Centuries Of Deadly Lies And Camouflage: How Blood and Butchery Commission Better Portrays The Acronym, BBC

Centuries Of Deadly Lies And Camouflage: How Blood and Butchery  Commission Better Portrays The Acronym, BBC  Britain’s Empire of Lies and t...

Centuries Of Deadly Lies And Camouflage: How Blood and Butchery  Commission Better Portrays The Acronym, BBC 

Britain’s Empire of Lies and the Broadcasters Who Whitewash It  

Drawing from countless pathetic references, it is proper to conclude that the so called BBC(British Broadcasting Corporation) is never instituted to truly report the actual news or tell about history the way it is, but to rewrites them. Wherever Britain has committed genocide, looted resources, or destroyed civilizations, the BBC has been there to provide the perfect cover story. It is less of a news agency and more of a Bloodstained Butchery Commission, ensuring that every massacre looks like a misunderstanding and every invasion sounds like a humanitarian mission.  

Let us take a walk down memory lane and explore the BBC’s long history of broadcasting Britain’s crimes as acts of charity. 

Between 1967-1970, over three million Biafrans, mostly children, were starved to death in what can only be described as a British-conspired genocide. The Nigerian government, with Britain’s full support, blockaded Biafra, cutting off food and medical supplies while BBC reporters watched, but was not there to report the genocide—it was there to defend it.

Instead of calling it what it was, a calculated extermination of a people, the BBC made sure the world saw it as a mere "civil war." A tragic conflict between two African factions, having nothing to do with Britain, of course Meanwhile, the British government supplied the Nigerian army with weapons and diplomatic cover, ensuring that starvation became a tool of war.  

As Biafran children’s ribs protruded from their frail bodies, the BBC politely looked away, just as it had been trained to do. After all, acknowledging genocide might put Britain in a bad light, and they cannot have that.

During the 1950s, Britain ran a system of concentration camps in Kenya that would have made Nazi Germany jealous. The Mau Mau rebels, Kenyans fighting for their own land were rounded up, tortured, castrated, raped, and executed. It was a reign of terror.  

And what did the BBC do? It called the Mau Mau people "terrorists." You see, when Africans fight for freedom, they are not revolutionaries, they are not heroes they are "terrorists." Meanwhile, British soldiers who burned villages and slaughtered civilians were "peacekeepers."  

For years, the BBC hid the truth about Britain’s war crimes in Kenya. It was only in the 2000s when survivors sued the British government that some of these horrors came to light. But by then, the BBC had already done its job: Britain had gotten away with murder.

In 1919, British General Reginald Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on a peaceful gathering of unarmed Indians in Amritsar. The result? Over 1,000 men, women, and children gunned down in cold blood.

Surely, the BBC reported this massacre with the outrage it deserved, right? Wrong.  

The BBC did what it does best; it softened the language. Instead of a "massacre," it was an "unfortunate incident." Instead of "cold-blooded murder," it was "a breakdown in communication." The same tricks, the same lies, the same whitewashing of British atrocities.  

  

For centuries, Britain treated Ireland like an abusive husband treats a battered wife. And through it all, the BBC stood by, ever faithful to the British state.  

During The Troubles, Britain unleashed death squads, executed civilians, and covered up war crimes in Northern Ireland. And the BBC? It was there to make sure the world saw the Irish as the villains. 

When British paratroopers murdered 14 unarmed civilians on Bloody Sunday in 1972, the BBC never to hesitated to call it what it was - a war crime. Instead, they danced around the truth, waiting for the British government to decide what the "official version" should be. Because for BBC, the first rule of journalism is simple: Never embarrass the Empire.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and Britain was back to doing what it does best invading other people’s countries. First, it was Iraq. Then Afghanistan. The script never changes.  

When Britain joined America in bombing Iraq into the Stone Age, the BBC played its part beautifully. Instead of questioning why Britain was illegally invading a sovereign country, the BBC focused on how "necessary" it was. When it turned out that Iraq had no "weapons of mass destruction," did the BBC hold Tony Blair accountable? Of course not. Instead, they moved on, helping to rewrite history once again. Because for the BBC, facts are optional, but protecting Britain’s reputation is mandatory.

The BBC’s coverage of Palestine is a masterpiece in propaganda. Whenever Israeli forces bomb Palestinian homes or kill civilians, the BBC calls it "clashes." When Palestinians defend themselves, the BBC calls it "terrorism."  

Britain’s role in the Palestinian conflict is undeniable. It was the British who, in 1917, handed over Palestinian land to foreigners through the Balfour Declaration. It was the British who crushed Palestinian resistance with brutal force. But does the BBC talk about this? No, that would be too honest. Instead, they report the conflict in the most neutral, meaningless terms possible, ensuring that Britain’s historical crimes remain buried.  

The BBC is not a news organization. It is a weapon of mass deception. It does not exist to tell the truth; it exists to protect Britain’s image.  

From Biafra to Kenya, from Ireland to Iraq, the BBC has perfected the art of hiding Britain’s sins while pretending to be the voice of reason. It is not a news broadcasting outfit, it is an accomplice to empire, a co-conspirator in genocide, and the official storyteller for coating British butchery.  

So, the next time you hear the BBC talk about a war, ask yourself: Whose crimes are they hiding this time?

Family Writers Press International