We don’t know whether the BBC has chosen its position on 9/11 and Islamic terrorism because the hierarchy sincerely believes in it or because it’s strategically pertinent, but John Humphrys set it out loud and clear in his 8:30 spot on the iconic Today programme. Tony Blair was also present.
- 9/11 was a crime.
- Islamic extremism is a separate phenomenon from Islam proper.
- We exacerbated the problem with our ‘War on Terror’.
- We should have concentrated on the criminals in Afghanistan and stayed out of Saddam’s Iraq
- Eliza Manningham-Buller agrees.
In other words:
Islam is fundamentally peaceful.
Fundamentalist Islamism is a distortion of Islam.
9/11 and similar acts of ‘terrorism’ are crimes perpetrated by a minority, who have distorted (fundamentally peaceful) Islam.
These crimes have nothing to do with the peaceful religion known as Islam.
We mistakenly blamed the peaceful religion, Islam, for crimes which were unrelated to true Islam.
It was this mistake of ours, which radicalised fundamentally peaceful Moslems, turning them away from true, peaceful Islam, towards a distorted, ‘separate-from-Islam’ criminality, (which has nothing to do with Islam.)
‘Terrorists’ are straightforward criminals who have distorted the fundamentally peaceful religion of peace. We call them militants.
The BBC is impartial and non-judgmental. We don’t call them militant criminals.
We refer to ‘Militants’, or ‘militant Islamists’, meaning
‘militant ‘nothing-to-do-with-Islam-ists’.’
Earlier, someone said the glorious ‘Arab Spring’ is proof that we’ve won an ideological battle.
The news headlines state that ‘post-glorious Arab Spring’ Egyptians have attacked the Israeli Embassy in Cairo because of their anger at the killing of six Egyptian policemen by Israeli security forces. This apparently motivated their democratic decision to destroy the Israeli Embassy and its occupants.
It ignores the boiling hatred that has been driving the Arab World since the year dot, a hatred which was released and allowed to flourish and blossom as soon as dictator Hosni Mubarak was deposed. A hatred alluded to vaguely by the BBC itself in its own statement here:
”There have been protests outside the embassy for weeks amid a downturn in Egypt-Israel relations.” but in a statement further down in the same article, ‘for weeks’ has turned into ‘since 18th August’
“There have been protests outside the embassy since the deaths on 18 August of five Egyptian policemen.”
So, the anti Israel protests are merely because of Israel’s recent provocative, unexplained aggression? Or perhaps, since the glorious Arab Spring?
The glorious Arab Spring doesn’t prove any ideological sea change whatsoever. The Arab world does not love us. 9/11 was not an isolated criminal act by distorters of a fundamentally peaceful ideology. Nor was it supported by a mere minority. It was celebrated throughout the Arab world, on September 11th 2001, and as acts against the West still are, to this day, September 2011.
Tony Blair gets it, but nobody likes him, nobody listens to him, and the BBC marches on.
Meanwhile the Any Questions panel drones on predictably. “The whole world was behind America after 9/11!” “We saw Yassir Arafat giving blood on television!”(wasn’t he supposed to have had aids?) “It was our foreign policy that turned the Arab World against America.”
Heaven help us.
A little vingnette from mark Steyn this moring in National review online:
“The other day I bumped into an old BBC pal who’s flying in for the anniversary to file a dispatch on why you see fewer women on the streets of New York wearing niqabs and burqas than you do on the streets of London. She thought this was a telling indictment of the post-9/11 climate of “Islamophobia.” I pointed out that, due to basic differences in immigration sources, there are far fewer Muslims in New York than in London. It would be like me flying into Stratford-on-Avon and reporting on the lack of Hispanics. But the suits had already approved the trip, so she was in no mood to call it off.”
Enough said.
Louis, 9/11 morning, radio is on to R5 live, as usual a large contingent of el beebos have all flown to NY,
reports every few minutes, police, firemen, victim families…not one mention, NOT ONE, of the ideology which caused the tragedy, the islamic mass murderers
……i think the bbc can report, (terrorist was mentioned once),
yep!…the planes must have flew themselves?
As an adage, BUT WHEN.. talking about victims, persecution..
el beeb never miss an opportunity, to mention islam/muslims
even,(or should that be especially)..on the anniversary of 9/11
so the deluge of the sycophantic pandering wagon rolls on…
sunday morning live El Beeb 1 10am
Susanna Reid is joined by Peter Hitchens, Mehdi Hasan and other guests. Are Muslims being demonised? Is the war on terror still necessary?
..(yes especially on this day lets not forget who the real victims are eh!)
expect “kaffirs/animals” Hasan, to bleat loudly over any relevant dialogue, or blow loudly & roll his eyes if he can t
‘But the suits had already approved the trip, so she was in no mood to call it off’
So, narrative first; ‘news’ to fit. No matter what.
Unique.
Islam is not merely a question of personal conviction, or belief but a socially reinforced value system into which millions are born, that, only too often, condones violence and discrimination in the interest of the general good.
Therefore, its ‘peacefulness’ depends very much on whether one subjects oneself to its norms, or chooses to express and act in a manner which attracts a strong social reaction.
“The field of apostasy and blasphemy and related “crimes” is thus obviously a complex syndrome within all Muslim societies which touches a raw nerve and always arouses great emotional outbursts against the perceived acts of treason, betrayal and attacks on Islam and its honour. While there are a few brave dissenting voices within Muslim societies, the threat of the application of the apostasy and blasphemy laws against any who criticize its application is an efficient weapon used to intimidate opponents, silence criticism, punish rivals, reject innovations and reform, and keep non-Muslim communities in their place.”
http://barnabasfund.org/US/News/Archives/The-Application-of-the-Apostasy-Law-in-the-World-Today.html
Sue, it was much worse than this.
Humphrys was actually saying that 9/11 and 7/7 were understandable responses by people with legitimate grievances. It’s always been al-BBC’s line on terrorism (except right-wing terrorism) but I’ve never heard it stated so clearly before by a Beeboid.
Someone needs to explain to JH and his merry crew the difference between grievance and legitimate grievance.
I’m upset by the way religious minorities are treated in Pakistan. So I have every right to walk into a croded mosque and blow myself up. Right?
These poeple are morally and intellectually damaged.
I think that the word we are looking for is:
APPEASEMENT
Yes, that’s the word that came to me as I was listening to Humphrys.
I was trying to point out the anomalies in the BBC’s argument. It does boil down to appeasement, but the BBC don’t see it that way. They need to separate the terrorism from the religion of Islam so that they can condemn it without appearing ‘racist.’ So they call it criminal.
The logic of that collapses when they blame us for ‘driving good peace-loving Moslems’ to radicalism.
It’s like saying we mustn’t punish violent criminals in case law abiding members of the community turn into violent criminals themselves. It’s as though they assume all upstanding citizens would be driven to suddenly emulate violence and criminality, just because they resent people they don’t identify with in any way being punished. I mean, is that logical?
I thought the way Humphrys conducted the interview was clumsy, boorish, and instead of drawing Tony Blair out with a view to exposing any weaknesses in his case, he attacked him (or “tore him to shreds” ) stifling the whole thing to death.
Tony Blair does finally understand what we are dealing with in Islam. It’s a shame it took him so long. Now he’s so unpopular that anything he might try to say will automatically be discredited.
As far as interviewing techniques go, Humphrys was hopeless.
Then I heard Jonathan Dimbleby conducting Any Answers. (I had to switch off Any Questions.) I can hardly believe my ears these days.
Errm, no RGH. Treason. The enemy would have been lapping up the approach Humphry took to this ‘interview’.
Quite frankly Humphrys is an utter piece of vermin, using the wildest ‘stopper’ body count figures on Iraq, playing the enemy’s game.
10 years on from 9/11 and we’re still stuck on stupid, putting up with scum like Humphrys playing the enemy’s propaganda game because it is against conservatives.
If this was WWII Humphrys would be dangling from the end of a rope, and a good job too.
The BBC is packed with appeasers and useful idiots, appologists for terrorism.
And as these collaborators do their work the terrorists feel empowered and emboldened, just think back to the IRA and the BBCs fawning assistance, the IRA still give thanks to the BBC. They gave it the legitimacy they craved.
Mr Humphrys must be a follower of Saul Alinsky, the crypto-commumist who wrote the manual for the current stratum of socialist misfits who have infiltrated all key organisations in our country and in the USA. Alinsky and his acolytes have preached a socialist religion (which is remarkably like islam) which is without honour; they use lies, deceit and moral ambivalence to undermine our Western civilisation. That is what the bbc in general and Mr H in particular are doing on a daily basis.
What Alinsky believed in was Luciferian socialism. It’s what Humphrys believes in too.
What Alinsky believed in was Luciferian socialism. It’s what Humphrys believes in too.
I think Blair “gets it” allright…….
He’s a slippery character and twister of the truth par excellence…….let’s not forget who his press officer was
one Alistair campbell
I would not trust Blair if he told me the sky was blue……I would have to go outside and check for myself
a very dangerous man
Haughtily pointing out that it took 10 years for the “mightiest military force in the world to kill one man” is about the dumbest thing Humphrys has ever said. The US military wasn’t razing every building in Pakistan to the ground, FFS. Does the man have even a tiny clue about how the world works? Is this child-like grasp of military matters and espionage the best the BBC can do?
The rest of it isn’t worth listening to either. A septuaginarian university student.
Robert Brown; You are right about Humphrys David, the man is a useless no-mark, rude and ignorant. On another subject, can anyone recall the scenes on the streets in Gaza and other wretched Palestinian towns in the aftermath of the New York mass murder on 9th Sept? Yes, thousands of pathetic creatures jumping for joy, children as well, celebrating the murder of ordinary Americans and others, probably a few muslims among them. From that time on i could not give a damn if these people were slaughtered by Israel, would not shed a tear. Closer to home, how many know that the father that lost his son in a hit and run during the riots, a Turk, was ‘recently’ a virulent voice against the West and would have been classed as an extremist. 20,000 muslims turned up for the funeral, 20,000! What does that say? We have created our own security .problems by letting hordes of muslims into this country. Shame on our pathetic government.
On july 16, at around 5:35pm GMT, Emily Maitls, sitting in the anchor chair on the New Channel, laughed out loud in the face of a guest who told her that Al Qaeda is engaged in an international war. “What war is that, then?” she asked.
What do you think about this, Emily?
9/11: Clinton says Al-Qaeda behind New York threat
“Al-Qaeda again is seeking to harm Americans and in particular to target New York and Washington,” Mrs Clinton said on Friday.
Come on, Emily, come on you disgusting Beeboids, I dare you to laugh at Hillary Clinton’s face. Let’s see you put your reputations on the line.
BBC = Scum
Any chance of you getting some US petition to ban BBC employees from the country.
If you want yet another outrage, I would listen to Book of the Week with Joseph O`Neill(who is now a US citizen for crying out loud!) or Lionel Shriver.
Both seem to think that the 9/11 widows over reactred and ,in fact : were luckier than others who lost their parners in less “overwrought” circumstances.
How mush of this BBC bige and bile are the Americans going to take from our linen suited scum.
If you deported our dross, we`d make Michael Moore fly direct to Iran if at all possible and not set foot in this country-not even Heathrows First Class Silver Trougher service.
Go on-tell Obama…create a few more jobs for the rust belt!
Mardell needs to come home anyway!
I certainly think they should all be replaced.
“Linen-suited scum”
Priceless.
INBBC appears to know little to nothing of the tenets of Islam, or of the history of Islamic Imperialism.
For example, in a Radio 4 programme on religions a couple of years ago, Humphrys, admitting he knew next to nothing about Islam, allowed one Tariq Ramadan, apololgist for Islam to provide the misleading answers. Humphrys was genially misled, because he didn’t know any better. Nothing has changed since.
On Mr Ramadan, about whom J. Humphrys was totally naive:
Tariq Ramadan openly calls for Muslim colonization of the U.S. — Dallas, July 27, 2011
Still for INBBC, ‘Today’, Humphrys, ‘Newsnight’, and its BBC-NUJ Comrade Father of the Chapel, Mason, etc., they are still uneducated about Islam and its imperial history. And, in their uneducated, but politically biased way they turn against the West (except not against Barack Obama, appeaser of Islam supremo).
On Islamic Imperialism, which BBC-NUJ knows little or nothing about, and is, in any case, in denial about:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Islamic-Imperialism-History-Efraim-Karsh/dp/0300122632#reader_0300122632
But the BBC-NUJ mentality in recent years is that-
– its mis-named ‘interviewers’ e.g. Humphrys, refuse to listen to alternative views, instead interrupting, censoring, and banning such views;
– it insults, harangues, dismisses, hectors, rants at guests like ex-PM Blair.
The BBC-NUJ must apologise to its putative listeners for the unacceptable dictatorial behaviour of politico Humphrys and co.
How many times did HUMPHRYS, in his 27 minute (audio) political harangue, interrupt BLAIR?
20?
30?
More?
“Blair slams ‘defeatism’ over radical Islam”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9586000/9586433.stm
Didn`t even bother with Any Questions with Dimbleby minor.
Did however hear Simon Jenkins( I think) say that our response to 9/11 “did more damage to the western cause” that did the actual attack. This was allowed to pass unchallenged without even a boo from the assembled audience.
Utterly astonishing…and this sums up the left liberal elites supplication in one sentence.
To then hear Humphrys then parrot what someone on Dimblebys show had said…that the very phrase “war on terror” was a major provocation to the likes of those 7/7 bombers…only compounded the other-worldly obtuse stupidity of those devils advocates there at Bush House.
Humphrys, Jenkins,Shami and Shirley Williams…guess they were all getting the Common Purpose crib sheets once taken out of the dark cupboards where they hang upside down inbetween licensed rants.
Why though do we pay to get our faces slapped…and will Perle tell the US Embassy to refuse the BBC (and their useful idiotic echo chambers) visas to visit the country.
I thnk the BBC are going too far…Tuscany is their limit from now on ,surely to God!
INBBC: most of its ‘reporting’ from Islamic countries is provided by Muslims, and Islamophiliacs.
Of course, such INBBC Muslims will not criticise the tenets of Islam, such as Sharia or Jihad; nor will they describe the Islamic imperialist history.
But they will, and do criticise the West (inc Israel).
E.g. the current INBBC ‘reporting’ on the wrecking of the Israel Embassy in Cairo by Muslim mobs, which have been sanitised as ‘protesters’.
So, we licencepayers are paying for INBBC to tell us untruths as reported by Islamophilic ‘reporters’ throughout the Islamic world; and the political propaganda will get worse as World Service (inc Islamophilic ‘Arabic TV service’ at Broadcasting House, London) comes more under the political orbit of the BBC in 2013.
Actually, George, that’s a fair point. Why don’t they grant the same courtesy to the US? Instead of sympathetic locals out of respect for our culture, we have foreigners who look down on us reporting to you for the BBC.
Try James Fenton, US columnist for the London Metro
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-home/columnistarchive/James%20Fenton-columnist-1245-archive.do
Reaches several million Londoners on their way home, around a hundred times more than The Guardian nationally. He is such an miss-shapen replulsive intellectual dwarf who spouts Obama-love GOP-hate daily, unchallenged. Never mind Murdoch, someone needs to challenge Metro and FFS “The (misnamed) Independent” owner Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lebedev
Poisoning political debate in his country of refuge.
What to make of one of the items on this last night of the Proms -Wagners Gotterdamerung -Immolation scene.
Appropriate on the eve of 9/11? Is the BBC making a point?
Tony Blair did quite well I thought. Humphries sounded like he was playing devil’s advocate, trying to imitate Sackur’s approach in ‘Hardtalk’. Problem is, of course, that he wasn’t. He was proving his typically blind, campaigning leftie bias.
From George R’s link from 13:55 in:
Blair: Until we stop accepting that somehow we by our actions are provoking these people to be as they are we will carry on with this problem and by…
Humphries: The people who attacked London, who committed those appalling acts on 7/7 were not influenced in any way by your actions in the war on terror, not in any way?
Blair: I’m not saying that. I have no doubt at all they will use as justification for what they do British foreign policy…
Humphries: We gave them the justification. That’s exactly my point.
Blair: What by the way then was the justification for 9/11?
[A POTENTIALLY ENLIGHTENING MOMENT FOR HUMPHRIES IF HE HAD THE HONESTY TO ACCEPT IT. INSTEAD HE TRIES TO SLIDE AROUND IT]:
Humphries: You know what the provocation for that was. [Blair does? Yes, I’m sure he does, ie it was Islam, but Humphries would be horrfied to hear it.] Because it had been in existence for a very long time they took it to a different scale … and we overreacted.
Blair: But I’m asking you if it was British foreignpolicy that drove people to 7/7 what was it that drove them to 9/11?
Humphries: The same thing that has been driving them to those acts of terrorism for a very very long time [perhaps he means Israel, but whatever he means he’s not telling] against which, by and large, we had not overreacted, we’d not been very successful in attacking them because our security forces, the security services [yes, got to have the PeeCee label] weren’t doing a terribly good job as we now know. We could have stopped them…
Blair: Now hang on, that’s really unfair on our security services by the way especially as now…
Humphries: You mean they couldn’t have stopped 9/11 with the information that they had? We couldn’t have stopped 7/7 knowing what we now know and what they knew at the time…? [Big mouth Humphries should try his hand at stopping terrorism. All this babbling of his for the past minute has been to try to disguise the fact that he hasn’t answered Blair’s perfectly reasonable question about the provocation for 9/11.]
Blair: There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the security services were negligent or at fault during 9/11 and by the way today what we’re in danger of doing in my view is putting our security services in a position where actually their first concern will be whether they are going to be subject to enquiries or discipline and so on rather than trying to protect us but anyway that’s another matter.
Yes, the impartial BBC.
I heard this Hardtalk on BBC world Service. I particularly noticed Giuliani’s bitter laughter at Stephen Sackur’s accusatory BBC-style questioning. About intelligence departments unfairly targeting Moslems and annoyingly monitoring their activities, and how divisive it was to suspect Moslems of terrorism. Rather than old ladies, Jews and Hindus. So unfair. Manningham Buller crops up again too.
Thank you muchly Sue!
This is astonishing…do Humphrys, Sackur and the other useful idiots like Shami get it all from Cental Office in Frankfurt?
Sackur uses exactly the same template for questionning as Humphrys did in his scandalous interview with Blair. Chakhrabhati uses the same Manningham Buller crap on Any Questions.
Anyone would think that they see themselves as a little platoon acting in concert to deal with Uncle Sam.
Luckily this lot are pigmies…uneducated self-satisfied and downright lazy…so a Giuliani makes mincemeat of little Sackur.
Why don`t the US get personal with these shit-stirrers…Ann Coulter stuffed Paxmans head up his own arse, which was not before time!
I have to say Sue I’ve got a ‘jury’s out’ attitude to Stephen Sackur. Sometimes when you play ‘devil’s advocate’ you have to ask ridiculous questions and they certainly deserved the derisive laughter they got from Guiliani. His answers were top notch and it was a genuine interview – Sackur answered questions and didn’t try to chop up Guiliani when he answered them, not like the farce Humphrys conducted with Blair. Had Guiliani been the opposite side of the the mic with Humphrys, he would have treated Humphrys with the abject contempt he deserves.
Mind, on ‘jury’s out’ in my mind about Sackur, Guiliani did say to Sackur in one of his responses that the police shouldn’t adhere to political correctness ‘just to make people happy like you’. Fair to deduce from that that Guiliani was viewing Sackur as a left wing ‘player’.
After Humphrys playing at politics this morning, he needs to scoot off to Wales and stand for Plaid Cymru…or take his chances in Hampstead if that is too much!
The mand revealed himself to be a man who could parley with Al Queda…and could sort out Israel in his spare time.
I never heard a more boorish ignoramus with so many bien-pensant opinions as scribbled out for him by his handler…let him stand for election and let us claw back his obscene salary and unearned pension perks.
If it`s my BBC as that nice Lord Birtie once said…then I want Humphrys deselected so I can vote in Sue or Robin as the Today presenter we know we could trust!
How come we don`t get to vote the leeches out then? It`s like North Korea up there isn`t it?
We’re going to hear many more references to Manningham Buller from the BBC in the near future. The broadcaster’s favourite new useful idiot.
‘After Humphrys playing at politics this morning, he needs to scoot off to Wales and stand for Plaid Cymru.’
Might be interesting.
http://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2011/09/plaid-cymru-support-tv-licence-boycott.html
Astonishing evasion by that Humphreys. He is the very worst of the BBC and there is some competition.
Arrogant and ill informed. The very model of a sneering appeaser who seems to think he can speak for the nation.
I can imagine him in 1940 sneering at the fighter pilots.
“Now really what good do you think you are doing? Attacking the German planes will only enrage them more. We should be talking like reasonable people”.
He really makes me angry.
The same thing that has been driving them to those acts of terrorism for a very very long time [perhaps he means Israel, but whatever he means he’s not telling]
I think he was going to say Western Imperialism, British and American Imperialism and possibly Israel. Somebody should ask JH what he did mean. Interviewing Blair, and then being asked by Blair twice and avoiding any reply. This is unheard of in the history of BBC interviewing. JH was a disgrace, and Blair identified this when he spoke of :
“a wretched posture of apology and defeatism”.
Blair, I’m sure, included JH and the BBC here.
Yes, on reflection I think you are right. He meant Western imperialism but for some reason didn’t want to come right out and say it. Perhaps he realised that would be a step too far for an impartial BBC journalist getting his salary from Western imperialists, or at least from their descendants.
Humphrys claim that Blair and Bush said Islam was the enemy after 9/11 is literally criminal.
The historical record shows without the faintest trace of doubt the abject liar that Humphrys is.
Get the rope out. The man is aiding and abetting the enemy at time of war. Humphrys is vermin of the hightest order.
I thought that Sue may have been exaggerating about what Humphrys said, but no. I could very easily put a rope around the scumbag’s neck myself and take great satisfaction in seeing him drop.
It’s so heartening that a leader of Blair’s stature is so realistic about the threat of Islamism, but until he gets real about the threat of the BBC as embodied by such vermin as Humphrys his assesment of the threat of Islamism will not have the impact it needs to. He should have slapped Humphrys down. Humphrys has power without responsibility. Blair has thrice acheived election to the highest office in the land. He should call Humphrys out for the political harlot that he is.
What would Humpf. make of this?
In the atmosphere of ferment of the Arab Spring, a summary of a full interview.
“On August 13, 2011, the Egyptian daily Roz Al-Yousef published an interview with Sheikh ‘Adel Shehato, a senior official in Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), who, on March 23, 2011, was freed from prison in the wake of the Egyptian revolution. He was imprisoned in 1991 upon returning from a three-year sojourn in Afghanistan.
In the interview, Shehato expressed complete opposition to democracy “because it is not the faith of the Muslims, but the faith of the Jews and Christians.” He said that although the youth of the Arab revolutions have not declared the implementation of shari’a as one of their goals, the mujahideen nonetheless identify with their aspiration to overthrow the Arab rulers, whom they had always considered “infidels who must be killed because they do not rule according to the shari’a.” He added, however, that “once Allah’s law is applied, the role of the people will end and Allah will reign supreme.” He went on to say that although he supports Al-Qaeda’s ideology, shari’a law would not be enforced by violence but by da’wa (preaching), whereas violence would be used only against the infidel Arab rulers.
Shehato said that if the mujahideen came to power in Egypt, they would launch a campaign of Islamic conquests aimed at subjecting the entire world to Islamic rule. Muslim ambassadors would be appointed to each country, charged with calling upon them to join Islam willingly, but if the countries refused, war would be waged against them. He also described the nature of the Islamic state to be established in Egypt: there would be no trade or cultural ties with non-Muslims; tourist sites at the pyramids, the Sphinx, and Sharm Al-Sheikh would be shut down “because the tourists come [there] to drink alcohol and fornicate,” and all tourists wishing to visit Egypt would be required to comply with the conditions and laws of Islam; all art, painting, singing, dancing, and sculpture would be forbidden, and all culture would be purely Islamic.”
This is fairly and squarely within the tradition of Islamic/Islamist radicalism. It is real and present. It has an audience. It has followers throughout the Muslim World.
In our ‘globalised’ world, the existence of these throwback cultural views has become dangerous in a way 50 or 100 years ago they were not. Technology, communications etc has moved this into the global community. It is, of course, barbarism.
I’ll try to catch that Hardtalk.
(And I’ll remember the correct spelling for Humphrys. It’s no good trashing a low down BBC hack if you cant spell his name.)
Meanwhile, dunno if anyone has seen this:
“The 2,977 victims and 19 hijackers who died on the ground and in those four planes were only the first of hundreds of thousands of victims of the war on terror that was to unfold as a direct consequence of the 9/11 attacks.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/09/9-11-fire-smoulders-comment?commentpage=1
You seldom see a better example of appeasing, leftie agenda pushing than that. Someone in the comments said he thought it must surely be poor grammar and the sentence should be reconstructed. Wry humour there.
The article is an editorial, with the author unnamed. I assume it’s Alan Rus-somethingorother.
And here’s another choice bit:
“If it would have been almost impossible for any US president, Democrat or Republican, to resist the urge to invade Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks,….”
“Resist the urge?” What an extraordinary way of describing a valid counter attack in this war. But of course, the writer doesn’t think it’s a war.
Be interesting to see what CIF makes of this.
I meant CIF Watch, of course.
For INBBC and Humphrys:
Mark Steyn: “We commemorate an act of war as a ‘tragic event,’ and we retreat to equivocation, cultural self-loathing, and utterly fraudulent misrepresentation about the events of the day”
To re-emphasise Janet Daley’s point (Hippie-p has it on ‘open thread’)-
“9/11: The dark day that brought out the worst in Britain.
“The tragic events of 9/11 were immediately followed by a grotesque and shameful fusillade of anti-Americanism, which still resonates today. ”
( by Janet Daley)
[Excerpt];
“Then the BBC followed with an outrageous edition of Question Time, in which the audience shrieked abuse at anyone on the panel who uttered a word of sympathy for the US, and openly cheered the idea that the attacks were justified.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/september-11-attacks/8754523/911-The-dark-day-that-brought-out-the-worst-in-Britain.html