THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY

“Today”  had a few golden quotes I thought I might share with you.

Abu Bowen was on to discuss the Egyptian situation and proclaimed with what I assume was a straight face that the Muslim Brotherhood was “moderate” and “religious but not extreme”. (8.10am interview). My my, I had no idea that Islamic supremacists were so meek and mild but I guess Bowen knows best.

Then Harold Evans, that BBC mainstay, was brought on to comment on the implications for Murdoch of the phone tapping scandal. Dame Harold calmly announced that “Glenn Beck is a lunatic” (8.43am interview)

 To think that we have to fund this trash, as leftists talk back to themselves

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY

  1. Andrew says:

    Whenever I see Bowen on and especially with the Egypt story I’m reminded of Stephen King’s book – Needful Things.  The book is set in a small town in the US which it turns out has a lot of petty jealousies just being held under the surface.  Eventually a stranger arrives and opens a shop in which he strikes deal after deal with customers to do him a small favour.  They are seemingly innocuous.  The final deal however sets off an explosive chain of events in the town which leads to mayhem and nurder which all the previous deals play a key part in.  The man is in all liklihood the Devil.

    The reason I think of this when I see the BBC in the middle east is I think the game they’re playing is very very dangerous, especially when it comes to their ‘viewpoin’ on events and their ommissions.  Althought they appear to treat it like an after dinner conversation, the effect is much more profound.  What is going on in the middle east right now is very serious especially in the context of Lebanon and the whole peace process with Israel.

    As the prime deliver of news in the UK and whom we now have further evidence of their linkage with the guardian, their approach is likely to motivate people to take action.  There is a larger Gaza flottilla in the offing – how many more people will now fancy a dust up with the Israeli’s on the back of the reporting of the previous one?  How many more people will donate funds to seemingly moderate charities that in reality have links to terrorist or extremist organisations based on their current meme?

    Truly dangerous times and the Beeb need (but won’t) put together a sobre assessment of the situation.

       0 likes

    • Graeme Thompson says:

      I’m listening to Naughtie interview the British Ambassador at the moment, and he’s reinforcing the news that the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t behind the unrest.

      However, what they should be doing is learning from history and how unrest in Iran got hijacked by Islamists into what we see today.  They should be asking the question ‘What are the chances of the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the protests and emerging as the next Government?’ .. ‘If that happens how would that effect the West and Israel?’.

      The BBC aren’t asking questions from the perspective of the interests of western democracy, as they should be doing, they’re reflecting the aspirations of the Marxist cuckoo in the BBC nest.

         0 likes

  2. Umbongo says:

    DV

    What are you concerned about?  Today finshed up with a discussion between “Professor Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University, whose father founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; and Algerian journalist Nabila Ramdani”.  Presumably you weren’t reassured by them concluding that the Moslem Brotherhood are actually all Gladstonian Liberals who make Ian Duncan Smith look like Oswald Mosley.

    OK – slight exaggeration – but that was the gist of the propaganda this morning.  Again you could “hear” the smiles in the BBC journalist’s voices as they regaled us with news of the riots in Cairo.  Not that I’ve got any time for Mubarak but why not just tell us the simple truth?  That if and when Mubarak goes his replacements aren’t going to be “democrats” as we know them (despite putative front man El Baradei), Egypt is not going to rival the US as a functioning democracy and that the new regime will lean more to Hamas than to the national liberalism of the pre-WW2 Wafd.

       0 likes

    • Graeme Thompson says:

      Why would the BBC wish to spoil the chances of an enemy of Israel and the West forming the next Egyptian Government? .. Just imagine though, one good by-product is that they’d lift the embargo on Gaza and they’d be no more excuses for ‘peace flotillas’.    
         
      On a serious note, an Islamist Government in Egypt will without doubt mean a war of annihalation against Israel and one that Israel would stand every chance of losing.    
         
      Yes, I think I mentioned why the BBC wouldn’t want to undermine the chances of an Islamist Govt in Cairo.    
         
      Hippiepooter (‘myopenid’ aint working!)

         0 likes

      • deegee says:

        On a serious note, an Islamist Government in Egypt will without doubt mean a war of annihalation against Israel and one that Israel would stand every chance of losing.

        Why would Israel be more at risk now than in 1967 when they won in 6 Days or in 1973 when they won despite being taken by surprise?

           0 likes

        • Demon1001 says:

          The enemy of Israel is a lot more powerful and more organised than before. 

          As soon as Israel starts to defend itself it will be accused in the MSM of the West of murder, genocide, racism, baby killing, flatulence etc. – anything that their evil minds can think of to tar Israel with.  This means that Israel will receive less support than before.

          There are now, apparently, thousands of dhimmi Jews in Israel who also attack their government for perceived injustices.  This will also weaken Israel’s resolve to fight.  Those Israelis that fight will be just as determined as ever (more so as it will be the final life and death struggle) but the Fifth Columnists in the country will hamper the defence effort.

          Western Europe will be next.

             0 likes

          • Grant says:

            The question is whether the US will support Israel and I fear that under the wretched Obama they won’t.
            I still wouldn’t bet against the Israelis. They would be fighting for their lives and their country. I doubt if the Arab military would be similarly motivated depite all the rhetoric.

               0 likes

            • Demon1001 says:

              We can but hope you’re right.  However, the fanaticism of the modern muslim (medieval I should say) where they are so brainwashed into wanting to die for Allah will be devastating.

              It reminds me of the Kamikaze pilots of WW2.  They were a real problem for the US Navy as their fanaticism made it difficult to stop them going through.  The only saving graces were the fact that there were, relatively, not that many of them, and also the USS Navy Pacific fleet was vast.  Unfortunately Israel is tiny, hence the way it has fought so hard up till now – but in a battle situation where suicide bombers are 10 a penny it could be devastating. 

              That’s why the BBC are so keen on getting the Islamists in power in Cairo – there’s a good chance that Israel could get wiped off the face of the map and all Israeli Jews and Christians killed.

                 0 likes

            • deegee says:

              No one knows what Obama will do if a war breaks out but Israel has support in Congress, Senate and both major political parties. Obama may not be able to do too much damage.

                 0 likes

          • deegee says:

            Demon1001:  
            I’m inclined to dispute most of your analysis. Rupert Murdock, I think, was 100% right when he said that the Arabs tried to destroy Israel by conventional warfare – and failed. They tried by terrorism - and failed. Now they are trying to delegitimisation.  
             
            Even if we consider a worse case scenario that the Mubarak regime falls and the Muslim Brotherhood takes advantage of the situation to create an Iranian backed Sharia state the situation is different than it was in the past. Syria is no longer a genuine military player and Israel could take Damascus in a week or less. Iran is not the former USSR. It can supply money and ideology but it doesn’t have the material or the means to resupply massive quantities of military equipment and ammunition should a war break out. Jordan’s military is almost exclusively Bedouin and Abdullah is well aware what would happen to the Hashemites after a losing war with a 70% Palestinian majority in his country.  
             
            Is an outbreak of hostilities more likely? Yes and it will be bloody but Israel will not be defeated.  
             
            As an Israel advocate I am very aware of the ‘Haaretz effect’ (a newspaper with the politics and market share of the Guardian is taken by the BBC and others to represent Israeli public opinion) but the people who believe in the Oslo brand of defeatism have never been weaker. With the defection of Barak the Labor Party holds only 8 seats and Meretz only three putting the more radical Meretz in danger of extinction at the next election and who knows what will happen with the Independence/Labor parties. The Sephardi religious party Shas and the Russian right party Israel Beitanu already have put them into the situation where they are not the automatic party of the opposition.

               0 likes

            • hippiepooter says:

              It seems we were typing away at the same moment.  My reply below is to your first post.

              Just to add that I do not believe ultimately that Israel will fall, but it is certainly in my view, in far more danger (and even more so if Egypt and Tunisia go Islamist) than at any time in its modern history.

                 0 likes

              • Martin says:

                It will all depend on what happens to the peace treaties, if the Muslim Twathood get control of Egypt then the Israelis will feel even more cornered in.

                   0 likes

        • hippiepooter says:

          deegee, I hope I dont come over as boorish in putting it this way, but I’m amazed you should say this.  I thought you were better informed.

          Ditto everything that Demon101 and Grant has said plus:-

          1.  What the Arabs lacked in moral fibre in past wars is now more than made up for in the blind fanaticism and unifying strength of Islamism.

          2.  Yesterday, we saw a pro-Hezbollah PM elected by MPs in Lebanon.  Remind me of the stalemate that Israel’s incursion led to in 2006.  Remind me why they rescinded the security buffer zone after the successful incursion in 1982.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but Lebanon didn’t take part in the ’67 and ’73 wars?

          3.  Iran didn’t previously take part in any of the wars.

          4.  As Grant has indicated, Israeli moral fibre and resolve is very much undermined by its own appeasement left.

          5.  In ’73 Israel survived by the skin of its teeth.

             0 likes

          • hippiepooter says:

            Sorry, the ‘appeasement left’ was demon101′s point

               0 likes

          • deegee says:

            I never said the situation is good for Israel. I said that Israel’s defeat is not inevitable or even likely.
            1) The Arabs have never lacked fanaticism.
            2) Hizbullah has artillery but it’s ability to invade is nil. Expect some time in the bomb shelters.
            3)Iran didn’t take part but the vastly superior Russians did. Unlike Iran the Soviet Union was a major manufacturer of sophisticated arms with the ability to deliver them when and where required by sea and air. Militarily the Iranians are vastly over rated. They fought a decade long defensive stalemate with Iraq using WWI tactics at the price of millions of casualties. It took the US six months of preparation and approximately two weeks of fighting to rout Saddam.

            Granted when and if Iran becomes a nuclear military power different calculations are in order but that was happening long before the current Egyptian situation.
            4) Morale fibre undermined? Only in the minds of the diminishing appeasement left.
            5) Exactly my point. Even with the advantage of surprise the Arabs couldn’t win. It was close but their was no doubt about the final result.

               0 likes

            • Demon1001 says:

              deegee, I was only speculating at one very possible outcome of the worrying slide of Egypt.  The Islamist extremists have ben carefully targetting the less extreme Arab governments.  Mubarak might be a bad leader but there are many worse.  Tunisia were relatively more moderate.  The only one they didn’t target is Jordan where most of the so-called Palestinians hange out (Don’t shit on your own doorstep comes to mind).

              Under Sadat in 1973 Egypt fought only half-heartedly, it would now appear, in their attempts to take on Israeli Might.  The Syrians also stopped fighting as hard as soon as Israel reorganised.  Jordan did nothing, I think Iraq did try to help Syria if my memory serves me correctly.  However, they were even less organised than they were in 1948. 

              As Hippie has stated, this blind obedience to their god is something they never had going for them.  Iran will now help (they were distinctly neutral in 1973).  The EU will help now, maybe not militarily but in many other ways.

              As I said at the start Deegee, I am only speculating but I feel very pessimistic about the outcome (I am a natural pessimist tbh) and your speculations are being quite optimistic.  I realise that Israel MAY survive (and I fervently hope it does) - but that will depend on how much assistance they get from the USA.  And I don’t trust Obama to get it (or anything else) right. 

                 0 likes

              • Demon1001 says:

                Something else – if Israel is destroyed, we can guarantee that the corridors of Broadcasting House will be littered with champagne bottles again.

                   0 likes

                • hippiepooter says:

                  Imagine what the positions of Jews would be throughout the world if Israel did fall.  Not to say where would the israeli Jews who escape the inevitable massacre be able to flee to?

                  If Tunisia and Egypt fall to Islamism I think domino theory is going to kick in in Jordan.

                  If I was secular than I would say that in that situation Israel would stand very little chance of survival, especially putting on top of that the rise in anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism in the West, especially Europe.

                  However, I am a man of religious faith and have conviction that Israel will emerge from its darkest hour triumphant, and its triumph will be the triumph of all people of goodwill.

                     0 likes

  3. NotaSheep says:

    Oddly the BBC don’t seem find the time or room to tell us that the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood, is “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

       0 likes

  4. Natsman says:

    I don’t know why they ALL just don’t go the way Allah suggests, and just top themselves, thus dying as “martyrs” and doing us all a favour.  It would sort both the Islamic invasion “problem” and global overpopulation at a stroke.  Might leave a bit of a mess, though.

    Whoops, another fatwa on its way!

       0 likes

  5. Graeme Thompson says:

    But David, the Muslim Brotherhood are moderate.  Hamas grew out of them.  How can an organization behind a proscribed terrorist group and working with them as a conduit of Iran be anything but a repository of light and reason?  Personally, as a commenter mentioned in the OT, I can’t wait for an Islamist Government to have control of the Suez Canal.

    Dare one say, but Bowen’s comments are yet another reflection of BBC  ‘Nileism’?   =-O

       0 likes

    • Graeme Thompson says:

      BTW, were my ears playing tricks on me or when Bowen said ‘how people felt’ was there a strong Arab inflection on the word ‘felt’?

         0 likes

  6. George R says:

    Islam Not BBC (INBBC) is facilitating the Islamisation of not only Britain and the EU, but also of the Middle East.

    INBBC’s complicity with Muslim Brotherhood advocates, is yet another dangerous part of INBBC’s Islamising propaganda.

    Because INBBC is politically close to the likes of Tariq Ramadan, it will not oppose the aims of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Critique of T. Ramadan, avoided by INBBC:

    “THE DOUBLESPEAK OF TARIQ RAMADAN”

    (by Caroline Fourest)

    http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk/home/?q=node/236

    A useful two-page critique of Muslim Brotherhood, which INBBC omits
    “The Muslim Brotherhood is No Friend ”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/muslim-brotherhood-no-friend_537572.html?page=1

       0 likes

  7. ltwf1964 says:

    Dame Harold calmly announced that “Glenn Beck is a lunatic” (8.43am interview)

    to call Glenn Beck a lunatic betrays the complete visceral hatred these communist headbins have for anyone to the right of Stalin

    Glenn Beck has the US mess well sussed,and if the big eared autocue dependant Obamessiah gets re-elected,the US is well and truly screwed

       0 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      I am always intrigued by the internecine petty spats between our beloved MSM navel gazers. There seems more than a slight disconnect between what they obsess about publicly, if in their media bubbles, and what the rest of the population actually cares about.

      The BBC and the Graun pretty much can’t let a day go by without having a swipe at the Daily Mail, which does give as bad as it gets. The Telegraph does have it in for the BBC and the Graun, but gets left alone a lot more. SKY and Aunty spar on occasion, but the former seem much more above the gutter level the BBC’s Murdoch-obsessed rhetoric warrants.

      But I am intrigued about this across the pond gloves off approach by the BBC and its favoured sons and daughters, when referring to people and entities whose views they don’t approve of.

      We seem endlessly to have the unedifying spectacle of our national broadcaster ranting like some pissed Essex slapper on a Friday night, egged on by her equally unattractive ‘mates’.

      Beyond the fact he is not part of a national, state, uniquely-funded broadcaster, does Mr. Beck incite his US audience near daily with personal ad homs and wild tribal epithets about the BBc and those high profile blowhards who work for it?

      Or does he simply not care about them?

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        I don’t think Beck cares about the BBC at all, as he’s got most of the US Leftoid media screaming the same invective at him and trying to bring him down all the time.  If he knew how they were poisoning the minds of the US’s greatest ally (greater than Mubarak, even, eh, Beeboids?), perhaps he’d think differently.

           0 likes

  8. Dr A says:

    John Humphreys also insisted on describing the Muslim Brotherhood as “moderate” on yesterday’s show.  
     
    But the most vomit-producing moment for me came last night when I inadvertently flicked on to the BBC “News” Channel and heard some lefty bitch on the newspaper review (from the Weekly Guardian, natch) describe the “wonderful” Robert Fisk…
     
    Sometimes you so want to see Beeboids swinging from the trees.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Frank Gardner said yesterday that the MB was “not that radical”.  We see the BBC Narrative in place.

         0 likes

  9. Umbongo says:

    David Prieser

    If Beck (or any other US commentator – left or right) gives 1 second’s thought per day to how he’s viewed by the BBC – or by the rest of us in the UK – I’d be surprised.  He must know of the lack of respect Obama showed the UK through His treatment of Brown (although apparently Brown did get “face time” with Him in the White House kitchen) and the removal from the Oval Office and the return of the bust of Churchill etc.  Beck would have a similar contempt for Britain considering that the British response can be summarised as “thank you Sir for your kind consideration”.  That being so, why should Beck pay any attention to the BBC? it’s as important to him as the Luxor Gazette (published weekly in the high season if there’s ink available and the Nile isn’t in flood).

       0 likes

  10. dave s says:

    What is not to like for the BBC in the Egypt situation? A 100 to one chance of a functioning democracy actually emerging. An odds on chance of Egypt following along the Islamist path and being dominated by Iran. An even money chance of the Suez canal being shut bringing chaos to the West. An emboldened and united Arab world lauching a war against Israel. And the final bonus for them. The dream that students and workers ( public sector only ) will also rise up here and usher in their great dream. The everlasting utopia of the tryannical. (though they would prefer the elect) .

       0 likes

  11. George R says:

    BBC removes flattering profile of Muslim Brotherhood

    Perhaps late in the day, INBBC came across this book:

    “The Muslim Brotherhood”

     (ed. by Barry Rubin). (It’s possible to ‘look inside’ book at link below.)

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Muslim-Brotherhood-Organization-Policies-Islamist/dp/0230100716/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1296343392&sr=8-2

    Or this article by him:

    “Special Report: The Revolt in Egypt and U.S. Policy”

    By Barry Rubin http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2011/01/special-report-egypt-revolt-and-us-policy

       0 likes

  12. Dino64 says:

    Beck couldn’t care less what anyone in Britain has to say about him let alone the BBC. To him I would hazard a guess, and he’d be absolutely correct in this assumption, the BBC is nothing more than a jumped-up PBS; anti-America, anti-Israel and terrified to its appeasing core of radical Islam.  
    Yeah, Glenn Beck really cares what’s going on here, I don’t think. And neither should he.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I don’t disagree with your characterization of the BBC, but it does have influence on public opinion, which affects voters, which affects the makeup and intention of the government of the US’s greatest ally.  It matters.

      The BBC also effects the way people do business with companies in the US.

         0 likes

      • Guest Who says:

        It always amazes me how many really have bought into this ‘unique’ BS.

        The BBC is a 24/7 global broadcaster with a £4B budget and the ability (which it seems to enjoy abusing) to insert pure propaganda into anything it chooses, from Cbeebies to Song of Praise.

        You cannot get a better, better funded tool of public persuasion than that.

        What truly amazes me is that, despite their no so subtle attempts over the last few decades, the British public has resisted so much of their subliminal instruction, but… at the same time seems so passively accepting this horseh*t gets pumped out on the backs of a tax on each and every one of us.

           0 likes

        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          They passively accept the tax because it produces the opiate.  There’s also the legacy and a special place in the cultural history which spans generations.  That’s very, very difficult to overcome, and is largely the reason why the Tories always say how much they love it.

             0 likes

  13. George R says:

    Any temporary ‘BBC Arabic Service’ (East Wing of Broadcasting  House, London) should serve the interests of the British people, not Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Islamic countries.

    One sevice which Islam not BBC  (INBBC) is ideally placed to provide is a political exposure of the duplicitous activities of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

    Take this particular example of the MB:

    INBBC should be on the case -
    “Muslim Brotherhood Deception: They Say Different Things in English and Arabic”

    http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2011/01/30/muslim-brotherhood-deception-they-say-different-things-in-english-and-arabic/

       0 likes