For a few short hours, as Harry’s Place reports, the BBC were prepared to call those who attacked civilians in London on Thursday ‘terrorists’. A day later they had become ‘bombers’.
Stephen Pollard points out that Newsnight seem to have been convinced by George Galloway.
Respect –
“We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq …”
Newsnight’s Peter Marshall –
“What the war [on terror] was supposed to prevent, it has brought about.”
lets stop the talking lets have some action against the scum at the bbc. [deleted]
Edited By Siteowner
Such statements by Peter Marshall and George Galloway are clear treason. They are made in bad faith and ill-will, intended to undermine our morale, a clear enemy aim at time of war.
There is a huge difference in stating arguments for why we should not be in Iraq and stating that we must leave Iraq or face more attacks. That is doing the work of the enemy. It is treason.
I tried to post something along these lines yesterday but it disappeared into a Haloscan black hole.
Two things stand out in the BBC’s coverage, the near brain dead intellectual level of the reporters and the softball question put to terrorism apologists.
On the first point I have never heard on the BBC any discussion of the Fascist nature of the activists. Only what I think of as non-structural explanations of their motivations are allowed, resentment poverty, foreign occupation, western disrespect for Islam and so on. If the West would only change it foreign policy etc. these motives would disappear and terrorism would do so too. The idea that we are faced with a similar mixture of various fascist tendencies that caused so many deaths in 20th century Europe and that we had to make war upon, is simply ignored although the historical links of the groups like the Baath party and Muslim Brotherhood with early 20th century fascism is well documented and I have heard several analyses on this topic on French radio suprising as it must seem to many of you.
Incidentally there is a least one French commentator who does not talk like the BBC’s moral cowards. Alexandre Adler is one of the most well known writers and broadcasters over here in the land of weasels. He was interviewed on France Culture yesterday morning and I will quote from memory what he said when a “root cause poverty?” type question was put to him.
“No honest person can hold such a belief. An instants thought would refute it. Otherwise 99% of world terrorists would be Black Africans.
If you really want to understand these people’s motivation you should look at the ever increasing fascification(sic) of the Arab Middle Classes.”
Now perhaps I listen to the wrong programs or at the wrong times, but has anyone heard remotely similar statements on the BBC?
Gordon
You are exactly right. The BBC shies away from presenting these bastards as nihilists, simply evil, driven by hatred of the West.
Which makes me very fearful of this news about the BBC being funded to set up an Arab TV service. It is like UK taxpayers funding Lord Haw-Haw.
If there is reason for a new TV channel to be funded by the Foreign Office – and there could be a case for this, hearts and minds etc – then the BBC should NOT be given the task. The task should be let as a public contract to the party that comes up with the best plan to beam Britain – including decent British Muslims – to the Arabs. NOT the BBC’s spineless nonsense. The British TV industry is rich in programming and organising talent, there would be several good bids. The BBC could be permitted to enter on equal terms.
Sorry – the link is :
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14934-1684606,00.html
As for your last point Gordon, in the Newsnight discussion 7/7 the only one of the four guests who spoke the plain simple truth was the Spanish Shadow Foreign Minister. As a Spanish resident I yearn to see the now available José Maria Aznar winning the forthcoming Tory Leadership election! Our homegrown choices leave me cold.
As for the BBC: Spoilt brats will be spoilt brats for as long as they can get away with it. Personally, I think introducing the cane at University in the Sixties would have solved a lot of the problems of the overgrown delinquents we have working at the BBC now (I’m only half joking!). These spoilt brats should have been brought up sharp long ago, preferabley when they were 3. We’re now at war. Are we going to let them acheive what they achieved for Communism over Vietnam achieve for Islamofascism over the War on Terror? Time to put a bit of stick about now I say. Charge them with treason and sling them in jail.
I soon switched to watching Sky News and ITV during this terrorist outrage in London. Less manipulative and so, less irritating than the BBC
Gordon
The extensive discussions on french radio of the muslim brotherhood and their horrendous history may have to do with Tariq Ramadan and his attempts to seek French residence as things hotted up in Switzerland.
I seem to remember he ended up in Lyon living close to a notorious islamic extremist bookshop.
Frankly i’m astounded that the BBC is still trying to use the old canard of “extreme poverty” being the cause of terrorism. This would be a direct indication of how little they think of their viewers would it not.
The fact that they give tariq Ali, galloway etc so much airtime is itself an outrage.
If the Public had not been misled by the BBC for so long on the religion of peace, perhaps we might not have witnessed the barbarism of yesterday as the Government might have been enabled to take more drastic measures in terrorism control.
Did others who watched Peter Marshall’s “Newnight” report feel his tale of special branch far-feteched?
He claimed to have been at a meeting at a mosque when two men stood (“beards to their knees & robes to their feet”) & announced to the meeting that they were special branch officers. Seemingly, from Marshall’s account, this was the start & their involvement with the meeting – they said no more & nobody spoke to them.
Bizarre?
(Is it Marshall doing tomorrows Panorama on al-Qaeda?)
Re Galloway – Despite BBC’s Reynolds effectively saying tha same thing as Galloway the BBC carry on as if Galloway is exceptional. This am on News24 the admirable Michael White was asked to comment on Galloway as if Galloway was unique. Unfortunately the usually excellently informed White didn’t turn it back to the BBC.
sorry that should read ” Seemingly, from Marshall’s account, this was the start & end of their involvement with the meeting
If I wasn’t forced to pay for the BBC I wouldn’t care less what views and opinions its employees expressed. As it is, it’s like being forced to subscribe to The Guardian. Let the BBC charge willing buyers for its product, just like that newspaper does.
I propose we make a petition against the bias of the BBC and their militant Muslim appeasement. Perhaps we can get a national newspaper to carry the story and generate more people with similar views. It is only in this way that we can get government to implement any changes. We must let them know that there are many people out here against what the BBC is doing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4666317.stm
In September last year a flight carrying the singer Cat Stevens to the US was diverted because the name he adopted when he became a Muslim, Yusuf Islam, was on the US no-fly list.
Mistaken identity? I thought it was because Yusef was a Hamas benfactor.
On today’s Radio 4 news the word “terrorism” was used repeatedly. I guess some of the staff aren’t reading the guidelines, others are.
I have set up a petition against BBC Bias to be sent eventually to Tony Blair. Please read and sign it at http://www.petitiononline.com/bbbc/petition.html and let as many people know as possible to also sign it. Perhaps we can get some action finally instead of just having a beef about it.
I have discovered that simply not watching or listening to the BBC has improved my life significantly.
No more of the smug Eddie Mair to pollute a fine evening. Humphries, Naughtie and Montague are no more than names I remember.
Kirsty Wark and her vile relativism will infuriate me no longer. Paxman is interested only in his celebrity profile. Essler is a limp wristed surrender monkey.
These fools need an audience, you can deny them that at least.
I meet many people and have not come across any who give toss for Geldoff, Africa, Islam or any of the other causes of the moment.
Its all a media lovefest and you dont have to watch or listen and indeed should not.
Africa lives on the BBC, it sure dont live in my heart, useless bastards seem incapable of anything other than whining, all the while sitting atop the worlds richest mineral deposits. More fool you suckers.
The police are being awfully tightlipped. I find it very hard to believe they don’t know who was behind this.
Either that or MI5 really are a bunch inept drunkard public schoolboys.
BBC Policy on terrorism reporting reminds me of that infamous Fleetstreet saying (one Brit = 2 Americans = 100 Blacks etc).
1 Briton = 3000 Americans
1 Briton = 10000 Jews
1 Briton = 1 Million African Christians
Even the BBC is not foolish enough to diminish the lives of it’s licence payers, but as for everyone else…
The police are being awfully tightlipped. I find it very hard to believe they don’t know who was behind this.
If they did know, they’re not exactly going to tell us that they know. Unless they’re that stupid.
they dont like it up `em
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1524576,00.html
I don’t believe that the police have an idea as to who the terrorists are. And when Commander Brian Paddick states that islam and terrorism are completely separate (unless it’s a dummy), one can sense that the Metropolitan Police are so befuddled by PC that they may not function as they should when faced with terrorism of this level. Paddick is bullet-proof and can never be sacked regardless of the idiocies which he may emit. In today’s PC police, no gay officer can be sacked on grounds of incompetence. It never occurs to the Met that Londoners simply want competent, PC-free policing and, if provided, are not bothered about sexuality of senior officers.
I noted that today’s Daily Telegraph published a couple of photographs of mayor Livingstone sharing the podium with al-Qaradawi. This message needs to be put again and again so that the general public can link the left to the terrorists’ philosophical supporters. There is enough MSM in the UK not taken by PC.
Has anyone here ever received a reply from the BBC when contacting them with a complaint? I haven’t. I thought the cunts were supposed to be accountable.
I’ve received a few replies, but they’re usually just to reaffirm their original stance. Much like you see them respond to criticism from government or public bodies. “BBC knows best what’s good for us”, all we have to do is keep paying and they will do the thinking for us. 🙁
I wonder if that sounds logical:
Islamofacists = terrorists that need to be killed
(Extreme) Lefties = sympathisers of Islamofacists / terrorists
Shouldn’t they be killed as well and, if so, who would do that? I’m serious – wouldn’t that logically have to be the next step or can you convince hard-core radicals like Galloway to change his ways ???
The ONLY weapon available to the public is civil disobedience.
Refuse to pay the licence fee en masse.
The UK is the only country I know of where the populace has that power. These are desperate times and they require desperate measures.
Can’t do without your telly?
Rip out the tuner or buy a monitor only….use DVD copies of broadcasts acquired from a central source that is licensed. If your TV set is incapable of receiving a signal you have no legal obligation to pay a fee.
Can any qualified reader offer reasons why this may not be achievable?
On the topic of people looking for loved ones who are still missing here’s a quote from the father of Shahara Islam, a admittedly beautiful young woman who is muslim (but why specifically is her picture on the homepage?):
>>Asked what he thought of those who had committed the attacks, he said: “These people are not human beings, they are not doing anything for Islam. They may call themselves Muslim but there is no such thing as a Muslim killing people.”
Here’s a very good piece: “What Arab civilisation?”
http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
Interestingly the BBC has been putting some of the complaints it receives in a report for public consumption. It is rather lightweight.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/review_reports.shtml
“From 1 January to 31 March 2005 the Unit dealt with 146 complaints concerning 96 items”
Party political bias complaints (
“From 1 January to 31 March 2005 the Unit dealt with 146 complaints concerning 96 items”
Party political bias complaints (
I am disappointed to see the determination to treat these bombings as “criminal acts”. How long before these fools realize that it’s a WAR?
I have been telling people that the Brits, particularly the police, present a calm reserved aspect but they can be very hard when the time comes. The time has come. I expect to see hard people doing hard things to these creatures. Soon! I hope I’m not disappointed.
Would the terrorist huggers at the bbc dare mention the notion that cells thrive in the UK because of the government’s obsession with civil liberties? “Imams” like Omar Bakri and Masri are allowed to spout inciteful filth from their pulpits. Others like Guerbozi, Ramdi, Qatabi, bombing suspects, are not handed over to governments that request their extradition because the Law Lords say that is not legal. Of 800 suspects arrested by UK police, only 21 have been convicted. And Britain has the nerve to criticise Gitmo! What if some of those released sleazballs were behind 7/7?
One of the problems of dealing with some of the known “baddies” is the Human Rights legislation, which has been the basis of a series of dangerous court decisions. We should scrap our ties to the HR conventions.
But of course any such suggestion causes apoplexy at the BBC. They tend to suppress even discussion of this option.
“I expect to see hard people doing hard things to these creatures. Soon! I hope I’m not disappointed.”
If the report in the Sunday Express this morning about the SAS flying out to assist in the AQ hunt is true, hopefully, you won’t be….
Of course, it could be rubbish, and I wonder why they aren’t employed HERE in the UK instead, but it’d be nice to think that some very nasty people are in for a big, unwelcome surprise in the next few days.
I saw the Paxman interview with Tony Benn on Newsnight 7/7 last night. Benn said that 9/11 was committed because of Iraq because Bush planned to invade it and that Bush has provoked Al Qa’eda to bomb London because he keeps using the word “Crusade” to describe his war with Islam. Telling deliberate lies to undermine the war effort is treason. I wonder if Mr Benn might receive a visit from a couple of chaps from MI5 to point this out to him? Fat chance I somehow think.
Joerg
Re: Killing extreme left 5th Columnists of Islamofascism.
If we meet Al Qa’eda on the battlefield they get whacked, or if they draw a gun in the street. It sounds like what you’re advocating is that we go round arbitrarily whacking any Muslim or Leftie that shows Al Qa’eda sympathies. Joerg, at the risk of sounding extremely patronising: Relax, calm down, count to 10. You are getting things way out of proportion.
Sure, without doubt, guys like Galloway and Marshall and Reynolds are guilty of Treason for acting as a propaganda arm of the enemy at time of war, and in an ideal world they would either be interned as a potential security risk or tried for treason. However, the fact is, if the authorities tried to do this, (apart from maybe in the case of Galloway) it would monumentally backfire. if we get 10 7/7 type atrocities in quick succession, who knows what the public appetite might be prepared for? I dont think we are going to get any more attacks for quite some while though. As it is, for the moment, I think Her Majesty’s Government, or Her Loyal Opposition, need to start to get a debate going on what constitutes treason at time of war. I dont see why MI5 officers should be sent around to various homes of Respect leaders, BBC journalists and Indie/Guardian journalists to warn them of the implications of them doing the work of the enemy at time of war.
I notice on the BBC a constant reference to the innocent victims. Are ther guilty victims?
Malthebof
From Jason Burke, regarded as one of the world leading experts on Al Qaeda:
“However, despite this variety (Of Muslim grievancies), there are certain universal themes. To understand them we have to redraft our question. ‘What do they want?’ implies a Western concept of acting to achieve specific goals. Instead we should be asking: ‘Why do they feel that they have to act in the way that they do?’ The answer is that, from their twisted standpoint, they believe they have no choice.
In every militant statement you can see a mix of the general and the specific. Imam Samudra, the Bali bomber referred to above, saw the night clubs of Bali as part of a general cultural assault mounted by the West against the Islamic world. This is typical.
In Kashmir, locals speak of their repression as part of a global campaign against Muslims. In Chechnya, the war with Russia is seen as a manifestation of the same push to eliminate Islam.
Last week a previously unknown group threatened violence in France and listed the banning of the veil from schools alongside continuing American support for Israel, the war in Iraq and the killing of civilians in Afghanistan as evidence that the West never abandoned the Crusades.
This perception that a belligerent West is set on the humiliation, division and eventual conquest of the Islamic world is at the root of Muslim violence. The militants believe they are fighting a last-ditch battle for the survival of their society, culture, religion and way of life. They are fighting in self-defence and understand, as we in the West also believe, that self-defence can justify using tactics that might be frowned on in other circumstances.
In addition, an explanation for the parlous state of the Middle East must be found. If Islam is the perfect social system, the militants’ logic runs, then something else must be to blame for the second-rate status, economically, militarily, politically, of their lands. They blame the West – and the failure of most Muslims to practise their religion with sufficient discipline and devotion. The bombs are designed to restore the pride of Muslims worldwide and, by weakening the ‘Crusaders’ and their allies, hasten the eventual return to the golden age of a thousand years ago when the lands of Islam were the world’s leading power.”
Mini ha, ha, you say ‘These fools need an audience’. They don’t. As long as the licence fee exists they don’t mind if you don’t watch as long as you keep paying.
I’ve written a few times. They just write back, say you’re wrong and they’re right. My last letter, to complain about what I termed ‘agressive sarcasm’ in their film scheduling. They denied it.
On the Politics Show today (Sunday) Jeremy Vine had a go at David Davies as if being against ID cards and other New Labour excesses aided terrorists.
“It sounds like what you’re advocating is that we go round arbitrarily whacking any Muslim or Leftie that shows Al Qa’eda sympathies. Joerg, at the risk of sounding extremely patronising: Relax, calm down, count to 10. You are getting things way out of proportion.”
Hal, please tell the families with dead and injured members,that Joerg idea, (a damn fine one at that) “is getting things way out of proportion. (what an idiot). What flavor of BBC koolaid do you drink, Hal? Keep defending those terrorist Hal.
Bill, not having listned yet, I’ll put this anyway: Funny how they never ‘have a go’ at people on the left who act as the propaganda arm for Al Qa’eda threatening more attacks if we dont get out of Iraq. This clearly aids the terrorists and in many quarters is intended to.
Hal
One of the worst culprits is Jonathan Dimbleby. His panels on Any Questions are often totally unbalanced. And he always seems to interrupt pro-Iraq-war comments, interposing the Guardianista/BBC line.
And guess what? Next week he hs George Galloway – again. The BBC – always giving the oxygen of publicity to terrorism and its defenders.
I think it’s important to discuss what to go with people who give aid and comfort to terrorists as well as try to create either an islamic Europe or a communist one. Also look at all these moronic anarchists at Gleneagles – when will a police chief ever give the order to shoot to kill? I mean these anarchists are prepared to kill police officers. What would the right reaction be? Let them do what they’re doing? I remember all the fuss that was made a few years ago when an Italian policeman shot an anarchist during a G8 Summit. How do with people who want to kill us, destroy our way of life? And how do we deal with those who support them?
I typed a bit fast and missed a few words in the previous post but I guess you get my drift. I personally think that George Galloway for example isn’t better than Osama bin Laden or Al Zarqawi. What do you think?
Trying to reform the BBC, trying to get anything approaching balance & impartiality I believe is simply not possible. The BBC sees itself as a political entity and thus gives itself the right to not merely inform, but to influence public opinion what ever way it sees fit.
If the BBC wants to pursue a partisan agenda, then it will need to be stripped of its Royal Charter and public funding status. And this will only come from some form of mass civil disobedience action against the BBC.
I’m sure any such campaign would be warmly supported by many blogs both inside and outside the UK.
The BBC should ONLY be funded by those who want to pay for it.
In his latest post, Rotty Pup unmasks the Beeb’s latest Islamic marketing poster boy:
http://rottweilerpuppy.blogspot.com/
He asks if the Beeb has deliberately mispelled the “peace” demonstrator’s name so as to hide his pro-suicide bombing past statements?
Read it all — look who they are trying to pass off as a “sympathizer” for the murdered Londoners.
Sickening.
Cheer up blue boy. At least we all know that the Beeb’s Marketing Director — oops, I mean “Editor” — for Islamic affairs is working round the clock these days and sweating large amounts of bullets about how exactly to spin this one.
Wouldn’t want to be in that fellow’s shoes, myself.
Susan
One of the links on the Rottweiler post you linked to was a BBC report on a peace march in March – basically the unholy alliance between the Socialist Workers and the Muslim Association of Britain, which endorses Hamas etc.
The article reads as one long puff-peace for the marchers – complete with a set of photos and quotes from lots more loonies. Huge coverage for a fairly insignificant event. The whole article could have been written by the SWP or MAB themselves. Disgraceful.
And how much is all this website tosh costing ? Who reads it all ? Tens of millions of pounds each year, evidently the most costly website in the whole world. You could shut the whole website down to the size of, say, CNN’s site or MSNBC or Sky, and no-one would be any worse off. Except for dozens of featherbedded BBC fifth-columnists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4363447.stm
Rottweiler also goes to town on that disgraceful appeasing article by “poisonous little snake” Paul Reynolds at the BBC website. WHY DO WE PAY FOR THAT SITE ?
http://rottweilerpuppy.blogspot.com/2005/07/77-bbc-blame-well-you-and-me.html