The BBC website gave full coverage to a vigil for the victims of the London bombs, organised by the Stop the War Coalition, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Muslim Association of Britain.
According to the BBC, “it was Dr Assami Tamimi, of the Muslim Association of Britain, who drew the biggest response from the crowd.”
The piece quotes Dr Tamimi as saying “Muslims also need to kill the ideology behind this, that justifies the killing of innocents – this is Machiavellian and is anti-Islamic”
Fine words with which we can all agree. Just one teensy quiblette.
The Rottweiler Puppy has been doing some digging, and reports that the BBC appear to have made a mistake with the speaker’s name, which is shown on the MAB website as Azzam Tamimi.
Anyone can make a mistake.
Unfortunately, as the Puppy points out, Azzam Tamimi turns out to have said – on the BBC – a few other things about the killing of innocents.
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI
Not a single person of those who bomb themselves, bomb themselves because they are desperate or poor. It doesn’t happen because of this. They do it because they want to sacrifice themselves for a cause after all avenues have been closed before them. If the Palestinians today are given F16s and Apache helicopters …
TIM SEBASTIAN –
No – please come back to my question. Please come back to my question. Why if it is so glorious and honourable to do this, why don’t you do it?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI –
I would do it …
TIM SEBASTIAN –
When?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI –
If I have the opportunity I would do it …
TIM SEBASTIAN –
When are you going to do it?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI –
When? If I can go to Palestine and sacrifice myself I would do it. Why not?
And there’s more – from 9/11 to wifebeating.
In an interview with the Spanish daily La Vanguardia titled ‘I Admire the Taliban, They Are Courageous’ in late 2001, Al-Tamimi claimed that the September 11 attacks brought joy to the Arab world. He begins by assuring the interviewer that “everyone” in the Arab world cheered upon seeing the Twin Towers fall. “Excuse me,” says the interviewer, “did you understand my question?” Al-Tamimi: “In the Arab and Muslim countries, everyone jumped for joy. That’s what you asked me, isn’t it?”
“The piece quotes Dr Tamimi as saying “Muslims also need to kill the ideology behind this, that justifies the killing of innocents – this is Machiavellian and is anti-Islamic”
Of course, what Tamimi is referring to hear is the West. He goes on to make clear the reason for the bombing was Iraq, not the desire of Al Qa’eda to impose Islam. I somehow think he is not going to directly make a statement calling Bin Laden and all his followers apostates and urging all true Muslims to cooperate with the Police to put them behind bars.
Panorama gives plenty of time to –
Muslims suffered in bombing
Muslims are happy smiling folk
Muslims spouting from “Islam means peace” songsheet
& most especially, bombing is Blair’s fault for Iraq.
BUT absolutely no pressure put on “moderate Muslims” to identify jihadis in their midst
Islam = Terrorism.
Get the T-shirt wear it.
I’d like to see the Beeb interview a few of the young Muslims Dan Gillmor’s journalist friend found in plentiful supply. By his account many were gleeful over the bombing. Could the Beeb manage to find them (and would they report it if they did)?
http://bayosphere.com/blog/dangillmor/070805/guest_posting
via Instapundit
I remember after 9/11, one of the papers ran a poll of 1000 Muslims living in the UK. 11% admitted that they thought the attack on the US was justified, and 8% admitted that they felt an attack on the UK would be justified. Bear in mind this is before Iraq, and only shows those who admitted to their feelings. It is likely the percentage would be greater if some were not afraid of the possible consequences in response to their views.
I think its about time the BBC repeated “Dont Panic I’m Islamic” as a little reminder of how these “moderate” Muslims see us. I wonder if they will?
In the wake of 7/7, they should retitle it “Do Panic, I’m Islamic.”
They could have a double bill – also re-showing the Power of Nightmares that told us that the threat from Al-Quada is just a figment of the Government’s fevered imagination.
What the hell do the BBC Governors ever do to check this bias ?
Watch Al-Jazeera???
Rob: “Islam = Terrorism.
Get the T-shirt wear it.”
Surely, get the stab-proof/bullet-proof vest, wear it…
Now that’s a headline we’ve all been waiting for:
“Kyrgyzstan’s acting leader Kurmanbek Bakiev wins a landslide victory in a presidential election. “
Immigration checks on Tube passengers banned
By Ben Leapman Home Affairs Correspondent, Evening Standard
15 February 2005
Random immigration checks on Tube passengers have been banned by Underground chiefs after they were exposed by the Evening Standard.
We revealed how dozens of police and immigration officers at a time swooped on stations and asked foreign-sounding commuters to justify their presence in Britain.
And after we uncovered the practice last summer, unhappy Tube chiefs have told the Home Office and police that their officers will no longer be allowed to carry out the raids.
The sides are still in talks but already the number of operations has been cut and the Immigration Service has agreed to curb the way its officers work.
Crucially, under the new rules only people suspected of being faredodgers, drug-dealers or other lawbreakers may be quizzed on their immigration status.
A London Underground spokesman said: “We have established a protocol that no random checks should happen. As a result, the Immigration Service
only work with police as part of preplanned, intelligence-led operations.
“In practice this means that there will be limited occasions when these operations occur on Transport for London property. No law-abiding passengers will be stopped.”
British Transport Police assistant chief constable Paul Robb said: “Because it can be perceived as a very sensitive issue, we have been working with Transport for London to write a protocol for how we will operate on the Underground. As a result we have not done as many operations as was the case previously.”
Critics had claimed the raids were unfairly targeting black and Asian Londoners. Unlike police, the Immigration Service does not disclose figures on how many of the people it stops are from ethnic minorities.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: “The decision to ban these operations is a victory for civil liberties and the Standard is to be congratulated.
“Black and Asian people have every right to go about their business on the Underground without being stopped on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.
“Trawling public places for failed asylum seekers is no substitute for having a proper system of deportation.”
The BTP said it had carried out around 80 joint operations with immigration officers in London since last April, a rate of two per week, in an initiative called Operation Donate.
Raids were evenly split between Tube and mainline railway stations.
In one operation, at Harrow-on-the-Hill last August, some people getting off trains were stopped by officers dressed in body armour and carrying handcuffs.
Despite the curbs on Tube raids, the Immigration Service has stepped up its enforcement campaign across London including raids on workplaces employing illegal migrants.
Is it me, or do the BBC never use the word terrorist other than in the context of quotes in all the most recent online stories on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news ?
Guys, thanks for having the guts to tell the real truth behind what is happening in our country. I notice that even so-called “progressive” blogs like Harry’s Place panicked when push came to shove and have banned comments if they criticise islam. Whatever happened to freedom of speech.
Johninlondon, thanks for the Evening Standard link – what will the liberals say now ?
By and large I thought the BBC did a pretty good job last week.
At the risk of sounding trite, I was really impressed by the reaction of people in the City. Personally I think it’s important that we try and avoid too much media inspired symbolism – ‘7/7’, ‘iconic images of the woman in the mask’ etc etc. It can only hinder investigations, the clean up operation and the city’s economy and encourages poorly thought out political demands. Some of the paper coverage has been a bit worrying in this regard.
The best thing to do is to get on with economic activity as the police and security operations are undertaken in the background.
Cockney
BBC coverage of the actual news has been no better than ITN and Sky – and FAR more expensive.
BBC coverage in terms of plugging opinions has been APPALLING – far too much Galloway/Benn/Tariq Ali and that wierd Arab editor with bulging eyes. Mostly llowed to spout their non-sequiturs without having them rammed back down their throats. If even leftie Rory Bremmner treats Benn as a loon, why does the BBC use him ?
And what do you think of the deliberate avoidance/erasure of the words terrorism and terrorist ? All OK to you ?
And out of 4000 BBC news staff, could no-one remember and re-examine the Evening Standrd story that police spot-checks at London tube stations were stopped six months ago for multi-culti reasons ? Why isn’t John Humphrys down on the home secretry like a ton of bricks on this ?
So was it “Palestine”? Or Iraq? Or Afghanistan?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4670535.stm
Well which was it? We have to pin on something? Don’t we?
Eamonn
Ask Peter Marshall and George Galloway – they’ll know the root cause instantly.
Also – the BBC gives a rather sanitised description of the actual murder. Deliberate omission of the attempt to saw Van Gogh’s head off ?
Mustn’t cast any Muslims in a negative light, of course.
The worrying voice of moderate Islam in Britain. It’s a “cycle of violence” you see:-
I am a devout Muslim who was born in this country. I was extremely saddened by what happened on Thursday. But this sadness is just an extension of the pain I and other Muslims feel daily, for the thousands of innocent Muslim civilians killed or maimed in the past year. Although I would never let this pain lead me to commit such evil that took place on Thursday myself, I cannot guarantee the same for the millions of Muslims living in this country and around the world.
I personally think that some responsibility for this disaster has to be taken by those responsible for sending this country to Iraq. Whatever the justifications, the rights and wrongs, the methods of the war, how can they expect to kill tens of 1000s of innocent civilians in Iraq and not expect some sort of reaction, however perverse? I pray sincerely for the cycle of attacks to end.
Mujahid Aziz, Birmingham, United Kingdom
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4670271.stm
My issue with Sky in particular is that they have been a bit overkeen to publicise rumours and unconfirmed ‘reports’. Fine for pre-season transfer speculation but in this context I think sticking to the absolute facts is imperative.
Opinion wise, I’ve tried to avoid it so I’ll take your word for it on the balance. What I would say is that at the moment nobody knows the motivations so by definition it’s impossible to authoritatively ram someone’s opinion back down their throats. Anyone presenting an opinion as fact is talking b*llocks which goes both for Galloway et al and the ministers I’ve heard assuring me that it was nothing to do with Iraq. How the f*ck do any of them know??
Terminology wise, I don’t give a monkeys. It’s really not the time to be waving dictionaries.
Security wise clearly there are enormous amounts of issues to consider so I personally think that picking on one relatively minor initiative months ago is pretty peurile – I sincerely doubt given the likely budget whether armies of immigration officers would have swarmed the tube apprehending all and sundry. However this obviously weighs on the side of realism, interventionalism and proper security budgets and against the side of political correctness, ‘personal freedon’ and small government.
Peter Taylor was on Radio 5 Live phone-in after the Panorama programme. I thought it was notable that the presenter and Taylor seemed to get annoyed by anyone who said anything “off message”, such as that there is no justification for muslims to cite “Palestine” as a reason to blow infidels apart, or that support for Al Qaeda amongst Britain’s muslim communities might be greater than previously thought.
It is a strange paradox that muslims have no problem with muslims being killed by other muslims:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/2391051.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3643108.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
But let an infidel do anything, and all hell breaks loose:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4587679.stm
Re Mujahid’s cycle of violence:
Now let’s see…
I wonder what invasion could have justified the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? I don’t recall any American or British troops tramping on Dar al Islam.
I pray sincerely for the excuses to end.
According to this New Statesmn rticle Ken Livingstone banned police/immigration spot checks on the underground. I expect John Humphrys will be hauling Red Ken over the coals over this.
/not
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4715_133/ai_n8578745
Since the convoluted logic of the BBC contributors sees the blame for Islamic terrorism to rest on Anglo-American imperialism and by extension that the invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq led inevitably to the destruction of the WTC then it will presumably be encouraging the Blair Government to attack somewhere ( anywhere) as soon as possible to provide the justification for the London bombs.
Don’t worry everyone – handwringers rejoice! Simpson Says it’s only misguided criminals
London bombs need calm response
By John Simpson
BBC world affairs editor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4671577.stm
It is clear that the “Islam is a religion of peace” mantra has become part and parcel of leftist dogma. How could it be otherwise?
For to admit the truth about islam, would be to admit that an ideology that is profoundly anti-democratic, expansionist, aggressive and supremacist, has been allowed to take root in the west and is rapidly growing.
It would mean facing up to the monumental blunders Europe’s political classes have made over the last 30 years. And that would never do.
Much better to go on pretending.
Appeaser Frank Gardiner again – on Radio 4 Start the Week this morning. Surprise surprise – he thinks it was all our fault. Not Wahabbism. And the people really suffering after Thursday are the Muslims, eg around the Edgware Road. The new myth – forgetting that the bomb was not IN Edgware Road but way underground.
“Doubly tough for Brtitain’s Muslims”
Nary a mention from Gardiner of the suffering grieving families, of the badly scarred and injured. Mindnumbing useful-idiocy by Gardiner.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/starttheweek.shtml
Gardiner comes on after 6 minutes, after Tessa Jowell – just click forward. His most ludictous whining comes at about 22/23 minutes.
Miam
I could be wrong — but John Simpson never uses the words terrorism or terrorist. As you say, just bombers or “misguided criminals”.
Maybe an ASBO is called for ?
ASBO = Anti Social Behaviour Order. eg curfew, stay away from certain areas, play nice.
That’ll stop ’em. Good thinking Mr Simpson.
I’m making a note of these comments with a view to prosecuting you all should any new legislation make it possible.
You’ve got to be joking, Tony. Is a wish to have terrorism called terrorism a crime ? And since when did Parliament pass retrospective legislation ?
If you are not joking – grow up.
I saw “British” Muslims openly trying to recruit young men for “arms training” camps on a UK Islamic talkboard in the Summer of 2000. I lurked there a few times. I was so naive I thought surely the CIA or MI5 or FBI or whoever were watching them, so I didn’t report it. Or that it was all a big joke, because surely they wouldn’t be talking about such things on a public talkboard if they were for real.
Later on, I tried to go back and find that talkboard but couldn’t remember the URL and I hadn’t bookmarked it either. Wish I had!
I remember they said the training camps were in the rural US. They were snickering about how the looser gun laws in the US made it possible.
2 years later, after 9-11, the FBI found two such camps in the US — one on a farm in rural Georgia and one in Oregon.
Note the date: Summer of 2000. That was several months before the so-called “Second Intifada” in Israel, while the Oslo “Peace Process” was in full flower, while the dolt Clinton was still in the White House, more than a year before 9-11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, just a year after the US bombed the Serbs to keep them from fighting Muslims in Kosovo.
Summer of 2000.
The Simpson articles meanders off into references to the IRA terrorist campaign and Government reactions to it. One phase stood out: “a team of three IRA people were summarily executed when they were caught on an operation in Gibraltar.”
Followed by:
“All these things did was to convince many people in Northern Ireland that the British Government operated on the same low moral level as the IRA itself.”
Now that seems a peculiar version of history when you read the the European court of Human Rights judgement in the case of McCann & Others V The United Kingdom that heard :
“216. The applicants requested the award of damages at the same
level as would be awarded under English law to a person who was
unlawfully killed by agents of the State. They also asked, in
the event of the Court finding that the killings were both
unlawful and deliberate or were the result of gross negligence,
exemplary damages at the same level as would be awarded under
English law to a relative of a person killed in similar
circumstances….”(but concluded)”..
In any event, having regard to the fact that the three terrorist
suspects who were killed had been intending to plant a bomb in
Gibraltar, the Court does not consider it appropriate to make an
award under this head. It therefore dismisses the applicants’
claim for damages.”
And the minority view in the 10 – 9 decision was that
“..we are satisfied that no
failings have been shown in the organisation and control of the
operation by the authorities which could justify a conclusion
that force was used against the suspects disproportionately to
the purpose of defending innocent persons from unlawful violence.
We consider that the use of lethal force in this case, however
regrettable the need to resort to such force may be, did not
exceed what was, in the circumstances as known at the time,
“absolutely necessary” for that purpose and did not amount to a
breach by the United Kingdom of its obligations under the
Convention.”
http://www.law.qub.ac.uk/humanrts/ehris/ni/icase/ViewHtml6.htm
Whilst the security services were criticised for the conduct of the operation and for the presumption that the suspect vehicle contained a device there was no conclusion that the IRA active service unit were ” summarily executed.”
In fact “200. The Court accepts that the soldiers honestly believed, in
the light of the information that they had been given, as set out
above, that it was necessary to shoot the suspects in order to
prevent them from detonating a bomb and causing serious loss of
life (see paragraph 195 above). The actions which they took, in
obedience to superior orders, were thus perceived by them as
absolutely necessary in order to safeguard innocent lives.”
Boy Blue
Exactly!
How come all the B-BBC commentators are using surnames only these days? To stay immune from the skewed scrutiny you apply to others?
This post doesn’t even apply to the BBC.
Sorry, should be first names only – ie no surnames. Pathetic. What are you so afraid of?
“I pray sincerely for the cycle of attacks to end.
Mujahid Aziz, Birmingham, United Kingdom”
Tell you what, Mr. Aziz, you stop – and we’ll stop. Okay?
… on these very pages Biased BBC readers are calling for the murder/executing of “Lefties” and “BBC scum”.
Doesn’t leave much moral high ground for your anti-terrorist stance or your anti-BBC diatribes does it?
Sick.
But then this ceased being a serious site a long time ago… The fanbase of twitching, violent fantasists who comment on the increasingly irrelevant posts is testament to that.
Browsing the comments, some are way off this blog’s topic.
Whether Islam is a religion of peace etc etc may be a fascinating subject for debate (terrorism’s not historically a particularly Islamic thing, btw – the French and the Russians seem to have started it in the 19th century), but it’s not what this blog is interested in.
What is important is that a man who the BBC know to be a terror apologist is presented on the BBC condemning the London bombs without any kind of background being provided. Anyone reading the BBC report would think Dr Tamimi was a genuine man of peace, a ‘moderate Muslim’.
He is not, the BBC know he is not, yet they will not say so.
http://paulmason.typepad.com/newsnig8t/2005/07/media_critics_g.html
It’s worth pointing out that Mediamatters is dedicated to being on the case of Fox journalists, just as BiasedBBC is there to point out the inadequacies of the organisation I work for.
I don’t know whether it’s a compliment to be compared to mediamatters but nevertheless a good sign. BBBC is starting to make an impact. Maybe it’s not hopeless afterall.
And I agree with Laban.
I don’t think that I have ever read such a load of gratuitously perverse, irrational and nonsensical claptrap as what is presented on this site.
If there is bias at the BBC, then whatever bias there is pales in to insignificance compared to the rabid bias that is expressed here.
Mark
You are entitled to yor view. When comments can be made freeely, some people go over the top. It happens on lots of sites.
But there is ample evidence tht the BBC takes an appeasing approach to terrorism, and presents a very partial picture of the “news”. It lacks the balance that is required nder the Royal Charter. And right now, it can’t even call a terrorist a terrorist.
If you think the BBC can do no wrong – remember Hutton and the resignation of the Chairman and the Director General ? And why did the crew of the Ark Royal insist that BBC service be stopped ?
…terrorism’s not historically a particularly Islamic thing, btw…
http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0056.htm
hmmm
Tony Blair used the words terror/terrorism/.terrorists 12 times in his Commonsstatement today, inclding the term Islamist extremist terrorists :
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1526227,00.html
But the BBC website report of his statement excises the offending words entirely :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4670945.stm
His words just get stuffed down the memory hole at the BBC. Orwellian.
Orwell’s memory holes :
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/4/
yoy
How does an account of terrorism 1000 years ago affect this week’s news ?
How loopy can things get ?
JohninLondon
Laban says as an aside ‘…terrorism’s not historically a particularly Islamic thing, btw…’
I say perhaps not
now do you get it?
“How does an account of terrorism 1000 years ago affect this week’s news ?”
In western culture it wouldn’t. When your trying to deal with a culture that is modelling it’s behaviour on a literal interpretation of words written 1400 years ago…