The BBC, the police, academia, local and national government all conspire to hide the truth about Islam in our midst…..They tell us that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist, bombers are just criminals perverting a peaceful Islam, Muslim rape gangs targeting non-Muslims don’t exist, ‘extremists’ don’t represent the vast majority of Muslims….all untrue.
The real, inconvenient, Truth is much more complicated…and all the more frightening.
Read this from Der Spiegel and contemplate the future and not just for Turkey…or indeed Europe should Turkey be allowed to become a member but also for individual countries with large populations of activist Muslims:
The Shadowy World of the Islamic Gülen Movement
By Maximilian Popp
Millions of Muslims around the world idolize Turkish preacher Fethullah Gülen, who likes to present himself as the Gandhi of Islam. His Gülen movement runs schools in 140 countries and promotes interfaith dialogue. But former members describe it as a sect, and some believe the secretive organization is conspiring to expand its power in Turkey.
Germans have devoted a lot of attention to Islam in recent years. There are conferences on Islam and research projects on integration. But the German public knows almost nothing about Gülen and his movement, even though it has more influence on Muslims in Germany than almost any other group. “It is the most important and most dangerous Islamist movement in Germany,” says Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, an Islamic scholar in the western German university city of Marburg. “They are everywhere.”
The Gülen movement has two sides: One that faces the world and another that hides from it.
In one of his sermons, he called upon his students to establish a new Muslim age. He advised his supporters to undermine the Turkish state and act conspiratorially until the time was ripe to assume power. “You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they (the followers) must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere. (…) You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power (…) Until that time, any step taken would be too early — like breaking an egg without waiting the full 40 days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside.”
Gülen’s influence in Turkey was enhanced when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s conservative Islamic party, the AKP, won the Turkish parliamentary election in 2002. Observers believe that the two camps entered into a strategic partnership at first, with Gülen providing the AKP with votes while Erdogan protected the cemaat.
Many civil servants act at the behest of the “Gülen brothers,” says a former senior member. “They were our students. We trained and supported them. When these grateful children assume office, they continue to serve Gülen.” In 2006, former police chief Adil Serdar Sacan estimated that the Fethullahcis held more than 80 percent of senior positions in the Turkish police force. “The assertion that the TNP (Turkish National Police) is controlled by Gulenists is impossible to confirm but we have found no one who disputes it,” wrote James Jeffrey, the then US ambassador in Ankara, in a 2009 cable.
All of this sounds harmless, tolerant and peaceful. But Ilhan Cihaner experienced in Turkey what can happen to critics. “Anyone who messes with Gülen is destroyed,” says the former chief prosecutor. He has been a hero among secular Turks since he investigated the Gülen community in 2007. Cihaner says that he had received information about illegal financial transactions within the cemaat. But then, in response to pressure from the government, he was taken off the case. He was arrested in 2010.
Cihaner was accused of being a member of the ultranationalist Ergenekon organization, a group of conspirators who had allegedly planned to overthrow the government. Even Cihaner’s political rivals believe that the charges against him were absurd. The former prosecutor had acquired a reputation for his staunch campaigns against mafia-like networks. And now he was being accused of working with Ergenekon and planning to plant weapons in dormitories where Gülen supporters lived so as to discredit the movement. The prosecution based its case on statements by anonymous witnesses. Cihaner was eventually released because of insufficient evidence against him. He is now a member of the opposition in the Turkish parliament.
Istanbul-based journalist Ahmet Sik suffered a similar fate. He was arrested in March 2011, shortly before his book about the Gülen movement, “Imamin Ordusu,” (“The Imam’s Army”), was to be published. Security forces searched the offices of his publishing house, and the manuscript, in which Sik describes how the Gülen movement has allegedly infiltrated the police and the judiciary in Turkey, was confiscated. The investigative reporter was charged with being a member of Ergenekon. Ironically, it was Sik who, together with a colleague, had exposed the secret coup plans of an Ergenekon admiral in the weekly magazine Nokta in 2007 and who had repeatedly targeted the Ergenekon network. Sik was released a few months ago, following international protests.
In September 2010, Hanefi Avci, a former Turkish police chief and former Gülen sympathizer, was arrested and accused of having participated in the Ergenekon conspiracy. He had just published a book in which he accused Gülen members in the police of illegally wiretapping their enemies’ telephone conversations and manipulating trials.’
You will never see such a report on the BBC…it is too close to home and too likely to raise some very awkward questions about ‘multi-culturalism’.
“You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe.”
Remember, this is in essence what Mehdi Hasan says…Muslims must get into positions of power, especially in the Media, so that Muslim influence can increase and hence the power that Muslims can wield will also increase.
Yet again we have the ‘Establishment’ carrying out a policy that has highly controversial consequences, possibly dangerous ones for Democracies, and all criticism is suppressed and silenced. Not only that but Islam is actively promoted by the BBC and all without any balancing critiques.
When the end game starts to play out many of the people who implement these policies will ‘adapt’ and bow down before the new regime and take the silver pieces on offer. They know that just as in Communist society the privileged still live a life of privilege unencumbered by the normal rules and laws of society…look at Muslim royalty and high flying businessmen…..drinking, gambling, womanising…..and yet the morality police back home are hunting down women for driving cars or going out unescorted by a male relative.
Those at the top now figure that come what may they will still be in charge and enjoying the good life never mind what happens to the ‘small people’ and whatever new regime takes power.
The BBC is supposed to hold such people to account…and yet it has become those people itself.
In his now infamous speech, John Humphrys argued that: “If we were not prepared to take on a very, very powerful government indeed there would be no point in the BBC existing — that is ultimately what the BBC is for.’
Shame he doesn’t live up to his own ideals by taking on very, very powerful vested interests.
There is a lot of things that are very scary about the way we bury our heads in the sand regarding the serious threat we all face….. and as soon as someone raises the issues they are racist, islamaphobic or conspiracy theorists…. we sleep at our peril…… but we sleep.
Me, me, me, please Miss, I’m islamaphobic.
Anyone who isn’t needs to fuck off and put some time in ‘East of Suez’, to quote the good Mr. Kipling.
The only thing I’m interested in , is finding a politician sensible enough to espouse a repatriation policy for all muslim economic migrants. There isn’t a single reason why we should play host to and provide welfare benefits for , millions of people who do not accept our core values as a nation.
dear dear, i noticed even in the cooking programmes the latest, china adventure, lots of hints of tsk tsk shaky head, about western influence, and hmm no islam YET?
but watch next week for “grande” posterior elevation … ooooh brother!.
they might not mention, the multiple attacks on Han Chinese, that caused
some mosque shutdowns, apparently the erm influence of Pakistani imams
radicalising? … you don t say – surprise surprise
it was on a a lot of channels when i was there … might not make it onto the bbc.
bbc “Han welcome security forces”
i hear that freedom/democracy loving
😀 MB head Morsi in Egypt, dismissed his main opposition from the military
today …. in fact its a good job they are military, or they would end up like Fatah, thrown of the tops of high buildings, by democratically elected Hamas.
ahh joys of the … Arab (all together!) “springtime for Hitler and Germany”
what could go wrong? 😀
also check out Drive on 5live, where
(rebel/moderate islamist loving)
AL BBC, got a right dressing down from a freelance Syrian journalist
gold medal ;-D
“Mursi’s surprising swipe at military power” bbc …
the bbc is surprised 😀
link 1hr 35 in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01lsv67/
The caller obviously was biased in favor of Assad, but what he actually said sounded pretty accurate to me. Except for declaring it a US war by proxy, he was more or less speaking factually about what was going on, no? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, intelligence supplied by others, etc.
Peter Allen just didn’t like to hear it, and was obviously on the other side. He tried to play the man and not the ball, just told the audience over and over to consider the man a liar.
The only actual proper debate I heard was the other Syrian guest versus the caller about how much the people did or didn’t support Assad. Allen was disgraceful.
On GULEN:
“Meet ‘the Most Dangerous Islamist on Planet Earth.
He lives in Pennsylvania.”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34651
INBBC’s Mr Stourton did a feature on GULEN (2011).
Mr Stourton’s political line is illustrated by his opening sentence:
“Turkey’s Gulen movement, which promotes service to the common good, may have grown into the world’s biggest Muslim network.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13503361
He’s also an enthusiastic creationist and it is taught in all his schools. Beeboids use creationism as a reason to write off a swathe of the American population as knuckle dragging weirdos but hardly ever seem to remark on widespread anti-Darwinism in the Muslim world,
He’s a Creationist? Quick, someone ask Justin Webb is this guy is also disqualified from holding high public office because of it.
Defenders of the indefensible are invited to show us a single example of a Beeboid making anything like this suggestion about a Mohammedan.
http://bbc.in/MqXhuR
There. Happy now?
I didn’t know Dawkins worked for the BBC.
More than that, first the article does not address acceptance of creationism and suitability of being in office. Second the article is a précis of a ‘Times Educational Supplement’ article. It is not a beeboid inspired view anyway!
Not even close, dez. You knew precisely what I’m talking about. This fails.
That link page took quite a bit of finding, didn’t it? It’s usually Christian creationists who are slagged off. This is what the beeb calls “balance” – to fool people into thinking the corporation is impartial, show something politically incorrect occasionally. By the way, guess what else they teach at many moslem faith schools – but not at Christian ones? Jihad.
Gulen looks to me, to be the Turkish offshoot of ‘Common Purpose’.
George R,
The part of your quote you dishonestly left out:
“Turkey’s Gulen movement, which promotes service to the common good, may have grown into the world’s biggest Muslim network. Is it the modern face of Islam, or are there more sinister undercurrents?”
As you know, I quoted Mr Stourton’s first sentence in full and therefore honestly, and provoded the full link for people to make up there own minds on Gulen from Stourton and other reports.
Only a dishonest person could call this dishonest.
Correction above: ‘their’.
Except you said that, “Mr Stourton’s political line is illustrated by his opening sentence”. Despite the second demonstrating that his approach was substantially different to how you were presenting it.
I think Dez is, in the circumstances, using the word “dishonest” completely appropriately.
Only a dishonest person could be in such agreement.
As you will observer, Mr Stourton’s first, generalised sentence is to be taken as a ‘fact’. His second sentence is only a question.
What Mr Stourton did not do in in his two-part series on Gulen was make the critical points made by e.g. Ms Schlussel-
Gulen Muslim Charter Schools: “60 Minutes” Does Mostly a Whitewash (VIDEO)
By Debbie Schlussel.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/49553/gulen-muslim-charter-schools-60-minutes-does-mostly-a-whitewash/
Of course, the issue of dishonestly should be applied to Islamic Gulen movement.
i think its obvious george,
scez has more of a bee in his bonnet, (should i say burkha 😀 ) – about alan than your post, i note (yet again) the double teaming 😀 … doppelganger
if they use your link, a non issue
Hello Scez!
Re the John Humphries quote, the beeb’s mission is to rear down the fabric of western civilisation. That is why they champion terror and even attack Labour on occasion.
MB – Obama, Warsi/OIC – Cameron
Nukes to ‘Finish Off the Zionist Enterprise,'”
MEMRI, August 7
Genocidal Sudanese appointment to UN human rights council all but certain, FoxNews.com
Extremist IFE sponsors a man who “calls Jews ‘germs’ and ‘monkeys … A Gilligan, Telegraph
the evidence is all around, no good looking to the tories/labour when the fact is, they ve already given up
and so are in bed with the same.
re – the evidence is all around
“Dads banned from nursery to avoid offending Muslims,” the Express
” John Humphrys argued that: “If we were not prepared to take on a very, very powerful government indeed there would be no point in the BBC existing — that is ultimately what the BBC is for.’” I took this entry “In 1997 the Labour government tampered with the UK constitution. They then vetoed anyone reading the minutes of the cabinet meeting where it was agreed a parliament for Scotland would be implemented. ” from an article http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/08/is-gordon-brown-a-scottish-nationalist/
Don’t remember the bBC taking on a powerful Labour government.
Only about Iraq, and then only because they turned on Blair for siding with George Bush on it.
Point proven, because when the Hutton report stitched up Gilligan, they also threw Dyke to the wolves for good measure. Dyke protested but the bBC did not back him up and he ended up resigning. Corrupt government, corrupt report and the bBC scuttled away with it’s tail between its legs.
Yeah, the BBC Left will never forgive Blair for defending Western Civilisation. What a bad ‘un he turned out to be.
“You will never see such a report on the BBC…”
NEVER! Oh apart from here:
http://bbc.in/Od4ay8
In fact, the BBC were reporting on Fethullah Gulen as long ago as 1999:
http://bbc.in/Od4yN9
Not too bright are you Alan?
INBBC and its supporters are as critical of the Gulen movement as they are of the Muslim Brotherhood.
scez-not to bright are you ALAN 😀
point proved ….?
really bristling this morning …… PMT?
Got a link to the Balen report Dez, surely your team at the beeb can get you one?
Good call
There’s an old saying ‘One swallow does not a summer make’. But then they’d probably stopped teaching proverbs in schools by the time dez began his marxist education.
Not too bright are you dez, can you even read:
“You will never see SUCH a report on the BBC…”
Fair play to Dez, he’s got two articles there, thus proving the word ‘never’ to be factually wrong.
But I find it hilarious that he tries to make out that one report in 1999 and one in 2011 is somehow representative of a continuum of vigilant reportage.
But he’s wrong, not even factually correct: Alan wrote you won’t find “such” a report, i.e. you’ll NEVER see such a negative set of facts re Gulen without them being softened or explained away or simply ignored.
Oh dear Scez, we know when you know you have no real argument when you have to insult people.
You do that quite often dont you?
The Metro trendy white afflulent socialist/Marxist freaks at the BBC and their comrades think Islam will get them their Socialist world government. They don’t realise or won’t admit to themselves that if Islam ever took over they would end up like their comrades did in Iran after the Islamic revolution in 1979.
Being left-wing, socialist, marxist etc most definately is a mental disorder.
Yes Earls, all the homosexual, mentally disordered, communists who work for the BBC are part of a grand conspiracy to install a Muslim government in the UK.
And never forget that if you don’t believe in Santa Claus you won’t get any presents on Christmas morning.
Dhimmis to a man is what they are Dez, that word that some don’t wish to define?
So what is their (and your) defend-Islam-at-all-costs agenda about, coz I’m buggered if I know.
“the BBC are part of a grand conspiracy to install a Muslim government in the UK”
No. It is a marriage of convenience that relies on useful idiots such as your yourself.
Both Leftists and Islamists hate traditional British culture. For a Leftist (prior to the revolutionary take over of the State) hatred of the existing society (whether that hatred is motivated by religion or some other ideology makes no difference) is actively encouraged.
Both the Leftists and the Islamists believe they have history on their side – they each think that (just before the end of days) they will liquidate their opponents and create a Stalinist or Islamic utopia.
Useful Idiot is one of my favourite sayings. The vast majority of the left I have met are perfectly described by that word.
The Iranian and North African islamists would agree with you. Use the liberal-left to stage the revolution, then chop their heads off.
They have a fatefully misguided belief in their own cleverness.
Has the “Contact Us” section been disabled?
The sum you must answer, to prove you are a living & breathing human-being, has vanished – for me at any rate.
“You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they (the followers) must continue like this”
Exactly the tactics Globalists have used in Britain and the BBC, by stealth installing ‘like minded’ in positions of power from the bottom to the top.
I see zed/dezzie has been finally banned from all the other blogs so has washed up like a dead whale here I also see the same pattern of links to guff unrelated to the thread or so old and thin that only he can see any connection pushing the thread off topic then accusing everyone on the site of being this and that to bait the locals into saying something so he can go all ‘aha I told you they were ——-‘ then he starts the abuse when it turns sour on him !
INBBC, Turkey and Gulen.
It is relevant to place INBBC’s compliant take on Gulen as part of INBBC’s support for entry of 80 million Muslim Turks of an Islamising Turkey under Erdogan (a Gulen chum) into the E.U.
That also is the political line of Obama, and of three main UK political parties.
And, of course, like INBBC, Turkey supports Sunni opposition in Syria.
Oh the INBBC is salivating at the prospect of reporting 80 miilions Turks entering a border free EU so they can shove two defiant fingers up the all who they consider right wing.
You might be familiar with the following Frankfurt principles of the Left; it’s kind of a do-it-yourself checklist, a set of indicators that will help you identity left-wing socialists in your area:
The Frankfurt School branch of cultural Marxism recommended (amongst other things):
1) The creation of racism offenses against ethnic minorities and hate crimes against Muslims
2) Continual change to create confusion
3) The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4) The undermining of schools and teachers’ authority
5) Huge immigration to destroy national identity
6) The promotion of excessive drinking
7) The emptying of churches and the worship of celebrities instead
8) An unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime
9) Dependency on the state or state benefits
10) Control and dumbing down of media
11) Encouraging the breakdown of the family
Sums the BBC up!
Supplementary.
“How to destroy a country”.
Parts 1, 2 & 3.
By Paul Weston.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/how-to-destroy-country-part-3.html
EGYPT, INBBC and Arab Spring (Islamic Winter), update:-
INBBC does a little catching up on the political reality of what the
Muslim Brotherhood is about:-
“Egypt’s Brotherhood accused of trying to control media”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19245300
And can you remember all of the BBC’s Left-wing crap about ‘newfound democracy’ in Egypt? They’re doing the bloody same with Syria. It seems the BBC have a bit of a problem in defining what democracy actually is, because every Muslim country that they have predicted will respect democracy, quickly proceeds to turn into a fundamentalist hell hole. They really are a biased disgrace!
If the people vote for a fundamentalist hell hole, it’s still technically a democracy at the moment. And it’s pretty obvious that Egyptian society has degenerated over the last 25 years to the point where that’s what they want. Shariah Law, and death to the Jews. A winning platform in any Arab nation, and it’s their right to vote for it. All the fault of the Jewish Lobby for keeping that military dictatorship in power, right, BBC?
When the “scholars” and power-brokers start picking candidates next time, we’ll see how democratic it all is.
Let’s hope there’s a similar exodus of these types from Britain to Egypt:
“Record number of Islamic supremacists leaving Germany for Egypt, where they hope to live ‘the true Islam’ and wage ‘jihad against infidels'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/islamic-supremacists-leaving-germany-for-egypt-where-they-hope-to-live-the-true-islam-and-wage-jihad.html
In my dreams!
Apparently, INBBC reporters are slowly catching on, and know what will happens to them if they criticises Mursi or Muslim Brotherhood:
“Egypt journalists to be tried for ‘insults’ to Mursi”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19249152
So will self-censored, non-critical INBBC reports on Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood be the order of the day?
Classic piece on R4’s PM, about 5.25 just now. Hugh Sykes was interviewing some little refugee boys from Syria in a camp in Jordan. “Why are you so happy?” he asked the unexpectedly cheerful little blighters. “Sharia, sharia,,blah…blah..blah sharia” they replied. “What did they say?” he asked the interpreter, who replied:”They are happy because now they have freedom – they did not have freedom before.” – priceless.
OK this may be unpopular but here goes:
I, for one, welcome the contributions of both Dez and Scott. It’s important we have guys like that to keep us on our toes. The best posts on this site are from well-researched link-laden entries. If we balls it up – bad for us.
The general thrust of the arguments here on B-BBC is that the BBC is distorting truth (mostly by omitting stories and salient details) thus giving us a world view that is simply wrong and skewered to the left. They do not represent my point of view. I do not recognize their world, This Is not accidental. NOTHING HAPPENS ON THE MDEIA BY MISTAKE. Our case is most strongly made when we are surgical and factual in our statements.
By the way, dez, about the two links you posted:
http://bbc.in/Od4ay8
http://bbc.in/Od4yN9I
I read them and I think you’ll admit, they do not have quite the urgency of the message made in the original article by Maximilian Popp cited by Alan in his original posting. It may the BBC tradition of “on one hand Hitler killed 6m Jews but on the other he made the trains on time” school of journalism. This is what skewers the narrative on the BBC. Gulan is a danger. PERIOD (as they say here in the US). I doubt if the Popp article would have made it on the Beeb.
So I’d ask this question: has the BBC reported the Gulan story with the clarity, urgency and vigor it deserves? I hope you agree that the answer is no.
OK. OK. I know. It’s MEDIA, m’dear.
Of course we need the opinions of others, as long as they engage in a proper debate, which requires arguments to be addressed point by point. In the case of Dez and co., they don’t. Typically it’s a cherry-picked item and it’s usually to either a) point out a perceived error (fair enough) b) point to a ‘balancing’ statement in an obscure article on the BBC news website (never, or hardly ever a broadcast programme) or c) hurl childish abuse at someone (lost argument syndrome).
I don’t really see the point of their ‘contributions’, especially as they seem shit scared of engaging with the really meaty examples of leftist/Labour/union/anti-Thatcher/anti-Tory/pro-AGW/pro-EU bias.
100% if they want a debate then great I want one too ! but if as it seems the norm of baiting and low fruit are game then I am more then happy to play at their level !
‘Of course we need the opinions of others, as long as they engage in a proper debate’
Yes and yes. Though I’ll pop on my devil’s advocate hat as to the ‘we’ bit, preferring the notion that the debate needs the opinions of any and all that can keep it based on accuracy.
Hate to sound like one of our cowardly political classes here, but that means recognising a few rules of the game, and one of the main ones is distraction means victory… not in addressing the substance of a debate, but to spoil it.. For some, that is clearly the only aim.
Hence it’s best to couch some claims less definitively than can be tempting.
It seems trivial, but a loose word and semantics offer the lamest cherry vulture an easy low hanging meal to squawk around.
And, frankly, for an age that is all they seem capable of doing.
I’d love to hear some halfway decent counters presented, but what is served up by the current flock hardly comes close.
Even some I used to respect seem to feel pointing at one obscure counter somehow negates the mass of evidence often presented, but when exposing themselves to challenge back on the entirety of the discussion, suddenly lob toys out of prams, play non-sequitur victim cards and then flounce off. Then again, if that’s the standard at Editor or market rate board level within the BBC, optimistic to expect any better from the glee club.
So while I agree with Louis, I can only agree with you more.
Personally folks, I have enough critical reading and analysis to do at work everyday without interacting in some pseudo-debate with Dez (aka Scott.).
‘Our case is most strongly made when we are surgical and factual in our statements’
Spot on. It’s also the only way to deal with BBC CECUTT. Here it’s also best to never say ‘never’ as there madness lies.
Speaking of which…
‘I think you’ll admit..’
Followed by a polite question.
Then again, hope, as expressed in your last line, is said to spring eternal.
I think it’s all a tragic waste of time on everyone’s part. Think of the good you could do if you put your minds to something of consequence. It could be incredible. There are so many more important things to get angry about in the world, so many.
By Jove, Whitman. I Thought not that we’d hear of you again.
I was out of the country for a month my friend. I shan’t stick around for an awfully long time.
All good. And yes it would be nice for “dez” (aka Scott) to engage and not simply abuse.
And like Whitman I’ll be home soon from the US for 10 days and can’t wait to see firsthand how the Olympics have transformed Britain into Cameron’s paradise.
‘I was out of the country for a month my friend.”
Wow, BFF’s with some now. That break must have worked wonders. Only a month? Not quite Nick Robinson level, but still enviable.
‘I shan’t stick around for an awfully long time.’
The country? Or this fine blog? If the latter, sorely missed, at least until the next incarnation rises, like a phoenix, from the ashes of the very miffed, persistent moth that seems drawn inexorably to the BBBC flame.
Again the thinking seems rather uni-directional. Licence fee payers should not express concern on any aspect of how a £4Bpa, force-funded, unaccountable media monopoly conducts its business, and should direct their ‘anger’ (down at the back, Mason)… where? I am presuming you have a list of priorities to offer. You may be surprised where synergies may lie even with one drawn up to your rules. I just happen to engage here on one that happens to interest me, per what it says on the tin. In contrast your motivations seem, at best, less constructive in the spirit of debate, spent more on the messengers and distraction rather than addressing substantively what they have to say.
I quite enjoy visiting, and interacting. You seem to get rather excercised, and often.
In terms of time spent in anger, I’d hazard you are the one possibly in need of a blood pressure check around here.
There’s never a debate on here. Debate implies that you listen to people who disagree and reason with them. I’m yet to see well reasoned debating from more than about 2 of you.
‘Debate implies that you listen to people who disagree and reason with them.
Whitman says:
August 13, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Do all be quiet.
Love you lots
Xxx
Whitman – you do realise you are an attention-seeking bore ?
‘There are so many more important things to get angry about in the world, so many’.
Oh, I dunno. I reckon our national ‘imapartial’ broadcaster with priveleged funding status manipulating opinion through it’s daily diet of socialist dogma blatantly supporting a political party which feels it’s on the cusp of being returned to power for ever has got to be in the top ten somewhere.
Not something like the poorest people in the world? Those who live in horrendous slums… No, let’s just moan about what we’ve got here shall we, that seems a far better use of your time. Africa was where I was for that month, and seeing that rather makes everything else seem a little less important. I just wanted to tell you that.
Gawd you are a self-important bore !
Me? I thought one had to be to get anywhere on here? It seems fairly compulsory for everyone else.
If that’s what floats your boat go and find another website.
The clue to this one is in its name.
“There are so many more important things to get angry about in the world”
Is that the best you can do?
SYRIA.
INBBC, in its support for Sunni opposition,
-reports this:-
“Syria rebels claim military Mig 23 fighter shot down”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19247164
BUT NOT THIS:-
“Graphic video is claimed to show Syrian atrocities”
http://www.euronews.com/2012/08/12/graphic-video-is-claimed-to-show-syrian-atrocities/
’In his now infamous speech, John Humphrys argued that: “If we were not prepared to take on a very, very powerful government indeed there would be no point in the BBC existing — that is ultimately what the BBC is for.’’
Et, repetez…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2011/annual_report.html
’This is a confident and strong BBC, delivering public value, unflinching inholding power to account..
Encore un fois…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/2011/06/helen-boaden-director-of-bbc-news-at-the-lse.shtml
’.. Helen Boaden gave the keynote address – about ’holding power to account’’
Say it often enough, eh? (If a certain irony in how quickly that last got ‘closed for comments’ at… 2. Of which one was censored. Wrong kind of views on the line?).
I am actually all in favour of power being held to account, as it does corrupt, and when absolute, absolutely.
What I have come to realise is there has existed an even more compromised version, ironic given the theme of holding power to account, and that is one made inherently unaccountable, or ‘unique’ to use the BBC’s favoured term. Be it funding that cannot be with-held no matter how compromised the service, to the world-class joke of a self-policing system that takes arrogance and cynical hypocrisy to new levels.
From cherry vultures here to all levels of the CECUTT sewer network, I have asked why it is that the BBC sees it has the divine right to challenge on the basis of holding power to account, but as a £4Bpa media monopoly feels it can and must never be held to anything like the same standards if at all… defending by a muttered ‘got it about right’ to a full-blown FoI-exemption squad deployment.
Questions are being asked… more and more.. of the BBC. Yet all anyone gets is silence, distraction or plain obstruction. And as error or abuse goes unchecked as a consequence, so it can only continue and expand.
For a propaganda system backed by censorship, that has historical precedent to a worrying degree.
“UK: Fathers banned from play centre to avoid offending Muslims”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/uk-fathers-banned-from-play-centre-to-avoid-offending-muslims.html
I read the story and it doesn’t target the real villain, who was the un-named “manager” of the play centre. They made a totally muddle-headed decision to ban dads. Could be an ultra-liberal English airhead with an irrational fear of offending Muslims and a desperate desire to be liked by them. Not unlike the BBC really. Or they might be an attention-seeking Muslim provocateur. We are not told, at least not by this report.