Craig at Is the BBC biased? (LOL) remarks on a very usual BBC discussion that peddles a defensive Muslim narrative in regard to a Times report that the man who shouted out #youain’tnomuslimbruv didn’t actually hear the Muslim terrorist shout that ‘this is for Syria and my Muslim brothers’.
What’s curious is that the BBC (10 mins)don’t seem to have noticed that the man who shouted out ‘you ain’t no Muslim bruv’ was in fact not a Muslim himself…despite the big Times frontpage headline that the BBC actually read out…..perhaps that’s why the BBC are attacking him and his ‘prejudice’ that a terrorist might be Muslim despite him obviouly being a victim of successful BBC brainwashing on the subject of Islam (ROP)…..the Times reveals all….
THE man dubbed a “hero” and praised by David Cameron for shouting “You ain’t no Muslim, bruv” to a knife-wielding suspected terrorist at a London Tube station has told The Sunday Times he now fears retribution from Isis.
John, 39, who asked for his surname to be witheld, revealed that he is not a Muslim himself but is angry that terrorist organisations such as Isis claim to represent Islam.
“Isis should be wiped out, because they’re not Muslims, because Muslims don’t do that. It’s as simple as that. For people to be like that, they’ve obviously got stone hearts, they don’t care about society. They don’t care about anyone. They’re evil, pure evil,” he said.
So Muslims, who reaped enormous vicarious credit for this denouncement of a terrorist as it ‘resonated around the world’, got that by the BBC et al assuming the guy shouting out was a Muslim …so as the BBC says…
‘Why should be immediately jump to the conclusion that he was a Muslim?! Because that again raises other questions…
Martine Croxall: Yes, of course.
Mihir Bose: …about how we look at these things.
Yes…how do we look at Shaker Aamer…considered a terrorist by the US and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that.…but the very anti-war Mail has shamefully decided to promote Aamer’s narrative and give him credibility and the BBC is lapping it up…and of course there is the obligatory cheap tilt at Trump (10 mins)...he is aiding the terrorists with his own narrative apparently.
Do we believe Aamer, who was a ringleader inside Guantanamo, or is he just creating a credible, anti-Jihadi persona in order to position himself where he can then speak with ‘authority’ having made people believe he is not a ‘radical’ Muslim…therefore when he then goes on to speak for Cage or some other Muslim agitprop group that demands more Islam in the UK he is listened to with respect when he is in fact pushing the Jihadi line? Entryist? Wait out.
Of course the Mail has a history of backing the wrong side….
‘What’s curious is that the BBC don’t seem to have noticed..
A lot passes them by.
For instance, during a war, they did not see or hear a single rocket outside the hotel.
But then, they may not have been looking or listening.
This other story all rather highlights the dangers of even being on the side of the angles the BBC likes, because if things veer off piste, you will be pushed off a cliff and left to fend for yourself PDQ.
And there may need to be a bit of fending now the BBC has placed yet another target on yet another person’s back for the RoP anger and protest department to approach to convince the error of ways.
Move over the McCanns The Daily Mail have found a new dodgy story to promote to death. Maybe this is another story that keeps on giving like the McCanns, Stephen Lawrence and Hillsborough etc.
This is what radicalization really looks like. It doesn’t mean moderates turning extreme.
It means extremists becoming more extreme. And there’s always room for extremists to become more extreme …
example ISIS
Which then … VERY dangerously … see s old extremists perceived into … “moderates” ?
while simultaneously “mainstreaming” their beliefs?, thus slyly moving the parameters.
Expect new “guest interviews”, called onto the morning sofa, “poor me” stories, holding f-ckwits on 5Live, or Toady spellbound.
Could Shaker Aamer’s words be due to him possibly applying for British citizenship at some stage very soon? It would strengthen his request to be seen as a ‘moderate’ voice. At least until his citizenship is complete and his compensation claim is in the bank.
It’s a good job that guy in the tube station wasn’t a muslim. The “you ain’t no muslim bruv” could have been some sort of Crocodile Dundee-style challenge followed by god knows what?
Now we know he isn’t a Muslim he can be charged with a hate crime for insulting a Muslim and his religion. Another one for Tell Mama to log.
My heart tells me that we should give the genial Shakir Ahmed a chance but my head tells me there is no smoke without fire especially his “charity work” in Afganistan. His outpourings all seem too convenient at this time.
Ahmed certainly appears to know a number of Jihadi undesireables. The BBC- as you pointed out will love this and work to big up this story to an orgasmic level, so we can all now see that Islam truly is the religion of peace and not a religion that throws gays off buildings, treats females as second class citizens, encourages murder and violence in the in the street and generally strives to dominate all the countries it has a presence in. Could this be taqqiya in action – mmmmmmmmmm?
Whilst it would be nice to give this chap the benefit of the doubt – If we all followed our hearts like Cumberpatch, Saint Bob and especially Merkel we would now probably have close to a million extra mouths to feed, clothe and generally support and probably be looking at serious civil unrest so I am afraid it is time to listen heads the hearts have had their day and failed miserably. It is time to see things as they really are not as how they are presented to us by the MSM and especially the BBC.
The guy was treated as very senior by all the other hardnuts at Gitmo. So I don’t give him any benefit of the doubt as far as his earlier beliefs and actions are concerned, nor do I believe his claims of British complicity in “torture”.
Have you seen this briefing about Shaker Aamer by the Henry Jackson Society?
Click to access Britains-Last-Guantanamo-Detainee.pdf
It is very interesting and relates that Aamer could have returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007, but he insisted on returning only to the UK. Hmmm, we wonder why?
We have no particular reason to doubt the reliability of the briefing, so we think we must assume that Mr Aamer is potentially a very dangerous man, and certainly capable of a high level of deceit.
It seems much of the MSM, including the BBC, is just lapping him up …
Simple questions we need to ask .
How is he ‘British’?
Why was he in Afghanistan ?
Who funds his family ?
What paid work did he do to look after his family ?
How many kids has he got and how old are they ?
Over to you Al Beeb, Essexman , or even Marvin/Scotty
……………………..
Nowhere on the BBC have I heard any full or even half-full recitation of the known facts about the man, or any listing of the allegations the Americans – and his co-prisoners- have made about him.
That is outright suppression of news by the BBC.
D’you ever get the feeling the walls are closing in? This site has for some time unhappily reflected what seemed to be a unique pattern of bias. The BBC has a long-established set of attitudes which are reflected in its programming, which it denies, and which it simultaneously defends with all its strength. However, I have noticed over the past few months (mainly since the General Election in May), that there is an increasing media consensus emerging, with lessening and more marginalised exceptions. ITV, Channel 4 (which was always pretty on-side anyway), even Sky, now seem to be narrowing the space for disagreement down to the point where whatever channel you view, you get the same stories, the same attitudes. There are foreign channels, of course, but they have their own problems, and no acknowledged place in our domestic broadcasting spectrum. The three deceptions – deception by omission, deception by distortion, and deception by invention – now seem to be feeding in to our news and comment with relentless and universal consistency, wherever we turn. I am rather worried at this time.
A common factor……..
So called ‘impartial’ journalists, all with the same agenda.
That’s a well-worded summary and seems to reflect much of what is happening.
But I would respectfully add that sheer journalistic laziness and cheap dumbing-down (vox pops, ad nauseam) are also contributing much to the demise of the MSM.
For example, the MSM and politicians (Alex Salmond, for one) are fawning over Shaker Aamer, but few seem to have really done their homework on reading the evidence about him:
Click to access Britains-Last-Guantanamo-Detainee.pdf
It’s also telling that the MSM often commissions opinion polls and surveys but then tends to shy away from highlighting any uncomfortable data (same as drug companies do, burying research papers that find negative or ambivalent results). The Sun, bless it (?), recently had an interesting poll, but unfortunately screwed up with an inaccurate headline. This distraction – Sun scaremongering, Muslims outraged, etc – let the MSM off the hook, and the real value and import of the opinion data were lost. That’s why we summarize data here:
http://wisermonkeys.uk/muslimopinion.html
What are the lessons arising from the Campaign for Real Ale (CamRA)?
A nation awash with disgusting muck sold as beer, to a consumer-base conditioned to expect nothing better, and reduced to making comparisons (‘preferences’) between different varieties of excrement.
Against all the odds, along comes a campaign, initially thought eccentric to say the least, which eventually succeeds in turning an entire market on its head – artisan beers, micro-breweries, giant companies competing to get into the ‘quality’ end of that market. Still a lot of crap around, but everyone knows it’s crap, and has plenty of good stuff to compare it with.
So could a Campaign for Real Journalism work? I don’t know – the current market for news is strikingly reminiscent of the pre-CamRA situation. How did it succeed? Could journalism be ‘turned round’ in the same way? Would it take the same kind of time (decades, really, for beer and ales, and that is a childishly simple market to characterise compared to the whole of journalism)?
How do we inject higher-grade expectations in the consumer-base? Do we follow CamRA in pointing people to examples of good practice, shining journalism and reporting, excellence in endeavour? Do ‘we’ need to give prizes, as well as griping about the filth that currently swills around our system? Do we need to start dividing practitioners into sheep and goats, rather than just focussing on the goats? How do we get past the impasse and the expanding static, trench-warfare, front that has developed?
CamRA were a bunch of nutters. They grew into a respected, consulted organisation and succeeded in propagating standards which forced providers to sit up and take notice, or in some instances see their brands go under.
How’s it done, then?
Stuart,
The big difference is that the brewing industry was not dominated by a state sponsored brewery that was not required to be profitable to survive. How successful would CAMRA have been without the market-place to weed out those that refused to change?
I think that is where the real problem lies and is precisely why the BBC is prepared to be so ruthless in order to avoid having to operate in the free market.
Thanks – I see what you’re saying, but I still think it might just be possible to force a kind of market-place to operate, at least at the consumer end. It is still possible to express preferences and journalists and their products by comparison – even if there is no apparent need felt by the Corp and all those other outfits to respond to being rated. In the education sector, even where a school has a virtual monopoly on its intake, probably through geography, it still hurts if it’s slammed by Ofsted or whatever. I know Ofsted has powers, but I’m just searching for a way in here: to exercise control, even from a distance, even when it’s not wanted, even when there are no formal reasons to pay attention to it.
I’ll think more about what you said..
OT until the BBC picks up, but the now despised Classic FM Global Propaganda passed on our hero’s spy-Dee sense notion that he was ‘90% sure a British Intelligence Officer was present at his interrogation’.
Beyond credit for avoiding incredible levels of hyperbole like, say, 97%, one has to wonder how he knew this?
Especially as these days ‘British Man’ (doubtful it was a lady) can be hard to distinguish from those he was more comfy being surrounded by.
Yet the ‘news’ just passed it on.
The al beebi’s fawning interview with Shaker The Innocent disgusts me in its partiality as it must most decent people in Britain. While the American policy of using Guantanamo was undeniably an own goal, two wrongs don’t make a right. There is no reason why this man’s background should not be questioned more rigorously by the BBC. I am strongly inclined to put much more faith in the information from the Henry Jackson Society than the BBC approach of asking no critical questions.
The ultimate disgrace of this episode is that the man is NOT a British citizen and due to his wife’s status was allowed into this country and apparently live on benefits . Moreover he was given the chance to return to Saudi in 2007. Incidentally did anyone notice his burka clad wife scurry out of the room at one point?
Our laws should allow dubious individuals like this man to be dispatched post haste to whence they came. Instead we will give him a million pounds and no doubt British citizenship too . We truly are building our own funeral pyre .