The Not So ‘Radical’ Anjem Choudary


There was some outrage that the BBC should interview Anjem Choudary on the prestigious Today programme, (0810)

The only thing that was ‘outrageous’ was the complete failure of John Humphrys to conduct an interview that got to the heart of the matter…..UK foreign policy and its supposed consequences….at least in the eyes of most Muslims and leftwing commentators.


Humphrys painted himself into a corner refusing to get onto the subject of foreign policy until Choudary expressed condemnation at the killing of Lee Rigby, which he refused to do.

The interview became pointless and continued in ever decreasing circles, the only winner being Choudary.

Humphry’s line was the usual one adopted by those unwilling to ‘offend’ Muslims, one that fails to challenge the fundamental reasons for Choudary’s narrative….Humphrys wants Choudary to condemn the violence of the killers but dodges the real question….what does Islam really teach?

If Choudary is a radical for preaching Islam what does that tell us?

The apologists always say…he is preaching an extreme, fundamentalist, strict version of Islam…well isn’t that exactly what Islam is?…if the fundamentals of Islam are not ‘Islamic’ then what is?

It seems people try to pick only the bits of Islam that they like.

Choudary preaches that UK foreign policy drives the ‘radicalisation’ of Muslim youth….but this is something that the BBC has long accepted as fact itself…presenters like Victoria Derbyshire nodding along as caller after caller puts forward this theory.


The BBC’s very own Peter Taylor…Reporter, BBC series Al Qaeda: Time To Talk? :

US foreign policy

So is it time to talk to al-Qaeda?

According to General Ali Shukri, former counter-terrorist adviser to King Hussein of Jordan, it is not something that should be ruled out.

“There is no harm in talking,” he told me.

Although no-one is seriously thinking about MI6 or CIA setting up back channels to Osama bin Laden’s cave, perhaps it is worth paying some attention to what he has been saying for the past 10 years.

His statements are not about any Caliphate, a pan-Muslim state which is rarely mentioned, but about US support for Israel, its backing for “apostate” Arab regimes in the Middle East and the presence of US troops in Muslim lands.

In reality, the issue is US foreign policy.

I was left in no doubt from all those I spoke to that Iraq above all else was the motivating factor behind the radicalisation and recruitment of young Muslims, and that the US-led invasion has gifted Osama bin Laden with a Jihad he could only dream of.


Taylor just confirms what Choudary says.


The trouble though is that the BBC never challenges that belief, that narrative…so in effect the BBC itself is ‘radicalising the youth’.



And Choudary is in more good company…including Labour MPs…

Muslim leaders say foreign policy makes UK target

Leading UK Muslims have united to tell Tony Blair that his foreign policy in Iraq and on Israel offers “ammunition to extremists” and puts British lives “at increased risk”.

An open letter signed by three of the four Muslim MPs, three of the four peers, and 38 organisations including the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain, was greeted with dismay in Downing Street. It has courted the MCB and several of the signatories, such as key Labour MPs Sadiq Khan (Tooting) and Shahid Malik (Dewsbury), whom it believes can shape Muslim opinion.


Humphrys tells Choudary that perhaps he should go to a country that has Sharia if he wants to live in such a country….why should he though?  Does Humphrys say that to those who would turn this country into a Socialist ‘heaven’ like Ed Miliband?

Does Choudary ‘hate this country’?  Those who attacked the Daily Mail for suggesting Ralph Miliband hated this country because he wanted to destroy the essential being of it…political, social and moral….defended him by saying that he was entitled to want ‘change’.

If it’s OK for Marxists why not Islamists?

If Choudary’s views are radical and extreme why not Miliband’s?


This article by Jenny McCartney in the Telegraph demonstrates the problem this country faces as it typifies the mindset of those in power……the lack of understanding of what Islam really means and what the consequences will be when Muslims gain more and more influence:

We’ve heard enough from Anjem Choudary

In the wake of the Woolwich murder of soldier Lee Rigby, radical Islamists are given publicity because the media is attracted to extremists


The problem with that is that Choudary isn’t a radical…he is preaching Islam.

If he is ‘radical’ then so is Islam.

That should be the real lesson the Great and the Good should start to learn.  McCartney has absolutely no understanding of what she is talking about…her main complaint is…‘what emerged from the discussion was that Choudary does not believe in democracy since “sovereignty belongs to God”. He was not willing to condemn the murderers. And he calls, yet again, for the adoption of Sharia across the United Kingdom.’


The ‘sovereignty of God’ is a basic tenet of Islam, calling for Sharia is quite clearly something Muslims, genuine Muslims, should be seeking….and Muslim dominance is something that even Labour MP’s are hoping for:

The true face of Islam:



Rejoice! The number of Muslim MPs has doubled


Why would Muslims rejoice because there are more Muslim MP’s?


Look at this latest sorry tale of surrender:

Muslim staff at Marks & Spencer can refuse to sell alcohol and pork

At M&S, Muslim staff who do not wish to handle alcohol or pork have been told they can politely request that customers choose another till at which to pay.

At one of its stores in central London last week, customers waiting with goods that included pork or alcohol were told by a Muslim checkout worker to wait until another till became available. The assistant was extremely apologetic at having to ask customers to wait.


Note, it’s not the staff member who has to move to another till, it’s the customer….however the Muslim staff member is quite happy to take their wages from the money made in a shop selling alcohol and pork.

What is the difference between Choudary and the Muslim who refuses to do certain things because of their religion?


Nothing really…they both wish to impose Islam upon the world.


Time the BBC et al woke up……and it was only two years ago or so that the BBC told us that Christianity was ‘thriving in the Middle east’…even giving an example in Hamas controlled Gaza……it was a lie  then and the real truth is only now coming out in the mainstream political and media consciousness:

Labour: We must ‘do God’ to fight anti-Christian persecution

Douglas Alexander, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary, says politicians should speak out about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, and not be put off doing so for fear of causing offence


Let’s be clear who is persecuting those Christians…it is Muslims….something the BBC even now seeks to minimise.





Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to The Not So ‘Radical’ Anjem Choudary

  1. john in cheshire says:

    perhaps the bbc’s new year resolution will be to give more news, less opinion, and to stop filtering out news that doesn’t conform to what they deem appropriate. Perhaps they will also have the courage to scrutinise, and even mock islam just as they have done and are doing with regards to Christianity. They might also like to put their socalled journalists to work investigating proper matters, such as the EU, and the Climate scam, or perhaps such mundane matters as postal voter fraud.


  2. Doublethinker says:

    The BBC is suspect on all topics in which an immigrant community is at odds with native Brits. Muslims are currently the ones who are causing the most concern , and are likely to do so for a long time to come, so the BBC goes to extreme lengths to protect them and preserve what social harmony there is. But if any other immigrant community was at odds with the rest of us they would be jumping to their defence also.
    The BBC has a mission to ensure that mass immigration , the greatest self inflicted calamity ever to befall our country, is successful and that eventually we reach the sunlit uplands of the liberal left multicultural Utopia. They are quite prepared to lie to us , to suppress the truth , and to smear anyone who opposes their goal. It was quite amusing hearing Humphries saying to Choudary that he was proud to live in a democracy. Well, in a democracy the people are given a say in decisions which will affect their country for centuries to come, but we were never asked our opinion about mass immigration and we certainly can’t say what we think about it now. And of course Mr Humphries employer is one of the prime movers in this suppression of free speech and the subversion of the democratic process.
    The liberal left have sold the country down the river and they are now sitting on a powder keg and hoping that all will be well. The BBC is buying them time but we are unlikely to see those sunlit uplands but rather deep dark valleys of despair.


  3. Guest Who says:

    “At M&S, Muslim staff who do not wish to handle alcohol or pork have been told they can politely request that customers choose another till at which to pay”
    It’s not really very polite at all, as one presumes the customer has until that point queued and will then be obliged to re queue elsewhere.
    As stated, the consequences of taking a job that cannot be fully delivered have been moved from staff and employer fully to the hapless customer.
    It may be a matter of faith (intrigued as to how Jewish staff coped before) for the individual, but it’s simple economics to the store, making the customer accommodate them. Like licence fee payers cover the consequences of redaction defences or BIJ/Newsnight foul ups.
    It might be interesting if a customer, very politely, stood their ground, understood their position, and demanded extra staff attend right now from elsewhere. The store may then have a change of heart, or maybe reassign staff to areas more suited to their cultural sensitivities.


    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      Customers have a choice where to shop. Vote with your wallets folk.


      • Doublethinker says:

        Or make the point by only queuing at obviously non Muslim manned tills. But hang on isn’t that illegal? Couldn’t we be locked up for that? We can’t say what we think and now we can’t queue where we want. What next to accommodate immigrants who shouldn’t be here.


        • noggin says:

          oh come on …. for crying out loud
          you do not EVER play that game

          If you are on a till to serve … DO IT
          and for every customer too.

          Simply stand your ground, get them to do their job, tills are busy enough this time of year, no one needs to be messed around after already waiting far too long.


        • Number 7 says:

          Simple, Just walk out of the shop leaving the staff to return the goods to the shelves.


        • Mark B says:

          I’m with Number 7 on this. Just leave the stuff there. Cause disruption.


    • Joshaw says:

      Any customer who meekly moves on as requested deserves contempt.

      I will demand that a member of staff moves my purchases for me. This is not about religion, it is about exercising power and spreading influence, step by step.


      • Span Ows says:

        As Old Timer posted on the Open Thread:

        Old Timer says:
        December 20, 2013 at 1:34 pm

        The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.
        Dante Alighieri 1265 – 1321

        Those meekly moving on are maintaining their neutrality (but would probably whinge about it later)


    • Guest Who says:

      Just had a wee twitter surf, and it’s possible that this little bit of corporate toe-touching to appease a few noisy activists has backfired a tad.
      I wonder if M&S sells popcorn, as it may be the fastest selling product line they have, if anyone still buys there.
      Be interested if and when the BBC take note as twitter trends are what they deem news nowadays.
      Guessing either watertight oversight or serious attempts at ‘storm in a teacup’ claims featuring reliable guest commentators.
      Already some wondering if they will have on station enough staff to cope with all the exemption possibilities.
      And of course the fun that line segregation creates.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      “At M&S, Christian staff who do not wish to serve homosexual couples openly displaying affection in front of them have been told they can politely request that customers choose another till at which to pay”

      Yeah, me neither.

      Halal-only cashier lines? This will not end well. Where are those defenders of the indefensible who used to swear up and down that there was no creeping enforcement of Islamic beliefs on others?


  4. Mice Height says:

    I oppose British troop’s lives being put at risk, and wasted, in any Turd-World Islamic shite-hole, but why didn’t Humphrys have the stats on hand to put to Choudary the number of Muslims killed by Western forces, compared to lives taken by Islamic insurgents. If they can’t find a Christian, Jew, Sikh etc. to kill, then they simply start killing themselves.


  5. Llareggub says:

    Maybe one should load a large number of bottles on the check-out and politely walk away leaving them there when politely told you will not be served.


  6. ConofChi says:

    When will the BBC have the guts to put the Koran under the microscope as have the Judeo/Christian texts?
    A rhetorical question, I know…….


  7. Milverton says:

    Choudray needs to be asked just how many muslims in this country does he estimate support him. He’ll big it up (in the argo of the colonials to the West), forcing so-called moderate organisations to get off their arses to deny it. They won’t be believed.

    A vicious internal war of words between muslims in this country is good news for the rest of us, as it will almost certainly eventually split along Sunni and Shia lines.

    We already know that the “few” muslims claimed by the media who have gone abroad for jihad is in truth far more, and the suspicion they are supported by many, many tens of thousands here is strong and increasing.

    Far from being a detriment to the UK Choudray’s lunacy could turn out to be a distinct advantage. We need more of him on our media, not less.

    Every terror attack here loosens Islam’s grip in this nation. I have a lovely muslim couple living over the road from me, he a teacher, she works for the post office. After both the London bombings and the Lee Rigby murder they were seriously considering returning to Pakistan. That is a shame, as they are a very pleasant couple, but we are deep into real politik now, and I’m afraid that might be one of the consequences of revealing what the media like to call radical Islam as being in reality plain old, off the shelf, standard Islam.


    • john in cheshire says:

      Surely, with regards to your neighbours, one has to ask why did they come here; particularly as they seem to have the option to return to pakistan? They might be the nicest people on earth, but can’t the go and be nice somewhere else?


      • Milverton says:

        I’m sure that if they sold up and took their equity back to Pakistan they could live in great comfort, but who would choose to live there? It’s a shit hole. People seem desperate to leave and to avoid returning at all costs.

        Why did they come? That’s easy. Our politicians have been welcoming people from across the (third) world for decades. They took up the invitation. As such their arrival here needs to be taken up with successive British governments. If you had a chance to leave a failed state I think you’d probably grab it with both hands. I know I would.


      • Joshaw says:

        I’ve heard the “nice” argument on many occasions.

        If I wanted to move to Australia, New Zealand or Australia, I wouldn’t get in on a “niceness” test. It’s irrelevant.


        • Joshaw says:

          Meant to say: “or the US”


          • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

            Your argument is valid Joshaw, their immigration policies have no measure of niceness inbuilt.
            I would expect some basic criteria, skills, language, employment prospects ( offers even) .
            Just the kind of thing we dont appear to have in the UK.


        • Milverton says:

          I don’t know if you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said, Where did I say niceness was/is/should be a test? I told you they were a nice couple. It may come as a bitter pill to some on the outer edges here but – whisper it – some immigrants are quite nice. Sorry to disappoint.


          • Joshaw says:

            If you look at the thread again, you’ll see I was replying to john in cheshire, not you.


    • Trafford says:

      “Every terror attack here loosens Islam’s grip in this nation. I have a lovely muslim couple living over the road from me, he a teacher, she works for the post office.”

      The Clerics during Friday Sermons tell them to be polite because they know that is the weakness to the British. It’s called deception and they use it to drop peoples’ guards so people think “oh, there not too bad, a few more wont hurt”

      These are importantly middle class muslims whereas the majority of muslims live in old working class areas where they form voluntary segregated ghettos. Remember that he is also in a public sector job and she in a job that use to be in the public sector

      More muslims=more labour voters=more muslims=more labour voters

      Through all the dog whistles and false apologies labour know exactly what they are doing and it’s why labours reelection team contains all those from labours last government (including alastair campbell) and are so small in number. The less who know the less that gets out. labour mp’s know it but the real actions happen behind closed doors.

      Wherever you believe … because when the shit hits the fan they will side with their own religion as the worst thing a Muslim can do is side with Islams enemies.

      Does a conman or fraudster approach you they want what you have? No, they are polite

      True Muslims only befriend non-muslims if they believe it will help spread islam.


  8. ember2013 says:

    The BBC could have provided an excellent service by asking the kind of questions Alan proposes above. Instead, they are closed and deliberately incurious.

    As for this:

    Muslim leaders say foreign policy makes UK target

    So a group of MPs have signed a letter effectively telling the government that they should follow AQ requests or fear further terrorist attacks.

    In anyone’s book that’s just Muslim MPs being complict in the terrorist process.


  9. Bill says:

    Just imagine how much happier as a country we woud be without mass immigration. It truly is an absurd tradegy that politicians have imposed on us. Unfortunately, it seems an irrevocable descent into misery.


    • john in cheshire says:

      Nothing is irrevocable. Once the will is there, it will happen. I actually think it will, I just hope I live to see the day.


  10. Andy Gill says:

    I think John Humhreys did rather well. He let Choudray make an absolute arse of himself.

    Many people who did not really know what extremist Islam actually entails will have been disgusted by Choudray’s squirming evasiveness. As a representative of Islam, Choudray has done us all a favour by showing the whole country what he stands for. No need to demonize the Muslim community. Just let Choudray speak and let people make up thier own minds.


  11. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

    Did Humphrys ask Choudary about UK foreign policy in Kosovo? (I didn’t hear the interview and can’t face listening to it now) As I have tired of pointing out, but the bBBC never does, Tony Blair’s first war was in Kosovo in 1998 (three years before 9/11), to try to help Muslims who were being ‘ethnically cleansed’ by Serbs.
    What does Choudary think of that foreign policy?


  12. stuart says:

    anjem choudary is a brown supremacist,a fascist and a nazi who wants to destroy the english and christian cultural heritage of this country,why does this man get away with this racism and hatred that he spouts off on a daily basis,why do the police hypocrites turn a blind eye to the dangerous man who encourages terrorism and violence but will arrest anybody on twitter or facebook who dares to make any critical comment about islam,we are just sleepwalking into another terrorist attack by one of choudarys followers and have a guess what this man as this week will be invited onto the bbc to justify why his terrorist mates do what they do by blaming foreign policy again,you did not attack the wests foreign policy when the us and england bombed the hell out of christian serbia and kosovo to save your muslim butts did you choudary you mug.


    • Mark B says:

      Give a jackass enough rope, and they will happy hang themselves with it.

      Choudary’s no fool, and I guess neither are those of the establishment.

      If you are going to get angry with anyone, get angry with those that allowed the likes of this man to come here and settle. I, like many, did not ask these people to come. We were told that they were need because we would not do the jobs that they would do. This process has been going on since the creation of the welfare state, all in order to fund the ponzi-scheme of benefits, NHS and state pensions.


  13. George R says:

    “‘Asbos’ to silence 25 hate clerics”


  14. kev says:


  15. George R says:

    On the preferential treatment of Muslims at M & S (and at INBBC, of course), I can’t find anything on BBC News online, but ‘Jihad Watch’ has this:-

    “UK: Marks & Spencer tells Muslim staff they can refuse to serve customers buying alcohol or pork”


  16. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The only thing that was ‘outrageous’ was the complete failure of John Humphrys to conduct an interview that got to the heart of the matter…..UK foreign policy and its supposed consequences….at least in the eyes of most Muslims and leftwing commentators.

    The more I think about this, the more I disagree. In fact, I’m really starting to think that the BBC will feel they successfully did just that.

    The BBC’s defense statement yesterday included this:

    The spokesman said: “We have a responsibility to both report on the story and try to shed light on why it happened.

    “We believe it is important to reflect the fact that such opinions exist and feel that Choudary’s comments may offer some insight into how this crime came about.

    “His views were robustly challenged by both the presenter, John Humphrys and by Lord Carlile, the government’s former anti-terrorism adviser.”

    I said yesterday that this meant that they knew, and I still believe that. The Today geniuses very much wanted to shed light on the root cause of the murder. At least, what they believe to be the root cause, anyway. So we got Friday’s tragicomic sickening display.

    I’d really like to know what went on in the production meeting earlier in the week that led to the series of questions Humphrys was meant to ask. Nobody goes into an interview of this kind without a carefully planned trajectory, so there must have been some underlying goal here. The question is, what was the BBC’s goal?

    They say it was to shed light on what happened, as well as do their duty to robustly challenge Choudray’s viewpoints. I say they successfully did the first part, but failed, at least in part, to achieve the second. In both cases, I think it’s because they largely agree with Choudray.

    First, though, it’s important to point out that the BBC actually had two other goals. One other goal was to isolate and demonize Choudray personally. Hence the Panorama segment placing blame on him for directly radicalizing one of the murderers. In this way, they get to wheel out the old Tiny Minority™ chestnut. Choudray is also slick enough to know not to claim to represent anyone or influence anyone. Didn’t he got to law school? Doesn’t he spend a lot of time dealing with lawyers? He’s an experienced public performer, so it was easy for him. He even taunted Humphrys at one point about just that.

    The BBC got what they wanted without even trying. Choudray, they will feel, proved himself to be a nasty piece of work, who represents nobody but himself, everyone thinks his views are abhorrent (well, some of his views, anyway. Not the foreign policy bit, though), etc. The usual refrain, really.

    To prove that, they had Lord Carlile on the phone to read out the whole hymn. Page 173 in your Book of Common Multiculturalism, I think. It was so obvious. In case anybody doesn’t think this is what’s going on, even people in the Telegraph as well as the Independent are singing from the exact same hymn sheet.

    The final goal, of course, was to shore up the BBC’s image. See, they can claim, they actually do robustly challenge Mohammedan extremism, contrary to those haters who say the BBC supports the terrorists, etc. They’ve apparently been gunning for Choudray’s scalp on this. It would be quite a feather in their cap, at least among the chattering classes. It won’t change the minds of anyone who sees through them.

    I think the BBC’s true position on this can be found in Humphrys’ introduction.

    What happens to young men from perfectly decent families to turn them into the sort of people who will butcher a young soldier in the street, or wage war in a foreign country – or indeed in their own country – against people purely because they do not share their own religious beliefs? The answer we usually get is that they fall under the spell of extremists, so-called “preachers of hate”.

    “The answer we usually get…” In other words, what you’re going to hear is the real reason: UK foreign policy. Cue somebody claiming I’m reading something that isn’t there. If not, why that phrase? What else does it mean? Why say it that way? The Today producers aren’t that stupid or careless in their writing. But there’s much more in this question that reveals the true intellectual failure of the BBC on this issue.

    The main goal, remember, is to reassure the audience that this kind of thinking is extremely extreme, not shared by the vast majority of Mohammedans in Britain. It’s not to debate the ideas themselves. British Mohammedans, though, didn’t go join Al Qaida-types in Syria because Choudray or his kind were raging against Christian soldiers in Muslim Lands. Choudray’s all about UK/US foreign policy, not about Mohammedan Pakistan versus Hindu India. He doesn’t encourage his followers to go help one of those humorously-acronymned jihadi groups in the Philippines. No, Choudray and his poppy burners don’t give a damn about any of that. All the so-called extremist hate-imams in Britain who preach hate of the West are focused on just that: Western anyone having anything to do with Muslim areas. So it’s a big stretch to conflate all the different reasons British Mohammedans join various jihads into Choudray’s comparatively narrow theme.

    This is the intellectual failure of the BBC on the issue. By pretending that all the jihadi violence around the world – including, presumably, Shiite-Sunni violence, Mohammedan governments persecuting Christians or at least allowing others to do so, and all the different movements in various countries to install Sharia regimes (e.g. Somalia and Mali), is just extremists inspired by so-called “preachers of hate” who are angry at Western imperialism is simply wrong. By placing it all into the one box, though, the BBC can then not only avoid discussing the actual problem of the caveman mentality that’s spread throughout the third world and has been imported on a rather large scale, in a short period of time, into Britain, but they can even act as if it doesn’t exist. At least, not until the next story about female genital mutilation comes around.

    Is there a problem with too much third-world, uncivilized attitude among Mohammedans in Britain? That’s not what the BBC is here to discuss. In fact, they’re here to make you forget all about it. So instead they present Choudray as a pantomime villain so you can all hiss and boo at the appropriate moments in the story. It’s really UK/US foreign policy after all that causes all this. The only bit about which the BBC differs from Choudray is the level and location of appropriate response to it. So they let him spell it out, Humphrys stood back and let him, because the BBC could not argue against his points. All Humphrys could do was to try and make the point that the most appalling types of violent responses were out of order. He couldn’t – wouldn’t – debate the cause, only the level of response.

    Opening with a demand that Choudray condemn the murder was a farce, and they knew that going in. They must have. Most people at Today are not that stupid. They knew perfectly well that Choudray was never going to condemn the murder, because he felt it was justified and wanted instead to condemn what he saw as the root cause. Thus, the BBC got him to shed light on what happened, while simultaneously giving him a pantomime rope with which to hang himself. Again, it was easy. and the BBC knew it all along.

    When Choudray started bitching about foreign policy causing all of it, Humphrys refused to touch it. He wouldn’t bite at Choudray’s challenge to condemn UK foreign policy. Humphrys is an old hand and knows not to give his opponent an easy boost. It wouldn’t be professional, not going to happen. But he went further than that and said he didn’t want to even get into a debate about it.

    That, for me, ends the debate about what the BBC was up to right there. The BBC claims to have wanted to shed light on the cause(s) of the murder. Choudray openly stated the causes for the murder, and Humphrys wouldn’t touch either of them. Because he couldn’t, and because the Today geniuses never intended to in the first place. So it would seem that the Today crew believe that Choudray’s right. They set this up in Humphrys’ intro. “What we usually hear…” is about hate-preachers, but we will now shed light on the true root cause. Enter Choudray and several minutes of condemning UK/US foreign policy.

    They all pretty much believe that US/UK foreign policy is responsible for Islamic terrorism, including this murder. In short, they agree with Choudray and Al Qaeda and all the rest of them. The only possible difference of agreement between them is the acceptable degree of response. Even metropolitan progressive liberals will balk at the cold-blooded murder of an unarmed man in the middle of a public street. (You notice I don’t say “innocent”. Rigby was a soldier, so guilty by association, and, if I’m honest, a valid military target. He was unarmed, so it’s not fair, but let’s be coldly objective for the moment, as these specifics aren’t at issue here.) So of course even jaded BBC journalists are going to be a little appalled by it.

    Humphrys offering that hypothetical about him going to Saudi Arabia and stabbing somebody in the street was just as idiotic as refusing to debate the foreign policy issue unless Choudray condemned Rigby’s murder. Is that the best the Today geniuses could come up with?

    If the killers had instead shot Rigby with an RPG or something while he was in a military vehicle, none of this would be happening. It’s only because of the unusual and too-close-to-home nature of the killing that the BBC felt is was so important to go after Choudray. Too many people the Beeboids actually like and respect were outraged (the opinions of ordinary people? meh. That’s important only for ratings), so something had to be done. And we’ve heard the result. Why the BBC waited for so many years to really go after him until this murder happened is beyond me. I guess it wasn’t really a problem until then and going after him earlier would only, as Hugh Sykes might suggest, give permission for prejudice. That mindset is most likely shared by the Today crew, so they adjusted their goals accordingly.

    If I’m right, and the BBC’s goals were to let everyone know that UK/US foreign policy inspired the murder and we need only discuss the wrongness of killing people in the streets of Britain, to demonize and isolate Choudray and separate him from the majority of Mohammedans in Britain, and to show the BBC getting tough with an ugly enemy of your country in the face of their harshest critics, then the BBC will see this segment as a roaring success. To me, it was a farce. But that’s only because I don’t share the BBC’s goals.

    The only positive in the whole thing was near the end when Humphrys asked Choudray why he didn’t go somewhere else to promote Sharia Law. When people here say that, it’s racist and Islamophobic. Humphrys gets away with it because he holds most of the other approved thoughts.


    • Umbongo says:

      Just excellent analysis, DP. When I heard this farce it seemed to me that once Humphrys failed to get Choudary to admit that “it’s a fair cop” he just gave up. But, as you write, Humphrys didn’t actually “give up” since the purpose of the interview had been more or less achieved. Because he refused to condemn the murder, Choudary was “revealed” as a lone nutter, divorced from mainstream Islam and, more to the point, maddened by UK/US foreign policy. The avoidance of the other issues you mention is well in line with the manifest dishonesty of public debate in our “democratic” West as described by Chomsky and as carried out by the BBC to the letter.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        If I’m wrong, Umbongo, the only apparent alternative is that Humphrys is a weak interviewer and the Today producers are amateurs who don’t know how to set up a proper line of questioning and were unaware of Choudray’s skill.

        But the combination of previous slanted BBC coverage on the issue of foreign policy being the root cause of extremism, just about everything the BBC has said in defense of this segment, and all the complainers from both sides of the political spectrum who say the BBC shouldn’t give him the oxygen of publicity because he’s a lone nutter and does not represent anyone other than himself or the microscopically Tiny Minority™, seems to indicate that I’m right.

        I mean, the Today geniuses are surely disappointed that they failed to get their gotcha moment, to follow up the Panorama feature, but it was still a success for their overall agenda. If that gotcha moment was the true goal of bringing Choudray into the studio, then they’re just idiots. Dangerous idiots to have that much influence over the news agenda and public discourse, but idiots nevertheless if they thought they could so easily nail him down like that.


  17. joed says:


    “anjem choudary is a brown supremacist,a fascist and a nazi who wants to destroy the english and christian cultural heritage of this country”

    In other words, he’s a perfectly normal, everyday muslim


  18. London Calling says:

    Anjem Choudary wants to promote Islamic Suprematism while funded by the taxes of white southern English taxpayers. Has he got a job? Who pays his rent – him or us? He is a parasite, welcomed to Britain by Labour who understand ethnics vote Labour. Tony Blair was the cause of the problem. Rivers of Blood?


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Choudray is a Charles Manson, allegedly, only it’s not the Beatles sending him messages to kill people. The only way he’s going to jail is if the murderers turn him in. As you say, it’s your politicians – and the BBC – who have enabled him and those like him.

      When the BBC has someone on – and I mean someone not from the BBC: not Paxman, not Andrew Neil, not any of them – to seriously explain the flaws in this foreign policy argument to Choudray or someone just like him, as well as to a few of the usual Leftoid suspects who agree with him on the foreign policy, and disagree only with the level of appropriate response, then and only then will I believe that the BBC has begun to grasp the reality and are at last putting aside their ideology to deal with the issue.


  19. joed says:

    London calling,

    As far as Choudhary is concerned, the taxpayer funded benefits he and other pious muslims live on are their jizya payments – jizya being the wealth transfer from kufar to Muslims as mandated in the koran. He’s not being a hypocrite at all, just folowing islamic doctrine. So he’s being a good muslim.

    “…and make them pay the jizya, until they feel themselves subdued”.


  20. John says:

    ‘It seems people try to pick only the bits of Islam that they like.’

    I presume you don’t apply this to Muslims themselves though? In the same way that Christians don’t go round stoning their unruly children. Because I thought you argued that are Muslims are extremist/ a danger?


  21. George R says:

    “Why did gun police spare the Woolwich murderers?”

    Read more:

    “Rigby fiancée attacks BBC for giving hate cleric key slot: Murdered soldier’s wife-to-be says Corporation was ‘wrong’ for handing Anjem Choudary 12 minutes of airtime.”

    Read more: