I know I blogged this last night but I listened to the BBC coverage of the return of Ethiopian illegal immigrant Binyam Mohamed on Today this morning and it was so one-sided as to be about as credible as Binyam’s daring tales of wandering through the tribal areas of Afghanistan/Pakistan to deal with his “drug issues.” The narrative being followed remorselessly by the BBC is “was he tortured”? They appear disinterested in the fact that the US authorities consider him a very dangerous Jihadist who was involved in planning terror attacks. If this is true, I would hope that he was robustly interrogated and the pity is he was even taken prisoner in the first instance – but then again we love life like they love death. I appreciate that some bleeding hearts resile from the notion that we must treat murdering terrorists for what they are in order to try and save innocent lives but why must concede this point? You have to hand it to Al Queda – when they instructed their operatives to whine “torture” if captured on the basis this would win over the gullible and dhimmified msm, they called it exactly right. I KNOW that many other parts of the liberal media are also hailing brave Binyam but of course the big difference is that you and I are forced to fund the BBC to do so and this that makes it so much worse.
BBC MAN OF THE YEAR?
Bookmark the permalink.
Interesting how the Guardian mentions that BMs sister who met him at Northolt is an American citizen. Strange that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/24/binyam-mohamed-guantanamo-detainee-release
The leftist MSM are not gullible: they KNOW that Binyam Muhamad is a liar and a fraud but he serves their purpose of destroying our nation from within. The Ethiopian is no traitor or anything like that but those who pull his strings most definitely are.
Geert Wilders appeared on O’Reilly last night.
America – land of free speech.
Britain – land of state censorship.
The BBC could, of course, interview Wilders and let him express his views on his recent ban from the U.K. They could travel to Holland to do it, the same way they travel to Gaza to let Muslims have their say for instance. But of course they won’t.
Oh dear. Radio 5 have had a lot of texts and emails about the bushy bearded halfwit this morning. Do you want to take a guess about what nearly all of them said?
Here’s a clue. The BBC won’t read any out.
Jason
There are some things which must NEVER be said on the BBC – an outright assault on militant Islam is one of them. The sun sinks on the greatness in Britain as the multiculti media elite applaud..
Who funds Binyams “legal team”? Clive Stafford Smith I assume doesn’t work for nothing. (I Like the “Stafford” – as though “Clive Smith” wasn’t sexy enough. A vain nasty America-hating American lawyer) Where is Binyam going to sleep at night – the Ritz? Who pays for lunch, provides his pocketmoney. Will he be signing on or down the job centre? Applying for a mortgage?
This media legal circus is costing someone a lot of money and I for one would be interested in who apart from the taxpayer is keeping this show afloat. “Show me the money” The whole thing stinks of George Sorros Foundation. Or may be Jaqui Smith and the Home Office dip into the petty cash to help him out. You know, MPs type expenses and a John Lewis list for Binyam.
AndrewSouthLondon: Apparently Spliff knows someone who could put him up in London for £900 a month. Only a small box room mind, but 24/7 Police protection.
Geert Wilders was welcomed in Rome last Thursday and allowed to show Fitna. Even Labour Home reported it: http://www.labourhome.org/story/2009/2/21/213846/724
I don’t usually bother, but this arrant nonsense deserves a letter of complaint ! They really do inhabit a different planet to the rest of the population.
Wilders’ biggest offence in the eyes of the BBC is to compare the koran with Mein Kampf.
Mein Kampf is mistakenly labelled as turgid and rambling: it isn’t. It makes quite clear its author’s beliefs, aims and intentions. The ‘rambling, turgid’ bit was added post-war by those who did not act upon taking its author’s aims seriously. Equally, the koran is clear what its intentions are towards non-believers and their countries. It is a manifesto of conquest and slaughter, completely incompatible with liberty. The BBC sides with islam.
A little off topic, but an interesting article on how the BNP are filling the vacuum created by the main parties and their consensus politics. Could perhaps be applied to the BBC too? After all many are alienated by their obsession with multiculturalism.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/46597,opinion,how-the-bnp-moved-into-the-political-mainstream
But surely parties which ignore voters’ concerns are, by definition, extremist? It is extremist to ignore voters’ concerns and if the BNP does not ignore such concerns but addresses them head-on, then the BNP becomes mainstream and NuLab, Dave’s Cons and the Lib Dhims are then extremists.
In fact, these last three parties are now extreme in that they intend to impose policies on the UK which do not have the consent of the voters. Nobody woted for the abandonment of border controls, for the abandonment of sensible finance, for the off-shoring of jobs, for handing billions to the EU nor even to remain in the EU!
Former BBC employee Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times: “Binyam is an Ethiopian who was never awarded full citizenship here, so it’s a real stroke of luck that we end up with custody of the man.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article5780273.ece
It’s no surprise to me that the BBC is this man’s cheerleader. They are bound to support anyone who can rip off the British people and swim in shedloads of public money, whilst taking the mick. Just like them.
The Times article is clearly against Mohamed staying in the UK, so that one line you included in your post is out of context completely. The fact you make a point of calling him ‘a former BBC employee’ too is intended to somehow imply that BBC employers are in favour of Mohamed staying here. The article itself is exactly the sort of thing a lot of people here might agree with. Stop looking for a cheap shot at the BBC.
Has anyone ever been allowed to put a case against this man’s arrival in Britain on the bbc?
Gus Haynes,
I`m not looking for a cheap shot. I`m looking for a lethal shot to put this parasite out of the countries misery.
Gus Haynes: “The fact you make a point of calling him ‘a former BBC employee’ too is intended to somehow imply that BBC employers are in favour of Mohamed staying here.”
Quite right Gus! I mean from the tone of the BBC’s output it is quite clear, that this is a most ridiculous slur. The BBC has all times, carefully documented this man’s past and our presenters have always questioned his residency status. You wouldn’t find a BBC presenter for instance, falsely claiming that Mr. Mohamed was a full British citizen. And you’ve got to ask yourself • whose investigative journalists unearthed Mr. Mohamed’s little rent scam, re: his social housing flat. Yes sir • I have full confidence that our BBC interviewers will be exposing all those little flaws in Mr. M’s cover story re: going to Afghanistan to recover from his drug habit. Did you know • for example, that some piss-poor journalists have actually disputed the Taliban / Al Qaeda role in the drug industry? Again with our £3.5 Billion budget you won’t get this kind of duff information on the BBC; Oh No!
🙂
BTW Gus: I’ve replied to your post of late last night (my reply is re-printed below) • perhaps you’d be prepared to comment.
————————————
Gus Haynes: You lambaste me for making false assumptions • I need to ‘analyse not assume’. Well let’s have a look at your own analysis.
You claim: “You misunderstand the way that ‘the left’ feel about this story. They are not pleased he is here, they just see it as mildly better alternative to languishing in America’s own private prison where people can be locked up for 7 years without being convicted of anything”.
So the left are not pleased about Mr Mohamed’s return • then why did David Miliband say this yesterday – “I’m pleased that Binyam Mohamed is coming back to the United Kingdom.”
You also claim that the Left has decided to tolerate Mr. Mohamed’s return because “…it as mildly better alternative to languishing in America’s own private prison”. Well, it’s certainly better for Mr. Mohamed, but there is a debate to be had about which arrangement is better for the UK. Personally, I’d have let him rot in Guantanamo Bay. But this is an academic issue, because your whole observation is built on a false premise i.e. only two alternatives existed for Mr. Mohamed • Guantanamo or the UK. Forgive my ignorance but Mr. Mohamed is an Ethiopian citizen is he not • could the United States have not deported him to his homeland? Or failing that, the country where they picked him up i.e. Pakistan. Of course, security considerations may have precluded Washington from wishing his return to either of these countries • but whose problem is that? Answer: The United States of America. It is the USA who have jailed him for 7 years; it is their President who has rashly pledged to close Guantanamo Bay without giving due consideration as to how and where its inmates are to be housed. So why is this a British problem?
After all – we are under no legal obligation in international law to accept Mr. Mohamed – he is an ex-resident, who voluntarily terminated his right to stay in 2001 by boarding a plane to Pakistan. Since President Obama has promised to close the Guantanamo facility let him decide whether to try him or release him • and if the latter • where to send him. At the end of the day, if no suitable donor country could be found • America would have been forced to house him. His sister is after all, an American citizen.
Oh! And as for this statement: “No I am not in favour of his return, and no one (bar yourself) would assume I was based on my comments”. Clearly Gus, you underestimate the power of your own advocacy • because I assure you • nearly everyone-else on this board thought you were in favour of his return. As Garden Trash has observed: I “got the impression you wanted to sleep with him”
Gus Haynes, do YOU think that Binyam Muhamad should be here?
Has the BBC ever indulged in a bit of introspection regarding how their red-carpet treatment of Bin Mohamad is likely to be driving voters into the arms of the BNP? So next time they start moaning about the BNP’s progress in the polls, they can look in the mirror for the culprit.
BBC “Home Planet” science prog at 3pm on Radio 4 has a ridiculous “climate expert” who kicks off by saying that this winter has not been especially cold – he refers back to the big freeze of 1962/3. In an obvious attempt to pooh-pooh the idea that global warming is not continuing.
I am surprised he did not refer back to 1947 as well!
This is the level of “science” these so-called experts dish up for the BBC, day in, day out. Absolute denial of hard facts.
“Why are we releasing known terrorists ?
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/24/video-why-are-we-releasing-terrorists/
Known terrorists? How dare you? I am peace loving, freedom loving, diplomatic man. I am happy to be in UK once more. They do not give me money for nothing in Ethiopia so I come here. And it’s full of poor people. And there are not enough human rights lawyers to help me out. This is why I love Britain!
Allan@Oslo: I bet big Gus fancies him.
So now he’s “back in Britain”. “Recuperating.” “British complicity” in torture. Why was he away from “home” in the first place? Why was he picked up? Who knows? Just US “allegations”, apparently.
Oooh, “mistreatment”. Well, that’s enough. May as well just inflate that to “torture”, since that’s the default setting for these stories anyway.
MP Gapes just proves what this is all about: ending George Bush’s Guantanamo, and playing up the alleged British complicity in torture to justify grandstanding over somebody he admits isn’t legally worth the effort. That’s all the BBC’s after as well: the emotional angle of “torture”. The legal facts and any potential unpleasantness Binyam may get up to afterwards is just story filler to them. Who cares if they’ve just helped to create a new poster boy for jihad?
Is it just me, or did Humphrys seem bored, possibly not pleased with the whole thing?
Euphoria over this individual is only to be expected from the BBC that now describes people who throw bombs at schoolchildren sightseers in the street in Cairo, killing and maiming willy-nilly, as “Islamist militants angry at Egypt’s stance over the recent Gaza conflict”. Disgusting is too fine a word to put on this statement. Killing and maiming innocent children obviously means nothing to those who scribble for the BBC. They sadly lack the imagination to feel for others despite the fact that they believe feeling for others is their paramount motivation. Being sublimely aloof and impartial is really all that counts. In all their truly sickening addled piousness they will never know that impartiality in reporting is never to be confused with affording wrong the same rights as right.
Our friend ‘Lord’ Ahmed get’s sentenced tomorrow. What are the odds of him doing porridge?
The BBC’s adulation of the its adopted Islamic Ethiopian, Mandela Mohamed, continues; at the moment, Radio 4’s dhimmified ‘PM’ has Mohamed’s Ethiopian/ soon to be another British resident, sister, on.
Has anyone ever asked the BBC how many muslims they employ, both directly and indirectly as contractors? I just get the feeling they can’t all be Jeremy Bowens work. The stuff is to pernicious, wall to wall.Just as fifty years of advertising jobs in the Guardian media pages has ensured an organisation that is institutionaly leftist from top to bottom, so there is a question – what proportion of BBC job adverts have been placed in the Jewish Chroniicle?
“In fact, these last three parties are now extreme in that they intend to impose policies on the UK which do not have the consent of the voters”.
More to the point,they impose policies which are not in the interests of the voters.
The bottom line seems to be,the ruling elite only seem to respect those who try to blow the shit out of them.
George R: that interview was a travesty – a thinly disguised attempt to make listeners feel sympathy for this wannabe terrorist.
The more the sister gushed, the more the BBC hack pumped her for empathy cues, the more I wished the Americans had just shot him as an enemy combatant and had done with it.
I also listened to the BBC news coverage yesterday of what the announcer referred to as “the arrival of BRITISH resident Binyam Mohammed…” If she had hit the word “British” any harder, she would have blown the top off the microphone.
I suspect that the BBC are beginning to realize that their message is not exactly coming across to the general public, and are trying to shout louder in order to drown out any opposition.
How offensive! I am British resident like you! I believe in British values! I love British tea, and the Queen, and Cristiano Ronaldo.
The BBC are my friends, and I will ask you not to insult them any more.
If you were being flown (first class with the pillows and movies on demand) from Cuba to a new home, would you choose Ethiopia or England?
Did Ethiopia pick up the bill for the chartered jet to fly this terrorist from Cuba to Britain, or was it the BBC?
AndrewSouthLondon | 24.02.09 – 5:21 pm | #
I’d also be fascinated if one of the respectable Think Tanks or research organisations were to scrutinise how much of the world’s money has been poured into Palestine and exactly how it has been spent. It would be a fascinating exercise. Just the last five years will do.
It is rumoured that Arafat (no tears please Plett) sunk about $200 million dollars of world aid into his own Swiss Bank Accounts and that his wife lives in Paris on $100,000 dollars annual clothes allowance.
The money poured in must be stonking. The equivalent of a European countries GDP, I’d guess. From the World Bank to Mussie collections, from left wing trade unions to Respect, from Viva Palestina to the UN, from the EU to student grants, from DEC to Amnesty, from the Liebour Party to Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, from the IMF to the KKK, from the NUJ to BBC staffers, from Iran (an estimated $100 M), from Saudi Arabia to Palestinian ex-pats, from al Quaeda to neo Nazi groups, from Islamist mosques to War on Want, from Save the Children to Unicef, from Christian Aid to numerous worldwide pro Palestinian Foundations.
This is a huge sum of money. Enough to make each Palestinian richer than yow. Where is it? How has it been spent? Why are their streets paved with shit, not gold? Who can do the math? Who can enter the black hole?
The unravelling story will make out bank bail-outs seem trivial.
Our friend ‘Lord’ Ahmed get’s sentenced tomorrow. What are the odds of him doing porridge?
Qoooze | 24.02.09 – 5:16 pm |
I’d guess like himself a big fat zero.
No disquiet from BBC reporters, Barbara ‘tears for Arafat’ Plett, and BBC’s M.Ilyas Khan over Taleban’s Islamic jihad conquest of Swat valley in Pakistan:
“Taleban Swat truce ‘indefinite'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7907070.stm
BBC’s Plett and Khan seem quite trusting of the Islamic jihad Taleban.
A more insightful analysis that that of the BBC’s Plett and Khan, is provided here by MARK STEYN:
“From Islamabad to Bradford”
[Extract]:
“In the Swat Valley, where a young Winston Churchill once served with the Malakand Field Force battling Muslim insurgents, his successors have concluded the game isn’t worth the candle. In return for a temporary ceasefire, the Pakistani government agreed to let the local franchise of the Taliban impose its industrial strength version of sharia across the whole of Malakand Region. If ‘region’ sounds a bit of an imprecise term, Malakand has over five million people, all of whom are now living under a murderous theocracy. Still, peace rallies have broken out all over the Swat Valley, and, at a Swat peace rally, it helps to stand well back: As one headline put it, ‘Journalist Killed While Covering Peace Rally.’
“But don’t worry about Pakistani nukes falling into the hands of ‘extremists’: The Swat Valley is a good hundred miles from the ‘nation’’s capital, Islamabad — or about as far as Northern Vermont is from Southern Vermont. And, of course, Islamabad is safely under the control of the famously moderate Ali Zardari. A few days before the Swat deal, Mr. Zardari marked the dawn of the Obama era by releasing from house arrest A. Q. Khan, the celebrated scientist and one-stop shop for all your Islamic nuclear needs, for whose generosity North Korea and Iran are especially grateful.” ( Mark Steyn.)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmVhYzRmOGYzYmQ3ODRhYjBiMzllYzc2NDNhZmZjMzU=&w=MA==
JohnA | 24.02.09 – 3:19 pm |
He would have done if this winter had been worse than 1962/3.
Thats how its done – they take average temperatures from some arbitrary period and compare temperatures from then. But only when it fits their agenda.
Why was Bin Mo flown in a private jet across to Britain. What example about laying off flying does that give to the masses ?
La Cumparsita | 24.02.09 – 1:28 pm | wrote:
Former BBC employee Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times: “Binyam is an Ethiopian who was never awarded full citizenship here, so it’s a real stroke of luck that we end up with custody of the man.”
Gus Haynes responded:
The Times article is clearly against Mohamed staying in the UK, so that one line you included in your post is out of context completely.
Gus, this shows that you are either:
(a) not a native speaker of English; or
(b) a child (my guess is around 17); or
(c) autistic; or
(d) a troll; or
(e) an idiot.
fewqwer | 24.02.09 – 8:13 pm |
Or all of the above.
Dennis Prager on America, Liberals, Jihad and more
fewqwer: I suggest you read the link to the times article. Then tell me what you think.
Gus doesn’t do irony.
“Gus doesn’t do irony.”
He can do my ironing any time the poppet.
‘Telegraph blog’
“Let’s send Binyam Mohamed to Pakistan to learn what the Taliban is really like” (by Con Coughlin):
[Extract]-
“When he [Binyam Mohamed] was arrested wandering around Afghanistan in early 2002, Mr Mohamed, who is said to have met Obama bin Laden and Richard Reid, the infamous Brixton shoe-bomber during his al-Qaeda indoctrination, came up with the rather laughable excuse that he had gone to the region to learn how the Taliban government worked. A close reading of any British newspaper at the time would have told him that the Taliban ruled by striking utter terror into the hearts of its citizens.
“Well, now that the Taliban has agreed a ceasefire in Pakistan’s troubled Swat valley in return for being allowed to practice Sharia law, perhaps the Ethiopian born Mr Mohamed might like to travel there where he could bring himself up to date on the Taliban’s latest governmental practices, such as stoning adulterers to death and cutting off the limbs of those accused of theft.
“Certainly if Mr Mohamed could be persuaded to resume his old interests it would save us poor tax-payers in Britain a great deal of money and bother.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/con_coughlin/blog/2009/02/24/lets_send_binyam_mohamed_to_pakistan_to_learn_what_the_taliban_is_really_like
Binyam gets a warm welcome.
“Binyam Mohamed in line for taxpayer-funded benefits”:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4800015/Binyam-Mohamed-in-line-for-taxpayer-funded-benefits.html
Well, who’d of thought it? 🙂
“Binyam Mohamed in line for taxpayer-funded benefits”
Yes ,but only until his book deal,the prime time interview and the lecture tours come on line.After the film of his life he will be able to sign off.