…
Following on from the posts by Natalie and Laban, I was interested to listen to the item concerning on Today this morning concerning the British doctor Humayra Abedin, who has been freed from family captivity and the prospect of a forced marriage by a court in Dhaka. There seems to be a missing word and it begins with M…..?
Hats off to the BBC. It manages to run this item today on the subject of new laws aimed at outlawing forced marriages without ever once mentioning Islam. Well done BBC – consummate skill. Forced marriages, along with “honour murder” is just part of the rich cultural heritage that Islam has been bringing into the UK but you would be hard-pressed to figure that from the BBC’s coverage.
I have to say that I was impressed to read that an Islamist Jihadist shows at least a little more integrity than the BBC insofar as alleged Glasgow Airport car-bomber Bilal Abdulla has at least admitted that he is a terrorist. (Mind you, he is a terrorist who claims, laughably, that he did not want to kill or injure anyone, so kinda missing the point of terrorism) You won’t find the BBC using the T-word unless through the most gritted teeth or else when describing the actions of the US or UK military.
I am sure you will have read about the brutal murder of Christian charity worker Gayle Williams by the Taliban near Kabul in Afghanistan. Her killers, those intrepid followers of the religion of peace, plainly state that they shot this defenceless lady because she was a Christian and that she was trying to convert people. The BBC was quick to declare that this was most likely NOT the case and that this was simply an “opportunistic” shooting. They managed to interview one of the bosses of the Christian charity concerned “Serving Afghanistan” who declared that Gayle Williams was not killed for her faith since, as he put it, they are not there to spread Christianity, merely to give aid to Afghanistanis.
OK, so where is the bias? Well, it lies in the fact that Islamists kill a Christian worker stating that her faith was reason enough for her to die and yet the BBC moves to instantly counter this with the idea floated by the charity spokesman that there was no such malice intended. Patently some of the NGO’s working in this region are hugely naive – to be kind about it– however surely the BBC could have provided space to someone who thinks this was the act of murderous Islamic scum. Or does no such person exist?
Been away all day so just catching up! Was interested to read that the BBC’s Kommissar General Mark Thompson has admitted that the broadcaster has to tackle Islam differently to Christianity and is reluctant to broadcast jokes about it. In other words, the BBC is dhimmified, prepared to set a different standard for Islam and back away from any critique of the ROP. Not really a surprise, and we have frequently discussed how this policy manifests itself day in day out. But perhaps the more salient point is that given Thompson’s admission of bias in favour of Islam, how can the BBC continue to allege it is impartial?
I was listening to an item on the Today programme just before 7am concerning Iraq and was struck by the comment from the BBC report who said that he was stunned when John McCain claimed last week that the US was “winning” in Iraq. Further, he added that this was “an irresponsible” comment. He went on to state that although the Surge had worked, a lot of success was down to “the awakening” (Former Ba’athists who had fought against the US now working for them) and the acquiescence of the Mehdi army. Naturally, no criticisms of Obama who opposed the surge, no praise of the US military who have prosecuted it. The BBC relentlessly propagates the idea that Iraq is another Viet Nam, that we have no business there, and that victory is not an option. Now I accept that some out there may think these thing (I don’t of course) but the BBC role is to provide balanced opinion and on this issue it spectacularly fails time and time again. The only drumbeat is that encouraging cut and run and so when John McCain and others press for victory, the little defeatists in the BBC attack them.
It’s one of the things that most enrages me. Each day, brave British soldiers risk life and limb fighting the Islamic hordes of the Taliban and Al Queda. Many British households have an empty chair this morning – loved ones having fallen at the hands of these depraved Islamic killers overseas. Similarly, many British households also mourn the loss of loved ones following the Al Queda homicide attacks in London on 7/7. There is much pain out there, much hurt. And yet our military fights on and when you hear from those doing the fighting in the field, there is so much to be proud about. The BBC sees it differently. You see in their self-loathing world, the war on terror is having no effect whatsoever. Indeed they have commissioned a poll to prove this contention. Indeed, 30% of those the BBC had interviewed reckon Al Queda is stronger because we fight back against them. So the sacrifices being made are in vain – goes the beat of the defeatist subtext.
Let me declare my bias. I am
So, two men of Somali origin are arrested by police in Germany on a plane preparing to take off from Cologne-Bonn airport. They were said to be “possibly planning attacks” and had left suicide notes at their flats expressing their wish to die in a “holy war.” Mmmm, something missing though, isn’t there? Is it possible, do you think, that these two guys were followers of the Religion of peace and love? Might it just be conceivable they are Muslims? If we follow the BBC, we will never know!
It’s just bias that makes the BBC dangerous, it is the fact that the BBC quite happily promulgates ideas that undermine the very fundamentals of our British society, such as the law. Take this remarkable item, picked by B-BBC reader Miv Tucker on another thread, that British common law may owe much to Sharia law! Or at least that is what BBC reporter Mukul Devichand contemplates but then again he may be a tad biased? Those who press for the acceptance of Sharia in the UK can use this sort of programme to advance their cause and yet given the barbarity of Sharia, given the essential undemocratic nature of Sharia – isn’t it revolting to see the State Broadcaster use our cash to churn out this pro-Islamic drivel?
So, the Arab League have a plan, according to the BBC. According to the BBC it’s to “defuse the crisis between Sudan and the International Criminal Court (ICC)*” over its decision to indict President Omar al-Bashir.
And what does “defuse” mean: in fact, we learn, it means firstly a statement of outright opposition to the ICC decision and secondly a resolution through the UN with Russian and Chinese support suspending the ICC warrant for Sudan’s leader for 12 months. So contrary to the BBC headline that the Arab League agrees Sudan action- actually the Arab league agrees to oppose ICC/UN action. If I were PR agent for the Arab League I must say I’d be delighted that the BBC ran my press release without even editing.
Of course I would check whether the press release was the same as the BBC’s report, but the Arab League’s English site is under construction. Just can’t find enough English speakers in the world today, can you?
*would just like to add I don’t approve of organisations like the ICC, personally, but that’s not the question here.
