BBC censors Bhutto's remark about murder of Bin Laden

[Micpsi]

Previous topics on this subject
Benazir Bhutto shot dead in Pakistan
Benazir Bhutto believed Omar Sheikh killed Bin Laden


The BBC has been caught censoring public information.

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/845.html
Also:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aef_1198861063

If you search the BBC archives for the last Frost/Bhutto interview on Al Jazeera, it left out the explosive segment when she said that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered.

The BBC video has been edited at 5:02 minutes, right before she mentions Osama bin Laden, where the video switches over to Frost but he is silent, while in the original video the camera is on Bhutto continuously during this period (she mentions Bin Laden at 6:11 minutes as being murdered by Omar Sheikh).

[BTW, Omar Sheikh, if you didn't know, was the bagman for Mohammed Atta and his merry men, wiring $100,000 to him some time before 9/11.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 238160.cms
He gave himself up to Brigadier Shah, the man in charge of Bhutto's security at the time of the first bomb attack on her car and the man she wanted arrested on suspicion of trying to kill her.]

If you have trouble with the BBC link on the above website, use this:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/ ... &x=72&y=10
Click on the 'Bhutto calls for investigation' link.

This is a blatant act of censorship of highly politically sensitive information (no doubt the result of pressure from the Foreign Office) that, if true, exposes the Bin Laden video tapes as phony because Omar Sheikh was captured on February 5, 2002 and has remained in prison ever since.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/sear ... &search=Go
This information, should it appear in the Western media, in turn potentially threatens exposure of the whole al-Qaeda set-up as a ISI-supervised, CIA/MI6 controlled project to spread international terrorism for global strategic ends.

[Disco_Destroyer]

Bhutto ’blocked from hiring US bodyguards’



Benazir Bhutto was so fearful for her life that she tried to hire British and American security experts to protect her, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

But the plans collapsed because President Pervez Musharraf refused to allow the foreign contractors to operate in Pakistan, according to senior aides.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... tto230.xml

[Sherlock Holmes]

Another Smoking Gun, Building 7-esque BBC cover-up in the making. Well done BBC/MI6 covering your tracks in this quite sloppy way only makes it more apparent that you are a bunch of lying bar-stewards.

I hope people will consider writing letters to the BBC specifically stating the allegation made by Bhutto and the apparent censorship in the Frost Video found now. The complaints department will "fob you off" but the letters will be part of the public record.

[John White]

Does anyone have that final segment?

Now would be a highly opportune time for a short you-tube featuring it

[outsider]

The BBC has been caught censoring public information.

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/845.html
Also:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aef_1198861063

If you search the BBC archives for the last Frost/Bhutto interview on Al Jazeera, it left out the explosive segment when she said that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered.

The BBC video has been edited at 5:02 minutes, right before she mentions Osama bin Laden, where the video switches over to Frost but he is silent, while in the original video the camera is on Bhutto continuously during this period (she mentions Bin Laden at 6:11 minutes as being murdered by Omar Sheikh).

[BTW, Omar Sheikh, if you didn't know, was the bagman for Mohammed Atta and his merry men, wiring $100,000 to him some time before 9/11.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 238160.cms
He gave himself up to Brigadier Shah, the man in charge of Bhutto's security at the time of the first bomb attack on her car and the man she wanted arrested on suspicion of trying to kill her.]

If you have trouble with the BBC link on the above website, use this:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/ ... &x=72&y=10
Click on the 'Bhutto calls for investigation' link.

This is a blatant act of censorship of highly politically sensitive information (no doubt the result of pressure from the Foreign Office) that, if true, exposes the Bin Laden video tapes as phony because Omar Sheikh was captured on February 5, 2002 and has remained in prison ever since.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/sear ... &search=Go
This information, should it appear in the Western media, in turn potentially threatens exposure of the whole al-Qaeda set-up as a ISI-supervised, CIA/MI6 controlled project to spread international terrorism for global strategic ends.

Well spotted!!

[TonyGosling]

Sounds like you've caught the shysters red handed!

Censoring key information about the wherabouts of an ex MI6 agent who killed one of the US's most respected investigative journalists.

A motive for the man with the sunglasses all right.
http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/playe ... owId=10619

[scubadiver]

Here is the BBC censored version (take out the quotes and there should not be a space between the 16 and x9)

"http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/w ... ad=1&ct=50"

Go to 4m 50sec

[blackcat]

Direct Link

[scienceplease]

The BBC re-editting news is a systematic problem. Did you see the Independent article on BBC staff regularly changing information on wikipedia:

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3255702.ece

Shades of Orwell's "Ministry of Truth"

[James C]

Are we absolutely sure this wasn't just a slip of the tongue? She could have meant Daniel Pearl and said OBL instead by mistake. The BBC might just have edited the remarks to prevent confusion caused by such an error.

I'm not supporting the BBC here or saying Bhutto was wrong, it's just that it could hve been a simple error on her part. After all, she doesn't expand upon it and so her words remain rather cryptic, open to explanations on both sides.

[outsider]

This stuff really is brilliant. Isn't one of our posters sueing or taking some legal action over previous BBC shenanigans? Can someone get this thing rolling, contacting all people that have expressed a desire to hold the BBC accountable and informing them of this latest criminal deception?
What is the Al Jazeera motif doing on the interview - was it a joint BBC/Al Jazeera interview, and if so that opens up the possiibility of bringing Al J into the action.
Also David Frost could be asked directly about what he thinks of the initial claim by BB that Osama had been killed, and the removal since (It would be interesting to know when the offending material was removed by the BBC - could it have been after BB's claim had been brought to someone's attention through our Forum?
I really am too busy to take on any of this myself, and also this kind of work is not my strong suit (I am active behind the scenes on a number of projects).

[James C]

This stuff really is brilliant. Isn't one of our posters sueing or taking some legal action over previous BBC shenanigans? Can someone get this thing rolling, contacting all people that have expressed a desire to hold the BBC accountable and informing them of this latest criminal deception?
What is the Al Jazeera motif doing on the interview - was it a joint BBC/Al Jazeera interview, and if so that opens up the possiibility of bringing Al J into the action.
Also David Frost could be asked directly about what he thinks of the initial claim by BB that Osama had been killed, and the removal since (It would be interesting to know when the offending material was removed by the BBC - could it have been after BB's claim had been brought to someone's attention through our Forum?
I really am too busy to take on any of this myself, and also this kind of work is not my strong suit (I am active behind the scenes on a number of projects).

This interview was conducted on one of Frost's weekly aljazeera programmes called 'Frost over the world'. As far as I can find out, the BBC is not involved with this programme and aljazeera has a copy of this episode on its website - linked, unedited, to YouTube, where all its videos are stored.

As I've said above, this could just have been a simple slip of the tongue by Bhutto. The BBC could easily make the same claim perhaps insisting it edited the programme to avoid confusion therefore making any legal action pointless and expensive.

[QuitTheirClogs]

Are we absolutely sure this wasn't just a slip of the tongue? She could have meant Daniel Pearl and said OBL instead by mistake. The BBC might just have edited the remarks to prevent confusion caused by such an error.

This is a very easy defence for the BBC to put forward, and people are just going to end up looking silly if they try to make too much of this edit.

Also, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh is a far more interesting character than OBL. If there’s mileage in this story, then it’s in putting the focus on Omar Sheikh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh


9/11 Timeline:

If you read just one thing at this website, please read this essay. Don’t mind the length and complexity. Saeed Sheikh’s story is not just mildly interesting. Understanding the history of this young man may not only explain many mysteries of 9/11, including solid evidence of foreign government involvement in the attacks, but may also reveal if nuclear war in the near future is likely. No kidding. Please read! Note that this was first written in September 2002 but has been thoroughly overhauled based on exposure to additional evidence. Also, click to find more details about Saeed Sheikh and his boss Mahmood Ahmed.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essa ... essaysaeed

[Disco_Destroyer]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg[/youtube][/youtube]

[Disco_Destroyer]

Yea some slip of the tongue

[Jack]

Are we absolutely sure this wasn't just a slip of the tongue? She could have meant Daniel Pearl and said OBL instead by mistake. The BBC might just have edited the remarks to prevent confusion caused by such an error.

I'm not supporting the BBC here or saying Bhutto was wrong, it's just that it could hve been a simple error on her part. After all, she doesn't expand upon it and so her words remain rather cryptic, open to explanations on both sides.

yeah, i think it was just a slip.

[Disco_Destroyer]

Which bit Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh or the fact Bin Laden is dead wtf??

[Disco_Destroyer]

Are we absolutely sure this wasn't just a slip of the tongue? She could have meant Daniel Pearl and said OBL instead by mistake. The BBC might just have edited the remarks to prevent confusion caused by such an error.

I'm not supporting the BBC here or saying Bhutto was wrong, it's just that it could hve been a simple error on her part. After all, she doesn't expand upon it and so her words remain rather cryptic, open to explanations on both sides.

yeah, i think it was just a slip.

Its a passing sentence why the hell would anyone need to expand on it?
In Pakistan it may well be general knowledge OBL is dead, plus if the interview was not about Al Queada and OBL its Islamic militants in general

Lastly editing anything without a public statement to a reason why is deceitful

Tony knows all about that

[James C]

Are we absolutely sure this wasn't just a slip of the tongue? She could have meant Daniel Pearl and said OBL instead by mistake. The BBC might just have edited the remarks to prevent confusion caused by such an error.

I'm not supporting the BBC here or saying Bhutto was wrong, it's just that it could hve been a simple error on her part. After all, she doesn't expand upon it and so her words remain rather cryptic, open to explanations on both sides.

yeah, i think it was just a slip.

Its a passing sentence why the hell would anyone need to expand on it?
In Pakistan it may well be general knowledge OBL is dead, plus if the interview was not about Al Queada and OBL its Islamic militants in general

Lastly editing anything without a public statement to a reason why is deceitful

Tony knows all about that

But al jazeera has edited nothing. It's there for all to see. Why mention OBL if you don't follow it up when you have such a great opportunity. She was, after all, speaking to Sir David Frost, the man who brought Nixon to his knees with very probing questions. If her aim was to spread the word then she really screwed it up. On the other hand she could just have gotton her names mixed up. As someone has rightly said above, the issue is more about Omar Sheikh than OBL.

[Micpsi]

Are we absolutely sure this wasn't just a slip of the tongue? She could have meant Daniel Pearl and said OBL instead by mistake. The BBC might just have edited the remarks to prevent confusion caused by such an error.

This is a very easy defence for the BBC to put forward, and people are just going to end up looking silly if they try to make too much of this edit.

Sure. But ask yourself this: why bother editing out an innocent 'slip of the tongue' if it is so innocent? Editing is normally done only to shorten the length of broadcast of a news piece or interview. There were far more 'dull' moments that could have been cut if time was a consideration. But, no. The most explosive passage is cut out. Anyway, when did the BBC start editing out slips of the tongue?

[James C]

Are we absolutely sure this wasn't just a slip of the tongue? She could have meant Daniel Pearl and said OBL instead by mistake. The BBC might just have edited the remarks to prevent confusion caused by such an error.

This is a very easy defence for the BBC to put forward, and people are just going to end up looking silly if they try to make too much of this edit.

Sure. But ask yourself this: why bother editing out an innocent 'slip of the tongue' if it is so innocent? Editing is normally done only to shorten the length of broadcast of a news piece or interview. There were far more 'dull' moments that could have been cut if time was a consideration. But, no. The most explosive passage is cut out. Anyway, when did the BBC start editing out slips of the tongue?

I make no excuses for the BBC but I am requesting that common sense be applied to this story. Talk of suing the BBC is silly unless the issue has been looked at carefully especially when al jazeera is broadcast on Sky and is available to all anyway. The BBC could give any number of reasons for editing that clip and all would be valuable ammunition for the debunkers to make the 9/11 truth movement look silly if legal action were ever to arise and be made public. Sure it adds to the big picture, but in itself it is inconclusive.

[Micpsi]

yeah, i think it was just a slip.

Its a passing sentence why the hell would anyone need to expand on it?
In Pakistan it may well be general knowledge OBL is dead, plus if the interview was not about Al Queada and OBL its Islamic militants in general

Lastly editing anything without a public statement to a reason why is deceitful

Tony knows all about that

But al jazeera has edited nothing. It's there for all to see. Why mention OBL if you don't follow it up when you have such a great opportunity. She was, after all, speaking to Sir David Frost, the man who brought Nixon to his knees with very probing questions. If her aim was to spread the word then she really screwed it up. On the other hand she could just have gotton her names mixed up. As someone has rightly said above, the issue is more about Omar Sheikh than OBL.

Look. She moves in circles that have told her that OBL is dead, OK? Is that too hard for you to believe of someone who knew more dirt about Pakistani politicians and officials than you could imagine? This was not misspeaking. Bhutto was always an outspoken person and even the Foreign Office advised her to cool it with her accusations about the ISI. She had a loose, undiplomatic tongue and revealed what she had learnt but was not supposed to talk about. It certainly was NOT her aim to 'spread the word'. LOL! It was said in a throw-away remark as if she thought everyone else already knew. That's why she did not elaborate. And Frost seemed either too stupid or too taken aback to take her up on the point. I really do doubt that someone of her intelligence and knowledge could have confused the names of Osama bin Laden and Daniel Pearl.

[James C]

Its a passing sentence why the hell would anyone need to expand on it?
In Pakistan it may well be general knowledge OBL is dead, plus if the interview was not about Al Queada and OBL its Islamic militants in general

Lastly editing anything without a public statement to a reason why is deceitful

Tony knows all about that

But al jazeera has edited nothing. It's there for all to see. Why mention OBL if you don't follow it up when you have such a great opportunity. She was, after all, speaking to Sir David Frost, the man who brought Nixon to his knees with very probing questions. If her aim was to spread the word then she really screwed it up. On the other hand she could just have gotton her names mixed up. As someone has rightly said above, the issue is more about Omar Sheikh than OBL.

Look. She moves in circles that have told her that OBL is dead, OK? Is that too hard for you to believe of someone who knew more dirt about Pakistani politicians and officials than you could imagine? This was not misspeaking. Bhutto was always an outspoken person and even the Foreign Office advised her to cool it with her accusations about the ISI. She had a loose, undiplomatic tongue and revealed what she had learnt but was not supposed to talk about. It certainly was NOT her aim to 'spread the word'. LOL! It was said in a throw-away remark as if she thought everyone else already knew. That's why she did not elaborate. And Frost seemed either too stupid or too taken aback to take her up on the point. I really do doubt that someone of her intelligence and knowledge could have confused the names of Osama bin Laden and Daniel Pearl.

Did you know her personally?

For someone who was so clever, why did she suggest the US and UK secret services should look into this if she knew they were complicit? She must have been in absolute exile if she thought it common knowledge that OBL is dead.

[Micpsi]

I make no excuses for the BBC but I am requesting that common sense be applied to this story. Talk of suing the BBC is silly unless the issue has been looked at carefully especially when al jazeera is broadcast on Sky and is available to all anyway. The BBC could give any number of reasons for editing that clip and all would be valuable ammunition for the debunkers to make the 9/11 truth movement look silly if legal action were ever to arise and be made public. Sure it adds to the big picture, but in itself it is inconclusive.

Well, It is not conclusive in the sense that the BBC could well offer some half-baked explanation, just as it did for saying its report of the WTC7 collapsing before it did was a "mistake" and refused to reveal where their news source was. All I am saying is that no one with any sense is going to believe that the BBC had ANY sound, plausible reason to cut out the only explosive statement in the Bhutto interview. What does the BBC take us for? Suckers?

[Micpsi]

Who's saying that Bhutto knew that the CIA or MI6 were involved in the murder of Bin Laden? I didn't. I suspect that she had been told by intelligence sources in the West that ISI ordered the hit, but had begun to realise that she had been double-crossed or set-up when she returned to Pakistan and found she was getting no protection from the authorities. That's why she even turned to Blackwater for help. She thought she had the backing of Washington and London but realised, when she got back to Pakistan, that she didn't because Musharraf was not providing the security she had been promised. In other words, she realised she had been set up. She knew who her would-be killers were - she named them in an e-mail to the Foreign Office. WE knew whom she named.

[James C]

I make no excuses for the BBC but I am requesting that common sense be applied to this story. Talk of suing the BBC is silly unless the issue has been looked at carefully especially when al jazeera is broadcast on Sky and is available to all anyway. The BBC could give any number of reasons for editing that clip and all would be valuable ammunition for the debunkers to make the 9/11 truth movement look silly if legal action were ever to arise and be made public. Sure it adds to the big picture, but in itself it is inconclusive.

Well, It is not conclusive in the sense that the BBC could well offer some half-baked explanation, just as it did for saying its report of the WTC7 collapsing before it did was a "mistake" and refused to reveal where their news source was. All I am saying is that no one with any sense is going to believe that the BBC had ANY sound, plausible reason to cut out the only explosive statement in the Bhutto interview. What does the BBC take us for? Suckers?

This story, unlike with the WTC7 case, does not belong to the BBC. The BBC, unlike with the WTC7 case, is therefore in a better position to defend itself. Although it is an interesting issue, we should beware of pointing the finger at the BBC, as much as we'd like to. Bhutto could have made a simple error and sadly we'll never know if this was the case.

However, it is clear from this interview that Bhutto would not have allowed CIA and MI6 intervention in the workings of the ISI and if she had risen to power would probably have destroyed such ties, ending the war on terror myth very quickly. No wonder she lost her life.

[Micpsi]

This story, unlike with the WTC7 case, does not belong to the BBC. The BBC, unlike with the WTC7 case, is therefore in a better position to defend itself. Although it is an interesting issue, we should beware of pointing the finger at the BBC, as much as we'd like to. Bhutto could have made a simple error and sadly we'll never know if this was the case.

Well, of course she could. But how likely was that? I don't think you will find many that agree. This story is now on many blog and alternative news sites and they certainly don't think that is plausible.

However, it is clear from this interview that Bhutto would not have allowed CIA and MI6 intervention in the workings of the ISI and if she had risen to power would probably have destroyed such ties, ending the war on terror myth very quickly. No wonder she lost her life.

Intervention!? She already knew they were involved up to their necks in the workings of the ISI!!!! ISI is simply a front for the CIA and MI6, for God's sake! It always has been. Saeed Sheikh was an MI6 agent masquerading as Al Qaeda who was ordered by the director-general of ISI to pay Mohammed Atta $100,000. He was protected by ISI. That's why he gave himself up to Brigadier Shah, then in ISI, after the Pearl murder. I doubt that she could have destroyed the collusion. She was too compromised with her own corruption and would have been ousted yet again if she had ever tried. This time, however, they took no chances.....

[Disco_Destroyer]

It is not wise to sumise anything but OBL being dead may well be socially accepted in other parts of the globe hell I've seen 2 making this the 3rd such account now and from Mainstream sources

Did you know her personally?

For someone who was so clever, why did she suggest the US and UK secret services should look into this if she knew they were complicit?

Same reason FBI are reported to be in a Fued with CIA and FBI have investigated 9/11 far enough to have no proof of OBL involvement.
Infact doesn't the everyday policeforce investigate all murders etc. until the Home Office declares something of National Importance? If one of the intelligence agencies are complicit it will take time to block an investigation from another branch or agency. If all agencies were working for the same goal nothing would ever be leaked.

She must have been in absolute exile

Yep trying to stand up to tyranny says alot about the kind of Exile She must have been in, 'a rock and a hard place' comes to mind.

[Disco_Destroyer]

Politicians always spend hours preparing for interviews and talk shows, no way a slip of the tongue, a slip of the tongue would be followed with stuttering, stammering, facial expression and goodness knows what else and would have been edited at source!
The BBC probably rely on the fact that most BBC viewers would turn their nose up at Al Jazeera.
The only other explanation would be to plant further distrust of Anglo-Americans within the Al Jazeera watching Asian Minority of this country and others, therefore furthering the cause of racial hatred. Clever what what

[Disco_Destroyer]

The only other explanation would be to plant further distrust of Anglo-Americans within the Al Jazeera watching Asian Minority of this country and others, therefore furthering the cause of racial hatred. Clever what what

Therefore highlighting the fact that utmost care need be taken in broadcasting an effective counter measure