Exchange with BBC presenter about Operation Mostarak in Afghanistan
By Ian Sinclair at Feb 19, 2010 |
|
Dear Ms Shah
Introducing a segment on the current US-led 'surge' in Helmand province on The World Tonight last night you stated "Operation Moshtarak in southern Afghanistan has two aims. The first is to drive out the Taliban, the second is to bring good governance to the region." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qtl3).
Shouldn't you have said "Operation Moshtarak in southern Afghanistan has two STATED aims" or "NATO SAY Operation Moshtarak in southern Afghanistan has two aims"?
I ask because I am aware the Soviet Union's publicly stated strategy for their invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s was "to prevent the establishment of... a terrorist regime and to protect the Afghan people from genocide", and also to provide "aid in stabilising the situation and the repulsion of possible external aggression" (http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/071120_invasion_a_comparison.php).
I presume you wouldn't have taken the Soviet Union's publicly stated reasons for invading and occupying Afghanistan at face value, so why have you done so with the US Government?
I look forward to your reply.
Kind regards
Ian Sinclair



BBC reporting is shocking
By Andrews, John at Feb 19, 2010 23:35 PM
Ian
I agree completely. The BBC's reporting of Afghanistan is frighteningly biased. On Radio 4's Today programme earlier this week, I heard Ian Pannell state something along the following lines: "Of course, NATO are devastated by the deaths of the civilians and they have immediately withdrawn a certain type of weapons system". This in response to:
Nato has confirmed that two rockets fired at militants during its offensive in Helmand, south Afghanistan, missed their target and killed 12 civilians.
The rockets struck a house in Marjah as thousands of Nato troops continued their operations to oust the Taliban.
Reply this comment
Re: BBC reporting is shocking
By Andrews, John at Feb 19, 2010 23:45 PM
Sorry, Ian, I hit save too soon.
Can you imagine a rocket attack killing 12 civilians in the UK or USA? Would a reporter really say that the aggressor was devastated for killing the civilians and then seamlessly continue with the daily activities of the troops with which he was embedded?
There has been no indication to date that NATO cares how much 'collateral damage' it causes. Why should this atrocity be any different? Why were NATO devastated? How did Ian Pannell know that NATO was devastated.
The reporting is so bad that I cannot even listen to it any more.
Thanks for all your great articles.
Best wishes
John Andrews
Reply this comment