Is it ‘Islamophobic’ to blame Islam for 9/11?

John Humphrys has noticed Luton.
Find your extremes, place them next to each other, light the blue touch paper, stand back and wait for sparks to fly. That’s what the BBC normally does these days, to satisfy an audience that only requires spectacle. Ratings, and so on.

In those terms Luton, Tommy Robinson and Farasat Latif turned out to be a damp squib. There wasn’t even enough friction to generate a warm glow.

But did it achieve something? Did we get to hear the government’s attitude? Did we hear ‘moderate muslims’ also known as ‘caught in the middle Muslims’ explaining how to reconcile Islamic and British values? Did we hear what the ‘we are all Hezbollah now” brigade think about infidel-frei pockets resembling Pakistan’s backwaters popping up within the UK?
At last Humphrys seemed to be wondering if we really must tolerate absolutely everything in the name of tolerance, and if not, does that make the UK…….the dreaded right-wing mouth-frothing thing……….. intolerant?

We did hear the word ‘racism’. ‘Tommy Robinson’ said he was against it. Did we hear what Farasat Latif and his co-religionists thought about it? In particular about the racism inherent in their religion? I think not.

I think, but I can’t be sure, that Humph was hinting that there’s a nice and a nasty Islam. That’s the government’s line. Or is it? Was it just the previous government’s line? I’m not sure. So what was Humphrys’s report meant to be about? Enlighten me, someone.

Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Is it ‘Islamophobic’ to blame Islam for 9/11?

  1. cjhartnett says:

    We can`t afford the time to educate Humphrys and his like.
    Only the BBC cavils about language in describing what happened on 9/11…only the BBC would care about whether Bin Laden was “laid to rest” in a culturally sensitive manner.
    Whilst this lot weigh their words and agonise about whether the West “overreacted” to what happened that day or not, there are Jews at risk of being killed, Christians being murdered or being made to live hellish lives…and those in neither camp being counted up as fair game for the jihadists.
    The gutless BBC have-as yet-done no QT from Tower Hamlets mosque that represents those who see the BBC as useful tools for today…and a Muslim prayer mat to wipe their shoes on tomorrow!
    As I say…we can`t afford the indulgences of the BBC..let them go to night school in Bethnal Green if they need an education. I just want some people whose heads are`nt up Hamzas djellbab to tell us how sunny and bright it is up there! 


    • noggin says:

      “i want to follow islam without compromise” uh oh!

      then better ship out then buddy,

      ok….there are mod muslims & islamists?  missing the point islam is islam.

      look most muslims just want to get by that is true,
      BUT they & their communities have been worse than ineffectual, at stamping out these elements, basically because it IS the ideology of islam, whether moderate or not, the belief that it is superior,(& so justified to act upon it), is ingrained in the deluded islamic psyche…

      address that, &  half the issues would disappear, you would get an islamic whinathon…      but we have that already.
      violence would result… but we have that already
      threats of violence…     but we have that already

      get it to stand in line with all the other faiths christian, hindu, jews,jian, jehovahs, buddhists, mooneys etc, no ifs no buts…know that it is its limit….
      and you would soon find if moderates are truly so

      until you face the fact, it iS the ideology of islam which is the root
      you re going to keep on this downward spiral


  2. RCE says:

    I thought the item was reasonable, overall (I am both pleased and surprised to say).

    This was one case where the time limit did certainly restrict what could be discussed in both breadth and depth.  Tommy Robinson was allowed to speak and came across well (although being a denizen of a town similar to Luton I know what he says is 100% correct).  The ‘bad’ muslim was damned by his own words and I felt sympathy for the guy whose daughter’s school/mosque got burned down for what appears to be no reason.

    My main gripe would be that it had absolutely no explicit or implicit link to 9/11; it could be broadcast at any time.  I also didn’t like Humphrey’s sign off about the ‘Englishness Defence League’, which was typical BB I’ve-done-the-analysis-for-you-so-you-don’t-have-to-think-for-yourself.

    But in comparison to the usual Islam puff-pieces churned out by the Beeb it was pretty good.


    • sue says:

      Yes, Humph allowed Tommy Robinson to speak, didn’t interrupt and unquestioningly accepted that opposing radical Islam is not racist. Humph was clearly being fairly critical of Islamic extremism at long last, but then, who isn’t?

      What worried me was the superficial presentation of a complex problem. We were presented with a proper, ‘no brainer’ baddie. It reduces the matter to a bit of titillating nonsense that leaves the real questions unanswered.


  3. fred bloggs says:

    Is it possible that Humph, now geriatric, cannot remember the current bBC line on the subject(s).


  4. Geyza says:

    “if we really must tolerate absolutely everything in the name of tolerance,”

    If only… I find that a lot of my views as a conservative of the UKIP supporting variety, are not tollerated at all and are often portrayed as somewhat extreme and obnoxious.  From telling the truth about natural climate change, to repulsion over racially, sexually and religious descrimination against white, middle class, Christian males, they are NOT tolerant.  Do you have conservative beliefs on taxation? the size and scope of the state?  Then you are NOT tolerated at the BBC.

    Where is the tolerance for honestly held views of genuinely finding the thought of having sex with a person of the same gender as being reppellant?  This is NOT saying homosexuality is wrong or should be banished, but saying that homosexuality is wrong ‘FOR ME’.  That would not be tolerated either.

    There are kids growing up in schools now who are bullied and repressed for NOT having at least some homosexual feelings and it has got so bad that some kids cannot admit to being wholly heterosexual for fear of being labelled a homophobic bigot.

    Saying that one feels that taking part in homosexual activity is reppellant is frowned upon as homophobic, when in reality it is only expressing natural heterosexual feelings.  There is nothing, in itself wrong, with homosexuality and homosexuals should be free to practice their sexual activity in private EQUALLY as much as heterosexuals, but heterosexuals should be allowed to express their natural and normal feelings about gender related sexuality.

    Unfortunately the leftist elite do not tolerate that.

    Like they do not tolerate the truth relating to the term ‘normal’.

    If someone was born with 5 legs, that would not be normal.  It IS natural, as any mutation in nature is natural, but it is not normal.  In this case ‘normality’ is determined by what occurs the most, or what normally occurs.

    When relating this word to homosexuality, the word abnormal is banned, although less than 3% of the population are homosexual, they still want to be regarded as normal. The occurance of homosexuality is a mathematic abnormality, so they are abnormal.  Homosexuality is NATURAL. As those who are homosexual are either born that way, or turn some time later due to natural changes in themselves or their natural experience.

    The BBC would never tolerate anyone stating the truth that homosexuality is not normal, in spite of that being the truth.

    The BBC’s tolerance and diversity is not tolerant at all of people with views that run counter to their politically correct soft-left liberal values.


    • sue says:

      Yes, ‘absolutely everything’ should have been more specific.  I probably should have said ‘absolutely everything relating to Islam’.
      The BBC is not too tolerant of the things you mentioned, as well as a few other things you didn’t.


      • Geyza says:

        Agreed. I find it infuriating that their politically correct tolerance is so intolerant of many of the things I tolerate.

        Which brings me to their misuse of the word tolerate.  Tolerate means put up with something that you may not like at all.  It does not mean accept or approve of.  Pain is something which we tolerate until it becomes unbearable.  But the BBC use ‘tolerate’ as if to mean accept and approve of or even prefer.

        I tolerate homosexuality, Islam, immigration, even people being wrong and stupid and crazy. 

        I do not tolerate the EU taking the piss, the government listening and agreeing and taking insane, futile and self-destructive action on the ‘catastrophic human induced climate change’ theories, or being taxed till the pips squeek so that pen pushers can waste even more money creating more ways to impede private enterprise from being successful.

        The BBC think that I should actually approve of those things and call it tolerance.


    • The Cattle Prod of Destiny says:

      I’m afraid that no sexual act that involves picking sweetcorn off my dick afterwards if ever going to get my vote.  But if others find that atractive  in themselves then, as a libertarian, I am prepared to look the other way.

      What I find hard to tolerate is the BBC forcing it’s viewers to watch increasingly homo-erotic childrens’ programs – such as Dr Who – where homosexuality is actively promoted.  What on Earth are they thinking of introducing any type of sex into Dr Who?  And why just homosexual sex?


    • wild says:

      “There are kids growing up in schools now who are bullied and repressed for NOT having at least some homosexual feelings and it has got so bad that some kids cannot admit to being wholly heterosexual for fear of being labelled a homophobic bigot.”

      Well the above statement is of course is completely bonkers, which is to say, completely untrue, but you are right about the toleration point. There is nothing tolerant about the Left.

      By the way in every State where the far Left has gained absolute power there has been persecution of homosexuality. The only reason the “New Left” love homosexuality so much is that they use it to attack Christianity and traditional family values. It is not toleration it is nihilism.


    • TooTrue says:

      The superb Jewish-American comedian, Jackie Mason, is the best I have ever heard at demolishing rigid PeeCee structures. In a hilarious sketch, he exposes the rigid, fake attitude to homosexuality that has been imposed on people by “liberal” indoctrination. I paraphrase:

      “Forgive me, I don’t know how I became a homosexual.

      Why do they need gay pride marches? Do you get a bunch of Jewish butchers marching down the street with placards proclaiming, “I am a butcher?”

      I support their right to be gay, but I wouldn’t bend over backwards for it.”


  5. Alan says:

    Are the  BBC  starting to realise that  the Islamic Right  is more of a threat to their liberal values than the Christian Right?  

    Are  they finaly  beginning to understand that ,even “moderate”,  Islam is  diametrically opposed to their views on gay rights, gender equality etc?
    We can only hope so.


    • james1070 says:

      Are the  BBC  starting to realise that  the Islamic Right  is more of a threat to their liberal values than the Christian Right? 

      You mean the Islamic Left. The Islamic Left like the Left in this country  hates America, Israel, hates England, the West, Christianity, but loves suicide bombing Palestinians.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Are they starting to realize?  No.  This is just noise the Beeboids are whipping up to celebrate….sorry….commemorate the mass murder of 9/11.  They’d sooner tell you that nationalism is a greater threat.


  6. George R says:

    INBBC’s ‘TODAY’ increases its political propaganda this morning:  
    – for Islam, ‘political correctness’ and for Labour.  
    1.) Muslim Ms SIDDIQAI was on ‘Thought for the Day,  for the umpteeth time, spreading her political message, telling Christians how THEY should react to the 9/11 Islamic jihad mass murders; and of course, exonerating Islam for 9/11, despite the self-proclaimed message of the Muslim murderers that they were perpetuating their Islamic jihad atrocity in the name of Allah and Islam.  
    Ms Siddiqui should be taken off ‘Thought for the Day’: she is an Islamic propagandist, she tries to, but does NOT speak for Christians, and the British non-Muslim  people have had to put up with her for far too long.  

    The full extent of the ‘Today’ political bias can be gauged from this- (i-Player version also available for those with a strong constitution).  
    2.)Mr. J.Humphrys, on a flying visit to Luton, was there long enough to continue INBBC propaganda for more ‘diversity’ and colonisation via mass immigration from Islamic countries, and he didn’t criticise the Muslim opponents of British troops there, and the Islamic support for jihadists and sharia, but he picked on EDL’s local man, Tommy Robinson, as is part of BBC-NUJ offical union policy to oppose the EDL.  
    3.) Ms S. Flanders spoke up for her ex-boy friend, Labour’s  Mr. E. Balls, before he appeared in person to complete the political propaganda for Labour!  
    4.) And then, of course, there was the item on what appears to be the biggest political problem in the world for BBC-NUJ (after Murdoch), not Islamic Jihad, not Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, not Hamas, not Hezbolloh, nor Hizb ut-Tahrir, but ‘rendition’!  
    Why have Beeboids racheted up its political propaganda for Islam and Labour at this particular time?:  
    1.) to appease Islam in run-up to September 11;  
    2.) to publicise Labour positively in pre-election  period;  
    3.) it knows UK has a weak Coalition government which will not challenge the increasingly blatant and cynical bias of BBC-NUJ.


  7. Gaia says:

    There appears to be absolutely NO mention of the fact that after the demonstration in Tower Hamlets last Saturday, when Tommy Robinson broke his bail conditions to attend,  that he has been imprisoned in Bedford Jail and is currently on hunger strike:


  8. james1070 says:

    9/11 ‘led to rise in Islamophobia’

    Isn’t that a leading title. Why does the BBC propogate the notion of ‘Islamophobia’ a word not in the English dictionary?  A word that was only invented when Muslims started to blow themselves up on the Tube and marched through London threatening to cut off peoples heads while screaming Allahu Ackbar.

    Next the BBC will be accusing the contributors of this website of BBCaphobia!


  9. wild says:

    British Muslims had a 24/48 hour period after 9/11 to go on “not in our name” marches protesting about that terrorist atrocity. I was hoping. It could have been a game changer. There was nothing. Not even one. If anything there was celebration.

    It was a game changer. But the new game in town was if you hate the West so much, you can return back to the to the women oppressing, Jew hating, gay murdering, violent, ignorant, corrupt, impoverished countries your parents left.

    If you hate British society (law freedom culture) and want to replace it with what is back home (you know – the sort of thing your parents moved to Europe to escape), if you refuse to assimilate, and think that the only good kaffir is a dead kaffir, then you, your stupid priests, and your resentment filled unemployable benefit dependent offspring, plus your low IQ inbred cousins, are not welcome.

    Islamaphobic? Why would anybody looking at Islam across the world today think anything other than it is an intolerant, totalitarian, backward religion, which excuses violence in the name of the expansion of Islam. and requires submission to priests whose bigotry destroyed what achievement there were in the Islamic golden age – an age when bandits from Arabia tried to assimilate superior cultures and failed.

    It is Islamophlia which is irrational not Islamophobia. So why is the BBC so keen on Islam? Because the Left are keen on Islam. So why is the Left so keen on Islam? Because they want to destroy Western society.

    They did their best to destroy the West with Communism, but they were defeated. Nobody (except the BBC) paid any attention to their CND protest camps. Now the Left are pinning their hopes of mass immigration from Non-Western countries. Swamping it was once described as – to the horror of the BBC. I saw a video somebody posted on here of a walk through Peckham High Street. A street which was packed full of people, and yet barely a single white face.

    We are not allowed to criticise the positions taken by the Left? Who says? Who gave the BBC the authority to tell me what I must think about politics. We are not allowed to attack the Muslim religion? Who gave the BBC authority to tell me what to think about religion?

    Is seems that it is only attacks on Christianity which are allowed – indeed complulsory – in the British hating (Western hating) Leftist twatfest that is the BBC.


  10. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Why are the English the only people who are not allowed to stand up for preserving their culture?  Self-loathing at the BBC, perhaps?


    • dave s says:

      The liberal elite suffer from Englishphobia. It is the one thing that really scares them.


      • Reed says:

        The Campaign for an English Parliament :

        There’s a link from here to an e-petition, which I’m ashamed to say only has just over 3,000 signatures to date. Spread the word, people. I’ve just signed.


  11. sue says:

    Rabid Islamism is one thing. At least they’re relatively up front about their hostility to infidels. It’s the so-called moderates that present a more intractable problem. They’re so mysterious. People try to separate them from the extremists, saying that all they want is to preserve their culture. But they never explain precisely what this means.
    Is it their diet, their by-rote knowledge of the koran, their belief that Allah’s will determines everything, their insularity, their hypocritical distaste for our debauchery, or their antisemitism that they wish to cling to?

    Take, as an example the seemingly assimilated anomaly that is Saira Khan, runner-up of an early series of The Apprentice. The second part of her adoption documentary (why would anyone do that?) is on tonight. It ended on a cliff-hanger. Would she or wouldn’t she get the designer baby from Pakistan she so hoped for. 

    The thing I found fascinating was her relationship with her family. She told the camera of her teenage deviousness, forced upon her by her parents’ conservative prudish Islam-based rigidity. It meant she ‘had to lie’ about where she was going, who she was seeing and what she’d been wearing, and she wished she could have been more honest.
    But then, she was found to have concealed from the adoption social workers, two or three relationships she’d had with men before her marriage to hubby Steve, even though they’d stressed that being open about such things was a vital part of the vetting process. So it seems that telling porkies is another cultural thing.

    Interestingly, the couple in the documentary who ended up with a child with the genetic blood disorder thalassaemia, having gone through a similar process, took the view that the whole thing was the will of Allah. Which is a philosophical attitude that can see people through the direst of circumstances.

    People like Saira are an anomaly. They pick ‘n’ mix the bits of Islam that inconvenience them the least. Yet isn’t ‘true Islamic belief’ supposed to be an all-or-nothing affair? Ordinary Moslems, a term we hear all the time, mostly keep their heads down, some of them in Islamic dress, some not. They don’t speak out very often, one way or the other. But they seem, collectively, to share fundamental core cultural issues which clash with ‘Britishness’. What I fear the most is the antisemitic thread running through the religion. It’s contagious, and spreading like wildfire.  


  12. London Calling says:

    Listen to other countries leaders – “My fellow Americans”, the glories of “La Belle France”, everyone else is proud of their history, culture and national identity – except the liberal self-loathing multicultural-British left, who try to make the Union Jack out to be a “racist symbol” of little Englanders.

    I heard the BBC World Service the other day doing a five minute interview with someone from the US “National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People”. (Try exchanging the word “White” with “Coloured” and measure the reaction). A non-stop “victimhood” rant, with the bBC interviewer murmuring sympathetically, and occasionally helping out with futher examples of how unfair it all was, and how Obama was doing his best.

    I gather these broudcasts can’t be heard within the UK, so they can get away with broadcasting shameless liberal-left propaganda to the world, with the license payer blissfully unaware


    • Margo Ryor says:

      Oh we have plenty of self loathing liberal elites here in  the United States. You should hear the contempt showered on the ‘rednecked’, ‘Christian’ ‘Nascar fans’ in ‘flyover’ country. Of course they are a noisy minority – thank God.

      Good old NAACP, they’re becoming a joke this side of the pond. High time they declared victory and disbanded!


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      “Americans” isn’t a racial or ethnic term.  “English” is, but “British” isn’t.  The BBC treats the St. George Cross as an explicitly racist symbol except during sporting events.  It’s a problem for their editorial policy.


    • jarwill101 says:

      Islamisation works on many fronts. There is the relentless, stupefyingly tedious insertion of Muslim related ‘news’ items into every crevice of the BBC, the Muslim angle. Just to soften us up, get us acquainted with their ways, the masters-in-waiting?
        This works in tandem with the ‘snow job’ which pushes the ‘moderate’ bandwagon – the Jackanory/Rageh Omaar version of Muslim colonisation, they are all sweetness & inspirational light. We have much to learn from our new, & multitudinous neighbours. Ask Tommy Robinson.
        This ‘snow job’ also obliterates the indigenous culture, photoshops it out, in favour of a perpetual Benetton advert. Of course, behind this PR blizzard lurk many Muslims whose activities place them very far from heaven. These are the activities that must be downplayed, if not ignored. But the beeboids want us to think we’re moving towards a 21st century Andalusia; a paradise of culture, tolerance, intellectual exchange. Let Tower Hamlets bear witness. I wish them joy of it. Let the ‘groomers’, the heroin gangs, the election fraudsters, the syndicates of benefit cheats, the terrorist cells, the thugs that enforce the no-go zones, testify to this utopia we can barely wait for. For the beeboids are rich enough to be cultural Marxists, rich enough to be addicted to ‘diversity’, ‘enrichment’. Distanced enough, in their remarkably ‘undiverse’ enclaves to know what is good for us, but not applicable to them. Together, they can sup from the same glass at Bowen’s wine bar, for they have been injected, from an early age, with a poisonous ambivalence toward their country, a disregard that festers into contempt, then hatred. But they should be wary of that which they desire. Addiction blinds. Addiction wantonly destroys that which was organically created, & was good. Addiction leads to the morgue, & then it’s too late to wonder why you were so comprehensively conned. 


      • wild says:

        “Andalusia; a paradise of culture, tolerance, intellectual exchange.”

        That claim has turned out to be a myth, indeed to be blunt about it, it was a deliberate lie. Interestingly enough the lie was made up by Jewish historians who wanted to push the notion that a society which tolerates Jews is possible. l


    • TooTrue says:

      You can’t get the World Service within the UK? Dunno, I don’t live there but I’ve noticed that some programmes availble on BBC UK radio are repeated on the World Service. The WS has an audio version of ‘Hardtalk’.


  13. Dazed-and-Confused says:

    However…..When UAF scum make videos, bragging and laughing about a single female being beaten up on the streets of Tower Hamlets, and being hospitalised as a result of their “Feminist” actions, the BBC are nowhere to be found…..

    This is unreal…..


  14. Alfie Pacino says:

    In memorium of the tenth anniversary, the BBC kicked off their series of ‘documentaries’ with an hours nonsense handed over to conspiracy theories, and now tonight another (no doubt) pile of garbage on BBC3 ‘The 9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip’
    Is this impartiality, or the BBC doing whatever they can to appease those who hate the USA?
    I’m sick to the back teeth of them.


  15. cjhartnett says:

    Believe that the BBC are doing a Question Time special tonight on the 10th anniversary,,,Al Queda would have arranged it for a Thursday had they had knowledge that David Dimbleby would have honoured them with his forensic mind and fearless impartial guests.
    Ten Years Gone as the song goes….the Dimblyby lads have had plenty time now to reflect on the much-needed mature debate about why it happened. I expect we`ll have all the answers we`ve been seeking by the weekend once David then Jonathan have addressed the nation with the final word on the unpleasantness!
    In the meantime I happen to think that twenty odd western educated sickos chose to fly planes into 3000 people and incinerate them…Muslims included.
    Yet the BBC will no doubt be blaming whitey for denying them their EMA and for marginalising them…where was Cameron that day then?
    Hope Richard perle reminds QT about their response to 9/11 at the time…”you Yanks deserved no less” was the consensus at the time as Dimbleby Major purred…


  16. George R says:

    INBBC deviously gives the impression that it is unaware of the many and devastating critiques of the Islamic invented word, ‘Islamophobia’, e.g.  
    Fitzgerald: Islamophobia? Not So Fast  
    “How to Cure Islamophobia with Islamo-Fear ”  


  17. john in cheshire says:

    My experience is that blacks and asians are more racist that whites will ever be. But of course no one wants to know that.


    • wild says:

      Truth is (and always will be) the biggest enemy of the Left. Their response is always the same. Persecution. You can say or think anything you like, just so long as it is consistent with the current views of the Party.


    • Barry says:

      That’s my experience as well.


  18. George R says:

    It is clear that INBBC is pulling out all its political stops in support of all things Islam in the run up to September 11.

    It looks like a political decision had been taken by INBBC’s top cadres to cement the  Red-Black alliance; from Muslim Ms Siddiqui in the morning giving her critique of Christianity on ‘Today’s Thought for the Day, through to ‘Newsnight’ making 2003 torture and killing in Iraq by British renegade troops, by implication, more important that 9/11, 2001.

    By the way, Radio 4 ‘PM’ spent about 25  minutes on what appears to INBBC to be the crime of the century by some British troops in Iraq in 2003; this was followed by a quite different moral approach by political ‘PM’ on the conviction for anti-semitism  of fashion designer Galliano. How did ‘PM’ deal with that? Why by getting on a fellow fashion woman to tell us what a good talented person Galliano is.


  19. DP111 says:

    I have no faith in the so-called moderate Muslims. The distinction is meaningless for all practical purposes.

    Let us consider the hypothetical situation that ALL Muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call, under the threat of expulsion, to clean up their communities of extremism . They even went further and made changes in their teachings of the Koran and the jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site, the government, the MSM, and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes(Taqqiya is advocated for Muslims when under stress), and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress. That future generation of Muslims in the UK or the West, will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.


  20. George R says:

    INBBC is on the same political sheet as Obama on 9/11:

    Geller: 9/11 Is a Day of Mourning, Not Service


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      It’s sickening, I know.  They won’t even allow first-responders to attend.  I assume this is the kind of “leadership” the BBC loves.  The Salvation Army is hosting their own event a couple blocks away to include them and others.


      • Reed says:

        Good for them!!!!!! Well done the S.A.


      • noggin says:

        it will be interesting, to see, if the deluge of obstacles, placed in the way
        of of the 9/11 rally,(ms geller), are effective this time.
        last year a concerted effort was made to snub it out before it could even get momentum, this failed miserably,(the photo/film evidence speaks for itself). first responders will be attending, & a seemingly growing list of speakers.


  21. Durotrigan says:

    Maybe it’s just me, but at the end of the report Humphrys did momentarily appear to go ‘off message’ re the ‘religion of peace’, and perhaps intimate that the EDL have a point:
    <!–[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser /> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]–>


  22. Billy-no-mates says:

    I must admit I also felt that there was an “open” verdict on the EDL as well. Naturally I am still suspiscious – perhaps it was to give the lefties a chance to complain so that in turn they can claim criticism from both sides in order to give credence to a neutrality claim. Maybe I’m too cynical.

    What was frustrating was the fact that they never ask the moderates to go into more detail  about there view on the future. There is very little talk about integration. How can a group who is forbidden marrying outside their relegion and culturally are encouraged to marry members of their extended family actually integrate.


  23. wild says:

    “How can a group who is forbidden marrying outside their religion and culturally are encouraged to marry members of their extended family actually integrate.”

    Once they reach a sufficiently large number (the aim of the pious is to concentrate in particular areas and reproduce like rabbits) they will try to kill off the host culture. It is already happening. It may take hundreds of years, but the point will be reached (for example) where people will barely remember that Egypt was once a Christian country. The few Christians who are left in Egypt are treated even more badly than the black Africans (although not as bad as the Jews). Do not expects calls for diversity from the Muslims.


  24. George R says:

    Notice how INBBC’s Mr D CASCIANI narrows his discussion about what can be done about the Islamic jihad threat in Britain to a choice between only: 1.) ex-Met cop and Islamic appeaser, Mr R Lambert, 

                   and 2.) ex-jihadist supporter, Mr. E. Hussain

    (by the way INBBC’s CASCIANI calls Hussain ‘a thinker’!)

    So, in other words, INBBC’s CASCIANI refuses to allow a discussion on the continuing Islamic jihad threat to Britain by allowing the voices  of British peopled who are not Islamic jihad appeasers and Muslim ex-jihad supporters, to be heard!

    INBBC CASCIANI’s censored range:

    “Hearts and minds: London’s street battle with al-Qaeda”

    So this is part of INBBC overall propaganda: the ‘solution’ to the problem of Islamic jihad in Britain can be left to Lambert, Hussain  and Casciani: voices of the vast majority of British people excluded.


  25. George R says:

    Of course, INBBC is uncritical of this Islamic invented notion -“‘Islamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian Future’ by David Horowitz and Robert Spencer”


  26. Hanson says:

    The BBC and the left wing press really are banging on about the EDL. They are presenting them as a kind of pass political movement (which they are not) and as a white supremacist group (which they’re not). The left go on about the EDL because it makes them feel superior to talk about nasty racists. It boils things down to simple arguments. It keeps the issues the EDL want to raise (amongst the admittedly awful things they do, the racist chanting, violence etc) off the agenda. The left talk about the EDL as if they are evil geniuses, everywhere at all times, when they are basically 80% hooligans.
    All of this is part of a wider narrative to try and sell so called right wing extremism as an equivalent of Islamic extremism – “look, white people are extremists too!” , that kind of thing. The UAF and their “anti – fascist” ilk, behave in a wonderfully ironic manner by trying to silence the voices of those they don’t like. And that’s not fascism apparently…  The EDL are, on the whole, a nasty enough bunch. But amongst their violence and abuse they raise valid points which the political establishment and the left wing press are still afraid to confront – Islamification of some areas, immigration, community cohesion, and how it all links to terrorism. For that alone, they deserve to say what they want to say. I just wish a group could do this without being skin head thugs who go around chanting “allah is a paedo”.