - formerly a proscribed terrorist organisation in the United States and Europe" then the BBC are correct.
Nil point.
People dont get their knickers in a twist when Iran uses all and sundry ways to demonise the west, that seems acceptable.
I dont recall Iran praising and aiding a terror group in the west?
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Napp)
I'm not sure if this is blind ignorance on the BBC's part (especially given this terror group is universally loathed in Iran) or some nasty ultra- extremist liberal wet dream they have where any opposition to the government must simply be 'the opposition' as opposed to murderous terrorists.
The wording of this article rings remarkably similar to the way the 'great', 'noble', 'valiant' fights in Afghanistan were described... until they "apparently" changed :rolleyes:
Get in touch with the Guardian's editorial desk, they can explain everything.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by z-hog)
Get in touch with the Guardian's editorial desk, they can explain everything.
You might need to give a bit of context to your Guardian comment there..
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Napp)
You might need to give a bit of context to your Guardian comment there..
There's no such thing as the BBC. It's made up of individuals and the ones manning the editorial rooms at the BBC are the type who carry a copy of the Guardian under their arm. For that reason, you'll have no chance at the BBC if you don't profess a radical dislike of Trump or a rock solid belief that the end of the planet is nigh. Should you dispute the 'pay-gap' or the latest trends on Race and Gender propagated by the Guardian and the BBC is definitely not the place to be anymore than the Guardian's headquarters. It's a class of people, all the same.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Napp)
You're more than welcome to not comment on it then, instead of complaining.

Ah, so it would be okay to call ISIS 'opposition fighters' then?
The point i made, and which evidently eclipses you, is that the BBC are factually wrong to call the MEK any form of an opposition group or deny their terrorist antics.

Nil point.

I dont recall Iran praising and aiding a terror group in the west?
If they arent on the proscribed list, then they arent on it.
ISIS are on it.
The point which escapes you, is that if the proscribed list is their criteria, then that is perfectly sensible.
All you have done is got your knickers in a twist over an innocuous article which was just an observation how said obscure group are stranded in Albania and have enforced celibacy.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by 999tigger)
If they arent on the proscribed list, then they arent on it.
ISIS are on it.
The point which escapes you, is that if the proscribed list is their criteria, then that is perfectly sensible.
All you have done is got your knickers in a twist over an innocuous article which was just an observation how said obscure group are stranded in Albania and have enforced celibacy.
Do i really have to point out the rather basic fact that Britain/Europe and America do not have a monopoly on whom is or isnt a terror group?
You do know that the BBC arent part of the security services right?
The fact you consider you consider them obscure is, how do i put this, utterly irrelevant and hardly a statement of fact.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Napp)
Do i really have to point out the rather basic fact that Britain/Europe and America do not have a monopoly on whom is or isnt a terror group?
You do know that the BBC arent part of the security services right?
The fact you consider you consider them obscure is, how do i put this, utterly irrelevant and hardly a statement of fact.
The clue is in British. The UK has a proscribed terrorist list of organisations, you are either on it or you are not.
It clearly states in the articles they are no longer on said list.

Iran can have its own list.
0
reply
JWatch
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Napp)
I presume you're reffering to those yellow vest protests, i wouldnt exactly call their current iteration 'widespread anti government' though.

In fairness MAduro is a dictator at this point and as is the onus of governmental responsibility the buck stops with whomever is in charge. Whether or not certain outlets tend to acknowledge this selectively or not is a slightly different issue.

Indeed, but im fairly sure comparing an elected (although deeply unpopular) government in France to a government in Venezuela isnt really helping your point due to the rather glaring differences between them.

They arent that peaceful, the number of burning buildings, cars etc. being a fairly good visual display of this.
I'll address point by point.

1. The yellow vest protests are fairly widespread throughout France but receive very little media coverage. The little coverage they do get disproportionately focuses on the small violent element which I think is wrong because it gives people a distorted idea of what the protests are about.

2. In general the buck stops with whoever is in charge but that doesn't mean the President of a country is literally responsible for every action that a citizen of that country carries out. On the occasions when security forces in Caracas have used excessive force the media seems to report it as though President Maduro is personally responsible for that officers actions. This is a common tactic our government has used in the past when they want to discredit a foreign government. They can't just vilify "the government" of that country because that is too abstract. So instead they create a simple to follow narrative for their viewers with a named bad guy, the leader of that countrys government. Whenever anything bad happens in that country, whenever there is fighting, it is blamed entirely on that head of government as though they are personally responsible for everything. Blaming President Maduro for the actions of a random police officer because "he's in charge" doesn't make sense, that isn't how modern governments actually function (do you think Boris goes out and personally gives orders to cops on the streets of London each day?) but a lot of viewers just want a simple story of a good guy they can cheer for and a bad guy they can boo.


3. A big reason for the Yellow Vest movement is that many of the protesters see Macron as an illegitimate president, and a puppet of the rich. But he still has a lot of support so if he was to listen to the protesters and stand down, he'd be ignoring the wishes of those who support him and insist he is a legitimate president. him might not . Should either he or Maduro stand down because they both have a large number of protesters in their countries calling into question the legitimacy of their presidencys?

4. Many of the Venezeulean anti government protesters have been violent towards security forces but this never seems to be mentioned by the media. And when it is, they always (sometimes incorrectly) say the security forces started it. I want factual reporting from the BBC, not thinly covered up government propaganda which is what I feel we get when it covers news like this.
0
reply
Surnia
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Palmyra)
Stick to giving careers advice.
What's the first word in the title of this Forum and why are you objecting to posts on here that contribute to it?

If you have a problem with what is said, discuss it constructively.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (96)
19.28%
Labour (248)
49.8%
Liberal Democrats (64)
12.85%
Green Party (30)
6.02%
Brexit Party (6)
1.2%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (3)
0.6%
SNP (10)
2.01%
Plaid Cymru (3)
0.6%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (6)
1.2%
SDLP (0)
0%
Ulster Unionist (3)
0.6%
UKIP (6)
1.2%
Other (4)
0.8%
None (19)
3.82%

Watched Threads

View All