Simple Case study: The charter mark of quality journalism. Last Updated: Friday, 11 January 2008, 10:56 GMT

 (P.S. I’ve occasionally been putting a few of these time stamps on a couple of posts recently, but following a couple of sentences within the excellent refusal by J7 to take up an offer of being involved the hard hitting, no-stone-unturned “The Conspiracy Files” – Guffaw !!!,    I guess this timestamp serves purely as a curious piece of object d’art – See footnote 2)


US-Iran stand-off not mere propaganda

By Paul Reynolds World affairs correspondent BBC News website 

Aggressive behaviour or routine checking? 

The admission by the US Navy that Iranian speedboats might not have been the source of an apparent threat to attack American ships in the Gulf is a significant move that raises new fears about the chances of unintended clashes in the region.


I used to like Paul Reynolds. He got closer than many to outing murdering scum filth Tony bLiar’s lies about the WMD “dossiers”. But he never did actually ‘turn the corner’. Since then however, he’s gone down in my estimation and this latest report does absolutely nothing to counter that.  

Paul, I find your wording strange, particularly this “Admission that….Might not have…apparent threat“. Does this “might” mean there is still the possibility that the speedboats were actually have been the threat? If so, then what’s the point of the admission?

Let’s explore: With this second statement, the ‘admission’, the US have tried to pull off an unassertive binomial, but it only works if one ignores the initial impact of the first statement. The second statement is a corrective act, which draws attention to the erroneous nature of the first and therefore all but nullifies the first statement. Logically then, the strongest assertion is that the speedboats were in fact NOT the provoking act and we can be confident therefore that the video was an work of propaganda, which was selectively pieced together to focus on the presence of speedboats, scary sounding warning of the warships klaxon being blown at them the supposed attempted communications them and oh, the ambiguous “going to explode” part, which seems like a tid-bit thrown in for good measure to reinforce the preamble. However, for whatever reason, the USans had to make that tid-bit the main focus.

I wonder if Paul’s helpful report gives us an insight into why it now has taken pride of place.

So, Paul, why didn’t you seek clarification from the Pentagon as to exactly what was the main threat actually was, instead of letting the masses who don’t generally scrutinize mass media reports for logic and interconnectivity.

It should not be forgotten also that ‘your’ organization, the BBC – and I doubt it was alone, did absolutely noting but support that primary bout of Yank propaganda by printing it verbatim as fact without raising the slightest questions as to its veracity. You cocked up that time by acting as a Pentagon megaphone, and now once again you unquestioningly bullhorn the follow-up propaganda without even the faintest breeze of objectivity.

Assuming it’s not you personally that is casting this vague “might” into the public arena, then  what about this “apparent threat” issue. An apparent threat to who? I didn’t see or hear any apparent threat. Just because some Muslim hating Yankee Pentagon said there was a threat doesn’t mean there actually was one, does it?

Guess what? A methodology which yields a greater proportion of truth from the Pentagon and similar USUK supporting institutions and that is to invert their statements, and when we do that here, we conclude that in fact there  was no threat; the Pentagon simply manufactured one.

It has worrying similarities with the incident in 1988 when, in the same Strait of Hormuz, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, having failed to monitor the radio traffic properly.

This is a lie and censorship by omission. It had nothing to do with failing to monitor radio traffic properly. What an utterly pathetic statement, and you fail to mention also that the Vincennes was in Iranian waters and they (the US) lied saying they were in international waters. 

The crew of the Vincennes became wrongly convinced that the airliner, an Airbus with 290 people on board, all of whom died, was an Iranian fighter jet.

No they didn’t Paul. You have just entered the grave sin bin of tripey journos. The crew knew exactly what that plane was, and even after they spun their lies about it and admitted they lied, the Captian of that ship, William Rogers, was decorated as a hero for killing 290 innocent people. That is sickening and so is your role as an apologist for that monstrous act.

The Iranian government said that the destruction of the plane was done in full knowledge of what it was.

And was it only Iran that said this Paul? Did no other countries condemn it? Did not other people on the planet condemn it? Or was it just the Iranians as your ‘history’ tries to impress upon us.

‘Scenario fulfilment’

The US government later suggested that one factor at play on the Vincennes was a condition called “scenario fulfilment” in which military personnel are under such pressure that they expect and then execute a particular scenario, as if in an exercise.

Total red herring Paul. There are millions of other soldiers around the world doing their daily job or as you put it ‘under pressure’,  yet news of other armies doing such acts is near zero. I suspect you say ‘under pressure’ as you are searching for people to give sympathy to these ‘stressed workers’ if so, it’s quite obnoxious Paul.

Whether the same expectation was at play in this latest incident is not clear.

So why raise it????? Hey Paul, WHY DID you raise it???? Forgive me for thinking you are trying to plaster on some of that sympathy you just tried to muster for US soldiers many thousands of nautical miles away from the US, interfering in the affairs of other countries.

What is clear is that there are grave doubts about who uttered the warning picked up by the US ships. A deep voice was heard to say: “I am coming at you. You will explode after a few minutes.”

Again I have to say, noted is your lack of criticism of the BBC and other western news organizations that reported it as reliable fact.

The video released by the US implied that the warning was part of a series of transmissions to the ships from the Iranian craft. It turns out that the warning was added onto the video. It was a radio recording made separately. Experts say it could have come from another ship in the area or from a radio transmitter on shore. The channel used by the Iranian vessels to make their inquiries is an open one.

You mean YOUR experts – the experts YOU choose to listen, speak to and report on,  experts that strangely don’t include any Iranians or those who suggest it could have been a fake transmission to deliberately make it look as though the Iranians were hostile and about to initiate the attack. Like the racist cowboy movies you probably watched as a kid and the racist ‘terrorist movies’ we are unfortunately bombarded with these days, they need the pretext of the savage native American,  “Indian” (which the west calls them in a display of their stupidity) or Muslim who shoots first shoots first and the good old cowboy is therefore justified in killing the aggressor, whereas in reality it’s the kill loving USans and their British pax-Zion scum that shoot first and ask questions (or conspire) afterwards and you have just aided that scurrilous perception.

Iranian version

 The Iranians later issued their own video, in which one of their sailors, in a much higher and quite different voice from the one which issued the “warning”, asks the US ships who they are and what course they are on.

No comment Paul as to what heading the US ships were on? I feel that if it was Iranians heading towards Iraq for example, then you’d have given a follow up comment on that.

He gets a dusty reply that the US vessels are in international waters. The Iranian video does not show their boats buzzing close (200m or so) to the Americans. The US said that in any case the Iranian speedboats acted aggressively. Iran’s version is that this was a routine check by its sailors. Beyond the propaganda

Propaganda you are doing nothing to dispel.?

This goes beyond the back and forth of a propaganda battle, in which once again the Iranians show themselves to be masters. It recalls the ease with which they ran rings round the Royal Navy when they captured British sailors and marines off Iraq last year, exposed them to damaging publicity before releasing them with handshakes by their president.

WOAH! OFF IRAQ? Phoarw Paul. The stench is getting unbearable.

The real concern is that a possibly misread radio transmission should be at the heart of this incident, nearly 20 years after the Vincennes disaster.

No Paul you silly billy. The slaughter of 290 people in the Iran air flight wasn’t from a misread of transmissions, and there wasn’t a misreading of transmission here. Red herring again Paul. Sloppy!

 Tensions between Iran and the US have diminished recently following the US National Intelligence Estimate that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.

Again no comment from Paul as the implications of that NIE that the previous accusations and the accusations by the Zionist occupiers of Palestine made after was therefore an utter lie! BBC journalistic integrity shining bright. And of course opportunities to associate Iran and nuclear bomb must be taken when they arise.

 But there are still serious points of potential conflict between the two, with Iran always determined to exert its influence in what it insists on calling the Persian Gulf and the US maintaining strong naval forces there in international waters and in the waters of its Gulf Arab allies.

No Paul. The conflict is nearly 100% going to be initiated the US lead Coalition of the Killing. Stop making it look as if Iran and the US are itching for a fight together. That’s highly dishonest. I suggest this wording “But the Americans are looking to exploit any circumstance which they feel would justify a first strike on Iran, reassured that their technology will make it very much a one horse race, yet the Iranians show no sign of ceding their International rights to their territorial waters to a nation nowhere near its, nor of those US puppet regimes in the same region”

 Iran is also subject to UN sanctions, having refused the demands of the Security Council to suspend its enrichment of uranium.

Paul… Once again let me help you: “Iran is also subject to illegal but low level UN sanctions, having rejected the demands and threats refused the demands of the Security Council, the same Council that say a collapse of will to impose a third round of sanctions due to Russian and Chinese concerns, who wrongly tried to force Iran to stop its international rights, and was supported by the IAEA at least twice in reporting there was no evidence of an illegal Iranian nuclear weapons programme.”  

Iran, USS Vincennes, American lies, more lies, BBC propaganda, BBC failure to question official statements, Paul Reynolds, unworthy journalism


 FOOTNOTES: *    I fell into a hole when initially composing this article. I didn’t read it in its entirety when I forst composed it. I didn’t fully grasp the threads of thought in the initial paragraphs. Sometimes a reports can be commented successfully paragraph by paragraph, but in this case a complete reading first is more beneficial.  So this is a revised edition of the original article. As there haven’t been any comments yet, it’s OK. Most of it is the same anyway…

2) Quote from: :

Quote: There are several documented examples demonstrating the BBC’s guilt in editing stories on the BBC News web site where phrases implying details about the alleged bomber’s journey, such as, “Passengers on the 0748 Thameslink from Luton to King’s Cross”, have been edited out, yet the ‘last edited’ date and time has, rather disingenuously, not been updated to reflect these amendments. This is in direct contravention of the Press Complaints Commission guidelines which specify, “A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published.” Endquote

0 Responses to “Simple Case study: The charter mark of quality journalism.”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!


JUST - International Movement for a Just World


Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
January 2008

%d bloggers like this: