Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.
General BBC-related comment thread!
Bookmark the permalink.
The first link is to a BBC news report of a Conservative MP comments.
It would appear from the second link that it was the BBC “Journalist” who reported this matter to the Shadow Secretary of State.
So the BBC now sees itself as upholders of P.C. morality.
Of course one wonders if the MP had been Labour if this story would have ever seen the light of day
http://tinyurl.com/35dnx3
A few days ago, I blogged about Heather Mills pouring a jug of water over her ex-husbands barrister’s head. It was an attempt to be funny, but the BBC’s David Cornock reported me to the Shadow Secretary of Wales, and I suspect several others as well. The BBC have also run a story about this on their internet news site and Good Evening Wales asked me on to explain myself on air. For the first time in my life, I refused to appear, and I’m not going to approve any more comments on the offending post either. I would delete it, except that I think it would give the story more legs. I’m rather surprised by this turn of events.
http://tinyurl.com/2sh8pv
The clue is in the blog title – anything that says ‘A View From RURAL Wales’ , is bound to be offensive to a beeboid.
The bbc seriously struggle to understand that rural people fail to buy into their hip, happening , multi culti utopia.
If you have a quick poll of MP’s representing rural constituencies, they will tell you that they have a mandate from their voters to end the bbc in its current format. The bbc knows this, hence their consistent policy of bellitling rural values.
The BBC – keeping the Stasi tradition alive!
http://glyndaviesam.blogspot.com/2008/03/its-goodbye-to-humour.html
From another thread:
John Reith | 18.03.08 – 12:04
“my daily experience of the good sense of the British people leads me to think that groups like MPAC are exaggerating when they bang on about Islamophobia. But when I come here, I have to acknowledge that they may have a point.”
I am amazed at John Reith’s and therefore presumably the BBC’s, position on Islam. It is not a phobia to be afraid of something that is dangerous, just common sense. When Muslims blow up people on trains and buses it is done not because the perpetrators happen to be Muslims, these acts of terror are done because they are Muslims.
These acts express what they believe to be right. If John Reith’s son or daughter were blown to pieces he might view things in a different light. Acts of terrorism are done by Muslims because they believe in their cause. This is what they believe Islam asks of them, and in doing so they are being good servants of Allah.
People in this country have every right to be afraid, and their genuine fear should not be twisted and turned into a phobia.
If law abiding and decent citizens of this country who are Muslims realise how much fear has been generated by the actions of their fellow Muslims, not only in this country but throughout the world, that can only be a good thing. They should make their voices heard to bring about change and diminish the hatred that seems to be at the heart of so much of Islam.
More shilling for Hamas (this time against Egypt).
There was not a peep from the BBC as long as Egypt was torturing thousands of their own Muslim Brotherhood.
But when Egypt touches Hamas this is what we get:
“Hamas men ‘tortured by Egyptians’ ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7308538.stm
Just what kind of a deal did they strike to release Alan Johnston?
BBC has realized that Israel is not the only enemy of Hamas, Egypt is much firmer, with the brand new wall with Gaza.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gg6Sqr-pCtsCyVfoO_mSRfZT9EPw
“More shilling for Hamas (this time against Egypt).
There was not a peep from the BBC as long as Egypt was torturing thousands of their own Muslim Brotherhood.
But when Egypt touches Hamas this is what we get:
“Hamas men ‘tortured by Egyptians’ ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl…ast/ 7308538.stm”
What an interesting post, a few questions to ask.
“A Hamas spokesman said security forces had demanded to know about Hamas leaders’ movements and the location of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit”
Does that mean that the H terrorists used the pallywood event to smuggle Gilad Shalit out of philistia?
“Most entered the country in January when hundreds of thousands of besieged Gazans crossed into Egypt after militants breached its border wall near Rafah.”
Mmmmmm that wasn’t what al-beeb told us at the time. The bulls**t was that the starving philistine were crossing over to get food.
BBC gleefully reporting the ‘Cameron on his bike’ story today, ‘and go to the Radio5 website for links to the video’ they say.
Don’t ever remember them telling us about when Gordon Brown was seen on TV picking his nose, or where we could see the video.
bodo, can you really not see why one would be slightly more important than the other?
Easter Saturday, BBC 2 has a drama-documentary on: ‘Richard the Lionheart’ (10 pm).
The BBC (and much of the MSM) refuse, or are intellectually incapable of taking on directly the Islamic lies about the Crusades, such as those reproduced from Bin Laden this week; instead we are fed the mantras of ex-nun and Western apologist for Islam, Karen Armstrong.
The headline in the ‘Radio Times’ (a magazine, which, of course, has no connection with the BBC,etc.) is:
” Richard: lion or louse ?”
To put the Crusades in a politically incorrect context, here’s Robert Spencer:
” So what did the Crusades accomplish? They bought Europe time – time that might have meant the difference between her demise and dhimmitude, and her rise and return to glory. If Godfrey of Bouillon, Richard the Lionheart, and countless others hadn’t risked their lives to uphold the honour of Christ and His Church thousands of miles from home, the jihadistswould almost certainly have swept across Europe much sooner. Not only did the Crusader armies keep them tied down at a crucial period, fighting for Antioch and Ascalon instead of Varna and Vienna, they also brought together armies that would not have existed otherwise. Pope Urban’s call united men around a cause; had that cause not existed or been publicized throughout Europe, many of these men would not have been warriors at all. They would have been ill-equipped to repel a Muslim invasion of their homeland.
” The Crusades, then, were the ultimate reason why Edward Gibbon’s vision of ‘the interpretation of the Koran’ being ‘taught in the schools of Oxford’ did not come true.”
Robert Spencer, ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)’
bodo | 21.03.08 – 3:47 pm |
The BBC has a track record for burying bad news stories for Labour.
Corruption, theft, cronyism, gerrymandering, personation, lying, wherever possible they will downplay it.
Where are the BBC investigative journalists when you need them to look at Livingstone/Jasper. Why are they not going to town on the most corrupt Speaker of the Commons in over 150 years.
UK PLC is slowly falling apart and the BBC find it vitally important to inform us of Kevin Maguire’s Daily Mirror’s fearless exposure of ‘Call me Dave’s’ inability to stay in a cycle lane.
The fact that other papers have reported it are neither here nor there.
There are more pressing issues.
Disinterested Bystander | 21.03.08 – 5:37 pm
Where are the BBC investigative journalists when you need them to look at Livingstone/Jasper.
The Today programme did do a series of investigative reports on grants made by Jasper etc. a few weeks back.
I see the BBC is going into overdrive over David Cameron and his cycling.
Funny that they didn’t do the same when all those Labour ministers were accused of having dodgy finances for their election campaigns for deputy leader.
Who was Peter Hain again and what did he do?
News 24 have just had that idiot Stephen Pound on (who got in a couple of jibes about Boris Johnson of course) doing a frame by frame account.
At least Cameron cycles, unlike backside wipes like McBean who talk bollocks about being Green then drive around in a massive gas guzzler.
God knows what the BBC will be like when we get to the next election if they think the “evil Torees” might win.
Jonah | 21.03.08 – 1:55 pm
Like many Brits my family’s first encounter with the phenomenon of terrorism took place in Palestine in the 1940s. You write:
When Muslims blow up people on trains and buses it is done not because the perpetrators happen to be Muslims, these acts of terror are done because they are Muslims.
True up to a point. But also it’s true that those who mounted terrorist atrocities in Palestine did so because they were Jews.
We did not conclude in the 40s that all Jews were terrorists because a few were. Why should we conclude that all (or most) Muslims are • as you seem to imply. Or perhaps more precisely • we did not conclude that terrorism was necessarily intrinsic to Judaism or Zionism. So why should we take the actions of a small number of the worlds Muslims as something completely permeating Islam?
But also it’s true that those who mounted terrorist atrocities in Palestine did so because they were Jews.
No, they did so because they were fighting the Brits for a variety of political reasons. They did not do so because somewhere in the Jewish scriptures it said that Jews should kill Brits. They did not commit terrorist acts because they were Jews.
We did not conclude in the 40s that all Jews were terrorists because a few were.
Quite, then even those few ceased to use terror tactics once they were taken seriously politically.
Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams ring any bells?
When will Muslims cease to carry out acts of terrorism? Under what circumstances?
Why should we conclude that all (or most) Muslims are • as you seem to imply. Or perhaps more precisely • we did not conclude that terrorism was necessarily intrinsic to Judaism or Zionism. So why should we take the actions of a small number of the worlds Muslims as something completely permeating Islam?
Please stop this ridiculous comparison between Islam and Judaism. As Bryan has pointed out you can count the number of Jewish terrorists on the fingers of one hand. See the link below and count the number of terror acts carried out in the name of Islam.
You know as well as anybody that Judaism does not promote terrorism while Islam does!
Why is there no Jewish equivalent of this website?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
List of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 2 Months
In 2007 Islam and Judaism’s holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days.
Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10
countries during this time… while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize.
John Reith | 21.03.08 – 6:49 pm | #
Funny that. My family’s first encounter with the phenomenon of terrorism took place in Jerusalem in the 1970s
It is interesting that you have some first hand experience of the area. But it also seems likely that yours has coloured your whole view of the conflict as perhaps mine has too.
Two family members went shopping in a market and were blown to pieces by an Arab terrorist bomb. But the point that I would make is that the Islamic faith has at its core a total intolerance of other religions and cultures, in fact of anything that is not Islam. Beyond that, the total hatred of the Jews is a fundamental part of Islam. It has no parallel in Jewish culture.
The Stern gang incident you refer to was at the time of the British Mandate when Holocaust survivors fleeing Europe were arriving at Haifa and were being beaten with rifle butts by British soldiers and forced back aboard ship to be returned to Europe.
I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists. There are clearly some Muslims who are intelligent, cultured and civilised people. There are also some who have the sense to put aside a faith which is deeply intolerant of anything other than Islam. What I am saying is that fundamental to that religion is a deeply entrenched hatred for the Jews which has no parallel in Judaism. It is this absolute intolerance and hatred which is perpetuated by indoctrination of the young and is at the core of Islam. This makes many British people rightly afraid of the growing presence and influence of Islam in this country.
True up to a point. But also it’s true that those who mounted terrorist atrocities in Palestine did so because they were Jews.
John Reith | 21.03.08 – 6:49 pm.
Pure, biased crap from you, Reith. Unsurprising since you work for the BBC.
When are you going to stop your sly attempts at moral equivalence between Jews and Muslims?
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1392349461276217268/#390729
I suppose you are trying to tell us that you don’t know that Islamic terror is aimed at establishing the Islamic Caliphate worldwide by infiltrating and subduing countries that pose no threat to Islam whereas Jewish guerrilla/terrorist actions in Palestine (e.g. the King David Hotel bombing) were aimed at thwarting the British attempts to stifle the birth of the state of Israel – which they were mandated to facilitate – by preventing Jewish immigration to Palestine from the ashes of the Holocaust and encouraging the Arabs to slaughter yet more Jews.
I am sorry that your family had an encounter with Jewish “terrorism” in Palestine. But that doesn’t give you the right to lie and distort the historical record as well as current events.
As I have said before, if Arabs had blown up the King David, site of British military headquarters, the BBC would have praised them to the skies as bold freedom fighters.
John Reith wants you to believe that “the toady show did a series of investigative reports on grants made by Grasper etc”.
Er, no John no! The toady show did a series of cover ups and justifications and dissembling of the truth.
The whole point of the ‘reports’ was to protect Livingslime and NuLabour and to attack Boris Johnson.
The toady show takes orders from NuLabour HQ and all the toady propagandists owe total loyalty to Gordon Brown and the NuLiebour elite.
when the toady jokers want to do a story they first clear it NuLabour and I truly think that they would be right at home working for julius streicher at Der Sturmer!
Link from Mel P to an article in Investors Business Daily.
“When a poll reveals all but a fraction of Palestinians support the murder of eight innocent Jewish seminarians, it shows a people wedded to evil. It’s a short trip from this hate to the kind Hitler espoused”
“The message we get from this is very clear: The vast majority of Palestinians advocate such acts of terrorism against young innocents because the victims were Jews.
Their version of the Final Solution may not entail gas chambers and concentration camps, as Germany’s National Socialists did in the last century. But it does apparently include murdering, at random, Jews because they are Jews. Not to say that there was not a clear political purpose behind the choice of target. The Mercaz Harav yeshiva is considered the flagship of the religious Zionist movement, the roots of which date back to a century and a half ago.”
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=290905719309261
Ben:
bodo, can you really not see why one would be slightly more important than the other?
——————————————————
Prime Minister picks his nose, smears bogies on tie, eats the rest.
Leader of the opposition rides bicycle wrong way round bollard.
Dunno – I’m struggling to rank them in order of ‘slightly more importance’. Is there anyone out there (who shills for a third-rate television/news channel) who can help me?
Martin:
I see the BBC is going into overdrive over David Cameron and his cycling.
What a contrast with last weekend.
Biggest Tory poll lead in 25 years – nothing on the BBC website front page or the BBC TV news. Story – what story?
Tory leader jumps a red light – top link most of the day on the website plus separate front page feature all day – and all day rolling TV news coverage obviously. Biggest story since errr…. yes – Derek Conway!
Dave’s cycling shame only interrupted occasionally to remind us that Conway is a crook – even though he can’t be prosecuted.
Nothing this week about the league tables of MP’s exorbitant expenses being totally dominated by Conwayesque Labour members of course:-
http://www.order-order.com/2008/03/analysis-of-mps-expenses-shows-labour.html
joe bonanno | 21.03.08 – 8:55 pm | #
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/21/ncameron121.xml
The Tory leader was photographed by the Daily Mirror, riding the wrong way up a one-way street, going the wrong way round a “Keep left” bollard, and crossing the white line at a red traffic light.
He was also seen riding across a toucan crossing for cyclists and pedestrians while the signal was red.
According to the paper, the incursions all occurred during Mr Cameron’s 30-minute bike ride from his home in Notting Hill, west London, to the House of Commons.
The pictures are an embarrassment for the Conservative leader, who has made much of his enthusiasm for cycling to underscore his “green” credentials.
In a statement, he said: “I know it is important to obey traffic laws – but I have obviously made mistakes on this occasion and I am sorry.”
Vs
Prime Minister picks his nose
Now, obviously not the biggest of news, but still struggling?
Ben: Bike Vs Bogey, which is more important?
But it’s not an ‘either/or’ problem is it?
Both stories are of public interest – they are about the personal standards of our leading politicians – but I’m sure people will disagree on which is more important.
The sensible thing would be for the BBC to report both. So why didn’t they?
bodo | 21.03.08 – 9:21 pm | #
You think Brown picking his nose is remotely newsworthy?
Incidentally, the Telegraph seem to agree with me in both cases. Guess they are biased against Cameron too.
Ben:
bodo | 21.03.08 – 9:21 pm | #
You think Brown picking his nose is remotely newsworthy?
Quite a lot of people do – apparently it was the most watched British political Youtube video of all time.
http://www.order-order.com/2008/03/guido-is-on-beach.html
Once more the appallingly gross tastes of the lower orders cause much wrinkling of refined beeboid noses.
I must be hell, having to make a living churning out drivel all day for such hoi polloi.
Never mind – won’t be for long after the next election.
I see the BBC is spinning more lies. On the 10 pm news in regards to the Passport records being accessed in the USA of the presidential candidates, the BBC (Justin tosspot Webb) basically accused the Republicans of doing it.
The fact that John McCain’s passport records were also accessed only “reduced” the suspicion.
Of course Webb produced no evidence for his claim. Not that that the lack of facts or evidence ever stops the good old Bum Bandit Corporation from telling a good lie.
Where does the BBC get such useless crap reporters from?
A small victory perhaps…
The BBC reported Bush’s speech on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion under the headline ‘Bush speech hails Iraq “victory”‘. Only trouble is he didn’t say that at all. The headline is based on very selective editing of Bush’s words, which also suggested that he ‘claimed victory’.
I blogged on it here:
http://monkeytenniscentre.blogspot.com/2008/03/bbc-accuses-bush-of-claiming-victory.html
Little Green Footballs picked it up and posted here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29345_BBC_Lies_About_Bush_Claiming_Victory&only
The BBC has now changed the headline, although the misleading sentence remains in the report, and the ‘Bush hails victory’ headline is still on the video clips.
Of course the Beeb’s commenters have already responded in typical fashion, with at least two calling for Bush and Blair to be hanged • and it’s a ‘fully moderated’ thread!
I have a follow-up post here:
http://monkeytenniscentre.blogspot.com/2008/03/bbc-changes-dishonest-bush-speech.html
Mike,
Good post, like it.
John Reith spins in grave
Worry not about the BBC spinning faster then you ever could about Cameron’s degree of cycling proficiency.
IMO this just won Cameron a few more thousand votes at least.
I do not for one second condone cyclists running red lights. IMO they should be made to hold 3rd party insurance and obtain a qualification to ride on London’s roads.
However the silly death wish fools all brake the highway code all of the time. If Cameron did not also he would make himself look even more like a public school boy tof then he already clearly is.
There is simply nothing the BBC can do to save this government from the abyss now. They have repeatedly shot there many bolts already over the last 20 years at least. No one pays any attention to the BBC anymore with the possible exception of paid brainwashed propagandists like Polly Toynbee.
Floating voters have already floated. Now, even life time Labour supporters are leaving the sinking ship in there thousands every day. NEVER TO RETURN I hope, then turning to the Lib/Dems for comfort. While Lib/Dems are turning to the Conservative Party for salvation.
Cameron will win big time in my opinion. Which is the same opinion I had as soon as I heard Cameron’s first big conference speech. He is not just clever he is a sublime politician, that could charm the birds from the trees.
The question is.
Can Cameron save this country from corporate fascism, or at least make life in Briton tolerable again for almost all, if he can not?
I will vote Tory as I have for in every election since and including 1979. Attended countless conferences and delivered thousands of leaflets. but I can not even start to answer my own question.
Because I truly do believe we have gone far too far down the road to a Marxist/Fascist totalitarian undemocratically accountable one world government hell and so only a bloody miracle can save us now.
If it helps my father used to say the same things back in the seventies. He died in 83 so did not live long enough to see the apparent miracle.
However the seeds of our destruction were still being sown during even the Thatcher years. As the miracle could only be sustained as long as socialism never took hold of the system again. Which one day it inevitably had to.
We now do not have controlled corporatism with a nice balance of free market capitalism and traditional conservatism thrown in.
We have almost in your face socialist fascism without yet the jack boots and concentration camps.
Disinterested Bystander | 21.03.08 – 5:37 pm
Where are the BBC investigative journalists when you need them to look at Livingstone/Jasper.
The Today programme did do a series of investigative reports on grants made by Jasper etc. a few weeks back.
John Reith | 21.03.08 – 6:37 pm |
jr
You have me at a disadvantage here, but then again you knew that, me being 3 times further away from London than Moscow is.
Apart from BBC World I only see the website.
But you know very well the point I am making.
Be that as it may I’m prepared to forgive you for old time’s sake.
The ghost of TPO is resurrected.
So Stinchcombe is allowed to say twice that Iraq was a “Bush and Sharon” war, and Paxman leaves that unchallenged. And he wasn’t talking about Sharon Osbourne.
No wonder so many Brits think the Jews call the shots if former Labour MPs can say things like this on Newsnight and the vaunted Paxman let’s it slide.
David Preiser
The BBC will let people say anything they want about who’s war The Iraq war is, as long as it is not the real truth.
Could this be because the truth is that the Iraq war is for interests far closer to home then Israel or the USA?
Having said that you do a disservice to Jewish people by relating so automatically The State of Israel with Jewish people, when the two things are clearly not the same thing.
Please remember that not only do more Jews live outside Israel then in it. Most of the really important Zionist are not even Jewish. They are Roman Catholics other Christians, and people of distant Jewish decent. Like myself.
The priest Michael Ainsworth and his wife Janina, who were attacked by “Asian youths” speaks out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/21/do2102.xml
Anon:
Michael Ainsworth and his wife Janina, who were attacked by “Asian youths” speaks out:
Time to visit Specsavers again. It’s an entirely personal opinion by another clergyman, whose views are contrary to the published opinions of the Ainsworths. He doesn’t even quote them…
Why has BBC been telling the story about the passports of the 3 USA candidates. what’s so important about this, its so petty yet I have heard it on the news constantly.
Under BBC headline:
“Afghan Pop Idol winner declared”
there is this BBC euphemistic comment on presentday Afghanistan: …
“criticism of the talent show is a reminder of how traditional and conservative the country remains…”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7309029.stm
You mean this?:-
“Afghan Motoons/ Fitna protesters: ‘Death to Denmark’, ‘death to the Netherlands’, ‘death to America’, ‘death to the Jews'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020410.php
‘Today’ programme, 22 March –
Jim Naughtie yet again being ‘economical with the truth. In the piece he introduced about Tibet, he said the Dalai Lama “lost control of the government [of Tibet] in 1959.” He certainly well knows (as do these rest of us) that the Chinese government invaded the country that year and institgated a violent repression. The Dalai Lama did not “lose control of the government”, he was forced to flee for his life. Jim Naughtie’s extraordinary choice of words can only mean that he wants to visit China again as a BBC reporter, and wants to avoid any chances of being banned. This bit of shocking journalist sleight-of-hand looks like blatant self-interest to me.
Bryan | 21.03.08 – 8:00 pm
Galil | 21.03.08 – 7:35 pm
When are you going to stop your sly attempts at moral equivalence between Jews and Muslims?
Don’t you think they are morally equivalent, Bryan?
I see. You think Jews are ‘morally superior’. Superior to Christians too, I suppose?
Just as Galil believes Muslims have a monopoly on terror.
Well, we don’t have to back to the King David Hotel bombing to find examples of terrorism where Jews were the perpetrators.
As we know, there have been a number of attacks on buses in Israel by Palestinian terrorists.
And there was this one in August 2005 by a Jewish terrorist against Israeli Arabs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/international/middleeast/05mideast.html?scp=30&sq=kahane&st=nyt
Morally equivalent? Absolutely.
Many of us are particularly revolted by terrorist attack on school buses and when otherwise deliberately directed at children.
In April 2002, Israeli police arrested a former Kach spokesman in connection with an attempt to leave an explosive-packed trailer outside a Palestinian girls school and hospital in East Jerusalem, but experts say the plot was arranged by individuals affiliated with another Jewish extremist group that is not affiliated with Kach or Kahane Chai.
http://www.cfr.org/
Morally equivalent? Yes.
I happen to believe that both Judaism and Islam are wrong about a lot of things and that their moral systems are both inadequate. I believe Christianity is the one wholly true religion and has the best moral system
But I do not think that that means the average – or any given – Christian will be a more moral person than a random Jew or a random Muslim.
Your stance on this Bryan is surely indistinguishable from plain old-fasioned racism?
BBC being a bit quiet on this one.
“Meanwhile, a senior member of the DUP in Derry has questioned what the journalists were doing in Co Donegal. Gregory Campbell asked the BBC to explain their guidelines.
He said: “I would like to hear the BBC expand on that and say what it was exactly they [the journalists] were doing.
“They need to: A, explain what their guidelines are and B, explain the activities of the camera crew when gardaí took steps against them.” He added: “It’s all very well for them to say they have guidelines but the public need to know what these are.”
http://tiny.cc/OVoQH
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7303436.stm
I happen to believe that both Judaism and Islam are wrong about a lot of things and that their moral systems are both inadequate. I believe Christianity is the one wholly true religion and has the best moral system
John Reith | 22.03.08 – 12:22 pm |
Anat, Bryan and the rest. If you had any doubts about what hides behind superior condescending attitude BBC has towards Israel. I think this ends the discussion.
Any other BBC people care to comment on this?
I happen to believe that both Judaism and Islam are wrong about a lot of things and that their moral systems are both inadequate. I believe Christianity is the one wholly true religion and has the best moral system
John Reith | 22.03.08 – 12:22 pm |
Also, JR you happen to work for an organization that bashes Christianity all the time, giving a free pass only to Islam.
I’m not religious in any shape and form. Agnostic if not and atheist, but you must admit that the BBC has double standards here.
JR, all terror acts (against civilians) are reprehensible. Whether it is IRA, Kach, ETA, Hamas or Al-Qaeda.
However on a strictly strategic level, at this point in history, the sheer support of terror by many religious leaders in Islam and the tacit (e.g. Saudi) or open (e.g. Iran) support by many Islamic regimes is a global problem, as Western security services budget allocation to tracking Islamic extremism certainly indicates. Thousands of terror attacks occurred throughout the world in the past 20-30 years as a result of a combination of a radical nihilistic ideology with Islamic state sponsored propaganda and billions in oil revenues.
You, painting people as racist because they suggest this is less than honest.
However, like Anat I do agree with your definition of terrorism has to include the fact that civilians are targeted.
Targeting military is not terrorism.
BTW, by that definition alone your painting of King David’s hotel bombing by Jewish terrorists is not terrorism – as it was a British Army HQ.
However, they were branded terrorists by mainstream Jewish movements in Palestine. Contrary to your opinion and personal grudge towards Jews in Palestine this is not an acceptable tactics for most Jews and it never was.
Is someone from the BBC saying here that Islam and Judaism is morally the same?!
Bryan | 21.03.08 – 8:00 pm
Galil | 21.03.08 – 7:35 pm
When are you going to stop your sly attempts at moral equivalence between Jews and Muslims?
Don’t you think they are morally equivalent, Bryan?
Clarification time. I’m usually careful with words but I was posting in anger. I meant to say “no equivalence between Jews and Muslims when it comes to terror.” Obviously there are normal, everyday Muslims around with no apparent links to terror. I have met quite a few since I live in Israel and work with them. Good, friendly people.
Now I see from your post that you really believe that there is an equivalence. So terror/guerrilla actions by Jews against the British who were doing everything they could to strangle the state of Israel at birth and facilitate the slaughter of Jews by Arabs is equivalent to the ongoing terror by Muslims worldwide against the people of countries that pose no threat to them in order to establish their Caliphate?
Some idea of morality you have, Reith. And again, you have to go back years to find a Jewish terrorist while there is probably yet another terrorist act committed by Muslims in their long and bloody trail of terror as I write this.
Your bitterness and one-sided attitude has disqualified you as a journalist unless you are able to divorce your bias from your work, which I seriously doubt. It’s evident that the Bowens and Jim Muirs and Jon Leynes and countless others of the BBC hold similar attitudes of moral blindness when it comes to this conflict. So which BBC hack are you, Reith? Do tell, so we know whom we are dealing with the next time you inflict yourself on the public.
Old-fashioned racism? I suppose you mean “faith hate” since Muslims are not a race. No, I’ll leave racism up to the “journalists” at the BBC.
Good posts there anonymous.
In Reith’s and the BBC’s morally inverted universe the King David bombing, in which civilians were killed but which targeted the British military and was preceded by three warnings, is a terrorist attack on a par with Islamic terror attacks on civilians – after which Muslims dance in the streets in delight and hand out sweets to children.
Now we see that Reith regards himself as following a morally superior religion to Judaism. Strange that, coming from someone with such evident problems with his moral compass.
And I also wonder how Reith can reconcile being a Christian with working for an organisation that bows to Islam to the extent that it shrinks from naming Islamic terror.
A clarification for the BBC on its ‘moral equivalence’:-
“Fitzgerald: Pseudo-symmetries and moral equivalences”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009586.php
Anonymous | 22.03.08 – 1:35 pm
this is not an acceptable tactics for most Jews and it never was.
And I think you’ll find that most Muslims would say that the tactics of Al Qaeda are not acceptable to them and never will be.
Those who are hell bent on establishing a Caliphate represent only a tiny proportion of the world’s Muslims – just as Kahane Chai and its offshoots represent only a tiny minority of Israelis and a tinier minority of Diaspora Jews.
As for the King David bombing – I only mentioned that in passing to dismiss it from current consideration. What I did mention were rather more recent terrorist activities.
Since Bryan has glided insouciantly over these, I take it that he has no problem with the shooting-up of civilian buses, the bombing of girls’ schools and considers Baruch Goldstein’s Hebron massacre as entirely justified.
Yet he presumes to lecture me on moral relativism!
Bryan also clearly needs lessons in history:
guerrilla actions by Jews against the British who were doing everything they could to strangle the state of Israel at birth …
Britain was not trying to strangle the State of Israel at birth…. in any case the King David bombing took place about 2 years before the State of Israel even existed.
He should also compare the Jewish population of Palestine in 1921 with the Jewish population of Palestine in 1947. Then check out the percentage of land owned by Jews in 1921 and compare it to that in 1947.
These figures don’t support his newest attempt to justify plain murder – that the British had somehow failed to meet their mandate responsibilities in terms of facilitating Jewish immigration or the establishment of a Jewish national home.
John Reith | 22.03.08 – 3:04 pm
You’ve been answered on the other thread while you are revealing the BBC’s “pro-Israel” attitude on this one.
So which biased BBC hack are you Reith? Paul Adams, perhaps – the one who expressed his contempt for Israel in a cowardly fashion by maintaining that it’s the attitude of UN personnel rather than his own? Or perhaps Alan Little – who came up with his Inside the Red Cross series wherin he couldn’t resist portraying the Gaza Red Crescent as battling oppression by Israel? Or Alan Johnston, who, doing the bidding of his Hamas masters, hid the long post-biblical history of Jews in Gaza?
You are the one in serious need of a history lesson. You pick the facts from history that suit your prejudices and hide the others. So the girl’s school was actually bombed was it? What a sly propagandist you are, Reith.
These figures don’t support his newest attempt to justify plain murder – that the British had somehow failed to meet their mandate responsibilities in terms of facilitating Jewish immigration or the establishment of a Jewish national home.
No, not murder. Attacks on the British military. And you know very well that the British were doing everything they possibly could to prevent the establishment of Israel – from limiting Jewish immigration to a trickle, turning back ships with desperate Jewish refugees from Europe aboard and bolstering the Arabs. But you are too much of a hypocrite to admit it.
Actually Reith it’s no wonder the BBC is in the state it’s in with people like you aboard.
What kind of an insidious, deviously-worded sentence is this from one John Reith?: –
“I think you’ll find that most Muslims WOULD SAY that the TACTICS of Al Qaeda are not acceptable to them and never will be.” (Caps. added.)
1.)Where, in actuality, are the global demonstrations by Muslims who supposedly WOULD SAY, but don’t say, in numbers how anti-Islamic Al Qaeda is? The murderer, Bin Laden is popular in Islam. Instead, The Umma gets up a sweat about Western cartoons more than it does Al Qaeda’ mass murders.
2.)And Mr. Reith is only putting up for questioning the ‘TACTICS’ of Al Qaeda. Deviously, he doesn’t suggest that the Umma should publicly oppose the IMMORALITY of Al Qaeda’s ISLAMIC JIHAD. This raises the issue of the extremism in Islam:
“What does ‘tiny minority of extremists’ mean?” (Hugh Fitzgerald).
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/2143
And I think you’ll find that most Muslims would say that the tactics of Al Qaeda are not acceptable to them and never will be.
John Reith | 22.03.08 – 3:04 pm |
JR, Are you really that thick. It is not about Muslims (which are not a race) as individuals. Just like it is not about Jews as individuals.
It is about a radical ideology spread by the Saudis, Iranians and others propped by oil revenues. Call it Islamism. Just like Communism was in the last century. And it is a danger to global stability and security.
Just for a second try to see through a red haze. I’ll try to point to you once and for all the fallacy of your “racism” battle cries against people on this board:
Take for example Adam Godahn, who originally Jewish, converted to Islam under the guidance of some very radical Imams and joined Al-Qaeda.
The fact that he was born ethnically Jewish and might have even been religious is irrelevant, until he was radicalized by various Imams.
In the 50’s and 60’s of the last century he might have turned into a Communist (as many did).
Islamism and Communism are ideologies.
Only that Islamism is based in Islam, while Communism, like Fascism was not based in religion (later was based in ethnicity).
Nazi’s were German ethno-Fascist. Who were you fighting in WW2? You were fighting Nazi’s, but you were also fighting Germans and you had to firebomb them into submission.
Was this anti-German. Of course it was! Large swaths of German population were under the spell of the National Socialist religion.
Today, you don’t need to fight Kachane Jewish terrorism, because in the state of Israel it is a recognized terrorist organization and more people are allocated (per capita) to tracking it than to Hamas. There is an entire division of Shin Bet that deals only with Jewish terror organizations.
Just like Scotland Yard is tracking various Marxist or fascist nuts in Britain.
On the other side, radical imams are spread throughout the world, and receive training (tacit or open) from various Islamic regimes. Saudis are actively funding, training, building mosques and providing literature to radicalize people.
Much like the Soviets in the 50’s, Saudis and Iranians, are spreading their ideology, through rhetoric, training (brain-washing), weapons (Hezbollah), finances (radical mosques are popping up at a much higher rate than any other houses of worship of minorities). They also view “demographic bomb” as a weapon (much like the Irish did against Britain).
As I said some of their ideology is spread to converts to Islam (like Adam Godhan), but regular Muslims are easier to reach.
Just in case you didn’t know, in the Balkans, Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims were predominantly Sufi. Throughout the 80’s Saudis financed building of 2500 mosques (originally there were 80).
People don’t want to see this, but events in the 80’s facilitated Milosevic’s rise to power on an ethno-fascist platform to protect the Serbs.
Today a lot of Bosnian Muslims are Wahabi. And some of the recent terror cells captured in Europe were from Bosnia. Kosovar Albanians were plotting to blow up an Army base in the US last year – the same US that saved them from the Serbs and granted them asylum.
To sum this up:
Just like German ethnicity was a conduit for the rise of Nazism, so is Islam a conduit for the rise of Islamism.
I think most people in the west understand that Islam is just a conduit for a radical ideology.
But Left’s fallacy in the story is the same one they made with the Communism. Throughout the Cold War Left was trying to create a moral equivalence between the West and the Communist world (which killed during the same period 200 million people).
With radical Islam, the Left, in order to create moral equivalence is trying to frame it as a religious conflict and not as a conflict of ideologies.
It is the Western liberal democracy against the radical (Islamist) ideology (that subdues women, kills their own by tens of thousands, etc)
Furthermore, to create moral equivalence, you JR, like most of the Left need to denigrate Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism to the point of equivalence not to Islam, but to radical Islam.
Thus you go through history and dig various atrocities that other religions committed, as if it is all relevant as to why there was 9/11 or 7/7 or Bali, or Mumbai, …