You have to understand what the root cause of radicalisation is in the Muslim community. Here’s the maths….
British Society is increasingly intolerant of Islam, that intolerance is being fostered by a sensationalist media that fuels prejudice, the intolerance and attacks on Muslims leads them to become angry, alienated and marginalised, under such a siege they understandably feel the need to fight back and defend their prophet and their religion against these Islamophobic attacks.
Only its not true. It’s the BBC narrative. It’s the Muslim community’s narrative, it’s the radical’s narrative.
But it’s not true.
The BBC is charged with ‘sustaining citizenship and civil society’ by its Charter and it has decided that in order to do that it must lie to its audience. Not just turn a blind eye to the truth about Islamic radicalisation but to actively work to suppress the truth, to maintain a fiction that Islam is the religion of peace, love and tolerance. They do this because they have a belief that to allow the truth to be told would see the Muslim community and Islam come under such extreme scrutiny that it would expose it irrefutably as an ideology that is incompatible with a Western, secular, liberal, democratic and humane society.
And then what?
So instead the BBC has decided that a bit of ‘collateral damage’ is acceptable…the BBC has decided that in order to maintain that fiction about Islam it is willing to sacrifice, not just that very precious liberal, free, democratic society that is increasingly the victim of creeping Islamisation, but it is also prepared to see dead bodies, non-Muslim ones, in the streets as the necessary murders that are the price to be paid for ‘peace’.
Dramatic stuff, but true.
There is a war being fought and it’s not just with guns, bullets and bombs. The Media, far from being prejudiced against Muslims, is the weapon of choice for those who seek to make Islam the dominant religion and political force in Britain, and the BBC is at the forefront of the charge. And, this is the important thing to note, those who are ‘fighting’ this media war are not the obvious ‘radicals like Anjem Choudray, they come dressed in western suits and talk of reform and tolerance but always blame Muslim ‘anger’ on British society on that phantom menace, ‘Islamophobia’. Of course what is even more frighetening is that these men have not just managed to position themselves as authorities on questions of Islam, its place in Western Society and ‘radicalisation’, as Media spokesmen of choice but have also inveigled their way into the heart of Government advising it on matters of religion and radicalisation.
For instance Islamist Tariq Ramadan sits on the Foreign Office Advisory Group on freedom of religion or belief which is intended to ‘advise FCO Ministers and staff on how to build on the active approach they already take to promoting and protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief worldwide.’
Ramadan’s boss was Baroness Warsi whose credentials are also highly questionable in that nearly everything she does and says seems to support the Islamist outlook….the most obvious of which was her belief that Israel should be disarmed and terrorist group Hamas armed.
Warsi is well known….just days ago Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph wrote this article denouncing her and the government’s foolish policies, Islamic ‘radicals’ at the heart of Whitehall, and in which he noted that ‘Baroness Warsi gave official roles to people with links to Islamist groups’. She was also an outspoken critic of the anti-radicalisation ‘Prevent’ project and supporter of the Islamist student organisation Fosis.
Gilligan says..
Entryism, the favourite tactic of the 1980s’ Militant Tendency, is when a political party or institution is infiltrated by groups with a radically different agenda. Since Militant’s Trotskyites were expelled from the Labour Party, the word has rather fallen out of fashion.
But now, according to one Muslim leader, Islamic radicals are practising entryism of their own — into the heart of Whitehall – courtesy of a woman who was until recently a government minister.
Baroness Warsi then, a very controversial person with a highly dubious reputation, and yet another ‘goto’ spokesperson for the BBC on issues of Islam in the UK. An example of the dangers in employing these ‘radicals’ as government advisers is this from Jihadwatch…Sweden’s “Islamophobia” expert joins the Islamic State.
Despite Gilligan’s article just a few days ago the BBC chose to ask Warsi for her opinions (08:10) about how the Muslim community in Britain feel about their place in Society based on a BBC poll which, part of its on ‘war on Public (false) perceptions about Islam’, which the BBC trumpeted as a glowing testimony for Muslim attitudes in Britain claiming…Most British Muslims ‘oppose Muhammad cartoons reprisals’
At no time was she asked about the allegations made by Gilligan which you might think the BBC’s premier current affairs programme, with its elite interviewers in the saddle, might have broached. Instead we had Justin Webb doing an imitation of an over-ebullient Spaniel about to go out on a walk…Warsi threw him a few balls which he eagerly chased, enjoying the game immensely, rushing back to the mistress for her to throw him some more. Webb failed to challenge Warsi at all on her claims and bought into her narrative so much that he even started to add his own derogatory comments about other faiths being as bad as Islam in their extremism. Even Warsi had to bring him to heel on that one.
Before she came on we heard a report from one Muslim community that in essence, as laid out above, blamed the rise of radicalisation on British, non-Muslim society, which we are assured, has attacked and marginalised Muslims egged on by an Islamophobic Press.
However one message to take away was that, yes they were extremists, extreme in their love for their prophet and for their religion. Curiously the BBC didn’t think that an important factor in any Islamist radicalisation…because of course, as we heard, the ‘radicals’ weren’t real Muslims.
Warsi was able to articulate the same old prejudices and blame anyone but Muslims and their religion for the dangerous situation we find ourselves in. She claims there is no evidence that can indicate why Muslims become radicalised and that of course 27% of Muslims may support killing people for drawing Muhammed but she explained, you have to look at their reasoning behind such decisions before you denounce them. In other words she too thinks the Charlie Hebdo killings were justifiable….and an interesting turn of phrase from her…that it was unfortunate that Charlie Hebdo led to the death of ‘civilians’…..is she saying other, non-civilian, targets would have been acceptable? And again Warsi blamed the Media for whipping up anti-Islam prejudices.
The BBC is not alone in excusing Muslim terrorism, the Guardian here giving a perfect example of the thinking that ‘understands’, and thereby justifies, murder….
Charlie Hebdo attackers: born, raised and radicalised in Paris
The Guardian tries to erase Islam from the picture and chooses to look for other causes for radicalisation saying..
What the three had in common was growing up on the margins of French society
The article is a very long one, nearly the whole body of the text builds on the narrative of the alientated, disenfranchised and marginalised young men driven to radicalisation by such factors. Only at the very last paragraph do we get a clue that that is rubbish…
“People say simply discrimination plus social malaise equals terrorism, that’s not true.”
Of the families she had recently spoken to she had seen children of educated parents, including doctors, or youngsters leaving medical school, and many from non-Muslim backgrounds. The profiles of jihadis radicalised and self-radicalised in France were increasingly complex and nuanced.
But even that is not true…for it has long been known that the majority of those radicalised came from the ranks of the educated and well-to-do….not marginalised, not ignorant and not poor….what they do all have in common is being Muslim.
Dan Hodges in the Telegraph has a completely different take on the BBC poll….
Over a quarter of British Muslims have sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo terrorists. That is far too many
This morning the BBC published details of a major poll of the attitudes of Britain’s Muslims. The headline on the front of the BBC website linking to the research states: “Muslims ‘oppose cartoon reprisals’”. This of course relates to attitudes within the Muslim community towards the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks.
It’s a reassuring headline. It’s also wrong.
Below the report is an article by BBC Today program reporter Sima Kotecha. It begins: “Islam is a religion of peace and love – not violence.”
That statement – and those sentiments – are simply not compatible with the BBC’s own research.
We are going to have to start to reassess what we mean by “moderate Islam”.
The BBC is wrong. Many Muslims have sympathy with the Charlie Hebdo killings. Far too many.
The BBC is of course spinning its poll for reasons of maintaining ‘civil society and social cohesion’ but other research by the BBC, not really intended for domestic consumption, went out on the World Service and was not given a high profile in the UK….
Jihadist violence: The devastating cost
Human toll
The findings are both important and disturbing.
In the course of November, jihadists carried out 664 attacks, killing 5,042 people – many more than, for instance, the number of people who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks.
So the report tells us that its findings are ‘both important and disturbing’ and yet the BBC all but ignores them. It fails utterly to challenge Warsi’s narrative about Muslims being the victims of huge discrimination in Britain when we know that the UK is one of the best places in the world for Msulims to live and practise their faith and the BBC fails to press her on these figures that paint a completely different picture of what the cause of radicalisation and its effects are.
The report goes onto outline the future….
While comparisons to earlier periods are difficult, the overall picture is that of an increasingly ambitious, complex, sophisticated and far-reaching [Islamist] movement.
The project tells the story of a movement in the middle of a profound transformation – one whose final outcome is impossible to predict.
Our immediate focus, however, was the terrible human cost: with, on average, more than 20 attacks and nearly 170 deaths per day, jihadist groups destroy countless lives – most of them Muslim – in the name of an ideology that the vast majority of Muslims reject.
If anything, this highlights the movement’s scale and ambition, but also the long-term political, social, ideological, and military commitment that will be needed to counter it.
Note that last line…’the long-term political, social, ideological, and military commitment that will be needed to counter’ Islamic extremism.
The BBC’s idea of countering Islamic extemism is to ignore it, or if forced to admit it occurs, then blame it on British society…anything but the truth….which of course is a hard to come by commodity when the BBC employs the likes of Mehdi Hasan, Tariq Ramadan and Baroness Warsi as spokespersons on Islam.
Until the BBC changes that narrative about foreign policy, ancient and modern, and its continual acceptance of Muslim grievances as justification for terror, and has an honest exploration of the real causes of radicalisation, then there can be no solution. If you don’t know what causes a problem, or don’t admit it, you aren’t going to solve it.
As said, the BBC is all too ready to accept the occasional terrorist attack on the streets of Britain if it means the Muslim community and Islam are not subject to intense and genuinely critical scrutiny that would raise some very awkward questions once people started to realise the truth about Islam and what it teaches its followers and how that plays into the real narrative about radicalisation and Jihad.
According to the BBC’s narrative Muhammed would not be a Muslim as his whirlwind and extremely violent campaign across the Middle East to impose Islam upon the land and its peoples has remarkable similarities to the ISIS blitz….and as we know, ISIS are not ‘real Muslims’.
Listening to Al Ja Beeba going on about muslims, islam and islamophobia, gives me a bad case of islamonausea. Its every single feckin day, from the moment you turn the telly or radio on until you turn the fecking thing off.
Arent moslems great, Isnt islam great, arent you a nasty pasty for being islamophobic and a racist bigot. In the islamic golden age, muslims invented the starship enterprise, the millennium falcon and even battled the borg. When the borg said resistance is futile, moslims just shouted Allahu Akbar and kicked their arses all the way back to the delta quadrant. Isnt islam great!!!!!!!
According to the BBC survey, which aunty felt that we didnt need to know, 14% of moslems said they would leave merry ole england and go and live in an islamic shit hole of a country if they could. Thats over 350,000 muzrats.
Being right wing, i believe in cutting taxes, not raising them, but to get rid of over a third of a million 5th columnists that we have festering in our country, sucking the life out of it, im willing to support huge tax rises in order to get rid of every single last one of them
Has all this pro moslem propaganda from Al beeb got anything to do with Pegida UK marching this saturday in newcastle? Good luck to Pegida anyway
https://www.facebook.com/pegida.uk
BBC bias summed up in one image: https://i.imgur.com/cEFO9Pn.png
Surely this picture is a fake. I have not heard of calls for these banner holders to be banned from all mosques, have their passports taken away or a team of top Scotland Yard detectives on their way to investigate.
Seriously have these people been arrested and charged?
Unbelievable, but highly unsurprising. Impartial, my arse.
The real Islamophobes are the BBC, as they are terrified of telling the truth about Islam. That truth is that Islam is a violently oppressive, enslaving, homophobic, mysogynistic supremacist ideology of hatred and conquest.
Could someone explain to me why we should not feel at least tad nervous when we have millions of folk in our midst, of whom a significant % ,feel hatred towards us and our values and resort to violence all over the world. If you are not worried about this you must be bonkers.
What worries me is the demographic growth of this so-called marginalised Muslim minority, who seem to be on some newspaper or TV every day – some marginalisation.
This demographic minority is not peaceful one, but a highly aggressive demographic , with a whole series of ready made grievances, which can be used as justification for Jihad.
Muslim growth rate is not just due to a large birth rate, but also to primary and secondary immigration.
1. Large birth rate – can’t do much about it
2. Primary immigration – we can do something here
3. Secondary immigration comes in several forms, but the main drivers are
a) Family re-unification – a EU Human right..
b) Immigration via marriage – Most Muslims seek their spouses from the “home” country. In other words, for each Muslim born in this country, we will get another one more in 15 years or so. A “two for one” situation..
The results are going to be felt in more then just “minor” inconveniences – like burning or bombed out churches and cathedrals. and ghettoisation on a large scale.As this demographic is the main driver of crime, it uses up ever larger proportions of the social, educational, police, law and order resources. The presence of Muslims in large numbers not only uses up present capital of the nation, but its reserves stored over decades, such as infrastructure..
What I fear most is a civil war breaking out in the UK over race AND religious boundaries. Its bad enough when one has two combatants, such as the one in Northern Ireland. Now we are looking at a multi-ethnic, muti-racial and multi-religious conflict, with shifting allegiances, as the breakup of the UK progresses till the lights of Western civilisation go out.
I suppose the leftist/socialists, or the Umma, are betting that they will inherit the carcass.
Family reunification is not a Human right covered by article 8.
This is not an absolute right in any event but a proportionate one and if the government set a quota then it could be enforced.
In addition the family could if it wanted to live in the foreign country unless the one in Britain was a refugee.
Thus the ECtHR could not affect what a government wished to do.
I have mentioned the BBC’s preferred counter to ‘radicalisation’ via Radio 4’s “The Moral Maze” here.
Their solution?
“there’s a terrible, but inescapable irony that they’re using one of the values that we hold most dear – freedom of expression -against us”
and
“How far should we be willing to sacrifice freedom of speech and our privacy in the fight against terrorists on the internet?”
In other words we should accept further controls on what we are ALL allowed to say and think rather than get rid of the liberal elite’s self-imposed censorship, (soon to be law – thanks Mrs. May), of the truth about Islam and its ‘unalterable’ and ‘perfect’ manual of hatred and subjugation, the Koran.
Good points. You say “there’s a terrible, but inescapable irony that they’re using one of the values that we hold most dear – freedom of expression -against us” and ask “How far should we be willing to sacrifice freedom of speech and our privacy in the fight against terrorists on the internet?”
Its all a question of tolerance and the philosopher Karl Popper addressed it. Although Popper was an advocate of toleration, he said that intolerance should not be tolerated, for if tolerance allowed intolerance to succeed completely, tolerance would be threatened. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, he argued:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. – In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
Read it and weep. Against this onslaught who do we have fighting our corner in places of influence or authority? Not many and certainly not enough. On the contrary, what we do have is a situation of utter surrender created by ranks of craven politicians of all parties, the execrable BBC and the MSM, aided and assisted by the ever-present mob of Left/Liberals pointing the finger and declaiming as Islamophobic anyone who dares to speak out in defence of decent Western values and our culture. We are being completely sold out, and too many of us are either sleep-walking to our doom or feel entirely impotent in the face of this menace.
(The Popper section was lifted entirely from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)
So how will the ‘impartial’ bbc describe the now outed Jihadi John?
Mohammed Emwazi wasn’t born in the UK, he was born in Kuwait, yet the bbc are classing him as a ‘British IS fighter’? This murdering scum fucker is so far removed from being British he could have been born on Mars, the country’s media should disown him completely and portray him as exactly what he is..a fanatical muslim crackpot.
It also turns out that the Met poodle force and the Inspector Clouseau service (MI5) knew about him and are still offering a ‘no comment’ on any question about the man as it’s a ‘live case’! Is it any surprise? If these coward scum can’t stop three schoolgirls from walking out of the UK why should we expect any positive action from them.
I’d like to see UAF’s main man on a clapham bus explain just how this whole episode fits into British culture, he is always asking us to explain our culture, clapham…come and explain why we should be proud of Jihadi John because I’m pretty sure half of the world will be looking at this and wondering what the fuck is going on with British culture that has allowed so many ‘Brits’ to join ISIS?
I think if you look further into this you will find it was the bleeding heart leftists who kicked up all the fuss about detaining dangerous terrorists without trial that are to blame. Forcing through changes in the law effectively tied MII5′ hands and allowed this scum to leave the country.
Agreed not British
And to deceiving Islam Not BBC (INBBC), this Islamofascist Mohammed is not a Muslim, but a mere “militant”!:-
“IS militant ‘Jihadi John’ named as Mohammed Emwazi from London”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31637090
“Jihadi John unmasked: Former Westminster University student was arrested FIVE years ago and put on a terror watch list – but he flew to Syria to join ISIS two years later.
“Jihadi John revealed as computing graduate from Queen’s Park, London.
“Mohammed Emwazi, 27, is believed to have travelled to Syria in 2012.
“Jihadi John has featured in ISIS videos with journalists and aid workers.
“‘Accused by MI5 in 2009 of trying to reach Somalia’, home of Al Shabaab.
“Detained by UK counter-terror police in 2010 when arriving from Kuwait.
“Mr Emwazi claimed agent from MI5 tried to ‘turn’ him to work for them.”
By MARK DUELL and JENNY STANTON and MATT CHORLEY
FOR MAILONLINE
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2970161/ISIS-executioner-Jihadi-John-identified-London-man-Mohammed-Emwazi.html#ixzz3SqwZM6Y0
Aren’t MI5 and the Met poodle force a huge part of the bleeding heart left,they have wholeheartedly adopted all of their liberal ways and are their enforcers.
Just like the Lee Rigby murder, the powers that be knew about these people and knew that they were a direct threat but did nothing. A man was arrested recently for simply putting anti Halal stickers on packaged meat;
“A man has been charged with causing racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage after stickers condemning halal meat were placed around a supermarket in Salford.
The stickers reading “beware halal is barbaric and funds terrorism” were placed on food and equipment at a supermarket on Regent Road.”
Yet promising to cut heads off and carrying the tools to do it prompts no action..until the deed is done that is!
All of the powers that be are complicit in allowing religion of peace to flourish, they are as guilty as mohammed emwazi.
For INBBC not to report so far: Saudi Arabia is not Islamic?:-
“Saudi gets death sentence for insulting Islam, ripping Koran”
– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/02/saudi-gets-death-sentence-for-insulting-islam-ripping-koran.html/#sthash.wsiGQVLb.dpuf
But WHY are the beeboids so pro-Muslim? Surely they realise that, with their disproportionate number of women and homosexual men, the bBBC will be among the first to go when their beloved Calip-hate is established in Britain?
A combination of two things, in my opinion. They play the victim card, unlike Sikhs and Hindus and, crucially, their faces are generally darker than ours. Pure racism, in other words.
Wouldn’t work so well for the Chinese – but they wouldn’t try it on in the first place.
Mark Humphrys has this:-
“The left and Islamism”
http://markhumphrys.com/left.islamic.html
Also:-
“RADICAL ISLAM’S ALLIANCE WITH THE SOCIALIST LEFT”
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=291
George R thanks, good link; ‘The western media and the western left are partly to blame for Islamism’ – is a powerful reflection on how deep the BBC is the promotion of Islam’s ‘alternative values’… (half way down page link above).. still reading rest. The BBC identified to a tee, they are root cause and effect of it’s promotion here in the UK. They know it and don’t care a damn.
They are not in the least pro-Muslim. They are using them to gain more civil powers and to control what people are being allowed to say.
Winding Muslims up until they commit violent acts and then imposing suffocating laws on the majority in order to prevent a ‘backlash.’
They are being used to stoke up hatred and its working.
How it will end is anyone’s guess – but not peacefully.
Brigitte Bardot is up tall before the man again for “inciting racial hatred” or in short for telling the truth about Islam. You’d think the Beeb would report such a high profile case particularly as it’s BBs fifth time in front of a judge. Maybe they’re worried that reporting the case could involve collateral damage, ie, some truth might leak out!
The French have the best record in Europe in assimilating their Muslim populations for all the good it will do them. Even though many Muslims are doing well in France many more are going nowhere mainly because of the lethargy that Islam induces. The resentment of these failures of French society together with the toxic message of French socialists will give all the edge the fanatics neeed.
There’s a pretty good outline of the current state of France in a post at Ruthless Truth:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2015/02/marianne-yet-lives.html
‘…..in the name of an ideology that the vast majority of Muslims reject.’
In that case the vast majority of Muslim states across the globe would civilised, enlightened and liberal.
But they’re not.
This isn’t about ISIS and ‘the rest’ of the world’s Muslim poulation, but about the shades of grey in between which are only too evident here in Britain (FGM, gender segregation, tolerance of racist Muslim paedo/rape gangs, halal prioducts creeping into our supermarkets, banning of pork in some schools etc etc). Everything, in fact, the BBC chooses to turn a blind eye to.
“The BBC… is also prepared to see dead bodies, non-Muslim ones, in the streets as the necessary murders that are the price to be paid for ‘peace’.”
So you think the BBC didn’t have a problem with the murder of Lee Rigby or of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists? You really believe that all the thousands of employees at the BBC were happy when they were murdered? Seeking to understand why the terrorists murdered them is NOT the same as trying to justify them.
“The BBC is at the forefront of the charge… to make Islam the dominant religion and political force in Britain”
Prove it. Find concrete evidence that the BBC wants to see minarets everywhere, that they want us to have Sharia law, that they want women to have to be covered up, that they want us to be forced to eat Halal meat. If you can’t, you might want to revisit that statement.
Sometime in the last thirty years, we transitioned from a society conscious of our responsibilities to one obsessed with ‘rights’. The BBC is the leading proponent of ‘rights’ (‘leading’ understandably by virtue of its size). Islamists do not seek to integrate into the ‘Westernized’ UK society; they manoeuvre for space to follow the culture they came from. The BBC doesn’t agitate for Sharia Law, Halal meat, or minarets; they only need to push for ‘rights’ for Islamists, and these follow on…
“The BBC… is also prepared to see dead bodies, non-Muslim ones, in the streets
I’m rather surprised that you would question that; we’ve just seem three Islamist terrorists described as ‘babies’, ‘just children’, ‘abused’, etc.. By contrast, do you doubt that in the event of a minor riot by the English Defence League, young men could be killed? I have no doubt at all that the BBC would describe such killings as ‘maintaining law and order’.
In what possible way does that mean the BBC approves seeing these dead bodies in the streets? There is a massive, unjustified leap between what you’ve said and the conclusion Alan drew.
I don’t believe that Sharia, Halal etc will “follow on” to the extent that they become predominant in the UK, as Alan claimed, even if the BBC did “push for ‘rights’ for Islamists”. Where is your concrete evidence that it does?
Let’s be clear; I don’t believe that the BBC primarily ‘want to see dead bodies’ or ‘want to impose Sharia Law’ or want to impose any other Islamist dogma. But…
Most of the indigenous people of the UK recognise that we have a uniquely tolerant culture, we value it highly and we want to preserve it. Our not-so-distant-past involved repeated bloody attempts by sections of the Christian religion to achieve dominance. That didn’t end by negotiation, but by the genius of Oliver Cromwell. It’s worth remembering that Cromwell defeated, in turn, Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Presbyterians. Since 3rd September 1650, when Cromwell defeated the Covenantors at the Battle Of Dunbar, this country has been free from the scourge of any religion seeking to dominate. Now the Islamists are seeking to do just that. They think their own respect for their religion should be mandatory for the whole population. Something has to give here; we cannot have what Cromwell called ‘liberty of conscience in religion’ and at the same time force HM subjects to be bound by the dictates of Islam. It is at this point the BBC has to, as the Americans so quaintly put it, ‘sh1t or get off the pot’. The evidence so far seems to be that the BBC sees a need to modify our long-established liberal ways to make accommodation with Islamist restrictions. All sorts of negative outcomes would ensue from that capitulation. On Newsnight last week, Evan Davis tried to make a Femen spokeswoman feel isolated by saying ‘A lot of people do think that there should be a limit….’ Happily, the lady wasn’t having it.
Prove it? Find concrete evidence? Where the fuck do you think he’s going to find that?
Get a life for fuck sake.
He made the claim, he needs to prove it. Otherwise his claim is completely unsubstantiated.
Or do you believe that on a site like this, which claims to hold the BBC to rigorous account, one of the principal contributors should be able to just say what he likes without providing supporting evidence and still expect to be taken seriously?
‘Or do you believe … one of the principal contributors should be able to just say what he likes without providing supporting evidence and still expect to be taken seriously?’
In the spirit of multiple standards, and precedent, thank you.
Author: ManonClaphamOmnibus may not.
‘Prove it. Find concrete evidence that the BBC wants to see minarets everywhere, that they want us to have Sharia law, that they want women to have to be covered up, that they want us to be forced to eat Halal meat.’
Because it is happening and they never challenge it. As far as the BBC is concerned Islam is beyond criticism as countless posts on this website have proved over the years and as this week’s endless fawning by the BBC has also proved, ignoring the negatives and overblowing the positives to the point it took on an air of black comedy. Not once in those interviews with Muslims following publication of this week’s survey did I hear a single challenge regarding the stealthy undoing of the liberties it has taken us centuries to establish, such as gender segregation in mosques and universities.
Then again, perhaps you’re happy that not only have we got to the stage where a plaintiff can give evidence in court whilst wearing a burka but that the BBC can, as our national broadcaster and with some responsibility for the public interest, pretend it never happened.
“Because it is happening and they never challenge it”
That does not mean they actively want it to happen.
Eastenders happens and I never challenge it, though that doesn’t mean I actively want it to happen.
‘That does not mean they actively want it to happen. ‘
Why don’t they challenge it? After all, women’s rights seem to be pretty regular feature of BBC broadcasting and yet….they don’t challenge gender segregation. A bit odd, no?
‘Eastenders happens and I never challenge it, though that doesn’t mean I actively want it to happen.’
Is that moral relativism-surrealism or have you just lost the plot?
It was an example of why your logic was wrong. If you can’t see that then that’s your problem.
I’ll ask you again: prove that the BBC actively wants Islam to become dominant in the UK.
And to be clear – not challenging some of the more backward practices in Islam as much as you want them to is NOT the same as actively wishing these practices on the whole of the UK.
‘And to be clear – not challenging some of the more backward practices in Islam as much as you want them to is NOT the same as actively wishing these practices on the whole of the UK. ‘
My point is they don’t do it at all. You have to question their motives, especially as I have given a glaring example of their double standards i.e. their continuing, everyday obsession with women’s rights. Are you kidding me that the BBC can be so disinterested in gender segregation yet not have an agenda? So they can relentlessly pore over so-called sexism by UKIP candidates but ignore segregation?
I’ll add another if you like: the constant coverage and concern for ‘our girls’ (my quotes) who have disappeared to help with the beheadings in Syria and the almost total lack of concern for the thousands of teenage girls drugged, raped and beaten by racist gangs of Muslim paedophiles up and down our country (still going on by the way – no ‘public interest’ element there, then?). Had this been Muslim girls at the hands of white racists or Jews the BBC would have it on a permanent loop.
So what do you think their motives are – sheer cowardice? Merely accepting that they choose not to take issue with these threats to our open and tolerant society is not good enough and if you are prepared not to offer your own theory or, worse, to defend it, then it’s pretty obvious you care fuck all for our liberties and democracy.
So at least you admit that this is a theory. You might want to tell Alan that, as he keeps insisting that it’s the ‘truth’.
My theory is that the BBC is scared of ‘rocking the multicultural boat’, as was said about the Rotherham scandal. I think that apart from Muslims almost no-one supports gender segregation, so the BBC doesn’t want to be seen to be picking on one particular group. Of course they should challenge these things, but I don’t think their reluctance to do so is because they support them.
And re Eastenders – my point was that I do not particularly like the fact that the show exists, but I do nothing to try and stop it being broadcast. My lack of action does not equate to me liking the show.
My theory is that the BBC is scared of ‘rocking the multicultural boat’, as was said about the Rotherham scandal. I think that apart from Muslims almost no-one supports gender segregation, so the BBC doesn’t want to be seen to be picking on one particular group. Of course they should challenge these things, but I don’t think their reluctance to do so is because they support them.
Regular Christian church-goers are a minority in the UK but that doesn’t stop the BBC mercilessly hounding them over women’s rights. The EDL, and previously, the BNP, were minority views and the BBC showed them no mercy. UKIP, in numbers, is probably close to the Muslim population. No worry about ‘picking on’ them. It’s difficult to align your theory with the evidence of our eyes.
Fair point, but I think the difference is that all the groups you list are, generally speaking, indigenous to the UK, whereas Muslims are not. The BBC seem to be scared of offending Muslims and being accused of racism (though of course I’m aware that ‘Muslim’ is not a race).
If a Kipper remarked that Muslims aren’t indigenous to the UK, there would be screams of racism from the BBC and derisive shouts that ‘I’m third-generation British!’. But let’s be honest, people on this site don’t see a closed, hostile Asian community, wearing hijabs and speaking a foreign language, as indigenous. What you’re saying is that the same thinking exists in white BBC staff. The difference, clearly, is that folk here would make no special allowance for them while the BBC staff feel a noble duty to do so. So we can argue whether the bias is noble or not, but you’re still admitting that the BBC is showing bias in favour of Muslims.
‘My theory is that the BBC is scared of ‘rocking the multicultural boat’, as was said about the Rotherham scandal.’
In other words, not fit for purpose.
‘It was an example of why your logic was wrong. If you can’t see that then that’s your problem.’
So your example of you not challenging the fictional world of East Enders is the same as the BBC not challenging very real threats to our society, and that is proof of your superior logic?
Kinnell.
And so, the defence of evil, Islamofascist, barbarian beheader, Mohammed Emwazi begins and who is to be blamed for his barbarism, not Islam, apparently, but Britain!
How many INBBC panel discussions comprising largely Muslims, and sympathetic psychologists, will be put out to play that game? (Critical Kafirs to be denied a seat at the INBBC table.)
Pundit 1:
‘I’m not saying he was poverty-strickened, or lacking in educational opportunity, but Mohammed must have been driven to have himself behead people because of the way he had been treated.’
Pundit 2:
‘Yes, indeed’.
Pundit 3:
‘There can be no other reason.’
‘”I had a job waiting for me and marriage to get started,” Emwazi wrote in a June 2010 email to Cage.
“[But now] I feel like a prisoner, only not in a cage, in London,” he added, “a person imprisoned and controlled by security service men, stopping me from living my new life in my birthplace and country, Kuwait.”
Mr Qureshi said Emwazi had made persistent efforts to try to change his situation: “We had two-and-a-half years of communications talking about what he could do to alleviate his problems.”
He said he did not know what had happened to Emwazi, adding: “When we treat people as if they are outsiders they will inevitably feel like outsiders – our entire national security strategy for the last 13 years has only increased alienation. A narrative of injustice has taken root.”
Yes, it’s all our fault that this subhuman piece of evil trash turned to violence, torture, bloodshed, religious cleansing and beheadings. How very dare our security services try to protect us!!
Cage, another bunch of jihadi-apologists on speed dial ready to parrot the relentless BBC propaganda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31637090
In case, INBBC hasn’t noticed-
Islamic jihadists globally are are war with us, so-
“WE ARE AT WAR”
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/6716-we-are-at-war
“Islamaphobia is not really a word, it was made up by the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1990’s, and its purpose is to suppress free speech. After all what an islamaphobe is, is someone who says something that Muslims don’t like. It is a fascist term meant to suppress.”
For INBBC to censor?:-
“Jihadi John ‘should be shot’ says neighbour of Isis executioner Mohammed Emwazi”
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jihadi-john-should-be-shot-says-neighbour-isis-executioner-mohammed-emwazi-1489657?
Looks like Austria is on the right track
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/26/austria-bans-foreign-funding-for-mosques-forces-imams-to-speak-german/
Also Maggie was considering taking control of the BBC.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/26/thatcher-considered-taking-over-bbc-after-treacherous-falklands-coverage/
If only she had.
A agree, TPO, but only in the sense I’m sure that after the war was finished she would have firmly re-established the BBC as it was always intended to be – committed to impartiality and political neutrality – and with the necessary checks and balances in place to ensure that commitment was upheld by its management. Any permanent control by any government – of whatever political hue – would be disastrous.
Al Beeb is not fit for purpose and this Tory government has the power to make it pay for itself or become extinct . If its as good as it says it is, it will survive .
Get rid of this unfair compulsory tax.
The Koran says;
“Fight against those who believe not in Allah and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”. 9.29
Acts of Islamic violence which are taking place every day are but the most recent manifestation of a global war of conquest that Islam has been waging since the days of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th Century AD. This is the simple, glaring truth which it seems few today are willing to contemplate.
We are talking about Islam — not Islamic “fundamentalism,” or “extremism,” but Islam proper. Islam in its orthodox form as it has been understood and practiced by right-believing Muslims from the time of Muhammad to the present.
But for the BBC, Islam and the Koran has nothing to do with Islam.
What to do?
listening to all these groups from the muslim, victimhood, greivance machine fronted by the quiet dubious and shadowy muslim council of britian you would think that muslims are being dragged out of there mosques in there 1000s and beheaded in the streets and paraded around in cages before being burnt alive,but i have have a problem with the muslim community,i just dont trust them any more,and it has nothing to do with the colour of there skins because there are plenty enough white muslim converts about,why i dont trust muslims is because of this,i suspect alot of muslims and there focus groups come out in the public and condemm terrorism but in private and behind closed doors they secretly support the jihadists and terrorists,that is a conclusion that i and many in this country are becoming to wake up to the reality of what is really going on in this country.
Mohammed was a Muslim
But Jesus was a Jew !
Strange the way people want to look at history, because it is equally reasonable to argue that Jesus was the first Christian, except we don’t.
If Mohammed is to be accorded the same treatment as Jesus, then surely Mohammed was a Pagan idolater.
Bet the BBC won’t want to run with that though!
I wrote a complaint to the BBC in January after the Charlie Hebdo, kosher supermarket and police woman murders in Paris. I explained to them they cannot say ‘The Prophet Muhammed’ without saying the Islamic Prohet or Muslim Prophet as that is legitamising Islam over other religions and athiests. I am happy to show their responses to my emails.
I’ve also made that complaint and received a very nebulous response about it being courteous, and used in most mainstream media.
It’s pointless complaining, the BBC don’t have a complaints department, they have a department for denial.
The BBC continues to call these people militants, never terrorists; the three schoolgirls who have decided to go to Syria are vulnerable and were groomed by nasty men: Jihadi john was a beautiful lad who was radicalised by our security forces. Is there now no personal responsibility to be taken? Is all of this someone else’s fault? I am therefore heartily ashamed that it is partly my fault that so many people have failed to assimilate into Western society; could somebody let us know what more we/ I could have done?
Yes, INBBC has a deliberate policy of censoring the words “Muslims” and “Islam” in relation to violent jihad activity. INBBC, in effect, facilitates Islamic interests (as on Radio 5 this morning) to attempt the ludicrous propaganda of disassociating e.g. Islamic State, Al Qaeda from tenets of Islam, and from the fact that all members and volunteers of those Islamofascist organisations are Muslims.