The brutal murder by Islamic thugs in Afghanistan of humanitarian workers will have disgusted all civilised people. The UK media has naturally focused on Dr Karen Woo who was tragically included amongst those executed by the Taliban. The Taliban alleged these workers had been slaughtered for the unspeakable crime of spreading Christianity. The BBC seem intent to register the fact that Dr Woo was not a Christian and, as they broadcast earlier this morning “did not have a religious bone in her body.” It would not matter if Dr Woo, or any of her colleagues, had been dedicated evangelists 24/7, there is simply no excuse whatsoever for murdering these fine people and it would have been nice to see the BBC focus on the dark ages savagery that motivates the Taliban to carry out such an atrocity. Some may say it has a name – Islam. You can be sure the BBC side-steps that particular angle and instead plays up the secular card when in truth all that does is distract from the evil of the perpetrators of this violence. Dr Woo and her colleagues died because these savages hate Christianity. Why does the BBC avoid pursuing from whence such hatred comes?
NOT A RELIGIOUS BONE IN HER BODY
Bookmark the permalink.
You beat me to it – you’re up early, fella.
James Verynastie on The Toady programme absolutely going down this route.
Very clever of course (but really very stupid). You ask the question, ‘were you proselytising?’ and get the answer ‘of course not’. Which is meant to create the idea in the listeners’ minds that if you are ‘proselytising’ then of course you’re fair game, and in fact deserve to be lined up and murdered. You know, in much the same way we in Britain line up and shoot anyone who puts in an application to open a mosque or a madrass.
Innocent Jim then went on to discuss DFID and how a good honest decent Taleban might confuse a funded charity as an agent of the war machine.
If there are people in the BBC who sympathise with the Taleban’s cause (and of course there are) then eff off to the mountains of Afghanistan and do it there, don’t do it on my taxes here.
The BBC have been spinning this line from the moment they were all executed. The BBC insisted on the ‘robbery’ story even though robbers don’t normally execute their victims.
The BBC have been concentrating on those evil Christian groups operating in Afghanistan.
No doubt we will be getting Lyse Douchbag telling us about the humanity of the Taliban soon.
Slightly off topic, I noticed the fact that someone was murdered in Pakistan and one of our MPs, islamic name I think, said it was an “honour killing”. This is a disgrace even from the lousy bunch in parliament now. It was no such thing, it was murder pure and simple!
Honour killings are part of Muslim culture, so that’s why the BBC won’t call it MURDER.
But not exclusive to Muslims. They are carried out by others too in and from what the BBC calls Asia. They mean South Asia (India and etc).
91% of all ‘honour killings’ are carried out by Muslims and as far as I’m aware it’s the only religion in which they are considered allowable and morally acceptable ( there is a perfectly unambiguous clause in a definitive guide to sharia, ‘The Reliance of the traveller’, stating that a parent may kill their child or grand child. If one of the major schools of jurisprudence declares an act acceptable then it is sunna and nobody who does it can be said to be acting in an unislamic manner.
‘Honour killing’ is a useful term for what should really be described as family executions – it helps identify a type of crime virtually unknown in Europe before there was a Muslim presence. Perhaps people who object to it’s use (because it degrades the word ‘honour’ as it is understood in our culture) shoud be acknowledge by the word ‘honour’ always being put in inverted commas.
Google will bring up information about just who carries out these murders.
See here for examplehttp://www.realcourage.org/2010/06/india-hindu-honor-killings/
We’ve had them in the UK too among Sikhs.
Forced marriages and murder of girl babies are other atrocities that are not uncommon among varied groups and religions in certain eastern countries such as India.
I hate that phrase too. Such a euphemism for what I would call brutal and savage murder. Presumably the BBC doesn’t call it murder because murder is a legal finding (killing with intent).
Its an interesting paradox, in the mind of the true believer, he must seek to overthrow western society and replace it with his own stoneage version. In the mind of the true beeboid, if only they can spin hard enough, they can achieve a true multi culti nirvana !
Religious hell hole, although the first thing the Talibanisation of England will mean is the execution of all homosexuals, so at least the BBC will be sorted out once and for all.
Homosexuality is rife in the Taliban. The Beeboids would be their whores. Oh, sorry, they already are!
So now that they got busted for their sick error yesterday, the BBC is just making up an excuse to continue the angle that it’s perfectly understandable that anyone preaching Christianity to Mohammedans will be killed?
The BBC had to withdraw their claim yesterday that Dr. Woo and others were preaching, after the family complained about it. Naturally, the BBC had taken the Taliban’s word as Gospel and reported the barbarians’ claim as fact without checking first. I notice how the obituary mentions that Dr. Woo was not a Christian, but was actually working with a Christian charity. This obviously implies that, even if she wasn’t doing it, the rest of them probably were.
Let’s be honest here. Most likely, the Taliban cavemen view everyone outside of the cave as infidels and Crusader Christians or whatever they really call them when not talking to the BBC. This means that anyone except for clearly demarcated Muslim aid workers are asking to be killed. I don’t buy for one second that the Taliban working in remote areas seriously view unarmed aid workers as being part of an invading government force. Not for one second. I think it’s much more primitive emotions than that. But since the BBC is just making up a story to cover for the other one, that’s not important.
So the BBC got busted for taking the Taliban’s word without checking it, and now are making up a story to cover for it. Gotta love the priorities of BBC News editors.
Spot on David.
Thanks for posting this David. I was going to post on this myself because it unsettled me that nearly all the msm seem to be focusing on the story of Karen Woo but there is no leading article on the BC website giving her prominence.
And if wasnt for SKY then no one would ever know the Christian dimension to this story at all because this very relevant theme has all but been erased from the BBC narrative.
I mean I wouldnt even expect that from Al Jazeera who appear far more balanced then the BBC.
They ought to be renamed the Ministry for Truth.
Ian
Thanks. I thought long and hard about it. I am very conscious of the pain felt by next of kin and the last thing I would ever want to do is add to it. But the BBC are slanting this and it sickens me.
Hi David.
Yes I agree totally.
It also by default highlights exactly what the Beeb will do.
Rather than concentrate on the truth of the story, that she was murdered by a Islamic extremists targeting specifically, a Christian group she happened to be travellling with, they ‘manage’ the story by presenting a narrative that provides only tangible information and then appear to drop it, lest anyone look any deeper.
Why? You can only guess. However my contempt for such ‘management’ knows no bounds.
They do her and her family a great disservice and you have been very right to post to this effect.
Thanks again for this post.
The taliban bring religion to the people, a religion of brutal anti progress barbarity and cruelty. The taliban care not for bringing medical aid, they have no need of this western baggage, to them medicine is the wests way of bribing and buying off the people.
The taliban dont care if little girls die in child birth forced into a life of a baby factory from the age of 11 or 12, whole villages suffer diseases or elderly people suffer ill health, they simply do not care because they are religious fanatics, half cannot read and the other half only read the koran, its gods will that people suffer.
The taliban offer the Afghan people a 13th century existence and thats what many would like, a cruel barbarous and backward life.
The error lays not with the taliban but with the utterly foolish nature of the expedition, going into hostile country with a hostile population believing that somehow they would be immune from the talibans hatred and barbarity because they brought modern medicine to the peasants. The peasants would certainly hate them more for bringing the aid not less, the taliban cannot allow modern corruption into their territory because from their side it looks like a creeping corruption of islamic values, infidels bringing hope to the peasants? A slippery slope and whats next?
The western views of reality are naive in the extreme because they project western values onto the taliban which do not conform to modern values in any way.
The aims of the expedition was stupid and ill concieved, ignorant blind hope that the taliban hold the same value on human life as we do, that they value the wests views of fair play and kindness and modern progressive values.
The taliban do not hold the same views, they will kill a medical worker with the same hatred they will kill a soldier, there is no distincton between civilian aid workers, medics and soldiers, there is no awareness of the Geneva convention. The taliban are brutal killers, with no humanity in them whatsover, humanity is a western pollution of their 12th century mindset. The tragedy is that the western mindset cannot grasp the real nature of the taliban and view their motives through the lens of a civilised modern nation, this is whay we are losing and will lose the war.
Just an added thought, the west seems determined to project their own values and standards onto the taliban in the vain and frankly childish view that we all share the same moral and ethical code of an advanced modern progressive society.
The wests determination to transpose those alien values on a culture that cannot absorb them even if they wanted to is losing us the war in Afghanistan, we in the west have no concept of their values and aims and moral code and that is a mistake we will live to regret.
“did not have a religious bone in her body.”
++++++++++++++++++
The phrase “did not have a *********bone in her or his body” is striking because it is most commonly used as an emphatic way of denying the attribution of a specific evil, culpable or negative quality to a person. For a typical example, someone will say “He doesn’t have a racist bone in his body” when defending a friend from charges of racism.
It’s quite telling that the BBC sees fit to transpose that particular construction and phrasing to a denial of religious affiliation. It carries over a taint of an implication that being religious is an evil or culpable thing.
Well spotted, Millie !
I am embarassed to say that I don’t think we should give any aid to any muslim country. And if I was to behave like the muslims and socialists in our country, whenever anything happens that they don’t like, I would be in the street dancing for joy at the state of pakistan at the moment.
we give every tom, dick,and harry money in aid but they spend or cream off the money we have been giving aid for almost 40yrs time to stop.lets put us first for a change.Muslim countries dont abide by human rights etc so let them starve or make their own way like we did……
John I agree, especially with Pakistan, a Countryfull of people who hate us. I did give money to Haiti and to the Tsunami appeal, but I’ve never done it for the Iran earthquake nor would I give a penny to Pakistan.
Anyone who does give money is in my view an idiot
Just remember to give generously to any BBC orchestrated campaign for Pakistan, so that all beeboids can sleep soundly in their rent boys beds at night, knowing their Socialist consciouses are clear, and to hell with the consequences of may come next.
“Children in need anybody”?
I see what you mean but I think we should give assistance in a case of overwhelming disaster. It’s a human imperative. If you are suddenly in danger, dying or starving, you want and need help. That’s it. I don’t think we hate in the same way, even if they hate us. It’s not our way, really. But I don’t think we should lay waste our own country and way of life by importing loads of people with barbaric practices and beliefs and turning our country upside down for them. Our aid budget should not be ringfenced. Our aid policy and administration are as questionable as anything else that we do and it is irresponsible not to take a good hard look and cut out things of dubious value or destination.
DV, all I can say is amen, amen and thrice amen.