Shocking to read that the BBC is taking advertising from an “Intifada” supporting Islamic bank. The excellent Undhimmi has the sordid details here but this sums it up;
Among many other activities, the bank controls two funds set up at an Arab summit in Cairo, in October 2000 – the Al-Quds Fund and the Al-Aqsa Fund. Between them worth hundreds of millions of dollars, these funds openly finance the ‘Palestinian Intifada’. It is also linked with the channeling of UN funds to Hamas.
Stated aims of the fund include the provision of assistance to the widows and families left behind by ‘martyrs’; and the furtherance of the ‘resistance’ against Israel.So there you have it. The BBC, a British Government-funded quasi-NGO, is taking advertising money from a bank which pays the families of homicide bombers and terrorists. Surprised?
This is outrageous.
Expect more of this when they decide that advertising (in a limited form) is the way they will proceed to fund the World Service.
I agree. In this piece, the route to INBBC taking advertisements routinely from its Islamic Middle East chums is hinted at here:
“BBC World Service – requiem or renaissance?”
[Extract]
“Will these services be more commercialised? After all, the BBC News website, as accessed from outside the UK, now carries advertisements. Should the World Service do so?
And it will presumably be the BBC which will now choose where the services should be directed.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11583889
betcha Bowen has shares in this
the scumbag
Come on guys…we all know that juices mean nothing to al beeb!
It gets worse.
It turns out if your a British Gas customer, you’re a supporter of intifada, global terrorism and the Iranian plot to subvert world peace, destroy the Jews and instigate nuclear Armageddon!!
20 per cent of the UK gas supply is supplied through the South Hook LNG terminal, jointly owned by Qatargas.
Qatargas is a state-owned Qatari enterprise. Qatar is full of Wahabi towelheads. It is the Iranian’s diplomatic back-channel to the international community – they have even signed a defence agreement!
Supplies arrive at South Hook by LNG tankers DIRECT from the Qatargas II LNG train regularly, to be fed into Centrica’s network. The Horror!
So, next time you’re boiling the kettle or enjoying a nice soak in the bath, rest assured you’ve done your bit to further global terrorism.
Why hasn’t the BBC exposed this scandal?
I’m currently working on a method to separate Islamic methane molecules in my gas boiler from honest Norwegian ones – I let you know how I get on.
Mr Kisby would have had no objection if the company that manufactured Zyclon B was given a plug by the BBC in WWII.
Such desperate defences of BBC bias really does show they are starting to worry.
Haven’t you heard? Invoking the Nazis is a major FAIL.
Your second remark is more mysterious. Who are the ‘they’ you refer to? Me? The BBC?
So the BBC website is running an ad for the Islamic Development Bank. How is this intrinsically biased? Is it the only ad placed on the site?
It doesn’t need an awful lot of grey matter to realise that all the posts on here aren’t necessarily about “bias” of the BBC: they are about one/some/all/any of the failings of the BBC…but with a strong emphasis on bias.
That said, you really are a classic “useful idiot”.
I suggest you read David Vance’s post above, which suggests this ad compromises the BBC’s claim to impartiality, and the comment to which I was replying, which accused me of a desperate attempt to defend BBC bias.
The difference is the BBC is state funded by a compulsory tax, something you clearly don’t understand.
Most of us here couldn’t care less what the BBC does so long as we’re not forced to fund it.
I have a choice if I buy petrol or not, you have a choice NOT to have gas in your home, but you have no choice but to fund the BBC.
Martin.
Strickly speaking, you do have a choice. Your liability is contingent on whether or not you possess equipment capable of receiving broadcast material.
I know a few people who choose not to pay the license fee and have far more stuff to hand than they have to time to watch or listen too. In this day and age it’s easy. It’s your choice.
Mr Kisby, if you fail to see – or are unwilling to see – how taking adverts from the heirs to Adolf Hitler is a problem then the depth of your moral bankruptcy is so grave not even Tory cuts could save you.
hippiepooter,
Who or what you have decided are the ‘heirs to Adolf Hitler’ has no bearing on my moral health.
You’ll tend to find Mr Kisby, at least amongst people who have not abandoned all shreds of decency, that the desire to exterminate the Jews is analogous with Adolf Hitler. Maybe people who value their decency are not in your social milieu? Maybe that is why you see no problem in the BBC advertising the Finance Ministry of the heirs of Adolf Hitler?
<!–StartFragment–>
hippiepooter,
Your hyperbole is tiresome.
You can call the Islamic Investment Bank whatever you like –even the Finance Ministry of the heirs of Adolf Hitler – for all I care.
But I can almost guarantee that this ‘expose’ will not light up the internet in outrage as some here presume/hope.
Why? Because mere suggestion, resting on lazy assumption, drawing the worst conclusions imaginable, does not make a case.
<!–EndFragment–>
Godwin’s Law is merely a convention. The major fail is closing your mind to correct analogies or at least attempting to refute them.
“So the BBC website is running an ad for the Islamic Development Bank. How is this intrinsically biased?”
The question should be, “why does an Islamic bank choose to advertise on the BBC web site?”
Has anyone told this troll he is an utter bore ?
Does the BBC take ads from Israeli companies or the Israeli Tourist Bureau or similar?
There was a failed motion in the NUJ a few years back to boycott Israel.
What/where are the guidelines for accepting advertising?
This is one that needs to go viral to shame them. Get it onto every website possible.
Anyone fired this across to Melanie Philips?
This needs to be sent to a right-of-centre newspaper like the Telegraph so they can investigate this scandal.
Done
That BBC logo is now on my desktop.
A brilliantly inspired logo for the dhimmi-BBC.
I was thinking of getting some bog roll printed with that BBC image on, then I found this site, Barry Obama bog roll. I might buy some for David in the USA 🙂
http://jeremyinc.com/
Martin, I wouldn’t want Him kissing my ass anyway.
An interesting site on such matters is: ‘Money Jihad’
http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/
Just as INBBC News has chosen to take advertising for sharia from its like-minded Islamic bank, which support Hamas, so INBBC chooses to spend a large proportion of its (our) advertising budget in the like-minded ‘Guardian’.
“a terror-supporting organisation”
Yeah, right. According to an obscure blog post with absolutely ZERO evidence to back up it’s claims.
No. Wait… there’s a link to testimony submitted to “a US Senate Committee”.
Oh, but it’s by the head of a “neo-conservative policy institute” seven years ago…
And unfortunately that doesn’t back up the blog’s claims either.
But never mind; there’s another link about the; “UN Human Rights Council” passing a resolution condemning “Islamophobic behaviour”.
Which has absolutely F* all to do with anything.
Pitiful.
The evil neo-conservative policy institute’s testimony to that crazy old Senate hearing linked to the Saudi Embassy website. Where I found this from 2001:
The Islamic Development Bank (IDB), which is celebrating its 25th anniversary, has issued a report on the implementation of the resolutions of the Arab Summit pertaining to the establishment of the Al-Aqsa and Intifada funds with financial resources amounting to one billion U.S. dollars in line with the proposal of Deputy Prime Minister and Commander of the National Guard Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, having been assigned to set statutes and regulations for the progress of work for the funds.
Does this count as evidence?
I suppose it is evidence if you regard any organization pertaining to the Palestinians’ struggle as, by definition, a terrorist organisation. Under this rubric, the act of resistance is technically known as ‘terrorism’ to those who wish to see that resistance crushed.
If only all terrorist organisations and their supporters were so obliging as to post their resolutions on the web, undersigned by members of the Saudi Royal family and ready for a quick Google search! Yes, life would be a lot simpler!
I guess it’s the magic word ‘intifada’ – like a Pavlovian thing.
BTW Right-wing think tanks are routinely invited to hearings so that they can enter their ‘research’ into the Congressional record.
Simon
So you think that the maintenance of an investment vehicle funding homicide bombers and their left-behind families, isn’t funding terrorism?
You clearly need a moral check-up from the neck-up – but you’ll need to remove that Keffiyeh first.
Simon Kisby,
Have you had your independent thinking compromised by watching the BBC after all? It belies your suggestion on another thread that you’d risen above such a thing.
Imagine. Clean slates R us.
If you use terms like “Palestinians’ struggle” and “resistance” ask yourself: How do I know about this topic? Where do my sympathies lie, and why? If you can’t give yourself an honest answer, then it’s – it’s a bit like a Pavlovian thing.
Had I relied solely on the BBC for my information, I would regard the conflict as a perplexing conundrum, devoid of historical context, seemingly propelled only by a warped psychological desire to destroy the ‘other’.
Had I relied on the BBC, I would wonder at the Israelis’ seemingly insurmountable ‘security’ problem, while also wondering at the Palestinians’ brave, futile and ultimately self-defeating, insistence on violence.
Had I relied on the BBC, I would imagine there was something called the ‘peace process’, which might ultimately arrive at an equitable solution, if only the Palestinians could grasp accepted norms of normative international relations, rather than succumb to emotional spasms of retribution. The BBC would also inform me, along with most other MSM, that the US was a ‘honest broker’ in said peace process.
Simon,
Had I relied on this, had I relied on that.
So, should I assume you didn’t rely solely on the BBC to think, or not think, the thoughts you describe.
Would I be right to suppose that the BBC is not pro-Palestinian enough for you? That you would prefer it if the BBC could throw this impartiality malarky to the wind, and go for it, as far as advancing the Palestinian/ anti-Israel cause is concerned?
As for the US, the BBC is still blinded by unrequited love for Obama. My cynicism over his meddling in M/E affairs comes more from this angle.
“you would prefer it if the BBC could throw this impartiality malarky to the wind, and go for it, as far as advancing the Palestinian/ anti-Israel cause is concerned?”
I am indifferent, since my world-view is not determined by what the BBC does or does not do.
However, it would be a relief if certain parties stopped insisting the BBC is on an anti-Israeli crusade whenever it fails to follow the IDF line, or has the temerity to give air-time to Palestinian voices.
“As for the US, the BBC is still blinded by unrequited love for Obama.”
The problem is not Obama, it is systemic. Israel is a client state of the US. This week, for instance, we learn that the settlementwill recommence programme. If Obama had really wanted to ‘meddle’ in ME affairs, he might have ceased funding (in effect) the settlements.
You may want to read this:
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2010/10/wapo-how-obama-sabotaged-middle-east.html
(WaPo) For 15 years and more, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas conducted peace talks with Israel in the absence of a freeze on Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Now, it appears as likely as not that his newborn negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu — and their goal of agreement on a Palestinian state within a year — will die because of Abbas’s refusal to continue without such a freeze.
The Palestinian president’s stand has frustrated a lot of people — including his own prime minister, Salaam Fayyad, and the president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, both of whom have said that the settlement issue should not be an obstacle to the negotiations. At a recent dinner in Washington, Fayyad pointed out that any building in the settlements during the next year would have no effect on the outcome of the talks or the future Palestinian state.
So why does Abbas stubbornly persist in his self-defeating position? In an interview with Israeli television Sunday night, he offered a remarkably candid explanation: “When Obama came to power, he is the one who announced that settlement activity must be stopped,” he said. “If America says it and Europe says it and the whole world says it, you want me not to say it?”
The statement confirmed something that many Mideast watchers have suspected for a long time: that the settlement impasse originated not with Netanyahu or Abbas, but with Obama — who by insisting on an Israeli freeze has created a near-insuperable obstacle to the peace process he is trying to promote.
More…
Mr Kisby, would you like to define what you see these Palestinian groups as ‘resisting’?
Obviously, the Palestinians are resistance the military occupation of the ‘occupied territories’ and their gradual assimilation into the state of Isreal, by means of ‘fact building’.
Really, even if you have no truck with this appraisal, you might at least be aware of it.
Why weren’t they “resisting” when Jordan had already assimilated (like the Borg, right?) them into Jordan? Was it their country then as well, but nobody noticed?
I suggest you read some history on the topic. That’s all. It is not for me to fill in large blanks in your historical appreciation. Not least because you would probably resent and resist my effort.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I laugh at your effort. There was no such thing as the Palestinians as we know them today before 1964.
“Obviously, the Palestinians are resistance the military occupation of the ‘occupied territories’ and their gradual assimilation into the state of Isreal, by means of ‘fact building’.”
I am aware of that appraisal, after figuring out what it meant, but the question is, is Simon aware that it is simplistic and misleading.
Funny how Israel haters always spell it “Isreal.”
That was a typo.
I am not an Israel hater.
‘simplistic and misleading’
Need I remind you that I’m replying to blog comments, not submitting a PhD? What of the replies I’m getting?
A Freudian typo though, eh?
Obviously there are two ‘sides’ to the I/P conflict. You imply that you are familiar with the history, so I am fascinated to know why someone such as yourself, who hasn’t been influenced by the BBC, identifies with Islamists rather than Israelis.
Possible explanations that I can think of are:1) you are a Muslim.
2) You don’t really know the history or the politics. 3) You haven’t heard the ‘case for Israel.’ 4) You have been influenced by the BBC.
The last two are tautological.
If you think none of these apply, I’d ask, what, in your view, is the case for Israel? Why don’t you sympathise with it?
From clues you’ve given I’d wager that, though admitting it to yourself may be difficult, you are in effect an Israel hater because the justice you would advocate involves jeopardising its survival.
Sue,
You’re first mistake is to assume that, because I evince sympathy for Palestinians, I must therefore ‘identify’ with Islamists.
FYI: I find islamic fundamentalism to be a peculiarly unpleasant and retrogressive ideology.
The one ‘explanation’ that has alluded you so far is an appreciation of the basic, and all too obvious, power relations between Israel and the Palestinians.
On the one side, we have land and sea blockades, military checkpoints and economic strangulation. We have tanks, personnel carriers, super-sonic jet fighters, gunboats (and yes, even nuclear weapons) -and most importantly, diplomatic cover provided by the world’s military super-power.
On the other side, we have supply tunnels, Kalashnikovs, suicide-bombers and laughably ineffective rocket-launchers (in terms of power-projection, that is) and teenagers with slings and rocks.
Sometimes I wonder if the BBC infuriates people such as yourself, because its dispatches cannot help but convey this simple unbalance of power – more often that not by pictures alone.
Another mistake is to label anyone with whom you disagree as a ‘hater’.
Sorry Simon,
You haven’t convinced me that you know anything about the I/P situation. Your summary is pure BBC, confirming what I knew all along, that you have been thoroughly bamboozled by the Beeb.
Do you actually know what brought about the situation you describe so superficially?
The BBC certainly does infuriate people like me “because its dispatches cannot help but convey this simple unbalance of power – more often than not by pictures alone. “
I’m glad that you recognise Islamic fundamentalism as an unpleasant ideology. Do you think that could have any bearing on why Israel is so despised by the vast Islamic countries that surround it?
A map’s a picture. Where’s Israel? A bit like Where’s Wally isn’t it? Don’t talk nonsense about balance of power.
Sue,
Your reply almost beggars believe -and yet I’m not surprised. And you accuse me of being bamboozled! Obviously, it has never entered your mind to question your own assumptions about the Middle East, even while you urge me to do the same.
You accuse me of being superficial, and yet where is the substance to your own arguments?
I’m trying to grasp an analogy that adequately describes your appreciation of international relations but I find I cannot – not without needless insults at any rate. A map! Of the entire Middle East- and North Africa, too! It’s delicious.
Seriously, I recognize the narrative that informs your opinions all too well: Israel is the victim. The Palestinians are the implacable aggressors, bent on destroying Israel seemingly for ideological reasons alone. Anything that contradicts this narrative is dismissed outright as lies and propaganda.
It’s no wonder you despise the BBC!
Simon,
You’re quite wrong. I always question news about the Middle East. The only assumptions I make emanate from personal experience.
The summary you quote, (the narrative that beggars your belief) though crude, isn’t so very far from the case; but similarly your own attitude doesn’t surprise me either. We agree on one thing though, I’m glad to say. It is no wonder some of us despise the BBC.
Obviously! 😀
ROTFLMFAO!
There’s clearly an advertising vehicle Islamic banks have missed here. As passengers stand, shoes in hand, juggling 100 ml or less bottles of liquid, hastily trying to finish the 330ml can of soft drink before the barrier, readying their key rings and nail files for inspection the banks can distribute free transparent plastic bags with the bank logo and slogan.
If that doesn’t persuade us that distributing money to the families (bombers not passengers) remaining after a suicide bomb IS RESISTANCE NOT TERRORISM nothing will.
David,
“Does this count as evidence?”
Yes. Evidence that Al-Aqsa has funds in the Islamic Development Bank.
Is it evidence that the Islamic Development Bank is a “a terror-supporting organisation”?
No.
Dez, read it again. You have it backwards. I’ll reprint the key bit for you here:
The Islamic Development Bank (IDB), which is celebrating its 25th anniversary, has issued a report on the implementation of the resolutions of the Arab Summit pertaining to the establishment of the Al-Aqsa and Intifada funds with financial resources amounting to one billion U.S. dollars in line with the proposal of Deputy Prime Minister and Commander of the National Guard Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, having been assigned to set statutes and regulations for the progress of work for the funds. The Muslim states’ commitments amount to $693 million, but the sums actually paid are only $311.5 million. Moreover, the IDB has faced certain obstacles, including the frequent sieges imposed by the Israeli authorities on the Palestinian cities, failure of certain parties to cooperate with the machineries of the two funds, and difficult working conditions. In order to overcome these, the IDB has proposed broadening the network of the executive authorities.
The fund was raised by the bank to give to Al-Aqsa and support the Intifada. Al-Aqsa didn’t make a depost.
David,
That’s all very nice, and whatever point you’re trying to make I’m sure you’ve proved it. But where is the evidence that the Islamic Development Bank is a “terror-supporting organisation”?
Dez, you initially challenged DV’s post that the bank funded Al Aqsa and the Intefada, saying there was no proof of anything. I provided that proof. Now the goal posts have moved. Whether or not the Al Aqsa brigade and the intefada violence and all the brave, glorious “resistance” is considered terrorism is another argument entirely, one you’re already having with the rest of this thread.
Dense – sorry – ‘Dez’
Zero evidence?
Care to refute any of the (factual) evidence given by the ‘neoconservative’ to the Senate committee?
Additional research on the article is all fact-checked and correct – I challenge you to refute a single word of it.
Typical lefty – all ad-hom and no clue.
Yours
– ‘An obscure blogger’.
Is Dez the same as Simon Aw Widdums? I had a sort of feeling that he might have been here before.
Phil,
Ok, to be fair I may have conflated your blog post with that of David Vance; in that there is zero evidence on your site to support his claims that the Islamic Development Bank is a “terror-supporting organisation”.
You do however mention that the bank controls Al-Quds & Al-Aqsa funds, and that; “Stated aims of the [?] fund include the provision of assistance to the widows and families left behind by ‘martyrs'”
You may well be correct in your assessment, but I’d like to see the evidence for myself; so where can I see these original “stated aims”? You must know, seeing as your article is “all fact-checked”.
I don’t dispute any of the “facts” that the lovely neo-con Stephen Schwartz seems to believe are true. (“according to saudiembassy.net”…ha!)
Regardless; you are of course aware that the UK government gives money to the families of convicted murderers. Does that mean the government supports murder? Encourages people to go round killing each other?
“Typical lefty – all ad-hom and no clue.”
Oh the irony!
Yes Dez and Simon Aw Widdums do seem to share the same impartial DNA. They are also crashing bores
Yes, impartiality is all in the genes!
One thing I have noticed that they do share is a tendency to ignore questions asked of them.
“One thing I have noticed that they do share is a tendency to ignore questions asked of them”…
“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
I’m currently working on a method to separate Islamic methane molecules in my gas boiler from honest Norwegian ones – I let you know how I get on.
Yes, please do. If you are successful, I will definitely be opting for the Norwegian gas molecules. In the meantime, I expect the BBC, who have a choice in the matter, will carry on taking ads from the handlers of terrorism funds.
INBBC, political propaganda arm (along with Soros/’Huffington Post’) of anti-Israeli defence, ‘Peace Now.
BBC’s latest propaganda output:
The first half and headline of the following ‘report’ is taken from INBBC’s chums, ‘Peace Now’, which INBBC deviously describes as ‘an Israeli pressure group’, not as the anti-Israeli defence leftist pressure group, which is what it is.
INBBC’s propaganda proceeds throughout the first half of the ‘report’:
-“‘Peace News’ says..”
-“a spokesman for ‘Peace News’ told the BBC” (‘the gullible INBBC)..
-“Another ‘Peace News’ official..”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11596718
The pro-Intifada INBBC ignores this:
“The Nonsense about ‘Settlements'”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/29902