So, two men of Somali origin are arrested by police in Germany on a plane preparing to take off from Cologne-Bonn airport. They were said to be “possibly planning attacks” and had left suicide notes at their flats expressing their wish to die in a “holy war.” Mmmm, something missing though, isn’t there? Is it possible, do you think, that these two guys were followers of the Religion of peace and love? Might it just be conceivable they are Muslims? If we follow the BBC, we will never know!
THE “M” WORD
Bookmark the permalink.
I am puzzled about how Somalis ever got into Europe and Britain. Why were they allowed into Britain, given that we were never the colonial power and I would say 99.999999999999999 percent of members of the British public don’t have a lot of interest in whether they were being persecuted at home. Especially given that indigenous British are also being persecuted at home by a delusional, over-mighty and grotesquely inept government.
Anyway with a financial crisis round the corner, I look forward to seeing troop ships packed with Somali and Pakistani freeloaders headed off into the sunset to Dar-es-Salaam.
Verity,
They are here because all they have to do is turn up at Heathrow and demand asylum.
Its as simple as that.
Mailman
Radio 5 live did a short item about a group called the Centre for Muslim pluralism shortly before 5pm today. This, no doubt well meaning, organisation was thinking of outing imams who covered up cases of violent domestic abuse and marital rape. I believe it was Rachel Burden who asked the group spokesman if it was a cultural or religious thing. She was told that it was cultural and that it was backward imams coming from Pakistan or Saudi that were the problem.
He was being utterly disingenuous: the koran specifically allows wife beating and marital rape and this is orthodox Islamic teaching. If the BBC presenters weren’t so pig ignorant about the religion they constantly defend, they would have been aware that the group was in fact flying in the face of the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of their co-religionists.
The Koran is to all Muslims, the verbatim word of god and cannot be contradicted or altered.
see:
Chapter 4 verse 34 specifically allows, indeed, if all else fails, recommends the beating of disobedient wives. Imaginative translators of the Koran into English have sometimes attempted to reword this so that it looks less bad but they are flying in the face of 1400 years of practice.
The concept of marital rape is simply treated as unimaginable by the Koran: unless there are specifically ritual reasons for refusing, a wife must sleep with her husband whenever he so desires:
Sura (2:223) – “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” Wives are to be sexually available to their husbands in all ways at all times. They serve their husbands at his command. This verse is believed to refer to anal sex (see Bukhari 60:51), and was “revealed” when women complained to Muhammad about the practice. The phrase “when and how you will” means that they lost their case.
Call Poirot! Send for Miss Marple! Where’s Sherlock? Who could the “terror suspects” be?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7637226.stm
No “M” word here but the “I” word shows up in the 2nd last sentence, only to prove it wasn’t them, guv:
“Germany’s federal crime office said on Thursday it was hunting for two Islamic militants believed to be on their way to Germany. The arrests in Cologne are thought to be unconnected with that terror alert.”
So it’s not Islamic militants after all. Must be those Somali plumbers again.
The headline for this story on the main BBC news site earlier today referred to a “German terror attack” (not the exact wording, maybe someone can track it) which must have led many to wonder whether the Baader Meinhof gang was making a comeback.
jehovah witnesses?
quakers?
somali scientologists?
hmm.. yeah. its tough one.. i really cant figure this one one.
ah – i figured it out.
they’re plumbers.
Plumbers are waging this “Jihad” think against broken drainpipes, and are so mad about it they want to blow up airplanes.
its a war on drainpipes. has to be.
Mailman | 26.09.08 – 7:51 pm
its easier than that. they can claim asylum in italy, and thanks to the EU, the EU disperses the asylum seekers to other EU member states.
how else do you think that Ireland now has a Muslim “community”.
what the fuck has Ireland got in common with Islam? Ireland never invaded anyone… and now there’s a big debate over there about allowing the hijab in schools -thankfully the education minister has shot it down and told them to fuck off.
you can thank the EU for that. creating trouble where no trouble existed before.
Non-BBC emphasis in alternative report:
“Germany: Armed police storm passenger jet to arrest two jihadists who left suicide notes”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022849.php
If they were Muslims they were probably driven to committing a terrorist atrocity in reaction to Germany’s role in overthrowing Saddam & killing their brothers in Afghanistan.
Oops, seems that the BBC mantra doesn’t fit this case.
When the war started in 2003 I decided to learn about Islam (know thy enemy) and after reading numerous books about Islam, history religion etc, including the koran, in ’05 I joined “shiachat”, thinking to learn more about Islam from muslims. Boy did I learn more about Islam from muslims!
I surmised on my own that we, the west, are the Great Satan because we have seperated church and state.
I learned that the muslim community does not speak up against acts of violence becasue they are forbidden by the koran to speak against the “TRIBE” – muslims everywhere (I have forgotten the word).
The last straw for me, and I never went back to that sight and decided I had learned jsut about enough of Islam, was when a poster informed me of what “moderate Islam” plans to implement in the west, by being “moderate” – even while the poster informed me that there is no such thing as moderate Islam!
He was in Britain, I am sure it was a he. He said that muslims would use your laws to make you conform to their presence in your society and normalize their presence, and practices. Then, they would out populate you within two generations.
I still get the creeps, thinking about his tone, like a snake’s. It’ swhy I worry about the sausage rolls 🙁
Zen Buddhists. Got to be.
Verity
Britain has a long imperial past in somalia. Somalis are one of the oldest african communities in the UK. And i’d hope most british people care about persecution wherever it happens.
Anon 9:47
And when the gratitude these “persecuted” people show is to attempt to kill en masse???
Britain used to rule the northern part of what is now Somalia. The French had Djibuti, and the Italians had all the rest.
The ex-British part is now a self governing entity, calling itself Somaliland, which is apparently a well run and peaceful place. Needless to say we refuse to recognise it.
And i’d hope most british people care about persecution wherever it happens.
Anonymous | 26.09.08 – 9:47 pm |
I’m not British but I wish we’d persecute more muslim radicals / terrorists and deal with them accordingly.
My branch library in Birmingham doesn’t have many English-Foreign dictionaries, but it has an English-Somali one. B’ham still seems to provide all its forms in all the muslim languages. They’re not interested in integration (so many full walking black tents) , but they sure fill the maternity hospitals here.
“They’re not interested in integration (so many full walking black tents) , but they sure fill the maternity hospitals here.”
If they are not interested in being British, why are they there? Because they are interested in Britian becoming theirs, by majority.
Here we are fighting for our language. Hell, the tiolet paper package is written with Spanish alongside. I am learning Spanish without being concious of it!
What is very curious and disturbing is that we in the west have already survived our religious convulosions and figured out that religion and free society and advancment of society do not coincide. It isn’t even a matter of being tolerant, but of being accepting.
The west extends the religious acceptance we learned half a millenia ago for ourselves, to Islam, but Islam is not so evolved as we; the hand we extend is bitten.
And we must suffer with them and lose our own and I myself must send my dear husband to Iraq because they are unevolved in this regard.
D.G. has a point, “I’m not British but I wish we’d persecute more muslim radicals / terrorists and deal with them accordingly.”
Yes, exactly. Before their chaos sucks us all back to lessons we learned so long ago.
I think you are being unfair on the author of this one David.
Maybe they feel there is some reason they cannot explicitly mention the M word, but the clues to work out it are there in abundance.
In particular this bit:
“Germany’s federal crime office said on Thursday it was hunting for two Islamic militants believed to be on their way to Germany.
The arrests in Cologne are thought to be unconnected with that terror alert. ”
What is the point of mentioning the unconnected arrest unless it is to connect them.
This is a good example of one of the more intractable elements of the debate. I see that phrase as evidence of the oppressed but otherwise decent beeboid trying to tell it like it is, in the face of withering PC from on high. You see it as evidence that we all are trots/marxists/lefty-liberals*.
I doubt my POV on this will ever be accepted, but I have to throw that option in.
*OT: I am curious if every commentor here equates ‘liberal’ with ‘left’ in the US way?
For example here are some liberals who are not at all lefty; Boris Johnson, Margaret Thatcher, The Queen, Gen Sir Mike Jackson etc And plenty of leftys who are not at all liberal; Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc
Or when people say ‘liberal-lefty’ do they only mean those liberals who are lefty?
I’d like to think that on a site that attracts people of a libertarian mindset that this distinction still stands.
I expect Atlas Shrugged agrees, but what about anyone else? I bet even DV has a bit of closet classical liberal about him 🙂
I doubt the chatterati at Al-Beeb will be celebrating Islam when they have the flag flying over Downing street. They will eventually come knocking on the BBC’s door. Despite the years of dhimmitude the gays will be thrown from mountains and the women stoned for immodesty in accordance with the Koran.
If they are persecuted at home by other Moslems, why don’t the devout Moslem Somalis simply sail up the Red Sea to Suadi Arabia? It is a damned sight closer than Europe. There they can practice their religion without having to have dealings with Christian and Jewish pigs and monkeys.
The reluctance of the BBC to mention the word ‘muslim’ in news reports where it is very relevant is not that surprising.
We only have to remember the BBC reporter crying at Mr Arafat’s demise and the BBC’s refusal to publish the report we all paid for into its middle east reporting.
I want to read that report.
Anonymous – yet more evidence of the dichotomy that IMO exists. I would say that the real evidence of how an establishment organistion genuinely feels about a minority is perfectly demonstrated by the numbers of that minority it employs, and particularly in senior positions.
Does any commentor here believe that Muslims are over-represented in the BBC ranks in the way that some other minorities are?
So my experience is that the BBC acts one way, but gives the impression that it feels another way.
I do my best to defend the BBC, while remaining honest, but I feel this is a gap in perception that must be closed.
I want to read that report.
Pete | 26.09.08 – 11:22 pm | #
Pete – so do a lot of people at the BBC!
“The Islamic take on death is unique in that we have solid information, details and advice on preparing for the transition from this world to the next…this Main Event of our lives – our graduation to the Real World.”
I took that from the subject “Are we Dead Yet?” from shia chat.
So you see, they do not belive this world is real, and so they do not care if they wreck Britain while they are in it. Their bane is this world. The burden is to correc tthe sin in it and so earn heaven.
I don’t know what the women care about it, they are only worth one horse or four dogs per two women, and as Mohammed proclaimed – may his armpits crawl with lobsters – 99% of women go to hell.
Sarah Jane writes: ”
Maybe they feel there is some reason they cannot explicitly mention the M word…”
Are you saying, from your experience, that this is the case? You certainly seem to be, as you go on to mention the “..withering PC from on high…”
I’d be willing to believe there may be some pockets of resistance within the BBC (though my own contacts with the Corporation have never revealed any), but the point that intrigues me is your apparent conceding of the point about the BBC’s relentless editorial direction.
“I am curious if every commentor here equates ‘liberal’ with ‘left’ in the US way?”
Hi Sarah Jane: Right. Liberal + Left = Socialist.
Libertine stands on this truth: your rights end where mine begin/my rights end where yours begin.
Explain that to a lefty or a muslim.
Sarah jane
Liberal -Left is probably an imprecise term for a mindset that is neither liberal nor left as these terms used to be understood. To me it is a description of those who have merged themselves into a group mind and without the necessity for censorship adhere to a group viewpoint. Their greatest fear is to offend against the group. I do not know how this has happened or why- this emergence of a group mind- but it is inimical to any true concept of freedom. Sadly the BBC is almost totally a group mind.
It is possible to predict with a very high chance of accuracy the BBC’s point of view about anything at all.
Which makes it hardly worth watching or listening to and certainly not worth the tax
“Sadly the BBC is almost totally a group mind…”
Hi dave s:
Have you ever had ducks? All that quacking discussion, then they end up following in a line anyway. To some point, seemingly agreed upon, and then another huddle ensues.
GCooper I don’t know if it is the same force of PC that seems omnipresent, or if it is something that is peculiar to the Beeb.
You may not believe me, but in some ways it is the least PC of any organisaton I have worked for, particularly if you were in an office full of gheyers.
On the other hand, there are certain points I find it increasingly inauthentic to argue against eg omission of the ‘M’ word. In the beeb’s defence this is usually the case across the MSM, but we choose to listen/watch/read to them so that is not a real defence. As far as I am concerned if someone is waging a ‘holy’ war then their religion is germane.
However there is nothing written down anywhere, or decreed, or in an email, or even said. It is just a feeling of ‘they’. Even Dyke talked about ‘they’.
Eg I have over heard arguments about the ‘T’ word between reasonably senior editorial figures where some feel it is clearly ‘banned’ yet if you look at the guidelines this is clearly not the case. And if you look at the output of confidant, experienced journalists such as Peter Taylor it is clear that noone stopes them from saying it. So where does that feeling come from? To me it is quite a corrosive thing and something we must address, but I don’t see a politician who will change it. Boris said some good things, but if we look at the sackings since he got elected it seems obvious that ‘they’ have got to him too.
I dont feel that answer is particularly satifactory, but I dont want to make statements that may misrepresent the beeb, as I am not in a position where I directly influence output.
personal views etc
The BBC’s reluctance to use the word muslim in its news reports wouldn’t trouble me if I wasn’t forced to pay for such a ‘service’ just so I can watch football on Sky Sports without getting a fine and a criminal record.
I don’t mind politically biased news broadcasts. I do mind politically biased news broadcasts that I’m forced to pay for.
“there is nothing written down anywhere, or decreed, or in an email, or even said. It is just a feeling of ‘they’. Even Dyke talked about ‘they’.”
Sarah Jane, how simple and elegant, thank you.
I always ask the question, when some one says, “They…”
“Who is ‘They’?”
Does an entity as large and lumberous as the BBC give birth to an entity “THEY”? CNN, ABC, all of them…
Very strange.
Perhaps we give the name They to a third person plural in order to escape self-censure that They are what we allow due to fear of the GROUP?
Yep, the Mormons again.
I greatly appreciate Sarah Jane’s frankness and (being a churl) can’t help but point out how starkly it contrasts with most previous BBC appearances here which, for the most part, would have us believe there is no debate to be had.
I can understand and accept what you are saying, having seen similar insidious forces at work in my own sphere – that sudden realisation that what you might have said quite openly a year ago is, somehow, mysteriously, no longer sayable – even though no one has received the memo prohibiting it.
That, of course, is precisely how PC works.
The problem here, however, is that the BBC is not just a victim of this syndrome: it is the perpetuator of it. Because of its effective hegemony in British broadcasting, even if there has been no directive, because BBC ‘makes the weather’ the invisible hand that curls about the throat of a broadcaster suddenly afraid to use the word ‘terrorist’ is extended, by her or his fear, to the woman or man at the bus stop.
I really don’t know how you counter this, other than to diminish the BBC in some severe way. As a child of the BBC (which most over a certain age are) that hurts, but the love/hate relationship has turned to the latter, as Auntie’s dementia has advanced.
Killing the old bat would, undoubtedly, diminish the cultural life of Great Britain in many horrible ways. But allowing her to live and continue spreading poison may be the greater of two evils.
David,
Somalia has about 8.6 million people, of which 100% are registered as Muslims. Not even Saddam Hussein could command 100% of the vote in his one-party elections!
“I don’t mind politically biased news broadcasts. I do mind politically biased news broadcasts that I’m forced to pay for.”
Yes and the use or British in the name.
Anonymous 9:47 “And i’d hope most british people care about persecution wherever it happens.”
Then you’re doomed to bitter disappointment in my case. Let them sort themselves out. Every other race and every other tribe that has held territory has sorted it out. Our ancestors didn’t fight and die to make life safe for “refugees” with a primitive belief system and a desructive disinclination to obey the laws of those who offer them refuge.
(Video/Audio) A one hour speech from Brigitte Gabriel speaks to Islam’s origins and how it motivates present-day extremists.
They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev092308b.cfm
.
To be fair, Sky also struggled not to make a mess of the report because of its squeamishness.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Cologne-Police-Arrest-Two-Terror-Suspects-After-Storming-KLM-Airliner-At-Cologne-Airport-Germany/Article/200809415107604?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15107604_Cologne%3A_Police_Arrest_Two_Terror_Suspects_After_Storming_KLM_Airliner_At_Cologne_Airport%2C_Germany
The Sun’s the opening is a refreshing contrast: “ARMED commandos stormed a passenger plane in Germany yesterday to seize two suspected Islamic terrorists.”
Wasn’t so hard, was it?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1740263.ece
Sarah-Jane has perfectly described what is clearly “institutional political correctness” at the BBC. It’s what has been argued – and proven – on this site for the last several years
Hugh,
No doubt if that had been at Heathrow, Cherie Bliar would have been down there in a heartbeat, negotiating their release on “human rights” grounds.
Time, perhaps, to negotiate an exchange: send HER to Somalia, where they can pack her up in a tent and ignore her vacuous “rights” waffle for the few minutes it takes to collect enough stones to dispose of her permanently. In exchange, they no longer have to send anyone here for her services: she’ll be nice and local.
I agree with the commenter above: we should not open the door to any and ever claim of “persecution” on another continent, we should have a strictly enforced checklist before any claim will be considered – fail to meet those criteria and you are denied entry, returned to your country of departure *immediately*.
First, the country from which you are seeking asylum must be the one from which you reached the UK: come here from France, unless you’re claiming it’s the French government which is persecuting you, back you go – immediately. Secondly, you must have a reason to choose Britain over other countries – family ties or similar.
Yes, we should protect people who actually come here fleeing persecution – but only them, not those who trek illegally across Europe because they know we’re a soft touch.
“You may not believe me, but in some ways it is the least PC of any organisaton I have worked for, particularly if you were in an office full of gheyers.” -Sarah Jane 12.03 above
gheyers – Cripes, Sarah, are you Turkish or did I miss something?
Sorry, i mistook it for the Turkish word ‘gabour’, meaning infidel. What’s a gheyer?
wally:
Sorry, i mistook it for the Turkish word ‘gabour’, meaning infidel. What’s a gheyer?
wally | 27.09.08 – 10:18 am | #
———————————————
A ‘gayer’, maybe? A homosexualist?
No I checked. I was familiar with the word gabour from Gibbon’s Decline and fall but the modern Turkish word is different from his rendition:
“In Islam, the Arabic word kafir refers to a person who inwardly or outwardly denies Allah and/or the Islamic prophet Muhammad and the term is considered derogatory. The term is usually translated into English as “infidel” or “unbeliever.” The Turkish equivalent of “kafir” is giaour.”
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-infidel.html
I vaguely remember that this was the term the Turks used to describe Armenians during the 1915 genocide.
I may still have the wrong word, of course – but it would be interesting if her views were affected by a Turkish / Muslim background. Erdogan supporter? Kemalist? Grey wolf!? none of the above?
C’mon guys, they were obviously Somali joos….
PS On a factual note, many Somalis have actually come to live here from Holland. We have an entire neighbourhood in Birmingham (Sparkbrook) which is today almost exclusively Somali and most of them csme perfectly legally from Holland because the UK (at least two have told me) is a much softer touch. Needless to say, the illiterate clowns that run the ludicrously dumbed-down BBC Birmingham have never reported on this nor would they. So we have EU legislation promoting Islamism (and much besides, from Khat to poverty to honour killings) in Brum and the disgusting, hypocritical BBC telling us nothing.
Yup, that’s how it goes….
Three men held under terror act
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7639249.stm
A small fire was put out at a property in Lonsdale Square
Home of Gibson Publishing
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:V95kWCbTSCMJ:www.gibsonsquare.com/+Lonsdale+Square+%2B+publisher&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
Once Feared Historical Novel Finds Home in Britain
(London, UK) September 8, 2008 • Gibson Square is pleased to announce that it has signed a two book deal with author Sherry Jones for the British and Commonwealth publication rights for The Jewel of Medina, to be released in October, with the sequel to follow next year. The public controversy over The Jewel of Medina, a historical novel of the love story between the Prophet Mohammed and his favorite wife A’isha, began in July when its previous publisher made the decision to terminate the novel while on a bestseller trajectory.
A US Republican Congressman, Tom Tancredo, has come up with a proposal to reduce the threat from Islamic terrorism:
“Tancredo proposes a promising Bill on Islam”
[Extract, Lawrence Auster’s site]:
“For the first time that I’m aware of, a U.S. legislator has made a proposal aimed at protecting America, not just from Islamic terrorism, and not just from Islamic extremism, but, at least in principle, from Islam itself.
“In the wake of the news from Britain that Islamic sharia courts have been designated as arbitration tribunals so that their decisions will be enforceable by UK authorities, Rep. Tom Tancredo has proposed a law to lessen the chance of the same kind of thing happening here.” (Lawrence Auster).
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011470.html
I listened to Radio 4 all day Friday, and the phrase “suspected Islamic terrorists” WAS used in all the news reports …until about lunchtime.