‘The fear that religious terror brings, the lies it makes people tell and concessions it forces them to make are as familiar here as on the subcontinent.’ Nick Cohen
“Compare the bravery of Bangladeshi intellectuals with the attitude of the bulk of the western intelligentsia. Whole books could be written on why it failed to argue against the fascism of our age – indeed I’ve written a couple myself – but the decisive reason is a fear that dare not speak its name. They are frightened of accusations of racism, frightened of breaking with the consensus, frightened most of all of violence. They dare not admit they are afraid. So they struggle to produce justifications to excuse their dereliction of duty. They turn militant religion into a rational reaction to poverty or western foreign policy. They maintain there is a moral equivalence between militant religion and militant atheism.”
Gotta laugh….the BBC is now insisting that Islam, the infamously peaceful religion, is in fact the religion of terrorists and has recruited historian Tom Holland, he of the C4 film about the origins of Islam ‘The Untold Story’, to tell us that although Cameron was acting ‘for the best and most principled reasons’ [Really? Is appeasement due to fear of a bomb attack the best reason to suppress the truth?] ‘it is indisputable that the Islamic state believes it is inspired by Islam’….and does indeed follow the example of the Muslim prophet Muhammed.
The BBC has got itself in a right pickle, as have the politicians as they blatantly try not only to manipulate a ‘free press’ but also attempt to hide the uncomfortable truth about Islamic terrorism.
The Politicians keep referencing World War II but the BBC always called the Germans ‘the Germans’ and not those ‘nasty, murdering bastards’….though they are quite happy labelling the Tories as the ‘nasty party’.
However the BBC also called the Germans ‘the enemy’. So are these politicians suggesting that the BBC calls the Islamic State ‘the enemy’…and if so also all those who subscribe to its religious ideology…..or is it just the violence the politicians don’t like…..or is it that ideology…you know the ‘evil ideology’ that Cameron keeps mentioning? The ‘evil ideology’ that Tom Holland tells us is indisputably Islamic?
So are ‘conservative’ Muslims in the UK with the same ideology, but not the violent inclinations, also the ‘enemy’?
By trying to ring fence Islam they have in fact done the opposite and drawn attention to the similarity between those ‘conservative’ Muslim ideals and those held by the Islamic State.
Seems the politicians and the BBC have both got themselves in that pickle….that’s what happens when you try to twist and manipulate the news for your own political and ideological beliefs.
The BBC has always sought to suppress any link between Islam and Islamically inspired violence but is now doing a rapid u-turn to save its embarrassment….Muslims cast rapidly aside to save Tony Hall’s bacon.
It seems the BBC’s main concern is the BBC and not the truth….it’s explanation of why it is sticking with the name ‘Islamic State’ is unusual in that it says it does not want to be unfair to the Islamic State by appearing to support its enemies. Which, as the UK is amongst its enemies, you might think a bit strange.
During WWII as said, the BBC declared the Germans ‘the enemy’ and so should make a similar call with the Islamic State what ever the likes of Baroness Warsi, Yasmin Qureshi and the various legions of ‘angry, marginalised, disenfranchised Muslims’ say.
It would be the correct ‘compromise’…both accurate and fitting for the political and social context….’Islamic State’ is the group’s name, it is the enemy and if some people complain of that description then they too must come under suspicion….they would after all have been interned during WWII…..let’s see if the politicians are so brave when it comes to making that decision in their ‘full spectrum response’!
Message for Al Beeb………….
‘You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time’.
They have painted themselves into a corner.
“The Politicians keep referencing World War II but the BBC always called the Germans ‘the Germans’ .” This line has prompted a comment that I haven’t seen set out anywhere else.
I have often thought that the government’s and BBC’s position that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam is very similar to the views of some revisionist historians on aspects of World War II.
The revisionists’ position is that the extermination camps and the massacre of millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc had nothing to do with the guiding philosophy of National Socialism as set out by Hitler, in all his writings and speeches. The revisionists think that his views were misunderstood by members of his National Socialist party, who went off and created the system of extermination camps without his authority or even knowledge. As such the killing of millions of civilians by his followers was not, and could never be, his fault. The killers had misinterpreted what he had said and so departed from the true message of National Socialism.
These views don’t stand the most superficial scrutiny, but to me the excuses sound very like the lies the BBC has been telling us about Islamic terrorism for the last two decades.
It is an interesting question, whether the infamous and now blatant BBC bias is rooted in genuine political conviction, or simple mercenary self-interest.
I have sometimes thought that the BBC is basically like the famous village ‘bicycle’, available for anyone to ride provided they pay well enough.
On the other hand, the persistence of wholesale news distortion, not to mention the systematic wielding of drama and comedy output to drench us in agenda-based narrative, seems to indicate more than organisational self-interest.
Of course, it may be that there are both these factors present in such a large organisation – in which case, are the dividing lines between divisions, or between levels? The front-of-office ‘reporting’/performing staff and their editorial buddies certainly seem moved by real political animus, and I can’t see them being swung around to ‘alternative’ points of view by simple self-preservative calculations.
On the other hand, like many civil servants and public sector mandarins, the higher BBC management seem to take pride in the rather pathetic belief they can ‘cut it with the big boys’ of industry and commerce, and the badge of this membership club is, of course, self-proclaimed and aggressive lust for power and hard-nosed greed.
Unfortunately, whichever of these two tendencies wins in the current civil war within the BBC, it is unlikely to deliver a broadcaster that has the slightest regard for the primacy of the population it is allegedly serving. There is never an ‘internal’ solution to the level of institutional corruption that exists within the BBC, which is arguably rotten to the core. If the Government, the EU, the UN, the environment lobby, the Islamists, the Labour Party or any other organisation wishes to acquire a communications vehicle, they should openly pay for one, and not simply expect to bend the BBC to their ends.