for exposing a Guardian journalist, Dilpazier Aslam, as a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the Guardian’s failure to either notice or disclose this fact in relation to articles Aslam wrote on, for instance, the case of Shabina Begum (which appears to have been a Hizb ut-Tahrir put up job from the off) and the recent terrorist attacks in London, on which Aslam opined that:
Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don’t-rock-the boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We’re much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not.
and that people should not be shocked by the London terrorist attacks because:
Shocked would be to suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of our own
Nice guy! Strangely enough though, even though this story has been running since Wednesday, July 13th (ten days ago), and was covered in The Independent (who doubtless overcame their annoyance with Scott’s digs at them to have a good kick at their Guardian rivals!), ‘Guardian’ man revealed as hardline Islamist six days ago, it has yet to make any appearance at all on BBC News Online or, as far as I am aware, in any BBC broadcast output.
Still, now that The Guardian has finally done the decent thing and sacked Aslam (albeit in a typically leftie mealy-mouthed sort of a way), I expect the BBC will finally get round to reporting it.
To save you some trouble Beeboids, here are links to Scott’s original posts:
- July 13th: ‘Sassy’ Suicide Bombers
- July 15th: ‘Sassy’ Organisation: “Kill Jews Everywhere”
- July 17th: Ablution Hits the MSM
- July 18th: Deafening Silence from the Guardian
And links to The Guardian’s articles on the subject:
- Aslam targeted by bloggers
- Background: the Guardian and Dilpazier Aslam
- Dilpazier Aslam leaves Guardian – surely they mean ‘sacked’!
Now, where do you think it should go?
UK?
Politics?
Technology?
Ah, Entertainment, that’s the ticket!
P.S. Be careful about repeating that bit about Scott allegedly spending “his time indoors posting repeated attacks on the Guardian for its stance on the environment, its columnists such as Polly Toynbee, and its recent intervention in the US presidential election campaign” – it smacks of sour grapes.
Update: From today’s Sunday Times, re. the case of Shabina Begum: Lords to rule on Muslim clothes. Let us hope that justice will prevail this time, in particular to protect vulnerable Muslim girls from being pressurised by male relatives about what they wear. Let us also hope that the BBC will remember to mention Cherie Booth’s role (or otherwise) this time.
” Be careful about repeating that bit
also that Scott was getting even on Aslam for beating him to the job at the Guardian.
The Guardian probably only picked up on Scott’s application from a comment on Scott’s site by Laban Tall. They did not realise that Scott’s application was a spoof. Scott thought that only crazy lefties would get a job at the Guardian, little realising that they would go instead for a crazy jihadist.
The Guardian admit they knew of Aslam’s political allegiances & perhaps have been forced to take action because the London terror campaign may be changing the way the wind blows. If that is the case, will the BBC notice?
I joined in some of the comments at Scott’s site while this saga was running for many days. I commented that in better days the Guardin wold hve had Aslam’s sorry ass out the door in a trice. No question of hime “leaving” – kicked out.
We can now expect lots of complaining about unfair dismissal and restriction on free speech from the far-left allies of Islamic extremism. This is NOT the end of the matter. It would be interesting to know how journalists at the BBC feel – my guess is that they will not all agree with the sacking.
The Guardian stories now reveal that they knew this toerag was a member of HuT – as one of them points out, Aslam talked about it not only to colleagues but also to SENIOR EDITORS.
Shameful.
Of course – the BBC advertises its jobs exclusively through the Guardian.
The Guardian website is still carrying the article Aslam wrote – with still no mention of his membership of the nasty HuT.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/0,16136,1524273,00.html
Bizarre
Aslam did the Guardian’s reporting on the schoolgirl jilbab case. The schoolgirl herself waas supported or steered form the outset by the evil HuT.
So SENIOR EDITORS at the Guardian KNEW Aslam is in HuT. And everyone knew of HuT’s involvement all throgh the jiljab case — certinly I did in the sense that there was an extremist organisation in the background.
But in that case again, the Guardian did not refer to Aslam’s membership of HuT when publishing his stories onthe case. And don’t ever forget the Guardian is what people at the BBC tend to read.
A good summary of the Aslam case :
http://eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/840/Growing_Your_Own.html
Trust the apologist Los Angeles Times to re-run the Guardian’s Aslam story. After all the fuss about HuT started. Will they now print the story of his sacking ? I think the large Jewish population might be interested to hear that the LATimes is printing stuff from a guy who bel;ongs to an openly antisemitic outfit like HuT :
http://patterico.com/?p=3335
dan
Scott thought that only crazy lefties would get a job at the Guardian, little realising that they would go instead for a crazy jihadist.
lefties discriminated against by the Guardian! I love it.
Shabina Begum, she of the jilbab case, was very much steered and encouraged by HuT, but during her successful action she was represented by one Cherie Booth QC (that’s Cherie Blair to overseas readers) a noted sympathiser of Palestinian terrorists. I doubt that she’s about to strap on a semtex waistcoat but questions must be asked about her relationship and contacts with HuT at the time.
The Telegraph poll of UK Muslim opinion sggests that ONE IN TEN sympathises with the terrorists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/23/npoll23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/23/ixnewstop.html
And up to HALF the Muslim community would be reluctant to help the police in their search (see the lst question)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/07/23/npoll23big.gif;jsessionid=PS4W5USXWMRVZQFIQMGCM5WAVCBQUJVC
Where is the BBC picking up on this ? When are they going to drop the nonsense about virtally all Muslims being peaceful and opposing terrorism ?
OT
There is a big fuss over the UN wanting to refurbish its New York building, renting temporary office space in the meanwhile. The project sounds to be totally out of control.
As far as I know the BBC has TURNED A BLIND EYE the story. The costs could end up at $2 to 3 billion, which means the UK taxpayer forking ot lots of money.
It is actually a juicy story, lots of entertainment as well as news value. As is illustrated by the evidence given to the Senate hearing by Donald Trump (now of Apprentice fame). The New York Sun text story is good – but the Radioblogger audio clip catches Trump in glorious full flow. Hilarious if it was not so serious :
http://www.nysun.com/article/17391
http://www.radioblogger.com/#000852
“…it has yet to make any appearance at all on BBC News Online or, as far as I am aware, in any BBC broadcast output.”
Why would it? Whilst I am as delighted as anyone at Scott’s successful exposure of Guardian stupidity and duplicity, it is hardly big news. Has the story appeared on Sky? ITN? Channel 5? There is only a brief mention on the Times website today, in a bit about weblogs under a piece discussing online natter about a celebrity called Jude Law. If the Murdoch press isn’t making a big deal about this then it probably isn’t that big of a deal.
This has nothing to do with BBC bias (except in the tangential sense of job advert placement that JohninLondon mentions).
What would be interesting and pertinent to this site is if the BBC gave space to a representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain to spout about the London bombing terror, without telling readers of the extremist nature of the organisation – even when it knew about that nature.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4693845.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3182271.stm
Yes, that would make an appropriate Biased BBC piece. Oddly enough, it was mentioned at Daily Ablution…
.
The MediaGrauniad article linked in the post is telling.
Written by Mr A Staff-Reporter it offers so much insight into L3 journalistic forms of expression and reporting habits.
“Rightwing bloggers from the US [such as Harry’s Place, Scott, Laban, Normblog etc.], where the Guardian has a large online following, were behind the targeting last week of a trainee Guardian journalist”
“The story is a demonstration of the way the ‘blogosphere’ [note the quotations] can be used to mount obsessively personalised attacks at high speed.”
Beware of high speed RW attack
bloggers, they’re obsessively going for your neck.
“Scott Burgess, a blogger from New Orleans who recently moved to London, spends his time indoors [how does Mr A Reporter knows this?] posting repeated attacks on the Guardian for its stance on the environment, its columnists such as Polly Toynbee, and its recent intervention in the US presidential election campaign.“[note the casual mention, it’s only natural for the G to intervene in another’s country elecoral process]
“He pitched into Mr Aslam, who as it happened, beat him to the traineeship on the Guardian [it was a close call, really]. Googling the 27-year-old Muslim’s name [how racist], Mr Burgess picked up some articles the journalist had openly written in the past for Hizb ut-Tahrir websites and denounced him on his blogspot, The Daily Ablution, saying: “He is on record supporting a world-dominant Islamic state.” [the bastard]
“Another blogger, Laban Tall, wrote enthusiastically that Burgess’ coup “has resounded across the blogging universe like a shockwave from a supernova”.
He said: “I bet the Guardian wish they’d given him the job now, not Mr Aslam. Scott applied for the job in June 2004. Mr Aslam got it. They say revenge is a dish best eaten cold.”
It’s all about revenge, is it not?
As commenter dan mentioned above, the Gruaniadn probably only picked up on Scott’s application from a comment on Scott’s site by Laban Tall. They did not realise that Scott’s application was a spoof.
“Mr Burgess fished out [surely a habbit he picked from staying indoors] a website article written by Mr Aslam before September 11..”
“But meanwhile, New Jersey undergraduate [thus immature] Joe Malchow [aka Joe’s Dartblog] was writing on his own blog: “Guardian employs known member of terrorist organisation.”
“Fantasies like this zoomed round the world and soon seeped into [like poison, he means] the paper’s mainstream rivals.”
“In the Independent on Sunday, Shiv Malik, also briefly a Guardian intern [revenge! revenge!], accused the hapless Aslam of mounting “a sting by Hizb ut-Tahrir to infiltrate the mainstream media”.
“And in the tabloid Sun, their attack-dog columnist, Richard Littlejohn, took the opportunity to claim: “A Guardian journalist has been unmasked as an Islamist extremist”.
Incitement! I tell ya.
“The episode was a striking illustration of the way that blogs and bloggers can heat up the temperature and seek to settle scores – as well as raise legitimate concerns about journalism and transparency [explored in detail in this piece] – when something awful happens in the streets of London.”
So it’s actually bloggers who are using the London terrorist attacks and seek to settle scores. Bastards all of them!
Note that every blogger mentioned is named and gets an additional status description while the writer of this piece remains anonymous.
The only blogger who gets away with a narrative is a lunatic extreme lefty moron who hangs around parks at night (“A fellow blogger, Dsquared, promptly accused him of using quotes out of context..)
dsquared is apparently a buddie of john b who posts here. Enough sid.
JiL, I think people who read UK blogs know who he is and are familiar with his modest style.
To be fair, Laban Tall also escapes further description. Maybe the fact that his blog title is UK commentators which contradicts the overall US rightwing fanatic bloggers theme saved him the honour.
Is the BBC going to jump on this one ?
Fat chance. It really believes the fatwa is good stuff.
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4/842/103/
http://www.mpacuk.org/
Excellent article on the thinking of the bombers AND their victims.
A lot of the BBC coverage has played into what the bombers wanted. Which is exactly the worst course for the victims and the general British public.
Thanks a bundle, BBC. There is a war going on and you play the enemy’s game for them.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006989
And thanks to Andrew for taking time to collect and display the urls for this story.
“Rightwing bloggers from the US [such as Harry’s Place, Scott, Laban, Normblog etc.], where the Guardian has a large online following, were behind the targeting last week of a trainee Guardian journalist”
See, that’s what makes me laugh. They don’t realise that the only reason they get so many hits from US ISPs is that people such as Scott are making fun of them and providing the links to click on! Whenever the Grauniad is featured on, for example, LGF, which has a huge readership, they are going to get a large number of hits from the US. It’s not a following, for crying out loud, it’s people coming to see if a newspaper would really publish the sort of thing the Grauniad publishes on a regular basis!
Another Liz
Technorti shows tht there has been very wide interest aat other blogsites sparked by the Scott Burgess revelations. A developing blogstorm with some big names involved – Harry’s Place which is now important here in the UK, Chrenkoff, LGF, Michelle Malkin etc
http://www.technorati.com/search/Dilpazier%20Aslam
Before all the leftist propagandists get started, here’s a quote from The Times:
Suspect shot dead ‘had no bomb’:
Alerted by the bulk of his jacket, police had followed the suspect on foot for some time and became concerned when he approached the Tube station.
After the officers were ordered to stop him from entering the station at all costs, they challenged him before he crossed the main road to the station.
When they drew their weapons and shouted “Stop, armed police”, the man looked over his shoulder and bolted. He was described as being very fit and agile.
After the suspect had been shot police sent a robot to examine the man, because of fears that any device could still prove a danger. But it is understood that no device was found.
Police are describing him as an “intimate accomplice of the cell”. His name and address were thought to have been found among the possessions left by the would-be bombers on Thursday.
Police sources said he did not live at the address from which he had been followed.
Another witness said that the suspect boarded the Tube and attempted to take a hostage before he was shot.
Dan Copeland, a Northern Line passenger, told BBC News: “The man burst in through the carriage door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me.
“An officer jumped on to my left and screamed, “Everybody out”. As I turned out of the door on to the platform I heard four dull bangs.”
The Metropolitan Police said that an Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation will begin, which will inevitably focus on some of the witness accounts.
I guess people might think twice now before running from the Police. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty seems to be taking a remarkably common-sense view if this Times story is representative:
In a statement tonight, Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights organisation Liberty, said: “Our hearts go out to the family of the dead man and to the officers involved in this tragic incident.
“No-one should rush to judgement. In any case of this kind – especially at a time of heightened tension – there must be a prompt, comprehensive and independent investigation into what happened.
“This must cover the relevant guidance, training of officers, as well as the facts of the particular operation.
“These are knife-edge split second decisions made in moments of grave danger. We have a massive shared interest in the protection of innocent lives.”
Good shout, anonymous. The Beeb’s take on this is summed up with the headline: ‘Shot man not connected to bombing’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4711021.stm
Reading their story you could quite easily imagine that the Filth were in the habit of randomly blazing away at folks. There’s certainly no reference to the deceased being connected with of the cell or trying to take a hostage, both of which argue against the Beeb’s ‘Maniac Cops’ line.
“…the Beeb’s ‘Maniac Cops’ line.”
???
Has the story been changed in the last half hour? There is no such line on display at all at the moment.
.
BBC News presenter at around 8.10pm “unfortunately there were not many foreigners killed most of the victims were Egyptian muslims” not enough English Christians killed for his liking it seems. I didn’t know that the Arabic BBC news channel had started yet. Sky News isn’t much better at the moment either. Long live Fox news.
PJF:
I meant line figuratively, as in the approach what the Beeb is taking, not that even the Beeb would overtly liken the Met to a notoriously stupid horror movie.
I don’t see any such approach “what the BBC is taking”, figuratively or otherwise. To suggest such a thing from the link you provided qualifies for a tinfoil hat.
Look, I detest the corporation and its biased news coverage, but this is just potty. It makes life easy for them, too. They can point here and dismiss everything on the basis of such nonsense.
.
Max, I found the Guardian’s attempted hit job on bloggers quite chilling. You could sense the seething anger and frustration bubbling belief. Orwellian in tone and one big sulk of an overgrown baby. I mean, makes you think the only reason they sacked this monster was because of the blog exposé …
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1534466,00.html
PJF:
I dunno about anyoine else, but your pseudo-olympian posturing is really starting to tee me off. Just shove it already.
FACT: The Times carries reports that the deceased was an associate of the terrorists and that he may have tried to take a hostage.
FACT: The BBC does not report either of these things.
That’s your tinfoil right there: your mates at the Beeb – oh sorry, I forgot you ‘despise’ them – not only carried a report which implied strongly that an innocent man was shot – why else lead on the absurdly hair-splitting line that the deceased wasn’t connected to a particular bombing ? – but also suppressed two pieces of evidence which would surely lead any reasonable reader to conclude that the deceased was far from an innocent bystander.
Harry’s Place is v. important, and often spot-on. Like Prof Geras, they’re the thinking man’s lefties!
BBC splashing money around :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/24/nbbc24.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/24/ixhome.html
the quality of the criticism on this site is really good.and also funny.thanks.
i do wish somebody would do a fox on the bbc so they can be left high and dry like cnn.
the bbc will someday understand they are in a world of their own.they think that they are broadcasting to a nation of guardian readers.
Michael Grade’s statement regarding use of the word T word has been clarified: Jews are different:
ISRAELIS KILLED IN GAZA SHOOTING
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4711497.stm
Regarding the details of the murders, the BBC gives us ‘shot dead … by Palestinian militants’, followed by ‘Israeli army sources said three gunmen opened fire at an Israeli car at the Kissufim crossing’. Really? I doubt that’s what Israeli army sources said.
The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade is one of three terrorist organisations claiming responsibility (the things you have to do to be a hero of the Palestinians.) The BBC tells us that The al-Aqsa group is linked to the Fatah party of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas … This is a lie. They are not linked, they are the same bloody organisation. Even Jenny Tonge understands this. al-Aqsa freely states that it is the armed part of Fatah.
Dumbjon wrote:
“PJF, I dunno about anyoine else, but your pseudo-olympian posturing is really starting to tee me off. Just shove it already.”
I must admit DJ, I was thinking about this before I logged on just now.
PJF, if you really do oppose BBC bias like everyone else here, it would help to take a constructive approach when disagreeing with people, not an ‘everyone else in the world is a complete idiot apart from me’ Jeremy Paxman approach.
And guess who pops up on the 9am BBC1 TV News programme ?
None other than Robin Cook.
Guess what he says ?
It is all the fault of Bush and Blair.
They have created the divisions in our society.
Cook has never met an imam who preaches hate.
Multiculturalism is a good thing.
“If there are people who preach hatred….” as if that is an academic question.
Cribbing about the police shoot-to-kill policy.
The US are killing more people in Iraq than the “insurgents”. Bloody liar.
We need an exit strategy.
And on cue, here comes Chami Chakrabati from Liberty. Not quite what I wanted but she is less whingey than usual. She mentions bag checks t the BBC withot complaining. Of course not bag checks re slight hrdle to her getting to preach at us yet again. Why does the BBC always bring s self-appointed human rights people lecturing us ? Why does it never say If it wasn’t for yo lot aand the human rights legislation, some of the preachers of hate would npot be free, would probably have been deported.
Where is the man in the street, the vox pop ? Why can’t WE go on the box and say we WANT the police to shoot to kill under defined circumstances. We WANTED the nasties locked up years ago or better still deported. We WANTED unlimited detention for people or secuurity service see as dangerous, so long as there is a degree of legal oversight. We WANT school uniform rules observed, rather than the corts bowing to Islaist extremists. We WANT Liberty and all the other do-gooders to shut up and go away for a while.
Now waiting for the BBC to let someone contradict the litany of all Robin Cook’s spleen, which he delivered in a long interview.
Waiting…..
Oh dear – they seem to have run out of time for anyone to counter the whole litany of Cook’s diatribe. Just a couple of minutes given at the end to a Minister, giving him no proper chance for a refutation of Cook’s points one by one.
Thank you BBC for yet another “unbiased” programme. Isn’t it odd that it all played to the constant BBC theme – “Iraq was wrong”.
10am switch to Sky and the Adam Boulton programme. It does NOT major on someone like Cook and all the possible criticisms of the Iraq policy. Instead it majors on an interview with the Met Police Commissioner. That is – it is trying to give us NEWS, especially concerning the police use of guns and how the police intend to work with the Muslim communities.
NEWS, not opinion.
OT1
The new Al-Qaeda uncovered
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4700911.stm
Peter Taylor’s three part series investigates the New Al-Qaeda
Jihad.com
Monday 25 July 2005, 2100BST, BBC Two
The Drug Dealer, The Estate Agent and The Telephone Man
Monday 1 August 2005, 2100BST, BBC Two
Frontline Pakistan
Monday 8 August 2005, 2100BST, BBC Two
Quote from article above:
“Many commentators presumed that because al-Qaeda had been dispersed after the war in Afghanistan, it had become weaker. Some even claimed that it no longer existed.”
Who could have claimed that??!! Al-Qaeda evidently do not exist – the BBC told us so. Did Peter Taylor not see the Beeb’s own excellent “Power of Nightmares”?
The only way I can see PT has managed to get this through is if there is sufficient Bush bashing and “blame it on Iraq”. We’ll see.
OT2
Geldolf’s gone, but don’t worry, Africa still lives on the BBC.
Sunday, 18:50, BBC1
Ground Force: A Garden for Africa 05
ok. we get the message.
Must-read. The French smugly think it’s not coming their way. Six million ‘disaffected’ [to use a BBC weasel word] muslims of primarily North African origin beg to differ.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18631
Melanie Phillips has another swipe at the “wretched BBC” for peddling the line tht “Iraq is the cause” – swallowing the enemy’s propaganda and behaving like traitors in time of war.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001360.html
There’s some interesting faultlines about to open in the Guardian/BBC/left’s worldview. Melanie Phillips has linked to a report by gay pressure group Outrage, which says that Peter Tatchell has complained his movements are being monitored by Islamopaths. The quotes from Outrage:
‘The threats apparently began soon after OutRage stepped up its campaign in defense of LGBT Muslims, including gay Muslims fleeing attempted “honor killings” in Algeria, Iran Palestine and in the UK.
Tatchell said that since early April, Islamic fundamentalists have made various attempts to track his movements – posing as journalists, police officers and representatives of the Muslim Council of Britain.’
When you’re an achingly hip skinny latte sipping lefty, who do you support now? Their new best friends, the Islamopaths, under the ‘enemy of my enemy (Bush) is my friend’ rule; or their old best friends, the gay community. Bit difficult when your new best friends calls your old best friends ‘pigs’ who need to be ‘chopped up’ and ‘beheaded’.
The benighted ones have made these threats in the past, of course, but they seem to be stepping up in intensity.
Interesting to watch this hand of politically correct poker develop.
Good thing there’s this new Al-queda stuff. Apparently the Al-Queda that didn’t exist was the old one. How clever.
BBC admits extremist film led to complaints
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/24/nbbc124.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/24/ixhome.html
rupert murdoch could send in his fox people to run sky.the bbc would then get the message.
The BBC still has its knickers in a twist over the use of the T word as regards Sharm in Egypt. It generally avoids using the T word, using euphemisms instead – except when quoting politicians like mubaarak and Jack Straw. In those cases it puts the T word in quotes – but does not put their other comments in quotes. That is the general pattern in lots of stories at the BBC website.
Orla Guering is especially circumlocutory. She uses attackers, militants, bombers.
I reckon she would choke on the T word.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4711357.stm#
I think this demonstrates again that any BBC general relaxation or change of the policy to avoid the T word does NOT apply to terrorism overseas.
Or does the BBC not think that Sharm ws terrorism ?
Orla Guering is especially circumlocutory
Poor Orla is a mixed up gal. Yesterday in her News24 report she thrice said Israel when she meant Egypt – perhaps just getting Israel into it by hook or by crook.
Pls don’t forget that Dilpazier’s entirely sympathetic interview with the jibjab campaigner ran on a Guardian news page — not as an opinion piece.
His connection to the case (as a member of HT which was sponsoring the campaigner he was interviewing) was of course not mentioned.
It’s one thing to put an outrageous extremist on your op/ed pages, but it is indefensible to put one on your news pages, especially without a health warning.
The Cherie Blair connection is equally outrageous, moreso actually, but what are we do to? It’s a bit like General Musharaff and his extremist buddies who, I hope, are helping us against other, worse, extremists.
I fear Blair’s achilles heel on this one is his religious beliefs, as it is presumably religion that atttacts Cherie as well.
But weakening Blair would strengthen… who?
Of course the Sharm-el-Sheik bombing wasn’t terrorism. It was a natural reaction to Egypt’s killing of all those insurgents and other innocent civilians in Iraq. 🙂
Interesting op-ed from the NY Times countering the BBC Iraq as root cause line.
” if the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are at the core of the radicalization, why are there virtually no Afghans, Iraqis or Palestinians among the terrorists?
Why would a Pakistani or a Spaniard be more angry than an Afghan about American troops in Afghanistan? It is precisely because they do not care about Afghanistan as such, but see the United States involvement there as part of a global phenomenon of cultural domination.
It is also interesting to note that none of the Islamic terrorists captured so far had been active in any legitimate antiwar movements or even in organized political support for the people they claim to be fighting for. They don’t distribute leaflets or collect money for hospitals and schools. They do not have a rational strategy to push for the interests of the Iraqi or Palestinian people.
Olivier Roy
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22roy.html?
via Clive Davis’s blog
Ted
Your ironic comment actually looks true :
An AFP release says :
“A group calling itself the Al-Qaeda Organisation in the Levant and Egypt said it carried out Saturday’s multiple bombings as a “response against the global evil powers which are spilling the blood of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya.”
Which is a bit odd since Egypt is not in Iraq. They were there in the person of their ambassador, but Al Q has already killed him.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050723/wl_mideast_afp/egyptblast
But still the BBC swallows nd propagates the “real causes” argument.
dan
The best rebuttal I have seen recently of the “real causes” argument is by Debra Saunders, who writes for the San Francisco Chronicle, I think.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-7_25_05_DS.html
Why did the BBC not call the London bombers terrorists?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/default.stm#
First 6 minutes, Ray Snoddy interviews Mark Byford, Deputy DG of BBC, giving us a lesson in so-called ‘dancing on the head of a pin’ re the T-word.
Snoddy asks the right questions (all have been raised on this board – T word, BBC online stealth edits re T word and that editorial ‘guidance’ reminder re T word) and gets yeah but, no but, yeah, but no…’answers’.
Byford is absolutely pathetic.
re the bbc’s voracious appetite for all things global warming.
they wish us to think that there are no doubts.
samuel brittan on his really good site takes a more neutral position.
he refers to the extremists as “salvationists.”perfect way to describe the self-righteous bbc.
on another subject i vividly remember after an oil-spill off northern scotland the bbc told us that the damage will last for hundreds of years.there was no sign of any damage after a few months.
Yes, Byford sounded pathetic and weaselly. He CANNOT deny that the BBC excised umpteen mentions of the T word from Blair’s statement.
Why didn’t the interviewer Ray Snoddy get back at him on that ? (Don’t tell me.) I knew Snoddy years ago. Has always been close in with BBC management.
Grade and the Governors are going to have to intervene properly on this. The argument has escalated now, it is not going to go away.
Rottweiler Puppy has some comments on people the BBC keep interviewing as “spokesmen” for UK Muslims.” He suggests the BBC has a duty to tell us what some of the disruptive, nasty or even evil things these people say and support when they are not in front of the camera :
http://rottweilerpuppy.blogspot.com/2005/07/operation-kratos-mea-culpa-from-us.html
At least the countrymen & women of Jean Charles de Menezes who was shot by the Police can keep up with developments courtesy of BBCBrasil
http://www.bbcbrasil.com
God knows what the Beeb are saying to that audience….. courtesy of my license fee & taxes of course.
WHY is there a BBC Brasil?
HOW much does it cost?
WHO is paying?
WHERE is the justification for this in the charter?
WHEN was this started?
WHAT is Britain (the downplayed b at the start of BBC who’s residents are jailed ensure it’s funding) getting out of this?