Nicky Campbell’s “Big Question” returned to BBC1 this morning and the first question asked was “Are we too tolerant of Muslim extremism”. It was an interesting programme with one Muslim in the audience being given a lot of time to inform us that we are not overly tolerant and that Islamophobia is the major concern. (And guess what, UK Foreign policy was blamed by several audience members for Muslim anger.) However the panel was robust on this with Kevin MacKenzie and Rabbi Schochet making some strong points not normally aired on the BBC. However the third panelist, Christine Rees, blamed UK citizens for creating feelings of anger within Muslim hearts. Nicky Campbell did ask the non-Muslim audience if they could understand “the anger” of the Muslims. Naturally some liberals did. In fairness, this was an unusual tone for a BBC programme and Islam was given a rougher time than I have normally heard.
TOO TOLERANT…
Bookmark the permalink.
Christine Rees, blamed UK citizens for creating feelings of anger within Muslim hearts.
That’s interesting and coincidental because I blame Mohammedans for creatign feelings of anger within British hearts.
The difference being that I am British and live in Britain. I don’t have a choice really.
So any Islamo who has anger in his heart has a choice of buggering off to somewhere with no Britons in charge. Like Yemen. Or Pakistan. Hey presto. No more having the daily grind of seeing us anger-inducing Britons.
Don’t let the Channel Tunnel slam you in the arse on the way out.
Oh I’m sorry. Was I being a tad intolerant there. Like the Saudis or Mohammedans in general globally?
McMong was interviewed on Radio 5 by simpering Kate Silverton (yes she of the ‘girlie Show’) this morning, well I call it an interview, basically McMong was given free range to spout his bollocks without correction. Silverton showed what a total lightweight she is as an interviewer. McMong totally refusing to use the word CUT in terms of public spending, he was still going on and on about increasing public spending. laughingly he talked about how unemployment would be worse under the Tories (you think Silverton might have asked about the 2.5 million and climbing figure all private sector jobs of course) but she didn’t.
The BBC is now is FULL ON get Gordon elected mode.
Hearing McMong does remind me of the last days of the Hitler bunker with a demented idiot leading the nation to total destruction whilst his henchmen stood around wondering if they’d get out of it alive.
Martin — of course, Hitler knew the jig was up and topped himself, shooting his faithful dogs first.
Der Borehrer Herr Brown hasn’t really that level of realization yet.
I wonder when he does whether he’ll shoot his lapdogs first? Like Polly Toynbee and the BBC establishment?
If only Jack, if only
As a fan of the film DOWNFALL, the parallels with Hitler were not lost on me either. Remember the main theme; as he was losing he ordered the destruction of Germany as the public had let him down! McIdiot has the same manic idea.
I understand McIdiot was on Marr and 5Dead this morning. BBC doing the party political thing for it’s favorite government. Luckilly I have a doctors chit that exempts me listening as it is detrimental to my health. i.e. I damage musles throwing radios and TV at the wall.
The question was wrong, it should have asked if we are too tolerant of muslims, not extremists. Personally, I do not differentiate and don’t see why we should.
I still want to know WHAT a tolerant Muslim is
He’s one who uses a sharp knife to chop off your head. An intolerant one uses a dull blade, and it’s more a hacking motion.
Ask Daniel Pearl. Ooops, can’t do that.
<i>I still want to know WHAT a tolerant Muslim is</i>
An apostate muslim.
Every practising Muslim reveres mo and the koran, and the translations peak for themselves. Fundamentalist muslims are only thiose that actually carry out the orders of mo and the koran, but the others believe it too and agree,
Meanwhile on R4 “Broadcasting House” the papers were reviewed by, among others, Lord Victor Adebowale (google an image) who decided that we were to blame for the actions of the underpants bomber as we had not rallied round to support his mental illness. Nobody saw fit to challenge the latest dose of white guilt & lay diagnostics. If loons like Victor think that all bombers are decent men led astray by evil folk – then wtf are the real villains?
I say we all rally around right now to support the mental illness of Lord Vic Adewotsisface.
He need help.
“Nobody saw fit to challenge the latest dose of white guilt”
Of course, it may be because they knew (as, I suspect, did the majority of people listening) that he was quoting a newspaper article about the execution of Akmal Shaikh, and not the bomber at all.
But don’t let little things like inaccuracy get in your way, eh.
And why, pray, should we need to “google an image”? Are you suggesting that his physical appearance renders what he says less important for some reason? I can’t think why…
Look in the mirror
What do YOU think Will meant when he said “google an image”, JHT?
And what exactly do you mean by “look in the mirror”. (Be careful, of course; we all know how eager David Vance is about issues of civility towards others. He’s incredibly inconsistent in his approach, granted, but you never know: today could be the day when he actually applies the same rule equally, regardless of whether or not they agree with his own views…)
It was a joke – or do you people have no sense of humour?
From now on though your posts will be ignored by me as you are clearly trying to persue your own vendetta against Mr Vance.
What the kind of joke that isn’t funny to anyone but the ignorant? Ah, yes “that” kind of joke
Isn’t free speech wonderful
And I shall also ignore your nasty personal attacks in future too.
Some people have no funny bone at all. I don’t know how they get through life or what they get up in the morning for. If you have no humour you might as well not bother.
Not having the funny bone you would think might be a disadvantage in evaluating the funniness of jokes but it does not in the least deter them from decreeing in all seriousness and with utter conviction that a joke or a multi-layered comedy sketch is not at all funny and that theirs is the definitive say on the matter.
Why is a picture relevant? Have you seen McMong or Ed Balls? I wouldn’t trust either near children just by their looks.
The BBC prefers vague words like ‘radicalised’, rather than more accurate words like ‘Islamised’.
The BBC merely provides a platform for apologists for Islam, largely excluding non-Muslim critics. There is no criticism of Islam on the BBC ‘Education’ news webpage; (all we get there is a whitewash job on the Christmas would-be bomber.)
Compare:
1.) BBC report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8436332.stm
2.)’Jihadwatch report’ (after ‘Daily Telegraph’):
“British universities have become centers of jihad recruitment”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/british-universities-have-become-centers-of-jihad-recruitment.html
The Telegraph used the word “radicalisation” – is that Telegraph bias? Islamised and radicalised are NOT the same
DG
You may have noticed that I said that the two words are different; that ‘radicalised’ is a vague word, and that ‘Islamised’ is more specific word, and so to be preferred for clarity in understanding Islamic jihad motivation.
Having a Rabbi on the panel whose last name means “Ritual Slaughterer” is just too funny in this context.
Now, now, David, Mustn’t make any jokes on here. It is NOT funny; I tell you, it definitely is not. It is just a name and that is all that is needed here. Get back in your box! 🙁
George”
British universities have become centers of jihad recruitment”
And unless they have changed that much since I was there… Uni’s are also crazy centres of rabid leftists: Marxists, Trots, Maoists, Pol Potists, and assorted wankers of every leftist hue.
It really can be curious on the surface how leftists and Islamists are quite the fu*k-buddies these days.
Now let’s look at two of the left’s favourite grievance monger groups since way back — homosexuals and women.
Now let’s look at the way both groups are treated in the vast majority of Islamic run “countries.” Treated like shite, essentially.
Now let’s look at the left’s reaction to this: could give a shite.
Because it is more important that they and their Islamo-fu+k buddies, the Mohammedans, HATE America first, freedom of speech second, capitalism third, Europe… well you get the idea.
And dat boys and girls, is da troof.
Jack.
Agreed.
And despite all the growing evidence about how widespread Islamic jihad is, and that its roots are in Islamic doctrine, the political left (inc. BBC-Guardian) is blinkered. Along with Labour, they stick to approving more Islamic mass immigration, and to dismiss the Islamic jihad/Sharia law threat as only a ‘tiny minority of extremists’.
The BBC’s coverage of the underpants bomber is shifting its focus to concentrate on the incipient failure of the Republic of Yemen and the Al Qaeda presence there. The message now being conveyed enthusiastically by the BBC is that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was “radicalized” in the Yemen and his extremism has little to do with the Muslim fish tank in which loonies like UFA swim around in the UK. Hence the time the BBC devoted to the unconvincing and less than authoritative interview shown here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8436890.stm
It must be a coincidence that the doctrine of “taqiyya” – lying (particularly to unbelievers) in the cause of Islam – is never mentioned by the BBC as a factor in the reliability or otherwise of Muslim witnesses or commentators.
umbongo — I prefer the term Crotch Bomber. Has more of a — uh, BANG?
<img style=”margin-top: 0px; width: 24px; height: 24px; margin-left: 0px;” src=”http://js-kit.com/avatar/59192c59a8b5f600e84ac44afef43c79-24×24.jpg”/><img src=”http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/stars/admin-comment.png” title=”This user is an administrator”/> Scott M<img src=”http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png”/>
“Nobody saw fit to challenge the latest dose of white guilt”
Of course, it may be because they knew (as, I suspect, did the majority of people listening) that he was quoting a newspaper article about the execution of Akmal Shaikh, and not the bomber at all.
But don’t let little things like inaccuracy get in your way, eh.What a TWAT you are Scot M – you claim to know what the dreadlocked lord was talking about without listening to the programme (41min 40sec). He was talking about the “alleged bomber”. You obviously can’t be trusted to speak the truth.
I’m on the move at the moment, Will, and I will recheck: but I was listening, and I’m fairly certain that the reference to mental illness, given that that’s an issue that was brought up by Akmal Shaikh’s family prior to his execution, is more likely to have been with regard to that story rather than the bomber. Both were being disc ussed at the time, though, so maybe it wasn’t clear.
In the meantime, while I check, could you (a) apologise for calling me a twat – there’s no need for that sort of language and I’m sure you’ll agree with both David Vance and myself that there’s really no call for it, and (b) explain what you meant by your “google an image” comment?
Thanks.
As much as Scott M does appear an assiduous flunky of BBC bias, it does seem eminently reasonable that he should request an apology for being called a “twat”.
hippiepooter
On the contrary Scott M has re-inforced the appropriateness of the epithet by his later contribution. He starts by claiming in a most unpleasant way that I don’t know what I am writing about, i.e. “But don’t let little things like inaccuracy get in your way, eh“, I then point out that he is wrong & supply the timing to listen to the precise part of the BBC programme. Instead of listening, realising he is wrong & apologising to me , he writes again still suggesting that he is correct & goes on to make further demands for explanations from me.
Scott M is a most unpleasant & arrogant liar & I do not withdraw my original term.
Charming!
That’s just the sort of witty rejoinder that I’m sure other Biased BBC commenters think is hilarious.
Scott, I think you deserved the insult after your condescending attempt at a put down. Live with it.
Unbelievably, the Broadcasting House newspaper review did dicuss the underpants bomber on the assumption that it was essentially a mental health issue! There was some discussion of the plight of isolated young men, far from home, in society as well, and I would imagine some of them may turn to religon for comfort. The idea that he would find that he happened to belong to a religion that actually encouraged hostility and aggression towards non-believers would, of course, have been inadmissable on the BBC.
As for googling the image of the noble lord, it is worth the effort. The photograph on the Broadcasting House web page shows a man with a set of dreadlocks that look rather startling on what you would have imagined to be something of an estalishment figure.
I think Scott M can be safely said to have made a twat off himself.
Lord knows, I hate it when Biased BBC commenters are pompous or inaccurate to the point of idiocy: so it’s mortifying when I end up being both at once!
Profuse apologies, Will. I’m off for a mammoth serving of humble pie.
Thank you.
Mr Bauer
What is indeed so amusing regarding the learned and wise Rabbis’ name?
In the Jewish tradition, the ritual slaughterman was actually a minor member of the lay clergy, with considerable practical and theological training.
Regards
Leonard Advacardopacker.
To Piggy Kosher, Jack Bauer, David Preiser (USA) and Millie Tant.
It is just a common, Hebrew name. If he or some ancestor had changed his name to Butcher would we be having this conversation?
What? I haven’t said anything about his name, which means nothing to me.
I was merely mock-chiding David P for finding something humorous.
Well I’m sure Jackie Mason thinks it’s funny.
You seem to be finding umbrage that wasn’t remotely there, unless I’m misreading the tone of your missive.
Tangentally related.
Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman tells envoys not to grovel
Could you imagine the outcry if Brown or Milliband instructed British diplomats not to grovel when dealing with states hostile to the West?
In all a reasonable article about Lieberman whom the BBC usually treats with all the contempt they reserve for Nick Griffin of the BNP. Katya Adler’s Mr Lieberman looks like he could have stepped straight from one of those 50s B-movies about the American underworld. The ones which feature paunchy middle-aged men in shades with some charisma and a few rather-too-sharp and shiny suits in their wardrobes, springs to mind.
Well worth following this report through Revista to see how it becomes more abusive over time.
Does BBC politically prefer ‘Islam4UK’ to the BNP?
How would BBC report a BNP march in a Muslim area of Britain which denounced Islamic jihad supporters as supporters of murders of British people?
The ‘Telegraph’ has:
“Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary admits Wootton Bassett march is a publicity stunt”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6929708/Muslim-cleric-Anjem-Choudary-admits-Wootton-Bassett-march-is-publicity-stunt.html
The BBC, in this not unrelated report, does not have a ‘subject’ in the headline which makes such threats.
The BBC does not have:
‘Islamic jihad supporters call UK troops “killers”‘
-instead the BBC, pathetically, and with bias, has some non-existent subject in this headline about ‘killers’:
“Soldiers at Luton homecoming march ‘branded killers'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8439541.stm
The BBC apparently gives comparatively preferential treatment to people such as Anjem Choudary, over e.g. anti-Islamic jihad critics based eg. at ‘Jihadwatch’. This is the political absurdity of ‘multiculturalism’ trumping security.
Anjem Choudary
– several non-BBC reports,
‘Jihadwatch’
http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=anjem+choudary&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20
For BBC:
“Choudary compares British troops to Nazi stormtroopers as 210,000 sign Facebook bid to stop his Islamic extremist march”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240318/100-000-people-Facebook-protest-Islamic-extremist-march-military-town.html#ixzz0bfTpVoPM
I was joking 😛
BBC headline is missing a key word, as usual:
“Somali axeman ‘was held in Kenya'”
Read:
‘Somali Muslim axeman was held in Kenya’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8439229.stm
For additional, non-BBC analysis:
“Heeere’s Muhammad!”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/heeeres-muhammad.html