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.
Biased BBC strikes again.
On the frontpage of the BBC news website they have an “On this day” spot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Well on this day in 1982 the RN sank the Argy ship Belgrano. Follow the link and Al Beeb runs this account of the Falklands war time line;
“1982: Argentine flag hoisted on Falklands.”
No BBC it was hoisted on South Georgia.
“1982: Ceasefire agreed in Falklands”
No BBC On June 14 the commander of the Argentine garrison in Stanley, Mario Menendez, surrendered to Major General JJ Moore Royal Marines.
Christ, but the Al Beeb at the time did inform the world that the bombs the argies were using weren’t fused properly and with that knowledge the argies started sinking our ships.
Al Beeb the traitors of the UK.
I feel the item on Darfur overlooked the powerful arguments against Western intervention. We seem to only hear the pro-intervention argument on the Beeb.
One important fact that much of the media has overlooked is that the Sudanese airforce uses Chinese airbases to launch it’s attacks. Enforcing a no-fly zone would be problematic to say the least.
If the rebels reject the peace accord it will be very difficult to intervene without looking like imperialists.
Pounce
How true.
The General Belgrano and The BBC. So much in common.
Once an Ally (USS Pheonix), now an enemy.
Old fashioned, out of date.
Will sink controversially.
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.
In this they are no different from the US MSM, which is nearly 100 percent, lock-step, pro-illegal immigration. They too are promoting the fraud that the issue is about “immigrant rights” when in fact the issue is about illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants to the US already have rights.
The MSM will support anything that threatens the US.
BBC1 News hour
On an item on Tamil Tigers we are informed that the US brand them as terrorists. What’s the US got to do with it?
On Look North they are moved to tautology by prefixing the BNP as “extreme far right”. (It was not, of course, felt necessary to inform us of how the BBC place any other party on their spectrum.)
Funny – the Archbishop of York rants on about the BNP…….what does he think about Abortion ? Which party should we not vote for because of its stance on Abortion ?
I am pig sicj of people ranting on about the BNP – why don’t they just tell people which party they should vote for and have done with interfering in elections
The MSM will support anything that threatens the US.
Susan | 02.05.06 – 5:57 pm | #
A Green nut in Germany is demanding that the German National Anthem be translated into Turkish to make it “inclusive”.
Well on this day in 1982 the RN sank the Argy ship Belgrano.
I remember at university a girlfriend knew one of the crew of the sub and how they flew the skull and crossbones as they entered the Firth of Forth. Seemed good enough to me but they should have sunk the entire Argentine navy
Actually I was in Milan outside La Scala reading the Times or something and a German came up to me having seen the front page and wished all the very best to Britain ………..”you British dealt with Germany with your navy” he said and was heartfelt in his hopes that BRitain deal with Argentina. I was stunned by his effusive support.
After the BBC’s report about the terrorist attack in Kashmir, compare and contrast two headlines…
BBC: ‘Militants’ kill Kashmir Hindus
Telegraph: Kashmiri terrorists murder 32
That Telegraph headline forced about 12 dozen BBC editors to choke on their cappucinos this morning. So judgemental!
Rob
They won’t like the ‘review report’.
Cos it ‘recommends’ the use of the word ‘terrorist’.
Allegedly.
I did not expect the review to find bias. Q Thomas is a fixer, “on the one hand – but on the other hand”.
I reckon it was the former ITN news editor that forced the recomendation for use of the T word.
…but they should have sunk the entire Argentine navy
Rick | 02.05.06 – 8:22 pm
In a way they did. IIRR the argie fleet never left port after the sinking of the Belgrano.
Many thanks to all the authors publishing on this blog: it does seems to be a full time job pointing out the “group-think” of the Beeb. I fully agree with Pounce’s description of the BBC’s coverage of the Falklands War as a general illustration of the timelessness of BBC bias. A book by Richard Bicheno called “Razor’s Edge” about the Falkands is especially scathing about the BBC. As with their coverage with the Iraq war, same news new faces.
Chris
Yes, and it is worth pointing out that inspite of the BBC ripping into Thatcher, every second of the 3 month campaigne. MT did not succesfully try to restrain the BBC from its stance, to my knowledge. It was partly the Tories lack of control over the BBC, which forced the government and British forces, to finish the job ASAP.
All the BBC propergander generated duing that time was counter productive, for the Labour movement. However very good for the then Prime Minister, then, same as it has been up to now. Why have the BBC not learned? Or perhaps they have?
The BBCs actions only gave the lefties, the confidence to show the British Public whoes side they are really on. The big difference now is that it is the Labour Party in power. The BBC is stuck on a dead end path. It will destroy itself before it destroys the country.
Never before has the Tory Party been in a better position to largly dump the BBC out of British life. It is imposible for them to do so if it is not in power. Also very unlikely even then, if the people of Britain dont make it more clear that they have had enough of the BBC socialy engineering their exsistanct, robbing and lieing to them as well.
I do believe that if they did close down the BBC on the first day of a new Tory government. Very few people, even on the left, would give a damm. There is now very few people left, that watch it and vote, that trust the BBC, to tell them more than the correct time of day.
The BBC have allied themselves to the state and its high tax, high spend, government, running contary to to public good, for far to long.
The BBC got away with it in the past because they were more subtle, there was no internet, and they were seen as at least keeping the government from taking the piss out of the people.
Therefore when the present govenment came to power they had to change overnight. This they have been so painfully, unable to do. It is clear now that the BBC have not only have not tried, they never had any intention, in so doing.
Never before has the Tory Party been in a better position to largly dump the BBC out of British life.
But the Conservatives give no indication that they would have such a policy. & they won’t.