Comments on: BBC statement on Afghan blogger threats

By: george bedula

george bedula — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:07:36 +0000

global voices indeed! all that chit chat an nobody’s
seein the man in the big hat. osama is coolin his
heels at brit media central, right there in kabul,
where he’s been all along, checkin the feeds, monitoring his poppy shipments to china, keepin
in touch with friends and family, thinkin about a
lil vacation to africa, maybe malaysia, and nobody
notices til an afghan brother loyal to the U.S. agenda
points him out. BBC goes into major denial as directed
by tony blair, acting under orders from george w.

conspiracy, what conspiracy? oil don’t mean nothin.
water’s where the money is, and there’s a whole lot
of it way down deep below the sands. earth is asking
for it, screaming to get raped again. who’s on first??

By: A

Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:45:32 +0000

as an afghan i suggest If BBC really want to solve this problem first of all they should understand the war in Afghanistan and teach their staff, the principle of journalism not fascism ,( the head of BBC in the region an example of a fascist person in the high rank position ) their employee should forget they are belong to one tribe they should learn they work for BBC not for Pashton Broadcasting service .

I do not understand why BBC become voice of one group ( Pashton) in this particular country? Is the BBC is British broadcasting cooperation or Pashton broadcasting cooperation ? which kind monitoring available for this multi ethnic and so sensitive place as this country war are mostly based on ethnic tension in past and recently?

I am sure Sohrab kabuli become victim of fascism of some employee of BBC which is using BBC equipment for their own agenda and now they issuing death treat to a Bolger !!!

We should not be surprised if we heard declaration of war of Pashton Taliban and osma bin ladin against others from BBC world service, sound this service totally owned by Taliban now .

By: Mitch

Mitch — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:41:18 +0000

I’m not seeing a thorough examination of the hard drive in question. Even with the history erased, it can be restored and examined if done fairly soon (deteriorates over time as disk space is re-used). They should pull the hard drive and turn it over to someone with forensic experience, if they want to represent their actions as an investigation.

I’m assuming the BBC’s network or mail servers are not involved, as this PC seems to have a permanent IP address. If I’m wrong about this, and there are server records, they should be intact and dispositive.

By: theo

theo — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:39:54 +0000

Move over Baathist Broadcasting Corp! Bolshevik Broadcasting Corp is also sooooo out… hello Blogger-threatening Broadcasting Corp :)

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:34:38 +0000

So, the BBC theory is that Mr. Kabuli came into the office and posted the messages his own blog in order to implicate a BBC employee working in that office in a scandal as revenge for some unspecificed something that occurred when Mr. Kabuli and an unnamed BBC-Kabul office employee previously worked together.

A correct and true analysis of this situation, or most any other type of situation, would 99.9% of the time be more parsimonious. There are far too many caveats in this explanation of events for it to be plausible. Couple this convuluted and therefore suspect analysis by the BBC with the fact that liberal media organizations, of which the BBC is one (along with Reuters, France2, The Guardian, etc…), have an affinity for murdering jihadis and I think we have plenty of reason to keep at the BBC for answers.

By: Monir

Monir — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:12:34 +0000

How is Sohrab Kaboli who is supposed to somehow have access to the BBC newsroom manage to log in, crack the code, and maintain an account on a BBC computer?

I suppose since he is a ‘computer expert’ and the BBC has seen too many movies where teenagers hack into computer networks by guessing the correct password on the first try, then viola, it must be that Mr. Kaboli has cracked the network and is sending himself threatening email from the BBC newsroom.

Tax dollars at work at a dumbed down BBC.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:09:45 +0000

“The BBC is puzzled how the dismissal of a staff member would diminish, should it exist, any perceived threat to his life.”

I’m puzzled by the BBC’s throw away (re: not relevant) comment here.

By: penny

penny — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 06:36:41 +0000

The most disturbing thing about your behavior, as a so-called “neutral” network….

Right on. James. When was the last time that the BBC was “neutral” on anything? Their agendas are so blatant. Their response is so nauseating but predictable. It is an affront to decent people.

Please, dear Brits, rise up against this instituition of morons. Why is the BBC being subsidized manditorially with tax dollars? If they were private they would have gone out of business by now.

By: BBC News: We distort, you decipher

BBC News: We distort, you decipher — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:23:05 +0000

Remember Andrew Gilligan? And David Kelly?

“Have you got blood on your hands, Prime Minister? Are you going to resign?”

The Beeb lied, people died…. again?

By: JoeS

JoeS — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 03:00:26 +0000

Special Prosecutor, Put People Under Oath

By: mary

mary — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:45:04 +0000

Am I missing something here? Death threats are a criminal matter. A bunch of prattling media talking heads are not a police force, a legal team, or a jury. The BBC is the accused, not the judge. It’s no surprise that they say they’re innocent. The accused usually says that. It’s tradition.

The person who made said death threats should spend years of his life in a dark hole somewhere, after a proper criminal investigation and a trial by jury, of course.

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:39:18 +0000

I am willing to give the BBC the benifit of the doubt. They allowed a terrorist to use their computer to terrorize innocents. But at least the BBC did not employ the terrorist (as far as we know).

By: cancon

cancon — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:57:11 +0000

yes that load of bollocks as they say in the UK is called blame the victim even accuse the victim of staging all this, unbelievable……

there is something huge missing in that statement, does or does not the BBC have an employee by that one name? are they saying he has denied using that computer or sending those emails?

is BBC using Aruban investigators now?

By: ALD

ALD — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:24:03 +0000

[i]Mr Kabuli has called for the dismissal of a particular BBC staff member. The BBC is puzzled how the dismissal of a staff member would diminish, should it exist, any perceived threat to his life.[/i]

There is only one logical way to interpret this statement: “The BBC has no problem with its employees committing felonies, whether during work hours or on the employees’ personal time, so long as the commission of said felonies do not interfere with the emloyees’ assigned duties.”

By: monkeybrau

monkeybrau — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:09:53 +0000

What is all this talk about “e-mails?” My understanding from the story was that these were “posts” which involve a web browser. Tracking an e-mail’s originating ip address is a more difficult task.

Are they suggesting that the blogger himself walked into the BBC offices and posted threats to his own blog from their computers? Unless that computer sits out in the lobby, wouldn’t someone be able to verify the coming and going of people in their own building?

A lot of questions remain unanswered.