Morning all! Hope this finds you well. I’m back after a break so let’s kick off with an Open Thread before we dive into a few issues.

Came across this…

Muslim Council of Britain Condemns Sectarian Vandalism of Bradford Mosque

What could they mean by ‘sectarian violence’?  Had to investigate further as the BBC seems to have missed that particular story of Islamophobia.

Turns out it was a Shia mosque…Shias, and Ahmadis, not being considered Muslims by Sunnis…ie the majority of UK Muslims.

Hence of course what the BBC tells us is the large number of ‘Muslims’ killed by ISIS, which of course doesn’t consider them Muslim…and this recent event which seems to be mostly ignored by the BBC on the news at present in favour of events in Tunisia….

Kuwait Shia mosque blast death toll ‘rises to 27’

Muslim ‘Islamophobia’….going to get confusing…best ignore it eh BBC?

 It might seem a world away from the fighting in Syria, but a new mosque near the Buckinghamshire town reflects the rise in Britain of tensions between the two factions of Islam.

With its busy pub, carefully tended floral borders and farm shop selling eggs and hay, Fulmer is an unlikely epicentre for concerns that Britain’s Shia and Sunni Muslim populations are increasingly plagued by sectarian strife.

Like the waves of mass immigrants surging onto the beaches of Europe that seem so unstoppable the BBC’s bias washes over us also seemingly unstoppable……let’s hear what you’ve seen….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAJs8fdOUX4

The BBC is at present very eager to get the stories of those caught up in the terrorist attacks in Tunisia, Kuwait and France and to sympathise with the victims but we’ve already heard numerous declarations that Islam is the religion of peace, a French liberal politician attacking the Front National, so how long before a BBC ‘Tim Wilcox’ is pointing the finger of blame….not at the terrorists but suggesting that ‘many critics of British policy would suggest that many Muslims suffer hugely at British hands as well…you understand that everything is seen at different perspectives…’?

We keep being told by the likes of Warsi and Labour MP Yasmin Qureshi, both with close links to islamist organisations, that we must ‘engage’ with the Muslim community to defeat radicalism…what they of course mean is that we implement the radical’s demands for the imposition of Islamic culture and values in the UK….more Islam is the answer to extremist’s calls …for more Islam! Whilst calling for that engagement they at the same time feign shocked outrage at Camerons’s call fro Muslims to engage in the battle against the extremsists with suggestions that some Muslims should take responsibility and stop quietly condoning what is happening……so not that keen on engagement then.

But just how legitimate are their claims that the Muslim ‘communtiy’ has no responsibility?  Is it not that same Muslim community, and it is practically every Muslim that gets a chance to vent his views, that insists day in, day out, that British foreign policy is to blame for radicalising Muslims?

A narrative about our foreign policy, that it is anti-Islam, that is demonstrably false and yet one also supported, indeed some might say kick-started, by the BBC’s opposition to the Iraq war….Muslims pass the blame…

“We would like to state we are working to counter the extremist views within our community but the government must acknowledge that the actions it supports in foreign countries is the main fuel these violent extremist use to drive their campaign.”

Time to stop excusing the terrorists and to stop feeding Muslims the dangerous and false narrative about Western foreign policy….and yet only yesterday we had a BBC journalist ’empathising’ with the anger generated by that false narrative that a Jihadi claimed as justifcation for his murderous stance….

Me and Abu Taubah

Taubah had “signed a contract in blood” to help the Syrian people. It was their plight and that of other suffering Muslims, he said, which motivated him to join the group.

“Look at China – men aren’t allowed to grow beards and Muslims aren’t allowed to fast. Look at France – women can’t wear niqab. Look at the USA and UK – you can’t even talk about jihad.” While I privately dismissed the links to propaganda he began to send me, which simplistically divided the world into good and evil, I could certainly empathise with grievances about Muslims having their freedoms curbed. I could agree too, that many innocent Muslims were paying the price in conflicts abroad. But why had Taubah (Arabic for “repentance”) chosen the path of jihad as a response to injustice?

Deeyah Khan, a film director who produced this for ITV recently, Jihad – A British Story, tells us that…

We need to be open and honest about the driving factors of radicalisation from the violent foreign policies, the impact of the war on terror, family and psychological problems, discrimination and ideologies of hatred. This way we can try to avoid the tragic loss of more of our children; who believe themselves to be opening a new morning for humanity while stumbling in the night, over the bones of the dead.

Curiously for someone with that attitude she has been the victim herself of Islamic intolerance…and liberal indifference to it….

She was forced to hire bodyguards. She was spat at in the street and warned that she would be cut into pieces. Deeyah could not take it. She and her liberal parents were living in fear. She announced that she was giving up on her dream of being a star, and fleeing the horrors of Europe in 2007 to find sanctuary in America.

No one came to Deeyah’s defence.  Not liberal-left or compassionate conservative politicians. Not the BBC or liberal press. Not Amnesty International or the “concerned” artists who take up so many leftish causes. No one cared. To defend an Asian woman from unprovoked attacks by Asian men was to their warped minds a racist or Islamophobic act. Unprotected and unnoticed, Deeyah slunk off to live in an anonymous suburb of Atlanta, and begin the long task of pulling herself together.

You have to ask what was it that drove her enemies to attack her?  Was it Western foreign policy?

She has just tweeted this a couple of hours ago…

Deeyah Khan ‏@Deeyah_Khan 4 hrs4 hours ago

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. –1Martin Luther King, Jr.

Only last week the BBC on Newsnight had a member of MPACUK on...not to challenge his views, MPACUK being extremist, but to ask his views on extremism!…the BBC claimed MPACUK was a peaceful organisation…so let’s have a look at what they urge their readers to do…or rather did urge…as the message has been removed…for obvious reasons…it’s a bit too clear what its intent is……

The Obligation of Jihad

“Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) hath Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,” Quran Chapter 4: The Women, verse 95.

A high rank, forgiveness and mercy are gifted from our beloved for those who are the Mujahideen. Those that struggle and strive to protect the religion, that protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), that protect our brothers and sisters in Islam and humanity are gifted with these amazing favours!

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah, (peace be upon him) say, ‘Whoever of you sees something wrong should change it with his hand; if he cannot, then with his tongue; if he cannot, then with his heart, and that is the weakest form of belief.“

Those who do not observe Jihad are indeed committing a grave sin because there is much harm that emanates into society when it is abandoned. Those that neglect Jihad will be disobeying something God has commanded us all to partake in; they have not aided in protecting the Religion of God, they have not defended the Book of God, its messages and His law, they have not helped the Ummah against the enemy who wants to destroy them.

“He who dies without having fought in the way of Allah or without having felt it to be his duty, will die having a trait of hypocrisy”

Let’s be clear…those Jihadis who go out to ‘defend’ Muslims and Muslim lands are killing more Muslims than any Western foreign policy, and doing it deliberately as well as causing massive amounts of misery and destruction around the world….that you might say is the Muslim communities’ ‘foreign policy’ as they, in Cameron’s words, ‘quietly condone’ what is going on by continually agreeing with the narrative of the terrorists whilst, not surprisingly, saying they abhor the violent methods used to express that anger.

Can a Pakistani heritage Msulim living in Bradford tell me why he thinks he can go to Iraq and start killing Iraqis just because he is a Muslim?  He’s not Iraqi, the Iraqis don’t want him there.  He’s invading Iraq and murdering Iraqis.

Not sure how that is somehow ‘ethical’ whilst an invasion to depose and free those whom a brutal dictator brutally oppressed, who suppressed religion and massacred his people, is unethical…..a dictator that Osama Bin Laden wanted to rout as well.

As for that other BBC narrative, that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS and radicalisation try asking Tom Holland, an historian with a deep knowledge of Islamic history…

Tom Holland: We must not deny the religious roots of Islamic State

Salafism today is probably the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world. The interpretation that Isis applies to Muslim scripture may be exceptional for its savagery – but not for its literalism. Islamic State, in its conceit that it has trampled down the weeds and briars of tradition and penetrated to the truth of God’s dictates, is recognisably Salafist. When Islamic State fighters smash the statues of pagan gods, they are following the example of the Prophet; when they proclaim themselves the shock troops of a would-be global empire, they are following the example of the warriors of the original caliphate; when they execute enemy combatants, and impose discriminatory taxes on Christians, and take the women of defeated opponents as slaves, they are doing nothing that the first Muslims did not glory in.

Such behaviour is certainly not synonymous with Islam; but if not Islamic, then it is hard to know what else it is.

Until the truth about what is really going on and the reasons for it are openly discussed you will never solve this situation.

The reality is we need to erase ISIS from the face of the earth and quickly….they will never be open to ‘moderation’ by a friendly little chat with Western diplomats…such a notion is incredibly stupid and naive.

They are a terrorist State and are quite prepared, as we see, to spread the terror, and their influence, with very easy, very effective and very deadly attacks that cost little but have far reaching implications for those on the receiving end….deadly in terms of human life but also in economic terms.

I have no doubt the BBC will be giving Warsi, Qureshi and others like them free reign to tells us how shocked they are ‘but…….’

Time to stop pandering to them and start challenging their dangerous rhetoric.

Ed Stourton is pretty religious, a Catholic, often suspected of having a Catholic agenda in the programmes he presents….Ed Stourton reveals his liberal Catholic bias again as he puts the boot into the Ordinariate

Stourton has come out with this:

David Cameron’s attack on Islamic extremism at this month’s Slovakia security conference included the charge that groups such as Islamic State believe “religious doctrine trumps the rule of law”.

The phrase is revealing in a way the prime minister probably did not intend: it underlines how far the role of religion has been eroded in British life.

For most of our history, most people in this country would have taken it for granted that God’s laws should trump those made by man – indeed they would have assumed that “religious doctrine” provided the proper basis for “the rule of law”.

Take Magna Carta, which we have heard so much about recently.

This cornerstone of law and liberty was explicitly laid on religious foundations.

The idea of an inherent conflict between law and religion is a very modern one.

But then Mr Cameron leads a country where religious faith, in particular as expressed through the established Church, is in precipitous decline.

The Magna Carta was created eight hundred years ago and was not created by the Church but forced upon a reluctant King by the Barons, the Aristocracy, in the interests of a fairer society ….giving people far more rights than the Church ever would have.

It is curious that a BBC man should be trying to justify Islamic beliefs and the creation of the Caliphate by comparison to Christianity when the BBC normally tries to deny any link between Islamic radicalism, fiundamentalism really, and Islam.

He might also have mentioned that all this denounced by Cameron..‘The cause is ideological. It is an Islamist extremist ideology one that says the West is bad and democracy is wrong that women are inferior, that homosexuality is evil.’ is also from the Koran.

But…if you’d read this from Stourton last year you might understand why he admits that there is a religious basis to ISIS……

BBC’s Edward Stourton: British media suffers from religious ‘blind spot’ leading to ‘skewed’ coverage

BBC journalist Edward Stourton has said Britain’s lack of appreciation for the importance of religion across the world damages its news coverage.

Stourton, presenter on Radio 4’s religious programme Sunday, believes British journalists have a “blind spot” when it comes to religion, meaning coverage can be “skewed”.

He highlighted coverage of the Ukraine crisis, the Middle East and Boko Haram in Nigeria as examples of stories which would be covered better with more understanding of religion.

“I do think that there is a problem with British culture… in the way that we treat religion as a sort of curious ‘ghetto’-like thing,” he told Press Gazette.

“And I don’t say that from the point of view of arguing that religion is a good thing – because very often it’s not.

“But it does damage our understanding and our ability to perceive stories accurately.”

He suggested that British news organisations have not considered the importance of the growth of churches in Russia and what Russian nationalism means in coverage of Ukraine. And on Middle East stories, he said “we continually misread the story because we don’t think what a powerful force religion is”.

He goes on…

“But it’s been perhaps made more apparent than ever by events since 9/11, because a whole area of quite complex religion has become very essential to the understanding of mainstream news.”

So understanding Islam is essential to understanding what is going on in the world.

Who’d have thought.

And just a curious coincidence…as Stourton pushes ‘Religion über alles’….so does Giles Fraser on Thought for the Day…….telling us that Christians should run their own ‘Caliphate’ and ignore the democratic, political, national, patriotic government….instead adopt the ‘revolutionary spirit’….and ignore the established Church….it’s not the job of Christians to be patriotic, their identification is with a god that supercedes all national boundaries.

Giles worships the Prince of Peace not the Duke of Wellington apparently.

Good old Giles, getting more like George Galloway every day.

Trust in me!!

The Government is reportedly set on removing the regulation of the BBC from the BBC Trust and handing it to Ofcom as the Telegraph reports:

For the first time in the broadcaster’s nearly century-long history, it will be governed by an external body, as part of the renegotiation of the BBC Charter.

The move is expected to be signalled in a Green Paper that will formally trigger Charter renewal negotiations within weeks.

If true it’s not before time….how can the BBC regulate itself?  Clearly it can’t judging by performance.

The other issue is the Charter…at present it requires the BBC to ‘sustain citizenship and civil society’ but fails to set out what that means, what is a ‘civil society’?, what do you have to do to be a good citizen?, which allows the BBC to interpret that obligation how it likes….in other words if it thinks mass immigration is good for Britain, and it does, it can broadcast pro-immigration propaganda, similarly for climate change or Europe or indeed any subject it likes.

Either that requirement needs to be removed from the charter or there needs to be a body that is from a far broader spectrum of society than is employed by the BBC which can give a much more balanced idea of what that Society actually thinks and wants and sets out guidelines for the BBC to ‘push’ as propaganda….propaganda that is at least more representative than what we get at present….obviously that is fraught with difficulties and would be almost impossible therefore the simplest and preferred method would just to remove the obligation from the BBC and let it simply be a broadcaster rather than an organisation that is sanctioned and legally obliged to engineer social change and which sets out to manipulate its audience with propaganda based upon its own left-leaning values in order to do that.

Whether it’s biased to the right or the left, and it’s the left, the BBC is biased……expose it here….

At least one media organisation checks those ‘explosive’ facts…….Channel 4’s ‘FactCheck’ :

It’s true that around 13 per cent of Americans are black, according to the latest estimates from the US Census Bureau.

And yes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Only 45 per cent of the offenders were white. Homicide is a broader category than “murder” but let’s not split hairs.

As we found yesterday, 93 per cent of black victims were killed by blacks and 84 per cent of white victims were killed by whites.

Alternative statistics from the FBI are more up to date but include many crimes where the killer’s race is not recorded. These numbers tell a similar story.

In 2013, the FBI has black criminals carrying out 38 per cent of murders, compared to 31.1 per cent for whites. The offender’s race was “unknown” in 29.1 per cent of cases.

The verdict

There is evidence in the official police-recorded figures that black Americans are more likely to commit certain types of crime than people of other races.

While it would be naïve to suggest that there is no racism in the US criminal justice system, victim reports don’t support the idea that this is because of mass discrimination.

Higher poverty rates among various urban black communities might explain the difference in crime rates, although the evidence is mixed.

Thanks to David Brims for linking to this video which illustrates how there is more to the Dylann Roof story than the BBC cares to mention, preferring instead to blame the ‘usual suspects’…..as it did for the Boston bombings when they blamed white supremacists….the videos show how Roof was influenced by Media lies about the Trayvon Martin case…why is the BBC concentrating on Rogers rather than the Media’s protrayal of the Trayvon Martin case?

Roof’s manifesto:

‘The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?’

Black Criminals, White Victims, and White Guilt

The media have relentlessly fanned the flames of racial hatred, while engaging in a systematic pattern of misinformation and blatant suppression of facts surrounding the perpetrators and victims of crime.

 The figures come quickly but are never subjected to the necessary scrutiny. Last fall, for example, the George Soros-funded ProPublica published a claim that black youths are killed by the police at a rate 21 times higher than white youths. Mass media parroted that claim, but the data are incomplete and biased. They represent just 1.2 percent of police departments nationwide, and most reports come from urban areas, where the population is disproportionately black.

More reliable data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) suggest that in 2012, 123 blacks were killed by police using firearms while 326 whites, including 227 non-Hispanic whites, were killed. These data, however are also not entirely reliable, but represent a larger data set than the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR).

CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill, a racial agitator fired by Fox News for defending cop-killers, spread another misleading statistic about police shootings, claiming that “Every 28 hours, an unarmed black person is killed by police.” This too was trumpeted in the media. It became a twitter hashtag, “#every28hours,” and another mantra like “hands up, don’t shoot.” But it is demonstrably false. There were 313 blacks killed by police, security guards and other “vigilantes” in 2012. Dividing 313 into the number of hours in a year (8,760) yields 28. However, 177 of these “unarmed black persons” were actually armed with firearms. That leaves 136. Others may have been technically “unarmed” but were threatening the officer’s life, for example with their car—or as in Michael Brown’s case, attempting to take the officer’s gun. Many more were not the result of shootings, but accidents, e.g., during vehicular chases. Finally, some of the shooters were not police. When the hyperbole is removed, the facts present a much more reasonable explanation. Barring a small number of tragic mishaps, police shootings are usually justified.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MOgYL3lVR0

A man writes in a blog asking why the media ignores the race of those who kill white people but always mention the race of the killer if the killer is white and the victim black.

The BBC thinks this man and his questions about the Media’s ‘disparity of response’ may be responsible for the killings in Charleston…..

Disturbing message

Was Charleston shooting suspect inspired by this man?

Now the BBC is more than happy to give a lot of airtime to Muslims, Tell MAMA for example, or Black people, Lenny Henry springs to mind, who make similar claims about discrimination….are they ‘disturbing messages’…in that they may incite murder?  Mehdi Hasan has demanded that the Media be punished for publishing stories that report Muslims acting badly…he complains often and loudly about the Media protrayal of Muslims.

Would Hasan or Tell MAMA be held responsible if a Muslim, enraged by the discrimination revealed by them, entered a Church and started killing non-Muslims ?  By the logic of the BBC story they would be.  In fact using that logic the BBC can be held responsible for the deaths in Charleston because it is left leaning media organisations like the BBC that Rogers is complaining about….their refusal to report the facts about murders of white people by Blacks whilst highlighting Blacks murdered by Whites is what Rogers complains of…therefore it is the left wing media’s political correctness that has resulted in Rogers’ complaint which was referenced by Dylann Roof and subsequently linked to by the likes of the BBC as the cause of the shooting.

The BBC and its ilk are therefore, by its logic, responsible for the murders in Charleston.

The BBC’s own reporting of those murders in Charleston demonstrates Rogers’ point….the BBC immediately, absolutely immediately, started emphasising that Roof was white.  In contrast we know that the BBC frequently censors out the religion of Muslim terrorists or criminals in just about every case from their reports, anyone needing to know the relevant facts that might give a clue as to motivation for the terrorism would have to assume it from the names of those arrested.  Roof’s colour was relevant to the story but so is the fact that a terrorist is ‘Muslim’….it gives context and motivation to the actions and informs the audience.

And of course the BBC was itself ‘noting’ the ‘disparity of response’ by the Media towards crimes like Charleston….the BBC is also happy to link to a narrative that declares the murders a terrorist act….now it was but compare that with the BBC’s response to Muslim terrorism, especially against the Jews….the use of the word ‘terrorism’ is suddenly problematic….and of course the Jews killed by the Charlie Hebdo killers apparently, in the BBC’s eyes, deserved it because of Israeli military action to prevent Israel being attacked by the Palestinian terrorists in Gaza.

As for that ‘disparity of response’….how did Obama, and the Media respond to a Muslim terrorist slaughtering US service personnel at Fort Hood….

“Well, look, we — we have seen, in the past, rampages of this sort. And in a country of 300 million people, there are going to be acts of violence that are inexplicable. Even within the extraordinary military that we have — and I think everybody understands how outstanding the young men and women in uniform are under the most severe stress — there are going to be instances in which an individual cracks. I think the questions that we’re asking now and we don’t have yet complete answers to is, is this an individual who’s acting in this way or is it some larger set of actors? You know, what are the motivations? Those are all questions that I think we have to ask ourselves”

And of course the BBC’s own Mark Mardell tried to say Fort Hood was a ‘senseless tragedy’ with no link to Islamic terrorism.

And how about the ‘white’ George Zimmerman?  He’s more Hispanic than white.  If he’s white then so is Obama who has a white mother….the BBC of course classifies Obama as Black and yet are keen to point out that ‘ Mr Zimmerman’s background is white and Hispanic. ‘

What did Obama say about that case?   “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”

Remarkable double standards from the BBC castigating ‘right wing press’ bias when its own record is abysmal as indeed noted by one of its ex head of news, Roger Mosey, as reported by Sue at ‘Is the BBC biased? [Yes it is] …

• Ex-BBC executive says broadcaster has ‘dysfunctional’ government
• Roger Mosey accuse BBC of ignoring white communities’ grievances
• Mosey say the BBC has succumbed to a ‘liberal group-think’ attitude

Here the BBC tells us how this innocent research ‘radicalised’ Dylann Roof……

Over the weekend, a website registered in Roof’s name came to light. It featured several photos of him along with a written manifesto. Authorities are still determining the authenticity of the site.

The manifesto specifically cited the discovery of research the Council of Conservative Citizens had done on “black-on-white crime”.

“I have never been the same since,” the manifesto author wrote.

Kyle Rogers is head of a website for the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), an organisation that says its members oppose “all effort to mix the races of mankind”.

Mr Rogers, 38, is a computer engineer from Ohio who’s been writing about race for more than a decade.

He says he started writing about race for one reason: “I didn’t like how the media would hype certain things.”

He’s careful in the words he chooses, and makes sure none of the language he uses is inflammatory. Instead he downplays the divisive – and destructive – messages his writings convey about race.

“There’s just issues that need to be addressed,” he says.

By his account he’s simply trying to help the public understand that white people also suffer from racially motivated crimes, and that the media coverage of these issues has been unfairly slanted. He says, for example, reporters often don’t tell readers the colour of a perpetrator’s skin, a detail he sees as important.

I love that last paragraph…‘by his account’ and ‘a detail he sees as important’…..a detail the BBC sees as crucial when in relation to Black people or Muslims…..but a white boy from the US South isn’t allowed to point it out.

The BBC ends with this…

Ms Page, who lives with her parents in Summerville, says Mr Rogers has been “dragged through the mud” because of the manifesto and its reference to his work.

She and Mr Rogers both seem stunned by the attention and are struggling to make sense of the role his work has played in the shootings.

She says: “Everyone just wants to turn the blame on somebody else.”

Herman Bradley, a retired postal worker, points to motion-detector lights over Mr Rogers’ garage, recently installed for security.

“He may not even have a firearm,” says Mr Bradley. “If he’s going to get one, he ought to get a shotgun.”

Interesting that…the BBC knows reporting this story linking Rogers to the murders might end up with him being lynched and yet it makes a determined attempt to link him to those murders.

Good old Aunty.

The BBC makes the ‘significant’ point that Rogers sells Rhodesian flags…indicating he is therefore racist…in which case Amazon must be also.

The BBC has no such problems with this flag which he also sells

No doubt the BBC has no such qualms about this flag…..

Rogers undoubtedly belongs to an organisation that is racist but the BBC’s attack on him is not based on that, it is based upon his challenge to Media organisations, like the BBC, to report impartially about Black crime.  This is the BBC defending itself as much as it enjoys attacking white people.