The BBC made a lot of noise about this when two Muslims killed a Catholic priest in France:
‘Muslims across France have attended Catholic mass in a gesture of solidarity’
Trouble is, as Douglas Murray points out in the Spectator, most of those ‘Muslims’ were Ahmadis….‘stories of the Muslims of Europe attending church in their dozens as a gesture of solidarity was clearly an Ahmadiyya initiative.’
So the truth is they weren’t ‘Muslim’ at all. How do we know that? Because the most representative Muslim group, the Muslim Council of Britain, says so…as of course do most mainstream Muslim authorities...’It is clearly misleading to describe them [Ahmadis] as Muslim, they are not.’……
While Russia Today carries live coverage of Fr Hamel’s Requiem Mass, the BBC website contents itself with a report from Reuters, much of which is given over to absolving Islam from any responsibility for this atrocity.
Obama was probably at the golf course.
Obama is not angry or moved when Christians are being crucified, burnt or beheaded in the Muslim world. Oh no. He finds excuses for that. He is too busy playing golf as well. However let anyone suggest that there should be a some thought given to Muslim immigration to America, and watch Obama throw a fit.
So, is he a Muslim? If so, does he uphold the constitution. If one considers his executive orders – not .
DickMart
If our resident troll saw this, he will tell you that you and RT have no credibility.
Thanks though for your post.
The Muslim council of Britain states they weren’t Muslims in the church, does the mcb have any criticism of recent atrocities I’m sure the bbc is hoping for a response.
Given that the Head of Religion at the BBC is a muslim, this error is unforgiveable. Or is it an error or just yet another BBC lie ?
“They ain’t no Muslims, bruv!”
Strange choice of words today on BBC 5pm news. It mentioned that Friar Hamel s funeral was held today after he was murdered by two men. (cant remember whether they were identified as muslim or no)t. But what struck me was that it mentioned that the crime took place in the middle of a service where the priest was “set upon”
To me if someone is ” set upon ” it suggests a physical beating not having your throat slit open – messy business.. Am I just being picky or does this choice of words appear to anyone else as if Aunty trying to sanitise the murder a little? Maybe suggesting a more mainstream/everyday beating a bit like two drunks having a fight rather than having your windpipe and main arteries severed, by a knife slicing into your neck and watching two men laughing as your life drains away.
Did they in complement go for a description of the daring nature of the audacious “setting upon” of a surprise premeditated murderous assault on an old man of peace by two young men?
Guest’
The first draft that the Head of Islamic Jihad at the BBC put before the editors went..
“Brave Islamic warriors carried out Allahs merciful will on Dhimmi kafir ‘priest’. 2 magnificent shahid have slaughtered this infidel in his place of ‘worship’. Glory to Allah!! Subhanallah!!
Allahu Akbar!!! Death to the infidels!!!”
……
The editors of course were not happy at all with the content! They were livid at the disrespectful tone of the message and the disgraceful use of words….
Once the blasphemous word ‘priest’ was replaced by ‘satanic leader’ the Caliph of Al Beebistan gave his blessing
But haven’t we been told (off) by the BBC that oftentimes the size of words used is critical?
So, let’s see:
Attacked and murdered – 19 letters
Murdered – 8 letters
Attacked – 8 letters
set upon – 7 letters
Aha! See! It’s the economy (of letters), stupid!
/sarc