James Delingpole’s Telegraph article about Fidel Castro’s unexpected about-turn set me thinking.
The magnitude of recent events – Hezbollah’s ominous 15,000 rockets, Jeremy Bowen’s cosy chat with Gideon Levy, the rape/race case that was rape not race, the Al Quds march, various portentous happenings that BBC viewers were spared from troubling themselves with, some annoying personal things – dodgy internet connection, insomnia, work-related stress, hiccoughs, a huge bluebottle flying near me in the kitchen and a sneezing attack – have amalgamated to form an insurmountable obstacle to a piece.
So instead, I’m going to fantasize that the ludicrous juxtaposition of angry (what else) Muslims burning the US flag because a preacher might burn some Korans, will bring the Beeb to its senses.
Will he, won’t he? Who cares? The Muslims don’t, for one. All they need to set them off is the thought. Muslims know a lot about burning things, books, flags, effigies. Are they claiming sole prerogative on burnings? The irony couldn’t be more in yer face, yet apparently some can’t see it. Surely they’re pretending? Angelina Jolie said she was speechless, but oh no she isn’t. Hillary Clinton and William Hague are appalled.
How long can the BBC keep on keeping a straight face? Auntie will have to cave in. “Uturn if u wnt 2, “ she’ll text “ “now the ladyz 4 trning 2.”
Then we can all go home and live happily ever after. Atishoo pass the fly swatter.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC), as Islamic propagandist, is only interested in uncritically portraying the ever-ready Muslim ‘anger’ about one person’s threat to burn a Koran.
INBBC does not similarly portray antipathy towards Islam over, e.g., the Ground Zero Mosque.
INBBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11251850
INBBC does not refer to the political violence that is intrinsic to Islam:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_political_violence_of_the.html
How’s this for a bit of doublethink from da Beeb
“With this comment, it is clear Mr Castro is not abandoning the principles of socialist revolution, says the BBC’s Will Grant: rather, it is an overt acceptance by the 84-year-old former leader that state control of the economy in Cuba is gradually being loosened.
The comment came as the current Cuban leader, Fidel’s younger brother, Raul Castro, is reducing the state’s control of the economy and allowing private ownership on the communist island.”
Classic……mine’s a Cuba Libre (Boo Hooo)
Burn, baby, burn…
Has Obama ever expressed outrage at the burning of US flags, or effigies of himself or other US presidents?
… thought not…
If what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander I expect to see outraged American citizens attacking the Iranian embassy next time their flag is burnt, or angry Israelis…
On the other hand, I doubt if there would be many outraged US citizens as a result of burning effigies of Obama! (Might upset a few Beeboids of course – so a double jammy!)
I’m more worried about how Muslims burn people’s faces with acid than a preacher burning his own book/s.
The BBC’s World Have your Say was perched last night on a New York rooftop near the WTC, discussing the WTC mosque. If you click on the third video screen, below the other two, there’s an interesting comment by a Muslim guy who says something about the mosque imam representing Shia Islam and that he doesn’t represent American Muslims. Note how quickly the BBC guy, Ros Atkins, jumps in to insist that the WTC imam is not claiming to represent anyone.
Now Ros Atkins is a perfectly decent guy and a fair journalist but unfortunately he at times shares the PeeCee lefty tunnel vision that prevents him from looking fairly and squarely at characters like this imam. Pity that Ros didn’t allow his Muslim guest to expand a bit on his objections to the imam, and explain why he would not be attending the mosque. If the Sunni-Shia split is serious enough for them to be slaughtering each other by the thousands in Iraq, not even sparing each other’s holy places, then there is no reason to assume that all would be harmonious between these two major divisions of Islam just because the adherents are located in the US.
The lady between Ros and the Muslim is a fine example of a starry-eyed ideologue of the left. She’s got it all worked out, and if only others would see the light, there would be peace on earth – or something like that. Have a look at her in the first clip, where there is also a construction worker presenting the case of those against the mosque, in a not very articulate fashion. One is almost tempted to suspect that the BBC deliberately invited him on to suggest that those opposed to the mosque are all taciturn imbeciles. But the BBC would never do anything that sly and underhand, would it? Would it??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/09/whys_on_tv_america_and_islam.html#252541#comments
Good grief. Just how many Beeboids are there in my city now? Is it Glastonbury USA or something? I think part of my purpose tomorrow should be to find an articulate voice for the other side to demonstrate what the BBC hides from you.
Great comment on the BBC website, BTW. Hope it lasts.
The construction worker did his best, but being on TV is daunting to say the least, I am sure the BBC researchers did their utmost to select him because he fits all the BBC prejudices about ordinary working class people, they chose him because he was not articulate, because he was common, because he was not an elite university educated smug talking head. The BBC bastards picked this man because he fitted their prejudice and he looked and sounded like the red neck working class American the BBC despises.
The BBC want the viewer to see and believe that only people like the construction worker opposes the victory mosque at ground zero, they want the viewer to see what they see, they see an uneducated reactionary unable to put his point across in the BBC fashion of smug elitist know it all arrogance.
This is what the BBC does all the time to its enemies, they pick and choose what they feel are the worst representatives of the enemy and those least able to articulate their views.
Yes, this is precisely what happens. It happens all the time with their flagship Question Time. The BBC famously invited an hostile studio audience 9 years ago to talk about 9/11. Where one would have expected an audience full of sympathy, shock and concern, it ended up in a vile and nasty America bashing session. I believe an American diplomat was left almost in tears not able to understand the rabid hostility of the chosen BBC audience. Have there been any studies, articles on this nefarious moment? Surely a milestone in the history of the BBC. Yes, that was 9 years ago.
Thanks a lot for posting that TT. First of all, ditto to your heads up for Ros Atkins. He was facilitating debate not dictating it as with so many on the BBC.
I think people have been hard on the hard hat. I thought he didn’t do a bad job. I think what went most in his favour was when Ros Atkins said half-way through he’s had to go back to work on his construction site!
Love the intro comment by the Muslim film maker guy “I’m fed up with the self-righteous anger of the left”. The Lady leftie though I wouldn’t classify as ‘starry-eyed’. Very cynical and very calculating in my view. She kept using the phrases “lurid” and “cherry-picking” to describe arguments used against the 15 storey mosque. I wish Ros Atkins had asked her to give one example of what she considered “lurid”. It was just one big chunk of eloquent verbiage she was spewing out as far as I could tell.
Imam Ruaf really has pulled of a great Taqqiyah operation here. If the Super Mosque doesn’t get built ‘America is at war with Islam’. If it does get built America is the laughing stock of the Muslim world and easily stupid enough to get beaten.
No doubt building due to start on 9/11/11 will also end on 9/11 as well. The ‘Arab Street’ will be convulsed in paroxysms of laughter. The best thing that could happen then for Islamism is if some redneck flies a plane into it and destroys it. Then it will be ‘our fault’ what follows.
There is some serious coffee smelling that needs to be done in America and the free world. Anyone got the kettle on?
I had another look at the construction worker. Yes, he wasn’t too bad. I noticed that out of the three he was the one Atkins was most uncomfortable with, as if he were an unexpected dinner guest likely to embarrass the host.
If there is any loss of life through this episode it will be the fault of the yellow left wing media. They report how horrified people are about some rouge preist burning a few books (well the people that they mix with) and true to form the mad fanatical barbarians are whipped up to a frenzy right on cue.
All it takes is for the media to report the reality. Point out how these barbarians do not need any excuse for intolerence. Even if the pastor burned their book or not would not change their attitude to the west one iota.
The western governments peddle the myth of a moderate muslim majority. Moderate or Radical makes no difference they all want to destroy the foundations of the west but by different means. The west fear the radicals and cow tow to the moderates giving up our freedoms in some queer notion that these moderates will not become radicalised.
Strange how some people cannot see that to appease these “moderates” they give away the freedoms the “radicals” want to destroy. The end is the same only the means are different.
Morning paper review on News24 gave ageing queen Simon Fanshawe a clear run at bigging up Robert Fisk’s latest bit of Islam-placatory crap in the Indy. No interruption or questioning I could discern. Then onto the Grauniad’s 24-point-type assessment of the imminent cuts’ impact on ‘the poor’ (chuckle, the Grauniad, the smug well-to-do leftist paper that was noisily bigging up Brit-undercutting East european tradesmen not long ago)