Many find it difficult to believe the sheer boldness of the lies peddled by the British Broadcasting Corporation– the world’s largest and most respected broadcasting organisation. Nevertheless, the BBC’s nefarious agenda has come to the fore during the wars on Libya and Syria, where it has taken every opportunity to justify foreign military intervention in both countries.In some cases the BBC has been quite ham-fisted in its attempts to deceive viewers, resulting in its foul play becoming readily apparent.
BBC claims footage of Indian protest is live feed from Green Square, Tripoli
The following video was aired on BBC News on Wednesday 24 August 2011. Watch from the 0:29 mark – the BBC airs footage that they purport to be live, from Green Square in Tripoli, Libya. The footage shows a crowd of ‘Libyan’ people celebrating and waving their national flag. What is so incredibly shocking about this report, is that the footage is not live, nor is it from Libya.It actually shows Indian protesters waving the Indian flag.
This unbelievable dishonesty on the part of the BBC was not an error. Such a first rate global broadcaster does not make such mistakes. It is simply not plausible that the BBC accidentally substituted a live video feed with an archive clip that, coincidentally, shows an identical scene to the one that the ‘live feed’ purports to show – jubilant protesters waving flags.
Not an error – BBC chose Indian footage due to similarities between flags
The truth of the matter is: jubilant crowds were simply not present in Tripoli, so the BBC had to use fake footage to convince its viewers of the Libyan ‘revolution’ myth.
Footage of Indian protesters waving the Indian flag was selected by the BBC because of the visual similarity between the two flags in question.Below I have juxtaposed the Indian flag (left), with the flag of the counter-revolution that took place in Libya.
Indian flag and the New Free Libya Flag on the right
As you can see, the flags are composed of similar colours; the Indian flag is green, white, and orange, whilst the flag of the ‘Libyan’ counter-revolution is green, black, and red.
Both flags are tricolour flags with horizontally orientated stripes, and both flags contain a circular emblem in the centre. The BBC chose to show the Indian footage because that footage provided the best opportunity to deceive unwitting viewers.To the untrained eye watching a fleeting video, these two flags are virtually indistinguishable.
BBC caught faking Syria ‘chemical weapons’ footage
Listen closely to the audio track of both videos. You will notice that the female doctor’s words and intonation are exactly the same in both videos, however thebackground noise in the second video is completely different. In addition, in the second video (contrary to the first video), the doctor can be heard to say: “seems like it must be some sort of chemical weapon I’m not really sure..”
The BBC has manipulated the audio track of this video report to characterise the event as a chemical weapon attack. Because the doctor’s mouth is covered by a mask, the dubbing is impossible to detect.
What is even more concerning is that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the event itself. At the beginning of the first video, Dr. Rola Hallam can be heard to say, “I need a pause, because it’s just absolute chaos and carnage here“. Now despite this seemingly impromptu plea to the cameraman from Hallam, there is convincing evidence(5) to suggest that the video wasnot in fact live footage of the wounded being rushed in to a makeshift hospital. It is clear that Hallam actually did multiple takes of the video interview, whereby the movements of others were choreographed in line with her own movements. I highly recommend reading this analysis,(5) paying particularly close attention to the movement of the man in the high-visibility vest.
Notice how in one video, his hands are behind his back as he approaches Hallam, and in the other video, his hands are by his side. Furthermore, at this moment in one of the videos, a man can be seen looking through the fence above Hallam’s left shoulder, yet in the other video, he is not there. We are supposed to believe that this video sequence was filmed in an impromptu manner as victims were being rushed in to a makeshift hospital.
What is clear is that this is not a live sequence– the scene was clearly staged multiple times despite Hallam’s contrived ‘I need a pause here because it’s absolute carnage‘ opening gambit.
Dr. Rola Hallam has familial links to anti-Assad opposition groups
Keeping in mind Dr. Rola Hallam’s background and family links to the anti-Assad opposition, the BBC’s apparent staging of propaganda and usage of Hallam in particular becomes all the more sinister.
Examples such as these are the reasons why no well-informed person takes the BBC seriously any longer.
(1) Fake BBC Video – http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ – 7 October 2013.
(2) Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims ‘like the walking dead’ – BBC News, 29 August 2013.
(3) Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action – BBC News, 30 August 2013.
(4) Syria: Agony of victims of ‘napalm-like’ school bombing – BBC News, 30 September 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24288698
(5) Dr Rola – wikispooks.com
(6) Facebook profile page of Rola Alkurdi Hallam – https://www.facebook.com/rola.alkurdi.7 – 4 January 2014.
(7) About Atfal – atfal.co.uk
(8) Video: Doctors record ‘chemical attacks’ in Syria – Al Arabiya News, 2 June 2013.
(9) Divisions, lack of arms underscore weakness of Free Syrian Army – The National, 3 March 2012.
The author believes that Qutb‘s teachings are the root cause of extremism.
Throughout five decades Muslim Brotherhood members have been working on masking their real ideology and beliefs from the Egyptian and Arab public in general.
This dates back since the famous crackdown on the Islamist organization in 1965 during Nasser’s regime. The very crackdown that eventually led to the trial of the godfather of modern terrorism Sayyed Qutb, which resulted in his execution.
They managed throughout the years to downplay their Qutbian leniency and their extremist ideologies.
The execution of the author of the infamous “Signs on the Road” book which is considered by many to be the manual or bible of modern Islamist terrorism came as a turning point in the history of Islamistswho rendered him as a “martyr.”
It is a fact that without the extremist teachings of Qutb, the world would have been a much better place today. His books and teachings have inspired almost every Islamist radical group andjihadists from Indonesia to Morocco.
Accordingly, the question that poses itself; how did the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood managed to distance themselves from the teachings of Qutb throughout the years that followed his execution up to the elections that took place in Egypt and Tunisia post the Arab Spring revolutions? The answers can be numerous elements but the most common can be the following:
Despite being a presumably Sunni Muslim organization in principle, Muslim Brotherhood members have adopted a Shia principle. This principle is called Al Taqqiya. It is mainly a deniability tactic used by the Muslim Brotherhood to conceal the real motives and beliefs of the group. This tactic has provided them with an effective shield against the accusations of endorsing the extremist and terrorist beliefs of Qutb.
But the truth remains is that the majority of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood today in Egypt and worldwide are loyal advocates to the beliefs of the terrorism godfather especially the likes of the two former supreme guides Mohamed Badiea and Mahdy Akef, who are the most extremist and overzealous leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in their 85 years’ history.
B- Establishing franchises for the mother group:
These franchises have appeared since the 1970s and on-wards and violently and explicitly adopted Qutb doctrine. Examples for these notorious terrorists organizations that jumped in the cloack of the Brothers are Al Gamaa Al Islamiya, Al Takfeer Wal Higra , Hamas and many others. These organizations served as militant arms to expand the Qutbism by force throughout the region, yet the main group can always maintain deniability.
Also, occasionally they would denounce the other groups terrorist actions for more dramatic effect and to distance themselves from the very discourse most of them adopt.
That is how the Brotherhood have managed to distinguish themselves from other Islamist and jihadi groups even when they are simply franchises for them. That gimmick worked like a charm in the past two decades especially with the infiltration of western societies by the Brotherhood.
The evidence can be easily shown after the June 30th Revolution in Egypt which was denounced as a coup by many western countries. This simply reflects the influence and the great manipulation of this organization of western politicians who believed that the Brotherhood is actually a moderate Islamic organization and not an extremist Jihadist administrator for all the jihadists in the world which is the truth.
C- Planting Trojan writers and anchors in Media and press:
This was the trick that fooled most people including western regimes into believing that the Brotherhood are an actual moderate group that seeks peace and prosperity. For at least the past 40 years, countless writers and anchors have been handpicked by the group to be cast as propagandists. There are three types of these media players, either actual secret members, apologists to the brotherhood discourse or those who directly on their payroll.
Egyptian history revisionists surfaced in the past few years in favour of the Muslim brotherhood.
These historians-for-hire have done for the Muslim Brotherhood image what money launderers do for drug cartels.They can actually be called “History Launders” because they clean up the history of violent groups and proving them with a clean slate.
The truth is always masked in their books about the involvement of the Brotherhood in terrorist and violent activities through an intricate web of twisted facts. In fact some of such historians like Mohamed El Gawadi, a regular face on the pro-Islamists QatariAl-jazeera, granted the Brotherhood members a fictitious heroic status that totally contradicts with the actual historical events.
That propagandist has made up a fictional image of the Brotherhood for at least a decade before their ascension to power. The full support continued after the Brotherhood rise to power.Spreading lies about their opponentsis what Al-jazeera has excelled in for the past three years since the start of the Arab Spring.
The Brotherhood was also helped by a group of well known as well as lesser known journalists, anchors and media players in Egypt and Tunisia.
The victims in this pro-Brotherhood media circus are the Egyptian and Tunisian masses as the truth about them were nowhere to be found till months after the Brotherhood were in power. Accordingly, the world has fallen in the trap of fake moderate stances exhibited by the Muslim Brotherhood leaders while at core they remain as extremist Qutbian as they ever were.
However, after waves of terrorism that claimed hundreds of lives in Egypt following the fall of theIslamist regime led by Mohamed Morsi, there are not any further excuses for the world to be fooled again by false acts of piety and moderation.
The Muslim Brotherhood has once and for all unmasked the truth behind their overzealous and extremist Qutbianattitudes towards Egyptians in general and all minorities in particular. including Christians, Shiites, women, etc. Let everyone be reminded of the famous saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice , shame on me.”
Now, it appears to analysts as though the disaster afflicting Libya — brought about in large part by the Obama administration and its allies in Europe and among Islamic autocracies — may be on the verge of being replicated in Syria. Of course, the countries and the wars are different in some respects, but the parallels between what is going on in Syria and what happened in Libya are undeniable. And those links are raising alarm bells — especially considering the sizeable Syrian Christian population and the current state of affairs in Libya,which continues to deteriorate.
In Libya, as The New Americandocumented extensively, the Obama administration decided to openly side with leaders of al-Qaedaand other jihadist groups — many of which boasted publicly during the conflict that they had recently been fighting against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. DictatorMoammar Gadhafi, who served as a key U.S. government ally in its terror war until falling out of favor, was eventually brutalized and summarily executed after his regime was pounded into the ground by Obama-backed jihadist rebels and overwhelming American air power.
“Absolutely there are parallels,” explained John Rosenthal, a Europe-based journalist and author of The Jihadist Plot: The Untold Story of Al-Qaeda and the Libyan Rebellion. In his book, Rosenthal documents in great detail how, in the Libyan conflict, the Obama administration literally switched sides in the “war on terror,” joining with self-styled al-Qaeda leaders against a former terror-war allywho was hard at work battling the very same Islamic extremists that the U.S. government had supposedly been pursuing for a decade.
Rosenthal told The New American that the Obama administration’s Syria policy “is a continuation of its Libya policy”: siding with Islamists against secular regimes that helped the U.S. government in the terror war. The international conditions, however, are different this time, he added, primarily because the Russian government has refused to cooperate with pro-regime change forces in the United Nations Security Council under the so-called responsibility to protect doctrine.
Assad may not have been as helpful toU.S. authorities in the terror war as Gadhafi, whose “apostate” regime had also become a primary target of Islamic extremists; however, The New American’s Michael Tennant showed last year that the brutal Syrian despot was indeed a U.S. ally — helping torture and extract information from terror suspects handed over by American officials, for example. “There’s a different leader in Syria now,” then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in early 2011. “Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.” Indeed, Syria was one of the “most common” destinations for rendered U.S. terror-war suspects, according to multiple reports.
“During the time of the U.S. presence in Iraq, the Syrians were often accused of not doing enough to stem the flowof al-Qaeda-affiliated fighters into the country,” Rosenthal continued. “But the very nature of the criticism shows that vis-à-vis al-Qaeda, the U.S. and Syria were at the time fundamentally on the same side.In the meanwhile, this is not the case, because we changed sides.”
As far as the Syrian rebels, countless sources — even including the establishment media during the latest conflict — have documented their jihadist credentials. The Obama administration officially designated the Jabhat al-Nusra a terrorist organization — an al-Qaeda-linked group that analysts say is among the most effective fighting forces in Syria. For Rosenthal, however, the designation “represents a sort of sleight of hand in this regard,” he explained.
“When the listing was made public, many of the other Syrian rebel brigades responded by vociferously protesting under the motto ‘we are all Jabhat al-Nusra’,” said Rosenthal, who documented the Libyan rebels’ deep connections to global jihad,using official sources, court records, police reports, and European news reports. “And they are right. It is simply not possible to support the rebellion and not be providing de facto support for Jabhat al-Nusra, which is not only an integral part of the rebellion, but arguably its vanguard.”
Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry continued to claim that less than one-fourth of rebel forces are “extremists,” an estimate widely dismissed by experts and even U.S. officials. Rosenthal called it “ridiculously low.” Instead, “100 percent would be closer to the truth,” he explained, citing the names of rebel brigades and publicly available evidence. “One need only look at the videos posted by the rebel formations themselves, which regularly show them displaying the black flags of jihad and brutally executing detainees — both soldiers and civilians — in the style made famous by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq.”
Indeed, as The New Americanreported yesterday, the supposed “estimates” by the administration claiming such a low percentage of “extremists” are calculated by assuming that rebels not fighting directly for al-Qaeda are “moderates.” The Free Syrian Army, though considered the primary “moderate” fighting force worthy of U.S. taxpayer support, is actually dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and other hardcore Islamists. The pro-rebel Al Jazeera even reported that the FSA has been selling foreign-provided weaponsto al-Qaeda leaders in Syria.
“Talk of ‘moderate’ rebels on the part of people like John Kerry or Elizabeth O’Bagy is merely a matter of moving the goalposts,” Rosenthal explained, echoing widely expressed sentiments among analysts following the conflict. “In the sense of the term that was usual, say, just a year or two ago, they are virtually all Islamic extremists. For the great bulk of the rebels, the war undoubtedly does represent a holy war against an ‘apostate’ Arab leader, as was the case in Libya.”
According to Rosenthal and his research on global Islamic extremism, Hosni Mubarak, Gadhafi, and the Assad dynasty have long been identified in al-Qaeda literature as “tawaghit.” The term is often translated as “tyrants,” he explained, but it actually means “false idols,” with the implication being that the rule of the relevant despots “usurps the legislative role that, per Islamists, is reserved for Allah (whose laws are, of course, embodied in the Quran).”
But what about Libya today?Has it achieved “democracy” and “human rights,” as proponents of “regime change” argued it would? Rosenthal’s book offers extensive documentation about what really happened during and after the UN-backed “regime change” operation led by the Obama administration. The New American also did a major report about the entire fiasco, explaining, among other elements, how the U.S. government sided with al-Qaeda and its affiliates to bring down the regime, and what that meant for the future of Libya.
More recently, the U.K. Independent published a special report this month looking at the shattered nation today.“Libya has almost entirely stopped producing oil as the government loses control of much of the country to militia fighters,” noted the report, adding that the nation went from 1.4 million barrels a day earlier this year to just 160,000 barrels a day now. “As world attention focused on the coup in Egypt and the poison gas attack in Syria over the past two months, Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago.”
According to Independent reporter Patrick Cockburn, the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated central government is witnessing a disintegration of its authority “in all parts of the country.” That reality on the ground, he continued, casts doubts on claims by American, British, and French politicians that NATO’s 2011 “military action” in Libya was a “successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.”
“Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law.Popular protests against militiamen have been met with gunfire,”the Independent reported, citing dozens of deaths at a recent protest. “Foreigners have mostly fled Benghazi since the American ambassador, Chris Stevens, was murdered in the US consulate by jihadi militiamen last September. Violence has worsened since thenwith Libya’s military prosecutor Colonel Yussef Ali al-Asseifar, in charge of investigating assassinations of politicians, soldiers and journalists, himself assassinated by a bomb in his car on 29 August. Rule by local militias is also spreading anarchy around the capital.” Meanwhile, Libya’s new rulers announced an “integration” plan with Sudan’s genocidal Islamist dictator, too.
Instead of helping to create yet another bloody disaster in the Middle East, Congress should step in and restrain Obama, ensuring that the U.S. government remains neutral in the ongoing war between Syria’s ruthless dictator and the largely jihadist “rebels.” Christians are already under mortal threat there after having been protected by the Assad-family regime for decades,and if the Obama-backed “rebels” succeed,as in Libya, Christians’ futures will become even more imperiled. There are no good outcomes in Syria at this point, but having American taxpayers turn that nation into yet another Libya — or worse — is a terrible planfor more than a few reasons.
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at email@example.com.