I happened to catch an item on the Today programme this morning concerning the ongoing violence in Tunisia. The essential argument out across by BBC reporter Wyre Davies was the “conservative Islamists” are endangering the joyous hard won fruit of the “Arab Spring” and provoking the righteous anger of “liberal Islamists” who have taken to the streets to protest following the death of “leftist secular politician Chokri Belaid”. It strikes me that the BBC deals with the menace of Islamism by dividing into good Islam (liberal) and bad Islam (Conservative) We get the same wordplay in Iran. At every opportunity the BBC brands the word Conservative to things which it knows most people dislike. Almost as IF there was an agenda in play….
“CONSERVATIVES” ENDANGER ARAB SPRING
Bookmark the permalink.
All Islamists are conservative in that they want to return to an idealised Medieval state without foreign influences. There is no such thing as a liberal Islamist. The distinction is more violent and less violent.
“Democracy” in the Islamic world is giving children and pregnant women a choice…..do you want to die by hanging, beheading or stoning.
Is it worth asking here, and judging by the overuse of the term ” islamist” in this thread, whether the actions described above are carried out by Islamic people under the normal rule of Islamic law, or by some extremists who misunderstand the faith?
David is quite right to highlight this wondrous and deliberate misuse of the word conservative.
There is a lot of propaganda in the use of words that should not be underestimated and whilst the BBC/ Labour/ Guardian types are allowed by weak government and the brainwashed public to get away with their negative propaganda, this country, Europe and now the USA will continue to slide down the slippery slope towards financial ruin. It is all part of the plan by the bureaucratic elite, the Fakers and the Takers who love to look down on the Makers, the folks who actually do real work and produce the hard cash for them to waste by the billions.
For instance the continual use of the Austerity word instead of Financial Control is a typical example of negatively spinning against this government or any government that is trying to get out of the financial and administrative mess that Labour (the dangerous Communist Left) have imposed upon millions of people.
Using the word conservative to describe the bad men and at the same time link it closely with the Conservative party comes out of the same box of nasty tricks always used by the BBC/Labour/Guardian whores. (If you sell your morals and principals for money then that’s what you are)
Talking about words, I used to think that Tory was the slang name for a Conservative, but I am wrong it is apparently from days of old, from the late 17th century until the 1830s, and describes people that supported the social order represented by the monarchy and the Church of England.
So, in fact Tory more accurately describes my views and probably those of the Conservative party, or it should do. Shall we therefore leave conservative with a little ‘c’ to the BBC to describe terrorists or medieval religious nut cases and leave that word behind? A bit like we had to do with the word Gay that now describes people who exactly the opposite, in my experience and opinion.
That is until of course the BBC catches on and refers to the late great Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden bla bla, as an Militant Tory.
if you follow Islam you are Islamist,(ie. Islamic facist)
the method you use may differ, but the aim the same
whether the instant murderer, or the erm “moderate”?
or is that fifth columnist should the opportunity arise?
do both not curse us, in their first erm …”prayer”? of their day?
Islam has only ever spread ONE way … and despite all the tiresome platitudes, you may hear
all muslims know this clearly.
Infiltration into a society, gradually import, or increase by “breeding up”, as the population gets to a certain level the plethora of demands/problems start, this sounds harsh, but is fact and has been repeated time and time again, in many areas of the world.
“conservative – liberal” 😀 …
do not the ahem “liberals” become the first to ENSURE they prosper at the benefits from the violence/threat of the other … its the same “hymnsheet” people, If your “religion” is truly peaceful, being extreme poses no threat. Ex Jianism, the more extreme a Jian becomes the less threat he poses, the only problem with fundamentalist Islam, are the fundamentals in Islam
the bbc – shameful, despicable, useful idiots
as an adage –
“always believed the Tunisian “Jasmine” uprising had the best chance of succeeding, of building a vibrant new democracy, above all the other subsequent Arab revolutions”.
😀 simply shows that Wyre Davies, has not even a fundamental grasp, intellectually, on this situation, or indeed islamic history at all
INBBC’s mirage of ‘the Arab Spring’ and its mirage of ‘Islamists’.
Two reports on Tunisia:
1. ‘Daily Mail’:-
“Cradle of Arab Spring goes up in flames as protesters fire-bomb Egyptian presidential palace and youths torch cars at funeral of Tunisian leader”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275677/Cradle-Arab-Spring-goes-flames-protesters-bomb-Egyptian-presidential-palace-youths-torch-cars-funeral-Tunisian-leader.html
2. INBBC, instead, uses its ‘report’ largely as a propoaganda plug for Islamic rally:
“Tunisia’s Islamists call for rally in capital”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21394031
I really think these Beeboids (and western politicians generally) are babes in arms when dealing with a culture in which deceit, insincerity, equivocation, dissimulation, lying, camouflage, double-crossing, playing a double game, playing on expectations, turning on the false charm and just generally taking a cavalier attitude towards the truth are fine arts. It’s all sanctioned by the sacred and semi-sacred texts by a religion unique in this respect. These people even stage ‘Potemkin’ wars.
As someone who once worked in a Muslim country for donkeys years I jst about fully agree.
Come on folks you would have to heart of stone not to laugh at the pathetic beeb coverage of this.
Unable (or unwilling) to see what is really going on in the Middle East they map what they see onto their “right on” teenagers view of politics. So you have “liberal” Islamics who approve of gay marriages and like low carbon energy while conservative Islamics (boo hiss) are probably in favour of cuts and free schools. That really is the only way they can see things.
A liberal Islamist is one who has run out of bullets.
2X+funny
Oh those dastardly “conservatives”. They’ll get you every time.
The blindness of the BBC in the face of the Islamist threat is so incredible it must constitute some new psychotic condition.
There’s a great illustration of this in: Unacceptable Radical” at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2013/02/unacceptable-radical.html
‘The essential argument put across by BBC reporter Wyre Davies..
If I may stop you right there…
I simply can’t understand why we’re still forced to pay for the BBC’s hard left multicultural Islamic groveling nonsense. It’s an utter disgrace! No one institution has done more harm to the fabric of this once proud nation than the BBC, Labour and the Guardian.
A case-in-point was QT the other night which was a downright loathsome lefty-fest of the most revolting calibre. The bias grows like bacteria and we have to sit there and swallow it like puddings.
One of the most atrocious snippets of BBC lefty indoctrination was the other night on the Six ‘News’ wherein Nick ‘le slap-head’ Robinson was reporting over the gay marriage vote in the Commons… he stated that attitudes have changed so much since the sixties that nowadays not many would dare voice their disapproval of gay relations. Rubbish! A huge swathe of the public still holds the right to politely and respectfully disagree with bum-sex; but of course the BBC thinks that anyone outside of the West End of London and over 60 doesn’t count.
Nick Robinson was improbable guest on the new queen of standup show Sarah Milican, who asked Robinson which politician he missed most. On cue, Robinson said “You may well laugh, but George Bush” Cue gales of laughter from the young left-indoctrinated comedy audience. Why assume we would all laugh, Nick? The Beeb fawning on Barry the Hawiian President makes me want to throw up. Unthinkable eh? Wrong answer. Not following the Beeeb prescribed line on Republicans bad mad stupid, all those White House talking points. Bush was an idiot eh? Ha ha ha.
that sarah millican is just like jo brand, i love cake , i cant get a bloke, im fat etc. she never seems to be off the telly either, so no doubt shes earning a good chunk of change from the bbc, or “auntie” as they like to call it. no prizes for guessing shes anti tory as well. it just bothers me that shes not remotely amusing, yet, im sure she is now a national treasure as decided by the bbc.
Well, she’s a white working class comedienne. All working class white girls want, according to the BBC, is cake and sex. If she did jokes about immigration or being fucked by the left she’d never be allowed any where near a microphone.
It’s funny ‘cos it’s true … 🙁
I think Bush did the West a great service by attacking Iraq. So I regard Robinson’s comment as fatuous. Robinson’s attitude here is indeed a manifestation of why the West is weak.
I’m under 60….(41 as yer asking), and i am not exactly in favor of bum love….I still don’t count (then again, I am Northern, that classes me as a knuckle dragger in Beeboid terms)
They don’t recognise the existence of the southern working class either, apart from “extremist” EDL members.
I live in the South now…I am the worst of both worlds!…A northerner, living in the south, who is “Conservative”, and aint much of a fan of Islam or bum boys…Public enemy numero uno I am. 😉
“Conservative Islamists”. Thatcherites all.
The BBC lefty’s are like all the other lefty’s.
They really children who have never grown up.
You mean David Cameron isnt the Algerian PM?
Thanks for clearing that up. What a confused post.
‘good Islam (liberal) and bad Islam (Conservative’
I just listened to the report. Actually about a millon people were at the funeral, essentially Western looking, liberal, more secular Tunisians who want a western style democracy, who feel they’re being attacked by a government that favours a more Islamist outlook and of allowing hardline Salafi Muslims to impose their will on the country.
That seems to be what the rest of the media are reporting too.
So did you just not listen to the report? Maybe Wyre Davis should have just said ‘load of Muslims fighting with each other, what more do you need to know’.
This is not about whether the report is biased or not, you just can’t follow a simple news report! Found out!
Oh dear – talk about missing the point – perhaps deliberately ? The issue isn’t that David Vance can’t follow a simple news report – it’s that you apparently can’t follow a simple argument. The bulk of David’s report is the evidence, and the last two sentences are his conclusion.
I listened to the report this morning and came to exactly the same conclusion – the BBC bandies about the word ‘conservative’ far too readily when it can be used to describe things which could easily be described by more appropriate words, like, oh I don’t know, how about ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘religious extremist’.
The not-so-subtle message is that the BBC thinks ‘Conservative’ (note how you can’t spot the difference on radio between that and ‘conservative’) reflects a negative stereotype.
David, where does it say anything about liberal Islam? Davis is talking about secularists versus Islamists. Are you claiming that he’s lying and that they’re all really Mohammedans who want Shariah of a different order? I realize the BBC got Egypt wrong, and there’s a possibility they’re getting Tunisia wrong now, but that’s not the same thing as trying to make a “good Islam”.
Indeed. A dictionairy would probably help too.
or even a dictionary
Ooooooh – subtle ! 😉
A “dictionairy” would help
The BBC are now habitually using the term ‘conservative’ when they could use ‘hardline’, ‘traditional’, ‘conventional’, ‘orthodox’, ‘reactionary’, ‘fundamentalist’ – any number of alternatives which are more commonly used, and historically we are more used to hearing, when a primitive form of unyielding Islamism is being described.
It’s deliberate.
Agreed. BBC Style Guide:
Tea Party movement and Paul Ryan’s budget plans = “extreme”
Islamists who want Shariah Law with women who are chattel and can be killed if they step out of line, homosexuals strung up, thieves’ hands chopped off, music and alcohol banned, and public beheadings = “conservative”
“Conservative” is the Beeb’s get-out-of-jail card. They need a form of words to avoid being seen to be wrong. So its: “conservative Islamists”. Now Beeboids can go back to their smug echo chamber safe in the knowledge they are right.
i may be mistaken, but I dont think the word Conservative was even used. Not that it really matters.
Sorry, but you’re wrong. It was. If you didn’t listen to the report on BBC Today, then say so. Look up the Today programme on the BBC website – for example, I heard it in the news section just after 08:05 (1:05 hours into the programme).
I also noticed the new word coming into the BBC’s vocabulary as well – ‘ultra-conservative’ – used to describe the Salafists in Tunisia- it’s also contained in the BBC web page highlighted by David above.
And since the essence of David Vance’s original post was about the (deliberately ?) lax use of these terms, of course it matters.
It’s interesting to do some simple research on Salafi, and see just what groups and individuals are associated with this bunch of basically fundamentalist Muslims. And that’s why it matters even more that the BBC isn’t allowed to create even the sniff of association with them via the use of these terms when there are far more appropriate descriptions to use.
Ah – it becomes clearer now. You must have listened to the same segment of the Today programme as I did. Otherwise how could you know that the reporter in Tunis was Wyre Davies (to whom you referred in your first post on this thread) ? I even had to look up Wyre Davies to check the name and spelling. But you must have listened to it much later, and off the web, since you say in your post timed at 4:43 pm today that you had ‘just’ listened to it
So you could not possibly have missed the use of the words ‘conservative’ and ‘ultra-conservative’, used in relation to the Tunisian Salafists, by Evan Davis in the introduction to, and then by Wyre Davies in the body of the report.
‘Busted’ – or, as you put it – ‘Found out’. And I guess Armand is the inspiration for the tag, Traroe ?
i may be mistaken
Guessing, by what follows and consequent silence, this is indeed the case.
Not that it really matters.
Well, not if you are a Newsnight news media professional, probably not.
I wonder what prompted three others to show support when no actual evidence was offered?
Errrrm….. actually, I added one of the ‘Likes’ count, purely by mistake, because I missed the ‘Reply’ button late last night.
Sorry…….. (picture in your mind a ‘Very Embarassed’ smiley)
The BBC, probably, appreciates the error:)
(All more than made up for anyway by the rather delicious filletings provided subsequently – cue another rummage in the dressing-up box for a new handle sooner than expected, one suspects)
And that should be small ‘c’ anyway.
Are you the poster formerly known as “Colditz” by any chance?
Not been around since outed as a Muslim, as soon as a story about Mulsims appear, “poof” up pops…you, a brand new shiny poster with the same mind numbingly tedious posts as the dear, departed “Colditz”
Traroe = Colditz = Nicked Emus, the middle aged freelance journalist with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old.
He announced that he would never post here again. In his mind by changing his posting name every few days he keeps his promise.
I can assure you that my dick is one piece. The only thing outed is that your are a complete dickhead!
No ‘aggression’ though. The word they like to use when reporting about Israelis defending their homeland against terrorist attacks.
It’s all good wholesome fun.
Just like the Iranian spring, the Arab spring is really the Islamic spring, puny westernised factions notwithstanding, and which, like the leftist Beeb, serve merely to usher in the real thing.
How will Islam Not BBC (INBBC) sanitise this?:-
“Preachers of hate who spread their violent word on British TV channels.
“Muslim fundamentalists have used British television channels to preach in favour of violent crime and killing ‘apostates’.”
By David Bennett & Ben Leach.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9859804/Preachers-of-hate-who-spread-their-violent-word-on-British-TV-channels.html
I’m all for keeping these channels on air George as it gives viewers an insight into the true nature of Islam.
I especially like the absurdly named ‘Peace TV’ where they regularly burn Bibles on air. I wait in anticipation for Salmond, Hague, Obama et al to come on the telly screaming their outrage like they did with korangate….but sadly there is nothing but silence from them and their likes……it’s phony, spineless politicians like them who should be banned from spouting their drivel on TV.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100200020/east-london-mosque-condemns-homophobia-yet-advertised-four-anti-gay-speakers-last-month-alone/
Bet the £4Bpa national treasure and in no-way overstaffed, overfunded and power to account holding BBC really was or will be on this case?
Cue a Flokker with a Ceebeebies mention within 24hrs.
Actually, the ‘Don’t panic, we’re Islamic’ Compliance imams could do a lot worse than invite in the best and brightest from BBC CECUTT to consult on this, beyond the PR-suppression support they’ll get anyway.
If things get pressing on the matter, they simply get one (on ‘bookings’) to say they have no idea what their cousin is going to say, and another (on ‘content’) to say they have no input on what gets said by their uncle. And as neither can influence the other, and in any case the sheer professional objectivity of the mosque is unquestioned (well, at least by the Imams, which makes it so) the whole thing falls into the cracks and was never an issue anyway.
If they get the hang of ‘unique’ on top of all the other scams, I wouldn’t give many actual Cockernees a hope in hell much longer in that neck ‘o the woods.
They only have these “anti-gay speakers” in the interests of balance, I’m sure. Which the BBC totally understands.
” The Arab Spring ” Isn’t that a highly irritating phrase ? It’s more like a Arab Winter.
Anyway, I blame it on the Tory cuts.
Yes, they obviously went too far too fast!
That changed from the original too deep too soon, probably on the advice of the inbbc, as the new one is more concise and more alliterative.
There is no such thing as moderate or radical islam, it’s just islam.
As Dr Bill Warner explains.
Thank you David, folk really need to understand that point.
There is no moderate or extreme, no good or bad, ONLY islam itself. You don’t get to choose which bits you apply, that is simply not possible. The evidence is all around you.
It is simply a 7th century ideology, which has been foisted upon people by violence, cruelty, death. Simply barbaric.
Nurse! My pills please!
We are living in interesting times.
What will happen in the next few years will be epic.
It’s often said Enoch that todays headlines were written 3,000 years ago.
When you look at the Biblical prophesies and compare them to what’s happening in the world today you’ll know what I mean.
I wonder what people here think of the BBC’s College of Journalism debate over the word Islamist?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogcollegeofjournalism/posts/Islamist-acceptable-shorthand-or-dangerously-misleading
These contributions had me scratching my head….
“Aamer’s (BBC Urdu’s Aamer Ahmed Khan) view was that precise language is the only way to avoid misleading readers and audiences. “The confusion is where you use [Islamist] interchangeably with the words ‘militant or extremist’. It’s just plain wrong – as wrong as calling a tortoise a coconut,” he argued colourfully.
“Besides, not all militant groups are Islamist. The Taleban in Pakistan? Yes. It would be inaccurate to describe the Taleban as just a militant organisation, Aamer believes. But al-Qaeda? In his opinion it is not necessarily an Islamist militant group…..”
Al Qaeda is not an Islamist group? How do you explain that Aamer?
“…..because its driving political focus is anti-Americanism.”
Ah, I see. So any anti-American leftists of whatever stripe can support AQ’s terrorism without subscribing to the tenets of Islam?
Artyom Liss head of the BBC Russian service “concluded that ‘Islamist’ is an empty shell of a word: “It’s bit like ‘the international community’ – a convenient term when you don’t really know what you want to say.”
Steady on Artyom, don’t dis the International Community!
“An uncompromising Josephine Hazeley (of the BBC African Service) thought the word ‘Islamist’ should be qualified whenever it is used: “If you’re talking about a group that espouses violence by using, unfortunately, the Islamic religion, you should qualify it.”
Ah it’s such a shame when they do that! Gives the whole wonderful peaceful religion such a bad name.
Come on BBC, someone read from the script, the World Service kids are wandering off message.
“Ian Jolly, the BBC newsroom’s style guide editor….”
There, at last here comes Nanny – she knows best.
“…..offers this guidance to BBC journalists; he starts by distinguishing between ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamist’:
“The first simply refers to anything related to the religion. The second is derived from Islamism, defined in the dictionary as ‘Islamic militancy or fundamentalism’.”
Fair enough.
“Our own view is that an Islamist is someone who derives a political course from Islam. But it’s vital that we make clear what sort of course that is. For instance, there are Islamist political parties in various countries and Egypt has an Islamist president.”
Yeh! Up the Arab Spring!
Typical BBC pseudo-intellectual wankfest with its inevitable climax of a stale fart.
But one has to ask, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
The BBC “Style Editor” must have an answer.
PS. The BBC Style Editor reminds me of one such who took me to task once. It appears the correct form of words was “It’s 7:40” not “its twenty to eight”. I bet he earned his expenses.
FYI: The name Ian Jolly rang a bell – and yes, the BBC’s newsroom’s style guide editor has offered his opinion before – but this time on the critical question of the newly installed revolving doors in Broadcasting House.
Quoth Ian: ‘I’ve been going through doors all my life. In fact, I’m pretty good at it, but I’ve clearly lost my touch now I’m working at Broadcasting House. I’ve been told my problem is that I ‘go through the door too late. Funny, as it’s never been an issue before – could it be the BBC’s over-engineered, electronic revolving doors that are at fault?’
It’s nice to see him involved these days in the more important debate about the difference between the words ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamist’. I look forward to many more of his critical conclusions on modern discourse, so vitally important to the man on the Clapham omnibus.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242319/BBC-staff-complain-new-Broadcasting-House-revolving-door.
Nice one. I do hope ‘Ian Jolly’ is a real person and not just some generic BBC nom de guerre – as in ‘Hi, you’re speaking to your bank’s call centre in Mumbai….I’m Sharon….how can I be helping you today?’
Because Ian Jolly crops up again….where else but on the picket….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/05/bbc-television-centre-picket-line
‘The solitary homemade placard, a beautifully lettered “Lose 1/3 of my pension? Of course I’m on strike”, on drawing paper nicked from his children, was carried by Ian Jolly, who works for the BBC news website. He spent his very first day as a professional journalist on strike
joining the picket outside the Eastern Daily Press in Norwich in 1978. “This [the BBC strike] has been a very hard sell,” he said today. “A lot of people think, ‘you’re in work, what are you moaning about?’ ”
He spent his very first day as a professional journalist on strike!
The best laugh I’ve had all day.
Up the workers!
Oh, it’s an actual revolving door, as opposed to the merry-go-round of market rate screw ups they keep getting to guide them and we keep getting to pay off to save their faces.
In other words, they believe that Al Qaeda dislikes the US for the same reason most Beeboids do: US foreign policy. Why else would Al Qaeda be driven by anti-Americanism, eh? Nothing to do with the religion of the people whom they think have been wronged by it, right, BBC? Al Qaeda is just as angry about the US embargo on Cuba and our support for Taiwan’s independence from China, no?
Once again we see the absolute intellectual failure of the BBC on this issue.
As the strongest power in the world and whose inhabitants are guilty of the capital crime of breathing while being non-Muslim they are the priority target of any jihadi who feels aggrieved because Islam has not yet subjugated the globe. It’s this (rather than anything they have done) which leads the Iranians to call the US the ‘great satan’ and which made them an automatic target for al Qaeda.
The BBC is just a bunch of Islington guardian reading marxists vanity project.
The sooner it is shut down the better.
I recently predicted on this blog that the BBC would soon discover the “conservative” word to describe all extremist islamists, and would keep using it until the British public would understand it as “Conservative”. I knew they would.
TV guide, on my freeview box:
Film on BBC2, called “Milk”
“Biopic about the rise, and tragic fall of California’s 1st openly gay official”
“All very well”, I think…don’t sound like my cup of tea, still, carry on reading,…
“Harvey Milk struggles against CONSERVATIVE colleagues in 70’s America”
Now, I’m not sure where my digibox grabs it’s program synopsis from, but that sounds an awful lot like the BBC!
Key words:
Tragic
Struggles
Conservative.
Thought they were known as Republican in the US?…they might as well have put “Tory” there, and that be an end of it, the science dost be settled.
I couldn’t find anything about “Evil Cutz ™” though
Another word the Left loves is ”work shop.”
‘Let’s have a workshop on social inclusion, diversity training, victimhood, etc etc”
Despite the BBC’s misuse of the word ‘conservative’ it has a well-established meaning and is correctly used here. Conservative means disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. Those who opposed the entry of an openly homosexual politician seeking reforms that allow rights to gays that previously didn’t exist, are by definition conservatives.
As a point of fact Dan White who shot assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk was also a Democrat and arguably of unsound mind. Unlike Islamists it is perfectly acceptable to describe a Democrat as conservative. The dispute was apparently about his return to politics and not directly about gay rights or conservatism.
Harvey Milk’s struggle was against conservatism nut not his death.
I too have commented on this before.
the BBC like to refer to Conservative MPs by their surname, but refer to Labour MPs by their full names
Or even by Christian name only when they are hopelessly in love with them e.g. ‘Vince’ (not Labour, but ticks all the BBC approval boxes).
INBBC supports Muslim Brotherhood campaign against West’s use of DRONES.
Two contrasting political alignments.
1.) Pro-West, ‘Front Page Magazine –
“Live by the Sword, Die by the Drone ”
by Daniel Greenfield.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-drone/
2.) INBBC commissioned piece: predominantly pro-Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood in tone.
For no particular reason, except as to reflect much of the Islamic propaganda, INBBC has this anti-drone, but not anti-Islamikaze, piece.
“The cost of Obama’s secret drone war”
By PJ Crowley.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21389200
‘Islamikaze’
by Raphael Israeli.
(‘Look Inside’ Amazon)
CNN pulled this same stunt during the Putsch in the old Soviet Union back in 1990. I remember CNN referring to old hard-line communists as “right wing extremists”… people so far to the left, they fell off the planet! “Conservative” I could understand when referring to the old line Russians… the actual definition of “conservative” depends entirely on what it is you’re being conservative about. The Russian communists wanted to hang on to their traditions. In the US, we tend to be “conservative” about the Constitution. But the jihadis have no long tradition of bombing children unless you go all the way back to the Medieval tmes.
Actually Jihadi violence against children, women, apostates, heretics plus the West as both a concept and a geographical area is as old and continuous as Islam. Bombs are the modern innovation.
INBBC and its NIGERIA euphemisms, continued:
1.) INBBC euphemistic headline:
“Doctors killed in north-eastern Nigeria”
2.) Translation:-
‘3 doctors murdered by Islamic jihad Boko Haram.’
And just to add propaganda on to euphemism, INBBC, in what appears to be a justification for these Islamic jihad murders, simply repeats Boko Haram’s aims of Islamic conquest!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21400330
Some context, from ‘Jihadwatch’:-
“#MyJihad in Nigeria: Muslims murder nine polio workers”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/02/myjihad-in-nigeria-muslims-murder-nine-polio-workers.html
“He added that their block of flats had no security guards, and that they had routinely travelled through the town in taxis without a police escort.”
Well, obviously their own fault then huh? I despair!
“#MyJihad in Nigeria: Muslim jihad group murders three South Korean doctors, beheading one”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/02/myjihad-in-nigeria-muslim-jihad-group-murders-three-south-korean-doctors-beheading-one.html
London.
Is INBBC reporting this?:-
“MOSQUE TERROR DOC FUNDRAISER”
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/297890/Mosque-terror-doc-fundraiser/
London.
INBBC censors Islamic Iraqi violence at meeting in Parliament.
“‘Message from Saddam’ shoes hurled at US diplomat in UK Parliament.
“US diplomat Paul Bremer was pelted with shoes at a meeting in the British Parliament this week – exclusive footage.”
(inc video clip)
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2678/_message_from_saddam_shoes_hurled_at_us_diplomat_in_uk_parliament
Such threats to non-Muslims are likely to increase in Britain as mass immigration from Islamic countries continues.
Just waiting now for the inbbc to headline it. Not holding my breath.
Dez will provide a link!
Fair play to the yank, handled it with some dignity.
Hardcore Muslims are ‘conservatives’, and those in western countries who oppose them are also ‘conservatives’. Do you see what they’ve done there? Beautiful piece of leftist semantics
So which side would stone gay people to death and gang rape white teenagers? Liberal or Conservative Muslims? Funny..I haven’t heard either side condeming either!!
Islam would stone or hang gays. Not a liberal or conservative version. Just Islam.
For Islam Not BBC (INBBC):-
“Muslim fanatics spouting on British TV: Extremists use fringe stations to call for terror, murder and the torture of gay people.
“Ofcom found stations broke broadcasting code by allowing extreme opinions to be aired unchallenged.
“Among the shows criticised was Peace TV, co-owned by Dr Zakir Naik.
“Dr Naik was banned from entering Britain in 2010 for the ‘public good’.”
By Chris Greenwood.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276753/Muslim-fanatics-spouting-British-TV-Extremists-use-fringe-stations-terror-murder-torture-gay-people.html
Of course Pope Benedict, “Ratzi the Nazi”, was a conservative.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11141340