Lavished with praise he may be, but ‘liberator of Kabul’ John Simpson, also author of this analysis of the Iranian elections, ought to be a little embarrassed by this contrast:
Simpson on Rafsanjani- ‘Unlike any of them, he understands the art of the deal, and is more concerned with what he can get away with than with making big statements.’
meanwhile…
Rafsanjani contemplating putting the nuclear kybosh on Israel-‘
“If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world”,’
Simpson says ‘Mr Rafsanjani is a man who believes that politics is the art of the possible.’ , yet he omits to say what he is on record as regarding as possible, ie. the nuclear blackmail of Israel and the West with a view to the elimination of Israel.
Surely, contrary to Simpson, there is no conciliatory candidate here. We ought to be examining whether, a) Ordinary Iranians want us wriggling on the end of a WW3 pin, or B) Whether the elections were as unfair as some have claimed them to be, and this inital tie was a clever way of concealing that fact. Simpson, true to form, is dismissive:
‘Two of the main reformist candidates now claim the result was a fix. But maybe the reformists simply cancelled each other out, and let their most extreme opponent through.’
A simple business, analysis, in the expert hands of Mr Simpson.
I think this comment, posted by an Iranian at the bottom of the BBC article, puts the issue of Rafsanjani very succinctly.
We’re caught between a rock and a hard place: to choose from the bad and the worse. Rafsanjani’s just getting away with everything since in the current situation he’s become the “less bad”. But how can we convince ourselves to write down the name of someone we disapprove of just because the other is worse? It’s a difficult decision: whether to vote or to abstain.
Homa Musavi, Tehran, Iran
MEMRI gave their account of the same speech here.
I really sympathize with the Iranians facing the cruel choices available to them.
It is dishonest of the BBC or anyone else to report the Iranian elections without pointing out, in the first paragraph, that only male Muslims may run for office, and without pointing out in the first background sentence that only candidates approved by the Council of Guardians (a self-perpetuating body of preachers first appointed by Ayatollah Khomeini) may run and that the Council of Guardians approved only 8 out of 1000 applicants.
Another highly relevant bit of background is that outright opponents to theocratic rule (who of course don’t bother to apply to the preachers for permission to run for office) will get you killed or imprisoned.
That would make it rather difficult for John Simpson and the other BBC pseudo-journalists to report the electoral exercise as through it was not taking place in a dictatorship.
I would like him to explain why it is that the fundmentalist and totalitarian Iranian regime permits the BBC to maintain offices in Tehran, and broadcast there.
No doubt they will give some kind of BS answer along the lines of the Iranian desire to be presented to the West by respected media organisations. Fact is the BBC has done a deal to portray the ruling elite and the goings on there in a manner acceptable to the West. For sure the BBC reports on Iran, and other similar regimes where the BBC maintains offices, will continue to give us more and more ammunition.
I wonder how long it will take for Galloway to go to Iran and fawn over Rafsanjani. It’s got to be worth quite a few more Muslim votes, and will show just what our society and government is about.
I’m glad Natalie linked to the more sober Memri article, because the Free Republic page (using the barking Iran Press Service item) that Ed offers does rather dilute his generally fair post.
“One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel…”
Not according to any quotes he didn’t.
* * *
Speaking of missing substantiating quotes, I consider this Simpson paragraph distinctly suspect:
“To listen to President Bush or Condoleezza Rice you might think that it was just another Afghanistan, backward and instinctively fundamentalist. Not so – Iran is one of the most advanced societies in the region. “
I listen to Bush and Rice and get no such impression. Maybe one of our BBC supporters can help (their hero?) out.
Every time I see rubbish like this from the vastly overrated Simpson, I’m reminded of what happened on Radio1 many years ago. The chiefs finally realised that some of the presenters were self indulgent, out of touch bloats. They just dumped them – it was that easy (marvellous it was; such wailing and gnashing of teeth).
Maybe someone in news and current affairs will have a similar realisation.
Nah…
.
How can you even consider Iran to be an advanced society ??? They’re only slightly better than the Taleban were and that says a lot (Sharia Law, my friends, Sharia Law)
OT: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4121800.stm
The US giving more aid to North Korea. So, John B., without the US your communist friends over there would slowly starve to death. I’m beginning to wonder if communism actually is the real answer to all problems.
OT
I just love one of the recent (D)HYS columns:
“Are you surprised by the figures? Are you happy for taxpayers to pay for the Royal Family? Does it represent good value for money or not?”
I can see where the BBC hope that this is going, and it largely does, but we’re rewarded with a prize case. I suspect by a B-BBC prankster:
“They should use the money instead on poor and increase the tax credits. Instead of keeping the monarchy rich! And the poor, poor! We don’t need this out of date institution. I wish someone would pay for me to fly to Scotland to play golf like the tax payer has done for Andrew. Who cares that the amount is less than years previously and they are paying more tax. We all pay more tax!
Aubrey Moore, Doncaster, South Yorkshire”
He he. Well done.
on the suject of :
simple business, analysis, in the expert hands of Mr Simpson
“The BBC’s world affairs editor John Simpson avoided tax on his book Strange Places, Questionable People while he lived in the exclusive town of Dalkey. DBC Pierre, who won the £50,000 Man Booker prize in 2003 and used the money to pay back a friend he had swindled, lives in a cottage in Leitrim, where his income from novels is tax-free.”
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1509280,00.html#article_continue
Joerg, the Iranians are a well educated, urbane and sophisticated society who suffer due to their brutal, archaic leadership. They yearn for the freedoms we in the West enjoy and civil unrest in Iran is growing. They need our support and assistance in order to despatch those who stifle the will of the people.
There’s shedloads of free Iran bloggers out there, here’s a couple:
http://www.activistchat.com/blogiran/
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/
PJF,
1) Very good point on “To listen to President Bush or Condoleezza Rice you might think that it was just another Afghanistan…”
2) I get the impression that the Iran Press Service, who wrote the article that was re-posted on Free Republic, are an exile outfit. On the one hand that gives them a motive to give the regime a bad press. On the other hand, it deserves a bad press – and being a partisan does not necessarily make you dishonest. Another factor is that some IPS writers do not have perfect command of English. (Their English is a million times better than my Farsi, mind.) My guess is that Rafsanjani actually made a speech calculated to be understood by his base as “Nuke Israel” while leaving deniability in place.
OT x 2
Robin Cook. Strange. I think I’m getting to like Robin Cook. He did a spot with Naughtie this morning on R4 Today. Naughtie was his usual fawning self, slobbering all over the little gnome. Cookie must be odds-on for a Ken Clark style ‘Jazz Greats’ prog of his own on R4. He’s making all the right noises. Watch this space.
Royals – Value for Money?. Yeah, you could replace the word ‘Royals’ with ‘BBC’ in those beeb news reports and have a perfectly good discussion about how the BBC provides ‘value for money’ (or not). How about once a year every time the license fee increases by RPI ++% ?
I might suggest the topic on (D)HYS.
Andrew Paterson helpfully emphasises an important point. There is a distinction between the Islamic world and the Islamofascist extremists who are trying to take it over. I feel that some commenters here confuse the two all too readily.
.
Natalie, as you point out, the language barrier makes it difficult for us Anglos to know precisely what Rafsanjani said. But in the absence of an actual transcript of Rafsanjani saying the things attributed to him by the likes of Iran Press Service, I think it’s a mistake to illustrate a point about BBC misinformation by using them. It makes life rather easy for our detractors.
If I were to make a conclusion based solely on the Memri version, I’d say Rafsanjani was talking (in that delightful medieval way of his) about deterrent, not attack. And there’s nothing in the Iran Press Service quotes that dissuades me from that.
Not that I trust him or his words one little bit.
.
The royal family cost 37 Million and represents Britain and it’s interests.
The BBC costs 2800 Million and harms Britain and it’s interests.
Anything that harms the vile BBC is good news.
OT
BBC Online (a really subversive site ?) gives a frontpage reference to a speech by Galloway demanding that police should allow close access to the G8 leaders at Gleneagles. He claimed this would reduce the risk of trouble from his ilk – and the BBC tamely publicises this tosh !
I doubt if any other serious UK news outlet gave any prominence to this ridicuous man’s speech. But the prime purpose of the protests is to attack Bush – so the BBC gives it amplification. Surprise, surprise.
Who is this guy Simpson? Is he a NEWS REPORTER or just another OPINIONATED broadcaster? Is he related to Bart, who once said he wants to be a butt doctor when he grows up?
Hey, I know a lot about the Middle East. I grew up there. This Simpson is just another bbc type that we call “laugh fodder”. It has nothing to do with which “side” you favour. The bbc has no respect from anyone there!
Miam
Example this morning of James Naughtie slobbering all over Robin Cook – yet again :
“Your honeyed words are always so welcome to listeners”
Sez who ? Pass the sick bag, Alice.
Just don’t listen to or watch the BBC “pseudo-journalists” then, you shower of intolerant, bigoted, brainless xenophobics.
To avoid this turning into groundhog day, can I just say ‘why should we have to pay for it then?’ and leave it at that.
“you shower of intolerant, bigoted, brainless xenophobics”:Jo
That’s very intolerant of those with different views!
It’s also tather bigoted to describe everyone posting here in those terms.
You haven’t managed to put any reasoning as to why people who are forced on threat of jail to pay for a broadcaster that is breaking it’s own rules should stop critising it.
Xenophobic? I think you’ll find people from all over the world post here quite freely.
So Jo, I’ll just accuse you of being an ignorant, bigoted, brain-dead tyranny lover instead.
Andrew Paterson:
Show me one moderate muslim… There may be a few out there but they don’t usually show their face.
Nuclear Weapons Can Solve the Israel Problem
Rafsanjani said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them [the colonialists] to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession [meaning nuclear weapons] – on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.
PJF writes
Nuclear Weapons Can Solve the Israel Problem
Rafsanjani said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them [the colonialists] to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession [meaning nuclear weapons] – on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.
PJF writes
If I were to make a conclusion based solely on the Memri version, I’d say Rafsanjani was talking (in that delightful medieval way of his) about deterrent, not attack. And there’s nothing in the Iran Press Service quotes that dissuades me from that.
Yeah – really sounds like deterrent.:lol:
From the “Religion is the root of evil” department:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4124258.stm
The BBC wants to include someone’s profession in a story about his murder conviction. Fair enough. But why point out specifically that he’s a Baptist? Would it be relevant if his victims were Baptists, or AME, or Pentecostals?
Ah yes, but what I really want to know is this: was he practicing true Baptism ? ANyway, it’s nice to see that the Beeb is prepared to give the religion of some killers – just a pity they didn’t have space to report on who actually got killed:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002812.htm
Joerg,
Come off it. Andrew Paterson just did. There are plenty of moderate Iraqi bloggers, too – and they didn’t come from nowhere. Several million voters in Iraq “showed their faces” to vote for largely moderate parties, at considerable risk.
(Nor is there a simple correlation between moderate and anti-terrorist. Some religiously conservative Muslims are strongly against terrorism. David Warren among others has observed that in many ways the Islamofascist movement is modern.)
Your prejudice is blinding you to the fact that there are two revolutionary strains in Islam at the moment: the democratic one and the Islamofascist one.
You say, “they don’t show their faces.” Sometimes that is true. In some countries it is extremely dangerous to dissent from the public display of fanaticism. But the same has been true in lands controlled by many ideologies throughout history. It is true now in non-Muslim lands such as North Korea.
Natalie: As a regular reader of jihadwatch.org I’m convinced that there simply aren’t that many moderate muslims. If there were don’t you think the Beeb would tell us about them all day? I’ve said it many times (and a lot of people are with me on that) – Islam and Democracy are incompatible. The only chance a muslim has to become a democrat is by giving up his faith and by doing that he’d have a fatwa on his head so I’m not holding my breath whilst waiting for these supposed “moderates” to come forward.
P.S.: Where are the moderate muslims living in our countries???
P.P.S.: I’ve yet to read a moderate muslim condemn the killing of Theo van Gogh.
General point: the BBC do a great disservice to Muslims by playing down Muslim crimes. This blog is full of instances of the BBC excusing behaviour by Muslims that would be condemned in non-Muslims. This excuse-making conveys a subtle disrespect, and will harm Muslims in the long term. One of its unfortunate effects is that it prompts blanket hostility.
Even if the the MEMRI translation wasn’t accurate in portraying Rafsanjani’s nuclear ambitions toward Israel, what about the implications of his involvement in the 1994 bombing of the Jewish cultural center in Bueos Aires (which killed 85 people?), as well is in the 1997-1998 extra judicial killings of dozens of Iranian moderate/secular politicians, writers etc.?
The depressing thing is, compared to the other guy and to Khamanei, Raffers probably IS a moderate. Kind of like Brezhnev always used to be presented during the Cold War as a “pragmatist” because he could have been someone so much worse.
PJF: Khomeini’s religious revolution was actually in contravention of Shiite Islamic religious beliefs, which state that a religious ruler cannot be put in place until the return of the 12th Imam, a messiah-like figure who “disappeared” centuries ago and who will someday reappear to lead the Shittes. Until then, the state ruler is supposed to be secular.
And in fact Khomeini got rid of lots of Shiite clerics in the early days of the revolution because they opposed his style of government as being heretical.
OT
Backspin noticed a change in the BBC’s editorial policy that might interest readers of this blog:
( http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2005/06/pondering_bbc_r.html )
The BBC’s television and radio content now needs to comply with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code in six key areas: Protecting the Under Eighteens; Harm and Offence; Crime; Religion; Fairness and Privacy.
Revisions were made to the BBC’s Producers’ Guidelines following recommendations made in the Neil report into editorial issues raised by the Hutton Inquiry. But the last formal update was in 2000.
There’s a new suggestion as well: “A suggestion the BBC should normally consider asking contributors to sign contracts – including a declaration of personal information such as criminal convictions or that which may involve personal conflicts of interest.”
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4121406.stm )
Backspin also mentions a very one-sided (what’s new?) “news” report on the Sharon(bad)-Abbas(good) meeting. One excerpt: [referring to Israel’s demand that terror must stop as a pre-condition] “Many analysts will tell you that Israel is placing unrealistic conditions on the Palestinian leadership.”
It’s not clear who are the ‘many analysts’ that Mr. Price reffers to, but I’ll bet Orla Guering’s soul that he hasn’t consulted any. Instead, I suspect, he uses unknown beings – analysts, as a way to neatly insert his own opinion (dare I say biases?) into a “news” article. And by the way, those people who are not fortunate enough to posses analytical minds (such as those of Price’s analists) might not find Sharon’s insistence on step one of the so-called road map, thought of by the quartet and so far unfullfilled, such an unrealistic condition. But I may be wrong.
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4118126.stm )
It is futile to display more examples from this utterly biased piece because as many analysts will tell you, BBC’s critics have unrealistic requirements from the beeb’s stated (and renewed) editorial policies.
Noticed on Instapundit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4123882.stm
“Al Jazeera – often accused by the Americans of stirring anti-US feeling – has adopted less of an “Us and Them” approach.
The militants are no longer referred to as the “resistance” but as gunmen or suicide bombers.
Eyewitnesses are shown denouncing them as “terrorists””
BBC see no need to change terminology
“Both channels have now been attacked by the militants,”
More moderate Muslims, this time in Thailand
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4118810.stm
“It was the fifth beheading in just over two weeks, and is thought to be the first carried out so publicly”
Carried out by Muslims on Buddhists. According to the BBC because of a heavy handed government response to Muslims demands over relatively minor matters
“People living in Thailand’s Muslim majority south have long complained of discrimination by the central government, particularly in areas like education.”
The Telegraph quotes Thai PM suggesting the more likely motivation – partition.
“Thaksin Shinawatra said “They [the insurgents] have been beheading innocent people to show they are still capable of creating violence. They try to make [Buddhist] people scared so they will run away from the region because they want to seize the area.””
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=03WQZ1LHHKK5XQFIQMFSM5WAVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/2005/06/23/uthailand.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/06/23/ixportaltop.html
Joerg,
You asked where are the moderate Muslims living in our countries? Personally I work with several Muslims who not only have not tried to murder me as an infidel but are perfectly friendly and happy to take part in our (rare) non alcohol related social events. Given the amount of Turks in Germany I’d have thought that the country would be in a hell of a mess if they were all ‘non moderates’.
Unless you define extremists as all Muslims who don’t drink, pray a bit and aren’t huge fans of the Israeli government?
Ridiculous exaggeration doesn’t help the cause of those of us who would like to see a bit less reverence paid to the real nutters ‘rights’ to follow their religious beliefs at the expense of UK law and commonly held standards of behaviour.
OT – Christian Voice re Co-operative Bank
Caught the first few minutes of a Naughtie interview on R4 Today this morning between spokepeople from Co-operative Bank and Christian Voice. Co-op Bank have informed Christian Voice that they will no longer run their accounts due to their unnaceptable views on homosexuality. Naughtie appeared to be weighing in with both feet all guns blazing against Christian Voice. I don’t have much sympathy for the Christian Voice views on homosexuality, however I wonder whether Today would ever have on a muslim cleric and let Naughtie rip him to shreds over the muslim views on homosexuality aka stoning is probably too good for them? Oh, I forgot, criticising islam is soon to be outlawed.
Miam
I thought Naughtie tried more than usual to be even-handed but it was nevertheless fairly obvious from his tone of voice who he was sympathetic to at heart. And it wasn’t Christian Voice. As ever, there is little doubt that such an piece would not be presented in this way if it was, say, a muslim group who were being targetted by the Coop bank.
There was also an interesting piece on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. On the face of it Today seemed to be balanced, but I thought that Naughtie actually tried to play down the extent to which this forgery is used throughout the Middle East and muslim countries in general. Until a few weeks ago, you could actually access the text of the Protocols on the Palestinian Government website, for goodness sake. The protocols have also been dramatised on tv throughout the Middle East within the last year or two. The Protocols were continually referred to by Naughtie as “a conspiracy”, as though in the interests of balance the possibility that they may be true should not be dismissed. Interestingly, the piece also gave Egyptian commentators the chance to criticise Israel, of course.
Cockney you are probably right, however I would say that, from my experience working near a mosque, there doesn’t appear to be many prominent moderate muslims.
I regularly see posters with pictures of women on them whitewashed, stickers promoting jihadi causes as well as political islam posters. The most recent stated “Stay Muslim, Don’t Vote”, I’ve also seen lots of Stickers with “The magnificent 19” refering to the 911 hijacker scum.
IMNSHO Moderate muslims are a minority. The majority of Muslims do not want to accept or even tolerate secularism.
Naughtie couldn’t stop himself talking over the guy who took the strict religious line on homosexuality. Shame the pro-gay bias on the BBC was so blatant. As the other contributor said, you may not agree with people’s views but you should at least let them have their say. Naughtie couldn’t chastise the guy enough. He ended up talking more than the ‘interviewee’.
OT
Trust the Today programme to deliver a mostly one-sided account lasting eight minutes of the “Downing Street Memo” debate in the US, complete with the looney-leftie Congressman Conyers and Menzies Campbell.
And guess what – it was presented by John Humphrys.
Simpson and Price are both advocates of the unattributed “analysts”, or “sources” view. I think they should consult with the other Simpson,(v.post above) one BART, whose rumoured new book “Perspectives from the Eyes of a Butt Doctor” is bound to be far more credible!
It’s interesting that the people here who’ve worked with Muslims know that most are entirely moderate and reasonable (indeed, many of the Muslims I’ve worked with have been happy to join people in the pub and have soft drinks), while the people who think Muslims are all jihadists are the ones who’ve only seen nutters outside mosques waving banners…
Joerg – the suggestion that I have anything other than disgust and contempt for the North Korean regime is a lie, and is not supported by anything I’ve ever said or written.
I know various Muslims who dispute that al Quada committed 9/11, who feel that America was looking for it anyway, and who think suicide bombings are acceptable.
I do NOT see much evidence of mainstream Islam in this country denouncing such views as evil. The recent BBC love-in on Islam suggested that these warped views are not held by some “extreme minority” – they are widespread, virtually endemic.
This is not the sense imparted by soft BBC presenters, let alone by BBC reporters in the Middle East. Instead, the BBC tends to present Islam as overwhelmingly peaceful in thought and intention. The BBC is not only wrong – it is dangerously appeasing to turn a blind eye to reality.
john b
Perhaps you should ask those moderate muslims you work with what are they actively doing to kick out the “tiny minority of extremists” that we are constantly told have hi-jacked their religion.
It is after all their religion and the responsibility to police it surely rests with muslims not the non- muslims. Why should western nations and peoples be burdened with the cost of clearing up their religion for them?
BB: nonsense. I’m an atheist; so is Kim Jong-Il. This doesn’t mean I have any more responsibility than anyone else to do anything about him.
I think you’re adopting a slightly 1984esque thought police approach to defining extremists. I’m sure it’s probably true that most British muslims wouldn’t wholeheartedly condemn Palestinian suicide bomers and might claim to have some empathy with the motivations behind 9/11.
As long as they don’t actively break the law or fund or incite those who do, and as long as they’re pleasant enough to me and contribute to the economy then I don’t think their opinions are any of my business.
If by extremist you mean those to have a religiously driven desire to break UK law and are willing to act on it then I think these people are in a very small minority. Politically correct tolerance of unpleasant behaviour is the enemy not people having opinions that you find unpleasant.
OT
A long review of liberal bias in US media :
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp
And Justin Webb has just been seeking “unbiased” views from Pew Research. Which receives funds from trusts controlled by John Kerry’s wife.
Re level of Islamofascism among British Muslims. Various contradictory personal accounts have been given. All could be true. Different “Asian” areas have concentrations of people from different original countries and areas.
(Teachers often get to see the extent of cultural variation among Muslims. I once taught a mostly-Muslim class where the Muslims were literate in English and Arabic and generally more academic than the whites or the blacks. My husband recently taught a class where most of the Muslim pupils were originally from a part of Pakistan that does not have a written form for the vernacular.)
Taking Islam worldwide, I think the penetration of the Islamofascist package is much wider than the BBC pretends, judging by the Protocols TV series and many other instances. But a lot of it is “soft”. Most people go with the flow. Especially when the penalties for not doing so are severe. (But the very severity of the social penalties for deviation suggest that it does happen.)
In Iran, Iraq and Lebanon there has been something of a tipping point when it came to public displays of pro-democracy sentiment.