BBC Host Declares ‘Info War Against Russia’, Says Doubts Over Alleged Douma Chemical Attack Are Problem

Donate

The BBC news presenter Annita McVeigh publicly declared “an information war with Russia” during an interview with former Royal Navy Admiral Lord West on April 18.

The former Royal Navy Admiral and McVeigh were discussing Syrian President Assad’s involvement in the alleged chemical attack in Douma.

Lord West questioned the evidence behind the US-led bloc’s allegations against the Syrian president, emphasized that Assad’s order “doesn’t ring true,” and asked “what benefit is there for his military?”

“We know that in the past some of the Islamic groups have used chemicals, and of course there would be huge benefit in them labelling an attack as coming from Assad”, said Lord West.

Lord West asked for the real evidence as the information provided by the White Helmets and the World Health Organization (WHO) had been “not neutral,” according to him.

He reccalled that he had been under pressure to support politically motivated narratives during “our bombing campaign in Bosnia”

Thus, McVeigh asked Lord West whether he should be expressing his opinion truthfully:

“Given that we’re in an information war with Russia on so many fronts, do you think perhaps it’s inadvisable to be stating this so publicly given your position and profile, isn’t there a danger that you’re muddying the waters?

Lord West underlined his stance that the situation must be cleared up:

 “I think the answer is, if there’s a real concern, let’s face it, if [Assad] hasn’t done it then that is extremely bad news. If Assad hasn’t carried out the attack, I think it’s just worth making that clear. I think our government’s policy towards Assad has not been clever since 2013.”

McVeigh’s speech demonstrates how “neuntral and fact-based” BBC’s coverage of the conflict in Syria.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • John

    Another brick in the wall falls. This gentleman is no friend of President Assad. When people like him start to question the story, the story is in not only deep trouble, it is actually dying. Imagine what will have developed 6 months after 14 April.

    • Barba_Papa

      When politicians and generals retire they often start to talk very frankly. Often to the embarrassment of their former colleagues. Who of course still have to cow to the official line.

      A retired politician who becomes a straight talker is often a joy to listen too. If only they had been as frank and honest when they were still in power.

      • Nod

        they cannot, or they will be one of the poor.

    • Sinbad2

      Quite a few British military are trying to shed light on the situation, but the media won’t be happy until London is bombed.

    • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

      I point out that the BBC has declared officially an information war is when this came out and their faux declaration is like they are muddying the waters, as they have never not been out of an information war for decades.

      • John

        BBC, Reuters et al, are just propaganda distributors. They put out good stuff when they want and play games the remainder of the time. I go to them only when I want to hear what the ‘establishment’ is shoveling.

        That said, I see some real fear in them now. Way too many people, connected/known and unconnected/unknown are asking the wrong questions, like ‘what are you people doing’? In a few decades from now, the world at large could be looking at what passed for leadership and diplomacy now by the West, as nothing less than a pack of lying circus clowns. I am not name calling here either. I mean actual circus clowns hired to distract and lie. Nevertheless, the BBC knows it is losing and is desperate to change the trajectory of their fall. A good day to you Terra, enjoy the weekend.

        • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

          Yes it is always amusing at how bad they argue, in the US they talk about gun control and only talk about one old gun as one shot and forgot about all the other multiple shot weapons before the 1785 the Garindini rifle of 1779 was a 20 shot rifle and blunder buss had multiple barrels to load and fire simultaneously and along with double barrel shotguns were expected to be in households not muskets for defense.

  • Hrky75

    Admiral, kindly stop introducing logic and facts into discussion that only muddies the water…Priceless…

  • Sinbad2

    How is the arrogance of the little tart, telling an Admiral what war is about.

  • SnowCatzor

    The BBC is literally just a neo-liberal/leftist propaganda outlet sponsored by the state. One that runs a racket demanding license-fees from citizens.

    Western MSM often moan about RT & Sputnik being Russian ‘state propaganda’, but at least they have the integrity to allow opposing views on their shows. In Western MSM it’s almost always just an echo-chamber of talking heads preaching to the choir.

    • KennyB

      The BBC does a lot of good in terms of nature and history documentaries and some really good drama and film productions that the TV license fee pays for. Without it, most of those would not be made at all.

      When it comes to news, talk shows and the like, that’s where the neo-liberal bias is glaringly obvious. The BBC is a very obedient servant of the Establishment and will pump out the “Official Version” of pretty much everything without questioning it.

      • Garga

        Nature documentaries yes I agree, but historical, hell no!
        Their historical documentaries (like almost all other channels, NG, History et al) always comes with a twist or two of the historical facts, and I’m not even talking about their WW2 documentaries.

        • KennyB

          History such as the discovery of Richard III’s remains in Leicester is worth the license fee.

          I agree that BBC history documentaries about 20th century events are close to propaganda. The “World at War” series is an unashamed plug for the official version of WWII.

          If you don’t plug the “Hitler was a shit, we’re the Good Guys” line, you’re villified in the UK and labelled as “revisionist” or worse and the BBC doesn’t cross that line.

      • SnowCatzor

        No TV service should be publicly funded, it’s absurd. And no they don’t make anything good anymore, even their history shows practically try to rewrite history with a more PC/marxist version e.g. ‘Black Celts’.

        • KennyB

          Why is it absurd to have a public funded TV service? If the only TV that gets made is the lowest-common-denominator soaps and game shows that commercially make a profit, it will be a sad day for the White European culture that you seem to prefer. If you can’t accept that some of our ancient ancestors might have been anything other than White British then you probably also think that Jesus is/was a White man with blue eyes as portrayed in various European art, regardless of how absurd that is.

          As for your assertion that the BBC doesn’t make anything good anymore, that’s very much a matter of opinion.

          • SnowCatzor

            No it shouldnt be funded, television is not a public service, it’s a private enterprise. Actually I don’t care about religion, and yes your damn right I despise those Marxist pricks at the bbc. Rewriting history is despicable and should be opposed.

          • KennyB

            Does that mean that you agree with the mainstream account of the history of the 20th Century? Do you not think that it’s possible that much of the current legal underpinnings of Western Europe is based on a completely fictitious account of history?

            Sure, rewriting history to serve the needs of a particular political organisation is despicable. Some of Eastern Europe is guilty of that, in particular, Ukraine.

            Is it also despicable to find new evidence, or to re-examine old evidence, and thus to revise the generally accepted history of particular events? If the academic discipline called “History” is the least bit Scientific, it ought to be evidence-driven, not dogma-driven. If the evidence (or absence of evidence) indicates that the accepted wisdom is wrong, then it ought to be rewritten and those Historians who got it wrong should be humble enough to acknowledge that they did so, not to resort to personal attacks on the later would-be revisors.

  • hvaiallverden

    Ah, the BBC, Basically Bullshit Constantly, yeah, they smell like high heaven, and whines about, this is intresting, Russia, for what BBC, be more spesific for once, and dont act like NASA (never an straight answer) if you are so kind.

    The gas attack, well,that esposure was so glearingly obvious that it hurts, BBC, no need of Russians.
    The row of cockups regarding what you state is credible, have nothing to do with reality at all, BBC, from what Gas to treatments of gas, where the caps between reality (gas toxic) and what we see is so fake its an comedy, and no need of Russians.

    WHat then BBC, the so called intervention, yeah, the need to kill more Syrians because some Syrians where killed in the first place, hump that hypocrasy with UssA pulverising an Hostpitale in Afganistan, burned civilans whom was attached to their beds, entire familys, vedings, etc, in Yemen,, and somehow, when we state that International laws, BBC, something even you drool about, from time to time, is crystal clear, what YOU say is an flat out lie, what the Gov. and the Stith Lord May have done and said is an crime against humanity, that Hag should hang, along with this frensh MaCrony, and Trumpstein the Lord of Sniveling Drivel.
    They are mass murderes by any definition there is, BBC, you dont need any Russian to point that out, BBC.
    And in all ferness, do enlighten me if I am de facto, de jure wrong, BBC, if you got the balls, I asume.

    IN fact, you have managed to crash your credibility in and on an llevel that impresses me, the only thing that do, like the even more bonkers Skynews, jesus christ they are insane.
    Etc, and dont forget Clinton News Network.
    The most rotten News site I know of, dwarfs even BBC.

    No, Russians have of course come to the same conslusion, since they, base it on facts, not anything else, just good old MoFo facts, hurts dont it, huh, creeps, it should.
    With all due respect, they may go an f…. them self, shit in, shit out, and now, this, muhahaha, yeah, be an good sport and go an hang your self, you are an part of the crimes against humanity by consent, dingling along with the others because of complisity to mass murder, of Syrians, of Libyans, Iraqis, Afgainstan, etc.
    WE dont need prof, we need Gallows.
    Then WE will have peace, BBC, not an second before, WE need an Revolution.

    peace

  • Drogba

    No matter what way they paint it they are proven liars and warmongering zionists. They are masters of this behaviour for centuries but in the age of the Internet they are caught out time after time .And the Russians know very well how to expose their lies to the whole world. British people need to wake up to the reality that zionists run their country and don’t give a damm about sending their sons and daughters to fight and die for israhells interests.