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?”
Apologies if this someone has picked this up previously. John Simpson gives his verdict on the terrorists: they are misguided criminals.
That’s one way to put it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4671577.stm
Mark,
Biased BBC could allways do with more cash. Send 120 GBP NOW to keep it running. I know you totally disagree with the content and ideological perspective on the site but still, PAY UP or we might try and jail you (only kidding about that last bit, pity the BBC isn’t!)
I’m making a note of these comments with a view to prosecuting you all should any new legislation make it possible.
Tony | 11.07.05 – 3:32 pm | #
No doubt when this becomes an Islamic state – keep dreaming.
Teddy Bear
I’ve been away for a few days and didn’t catch Mark’s comment about prosecuting us all.
I haven’t laughed so much since the BBC last tried to get money out of me.
With the relious hate law a step closer we should maybe start worrying though: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4673301.stm
I should really think twice about coming to the UK again. They might lock me up and throw away the key because I’ve posted here on jihadwatch.org – very worrying!
Sorry, should be first names only – ie no surnames. Pathetic. What are you so afraid of?
Lou | 11.07.05 – 5:50 pm | #
Loo:?: Perfect name for you.
Cockney, dear heart
Pray tell – is there a war with the Al-Q contingents or not ?
This documentary from last year suggests there is. And so did Tony Blair’s words in the Commons today.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/view/
Please bbbc – you must run a post on the beeb’s odious John Simpson now calling the islamofascist filth who planted the bombs , “MISGUIDED CRIMINALS” . Please expose this disgusting mealy-mouthed idiot for the scumbag he really is.
Saaxon Brother
Some of us had been posting comments on John Simpson’s piece in this thred and the previous thread. Also, I had sent some links over to melanie phillips and she has just posted two pieces on the BBC :
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001319.html
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/0013220.html
Good work John :+: I was pleased to see that Melanie had also made the same observations as mentioned here – now I know why.
Just watching the O’Reilly factor. Bill O’Reilly is “going to keep an eye on the Beeb’s reporting” – might be interesting (I hope).
The front pge of tuesday’s telegraph carries this criticism of the BBC :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/12/nbbc12.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/12/ixportal.html
I had also sent stuff on to LGF who posted a thread on it. It is AMAZING how crass the BBC has been. Maybe not, given their arrogance.
I don’t know how many of you have got Sky Digital and can receive Fox News but I suggest everyone writes to Bill O’Reilly now he’s got his sights set on the Beeb. Tell him how bad the situation has become: oreilly@foxnews.com
This is simply an outrage. How can the British people tolerate such warped coverage? What are victims and surviving relatives to think of such arrogance and soft treatment of mass murderers – indeed terrorists?
John, no there isn’t a war in the UK, whatever rhetoric may or may not be used in whatever TV programme.
There have been terrorist attacks, the thus far unknown perpetrators of which need to be caught and tried under British law.
Less of the f**king hysteria – it’s somewhat ironic that self declared realists are the ones screaming and spreading wild rumours whilst the rest of us get on with things without impinging on the work of the police and intelligence services or the private grief of those affected.
Cockney
I am not being hystericl. I am trying to be analytical. You are trying to brush aside the brutal realities of the risks of Islamist extremists here in our midst. Or do you simply think they flew in on a day-trip ?
What wild rumours are you talking about ? We are talking bot the vacillation of the BBC, its appeasing tones.
And in what is any discussion here impinging on the work of the police or security services, or impacting the victims of the violence ?
What is going on in Britain is chillingly reminiscent of the 1930s – Britain sleepwalking its way into deeper trouble. nd the BBC is lling people into this false sense that all will be well. Stoicism is fine and dandy, the best response in terms of just getting on with things. Just like in the blitz. But what abot the fightback ?
You don’t think there is a war on terror. A lot of us do. It is the duty of the BBC to present both sides of this argument, not feeding us all the time the Power of Nightmares/it is all our fault line.
Cockney
You seem a nice chap, but mostimes I cannot follow your logic, but then again I do not think you do. If you have no point to make or information to link through, you are just wasting our time
A survey conducted by the ICM polling agency and published in December 2002 showed that more than 10 percent of Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims believed that further attacks by al Qaeda on the United States would be legitimate, and 8 percent supported such attacks against Britain. Bear in mind that it only those who admitted to these views, and in all liklihood there are those who feared admitting their real views because of possible repurcussions.
That means there are at least 125,000 people living in our midst who wish for our downfall. If that’s not war I don’t know what is.
Weak Brits, Tough French
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
July 12, 2005
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2764
Thanks to the war in Iraq, much of the world sees the British government as resolute and tough and the French one as appeasing and weak. But in another war, the one against terrorism and radical Islam, the reverse is true: France is the most stalwart nation in the West, even more so than America, while Britain is the most hapless.
British-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain, and America. Many governments – Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Spanish, French, and American – have protested London’s refusal to shut down its Islamist terrorist infrastructure or extradite wanted operatives. In frustration, Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak publicly denounced Britain for “protecting killers.” One American security group has called for Britain to be listed as a terrorism-sponsoring state.
Counterterrorism specialists disdain the British. Roger Cressey calls London “easily the most important jihadist hub in Western Europe.” Steven Simon dismisses the British capital as “the Star Wars bar scene” of Islamic radicals. More brutally, an intelligence official said of last week’s attacks: “The terrorists have come home. It is payback time for … an irresponsible policy.”
While London hosts terrorists, Paris hosts a top-secret counterterrorism center, code-named Alliance Base, the existence of which was recently reported by the Washington Post. At Alliance Base, six major Western governments have since 2002 shared intelligence and run counterterrorism operations – the latter makes the operation unique.
More broadly, President Chirac instructed French intelligence agencies just days after September 11, 2001, to share terrorism data with their American counterparts “as if they were your own service.” The cooperation is working: A former acting CIA director, John E. McLaughlin, called the bilateral intelligence tie “one of the best in the world.” The British may have a “special relationship” with Washington on Iraq, but the French have one with it in the war on terror.
France accords terrorist suspects fewer rights than any other Western state, permitting interrogation without a lawyer, lengthy pre-trial incarcerations, and evidence acquired under dubious circumstances. Were he a terrorism suspect, the author of Al-Qaida’s Jihad in Europe, Evan Kohlmann, says he “would least like to be held under” the French system.
The myriad French-British differences in treatment of radical Islam can be summarized by the example of what Muslim girls may wear to state-funded schools.
Denbigh High School in Luton, 30 miles northwest of London, has a student population that is about 80% Muslim. Years ago, it accommodated the sartorial needs of their faith and heritage, including a female student uniform made up of the Pakistani shalwar kameez trousers, a jerkin top, and hijab head covering. But when a teenager of Bangladeshi origins, Shabina Begum, insisted in 2004 on wearing a jilbab, which covers the entire body except for the face and hands, Denbigh administrators said no.
The dispute ended up in litigation and the Court of Appeal ultimately decided in Ms. Begum’s favor. As a result, by law British schools must now accept the jilbab. Not only that, but Prime Minister Blair’s wife, Cherie Booth, was Ms. Begum’s lawyer at the appellate level. Ms. Booth called the ruling “a victory for all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry.”
By contrast, also in 2004, the French government outlawed the hijab, the Muslim headscarf, from public educational institutions, disregarding ferocious opposition both within France and among Islamists worldwide. In Tehran, protesters shouted “Death to France!” and “Death to Chirac the Zionist!” The Palestinian Authority mufti, Ikrima Sa’id Sabri, declared, “French laws banning the hijab constitute a war against Islam as a religion.” The Saudi grand mufti, Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, called them a human rights infringement. When the “Islamic Army in Iraq” kidnapped two French journalists, it threatened their execution unless the hijab ban was revoked. Paris stood firm.
What lies behind these contrary responses? The British have seemingly lost interest in their heritage while the French hold on to theirs: As the British ban fox hunting, the French ban hijabs. The former embrace multiculturalism, the latter retain a pride in their historic culture. This contrast in matters of identity makes Britain the Western country most vulnerable to the ravages of radical Islam whereas France, for all its political failings, has held onto a sense of self that may yet see it through.
Now what large organisation capable of influencing many minds to accept this state of affairs, and which benefits by maintaining good relations with Muslims round the world at any cost by continuing their propaganda?
I share many of Daniel Pipes’ views, Teddy Bear, but to use the French super-dhimmis as an example, well … let’s say his analogy isn’t up to scratch. The whole of Europe needs to wake up to the threat in our midst:
“(AGI) – Rome, Jul 8 – “Islam has to be declared illegal until Islamists are not prepared to renounce to those parts of their pseudo political and religious doctrine glorifying violence and oppression of other cultures and religions. Islam promotes hatred and we now, after having tried the way of love, have to answer with the crusades of western peoples who still remember the battle of Lepanto”, wrote Roberto Calderoli, Northern League coordinator, in an editorial published today on the party’s daily newspaper “La Padania”. “Battles are not only won by armies but also by values, unfortunately we lost those values when we gave up our Christian roots, our identity, our culture. The West is losing its battle. A world condemning Oriana Fallaci and approving a judge who frees terrorists taking them for soldiers already lost the game. We are facing a real war where the enemy uses terrorism and we answer with flower power. Terrorism cannot be fought by offering peace but only by striking back the same way. Today we’re crying for the victims of London attacks together with their families and we suffer with those wounded, but tomorrow we have to fight back using the same arms”.
Calderoli also commented on the Italian presence in Iraq: “Tomorrow we’ll have to react also with a progressive withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, the resources employed in today’s peace mission could more usefully be employed to fight terrorism in our country. We have to get prepared to answer in the same language, maybe in this way we will win the war”.
From http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007106.php
Joerg, et. al., please moderate your comments. I strongly suspect that there is a BBC/Guardianista operative working here to elicit comments from us that will be used to get this site shut down for criticizing a certain uncriticizable religion.
That’s a fabulously paranoid statement, Susan. Tin foil hats everyone! I smell *ugh* guardianistas.
Were a mysteriously cunning agent provocateur operating, do you not think they could just trawl the comments in the archives?
Anonymous,
You’ve already shown the cut of your cloth many, many times in other threads. I’m through with you.
Susan,
You still haven’t answered the question. Probably a good thing you called it quits when you did.
Have a jolly day.
I’m fully capable of answering your question. Here’s a challenge for you:
Next time you’re interviewing one of the “moderate” Islamic scholars and spokespersons that al-Beeb and al-Guardian love to highlight so much, spring the apostate question on them.
See how they react. Ask Faisal Bodi or Farina or Sir Icky Sacranie, point blank, to absolutely disavow the death penaly punishment for people who convert out of Islam. (No fair asking a near-apostate like Irshad Manji or Ayaan Hirsi Ali — they are not considered to be “real” Muslims.)
Watch them squirm.
Then you’ll get it.
Maybe.
Given that Sacranie has been accused of apostasy, I sincerely doubt he’s in favour of it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1079809,00.html
But, should I enter journalism and interview him, I’ll be sure to ask.
Seeing as you are suggesting that Sacranie supports it, perhaps you could provide a link to support the view he is in favour of it.
Even the extremist group alMuhajiroun qualify their application of the death sentence:
“But *if we lived in an Islamic state* he could be tried and, unless he repented, would be liable to a sentence of death.”
or their response to Lord Ahmed
“In his current state of apostasy Lord Ahmed does deserve capital punishment, but we are not a court or a state and we cannot enact such a sentence.”
Hardly compelling evidence that some extremists can’t understand democracy, let alone mainstream Muslims in Britain, or that they can’t recognise that their laws don’t trump ours.
Soooo…you believe a death sentence for religious belief is appropriate as long as it can’t be enforced?
Not at all. But I’m not claiming that Islam is categorically incompatible with democracy.
I’m also not claiming, without evidence, that the death sentence for apostacy is held by mainstream muslim leaders in the UK.