Just when you think the world can’t get any madder, or crueller…
Saudi man ‘faces spine-op punishment’
A Saudi judge is reported to have asked hospitals if it is possible to cut the spinal cord of the man, found guilty of paralysing another man in a fight.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11045848
We’ve been waiting days now for the BBC to report this story – another instance of commenters here and elsewhere on the internet breaking stories long before the BBC!
NotaSheep also spotted the low-key, late-on-parade BBC article, which for the most part is a straightforward factual account. He draws our attention though to the “incredible” final paragraph :
‘Correspondents say the case highlights attempts by Saudi Arabia to balance
religious traditions with a push to modernise the country.’
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/08/bbc-and-how-they-report-on-hated-israel.html
I bet you never thought of it that way! I suspect you were thinking something more like ‘How barbaric!’ or ‘How disgusting!’
What goes on in the minds of BBC ‘correspondents’?
I don’t suppose that the BBC will be showing This video in a hurry, as It casts the people of their beloved peaceful religion in a truly sickening and barbaric light….
I found it on Pakistani T.V. and uploaded it onto You Tube after a tip off from Martin.
So Hat tip Martin
I knew it! The Beeboids see this as “proportional”.
Jihadwatch’ reported this 19 August, with 100 comments:
Saudi court considering severing spine of defendant
It was in the Daily Mail a couple of days ago as well.
And Sky News reported it on 20 August too.
The depraved BBC mindset is perfectly in tune with the primitive barbarity of its favoured religion. To the BBC, the fact that the Saudi judge was so enlightened that he asked if the spinal cord could be cut rather than simply passing sentence is evidence of Islam’s inner struggle for modernity – its desire to present a human face to the world.
Oh, the inner turmoil.
Oh the hypocrisy.
Doesn’t the BBC realise how insane this makes them look?
“We’ve been waiting days now for the BBC to report this story – another instance of commenters here and elsewhere on the internet breaking stories long before the BBC!”
Give them a chance, Craig – they’re probably stuck on the border in South Lebanon waiting for an Israeli to cut a few branches off a tree. Either that or embedded with their mates in Hamas waiting for something major to kick off.
And it’s still ramadan.
I’m sure Lyce Doucet will be able to find a perspective on the story revealing the humanity of the spinal cord severers
The more I read this kind of story, where there is even a suggestion that it can be considered as anything other than abhorrent, the more I am convinced that the world is heading for something unspeakably bad.
There are certain actions where balance doesn’t come into it: they should be considered utterly unacceptable by any country or organisation that considers itself to be civilised. The BBC would no doubt say it is obliged to be impartial and not condemn. I disagree. It has a duty to condemn this, or abandon any pretence of having civilised ideals.
Ah you see Roland you do not understand the beauty in Islam, the Shaira and the torture, it’s beautiful.
Of course you need to be doped up to the eyeballs on Cocaine to see Islam that way, but it just so happens that at the BBC…..
The BBC allows personal editorial opinons to enter into their broadcasts. Just last week, on the feature about Chechen men kidnapping their women, the female Beeboid presenter told the Chechen wives on camera that she thought the practice was “cruel”.
Matt Frei always refers to “the grim eight years of the Bush Administration”.
So they allow it if they feel like it. In this case, they don’t feel the need to condemn.
The BBC are happy enough to denounce Israel’s inhumanity for delaying Palestinians from going about theur daily business, but not to criticise Saudi Arabia for considering paralysing someone. Proportionality?
If it can condemn Guantanamo why can’t they condemn this?
Because Guantanamo is run by ‘imperialists’ whilst Sharia law is carried out by the oppressed.
No Roland, the BBC is impartial when it comes to Islamic barbarism but retains the right to condemn in any case involving the West or Israel. The BBC is selectively partial at all times when it suits the nsarrative.
Funny seeing this post as I’ve just listened to a bit of Radio 5 to find out what my favourite tub of lard is spouting tonight.
Needless to say fat boy Nolan and the rest of the BBC are ‘reporting’ MORE (can there be any more?) splits in the coalition and how the Lib Dems are toast.
Nolan also bigging up mongo Miliband (that’s Ed boy). Funny that the BBC can find plenty of airtime to report on every allegation about ‘splits’ (by the way the rumour about Kennedy leaving the lib Dems was made up by Charlie Whelan and leaked to his mates in the media) yet NOT a single utterance about the woman due to be executed in Iran nor this case of the man in Saudi Arabia.
Just as the BBC can report on ‘gay marriage’ protests in America but not executions of gay men in Iran or other Muslim Countries.
Just as the BBC can moan on about the ‘lack of aid from the west’ to Pakistan, yet not mention the pathetic response from rich Muslim nations.
This morning the BBC are heavily reporting UNICEF’s dismay that so little money was being donated to the relief effort in Pakistan. Have UNICEF and the BBC considered that the British public are not as brainwashed as the BBC would like them to be and recognise the corruption endemic in Pakistan as well as that country’s equivocal position on Islamic terrorism. The British public may also be feeling that with the UK economy in such a parlous state (thanks to Gordon Brown’s years of destruction) maybe they should keep as much money as they can for their own families.
Emily Maitlis just did a dramatic reading (she’s not a newsreader, she’s a stage performer and she knows it) telling me that the UK is “leading the world”in donations to Pakistan. £30million so far. But it’s not enough – no, it’s merely the beginning, according to the video clip of the UN mandarin they just showed.
And now she’s complaining that some people say that the Pakistan government is “rife with corruption”, and aid money from the US and UK will “circumvent” the Pakistani leadership. She’s now trying to get some guest in the studio to admit that the Pakistani government is too corrupt, can’t be trusted with the money.
Well done, Emily. Your producers have only just now sussed out what people here have been saying for a couple weeks. The BBC now able to shift fundraising tactics – we know the government is corrupt, we’re going to bypass them and give the money straight to aid groups and NGOs on the ground. Gosh, I’m sure that will help.
David P,
And of course the NGOs are not corrupt !
Martin, I’ve seen BBC news discuss the poor aid response from other Muslim countries on several occasions.
I haven’t heard one mention ever, and I have the News Channel going much of the time. The only thing I ever heard was a few days ago, about how the government of Saudia Arabia had gathered $20 million. I have not heard anyone criticize Muslim countries or the Muslim World in general for a lack of response. Not once. If there’s something on the website about it, I’d love to see it so I can accept that I’m wrong.
I certainly haven’t heard the BBC make this point. It would surprise me if they did as they are fanatically pro-muslim and won’t ever criticise muslims.
Whilst on the subject of the BBC and their dodgy reporting, I can’t find anything on the BBC about the protests today in New York against the proposed ground zero mosque.
Sky did quite a bit of reporting on it and mentioned the much smaller pro mosque protest.
I guess the BBC are trying to work out how to spin it in a way that works for their narrative of the mosque being a good idea.
Yes, Islam Not BBC (INBBC) has a page propagandising for Mr. M. Moore, but INBBC censors out report on Ground Zero Mosque demo.
Is INBBC under NUJ instructions on this?
“Ground Zero mosque row intensifies as hundreds of protesters gather in New York”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1305255/Ground-Zero-mosque-row-intensifies-hundreds-demonstrators-gather-New-York.html#ixzz0xNZctNn2
Well, again late-on-parade, they’ve ‘reported’ it now:
Rival protests held at New York Ground Zero mosque site
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11054868
Martin was surely dead right about the reason for the delay, as spin it they certainly do!!
– The article mentions nothing about the relative size of the protests (a distortion that the accompanying video reinforces).
– They highlight chants that enhance their narrative (“No mosque, no way” v. “Say no to racist fear”.)
– They use a remark from a pro-Mosque protestor who calls opponents of the mosque ‘un-American’ as a sub-heading.
– They very selectively quote two people. The mosque opponent expresses himself in an exaggerated way, the supporter sounds more reasonable. Moreover, people who get their news just from the BBC will not know anything about the controversy about the people behind the mosque, which will make Mr Ayling’s remarks sound extreme.
– They re-use that old quarter-truth (it doesn’t even deserve to be called a ‘half-truth’) that the planned centre and mosque “has been attacked by prominent Republican politicians and conservative pundits.” And anyone else BBC? Leading democrats maybe? Families of 9/11 victims?
– They say “President Barack Obama has come under fire over his defence of the developer’s right to build a mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero”, while ignoring that he originally gave the impression that he supported the mosque in principle, had to row back to the position quoted above, and then came under fire from pro-mosque supporters for doing so!
– That “few blocks from Ground Zero” again suggests again that the mosque would be further from Ground Zero that it actually is.
– The first half of video focuses on a tiny number of mosque opponents, all looking a little bit like Hell’s Angels!!
It’s pretty much propoganda all the way. (I detact the hand of Katie Connolly).
Yeah, the Thought Police got into a little huddle on how to spin this one alright. In the brilliant phraseology of Natalie Solent, they decided what key pointers would trip ‘the right neurons’ in people’s brains to ‘think the right thoughts’.
As dubious as I am about polls the Siena College poll showed 63 percent of New York voters surveyed oppose the project, with 27 percent supporting it. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released last week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan, while 29 percent approved.
Stating attacked by prominent Republican politicians and conservative pundits is a 70% lie.
It was on BBC news yesterday, though if the BBC was better at it’s job it would be pointing out that it isn’t a mosque, and it is being built on ‘hallowed turf’ at ground zero.
It’s certainly true that it’s far from being just a mosque, but there will be a mosque of course. The project’s official website says it will include “a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community”.
http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm
I actually think you’re being a little hard on the BBC though James. This was a truly terrible article but at least whoever wrote it described it as “an Islamic centre” in paragraph 1 and (more correctly) as an “Islamic community centre and mosque” in paragraph 4, (wrongly) as just a “centre” in paragraph 7 and (again correctly) as “the centre and mosque” in paragraph 11. Only in the headline and the closing paragraph do they just call it a “mosque” (wrongly).
That’s one of the very few things that can be said in favour of this article!
Whatever they call it, we know it will be used for Islamic propaganda and to place it so near Ground Zero is provocative, offensive, insensitive and totally “un-American”.
“…the proposed ground zero mosque….”
You mean the mosque that’s now being spun as a “community center” for “building bridges”? Except for one rather inconvenient fact – only Muslims can use it.
Just like the BBC, Associated Press, which has been running with this story since May, has now changed its terminology in light of the public’s expressed outrage at the proposed mosque development. After months of describing it as the Ground Zero Mosque, it’s being dubbed the “community center near ground zero” or the “Park 51 Center” – whatever that means.
I think we can all get the picture of what is going on here. Pity the BBC can’t or won’t.
Associated Press put out an instruction earlier in the week to all their staff oredering them not to call it the Ground Zero Mosque.
But them AP, Reuters and the BBC are birds of a feather.
Lest we forget CNN.
Ground Zero mega-mosque: the gospel according to the Associated Press
This is what Islam Not BBC (INBBC) prefers to avoid reporting on Ground Zero Mosque:
GZM protest (video)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/29242
Generally speaking a ‘white feather’…
Well, it ain’t a mosque, and it ain’t at ground zero.
Seems fair enough they don’t call it ground zero mosque really doesn’t it? I wonder if you have thought about who chose to call it ground zero mosque? Maybe it was the hardline rightwingers who oppose it and are trying to tar all of islam with terrorism (and obama)
Damn these Muslims wanting exclusive use of their community centre. Unlike the Christians and Jews of course, who open their community centres/places of worship open to all faiths….
James, many supporters of this project keep comparing it to the 92nd St. Y, which is a Jewish cultural center in Manhattan. It’s associated with the YMHA, which is the Jewish version of the YMCA.
There is no synagogue – or house of worship of any kind – at the 92nd St. Y. So that comparison based on a lie. Furthermore, while primarily focusing on Jewish issues, the cultural programming at the center features a wide variety of lectures, panel discussions, readings, concerts, and other events.
Here’s the website so you can see for yourself that this particular Jewish cultural center – the one we’re supposed to think is the same as the Corodoba Victory Mosque/Park51 cultural center project – does indeed have things which cater to someone other than Jews. The Mohammedans wouldn’t even dream of doing anything like this, so who’s kidding whom?
So, if I have an affair with your wife or girlfriend and then decide to shack up with her next door, you’re fine with that? Don’t get me wrong – I’m very understanding. You’re more than welcome to come round to dinner to “build bridges”.
James,
I think Christians welcome all faiths to church. Try waliking in to a mosque during prayers if you are a non-muslim.
Also I doubt if many churches are recruiting grounds for terrorists.
I have not ever heard of a synagogue or Jewish place of worship including the Western Wall restricting visitors from other religions. The line would be drawn I suppose at conducting a prayer service.
As for Christianity I have visited many important churches including St. Peters in Rome with no hindrance. The same line would be drawn.
Get caught in Mecca (and Medina?) and a non Muslim may well be executed.
Indeed, I have personally attended Jewish High Holiday services in a big Christian church rented out for the occasion, as the synagogue was too small to accomodate all the one-a-year Jews who show up in addition to the regular congregation.
I have also witnessed Christian worship services done in a synagogue, rented out for the occasion. I’ve also seen Christian tourists holding impromptu prayer services at the Western Wall. I have not seen anyone do a Catholic Mass there, of course, and can’t say what would happen if somebody tried it.
Jews are not permitted even to enter Saudia Arabia, never mind worship anywhere near a mosque there.
James Goldrich seems to have gone quiet !
I suppose most readers and contributors of this site would have given up on the BBC World Service many years ago. But I thought I’d share a moment of the kind of broadcast they are spewing out on this channel.
I just heard a report on the Saudi punishment story on The World Today Programme at 7am BST. A (muslim) professor from Brunel university was interviewed by the Beeboid about Sharia law. However, we didn’t really need the professor. The Beeboid was soooo anxious to tell us how amazingly sensitive Sharia law was that he enthusiastically munched whilst feeding line after line to his interviewee.
“Of course Sharia needs witnesses and evidence before sentence can be passed doesn’t it?”
“Sharia is a very humane justice system isn’t it?”
And so on for about five minutes of sycophantic drivel. The Beeboid didn’t so much fall over himself to promote Sharia but prostrate himself – in the direction of Mecca presumably!
A question – does the BBC charter (or whatever they call it now) cover their International output (e.g. World Service) as well as their domestic “service”?
Yes, Islam Not BBC (INBBC), in its domestic and World Service guises, operates as an adjunct of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.
British taxpayers, for instance, subsidise the INBBC World Service’s daily pro-Islamic propaganda which goes out 24/7, via such INBBC agencies as BBC Arabic Television, with HQ in the East-wing (Mecca-facing) Broadcasting House, London.
INBBC is certainly leading the way as propagandist for Islam in Britain and globally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Arabic_Television
It would be instructive if the useful idiots studied the career of Ataturk. He had no time for Sharia nor did he hestitate to make it clear to Turkey exactly why.
Opening the Law Faculty in Ankara in 1925 he sais
” This nation has accepted as an immutable truth the principle that the knowledge and means to create vitality and strength can be found only in contemporary civilisation. In short…. the nation estemms as a condition of it’s very existence the principle that it’s general administration and all of it’s laws be inspired solely by temporal necessities ..and a secular administrative mentality”
Clear enough even for a dhimmified beeboid. I doubt we will be seeing any in depth programmes on Ataturk and the fight to bring Turkey into the modern world. Just endlerss apologies for the present Turkish goverment’s attempts to put Turkey back 1000years.
PS I doubt if any of them know who Ataturk was.
Dave S,
The Great Man would be turning in his grave when if knew what was happening today in Turkey.
Delete “when” in post above !!
Micky – Yes, the BBC Worldwide is equally bound by the Charter and Agreement. But it’s partially funded by the Foreign Office as well as the license fee and broadcasting rights.
The news department people never speak ill of relations
The article mentions nothing about the relative size of the protests (a distortion that the accompanying video reinforces).
Craig, there is no accompaning video there now. Presumably the duty Beeboid monitoring theis site considered it to be a distortion too far and asked for it to be removed.
This is nothing new, remember the so called ‘peace rally’ that I think took place in a number of cities after 7/7 and I think in particular the bombing at Glasgow airport?
There was a heavily edited picture used by the BBC which supposedly showed the multi ethnic make-up of the rally (to show that most Muslims are really peace loving moderates), except of course another paper showed the full image which showed something like TWO Muzzie’s in a crowd of several hundred white and clearly non Muslim crowd.
Only the BBC could set out to make a deliberate distortion of the truth.
I’ve lost count of the number of times the excrement at the BBC (especially the inbred mongs who run their web news) do this, remember the one about the Palestinian rockets? They showed what looked like Argos party fireworks with a couple of towel heads getting ready to launch.
The beeboid hidden narrative, ‘those peace loving Palestinians can’t really hurt anyone with THESE rockets’ except of course the REAL rockets they use are much larger.
Someone might even remember the original link
INBBC’s ‘NEWSNIGHT’ supports the wearing of the NIQAB
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) gives over much of its Islamic programme tonight to propaganda by niqab-wearing Muslims, as indicated in its enthusiastic synopsis:
INBBC ‘Newsnight’:
Why are women choosing to wear niqab?
Or: ‘why are some Muslim women wearing the niqab in Britain, unlike in France where they are not allowed to?’
Sorry link above should unbelievably be:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
Those on-the ball al-Beeb newshounds could have read about this on my blog on the 19th š
Plus for caricatured good measure, also on ‘Newsnight”tonight:
Either it was the British empire, and/or BBC-sponsored Man-Made Global Warming which caused the Pakistan floods, and which guilty British people must be made to pay for. Ms. Watts trying vainly to teach the propaganda:
“Our Science editor Susan Watts examines the claims by senior climate scientists that global warming is a ‘major contributing factor'(Dr Ghassem Asrar, director of the World Climate Research Program). What role – if any – has climate change played in this disaster?”
al-BBCeera says ‘World Slow to Give to Pakistan’- what did Pakistan ever give the world?
How about using some of those jizya ‘aid’ $bns’?