In 2014 the US refused to issue over 1.6 million visas to non-immigrant tourist and business travellers [categories]….and yet the BBC thinks a family from Walthamstow, one of whose members put up a Facebook page promoting Islamic terror groups, is being discriminated against.
As the Guardian said:
If you share such a link [on social media for instance], then it is a pretty reliable sign that something is awry. If you do it more than once, even more likely that you are a terrorist. Or a sympathiser.
The BBC has failed entirely and wilfully to do any real journalism on the story of the Walthamstow wanderers…instead the BBC peddles a one-sided tale of anti-Muslim discrimination and has also used it to attack its other enemy…Trump. Where are the BBC reports looking at US visa requirements and rules on entry, where are the visa figures that could illustrate ‘discrimination?…for instance they show 100% of San Marino category B applications have been refused ….are they Muslims?…no, RC. Turkey has 7.1% refused whilst Sweden has 15.4% refused….Canada has 48.7% refused! Inconveniently not the anti-Muslim narrative that the BBC wants to spin.
After assaulting our perceptions with a barrage of one-sided speculation and wishful thinking relentlessly over the course of one day the BBC suddenly went silent on the sad tale of a group of Muslims barred from the US….could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that a Facebook page was reported, linked to the family home, which made positive references to Al Qaeda and the Taliban and linked to an ISIS praising website...Islamic Thinkers?
Here’s an example of the ‘Islamic Thinkers’ thinking…
You can understand why the US was reluctant to admit this family days after the San Bernardino murders especially as the relative in the US the family were visiting attended the same mosque as one of the killers.
The BBC has finally worked out how it wants to handle this new information and as usual it seeks to downplay its significance and still prefers the narrative that the US is discrimnating against Muslims and it is all Trump’s fault. It is perhaps an irony that they use this headline...’UK Muslims ‘barred’ from US – what we know’. An irony because ‘what we know’ is precisely what the BBC doesn’t want you to know.
After a lot of background before we eventually get to the important information, the real reason they were stopped…
Why were they stopped?
According to ITV News, a Facebook page claiming links to radical Islamist groups was set up by someone living at Mohammad Tariq Mahmood’s postal address. But, the broadcaster said, it appeared to have been set up as a joke.
Mr Mahmood said no-one in his family had any connection to it: “That could be anything, maybe a mistake.”
He told reporters the ban could also have something to do with his brother Mohammed Zahid Mahmood once being denied entry to Israel.
Note the BBC goes to ITV rather than CBS which actually broke the story…is it because ITV suggested it looked like a joke thus dismissing it as such whilst CBS didn’t? Why would the BBC prefer that narrative?
The BBC also quotes this little chap:
Imam Ajmal Masroor said he received similar treatment when trying to travel to the US on 17 December, and was only told his business visa had been revoked. He said he had never had any problem travelling on that visa before, and feared the US was targeting Muslims.
“This is absolutely discrimination. It is not acceptable and playing into the hands of the terrorists,” Masroor said.
Now we’ve already had a look at this story and shown that Masroor is a nasty piece of work to coin a phrase…why is the BBC quoting him when it is clear he is a Muslim activist especially when he has threatened both politicians and journalists who don’t toe the Islamist line?
The BBC wants us to think that the Facebook page was a joke and therefore not to be taken as a serious indication of any Islamist intent…but it obviously wasn’t a satire intended to rubbish and mock Islamic terrorists, it was intended to promote them, to show that the page-maker was in sympathy with them…it showed his ‘Islamic State of Mind’….and if it was a joke why hide your real name? He hid his real name because it wasn’t a joke and he knew there could be consequences…such as a missed trip to Disney.
We also hear this…’He told reporters the ban could also have something to do with his brother Mohammed Zahid Mahmood once being denied entry to Israel.’ What we’re not told is that he went to Israel with a group of other Muslim ‘lads’ and was held for 8 days before being kicked out. Not as if British Muslims haven’t got a record of striking at Israel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnD2k533hIY
As for the US banning Muslims…it is letting in 10,000 Syrians…and ‘An examination of State Department records by American Enterprise Institute researcher Justin Lang found that since 2001, the State Department had denied visas to just 2,231 individuals because the applicant was suspected of terrorist ties or activity.’
In 15 years or so the US has only denied entry to 2,231 individuals due to suspicions of terrorist ties or activity and the BBC pushes the narrative that ‘there is a pattern forming’ and that there is a ‘”growing problem” of British Muslims being barred without explanation.’
Why does the US bar people?….(3) Security and related grounds. -….This being the probable relevant section in relation to the Facebook page…
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
Or maybe this…
(F) ASSOCIATION WITH TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.
You may be interested to know that it is not Muslims who are banned but Communist Party members or anyone in a totalitarian organisation…
(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party.-
(i) In general.-Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.
What ever the exact ruling was it is hardly surprising just days after the San Bernardino killings that there was a heightened alert and care taken…after all AQAP has just declared America to be their main enemy…...AQAP leader says America is the ‘primary enemy’
The BBC refuses to accept that and instead insists this is ‘racism’ against Muslims.
It’s not as if postings on social media are unknown hunting grounds for intelligence services…and the BBC itself tracks them for news stories….and that there are legal consequences for posting anything that could be construed as relating to the promotion of terrorism.
Here’s the Mail listing the words you can’t say without the NSA come sniffing your PC…
The Department of Homeland Security has been forced to release a list of keywords and phrases it uses to monitor social networking sites and online media for signs of terrorist or other threats against the U.S.
The intriguing the list includes obvious choices such as ‘attack’, ‘Al Qaeda’, ‘terrorism’ and ‘dirty bomb’ alongside dozens of seemingly innocent words like ‘pork’, ‘cloud’, ‘team’ and ‘Mexico’.
And here’s the Guardian last year revealing a similar theme…..
‘You’re the bomb!’ Are you at risk from the anti-terrorism algorithms?
Does the stuff you post on the internet make you look like a terrorist? Is the rhythm of your typing sending the wrong signals? The government wants sites such as Google and Facebook to scan their users more closely. But if everything we do online is monitored by machines, how well does the system work?
Share the wrong link
It’s pretty hard for machines right now to know exactly what we mean when we talk, so it is much easier for them to look for some kind of absolutely reliable flag that content is suspect. One easy solution is to use databases of websites known to be connected to extremists, or child abuse imagery, or similar. If you share such a link, then it is a pretty reliable sign that something is awry. If you do it more than once, even more likely that you are a terrorist. Or a sympathiser.