Monthly Archives: June 2013

Excellent post on Elder of Ziyon.

Remember Howard Gutman? He is the US ambassador to Belgium who made an outrageous and ignorant speech in 2011 saying that Muslim antisemitism is nothing like the traditional European type, because it is really a result of Israeli policies.

A DS [Bureau of Diplomatic Security] agent was called off a case against US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman over claims that he solicited prostitutes, including minors.

“The agent began his investigation and had determined that the ambassador routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children,” says the memo.

“The ambassador’s protective detail and the embassy’s surveillance detection team . . . were well aware of the behavior.”

Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy ordered the investigation ceased, and the ambassador remains in place, according to the memo.

Gutman was a big Democratic donor before taking the post, having raised $500,000 for President Obama’s 2008 campaign and helping finance his inauguration.

Just taking care of business, right? Odd how the BBC misses these kind of stories…

Hi all. Can see the old thread is as full as Tim Yeo’s bank account so here is a new one for you!

Mandela still alive, BBC breathlessly informs us. It is remarkable how MUCH attention the BBC lavishes on the former South African President. I will be sorry when he dies as this will cause grief to his family and Nation … and leftists everywhere. However Mandela’s long association with communism, with terrorism, and with dislike of the USA needs covered too.

In case you missed this excellent analysis of the BBC’s 25 year trouble with the terrorism word. Do read.

A Biased BBC reader sent me this and I am simply sharing. It concerns how the BBC covered the protests against the recent Bilderberg conference.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832994

use of clearly biased label ‘Shock jock’ to describe Alex Jones, and subsequent editing and highlighting of certain aspects of his interview on iPlayer (see attached screenshot) “Andrew Neil described him as ‘the worst person he’d ever interviewed'” Andrew Neil’s concerted effort throughout coverage of Bilderberg on the Politics show on BBC to scoff at, discredit and devalue the opinions of opposition to Bilderberg.  At the end of the interview he does a crazy loopy hand signal to viewers, insinuating that his guest is crazy.  This is clear, unacceptable bias.

See this interview with Bilderberg researcher Tony Gosling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObQdARkFbNs

See this BBC reporter (quite difficult to hear her questions but they are clearly biased, she was briefed to antagonise Jones clearly)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzfaCfXeea4

I was at the Bilderberg Fringe Festival (a space for peaceful protest and platform for opposition of the group’s meetings to publicly state why they oppose it) where I saw firsthand how the BBC was biased in it’s coverage.  It’s really opened my eyes, before I trusted the BBC to an extent. One of the speakers at the Bilderberg fringe festival was child actor Ben Fellows who has been involved in a criminal investigation into Kenneth Clarke’s alleged link to the paedophile ring as uncovered in the BBC via Saville-gate.  I can only imagine that the BBC are concerned that further evidence is going to come to light about not only their ingrained corruption but it’s links to Parliament.  It’s a total can of worms.”

The BBC and others have been quick to associate the EDL with the fires at two Islamic centres.

The fire at the Islamic school has been established as caused by arson and four teenagers have been arrested.

The cause of the first fire at the Al Rahma Islamic Centre is as yet undeclared….but blame has been instantly attached to the EDL because of graffiti sprayed onto the wall of the building.

The EDL has pointed out that jumping to such conclusions may be premature as in 2011 similar events occurred….but the culprits were in fact Muslims themselves:

Cops say EDL ‘not linked’ to attacks 

FOUR cars have been destroyed by arsonists in attacks outside Luton homes over the past week.

The spate of firebombings began in the early hours of Sunday morning (March 27) in Bushmead, when a car was set alight outside a house in Chalkdown.

Another car was then set on fire in Brompton Gardens in Marsh Farm in the early hours of Monday morning, followed by incidents in Carlton Close, Biscot, and Newark Road, Bury Park, in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

Houses have also been spray painted with graffiti and windows broken in a string of 21 criminal damage incidents which stretch back seven weeks, a spokesman for Bedfordshire Police said.

Several properties have had the letters ‘EDL’ spray painted on them, but the English Defence League says it is in no way connected with the incidents.

Det Insp Steve Ashdown, said: “The two people arrested have been investigated and there is no evidence linking them to the English Defence League.”

The police today should release as soon as possible the cause of the fire at the Al Rahma Islamic Centre and release some relevant details about the identity of the four teenagers arrested for the arson attack on the school.

As the BBC ratchets up tensions with claims of ever increasing numbers of anti-Muslim attacks the real cause of the first fire should be determined and suggestions that the four teenagers are in fact pupils from the school be dismissed if they are untrue.

It is of course unlikely that the arsonists were from the school…the BBC after all wouldn’t be so irresponsible as to keep claiming that the fire was an anti-Muslim attack if it was in truth set by pupils from the school or indeed any other Muslim….would they?

The EDL says Islam is ‘Extreme’.

Is it?

People who cut other people’s heads off in the name of Islam are obviously extreme, suicide bombers are extreme, people who hang 16 year old girls from cranes are extreme.

 But is Islam, when compared to our democratic, progressive, secular nation ‘extreme’?

That’s not a question many people will ask..or ‘allow’ to be asked.

To do so means disposing  ‘of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem.’

Having listened to Tommy Robinson’s interview on the Today programme in which he suggests Islam is ‘extreme’ we saw the hysterical reaction…a reaction that lacks any rationality or reasonableness based as it was on pure prejudice and bile rather than any coherent thoughts. 

Apparently the BBC has ‘poisoned the airwaves’ with this interview.

Polly Billington, Labour candidate for Thurrock, wrote on Twitter: “That interview did not constitute scrutiny. Unchallenged lies and hatred poison our national debate…“This did not clear the air. It poisoned it”

The truth is though that Robinson said no more than Cameron or Blair or Boris Johnson or many other ‘respectable’ and authoritative voices.

Ironically it is the BBC, the Islamophobia industry and those on their political bandwagons themselves who have made it impossible to challenge Tommy Robinson in any intelligent and critical manner on their own terms….all that remains is to shout ‘racist’ or ‘islamophobe’ as often and as loudly as possible.

The whole basis of the EDL’s existence is to challenge the Islamic ideology, the teachings and values of the ‘religion’.

To ‘challenge’ the EDL’s claims you have to examine Islam.

The BBC et al have steadfastly refused to do that in any meaningful way, steadfastly refused to examine Islam and the beliefs and values that stem from that ideology….and they will not do so  because they know that to do so would raise some very awkward questions about the ‘religion’ and the consequences of allowing it to spread in a democratic, secular or Christian nation.

If the BBC can’t bring itself to critique Islam then it cannot hope to challenge the EDL because it will have nothing to argue with….it cannot say ‘Islam says this or that whilst you in the EDL say this.’..because it doesn’t know or admit what Islam says or means.

Such questions about Islam also then beg answers…answers that no politician dare even contemplate…hence we hear ‘Islam is a religion of peace‘.  The politicians kick the questions down the road and hope nothing serious happens on their watch that they have to deal with.　

Robinson said ‘It ain’t going to be pretty’……what is he predicting? Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan?

Maybe we should talk…..about Islam.

Perhaps Boris Johnson could kick start the conversation:　

The question is what action we take now to solve the problem in our own country, and what language we should use to describe such action.

This is a cultural calamity that will take decades to correct.

We — non-Muslims — cannot solve the problem; we cannot brainwash them out of their fundamentalist beliefs. The Islamicists last week horribly and irrefutably asserted the supreme importance of that faith, overriding all worldly considerations, and it will take a huge effort of courage and skill to win round the many thousands of British Muslims who are in a similar state of alienation, and to make them see that their faith must be compatible with British values and with loyalty to Britain. That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem.

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?

It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values.

A report by Rajini Vaidyanathan about the forthcoming trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting of Trayvon Martin takes a clip of Zimmerman’s phone call to the police completely out of context to give the impression his actions were racially motivated.

Here’s the relevant segment:

Vaidyanathan: He was unarmed, carrying a bag of sweets and iced tea. He’d been spotted by George Zimmerman, a neighbourhood watch volunteer. Believing the teenager was acting suspiciously, he called the police.

Clip from Zimmerman phone call: He’s got his hand in his waistband… and he’s a black male.”

Now here’s the context of that clip taken from the full transcript of the phone call:

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?
Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now, he was just staring.
Dispatcher: OK, he’s just walking around the area…
Zimmerman: Looking at all the houses.
Dispatcher: OK…
Zimmerman: Now he’s just staring at me.
Dispatcher: OK-you said it’s 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?
Zimmerman: That’s the clubhouse…
Dispatcher: That’s the clubhouse, do you know what the-he’s near the clubhouse right now?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me.
Dispatcher: OK.
Zimmerman: He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.

“And he’s a black male” is obviously confirmation of his earlier response to the dispatcher. “He looks black” was Zimmerman’s first answer. A short time later he gets a better view so he confirms the fact. The BBC’s report takes this clip out of context to make it seem as if Zimmerman’s reference to Martin’s skin colour was unsolicited, an off the cuff remark rather than a fact that had been requested of him. That is to say, the BBC is trying to imply a racial motive.

This is utterly disgraceful, especially given the fact that last year NBC was forced to fire a journalist for broadcasting an edited version of the above Zimmerman phone call that also made him seem racist. I don’t think the BBC’s out of context cherry-picking is any better.

I’ve already mentioned in the Open Thread that Mark Mardell has written an article about racial tensions ahead of Zimmerman’s trial in which the BBC’s North America editor contrives to ignore the fact that Zimmerman is Hispanic. To do so would muddy Mardell’s narrative, which is literally black and white. Rather than go over all that again (and the BBC’s selective use of photos for this story) here’s the link to my earlier comments.

It seems that the BBC has decided on the story it wants to tell about the Zimmerman case, and it’s going to tell it regardless.

This relates to an article by Paul Moss…though you might have thought it was by Occupy’s Paul Mason:

Boom times in Dubai are attracting more and more Westerners – but a night with the expat elite was an awkward experience for the BBC’s Paul Moss.

 A weekend stopover in Dubai – a friend had asked some of her friends who live there to take me out.

So, here I was being taken out. But what are the obligations in such a situation?

What do you say to people kind enough to host a stranger, yet characters so improbable not even the wildest of satirists would dare invent them?

Not a problem it seems for Moss…just mock and deride them, call them racist and adopt a holier than thou attitude towards their wealth…in fact pretty much out of the BBC handbook on how to deal with white rich people these days.

Nothing like returning a bit of hospitality and betraying his friend’s trust.

And he seems so pleased with his own cleverness at fooling them into thinking he would write something nice:

“You are a journalist,” said another woman. “Why do you not write something [did he edit out the ‘nice’?] about Dubai? Everyone is always so horrible about us.”

“You will not forget, will you?” she asked. “You will write something about Dubai, about all of us?”

I promised her that I would certainly consider it.

Charming…wonder if his friends will get their friends to entertain him again…I’m sure they will ‘certainly consider it.’

Another open thread…..