Along with other eagle-eyed Biased BBC readers, I noted the BBC lead story at the moment which is entitled “Men planned explosions”. Mmm.. all sounds a bit vague, doesn’t it? I wonder why? Here’s a clue – the prosecutor said the men planned to inflict heavy casualties, “all in the name of Islam”.
THOSE MURDEROUS MEN AND THEIR FLYING MACHINES.
Bookmark the permalink.
Of course, it is wrong to say these demented people planned murder.
They planned to kill themselves while on an aircraft by using explosives, and if nobody else was on the plane and it was out over the Atlantic then it would be just suicide with destruction of property and (possibly) polluting the seas with unused fuel.
So it could hardly be called planning murder, could it?
‘…and if nobody else was on the plane and it was out over the Atlantic…’
Windy Blow | 04.04.08 – 7:29 pm |
On automatic pilot I presume?
Yours is one of the most amusing posts I’ve seen here in a long while.
TPO – I’m not sure you have followed the argument completely – I am not arguing for or against the inclusion of Muslim in the headline but the word ‘murder’. I actually suggested ‘in the name of Islam’ should go in the headline.
David’s equivalent of the Telegraph headline would be ‘Murderers made suicide videos’ rather than ‘Alledged bomb plotter made…’ – the first headline makes the guilt implict when we all know this is for the jury to decide.
In fact the Telegraph’s reporting is very close to the last beeb one I looked at, the only time murder is mentioned that I can see is ‘deny conspiracy to murder’. So thank you for reinforcing my point so ably.
JG – haven’t seen you around for a while – believe it or not but I agree (hence ‘Lucky him.’) political correctness will be replaced by social cohesion. Let’s hope not eh?
Windy Blow – are you the counsel for the defence?
TPO – I’m not sure you have followed the argument completely.
Sarah Jane | 04.04.08 – 8:19 pm |
I’ll throw my hands up to that one.
Apologies, little one is at home today and I’m trying to do some plumbing and rewiring on our new place with the odd moment taken to dip in here.
Not really much of an excuse, but I’m sure you’ll be magnanimous.
How about ‘Islamists alledgedly planned mass murder’
TPO | 04.04.08 – 8:33 pm
The dead-tree edition of the Telegraph this morning ran it as:
“British suicide bombers planned……..”
I must confess I jumped at the British, but I guess it’s accurate.
Still, I couldn’t help thinking what sort of ballyhoo we’d have had here if it had been the BBC who’d opted for ‘British’ over ‘foam-flecked Moozlum fanatics’ or whatever it is that Martin & co want us to call them.
Just want you to call them Muslims.
JG – haven’t seen you around for a while – believe it or not but I agree (hence ‘Lucky him.’) political correctness will be replaced by social cohesion. Let’s hope not eh?
Sarah Jane | 04.04.08 – 8:19 pm | #
Still here, just been lurking.
And nice to see you agree. but I really think this ‘social cohesion’ is worse than political correctness. PC comes from the mindset of the BBC staff, and can be changed by pressure from a number of sources, internally or externally (BBBC).
But the new SC requirement actually requires the BBC to alter its output from straight reporting to biased/no reporting. If a story has true facts that might mean that a part of the community is portrayed in a bad light, the SC requirement means that this story can no longer be put out in with its true facts.
SC requirements mean that straight reporting on some subjects is no longer allowed at the BBC. Bias is now a requirement of the BBC’s charter.
“Just want you to call them Muslims.”
Can’t do that, Arthur. The social cohesion and diversity monitors strike out the word with Orwellian efficiency.
They are re-writing history on the fly.
Good old BBC. Bullshitting the public. It’s what we do.
Sarah Jane: Where do you get this “Moderate Islam” crap from?
Chwck this out from your “Islamic friends”
http://www.davidmyatt.info/kaffir_myths.html
In light of the martyrdom videos shown at the trial, here’s a flashback to the thoughts of Azzam Tamimi, the terrorist-supporting media whore who makes regular appearances on the BBC as a commentator on all things Islamic: “I bet you it will turn out to be a hoax“
This is the same terror-friendly Tamimi the BBC seems so fond of. It inflicted him on an unsuspecting public during the Hamas-supporting Have “Your” Say, which I mentioned here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3032828703461241281/#392846
Oops, sorry. I read in haste. I see you did mention his cosy relationship with the BBC.
LAWRENCE AUSTER on the BBC’s extreme form of ‘politically correct’ reporting on this Court case:-
“However, for left-liberals or ‘openness’ liberals, such as President Bush, such phrases as ‘Islamist’ or ‘Islamo-fascist’ are not acceptable either, because, even though ‘Islamism’ and ‘Islamofascism’ are not the same as Islam, they still suggest some connection with Islam, and thus imply that at least a part of the Muslim population is not instantly and automatically assimilable to democracy, which would suggest that we cannot be equally open to all groups. So left-liberals refer to Islamic terrorists simply as ‘terrorists,’ removing from their rhetoric any link between Islam and terrorism.
“However, for some on the radical, anti-Western left, even ‘terrorists’ is too harsh, since it still amounts to singling out a defined group as the enemy of ‘us,’ implying that the enemy is ‘bad,’ and that ‘we’ are ‘good,’ or that ‘we’ are not equally as bad as the supposed enemy, or at least that we are not at fault for the ‘terrorist’ turning to terrorism. Also, since everyone knows that all the terrorists are in fact Muslims, to speak of ‘terrorists’ as the enemy still comes dangerously close to speaking of Islam as the enemy.
“So, given that the radical left, or at least the most politically correct sectors of the radical left, will not refer to Islamic terrorists as ‘Muslims,’ or as ‘Islamo-fascists,’ or as ‘Islamists,’ or as ‘terrorists,’ how can they refer to them?
“The answer is found in the following story that appeared yesterday at website of the BBC:-
” MEN ‘PLANNED AIRLINE EXPLOSIONS'”
Read on, at link below:
‘What the left calls the, uh, you know’
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010300.html
“Men planned explosions”
Atlast, the BBC has got around to mention the dreaded and unmentionable “M” word. They should be congratulated for their bravery in the face of “M..” fanaticism.
Sarah Jane posted: “Juries decide who are murderers and who are not, not journalists or bloggers.”
If this was a criminal act that would be fine, but it is not. What we are facing is a war, and a war that is being waged from within.
archduke at 12:15 am: “of course, the fuckers who allowed these criminal terrorists into the country in the first place will of course get off scot free…”
Too damened true. Not only get off, but they will be relaxing on a bumped up tax-payer funded pension and tax-payer funded security, while we will have to face the consequences of their liberal policy.
How about ‘Islamists alledgedly planned mass murder’
TPO | 04.04.08 – 8:33 pm | #
Sorry to come back to this one late, but didnt want to leave it hanging – I think eg the Telegraph headline is fine.
Are you suggesting the Telegraph headline is indicative of a liberal position? You know as well as I do that it is a news paper with high journalistic standards and that it plays the Contempt Laws with a pretty straight bat.
š