more lies from the media -- BBC

digme

Seems everyone's at it these days.
The BBC now is putting up fake news stories.

BBC shows "Green Square" in INDIA, 24 August 2011 ~0:33mins

The amount of lies surrounding Libya is unbelievable.

EI_Flyboy

digme wrote: »

Seems everyone's at it these days.
The BBC now is putting up fake news stories.

BBC shows "Green Square" in INDIA, 24 August 2011 ~0:33mins

The amount of lies surrounding Libya is unbelievable.

Wow, you'd think someone there would at least be able to recognise that that's not the Libyan flag, let alone that the people waving them don't look one bit north African... Probably just some idiot pulling out library footage to make up for a lack of actual real live footage though.

I don't think it's an outright lie, just complete stupidity which really isn't any less of a comfort when it comes to media integrity.

meglome

digme wrote: »

Seems everyone's at it these days.
The BBC now is putting up fake news stories.

BBC shows "Green Square" in INDIA, 24 August 2011 ~0:33mins

The amount of lies surrounding Libya is unbelievable.

So let's see now the BBC cleverly used footage clearly showing Indians, flying Indian flags as Libya. Yup the only possibility is they wanted to tell lies. OR just maybe they used the wrong feed by mistake. Because let's face it it's glaringly obvious it's not Libya.

digme

meglome wrote: »

So let's see now the BBC cleverly used footage clearly showing Indians, flying Indian flags as Libya. Yup the only possibility is they wanted to tell lies. OR just maybe they used the wrong feed by mistake. Because let's face it it's glaringly obvious it's not Libya.

It's glaringly obvious right now in a clip as i pointed it out.They said they were going there live.
Most people wouldn't have a clue.

Alopex

meglome wrote: »

So let's see now the BBC cleverly used footage clearly showing Indians, flying Indian flags as Libya. Yup the only possibility is they wanted to tell lies. OR just maybe they used the wrong feed by mistake. Because let's face it it's glaringly obvious it's not Libya.

Its a bit coincidental seeing as they've been over-egging the rebel support pudding for quite some time.

sink

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

digme

sink wrote: »

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

Malice in this instance is selling another war to the idiots on the couch.

reprazant

digme wrote: »

Malice in this instance is selling another war to the idiots on the couch.

So when they mistakenly put the wrong feed on when showing, for example, some sporting event, is that also malice? Or just stupidity?

Is it only malice when searching for evidence to suit your conspiracy theory?

Dr Galen

Do you really believe OP that the BBC set out to deliberately mislead their viewers on this? I take it you are totally ruling out the possibility that this was just the actions of some half asleep production assistant sitting in the newsroom?

mike65

You do know that all foreigners look the same and that one flag with green in it looks pretty much like any other?

I imagine what happened was that footage from the on-going India corruption protests was grabbed by some overworked/sloppy/inept technician and fed into the machine and the two in front of the camera just blathered on presuming that the footage was correct.

So one can consider a few aspects - first that its terribly important to make sure you the broadcaster are accurate (and that rolling news is frequently not), that not every screw up is in fact part of some grand conspiracy and that to view the world in such terms leads to spiralling madness (I realise that for digme it wasn't a screw up and that the BBC is in fact trying to present a falsehood to the world as part of that larger
conspiracy and therefore my first point is wasted on him).

meglome

digme wrote: »

It's glaringly obvious right now in a clip as i pointed it out.They said they were going there live.
Most people wouldn't have a clue.

Well it was quite obvious to me this wasn't Libya, given that the people in the footage looked Indian and were flying Indian flags. If I had to guess I'd say they went live, by mistake, to India on the protest there about corruption. This would make a terrible conspiracy but quite an obvious mistake.

Alopex wrote: »

Its a bit coincidental seeing as they've been over-egging the rebel support pudding for quite some time.

Lot of media outlets are supporting the rebels. Judging by the scenes in Tripoli and elsewhere it looks like the people of Libya support them too.

AlekSmart

mike65 wrote: »

You do know that all foreigners look the same and that one flag with green in it looks pretty much like any other?

I imagine what happened was that footage from the on-going India corruption protests was grabbed by some overworked/sloppy/inept technician and fed into the machine and the two in front of the camera just blathered on presuming that the footage was correct.

So one can consider a few aspects - first that its terribly important to make sure you the broadcaster are accurate (and that rolling news is frequently not), that not every screw up is in fact part of some grand conspiracy and that to view the world in such terms leads to spiralling madness (I realise that for digme it wasn't a screw up and that the BBC is in fact trying to present a falsehood to the world as part of that larger
conspiracy and therefore my first point is wasted on him).

Oh-Oh Mike65...whats all this then.....Protests (in INDIA !!!!)....combined with sloppy/dodgy/disinterested reportage...where have we seen this combination before ???

The Scientician

Media lies are usually more useful when they're not instantly noticeable.

Fratton Fred

Don't worry, no Indians live in the UK so no one will notice.....

Hayte

I'm a long term admirer of the BBC but in the past few years I have to admit that its 24 hour television news has turned to s**t. Or maybe it always was s**t and I didn't realise it at the time. I watched their 24 hour coverage of the London riots and it was pretty rubbish to be honest with reporters so far away from even the police lines that all they were doing was talking about some unspeakable menace that you couldn't see and which is so far away it may as well be in another country.

Technical screw ups are of course to be expected with live news and thats fine as long as someone has the sense to go "whoops! we will be back shortly after we have resolved technical problem x".

What is so galling about this is that everyone just carries on like theres nothing wrong. Just going through the motions as if the two newscasters don't know what the Indian flag looks like or why anyone in Tripoli would be waving Indian flags.

Whether its deliberate or not is irrelevant really because the effect is the same: alot of people will have their entire perception of the world outside shaped by the images on TV that they see and believe to be true.

nacho libre

Hayte wrote: »

I'm a long term admirer of the BBC but in the past few years I have to admit that its 24 hour television news has turned to s**t. Or maybe it always was s**t and I didn't realise it at the time. I watched their 24 hour coverage of the London riots and it was pretty rubbish to be honest with reporters so far away from even the police lines that all they were doing was talking about some unspeakable menace that you couldn't see and which is so far away it may as well be in another country.

Technical screw ups are of course to be expected with live news and thats fine as long as someone has the sense to go "whoops! we will be back shortly after we have resolved technical problem x".

What is so galling about this is that everyone just carries on like theres nothing wrong. Just going through the motions as if the two newscasters don't know what the Indian flag looks like or why anyone in Tripoli would be waving Indian flags.

Whether its deliberate or not is irrelevant really because the effect is the same: alot of people will have their entire perception of the world outside shaped by the images on TV that they see and believe to be true.

I think this is a problem with 24 hours new in general. As to whether this is a conspiracy, media propaganda is far more subtle and sophisticated.

If you are looking for a propaganda angle consider the Sky News and BBC coverage at Gadaffi's compound when we were shown images of Rebels storming it.

Also how reports of rebels abuses are only covered vaguely, if at all, at the tail end of new reports. Whilst reports of abuses by Gadaffi loyalists are given prominence and a lone survivor lying in a hospital is interviewed.

Bascially the subtle message is: Rebels = knights in shining armour, gadaffi forces= bloodthirsty fiends

AlekSmart

nacho libre wrote: »

I think this is a problem with 24 hours new in general. As to whether this is a conspiracy, media propaganda is far more subtle and sophisticated.

Bascially the subtle message is: Rebels = knights in shining armour, gadaffi forces= bloodthirsty fiends

The interesting,and not so subtle element of this in the Libyan context,is how this was the line spun from Day 1.

What was up until then a somewhat localized,though nonetheless serious,internal rebellion within Libya was,on the basis of then unquantifiable reports,rapidly turned into an extension of the Arab Spring rolling revolt situations.

We were and still are repeatedly told that Gadaffi was going to massacre residents of,particularly,Benghazi.

This various News agencies were all on-message with this aided to great degree,by Gadaffi's traditional use of (to us) extreme derogatory terms quite widely used in heated conversation in the region.

What was initially a quite specific threat of extreme force against Armed Insurgent Elements and their active supporters suddenly became accepted as actually being underway.

Subsequently,although there has been great loss of both Combatant and innocent civilian life,there has not been the hard evidence of Mass Attacks on the Civilian Population which U.N. resolution 1973 was predicated upon.

Libya's government,unpopular as it was,found itself faced with armed upsising and responded in kind,but not without first issuing dire consequential warnings to those rebels and their suporters.

Although I have already been roundly whacked for daring to use the London riots as a comparator,I'll have another go now,as I read of,and hear,many varieties of sombre suited respectable Political and Social figures calling for much faster and harsher measures to be enacted against any future Rioters.

Many of these calls are being loudly supported by letters to media,internet blogs,and other avenues used by the "Ordinary" citizens.

London and Libya are far apart and I'm not comparing like for like at all,however,human nature and the manner in which we see,recognize and react to threats can often follow certain basic traits.

I'm not so certain that I can stand-over a "Conspiracy" theory in relation to the Libyan situation,but I'm equally certain that there are elements as to why and how we arived at U.N.1973 and the subsequent techno-Militarization of it that make me ever more curious.

Jonny7

nacho libre wrote: »

Bascially the subtle message is: Rebels = knights in shining armour, gadaffi forces= bloodthirsty fiends

Some truth, but a bit exaggerated.

Where are you getting this from? Sky News, Fox News?

The main networks I am watching; BBC and Al Jazeera, have been at pains to constantly point out how disorganised the rebels are, how they are from different tribes, different factions, how there is huge uncertainty over their plans, etc, etc. The online papers I am reading are asking the same questions.

Globally, how are the world media reporting? similar to how they did with Egypt, Burma, Tunisia, Iran and how they are reporting on Syria now..

I rarely see a comment on the world media's news coverage of those events, largely due, I suspect, to the absence of Western involvement, a la Libya.

The West, esp. the US has twisted, manipulated, etc the media since the year dot, regardless of how true the reporting is of any situation, there are those that will be always ultra cynical when the West/Israel/US is involved. Its just an unfortunate by-product.

nacho libre

AlekSmart wrote: »

The interesting,and not so subtle element of this in the Libyan context,is how this was the line spun from Day 1.


I'm not so certain that I can stand-over a "Conspiracy" theory in relation to the Libyan situation,but I'm equally certain that there are elements as to why and how we arived at U.N.1973 and the subsequent techno-Militarization of it that make me ever more curious.

I wouldn't dispute this propaganda has been going on from the beginning, i was just pointing out examples of it in the last few days in Tripoli.
I've been following Reuters reports for the last six months and every article was portraying the rebels in a good light. The journalists didn't even feel the need to verify rebels claims, they just took their word at face value.

The question that remains outstanding for me is to what purpose is the propaganda being used for, is it to put a gloss on NATO intervening on behalf of rebels with different allegiances and ideologies, or was the rebellion a pretext for NATO to intervene to get rid of Gadaffi all along? You couldn't blame people for suspecting the latter, the way UN resolution 1973 has effectively been circumvented to directly assist the rebels in removing Gadaffi's regime.

Until someone can dismiss as fiction the story that Gadaffi was intent on moving away from the petro dollar, I'm skeptical the intervention was purely about doing the right thing, as Cameron famously stated when he said: just because we can't intervene everywhere, doesn't mean we should not intervene when we can.

GSF

nacho libre wrote: »

I think this is a problem with 24 hours new in general. As to whether this is a conspiracy, media propaganda is far more subtle and sophisticated.

If you are looking for a propaganda angle consider the Sky News and BBC coverage at Gadaffi's compound when we were shown images of Rebels storming it.

Also how reports of rebels abuses are only covered vaguely, if at all, at the tail end of new reports. Whilst reports of abuses by Gadaffi loyalists are given prominence and a lone survivor lying in a hospital is interviewed.

Bascially the subtle message is: Rebels = knights in shining armour, gadaffi forces= bloodthirsty fiends

Loads of Gadaffi aplogists in Ireland. Even RTE are running with his speeches as if they are meaningful.

Fact is Gadaffi has been running a mad regime, torturing his own population for 40 odd years. And you are surprised that a) it takes violence to remove him and b) the people he tortured for years are a bit angry?

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

Some truth, but a bit exaggerated.

Where are you getting this from? Sky News, Fox News?

The main networks I am watching; BBC and Al Jazeera, have been at pains to constantly point out how disorganised the rebels are, how they are from different tribes, different factions, how there is huge uncertainty over their plans, etc, etc. The online papers I am reading are asking the same questions.

Globally, how are the world media reporting? similar to how they did with Egypt, Burma, Tunisia, Iran and how they are reporting on Syria now..

I rarely see a comment on the world media's news coverage of those events, largely due, I suspect, to the absence of Western involvement, a la Libya.

The West, esp. the US has twisted, manipulated, etc the media since the year dot, regardless of how true the reporting is of any situation, there are those that will be always ultra cynical when the West/Israel/US is involved. Its just an unfortunate by-product.

I've been mainly following BBC News, Sky News
and some online papers.

In this conflict what's interesting is what you don't often see on the screen from BBC and Sky News broadcasts
For instance the rebels are shown celebrating after having overran Gadaffi's compound.

What i didn't hear mention of on the BBC or Sky was the fact the special forces paved the way by guiding NATO bombers to specific targets inside the compound. The compound was bombed 63 times by NATO bombers.

Around the time Younes(the commander of the rebels) was murdered, the coverage from Reuters was appalling. The BBC's coverage wasn't much better nor Sky's.
Curiously Reuters had no analysis of the NTC's statement yesterday that they couldn't hand over his killers for fear it would harm the revolution.

I've seen little reference to Amnesty's call for both sides to show restraint, after they received reports that both sides in this conflict have commited abuses, on Sky News.

Those are just some examples of dubious reporting during this conflict.

nacho libre

GSF wrote: »

Loads of Gadaffi aplogists in Ireland. Even RTE are running with his speeches as if they are meaningful.

Fact is Gadaffi has been running a mad regime, torturing his own population for 40 odd years. And you are surprised that a) it takes violence to remove him and b) the people he tortured for years are a bit angry?

Yes. Clearly because i'm asking questions I must be a Gadaffi supporter.
Clearly amnesty international must be to for doing the same.
Your justfication for bloodletting by one side is strange, if your position is the rebels are a unified force whose aim is to bring democracy to Libya

Jonny7

nacho libre wrote: »

I've been mainly following BBC News, Sky News
and some online papers.

In this conflict what's interesting is what you don't often see on the screen from BBC and Sky News broadcasts
For instance the rebels are shown celebrating after having overran Gadaffi's compound.

What i didn't hear mention of on the BBC or Sky was the fact the special forces paved the way by guiding NATO bombers to specific targets inside the compound. The compound was bombed 63 times by NATO bombers.

Around the time Younes(the commander of the rebels) was murdered, the coverage from Reuters was appalling. The BBC's coverage wasn't much better nor Sky's.
Curiously Reuters had no analysis of the NTC's statement yesterday that they couldn't hand over his killers for fear it would harm the revolution.

I've seen little reference to Amnesty's call for both sides to show restraint, after they received reports that both sides in this conflict have commited abuses, on Sky News.

Those are just some examples of dubious reporting during this conflict.

I've seen a few holes, but nothing gaping. The commanders death was quickly reported with the foul play label, and the amnesty report was released yesterday (25th) with the BBC reporting on it first thing this morning.

Sky News and Fox news are known as right leaning. Its like analysing a "Gotcha" story from the Sun.

AlekSmart

nacho libre wrote: »

In this conflict what's interesting is what you don't often see on the screen from BBC and Sky News broadcasts
For instance the rebels are shown celebrating after having overran Gadaffi's compound.

What i didn't hear mention of on the BBC or Sky was the fact the special forces paved the way by guiding NATO bombers to specific targets inside the compound. The compound was bombed 63 times by NATO bombers.

There is quite a significant Military Operation in train in this Libyan Theatre and much of it right out there at the cutting edge.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/26/361345/raf-details-fresh-tornado-strikes-in-libya.html

On 18 August, a GR4 operating from Gioia del Colle air base in Italy dropped a 226kg (500lb) Paveway IV to engage a moving patrol craft which was being operated by pro-Gaddafi forces near the Az Zawiyah oil refinery.

“This was the first time a Tornado crew had used a Paveway IV bomb to take out a moving target of this nature,” the UK Ministry of Defence said, adding that the target had posed a threat to Libyan civilians.

That's a significant piece of ordinance to deploy against a "Patrol Craft",however it would surely test that Bombs sophisticated guidance system..?

Separately, a package of GR4s flying from RAF Marham in Norfolk attacked a headquarters bunker in the Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte overnight on 25-26 August using an undisclosed number of MBDA Storm Shadow long-range cruise missiles.

So can we assume that "Undisclosed Number" is 63 ?

In a modern context this deployment is a very significant one.

It tends to prove to me that the U.N./NATO interpretation of r.1973 is now a very elastic one indeed.

Whether or not there is an "experimental" side to this U.N./NATO operation is for another thread perhaps...?

nacho libre

AlekSmart wrote: »

There is quite a significant Military Operation in train in this Libyan Theatre and much of it right out there at the cutting edge.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/26/361345/raf-details-fresh-tornado-strikes-in-libya.html



That's a significant piece of ordinance to deploy against a "Patrol Craft",however it would surely test that Bombs sophisticated guidance system..?



So can we assume that "Undisclosed Number" is 63 ?

In a modern context this deployment is a very significant one.

It tends to prove to me that the U.N./NATO interpretation of r.1973 is now a very elastic one indeed.

Whether or not there is an "experimental" side to this U.N./NATO operation is for another thread perhaps...?

Thanks for the links. Those that worried Britains military were falling behind will be chuffed at reading that first story

The 63 bombs being landed came from a story in the Daily Telegraph. It seems in recent days they've been willingly to mention exactly what was going on behind the scenes.
It's interesting you mention the elasticity of the UN resolution 1973;
The BBC reported yesterday NATO bombed Gadaffi's hometown, Sirte, in order to protect civilians. There was no questioning of whether this might be in contravention of UN resolution 1973.
If your primary concern was to protect civilians, and not take sides as the 1973 resolution was stated to be about, wouldn't you also bomb rebels positions, which are laying siege to the city and attacking it?

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

I've seen a few holes, but nothing gaping. The commanders death was quickly reported with the foul play label, and the amnesty report was released yesterday (25th) with the BBC reporting on it first thing this morning.

Sky News and Fox news are known as right leaning. Its like analysing a "Gotcha" story from the Sun.

As to Sky News being biased, I watch it sometimes too see the contrast between it and other media outlets.

Fair enough. I stand corrected on the amnesty story being reported by the BBC. I wasn't aware of that. However the reporting of Younes death was less than clear cut by. The Guardian and Daily Telegraph and Al-Jazeera were the first to establish what really happened. The BBC and Reuters gave too much credence to the NTC's dubious version of events.
It now transpires the guy who ordered his killing spent time with an Al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan. He was also arrested and imprisoned by Gadaffi in the mid 90s as he led an Islamic group that was against Gadaffi's regime. Although he claims he now has no desire to to see Libya becoming an Islamic state. He is merely fighting for democracy.

SeanW

nacho libre wrote: »

... the story that Gadaffi was intent on moving away from the petro dollar, I'm skeptical the intervention was purely about doing the right thing.

You have evidence that Gadaffi was planning to do this?

Dean Jackson

Pass on this explanatory comment to others for clarification and proof of the BBC deception:

The fact that the BBC Wednesday morning program had no daylight pictures to show of the rebels at Tripoli's Green Square on Wednesday (if there were any such Wednesday morning daylight videos we would have seen them by now) is because there were no rebels at Tripoli's Green Square on Wednesday morning. So the BBC had to give us a daylight demonstration of Indians at an anti-government corruption rally.

Dean Jackson

EI Flyboy says, "...Probably just some idiot pulling out library footage to make up for a lack of actual real live footage though."

See below for the proof that there are zero daylight videos from Wednesday morning of the rebels at the Green Square:

Folks, pass on this explanatory comment to others for clarification and proof of the BBC deception:

The fact that the BBC Wednesday morning program had no daylight pictures to show of the rebels at Tripoli's Green Square on Wednesday (if there were any such daylight videos we would have seen them by now) is because there were no rebels at Tripoli's Green Square on Wednesday morning. So the BBC had to give us a daylight demonstration of Indians at an anti-government corruption rally.

Dean Jackson

sink says, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

The fact that the BBC Wednesday morning program had no daylight pictures to show of the rebels at Tripoli's Green Square on Wednesday (if there were any such daylight videos we would have seen them by now) is because there were no rebels at Tripoli's Green Square on Wednesday morning. So the BBC had to give us a daylight demonstration of Indians at an anti-government corruption rally.

"Always attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by malice." - Dean Jackson's Razor

Jonny7

Dean Jackson wrote: »

Pass on this explanatory comment to others for clarification and proof of the BBC deception:

The fact that the BBC Wednesday morning program had no daylight pictures to show of the rebels at Tripoli's Green Square on Wednesday (if there were any such daylight videos we would have seen them by now) is because there were no rebels at Tripoli's Green Square on Wednesday morning. So the BBC had to give us a daylight demonstration of Indians at an anti-government corruption rally.

Join date August, posts 2, :rolleyes:

They are just trying to throw you off the scent of the real truth, Secret Nazification of Britain

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/BBC_shows_Nazi_rally_instead_of_weather_forecast

Wake up sheeple

Dean Jackson

Jonny7 wrote: »

Join date August, posts 2, :rolleyes:

They are just trying to throw you off the scent of the real truth, Secret Nazification of Britain

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/BBC_shows_Nazi_rally_instead_of_weather_forecast

Wake up sheeple[/QUOTE

Just like you're trying to throw off the scent of the real truth by posting that link that has nothing to do with my comments.

As I said, there are no daytime videos from Wednesday morning of rebels in the Green Square, which is why the BBC had to resort to a live shot of an Indian anti-government corruption demonstration to compensate! The reason there are no daytime videos is because the Green Square footage we saw during the night was actually a prop set, specifically constructed for the 'Wag The Dog' psy-op. In daylight, the prop set would have looked more unreal than it did in the night.

AlekSmart

Dean Jackson wrote: »

As I said, there are no daytime videos from Wednesday morning of rebels in the Green Square, which is why the BBC had to resort to a live shot of an Indian anti-government corruption demonstration to compensate! The reason there are no daytime videos is because the Green Square footage we saw during the night was actually a prop set, specifically constructed for the 'Wag The Dog' psy-op. In daylight, the prop set would have looked more unreal than it did in the night.

I had'nt considered that as an option,to be honest,but now that you mention it perhaps we could do with some elaboration from the BBC or the other On-The-Ground-With-The-Rebels news gatherers,which I note,now includes a rather photogenic RTE person....:)

Dean Jackson

The Scientician wrote: »

Media lies are usually more useful when they're not instantly noticeable.

Media lies are meant for those who don't analyze events or perform independent research, and they represent some 99% of the population.

Dr Galen

Dean Jackson wrote: »

Jonny7 wrote: »

Join date August, posts 2, :rolleyes:

They are just trying to throw you off the scent of the real truth, Secret Nazification of Britain

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/BBC_shows_Nazi_rally_instead_of_weather_forecast

Wake up sheeple[/QUOTE

Just like you're trying to throw off the scent of the real truth by posting that link that has nothing to do with my comments.

As I said, there are no daytime videos from Wednesday morning of rebels in the Green Square, which is why the BBC had to resort to a live shot of an Indian anti-government corruption demonstration to compensate! The reason there are no daytime videos is because the Green Square footage we saw during the night was actually a prop set, specifically constructed for the 'Wag The Dog' psy-op. In daylight, the prop set would have looked more unreal than it did in the night.

This isn't the Conspiracy Theories Forum.

I'd be very interested as to know what proof you have to back up your assertion above. By proof, I mean actual proof, not a youtube video or similar from a CT website/forum etc.

Please bear the forum charter with regards to burden of proof, and all that kinda stuff before posting here

Cheers

DrG

meglome

Dean Jackson wrote: »

Pass on this explanatory comment to others for clarification and proof of the BBC deception:

The fact that the BBC Wednesday morning program had no daylight pictures to show of the rebels at Tripoli's Green Square on Wednesday (if there were any such Wednesday morning daylight videos we would have seen them by now) is because there were no rebels at Tripoli's Green Square on Wednesday morning. So the BBC had to give us a daylight demonstration of Indians at an anti-government corruption rally.

So you reckon the BBC in their cleverness showed people who don't look Libyan (in that they look Indian) and are flying a ton of Indian flags. Indian flags which don't look like Libyan flags. It would make far more sense to use some older unreleased footage from elsewhere in Libya. Add in the fact the BBC were reporting on the protests in India on that day, it backs up the idea of someone using the wrong feed by mistake.

Most bull CT I've heard in a while.

Dean Jackson wrote: »

Media lies are meant for those who don't analyze events or perform independent research, and they represent some 99% of the population.

I get the feeling by independent research you mean CT sites on the internet. Most of which fact check pretty much nothing. There are good media outlets and bad ones. I think most people here would agree that Fox news have a very slanted view. I find it amusing though that some of those people use Russia Today as a source, which if anything is worse than Fox.

ed2hands

meglome wrote: »

There are good media outlets and bad ones.

So which ones are good in your opinion?

meglome wrote: »

I find it amusing though that some of those people use Russia Today as a source, which if anything is worse than Fox.

Why do find it amusing?

nacho libre

SeanW wrote: »

You have evidence that Gadaffi was planning to do this?

It was implied in my previous post that i didn't, i asked for evidence was the story untrue. You conveniently chose to omit that part of my post.
If you can provide such evidence go ahead.

Dean Jackson

meglome wrote: »

So you reckon the BBC in their cleverness showed people who don't look Libyan (in that they look Indian) and are flying a ton of Indian flags. Indian flags which don't look like Libyan flags. It would make far more sense to use some older unreleased footage from elsewhere in Libya. Add in the fact the BBC were reporting on the protests in India on that day, it backs up the idea of someone using the wrong feed by mistake.

Most bull CT I've heard in a while.



I get the feeling by independent research you mean CT sites on the internet. Most of which fact check pretty much nothing. There are good media outlets and bad ones. I think most people here would agree that Fox news have a very slanted view. I find it amusing though that some of those people use Russia Today as a source, which if anything is worse than Fox.

Again there are no daylight videos from Wednesday morning at the Green Square. The female BBC anchor said they were talking to their man at the Green Square, so where is the daylight video? They don't exist!


By independent research I mean sources such as the The 9/11 Commission Report. I did my own research on NORAD on 9/11, and see what the commission report (and other main stream sources published before September 11, 2001) says about NORAD on 9/11. Go to DNotice.org (my website) and read The NORAD Papers VI article. Then read my previous five articles on NORAD. Ask yourself why you never heard this news on NORAD?

---

Did you read KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsy’s 1984 book New Lies for Old? If you had, then you would know the specific reason for the 9/11 and London 7/7 attacks. The ‘War on Terror’ is being used as a cover for the still ongoing Cold War.

Golitsyn is the only defector from the Communist world to have a high accuracy rating in predicting USSR/East Bloc behavior, 94% according to United States historian/policy analyst Mark Riebling’s book Wedge: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11: How The Secret War Between The FBI And CIA Has Endangered National Security. That means Golitsyn was a true defector, yet few know of him. Read my October 6, 2010 article on Golitsyn at DNotice.org for more on this subject.

You see, all the Conspiracy Proof (CP) one needs is located within the mainstream media, not CT websites! All one has to do is look for the CP.

AlekSmart

nacho libre wrote: »

It was implied in my previous post that i didn't, i asked for evidence was the story untrue. You conveniently chose to omit that part of my post.
If you can provide such evidence go ahead.

The Petro-Dollar to Petro-Euro topic is a fascinating one,but as yet it's almost impossible to find factual references to it.

I should imagine that if Gadaffi was contemplating it,he would have shouted it from on-high......or perhaps not ?

Mind you,as one trawls around the Libyan sands,the stuff emerging does not cleanly fit the "Evil Dictator " image so assidiously portrayed by the Rebel factions,and latterly by the Western Worlds Guardians..U.N./NATO.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294934/LIBYA-COMMERCIAL-ROUND-UP-FOR-DECEMBER-2008-AND-JANUARY-2009.html

Theres a skip-full of headings in this long list but some are perhaps worth highlighting,if only to place the "Evil Gadaffi Regime" stuff in some form of context..

8.(U) Libya Gains $5.4 Billion Dollars from Altering Oil Deals: The NOC reported earnings of $5.4 billion U.S. dollars in additional oil revenues from changes to contracts with foreign companies ENI, Petro-Canada and two consortiums led respectively by U.S. Occidental and Spain's Repsol last year. The changes of deals yielded $2.4 billion U.S. dollars extra earnings during the first nine months of 2008. The companies also accepted to pay a total of $3 billion U.S. dollars as up-front payments. NOC said negotiations were underway with other companies to reach similar changes which would boost oil earnings further. [HYPERLINK "http://en.noclibya.com.ly/ "http://en.noclibya.com.ly , 1/18/2009]

11.(U) Shell Awards Seismic Contract: The UK/Dutch Shell Group has awarded a seismic contract to BGP, the geophysical division of Chinese oil company China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), for a survey on the gas exploration block 89N in the onshore Sirte Basin. It is considered a difficult area to work in due to the potential risk from landmines. Shell won blocks 1 and 3 in contract area 89 in the Sirte Basin in Libya's first gas exploration licensing round in 2007. [MEED 1/20/08]

13.(U) South Korea's Hanil Wins a $902.5 Billion Work Order in Libya: South Korean builder Hanil Engineering and Construction said that it had secured an order worth $902.5 billion from Libya. Hanil said in a regulatory filing that Libya's Organization for the Development of Administrative Centers placed the order to build houses and infrastructure in Libya. [Reuters, 12/22/08]

14.(U) Indian Company Simplex Projects Ltd Gets Construction Contract in Libya: The contract is to develop a housing project in Libya, which comprises the construction of 2,000 houses, a public building, and roads, drainage and sewage systems; the project is scheduled to be completed in 36 months. This is the TRIPOLI 00000151 003 OF 006 first overseas project for the Indian company. [Reuters, 1/13/2009]

FOREIGN TRADE

17. (U) Italy-Libya Trade Tops 14 Billion Euros in 2008 First Eight Months: While Libya tries to enter into Eni's capital, trade relations with Italy continue to grow, with import-exports in the first eight months of the year exceeding 14 billion Euros and confirming the North African country as Italy's top trading partner in the Mediterranean. The figures emerge from a study made by the Milan Chamber of Commerce into the latest figures for import-export between Italy and 13 Mediterranean basin countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Malta, Turkey, Cyprus, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan). In January-August imports from Libya grew by 40% compared with the first eight months of 2007, exceeding 12.4 billion Euros. Exports grew by 57%, exceeding 1.7 billion Euros. The figure makes Libya the fifth largest market for Italy in the Mediterranean. [ANSAmed, 12/09/08]

8. (U) Libya to Take Half Million Bangladeshi Workers: Secretary of Manpower Training and Employment, Maa'touk Mohammad Maa'touk, said that Libya would take half a million Bangladeshi skilled, semi-skilled and general workers for different projects soon. Maa'touk stressed that the Embassy of Bangladesh should verify the issues of job, salary, housing and fringe benefits of every worker before they could come to Libya from Bangladesh. [www.nation.ittefaq.com, 12/13/2008]

20. (U) Global Grain Rush Under Way as Rich Nations Snap up Farmland Overseas: Under a proposed agreement with Kiev, Libya would lease 247,000 acres of Ukraine's rich black land to grow wheat. The harvest would then be shipped back to Libya, giving TRIPOLI 00000151 004 OF 006 the desert nation a more secure supply of food in the face of predictions about higher food prices and potential shortages in decades to come. Ukraine, in turn, would get access to Libyan oil fields, helping free it from dependence on Russia for its energy needs. [Chicago Tribune, 12/14/2008]

...and so on and so forth...Perhaps,on the other side,Gadaffi was also busy mass murdering,torturing and otherwise keeping his people in abject poverty...if so then I'm equally open to considering that too....

Dean Jackson

Dr Galen wrote: »

Dean Jackson wrote: »

This isn't the Conspiracy Theories Forum.

I'd be very interested as to know what proof you have to back up your assertion above. By proof, I mean actual proof, not a youtube video or similar from a CT website/forum etc.

Please bear the forum charter with regards to burden of proof, and all that kinda stuff before posting here

Cheers

DrG

I only deal with Conspiracy Proofs (CP), not Conspiracy Theories (CT). See my reply comment to meglome above.

There is nothing CT about a YouTube video if the video actually shows the lie, which is what this YouTube video shows: The BBC morning program pretending to have Wednesday morning daylight video from the Green Square in Libya, when no such Wednesday morning daylight video exists, so the BBC gave us a video feed of India instead. The BBC failed to apologize for any gaffe they made, proving that the BBC wanted those viewing the morning broadcast to think that the Libyan rebels were at the Green Square.

I didn't start this thread. I'm commenting in the thread.

Corsendonk

Wonderful:rolleyes: a mistake made by the under staffed BBC News turns into a plot to lie to the public The BBC unlike RTE have engage in a intensive staff reduction exercise in its News and online operations. Anyone that has used its online services will have noticed a slip in its News quality standards and a slow down in the speed of story updates.

The Guardian Jan 2011

The BBC today confirmed that 360 staff in the corporation's online operation are to lose their jobs as the department's budget is cut by 25% to £103m by 2013.

BBC Online cuts have been in the pipeline since last summer, but come as the corporation gears up for far more sweeping job losses across the organisation in order to meet savings targets imposed following the licence fee deal negotiated with the government in October.
In July last year the BBC Trust approved the cuts following a strategic review of BBC Online, along with further cutbacks in the corporation's web output including scrapping half the corporation's websites.
Management said the job cuts break down across the corporation and only a small number relate to currently vacant positions. Of 360 posts to be cut, 120 are from Future Media & Technology, up to 90 from BBC Vision, up to 39 from Audio & Music, 17 from Children's, 24 from Sport and 70 in journalism from national news and non-news posts on regional news sites.
Outlining its plans today, the BBC said it will meet with commercial rivals twice a year to clarify its online plans, increase links to external sites to generate 22m referrals within three years and will halve the number of top level domains it operates.

The corporation also outlined five editorial priorities for BBC Online and clarified its remit. The BBC aims to meet all these objectives, and make 360 posts redundant, by 2013.

The restructured BBC Online department will consist of 10 products including News, iPlayer, CBeebies and Search. Editorial will be refined, with fewer News blogs, and local sites will be stripped of non-news content. Blast, Switch and h2g2 are among the sites to be ditched.
Other closures will include the standalone websites for the BBC Radio 5 Live 606 phone-in show and 1Xtra, 5 Live Sports Extra, 6 Music and Radio 7 digital stations.
In all, the BBC is pledging to close half of its 400 top level domains – with 180 to be gone ahead of schedule later this year.
In the initial review, the trust heavily criticised the lack of editorial oversight in BBC Online.

Roly Keating, director of BBC archive content, has now been given responsibility for the department's editorial strategy.

The BBC director general, Mark Thompson, said the corporation's vast portfolio of sites "means we sometimes fall short of expectation".

"A refocusing on our editorial priorities, a commitment to the highest quality standards and a more streamlined and collegiate way of working will help us transform BBC Online for the future," Thompson added.

"The whole question about what a more mature online market means for the BBC's online position has changed," he said. "Our website has grown organically across the organisation which led to a lot of creativity, but that grew like Topsy. So recognising that the web has changed what really matters most to us is a coherent strategy for the website in itself."

Erik Huggers, outgoing director of BBC Future Media & Technology, described a new technical infrastructure for BBC Online that would rationalise different content management, metrics and blogging platforms across the corporation.

"This is a blueprint for online that we believe will give us a more distinctive and higher quality presence," he said. "It's about doing fewer things better."

djpbarry

digme wrote: »

Most people wouldn't have a clue.

And yet, virtually everyone on this thread has recognised that the footage is not of Libya(ns).

Dean Jackson

Corsendonk wrote: »

Wonderful:rolleyes: a mistake made by the under staffed BBC News turns into a plot to lie to the public The BBC unlike RTE have engage in a intensive staff reduction exercise in its News and online operations. Anyone that has used its online services will have noticed a slip in its News quality standards and a slow down in the speed of story updates.

The Guardian Jan 2011

Me thinks you protest too much.

Now, where was the BBC apology for mixing up Wednesday morning's daylight Green Square live video footage for the Indian anti-government corruption demonstration live video footage? Maybe the understaffed BBC just forgot to offer an apology to its viewers as well!

Jonny7

Dean Jackson wrote: »

I only deal with Conspiracy Proofs (CP), not Conspiracy Theories (CT). See my reply comment to meglome above.

There is nothing CT about a YouTube video if the video actually shows the lie, which is what this YouTube video shows: The BBC morning program pretending to have Wednesday morning daylight video from the Green Square in Libya, when no such Wednesday morning daylight video exists, so the BBC gave us a video feed of India instead. The BBC failed to apologize for any gaffe they made, proving that the BBC wanted those viewing the morning broadcast to think that the Libyan rebels were at the Green Square.

I didn't start this thread. I'm commenting in the thread.

You think they constructed a gigantic true to scale incredibly accurate set, paid off media companies, military, a dozen or so respected well known reporters, filled it full of "rebels", and filmed it in order to trick the world that they had taken Tripoli, even though they have taken Tripoli anyway.


I think they shoved in the wrong video tape.

Dean Jackson

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet, virtually everyone on this thread has recognised that the footage is not of Libya(ns).

That would be because we're the one's who pay attention to the Media when the Media tells obvious lies, like the massive lie the media repeated about NORAD after the 9/11 attacks that NORAD didn't monitor aircraft within the United States on 9/11!

NORAD said it didn't monitor any aircraft over American skies on 9/11. This was such an obvious lie, that when Popular Mechanics (PM) magazine did their hit piece on the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement in the March 2005 issue, PM changed the official narrative on NORAD's monitoring capabilities on 9/11 to NORAD was not able to monitor aircraft that originated within the United States!

When one reads The 9/11 Commission Report , it tells the truth on page 18 that NORAD did monitor aircraft that originated within America on 9/11 (no kidding!). On page 27 the commission report says NORAD tracked Flight 77, and on page 28 the commission report tells us how NORAD never lost track of Delta 1989. On page 20, the commission report tells us how when NORAD personnel were trying to locate Flight 11 on radar, word got to them that Flight 11 had already crashed. On page 30 of the commission report we’re informed that NORAD personnel were trying to locate Flight 93 on radar but couldn’t. Why? Because “…it [Flight 93] was already in the ground.”

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Scofflaw

Save it for the CT forum, thanks, Dean. This is a mod instruction to pack in the 9/11 stuff, in case you're in any doubt.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Malpaisian

sink wrote: »

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied" - Claude Cockburn

Malpaisian

Dr Galen wrote: »

Do you really believe OP that the BBC set out to deliberately mislead their viewers on this? I take it you are totally ruling out the possibility that this was just the actions of some half asleep production assistant sitting in the newsroom?

Yeah, this is much more plausible than the idea that the BBC would engage in deception and propaganda. I mean, everyone knows that propaganda and deception are tactics used in countries which the "International Community" have identified as being "rogue states", you know, members of the "axis of evil". I'm so glad that we live in a part of the world where the news media are agents of truth!

Jonny7

Malpaisian wrote: »

Yeah, this is much more plausible than the idea that the BBC would engage in deception and propaganda. I mean, everyone knows that propaganda and deception are tactics used in countries which the "International Community" have identified as being "rogue states", you know, members of the "axis of evil". I'm so glad that we live in a part of the world where the news media are agents of truth!

So.. you are or you aren't saying the BBC engages in deception?

Batsy

GSF wrote: »

Loads of Gadaffi aplogists in Ireland. Even RTE are running with his speeches as if they are meaningful.

Fact is Gadaffi has been running a mad regime, torturing his own population for 40 odd years. And you are surprised that a) it takes violence to remove him and b) the people he tortured for years are a bit angry?

There seem to be a lot of apologists for many evil dictators and their murderous regimes in Ireland. From what I have gathered when reading threads on the subject of WWII on this forum and another Irish discussion forum there seems to be an unhealthily large proportion of Irish people who are sympathetic to Hitler and his Nazi Party.

I don't know why this is. Maybe there is something wrong with the Irish education system; maybe there is something in the Irish water; or maybe there is a high proportion of thick, unintelligent people in Ireland who really can't understand just how evil people such as Hitler, Saddam and Daffy really are.

If there is such a huge support for Gaddafi and his murderous regime in Ireland maybe the UN should declare that, if caught alive, Gadaffi which be taken to Ireland to become its new Prime Minister and that he will remain as leader, with no democratic elections, until he dies. His Irish supporters might change their tune then.