Both Expat Yank (hat tip: David H in comments) and Eamonn Fitzgerald’s Rainy Day spotted something odd about the reporting of a recent BBC poll on Iraq.
Hello? Three-quarters of the tyrant’s former subjects are thrilled that the old monster is behind bars, but the BBC buries the fact at the very end of the report on its own poll. Talk of selectivity! Talk of bias!
susan -> good point. if we were in 1938, the bbc would be saying the same about Nazism , bearing in mind the “current climate” –
oohh.. we cant be having cartoons of Hitler, oh no. dont want war to break out… oh no.
http://hmmh.blogspot.com/2006/02/cartoonist-fought-hitler.html
Ian -> Queen Rania of Jordan is going to be there:
http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/queen_rania_of_jordan_1.jpg
sorry, mate – my priciples have just gone out the window. where’s my plane ticket?
Archduke,
You do know that death is the sharia punishment for an infidel who dares to “have a relationship” with a Muslim woman, don’t you?
susan -> indeed. the risk would make a hidden , ooh whats the word – “frisson” – all the more delectable. i’ll die happy.
😉
She looks a mite anorexic to me but I guess you know best archie.
The Nazis were comparatively easy to defeat. How long did WWII last? And how long since September 2001?
David Davenport | 01.03.06 – 4:50 pm | #
Easy for you perhaps but my relatives got long sleeps in Commonwealth War Graves cemeteries.
64 million people died in WWII – we could have exterminated everyone in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Syria in such a “comparatively simple” exercise.
The difference is that the 1939-45 generation DID the DEED – all that this generation does is TALK
woo hoo!
my alter ego, a certain chap who assasinated me in 1914, has made it on that (d)hys page.
archduke | Homepage | 01.03.06 – 4:19 pm | #
Well your brother was killed first at Mayerling
Posted by myself on the (D)HYS page
(http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1213&edition=1&ttl=20060301161152&#paginator)
—————————
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 16:53 GMT 16:53 UK
Hey, come on you guys! I wish you’d abandon your rigid neutrality, and just climb down off the fence for once.
Why doesn’t the BBC nail its colours firmly to the mast and just tell us what they really think, ‘cos we’d never be able to guess it from news reports, correspondents’ reports, websites, HYS pages, etc.
Recommended by 1 person
——————————
Thank you.
Kulibar Tree, London
Okay, time to preserve the soon-to-be-deleted top recommended comments:
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 15:38 GMT 15:38 UK
Is the question serious? Of course radical Islam is a threat! That element of Islam is basically a cult that worships death and destruction. YES, I know policies of the US and “the West” can encourage radical Islam, but I’m frankly tired of terrorists committing heinous crimes in the name of Islam and then blaming it on everybody but themselves. It’s so weak and pathetic.
Sasha Jones, Baltimore, MD, United States
Recommended by 20 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 15:26 GMT 15:26 UK
How could anyone in their right mind not see radical Islam as a threat to the world? These Islamic radicals are no different than the Nazis except they bring an element of religious fanaticism into the mix, and like the Nazis they blame everyone else but themselves for their problems especially the Jewish people. As with the Nazis they must be fought, and stopped!!!
Sean, Orlando
Recommended by 20 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 15:44 GMT 15:44 UK
In my humble opinion, it’s the worst threat since Nazism in the 1930’s. In the wake of the Mohammed cartoons, look at the manpower they can muster! It scares me and many others I’m sure.
Frederik Aidt, CPH, DK
Recommended by 17 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 15:13 GMT 15:13 UK
Bravo to the authors of statement. Islamism is as much a threat to people’s freedom as communism and fascism ever were. Muslims around the world are being brainwashed to hate and kill by fanatical preachers and their governmental supporters in places like Iran. Islamists are using the freedom of Western societies to infiltrate them and spread religious bigotry. We need brave men and women to resist the spread of this totalitarian ideology.
Mat Krepicz, Toronto
Recommended by 16 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 16:32 GMT 16:32 UK
I love the comment “In the current climate”. ‘The climate’ is one of violent intimidation by Muslims to anyone who doesn’t adhere to their outdated religion! Muslims want world domination. I suggest they look at the histroy books and give up. They are a bigger threat than Hitler. We must fight this now before it’s too late.
Richard, Redditch
Recommended by 15 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 16:07 GMT 16:07 UK
Let’s face it, Islam is a political movement which aims to spread its ideology all over the world. It is intolerant and has as an aim to control the lives a millions of people just like the communists or the Nazis. The west should stand up to Islam and not allow it to prevail.
Ed Hess, San Jose
Recommended by 15 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 15:37 GMT 15:37 UK
These twelve writers have hit the nail on the head with their manifesto.
Islamism is the probably the most serious global threat we face, just as Nazism and Stalinism were in the twentieth century.
Incidentally – why dont the BBC post a link to the Jyllands Posten website where this statement was originally published [yes the same newspaper as the cartoons], so readers can see it for themselves, or is the BBC scared or being accused of ‘islamophobia’?
Jay, Lewes
Recommended by 15 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 16:35 GMT 16:35 UK
The part I can’t figure out is why these terrorists always end up blowing to bits their very own countrymen, or killing EACH OTHER at protests against infidels (or whatever else). A large part of the collective Islamic misery stems directly from its own radical son’s actions, yet the blaming finger is always pointed west. Wake up fellas- You’re killing yourselves. It seems that radical Islamism is as much a threat to itself as to anything else.
Alex, Vancouver
Recommended by 14 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 16:38 GMT 16:38 UK
The world was witness to the potency of radical Islam that was unabashedly displayed when India was partitioned on the premise that Muslims are a separate nation. Someone who can split up a country is not innocuous. The world also witnessed how radical Islam can obliterate innocent lives on 9/11, London bombings, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Algeria etc and nearly cause clash of civilization. It’s indeed a threat and intellectuals are correct to identify and highlight it.
Sutanu, India
Recommended by 13 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 16:24 GMT 16:24 UK
It probably comes as news to the BBC, but this thread clearly shows that people in this country are sick and tired of being made to do a cultural cringe in front of anything connected to Islam. Enough I say!
[edmundwest]
Recommended by 13 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 14:53 GMT 14:53 UK
Absolutely! Any extreme view is dangerous and a threat. Islam is simply taking their turn at this time in human history, but extremism isn’t limited to Islam. Any person or group who subscribes to fanatical views loses all objectivity. Children grow up hating, yet they don’t know why they hate. Anger and violence become a tradition and it continues because ‘that’s how it’s always been done’ even though the reasons have long been forgotten. Logic and common sense are lost on extremists.
Chester Drawers, Warwick, New York, United States
Recommended by 13 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 16:16 GMT 16:16 UK
“If standing up for the rights of one country against the neo fascist colonial power of USA means people are being labelled as a threat, then let it be so. This type of talk generally comes out of the mouthpiece of those who adhere to the new world order.” -Moe, London, UK
I suppose you would prefer a world order in which your country would be part of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, as is their stated goal. Good luck with that. We’re going to fight against it, though.
Shawn Hunt, Washington, DC, United States
Recommended by 11 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 15:47 GMT 15:47 UK
How long will we make excuses for something that can’t be excused. Radical Islam has opened the gates to justifying anything including killing anybody who doesn’t agree with them. All the massacres and beheadings are now justified in the name of Jihad. Its dangerous because it has no limits and it shows how irresponsible Muslim leaders and scholars have been. They are too afraid to state that these actions are immoral.
Nader, Toronto
Recommended by 11 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 16:14 GMT 16:14 UK
Am I wrong for feeling threatened by a religion that has tried to destroy our Western way of life for centuries? Our ancestors are turning in their graves! Have they fought against the Moors and the Ottoman Empire for nothing? Islam has threatened to destroy Rome and the Vatican since inception, and Islam’s ultimate goal is a world wide ISLAMIC STATE!!!!
The POLITICIANS of Europe have been deaf and blind to the rise of Hitler, I hope they will not be the same to the rise of Ahmadinejad!
DAN TOMA
Recommended by 10 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 1 March, 2006, 15:59 GMT 15:59 UK
Radical Islam has always existed. The new aspect to it is the inability of news organisations like the BBC to accurately report the threat and stand up for western democratic values as they did in the dark days of the early 1940’s.
John Tomlinson
Recommended by 10 people
Oh, so okay, the Beeb has finally put up a lame-ass report on the Rushdie et. al. manifesto (without printing the manifesto in toto, though). Serious factual error:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4763520.stm
The statement is published in Charlie Hebdo, one of several European papers to reprint the caricatures.
Umm, nice try Beeboids, but the manifesto was first printed by the Jylands Posten, the same Danish paper that printed the cartoons, not Charlie Hebdo. Why d’ya suppose the authors chose that particular news outlet to first publish their statement? I guess the symbolism of that gesture escapes the Beeboids’ understanding. Or perhaps it’s because the Beeboids don’t want to acknowledge that a bunch of mostly non-white famous writers chose “racist” Denmark as the first nation to receive its message.
bit shocked at this – my uncouth, and utterly non-pc tirade is on the now front page of the top recommended.
amazing.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1213&start=0&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20060301192031&#paginator
its by the chap who assasinated my namesake in 1914.
Congrats archduke. Methinks it’s time for the “technical difficulties” to break out again at (d)hys.
staggering – i have to get to the middle of page 3 of the “recommended” comments to find a view that is against the question posed.
technical “difficulties” on the way i’d say.
susan -> i forgot to point out that the Jordanians dont have sharia law.
they’re a pretty reasonable bunch of folks and were the target of an al qaeda attack recently. Government is pro-western in outlook.
The King is western educated (UK and U.S.):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_II
King Abdullah trained in Sandhurst and joined the Royal Hussars. He retains close ties to the British army – and is, curiously enough, colonel-in-chief of the The Light Dragoons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_Dragoons
ok, its not strictly a western style democracy, but its a tad more agreeable to say the least than the Wahabbist nightmare that is Saudi Arabia or the fundie state of Iran.
may i add, the wife is also involved in a lot of stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Rania_al-Abdullah
bit different dont you think to the Saudi “wives” of the Saudi King (all hijabed and kept away from view)
just thought i’d point out that not all Arab states are the same.
susan -> i forgot to point out that the Jordanians dont have sharia law.
Archduke, they do too. They just don’t have the full-on version that includes the stonings and lashings and killings of apostates. But they have sharia law over things like divorce, conversions to Islam and marriage, which are very unfair to the Christian population of Jordan. (Google up the Quandah custody case to see how unfair and oppressive even sharia just applied to personal law can get.)
Also, their parliament recently rejected a law to create more harsher penalties for honor killings which now only means 6 months in jail for the murderer.
PS — King Abdullah is half-British BTW, that’s why he was at Sandhurst. His mother was a British fashion model in the 60s named Toni Something or other, who had to convert to Islam and change her name to “Princess Munira.” But in the end, Princess Munira got dumped and pensioned off anyways.
http://www.christianresponse.org/articles/128/jordan-custody-verdict-postponed-for-one-week
There’s something about the Quandah case at this link. Briefly, a Christian widow named Mrs. Quandah was deprived of custody of her two children because one of her relatives, a convert to Islam, claimed that her husband “secretly” converted to Islam before he died. Convenient, as the dead husband was no longer around to dispute that “fact.”
Under sharia personal law, the children in that case would automatically be considered “Muslims” even though Mrs. Quandah did not want them to be Muslims. Moreover sharia forbids non-Muslims to have custody over “Muslim” children, ergo she lost custody of her own children. Moreover she also lost the rights to her husband’s estate and financial support as a widow, because under sharia, a non-Muslim cannot inherit any property or money from a “Muslim.” Lo and behold, under sharia, all monies and estates from her deceased husband would go to the husband’s closest Muslim relative — in this case the very same relative who claimed that the husband had “secretly” converted to Islam. Convenient, wot? Mrs. Quandah’s abilities to fight this blatant theivary were severely hampered by sharia rulings that a non-Muslim’s testimony against a Muslim is inadmissible in a sharia court.
Eventually Mrs. Quandah prevailed but only through personal intervention of the King, probably due to pressure from Christian groups and media in the West.
That was a one-off; the injust sharia rules still remain and other Mrs. Quandah cases could still arise at any time.
It’s common in many Muslim countries for relatives of a deceased person to convert to Islam and then “suddenly” remember that the deceased had “secretly” converted to Islam while still alive. The legal heirs of the deceased then have the “choice” of losing everything or converting to Islam in order to keep their rights to their inheritance.
This is only one of the ways in which sharia, even if it is only personal law sharia, screws over non-Muslims.
From the aforementioned BBC report at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4763520.stm
“Writers issue cartoon row warning”.
It has an all-too-common paragraph in it:
“(Of the cartoons) One showed the Prophet Muhammad, whose depiction is banned in Islam, as a terrorist bomber.”
Notwithstanding the fact that, as pointed out here ad infinitum, that Jesus or Buddha are never “the Holy Lord Jesus” or “the Holy Buddha” or whateverthehell…
Has the BBC ever pointed out that one of the cartoons also shows Mohammad as a man with a donkey? And that one shows him as a cartoon-within-a-cartoon? And that people are supposedly being murder because of this?
The impression I get is that the BBC is trying to explain why Islamic people *should* be upset at the cartoons rather than why they *are* upset at the cartoons (assuming that they are upset at the cartoons) and in doing so they are giving the impression that all of the cartoons were racist slurs
Hence the continual “Do you think it is right to insult Islamic people” polls rather than “Do you think it is right for any group of people to impose its will on others with the use or threat of force” (breathe in).
If anything I conclude that the BBC’s writers are trying to impose their mindset – you don’t just riot without a reason, or because it is fun to do so – on other people, in a kind of mental cultural imperialism (man). These people cannot understand how most other people live, and are.
“They just don’t have the full-on version that includes the stonings and lashings and killings of apostates”
yeah, by “sharia” i meant the full on version. i’m pretty sure when anyone says “sharia” , they mean the full on taliban version.
If they have a weak sharia, well, that’s their culture i suppose. i dont hold up Jordan as a wonderful place.
as long as they arent stoning apostates to death or hanging girls for being raped – and other such iranian style atrocities, then i can deal with that. no doubt they have a long way to go, but at least they seem to have a moderate state thats a darn sight better than loony toon fundie disneyworld that is Saudi or Iran.
By comparision, Ireland, an EU member, has Catholic law , without the burnings at the stake, and the executions of heretics. Condoms were only legalised in 1986. Divorce legalised in the 1990s. Abortion is still illegal.
So, there ya go.
still – that half-british angle on the King of Jordan is interesting. thanks for that bit of trivia. Explains the pro-Brit connection of the Jordanians.
Susan
Notice the scare quotes around totalitarianism.
You’re right; Jyllands Posten is not mentioned.
But they describe the cartoons of “the Prophet Muhammad” that have “angered moslems across the world”
Again, you are right; the statement (described as a ‘warning’ in the headline) is not quoted in full, and neither is there a link to the statement.
Naughty Beeb: lying by omission.
Sorry Ashley
you beat me to it!
🙂
“Briefly, a Christian widow named Mrs. Quandah was deprived of custody of her two children because one of her relatives, a convert to Islam, claimed that her husband secretly converted to Islam before he died. Convenient, as the dead husband was no longer around to dispute that fact.”
we had the same kind of crap in Ireland right up to the 1960s, although not as extreme.
if a protestant married a catholic, the kids were declared catholic in their birth certs. there was lots of pro-catholic laws all around the family that backed up inheritance and all that shite – right up to EU membership in the 1970s.
so, you’re talking there about local cultural customs.
ok, its not right to our ears, but as long as folks arent getting hanged or having their hands chopped off or getting stoned to death , i think i’ll leave the sorting out of those local customs to the jordanians themselves – albeit , its well within our rights to raise these human rights issues with the Jordanian government.
Still not as bad as the deceased Hindu mountaineer in Malaysia whose widow cannot cremate him because the mUslims have decided he is one of theirs and must be buried.
At least the Mormons wait until they are buried before baptising the dead, but the Bumiputras obviously need a Muslim national hero and invent secret deathbed conversions
Naughty Beeb: lying by omission.
Goes without saying
“Again, you are right; the statement (described as a ‘warning’ in the headline) is not quoted in full, and neither is there a link to the statement.
Naughty Beeb: lying by omission”
thats disgraceful. why no link to the actual statement?
heres the link, in case any beeboid are viewing this thread:
http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3585740:fid=11364/
it is EXTREMELY important that this manifesto gets published far and wide.
why the bbc decides to cherry pick and not publish it in full is beyond me.
archduke,
The point is not really the “customs” of Jordan. The point is that sharia law is unjust, it screws over non-Muslims royally, even in its “milder” forms, and that is why we must resist its inroads into the West. There’s a movement afoot to convince gullible Westerners to allow “sharia personal law” in our countries because it’s “only” to do with marriages and divorces etc.
But in fact it causes all sorts of social problems, and should be resisted vigorously, or else in the future freeborn Western people will be subjected to the same kind of injustices as Mrs. Quandah and Islam’s power will grow, grow, grow.
We must learn about it, learn about the numerous ways it screws over non-Muslim people and women of all religions, and resist it. That is the point of my post.
“At least the Mormons wait until they are buried before baptising the dead, but the Bumiputras obviously need a Muslim national hero and invent secret deathbed conversions”
bumiputra wiki entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumiputra
its why malaysia is turning into a basket case, and why singapore is just more and more prosperous.
ever wonder why singapore is a semi-police state? well, if you had bumiputra land right next door, you’d have to be a police state, unfortunately.
At least the Mormons wait until they are buried before baptising the dead, but the Bumiputras obviously need a Muslim national hero and invent secret deathbed conversions
The Morthy case was basically the same issue as the Quandah case, except that there were no children involved, and no greedy Muslim convert relative waiting in the wings to claim Mr. Morthy’s estate. In that case the Shariah Court could have claimed all of the “secret” convert Mr. Morthy’s estate and Mrs. Morthy would have been left penniless and destitute. The government of Malaysia intervened and “generously” granted her access to her husband’s pension, because the non-Muslim population of Malaysia was so outraged by the case, but again as a one-off. Other widows of “secret” Muslims would not necessarily be so lucky, especially if the non-Muslim population of Malaysian wasn’t 45 percent and therefore difficult to ignore. . .think what would have happened to Mrs. Morthy if the non-Muslim population had only been five or 10 percent. . .
susan -> i know susan i know. and the Queen of Jordan knows that too. big into womens rights. i’d say encourage that and give them our support.
http://www.queenrania.jo/
that is all.
once we are onto cultural stuff, we can have dialog and reasonable debate – and gradual change. thats a given.
chop-chop square in Riyadh, is , in the meanwhile, just ignored by the western media, as if it doesnt exist.
thats vastly more serious in my view.
susan -> the malaysia thing was covered by jihadwatch recently.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010429.php
quite frankly, if i were Chinese Malay, i’d just get the hell out of there.
preferably to Singapore.
hmmm.. interesting
there’s no link to this “have your say” about the Manisfesto signed by Rushdie and others:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1213&&&&edition=1&ttl=20060301220042#paginator
from this bbc report about the Manifesto:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4763520.stm
note the “have your say” on the right : it doesnt link to the have your say i have pointed out above…
on a side note: jowell is now suddenly frontpage news.
wow. how surprising. everyone in the blogosphere has been banging on about this. now suddenly the beeb thinks its got “legs”.
jowell out by tommorow morning so.
Susan: Arguably it was highly irresponsible for Charles to be put on trial. The civil war is rather more complicated than people make out these days; originally, it was a dispute between parliament and the crown over taxation, but it was hijacked by… heh, religious fundamentalists. Charles could easilly have been forced to abdicate by parliament, or forced to cede powers, without being executed, but the puritans wanted blood and vengeance. They also wanted to turn England in to a “pure” nation, which meant destroying anything that might be perceived as an idol and anything that might be perceived as papist or secular.
Admittedly Charles didn’t make it easy on himself with his attitude to parliament, and without the civil war we wouldn’t have ended up with the rather nifty Hanoverian line ruling us now, but the trial itself wasn’t justice. It was a travesty.
and can i add what is the point of a department of “media, culture and sport”
media: should be independent. bbc is funded independently through tv tax extortion. all other media outlets are private.
culture: again, should be independent of government. do we really want soviet “culture” in britain?
sport: beyond giving a few grants here or there to the local cricket club, again, should be independent.
and even then,the grants can be given at a local council or parish council level.
so , in the words of the telegraph, what is the point of tessa jowell?
“which meant destroying anything that might be perceived as an idol and anything that might be perceived as papist or secular.”
i know – we got the brunt of that when cromwell did his rampage across heathen papist Ireland.
although i’m as not rabidly anti-cromwell as most irish folks, primarily because i’m descended from a cromwellian general.
FAO: Ashley Pomeroy.
Interesting you mention the BBC’s repeated reference to the cartoon depiction of Mohammad as a “terrorist bomber”. The BBC is stating this as fact.
This itself is highly arguable. The cartoon shows Mohammad with a cartoon bomb in his turban – the cartoon character is hardly an archetypal ‘terrorist bomber’ now, is it? Yes, the cartoon is using, gasp!, symbolism.
It could even be argued that Mo himself is unaware that there is a bomb in his turban – thus symbolising Mohammed’s unwitting participation in terrorist violence.
But the messages behind these cartoons have never really be on the table for the discussion; the cartoonists’ motives have never been assessed – thanks to our dhimmitudinous media – and the BBC, as you rightly state, are now explaining to us WHY the cartoons are offensive.
Archduke
The 10:00 news on BBC has an “exclusive” from “government sources” that Tessa J is, effectively, off the hook. Of course she is: is anyone surprised? Since when did our politicised civil service make any waves for the government? Let’s hope the MSM keeps up the pressure.
originally, it was a dispute between parliament and the crown over taxation, but it was hijacked by… heh, religious fundamentalists.
Well, archonix, obviously Cromwell was no Jeffersonian democrat, and the anti-idolotry stuff was apalling, but still I see the Civil War as a repudiation of the “divine right of kings” and the assertion of popular representation in its fundament. That’s what I meant.
Just as the US civil war was not really about slavery but about the supremacy of the federal Constitution over any laws passed by the individual states.
The Puritans do not have such a bad rep in the US. They were nuts and wanted to execute people for celebrating Christmas, for example, but they had their good points; for instance they were the first colonial group to repudiate slavery as un-Christian.
We couldn’t have had our Revolution without the descendants of many an exiled Cavalier and/or Jacobite, some of whom joined our side solely to give a slap to the Hanoverians!
umbongo ->”Let’s hope the MSM keeps up the pressure.”
ha ha ha..
we all know that its the blogs that’ll do that.
sad. but true. this one will run and run and run – its just too juicey to let go.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4763056.stm
Love the BBC’s definition of ‘Islamist’.
They seem nice boys and it’s disgusting that they were imprisoned and tortured for their beliefs.
I thought that sort of thing only happened in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia which are, er, Islamic states.
archduke writes:
“just too juicey to let go.”
Just too damn close to the truth, as well. The BBC has suddenly shown enthusiasm for the Jowell story, now that Downing St whitewash artists have prettied-up this sickening tale to pretend that, somehow, Jowell and her slimey husband are pure as the driven snow.
Socalism? How many pounds hidden away in offshore accounts?
Still, la Jowell was formerly a psychiatric social worker. She must have encountered cognitive dissonace before.
What a disgusting spectacle is the BBC’s attempts to protect this loathsome ZaNu-Labour hack.
Susan:
“Just as the US civil war was not really about slavery but about the supremacy of the federal Constitution over any laws passed by the individual states.”
Yep, that’s how I read it but the author of the piece below had another theory.
The following is from the opinion columns of “the Louisville Courier” March 1862 and uses English history to make some Rebel pov:
“This has been called a fratricidal war by some, by others an irrepressible conflict between freedom and slavery. We respectfully take issue with the authors of both these ideas. We are not the brothers of the Yankees, and the slavery question is merely the pretext, not the cause of the war. The true irrepressible conflict lies fundamentally in the hereditary hostility, the sacred animosity, the eternal antagonism between the two races engaged.
….
As our Norman kinsmen in England, always a minority, have ruled their Saxon countrymen in political vassalage up to the present day, so have we, the ‘slave oligarchs,’ governed the Yankees till within a twelvemonth. We framed the Constitution, for seventy years moulded the policy of the government, and placed our own men, or ‘Northern men with Southern principles,’ in power.
“On the 6th of November, 1860, the Puritans emancipated themselves, and are now in violent insurrection against their former owners. This insane holiday freak will not last long, however, for, dastards in fight, and incapable of self-government, they will inevitably again fall under the control of the superior race. A few more Bull Run thrashings will bring them once more under the yoke as docile as the most loyal of our Ethiopian ‘chattels.'”
Here`s a good comment about Al Beeb
“Despite their never ending grovelling, they’ll all end up swinging from a crane, once the caliphate is in place”
from http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
scroll down to “Trust the BBC”
Little L
I Have noticed a change on Sky News as well.
Understand that the goverment has some control over all the so called independant broadcasters as well. Though bribery, corruption, intimidation and blackmail. Well at least that is what happened in yes minister, and no-one sued the writers. Also all broadcasters need a goverment liecense.
The main reason why the establishment turned so against the Thatcher goverment, was that she threatened the establishment more than any politician since the war. A REAL radical politician returning like that one is the establishments biggest nightmare.
Goverment policy for the media is simple ” keep the little plebs carm, or they might all start killing each other ” in this task the whole broadcast media is being instructed straight from number 10, taking advice from MI5.
This was at this stage in the last war exactly what the BBC/media were doing in the late 1930s. However when war broke out we needed a large conscipt army, lotts of rationing, and the goverment had to sell war bonds. So the tone had to change.
It is unlikely we will ever need this again. So our masters can play their BIG poker game, and we are left patronised and confused.
Ever started to think that you not only dont live in a free country NOW, you never really did? Well at least for 18 years you may have. I think we got spoiled.
BTW
Interesting that the very obvious point that does not get made often is. As president Bush has today anounced that “Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.”
What would the west, by conventional weapons, be able to do about Irans potential nukes, if they were not currently in Iraq?
answer; very little.
I think it would be good to ask for the emidiate return of all British troops until Tony Bair admits to his lies. Never to my knowledge, have British troops died not knowing the the real reason they are fighting. With so little real understanding from the nation either. The sainted Lady would never had allowed this to happen, and the BBC would never have let her.
As I said a time ago the Americans fight for freedom because at least some of them know what it means. Our troops die for a lie, and a country that hates itself.
BBC World Service has a new programme offering for the citizens of the world:
“Angry European Muslim Youth”
See how the Islamic Republic of BBC Land projects the hurt of its “True Believers” to the world funded by the Foreign Office grant…………….
The main reason why the establishment turned so against the Thatcher goverment, was that she threatened the establishment more than any politician since the war.
NO government has ever challenged the Lawyers because that would be cannibalism
that eureferendum link has a nice twist to the BBC logo, B then B then the C in the form of the Muslim crescent. Very fitting.
The World Service is heavily trailing the Angry Muslim Youth in Eorope series – yes series, not a single prog.
The Today prog is back on the Bush/Katrina tack, regurgitating an AP story.
It turns out (surprise surprise) that the AP story is highly flawed. (That’s the AP that seems very cosy with “militants” in the Middle East, never calls them terrorists.) But that won’t stop the BBC from flogging the anti-Bush lies anyway.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013290.php
The BBC made such a hash of Katrina, you’d think they’d be more careful in pursuing it.
The BBC has a link to the Bush/Katrina story at the top of its home page. I expect they will be pumping it out evry hour on the hour.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4765058.stm
The World Service is heavily trailing the Angry Muslim Youth in Eorope series ……
….they may not like the sequels “Jewish Defence League – Europe” and
“Alienated White Europeans Revolt” (AWER)