Thailand: BBC Attempts to Justify Terrorism

Image: The BBC’s Jonathan Head has been consistently and intentionally dishonest with his coverage of Thailand.
BBC plums new depths with dishonest coverage of Thai crisis and attempted justification of expanding pro-regime terror campaign.

.
February 25, 2014 (ATN) – The BBC has once again attempted to manipulate public perception regarding world events, this time in Thailand where the Western-backed regime of Thaksin Shinawatra had announced, and is now in the process of carrying out, a deadly campaign of terrorism aimed at growing dissent sweeping the country.

The BBC’s article, “Thailand crisis: Deadly attacks on opposition rallies,” starts by claiming:

An explosion has killed two people and wounded more than 20 others near an anti-government protest rally in the Thai capital Bangkok.

A boy aged 12 and a 40-year-old woman died in the attack near the Central World shopping mall, officials said.

It came hours after gunmen opened fire on an anti-government rally in eastern Thailand, killing a five-year-old girl.

Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra condemned the attacks, describing them as “terrorist acts for political gain”.

She said her government would not tolerate terrorism, and ordered a full investigation.

In reality, the regime itself, via its “red shirt” enforcers declared their intent to carry out just such a deadly campaign of armed terror against growing protests if elections on February 2, 2014, were disrupted.
.
TIME magazine on January 16 reported in their article, “”Bangkok Shutdown: Yingluck Supporters Prepare to Fight for Democracy,” that:

As Thailand’s anti-government protests enter their fourth day, observers say prospects for violent confrontation are increasing, with reports of government supporters stockpiling weapons in case of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s ouster.

According to the Bangkok Post, radical members of the Red Shirts — diehard champions of Yingluck and her notorious brother Thaksin Shinawatra — are readying a cache of arms in case the 46-year-old premier is forced from office by either military or judicial intervention.

The paper quoted a Red Shirt source as saying “There are strong anti-coup and anti-court sentiments among the red-shirt mavericks who are familiar and experienced with weapon use.”

The elections were not disrupted however, but rather saw massive nationwide boycotts leading to an unprecedented, astoundingly low 46% voter turnout. The regime is now without either a democratic mandate, or a cusus belli to use violence against protesters.
.
Still, the BBC is attempting to make a case for violence, citing “frustration.” The BBC would claim:

No group has so far said they carried out either attack.

But the BBC’s Jonathan Head in Bangkok says it appears to be the start of retaliation by the armed wing of the so-called “red-shirt” movement that backs the governing Pheu Thai party. For three months red-shirt activists have watched with growing frustration as the protesters – who enjoy the backing of the military and powerful royalists – have been allowed to obstruct the government and sabotage an election that would almost certainly have been won by Pheu Thai, he says.

Jonathan Head’s analysis is, however, wholly, consistently, and intentionally dishonest. His attempt to frame the opposition as backed by “the military and powerful royalists” excludes massive numbers of growing dissent among rural rice farmers cheated now for over half a year of promised crop subsidies. Head also claims that elections were “sabotaged,” again, omitting that even in regions of the country where polling stations were open, the majority chose not to vote in what they considered sham elections.
.
What the BBC is attempting to do, and as it has done elsewhere including in Syria, is justify terrorism in the name of Western-backed interests in Thailand – namely the regime of Thaksin Shinawatra. While the West and the regime itself is still attempting to sell the notion of a divided Thailand and the prospect of a civil war, it should be noted that the facts on the ground make both entirely impossible.

.
Related:
.
.
BBC Rides with Al Qaeda in Aleppo, Syria  – Up-Date – (some info on how the BBC was initially started – big business and intelligence departments of France, UK, and USA)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BBC World Service to sign funding deal with US state department – http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/mar/20/bbc-world-service-us-funding
.
The Guardian is a “Standard Corporate Member” of Chatham House/Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), and the BBC are “Major Corporate Partners” – see others plus actual “Partners” Sauds et al – (The Royal Dutch Shell have been “partners” since the beginning): http://www.chathamhouse.org/membership/corporate/corporate-list
.
The BBC was established by six Bankster Gangster Business’ and Spy Services of the UK, USA, and France in the early twenties…see  BBC Rides with Al Qaeda in Aleppo, Syria  – Up-Date
.
Bottomline: The BBC gets it’s funding from (William Hague) Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the BBC World Service – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Executive_Board. The BBC receives “£269.7 million from government grants, of which 264.7 million is from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office…” Source
.
If the BBC doesn’t fall inline with British Foreign Policy (and the EU/NATO) the money wouldn’t keep flowing – for sure… Something similar with the media in the USA, they depend on getting an FCC license, the FCC is controlled by the government – since the Clinton Administration. Russia’ been accused of propaganda for decades – guess what – the West have their own propaganda units. One can perhaps find that the truth lies somewhere inbetween – meanwhile the manipulation or mind-control of the media on their audience continues unabated – and that’s ultimate power!
.
Spin/lies has been a political tactic since ancient Greece. “The political orator,” Aristotle wrote, “aims at establishing the expediency or the harmfulness of a proposed course of action; if he urges its acceptance, he does so on the ground that it will do good; if he urges its rejection, he does so on the ground that it will do harm.”
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s