Tony Benn was widely lauded for his staunch convictions……remaining a trenchant champion of hardline, radical leftwing ideology….Miliband claiming he was an “iconic figure of our age…. a great parliamentarian and a conviction politician.“

“Tony Benn spoke his mind and spoke up for his values. Whether you agreed with him or disagreed with him, everyone knew where he stood and what he stood for.

“For someone of such strong views, often at odds with his party, he won respect from across the political spectrum.

“This was because of his unshakeable beliefs and his abiding determination that power and the powerful should be held to account.”

 

Funny how ‘conviction’ Muslim fundamentalists who stick to their unshakeable beliefs and want to implement Sharia law and attack the ‘West’, ‘holding power to account’, because of its actions in Muslim countries, are vilified as criminals or madmen perverting their religion.

Are they not ‘iconic figures’ for their absolute faith in their beliefs and actions as Benn was?

 

Another paradox is that the BBC doesn’t blink when so-called moderate Muslims come out with the exact same line as Jihadists and are essentially supporting ‘Jihad’ against Western democracy….though of course denying they are in favour of violence as the means to the end they want to achieve.

A few weeks ago on the Today programme Mo Ansar gave us his opinion as to why Muslims were becoming ‘radicalised’…or becoming ‘conviction’ Muslims you might say.

It was the West’s Foreign Policy….it apparently forged a generation of disenfranchised, angry young British Muslims…..he told us ‘we feel the pain….Muslims are marginalised, disenfranchised and are suffering’ because of this.

Oh yes…he went on…Muslims are undersiege, restless, frustrated…of course they will be attracted to any course of action that they think will deal with that.

So Mo Ansar justifies or excuses, ‘understands’,  the used of terrorism for anyone who opposes Western foreign policy..in Muslim countries?

He told us that he is in regular contact with Jihadis.

The question of course, he said, was how to reintroduce all those angry, disenfranchised, restless, frustrated, marginalised, besieged young British Muslims  back into decent society.

The answer…change your foreign policy.

‘Is it reliance on terror that truly distinguishes a movement from its political opponents?’

Hmmm…so the problem as Mo Ansar sees it, is the same problem as the Jihadis see it, and the answer is the same…..and whilst he doesn’t support their violent actions he ‘understands’, he ‘feels their pain’.

Naturally the BBC didn’t object to this line of thinking and didn’t raise any objection to the ‘foreign policy is at the heart of the problem’ justification.

They didn’t ask why it is that it is only Muslims who are becoming terrorists on this issue…why not the ‘Million’ who went on the anti-War marches?  What is the defining factor that makes someone a Jihadi?

Could it be the Islamic imperative that all Muslims are obliged to fight on behalf of their fellow Muslims if they are ‘attacked’?

In other words it is Islamic law and belief that drives these Jihadists…..but the BBC et all tell us that Islam is a religion of peace and there is no connection between the beliefs that drive the Jihadis and Islam……one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter…

 

The Changing Faces of Terrorism

By Professor Adam Roberts

The oft-repeated statement ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ reflects genuine doubts about what constitutes ‘terrorism’. Sir Adam Roberts surveys the ever-changing definition of terrorist activity, including mass murder of civilians exemplified by the events of September 11.

 

The Muslims ‘terrorism’ then is surely just another expression of the old anti-colonialist terrorism that aimed to end the grip of European empires on foreign lands….though this time by people who also aim to impose their own ’empire’…a religious one…the Caliphate….and therefore is welcomed by the ‘Left’….’Blowback’.

 

The BBC doesn’t like to use the phrase ‘terrorist’, especially in connection to Palestinians…..perhaps because they believe something along the lines of this:

‘…the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza…was an exercise of violence against which counter-violence was legitimate.’

However the UN General Assembly drafted a definition of Terrorism as:

‘Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be used to justify them.’

 

Criminal acts….unjustifiable…whatever political or ideological considerations are used to justify the use of terror.

 

So the BBC should be using the term ‘Terrorism’ in relation to Palestinian terrorism….or maybe not…..it’s, apparently, a ‘value judgement’.….’one man’s terrorist….’

Value Judgements

The value judgements frequently implicit in the use of the words “terrorist” or “terrorist group” can create inconsistency in their use or, to audiences, raise doubts about our impartiality. For example, the bombing of a bus in London was carried out by “terrorists”, but the bombing of a bus in Israel was perpetrated by a “suicide bomber”. Or again, “terrorists” in London bombed a tube train, but “insurgents” in Iraq have “assassinated” the Egyptian ambassador. The use of the words can imply judgement where there is no clear consensus about the legitimacy of militant political groups.

As David Spaull, then-Editor of World Service News wrote in 1988:

“Accepting that there are some actions which most people would recognise as a terrorist act- the hand grenade thrown into a crèche, the airport queue machine-gunned – we should still avoid the word. In the first place, our audience is as perceptive as we are, and can make up their own minds without being provided with labels. In the second place, there are actions which are not quite so clearly terrorism and we should not be forced into the position of having to make value judgements on each event”.

 

“Bomb attack” conveys more information more quickly than “terrorist attack”, similarly “suicide bomber”, “bomber”, “assassin”, “gun man” help fill in the picture.

We also need to ask ourselves whether by using “terrorist” we are taking a political position, or certainly one that may be seen as such.

 

That blurring of the lines, that hiding behind a claim that calling a hand grenade thrown into a creche ‘terrorism’ is purely a value judgement…perhaps such actions were justifiable by the wider context suggests the BBC……that blurring goes on…as stated above by the likes of Mo Ansar, and passed without challenge by the BBC.

 

Consider these claims from Harry’s place:

Exposing the Pseudo Moderation of Mo Ansar

Guest Post, June 5th 2013, 11:20 am

This is a guest post by Amjad Khan

The scrutinous nature of the post-911 political discourse about Islam and Muslims has compelled many, otherwise reactionary and outright bigoted, figures to recast themselves as moderates. Such recasting has been necessary in order to stay in the limelight and remain relevant, but, as is always the case, the mask often slips.

A classic and almost textbook example is the pseudo moderate, and favourite of BBC’s Big Questions, Mo Ansar.

…..it seems Mo’s ‘extensive experience in countering extremism‘ involves promoting and defending the work and goals of what every right-minded person regards as an extremist organisation…..Mo’s twitter feed of full of links to and endorsements of leading extremist groups and individuals. And therein lies the real tragedy. British Muslims have been let down again and again by self-styled leaders who abuse their position to espouse a regressive and reactionary agenda. In the case of Mo, actively promoting the work and ideas of an organisation that gave birth to Anjem Choudary, Omar Bakri and a whole host of other extremists that have inspired many terror attacks in the UK.

 

 

British Muslims have been let down by the likes of Mo Ansar?….and those who befriend him…such as Nicky Campbell.

 

 

Campbell is on very friendly terms with Mo Ansar who is a regular on his show, and many other BBC shows….here is another, less ‘judgmental’ opinion of Ansar (thanks again to Guest Who)….

 

 

 

Anarchopedia has a long run down on Ansar….Talk:Mohammed Ansar

 

Campbell urges Ansar to be careful how he talks about Maajid Nawaz  and the Mo cartoons.

Broadcaster Nicky Campbell responded:

@NickyAACampbell 7:28 PM – 20 Jan 2014: “@MoAnsar Credible death threats? Take care you don’t come over as whipping this up my friend”

Ansar replied:

@MoAnsar: “@NickyAACampbell And to be condemned. As a LEADING extremism expert, he will have absolutely known the response. Reckless or intended?”

Nicky Campbell warned:

@NickyAACampbell: “@MoAnsar careful pal“

 

 

However on his programme he did challenge Ansar and his hypocrisy:

Nicky Campbell: and the Muslim commentator Mo Ansar. Hello Mo.

Mo Ansar: Morning Nicky. Morning David.

Nicky Campbell: Mohammed, you’ve been tweeting about this fairly constantly. Given some of the death that have come Maajid Nawaz’s way: “I would be happy to cut off your neck so your kuffr unbeliever friends won’t be amused by your humour”. Somebody else says “you’ll get a welcome in Pakistan”. The history of violence against people who have depicted your prophet, aren’t you grossly irresponsible, Mohammed Ansar?

Mo Ansar: No, I don’t think so.

Nicky Campbell: Well the BBC has a clear record on this, as do British broadcasters, by showing Father Ted, Monty Python’s Life of Brian and Dave Allen ..

Mo Ansar: I think those programmes are brilliant.

Nicky Campbell: Well what’s the problem then with lampooning the prophet, so-called?

     David Aaronovitch: Well, I’d like to invite Mo Ansar to do this following thing……Describe  to  those listeners who haven’t seen the cartoon…… describe that cartoon to the listeners now, Mo.

                   Mo Ansar: This isn’t about cartoons, David.

Nicky Campbell: Now hang on……..What’s the problem with lampooning Muhammad and showing an image. Explain. Explain to listeners why you have a problem with that.

               Mo Ansar: Who said I had a problem with the cartoons?

David Aaronovitch: [laughs as though crying]

 

 

Despite this unusual outbreak of rigorous and challenging journalism with Ansar he is usually on very good terms with his old mate:

 

 

Nicky Campbell will ‘vouch for me’ says Ansar.  Says it all really.

 

As does this:

 

‘Bill’ yesterday decided we shouldn’t tackle the BBC’s bias towards Islam on this site.

The above shows precisely why that is necessary.

 

Ansar tells us that ‘The tide of Islam is irreversible in the West’….’Check the birthrates sometime’.

 

Both comments are true.

However the BBC went to some lengths, as noted on this site before, to underplay the significance of growing Muslim population in the West….and its effects.

What is the reality and what will be the consequences of a massive growth is Muslim populations in Europe?  The BBC doesn’t discuss those consequences….for fear of what people will think….in other words the BBC is doing its best to hide consequences, the bad ones, of the ‘irreversible tide of Islam coming to the West’.

 

But it’s not just this site indulging in apparently ‘angry outbursts based on our personal prejudices’  rather than investigating ‘true’ BBC bias:

Sikhs and Hindus accuse BBC of pro-Muslim bias

“People in our communities are shocked,” he said. “We are licence-fee payers and we want to know why this has happened. The bias towards Islam at the expense of Hindus and particularly Sikhs is overwhelming and appears to be a part of BBC policy.”

 

Senior BBC journalist condemns BBC’s pro-Muslim, anti-Christian bias

Peter Sissons, one the UK’s most senior and respected broadcasters, has condemned the institutionalised anti-Christian bias of the BBC …..he writes that in the BBC’s “pervading culture” of anti-Christianity, “Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.”

 

BBC Internal Memo Admits Anti-Christian Bias

The British Broadcasting Corporation has admitted to a marked bias against Christianity and a strong inclination to pro-Muslim reporting among the network’s executives and key anchors, in a leaked account of an “impartiality summit.”

 

The BBC’s bias towards Islam is a big problem when it hides the issues that underlie many people’s concerns, those concerns dismissed tritely as mere prejudice or ‘Islamophobia’, and especially when the BBC hides the connection between violence, terrorism even, and Islamic beliefs and religious imperatives…..never mind the social, political and cultural consequences.

The Public’s understanding of  the issues and the consequences that follow as a the result of those issues is undermined, or ignored, by a BBC that refuses to discuss openly the problems that Islam creates….rather than merely telling us Islam is wonderful, peaceful and tolerant ideology…when it clearly isn’t.

You can’t just report the good and ignore the bad in a misplaced attempt to manage community relations.  The BBC gives constant support for the notion that foreign policy drives the anger in Muslim communities and hence recruitment of Jihadis…and yet refuses to acknowledge why it is Muslims who become radicalised when persuaded of that reasoning.

To keep plugging that narrative without questioning it is what radicalises Muslims…therefore the BBC is responsible for the resultant ‘radicalisation’ and terrorism that follows….never mind the ‘Talibanisation’ of parts of the UK.

Hence its pro- Muslim bias should be challenged.