111 Responses to OPEN THREAD…

←Older Comments
  1. David Preiser (USA) says:
    September 14, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    So the BBC has attempted to address why Mohmmedans get violent when someone even thinks about frowning at a Koran.  Aside from having on MCB mouthpieces to explain that it’s the end of Ramadan and people have spent the entire month in religious fervor and studying the Koran, and so it’s only natural that they would be moved to kill while in such a state, I mean.

    The first segement of yesterday’s Newshour on the World Service (Why not on domestic broadcasting, BBC?  A little too worried about Social Cohesion, are we?  Don’t want to upset the locals too much?) asks “why some Muslims are angered more by insults to the Koran than by the maltreatment of women.”

    Seems like a good place to start.  But this is the BBC, so the discussion is stacked a certain way.

    First, the Indian minister for Kashmir explained that most of these people were already in attack mode as they had been protesting against the Indian Government for the last three months about Kashmir.  He added that these violent protests against the desecration of the Koran were largely scared up by the separatist leaders, and some were even chanting slogans against the Indian leader.  Fortunately, not even the BBC presenter called them racists for burning effigies of the US President.

    Then an Indian journalist was saying that some of those killed were teenagers.  These kids grew up in a culture of violent protest, he says.  The cause is – of course – “military occupation”.  He said it was their opinion, and didn’t sound as if he was endorsing that position.  Sounded like an impartial journalist explaining the situation, really.  But this does highlight the issue of certain cultures raising their children to be violent at the drop of a hat.  I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the journalist’s intent, though. That’s just the lesson I learned here.

    And top marks to the Beeboid for raising the issue at all that Muslims aren’t upset about forced marriages, honor killings, and mutilation of women.

    First response to the question of why they don’t:  It’s an insult, people feel hurt. This is the same defense we’ve heard for the last week, and it’s not valid in civilized society.  I don’t care if it’s a “sacred message” or not.

    “Why don’t we see more Muslims out on the street protesting these injustices”?

    Answer:  They’re too busy protesting against nasty Western imperialist occupation. The injustices of “occupation” are far more important, end of story.

    Er, the vast majority of the Muslim World is not occupied.

    At least the woman on the phone – some “advisor on women’s issues” in the UK – was trying to push the “Religion of Peace” theme and say that people should be focused on other injustices.  I don’t know if anyone at the BBC noticed that she was alone in this position.  All the other guests were essentially defending murder and destruction in response to even tearing a page out of the Koran.

    In the end, while I give the BBC credit for even asking the question on air, yet again they allowed justifications and excuses and did not allow anyone on to say that this is not acceptable and this behavior should be condemned and not defended.

       0 likes

  2. David Preiser (USA) says:
    September 14, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    Oh, dear.  Sir Michael Lyons is resigning.  He says the job is just too much work and there’s too much pressure on the BBC Trust about all this impartiality and editorial independence nonsense.

    All together now:  Awwwww.

       0 likes

  3. David Preiser (USA) says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    Check out this bit of drivel from Matt Frei.  I know he’s taken up blogging under duress, but this reads like he sat down, banged out whatever was on top of his head, and hit “Publish”.

    Either Frei Boy is not paying attention to the news reporting of his own colleagues or he’s spent so much time abroad that he now has an objective outsider’s view and the BBC’s reporting about the potential for social unrest due to budget cuts is just fearmongering.

    Personally, I think it’s both that he has no idea and that the BBC is trying to whip up fear against a Tory-led government and incite riots.

    Then he revives his lame “quivering lip” meme from back when he was complaining that there’s more emotion allowed on US news interviews than he thinks happens on the BBC.  Of course, he was dishonest then, because he was really talking specifically about Fox News opinion mongers like O’Reilly and Hannity, whose stock in trade is playing the emotional Irishman.  Frei Boy was just creating an artificial debate where he could act superior.

    For him to extrapolate that nonsense into a judgment about US society shows that he still views us as odd creatures and moves among us with that scented handkerchief held to his nose, as described by one of his former colleagues when he heard about Frei’s little US propaganda puppet show (can’t find the link now, but I mentioned it on a previous thread)

    And then there’s this, which will surprise no one here:

    While we agonize over degrees of austerity, Cuba, which has had plenty of it as long as anyone can remember, has just axed a cool 1,000,000 state workers it no longer needs.

    Whose fault was the “austerity”, Matt?  To listen to his previous reporting, that would be the US, and not the Communist dictatorship.

    Has the “terrible job for life” guarantee of Fidel’s proletarian revolution just been abolished with the flick of a pen? And whose pen?

    Again with the “pen” metaphor.  Last year, Frei said that The Obamessiah closed Guantanamo “with the flick of a pen”.  It’s still up and running.  Not that you hear about it much on the BBC, as that would make Him look bad.  As for “whose pen”, now Frei is playing up a split between the Castro brothers, as if it’s a real power struggle and not reality crashing down on their heads.  I’m sure in Frei’s mind, the Communist utopia can go on forever, if we all believe hard enough.

    Fidel has come back from the virtual grave to lash out in the most surprising ways. First, in last week’s interview to the Atlantic Monthly he berated Iran’s president for pushing the world closer to nuclear war. And now this?

    As you knew he would, Frei Boy censors the same – and more important – issue the BBC excised from all (except one, where they hedged it badly) reports on Castro’s little confession:  he also condemned the mullahs for all that anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, and said that everyone should stop blaming the Jews for everything.  What about that bit, Matt?  Any thoughts from defenders of the indefensible?

    Something is afoot in Havana. Are the Castro brothers falling out? Has Fidel had a conversion?

    No, but his bank account has.

       0 likes

  4. David Preiser (USA) says:
    September 14, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    Mark Easton is playing with statistics again, this time to tell you that, strangely, people in Britain are happier now during this economic crisis than they were before the credit crunch.  He even dismisses naysayers by stating that lots of experts think you can meaure happiness.

    He admits his astonishment that poor people aren’t so unhappy, and has all sorts of pretty graphs to show you how your happiness is measured.

    Okay, let’s take Easton at his word for a moment, and assume that he really does believe this stuff, and accepts that most people – even the sainted poor – are happier in times like this.  Anybody want to bet that this will magically be forgotten next time Labour is in power, and the BBC starts moaning about how awful things were under the Tories?

       0 likes

  5. Bupendra Bhakta says:
    September 15, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Radio 5 Drivel had (yet again) some luvvie complaining at the demise of the UK Film Council.

    I had not realised the scale of this abomination.  Seventy people on the payroll, several at over £100k p.a., 15 Directors, a Director of Diversity on £70k, all to distribute a piddling £15 million (of Lottery money).

    I knew the size of the operation and the salaries; what gobsmacked me was the tiny amount of disbursement for which it was deemed necessary to have such a top-heavy infrastructure.  One (part-time) person and secretarial support would be the private sector norm.

    Job creation scheme for our mates, and all on other peoples money – no more, no less.

       0 likes

←Older Comments