Just watched the BBC TV News. The line being retailed is that the mass murder of US soldiers may well lead to even more of that awful Islamophobia that so concerns the State Broadcaster. Even as Major Nidal shouted “Allahu Akbar” and slaughtered the innocent, the BBC has instantly reverted to “Islam is the victim” mode. One of my readers over on A Tangled Web is currently helping treat the injured at Fort Hoods and it is to my shame that I tell him how the British State Broadcaster is doing everything possible to present Nidal as the victim and the real guilty party as the USA.
SHILLING FOR ISLAM…
Bookmark the permalink.
Al beeb is keen to play the victim card isnt it…funny how al beeb wasnt so keen to play the victim card in the lead up to cast lead.
Mailman
It is time for a campaign against the MSM
All of them are pro-Islam, from the BBC through the Daily Mail to the Sun, who on the day that Islamists killed several British soldiers, ran a story about a Muslim bride of one of the said soldiers with the laughable suggestion that current terrorism and Islam are not one and the same
Flo: For starters we need to stop making excuses for Muslims. Islam is a barbaric religion, it offers the west nothing but trouble.
I don’t give a shit what Muslims do to each other in their own doss hole lands, but we should not tolerate Islam in the west.
I’d totally ban Islam and anyone who didn’t like that would either have to leave the UK or be jailed.
Trust me, at some point we in the UK will be nuked by Muslims, probably a dirty bomb, but it will happen.
Wet camp liberals seem to suck up to Muslims, but do they really think that homosexuals and women would be well treated in an Islamic England?
First, there must be an intellectual change in media and government. Remember, the main complaint here for most of us is that the BBC has this totally backward. They make programmes telling Britons that they need to open their minds and that their inherent racism is a primary reason for Muslims in Britian to feel disenfranchised, oppressed, etc. Their news broadcasts have a similar editorial slant.
The noise today is exactly the same as for Geert Wilders. The cry from on high was that Wilders might inspire violence, so he shouldn’t be tolerated and was called a racist, and the source of the problem. They were right that he would inspire violence, but wrong about who would actually be bringing it. It would have been Muslims doing the violence, not the white, non-Muslim Britons. Yet the BBC never, ever brought up that angle.
The coverage of this mass murder is evidence of the same editorial bias. Their concern with assuaging anti-Muslim anger overrode journalistic integrity. As you’ve seen, rather than calming down the non-Muslims, this kind of editorial bias actually causes more anger and resentment.
The first step to improve the situation would be for the BBC – and by extension the Government, since they all seem to have the same bias and intellectual failure – to start making programmes and take an editorial slant about reaching across the aisle the other way. Encourage Muslims to reach out, tell them they are not oppressed, that they should treat their women better, that they should open their minds.
Untll the BBC stops having the editorial bias of “Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic”, and starts being more honest and encouraging the other way, there can be no progress.
Classic Press Release, sorry, ahem, story from al-BBCeera this morning; re. the upcoming Swiss ‘minarets’ referendum.
All the hallmarks are there, the victimhood scene-setting, the second-guessing of the poll results, no opposing viewpoint – classic BBC Muslim puff piece.
Flo
The reason people tend to get agitated about Islam in Western countries is that the political élites that run these countries have bought the leftist/Marxist system of controlling dissent, lock, stock and barrel.
In the main, we are not unreasonable, hateful people – we are just told that we are when we speak our minds. We are losing our countries to an insane triumvirate of political correctness, untrammelled immigration and spurious ‘hate’ legislation; underpinned by a politically astute, over-enabled and over-entitled Muslim minority.
Big business is bought in too, because it gets access to dirt-cheap, third-world labour. In Europe, national governments and the undemocratic EU behemoth all work to reinforce what is happening at national level. The chances are in Britain, that keeping your job is conditional upon adhering to a highly-restrictive ‘diversity and equality’ policy.
Obama’s government is bringing the same to the US – and similar mindsets and controls are in place elsewhere in the Angloshpere.
The fix is in, as the Americans say.
What can we do? We can work within the law to highlight what is happening, we can write, disseminate and spread the message.
We can read, we can write and we can organise – and we can refrain from shooting the messenger, because that’s precisely what they want.
The BBC is quoting in Shooting raises fears for Muslims in US Army but it is significant that no BBC person thought WTF was an appropriate response.
Mr Memon says the vast majority of Muslim citizens in America are “able to live peaceful lives”, even though they have probably suffered some discrimination, if only a hostile look, since the 11 September 2001 attacks.
Is there no provocation so slight that it can’t be used as justification for murder?
First you have to identify the problem.( Radical Islam) The BBC thinks it is the west who is the problem. To talk about solutions is a bit premature when you can’t agree about the problem.
This should probably be relegated to an Open Thread but as one is not available and it it tangentally related to the ‘Shilling for Islam’ headline.
Afghans die in ‘Nato air strike’
My first thought and the one I believe the BBC intended me to have was, “Oh no, not another wedding”! Reading further I discover that the Afghans were auxillaries killed in a ‘friendly fire’ incident, where five Americans and 18 Afghans were also wounded during a joint operation. I see also, that an investigation is being carried out as it is possible they were killed by Taliban forces.
For BBC:
“The Jihadist is always the Victim”
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/11/phyllis-chessler-jihadist-is-always.html#readfurther
Suggestion for BBC:
“Call this horror by its name: Islamist terror”
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/call_this_horror_by_its_name_islamist_HT78Wt6NkWoCGq5HIOwlII
Listen to this segment of Friday’s Newsnight – from 21 50 to 29 00 – for a perfect illustration of the BBC’s methodolgy and agenda. This could go in the BBC Handbook under “How to pour a dose of unction and obfuscation over bloody murder.”
NB:
The introductory words by the presenter: “…who happens to be…” (!)
The language (spot the phrases lifted from the Handy Cliche shelf) used in the segment 26 26 to 29 00 (a platform for the Islamic Society.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ntf7m/b00ntf6d/Newsnight_06_11_2009/
Reference to BBC included here:
“Jihadi Denial Syndrome reaches epidemic proportions”
(Melanie Phillips)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5516891/jihadi-denial-syndrome-reaches-epidemic-proportions.thtml
Nuke mecca.
Well it may sound a bit extreme, but the reason why the Soviets never invaded us was because they knew we would nuke Moscow.
If the jihadists knew we’d nuke Mecca if they attacked us, I’m sure they would think twice about it.
…it’s just that you don’t seem to be being very forthcoming with the details of your proposed ‘new approach’, Flo.
In fact I’d say that from I’ve seen of your postings so far, you appear to have at least one foot firmly in the ‘denial’ camp. No offence.
Oh and:
“Like any religion it is open to interpretation”.
Islam isn’t – do some reading, particularly about the immutability of the Qur’an and Islamic concepts of Bid’a and Ijtihad.
I don’t believe that Islamic extremism can be fought by means of tightening immigration, deportation etc. For the simple reason that we are fighting an ideology here.
Ideologies don’t just drift around in disembodied form, they are held by people. If you keep out the people who hold these ideologies then you’ve won at least half the battle.
The blunt fact is that if successive UK governments had not needlessly invited large numbers of Muslims, mainly Pakistani, into the country we would not have suffered the 7/7 atrocity and we would have avoided the vast majority of the terrorist problem we have.
If the USA had not allowed Major Nidal’s Muslim parents into their country (and before the mid 1960s they hardly allowed any Third World immigration), this massacre would not have happened.
One can object to the ‘discriminatory’ aspect of it, but it’s hard to dispute the simple logic of it.
Perhaps the BBC is correct and the general population will turn against the Mohammedan cancer as a result of this atrocity. Perhaps people will demand that Moslems who want to live among them will have to make a choice between their ideology and the privilege of living in a free society.
That Islam and the mass immigration of Muslims pose a severe, imminent threat to the West. You’re still on the fence about that.
Another report for the BBC to hide, as it ‘disappears’ the Hasan massacre:
“Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html
“Fort Hood jihadist’s co-workers saw warning signs, but said nothing for fear of seeming bigoted”
(from ‘Jihadwatch):
“Details here.
“So this is what it has come to — this is the fruit of the long-term efforts by groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and others, to stigmatize and demonize everyone who speaks honestly about the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism. People are afraid to speak up about what they see, when they know it is wrong.
And all it cost this week was 13 dead and 38 wounded.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/fort-hood-jihadists-coworkers-saw-warning-signs-but-said-nothing-for-fear-of-seeming-bigoted.html
Ah yes, let’s engage the poor mites in yet more understanding and feely-touchy conversation. They must be MURDERING for some reason that we’re to blame for.
Meanwhile, as you stand on the street corner patronizing them, they are pro-creating 8 times faster than all other Europeans.
Muslims do NOT want to integrate or be understood. They just want YOU in their nutjob religion, or dead.
Islamic terrorism can only succeed against a civilisation that has lost all hold on reality and confidence in itself. This is why our main enemy is not the Islamist but the degraded political elite that has assumed power in our society. In education, in the liberal media, in the law and government particularly the proliferating NGOs.
We have allowed this to happen through indolence and an obssession with the trivial and ephemeral.
This battle to come will be for the future of our culture. The Islamist threat is not the most deadly. The real battle will be with those who , in their self hatred, despise the history and achievements of the greatest civilisation the world has yet seen and wish it’s destruction.
Flo
Welcome
You are trying to debate.
But if there is – as you seem to accept – a severe threat of Islamist terrorism, homebred – surely we should cut down absolutely on letting more potential Islamists in ?
Most Muslims immigrants bring no worthwhile skill, no money – and they bring RISK.
So who needs them ? There is enough anti-Brit attitude fstering away, why add to it ?
Flo
I don’t really know how you can support your position that native Brits could ‘just as easily’ convert to Islam – and that tackling this possibility is a more appropriate way of dealing with the problem than by securing our borders more effectively.
Of course they could – but all but a lost, lonely handful, don’t. You are chasing ghosts. In Britain, radical Islamism originates mainly within Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Maghrebi immigrant communities and, by and large, thrives almost exclusively within those communities – albeit aided and abetted by home-grown leftism.
We can’t do much about the latter other than counter their dangerous and divisive arguments, sadly – but we are in a position to be able to at least mitigate the former. I believe we should also be robustly deporting those non-citizens to whom we have no further legal obligations.
It certainly isn’t the only solution – but I’m not sure that anyone would be able to make a convincing argument for continued Muslim immigration into the West. If anyone thinks otherwise, I’d be more than happy to hear it-and debate it.
I’m not attacking you by the way – I wouldn’t want this place to be an Agree-O-Thon – and think it is good that you are debating and sharing your ideas – just don’t expect them to go unchallenged – especially in here!
Well is a touchy subject to make a statement like that. http://www.debatepopular.blogspot.com