Even the BBC is finding it impossible to deny that there is a link between Islam and terrorism. So they do what has to be done. In concord with the government they manufacture a distinction between ‘Good Islam’, and ‘Bad, terrorist-type Islam’, and proceed to distance one from the other, relentlessly.
This means the BBC can continue to insert Islam-related features into hundreds of programmes, the latest example being Five Guys Named Mohammed. (In doing so they had to admit what they had swept under the carpet just a few weeks ago, that Mohammed, not James or Oliver, was the UK’s commonest, most popular name for new baby boys.)
Robin Shepherd has recommended a superb article in Standpoint by the heroic Douglas Murray. “This is the sort of piece that deserves to be read far and wide. So take a look and pass it on to all your contacts.”
It’s long. I printed off all seven pages, and slipped into something more comfortable to read it; I heartily recommend that you do the same.
It relates to Cordoba House, the Mega-Mosque proposed for Ground Zero, and the controversy it has engendered. Douglas Murray has watched and participated in debates in New York, and has seen at first hand what is happening there. He fears America is about to succumb to the malady that is affecting Europe and the UK, namely mass denial of self evident and demonstrable truths about Islam, which is exactly what has already happened here. Do take time to read his article.
Here’s a taster:
In October, the debate reached one of its nastiest points with an over-booked and badly-chaired studio discussion-cum-slanging-match on ABC. Daisy Khan, the wife of the imam of the proposed mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, was one of those who appeared on Christiane Amanpour’s panel. The anti-building side were repeatedly defamed. Robert Spencer of the Jihad Watch blog was accused by one of the other guests of being in league with neo-Nazis and was not allowed to respond. On both sides, people who had lost family-members on 9/11 slugged it out. The effect was bitter. At one point, Daisy Khan claimed that her opponents were throwing her “into the arms of al-Qaeda”. The author and former Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali came on via video-link. “What are you complaining about?” she asked. “You are sitting here at ABC TV. You’ve got a great job. You have freedom. Nobody is throwing you anywhere. Your rights are protected. I think that it’s your perception of being a victim.” Khan glared at her: “I am not a victim, Ayaan, stop calling me that. You’re the one running around with a bodyguard.” The studio audience greeted Khan’s taunt with laughter, applause and cheers. They almost drowned out a single man in the front row shouting at Khan: “And why do you think that is?”
Pure evil. Doesn’t the bible say something about people who pray in the streets and flaunt their religiosity. And that is at least 600 years before this abomination was even thought of.
A well written article and much food for thought. What do these dhimmis like Bloomberg think they will achieve by their kow-towing to the terrorists? With his name, he will be one of the first to be done away with when they are in power.
A key point is how the BBC et al have succeeded in creating the image of anyone who disagrees with the Islamification of Britain/Europe/the West as a bigoted racist.
That is the primary goal, portray your political enemies in a negative light but also label and smear them with an accusation that is hard to deny without sounding defensive and negative.
The political enemy then has to defend themselves from the defining accusation before anything else. Now this kind of dirty trick was invented in bloody cesspit of the birth of the USSR, picked up and refined by Nazi Germany and now evolved by the BBC axis to batter their ideological enemies.
Smear your enemies with an accusation they have to deny before they can even utter one positive word and you have the advantage, mark your enemies with an easy to remember and easy to stick ‘brand’ and the advantage is yours. Make your enemy react defensively before they can try anything else and they can be made to dance to your tune.
The tactics come from the big red book of Marxist revolutionary tactics and strategy but the maligant grotesque mindset to apply these tactics is pure BBC.
The most amusing episode over Christmas was when son in law visited wearing his latest Roger Hargreaves Mr Jihad T Shirt
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=mr+jihad&_sacat=See-All-Categories
Perhaps should be compulsory uniform for Beeboids 🙂
To be fair: while Robert Spencer should have been allowed to defend himself, I’m afraid he left himself wide open to the charge of palling with Nazis. That is exactly what he did – until he pulled out at the last minute – when he allowed himself to be dragged into a public demo by an outfit called Pro-Koeln, a notorious Neo-Nazi front. He was warned against it by several responsible people and only became more obstinate. And even before that, he had accepted the support of dreadful people such as Gordon Liddy. I can say that I warned him against that sort of company, and he proved remarkably deaf on the matter. He seemed to think that any stick and any ally were good enough to beat Islam with; but some sticks wound the hand that welds them. That is not to say that I have any sympathy with his opponents, but the truth is that he has done himself and his cause a lot of no good.
That’s interesting. I know nothing of Robert Spencer’s flirtation with a Neo-Nazi group. At one time there were rumours about a Zionist link with the EDL.
It brings to mind Neo-Nazi flavoured groups provoking Islamists by waving the Israeli flag during demonstrations and counter- demonstrations on UK streets.
There is a temptation to link up with your enemy’s enemy when you feel threatened and overpowered, and most people see it as an act of desperation.
That explains why some who really should have known better resorted to supporting the BNP. They managed to convince themselves that it had reformed; wishful thinking is a powerful blindfold.
All campaigners are labelled, marginalised and discredited by their opponents, and any mistake that gives away unnecessary ammunition will be held against them forever and a day. I doubt if Robert Spencer’s opponents will change their minds, and his supporters will
probably forgive him.
This also shows how feeling beleaguered drives you into the hands of extremists! The Islam lobby should at least be able to show some understanding. 😉
The truth?
“Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs falls for fauxtography!“
George R,
I might have known you would know more than I do about this! 🙂
George R, my source is not Charles Johnson – although he was on it early – but a German blogger called the Editrix, who may be expected to know more about the villains in her country than either Spencer or Johnson. As for Gordon Liddy, you can find it yourself if you inspect the Jihadwatch archives.
Thanks for posting that. There 3 parts of the debate at the ABC TV site.
Amanpour as Chairman was as biased as one might expect, but it was a fuller discussion than we see on the BBC, where Ground Zero mosque is deemed a good thing and all critics are bigots.
“Islam” = “Submission” Its all you need to know.
“Submit to the word of God – or we’ll kill you.” Vile people with their medieval nonsense. (Of course that’s a purely bigotted and racist opinion…)
I want to see helen Boaden in a Burqua. I bet she’s hot. Underneath.
I remember someone saying that if Sarah Palin had come out in favour of allowing the Ground Zero Mosque every Liberal and Lefty alive would’ve opposed it.
It’s true.
I’ve been following the bBC’s coverage of the Church bombing in Egypt and have noticed that while the bBC is more than happy to report that the Christians were cahnting:
““With our soul and our blood we will redeem the Holy Cross” and “O Mubarak, the heart of the Copts is on fire”.
In which to hint that as they are willing to die they kind of asked for it. They leave out the reason just why they decided to riot. Well thanks to the Internet (and the gates of Vienna) It seems that just before the bomb went off, the security cordon (yes the church had one, disappeared) and then after the bomb went off an Islamic flash mob ran riot looting Christian shops and uttering ‘Allah Ackba’ while dancing over the dead. I wonder why the bBC never mentioned that?
and how CNN reported the same story:
Further to my last here is how the bBC end their sanitized report on how Nasty evil Egyptian Coptics don’t appreciate living under the jackboot of Islam:
Alexandria, Egypt’s second-largest city with a population of about 4 million, has seen sectarian violence in the past. In 2006, there were days of clashes between Copts and Muslims after a Copt was stabbed to death during a knife attack on three churches.
Which kind of leaves out this murderous attack a year ago:
Egypt Copts killed in Christmas church attack
At least six Coptic Christians and a security official have been killed in a drive-by shooting outside a church in southern Egypt, officials say.
I suppose to the bBC the above doesn’t count as sectarian violence seeing as how the Coptic didn’t fight back.
The bBC apologists for the Gay death cult.
The name ‘mohammed’ isn’t popular anymore than Singh or Kaur is ‘popular’. It is rather a religio-political statement of ‘otherness’ to the rest of society.
The name is not an alternative to James, or Oliver, but rather the reflection of social conformity within the ranks of Muslim parallel social structures, as outlined in the Scharia.
RGH, you make a valid point. However and a big however is when I was a child growing up during the 60s and 70s I knew only of 1 boy who was called Mohammed. In fact in my family nobody has the M name. But then the same could be said of the Burka as nobody wore the damn thing.
Then something happened, the Salman Rusdie incident and the realization that the politics of radical Islam outlawed in the mother countries were protected as free speech in the West. Which is why the Nutters out there started polarizing the rank and file of Muslims in the west supported by the likes of the f-ing bBC.
So yes you are right in how Muslims assign the ‘M’ name to anything with a prick nowadays. Thing is each and everyone of those pricks is called ‘Mohammed’ and they are f-ing proud to be named after a pedophile, thief and mass murderer. But the bBC doesn’t want you to know anything about how ugly Islam is, so keeps on bitching about how peaceful Islam is and the reason they are angry is because of everybody else.
Me I fear we have to wait until hundreds are killed by Muslims in the Uk. Why? because only then will the wankers in power wake up to the fact that Islam isn’t peaceful. Hopefully those who die will be all bBC workers.
<!–StartFragment–>
It seems to be important for the politicians and the Media to distinguish between “Islamists” and the rest of the Muslim community, just as in the last war there were the terrible Nazis on the one hand and there were the Germans who were a different and a potentially innocent majority who were tricked or coerced into supporting this horrible Nazi minority. It seems to me that the Koran actually is quite specific about so many things and that the so called “Islamists” are simply reminding their coreligionist of the actual teachings of the Koran and that they should become more religious.
<!–EndFragment–>
It’s a radio 5 wank fest this morning over 100,000 mostly dopey females who have converted to Islam, the BBC wheel out a retard called Lauren Booth who is of course the sister of the ugliest woman on the planet.
Why does the BBC think 100,000 dopey females converting to Islam is newsworthy? I can find 10 MILLION idiots who believe in aliens and fairies, something that is probably more believable than Islam.
Not to mention the 400,000 converts to Jedi.