You have to laugh at it all really. Yesterday the BBC reported on the attendance of Robert Mugabe at the UN Food Conference in Rome without managing to consider how it it that the UN could invite a man to such an event who starves his own people to death. EU compliance with the Mugabe jamboree was similarly ignored by the BBC itself. Today, the BBC reports the good news that at a meeting in Saudi Arabia the Islamic Development Bank said it would spend $1.5bn (£760m) over five years to help the least developed Muslim countries tackle the food crisis. If only the decadent west could follow the good example shown by the Islamic world, right? The BBC loves one thing more than an African tyrant and that is a gaggle of Islamic tyrants.
TYRANTS AND THE RELIGION OF PEACE.
Bookmark the permalink.
The Islamic Development bank is helping muslim countries, and ONLY muslim countries. Yes, let’s copy and assist non-muslim countries only. Seriously, that is what I want but what would that make me in the BBC’s eyes?
Any chance of a new genreal thread?
Mr Vance:
Today, the BBC reports the good news that at a meeting in Saudi Arabia the Islamic Development Bank said it would spend $1.5bn (£760m) over five years to help the least developed Muslim countries tackle the food crisis.
Excellent. It’s the 13th paragraph of 24 summarising the food conference.
It’s a single paragraph. No mention of good news or any other praise or condemnation.
It’s not the lead, or the headline, or emphasised in any way.
If only the decadent west could follow the good example shown by the Islamic world, right?
If you say so. But the BBC doesn’t.
The BBC loves one thing more than an African tyrant and that is a gaggle of Islamic tyrants.
Or to put it another way. The BBC can’t mention in passing one of your many betes noires – the EU, the UN, Muslims – without you going postal.
Perhaps we could consider a paragraph that the BBC always has to place in any story which mentions these and other objects of hatred.
Something like:
The BBC recognises that a tiny minority of viewers/listeners/readers cannot see these words without spewing bile. We wish to make it clear that (insert object of hatred here) is (insert abusive phrase here) and we are holding our noses while we report on it. But sometimes a news organisation has to cover entities it’s not in love with. Honestly.
.
Well it was certainly mentioned in the 8:00am headlines on the Today programme. I did wonder why we were being told this.
It got a little slot about third or fourth into the 7am bulletin. No context at all – like how much the Saudis will be taking from the poorest states in extra oil revenue over the next 5 years.
Allan – I know what you’re getting at but the simple fact is that with the exception of Haiti and possibly Burma, Laos, Bolivia and Paraguay, the poorest countries are pretty well all Muslim countries, and we’d be failing in our Christian duty of charity to ignore the fact.
Phil,
Exactly – poor Hillhunt needs to keep up with the pro-Islamic propaganda spewed out by his dear BBC friends. I too heard the 7am news and the priority given to our Islamic friends.
Mr Vance:
I too heard the 7am news and the priority given to our Islamic friends.
Another excellent point. But your posting was aimed at roasting BBC Online for including a single paragraph half-way through a 24-para piece.
I did wonder why we were being told this.
Possibly because the news is focussed on the world food conference and a donation of that scale is, well, newsworthy.
No context at all – like how much the Saudis will be taking from the poorest states in extra oil revenue over the next 5 years.
Good point. Shall we start the campaign now to insist that all coverage of British, or American, activities in the Third World should contain a paragraph or two revealing how much money we earn from selling their leaders weapons?
.
Y-e-e-e-s
Golly, why didn’t I think of that, silly me?
Add in the Chinese of course, and the Russians, whose only successful international brand is the Kalashnikov. And the North Koreans selling nukes…
Hillhunt,
Nice try but wrong yet again. I listened to the 7am but since I can’t link to it, I merely took the reference from the on-line. I guess not everyone listens to Today. The point remains that the BBC shills for the ROP at every opportunity and the majoritt of people here can see it. That you have such poor vision makes me wonder if you wear a Burqa? Wonder what the collective noun for a group of dhimmis is – a Koran? Sharia Finance may ring your bell, it revolts me.
The point about us selling weapons to Third World states is another old canard.
Western military equipment is simply too expensive and complicated for most states to buy. Granted – some rich Arab states do buy our expensive kit.
But the weapons actually USED by combatant states and groups is nearly all old Soviet pattern, supplemented sometimes by stuff from other producers, such as Brazil, South Africa, Israel, India.
Wonder how much per annum the Saudis spend on our kit? And how that compares with the £150 million a year it’s putting into this newsworthy initiative?
It’s not called the Religion of Peace for nothing, you know.
To be fair to the BBC they did quote the Aussie PM saying the exact same about Mugabbe as highlighted in David Vance’s post.
It isn’t very noble of the Islamic Development bank to help only the least developed Muslim countries. Should the west single out the starving and decide only to give to those who are not Muslims, could you imagine the outcry?
ZIMBABWE — From Bread Basket to Basket Case in 28 Years…
Yet another triumph of socialism!
Has anyone noticed the links on the page to families affected by food shortage. Six families from the world over, and the only one who has not changed their buying habits are the British family.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/7287793.stm
Disgraceful bias.
Phil | 03.06.08 – 10:33 am
You may wonder……The BBC is not even curious, strange that for such a global news organisation with thousands of staff and a fair few pounds to splash around.
Well, you can’t really expect the BBC to be curious about everything, as they always point out.
Wonder how that £150 million pa compares with the aid the UK provides to poor Islamic countries? Not counting the blood and treasure we’ve spent establishing a viable government in Afghanistan, that is. I’d be interested to know.
For purposes of comparison, I reckon it’s about 1/22nd of what the Beeb costs us tellytaxpayers. Maybe a couple of cable channels? 25 Jonathon Rosses? Put that way it’s not all that much.
the poorest countries are pretty well all Muslim countries, and we’d be failing in our Christian duty of charity to ignore the fact.
Phil | 03.06.08 – 9:22 am | #
Phil, these coutries are poor BECAUSE they are muslim. They also consider monies received from the west to be jizya. Neither of these points would ever see the light of day on the BBC.
Good point.
Though I can’t imagine the Beeboids would be all that keen on these countries converting to Christianity, somehow.
Hillhunt
you are obviously trolling.
for instance -why doesnt the BBC criticise the muslim countries human rights abuses/beheadings/amputations/public hanging of gays etc etc in the interests of ‘balance’ – because i garuntee if america was pushing forward a food programme,the BBC would “balance” [imbalance] it with a mention of gitmo/katrina/iraq/bush/afghanistan.
Get back under your bridge.
Spot the caring Muslim donor, just how rotten the West is, and particularly the BBC hate figure the U.S.
If only Christian countries were as generous.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-doners-of-foreigner-aid-map.html
Mr Vance:
The point remains that the BBC shills for the ROP at every opportunity and the majoritt of people here can see it.
Since when is a single paragraph in the middle of 24 shilling? Are you not effectively saying that the BBC should only report any Muslim-based news story in terms that disparage the religion and its followers?
.
Hillhunt | 03.06.08 – 12:08 pm
Why not? they do it for Christian based stories.
Am I the only one who can’t see anything in the linked article about Islamic bank?
“the poorest countries are pretty well all Muslim countries” Phil 03.06.08 – 9:22 am
Pure fiction.
Really annoying when this sort of myth is posted and believed.
Precise figures of poverty at the low end are hard to come by, and what is used as a measure can cause some variance, but they are most definitely not nearly all muslim.
Majority
C Christian
M muslim
I Indigenous (animist etc)
NM No majority
The CIA lists the 6 poorest as Malawi(C), Somalia(M), Comoros (M), Solomons(C), Congo(C), Burundi(C).
Infobase has Sierra Leone(M), Tanzania(NM), Burundi(C), Malawi(C), Ethiopia(NM) and Niger(M).
The world bank has it Burundi(C), Ethiopia(NM), Congo(C), Liberia(I), Malawi(C), Guinea-Bissau(I).
I hasten to add I understand why people believe its all muslim countries are poorest because there is a concerted campaign to make us believe it as they play the victim card.
Actually the evidence does not bear out that being a muslim country makes you any more or less likely than a christian, animist or atheist country to be amongst the poorest.
Bye bye to that victim card.
Ooops! Thanks for that BJ. Fine collection of hell-holes there.
Interesting that this Islamic development story hasn’t made it onto the Mid-East section of the BBC website, despite it having managed to be a leading item on the 7am news. Surely the Beeboids know that effective propaganda needs to be orchestrated? Left hand, right hand and all that.
Hillhunt,
My point is that the BBC consistently fails to provide a BALANCED view of Islam. I appreciate that there are those who think it to be a perfectly valid faith. But since it also just happens to be the terrorists religion du jour, I see no reason why the BBC cannot mention, for example, that the Islamic Development Bank restricts help to Islamic nations. This helps provide context. Why is it left it of the BBC partial report?
BaggieJonathan | 03.06.08 – 12:41 pm
Wow. When I saw your list showing Sierra Leone as Muslim, I did a double take.
I always thought SL was Catholic. When I was a kid we had neighbours from Sierra Leone and they were Catholic.
So I googled and found this astonishing fact:
in 1960 the Muslim population was 35 percent and grew to 60 percent by 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Sierra_Leone
Looks like Mark Steyn is right.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
David Vance:
My point is that the BBC consistently fails to provide a BALANCED view of Islam.
They also (like so many of the ignorant MSM) constantly refer to the “prophet” Mohammed.
No… he’s a prophet to Muslims, but he sure ain’t a prophet to me, or to Jews and Christians and Hindus.
Now if they don’t want to make the distinction that he’s a “muslim prophet,” then for consistency, every time they mention Christ they should suffix it with “Jesus: the son of God,” because that’s what Christians believe.
They never refer to Shiva as a “God,” they refer him as a Hindu God.
This is not a small thing by the way.
It just demonstrates that the BBC and the MSM will bend over to accommodate Islam — but then Islam means “submission,” so they’re just getting a head start.
My point is that the BBC consistently fails to provide a BALANCED view of Islam.
Blame that on the government of the day. Extremists are to be given counselling care of millions to the taxs payer,
http://dailynewspaper.co.uk/
T0 think that the terrorists in NI lost out in this…amazing!
I hate Muslims too.
You mean as well as everyone that doesn’t share your myopic world view? Yeah, you’re a typical lefty: brimming with hatred. There’s probably some medication you can take for that though. Keep your chin up.
Whooa!! I’m back!
Banned for I don’t know what, it seems deviating from the Vance line is strictly prohibited. It’s OK to threaten to bomb TV Centre but woe betide anyone who dares disagree with DV.
Mr Vance:
I appreciate that there are those who think it to be a perfectly valid faith. But since it also just happens to be the terrorists religion du jour…
Excellent. Every story about Catholicism should be followed by a reminders that the Provos were left-footers; Hindu stuff needs a health warning about the Tamil Tigers and so on.
… I see no reason why the BBC cannot mention, for example, that the Islamic Development Bank restricts help to Islamic nations.
Even though it did make clear that the money would be going to Islamic nations…
Interesting pattern developing here, though. The reasons you now give are not those in the original post. There you complain that the BBC’s real intention is this message:
If only the decadent west could follow the good example shown by the Islamic world, right?
Which is not the same thing at all.
And not what the BBC were saying.
But the crux of this is your assumption that the whole point of a 24-paragraph story about developments around the food conference was the single line half-way down about a Saudi charitable initiative. It shows a telling distaste for any news about the Islamic world which does not fit your presumptions, even though that news is given a minor billing.
And it shows that where there is bias, it’s all yours…
.
Oh dear
Joel, that doesn’t look too good for dissenting opinion from a dissenter who censors dissenters??
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 03.06.08 – 1:25 pm
They never refer to Shiva as a “God,” they refer him as a Hindu God.
Maybe that’s
1. Because Shiva is just one of many Hindu gods, so ‘a Hindu god’ is perfectly correct.
2. Because ‘Allah’ is just the Arabic word for God (ie the smae God worshipped by Christians and Jews) not the name of some rival god.
I don’t think Islam has the Holy Trinity, so I doubt it’s exactly the same God as the Christians. Or the Jews for that matter.
I’ve copied this from elsewhere:
The courageous campaigner Ghada Jawsheer has lifted the lid on sexual abuse of women and children by the Religion of Peace.
http://terror-watch.net/media/womans_rights_islam.wmv
From about 4 mins into the video she describes the incredibly disgusting practice of ‘mufa khathat’ . Apparently most Muslim toddlers have this done to them by their fathers and other male relatives, who see nothing wrong with the ‘traditional cultural practice’. No wonder they grow up to be nutters.
Joel,
I have not banned you so whilst you luxuriate in imagined victimhood you might try getting your facts right. Would you like me to ban you?
Hillhunt,
You must have a VERY low opinion of Roman Catholics if you imagine that IRA killers were fiathful adherents to that faith. I take the view that Christianity and terrorism are mutually exclusive, whereas of course with Islam terrorism seems more to be an article of faith. As for your gallant defence of the DhimmiBeeb,who do you think you are kidding? The crux of the issue is that the BBC runs away from voicing any criticism of the UN, EU or Islam and THAT is the little reality that you close your eyes to.
Spider,
Not sure I care what a copycat tangled webber reckons.
Anonymous:
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 03.06.08 – 1:25 pm
Seeing you took the time to make unrelated comments about my post it’s apity you didn’t use it wisely to add illumination to my point.
Why does the BBC and the MSM refer to the “prophet” Mohammed, when it does not refer to, for example, Christ the son of God?
If you have nothing to add on that observation, what’s the point.
By the way, no one mentioned “allah” except you. So you asked and answered your own question but didn’t bother to answer mine.
How weird.
Mr Vance:
The crux of the issue is that the BBC runs away from voicing any criticism of the UN, EU or Islam and THAT is the little reality that you close your eyes to.
Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the BBC really is biased in that way, how does that justify the following false assertion based on a single paragraph halfway through a long story:
If only the decadent west could follow the good example shown by the Islamic world, right? The BBC loves one thing more than an African tyrant and that is a gaggle of Islamic tyrants.
The BBC said nothing of the sort and did not even hint at the kind of meaning you place upon it.
The parallel universe you inhabit asserts that no positive or neutral mention of Islam is tolerable.
It’s an excellent way of demonstrating your commitment to uncovering bias.
But not in the way you intend ….
.
I’m sorry, but if we’re not allowed to complain about one bit out of an entire article, then we will all be fools for ignoring something like the latest BBC article on the UN food crisis summit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7432583.stm
In the middle of the article, they segue into “In other developments at the summit.” It is mind-boggling that the BBC editors see fit to write things like this:
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe said the two key issues were “global warming and the use of agricultural commodities for the reproduction of biofuels”
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a leading US critic, cited “certain powers” and “invisible hands” as trying “to control prices to achieve their political and economic aims”
The third national leader mentioned was Brazil’s Lula da Silva, who has a legitimate reason to be on that stage. There is no reason whatsoever to even mention the other two, regardless of whether the vile UN saw fit to give them time at the podium. If anything, Mugabe should be forced to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on his head and made to write a report on what people are trying to tell him about not driving his own people into starvation. Ahmadimjihadi doesn’t have any world hunger bona fides either.
As far as I can tell, the foolish BBC sub-editor responsible for this mentioned these mumserim for two reasons: sheer laziness (dry regurgitation of easy details on who spoke, regardless of their importance or relevance), and a gentle nudge to show all of us that they’re not so bad after all. I mean, they, too, care about world hunger so we shouldn’t hate them so much and demonize them like we do on this biased blog of haters.
At least the Beeboid remembered to tell us that Ahmadimjihadi is “a leading US critic”. That has no relevance, but I guess some of us might not remember how special he is. I guess Mugabe isn’t important enough to get that badge of honor.
Even the New York Times can do a proper article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/world/04food.html?ref=world
If Bob the Butcher and Ahmadimjihadi’s contributions were so important, surely the Times would have found that news fit to print.
Muslim countries are not going to give large amounts of money to non Muslim countries without expecting something back. The BBC would instantly denounce any christian country that gave money on the basis of religion not need.
The big problem will come when they start giving money to Muslim regions of countries with mixed populations.
David P:
There is no reason whatsoever to even mention the other two, regardless of whether the vile UN saw fit to give them time at the podium.
Hang on. I thought Mr Vance felt the BBC wasn’t giving the UN enough brickbats for letting these disreputable blokes attend their Rome bash.
Now you want the fact they were given a platform – and clearly talked gibberish – to be wiped from the history books.
And as for a gentle nudge to show all of us that they’re not so bad after all. You jest, I’m sure.
.
Hillhunt | 03.06.08 – 5:57 pm |
Now you want the fact they were given a platform – and clearly talked gibberish – to be wiped from the history books.
That’s a false characterization of my words, and you know it. There is a difference between not bothering to report on meaningless contributions to an important summit and wiping them from the history books. I realize it’s more fun to play games, and you really do think we’re not intelligent enough to know the difference, but I won’t fall for it.
Regardless of DV’s contention about a previous article, this one is far worse.
And as for a gentle nudge to show all of us that they’re not so bad after all. You jest, I’m sure.
No, you do.
.
Oops! Ignore the dot above my name in my last comment. That’s an ironic error given the context, I admit, but unintentional.
“Because ‘Allah’ is just the Arabic word for God (ie the smae God worshipped by Christians and Jews) not the name of some rival god.
Anonymous | 03.06.08 – 2:59 pm”
No, it isn’t.
It is an argument frequently used but with little to do with the real world.
Most Christians would disagree.
Nearly all Jews would disagree.
And even most muslims would disagree!
Just two examples amongst many…
When I used my copy of the koran (the everyman edition) to point out some facts with a muslim who had ideas of converting me on the basis of his ‘holy’ book, he denounced it because it did not use allah to refer to god and he promptly produced a different translation which did exactly that, which made it ‘authentic’.
Many younger muslims in this country that are seemingly looser with their tongues often use ‘God’, ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as swear words, and they are very strict about blasphemy, they would not do this with ‘allah’ or ‘isa bin maryam’.
Because ‘Allah’ is just the Arabic word for God (ie the smae God worshipped by Christians and Jews) not the name of some rival god.
Anonymous | 03.06.08 – 2:59 pm
Tell that to Christians n Malaysia:
Malaysia Christians Challenge Ban on ‘Allah’
A church in Malaysia and a Christian weekly newspaper are attempting to sue the Malaysian government for banning them from using the word “Allah,” claiming that the ban is unconstitutional and violates freedom of religion.
Although “Allah” is the word for “God” in the Malay language, the government recently declared that the word refers to the Muslim god and can only be used by Muslims.
The latest decision by the government of predominantly Muslim Malaysia has added to concerns over the lack of protection of the rights of minorities in the country.
Malaysia, a country of around 25 million, is around 60 percent Muslim, 19 percent Buddhist, 9 percent Christian and 6 percent Hindu. Although the constitution of the country officially allows freedom of worship, in practice minority rights are often infringed.
The newspaper of the Catholic Church in Malaysia, The Herald, filed suit at the beginning of December following warnings that its permit could be revoked if it did not cease use of the word “Allah” in the Malay language section of its newspaper.
Read the rest.
See also:
“Allah” may mean “God” everywhere else, but not in Malaysia
Even the BBC covered the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7163391.stm
and http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/09/is-allah-god-continued.html
Of course there are always the appeasers:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57178
Because ‘Allah’ is just the Arabic word for God (ie the smae God worshipped by Christians and Jews) not the name of some rival god
Pure fantasy. Sometimes Muslims claim so, but this is totally disingenuous. The Koran specifically calls Jews pigs and monkeys. I await with bated breath your reply, with chapter and verse, showing where the Jewish God calls Jews pigs and monkeys.
Bio,
“Tiny Muskens, the bishop of Breda … ”
And rarely has a total asshole been more appropriately christened.
His brain is so tiny that he wants Dutch speakers to use the Arabic name.