Paul Reynolds has an article about terrorism experts ‘floundering about’ in an attempt to understand suicide bombers.
He seems to think they are missing something:
‘I felt that the conference rather ignored some of the political influences on suicide bombers, like the world events -Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, Chechnya, Bosnia and others – that provide a basic motivation for many of them.’
Well I am quite prepared to accept that they are floundering, and missing something- the question is, what? Since, for instance, the West’s assistance for Muslims in Kosovo and Indonesia after the tsunami seemed to cause no softening of the “militant” rhetoric I would be inclined to agree with Peter C. Glover:
‘It is amazing how even the most intelligent and understanding among us sometimes refuse to countenance the plainest of answers when it comes to issues of faith. The root cause here is Islam’s teachings. As I have shown repeatedly on these pages Mohammed taught and the Koran and the Traditions teach openly that murder, violence is a perfectly Allah-given path to subjugating all other peoples, cultures and faiths. Moderate Muslims may well deny it by their overlooking of the innumerable passages that teach these things – something we should be thankful for (and encourage)…But it doesn’t change the reality. The ‘radicals’ not the ‘moderates’ are the ones living out true Islam. Until we grasp this key fact and understanding – as hard as President Bush and others find it – we are never really going to ‘get it’ entirely.’
Certainly political events have their impact, but the interpretation of them is the key, and that interpretation is provided by the extreme suspicion, negativity and contempt which can be drawn with a far amount of ease from the pages of the Koran.
In related matters, Ian Dale notes the BBC drawing back from calling terrorists terrorists, again.
I should add, I think, that over the course of time I’ve grown to like Paul Reynolds and his well-meaning work- aided no doubt by the personal encounters enabled by blogging and his own rather generous-spirited approach to us. Therefore I tend to see this kind of analytical weakness as a symptom of BBC malaise rather than a cause of it, in distinction to other BBC men.
Our own Laban Tall, meanwhile, notices another whitewashing of religion. I dare say he may post about it here sometime, but here is a link to the post, painfully funnily titled ‘Mr Clarke – Over Here !’. And here is a taste:
‘“Abdul El-Gharras, 31, was obsessed with decapitation and had downloaded videos of al Qaeda beheadings before murdering Marvin Gentles last June in an argument over crack cocaine, the Old Bailey criminal court heard.”
(Reuters)
Presumably a foreign national then – and with an unhealthy interest in the more robust manifestations of the Religion of Peace. Can’t understand why the BBC should have missed that’
BBC article here.
While your country has now 90% of parents on government handouts
So why are 10% parents denied Child Benefit ?
Prescott: Can someone please explain why the likes of Toynbee and other ‘wimin’ are all on the Beeb tearing into Prescott for being a dirty old dinosaur in these “liberated” times? After all if a Tory lifted a woman’s skirt to see if she was wearing stockings the wimin would be screaming rapist male pig before it got above her knees…..
Reuters’ account of the “massacre” of Hindus is a little more detailed.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-01T162513Z_01_DEL17172_RTRUKOC_0_UK-KASHMIR-KILLING.xml
The BBC’s reticence to call a spade – or a slaughter a slaughter – is incomprehensible.
O/T but relevant:
Guys, I just got back from seeing United 93. Not sure if it has opened in the UK yet, but definitely recommended viewing. The Gramscians/L3 definitely don ‘t want you to see the film — which is reason enough from my point of view to see it! In the run up to the film’ s premier the MSM kept running these ludicrous articles trying to convince folks not to see it because it’s too “upsetting.”
(SPOILER ALERT)
Best scene for me involved a cringing Euro-dhimmi (German?) passenger who keeps counseling total submission to the Islamofascist hijackers’ demands. As the other passengers plan their last desperate charge up the aisle and into the cockpit, the Eurodhimmi tries to rat them out to the Islamofacists. Crack! The other passengers grimly deliver the smackdown to the Eurodhimmi and continue purposefully down the aisle. F*ck you Chirac,
Schroeder and Zappa-wimp-o.
Though it’s directed by a Brit, al-Beeb will definitely NOT like this film. All the more reason to see it!
I’ve checked out the website of United 93 in depth, Susan and it looks like a must-watch movie. The Euro dhimmi you’re referring to is probably Christian Adams, the wine expert from Germany. A German without a back-bone? What a surprise…
http://www.united93movie.com
Prescott: Can someone please explain why the likes of Toynbee and other ‘wimin’ are all on the Beeb tearing into Prescott for being a dirty old dinosaur in these “liberated” times? After all if a Tory lifted a woman’s skirt to see if she was wearing stockings the wimin would be screaming rapist male pig before it got above her knees…..
dave t | Homepage | 01.05.06 – 8:43 pm
Feminism lost all its influence and what little credibility it had by its non reaction to clinton (another leftie).
Hey Joeg,
Tom Burnett, the guy who organized the Flight 93passenger revolt, lived only a couple towns over from me.
Susan,
disillusioned_german,
I’ve checked out the United 93 website too and it looks really inspiring – all the more so because it’s directed by a right old leftie apparatchik Paul Greengrass. His Granada doc. Bloody Sunday was a pro-IRA bloody disgrace.
Another convert to spite-free rational conservative thought?
Talking of which, if you haven’t seen Roger Aronoff’s film “Confronting Iraq” do so. It’s worth buying just for Christopher Hitchens’ excellent insight and it’s full of factual info that you just don’t get from the al-Beeb.
You can buy it here:
http://www.shopaim.org/product.asp?itemid=680
Here’s the blurb:
“Confronting Iraq: Conflict and Hope” counters the barrage of anti-American war propaganda by depicting the Iraq conflict as a noble cause, essential to our country’s survival in the clash between the West and fanatical Islam. Roger Aronoff’s updated version of his award-winning documentary, “Confronting Iraq,” is a must-see for many reasons. It examines the complex issues surrounding the Iraq war and presents viewers with informed opinions from America’s top scholars and policy analysts. But there’s more to this film than just talking heads. Its dramatic narrative and footage weaves history and geo-politics into a fascinating story of how America has enabled the inhabitants of a nation, just released from bondage, to experience their first taste of freedom and democracy.
OT
Iran hits out at ‘dangerous’ US
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4963522.stm
From the title you would surmise that there is nothing new here. But do look at the picture accompanying the article. The accompanying text is “The US is leading efforts to curtail Iran’s nuclear programme”, giving the idea that the US is represented accurately by the statue of Liberty as death itself.
Its only when one right clicks the image properties that one finds that the pic is Iranian in origin.
Am I misreading this? Am I being unfair to the BBC? Would like your comments.
No, you are not being unfair to al-Beeb. The pic is clearly leftoid agitprop. I’m sure the wank-tards at al-Beeb are all a-giggle over their “brave” use of the pic to “speak truth to power”.
Winston Smith
The war is most proberly very nessesery for all the reasons that the book I am sure says. However I am sure it is not written from a British perspective. It is clear to me that we and the British parliament were lied to by our own prime minister. This has brought disgrace and misstrust to our intire political system. It was only done to appease a minority of Labour back benchers, not the British people. Who mostly would have trusted the British government to do the right thing. This trust will never be the same now again , whatever the outcome in Iraq and Iran.
gordon Bennet
Feminism has lost its credibility for more reasons than that.
Where are all the feminists now? Who should be protesting the abuse of women in fundermentalist Islamic countries.
The feminist leadership have shown themselves, just to be simply a PARTY Political organisation. Of the type it has long been suspected of being.
Dont expect to hear to much from them until we get a new government.
What I mean by this is that the left want to put its influence on destroying culture in their own country. Its thinking now has become so anti-western that it has lost all its basic principles.
Lefist organisations have become more mainstream. So they now see themselves more as Party political organisations. That is capable of changing fundermental assumptions of life by direct political power. Feminism is deaply in the leftist camp, so has no interest in helping the west to bolster public opinion in favour of the war, so become strangly silent on the matter.
Feminist have changed and adapted every law capable of bias, in favour of one sex, their own. This is undemocratic and has very serious longterm consequences for western sociaty. A sociaty based on equality is a fine and honerable thing. A sociaty based on a government inspired bias against boys and men is a dangerous mess.
ed
Maybe you can ask some of the older generation in your family. I think they will recall things very simular to myself. I am 46 and have been very politicaly minded ( and over sexed ) since I was 7 years old. However I think they would have to be at least 55 to have a true perspective. That is on quite what a “pile of dogs poo” this country was,after succesive crazy socialist goverments, had buggerd around with it since the war.
This point really can not be overstated.
OT, Humphreys is spending five minutes “grilling” Cameron over his simultaneous use of car and bike. Bothered. “You misled us” – is that really the only thing he can say. Cameron just sounded unsurprised and slightly ammused. Must be like being savaged by a sheep.
Moderate Muslim spotted in Bangladesh!
http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=17803
And quite a courageous one at that:
According to the allegations, my crime is: I am a living contradiction to today’s phenomenon in the Muslim world, a Zionist, a defender of Israel and a devout, practicing Muslim living in the second largest Muslim country in the world.
Unfortunately, most of the Muslims in Bangladesh as in many of the other Muslim countries are under the impression that Jews are the ultimate enemies of Muslims and of Islam. My request to them, please visit Israel at least once, meet the Jews or at least find one Jew anywhere in the world….
….As I was about to board the aircraft to address a group of Israeli writers, police grabbed me. They ransacked my bags, took my passport and possessions.
At first, they did not charge me with anything but leaked that my alleged crime was espionage “in the interests of Israel against the interests of Bangladesh.” You see, anyone who even suggests that all faiths are equally legitimate must be demonized, and you can do that by preying on people’s vulnerability to wild and untrue conspiracy theories involving the Jews.
Conditions were terrible for me and my family while I was in prison. I was purposely kept in a wing for the mentally insane. The constant screaming, the terrible heat, the filth, and the accusations were intended to break me. My family was threatened and attacked. Police refused to act, blaming it all on my “alliance with the Jews.” My brother, Sohail Choudhury, twice had to flee Dhaka for his safety. They wouldn’t even let me attend my mother’s funeral.
But while my health deteriorated, my spirit did not.
DP111 and Susan,
That photo of the statue of liberty with a death’s head is obscene. And the caption, with its everyday language, obviously legitimizes the idea of America being all about death. If BBC writers knew anything about real journalism, they would make it clear that the photo stems from Iranian propagandists. By hiding that fact, they side with the propagandists.
The BBC has been cuddling up to Iran for some time now. As if the brutal Mullahs have any concept of the meaning of liberty and justice. But then neither does the BBC. It conducts fawning interviews with Iranian officials and seems to regard Iran’s threats to annihilate Israel as innocent schoolboy bragging.
And no doubt the BBC’s Persian Service is rolling along quite merrily.
There seems to be little doubt who it has put its money on in the looming confrontation between the US and Iran. The BBC is rotten to the core.
I thank Ed Thomas for his personal words but feel I should add something about the conference on terrorism. Ed appears to think that it ignored the elephant in the room — Islam. That was not really so. It was a given that Islam was there but these ‘experts’ were trying to get beyond that into analysing why some people stayed with protest and others went onto terrorism. It was here that the various theories were put forward without much coming together. As far as Islam was concerned, there was a contribution from Alison Pargeter of King’s College, to which I referred, which showed how naive converts could be drawn into the extreme forms of Islam because they both wanted to ( as a way out of their problems) and because they were not equipped to discuss more moderate forms.
At the end of the two days, nobody really knew what the tipping point was but it was an interesting if frustrating debate.
Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online
The Empire State Building is 75:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4961998.stm
Half-way through the article there are these two short paragraphs:
“More than 3,000 workers were employed in its construction which provided jobs during a time of great unemployment.
Fourteen immigrant workers were killed during the operation.”
This raises a few questions. How many workers were killed in total? I do not know and I cannot tell from the article.
Does the article mean to say that fourteen workers were killed, and that they were immigrants? Or that a larger number of workers were killed, and fourteen of them were immigrants? In the former case the article makes a queasy value judgementt and in the latter case the article is simply unclear. Surprisingly, none of the reader comments highlighted below the article pay tribute to immigrant workers. I have to assume that no-one sent in a tribute because the BBC would have been sure to put such a tribute right at the very top, because this is an issue that can be used.
Why is this particular statistic singled out? It didn’t just happen. In what way were the workers immigrants, given that all of America is made up of immigrants? Does the report mean to say that fourteen undocumented migrant workers were killed? If this is the case it contradicts the previous paragraph, which implies that the Empire State Building eased unemployment.
Paul Reynolds,
Thanks for popping in. I don’t think the phenomenon of suicide bombing is that hard to understand. The conference of ‘experts’ floundered precisely because they are looking anywhere but in the right places:
*The Islamic drive to establish the Caliphate.
*The literal interpretation of the Koran by Muslims.
*Hormone-dominated youngsters, indoctrinated to the hilt and lured in the name of ‘religion’ by evil elders into suicide to gain access to the promised ‘virgins’.
The fact that some Muslims are more prone to murder/suicide than others is a side issue and adds little to the debate.
It’s far more important to grasp the fact of the Imams’ hate-filled indoctrination of their congregations and teachers’ indoctrination of schoolchildren than the reaction of individual Muslims. The lustful, mindless youngster with his suicide belt is simply the end product on the conveyor belt of murderous ‘religious’ mania.
Only if and when the ‘experts’ shrug off their PC attitudes and start to look at the real issues will they be getting anywhere close to the truth of the matter.
Perhaps Mr Reynolds should edit his article to make clear that everyone at the conference regarded Islamist teachings as a key factor. To make it VERY clear – after all, if it was the elephant in the room, it should be described as such.
And maybe the Alison Pargeter contribution should be spelled out a bit more. Because the sole defining factor in EVERY suicide bomber, the core driver, is attachment to extreme Islamist teachings. The rest is detail.
And it seems odd that the conference did not seem to feature many contributions from Muslims. If it is extreme teachings of their religion – the elephant in the conference room – surely they have important insights for us ?
People will have noticed that MR Reynolds did not seem to have any problem ijn using the T word in his article. Does that suggest that there is an antidote to the affliction that all the BBC reporting from the Middle East suffers – a chronic paralysis and antipathy to using the T word to describe suicide-bombing atrocities killing civilians ?
Two or three things crossed my mind whilst watching the output from the beeb over the weekend,
1. Where did Patricia Hewitt disappear to?
2. Who dragged Tessa Jowell into the studio to stand up for Prescott?
3. What did orla think when she was told that it was arabs that attacked the villages in Darfur.
4. John Prsecott is not and never will be a northener, he is welsh.
5. If the MSM that are hanging around John Prescott’s house, which by the way is not actually in Hull but in a leafy suburb, would get off their arses and actually travel around this town they would then see the horrendous mess that Hull is in due to 50 years of Labour rule within the town.
6. I did not see or hear one mention on the beeb of the latest Labour Stealth Tax, one even more iniquitous than the last, namely to scrap council tax and replace it with a tax of 0.78% of house value.
And may I add,
7) The lack of the word ‘illegal’ next to immigrant when reporting the ‘We’re not going to work illegally today’ rally in the US.
APRIL 17TH – SUICIDE BOMB KILLS 9 IN TEL AVIV
MAY 1ST – ISRAEL KILLS PALESTINIAN WOMAN
MAY 2ND – Mourning a West Bank wife
Just three stories from the BBC. No follow up on any of the nine victims of the 17th April terrorist attack or the sixteen year-old amputee. But a lengthy story about a woman who was regrettably killed in cross fire which is so biased it beggars belief.
Will anyone tell me what is the point of the BBC? I like their plays but from a news point of view I may as well be using Al-Jazeera.
Bryan,
Islam is just the latest ideology or religion that has managed to persuade people it is worth killing and dying for. What makes it different is how acceptable hate and terrorism is in the Muslim psychic at the moment and how quickly the victim meme appears when they are challenged on it.
If the BBC spent half the time it spends criticising Bush investigating what is printed, broadcast and preached in the Middle East they’d get a fuller picture. But then again it would really ruin their world view.
Bryan – Salah Choudhury, the Bangladeshi journalist, is indeed courageous, and outstanding to have that courage in a place like Bangladesh. Thanks for publicizing his article.
Today’s Guardian, Media section
11.10am: BBC governors’ independent report on impartiality in coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict concludes ‘no deliberate or systematic bias’. More follows …
Does anyone know more?
Hazel
Why the hell should we be forced to pay for all this new stuff ?
http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,,1764519,00.html
The licence fee settlement should not be RPI plus X% per annum. I was involved with the original privatisation of BT, and we demanded RPI minus X%. Which meant a reaql reduction of the charges. The BBC’s income should be tapered down – to force it to make internal economies, and to make it start to adjust to when the train hits the buffers and it will NOT receive billions a year except where it charges for it on a subscription basis.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,,1761919,00.html
Hazel
If that is the review chaired by Q Thomas, I am not surprised. Back in the 1989s he was a vapid professional fence-sitter, and he won’t have changed.
I’ve just watched a schools programme on BBC2 which appeared to be the anti-Christian fundamentalist election broadcast. It concluded –
“We are not a creature chosen above all others”
It was considering the evolution of man. It stated that until recently man was considered to have not resulted from the normal radiant pattern, having only 1 ancestor, Lucy.
Bernard Hill’s narration was full of religious awe as it was revealed that another ancestor had been found dating from the same time as Lucy.
Hence we were not special.
But they were dealing with 3m years ago. Don’t we only have to look back a few thousand years to the Neanderthals to know that there is a family tree? Or am I missing something?
BBC ‘must improve Mid-East view’
Step in the right direction?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4964702.stm
http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/rev_israelipalestinian.html
I’ve answered my own question.
Read the whole whitewash here.
They used the oldest trick in the book – only reviewed the last few months’ BBC output. And the BBC has lessened its bias since 2000 – 2004, it needed to, it wants its licence fee renewed, that’s the only reason.
And the review only covers UK output – I presume that excludes their website. Just plain lazy.
Hazel
Norman – On top of the highly prejudiced coverage you pointed out did you notice how the BBC hasn’t reported the Qassam rocket in Gaza that killed two palestinians today? Strange how the beeb suddenly doesn’t notice these ‘accidents’ perpetrated by their favourite hard working ‘militants’.
Don’t we only have to look back a few thousand years to the Neanderthals to know that there is a family tree? Or am I missing something?
Is it The Guardian today that has an article casting doubt on whether the purported Constants in the Universe are quite so constant as was believed ?
If such constants as the relation of protons to electrons is changing then premises upon which speculation has been based change also.
The problem the “Evolutionist” Credo has unleashed is that it was used by Marx to fuse with Hegelianism in a form of Social Dynamics which has become the mantra of the Secular Left as a Pseudo-Scientific Theory of Human Socio-Biology.
Because they have adopted a God-Free Sociology of Inevitability and Abstract Forces they view any other theory as political.
As a debating point Creationism can be borne in mind with its implication that Purpose exists outside the Mechanism in the form of the Mind of God, but the opposing camp wishes only to state that God is not necessary and the Mechanism contains its own Purpose.
It still leavs the Chicken and Egg Question which cannot be answered.
hasn’t reported the Qassam rocket in Gaza that killed two palestinians today?
BBC doesn’t find “friendly fire” or “workplace accidents” noteworthy
not be RPI plus X% per annum. I was involved with the original privatisation of BT, and we demanded RPI minus X%.
As I recall the argument was that Digital Technology would increase BT efficiencies and decrease Costs……………..in the case of the BBC the case is argued in the direct opposite direction ie. that Digital necessitates higher Costs
Mind you if they ever get this DAB rubbish implemented they will need to give the public cash handouts for batteries to run these juice-squeezer radios and employ thousands more Chinese girls making them and boosting our trade gap
As mentioned by Matt, the BBC has an article about a recent report into its Middle Eastern coverage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4964702.stm
Perhaps because it is an early article, it seems very mild. It speaks of a “commitment to be fair, accurate and impartial”, which is fair enough but meaningless if the commitment is merely expressed and not actually actioned. I have a commitment to lose weight, and I might be sincere in this but I have not lost weight.
The article starts by stating that “the BBC fails to always give a ‘full and fair account’ of the Israeli Palestinian conflict” and there are some very general examples further down the page. But the article does not suggest which side of the conflict the BBC’s failure seems always to benefit.
bryan said:
“it’s far more important to grasp the fact of the Imams’ hate-filled indoctrination of their congregations and teachers’ indoctrination of schoolchildren than the reaction of individual Muslims. The lustful, mindless youngster with his suicide belt is simply the end product on the conveyor belt of murderous ‘religious’ mania.”
If you disagree with what he said, a bit of word play can help bring matters to a crystal clear conclusion:
“it’s far more important to grasp the fact of the Nazi’s hate-filled indoctrination of their rallies and Goebell’s indoctrination of schoolchildren than the reaction of individual Germans. The lustful, mindless S.S. recruit with his suicide belt is simply the end product on the conveyor belt of murderous Hitler-worshipping mania.”
Al Beeb should remember that just because an ideology drapes itself in the title of “religion” , that shouldnt make it free from critique, insult , investigation and ridicule.
BBC doesn’t find “friendly fire” or “workplace accidents” noteworthy
Rick | 02.05.06 – 12:48 pm |
Unless they involve US troops of course.
Hey – the review seems to be telling the BBC to damn well use the T word, it is the terse and appropriate word !!!
But “lack of historical context” and all that bull – why not say what they mean, there has been a deep vein of pro-Palestinian reporting.
They might have seen this coming – that’s why they moved the fragrant Orla Guerin away to Africa ?
http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/rev_israelipalestinian.html
Here is the FULL TEXT of the report, a 38 page pdf document. (38 pages – that sounds a bit of a skim job) :
Click to access panel_report_final.pdf
sorry – ’twas I that posted the link to the full report
cassis: beat me to it with Rick’s comment about the BBC doesn’t find “friendly fire” or “workplace accidents” noteworthy. Of course when we lost 3 Jocks in 1991 thanks to an A10 pilot the BBC went ballistic…. for a week then moved on to something else. Amazing how they can put the sinking of the Belgrano on their history website but not this major incident during the Gulf War. Oh wait – Mrs Thatcher wasn’t involved and can’t be blamed)
The BBC won’t start using the terrorist word because it means they’ll have to describe the murders of Israelis as terrorist acts rather than their normal twisting of the facts:
This type of thing:(an example not an actual happening (yet))
“2 Israelis died today in a road crash during a firefight by Israeli troops”
(but which actually involved them being shot up by Palestinians THEN going off the road after which Israeli Troops opened fire on the Palestinians who fled into a house full of kids forcing the Israelis to stop firing etc etc)
Click to access panel_report_final.pdf
is the full Q Thomas review.
Some highlights :
para 1.9e) on page 6 – failutre to provide proper context of the dispute
para 1.10a-d) – basically, it reads to me as saying that the BBC has not done a good and informative job, ands has often lacked editorial oversight
para 1.15b) – start using the word terrorism every time there is terrorism !!!
para 2.23 – the com0plaints procedure is not effective , too much of a defensive brush-off
para 4.6 – they had a ridiculously short timeframe – 1 August 2005 to 31 Jan 2006 – for the analysis of BBC output by Loughborough Uni. This was after the panel was formed, when no doubt BBC reporters would be on their best behaviour.
I note they took only 3 days of oral evidence. Pathetic.
para 5.10a) – serious lack of context, lack of hard questioning of Palestinian leaders during the election
para 5.17 – serious lack of editorial control of output on BBC World and on BBC News 24 (which to me means that the same uneditied stories fed straight through to BBC Online.
paras 5.22 to 5.39 deal with the crucial question of what language, what terms the BBC uses. My sense on this ine is that they conclude (with a very light touch) that the BBC has overall been using pro-Palestian terminology too much. They appear to favour “separation barrier” to “wall”, they want “occupied territories” not “illegally occupied territories” (with implicitly the context as to why they were occupied in the first place ?). And above all, PRINTED IN BOLD, they say that terrorist acts should be described as terrorism. They also say that someone committing a specific terrorism act should be called a terrorist. But they do not say that their organisation should be called terrorist. (Why not ???)
“they do not say that their organisation should be called terrorist.”
very odd.
the UK, U.S. and the EU all have lists of proscribed organisations deemed to be “terrorist”.
The Q Thomas review has not published the written evidence it receieved – on legal advice, it appears from Page 4 of this note.
This seems entirely wrong. If any particular item of evidence raised legal problems, that couod have been omitted. The main body of written evidence should have been made public.
Click to access terms_of_referencefinal.pdf
Message from Canada’s climate scientists to their government –
Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada’s climate policies are based. While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation.
from
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/
Will the BBC cease to be an eager mouthpiece for those “alarmist forecasts”? Will they resist the urge to create “sensational headlines” from every press release of the green lobby?
archduke
So, on use of the T word, there are 2 steps forward (use the T-word for the act and the perpetrator) and 1 step missed.
The terrorist act was planned and the terrorist was indoctrinated, trained and equipped by the organisation – but the organisation itself is not terrorist.
The BBC Governors have to consider the report and the views of BBC management. I think it will be very hard for them to refuse to adopt at least this two-thirds use of the T word.
I wonder if Guerin will use it to describe the Arabs who terrorise people in Darfur ?
The BBC is pumping out its pro-illegal-immigration line in its coverage of the “boycott” marches in the US yesaterday. Once again, it plays with language. It tends to avoid the word illegal, and it has several times used the stupid euphemism “undocumented workers”. And it does not seem to give a damn about the sheer scale of the invasion across the Mexican border, the fact that Mexico itself encourages it, and the heavy social costs.
And it avoids pointing out that it is virtually impossible for skilled UK people to get a green card these days – because the system has been overwhelmed by millions of unskilled illegal immiigrants.
Here are a couple of pieces putting the arguments the BBC avoids.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTBlOTVlNDFkNTYwOTg4YWYxMThkZmE2MWZhMmVjMWM=
http://boortz.com/nuze/200605/05012006.html#illegals
I mentioned yesterday that the BBC can treat the lying polemicist Juan Cole as an “expert” on Middle East affairs, but studiously ignores the most eminent thinker on the ME in the world – Bernard Lewis.
Maybe the warning Lewis gives in this Times tribute to him explains it – he really thinks the UK faces serious dangers from some of the Muslims we are importing and nthe sheer scale of immigration.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2160473,00.html
So on the day the report comes out we get this…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4963716.stm
“Western donations to the Palestinian Authority have been largely suspended since Hamas militants – branded terrorists by the US and Israel – came to power in elections earlier this year.”
Odd as I thought –
http://www.rr-bb.com/archive/index.php/t-105630.html
EU joins U.S. in denouncing Hamas as terrorist group
By Reuters.
Bad USA!!!