On Sunday I noticed a report on BBConline which talked about the international aid effort to Pakistan which was then underway. Knowing that such affairs are almost becoming a catwalk for the compassion of the developed world, I approached with caution.
Anyway, a read of the report showed the BBC magnanimously including the US in the lede about international aid swinging into action- generally an upbeat presentation. However, I say maganimously because the US is listed as having pledged just 100,000 dollars- far less than the EU or even the UK (this issue of EU aid versus individual EU countries giving aid is very much an unresolved reporting issue for the Beeb- for instance, having effectively headlined the EU in lede and list, they throw this line in at the end, ‘France, Ireland, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Greece have all allocated funds or pledged to assist with immediate needs.’Meanwhile, Ireland had pledged about a third of that, I subsequently learnt.)
Needless to say, the BBC’s assertion that the US had pledged just $100,000 seems to have been flat out wrong: this report (of the same day, timestamp ‘earlier’- but later given transatlantic timezones) says the US had given– not pledged (a v. important distinction oft abused in BBC journalism as elsewhere)- 500,000 dollars to the Pakistan Red Cross via the relevant US agency, and that this took place on Saturday, by way of a beginning.
Although the Beeb follow up the 100,000 assertion- a figure I found was actually repeated from an earlier article– by quoting Bush that ‘”Our initial deployments of assistance are under way, and we stand ready to provide additional assistance as needed,” they fail to point out what that initial deployment had actually meant- all they needed to do was quote Bush… a little more:
‘Speaking in the Oval Office with the Pakistani Embassy’s deputy chief of mission, Mohammad Sadiq, by his side, Bush said that the United States has already sent some financial aid — the U.S. Agency for International Development sent $500,000 to the Red Cross in Pakistan on Saturday.
A second relief package in the form of emergency supplies, military helicopters and emergency management personnel was on its way. Two C-130 and a C-17 U.S. military aircraft containing blankets, winterized tents and other relief supplies were in motion already.
“We’re moving choppers. Secretary Rumsfeld is surveying the assets they may be able to move in the area,” Bush said. “Pakistan’s a friend, and the United States government and the people of the United States will help as best as we possibly can.’
Geddit Beeb?- costly, present actions: the choppers probably no-one else will send, plus aircraft and crewmen. I wonder how much it costs per day to fuel, maintain and man these kinds of items in foreign terrain? Wassa matter, Beeb, Bush’s colloquialism ‘choppers’ too low brow for ya t’report? $100,000- pah!
The Beeb, it seems clear, learnt nothing from their failures over reporting the US contribution to the tsunami. Even if situations move quickly, what would have been wrong in updating the report (the most recent I can find under a ‘Pakistan Aid’ search of the BBC website)?
One last note- I see that in addition to top-billing the EU, the Beeb also co-mentioned the ‘several Islamic nations’. Concerning this latter group: A)Where’s the beef? (statistically, in the article, I mean- no doubt the Beeb would get the facts wrong but still it would be something to go on) and B)Where’s the rest of Allah’s righteous nations in showing love to the Ummah? (a question I am sure they’d rather leave to the relevant heralded Panorama)
Update: Well, I did say ”c’mon’, and lo! they came (on)- the Beeb got to the US aid delivery 24 hours (or more) after their competitor news organisation. They also updated the old story (similarly late). But the explicitness with which they refer to the US role (could actually be more explicit) almost makes me think they took a hint from someone…
‘The US has promised $50m for relief operations and Kuwait pledged $100m.Six helicopters have now arrived in Pakistan from the US airbase in neighbouring Afghanistan.
(that’ll be ‘US helicopters’- ed’s guess)
The US ambassador to Islamabad, Ryan Crocker, said planes with US relief supplies were forming a “virtual air bridge” into Pakistan.’
Yet I do notice how Kuwait gets a starring role, in grating juxtaposition with the US’ effort. And, if you’re going to talk in those terms, why not Ireland, the ultimate David-like persona to grate with? Didn’t they pledgemuch more than Kuwait? And (cherry on top time) why leave it to an ambassador of the USA to say that the US airforce is forming a ‘virtual air bridge’? Isn’t it near enough a very expensive and yet vital fact?
The US is acting, promptly and decisively (surprise!), and this is doubtless costly too. Knowing the US stance on aid, it probably isn’t even counting the gift of the choppers etc as part of any sum of money it’s pledging to give. After all, you can’t pledge what you’ve already given. One thing that’s certain is that while all the other aid may line the pockets of various bureaucratic layers, trickling on down to the bereaved and the homeless, this is one donationgoing where it’s really needed. It’s just difficult to get the BBC to admit it.
Ian Barnes: “i’m not being an arse. its just what i read before isnt there now.”
Perhaps the EU stole that bit of the internet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4327928.stm
Well Andrew. If you consider me to be one of the ingrates, that is unfair. I’m sure we all appreciate you and Natalie kicking off the threads and marvel at your prolific output; which is why I, for one, was surprised that no-one had posted on the Blair v Blair Panorama which seemed to have all the elements that would normally have attracted a good fisking on B-BBC. If you don’t do requests, fair enough. It was not in anyway meant as a carping criticism. And I’m sure everybody who comments regularly on this blog would be mortified if they thought you were neglecting your family or professional responsibilities to combat the evils of our national broadcasting agency as a mere hobby. I for one am grateful for your sterling efforts. Moreover we were all aware, I’m certain, that your work hereupon is unpaid and entirely altruistic. But you see, when you maintain such a constant high level of pungent prose, it raises the expectations of your commenters and admirers: but now that you have put me straight I shall modify them accordingly. My apologies for the unreasonable suggestion. As for submitting a post of my own: my word! I would not dare to submit my leaden thoughts for your your approval/disapproval. Any rejection by someone I admire so much would completely destroy my self-confidence.
🙂
The stakes are high, with the European Commissioner responsible for the net, Viviane Reding, warning of a potential web meltdown.
“The US is absolutely isolated and that is dangerous,” she said during a briefing with journalists in London.
“Imagine the Brazilians or the Chinese doing their own internet. That would be the end of the story.
“I am very much afraid of a fragmented internet if there is no agreement.”
God, the arrogance of this officious EU socialist cow. We built the freakin’ thing, then shared it with the rest of the world — something the rest of the world benefits from mightily. Nowhere in this Beeb effusion of crapola does it acknowledge that the US built the Internet. It just happened to appear by osmosis, out of nothing, just like all the other “resources” the socialists want to get their hands on.
Is this not a perfect example of the socialist mindset? We didn’t build it but now we expect you to give it to us for free.
The thing is, I’m afraid we’ll actually agree to give it to them. And then we can kiss free speech on the Internet good-bye. China, Iran, the EU and the rest of the world’s Marxocracy would never allow free speech to reign on the Internet. It would be just like a cyber version of the BBC and all the other government-controlled Johnny One-Note Euro-media.
They also want to control our military as a “world resource” too by the way. Noises to that effect were made after the tsunami when the US military and its parter Australia were the only entities able to deliver immediate aid to the survivors/victims — aid that was delivered while the UN sat around with its thumb up its posterior making plans at four-star hotels.
I’m beginning to seriously and utterly despise the EU.
Here’s another Beeboid commentary on the need for the UN to control the Internet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4165920.stm
The reason put forth is ludicrous: the bad, bad, bad US government tried to stop the formation of a separate pornography domain name! Oh how terrible! The bad, bad, bad US government tried to restrict the growth of Internet porn. Surely this is a human rights issue! Free the Internet porn hucksters now!
Surely a compelling reason for bringing the net under worldwide tranzi control and completely destroying its world-changing and economy-changing potential!
/rant
Susan
Those of us who live within it already loathe and despise the EU. It does not surprise me that the EU would share China’s position on the internet as freedom is not something that it believes is important.
Oh and by the way it was a Brit that invented the internet:)
Frank P: “If you consider me to be one of the ingrates, that is unfair.”
No, not you Frank P. – I can think of worse.
Frank P: “Any rejection by someone I admire so much would completely destroy my self-confidence.”
Now I know you’re taking the mick… but seriously, give it a go – if you can fisk stuff we’d be glad of the help. It can’t be much harder than writing poetry, can it? As you’ve noted, there’s no shortage of BBC output to fisk – just a shortage of people willing, able and daft enough to spend time doing it. I’ll even sub it for you if you want!
The real source of approval or otherwise though manifests itself here in the comments – which are sometimes a source of encouragement, sometimes a source of despair (e.g. when people hijack the place to spout o/t crap of their own) and sometimes just a plain nuisance – e.g. a certain Spanish poster who thinks he has a god-given right to come here and insult us (in our own living room as it were) and then has the cheek to complain when he was eventually banned from commenting.
Peregrine,
I understand it was a Brit who invented the Web Browser and the concept of the World Wide Web (Tim Berners Lee) which certainly made the Internet usable by the average person, but the Internet itself and the IP protocol was built by the US military, university centers, and various US government research agencies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation_of_the_Internet
“The first TCP/IP wide area network was operational in 1984 when the United States’ National Science Foundation (NSF) constructed a university network backbone that would later become the NSFNet. It was then followed by the opening of the network to commercial interests in 1995. Important seperate networks that have successfully entered the Internet include Usenet, Bitnet and the various commercial and educational X.25 networks such as Compuserve and JANET.”
You’re having us on Susan – it was Al Gore wot invented the internet, wasn’t it? 🙂
But that there JANET’s a Brit though, isn’t she?
Bloody hell, what’s going on in this place?
Natalie – no, it’s not admirable to be indifferent but indifferent I am. One thing I am not is callous. My words may have read that way but I know what my feelings are. I’m also human with human feelings and some things I just can’t rise above. When the little boy next door spends years poking his tongue out at me, insulting me and kicking my shins I just can’t leap to it like a samaritan when he falls over.
Denise –
Huge numbers of muslims the world over celebrated 9/11, something the MSM did its best to avoid noticing. In a generation or two the numbers of male muslims with the name Osama will become apparent, a bunch of people I will not treat courteously. Next to their callousness of mass murder of civilians my indifference is mild.
Susan –
Around 2002/03, in the run up to the liberation of 25 million muslims from a stalinist dictator in Iraq, a number of lefty/liberal friends and associates said to me that because the USA is so powerful the world should vote on who the President is. After my tears of mirth cleared and I replied ‘fine, and the world will of course pay taxes to the Federal Reserve, n’est’ce pas?’ they seemed not to be so keen on the idea. The point though is that these were all people unknown to each other yet I was hearing this bullshit regularly at the time. I have no doubt that this idea was being pushed in lefty circles. There are some deeply insane people out there and those want control of the internet are those who want the US military put under UN control and the world to vote on who goes to the White House. Don’t give up your guns just yet.
Amid the Beeb’s Six O’ Clock News reporting on the disaster in Pakistan, we learned of the British , French , German and Japanese rescue teams involved in the rescue efforts but then strangely we were told of a “British muslim” who has delivered a truckload of supplies. Why the plug for the Brit’s religion ? Were we told of the “German Christians”, “Japanese Buddhists” involved in the rescues ? No. Not a big deal, of course, but typical of the Bebb’s drip, drip, drip promotion of islam and muslims
I suppose I could say that the internet is really the www and that until it was usuable by the average person then it did not exist. A correlation would be the railways, there were already steam power engines drawing coal and iron ore up on tracks but until George Stephenson made that form of transport available to the public it could be said that the railways were not invented.
I could also grind on about Babage but I won’t. Instead I will concede that us Brits are rubbish at the implementation of technology.
Ah, illegal immigrants. BBC News (radio) reported earlier that the figure of 200,000 applies to those who have been smuggles in illegally by others. About a year ago the Met said that in London alone there are some 300,000 who are off the record and here illegally. The figure nationally is in the region of 900,000 – 1 million. That this is the result of a deliberate opening of or border is beyond doubt. The Labour Party believes that most immigrants vote Labour. Let them in and you both gerrymander the electorate and dilute the native culture in one go.
No doubt some here regard this as a triumph of Blair’s ‘leadership’.
Someone upstairs offered the opinion that no government can secure our borders. Whisper it slowly, but we’re an island. We can secure our border better than most other nations. Add in the technology we have due to or wealth and few nations should be secure like us. It’s simply a matter of will. When a shipload of Afghans pitched up off the coast of Australia they were told to turn around. When adult held infants over the edge of the ship to force Australia to take them in they were told that if any infant was dropped the ship would be boarded and the perpetrators arrested. The ship turned around.
EU law requires ‘asylum seekers’ (hah!) to seek refuge in the first country they arrive in. If they move on to another EU country they must be sent back to that first EU nation they pitched up in. This must be the only damn’ EU law we don’t implement faithfully, in full and to the letter!
We don’t lack the money not the technology. All we lack is a government which is not working around the clock to destroy Great Britain. Stop the benefits, pay them nothing, turn them around or turn the guns on them. The message will sink in toot de suite and the flood will stop.
I suppose I could say that the internet is really the www and that until it was usuable by the average person then it did not exist. A correlation would be the railways, there were already steam power engines drawing coal and iron ore up on tracks but until George Stephenson made that form of transport available to the public it could be said that the railways were not invented.
Good point Peregrine.
Instead I will concede that us Brits are rubbish at the implementation of technology.
I didn’t say that!
Andrew,
But that there JANET’s a Brit though, isn’t she?
Don’t know that much about Janet — sorry if I slighted her! But I think it was ARPANET of the US military that was first (’50s?). Correct me if I’m wrong.
Pete,
We don’t pay taxes to the Federal Reserve — we pay it to the Internal Revenue Service! But yeah, the tranzis want control over everything we have — our government, our military, NASA, the Internet, etc. It follows the socialist creed — if you can’t beat ’em at it, steal it from ’em.
Too much for me to read on this forum in the limited time I’ve got. Some observations.
Verity’s sarcastic “will of Allah” comments about the earthquake beggar belief. If anyone was to say the same in a Christian context about the New Orleans disaster she’d rightly be complaining.
I like this blog cos there are often interesting and challenging views put across. But there sometimes is rank hypocrisy from some of the contributers who seek to condemn Muslims and the fact they have a belief. Yes some Muslims are extremeist and use their religion to justify their actions – the same applies to Christians and other religions too but many here choose to ignore that. It simply doesn’t stack up.
As to Tony Blair. Personally I don’t like him but for different reasons to many on this forum – I see himn as too right wing. He has continued with teh marketisation of the NHS, done little to improve trade union legislation, started a war in Iraq and introduced fees for students in HE. But I recognise that he has been a successful leader in that he’s been elected 3 times which is no mean feat. I suppose he’s had a p*sspoor oppostion in the Tories but this is really no difference to the position Mrs T had in the 80s with the basket case of a Labour PArty as an opposition.
It would be nice to see the occassional post, like from Ted which deviates from the prevailing right wing orthodoxy cos it never is a simple as all of that.
I remember that 15 years ago that many on the right would openly express their sexism, racism and homophobia and wear it as a badge of pride. It was the liberal left that took up and championed these causes and teh right castigated the liberals for it. Now those on the right who expose such bigotted veiws are in a minority. I know from posts on here that many of you do not hold such bigoted views – tho it is clear that some only just manage to disguise their prejudices.
Andrew – “Our islands indeed!” Yes, indeed. I was born in Britain. I have not relinquished my citizenship. I am registered to vote. I travel on a British passport. Britain is my country and I am free to return at any time.
Susan
But of course. I read something earlier about Alan Greenspan and he came to mind when posting for some reason.
Lurker
I’m sorry to hear you think I’m only just managing to diguise my prejudices. I’ll be sure to let rip in future and put them right in your face. As prejudiced as you liberals you (and boy, are you lot as prejudiced as anyone!) you fail to understand that not only is prejudice acceptable, it is good, right, moral and proper to be prejudiced at the behaviour of those who would do us down.
Note, I said behaviour. Colour is not what you do but what you are, hence racism is dumb and unthinking. But if you behave in a way which I think is unnacceptable then bigotry comes your way. Let’s take the left’s pin-up boy, Saddam Hussein. It’s my opinion that he put his regime outside of civilised consideration and that violence was justified against him. You, on the other hand, would rather 25 million people lived in constant terror because … oh I dunno, you lot over there never have explanied why you sided with Saddam Hussein but when you did so you made it clear what values you stand for.
In short Lurker, bigotry and prejudice are my ‘lifestyle choices’ and feel oppressed at your rejection of them.
A Lurker:
Yes, right… that’s why the first female Prime Minister was a Socialist and the first female, black President of the US (Condi Rice) is a democrat!
And didn’t I read on left-wing blogs that it was fitting that “God’s Own Country” suffered the consequences of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (and that 9/11) was justified.
Like Pete_London (11.10.05 – 6:55 pm) I’m also indifferent to Muslims for exactly the same reasons he is – I don’t think I can put it better than Pete.
P.S.: Go, Condi!
O/T but couldn’t resist tweaking Joerg:
Joe N’s site is reporting that the late not great Chancellor of Germany has gotten himself a job with the Yankee capitalist pig investment firm Merrill Lynch:
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2005/10/gerhard-fait-sa-pute.html
BTW, Merrill Lynch is the company that advertises on US television with images of Longhorn Texas bulls being herded along by feelthy yanqui cowboys. . .
If this report is true, Gertie’s becoming a cowboy!
If this turns out to be true it’s a joke. Schroeder’s a socialist who hasn’t got a clue and, as far as I know, doesn’t even speak English. And – as the article you linked to states correctly – he’s anti-American ! If it is true someone at Merrill-Lynch needs their head checked (unless they want to do tests on Schroeder!)
Just an observation on the numbers of uninvited migrants in the UK and Blair’s part in it all. I reckon that Governments are powerful entities and if a policy were given the means and the will, then that policy shall be implemented. It was clearly Blair’s will to ensure that Saddam be deposed, and he was. (OK, GWB did most of it but Blair wanted it done too) Equally, it is Government policy to control our borders – or not to control our borders. If the Labour Government did not want to have hundreds of thousnads of illegal migrants in this country, then they would not be here. Conversely, if it is the policy to allow the country to be flooded with migrants, then it happens. Let there be no doubt: mass migration into this country without the consent of the native and assimilated populations is a Govt. policy.
It is worth noting that the BBC always opposes deportation and entry controls.
Allan@Aberdeen writes:
“. Let there be no doubt: mass migration into this country without the consent of the native and assimilated populations is a Govt. policy.”
It is – and openly so. Blunkett’s infamous, “I see no obvious limit” statement about immigration was simply confirmation of what has been Za-NuLabour policy since it took office.
As far as the BBC is concerned, open discussion of immigration is absolutely taboo. The corporation’s stance seems to be that anyone who opposes the present policy of virtually uncontrolled immigration must spend their evenings perfecting a spirited rendition of the Horst Wessel Lied.
Lurker – personally I would prefer that the comment was targeted specifically at the bias the BBC shows against Christians and in favour of Muslims. I think this bias is obvious, and I am not attacking Islam in any way by saying this, only the BBC. I know I sound defensive in the previous sentence, I am not, it’s just the climate we live in – if you are of “a certain persuasion” (i.e. politically to the right of the BBC)” you have to qualify your opinions.
Just because some lunatic blames Katrina on God doesn’t mean we can all chuckle at an earthquake in a devout Muslim area. Our aim is to remove extremist religious opinion from debate, not double it.
Let’s target our fire on the BBC – it is, after all, an enormous target. Its news broadcasts and its website are full of bias and inaccuracies, every day it supplies us with all the ammunition we need. Let’s concentrate our fire on that.
Rob writes:
“I know I sound defensive in the previous sentence, I am not, it’s just the climate we live in – if you are of “a certain persuasion” (i.e. politically to the right of the BBC)” you have to qualify your opinions.”
With respect, by saying the above you have conceded precisely the ground people like Lurker and his/her fellow travellers at the BBC want you to.
Using techniques not so far removed from those of the totalitarians, whom they profess to despise, they have imposed a straightjacket whereby perfectly reasonable opinions can no longer be advanced without endless forelock tugging and apologising.
We should not be so stupid as to let them get away with it. It is their liberal conceit that is the intruder and we do ourselves no favours by behaving as if it is holy writ.
A Lurker –
Yes some Muslims are extremeist and use their religion to justify their actions – the same applies to Christians and other religions too but many here choose to ignore that.
You got that horribly wrong. Here’s how it really is:
A vast number of Muslims – most likely the majority – are terrorists or terrorist supporters and use their religion to justify terror.
Christianity and other religions, on the other hand, have some extreme followers, but they very rarely commit acts of terror.
Alam, GCoopoer, in fact our immigration policy is and has been dictated by the EU for the last 10 years. The government has relinquished control. The easy way to get it back would be to repeat the European Communities act 79(??) and get us out of the EU, but that would scupper El Presidenté’s chances at being the appointed leader of the EU at some point in the future.
GCooper
Spot on. Cringing and apologising for perfectly sensible views only serves to entrench the feeling of superiority held by the wierdos, perverts and mentally ill of the left. Say it straight or don’t bother.
Wouldn’t it be something if Osama Bin Laden’s body is found in the rubble of the earthquake? Just a thought.
Denise
Well the Israelis won’t be finding his body; non-BBC media is reporting that Pakistan has been umming and ahhing over Israel’s offer of aid. Things are obviously not that bad then …
Pete
What you said earlier about lefties thinking the world should vote for our President doesn’t surprise me at all. Come to think of it, I think it was a lefty on one of these blogs who made that comment.
Susan: “I’m beginning to seriously and utterly despise the EU.”
Hallelujah! There is more rejocing in heaven over one sinner that repents…
archonix: “..been dictated by the EU for the last 10 years”
Isn’t that the truth.
Wouldn’t it be something if Osama Bin Laden’s body is found in the rubble of the earthquake? Just a thought.
If they find it, they’ll do their best to hide the fact so that they can fake recordings of him urging his followers to more Jiha….
Oh, hang on, why am I getting a sense of deja vu here??
And when they find it, they should inter it wrapped in pig skin. Ditto suicide bombers’ bodies. Wrapped in pig skin you don’t go to heaven and you don’t get the 72 virgins.
Bryan says, “A vast number of Muslims – most likely the majority – are terrorists or terrorist supporters and use their religion to justify terror.”
It is certainly true that more Muslims do this than the MSM would have us believe. But it is impossible to know how many really think that way and how many go along because it is dangerous not to. After 9-11 there were public celebrations in Iraq under Saddam’s regime – yet since then the millions who have voted in defiance of the terrorists tell a different story. (The Iraqis are also, of course, major victims of terrorism.)
During the Communist era, vast crowds could be wheeled out to take part in anti-Western demonstrations. After Communism fell, a different story.
The oppression in rural Pakistan is of a different nature: the age-old tyranny of the ignorant village elders, replicated in many times and places, but made worse in modern Pakistan by Saudi money. But it is still oppression, and the principle remains that the true opinions of oppressed people cannot be known until the oppression is lifted.
(A further point is that many of these people, particularly the women, are very ignorant full stop. I say that as a statement of fact, not as an insult. They may have only the vaguest idea about what the infidels really believe, and the local powers are not keen on having them better informed.)
Natalie – true.
I agree that it’s impossible to know what the stats are, but it would just be encouraging to see many more Muslims than we have to date speaking out against the terror committed in the name of Islam.
Until they do, I’ll regard their silence as acquiescence and remain deeply suspicious of every last one of them.
There is no way that Jews or Christians would be apathetic in the unlikely event of their coreligionists committing brutal acts of terror on a daily basis worldwide.
Nobody expects semi-literate tribespeople to be fully aware of these issues but it’s interesting that terrorists have just struck again in Kashmir, having hardly paused for breath in the aftermath of the earthquake.
Terrorists can’t thrive unless the local population is either cowed or voluntarily supportive.
So Bryan you have acknowledged that your statement that
“A vast number of Muslims – most likely the majority – are terrorists or terrorist supporters and use their religion to justify terror.”
was not correct. I think Natalie’s post was spot on. It’s nice to see you acknowledge that you were wrong but qualifying it with the statement
“….but it would just be encouraging to see many more Muslims than we have to date speaking out against the terror committed in the name of Islam.
Until they do, I’ll regard their silence as acquiescence and remain deeply suspicious of every last one of them.”
is just plain wrong again. I think if a black person who had sufffered a racist attack said “I expect all white people to condemn this and unless they do I’ll regard their silence as acquiescence and remain deeply suspicious of every last one of them” you would most likely say this was unreasonable.
Just because people remain silent on soemthing it does not mean that they condone it.
A Lurker – I’m not acknowledging that I was wrong, simply that it’s obviously difficult to know the stats. I could well be right. As an example, according to polls, around 70% of Palestinians support suicide bombing of Israeli ‘settlers’.
Your argument about the racist attack has no relevance whatsoever when applied to the Islamic drive to establish worlwide dominance of Islam through stealth and terror. It’s part and parcel of the religion, and the murder of ‘infidels’ is justified as long as it furthers the Islamic cause.
The near-total silence of Muslims as Islamic terror continues unabated is completely unacceptable.
One would imagine that they would be keen to disassociate themselves from the terror committed in their name. I wonder why they don’t.
is just plain wrong again. I think if a black person who had sufffered a racist attack said “I expect all white people to condemn this and unless they do I’ll regard their silence as acquiescence and remain deeply suspicious of every last one of them” you would most likely say this was unreasonable.
Just because people remain silent on soemthing it does not mean that they condone it.
A Lurker | 12.10.05 – 7:38 pm | #
Al Irqua – Who are you kidding?
If part of a group commits offenses in order to advance their cause, and the rest of that group do not denounce it, it will be considered that they are in on it as well.
The very fact that many of the few who have ‘denounced’ Islamic terrorism, did so in such a disingenuous and hypocritical way, that it forces suspicion and enmity. We do know what sincerity and honesty looks and sounds like.
So then Teddy Bear, I expect you and your colleagues on the right to condemn racist attacks when they occur lest you be accused of condoing them.
On what Bryan has to say it is still nonsense – he said
“A vast number of Muslims – most likely the majority – are terrorists or terrorist supporters and use their religion to justify terror.”
He made this sweeping satement with no justification at all. If someone on the left made such a statement with no evidnce s/he would be rightly castigated by folk on this forum.
Bryan says 70% of Palestinians support suicide bombings – I don’t know what scientifically approved survey he refers to but even if it is true this still makes Bryan’s comments a nonsense. There are about 700,000 million Muslims worldwide and the population in Palestine are a tiny proportion of total so their views on terroism, even if Bryan’s figures from an unquoted source are correct they do little to prove his assertion. As our transatlantic cousins would say – go do the math.
A Lurker,
Numerous polls on Palestinian attitudes to suicide bombing have been conducted over the years.
Here’s One. It’s a Palestinian poll.
With the following comment, you show a peculiar inability to move the debate on:
So then Teddy Bear, I expect you and your colleagues on the right to condemn racist attacks when they occur lest you be accused of condoing them.
Why don’t you respond to the point I made indicating that your comparison is invalid? We are not talking about the odd racist attack here.
You could also use some of your lurking time to educate yourself via the numerous excellent resources on the Internet that expose the Islamic agenda of worldwide domination through terror.
Then come back and bring something tangible to the debate instead of stale repetition of your beliefs.
As an afterthought, if there are “about 700,000 million Muslims worldwide” we’re in real trouble because that’s more than 100 times the entire polulation of our planet.
I have yet to see Muslim organizations/”community leaders” ever denouncing a terrorist act in Israel.
Silence speaks volumes.
Peter, by and large that’s true. Palestinian leaders do condemn suicide bombings, as this article indicates, but’s that’s for the consumption of the terminally naive in the EU and elsewhere.
A Lurker – the article I linked to above has info on another poll on Palestinian attitudes to suicide bombers reported on the site of no less an institution than the BBC.
So then Teddy Bear, I expect you and your colleagues on the right to condemn racist attacks when they occur lest you be accused of condoing them.
Al-Irqua, your argument here makes me strongly suspect that you are a Muslim ‘making the rounds’, and not genuinely arguing the point.
Therefore I’m not going to help you refine your technique too much, but suffice it to say that if this nation was racist – you wouldn’t be able to express what you do. It is not necessary for everyone to denounce it, as our society does it for us with many acts to prove it.
INLIKE MILITANT ISLAM!!!
Now you get it?
That should of course be
UNLIKE MILITANT ISLAM!!!
Teddy Bear, Bryan et al. First of all we all seem to be plagued by the typo gremlins.
Bryan quite rightly points out that the 700,000 million Muslims is clearly wrong as it would exceed the world’s population. I meant to say 700 million Muslims.
Bryan – thanks for the links. My point about your previous comments wasn’;t about the whether your comments about the Palestinians’ views was correct it was more to say that even if they were right there are many more Muslims in the world than those in Palestine so it is incorrect to draw the inference that all other Muslims feel the same – unless of course you can back it up with evidence.
Teddy Bear – As I’ve said before on this forum I’m not a Muslim. I’m your bog standard, annoying slighly pious, (thou not as pious as many on the left) liberal leftie.
My comments about the racism were intended to draw a comparison and stimulate debate and to draw attention to Bryan’s earlier post which was ill thought out, at best. The post was “corrected” by Natalie (one of yourt fellow travellers on the right) and Bryan accepted – to a point – that she was right to pint out where is statements were a little over the top.
Nothing wrong with that. I venture to suggest that if I had posted exactly the same post as Natalie I would have been castigated for posting liberal left nonsense.
Whilst I find this blog thought provoking and interesting I find it alarming that so many of you have a knee jerk response to any contrary postion that is posted unless it’s from “one of your own.” Sometimes rather than just trying to defend your postion against what you see as teh pervassive march of the left (btw that’s not how and other on the left see it) maybe you and others should think about what others post and see if makes some sort of sense.
As I’ve posted before, many on the right now would support the liberal social attitudes on racism, sexism and homophobia that was promoted by those wacky liberal in the 80s. I know you may not agree with the way anti racism etc is promoted but most of yuo would agree it’s not a good thing to be racist. sexist etc.
And yes by all means have a debate about multi-culturalism – that is a legitimate debate and it is not racist to discuss the issue. But the way you discuss it and the assertions you make can be racist.
Militant Islam? Yep it exisits. But so does militant Christianity check this site out:
http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
Just one of the quotes from Ann Coulther a US right wing pundit:
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”
All I’m trying to illustrate is that there are extremeoists in every religion – not just Islam.
“So then Teddy Bear, I expect you and your colleagues on the right to condemn racist attacks when they occur lest you be accused of condoing them.”
No problem. In fact I am happy to do so. Of course that includes Black racism as well as White.
All I’m trying to illustrate is that there are extremeoists in every religion – not just Islam.
A Lurker | 13.10.05 – 7:39 pm | #
If you are really from this society – how can you compare the two – in scope or dimension????
Please don’t waste our time just for the attention.
As I’ve posted before, many on the right now would support the liberal social attitudes on racism, sexism and homophobia that was promoted by those wacky liberal in the 80s. I know you may not agree with the way anti racism etc is promoted but most of yuo would agree it’s not a good thing to be racist. sexist etc.
For your information the liberals of the 80’s took the visions of the hippies of the 60’s and applied them. The only problem is that they did it without thought – just a blanket application – more to be seen as liberal than make a better world. I’m one of those hippies.
A Lurker, again I repeat that I did not acknowledge that I was wrong about a vast number, possibly the majority, of Muslims being terrorists or supporters of terror. Given that it is obviously difficult to come by reliable stats on the issue, I go by the obvious spread of Islamic terror to every corner of the globe and the virtually non-existant opposition from Muslims to the terror committed in their name – most likely because terror against ‘infidels’ is sanctioned by the Koran.
You continually bring up this point, and others, like a broken record. Bring something new to the debate.
My response to Natalie had nothing to do with right or left since I am new to this site and had no inkling of her political stance.
All I’m trying to illustrate is that there are extremeoists in every religion – not just Islam.
If you’re happy to delude yourself with moral equivalence, then do so. But don’t expect rational people to find the same equivalence between Ann Coulter and others of the right letting off steam on the one hand, and Islamic barbarians killing civilian men, women and children in the name of ‘religion’ on the other.
They have become adept at using the liberal institutions of the West as a guise for their real intentions. Don’t be fooled by them. This is not a question of a tiny minority of ‘extremists’ or ‘militants’ running wild – as institutions like the BBC would have it.
This is terror with the aim of global subjugation to Islam with only three options for the ‘infidel’: live under Islamic dominance, convert to Islam or die.
Lurker,
“All I’m trying to illustrate is that there are extremeoists in every religion – not just Islam.”
Indeed they are, but only one religion advocates, by the example of its very founder, expansion by the sword.
And only one religion advocates death for anyone wishing to leave it.
Islam is an inherently extremist ideology, made so by the actions and behaviour of its founder, as described in Islam’s own text.
To believe otherwise leads to the absurd conclusion that Mohammad himself wasn’t a proper muslim, or was one of those tiny minority of extremists we keep hearing about!
Roxana – yep I’d condemn black racism as well as white racism.
Teddy Bear – dunno what your point is about whether I am from this society. Yes I am. I’m British, live in a major city and from my life have formed a view on the world. Just so happens it is different to yours.
Bryan – I accept your comments that you did not acknowledge that you were wrong in your statement. But you say “But don’t expect rational people to find the same equivalence between Ann Coulter and others of the right letting off steam on the one hand, and Islamic barbarians killing civilian men, women and children in the name of ‘religion’ on the other.”
I’d just ask you if you were a Muslim living in Palestine and read Ann Coulther’s comments how would you feel about them. Might you not have some bad feeling towards the right wing administration in the US. BTW this question does not imply ythat this would mean ti would be ok for you to bomb people. All I’m saying is why is alright for a right wing US comentator to “let off steam” and say:
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”
Surely it shouldn’t matter from whose mouth such words come from. It should be condemned by any right thinking person. Or do we have some form of cultural imperialism in place that says such barbaric comments hsould only be condemned when from the mouths of one’s percieved enemies.
Words matter – whoever utters them. I think this failure to acknowledge this obscures any valid points that you might have to make.
But hey – I’m just a liberal who is just looking for some consistency in people’s arguments.