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.”
I’m just posting information for any reading this site, and your conscience bothers you paying for the BBC, and you want to unhook yourselves with confidence. If you wish to get excellent information visit http://www.tvlicensing.biz
“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.”
Lee, this James Burke is a berk. They want to terrorise us into submitting to Islam. Period. Either as converts or Dhimmi. These sort of ‘grievances’ are just the psychological war they use to put us on the back foot and manipulate the consciences of the sundry useful idiots they are only to well aware exist in the West to mount their propaganda efforts on their behalf.
JohninLondon. From what I have read, Johnathon Dimbleby is a supporter of Hamas terrorism against Israel. I read that the year before he had a documentary broadcast that was a PR job for them.
Despite producing a sympathetic documentary series on HRH Prince Charles, it seems he is now reverting to type. You can take the man out of the SWP but you can’t take the SWP out of the man.
Let’s see if they put some equally pro-war heavyweight on such as Christopher Hitchens. Come to think of it, that great Englishman Lord Tebbit still has enough go in him to rough this Stalinist up a fair bit. (although weirdly enough Tebbo supported the Law Lords judicial coup against Parliament and People in deciding it will decide how the Anti-Terrorism Act will be implemented and not the elected Government).
Hal
I know. I have read OBLs 1996 Declaration Of War On America. Which can be found here.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html
Burke is a left- wing journalist, so he does often see things in terms of “causes” of terrorism, but he is quite fair and if you read what he says he does say that essentially, the West is a scapegoat for the failure of Islam to deliver heaven on earth (no surprise there!) and that OBL does want a return to a “Golden Age”. When you read what Bin Laden actually said in his declaration, this seems “unerstated” shall we say.
In the book he does actually say that many Al Qaeda members are essentially wierdos, and that a big cause of frustration in the Islamic world is envy of the west and includes sexual frustration.
There is actually not much comfort for Lefties in the book, for example:
1. The CIA did not fund Bin Laden
2. Bill Clinton was an idiot. A deal had been done to handover OBL between the Taliban and the Saudis. In the meantime Clinton ordered a cruise missile strike on Afghanistan, “Operation Infinite Reach”. Becaue of this the Taliban reneged on the deal and the Saudi speial forces team returned empty handed. In addition, OBL became a cult hero (previously he was seen as a snowboarding rich kid)
The BBC would hardly dare interview Chris Hitchens about Iraq. he would hammer the presenter’s ignorance – as here :
http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/07/09/1910/
But the BBC recycles Galloway endlessly. Because a lot of the research and producer types at the BBC basically agree with Galloway.
Fifth column.
Joerg, I’m totally with you on your Galloway/Bin Laden/Zarqawi comparison. But its one thing what we would like to see, its another thing dealing with the practicalities.
At the moment I think more than enough grounds exist to put George Galloway on trial for aiding and abetting the enemy at time of war. Others, like the BBC journalists Peter Marshall and Paul Reynolds would warrant this also. But it is just a fact, certainly excluding Galloway, that the public appetite simply doesn’t exist for this sort of measure and it would backfire and do more harm than good. What I think HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) can do though is is send gentlemen from MI5 around to warn them of the possible outcomes of aiding and abetting the enemy at time of war and/or start a national debate on what constitutes treason to prepare the ground for bringing charges if they persist in their treasonable activities.
But ordering the security forces to arbitrarily shoot Muslims or Leftists who appear to act as sympathisers for Al Qa’eda? This would be utterly Nazi and barbaric when the options of imprisoning them as security threats or trying them for treason (and bringing back the death penalty as the due punishment exist).
I suggest that what I am suggesting is the just response of a civilised society and what you are suggesting is based on hate and vengeance and makes you no better than the enemy we are fighting. I can well understand the anger and disgust you feel, but making yourself the same as our enemy plays into their hands. What the enemy most fears is level headed resolve to do what is necessary.
I dont know if you have seen what I have posted before, but as far as Al Qa’eda members go, as members of a genocidal terrorist organisation they should face the death sentence unless they cooperate and give information. But Security Offials acting as Undercover Opinion Poll canvassers to whip out a gun and whack anyone who scores a ‘possible Al Qa’eda sympathiser’ on a questionaire? Tempting at times I guess, but I dont think so.
Lastly Joerg, inspite of the position you take, I’m glad you are to debate without insulting your opponent, unlike ArchAngel who has far more in common with George Galloway than he might imagine.
Hal,
I’m not talking about openly shooting them. There are more subtle ways than that (just check out most South American countries to see what I mean).
I know you’re not a leftie, Hal, and we’re both fighting the same enemy so why would I insult you. I sometimes want to insult people like John B or Rod Bishop though because they’re so far detached from reality (or we simply don’t share the same goals). I welcome any leftie who is anti-islamist but I doubt there are many. Their agenda is so deeply rooted in anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism that they’re beyond salvation. Stand up, all free-loving people in the Western World and get ready to fight.
That should have read “freedom loving people”
Despite producing a sympathetic documentary series on HRH Prince Charles, it seems he is now reverting to type
Don’t understand the “despite” – what’s it got to do with his anti-Israeli state stance?
Dimpleby does better than be a producer of pro-Chas documentaries. He is one of his set. I would not be surprised for chas to share his views on Israel.
No to forget that Charles is a high profiled admirer of islam!
More bloody BBC kowtowing — the second part of the Sunday Radio 4 Classic Serial, John Buchan’s Greenmantle, was cancelled today. Without any explanation.
Presumably because the story involves Islamic fanaticism.
“Don’t understand the “despite” – what’s it got to do with his anti-Israeli state stance?”
Being anti-Israel doesn’t de facto mean one supports Islamo-fascist suicide bombings of Israeli civilians like J Dimbleby does.
“Dimpleby does better than be a producer of pro-Chas documentaries. He is one of his set. I would not be surprised for chas to share his views on Israel.”
HRH Prince Charles was being slated last year for keeping company with the likes of Melanie Phillips and William Shawcross (check out the link below).
Prince Charles, being the decent cove he is, will try to promote decency in the name of common humanity amongst all peoples and faiths. This is what President Bush did in the wake of 11-S after he stood with various American Muslim leaders in a mosque to proclaim Islam the ‘religion of peace’. A very worthy act to make totally clear to the thug element not to use 11-S as an excuse for violence. Needless to say though, some of those Muslim leaders have since been charged and convicted of terrorist offences. No less of a worthy act for that all the same. It’s what makes our way of life worth defending.
oops! Here’s the link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1127525_1,00.html
Check out the second from bottom paragraph if you wish to just skim.
A useful log of the LIES spouted by various mainstream media in 2005 – including the BBC.
I am sure there should be many more porkies on the BBC chargesheet.
http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2005/01/msm-lies-of-2005.html
Not only is the BBC now seeming to avoid the word terrorist – they are actually editing it OUT of previously-filed stories :
http://www.yourish.com/archives/2005/july3-9_2005.html#2005070901
More signs of the BBC scrubbing the word terrorist :
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07/08/the_bbcs_terrorist_problem.php
It gets worse. In this story when the former Met Police Commissioner speaks of terrorist attacks and terrorists, the BBC puts quotation marks around those words.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4668903.stm
In various stories the BBC is now using the words “bombers”, “group”, “perpetrators” and even “INDIVIDUALS” to describe people who are nothing but terrorists.
eg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4663805.stm
JohninLondon can we not get an MP to ask questions about WHY the BBC {spit} is doing this?
It appears the BBC is now doing to the UK what it did and is still doing to Israel. I wonder how they will justify these changes, if indeed they believe they will have to.
I wonder how long it will take for them to refer to these terrorist scum as ‘freedom fighters’?
In a way there’s an irony in this term – FIGHTERS AGAINST FREEDOM. Perhaps we should rub it in.
rob read
Conservative MPs also watch and listen to the BBC, If they are not asking thier own questions then the question needs to be asked of them.
Sensible Donald Sensing notes the Beeb’s change of course and that of other appeasers.
http://www.donaldsensing.com/?p=327
NEWSNIGHT FRIDAY 8/7
I watched the Friday edition of Newsnight today in which Peter Marshall said that the War in Iraq that was supposed to stop terrorist attacks in Britain has failed.
A few observations:
Obviously, the Marshall report was one long PP Broadcast on behalf of Respect, followed by an interview with George Galloway in which Galloway simply echoed the whole thrust of Marshall’s report, giving credence to Galloway’s views in the minds of the gullible who had just watched an ‘impartial’ BBC reporter report them as ‘fact’.
Interesting Gavin Esler’s remonstration (not interview) with Galloway. He seemed quite unnerved to be interviewing someone even less ethical than himself (happens with lefty beeb journos when Clare Short gets interviewed as well). Basically it was one opponent of the Iraq war interviewing another, the interviewer though being a New Labour supporter and the other obviously not. It seemed to me that Esler’s main concern was that Galloway might discredit opposition to the Iraq war by immediately leaping in to say we should accede to the terrorist demand of withdrawal from Iraq (of course, Afghanistan wasn’t mentioned). Galloway made the false point that Blair had sought to make political capital out of the bombing hours before him and made his statement necessary, and Esler accepted this point without questioning him how Blair had done this? Esler obviously not minding a point that discredits Tony Blair on the Iraq war whether its true or not. As it goes Blair specifically said that he wasn’t going to make political points about the Iraq war (I suppose he meant how the attack shows how necessary it is) and as far as I know, he hasn’t? So what was Galloway talking about and why (dont we know) didn’t Esler challenge him on this assertion?
Having said all this about Esler he did then conduct an even handed debate between Charles Powell and the (thankfully) ex ‘Bin Laden’ man at the CIA (“the [Israeli] tail should not wag the [American] dog but the dog wag the tail”).
Did anyone catch the opinion piece by that hip young Muslim dude at the end?
All touchy-feely, zietgeist vibes about Live 8 at Hyde Park Saturday and London winning the Olympics Wednesday, then cut to him opining on top of an open double decker bus driving near (it looked to me) Tavistock Square. He said it really annoys him that after such attacks people turn to British Muslims and ask them questions when what they should really do is ask questions about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So there we have it. This young, hip and ‘media friendly’ British Muslim would have liked Osama Bin Laden to have kept his bases in Afghanistan to launch attacks upon the West to make us submit to Islam and let Saddam Hussein know we’ll never touch him because of the French so he can have a free hand to supply Osama to order to give him a bit more ‘leverage’.
I’ve got no doubt that if Britain ever surrenders to Al Qa’eda, young creeps like this will be amongst at least half the British Muslim population who will take to the streets chanting “Allah Akbar!”, buffetting any dhimmi Brit who doesn’t show them due deference, letting any dhimmi skirt they like the look of that they’ll be coming back to take them for their harem later, going to the houses of Jews and active opponents to literally tear them limb from limb while the Police look on embarrassed and raising the Green Flag over Westminster.
Why are none of these British Muslims who ‘condemn’ “but…” never asked how they’d feel if Great Britain surrendered to Al Qa’eda and what they’d do?
G
Your description of the Panorama programme was spot on.
Hal,
The show also had interviews with Muslims on how against terror they were but also how bad the war in Iraq was.
John in London,
As regards Galloway he was on some C5 thing called ‘The Wright Stuff’ where the Matthew Wright (who did celebs for the Mirrior of something like that) brown nosed him for a whole week then the day after the bombing attacked his comments. Clearly even his own supporters are having trouble with him.
“I’m glad you are to debate without insulting your opponent, unlike ArchAngel who has far more in common with George Galloway than he might imagine.”
Hal, Unlike George Galloway, who is nothing more than a domestic terrorist, and is just as guilty as Saddam in the deaths of the innocent Iraqi citizens (before and after the start of the war) I myself would just rather put a bullet in the terrorist head and be done with the problem.
Hal, I do not need to have a discussion to realize that the terrorist goal is to bring down Western Civilzation. (which Britian happens to be part of). I also do not need a discussion with them or you why they hate us, and want to kill us. The bottom line in dealing with terrorist is kill them first before they kill you. REMEMBER NOTHING MATTERS IF YOU ARE DEAD.
Hal, after reading your “postings” it seems that you would be a perfect fit with all the idiot liberals here in the States. Seems to me that you are not interested in results, but it is of utmost importance that you have “civilized discussions”, why is that Hal? Allow me to put forth a “civilized answer”. ANSWER: It so Hal can feel good about himself after the discussion is over with.
Well Hal, an idiot is an idiot, no matter how you dress the idiot up. Hal were you able to contact any of the victims families and asked if they feel that we should have “civilized discussions” with the terrorist murders who killed there family members? If you did, I sure would like to hear what they had to say.
Classy mate. I hope you feel suitably big and hard.
Seriously, there are reasons other than gay Euro appeasementism why sensible people believe that extra-judicial killing isn’t an appropriate response to anything, including terrorist atrocities. Beyond technicalities such as the level of crime at which it’s appropriate and how you can be certain that you have the right individual it can easily degenerate into tit for tat mayhem. Has Russia’s hard line been successful in dealing with its terrorist problem? Was Serbia’s?
Pardon us if we deal with this through old fashioned British eccentricities such as intelligence work and the rule of war.
Cockney
You say apply the “rule of war”.
Sounds good to me. The TERRORISTS are an armed group that has declared war on us but is not in uniform when attacking us. I understand that the Geneva Convention would allow a court-martial and execution if found guilty.
Fine by me.
Oh sod it, you know what I mean.
As far as I’m aware there isn’t a war in progress in the UK, therefore this would be dealt with as an offence under British law – presumably resulting in life imprisonment for the culprit(s) after a fair trial. Western civilization in action and very much worth defending.
No war underway Cockney?
check out this article from the Christian Science Monitor:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/csm/20050711/ts_csm/oradical_1
“We don’t need to fight. We’re taking over. England doesn’t belong to the English people.”
Your readers are baying for the murder/execution of “Lefties” and you leave these comments intact on your site?
Doesn’t leave much moral high ground for your anti-BBC diatribes.
It’s sick.
Until the UK (and the rest of Europe) abandons its reluctance to call these murderous animals what they really are, it will have no real chance at defeating them.
OOPS I THINK THIS MAY HAVE BEEN MY FAULT I EMAILED THE bbC ASKING WHY THEY WERE USING THE TERM “TERRORIST” WHEN THEY SHOULD BE USING MILITANT OR BOMBER AFTER ALL THE PERPETRATORS OF THIS HEINOUS CRIME HAVE A POINT – I.E. THE ILLEGALITY OF THE IRAQ INVASION – SILLY ME I THOUGHT THEY WOULD IGNORE ME AS THEY USUALLY DO!
Cockney, how exquisitely amusing that ‘ArchAngel’ (which one? Lucifer?) should post this:
“Hal, after reading your “postings” it seems that you would be a perfect fit with all the idiot liberals here in the States”,
when I have posted that membership of a genocidal terrorist organisation should carry the death sentence that can only be commuted in exchange for information and trials should be carried out under battlefield conditions. He makes Stalin and Hitler sound like moderates. Quite frankly, this guy sounds like a Timothy McVeigh waiting to happen and deserves locking up every bit as much as Leftists and Muslims who say we should leave Iraq or face further attacks. He, like them, has a love affair with evil and looks for any excuse he can find to indulge it.
“Idiot liberal”. I’m going to cherish that one!
G = Hal of course!
“We don’t need to fight. We’re taking over. England doesn’t belong to the English people.”
Muslims account for 1.6m or so people in a population of 60m. I.e. less than 3%.
So much for the “dhimmitude” of Britain, as some dhimmwitted commenters here and some dhimmwitted muslim extremists would have you believe is occurring.
Far from being a bleeding heart liberal position that we aren’t at war, it’s a realistic appreciation that an extremist minority within an ethnic group are going to achieve bugger all except push themselves further to the fringes of society.
Britain is no more likely to turn into part of so-called Eurabia than it is likely that we’ll all start speaking Polish in London.
“Muslims account for 1.6m or so people in a population of 60m. I.e. less than 3%.”
There was a time, not so long ago, when the Islamic population of France was just 3%.
“…it’s a realistic appreciation that an extremist minority within an ethnic group are going to achieve bugger all except push themselves further to the fringes of society.”
Islam is not an ethnic group. Nor is it a race or a nationality. It’s a belief system. One that combines religion with politics. In fact the separation of the two is an alien concept in islam.
It is an ideology that is expansionist and also regards itself as supreme over other beliefs and political systems.
Britain is no more likely to turn into part of so-called Eurabia than it is likely that we’ll all start speaking Polish in London.
With the vastly different birth rates between muslims and non-muslims, the influence of islam within Britain and upon non-muslims themselves, will inevitably increase whether you believe it or not.
At what point the non-islamic peoples of Britain decide that no more concession, exemptions or privileges will be conceded to muslims is up to them.
Anonymous said…..”Muslims account for 1.6m or so people in a population of 60m. I.e. less than 3%.
So much for the “dhimmitude” of Britain, as some dhimmwitted commenters here and some dhimmwitted muslim extremists would have you believe is occurring.”
surely this depends on the timescale that one projects into, doesnt it? Demographic changes suggest this 3% isnt going to stay so small forever.
Problem needs to be nipped in the bud methinks
oops Boy Blue beat me to it!
surely this depends on the timescale that one projects into, doesnt it? Demographic changes suggest this 3% isnt going to stay so small forever.
Which is why our society will have to find an alternative to democracy in order to survive.
No Teddy Bear; we did not let the Axis destroy our commitment to democracy and we shall not let this lot do it either.
Sure, democracy was “bent” a bit during those dark times (the Japanese internments in the US springs to mind, and tossing Moseley & co. in jail in the UK) but it survived then and will again.
Don’t lose your perspective.
At last, Susan, we agree. This needs to be kept in perspective.
Spurious growth rate predictions tend not to take account of the fact that birth rates don’t stay constant.
Boy blue, you fail to distinguish between extreme islam and mainstream islam. It’s like looking at hard right christian fundamentalists in the US and claiming that christianity is an ideology, expansionist, intertwined with politics etc. Which is, of course, exactly what islamic extremists do.
True, the muslim population has grown rapidly. Why? Because the French have traded cultural homegeneity for cheap labour to preserve.. the French way of life. Even so, the muslim population is around 8% – hardly enough to stage a cultural coup.
But surely it is the French disaster we are trying to avoid.
I’m not sure what the French disaster is that you refer to. France has been remarkably successful in retaining a very clear sense of its national identity, even if it has meant that it has sacrificed economic competitiveness. Nonetheless, there are several differences in the French/UK situation, notably:
1) We don’t tend to marginalise our immigrants by putting them in sink estates on the edge of town to fester in resentment.
2) We don’t have the same troubled, violent history with, for example, Pakistan, as France has with its northern African former colonies.
But, our security services have for a number of years allowed a number of dissidents to settle in the UK and foment extremism, ostensibly so that the authorities can gain better access to them. It’s not clear that the intelligence gains outweigh the costs to society, but then only the security services would know the answer to that.
Aonymous,
I disagree with Teddy Bear’s defensiveness and that we need to dispense with democracy.
However I certainly didn’t state that Islam wasn’t a problem, as you implied. It is.
Mainstream Islam poses a lot of shall we say, “democratic challenges” for Western people too, not just the extremist brand.
I hope I haven’t broken any UK laws by stating this. My sincere condolences on the destruction of your long and proud history of free speech by the House of Commons today. What the House of Commons has done to you today, is far worse than what the terrorists did to you last Thursday.
Sorry, I meant Teddy Bear’s defeatism, not defensiveness.
“Mainstream Islam poses a lot of shall we say, “democratic challenges” for Western people too, not just the extremist brand.”
How exactly?
This smells to me like the arguments of old anti-semites, how you couldn’t trust the jews because their first allegiance was to other jews and judaism.
For sure, the muslim community needs to do some soul-searching about its tolerance for people who couldn’t give a shit about the UK’s values, but the UK has plenty of people higher up the list of problems than common or garden muslims:
– dole spongers, the thousands of people claiming disability money
– petty criminals who make everyone’s lives a misery
– drug dealers and organised crime etc etc
– thick plebs who spurn education and become one of the above.
Anonymous:
I don’t really want to get into it. This is a British blog and it’s going to be illegal in your country to criticize Islam very soon. I don’t want to get Kerry, Natalie, ed, Laban, etc. in trouble with your authorities.
I would say that you should study Islam yourself, from the primary surces such as the Koran and the Sunnah and the biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. All are posted online so it’s fairly easy to study up on it. You will find after a lot of study that things that are being passed off as “extremist” Islam, such as death sentences for apostates, are actually part of mainstream Islam.
I really don’t need to go into it with you. You are either dissembing shamelessly, or you don’t know much about Islam, period.
Susan, I think you may have misunderstood my comments on finding an alternative to democracy.
If those from another culture enter and permeate our own, while still maintaining their culture. And this culture multiplies at a far higher rate than our own (5:1), then there comes a time when they outnumber us. If we are still a democracy in that time then we no longer can preserve our society, especially when the majority do not tolerate any others than themselves.
It’s a real problem facing Israel at this time, for which reason it has to make sure there is a Palestinian state since it cannot demographically absorb the Palestinians into their state like the 1.2 Arabs who are already Israelis, and remain a democracy without losing its Jewish state. Of course Arafat was well aware of this, which is why he could afford to dick around making like he really wanted a Palestinian state.
John in London
There’s an interesting article by Daniel Pipes in today’s NY Sun on the comparison between France and the UK in relation to Islamification. It might surprise you.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2764
That should be 1.2 million Arabs above of course.