General BBC-related comment thread!
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.
BBC report, and its praise for Islamic Somali pirates:
“Somalia ‘to become pirate magnet'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7739153.stm
In the video clip, accompanying this report, the unnamed BBC reporter says this about the Islamic Somali pirates:
“the pirates are very brave”.
Brave, as in Islamic jihad suicide bombers? Thanks, BBC. Any news of the brave hostages? Forget it.
BBC report:
“Fiery spectacle opens Dubai hotel”
(5 min. video)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7740887.stm
‘Jihadwatch’ report:
“Al-Qaeda preparing to blow Atlantis back into the water”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022896.php
‘Jihadwatch’ report:
“Fitzgerald: Dubai’s pleasure palaces”
[Extract]:
“All of Dubai is not worth a single star in your personal Michelin. Dubai is merely a cheesy holiday resort with elephantiasis, the result of the hundreds of billions that are so freely spent because they have been not earned, but merely accidentally acquired.
“That photograph (here it is again, [ in above report on Atlantis Hotel]) tells you all you need to know not only about Dubai, but about all the other pleasure-towns that the Arabs have built up with the oil money lavished upon them.”
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/022915.php
Not sure if this has been posted.
“Time to stand up to the TV licence bullies”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/20/do2010.xml
This is a letter that gets right to the problem of the “liberal” media and the suicide of Britain.
“Dear Ms Featherstone
I think the people who should truly say sorry for such events are the opinion leaders of the Guardian. Please allow me to explain.
Last week I visited (as a doctor) a family in a council estate. The mother was concerned about her 12 year old son. She was very pleased that her older son was now on incapacity and would therefore do well for himself in terms of money. There is nothing wrong with this older boy that makes him incapacitated, but that is another story. She also had a 14 year old daughter, who while I was there, constantly argued with her mother demanding money for cigarettes. The three children had three different fathers, all absent. The kids, while I could see were still children, gleamed with malignant insolence. I can see them turning into damaged adults. I feel sorry for the trap they are in • the trap created directly by the welfare state whereby the family, and all those in the neighbourhood, see welfare as a lifestyle option. They live in squalor but have more wealth than most people I knew in India; they certainly have more material comforts than I ever had growing up in Delhi.
The Guardian describes such families as poor. The Labour party wants to throw money at the family. The Guardian readers blame Margaret Thatcher for this state of affairs, smug in their modern pieties, their intellectual laziness, and their stupidity masquerading as sanctimonious concern. I used to work with slum children in Delhi; they had very little, but even the most physically disabled amongst them made an effort.
There is no hope for Britian. Civilisations dont die, they commit suicide. And before they commit suicide, they read and believe the Guardian.
I truly and deeply feel sorry for all the children who are the victims of the welfare state. Things are much, much worse for the slum children in India, I saw more dignity among them and certainly greater hope.
I am not sure if you will understand this message. I am too tired to explain further. Either you will get or you wont. Either way, it will make no difference to anything.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/13/baby-p-haringey-council?commentid=d9f3f0ad-848e-41ec-b1c5-aac114012138
[from a link at http://www.samizdata.net/blog/%5D
just repeating what the rest of us have known for years –I ask why I bother working in this bloody country
Whats Andrew Neil, Blue Nun connection?
He mentions it every week
theguardian suggests that pinning all the blame on Bush will not wash in washed up Russia – even though the BBC et al are prepared to back Brown’s excuse
Both Putin and Medvedev have blamed the Bush administration for the current financial mess. Putin today accused the US of recklessness. “Cheap money and mortgage troubles in the US have caused a real chain reaction, [and] paralyzed the global financial market,” he complained.
Russia’s state-controlled TV has also sought to portray the crisis as an American problem, largely ignoring its impact at home. This strategy was not very sensible, analysts suggested today, since job losses and salary cuts in Russia were beginning to mount.
“In terms of the trigger Putin is correct. The bomb came from the US,” Weafer said. He added, however: “The shockwaves have hit a much weaker structure than the [Russian] government has acknowledged. The economy is going to hell in a handcart.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/oil-russia-economy-putin-medvedev
Im watching daily politics repeat.
John Mcfall on again.
Lib, Vince Cable
Lab, John Mcfall
Con, ……
Is there really no con spokesman?
The BBC’s reporting is biased in favour of TURKEY joining the E.U.
This report by Ms. S. Rainsford is interesting (and her 19 Nov. ‘Newsnight’ report, reproduced here as video, is informative and well filmed).
BUT, Ms Rainsford’s piece has two massive flaws:
1.) it does not even mention the political emphasis of Islamization in current Turkish AKP policy intentions!
2.) it supports Turkish entry into E.U.
She supports the political case of the supporters of the murdered Turkish writer, Hrant Dink, that the freedom of such people will be improved inside the E.U.
What Ms. Rainsford does as a liberal journalist in Turkey is to think which of the political groups she is most comfortable with in Turkey; her answer: Hrant Dink’s liberal supporters. ‘They want to improve their freedoms in the E.U., so I support them’, kind of bias.
In other words, she advocates the views of Turkish ‘liberals’ ( a small minority of Turks), and totally ignores the views of the majority of the BRITISH people who OPPOSE Turkish entry into the E.U., not that Brown-Miliband allow British people a say on this.
So BBC licencepayers are subsidising Ms. Rainsford to advocate that 75 million Muslim Turks join the E.U. and that 1 million (or more of them) come to the UK to continue the Turkish conflicts here (as they do in Germany) of Islamists v. Nationalists v. Armenians v. Kurds v. Infidels.
“Violent nationalism blights Turkey”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7737413.stm
Somebody tell the BBC:
U.S. Senate Committe on Environment & Public Works: “Planet Has Cooled Since Bush Took Office”
You can’t argue with this – they have a picture of a polar bear.
In the video clip, accompanying this report, the unnamed BBC reporter says this about the Islamic Somali pirates:
“the pirates are very brave”.
George R | 20.11.08 – 9:06 pm |
Can we read anything into the fact that this BBC juvenile is on board a Turkisk warship.
Presumably the Royal Navy has had enough of the BBC’s antics. In the last Gulf War the reception of BBC broadcasts was banned on several RN vessels as the BBC was despised by the crews. Something that most of can equate with.
Why does the BBC report here omit reference to future European Union problems?
“US global dominance ‘set to wane'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7741049.stm
Much of the UK MSM refers to this report of the National Intelligence Council (NIC), but whereas the BBC omits reference to EU future problems, the ‘Guardian’ doesn’t:
‘Guardian’:
“While emerging economies like China, India and Brazil are likely to grow in influence at America’s expense, the same cannot be said of the European Union. The NIC appears relatively certain the EU will be ‘losing clout’ by 2025. Internal bickering and a “democracy gap” separating Brussels from European voters will leave the EU ‘a hobbled giant’, unable to translate its economic clout into global influence.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/barack-obama-president-intelligence-agency
For such information at the BBC site, you have to turn to the full NIC document.
The BBC is averse to reproducing anything detrimental to the E.U. in its own web report. Why is that?
Anyone see Newsnight last night where Kirsty Walk is interviewing a couple of political journos about the possibility of a an early election? During a discussion about the prospects for Labour, I recall her saying “If the pain gets any worse the gamble is that he (Gordon Brown) goes for the long game; that borrowing could be even worse and there is no certainty that we are necessarily going to be in a better position” {37.00 minutes into the programme). It was the use of the word “WE” that reminded me of James Naughtie’s gaffe in April 2005. Have a look and see what you think.
“we” here means the country, surely?
George R
Today actually mentioned the EU hobbled giant this morning.
I also thought John Humphrys did a surprisingly good interview with a BBC high heid-yin (Caroline Thomson?) about the licence fee and how the BBC is using it to go beyond what it should be doing. After being caught out by Sir Philip Green yesterday he seemed to have done some homework and mentioned several points raised on this site.
However Ms Thomson seemed incredibly complacent. On being challenged regarding people threatening non-payment of the licence fee, she dismissed this on the basis there was no rise in non-payment. I think she ignores the fact that if non-payment gathers sufficient momentum, it will reach a critical mass and a dam of resentment will break.
GeorgeR 1:35
I think that generally the BBC’s coverage of Turkey is ambivalent. On the one hand they buy in to the myth of the “unspeakable Turk”, on the other hand they support Turkey on the EU matter, because the Turks are muslims and the BBC love muslims.
And , of course, the BBC supports the PKK and an independent Kurdistan. The PKK are usually described as “separatists”, not “terrorists”. Sort of reminds me of something.
Amazing, isn’t it, how the BBC can trumpet this
Iraqis protest against troop deal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7741263.stm
yet totally ignore this
Iraqi Sunni, Shias demonstrate in favour of US pact
http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/darticlen.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2008/November/middleeast_November384.xml§ion=middleeast&col=
What a bunch of cnuts they are:
The BBC reports this:
“EU reaches deal on farm reforms”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7739090.stm
But the BBC does not report this:
“E.U. is costing Britain £106k a MINUTE..”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087944/EU-costing-Britain-106K-MINUTE–thats-900-man-woman-child-UK.html
The BBC is doing it’s usual hype up the worst poll for the party we don’t like thing again.
The recent polls from the six polling companies:
Ipsos Mori: 3%
YouGov: 5%
ComRes: 11%
Populus: 6%
BPIX:14%
ICM 13%
Guess which one the BBC is heavily reporting.
Sorry those figures are for Tory leads.
‘Daily Mail’
“Regional newspapers boosted as BBC bosses are pressured into rejecting £68m plan for local news websites”
[Opening extract]:
“The BBC’s controversial plans to increase its online local news coverage were thrown out today.
The corporation was hoping to invest £68million upgrading its local websites, including adding more video footage to the stories.
But the BBC’s governing body today rejected the proposal saying it would not improve public services enough to justify either the use of licence fee funds or the negative impact on commercial media.”
No doubt some of the BBC licencepayers’ money will now be diverted by the BBC into providing more of its ‘multicultural’ funding for the separatist ‘Asian Network’ at local level:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/asiannetwork/
The BBC News website’s top story today:
US global dominance ‘set to wane’
“US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to a new US intelligence report on global trends.”
If Al-Beeb didn’t make this the top story of the day, I would be straight on the phone to their news desk to ask them if everything was OK, should I call an ambulance etc.
Strange though, not even CNN has this story on its website, not that I could see anyway. It’s certainly not the top world event in their eyes. And this is CNN, the source that regularly prints left wing, anti-American dirge like this.
Still, the article at least gives the Beeb the chance to display it’s familiar brand of sixth-form humor. The last line:
“And, our correspondent adds, it is worth noting that US intelligence has been wrong before. ”
Oh how hilarious! A clever little dig at the Iraq War. This is the stuff that journalism awards are made of!
BBC’s On This Day feature for the Jim Jones anniversary…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/18/newsid_2540000/2540209.stm
Funny there is no room for any mention of the word “socialist” in this article. After all, Jones himself was more of an anti-US, pro-Communist rabble rouser then a bible-thumping preacher. But a reader of this BBC piece would be utterly clueless about that.
They don’t even use the word “cult”.
Do you suppose if Jones was some sort of Free Market advocate that his political ideology would be pointed out and the word “cult” would be used?
This article, on the Minnesota Senate recount, is just poor journalism:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7738288.stm
1. The photo is captioned, “The recount could see Mr Coleman (left) losing to Mr Franken”… Yes, obviously it could see that, it could also obviously see the OPPOSITE. It’s a completely meaningless thing to say – if the recount couldn’t see EITHER candidate win what would be the bloody point of a recount?!
2. “And because incorrectly rejected ballots tend to have been cast by groups of voters – like the elderly and ethnic minorities – which usually vote Democratic, experts predict that Mr Franken will pick up more votes than Mr Coleman in the recount.”
Whilst ethnic minorities do usually vote Democrat (although it should be noted that according to Minnesota exit polls a full NINETY PER CENT of the voters were white), where have they gotten this nonsense about the elderly voting Democrat?
In fact, it’s generally acknowledged both in the US and the UK, that the elderly vote more conservatively, it was manifestly the youth vote which helped Obama win. Indeed, the CNN exit polls for the Presidential election showed Obama winning every age group EXCEPT the 65+ group (i.e. the elderly), which went 53 – 45 for McCain!
And in actual fact, the CNN exit polls for the Coleman-Franken race show that Coleman (the Republican) took more votes in EVERY age group except the 18-29s (hardly the elderly)!
Shoddy.
Jonathan H | 21.11.08 – 4:36 pm | #
What is their justification for saying the following:
“incorrectly rejected ballots tend to have been cast by groups of voters – like the elderly and ethnic minorities – which usually vote Democratic…”
Is this based on any objective/empirical study? Or is this, as I suspect, the BBC’s clumsy, infantile way of saying “we can’t prove anything, but we bet that if there’s any election fraud afoot then the perpetrators are probably racist Republicans who would sell their own grandmothers to steal power.”
Because journalists at the Beeb have of course the intellectual sophistication of a bunch of spotty sixth-formers as we all know.
From today’s Coffee House Spectator blog:
“DM” posed the following question to Tory grandee Francis Maude:
“Do you accept the BBC is institutionally biased against the Tories?”
Maude replies:
I don’t think it’s institutionally anti-Conservative. But I do think the BBC does have what even Andrew Marr called an “innate liberal bias”. And it can get very out of touch with the public, as the Russell Brand Jonathan Ross debacle illustrated.
Ye Gods.
If they’re still this naïve at top of the Conservative Party – if people like Francis Maude haven’t got the gumption and observational skills to recognise what even leftwing beeboids now concede about the BBC’s innate bias against them – the Tories really don’t deserve office.
Jason | 21.11.08 – 4:59 pm |
They’re just spouting the Greg Palast/Newsnight lie that only Republicans engage in voter suppression and fraud, and only Democrat voters have ever been disenfranchised. It’s a lie, as anyone living in the real world would know.
You may have seen this, but I’m sure BBC victims haven’t. Here’s the kind of vote that might be recounted in Al Franken’s favor:
One challenge headed to the state so far in Plymouth
And here’s a more honest assessment, from, like the above reports, the (Obamessiah-endorsing) local paper:
In Minn. recount, disputed Senate ballots could quickly shift margin between Franken, Coleman
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com will give you as good an analysis of how minnessota might go as anyone. I pointed people in that direction during the election when martin was drooling about drudge’s outliers. And nate silver nailed that result well and truly. Also a hilarious interview with zeigler, an issue which has interested some here.
BBC showing its sympathetic interest in pollution in Somalia,(‘green’ issues trump Islamic jihad at BBC) is diverted from opposing Islamic Somali piracy:
“‘World only cares about pirates'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7740417.stm
Although the BBC has recently (better late than never) worked out:
“Pirates ‘working with Islamists'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7737375.stm
– the BBC does not treat the Islamic Somali pirates as a serious enemy force.
Meanwhile India seems to know who the enemy is in all this and acts:
“India ‘to step up piracy battle'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7737375.stm
Whereas Miliband….
mikewineliberal | 21.11.08 – 5:58 pm |
I see you have no desire to defend the BBC against bias.
After projecting their particular fantasy onto whatever prospective paradise people were hoping Obama’s presidency will bring them, his acolytes are landing back to earth with a bump now that their dreams have come starkly true.
Sensing that change and hope might not quite live up to whatever it was they’d dreamed of, – everyone is busy backpedalling.
“Don’t get your hopes up” seems to be the message from Jeremy Bowen, discussing prospects for the middle east peace process under the new president. He even uses the expression “over-hyped expectations”
Probably he has forgotten already who over-hyped them.
The hope was kindled by the hype, and the change might be just from Bush to Obama.
What a hoot that Ayman al-Zawahiri regards Obambi as a Muslim, even though he’s a bit cross about the hobnobbing with Jews and sh1t.
“You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7737710.stm
Oh Bugger!
Now he’s even losing his ability to emotionally connect with radical Islam.
How will President Obama handle the middle east question?
Shimon Peres, a consummate optimist, is not afraid about the president elect’s proposed unconditional talks with Iran. I seems there is now a proviso, so they’re not unconditional after all.
Hope and change or Hype and no change?
Hard Talk http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ft0wd
Firm, and quite a charmer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/7736446.stm
President Peres has been invited by Balliol College to give a lecture entitled the “Globalisation of Peace”.
Oxford University’s Arab Cultural Society have called for the event to be cancelled and are to stage a protest.
[………]”We believe that as a university, you need to have a diverse spread of views on issues of central importance,” said Andrew Graham, master of Balliol College.
“The Middle East is one of these issues. It would be rather extraordinary and somewhat immoral to stand aside from discussing these things.”
“If you are going to discuss these things why not here (sic) from the people who have been at the centre of it?”
What a defensive attitude from Andrew Graham in full-on appease the Arabs mode, and, apart from the spelling, what an ignorant little piece from the BBC website, giving the impression that Peres was indeed the devil incarnate, whom the master of Baliol College was nobly defending for the sake of free speech.
Good old BBC, take the Arab narrative again. Compare and contrast with:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2008/081119_1.html
and this:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404781236&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
“Ending to a standing ovation, Peres said: “I am grateful for the privilege to address you in this distinguished chamber. You represent two great institutions, the front line in a fortress of democracy.”
Sorry for two posts together.
David – right you are.
jonathan makes two points. first that “The recount could see Mr Coleman (left) losing to Mr Franken”. The phraseology is clearly used this way because coleman is the incumbent. So no bias.
Second, unless the minnesotan elderly buck the trend, I agree the point is cobblers. sloppy more than biased though.
mikewineliberal | 21.11.08 – 8:33 pm |
The phraseology is clearly used this way because coleman is the incumbent.
More like because, incumbent or not, Coleman was in the lead. But that’s not where the bias lies anyway.
The problem is with their attempt to portray incorrectly rejected ballots as being mostly from the elderly and ethnic minorities, and say they mostly vote Democrat.
This is very problematic for two reasons. First, we know who the “experts” are who are telling them this, and who predict that Franken will pick up more votes: Greg Palast and Meirion Jones. We know that they created a very biased, dishonest, and partially false Newsnight segment, one which promoted this very same narrative.
Secondly, in the weeks running up to the election (especially in the final week), we saw a number of reports from the BBC that went to great lengths to show us that most elderly white people tended to be more conservative vote Republican and were either closet racists, or had neighbors and fellow golf club members who were openly racist.
They’re not reporting about any of the rejected ballots by non-elderly or ethnic minorities, as I pointed out in my previous comment. This is all one-sided.
At least they didn’t end it by saying, “Oh, please, please.”
Just watched an item on the BBC Six o’ clock news about the end of the eleven-plus in Northern Ireland.
The opening line was that it was: “a day parents and children in the Province had been looking forward to for years.” Spot the tone of the item?
I waited in vain for a viewpoint supportive of the eleven-plus. HAH!
Way into the piece it was mentioned in an aside that NI has historically very good academic standards. However, the exam which had formed the central plank of this successful structure was, you’ve guessed it, “divisive and elitist” according to (unnamed) “experts.”
Hmmm.
There seems to be a head of steam gathering on this:
Calls to break BBC’s monopoly on licence fee after damning Sachsgate report
Ministers are facing new calls to break the BBC’s monopoly over the TV licence fee, in the wake of a damning report into the “Sachsgate” scandal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3497926/Calls-to-break-BBCs-monopoly-on-licence-fee-after-damning-Sachsgate-report.html
How much longer before we reach the tipping point.
BBC online local news expansion scrapped
(Highly) Controversial BBC plans to spend £68 million on expanding local news online have been rejected by the corporation’s governing body
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3494696/BBC-online-local-news-expansion-scrapped.html
Now how the BBC report it. They’ve even buried the story on their website. (Unlike when they get a “webby”, then its front page stuff.)
You have to go the end of the article to find the only people outside of the BBC who support this. Unsurprisingly it’s the far-left crypto-communist NUJ.
BBC local video scheme rejected
But the National Union of Journalists said that the rejection was “a missed opportunity to enhance local media”.
“Local papers are closing and job cuts mean thousands of journalists don’t have the time to do their jobs properly anymore,” said the NUJ’s general secretary Jeremy Dear.
In earlier versions of this article the BBC were all over the NUJ utterances like a rash.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7741244.stm
“Alistair Darling may be forced to set out future taxes rises to pay for a short-term boost to the economy, the BBC understands”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Oh so the BBC now understands what David Cameron said days ago.
“Mr Cameron also warned that Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s proposed “fiscal stimulus” was merely storing up tax rises for the years to come.”
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081118/tuk-cameron-abandons-spending-plans-45dbed5.html
Don’t worry people the ‘Islamists’ are going to save us from Piracy….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7743204.stm
Great bunch those Islamists.
A shift in the BBC reporting emphasis on Taliban in Afghanistan-Pakistan by Barbara ‘tears for Arafat’ Plett?
After weeks implying that our ALLIED forces (which includes British and Americans, please note, BBC) specialise in killing wedding parties, we have this:
“UK militant ‘killed in Pakistan'”
(Perhaps the three other ‘militants’ who Rauf was with in the house when attacked, were part of a wedding party?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7743334.stm
The killed Islamic Jihadist, Rashid Rauf, had dual Pakistan-British citizenship, but he was born in Birmingham. He was not merely some ‘militant’ he was an Islamic Jihadist committed to killing British people. The ‘Telegraph’ describes him as a ‘Terror mastermind’:
“British terror mastermind Rashid Rauf’killed in US missile strike'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/3500341/British-terror-mastermind-Rashid-Rauf-killed-in-US-missile-strike.html
GeorgeR
They just can’t use the T word, can they ?
In Barbara Plett’s report on the Today prog, she spun it round to end on criticism of how the dreadful Americans are raining down missiles on Pakistan – her words were “almost like the Blitz”
That is a pig-ignorant, twisted thing to say. Targetted occasional strikes – a couple a week ? – are nothing like the Blitz. How many bombs were falling on London in a single night ?
It might be a good idea if the huge immigrant communities in London’s East End were shown lots of film what it was like in their neighbourhoods in 1940.
Plett remains a clear case of ant-Ally bias.
JohnA
Yes; this is what Hugh Fitzgerald wrote about Ms. Plett and co., a few months ago:
“Clean Out the BBC”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/11670
BBC’s uncritical use of video clip of Al Qaeda’s Zawahiri:
“Al Qaeda message condemns Obama” (short video clip)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7738123.stm
Note that for the BBC,
Al-Qaeda =”Islamic militant network”, not Islamic Jihadist.
(If Al-Qaeda is not Islamic Jihadist, then Islamic Jihad does not exist. This seems to be the dhimmi ‘logic’ which the BBC is inculcating on the West.)
The BBC’s analysis is lacking on the Islamic nature of Zawahiri’s abuse towards Obama.
For a proper analysis, it is useful to turn to Bill Warner’s site, ‘Political Islam’, where we find this instructive article:
“Obama – the House Negro”
[Opening extract]:
“The media has been atwitter with Al-Qaida’s Ayman al-Zawahri’s insult of Obama by calling him the house Negro. What he actually said was abeed al-beit. Abeed is not just a slave, but a black slave. Islam’s refined doctrine of slavery includes over 40 words for slaves, including the slave’s race. If you were white, you would be a mamluk, a white slave.
“Mohammed and his wife owned black slaves, along with every other kind of slave, including sex slaves. Mohammed’s favorite sexual partner at one time was a white slave, Mary, a Coptic Christian.
“Zawahri’s insult was pure Islam. The Koran is filled with insults and curses by Allah. Insults and curses are part of Islamic logic. Kafir (non-Muslim) logic advances an argument by analogy, syllogisms, cause and effect–scientific logic. Islamic logic is based upon making you submit to Islam. Therefore repeated force, threats and insults are all part of the logic of simply overpowering the other. This is similar to a thug using brute force and yelling to ‘persuade’ the victim.” (Bill Warner).
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/obama-the-house-negro/
JohnA | 22.11.08 – 10:26 am |
In Barbara Plett’s report on the Today prog, she spun it round to end on criticism of how the dreadful Americans are raining down missiles on Pakistan – her words were “almost like the Blitz”
That is a pig-ignorant, twisted thing to say. Targetted occasional strikes – a couple a week ? – are nothing like the Blitz. How many bombs were falling on London in a single night ?
Sadly, this is exactly what Humphrys was talking about the other day when Philip Green asked him what the BBC would do if the license fee was ended. Humphrys said they would carry on reporting on what’s happening, and “trying to interpret the events as best we can”.
Interpretation, not reporting. This is what Plett is doing, and has done, and the same goes for the majority of her colleagues. It’s not possible to be either impartial or even consistently factual with this editorial mindset.
But I’m sure defenders of the indefensible think she’s doing a fine job, and that interpreting is the same thing as reporting, or at least a necessary part of it. No editorializing ever, no sir.
Now this is just a taste of what we’re going to get under the leadership of the left-wing illuminati, who want to shake hands.