BBC still worrying about the backlash against Muslims in the US after a Muslim slaughters 13 non-Muslims.

Amid fears of a possible anti-Muslim backlash after the attack, President Obama has stressed the multinational diversity in the US armed forces. “They are Americans of every race, faith, and station. They are Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers. “They are descendants of immigrants and immigrants themselves. They reflect the diversity that makes this America,” he said in the aftermath of the shooting.
It must be such a worry. But here’s a thought; Given the number of attacks from “devout” Muslims in the USA since 9/11 perhaps the BBC should investigate what is it that drives such maniacal hatred of fellow Americans from those who embrace Islam.
Bookmark the permalink.


  1. George R says:

    The BBC studiously ignores discussing the NUMBER of Islamic jihad attacks since 9/11; it’s 14,369.

    -front page


  2. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The BBC already “knows” why Muslims want to kill us:  the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They said the 7/7 bombers were “radicalized” by that, and they reported that this new murderer was as well.  Mark Mardell even suggested it in his last blog post.

    The BBC won’t investigate what drives such maniacal hatred because they already know the answer.  And tell you, repeatedly.  Of course, they won’t ever discuss the larger picture and the fact that this maniacal hatred was going on long before George W. Bush was ever elected the first time.

    The real problem is that the BBC will never, ever try to tell their audience that this is not, in fact, a war against Islam.  They will never, ever do a segment where someone tells a Muslim on air that the idea is false.  The BBC understands the source of the maniacal hatred.  After all, most Beeboids feel the same way.


  3. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The BBC’s bias against white people is making them and similar postmodern relativists fret over a backlash against Mohammedans.  This is a ridiculous fear on their part, and reveals their own bigotry against white United Statesians (whites in general, really).

    It happens that, after an initial flurry of “hate crimes” against Muslims in the US, that number dropped so much that in 2007 “hate crimes” against Jews outnumbered those against Muslims more than 8 to 1.

    Yet, where are the Beeboids worrying about an anti-Jewish backlash every time Israel is accused of something?  Of course they don’t care, don’t even think there’s a problem.  It’s much more important at BBC editorial meetings to worry about one of you people bashing a Muslim.  Bias and bigotry at the BBC, with the net result being that you are uninformed, misinformed, and even insulted by their broadcasting.


    • deegee says:

      David Preiser (USA)<img src=””/>
      I think you’ll find there was no initial flurry of ‘hate crimes’. Some of the so called crimes were inventions, such as insurance fraud arson masquerading as an anti Muslim crime. The figures are further complicated by the connection of hate crimes with other crimes. A rape, for example, accompanied by racial abuse could simple be a crime of opportunity.

      You didn’t mention that not only are ‘hate crimes’ much more likely against Jews than Muslim but that the perpetrator was much more likely to be a Muslim.

      It will be interesting whether the Ft. Hood massacre will be reported as a multi victim hate crime.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        There were a handful of real anti-Muslim attacks in the days after 9/11.  But it was at a minimum, especially compared to the violence that occurs during every Leftoid protest around the world.  But there were a few actual attacks, including one against some poor Indian (from India) convenience store clerk.

        In any case, the evidence is clear that there is no actual danger for Muslims in the US because of this incident.  The bigotry and bias in the BBC editorial offices clouds their judgment, and they do reports based on a demonstrably false premise.

        Funny I don’t remember the BBC wringing their hands over an anti-banker “backlash” when they were whipping up an anti-Capitalist frenzy last year.  When Fred the Shred’s house was vandalized, there were no ominous reports, no blog posts worrying about violence against bank offices during anti-IMF protests, etc.  Some groups are considered worth protecting, others aren’t.  Come see the bias inherent in the system.


  4. Philip says:

    Anti-Muslim Backlash™ continues apace..


  5. George R says:

    BBC slipping in its Islamic apologetics? Where’s its usual pre-emptive, ‘Muslim backlash’ stuff?:

    “US pursues ‘Iran-linked’ charity”


    “Feds move to seize 4 mosques, tower linked to Iran””


  6. George R says:

    Two reports by BBC from Islamic Afghanistan which the BBC does not link together:

    1.) “UK ‘backs Taliban reintegration'”

    2.) “I agreed to become a suicide bomber ” (of Taliban)


  7. DP111 says:

    Considering the number of attacks by single and groups of Muslim Jihadis in the US and the UK, and the many more plots of terror thwarted by the security services, I’m astonished that there has not been a single instance of “backlash” here or in the US. And yet, Muslims are forever screaming of “backlash”, trying to give the impression that we are all backward and uncivilised people.

    The fact that there has been no “backlash” worth talking of, apart maybe from a few stares at passing Muslims, raises a couple of questions.

    Defending your own society, i.e., self-defence, from a hostile foreign one, is a natural and normal response of any healthy society. The fact that there has been no “backlash” here or in the US and Australia, despite dozens of terror acts indicates that our immune system has been neutralised. Why and how I will leave for the moment. However, this lack of an immune response from the host body bodes ill for the future safety and well being of the host.  Muslim Jihadis note our lack of response, and interpret it as a sign that our societies are degenerate and weak as a consequence. It emboldens them to mount further attacks, as they are confident that no actions will take place, which materially damages the Umma. It can then be argued that lack of a backlash is endangering the future safety of innocent people.


  8. Grant says:

    DP 111  11:50

    Perfectly put.  It is the weakness of the Western politicians and many of the people which fuels Jihad.


  9. George R says:

    The BBC ‘s reference to Hasan’s links with Anwar al-Awlaki is fleeting.

    Here’s what the BBC missed out, and it is of direct concern to British people:

    “Who is Anwar al-Awlaki?”

    (by Adrian Morgan)


  10. DP111 says:

    George R

    No surprise here. It was only a matter of time before some link was established to the UK. Mass immigration has made the UK the greatest exporter of Islamic terrorism. I wonder how much it contributes to the enrichment of the UK, and our balance of payments – Perhaps G Brown, will comment, and maybe even put a small tax on it.  If we had a method to finance stocks in Jihad_R_Us Inc or Ltd, we would be holding a massive fortune.

    There was a time when all terror leads led to Pakistan. Now they lead to the UK.  You never know – the Pentagon could have contigency plans to invade the UK, to “search and destroy” the British Taleban, Somali and other Jihadi groups, now safely esconced in the UK, fed and watered by that most benevolent of personages – the UK  Taxpayer.


  11. Anonymous says:


    Hi, insofar as it went I found President Obama’s comment highly commendable.  Everything should be done to prevent backlash against Muslims.  To this end President Obama painting American Muslims as part of the great freedom loving American mosaic, while to a very large extent a diplomatic lie, is nevertheless one very much worth telling for the reason mentioned and also in the hope that if the door is shown to be wide open to Muslim Americans to be part of the great democratic ideal that is America, they might decide it is worth entering.  The point is, nearly all of what we see done and said in the name of ‘heading off backlash’ is in fact to serve an entirely different agenda, to stop the left-wing shibboleth of ‘Multiculturism’ being exposed for the dangerous and subversive ideology that it is.  The Marxist Left and Islamists are fascist whores pimping off eachother.

    Its entirely possible to head of backlash against Muslims without endangering our security.  Words like Obama’s and Bush’s being one way, another to absolutely throw the book at anyone who does violence to someone for being Muslim.  At the end of the day though, if a choice has to be made between risking security or Muslim safety as a result of the barbarity of Muslim co-religionists, I know what side should always be a priority.

    Fort Hood shows it isn’t just Muslims faithful to the Jihadist teachings of Mohammed who have imposed a reign of terror on Western society, but their twisted Correctnick allies on the Marxist Left.