Attention all Biased BBC readers, I seek your thoughts!
I’ll be on the BBC twice in the next few days discussing several subjects and I would value your opinions/thoughts.
I’m on the Nolan Show tomorrow morning (BBC NI) debating whether civil partnerships (a non religious secular invention) should be permitted on religious premises. The law says they should, I say the law is an ass, they should not, what say you?
Then, on Sunday, I will be on the BBC Sunday Live programme presented by Susanna Reid! The topic I have been asked to cover is Guantanamo Bay and in particular the fact that there is a 23 year old in it, Omar Kadr, who was 15 when captured. Is this right? Should 15 year olds be in Gitmo? (Yes, of course) Young Omar killed a US sergeant by throwing a hand grenade at him but…waaaugh… he was ONLY 15, and then he alleges he was tortured. I take a very straight view on this. He’s lucky to be alive given his crime, he SHOULD be behind bars, I dismiss his allegations of torture (all unproven) and this is just one more poster boy for the left who hate the idea that we fight Islamic terrorists! Your views please? Never done the Sunday Live show so time for some straight talking…hope you can provide some interesting thoughts for me.
Firstly what was a 15 year old doing on a battlefield? Where were his parents and why wasn’t he at school? Was he in Afghanistan doing an IT course perhaps? They seem very popular with Muslims or a holiday perhaps?
A 15 year old is more than able to know right from wrong, of course Muslims use children as soldiers/suicide bombers all the time.
As for fat boy Nolan you can tell him from me he’s an obnoxious fat shit and to stop eating pies, he’ll turn into a black hole if he gets any fatter.
Martin
Stephen is on hols 😉 It’s William Crawley who is filling in.
As for Kadr, he’s lucky he’s not a cadavar. Torture, do we agree with it, right or wrong, who says they were tortured anyway?
DV he was never tortured, his lawyers claimed he was but there was never any proof other than him saying so, on a couple of occasions during interrogation he was threatened with being sent to another country and have his bottom reamed (something many beeboids would consider a treat) and he was deprived of sleep. That is NOT torture. All his inters were video taped.
If he wanted to play with the big boys, he must play by big boy rules, I think our soldiers slotted plenty of 15 year old boys in Germany during WW2, he should have been at school playing football and working out how to get into the knickers of the local girls not murdering soldiers in a foreign Country.
The bBC web article on kadr is lacking a lot of background information, Information such as who Kadr is, how his family left Canada in order to live the rest of their lives in Afghanistan.(ripping up their passports and denouncing their Canadian citizenship) All the family hate the west, Allt he children undertook terrorist training and had no problem fighting for allah. The bBC article states that the USA says his father worked for OBL when it is a fact written in concrete.
The family on seeing their utopia destroyed by the Yanks then returned to Canada by playing the “we are Canadians” line .
Look up a few news reports on them, it caused a stink at the time and once in they continued with their “we hate the west” angle.
This is the mindset of the whole family and instead of mentioning any of this the bbC portrays this murderer as an innocent child.
Well so were the murderers of Jamie Bulger as are many of the young gun and knife totting killers (usually black and Muslim) who demand respect on the streets of london.
Civil partnerships – it is up to the churches – of whatever denomination – to decide. The law cannot – and should not – force churches to solemnify something if they do not wish to. It is not the business of legislators to force an action on people if it is against their particular principles. It is like the remmiage of divorcees. Some denominations allow this and some do not – it is left to the conscience of a particular cleric and his/her congregation.
Why don’t gay people simply build their own churches? They can marry each other marry a dog, or marry a cat or do what they like, why force their views on others.
Oh and DV ask if they should marry gay people in a Mosque!!!
Sorry – remarriage – line 5.
Regarding civil partnerships being “consummated” in churches, temples whatever, isnt that what registry offices are for? Let the state take moral responsibilty for them. So let secular premises be used.
15? As old as that? thousands of hitler youth were that age and younger, but were still lethal with a rifle or panzerfaust. They were killed out of hand on both the western and eastern fronts. Age is a grotesque red herring. The discussion should be about what steps have been taken to deprogramme this child, and who was in fact ultimately morally responsible. The Hitler youth analogy is particularly strong here.
Try to book a civil partnership ceremony in a mosque and watch BBC heads explode in a roman candle of lefty confusion.
typo ..had been taken to deprogramme… He is certainly no child now.
That was a form of islamic child abuse, pure and simple. Remind the beeboid mongs that child fighters are usually the preserve of genocidal, religious or racially obsessed regimes, be it iran or nazi germany.
What was ultimately morally responsible for that then 15 year old to be a combatant? Islam.
All other arguments are irrelevant and deceitful.
Won’t most religious people be at church on Sunday morning 😀 Only kidding. Good luck
Susanna Reid is as thick-as-mince and was completely out of her depth reading the news, so how on earth she’s landed a ‘show’ of her own is beyond me. I bet she gets paid a fortune, though…
She has good legs, that’s enough to get a job at the BBC if you’re female.
If Mr Kadr was caught ‘bang to rights’ then he was lucky to be detained alive (or did that frustrate his entitlement to the 72?). If he was convicted then he should serve his sentance. And if US citizens are infuriated by Europeans releasing terrorists early, let them build/buy prisons on the US mainland to incarcerate them.
Torture is always a serious allegation, and the US (and other countries whose troops are in Iraq/’Stan) has rendered themselves vulnerable by the actions of some of their troops. However, torture is always alleged by detainees, which seems unlikely.
Good point. Remind them that it’s only because the troops who caught come from a far more civilized group of people than he does, and infinitely more civilized than the Left like to think, that he’s alive for you to casually debate his fate.
Also, hands up everyone who has a family story about somebody who lied about their age to sign up during whichever war, but don’t respect his service as you would an adult’s?
The issue is not if Kadr was tortured the issue is the reckless irresponsibility of the BBC in taking on face value these accusations from terrorists instructed to lie about being tortured by Al Qa’eda. When will the BBC debate ‘Is the recklessness of the media aiding and abetting Al Qa’eda in the War Against Terrorism?’.
AQ and taliban operatives are instructed to use lawfare when captured, including torture allegations. They know our western liberal achilles heel and exploit it to the full.
In some ways they are more insightful of our weaknesses than our own “leaders” and thats what will help doom us.
How we treat Muzzie’s makes no difference to how westerners get treated when captured, you still get your head hacked off.
whether civil partnerships (a non religious secular invention) should be permitted on religious premises. The law says they should, I say the law is an ass, they should not, what say you?
NOT, as there is clear separation of church and state in matters that are not in the province of the state.
This maybe helpful as general reading, including origin of ‘solemnify’.
No debate
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?id=1167
——————————–
Omar Khadr threatens his guards with vengeance
http://ezralevant.com/2010/08/omar-khadr-threatens-his-guard.html
Ezra Levant has a few points you may like to take note+ a link to a 60 mt documentary on Omar + other links.
And ‘One-eyed Jack’ Islam Not BBC (INBBC) propagandises for closure of Guantanamo to let out Islamic jihadist activists.
“Bin Laden chef sentenced to 14 years in jail”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10947708
And INBBC’s poster boy is Binyam Mohamed.
“How should we grill terrorists – with a cuddle and a cup of tea?”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250332/Binyam-Mohamed-torture-case-How-grill-terror-suspects.html#ixzz0wL5uv000
Are you sure that Guantanamo is still in use? I could have sworn that obama promised to close it within his first year of office.
David, obviously I agree with most everything said above.
You can dismiss any whining about torture by saying that there’s little more than hearsay, no proof of anything, and you’re not there to spar with phantasms. If Crawley pushes it, simply tell him it’s a non-starter, don’t waste time with gossip.
When it comes to the yoof’s trial, I say put Crawley on the defensive immediately by making him defend the wettest of alternatives. If he cries “strawman”, he’ll have to actually make some kind of case for hugging a hoodie or whatever, which you can easily smack down. Then tell him the reality of 15 year-olds killing people right there in NI and the UK, and ask him if they’re somehow different.
As for the civil partnership/church deal, I agree with murgatroyd above. But as I live in a country with no official state religion or heritage dominated by a specific church, I can’t relate to having a law about it.
David
I think you should play good cop and bad cop on these 2 issues.
Ask the interviewer to deal with the civil partnership question first.
Portray yourself as reasonable, open-minded. Say you find the whole idea strange – but you recognise that there are different lifestyles, different social views The Christian faith is tolerant – sometimes too tolerant – but it is not vindictive.
That is – set yourself as a “moderate”. Not a happy moderate – but not spiteful. “Let him who casts the first stone”.
……………….
Then – on the terrorist kid – call him out straight away as coming from a family that utterly believes in terrorism, That has rejected the lovely country that gave them freedom and a good life – who chose the path of evil. Of preaching and fighting against the West, against our civilisation. Biting the hand that fed them.
The moral question is – at what age does a young boy know good from evil. Right from wrong. 10 ? younger ? 12 ? – no boy can reach the age of 15 without realising that what he is doing is totally against the country he lives in, the country that supports his family (are they on welfare ?)
Tell the interviewer that any claim of torture is very suspect. Taliban and Al Queda TEACH their people to claim torture. And there are lots of “human rights ” lawyers looking to earn fat fees for acting for them.
If the Taliban captured a boy – we KNOW they would torture him. They would probably kill him.
Tell the BBC guy it is time the BBC stopped assuming the worst about Western soldiers. The US troops did not kill him, even though he was an enemy combatant without uniform.
There is NO clear evidence he was tortured – Americans are just like Brits, they would not start torturing a young boy.
Guantanomo is a cushy jail – whatever the BBC may say. People have religious freedom, good medical treatment, excellent food, gain weight, have good conditions.
Many Guantanomo prisoners have demanded that they should not be sent home.
If Guantanomo was a serious torture and mistreatment prison – how come people have not died there ? How come so many want to stay – and are using lawyers to make sure they can stay ?
………………….
Your instinct, David, may be to be hardline on both issues. Fair enough.
But I think UK public opinion is divided – confused – on civil partnerships.
On the other hand – opinion is strongly against Taliban and Al Queda. And age 15 is pretty well adult – especially if the boy has been raised to be a hardline aggressive jihadist. He was a Taliban fighter ? He could have been fighting against British soldiers.
Underline – he is a JIHADIST. He wanted Western blood. American, British, Australian, Canadian – we are all the same. He hates us.
Now he wants to manipulate our sympathy, our decency. He and his kind have no sympathy or decency. They are medieval killers.
Mention some Taliban atrocities – like the 8 doctors just killed, like the schools they bomb, like the teachers they behead.
He was in their ranks. He was NOT a child. He was a hardened young man.
If it was not for the DECENCY of Western troops – British and American – he would have been dead in 2003.
And if he was not regarded still as an Islamist nutter, he would have been released many years ago.
He is getting a trial. Where rules of law apply.
If he had been a 15-year-old Brit or American, he would have been killed by the Taliban at the time – or any time in the last 8 years.
Excellent post, John, agree with everything.
Not sure what the minimum age is for joining the UK or US military. Is it 18 ? Anyway may be worth making that point.
On civil partnerships, I love the idea of asking if they should be allowed in mosques. That should get right up the Beeboids’ noses !
“Khadr trial hears gov’t describe Canadian as terrorist”
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100812/khadr-cuba-trial-100812/20100812/?hub=TorontoNewHome
More here
Judge rules Khadr confession admissible
http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=24788
“Gitmo’s Indefensible Lawyers”
(by Andy McCarthy)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/26482
Also, from Andy McCarthy, re-Omar Khadr:
[Extract]:
“Moreover, when al Qaeda operative Omar Khadr murdered an American soldier on the battlefield, she [Ms. DASKAL] tirelessly championed his cause, arguing that his prosecution violated his rights as a child (he’s now 23), that our detention of him transgressed various international law obligations, and that the United States was to blame for the Omar Khadrs of the world (see the YouTube clip, here). When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wanted to plead guilty in his military commission proceeding, she was claiming that his confession was suspect because he’d been tortured even as he couldn’t stop bragging to anyone who would listen about all the atrocities he’d committed against the U.S. and about how Islam would ultimately vanquish the U.S.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/196198/re-gitmo-bar-krauthammer/andy-mccarthy
Note: Islam Not BBC (INBBC) showed no interest in supporting the liberty of MARK STEYN when it was threatened by Islamic interests in a court case in Canada.
He murdered an American soldier? He should be put up in front of a firing squad – I would be happy to pay for the bullets.
Churches should have freedom to solemnise civil unions if they wish to. The Metropolitan Church (a gay/lesbian organisation) already does so. Whatever the civil law says about it, the decision will be made by the denominational leaders. If the Synod of the Church of England forbids it then it will not happen whatever the law of the land is. For Roman Catholics the Pope will certainly forbid it. Non-conformist churches are usually free from central direction, but were the Baptist Union or the FIEC to endorse the idea then there would be a pretty swift exit of local churches from those organisations.
A number of thoughts have flitted through my mind on this church issue. Probably more questions than anything. As usual, it would help to know the history and purpose of this provision and I don’t. Has anyone read up about it in Hansard?
Why is the law making provision for the churches to be able to do this?
Don’t they make their own rules? Isn’t it up to them?
Isn’t proposing this rather like proposing that the law allow off licences to be set up in mosques?
Why would anyone want to do that though?
I presume an exemption for churches was written into the Partnership Act in the first place at the request of the bishops and religious peers because churches do marriages, not partnerships and they did not want the State imposing some obligation on them to do partnerships. I can’t think they are all clamouring to change that. So who is clamouring? Peter Tatchell? I’d tell him to take a running jump and to stop invoking racism, slavery, apartheid while he’s at it.
This whole issue of pushing for “the same” in everything for homosexuals is based on a kink in reasoning and a sort of sleight of hand. Militant Tatchell activists have government over a barrel caught on the hook of “equality”. To me, it is a contradiction.
Marriage is a man and a woman. Homosexuals are free to marry as much as anyone else is. Their sexuality does not deprive them of that right. Plenty do. If they don’t want to do that, that’s up to them. Go and do something else, then. Nobody is stopping them. But it is Something Else. It is not marriage. There is no reason why it should be or needs to be marriage. Many sorts of restrictions apply to marriage. I cannot marry my father, mother, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, niece, nephew, grandfather, grandmother, the already married, the dead, the unborn, the insane, other species and goodness knows how many other categories. Who cares? Who is screaming about discrimination and equality? There is no special provision for a partnership, tax and inheritance for me and my nephew, you and your sister, or whoever.
Try explaining to a Martian. The way of Earthlings is for male and female to marry and mate to produce child earthlings etc. A small percentage does not want to marry and mate as a man and a woman to produce children. They are singletons, who used to be called spinsters and bachelors. But some of them like to be males together or females together and the males mainly, scream and shout and carry on something awful, telling us that they are not the same and they are very proud of this. They say they don’t want to marry like everybody else but then they say they do want to “marry”, just because everybody else does.
To sum up the position – or positions – of Tatchell and co:
They don’t want to be the same but then they do want “the same”.
They want and claim the “right” to be different but they don’t want to be different.
They don’t want to marry but they do want to marry (aka they want to do Something Else but they do not want it to be Something Else.
There is nothing on Earth that would please some people; take it from me, O Martian. 😀