Once upon-a-time, we are assured, there was a young lad in Spain, of Moroccan descent, hardworking, nice, never violent and never spoke of politics. He travelled to France to work but having found a job was ‘let go’ after two months. All alone and jobless in a strange foreign country what’s a boy to do?
Apparently what you do is get yourself an assault rifle, a pistol, a knife and some petrol and plan to slaughter as many passengers on a train as possible.
The BBC thinks this is a reasonable narratve to spin for us. (41 mins 30 secs) A freelance reporter (unsaid if commissioned by the BBC) headed straight for the parents of the train terrorist so that we could ‘find out about the man himself’.
We hear that the father is a humble man, a broken man, bemused by his son’s actions…he has no idea what could have happened to turn that lovely lad into a potential mass murderer…well, actually he did have an idea…it was all the fault of that French company that let his son go.
We hear that there was never any talk of politics in the house….but we are told the terrorist was very religious…as was his brother…who held a post at a mosque…which Spanish police said was a hotbed of radicalism…and yet no politics was ever mentioned at home.
Kind of reminds me of the BBC’s reporting from the West Bank when a suicide bomb goes off and they head straight for the suicide bomber’s family to get his side of the story…just what did drive him to do such a terrible act? Those damned Israelis!!! Oh yes…and never mind the families of the victims of the bomber.
Or indeed after 7/7 in this country when the BBC rushed to find excuses for the bombers asking ‘Just what did drive these young British Muslims to do this?’….suggesting of course that it was the fault of British society…the racism, the Islamophobia, the discrimination….only to have to wind their necks in as they realised this line was highly inappropriate and unpopular….but it could wait.
And wait they did until finally they commissioned a film to be made examining the background to the bombings and the motivations of the bombers.
The film was to be called ‘The London Bombers’.
It was never made. Shelved by the BBC. The findings did not align with the BBC’s own preconceived narrative of why these ‘young British Muslims’ were driven to do what they did. The film, in telling the truth, was ‘islamophobic’…..as Nick Cohen in Standpoint relates….
The London Bombers, one of the most thoroughly researched and politically important drama-documentaries commissioned by British television. A team of journalists, at least one of whom was a British Muslim, reported to Terry Cafolla, a fine writer who won many awards for his dramatisation of the religious hatred which engulfed the Holy Cross school in Belfast.
Unusually for journalists working within BBC groupthink, they didn’t find that the “root cause” of murderous rage was justifiable anger at the “humiliation” America, Israel, Britain and Denmark and her tactless cartoonists had inflicted on Muslims. They inadvertently confirmed the ideas of Ernest Gellner, the late and unjustly neglected professor of anthropology at Cambridge. In Postmodernism, Reason and Religion (1992), Gellner asked why a puritanical version of Islam was in the ascendant when godlessness was flourishing everywhere else. His answer was that Wahhabism and its ever more zealous theocratic variants could appear as modern as secular humanism. They represented the pure religion of scholars and the city, which would free Muslims from their peasant parents’ embarrassingly superstitious faith. Accepting fanaticism was a mark of superiority: a visible sign of upward mobility from rural idiocy to urban sophistication.
And so it proved in Leeds.
So psychologically convincing is the portrayal of macho loyalty and lure of barbarism that viewers can understand how these men turn into mass murderers.
Except that they can’t and won’t understand, because the BBC will not give them the opportunity to understand. This is a review of a drama that was never made.
The reporters convinced the families of three of the four bombers to cooperate. By the end, they agreed that the BBC’s account of their sons and brothers’ lives and deaths was accurate. Cafolla submitted five versions of the script. He was working up to a final draft when the BBC abandoned the project.
The official reason is that the drama didn’t make the grade. The script is circulating in Samizdat form, which is how it reached Standpoint, and every writer and director who has read it disagrees. The journalists, however, say that BBC managers told them they were stopping because it was “Islamophobic”.
Cohen concludes…
It makes no sense until you understand the moral contortions of the postmodern liberal establishment. In the past few years, the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the West Midlands Police, the liberal press, the Liberal Democrats, the Metropolitan Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Lord Chief Justice and the Archbishop of Canterbury have all either supported ultra-reactionary doctrines or made libellous accusations against the critics of radical Islam. All have sought to prove their liberal tolerance by supporting the most illiberal and intolerant wing of British Islam, and by blocking out the voices of its Muslim and non-Muslim critics as they do it.
As the sorry history of The London Bombers shows, they have left us a country that cannot tell its own stories; a land so debilitated by anxiety and stupefied by relativism that it dare not meet the eyes of the face that stares back at it from the mirror.
The BBC knows exactly why these ‘young Muslims’ of whatever origin go on to commit these acts, the BBC just doesn’t want to admit it as to do so would raise an awful lot of uncomfortable questions about Islam, the sensibleness of continuing to promote Islam unchecked and the wisdom of allowing mass immigration from Muslim countries into Europe when it is clearly going to be the cause of much controversy and conflict.
“We hear that there was never any talk of politics in the house….but we are told the terrorist was very religious…as was his brother…who held a post at a mosque…which Spanish police said was a hotbed of radicalism…and yet no politics was ever mentioned at home.”
Sorry Alan, but I’m not sure where politics comes into religious radicalisation. If you think about it, religious scripture trumps politics all day long! If you’re not a fundamentalist, you’re a moderate appeaser who breaks the rules. A willing sinner.
“They represented the pure religion of scholars and the city, which would free Muslims from their peasant parents’ embarrassingly superstitious faith. Accepting fanaticism was a mark of superiority: a visible sign of upward mobility from rural idiocy to urban sophistication.”
The words “embarrassingly superstitious faith” is a misnomer – the faith isn’t embarrassing otherwise fanatics would abandon Islam altogether. What is embarrassing is the superstitious element, and that comes with treating the Quran as if it contains verses that can be ignored or interpreted how ever you like (as with The Bible).
The truth is, these idiots signing themselves up for oblivion are the same idiots who signed themselves up to The Sex Pistols Fan Club back in the day. There is a BIG difference in their gullibility, but it ain’t at the expense of religion – it’s at the expense of logic!
These ideologies come from parts of the world where religion and politics go hand-in-hand. No wonder religion gets the trump card! I’m sure there are more regulars here browsing BiasedBBC.org who actually believe that homosexuality should be outlawed again and that we should bring back the death penalty for blasphemers (which was only abolished in 2008).
I’m not sure Islam is the only nasty kid on the block. As someone who works with people from Africa and South India, I’ve noticed a disturbing rise in American-style Creationism. These are ‘educated’ people who have legitimately migrated to the UK, but who believe some science subjects should be taken off the curriculum, and they have voting power!
Whilst this might not be an urgent concern in the grand scheme of terrorist things, it should be noted that religion is an excuse to do things both good and bad, rather than a reason.
Islam is clearly not the only nasty kid on the block. I am worried sick about the swarm of violent creationists trying to flood into our country. As for those creationist terrorists, suicide bombers, child-rapists etc etc well words simply fail me.
BTW Edward the death penalty for blasphemy is still practiced today, violently and sickeningly, by a certain religion (hint, it’s not Creationism) along with similar treatment for homosexuals (same guys).
My point being there is a dormant threat waiting to explode on our streets – a threat brought here from all corners of the world and from various religions. It’s a threat that most of us cannot see and some of us blindly deny. It is a serious threat because of the unsustainable levels of immigration and the high levels of religion within the immigrant population. They arrive from very religious world regions to a country which is tolerant of all religions and secular in nature, but a country that cannot always accommodate their religious needs.
To speak as though there is no such thing as Christian terrorism or that Christian terrorism isn’t as bad as Islamic terrorism – therefore no need to worry about it – is a dangerously naïve position to take. It’s only a matter of time before we see a rise in terrorism on our streets acted out by religious groups/people other than Muslim fundamentalists. Immigrants bombing immigrants, and we’ll all be caught up in the carnage!
To speak as though there is no such thing as Christian terrorism or that Christian terrorism isn’t as bad as Islamic terrorism – therefore no need to worry about it – is a dangerously naïve position to take. It’s only a matter of time before we see a rise in terrorism on our streets acted out by religious groups/people other than Muslim fundamentalists.
Do you have any evidence to support that opinion, from anywhere in the world, on anything like the scale of Islamic barbarism and destruction we’ve seen across the globe in the last 15 years or so?
Not on the same scale, but that isn’t my point. The evidence is already there on the streets of inner city Britain. Increasing levels of inter-ethnic conflicts.
Re your comment about existing and likely increasing levels of inter-ethnic conflict in this country are concerned I fully agree. The number of Shia v Sunni incidents can only increase and deaths will surely follow.
I only wish these primitives would sort out their differences in their own countries rather than bringing it over here.
“Gellner asked why a puritanical version of Islam was in the ascendant when godlessness was flourishing everywhere else. His answer was ” – WRONG !
Wahabism is increasing in it spread because of the money Saudi Arabia is pumping into promoting it! Unlike the money being pumped into bribing politicians the money for promotion of Wahabism is no secret as it’s not illegal. There are plenty of sources talking about this, you might want to check out one of Robert Spencers site.
The 7/7 bombings when some 50 people were killed, and many more injured, was a tragedy. But this was a terrorist attack, and it happened. The far greater crime that could have been prevented, was the brutal rapes of tens of thousands of young girls by Pakistani “heritage” (BBC speak) men, spanning a period of two decades at the least. The number of victims is likely to be upwards of 30,000.
It is inconceivable that the authorities did not know, as they claim. The fact that all police constabularies and social services departments reacted in the same way, belies that. They knew. How is one to bring thousands of police, councillors, and politicians to justice without shattering the nation at large?
A major part of the problem is that the state funded broadcaster has consistently lied to the people. The BBC just cannot say Muslim rapists or terrorists. It is Pakistani” heritage” or Moroccan “heritage”, or “Asian”, preferring to be racist rather then the reality – Islam and Muslims.
Because of this, one of the most shameful war crimes committed – shameful, as it was allowed to happen by the authorities on their own young girls by barbaric immigrants of Islamic heritage. It cannot be even righted, for the same reason that it is the most shameful of all episodes in the annals of history. Better to sweep it under the carpet.
Brilliant idea by Iplods
British police to hire CONVICTED TERRORISTS to combat Islamic State
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/601036/ISIS-Islamic-tate-Met-recruit-ex-jihadists
Daily Express readers get it
Its not just the BBC its all media. Try putting Muslim Rapist or saying Rotherham schoolgirls were raped by Muslim or Islamic rape gangs and it wont get printed
Too true. However if the BBC, state funded, so it does not have to worry about advertisers or public opinioin, had broadcast the the truth, the rest of the media would have done so as well.
Alan wrote: We hear that there was never any talk of politics in the house….but we are told the terrorist was very religious…as was his brother…who held a post at a mosque…which Spanish police said was a hotbed of radicalism…and yet no politics was ever mentioned at home.
One can view this as BBC lies. However, one can turn this around in a manner that discomfits the BBC.
If you go to the BBC site or someplace else that swallows BBC propaganda, here is an example comment:
Broadcasts by the BBC after each terrorist outrage are outrageous. By interviewing the family and showing what a nice family it is, including the Jihadi, the BBC is implying that one can never trust even nice Muslims, as they only appear nice and moderate, but are actually terrorists.
This stereotyping good Muslims by showing that they cannot be trusted, even though it may well be true, is not something one expects from the BBC.
NCBBC I get your point. But it is a very subtle one. How may Viewers would get it?
JPJ
Thanks for the reply.
Its worth a try. Maybe it can be made a little more evident.
The alleged murderers of St Steven Lawrence didn’t have the sympathy of the BBC.. ‘ Oh what drove them to it ‘, if I remember right, they were vilified right up until they went to court for a second time despite their not guilty status in the eyes of the law. But hey .. we got rid of being tried for the same alleged crime twice an historical law, but brought it back just to make sure we got a white on black conviction!
“He travelled to France to work but having found a job was ‘let go’ after two months. All alone and jobless in a strange foreign country what’s a boy to do?”
So, it seems to me that we could avoid further instances of violence by immigrants by simply not letting them into the country, or if they do manage to get in, never give them jobs.
Could someone from the BBC tell me if I have this right?