What if the BBC’s John Sweeney had said….Islam…A force for good or something more sinister? It’s not easy to investigate Islam. If you investigate them, they will come for you….a cult that is corrupt, sinister and dangerous, out to capture people and brainwash them. So, a force for good or a brainwashing cult?
What if Piers Morgan had said that Tom Cruise must ditch the vile cult of Islam NOW before Hollywood ditches him?
What if he said this…
What is different, and shockingly so, is what we now know about his always mysterious personal life.
And in particular, his relationship with an even more mysterious entity – Islam.
On Sunday, the BBC aired a much-hyped documentary into the cult , called “Going Islamic”.
It was an astonishing, terrifying film; one which finally nailed many of the unpalatable truths about this deeply secretive and deeply unpleasant ideology.
The whole ideology is utterly sickening in its cynical heartlessness and exploitation.
Muslims, as they always do, reacted with a vicious public diatribe against the BBC – condemning it as a pack of lies.
Denigrating opponents is their default position to any perceived attack.
But of course it wasn’t Islam it was Scientology that has enraged Piers and Sweeney.
Isn’t it odd how some religions get kid glove treatment whatever they do and others, whacko and slightly sinister perhaps, get absolutely vilified….would Morgan or Sweeney call Islam vile, sickening and deeply unpleasant…or even corrupt, sinister and dangerous? Don’t think so.
And it’s not as if Christianity, the full-on ‘authorised’ and ‘approved’ versions don’t have their own dark sides…..but nothing that can compare to the acts done in the name of Islam…acts which can be justified with clear commands from the Koran and Hadith.
And yet……it’s Scientology that gets it in the neck from the Media (and Piers Morgan, whoever he was)…paradoxically the BBC’s Sweeney, who was ‘spying’ on the Church of Scientology and making a film about them complains that they were ‘spying’ on him and checking what he was up to as he spied upon them….their spying was bad, his good…..Sweeney’s investigation makes altogether fairly, by comparison, trivial complaints against Scientology, nothing that couldn’t be levelled at Christianity never mind Islam…..and the film seems more concerned with explaining away Sweeney’s mad outburst from a previous attempt to examine Scientology than anything else…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4PDZt74adg
The lengths the stinking, pimping, grasping, lying BBC goes to to sanitise Islam is really quite astonishing. Only a few hours after Islamists murder 150 Christians in Kenya, how does their headline page depict the slaughter? A Muslim woman in severe Islamic dress comforting two weeping mothers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world
Really? Does this reflect the story? Muslims supporting Christians? Only in the eyes of the stinking BBC.
Maybe one day when Al Shahaab make a day trip to WC1 they’ll acquire a bit of sense. Even then I doubt it.
From the linkto the BBC article
Only way down in the article do we get to know
They singled out Christians and shot them, witnesses said.
I think one of the saddest things in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre was the British media’s unanimous refusal to publish any Charlie Hebdo content to show us Brits what the fuss was all about. (We had to log on to t’tinternet to see it all) If crazy Islamists are hurt more by satire than blowing themselves up or burning their balls with malfunctioning bombs, then we should be satirising them 24 hours a day. Refusing to do so for fear of offending ‘moderate’ Muslims demonstrates the impossible task of trying to speak democratically about a religion that ‘has issues’.
Sam Harris (I can hear the groaning already) said that it is religious moderates that give the extremists credibility.
The BBC could not hide that fact that Muslims almost universally condemned Charlie Hebdo on the basis that the prophet Muhammad should never be insulted. In various BBC TV and radio interviews with random Muslims, I noticed that the general view was that no one should be killed for insulting Muhammad, BUT there should be a law against it! At least TWO people said they would defend Muhammad more vigorously than they would do their own family members!!! AND THEY ARE MODERATE MUSLIMS!!!
I thought John Sweeney’s documentaries on Scientology were fascinating. I think Alan (the author of this thread) has things a bit twisted. The first documentary was authorised by the church of scientology, the second was a follow up ‘investigation’.
It was the first ‘authorised’ programme (Scientology and Me – 2007) in which Sweeney was being spied on and the film in which he loses his rag (because he was being spied on!). But it was the follow-up film (The Secrets of Scientology – 2010) in which Sweeney spies on them.
I hope that clarifies things.
Agree. Your right we should also not circumscribe our liberties even more in response to these outrages. The false dichotomy between security and Liberty fails to recognise that the cause of the former wants the latter limited. There is just disagreements on what is to be limited in expression. Further, the apparatus built up by the state to control and limit free expression is the perfect instrument for jihadists control. It seems that all they have to do is kill some of us and we immediately restrict ourselves in the futile hope that they won’t do it again. The ethical response to an assault on liberty is more liberty. We should elimate all those restrictions on expression and mass data monitoring. So we can freely say what we think without risk of arrest. Restricting the public opinion on the streets of our country is unhealthy and eliminates the necessary normative function of a society policing itself in the court of opinion. Data collection should be targetted only at groups that are a threat to the state’s ability to protect its citizens physical existence. We should never endow the state with powers that we would not want our worst political opponent to have.