Monthly Archives: March 2016

Did you know Christians were being persecuted in Burma?  You knew Muslims were in conflict with the Buddhists because the BBC has relentlessly been promoting the cause of the Muslim insurgents in Burma…but I have never heard the BBC mention that Christians were under attack.  This is the same BBC of course that told us a couple of years ago that Christians in the Middle East were thriving and those in Gaza were getting on famously with their Islamist hosts.

The BBC asks Why is there communal violence in Myanmar? but it is only the Muslim community that they are interested in…strange really when you consider this headline from the Telegraph in 2007..

Burma ‘orders Christians to be wiped out’

The military regime in Burma is intent on wiping out Christianity in the country, according to claims in a secret document believed to have been leaked from a government ministry. Entitled “Programme to destroy the Christian religion in Burma”, the incendiary memo contains point by point instructions on how to drive Christians out of the state.

The text, which opens with the line “There shall be no home where the Christian religion is practised”, calls for anyone caught evangelising to be imprisoned. It advises: “The Christian religion is very gentle – identify and utilise its weakness.”

Its discovery follows widespread reports of religious persecution, with churches burnt to the ground, Christians forced to convert to the state religion, Buddhism, and their children barred from school.

That was in 2007 but it’s still going on…

Myanmar’s first fair elections for decades took place in November 2015, seeing the opposition party win a landslide victory, but already violence against Christians has risen.

The Burmese army is influential in Myanmar’s politics; Buddhist nationalists are known to attack Christian communities which are seen as a threat to Burmese-Buddhist heritage. Ethnic minority groups to which many Christians belong, such as the Rohingyas, also experience attacks from the army and radical Buddhists. Buddhist-background believers and Muslim-background believers face being shunned by their communities.

But it’s not just the Buddhists attacking the Christians…no surprise you might think about the other culprits…

“The Muslims in the village still wanted to kill me. One day, they came to do just that. They attacked me but some believers shielded me from harm. Another night, Muslims surrounded my home while I was sleeping and pelted stones on our roof.”

Amod is on the run. He’s from the Rohingya (Muslim) tribe and converted to Christianity after 33 years as a Muslim.

The Spectator asks why Christian persecution and ‘ethnic cleansing’ is ignored by the Media…

Imagine if correspondents in late 1944 had reported the Battle of the Bulge, but without explaining that it was a turning point in the second world war. Or what if finance reporters had told the story of the AIG meltdown in 2008 without adding that it raised questions about derivatives and sub-prime mortgages that could augur a vast financial implosion?

Most people would say that journalists had failed to provide the proper context to understand the news. Yet that’s routinely what media outlets do when it comes to outbreaks of anti-Christian persecution around the world, which is why the global war on Christians remains the greatest story never told of the early 21st century.

Those atrocities are indeed appalling, but they cannot truly be understood without being seen as small pieces of a much larger narrative.

Just been listening to 5Live and Adrian Chiles [The man who hates UKIP]…talking about the attack on Christians in Lahore and when it was stated that this was a deliberate attack on Christians [and I believe the Taliban have said as much] Chiles pipes up with the standard BBC meme…‘there were Muslims hurt as well’……as if this proves it wasn’t an attack on Christians in particular or that this lessens the fact of the mass murder of Christians in a deliberate attempt to clear them out of Pakistan. Muslim terrorists can blow up whom and what they like as long as a few token Muslims get killed as well so that the BBC can say this isn’t really anything to do with Islam and Muslim intolerance of other religions.

The Taliban faction Jamaat-ul-Ahrar issued a statement claiming responsibility for the attack.

“The target were Christians,” a spokesman for the faction, Ehsanullah Ehsan, told the Reuters news agency while the Pakistan Express Tribune reports that he said, “We claim responsibility for the attack on Christians as they were celebrating Easter.”

Just noted this from Chilli in the comments…seems there must be a BBC memo scripting the BBC response…

I must say the BBC news at 10pm after the Night Manager took the biscuit for bias in every item.
First the Lahore reporter’s bizarre assertion that the suicide bomb attack on Christians celebrating Easter “didn’t just affect Christians”.

And yes, the news is pumping out the message that ‘Christians were targeted but many Muslims were also hurt.’…and ‘We must not forget this is Muslim on Muslim violence’…..really….I thought it was deliberate targeting of Christians.

Let’s just forget the Christians hey?

Thanks to NCBBC in the comments who links us to this from Breitbart:

BBC Radio Drama Gave Tips For Illegal Migrants In Somalia

A BBC department that produced a radio drama giving practical tips to would-be migrants on how to cross from Somalia to Europe received nearly £90 million of British tax payers’ money.

The drama, broadcast to Somalia and Kenya at the height of the migrant crisis, featured one character advising a woman to travel only with small luggage to make the illegal crossing easier.  Another character is later advised that “this current time is the best opportunity to reach Europe”.  The drama is produced by BBC Media Action, the broadcaster’s charitable arm, which is funded by the British government’s foreign aid budget.  Titled ‘A Better Life than Today’, it follows the fortunes of a group of Somali youths and has more than two million listeners on BBC Radio Somali.

Here is Media Action‘s own report on the impact of that drama…you may believe it or not….they tell us that it has been effective in persuading Somalians to stay in their own country…..

Rather think that might just be the BBC justifying its government and EU grants with exaggerated tales of its own success.  Are there any independent studies of the effect of such programmes?  What are the chances that many listen when the BBC itself tells us the problems…

Although youth is the biggest segment of the population in Somalia, they are marginalised and excluded from decision making on family, community and national issues. This combined with high unemployment rates and low school enrolment rates means that Somalia has an extremely high proportion of disenfranchised youth.

Here is Media Action calling for film makers…judge for yourselves whether the BBC is enabling and encouraging migration……I think it might be……

Call for Proposals: Short Information Films for Syrian refugees in
Lebanon

Theme: Illegal Migration
Target group: Syrian refugees mainly, but it could include the Lebanese host community as well.
Age group: Adults, with a focus on youth.
Background: Many Syrians are pondering whether or not to join the exodus of refugees travelling to seek asylum in Europe. There is some content around the risks inherent in the journey to Europe but not much else about the challenges and opportunities once there.
This could include hearing from Syrians who have made the journey about their new lives abroad.
Objective: Help Syrian refugees make an informed decision about whether or not to attempt to seek asylum in another country. The aim isn’t to advise them either to stay or to go, but rather to help them reach an informed decision based on a realistic understanding of the potential risks and benefits.
Call to action: Look before you leap.

Here is the BBC website for the Somali programmes…

Inspiring young people through radio drama

Interestingly there is this from the BBC in 2011 where the presenter, Frances Cairncross puts the case for immigration…

CAIRNCROSS:  And every year, immigrant workers like Shagid and Olive, send billions of pounds home from money transfer centres like this one.  These remittances are one of the unsung success stories of the fight against poverty in developing countries – but as a tool of development, they raise as many questions as they answer.   At a time of  austerity and cuts, the government has decided to protect the aid budget. And yet at the same time the government wants to discourage migrant workers from coming to Britain. In this Analysis programme we ask whether there is a contradiction here. If we really want what’s best for developing countries, is it more important to encourage remittances than to protect state aid.

Asad Shah’s wife and siblings said they had been left “heartbroken” by the killing and they had been overwhelmed by the messages of support they had received from the local community in the Shawlands area of Glasgow.

James Dean, BBC: “Controlling #media in the name of preventing terrorism is not a good idea”

We’ve already looked at the BBC’s reluctance to report the religious identity of the killer of Asad Shah in Glasgow and the reluctance to bring the issues that frame that murder into the open continues….and it is even now ignoring the family living in fear of being murdered by what, I suppose are in fact, no less than Muslim terrorists attacking the Ahmadi community.  Still there is this important BBC news from Scotland on the frontpage…

Polar bear romance in Scottish highlands

Hopes are growing that the UK may soon have its first polar bear cub in 25 years, after Victoria and Arktos, two bears at the Highland Wildlife Park in Scotland, started mating.

 

The Today programme [39 mins in] gave all of a couple of minutes to the murder and limited itself to the bare facts and reporting how loved Asaf Shah was and what a nice man.  That was a cynical tick box exercise by the BBC  done to show ‘respect’ but in fact what it revealed was a contempt for, not only Asad Shah, but also the truth which the BBC is prepared to sacrifice for what they believe is the greater good…that elusive community cohesion.  Tell Mama wasn’t invited on to discuss this latest example of ‘Islamophobia’ for some reason but they give us an idea of why the BBC wants to play down this sectarian, religiously motivated murder….

As long as there divisions, they will be manipulated and used by extremist far right groups to drive a wedge between communities… They will use it to malign Muslims and to seek division.

Maybe it’s not just the Far-Right who have legitimate concerns about what Islam brings to Europe….but the BBC would rather hide Muslim prejudice that ends in murder than confront it and give ‘ammunition’ to the critics of Islam.

Asad Shah was probably killed because he was an Ahmadi, someone not considered a Muslim by mainstream Islam.  They have been persecuted, much like the Jews, wherever they live in Muslim countries, and they are not even safe in  Britain.  The BBC, the champion of the oppressed and downtrodden minorities, looks away as they are murdered on our streets.

The murder of Asad Shah is history for the BBC, relegated to the Scottish page despite his family saying they are in fear of their own lives, something the BBC mentions only at the bottom of its ‘What the papers say’ page…the Scottish papers’ page that is……

The family of a Muslim shopkeeper who was attacked after posting an online Easter message have revealed they feared for their lives following the incident, according to the Scottish Daily Mail.

The BBC is otherwise not interested that a family lives in fear of being murdered by conservative Muslims.

The BBC will try to claim, if it ever gets around to examining the issues, that the extremists who attack Ahmadis are a small group who pervert the religion of Islam…but that’s not true….the persecution of Ahmadis is given divinely sanctioned motivation by mainstream British Muslim groups and commentators….

The MCB spells out explicitly how Ahmadis are viewed….

So to be clear, the MCB states quite uncategorically, that Ahmadis are not Muslim.

The results of which you can see at Tell Mama or indeed on the streets of Glasgow, just not on the BBC today….

Whatever, the motivation, we know that Police Scotland regard this murder as religiously motivated. Asad Shah was an Ahmaddiya and the murderer, another Muslim of Sunni heritage. We cannot extrapolate and we must not influence process where justice needs to take its course. Yet, the current information provided is worrying and may indicate sectarian hatred.

How can the BBC ignore the fact that the largest, most representative Muslim group, the conservative MCB, is fueling hatred against Ahmadi Muslims?  Why is the BBC so reluctant to investigate these issues that lead to murder when any example of ‘Islamophobia’, however suspect, spurious or minor, is news for days and days?

Much like Rotherham and Rochdale the guilty get away it because the BBC doesn’t want to report the truth due to the race or religion of the perps.

Nice to see that the BBC is referring to the terrorists in Brussels as ‘militants’ on their news bulletins this morning…not ‘very militant’ or even ‘very, very militant’,  just ‘militant’.  Of course the use of the word ‘terrorist’ is controversial as so many Muslims see these boys as freedom fighters and victims of Western oppression…so we can’t be seen to be taking sides at the BBC can we?

Rather surprised to hear that there were two bomb attacks in Europe this week….the ones in Brussels and one in Ankara.  Somehow I just don’t see Turkey as part of Europe…the BBC has obviously come to the editorial decision to make it firmly European which, as it is geographically dominantly Middle Eastern or Asian, and Erdogan has firmly placed it back in the Islamic camp, is questionable and is clearly a political decision by the BBC with three possible motivations…one Turkey is Muslim, therefore the BBC wants to present Islam as part of European culture and not alien to it, two, Turkey is supposedly the solution to the refugee crisis so again anything that makes Turkey seem on side is good, and three Turkey wants to join the European Union and so being presented by the BBC as already part of ‘Europe’, again not alien to, is obviously a good PR move for those who want it to join.  The BBC is ‘nudging’ our perceptions and trying to shape, manipulate, our views on Turkey.

It is especially questionable as Turkey is backing IS to a large extent as a weapon to stop the Kurds….never mind this…

King Abdullah of Jordan accused Turkey of exporting terrorists to Europe at a top level meeting with senior US politicians in January, the MEE can reveal. 

The king said Europe’s biggest refugee crisis was not an accident, and neither was the presence of terrorists among them: “The fact that terrorists are going to Europe is part of Turkish policy and Turkey keeps on getting a slap on the hand, but they are let off the hook.”

Asked by one of the congressmen present whether the Islamic State group was exporting oil to Turkey, Abdullah replied: ”Absolutely.”

Hardly European friendly as Turkey seems to be not only blackmailing Europe over the refugees but also enabling the terrorism inside Europe…..not a problem for the BBC of course…The BBC’s European ‘militant’ freedom fighter, another man’s terrorist.

Speaking of whch….the Easter Rising in 1916…getting lots of favourable, almost admiring coverage on the BBC, though the IRA has always had BBC journos eating out of their hands. Ah the romance of the Oirish rebel….for sure Nick Robinson on the Today programme suggested that the Rising lit a fuse that led to decades of sectarian violence but that was brushed aside by the Irish politicians and Robinson managed to travel a parallel path paying lip service to the violence and the victims whilst ‘celebrating’ the Rising and the freedom from the ‘occupiers and oppressors’ as he put it.

No such tide of positive coverage for other momentous British events such as Trafalgar or Waterloo.  Waterloo was in fact attacked by the BBC which even blamed it for the rise of Hitler and then there were the insults to those of Bomber Command by saying they were war criminals worse than the Third Reich, in very one sided programmes about the bombing of Germany.

What was interesting though was how Irish poet and writer Theo Dorgan described the Rising [08:56] and the motivation behind it…not a narrative the BBC likes unless coming from the mouths of the romantic rebel whose violent nationalism is somehow acceptable….

The project of national identity will always inspire any citizenry and the poets.  You have to understand the Rising as a cultural gesture…they hoped to spark the imagination of the people and make them realise liberty and independence were possible.

They held out a vision of independence and quite against all the odds they succeeded.  The repossession of a national language, the repossession of a national identity and pride in a culture which had been treated as subaltern, to speak from the heart of your own culture is to speak from the most absolute form of liberty imagineable and that’s what the Rising was, it was a kind of lightning conductor for power and energy that had been gathering at cultural levels.  I’m talking about suffragism, I’m talking about pacifism as well as military insurrection.  All of these currents were lively and powerful. 

We can shape and imagine a new future for ourselves.

Curious that this poet eulogising the violence of glorious insurrection that led to freedom and independence should finish by attacking UKIP and the amiable Nigel Farage.

Curious that the BBC also hates anyone who expresses nationalist ideas, UKIP or the EDL or any ‘little Englander’, whilst adoring the IRA and the SNP or indeed any Muslim terrorist who fights to set up a caliphate free from Western oppression.

Perhaps that is what the Brexit campaign needs…less on the economy more on the passion and vision of independence and liberty…Britain shaping the future for itself.

Boris’ time has come perhaps.  Can he fill the Churchillian boots with the grand, inspirational oratory and dodge the outrageous BBC slings and arrows?

Imam tells Muslim migrants to ‘breed children’ with Europeans to ‘conquer their countries’ and vows: ‘We will trample them underfoot, Allah willing’

A top Iman has told Muslims to use the migrant crisis to breed with European citizens and ‘conquer their countries’.

Sheikh Muhammad Ayed gave the speech at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem claiming Europe was only welcoming refugees as a new source of labour.

He said Europe was facing a demographic disaster and urged Muslims to have children with westerners so they could ‘trample them underfoot, Allah willing.’ 

“Belgium Will Become an Islamic State”

Two Muslim politicians, who just won municipal elections in Belgium’s capital, Brussels, on October 14, have vowed to implement Islamic Sharia law in Belgium.

Speaking to a reporter from Radio Télévision Belge Francophone (RTBF), the public broadcasting service of the French-speaking part of Belgium, Ahrouch said: “The agenda is still the same, but our approach is different now. I think we have to sensitize people, make them understand the advantages to having Islamic people and Islamic laws. And then it will be completely natural to have Islamic laws and we will become an Islamic state.”

The reporter interjected: “An Islamic State in Belgium?” Ahrouch replied: “In Belgium, of course! I am for the Sharia. Islamic law, I am for it. It is a long-term struggle that will take decades or a century, but the movement has been launched.”

Is it poverty, alienation and disaffection or just the urge to Islamise the world that ‘radicalises’ the Belgique?  That article above came from 2012….maybe people should wake up.

This British trainee lawyer, Aysh Chaudhry, is obviously poverty stricken and marginalised…he tells us freedom of speech is alien to Islam…..amongst other things…

How about one of the BBC’s favourite Muslim spokesmen, Ajmal Masroor?  Just what is the cause of radicalisation Sky asks?…..Naturally he utterly condemns extremism but…but…..if only our foreign policy wasn’t so anti-Muslim and unethical, that’s the real problem…and oh yes, the media portrayal of Muslims and the irresponsible linking of Islam to Islamic State only angers Muslims and makes them join…the Islamic State in order to defend..er…Islam.

Any wonder that Muslims feel the need to ‘defend’ Islam when ‘respectable’ imams like Masroor are preaching to them that their grievances are justified? The ‘firebrands’ aren’t going to listen to voices saying ‘be angry but not violent’…Masroor knows that but still peddles the Muslim’s under attack grievance line in the full knowledge that it is the same line that ISIS also feeds its potential recruits.  Of course his narrative is no different to the BBC’s highly dangerous line.  Douglas Murray has had enough of such lethal rubbish…..We must stop blaming ourselves for Islamist terrorism

Sky News tackles Masroor but then surrenders as it adopts his narrative that Islam has been hijacked by ISIS when in fact you’d be hard pushed to define the differences between the actions of ISIS and Mohammed as he blitzed the Middle East beheading captives, enslaving people, looting and Islamising the lands he captured…..the consequences of which we live with today…….but it’s all the West’s fault…..

Masroor tells us……

We must condemn extremism uncategorically, we must be tough on extremism and even tougher on the causes of extremism.

We need to come together to create a collective conscience and a narrative where there is no room for such people but……

….but at the same time we need to make sure our government isn’t supporting and siding with dictators and despots in the world.  Our silence in Syria, our silence in Iraq, the destabilisation of the entire region has caused this unfortunate development and we need to do something about it.  We need to end the unethical foreign policy that our government has been pursuing.

Sky News asks…’Can you understand the appeal for young, British Muslims to go out to Join IS and fight?’

I can understand their grievances but everyone with grievances doesn’t have justification to pick up guns and therefore to go out there and fight and wage a war….but….

…but at the same time we need to understand that 200,000 people in Syria have been killed and we have done very little to stop that.  Iraq has been destabilised because of Mr Blair’s foreign adventure, illegal war in Iraq, so whilst we condemn these young people uncategorically for what they are doing we condemn ISIS for their violence and brutality and we call on Young Muslims not to go there we also need to tell our government to behave well and to start behaving ethically when it comes to foreign policy and not side with dictators and despots as well as support democracy and freedom for people all across the globe.

Sky asks….’Who do you think is responsible for radicalising these young men?’

I think we are all responsible.  If we had done something about what’s happening in Syria, if we had not invaded Iraq, if we had not sent those drones to kill innocent people in Afghanistan and Somalia, in Yemen, if we had not done all these things, also other long term grievances such as Palestine has been occupied for a long time, Palestinians have been refugees in their own homes for years.  All these long term grievances… we will solve them, it is something in all honesty we have just left them to fester, we need to sort that out,  I can almost say, most people can guarantee, those who are extreme, they’ll find no reasons to be extreme any longer.

One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. “Master,” he said, “let me put my nose in your tent. It’s cold and stormy out here.” “By all means,” said the Arab, “and welcome” as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, “I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here.” “Yes, you may put your forelegs within,” said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

Finally, the camel said, “May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do.” “Yes, yes,” said the Arab. “Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us.” So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

Not much has changed since 2008 when this was in the news…

Sikhs and Hindus accuse BBC of pro-Muslim bias

Hindu and Sikh leaders have accused the BBC of pandering to Britain’s Muslim community by making a disproportionate number of programmes on Islam at the expense of covering other Asian religions.

A breakdown of programming from the BBC’s Religion and Ethics department, seen by The Independent, reveals that since 2001, the BBC made 41 faith programmes on Islam, compared with just five on Hinduism and one on Sikhism.

The BBC has been consistently attacking the Buddhists in Burma for fighting back against Muslim insurgents who seek to set up a separate Muslim state, labelling Buddhism a violent religion unlike Islam which the BBC insists is peaceful and tolerant.  Christianity is of course always in season for the BBC.   The BBC has also relentlessly attacked the Hindus in India as religious extremists in a way that the BBC does not define Muslim communities or Islam itself and today it continues that line of attack as it tries to excuse Muslim terrorism in the wake of Charlie Hebdo by showing the Hindus were furious about a Muslim depicting their Gods in insulting ways….the BBC is saying that it isn’t only Muslims who get violent when their Gods are insulted…presumably we are supposed to then think killing most of the staff of Charlie Hebdo amongst many others is now OK or at least ‘understandable’.

MF Husain: Hindustan Is Free

Professor Sunil Khilnani, from the King’s India Institute in London, looks at controversy over the Indian artist MF Husain, who spent the last days of his life in exile.

His paintings often attracted high prices but he became a target for mob anger over his portraits of Hindu goddesses and Indian feminine icons. Female deities had often shown nude in traditional art, but what enraged right-wing Hindus was that these images were created by a Muslim artist.

The programme insists that Hindus are violent extremists, right-wing ones apparently, who murder Muslims at will…no mention of the hundreds of thousands killed in the creation of Muslim Pakistan and the massive ethnic cleansing of Sikhs and Hindus that went on.

Listen to the upbeat adulation for the Muslim artist who ‘enraged so many Hindu extremists’…can’t imagine the BBC being so warm and upbeat about Charlie Hebdo who enraged and insulted all Muslims according to the BBC…not just ‘Muslim extremists’ then?  Note how the BBC dismisses the Muslim Husain’s ‘insulting’  depictions of Hindu Gods as merely a trifle, he was, we are told, just toying quite innocently with cultural tradition……and we hear that Muslims have been painting Hindu gods for centuries [and of course Muslims happily destroy other people’s gods…as with the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan]…and yet no one can paint Muhammed, who isn’t a god and should not be worshipped by Muslims, without being attacked by Muslims.

Why are ‘enraged Hindu extremists’  right-wing?  Why are Muslim extremists not defined as evil ‘right-wingers’?  Because of course they are ‘victims’ fighting prejudice, discrimination and marginalisation….their violence is wrong but understandable.

You know you are in the BBC’s Book of the Bad when you are defined, however randomly, as right-wing.  Stalin would be right-wing no doubt…in fact the BBC’s John Sweeney declared that communist North Korea was fascist whilst framing the film so that the large hammer and sickle on a building didn’t come into shot as he said it.

If Hindus or anyone else are behaving in atrocious manner then it is right to highlight that but not if the same standard is not applied to Muslims who get a free pass from the BBC.

The BBC’s free, liberal, mis-use of the term ‘right-wing’ to malign people has been noted before.

A Muslim shopkeeper, Asad Shah, in Glasgow, has been savagely murdered soon after posting an Easter greeting to Christians..

The Mail says that ‘Police Scotland confirmed to MailOnline that everyone currently involved in the investigation was Muslim following the arrest of a man aged 32.’

Why does the BBC not report that?  Instead it limits its report to this ‘Police Scotland said the death was currently being treated as “religiously prejudiced”. ‘ which gives an entirely different, and possibly misleading, take on things.

Guess what?  Asad Shah was an Ahmadiyya Muslim….in other words someone not considered to be ‘Muslim’ by most other Muslims…Sunni Muslims that is.

If the BBC is going to publish inflammatory half-truths such as “religiously prejudiced” then we need to know why the murder was considered so….if the police say this is what they believe then does the BBC not ask why they think that?  Presumably they know just as the Mail does, but have decided not to publish the full facts…why?   You can see the reaction in many of the comments to reports on Asad Shah’s murder that the ‘Right’ is to blame, and even UKIP.

The BBC know this would be the result of speculation based on that misleading phrase but do nothing to damp down such false narratives, happy to just sling mud as much as possible before the truth gets out there.

If the BBC is going to publish limited information then at least publish the fact Asad Shah was Ahmadiyya and then allow the readers to leaven their speculation with other possibilities other than the one the BBC knows will be the immediate thought…that Asad Shah was the Muslim victim of a white, right-wing, islamophobic thug incited by a right-wing Press to hate all Muslims….when the inconvenient truth may be far, far different.

If I can find this why can’t one of the biggest news services in the world?……Maybe they’re just not interested in the truth…..

Our brother of Ahmadi has martyred, Asad Shah in savage street attack in Glasgow last night.

Here you go – a much overdue Open Thread. Detail the bias here!

Not a good day for the BBC.  Or, in other words, just another day for the BBC.

On the Today programme as someone from the RUSI,  Dr Karin von Hippel, came on to discuss Brussels and who said that ISIS’ success in recruiting lay in it’s image of ‘invincibility’…the BBC presenter asked if it wasn’t really the unfairness of the West’s attacks on IS targets that radicalised Muslims…The RUSI spokeswomen said  ‘I’m not sure I’d say that.’….the presenter’s ‘OK’ in response said so much in its tone of disappointment.  So, BBC, explain why attacking the Islamic State sponsors of terror can be seen as ‘unfair’ by your everyday Muslim?  Think such an attitude from Muslims might go a long way to explaining the real problem.

Frank Gardner blames the Belgium government for not being nice to Muslims for the fact that one terrorist was able to hide in Molenbeek…it showed, apparently, that the people were disaffected and alienated and so do not want to talk to the police.  Or…or it could show that they support the terrorists or at least their ideology if not the violence.

After the arrest of Abdeslam in Molenbeek there were reports of local youths attacking ­Belgian security forces. This was not simply because the police were in ‘their’ area, but because the authorities had taken away someone that some of them admired.

Then we had Nicky Campbell asking how we can stop radicalisation and the attacks.  Surely he should show more respect for the dead?  How dare he raise such a question as the blood is still being cleaned up from the attack sites?  How is it OK for Campbell to ask such questions about stemming the flow of Jihadi recruits but not for anyone from UKIP to do so?  Schengen is clearly a problem that enables terrorists to themselves move freely around Europe and to ship weapons around as well…the result of which we see repeatedly….and which the BBC prefers to blame on ‘unemployment’.

Adrian Chiles yesterday attacked UKIP for mentioning Schengen as a security risk...“This horrific act of terrorism shows that Schengen free movement and lax border controls are a threat to our security.”    I do not see any mention of the EU referendum despite Chiles himself continuously linking that statement to it.  Also odd he does not mention this…

Other parliamentarians took a different view to Ukip. Conservative MEP Timothy Kirkhope said he was in the European Parliament at the time of the explosion.

“[This attack] highlights need for pan European co-operation on counter terrorism,” he tweeted.

So it’s OK for a pro-EU Tory to promote closer EU co-operation without being accused of disrespecting the dead?

In fact Europe thinks the lack of border control is a problem…just not Schengen….’The European Union will tighten checks at external borders of the passport-free Schengen area, including for its own citizens who enjoy free movement within the bloc, to boost security after the attacks in Paris by armed militants.’  

Chiles today had a UKIP spokeperson on his show along with other politicians and he again raised the subject and he demanded she ‘disassociate herself from Nigel Farage’s comments’.…despite the fact that it wasn’t Farage who made the comment…and never mind that Farage had already made the link between terrorism and Schengen long ago…‘In December last year Nigel Farage, Ukip’s leader, said that the “idealised Schengen area” had led to “the free movement of Kalashnikovs” around Europe’.. ..perhaps if people had listened then 34 people might still be alive.

Chiles later returned to the subject and again tried to attack the UKIP spokesperson by saying ‘they’re still pouring disinfectant on the blood in Brussels…just give it a bit of tme’.  Once again though the BBC man ignores the other side using Brussels to promote EU co-operation as the Labour and Libdem people weighed in attacking UKIP but then saying that it is ‘safer to stand together, we must not fracture Europe.’…Chiles himself ridiculously came up with the comparison that Europe gives us not only free movement of people but of information and intelligence…suggesting therefore it is safer to stay in Europe….so not only does he side with the pro-EU camp he also uses the Brussles attack to do so.  Hypocrits?  Whilst the blood is still being cleaned up?  Anyway he clearly hadn’t been following the news as the free flow of intelligence, the lack of, was being pinged as one of the major problems.

Here’s a BBC report attacking Farage and his comments…note what’s missing.  Apparently it is OK for Lord Hill, European Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union to say no real problem with Europe….though he admits ‘”I think there are questions obviously about Schengen, how it’s operating. It needs to operate better.” ‘  So Farage is right.

The BBC reports ‘Former Conservative minister Peter Bottomley – who called at Prime Minister’s Questions for people to unite with “hope not hate” – has tabled a Commons motion saying Mr Farage’s comments “should be challenged within and outside his party”.’

Odd they miss this from former PM, Lord Howard…..EU fails to keep us safe, says Michael Howard: Tory peer says Schengen is like ‘hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe’ 

The BBC reports ‘Rob Wainright, a former director of Europol, said police co-operation across the EU had improved considerably over the past decade, with the European Arrest Warrant speeding up extradition procedures and the UK having access to the Schengen Information System – a network containing details of hundreds of thousands of wanted criminals and missing people.’ 

Odd no mention of this from Rob Wainwright: Isis: Up to 5,000 jihadists could be in Europe after returning from terror training camps abroad. 

Wainwright says ‘“Europe is currently facing its biggest terror threat in more than a decade,” he told Germany’s Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung newspaper’….and yet the BBC and pro-EU politicians want to hide that fact and silence those who want to secure the borders.  The BBC would rather we all die in terror attacks than admit any fault with the EU structures and the EU itself.

The BBC….anti-UKIP, pro-EU, pro-hiding difficult truths.  Just another day on the BBC.

The world upside down, Piers Morgan turns right and Jeremy Clarkson comes out as a flabby liberal (although if you’d read his books you’d know that already).

The politicians are flooding the airwaves, talking a good fight with grandiose, puffed up, self-serving bombast about their urgent mission to end the scourge of terrorism [by sitting on their arses] and then also tell us we must unite, all cultures, religions and races, we must allow Muslims to be more Muslim so that they feel happy and ‘integrated’ [by being ever more separate!?]…in other words doing exactly what the ‘radicals’ want…Islamising Europe.

One man refuses to play nice and peddle those lies…Donald Trump…and Piers Morgan thinks he may be right…

When it comes to terror, isn’t it time we started listening seriously to Trump?

How many more?

That’s all I could think this morning as news broke of yet another ISIS terror attack, this time in Brussels.

How many more innocent men, women and children are going to be blown to pieces by these murderous bastards?

How many more airports, train stations, sports stadiums, restaurants or concert halls will be obliterated in a hail of suicide bombs and bullets?

How many more world leaders will wring their hands on national television afterwards and spout pointless platitudes about the ‘poor brave victims’ and ‘heroic emergency services’?

How many taunting, gleeful claims of responsibility will the despicable perpetrators of these evil crimes be able to issue?

I’m sick of this, aren’t you?

Sick of feeling sick about such endless, senseless barbarism.

And the worst thing about it is that I see no end.

The inherent problem which causes it, chaotic war-torn instability in the Middle East, is getting worse, not better; just as the financial and military resource of the enemy is growing greater, not reducing.

Yet just as the world is crying out for strong decisive leadership, there is none.

America has a demob happy President Obama eeking out his last few months in office. A man whose infamous ‘leading from behind’ philosophy to foreign policy has been partly responsible for the war in Syria raging uncontrollably for five years – allowing fundamentalism to ferment.

Obama has zero interest in doing anything tangible to really deal with ISIS. This is now parked in the tray marked ‘next president’s problem.’

Europe, meanwhile, is splintering at the seams, ravaged by an unprecedented migration crisis that nobody seems to have a clue how to handle.

German chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to let a million migrants into its country is already seen to be an utter disaster.

France, reeling from two horrendous attacks in Paris, is understandably highly fearful of yet more terror coming its way.

Belgium officials effectively conceded today that they have no real way to protect themselves against the ISIS threat. A fact surely born out by the fact that today’s onslaught in Brussels happened right when the city most expected it, following the capture of Paris attacks suspect Saleh Abdeslam three days ago.

Britain, surely a target anytime soon, is on red alert but its warring politicians are too distracted by the upcoming EU referendum in June to pay anything more than lame lip service to terrorism.

So nobody seems to be doing anything concrete to stop ISIS, or even suggesting a new way to do so given the spectacular lack of success to date.

Well almost nobody.

By coincidence, I had an interview scheduled today with the world’s most controversial man, Donald Trump, for my UK show, Good Morning Britain.

It was set up a couple of weeks ago, but the timing was eerily prescient.

Here is one man who definitely has a plan to deal with ISIS terrorism. Several plans in fact.

The problem is that people don’t like them. Well, a lot of people don’t anyway.

Trump, current front-runner for the Republican nomination, wants to hit ISIS ‘so hard they never recover’.

(As he told me: ‘You’ve got to take them out and you’ve got to take them out harshly and you’ve got to take them out fast.’)

He also wants a short-term ban on Muslims entering the U.S. until, as he puts it, ‘we figure out what the hell is going on?’

And he wants to torture suspects like Abdeslam with techniques like water-boarding to try and extract information about future attacks.

Oh, and he wants to build a giant wall to stop illegal immigrants pouring over the Mexican border into America. 

George Clooney hit out at Trump yesterday, as he endorsed Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton for the presidency, saying: ‘If you listen to the loudest voices out there today, you’d think we’re a country that hates Mexicans, hates Muslims, and thinks that committing war crimes is the best way to make America great again.’

I spoke to Trump for 40 minutes. He was, as you’d expect, bombastic, defiant and self-congratulatory. Why wouldn’t he be? He’s ripped up every political rulebook to take this presidential race by storm, a scenario that is hardly going to deflate the ego of New York’s most cock-sure billionaire tycoon.

But he also spoke in more detail about his plans to combat ISIS and I found myself nodding more than I expected.

Trump told me countries must tighten their borders in light of these terror attacks, especially to anyone related to an ISIS fighter in Syria.

Is he so wrong?

He told me he wants law-abiding Muslims to root out the extremists in their midst, expressing his bafflement and anger that someone like Abdeslam was able to hide for so long in the very part of Brussels he had previously lived.

Is he so wrong?

He told me America must make it far harder for illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and thinks European countries should follow suit.

Is he so wrong?

He told me he believes there are now areas of many major European cities which have become poisonous breeding grounds for radicalized Islamic terror.

Is he so wrong? 

I didn’t feel I was talking to a lunatic, as many seem to view Trump.

I saw a guy, a non-politician unfettered by PC language restraints, who is genuinely furious at the devastation which ISIS is wreaking, and seriously concerned for the security of his fellow Americans and indeed, the citizens of Europe.

(Remember, Trump’s from New York and felt the horror of 9/11 very personally and very deeply like all New Yorkers.)

His plans for tackling this extraordinarily dangerous threat to the world have been widely condemned as ‘bigoted’ and ‘racist’.

But although I publicly criticised him for the Muslim short-term ban suggestion, I’ve known Trump for ten years and I don’t believe he’s a racist.

I think he’s someone who has spent his life responding to metaphorical punches on his nose by punching even harder back. 

And right now, he firmly believes that ISIS will murder countless more Americans and Europeans if somebody somewhere doesn’t stand up and punch them hard in the face.

Someone prepared to stop spewing politically-correct niceties after these attacks, hoping nobody gets offended, and actually DO something.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, right now ISIS is winning this war and will continuing committing utter carnage on our streets on an ever graver and more barbaric scale until they are stopped.

I don’t have the answers to how to do that.

But I don’t hear any good ideas coming from any world leaders at the moment either, and it’s their highly paid jobs to work it out.

Instead, I see a global paralysis driven by fear, confusion and woeful lack of leadership.

And it will only get worse.

Hate Donald Trump all you like, but at least he seems to recognise the magnitude of the threat and at least he has firm proposals for how to try to defeat it.

They may not win him the Politically Correct Pontificator of the Year award. But how many more scenes like this morning’s appalling images from Brussels are we going to tolerate before we try a non-PC option to beat these disgusting excuses for human beings?

At the end of our interview, I asked Donald Trump to send a message to the large majority of non-violent, decent Muslims who are as disgusted by these attacks as the rest of us.

‘I have great respect for Muslims,’ he said, ‘I have many friends that are Muslims. I’m just saying that there is something with a radicalized portion that is very, very bad and very dangerous. I would say this, to the Muslims, when they see trouble, they have to report it, they’re not reporting it, they’re absolutely not reporting it and that’s a big problem.’

Is he so wrong?