I see the BBC has been shilling for the UN following that organisations petulant display that the Unwra will not re-commence its allegedly humanitarian mission in Gaza until Israel guarantess the safety of its workers. Suits me if they never recommence but I wonder why the BBC never asks why the Unwra does not idenify Hamas as a threat to its workers. Maybe they are related? Also, anyone catch Newsnight defining the Red Cross as ” a very conservative organisation” as it launches a verbal onslaught on Israel. Meanwhile Alan Johnston was afforded space to let us know how invincible Hamas is. Loved the way he talked of the Hamas culture of “sacrifice and martyrdom” – that’s homicide bombing to you and me. Nice stuff, Al Beeb – Hamas could not wish for a better PR campaign.
UN(REAL)
Bookmark the permalink.
Qaz M: Nice of you to tell us what we should or should not think or say.
Perhaps you think we that don’t like Islam should be beheaded?
Martin, please don’t become aggressive, if you read my post I never said a word about telling people what to think or what to say. I simply said that some comments on these pages, in very serious debates, resort to offensive remarks.
Richard Lancaster:
Which part of my opening sentence (9:59 am) does not make sense to you?:
-“the Ahmadinejad regime will censor such a channel”. Do you think that the Ahmadinejad regime would not censor such a channel?
On PRESS TV, the London-based, Iran government financed, 24 hour ‘news’ channel, which broadcasts Islamic jihad propaganda from London, it was Nigel Chapman, head of BBC World Service who refers to the ‘hospitable’ [i.e.’dhimmi’] treatment PRESS TV gets, (see the ‘Times’).So it is the BBC’s Mr. Chapman who brings PRESS TV into the BBC’s case. To repeat:
‘Times’:
“The BBC can also point to the British bases of Press TV, the Iranian-backed 24-hour English news channel, which employs about 50 in a bureau in Ealing, and the Iranian state news agency, with five journalists based in Wembley. ‘I think we can say that Britain has been very hospitable,’ says Mr Chapman, hoping for reciprocity.”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article5477629.ece
I am not trying to start an argument here, one of things I like about this country is the free speech compared to Middle East states where it is much harder, I just do not feel there is any place for offensive remarks or insults.
Qaz M | 09.01.09 – 11:13 am | #
Oh you like free speech. Great.
Except when said free speech is “offensive” to you.
Hey, let’s ban it. Then we can get back to real free speech — which is someone saying something with which YOU agree.
Sure — you get this whole free speech “thing”
Qaz M 11:13
Welcome to the website !
I am white british atheist and my wife is black African, brought up as a muslim, but doesn’t have strong religious views.
I have lived in three “muslim” countries, Turkey, Malaysia and The Gambia.
I agree with you about freedom of speech, which applies in this website far more than the BBC !
I agree with you about offensive remarks and personal abuse, but then freedom also includes the right to make them.
What I would ask you is what do you think moderate muslims should do to prevent the extremists ?
Because, as you know , you suffer as much, if not more, from them than most non-muslims.
Unfortunately, I shall be away from this website for a few days now, but will catch up later !
Lennox is friends with detestable commie cretin George Galloway
And Livingdead and the moronic Tariq Ali.
Qaz M: Rather than just complain why don’t you explain why you believe it is correct to refer to Palestinian people. If your lucky you’ll change a few minds – if not, at least you will have had your fair say.
Either way, you and everybody-else on this board wins. That’s the beauty of free speech.
Just a quick primer on FREE SPEECH — a concept that is on it’s death bed in Great Britain thanks to the tyrannical left and their PC drones in the meeja, such as the BBC.
Anyone can claim they are defending THEIR right to speak freely on any subject — and especially in politics.
But true free speech means defending the other persons right to speak; no matter how bleepin’ objectionable you find them.
I do not feel that it is fair though for some people on these pages to refer to there being ‘no such thing as Palestinians’
A simple factual statement. The ‘Palestinians’ were invented by the PLO in 1963, specifically as a lie to be used as a tool against Israel. They said so themselves.
Prior to that, the people now calling themselves ‘Palestinians’ insisted that they are Arabs, part of the one and indivisible Arab nation.
There has never been a country called ‘Palestine’, nor a ‘Palestinian’ nation, people, culture, language, history, polity, etc.
I am sorry you find historical facts inconvenient.
“I just do not feel there is any place for offensive remarks or insults.”
You’re on the wrong board then mate. There’s a few f***ing idiots around here who wind each other up to say something big, hard and shocking but the general thrust is criticism of the BBC’s self censorship towards Islam which irritates even “moderates” like myself 🙂
I’d be interested to know your thoughts as an obviously reasonable bloke. Do you feel patronised?
“There has never been a country called ‘Palestine’, nor a ‘Palestinian’ nation, people, culture, language, history, polity, etc.
I am sorry you find historical facts inconvenient.”
At the very least its a region. Given that they fall outside the borders of any other country what else would you call them? Presumably you also object to people being called Londoners, Northerners, Europeans, Cornish, Basques etc etc on the basis they’re “not a nation”. Anyway, they play in the World Cup qualifiers which is good enough for me.
sorry if this a long post…
Jack, it’s that sort of hostility which I find unproductive. There is a point where the right to free speech seems to become the right to insult and abuse, people expressing a variety of views is free speech, insulting language is not. The right to free speech that millions died for in WW2 was not about making insults and antagonising comments; it was about the right for all to have their say.
Grant, it is an excellent point to mention what can moderate Muslims do to help combat the extremists. This is really the critical struggle in todays world, and neither Blair, Brown nor the Americans know where to even start. Firstly, many Muslims in the west (Britain, France, Holland etc) need to stop jumping on any bandwagon that comes along. People who support a cause they believe in is fine, but too many young Muslims seem to get up in arms about causes they do not understand at all. Many young Muslims are angry towards Israel at the moment, in my opinion very few of them understand the situation in Gaza/Israel at all, and too many people merely see it as a ‘trendy’ cause to follow. It is merely an excuse to bring up anti-British, anti-American views. This just helps create a growing divide between the Muslim community and ‘indigenous’ British people (I hate the phrase, but its hard to come up with a better one!).
Qaz M:
“As a British Muslim I find some of the remarks on this board, and some of the other topic boards, a little offensive and concerning.”
An offended Muslim. How original!
Don’t worry matey, I’m sure there’s a law suit in there somewhere for you. If not, how about a march through Leicester Square with placards? Or perhaps a BBC documentary on the hardships you are having to endure.
Qaz M: please excuse the somewhat aggressive ‘welcome’ you’ve received! The problem here is that recently the site has been frequented by newcomers who start off by saying they want a reasonable debate, then go stark staring mad, start impersonating other posters and then disappear never to return. Happened yesterday with ‘Bill Buchanan’, happened a few months ago with ‘No fan of the BBC’, who claimed to be a moderate muslim then changed his/her name and started spouting extremist bollocks.
But anyway, assuming you’re here for what you say, let me say: “Welcome to the debate”.
Further to Grant’s question,
The key to combatting extremism is, in my view, education. Many young Muslims are taught a biased history of events in the Middle East. Yes there are attrocities on both sides, and yes Israel is not free of blame, but young Muslims do not learn about the Middle East in a fair and balanced way. People like Yasser Arafat are mentioned only as leaders of peace and liberty, the inclination towards terrorism and violence is glossed over. So that is my opinion, education is key. Many young Muslims are taught, some subtely so, that there is a growing chasm between East and West, and that needs to be corrected.
Qaz M
I posted a reply to your post on a lower thread. I hope you and others won’t mind if I repost it here because I would genuinely welcome your considered response.
I ask you respectfully Qaz M how you square your belief that only ‘a minority of extremists’ are the problem with the fact that in every Muslim state run under the influence of sharia is a vicious dictatorship denying basic human rights to its citizens.
When the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia chops people’s heads off or the Islamic State of Iran hangs homosexuals from cranes, is this the work of an unrepresentative minority on the margins of those societies?
You may be right wen you say that
Millions of people follow Islam every day and do not mix politics with their faith, nor do they ever consider the Koran a pre-text for a Holy War
And we should thank God for that. But we should not forget that many of those same people force their womenfolk to live as second class citizens, insist they dress in absurd masks, practise genital mutilation upon their wives and daughters and sometimes beat or even kill them when their pride (‘honour’) is at issue.
Yes, one might find passages in the Old Testament which are pretty unpleasant. But Christians do not regard this as the immutable word of God that must be taken literally.
In the New Testament you will find nothing objectionable.
In the Koran, by contrast, there are some vile things that hardly bear repeating.
When these verses are pointed out, some Muslims throw up smoke about nasikh and mansukh.
This passage sums up the predicament non-Muslims face when involved in discussions with people like yourself:
Later texts abrogate earlier texts whenever there are inconsistencies between them.
The Koranic verses that teach tolerance and peace, in particular those that prohibit compulsion in religion, are among the earliest of Mohammed’s many revelations and are thus liable to abrogation, whenever Allah felt the inclination to revoke his immutable word.
Although Islam, unlike Judaism and Christianity, received its revelation from a single person within a short period of time, roughly twenty years, Mohammed was nonetheless able to impose upon his followers the implausible belief that the inerrant Muslim God had routinely changed his mind.
http://library.flawlesslogic.com….com/ verses.htm
Tom, you are spot on the mark when you talk about Islamic states ran by rulers who deny their citizens basic rights. This again is a fact often ignored by many Islamic scholars and teachers. The problem is the dictatorships that allow extremism to flourish. Al Qaeda flourished in part because of the nature of the Saudi Royal Family’s grip on that country. Also, many are blind to tyranny where it exists in places such as Syria and Eygpt.
Most Muslims do not agree that it is right to have public executions (in regards to your point about Saudi Arabia), remember these populations live in fear of ruthless leaders who run their country with an iron fist. The West does not always help, like continually propping up the Saudi regime because of the cheap oil that we all depend on.
Tom, your point about the treatment of women in many Muslim states is correct too. And again, I do not believe that this is an Islamic belief per se, it is the result of a very strict interpretation that is followed in some Middle Eastern states. Yes many Muslims live their life according to every word of the Koran, that is not a problem at all. The problem comes from some of these people being duped into believing that the Koran says things which is does not, and therefore these people (young, conflicted between Western and Islamic societies) are led to believe words that are not there.
Ceann P | 09.01.09 – 6:28 am |
Hi, very interesting and extremely plausible.
And most definitely yes, the BBC is the definition of cynicism.
-“the Ahmadinejad regime will censor such a channel”. Do you think that the Ahmadinejad regime would not censor such a channel?
George R | 09.01.09 – 11:31 am | #
It’s a moot point as you have no evidence that they’ll be given the opportunity. It seems they can’t stop the satellite broadcasts, which they’d like to ban anyway. How exactly are they going to censor those with satellite – go into homes and turn off television sets (possible I suppose)?
I think the Ahmadinejad regime would love to censor it, and have said as much, which slightly undermines your insinuation that the BBC is subserviant.
“but the BBC seems happy to accept this”
If they want to block its distribution through other means, how can the BBC do anything other than “accept” this?
Tom, I cannot pretend to be an expert on the Koran in the way that others are! I am a Muslim, and I believe in the words of the Koran, but I do not have the time nor brainpower to think about the interpretation of every verse. The fact that I was born in the UK means that I have always felt that British law and values matter as much to me as my personal relgious values.
Qaz M:
There is no such thing as a ‘moderate’ muslim. By definition of Islamic religion ALL muslims are extremists. Otherwise, they cannot be true followers of Islam, yes?
Just because one chooses to blow himself up on a tube train, while another decides to open a newsagents doesn’t make their religious beliefs and their overall aims the same.
Your aim, regardless of your posturing, is to enforce your abhorrent religion onto all of us. I utterly despise all religions of every kind, ESPECIALLY Islam because it is the most barbaric of them all. THAT is free speech. And unfortunately, what ‘offends and insults’ is subjective opinion, and therefore nobody – especially muslims – can lay down universal guidelines on what does or doesn’t cross the line.
By the way, how do you stand on 9/11? Do you condemn it as sickening and without excuse? Or are you behind the BBC in so far that it was a perfectly acceptable reaction to oppression from all those nasty non-Islamic Americans.
More to the point, when will all you ‘moderate’ muslims be marching up and down Leicester Square demonstrating against the ‘extremist’ arm of your religion? Holding up placards that say: “Down with extremist Muslims” “We condem murder in the name of Islam.”
Qaz M | 09.01.09 – 12:47 pm
Thanks for your straight answers.
My points about women weren’t really about how women are treated in Islamic states, I had places closer to home in mind – Plaistow or Dewsbury, say.
It would be nice if the institutions representing Islam in Britain were run by people like you.
But they are not.
The MCB, MPAC etc seem to be stuffed with followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, Maudoodi, Qutb etc.
Can’t you and your mates chuck them out?
It’d do us all a favour.
A fascinating link I got via Mel Phill’s blog today:
Hamas’ Christian convert: I’ve left a society that sanctifies terror
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1007097.html
I doubt this guy’s going to be interviewed by the BBC anytime soon. And if they do try to set one up with him, I hope he takes all the security precautions possible.
Hi Qaz M.
I’ve read some of your comments. And I’ve read one by someone who wishes Muslims like you represented British Muslim organisations. I can only say, it aint never going to happen.
A supposed ‘moderate’ like Ed Hussein supports genocidal terrorists Hamas. Qaz M, I’ve got to say, my perception of Islam is the following:
1) A ‘good Muslim’ is an evil human being.
2) A Muslim who is a decent human being is a bad Muslim.
I have decided I will only engage in discussion with those who can behave like rational adults and discuss things, instead of trying to incite me to respond in kind. Of course 9/11 was a disgusting abhorrent attack, it goes beyond saying, and I find it offensive that people even feel the need to ask Muslims whether they feel that way about it.
I should state that the reason I found this website was because I was curious about the BBC’s biased reporting in Gaza. As someone said here already, the Alan Johnston report was shocking to me in the respect that Hamas were given a lot of credit.
Tom, yes I agree that there are radical groups within the mainstream Muslim faith (the Brotherhood etc.) and I feel that these groups should not be allowed to appear as if they are part of mainstream Islam. But there is also the fear that if mainstream moderates in the Muslim community drive these organisations out, then they may be able to use this sense of victimhood to win members, which in turn may radicalise them further. Sometimes, perhaps, it is better to have people you don’t like peeing outside the tent from inside, rather than have them outside it peeing in.
Of course you can follow a religion in a moderate fashion –the majority of people in the world are not extremist in politics or religion.
My beef is with extremism of any kind, whether it is Muslim, ultra Hinduism, Catholic or Jew. All these people share the same belief– that others should be forced to conform to their narrow and bigoted ideals.
The biggest problem with the BBC is it’s unbalanced bias towards certain dogmas and not others.
Yes Frankos has made a good point, the BBC seems to create the impression that extremist Islam is somehow ‘justified’ because of previous history. That was the point I was trying to make, only I couldn’t think of how to phrase it. As a Muslim I find it dangerous that this viewpoint is expressed because young and impressionable Muslims, who are already being spoonfed biased history lessons at school and the Mosque, learn from the TV that maybe racidicalism is not so bad, because it’s justified by this that and the other.
Frankos:
My point was that Islam – regardless of how extreme or moderate it’s followers claim to be – have ONE aim and ONE aim only.
To convert every infidel into a believer. Including you and me.
If that isn’t extremism then what is?
Going back to Mailman’s comment earlier, the BBC are giving massive publicity to these “eyewitness” accounts of the IDF evacuating civilians to a house then shelling it.
BUT Israeli military officials said in reponse to the accusation that “from initial examinations in the IDF there is no knowledge of any incident in which IDF forces moved people from one building to another.
“Furthermore, the claim that the building was attacked on January 4, in 24-hours after the IDF entered the Gaza Strip is unreasonable since the IDF forces had not yet reached the areas in question on this date.
“An Israeli television network examination of the matter with hospitals in the area showed the hospitals had no knowledge of such an incident.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653417,00.html
no mention of any of this on the BBC.
Sounds to me like a repeat of the mythical “Jenin massacre-that-never-was”
The BBC is broadcasting nothing short of a blood libel.
Who stands to gain from this? Hamas & their extremist supporters – no-one else.
Ratass Shagged | 09.01.09 – 1:10 pm
There’s nothing extreme about wanting to convert people.
It’s how you go about it that makes all the difference.
I’m a Catholic and want you to abandon your atheism and become one too.
But I wouldn’t try to pass a law forcing you to.
Nor do I plan to hold a sword to your throat as an encouragement.
But if I want to pray for your immortal soul, that’s my business.
Most Muslims do not agree that it is right to have public executions
I am afraid what we are seeing here, as so often before, is the standard apologetics.
IF (!) ‘most Muslims do not agree …’, WHERE ARE THE PUBLIC DEMOS BY MUSLIMS against the barbaric acts done in the name of Islam all over the world?
Where are the public demos by Muslims against homicide bombings?
Against the barbarities in Iran?
Etc
Etc
Etc ……..
As a Muslim I often find the BBC, and most of the mainstream media, patronising. The insistance on always hyping multiculturalism and immigration only serves to alienate White/indigenous Brits, and this further widens divides in our society. Nothing annoys me more than the way that many try to brush British traditions, or cultural events (Christmas for example) under the carpet under the pretence of multiculturalism. I am not a Christian and I do not celebrate Christmas, but it does not bother me in the slightest that millions do. My children enjoy seeing Father Christmas in the shopping centre. Its this implication that people like me are offended by Christmas that annoys me, and the BBC are part of that movement I am afraid.
At the very least its a region.
It is no such thing. It is the name given to an imperial province with VERY vague borders (which include Syria – are the Syrian now ‘Palestinians’, too?) by a foreign invader.
Given that they fall outside the borders of any other country what else would you call them? Presumably you also object to people being called Londoners, Northerners, Europeans, Cornish, Basques etc etc on the basis they’re “not a nation”.
Are you deliberately playing the innocent hick? These people do NOT come from any definable place called Palestine (unlike Londoners etc).
Furthermore, the whole propaganda point – which people have swallowed – is to make the idiotic leap from ‘Palestinians’ to ‘Palestine’ the ‘country’ to ‘Palestinians the poor oppressed nation’.
Anyway, they play in the World Cup qualifiers which is good enough for me.
The utterly corrupt FIFA does not get to decide on historical facts.
Qaz M:
sorry if this a long post…
Jack, it’s that sort of hostility which I find unproductive. There is a point where the right to free speech seems to become the right to insult and abuse, people expressing a variety of views is free speech, insulting language is not. The right to free speech that millions died for in WW2 was not about making insults and antagonising comments; it was about the right for all to have their say.
BOLLOCKS. But with respect.
You just can’t be serious. It’s not even worth engaging you and your perverted ideas of free speech.
Nearly Oxfordian | 09.01.09 – 1:21 pm
where are the……etc
Here maybe?
http://www.reformislam.org/
Seems there’s something stirrin’ in the ummah
I find it offensive that people even feel the need to ask Muslims whether they feel that way about it
Yes, I can see that you would run a mile and be in denial when asked difficult questions.
Millions of Muslims cheered 9/11, IN THE NAME OF ISLAM.
You can run from that fact, but this won’t make it disappear.
Thanks, Tom.
OK, nice intentions (although the Hebrew text is full of appalling misspellings …) – Now I want to see a large demo in Trafalgar Square.
Have I blinked and missed it?
To those insulting Qaz M – I’ve read his comments, and he doesn’t agree with you. He has, however, at no point insulted you and has not stated at any point that you -must- stop. He’s said he finds some comments unfair, but has not ordered anyone to stop making them.
This, then, is free speech. Free speech on his side, free speech on yours. To open up my own contribution: the insults heaped upon him as if he alone is responsible for all the things currently happening…yeah you can say them and congratulations on exercising your right to free speech, but people will still form on opinion of you based on that speech. The opinion I’ve formed is very, -very- low.
But there is also the fear that if mainstream moderates in the Muslim community drive these organisations out, then they may be able to use this sense of victimhood to win members, which in turn may radicalise them further
Bollocks, but with respect (hat tip).
This is the usual excuse of ‘Let’s not annoy these people, because it might make them even more murderous’. You don’t appease murderers – you chuck them in prison (or ideally, hang them).
Richard Lancaster 12:50 pm
You ask:
“If they [Iranian regime] want to block its distribution [of planned BBC Iranian channel] through other means, how can the BBC do anything other than ‘accept’ this?
Well, the BBC could start by regarding the Iranian regime as hostile to Britsh interests.
How is setting up such a BBC Iranian service presumed to be in the interests of the Britsh people? The BBC could only operate on suffrance, self-censorship or by Iranian state censorship. The British taxpayer is not here to provide the Iranian people with a BBC broadcasting service which only fits with what Ahmadinejad wants.
In the meantime, the British government should indicate to the Iranian government that its London-based PRESS TV channel, operating on the Sky network is on borrowed time in view of the Islamic jihad propaganda it puts out against the British people.
The BBC, BBC World Service, the British government must not play the dhimmi towards Ahmadinejad.
He’s said he finds some comments unfair, but has not ordered anyone to stop making them.
But I bet he would if he could. Islam brooks no dissent.
He has managed to derail the thread though
The opinion I’ve formed is very, -very- low
Is this a blanket ‘opinion’ from your moral high ground? Then my opinion of you is even lower.
Qaz has made some thoughtful comments, and also sees right through the BBC bias.
Show the man some respect.
Yes there are attrocities on both sides, and yes Israel is not free of blame
I knew there’d be a ‘but’ in there somewhere. Moslems simply seem unable to accept ANY blame on their side without saying ‘BUT Israel yada yada …’.
Anonymous | 09.01.09 – 1:31 pm | #
Amen Anon viz your defence of Qaz M.
There are a certain number of … well, ‘morons’ is the only word I can reasonabley use, who do nothing but discredit the cause against BBC bias.
There are also a certain number who are as bigoted as the now banned ‘Bill Buchanan’ but on the other extreme.
show the man some respect
Oh, ffs, stop being such a patronising twit. He is being debated with rationally, isn’t he?
Haven’t had a reply from him re ‘Palestinians’, though. I am so surprised.
Is Bill banned? When did that happen?
Good afternoon gang..
With regards to free speech, Jack Bauer could express his opinion that he thinks all muslims are evil people, or similar, and then explain his argument. If someone else, say Martin, were to try the same using only insulting and inflammatory language, with poor supporting arguments or unfair comparisons, then he could do this too. However, whilst I would have both say what they like, that does not mean I can’t tell Martin that he’s insulting, that his arguments are poor and as such, I value his opinion less than Jack’s. For instance.