Is it just me or is the BBC rather outraged that the Algerian Government has taken a no-nonsense approach to dealing with Islamic terrorists? I have been following the coverage these past few days and apart from floating the views of those .. ahem.. wise old coves at the F.O. the BBC main meme is to warn of the dangers presented by a robust approach to Jihadi.
ALGERIA
Bookmark the permalink.
It’s a pity The Times is behind Murdoch’s paywall because today’s (Saturday) issue contains a very sensible piece by (Colonel) Richard Kemp, who, amongst other things, commanded the British Forces in Afghanistan.
Headline: The Algerian Army know their own business. Let them get on with it.
Quotes: An expectation that the Algerian Prime Minister should consult our Prime Minister before launching a rescue operation smacks of colonial hauteur. Would Mr Cameron have informed the Algerians if the situation were reversed? Of course not.
…
The Algerian government understands what we in the West often don’t, sometimes to our cost – that a hardline demonstration of strength can not only remove the immediate problem but also be a powerful deterrent against jihadists with no respect for apparent vacillation, which they perceive as weakness.
Very sound!
jihadists with no respect for apparent vacillation, which they perceive as weakness.
Very sound!
———————————————————————-
Quite – there was rather a strong opinion in the last labour government towards allowing ‘limited’ sharia law ‘in certain areas.’
They’re so pig-thick the lefties they think if we take a step back and ‘they’ take a step forward that ‘they’ will be happy with that. Dead wrong. The more you give Johnny Islamist the more he wants. He’s not daft.
And nice to see Radio 4worththelicencefeealone this morning that Dementor-at-Large James Naughtie tried to hijack Secretary Panetta with…
‘worrayathink about David Cameron and his attitude towards the EU?’
As ever when the droids get all tricksy with the Americans, the Americans stomp through it with a pair of heavy boots on. The unsaid message from Panetta was ‘I really don’t give a toss’.
Still credit to James C*nt (oops sorry slipped out as it does) for is his amazing ability to suck the oxygen out of a room purely with the sound of his voice on the airwaves.
And as for our new pantomine villain, the raghead with the missing eye – expect the droids to move to maximum howl when he gets taken out by one of those droneswhichkillinnocentpeople.
Oh they will get him with a drone, just a matter of time. Still it’s what he wants huh? 72 virgins an’ all!
Shhh – don’t tell anyone, they’re all camels!
Camels are just as good to them. Try reading khomeini’s green book! Lol
They have all misread the Koran: They have been promised a 72 year old virgin.
Widdy?
BBC rather outraged that the Algerian Government has taken a no-nonsense approach to dealing with Islamic terrorists ….. GOOD! …
oh i note they slipped up too yesterday
:-D, allowing the news that the islamic facists, “only want to kill crusaders, christians and infidels” on the bbc …
bet that guy got the sack. 😀
they just can t help themselves at it again this morning.
“despicable sleight of hand, on al bbc news …
re-israel.
this morning … for incisive comment? … yep!
bringing in old “thats life” queen, simon “fanny” fanshawe,
this airheaded sop, informs us a two state solution is out,
israel as we know it, could be just overun by arabs, and …
its all … (nodding, as he holds our 2 presenters mesmerised, by his intellect) … israels fault!…
yea he minces …the settlements you see! …
he gushes …. and if they don t want to be called “apartheid” state, just like south africa … (girlfriend!),
and their elections are coming up, tsk tsk shakes head … gonna go to the right!.
mr obama, will have to have a word etc etc.
throughout this pantomime … the implication is clear
israel bad, settlements bad bad, netanyahu bad bad bad
questioning if israel should be there … AT ALL!. …
were this trio of f-ckwits aware” that … islamic facists are bombing israel, … islamic facists in mali, … in algeria, … in kashmir, … in somalia, … in sudan at all?
we need a bit more than an aging gok wan, on serious issues eh!
I thought simon fanshawe had morphed into jonathan king; or vice versa; and was never to be seen or heard of again.
what sewer does the bbc dredge to dig up this kind of numbnut?
Thanks for the info. BUT what is important is for all those who spot such obvious bias to complain directly to the BBC and pursue them until they take your complaint seriously. You will not win but they are as a public service are obliged to answer your complaints and this costs them money. If enough people hit them where it hurts financially then something is achieved. , You can get your MP involved if they delay replying etc.
Fully support your sentiment, but caution what an MP can do.. Or will want to.
My DP-sofa addicted version simply acknowledges calls for action with a ‘Yes, but they are a national treasure, so what to do?’.
Basically an elected representative admits policy is controlled by an unelected body, able to operate unaccountably in perpetuity.
As a metaphor for this thread his stance is telling: they can spoil his chances, so toe the line.
He’s now front and centre as Tory the chatter anti can work with. Go figger.
However, if his conciliation does buy him some slack to climb past those less inclined to see free speech and democracy get corrupted by a uniquely-funded elite, history shows he may still need to watch his back if he gets uncomfortable with how the treasure gets acquired and buried.
One of the beauties of sensible discussion is agreeing or disagreeing with a view, or argument, on its merits, rather than by default the person making it. That one can leave to such as the BBC.
Hence I appear to find myself agreeing with most of your views on Algeria, but less so here, especially when prefaced with a personal opinion on another that adds little to any matter of objective substance.
Lynette is being sincere, and has honest passion, which on a purely personal basis I find more compelling than trying to detract and distract from her advocacy with at best a vague alterantive.
The composition of this ‘lobby group’ you suggest would be interesting in how it differs from any at present, or the BBC’s reaction to it/them.
True, the BBC operates by attrition (esp. CECUTT) and a ‘divided & easily conquered’ basis, so a move to more coherence and amalgamation makes sense.
But, then, lobby whom? To do what?
Labour is nearly 100% in the BBC’s pocket. Minority parties seem to loathe the BBC equally for perceived lack of support either way, so the BBC PR spin machine can easily make that ‘balance’.
The Lib Dems seem to be irrelevant to everyone now, save for the odd fact they have the balance of power still. So the BBC and its nosier, more barking ratings grabbers seem to have a symbiotic deal where they get left alone so long as they mess stuff up or stay colourful on matters between the sheets.
Which leaves the Conservatives. who seem complicit on the basis of personal ambition, supine or simply dozy bar a few outposts. But what of these elected representatives? A Tebbit, Hannan, Carswell or even Cameron can raise a protest, but the ease with which it is batted away, and often used to show them as ‘trying to interfere’ is breath-taking, with few in the media lobby from any side looking at the facts beyond the tribalism.
Speaking of which, leaving what that sets policy in the public mind? The media? Can’t say the DM, Telegraph or, on matters Savile/28gate/McAlpine any other, going too easy on Aunty for competence or integrity… with zero result. Lessons not learned. Unacceptable stays the norm. Money flows. Careers blossom.
Because they have rigged the system, even though they are few they still prevail.
But there are cracks in the system, and like Al Capone’s tax affairs or Blair’s FoI (if neatly excluded in many cases by one unique segment of public service, thanks to bent legislation and judiciary) they can be attacked, like the Death Star’s dodgy vent.
I share with Lynette a view (it is mine to have) that this is worth chipping away at.
Yes it is vastly time-consuming.
Yes it is soul destroying.
Yes it is rigged to a level, that makes a North Korean election seem like a democratic ideal.
But it can be hurt, and it can bleed.
And when it bleeds they feel it, and hate it.
Especially when the wound is raw and there for all to see. It shows weakness and through that, all the things most UK public don’t like… privilege, arrogance, hypocrisy, greed.
If nothing else, explain to me why they will and do defend to the death, using vast armies of staff and yet more thousands of licence fee payers’ money, to try and claim black is white and ‘they have got it about right’… every time… no matter what.
Even in the face of total humiliation.
I cite this again. It is rare, but worth sharing not just for the finding, but for what was exposed in getting to it.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/trust-upholds-complaint-against-bbc-news-over-inaccurate-tweet
Though it has bare-faced defended the indefensible itself, The Trust really was in a tricky spot. They either also got held up as saying black was clearly white or caved. And this time they blinked.
And the rest of the media world noticed. Not much, but a disturbance in The Force.
That makes having triple A heading their way very worth it still. Yes a thousand rounds may get intercepted and disposed of, but one every so often will score.
I don’t see that as naive at all. I see that as a route to bringing their blitz campaign, in its current form at least, to an end.
“One of the beauties of sensible discussion is agreeing or disagreeing with a view, or argument, on its merits, rather than by default the person making it.”…………………………………. How does this statement tie into those you recently made about me?
Example 1: “Maybe English is not your first language, or you simply only see what you wish and blot out the rest?”
Example 2: ” So the only difficulty seems to be your grasp of things, be it deliberate ignorance or genetic disability.”
Example 3; “Beats falling back on doing no more than stealing oxygen when your debating foundations crumble.”
And ? what? those are just comments just like the ones you chuck about they to no normal minded person stop or hinder debate ?
Poor !
Trolls ought not to be fed.
Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:
‘Trolls ought not to be fed.’
Sage advice.
If practical.
But between a not unnatural need to place misrepresentation in context, and a human desire to engage when challenged, what ‘ought’ is often an ideal less practical to effect in reality.
I often disagree with Hippiepooter, and often say so, but I can and do agree a lot too. So on occasion I find it a pity that such an able contributor feels the need to go beyond the issue with others who contribute equally if not more to the site with sincere aims.
As I don’t include you or what you come out with under ‘sensible discussion’, and your cherry-picked, context-free, irony-free stalking is going from tedious to obsessively silly and hypocritically delusional, here’s another for you to run to… whoever you think cares:
Example 4: ‘You are the weakest link in a soggy paper chain; good try’.
If this lastest ‘me, me, me’ off-topic post is the best that you can manage to lure you from your bunker, you really are desperate.
You are a contrarian troll who deserves to get back what you deliver. Lynette is a genuine site contributor offered a counter from another framed in a way I felt unwarranted. There’s a difference, which apparently your skewed sense of blog etiquette can’t grasp.
Oh, I guess that makes five.
But thanks for the greatest hits list.
I’m sorry Lynette but I think you’re being extremely naive.
What is needed is a lobby group to pressure Parliament into purging the BBC of the subversives who produce the bias.
The BBC Çomplaints Department is just there for flak catching.
I admire Lynette’s determination but I agree, Hippy – no sense in arguing with the monkey when it’s the organ grinder who’s calling the tune. The whole culture needs to change, starting with the Trust.
‘The whole culture needs to change, starting with the Trust.’
Starting how?
Writing ‘Angry of Tunbridge Wells’ notes on niche sites that the system can neatly pigeon hole and dispose of?
Or to MPs who are either idiots, in the tank, in the minority or plain powerless?
Or play what is indeed a bent system and try and twist it so far it breaks itself?
You don’t get to The Trust unless you play the game. If you don’t play their game they can blow you off in a paragraph. House Rules. Guidelines. They are unique… you are not.
Try it. Try and jump the queue. IDS did and see where that got him.
Not saying it is right, but you have to navigate the labyrinth to even get close, and even if you do they can always fall back on beliefs and comforts… then what?
OFCOM? Run by a Labour placeman who wanted to be the next DG? Who?
Mr. NaughtieMarr’s successor? She of ‘I’ll use Leveson if you don’t back off’ fame?
It’s a dirty game, a fixed game, but it’s the only game in town.
You can hide in the crowds and shout advice, or you can get on the pitch and play it, even if you are getting fouled at every turn.
Play straight for long enough, and you will get that goal.
And to get to the goalie, you need to get through a lot of monkeys defending.
And if and when you do, the crowd may appreciate the play and become supporters, or even get on the pitch and help.
our comment is awaiting moderation.
January 21, 2013 at 9:43 am
Why?
Their terrorist acts are their expression of frustration at an oppressive society that is institutionally biased against them.
Something like that anyway.
And the robust approach has gotten them all killed. Not really a result that’s going to convince anyone.
The two approaches were despicable from those “special forces”. I reckon it was only because the hostages were infidels who do not count.
Those “special forces” were not there to free the hostages but to display force and mow down some regime undesirables.
Good thing US is leading from behind and set a new standard because Arab Spring is awesome.
DP, Al Qa’eda will not be returning any time soon to Algeria to commit similar stunts. I think we need to learn the lessons from WWII on this in what we regarded as acceptable civilian casualties on our side and the side of our allies for the greater cause of defeating Hitler.
This was the most major hostage taking incident in decades, and thanks to the robust response of Algeria, its over in days. I really dont think Al Qa’eda will chalk this up as a victory. The post-modern Western response would have given them victory, no matter how it turned out.
I can’t disagree with ANY of that hippie!
The hostages most likely were always going to die. The terrorists have now been denied their snuff movies thankfully, and the West hasnt been able to apply any appeasement.
Yeah, right. This kind of thing is just like what we used to do to defeat Hitler? Not even remotely. Such action doesn’t really hit them where it hurts. It doesn’t stop continued planning and funding, doesn’t stop a single nutbag from coming in to kill other infidels. This action did absolutely nothing to stop further violence.
As far as I know, nobody was captured for interrogation to find out more about what the rest of them are up to. That’s usually the way the big fish are captured, not by killing all the henchman without asking questions. Maybe – and we don’t have any reports on this yet, as far as I’m aware – somebody found some useful documents or a laptop or a cell phone with a couple of phone numbers and text messages. Maybe. It would be sheer luck if that’s the case, not the obvious result of such a cunning plan.
Al Qaeda will most assuredly remain in Algeria (you write as if a foreign group swanned in temporarily just for a lark), and will be continuing to try stuff. It’s not like this was the only thing an AQ-connected group has ever done in Algeria.
They’ll just try something else. Instead of taking hostages, they’ll start blowing everyone up instead.
Some points I’d make here:
1. Islamic terrorists put no value on life, and most significantly that includes their own.
2. Al Qa’ eda is made up of countless different cells, often operating independently.
3. Nobody has a clue how many of them there are and their distribution.
4. They could strike anywhere and at any time.
So, one defeat means nothing. There are plenty more ready to continue where this lot left off – different place, different tactics.
This is a threat the likes of which the world, and the West in particular, have never had to face before, which is why there is no cohesive military strategy for fighting it.
Not sure any approach was going to have a happy ending.
Trying to recall any ‘rescue’ of hostages wired to die on the first sign of an attempt that has worked out well of late, especially when the notion of ‘negotiation’ with captors is complicated by the nature of their demands and a lack of concern for their own corporeal futures.
The media will ask questions and chew on this like granny on a strip of Biltong, but it may be time to face up to certain realities.
Awful for any far-flung innocent working or holidaying with the wrong passport at the wrong time, but the choice seems now to be a death sentence early, or a death sentence that gives emoting media luvvies ratings over painful subsequent weeks, months or years.
I don’t yet know what actually happened but it seems more the buck stayed with Algeria, and most others are breathing a sigh of secret belief as armchair generals hit the headlines with words like ‘botched’ or ‘blunder’, already handing the bad guys a victory.
Watching the PM on Sky make that point, as some pig thick cove ‘asks questions’.
I agree, David. It seems the Algerian security forces are to blame for the loss of life – not the “Islamists”. And on that subject: it is fascinating that while the “M” word is still rare in BBC reports, “Islamist” has been appearing as profusely as daffodils in an Arab spring.
“West African leaders have been told they must “pick up the baton” in the military offensive to drive ISLAMIST INSURGENTS out of Mali.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21095456
“Algerian troops have ended a siege at a gas facility in the Sahara desert killing 11 ISLAMIST MILITANTS after they killed seven hostages, Algerian state news agency APS has said.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21101092
“Amid allegations of looting and kidnapping by the Free Syrian Army, it seems there is growing support for ISLAMISTS in rebel-held areas of Syria.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21065619
Can you account for this seemingly sudden change in language on the part of the BBC? Or am I missing something?
I suspect that they know that most British viewers are too poorly-educated to realise that Islam=Muslim.
But that doesn’t explain why they have now stopped hiding the Muslims’ true motivation behind the bBBC’s usual terrorist/ militant/ rebel/ freedom-fighter labels.
It’s possible security forces were responsible for some deaths, but the blame still seems pretty squarely with those who took hostages with an apparent willingness if not intention to see them sacrificed to ‘analysis’ that ignores the cause and focuses on the cure.
I’m sure the BBC provides great comfort to the victim’s families to know that their loved ones died as a result of ‘militancy’, not terrorism.
The response of the West of course should be to considerably step up it’s military support to Mali in obliterating it’s Jihadi insurgency, but unfortunately we are in thrall to the moral imbecility the BBC has so assiduously been cultivating over the decades.
It was also highly instructive that according to reports the Jihadi terrorists spoke in Libyan, Egytian and Tunisian accents. Oh the bloom of the ‘Arab Spring’!
More broadly, Beeboid SCHOFIELD is critical of ‘French colonialism’ in Africa, but NOT of Islamic imperialism globally or in Africa.
Schofield is oblivious to, and censors out historical information such as the following on Islamic imperialism:-
“Europeans as victims of Islamic Colonialism.
Europeans As Victims of Colonialism”
By Fjordman.
http://sheikyermami.com/fjordman-europeans-as-victims-of-islamic-colonialism/
Schofield only has this:-
“France and Mali: An ‘ironic’ relationship”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21065970
Excerpt from Fjordman’s article above, which Beeboid SCHOFIELD seems to have difficulty in education himself about:-
“Paul Fregosi in his book ‘Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries’ calls Islamic Jihad ‘the most unrecorded and disregarded major event of history. It has, in fact, been largely ignored,’ although it has been a fact of life in Europe, Asia and Africa for almost 1400 years. As Fregosi says, ‘Western colonization of nearby Muslim lands lasted 130 years, from the 1830s to the 1960s. Muslim colonization of nearby European lands lasted 1300 years, from the 600s to the mid-1960s. Yet, strangely, it is the Muslims…who are the most bitter about colonialism and the humiliations to which they have been subjected; and it is the Europeans who harbor the shame and the guilt. It should be the other way around.'”
“The Effects Of French Rule In Algeria”
By Hugh Fitzgerald (2008).
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/45327
I see that the BBCs Middle East correspondent for the World Service chose to speak to us from under a hijab( BBC News Channel 8pm tonight).
How respectful how fashionable…how …well cringing and obsequious, actually!
Just as well that she wasn`t wearing a cross eh?
Shall I predict that all Beeboids liable for FGM will be encouraged to plunder the dresssing-up box, as and when Islam/an Islamic nation/a Muslim name gets a mention on the BBC before too long.
Oh, how they embrace their cultural sensitivities !
I`m sure they`ll be able to get their nail bars in Bethnal Green, if they continue to slaver before Islam…they do like a nice Persian carpet to wrap their dead dogs in…and the BBCs staff and output are trusty covering for the Caliphate to come.
“I see that the BBCs Middle East correspondent for the World Service chose to speak to us from under a hijab…”
…was she reporting from Tower Hamlets.
So, next time she’s looking down her nose whilst doing a piece from Magaluf on all those beastly English working class trollops and thugs she’s be wearing just a thong then?
Just to be culturally sensitive of course.
Oh please God! No!
Has INBBC emphasised the ISLAMIC nature and motivation of the Algerian massacre in which the islamic jihadists were only intent on murdering
non-Muslims?
‘ Telegraph’ has this about the Islamic murderers:-
“At one point they were holding more than 600, Algerian officials said. They allowed locals to go free, saying they did not want to hurt Muslims. Some locals were forced to recite parts of the Koran to prove they were Muslims.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9813592/Algeria-hostage-crisis-Bloody-climax-to-the-battle-for-the-desert-gas-plant.html
I wonder what it will take to convince Westerners that to work in and visit these lands is hardly the action of a prudent man.
Maybe at long last reality is beginning to assert itself even in the dimmest.
More for INBBC to censor, in the interests of Islam:-
‘Mail’ –
“‘We’re only after the Christians…’ Minutes later a Briton lay dead: Terrifying moment gas plant gunmen rounded up non-Muslims and strapped explosive to their necks.”
By Anna Edwards.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265206/Were-Christians–Minutes-later-Briton-lay-dead-Terrifying-moment-gas-plant-gunmen-rounded-non-Muslims-strapped-explosive-necks.html
I am sure I read the bBC refer to “militants” somewhere again. The French press are calling Mokhtar BenMohkhtar a “Gangster” – drugs and kidnapping, whilst to the bBC he’s a “militant” – students union bar politics, deer frozen in the headlights of real life. Public School – Oxford – bBC – Socialist Rulling Class.
I expect there’s a story for a brave investigative journalist to find out about Mokhtar BenMohkhtar’s cigarette smuggling activities and how far they extend into Britain’s underclasses.
“Nigerien jihadist identified as commander of Algerian hostage operation”
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/01/nigerien_jihadist_id.php
Will INBBC give him the ‘Binyam Mohamed’ treatment?
A ‘B-BBC’ thread on Binyam Mohamed (2010).
‘The Observer’ reports this Adbul Rahman has now been killed:-
“Also killed was the Niger terrorist believed to lead the al-Qaida splinter group’s leader, Abdul Rahman al-Nigeri.”
But that needed stop an INBBC ‘Binyam Mohamed’ treatment.
Why can’t they all get together and solve this over a cup of coffee in traditional Mid East fashion ?
Inside Egypt’s first ‘Islamic cafe’
‘The idea is to cater for the needs of customers who would like to have a conservative place to hang out but some believe it’s a sign of a divided society’.
‘Conservative’ – ha! Must be ‘bad’.
‘Some believe…’ How non-judgemental and impartial.
Pathetic bunch of twots – sorry – Trots. Ah, what the hell, make it both.
BBC presenters preaching lily-livered appeasement towards aggressors?
Whatever next !
In general, the Islam Not BBC (INBBC) political line on Algeria, and by extension on the Islamic jihad enemy, is:
1.) the West is to blame historically. (Islamic imperialism censored out.)
2.) Islam is largely irrelevant, so INBBC censors, e.g. reference to Islamic jihadists singling out non-Muslims for murder;
3.) Obama’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood foreign policy is to be endorsed again by INBBC tomorrow.
I find it interesting that BBC newsreaders, when interviewing ‘experts’ from their sofas on the current situation in Algeria over the past few days, seem to fully understand and support the Algerian Government’s frustration/anger/high dudgeon at any attempt to advise them on how to handle their own affairs (especially seeking confirmation of such antipathy towards the UK government), and I then contrast that with the promotion by the same bunch of newsreaders of exactly the same sort of recent attempts at interference in the UK government’s decisions by German, Irish, and particularly Obamaroon, politicians from the US. Two-faced, or what ?
Like others above, I also note that the Muslim Terrorists in the Sahel are now downgraded to ‘Islamist rebels or fighters’. Ah well, I suppose that will be a comfort to those who lost their family members to what are obviously quite a bunch of ‘sweeties’ really, nothing frightening about them at all. Nothing to see here, move on !
Yes, INBBC has decided to tout the politically inaccurate word of ‘militants’ as the best word to use to cover up the Islamic jihad nature of the murderous atrocities in Algeria.
“Until we learn to be as single-minded as the fanatics – at home and abroad – we’re ALL hostages.”
By MELANIE PHILLIPS
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2265600/Until-learn-single-minded-fanatics–home-abroad–ALL-hostages.html
Just been listening interviewing the brother of one of those men “executed” by the Islamic butchers in this Algerian case.
To ask a dead mans brother
a) how he feels
b) what HE thinks might be done better next time
c) whether, in effect, it was Cameron or the Algerian Government hotheads that may yet be to blame.
And all this without ANY new information, or reason to impugn the Government or Algerian armed forces!
Typical BBC…to use a bodybag(as yet unzipped) to surf on its anti-Government, anti-authorities agenda…on a wave of blood if they`ve got red filters for their cameras preferably!
They truly make me sick…but why on earth would ANYBODY in grief ever open their doors to these Ghoul Schools of BBC coffin followers?
Oh-need I add?…that word “executed”..as opposed to butchered, murdered etc.
Not a peep about Islam and the Muslim maniacs that feel entitled to commit such atrocities…not at all, sir…nothing whatsoever to do with Islam is it?…never is, is it?
“Spineless bastards all”…to quote Morrissey!
INBBC has now achieved its political aim and censored out any reference to Islamic motivation and to Islamic jihadists in Algerian massacre.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21127646
But:
“#MyJihad in Algeria: Two al-Qaeda jihadists found dead inside gas plant were ‘Canadians'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/01/myjihad-in-algeria-two-al-qaeda-jihadists-found-dead-inside-gas-plant-were-canadians.html
“Algerian Killers: ‘We’ve Come In the Name of Islam, To Teach the Americans What Islam Islam Is.’”
By Daniel Greenfield.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/algerian-killers-weve-come-in-the-name-of-islam-to-teach-the-americans-what-islam-is/
Uniquely, the education (and information) offered by the events interpreters from our £4Bpa national treasure seems to be adopting a somewhat different syllabus.
Maybe the trick is to see who does what vs. who says what?
Even if the following were true, and not just bluster, it would not suit the appeasing INBBC:-
“David Cameron: British spies will ‘find and dismantle’ Algeria terror groups.
“British spies will help find and dismantle’ terror groups involved in the Algerian hostage crisis, David Cameron has said, as he pledged the fight of a generation against Islamist extremism.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9816236/David-Cameron-British-spies-will-find-and-dismantle-Algeria-terror-groups.html
Does PM Cameron have in mind Muslim ‘spies’, whose first loyalty is to Islam? Oh no.
A sign of British government and Labour seriousness on this would be to increase U.K Defence spending.
(Another political ‘bête noire’ of INBBC.)
of INBBC.)
OT as, well for now, no BBC input, but… is our country’s PM still in possession of a full set of marbles?
I know Miliband and Clegg are already full funny-farm inmates already, but it seems even Mr. Cameron’s s-called PR skills have deserted him to come out with this.