In yesterday’s mini round-up I began with the BBC interview with cherubic Qasim Rafiq, who appeared to be baffled by the behaviour of his best friend the baby-faced underpants bomber.
The BBC’s apparent assumption that the twosome’s association with the UCL’s Islamic Society was as good as a character reference was baffling too. They accepted it as a kind of alibi and seemed to be satisfied that for this reason alone he couldn’t have been radicalised while he was in the UK.
Robin Shepherd nails it again.
Con Coughlin has:
“even though Abdulmutallab is not even a British citizen, he was still allowed to be elected president of the Islamic Society at University College London (UCL), where he was then allowed to arrange debates on subjects such as Guantanamo Bay and “Jihad v Terrorism”. No points for guessing which side Abdulmutallab was on.”
It seems though, that the BBC is not alone in its refusal to confront the elephant in the uni. The events of Christmas day came as a complete shock to Malcolm Grant of UCL.
It’s freedom of speech innit?
Its a moot point if Abdulmutallab was radicalised at UCL or not. It does seem more plausible that he went there to radicalise. That the BBC should be complicit in seeking to cover-up for the terrorist nature of many university Islamic Societies should come as no suprise to anyone. It’s long established that the evils of Leftist and Islamic totalitarianism see mutual benefit in collaboration. Yet another case of if we had a Government worthy of its name some nice chaps from MI5 would be despatched to have a word with the BBC editor responsible for the interview to ask why they choose to interview a terrorist cohort with complete credulity in stark contrast to the way they treat our elected representatives, followed by a little lecture on aiding and abetting the enemy at time of war and its consequences.
hippiepooter
Ooh, and worth mentioning one cannot wait for UCL’s Malcolm Grant upholding an speaker invitation to Geert Wilders and condemning Islamists who try to stop it in the same forthright terms as he condemns the Telegraph. These people know their hypocrisy. They just have no self-respect. They’re like the Germans who lived by the Concentration Camps and claimed they had no idea what was going on.
Just noticed an interesting phenomenon from Heather Sharp’s standard BBC gobbledegook on Gaza. There’s a breakdown of the casualty figures from the Israeli attack and they have actually published the IDF figures, though third in importance after Hamas and B’Tselem.
Heads are gonna roll:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8435066.stm
Yet another installment in the BBC’s series commemorating one minor military assault on Gaza as if it were some kind of national event of historic importance to Britain. Is there a similar BBC focus on a military action like this by any other country on the planet?
In any case, this is yet another installment in the BBC’s emotional series commemorating the one year anniversary of this particular attack of Israel’s on Gaza, and yet again there is no mention whatsoever by the BBC of Hamas’s reason for existence, as stated in its charter: to destroy Israel and engage in something resembling genocide.
Unless they mention Hamas’s goal of destroying Israel, every BBC report about this event is another BBC piece in indirect support of this goal.
Interesting that around the time of Hamas’ rise to power in Gaza, the motley BBC crew, led by chief mottled one, Jeremy Bowen, was cheerfully reporting that Hamas did not recognise Israel and even reporting that it had the aim of destroying Israel. I have done much scratching of my head over this and in time I have come to believe that the BBC was advertising the intentions of their Hamas heroes in order to boost their popularity in the arab and broader anti-Semitic/anti-Israel world.
Thes edays they appear to be a little more muted about it, probably because of changing political realities. What say you, David?
They’re a lot more muted about it. If Bowen was being candid about Hamas’s desire to destroy Israel (are you sure it wasn’t Alan Johnston?), it was a momentary lapse of decorum, strictly temporary. I don’t believe it was a deliberate attempt to promote Hamas to the BBC’s Arab audience, but rather an exciting story to report for a Hamas-supporting Beeboid with a personal blood grudge against the IDF.
Sure, once in a while reality forces the BBC to quietly mention things they don’t like, but it’s a very rare occasion.
The BBC was quite shy about that detail in the Hamas charter last year when reporting on the little battle they’re now commemorating as if it were Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
As someone else pointed out (sorry can’t remember who) on this blog, this underpants towel head terrorist was pro the Taliban after 9/11 like most if not all Muslims.
This idea that Muslims become radicalised is bollocks, they are ALREADY radicalised because of their following of a barbaric stupid crappy religion.
I find it absolutely mind numbing that the issue of British student visas lying behind so many of these cases is not highlighted. In fact, I really don’t understand how or why we haven’t seen another Steve Moxon on this issue alone – I warned the UKBA that they were going to generate one when I resigned.
This problem is enormous.
Another article in the Telegraph is worth reading in full, too. Ruth Dudley Edwards “Seats of Learning – and Loathing.”
“As a writer on Irish terrorism, who knew how easily idealistic teenagers could be transformed into ruthless terrorists, I became fascinated by what was happening on a much larger scale in Islamist circles. Years of studying the religion and politics of Islam have given me an insight into young people like Abdulmutallab which his tutors seem to have lacked.”
Yes, Ms. Dudley Edwards indicates how British universities, supported by a ‘Muslim vote-seeking’ Labour government allows Islamic foreign ‘students’ to easily infiltrate British society and to put British people under the threat of death.
And the ‘multicultural’ BBC doesn’t see the problem!
George, the BBC is *part of the problem.
hippiepooter
The BBC needs to be exterminated. Perhaps we could tattoo all beeboids then round the bastards up and ship them off to camps. I’d vote for that.
What is also worth noting in RDE’s piece is this:-
It’s not that universities haven’t had enough warnings. Sheikh Musa Admani, an imam at London Metropolitan University, pleaded with both the Home Office and academic leaders to supervise and control Islamic societies. He spoke eloquently of vulnerable, friendless first-year students, confused about the conflict between Islam and hedonistic secular values, who are natural prey for Islamist evangelists offering companionship, brotherly love and a clear sense of identity.
Admani’s common-sense advice – for instance, that prayer rooms should be open to all, not just Muslims, and that speakers should be vetted – were seemingly ignored by most academics and officials
As someone who thinks the cause of Islamic terrorism is Islam, it has to be noted that there are a proportion of Muslims who do not see terrorism as compatible with Islam, are brave in opposing it, and deserve their due, no matter how much people like myself may find their views irreconcilable with the religion they follow.
hippiepooter
On the topic of the Al Qaeda scum in Yemen whom the BBC insist on reporting as “allegedly” having enabled the Underpants Bomber, the Beeboids display their sloppiness and muddled thinking when it comes to Al Q and Islamonutters in this report:
Obama blames al-Qaeda for Christmas Day jet ‘bomb’
So they’re not even prepared to report that this was, in fact, a bomb. How disingenuously buttoned-down can you get, BBC? What else was it if not a bomb? A Christmas cracker? A novelty pair of underpants he bought on a lark at the duty free joke shop at Schipol airport? The Beeboid junior sub-editor trainee responsible for that is treading a very thin line between legal dodging and lying.
An intellectually honest BBC editor would know that there is no legal reason for the BBC to report that the bomber himself “allegedly tried to smuggle” anything on the plane. As the perpetrator will not be tried in a British court of law, there is absolutely no legal prohibition for the BBC to report that he did it. There are witnesses, and even one heroic bystander who jumped him, who was interviewed by the BBC! They’ve already had eyewitness reports about Abdulmutallab doing this, so the BBC has already crossed that (imaginary, in this case) line.
But the real joke is in the “Al Qaeda Offshoot” detail inset. The BBC states that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was formed in January 2009 by a merger of Al Q in Saudi Arabia and Al Q in Yemen. But then below that it says this group “Came to prominence with Riyadh bombings in 2003, and 2008 attack on US embassy in Sanaa”.
How can it have been formed only 12 months ago if it came to prominence with a terrorist attack in 2003? Somebody isn’t being honest about this group, and it’s either the BBC sub-editor, or one of his supervisors. Why are the Beeboids so intellectually incapable of reporting on Islamic mass murderers? This leads them to hide the truth, mislead, and sometimes even lie to the public.
Sorry, link not coming through again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8437496.stm
Mr Preiser, I always make a point of reading your posts. In my humble opinion, if time allows you, I think you should be one of the Contributors here.
hippiepooter
Amen. Always a pleasure to read Preiser wtfpwn Defenders of the Indefensible – as he calls them – when they show up occasionally.
Thank you for the kind words, but I think my US origin would just cause more arguments about having no right to comment here, and arguments of “what could you know about it, go sort out your own media, FOX News is worse”, etc., than it’s worth.
Frankly Mr Preiser, we British need the moral clarity of you Americans to show us how things should be done. The reason Al Qa’eda attacked America 9/11 is because it is a bastion in the defence of the world’s freedom. The reason the BBC attacks America is because it is a bastion … . Guys like David Vance show that moral clarity still exists in Britain, and Northern Ireland is one of the few corners of our Kingdom where it is not too unusual to find it, but in the States, inspite of the sleeper communist Obama being elected, you Americans have got it in spades. I’m a proud Englishman, but quite simply my country has lost it. It needs Americans like you to give leadership to show what we once had, what we have now lost, and how we can regain it. It takes kicking ass, and noone kicks ass better than an American! 🙂
hippiepooter
What do you expect when cripple boy Frank ‘the plank’ Gardner a man put in a wheel chair by towel heads in Saudi Arabia still tries to defend them.
For BBC and Labour:
‘Migrationwatch’ –
“Students and Points Based System”
Summary
” For some time the government has been trumpeting its ‘tough and flexible’ Points Based System (PBS) as a solution to Britain’s immigration problems.
On examination, it turns out that nearly three quarters of applications under the PBS are from foreign students and that the new system is neither tough nor flexible. On the contrary, it has led to a serious weakening of immigration controls by virtually eliminating the role of Immigration Officers in the admission of students and placing the initiative with some 2,000 educational institutions in Britain who, of course, have a strong financial interest in attracting students.
Student visas have long been a serious loophole in immigration control; the PBS makes a bad situation considerably worse.”
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/176