The two Boston bombers are reported to be two Chechen brothers. They have apparently lived in the US for nearly a decade.
Some background digging by the Atlantic Wire here:
Note ‘Beliefs’….Islam
The BBC made some startling claims, including that by their specialist security correspondent Frank Gardner, that the Boston bombers were most probably domestic, meaning white, right wing terrorists.
This was based on no more evidence other than that the attack occured at a similar time in the year to previous terror attacks…some by right wing extremists.
In effect the BBC has reported news it knew to be false for political reasons….it was a deliberate attempt to play down the likelihood that Muslims could be involved in the Boston bombing…..the use of ‘imported/international’ terrorism rather than Islamic also points to news management.
Why did the BBC jump so readily to this conclusion?
The BBC amongst others, is desperate to deny any connection between violence, especially terrorism and the Islamic ideology. It does all it can to manipulate people’s perceptions of that ideology and the result of that is that the airwaves are full of programmes or reports such as ‘Muslim Driving School, ‘Don’t Panic I’m Islamic’ and ‘ Hijab for A Day’….all designed to make you think Islam is harmless fun.
Here is the most recent piece of what is outright propaganda for one section of the population:
‘As the investigation into who was behind the Boston bombings goes on, Muslim communities are braced for a backlash should the perpetrator share their faith.’
No such similar emotive, and very lengthy, tract for any similar groups under suspicion on the ‘Right’ such as Christian Evangelists or anti-abortionists…whom it is apparently OK to tar with a broad brush and implicate as a whole community or group as likely terrorists.
Essentially the BBC has puts aside its scruples and deliberately shifted the emphasis of a news story to point the finger of blame for a terror attack onto a group of people, which the BBC is quite ready to demonize and blame without concrete evidence because it fits in with their own political agenda.
The BBC has not been impartial, it has not been balanced, it has not been truthful.
It has deliberately and cynically manipulated the news for poltical reasons in support of a particular ideology….prepared to blame one ‘community’ in order to protect another…against a supposed ‘backlash’.
Which probably makes this Tweet by Mardell somewhat ironic:
Mark Mardell @BBCMarkMardell 17 Apr CNN very post modern right now – fragmented versions of reality from multiple unreliable narrators
The great irony is the targeting of MIT, as its linguistics department is headed by that most anti-American of American professors !
great irony … (shakes head)
when i got back today, bbc 5live stating “chechen” bombers … on the news programme, which then turned into some kind of dimestore travelogue .. where it was,
the terrible persecution, “chechens” have to suffer, where it is in conjunction to russia on and on and on
with this babble … right at the end of the report, as an after thought a small muted inference “interest in islam” … staggering, even now still “is it? anything to do with islam?” is the drone even as i type
On a Russian-language social media page, Dzhokhar features a drawing of a bomb under the heading “send a gift,” and just above links to sites about Islamism!.
The guy had a YouTube profile, where he created a playlist dedicated to terrorism!.
the bbc is in a corner, in denial, they must be waiting
for obama to lead the obfuscations
shocking
Seems to be a bit short – he probably had second thoughts about finishing with “that’s the BBC’s job” and deleted it before tweeting.
Haha. And what on earth is the term ‘very post modern’ meant to mean? These people are so used to talking crap I don’t think they know when they are doing it.
I am going to be charitable. The BBC employs poor quality journalists. It was perfectly clear to me that no speculation was in order until the bombers were under arrest or real hard evidence had surfaced. 0 out of 10 once again BBC.
The BBC does employ poor quality journalists, and the speculation was ridiculous. But they clearly got carried away with assumptions about it being a domestic right winger – and now, when it’s clearly not, there is a distinct absence of the word ‘Islamist’
BBC Headline from John Kerry: “We’ve been in direct confrontation with evil”. No, you have been in direct confrontation with Islamic Jihad . Can’t bring himself to face up to it, the lie all along was “It’s Bushes fault they hate us”. Now it’s on their watch, they start to blame “evil”.
Very convenient. Presumably these are children of
Saudi Wahabi“Evil” teachings. Perhaps The Chosen One will start a War on Evil, only there is nowhere to invade.America’s muslims are afraid of backlash. Perhaps they should have been more vocal in their condemnation of fellow Muslim’s attack on their chosen country of residence . Instead they remain silent in their millions.
The BBC twists and contorts itself to avoid causing offence. Expect to hear more about “Evil” in future. Its the new get out of jail free card. Just don’t mention the war against us.
The kind of “backlash” that occurred after 9/11?
Oh yes, Mohammedans are always the victims, aren’t they?
At this sort of point in time we just get full on tractor statistics to disguise the BBC’s aching disappointment that these guys were not “home-grown”.
Western Society, the most enlightened civilisation in history sinking into the abyss of a new dark age lit only by the lights of a brutal superstition that our elites just cannot address, let alone deal with.
I think the Quisling Corporation is beyond redemption, but it continues to get away with pumping out its failed ideology because it is never brought to book by other media outlets.
How far will the DT, Spectator, Times etc. raise and persist to raise this as an issue, and in particular an abuse of its charter.
I personally hold out little hope. It may be mentioned for a week but will gradually slip from the agenda. Speculation on my part but I believe that from a purely venal basis journalists who are still building (or insecure in) their careers know that they simply cannot afford to alienate the biggest media player in our enriched and vibrant capital.
Here is the BBC’s “profile” on the Boston Bombers (I can say that now, right?):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22219116
Talking about Tamerlan(e), and the “Will Box for Passport” slideshow, the BBC profile pulls out a couple of factoids. Thus:
“The smartly-dressed, well-built boxer is photographed with his young girlfriend. He says that he is “very religious”.”
But what’s this? It doesn’t mention which religion he is “very religious” about! How odd!
Perhaps the “Will Box for Passport” slideshow doesn’t tell us? Ah, hang on, it says there that he’s a Muslim. Yes, a “very religious” one.
Oh, and what’s this? His girlfriend converted to Islam too.
Anything else worth mentioning that the BBC didn’t have space for? Well, it does say as well that despite living in the USA for 5 years (which is a lot less than “since 2001” which the BBC claims), he doesn’t have a single American friend as he doesn’t understand them. Well integrated then.
5 years?
What else has America had for 5 years?
Obama?
Importing voters?
Mirroring Blair’s tactics?
Naaaaaaah.
Sheesh.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22219116
Clear bias by omission:
“The smartly-dressed, well-built boxer is photographed with his young girlfriend. He says that he is “very religious”.”
‘Very religious’ – Christian perhaps? Or Sikh? No no, it’s something else, just can’t quite think what….
Also from that page:
“Russian news agency RIA Novosti has reported that ‘extremist material’ was on the YouTube account belonging to Tamerlan. ‘Several albums were posted, one of them titled ‘terrorist’,’ the agency said.
“The BBC has been unable to confirm the presence of extremist material on Tamerlan’s YouTube page.”
One wonders how much effort they’ve put into looking.
Interesting that, while happy to speculate wildly with no evidence that they might have been right-wing whitey nutjobs, once it’s revealed that the suspects are Caucasian in the most literal sense, they come over all coy and seem to need confirmation of Islamist/terrorist connections if it’s something coming out of a Russian news agency. If only they were as cautious with other news sources (e.g. from the West bank or Gaza).
Oh, and there’s this one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22221665
Search the page: no mention of ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’ anywhere. And yet he’s involved in a terror plot. Just his own ideology then? Nothing more to it than that? Ridiculous
The Boston Bombers were most probably white right-wing extremists – was the message from the BBC. They freely used the word “white” and “right-wing”.
Now we find out they are Chechen radical Jihadists (have you seen their YOUTUBE channel?) but afraid to say what we all know, the BBC is now saying they are – um – “very religious”.
So Catholics? Baptists? Presbyterians? OMG – not those most violent of bad guys – the Evangelicals??? No – they were (Censored).
How can anyone believe that the BBC has ANY CREDIBILITY? Who is putting the blue pencil through news copy? Are they also “very religious” people working in the newsroom? Or maybe they are simply deaf, dumb and blind.
Welcome to the BBC – the blind leading the bland.
When this sort of thing happens – over and over again as detailed on this site – you really could be forgiven for thinking in terms of a conspiracy. But let’s be generous and assume it isn’t that. It must be wishful thinking, incredible naivety and a massive capacity for self-delusion.
It’s not conspiracy; it’s an unwillingness to accept an uncomfortable truth. When the whole ethos of your organisation is based on tolerance and equality, and a special concern for the interests of minority groups, it can be very hard to admit the cold hard reality. The mindset is such that there is no good or bad, or right or wrong, but instead just different sides –both equally valid- of an argument. It’s the old ‘one man’s terrorist is just another man’s freedom fighter’. That’s why they struggle to speak the blunt truth that a violent Islamist ideology exists.
It is definitely NOT a conspiracy. It’s
1. Willful blindness
2. Inability to admit a mistaken analysis
3. Fear of being called ( )ophobic
4. A desire to keep the monthly mortgage coming in.
4. Not understanding that there is a responsibility towards truth – however uncomfortable it is.
5. Never having to argue your case (because Beeboids are surrounded by like minded people).
True enough. The mindset of these leftist types is that Islamic terrorism isn’t a warped evil ideology per se, but purely a reaction to bad things the West/Britain/America/Israel has done. That never ceases to irk me.
(1) “… special concern for the interests of minority groups …”
(2) “… no good or bad, or right or wrong …”
Re (1) So what about minorities like Tories in Scotland or in the BBC? Or any who think George Osborne isn’t cutting or, at least, not cutting fast enough?
Re (2) So would the BBC say that Mussolini deserved credit for, say, beating down the Mafia or “making the trains run on time”? What of Nicholas Griffin’s views on mass immigration? Are they just another side of an argument? Was there anything of value in Thatcherism?
You have got to be joking about tolerance!
March 2012, Toulouse. Much speculation by the BBC- was it a “Deranged far-rightwinger”?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17440561
Nope BBC, it wasn’t. In fact there was no basis for this scabrous and heinous speculation – other than ‘wish fulfilment’ and the intrinsic prejudice and bias in the BBC.
It seems to me that the real threat is not rightwing nutjobs – they are present and are vile but their activities are not much in evidence across the world. There simply is not enough evidence of their despicable behaviour to justify such speculation.
However, another threat from another quarter can be DEMONSTRATED to be material and speculation can be SUBSTANTIATED by facts and past evidence. Such speculation is JUSTIFIED.
Three words BBC Journalists don’t seem to understand. The BBC must realise that Journalism is about reporting facts – not advocacy, so why don’t the do it?
ADVICE FOR DERANGED BBC JOURNALISTS
Duck Identification lesson 1
Here is some advice on identifying curios amphibious birds. The BBC retains an expert in Bill Oddy is an expert ornithologist and he can help you if in any doubt. Observe the bird closely, if the bird
a) is seen to waddle into a pond in a municipal park
b) swim about a bit displaying pleasure at rainfall
c) is heard to “quack” when children throw bread to it
d) has been identified as a “duck” on 93 previous occasions.
on the basis of probability, it is almost certainly a duck. You do not have to wait for a DNA analysis before you can definitively say that it is not an Ecuadorian Condor or worse an ‘Imperial German Eagle’. Drafting stories on the basis that it might be an Imperial Eagle and speculating why it would be swimming in a pond is not a sound basis for a story.
A truly excellent post worthy of repeating on:
a) HIGNFY
b) Private Eye
c) The Spectator
d) BBC’s In-house magazine whose title I forgot.
Unfortunately, as-per-usual, such excellent analysis will never be seen on any of the places I suggest.
“THEY ARE ALL FRIT” of the BBC! (And the “stars” of HIGNFY plus the editor of Private Eye have all taken too many pieces of BBC silver to ever preach against Auntie’s gospel.)
Shame on them all.
FYI The BBC’s in house magazine is called “Ariel”.
“Ariel washes whiter”
or did I mean “Ariel whitewashes”?
Excellent introduction, Alan.
Hey, five others thought so too.
So guessing this will not be a subject of outrage for the Flokker High Horse brigade with calls for site-wide shirt rending and gnashing of teeth.
Anyone noticed how our chums, the “defenders of the indefensible” have gone silent….again?
Like they ALWAYS do when their beloved BBC has been caught with it pant’s round it’s ankles, being slipped a big un by the ROP.
(I suspect however that “Alan’s tiny knob” and the clown who somehow found racism where there was none whilst discussing Bostons Brown University, is one of the silly little gang of four who normally foul up these pages with their rabid stench.)
Add “Price Albert” to the above.
* Prince.
For the information of anyone who has not read it, “a politically incorrect guide to islam” by Robert Spencer.
This was Evan Davis, on Tuesday morning, just hours after the blasts [listen again: 2:18:50]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rvpg3
Save for a few ifs, buts and maybe’s, he’s looked at all of the evidence and concludes that in his opinion, this looks more like ‘domestic terrorism’.
I don’t know why the Yanks persist in having an FBI when you have people of the calibre of Davis around – perhaps BBC Worldwide could hire him out.
Evan Davis, the BBC’s very own Inspector Clouseau.
Evan Davis has much form, going way back. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/evandavis/2007/05/tony_blairs_economic_legacy_1.html
Only on the BBC can you expect to keep such high profile employment in such an analytic world with getting so such wrong.
Meant to add in my post above that Evan Davis said in that BBC link above:
“Blairs Economic Legacty – In the 1997 election campaign, the Conservatives ran under a slogan “Britain is Booming. Don’t Let Labour Blow it.”……..It hasn’t happened that way.”
Oh really Evan Davis? Where did you study economics?
Inspector Clou-less, more like.
Tricky one this for the BBC.
Communism and Islam in the firing line.
But if North Korea is now called a “Nazi State” by the BBC, then anything is possible.
Did the Russina Orthodox Church hold a school assembly when he was in Dagestan or suchlike?
ABI(Anybody but Islam)
white lone wolves,right wing extremists.right wing militias,thats all i have heard all this week off the bbc,sky news and all the other media left wing liars and left wing so called experts on terrorism who tried to point the finger at them groups.still the politacaly correct bbc and others media morons are in denial and wont mention the word islam or muslims to desrcibe these terrorist scum
Heard OFSTEDs bigwig on this morning feeling the need to “create more jurisdictions”, so his army of failed heads, stressed out Blairites on permanent furlough can neb into nurseries or childcare.
Given their towering record in schools, Baby P etc…who better to turn nursery nurses into mid-Staffs “professionals”?
How the hell do OFSTED get away with their ludicrous empire building, given how shit they are-have been and always will be.
Hope the childcare types let Wilshaw change a nappy or two, before telling him to f*** off and sort a school or two out, before he f***s off the only branch of education that has NOT been turned into a Balls-up!
“Boston jihad bombers hail from Russia’s Caucasus, ‘breeding ground for terror’ where rebels have ‘close links with al-Qaeda'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/04/boston-jihad-bombers-hail-from-breeding-ground-for-terror-russia.html
On PM tonight , at least until 17-20 and possibly later ( I switched off at 17-20) , the BBC avoided mentioning anything about the religion of the two bombers or what their motive might have been. Of course the BBC should not speculate but why did they do so earlier in the week about the possibility that the bombers might be a domestic far right terrorist?
Just another example of the way they manipulate the news to suit their world view. How many more examples are needed before someone does something about the BBC?
I also switched off at about the same time. I try, I really *do* try to listen to the programme but over the past week their coverage of such events as Baroness Thatcher’s death and funeral where they concentrated on miners’ tribal hatreds (I refer in particular to the harridan who claimed “That woman got me twice! She closed a way of life where I live [the mines] and she killed my brother [Falklands].” Hearing that interview repeated a few times during the day of the funeral had my blood pressure well over limits and my radio set almost hurled against the wall.
I can no longer abide Mr. Mair and I long ago forbade Naughtie, Humphreys and Webb access to my radio.
A SERIOUS QUESTION: Can anyone suggest a relatively honest, neutral and truthful radio broadcaster I can tune into. I have two Internet radios so can probably pick up any source which is recommended.
Serious, helpful suggestions will be gratefully received.
I have been listening to Jeff Kuhner & Michael Savage, as there is no talk radio worth listening to in the UK.
The last decent one was Jon Gaunt, and he was sacrificed at the table of political correctness.
Since 2009, Savage has been barred from entering the United Kingdom, for allegedly “seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred”.
Sounds like he’d fit right in here!
That surely must be you Evan .?
TV QVOQVE AMICE
Yes, he mentions it on a daily basis fyi, while radical imams are welcomed in with open arms to promote the BBC approved brand of filth at the LSE.
Let’s have some facts, please, rather than misleading quotes from politicians who are scared to address the concerns of their constituents, eh?
+1
Yeah you’ve found a real coven of witches and heretics here haven’t you prince?
statement just in from from the familys of these terrorists …MY BOYS ARE ANGELS,,,,MY BOYS ARE SWEET KIDS…MY BOYS WOULD NEVER HURT ANYBODY,,,,does that ring a bell comrades,,,oh yes,,,THE FAMILYS OF THE 7/7 BOMBERS IN LONDON SAID THE SAME THING AND ALL OTHER TERRORISTS CONVICTED IN THE UK FAMILYS SPIN THE SAME OLD CRAP,,AND YES I AM SHOUTING WITH ANGER TODAY….I AM SICK OF THIS BULLSHITT,JUST SICK OF IT,..but comrades,here is the thing,,,ISLAM IS OUT OF CONTROL IN THE WORLD….THEY ARE CHILD KILLERS AND HAVE NO RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE,,,,NO OTHER RELIGION IN THE IN THE WORLD SPAWN ALL THESE TERRORIST DEVILS DAILY…what are we to do comrades,,,what are we to do…….
“Media Still Wondering What Possible Motive Muslim Terrorists Could Have for Killing Americans.”
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/media-still-wondering-what-possible-motive-muslim-terrorists-could-have-for-killing-americans/
By Daniel Greenfield.
Amazing how he can quite easily provide a link to Tamburlane’s YouTube channel, where we can see plain as day terrorist content, when the Beeb, as noted above, ‘cannot confirm’ it.
working link this time.
“Shameless Liberal Exploitation of Boston Marathon Bombing”
by CHRISTOPHER ADAMO.
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/shameless-liberal-exploitation-of-boston-marathon-bombing?f=must_reads#ixzz2QvclsFqB
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
For INBBC’s investigative journalists:-
“Photo: Boston jihad murderer Dzhokhar Tsarnaev placing bomb near one of his murder victims, 8-year-old Martin Richard”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/04/photo-boston-jihad-murderer-dzokhar-tsarnaev-placing-bomb-near-one-of-his-murder-victims-8-year-old-.html
BBC Radio 4 “PM” prog’ at 17:49 approx. this evening.
Edward Mair interviewing a female High School contemporary of the dead terrorist. She says (and the BBC chooses to let her speak at length):
“What are WE?”
So, as Peter Simple’s Dr Heinz Kiosk would have said, with his audience scrambling for the exits from the hall:
“WE ARE ALL GUILTY!!!!”
And I heard her guff about wanting the bomber to be cpatured alive, so we could all hear why he had done this.
Methinks the liberal elite won`t be wanting us to hear why he did it though….a misunderstanding of Islam, whish will need lots more money to be given to them; so they can educate us all the better.
No need for James Earl Ray or Jack Ruby anymore to rub out the truth…the liberal elite no longer know what that is.
Just that Islam is the answer…and can they keep their pensions at least?
Alan wanted it to be a Muslim bomber.
[Really? Just where did he say that then? Not making stuff up are you? You could get a job at the BBC….oh…..maybe already there ?)
He tells us the BBC wanted it to be a white, right wing nut. It looks like its a jihadist, so he thinks he wins. Apparently the BBC has questions to answer because it happens to be a Muslim and it had already decided (it doesn’t, and it hadn’t). [Actually..it has and it did…not making more stuff up are you?]
Both have killed and bombed civilians before, these bombs went off, others haven’t. It’s simply you have a problem because you are on the ‘right’ and don’t want to be associated with a right-wing nut bomber. And of course, rather uncomfortably for you, you would likley agree with that person’s views, while of course condemning what they’ve done. Afterall, Anders Breivik had a point right?
Oh, and you don’t like the Muslims much. [Amazing how you have such insight….MI6 could use your mind reading abilities, no need for waterboarding!…and not even face to face but over the internet..wow You’re good!]
I listened to that section of the Today programme, I don’t see the problem. I kept listening and what followed was a report about legislation to make discrimination based on caste to be illegal in the UK. Something the BBC would NEVER discuss.
But this is what has motivated all your posts so far on the Boston bombings. If the bomber was of the right wing nut type (there have been some before right?) then you would’ve told us the BBC was really bigging that angle up, and tarring you all with the same brush, and besides according to your definition he was a leftie anyway….and they have a tendency towards violence. The BBC’s coverage is pretty irrelevant to this.
And then you delete those who dissent. [No….Those who get deleted are trolls who post nonsense designed to destroy a thread….I make an exception in this case]
Maybe you’d accept a referral that stretches beyond closing or a House Ruling? Same difference.
Here are the the BBC’s:
Names may be failed if they…
Contain website or email addresses
Contain contact information (i.e. phone numbers, postcodes etc)
Appear to impersonate someone else
Contain swear words or are otherwise objectionable
We reserve the right to fail comments which…
Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others
Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable
Contain swear words or other language likely to offend
Break the law or condone or encourage unlawful activity. This includes breach of copyright, defamation and contempt of court.
Advertise products or services for profit or gain
Are seen to impersonate someone else
Include contact details such as phone numbers, postal or email addresses
Are written in anything other than English – Welsh and Gaelic may be used where expressly stated
Contain links to other websites which break our Editorial Guidelines
Describe or encourage activities which could endanger the safety or well-being of others
Are considered to be “spam”, that is posts containing the same, or similar, content posted multiple times
Are considered to be off-topic for the blog discussion
Evan Davis would have an expediting initiated within seconds.
Thanks for raising the unique differences between those who share and those who indeed ‘tell us’ and back it with truly draconian censorship.
Sorry, can’t understand what you’re talking about.
“Sorry, can’t understand what you’re talking about.”
—
No need to apologise.
But again, your lack of comprehension abilities are beyond really beyond my control.
I’m not the first, and I’m sure I won’t be the last.
No there plenty more wise monkeys out there
In short Prince Albert, you have come to a rambling conclusion based on your own prejudices, something your beloved BBC is very good at but the rest of us are bloody tired of it.
Where’s the conclusion? I haven’t heard any yet.
well I guess you cant all the way up there above the lowing herd
I can’t speak for Alan but, yes, there will certainly have been some people who “wanted it” to be a Moslem; fair point, as far as it goes. BUT – the BBC is supposed to be better than that AND we have to pay for it! It really would have been better for everyone, including the BBC, just to give what definite facts were known and STOP SPECULATING AND EDITORIALIZING IN A BIASED WAY.
I’m a grown-up, I want news for grown-ups. I want a bit of analyis. If you can’t stand the heat, go watch Newsround.
“I want a bit of analyis”
—-
The BBC is probably the perfect resource for such a thing.
Also being a grown up is likely mandatory.
“I want a bit of analyis”
You said it fella
Date, time and casualty numbers for bombing outrages carried out by right wing nut jobs in pursuit of an explictly right wing terrorist agenda please.
Anders Breivik
Timothy McVeigh
eh….
Horrible atrocities but please can you name five more out of the many hundreds of terrorist outrages over the last 20 years, and show how these have a common ideological motivation. I may be biased and just not recalling them and am completely willing to be corrected by some evidence.
I think that the weight of evidence of past atrocities (Beslan, Atocha station, 9/11, London underground, Glasgow airport, US East African Embassies, etc etc etc) JUSTIFIES speculation that this crime was committed by people motivated by radical Islam. Such justification does not exist to support speculation that this horror was “caused by deranged far-rightwingers”, and the point of this blog is not about blaming islam as a default for all evils [I confess it sometimes sounds like that] but that it seems that there is a default position, wheeling in the far-right with no evidence whatsoever to substantiate early speculation, taken by early BBC following one of these all too common mass murders. This blog is about BBC bias.
There is a wiki page that lists terrorist outrages, read it you will be horrified
Oh, and please refer to my advice on identifying ducks posted above
A better and constantly updated website is
Religion of Peace which currently is showing 20,730 separate deadly terrorist attacks committed by Muslims since 9/11.
I don’t think there’s any value in a numbers game like that. When those bombs exploded I don’t think there’s many who didn’t immediately think Islamic terrorist.
But there were also factors which suggested the Timothy McVeigh type. If the BBC was biased to look at such then so was every major broadcaster, the FBI, the Boston PD, anyone who’s ever read a book etc etc
I don’t think there’s many who didn’t immediately think Islamic terrorist – But there were also factors which suggested the Timothy McVeigh type
The ‘numbers’ do have a value. How many of the former attacks have there been, and how many of the latter in recent years?
Question is, did the BBC ALSO examine the possibility of the former, or did they sideline it to highlight mostly on the latter?
If so – WHY?
Leiber Prinz Albert, how are Vicky and the kids doing?
I am perplexed by your post, what were these other compelling factors of which you speak?
I heard two theories advanced which no sane person could give credence – idle speculation about the date of the attack co-inciding with “tax day” and the fact that Obama was trying (and failing) to impose gun control at the time.
Please could you give a link to any report advancing a credible theory – supported by a modicum of EVIDENCE to JUSTIFY speculation that it was good ‘ol domestic, home grown Tea Party supporting NRA lovin’ gun nuts?
By the way, the numbers game is valid – 1) Every one of those 20,000 victims was a human being, not simply a number and
2)20,000 to 400 says that the motivation for terrorism is 50 times more likely to be islamic radicalism than fascist right wing violence.
I will stop posting for today as I have been doing too much recently and I don’t want to become a bore.
Not 20,000 victims – but deadly atacks where at least one was killed.
This week’s statistics
Weekly Jihad Report
Apr. 06 – Apr. 12
Jihad Attacks: 49
Allahu Akbars*: 3
Dead Bodies: 195
Critically Injured: 468
*Suicide Attacks
Monthly Jihad Report
March, 2013
Jihad Attacks: 189
Countries: 21
Religions: 5
Dead Bodies: 988
Critically Injured: 2093
🙄
Or to put it another way:
So, you think the Ku Klux Klan
and the Spanish Inquisition are bad?
So do we, but…
Put the Numbers in Perspective
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. (source)
Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years. (source)
More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. (source)
19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years. (source)
So naturally following a terrorist bombing the immediate thought is ‘it must be right wingers’.
At least at the BBC, and with their understanding of world news, having people situated in nearly every land as they do, they must know.
Funny how we can do better just sitting at our computers.
‘Alan wanted it to be a Muslim bomber. He tells us the BBC wanted it to be a white, right wing nut.’
For a semblance of objectivity you have to make your statement balanced. You should really have said ‘I think Alan wanted it to be a Muslim bomber. He tells us the BBC wanted it to be a white, right wing nut’. Or to make it clearer Alan can only have an opinion about what the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation thinks while Prince Albert KNOWS what Alan thinks.
I assume you have no problem with this: ‘Prince Albert is very upset that it was not a white right-wing bomber, and is flailing around trying to deflect attention away from the blatantly partisan speculation of the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation that the Boston bomber virtually had to be a white right-wing terrorist’.
Ah, but Alan has published a number of posts on the subject, therefore he has stated his thinking.
Actually, I share Christopher Hitchen’s view on Islam. I don’t have anything against people just because they’re brown though, or are a bit different.
Just those that dont accept your received truth?
Ah, you mean like in the same way that the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation deliberately only considered the Boston bombers as being domestic, white and far-right?
Again you can interpret Alan’s opinions but no one else can comment upon the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation’s evident bias.
It doesn’t matter what Alan may, or may not have wanted, the truth is the bombers were Chechen Muslims. That cannot be denied. It also fits in with the vast number of terrorist atrocities around the globe. So it is quite natural to think of Islamic terrorism initially.
Evan Davis justified his thinking that it wasn’t Islamic terrorism by saying the bombers weren’t wearing suicide vests – I’m paraphrasing – I think he actually said they weren’t suicide bombers. Neither are Taliban bomb makers. They plant their bombs and try to stay alive in order to make more devices. The fact the bombs were made using pressure cookers points to a Taliban type bomb maker determined to remain free to plant more bombs and kill more people.
Basically, Davis didn’t know what the hell he was talking about.
By the way, Albert, your argument about Alan is purely a diversionary tactic typical of your posts under a different name.
Why DO you insist on using multiple names when you visit this site? You’ve let slip that you’ve obviously visited this site previously by mentioning Alan’s posting history. Using different names isn’t very honest, is it?
‘the bombers were Chechen Muslims……So it is quite natural to think of Islamic terrorism initially.
Sorry to point out the obvious, but this wasn’t known ‘initially’ !!
The siucide vests was one point that tilted the suspicion one way, just as there were others which tilited it another way as stated. Its an adult discussion.
Another rebranded, bbc employed troll with a support team in place, who thinks his sniping can destroy the truth.
“Alan wanted it to be a Muslim bomber.”
He did not want there a bombing at all.
“He tells us the BBC wanted it to be a white, right wing nut.”
In short he listened to the BBC.
“Apparently the BBC has questions to answer because it happens to be a Muslim”
There is no just so “happens” about it.
You are on the ‘right’ and don’t want to be associated with a right-wing nut bomber. And of course, rather uncomfortably for you, you would likely agree with that person’s views”
Yes Alan thinks terrorism is the way forward, he often posts about it.
“Anders Breivik had a point right”
What, let’s kill Lefties? Nope.
“Oh, and you don’t like the Muslims much.”
Is it a thought crime? Who made it a thought crime? You?
“I listened to that section of the Today programme, I don’t see the problem.”
Well if you think the BBC gets it about right that is all that matters. I mean people have a choice if they pay for it right, Oh wait.
“If the bomber was of the right wing nut type…then you would’ve told us the BBC was…tarring you all with the same brush”
Well it rather depends how the BBC report it doesn’t it. Is it beyond criticism?
“he was a leftie”
Nope, Muslim terrorists. The Left simply apologize for Muslim terrorism on the grounds that everything is America’s (and if possible) Churchill’s and Thatcher’s fault.
“The BBC’s coverage is pretty irrelevant to this”
Nope, it is the BBC he is talking about, it is you who are changing the subject.
“you delete those who dissent”
Unlike most Leftist sites this site encourages diversity of opinion – if there has been a policy change I doubt that many people on here would approve of it. But if Alan wants to delete comments it is his choice. You know, that choice thing again.
“Alan wanted it to be a Muslim bomber.”
He did not want there a bombing at all.
I didnt suggest he did and he is clearly commenting after the bombings. Stop sniffing the glue.
I bloody-well knew it! It is just as I stated on the Open Thread. The BBC are an utter disgrace. If the culprit is Muslim the BBC will hold off until the very last second and only then they will use terms like ‘terrorist’ or ‘radical’ – any attempt to avoid Islam etc. However, if there is any chance that the culprit is white the BBC and the rest simply don’t give it a rest. It’s an absolute disgrace! The majority of terrorists are Muslim; it’s this bloody simple. The BBC know it, we all know it. It’s to the credit of site that we are not afraid to state the truth.
“Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, The Boy Who Is Cambridge.”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/48607
Even Russian TV has this accessible piece:-
“Boston bombing suspects: Tsarnaev brothers from Russia’s Caucasus, long-term US residents”
http://rt.com/news/chechnya-suspect-boston-bombing-110/
“Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became an American Citizen on September 11, 2012, CBSBoston reported.”
How bloody ironic.
What is particularly galling (but not surprising) about the BBC’s coverage is, had the culprits been white, there would have been no end of speculation as to which right-wing group they belonged to, with hours of archive video footage, security ‘experts’ (aka left wing uni professors), dissection of Tea Party policies, more lecturing on the evils of US gun laws etc etc etbloodycetera. It would have been relentless.
The BBC is not speculating about the two’s motive as to whether it was religious
But just now on BBC news 24 a BBC corespondent was able to pass on the father of the boys view speculating that “The Secret Service had set his boys up”.
How the hell does this editorial line work? Does the BBC think that telling the truth will trigger a civil war? or are the news rooms filled with fellow travellers?
Guilty Pleasures ?
I have to admit it did raise a smile on the news quiz, that George Osborne’s tears were after he realised how much the funeral had cost the exchequer !
Followed by a fair run of comments re the uselessness of Ed Miliband!
Funny.
But then they let Jeremy Hardy on-and the comedy went creeping out the door, as it always does with him.
George makes a very good point above about the BBC’s Nelsonesque (I see no ships) approach to the motivation of the Boston Bombers.
In the Bombers’ BBC profile, regarding the Youtube page of Tamelan (“Sword of Islam”), the BBC, a media organisation that receives a subsidy of £4 BILLION a year, states:
“The BBC has been unable to confirm the information about material on Tamerlan’s YouTube page”
And yet here, on a (excuse me, kind hosts) two-bit website with next to zero funding, is a link to the self-same Youtube page in all its jihadist terrorist glory that the mighty BBC is apparently unable to find.
Well, bozos, we know you’re reading. There’s your link, up the page. Go read it. The guy was a jihadist, a mujahedeen. It was almost without any doubt a jihadist attack. The motivation was jihad. It doesn’t matter that “Chechens have a grudge against Russia, not America” because jihadists are Muslim warriors first and nationals of this or that country second.
So please, quit with the dumb Stan Laurel head scratching and all the “it’s like totally WEIRD; what could POSSIBLY have motivated them?” crap. It’s jihad. By jihadists. We don’t have to have done anything to provoke it. Wake up, for goodness sake.
Fingers in ears, its not jihad, its an act of “evil”, says BBC headlining the Obama administration’s new line of spin. Training to be a brain surgeon one day, plant bombs to mutilate and kill the next, it’s all in a days work for supporters of
Islamic JihadEvil. Attempted mass-murder, robbery, shooting police dead, carjacking, gunfights and car chases, throwing explosives, all part of a medical students training.The Glasgow airport jihad bombers were junior doctors. You would think we have enough medical students of our own to fill these jobs, without placing ads in the Al Quaeda Times and Daily Jihad
You might be forgiven for thinking that encouraging Islamic students in the UK and US was a sort of political statement by our liberal academics. World Class and all that.
here we go again.
it’s not islam that’s the problem , it ‘s how it’s interpreted . it;s evil, not religion.
he had no friends.
he could not settle.
he was traumatised by the Chechen war
blah blah blah,
FACT – In the Koran there are 527 verses of intolerance toward non-Muslims, and 109 verses specifically advocating violence towards non-Muslims including with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.
We should be having a billon of these attacks every day then surely?
Is that what you want Donald?
Moron
A new day, a new name… same calibre of deluge drive-by input across the board.
Hardly unique, though the BBC must be thrilled to have such defensive capacity deployed on their behalf.
I watched the bBC news at lunchtime , not once didn it mention the reason why these two brothers would want to murder people in the US.
Oh they told me they were chetneya, that they had lived in the US for around 10 years and that they had become radiacalized due to American foreign policy.
The bBC the traitors within our Midst
Somebody Wept! OK, you know wot I mean!
I have just visited the Daily Mail online site and the information available there shows a truly horrific story.
I AM NOT SAYING the DM site is in every way correct, but my goodness, the complete and absolute difference between the Daily Mail and the BBC sites are truly unbelievable. I guess that somewhere between the two lies the truth, and from what I have read and digested from websites ALL OVER THE WORLD the Daily Mail IS more believable than the BBC.
Who’da thunk it???
The entire liberal elite and their spokespersons -the Guardian/BBC/just about all the MSM cannot face reality. It is that simple. If once they admit to themselves that there are people in the world who do not love Western civilisation and who will never compromise in their attempts to destroy it then their carefully constructed liberal world starts to fall apart.
It is not just over the bombings . It is in every absurd policy of unreality espoused by the liberal ascendancy. The EU, the single currency, the printing of devalued money, the immigration fiaso, the poor quality of our schools, and so on and so on.
For too long we have been governed by fantasists. When faced with what happened in Boston they have no answers because that is reality. How they must wish they could deal with it in the caring, liberal;.non judgemental ( horrible word ) way they are used to. But they can’t.
There is a clash of civilisations. It is what happens in the real world and it has happened many times before. . It is neither to be avoided or wished away. Those who wish us ill say this is what it is and we had better believe them. Otherwise our grandchildren face a nightmare future and it will be our fault.
We cannot protect our way of life with liberal waffle or be led by those who have no way of understanding what we may be about to face.
As Trotsky urged his supporters: “Ignore the truth!”. Likewise the mass murderer Mao, who would accuse his victims of epistemology i.e. acting on the basis of how things actually are rather than what Marxist-Leninist theory reckons they should be. Bottom line is that the illiberal left simply doesn’t do rationality.
Sotsialisticheskaya Pravda = Socialist Truth.
seven minutes into News24 so far and the word used is “disaffected” – “Islamist” turned up once, in a reference to Chechnya seven minutes in. No reference AT ALL to the brothers even being Muslim, let alone jihad as a potential motive. This is jaw-dropping in its desperation to avoid mentioning the potential religious angle.
“The World Tonight” on Radio 4 from 22:00 has been similar. The words conspicuous by their absence have been those based (so my Arabic-speaking friends tell me) around the triliteral S-L-M, which can appear as m-S-L-M or even t-S-L-M.
More of the same on “Any Questions?” (from the USA, to mark 100 days of Obama’s 2nd term). Q’s about: (1) Impact of social media as the Boston bombing story unfolded; (2) Gun-control in USA; (3) USA-GB relationship; (4) Use of drones v terrorists; (5) One key issue for Obama to master (discussion largely pro-Keynesian); (6) Terms that are disapproved of by panel members (“illegal immigration”, “person of colour”, “federal budget”, “self-regulation”).
No mention of S-L-M or Kulturkampf of course.
“ENEMEDIA: NEW YORK TIMES SYMPATHIZES WITH BOSTON JIHAD BOMBERS”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/04/enemedia-new-york-times-sympathizes-with-boston-jihad-bombers.html
Supplementary.
“New York Times shows sympathy for Boston jihad murderers.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/04/new-york-times-shows-sympathy-for-boston-jihad-murderers.html
Towards whom does ‘left’ feel politically more empathetic?
Either:
a.) Chechen Islamic jihad murderers in Boston,
Or –
b.) ex-British P.M, Margaret Thatcher?
Mark Urban on Newsnight to tells us that the bombers were both domestic and international – clearly the BBC haven’t yet dropped the ‘domestic terrorist’ meme. Fuckwits who get their news from the beeb will still have the impression of stetson wearing, straw chewing, red-necks. Kirsty Wark referred to them as ‘American boys’ – I can see two things wrong with that statement, 1) they were from Chechnya and 2) at 19 and 26 they were hardly boys. (In other news the BBC thinks that Abu Qutada is an English boy -just kidding).
Giant elephant in the room barely mentioned but someone called Daisy Khan (from some pro-muslim group) gets to bitch about nasty phone calls to muslims while a traitorous academic agrees with everything she said. America is fucked.
The BBC Moscow correspondent Daniel Sandford finally had to mention the russian facebook page that had been on the net for hours, commenting that the bomber had some interest in Islamist style ideologies. FFS it states his belief is Islam! Sandford has a poor degree in Physics, presumably his journalistic qualification giving him a job at the BBC is being able to hold the Guardian the right way up. The live feed from the BBC keeps referring to this killer of an 8 yr old child as a”teenager” or a “student”, no mention of his being a follower of the religion of peace.
Katty Kay, the other useless BBC journalist commented that he was fine until a few years ago, what happened to him since then, implying that its the fault of the USA that he is now a killer. The BBC damage limitation excersise is now in full swing
At midnight, Fox rolling news shows around a thousand students at Mass-Uni partying and celebrating the capture of the second bomber, all chanting USA! – USA! and waving American flags.
Elsewhere BBC’s embedded leftist US correspondents are gnashing teeth, scribbling their anti-American bile. The true nature of the Left for all to see.
BBC still this morning focusing on Chechen ‘independence’ as the ’cause – absolutely refusing to go near Islamism. Interesting however that one of their guests, a US analyst, pointed out that the Fort Hood killings were Islamist terrorism – something neither the BBC or the Obama administration will accept. I think they defined those murders as ‘workplace violence’ or some such garbage.
The persecution of Muslims in Burma by Buddhists is now being pushed feverishly by BBC World News because it shows Muslims as victims, and is a partial antidote to the Islamist element in the Boston bombings (and in much of the other news). Funny how the BBC never reports on the daily killings of Buddhists by Muslim separatists in neighbouring Thailand that has been going on for years. Four people were killed yesterday.