The decapitation of US journalist James Foley has caused a stirring at the BBC. I was on BBC London this morning and asked if I though the fact that the man who murdered Mr Foley spoke with a London accent was shocking. I said no, and am surprised anyone could be surprised at this. Last year, in LONDON, we saw the virtual decapitation of Lee Rigby by two “British” Muslims so why are we shocked when they travel abroad and do the same thing? It’s a bit like ISIL. The BBC are now rowing in behind the new US position that this Jihad cancer has to be tackled in Syria AS WELL as Iraq. Obama continues to lead from behind and yet the BBC compliantly present this as ground breaking initiatives from President Narcissus. Look, of COURSE ISIL need tackled in Syria but the West was too busy arming them to do that. Of course the UK exports Jihad.  No one can be shocked at these things although we can be disgusted and angered and outraged. But in the salons of the chattering classes, it seems to cause at least a murmur that Islamists can be savage. Did they sleep through 9/11 and every subsequent year?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.


  1. bogtrott says:

    The BBC isn’t British broadcasting corp any more it ceased to be that many,many years ago. Funny no BBC journo or reporter is touched by fighters etc,because they serve a purpose,to channel their views to the west via the BBC.


    • Guess Who says:

      I was going to point out Frank G is an exception, but his efforts subsequently do make him extraordinarily understanding. In rather stark contrast, Jezza Bowen seems almost fanatically determined not to understand the motivations of those in whose firing line he stepped.

      We are seeing many a secret interview secured now. I do wonder if the reporter and crew ever get a bit nervous if a drone appears overhead. Not just for what may happen directly, but if their hosts wonder how it arrived with them.

      New eras mean new opportunities. But a lot of this access into the camp of those hostile to British interests does seem curious, especially if constraints to the visit mean ‘reporting’ becomes more propaganda. Certainly whilst still guests of the combatants. And even on return to safety, concern for future access or subsequent colleague forays may make even edits sympathetic. It would be hard to imagine that things would go well mid-interview on location if a less than flattering portrait was aired back home.

      It’s the acceptance and ubiquity of such cosy set-ups that intrigues.

      Hard to imagine sometime health moppet Tulip having a nice one-on-one with Dr. Mengele in the Argentinian jungle to swap notes on any medical discoveries he managed to discover in course of his work.

      But then, that was a different time.


    • DP111 says:

      In the aftermath of yet another beheading of a Western Christian (as that is how the Islamic world sees all Westerners) Infidel, the BBC is engaged in getting as many Muslims – from the Muslim council of Britain, to imams, and others, to explain why.

      So what can devout and loyal Muslims do, except to deflect the charge away from Islam- Taqqiya. Thus the BBC gets the narrative that the beheadings, mass killings of Christians, Yazidis, and other barbarisms, has nothing to do with Islam, but because of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan on false premises.

      The BBC wins twice – its narrative on Iraq, and keeping Islam and Muslims, as the most protected of all.

      What the BBC will never do is to get the truth about Islam from the present – Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, or from the past- Churchill, John Adams, Victor Hugo, Marco Polo, G K Chesterton, Carlyle , and many others.

      With few exceptions, which I take there must be, on a probability basis , Muslims all over the world, including the West, will like to enforce sharia on Kuffar nations, no matter how content they are in the West. That is the way of Jihad, which is a prime directive of the Koran and Allah.


      • DP111 says:

        PS: And for those Exceptional Muslims

        Let us consider the situation that moderate Muslims prove that the correct interpretation of Islam was the moderate one (whatever that is). They even go further and make the changes in their teachings of the Koran and the Jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a great relief to all. 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 (Taqqiya rules). Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes and return to the traditions of the Koran. They will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.

        Therefore, the distinction between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims is meaningless; it is of no help to us.

        Islam takes the long view – in several decades or centuries, or more. It is only right that we consider long term options, keeping in mind Islam’s long-term goals.


      • Joeb says:

        I would love these same experts to explain to me how the jihad in the Phillipines, Thailand, Nigeria and Kenya, for example, which have killed many thousands of people, are magically a result of The West invading Afghanistan and Iraq. And the jihad started decades before those events happened, remarkably.


        • DP111 says:

          I would love these same experts to explain to me how the jihad in the Phillipines, Thailand, Nigeria and Kenya, for example,


          Let me try, just for fun.

          Any attempt by any Kuffar to stop the expansion of Islam, is a war crime in the minds of Muslims. It then becomes legal for the Jihad to be applied to any Kuffar wherever, for the “war crime” of some other Kuffar.

          All Kuffars are the same

          Thats why the mass protests by Muslims, when Israel defends itself, but nothing when ISIS is committing genocide.


    • johnnythefish says:

      The BBC sees itself as the world’s broadcaster now (in anticipation of it serving the Great World Eco-Socialist Climate Change Caliphate) so when they try to bring in a British perspective it makes us sound like a foreign country.


    • GeoffM says:

      Just look at BBC Newsnight from 3 days ago. Complete, unchallenged, propaganda.


  2. Pounce says:

    David, you can add to the above how a born again Muslim was arrested on Tuesday armed with a knife and a hammer wrapped in a black flag on the streets of Camberwell (london) on Tuesday on a mission to behead either a soldier or government worker.


    • Kevin Cuttlefish says:

      No doubt this will get the usual BBC coverage of such matters, i.e. nil. Thank you BBC for keeping us informed of what’s happening in our country. It’s what we pay you to do.


    • DP111 says:


      There are rumours that the man who beheaded James Foley is from London, and his name is “John”.

      A wit on Vladtepes now calls him “John the Beheadist”


  3. George R says:

    Yes, the West’s political class (inc INBBC), in its continuing ignorance of Islam, defers to Muslims to tell us non-Muslims what we should think about Islam. And Beeboids fall for it. Non-Muslim criticism of Islam is censored out.

    And still INBBC spreads the false propaganda that Islam is not about the violent imposition of Shariah law through jihad, whereas the evidence that this is what Islam is, can be seen everywhere: now, and in Islamic history.


  4. Mailman says:

    IF I was the prime minister id be having confidential conversations over in Hereford where I’d let it be known that I would loose any sleep over captured British Muslims not seeing the sunrise the next morning.



    • Thoughtful says:

      I you actually knew what the British government has told British forces to do with Muslims with UK citizenship fighting against us you would weep.


      • Ken says:

        With regards to human rights and ‘nicey nicey’ legalities you mean?

        Considering the Jihadis do not recognise any law but Sharia for themselves and they insist that such Sharia law should apply to all, we should apply the same rules and not allow comon law, nor human rights law, apply in our dealings with them.

        Funny how they are only too willing to resort to human rights law and our courts when they feel wronged by our troops isn’t it?


        • hippiepooter says:

          Parliament needs to declare Britain in a state of war to defend itself against the Jihad being waged against us and our allies to impose Islam on us.

          It needs to make very clear what defines a Jihadi enemy, which includes the resignation statement of Baroness Warsi to the effect that if Britain doesn’t change it’s foreign policy to please Muslims we’ll suffer more terrorism.

          She, and all the other weasels (Muslim and non-Muslim) who use this forumla should at a bare minimum be facing charges of aiding and abetting the enemy at time of war, and they should appear before a security vetted Judge. The defendants would include the ‘Goebbels Bureau’ of the BBC who act as a propaganda arm of our Jihadi enemies and against our allies such as Israel.

          We should reintroduce the death penalty for Treason.

          We should set up our own Guantanamo.

          We should restore defence spending to Cold War levels and slash whatever public spending necessary to afford it.

          Ultimately, the only way we will defeat Jihad is to crush and occupy all Muslim countries that are not demonstrably allies, and use their oil to cover the whole of the cost in waging war to defend ourselves from Jihad, just like we should have done when we first went into Iraq. We’re paying the consequences now of having been far too nice to act as a sop to Islam and it’s allies on the Marxist left and sundry useful idiots. We simply failed to see it through in Iraq and Afghanistan and we’re going to have to go through it all over again.

          Ultimately, the only way to remove the Jihadi threat once and for all, a la Anne Coulter, is once we’ve got the Muslim world under our heel, convert it to Christianity, or at a bare minimum demonstrate to it that not only is Islam false but evil.

          There is no way any of this is going to happen. The devil rides out. We’re going to be defeated.


    • A Teddy called Moh says:

      I would organise a simultanious countrywide raids on mosques and religious schools to identify what is being taught and to locate weapons etc


      • GeoffM says:

        Well we have had the undercover Mosque documentaries, the hate preachers, Anjem Choudary, hamza, Lee Rigby….the list is too long.

        But still our politicians are scared shitless of the Muslim community.

        Well, in about 10 years the adult muslim population will have doubled.

        What will they do then? Force us all to convert?


  5. Thoughtful says:

    David, perhaps you would be good enough to explain what exactly an ‘Islamist’ is and how one differs from a Muslim?
    I’ve asked the BBC this question and they were unable to give a definition for a word which seems entirely made up to deflect criticism from their favourite brown eyed boys.

    Linguistically it should follow the same root as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, etc, and should mean someone who is opposed to Islam, the philosophy of such should therefore be ‘Islamism’ !


    • johnnythefish says:

      Excellent article. If the BBC were truly impartial it would be asking questions from Douglas Murray’s point of view, as well as giving airtime in their time-honoured politically-correct deferential way to any Muslim spokesman/nutjob they can drag in from ‘the community’.


  6. George R says:

    “A continuum links peaceful law-abiding ideological Muslims at one end and murderous jihadists at the other.”
    ―Melanie Phillips.


  7. hippiepooter says:

    Great post DV. And way to go putting your head above the parapet as ever saying things few people are prepared to say but loads of people think.

    After 9/11 I thought the plus side would be that we would now revive the values that defeated Hitler, but instead it exposed what a state of abject moral bankruptcy we’re in. We’re there for the taking.

    We’re in such a state of moral collapse that democracy simply cannot survive. We’ll either slide into a full blown correctnick dictatorship of the ‘New Order’, or the public will turn in desperation to Nazi scum like the BNP. Either way you look, it’s not looking good, but the truth is never void, and God bless you for speaking it.


    • Stewart says:

      I doubt very much the public will ever turn to a ‘far right ‘ (in parenthesis) party in any great numbers- they never never have before , The BNP ,NF, or BUF have never gained more than 15% of the vote – And while I accept that the BNP may,despite their protestations, be described as Nazis ( their economic policy certainly has national socialist elements to it) In what way are those British citizens who are members of, or vote for them scum?
      What do they do ,exactly that earns them that epithet?


      • Tony E says:

        Far right – any right would be a start. The British Conservative party couldn’t even beat Brown, the worst PM since at least Eden, if not since universal suffrage.

        The BBC plays its role in defeating the voices of the ‘right’.


        • John M says:

          “…. the worst PM since at least Eden ……”

          Is that the Garden of Eden?


      • hippiepooter says:

        Did I say everyone who votes BNP? Clearly not.

        You might not regard Nazis as scum, but I do, just like I do Al Qa’eda and ISIS.


        • Stewart says:

          Yes ,yes well done you ,your right on medal of honour is in the post .But you still haven’t told me what exactly the likes of Nick Griffin has done (that’s actually done) that establishes a moral equivalency between the BNP and Al Qa’eda
          And for the record, I don’t now nor ever have beaten my wife.


    • Max says:

      Pooter, over the top, melodramatic, verbal diarrhea.


  8. George R says:

    “Why Is Britain a Breeding Ground for ISIS Terrorists?”


  9. Julio says:

    Doesn’t really seem much point to this post. Is it just an excuse for Vance to tell us he was on the BBC……again.

    Licence fee well spent there then. Did they pay for a car for you?


    • Demon says:

      Your masters really have a problem with David Vance. If they so hate the truth why do you still invite him on, albeit too rarely?


      • hippiepooter says:

        Demon, I think when it comes to comments like these, DV gave some excellent advice a few days ago.


        • Demon says:

          Hippie, fair point. I should have left that one alone, my mistake. Sometimes when one sees something so ridiculous one replies before thinking. I’ll try harder to bear that in mind in future. Cheers.


      • Julio says:

        Good quesion, why do they?
        And yet they remain biased against everything he is for and for evrything he is against.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘Doesn’t really seem much point to this post’

      A belief you are of course welcome to have, and share.

      It may be not all agree though, as reading it a pretty good point is made that the MSM, and BBC, seem to feel a recent murder, and method, is shocking, when in fact they have been skirting around a lot more, as bad, for a long time. Often on an ideologically selective basis. Though shared career empathy does bring out the top trumps ace on occasion.

      What their reaction here has done has highlighted their lack at other times, which goes to objectivity and integrity.

      Just my opinion of course.

      But with a CV including ‘not really seeming much point’ to things to deploy, you too are well placed to apply for the astoundingly uncurious role of BBC Trust Cheerl… Chair too.

      Hurry, it closes soon!


      • Julio says:

        Yes, its my belief, who’s else would it be?
        And thanks for reminding me that I can have it and share it. Its always nice to be reminded of that by the font of all bulls**t.


        • Guess Who says:

          On the reminder, you are most welcome.

          “who’s else would it be?”

          Now, if I may assist in other areas, when me and you are next down by the schoolyard…


    • Rod says:

      Smells like Scott, aka Julio or was it Sandy ?


    • Julio says:

      I find a video of a beaheading quite shocking. I can understand asking someone if they’re shocked that it appears to be someone raised and educated in England that was responsible while fighting in Syrai/Iraq for Isis.

      That says nothing about ‘ideology’, only about the reaction of the average person to a shocking event.

      But then Vance has to really scrap the barrel for this ‘example’ of bias, despite appearing regularly on the BBC and never having suggesting any bias in his treatment. Remarkable no?

      And while he rails against the licence fee he has no problem being funded by it. Meanwhile all those here who share his views on the BBC and the licence fee, think nothing of it. Move along, nothing to see eh? Such questions, which would seem to smack you across the face like a red faced ulster unionist are dismissed as ‘trolling’.


  10. Sandy says:

    This site is homophobic, it should be shut down.


  11. Merched Becca says:

    For a change, in all fairness to the Beeb down in Wales, they have allowed Dr Kim Howells to say a some wise words on their morning programme. I hope that this link works ?– listen from about 01:14:00….


    • John M says:

      …but he was quickly cut off.


      • Merched Becca says:

        Same interview on Beeb TV’s evening news – cut to bits!
        The programme appeared to spend more time on the inappropriate texting of ex Cardiff City F.C. Malcolm Mackay, than on Dr Kim Howell’s comments about our home grown terrorists.


  12. George R says:

    Islamic jihadists in Holland.

    This Beeboid account seems to presume that if a Muslim man is unemployed in Holland, it is unremarkable if he goes off to an Islamic country to behead an American!

    “Dutch grapple with jihadist threat”

    By Anna Holligan.


  13. phil says:

    This type of censored, sanitised and politically correct news is what you get when the state funded and controlled news service fulfils its obligation to inform and educate us.

    We can’t be informed of some things because it’d interfere with our education.

    We can’t be educated properly because that’d involve informing of us of things the state would prefer we don’t know.

    Government provision of news is not a good idea.


  14. Demon says:

    BTW I like the thread title but I thought denial ran through Syria and Egypt. Or is that the point of the thread title?


  15. Phil Ford says:

    When the BBC finally plucks up the intellectual and moral courage to invite the likes of Douglas Murray on to Newsnight to speak about Islamic State and the evil they represent, as well as the Islamic threat here at home in the UK, uninterrupted, unbothered or verbally unmolested by the BBC presenter I might – I might – begin to start treating the BBC’s repeated claims of ‘impartiality’ as something more than blatant misdirection.


    • johnnythefish says:

      Exactly, Phil. Rarely, if at all, do you hear a BBC guest asking questions or stating opinions from an even moderately right wing perspective. Murray is articulate and knowledgeable – he talks common sense with a well-informed point of view which is the antithesis of the half-truth, PC-driven reporting and world view forced down our throats by the nation’s ‘trusted’ broadcaster.


      • Julio says:

        He’s a regular on the BBC, and Newsnight more than most!!??

        And what interviewee is ever on Newsnight uninterrupted?

        That makes it quite clear that its not impartiality you’re after.


        • Expat John says:

          And he’s always outnumbered… we are quite aware, thank you, as to how that program works.


          • Julio says:

            Last time he was on Newsnight, it was just him & Ming.
            Oops , you’re wrong… again.


            • johnnythefish says:

              You are obviously a regular visitor to this site so why don’t you post under one name?

              Ah, got it – a new name each time allows you to pretend you’ve not seen the hundreds of examples BBC pro-Islamic bias that have gone before – you know, the ones you didn’t have an answer for.

              PS Never heard Murray on Today, TWATO, PM or any of the flagship R4 news programmes. Perhaps I’ve just been unlucky, eh?


  16. George R says:

    “Video: Robert Spencer on Michael Coren’s Sun TV show on Foley beheading and the future of the Islamic State”

    (6 mins).


  17. George R says:

    A reprise, which INBBC won’t like-

    “Strip Islamic State jihadists of British citizenship”


    • John Anderson says:

      There are times when I muse that we should strip some of the BBC folk of British citizenship !

      “Trahison des clercs” and all that – except that clercs means intellectuals and many of the BBC crowd are too dim to be intellectual. Jon Donnison and Yolande Knell, for example – intellectual pondweed.


  18. George R says:

    Not for INBBC to report?:-

    “Does this NHS doctor hold the key to identifying ‘Jihadi John’?
    East London medic once accused of kidnapping journalists in Syria probed with his brother as hunt for world’s most wanted man intensifies ”

    Read more:


  19. Joeb says:

    I haven’t been listening/watching the BBC a huge amount since Foley’s murder, but when I have, I’ve always heard an “expert” telling me, yes, all together, now – “it-has-nothing-to-do-with-Islam”.

    I envisage the audience of ‘Crackerjack’ saying this in that horrible, sing-a-long, kiddie way…somehow makes it seem worse, know what I mean?


  20. George R says:


    Beeboids’ ‘Europe’ online page has this:-

    “Russian sanctions: French pate returned to Finland”

    But NOT this:-

    “Two French girls arrested for alleged jihad activities”

    For Beeboids, on France-

    “France confronted by Islam – Part 7”


  21. Joshaw says:

    Glad that the Met, as well as the BBC, are getting to grips with the real problem:

    James Foley ‘beheading’: Met police warn public watching murder video could be criminal offence


    • Llareggub says:

      So now we have watch crime. Conspiracy theorists say this warning is to stop us discovering that it is a fake killing. Lots of theories on the net, as you would expect when the media shut down on this particular atrocity


  22. Doublethinker says:

    The liberal left chose to embark on a policy of mass immigration to this country without any mandate to do so. The BBC has acted in concert with them and worked hard to deceive the British people into believing that we had nothing to fear from having millions of people in our country who do not share our values.
    Even the BBC is presently finding it difficult to deny that there is at least a significant minority of Muslims in our country who not only do not share our values, but actively despise them and reject them out of hand, and believe that attacking the West and its people is a ‘good thing’. So we may well be at war with Jihadists but many of them are buried deep within our country , a 5th column which represents a potent threat. Dealing with them will be very difficult and made even more difficult by the communities in which they immerse themselves being made almost ‘no go areas’ by the decades long attitude of the liberal left and the BBC . Surely we should realise that the fact that hundreds of young Muslim men have joined Isis from the UK , the Trojan Horse schools , the attitude of Muslim men to white women, Lee Rigby’s murder , the London bombings etc etc are all linked.We have several million people living in the UK who don’t want to be part of our culture, our communities or our country and some of them despise us and want to do us harm . It well past the time that the BBC et al stopped trying to tell us all is well and started address the complete failure of their policy of mass immigration and multi-culturalism.
    The liberal left have put the UK in a terribly weak position to deal with this internal threat. It is laughable that the commentariat is talking about dealing with the problem of ISIS in Iraq and in Syria. We should be thinking much more about how we deal with very complex and dangerous problems that have been created by the left, and covered up by the likes of the BBC, back in the UK.


  23. stuart says:

    british muslims,british citixens,british nationals and even british youngsters,that is the nice words the politacaly correct bbc presenters have been banding about in the last few days to describe these islamist baby killing,head cutting,women raping isis nazis with headbands,this word british has been abused by people who hate the british,i would rename them islamist( muslims living in britian).you earn your right to be british,these people dont deserve to be called that.bty see whos back from israel and is in syria fronting the bbc coverage,yes,are old mate jeremy bowen.


  24. Bernard from Bucks says:

    ‘A London accent’?
    I defy anyone to define a London accent in today’s multi-everything society.


    • bodo says:

      bfb, it actually has a name; ‘Multicultural London English’, oor MLE for short.


  25. George R says:

    “ISIS, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood and Western delusions.

    With a new report in mind, the startling delusions of top British diplomats about
    the Muslim Brotherhood mirror wider Western denial about the nexus
    between Hamas and ISIS, and the Islamist threat generally”


  26. TPO says:

    I found it interesting that within hours of the beheading of James Foley by a “British” muslim, the US media had latched on to the fact that there are nearly 70% more of these “British” knuckle dragging apes in ISIS than there are muslims in the UK armed forces.
    This is something that they are airing quite frequently.

    From the BBC …… silence on the issue.
    Perhaps we should ask the mentally unhinged Jon Donnison for his thoughts on the matter. No perhaps not, we’ll only get branded as “foul mouthed, “racist”, violent, ignorant and foolish” for raising such a pertinent question.


    • John Anderson says:

      It was the front page headline in the Times today, I think.

      We are now living in a different world, thanks to the Internet and satellite TV. It is possible to live a life “outside” the UK while still living in the UK. You could be watching overseas TV stations, plugged into mostly overseas websites, post and chat on international social media – and generally feel part of the “Umma” rather than, say, a Londoner. Your contacts in London, after minimising family contacts other than at the polite level, would be restricted to others who are also mentally overseas.

      And you can easily hop on a plane back to visit eg Pakistan.

      So where is the “British” other than your years of full-time education – and even those can be warped away from the normal and outweighed by your mosque which also faces overseas.

      And why should you care about “British” public opinion, about the “British” way of life – especially if people are telling you that British or Western values are corrupt nd unworthy.


      • dave s says:

        Very perceptive and highlights why multiculturalism is such a fraud.
        There is no “community cohesion” and very little chance now of it ever happening.
        So why does the liberal media continue to delude themselves and try to delude us?
        Fear and an inability to admit error.
        I heard a Labour Muslim MP on R4 lunchtime try to blame our lack of condemnation of Israel over Gaza for Isis.
        This is a widely held view and highlights the liberal tendency to draw an equivallence where there is none.
        Is has been coming a long time and is part of an inevitable clash of civilisations. Nothing anybody can do on either side except endure.
        The Muslim population in the West has to choose.


      • Expat John says:

        Quite right, and it works the other way too. It is possible to live a life inside the UK whilst residing outside it, remaining true to British cultural values while obeying, voluntarily and as a matter of principle, the laws of another country.
        I suspect that the difference here is that those residing in Britain but “living a life outside the UK” have no cultural, political or religious attachment to the country in which they have chosen to live.


    • pounce says:

      TPO wrote:
      “I found it interesting that within hours of the beheading of James Foley by a “British” Muslim, the US media had latched on to the fact that there are nearly 70% more of these “British” knuckle dragging apes in ISIS than there are Muslims in the UK armed forces.”

      What makes the silence from the bBC over this story is that it was the Khalid Mahmood the MP for Perry Barr who came out with that. But it gets worse, there was a huge pro Palestine protest in Birmingham on the 20th directed at….the bBC for its pro Isreali coverage. Here are a few snaps of the protesters can you spot anything that sticks out:



      • Mark says:

        The usual rent-a-mob scum were in force with their Socialist Wanker placards. No placards against ISIS though.


  27. George R says:

    Robert Fox, whether one agrees with him or not, is a defence correspondent who knows something about the military. He suggests that politicians and media stop misleading people by suggesting a country could have a meaningful military operation without ‘boots on the ground’ as an option.

    “Defeating IS:
    why Cameron needs to get back to work.
    And why the PM must accept that destroying the Sunni fanatics will necessitate ‘boots on the ground.'”

    By Robert Fox.

    Read more:


  28. George R says:

    Will INBBC support this?-

    “Beheading brings calls for tough laws to tackle UK jihadists”

    Read more:


  29. TPO says:

    What has Mr. Donnison got to say about this full and frank admission on the part of yet more knuckle dragging apes.

    Now a Hamas official, Saleh al-Arouri, is confirming that Hamas was responsible for the kidnappings, but said that there was no intention to start a war. Here’s Memri’s translation of what he said:

    In all honesty, we in the Islamic resistance movement did not intend to start a large-scale war at this time. We know that the enemy was not ready to start a large-scale war either. But Allah decided that this large-scale war would rage, in order to achieve things in accordance with the will of Allah.

    We wanted Gaza to serve as a strategic pillar, and to continue to amass strength in order to support the resistance all over Palestine. We wanted to activate the resistance throughout the land of Palestine: in the West Bank and in Jerusalem. …

    Our goal was to ignite an intifada in the West Bank and Jerusalem, as well as within the 1948 borders. The activity of the people has broadened to include all the occupied land, reaching its peak in the heroic operation, carried out by the Al-Qassam Brigades, in which three settlers were captured in Hebron.

    There has been a lot of confusion regarding this operation. Some said that this was a conspiracy of the occupation. That’s not true. Your brothers in the Al-Qassam Brigades carried out this operation to support their imprisoned brothers, who were on a hunger strike. The occupation wanted us to watch them die and to do nothing. The mujahideen captured these settlers in order to have a swap deal.

    Then Israel wanted to strike a harsh blow to the resistance in the West Bank and Gaza, in order to shock the mujahideen and deter them from engaging in Jihad against the occupation. So it began to bombard Gaza, and to conduct arrests and wreak devastation in the West Bank.

    But in these bombings, they killed six mujahideen. Thus, the fighting escalated. The mujahideen retaliated with missile strikes in the heart of the occupying entity. They were forced to escalate the fighting, and thus, an all-out war began.

    So, according to al-Arouri, Hamas didn’t want to start a war. They want to start an “intifida,” like the ones that began in 1987 and 2000. They were characterized by Palestinians rioting, throwing rocks at Israeli police, and an occasional terrorist act. But there was no full-fledged war, because there were Israeli and Palestinian leaders who were committed to avoiding a war.


  30. George R says:

    For INBBC to report?-

    “Hamas gunmen* execute 18 suspected informers”

    * Channel 4, like INBBC, has ideological difficulty in using the correct word ‘jihadists’ , not ‘gunmen’.


  31. George R says:

    Will INBBC, as part of left-Islam political alliance, put jihadists’ rights above British people’s security?

    ‘Times’ (£)-page 1-

    “Police set to launch raids in hunt for ‘Jihadi John’”

    “Police are preparing to raid the homes of several Britons to help to establish the identity of the jihadist who beheaded the US journalist James Foley. Security sources said that there were a ‘number of individuals’ in this country suspected of communicating with extremists in Syria, who might hold key information on Foley’s British killer. The field of suspects in the murder has been ‘significantly narrowed’, although a definitive identification of the man, who has been called ‘Jihadi John’, has not yet been made.”


  32. George R says:

    Beeboids continue their basic political error on Islamic jihad:
    how to solve the problem?: leave it to Muslims, as Beeboid ‘leave it to Muslims’ Wyatt does here!
    NO, NO and NO!

    “Countering the call to British Muslims to jihad”

    By Caroline Wyatt (who’s moved from ‘defence’ reporter to ‘religion’ reporter. Her only religion here is Islam.)

    Alternative: see e.g. ‘Jihadwatch’

    “How the Media Solves a Problem Like the Woolwich Attack”


  33. George R says:

    More INBBC denial on Islam and beheading;

    -even though the Islamic jihad beheader has a base within 10 miles of INBBC’s HQ in Londonistan-


    “James Foley beheading:
    London rapper turned jihadist believed to be under investigation for murder of American journalist in Syria.”

    In contrast, INBBC has a long ‘article’ which mentions ‘Islamic State’ only once, with no reference otherwise to Islam, and to Muslims involved!


  34. George R says:

    Come on, INBBC, no censorship on this-

    “British rapper a suspect in journalist’s beheading by the Islamic State”

    “This is what is happening in Britain today: Mehdi Hasan and others like him are all over the airwaves, smoothly arguing that ‘the 1,400-year-old Islamic faith has little to do with the modern jihadist movement.’ Meanwhile, Muslims like Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary are departing for Syria and Iraq from their ‘plush homes,’ explaining that they are “leaving everything for the sake of Allah.” British authorities were thoroughly unprepared for the actions of Abdel Bary and others like him, because they believed Mehdi Hasan. They never dreamed that Muslims from Britain would be interested in waging jihad anywhere. Now that they know better, will they turn to Mehdi and say, ‘You misled us?’ No. They will do all they can to increase his reach and influence, in the vain hope that he will keep more Muslims in the U.K. from becoming like Abdel Bary. They will probably never realize, until it is far too late, that what Mehdi Hasan is doing is fostering complacency and ignorance among non-Muslims, not convincing Muslims that it is wrong to wage jihad warfare against unbelievers.”


  35. George R says:

    For INBBC to censor or not to censor?:-

    “A sound expert who compared the footage of the brutal killing with Bary’s rap songs told the paper there was a ‘big likeness’ between the voices.”


  36. George R says:

    Complete with references to INBBC-

    “In wake of James Foley’s beheading, can we finally say the I-word?”


  37. George R says:

    For BBC Director General, Tony ‘Diversity’ HALL:-

    “The sign said ‘Yield Sneakers Bacon’: i.e., yield to the allure of the delicious bacon at Sneakers Bistro. But in the end it was the operators of Sneakers who yielded. For them, ‘diversity’ means
    making the world a bit less diverse, by yielding to the Islamic supremacist demand that Infidels must conform their behavior to Muslim sensibilities. Remember the ironclad and ever-reinforced principle: in Muslim countries, non-Muslims must change their behavior to avoid offending Muslims. And in non-Muslim countries, non-Muslims must change their behavior to avoid offending Muslims.”


  38. George R says:

    Perhaps Beeboids don’t want to report on Muslim ‘rapper,’ as he appeared on BBC radio-

    “London rapper Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary investigated as police hunt for ‘Jihadi John'”


    “The former musician was raised in a Maida Vale council-owned home worth £1 million and has had his songs played on BBC radio stations.

    “He is the son of high-profile Al Qaeda terror suspect Adel Abdul Bary, who was extradited to the US in 2012 over allegations he masterminded the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in East Africa.”


  39. George R says:

    INBBC DENIES this connection-

    “James Foley beheading video ‘was like watching the murder of Lee all over again’ says mother of Drummer Rigby”

    Read more:


  40. George R says:

    INBBC in denial on identity of London Islamic jihad beheader, as it merely repeats its dangerously vague, Muslim censored ‘report’ on Foley horror .


  41. George R says:

    While Beeboids seem to want to get marketing man Cameron back off his vacation to solve the Islamic State problem, Beeboids themselves are not covering themselves with glory as they obfuscate on the Islamic nature of Foley’s beheading.
    Beeboid news staff don’t seem to put in much of a shift themselves on this vital news story in late August.


  42. George R says:


    For INBBC not to report?:

    -from ‘Arab Spring’ to Islamic State-

    “The Islamic State Flag Flies at Tunisia Soccer Match ”

    – See more at:


  43. George R says:

    INBBC DENIAL on history of Islamic imperialism continues, as it churns out pro-Islamic history, via Muslims such as Rageh Omaar.

    Excellent 5 min video here by Bill Warner-


  44. George R says:

    “Spain stops trafficking of teenage girls for the sex Jihad.

    “Teenage girls, heading to sex slavery for jihadists in the Middle East, are apprehended by Spanish police.
    “The BBC and other mainstream outlets in Europe refuse to report such instances for fear of offending politically correct narratives.”


  45. George R says:


    Why should INBBC report this when it does fit with INBBC political narrative?:-

    “Nigeria: Boko Haram top dog says seized town ‘part of Islamic caliphate.’”


  46. Teddy Bear says:

    There’s a twist to this story, and possibly a double-twist.
    According to the following article Foley supported the Sunnis in Syria
    James Foley Went Looking to Support Terrorists in Syria, Instead They Cut Off His Head
    I had never heard of Foley before, and this certainly casts some light on his character.
    After reading the article, and seeing great similarity between him and the usual BBC types, one can’t help but share the emotion of some of the comments:
    beniyyar • 3 hours ago
    I only speak good of the dead, James Foley is dead, good!
    NonSense • 8 hours ago
    Well.. suddenly I’m god damn satisfied they chopped his head off
    glennm • 9 hours ago
    this guy lost his head long before it was cut off

    Now I’ve never seen the video of him supposedly having his head cut off, and have no desire to do so, but I read a very interesting comment also on this story, and I think you’ll agree might have some merit.
    Given his views and support for the Sunnis, it is rather strange that they would have cut his head off. In a similar way we saw how surprised the BBC’s Alan Johnson was when he was kidnapped in Gaza, because he knew he was really the Islamists friend. In the end he was released and they could come across as ‘good guys’.

    See what you think about this:

    Shuey • 2 days ago

    First, I am not and never have been a conspiracy nut. I hate Alex Jones, for example.

    That said, I just started reading about Foley yesterday and watched the full beheading video on LiveLeak. I was able to stomach watching it ONLY because I already heard/read that the screen goes dark BEFORE you would see the worst of it. If you haven’t seen it, the real deal video does NOT show the actual beheading. Just the first couple seconds of beginning to cut his neck with no blood or gore other than a still photo of the two body pieces at the very end.

    On the LiveLeak video page, many of those commenting were claiming the video is a fake and that no beheading was actually done. Some also pointed out that Foley’s parents didn’t seem nearly as upset as one would expect. “So maybe they know he isn’t really dead and so does the government … and the government has to pretend they are fooled by the fake video”, they said. I will agree that the Foleys did seem a bit upbeat considering the news, but maybe they are strong or just well prepared since he was a hostage once before?

    Despite the reasons the posters stated to support their claims of “fakery”, I scoffed to myself. While there are some issues with the video that could be proof of fakery, I thought it was a dumb claim to make since everyone who is “in the know” (including his parents) seemed convinced. More importantly, I could not come up with any reason that Foley would have for going along with a faked beheading …even while under threat.

    So now, some 12 hours later, I stumble across a link to this FrontPage story. I don’t know, but this story could be the missing piece of the puzzle to explain why there might have been a fake beheading video. Maybe Foley wants to “disappear” into a life with ISIS. Or maybe he wants to be able to work undercover back home in the help them strike here?

    The video does fade out as “John” begins to saw at Foleys neck with the knife. However, there are a couple odd things about that: 1) Foley does his little speech in the video without any nervousness or fear. Quite a feat when you are convinced that your head is about to be sawed off with a knife, and 2) Foley shows absolutely no reaction or fear as the knife is forcefully applied to his throat. None, and that doesn’t seem humanly possible if it were really happening, and finally 3) The killer FORCEFULLY saws back and forth about 8 times before the fade out and there is absolutely no blood yet. I even captured the video and played it in slow motion and zoomed in with a high quality digital filter …. still no blood visible. This is really odd because I’ve read that a throat slit typically spurts blood the instant the cut penetrates about a quarter inch.

    Finally, why would a group that has released many graphic beheading videos (with every gory detail) suddenly release their most important video with the worst part edited out and then only a still photo of the severed head and body at the very end? Photos are easily photo-shopped.

    Anyway, I’m not sure I believe it was faked so I doubt most here will either. But it sure was strange to find this FrontPage story on the heels of the allegations of a “faked” video …. which clearly COULD have been a fake.

    And now I read that Foley actually supported ISIS. Hmmmmmm … and let’s not forget that he was supposedly a hostage years ago and “escaped”. Was that another instance where he was actually there to work with his captors and they “let him come home”? You tell me.


    • DYKEVISIONS says:

      Congrats Teddy Bear, all you analysis is parodied by the Times today. Biased BBC always ahead of the mainstream!


      • Teddy Bear says:

        Thanks Dyke but to clarify it wasn’t my own analysis just a comment I read following the revelation that Foley was a Sunni supporter that made sense to me.

        It appears that the MSM is starting to find something fishy about his ‘beheading’, including The Times (£).

        Here’s the Sydney Morning Herald
        Video of James Foley beheading ‘may have been staged’

        They are still going along with the claim that he was killed, but off camera. According to experts who analysed the film, they too found the actual ‘beheading’ as shown as suspect, but the picture after it was decapitated appears real.

        Although as far as I can see the MSM haven’t yet referred to Foley’s pro-Sunni views, and time will tell whether they will, one thing is for sure, it won’t be the BBC that lead with it. I do hope BBC journalists are sweating though that despite their pro-militant Islam agenda they might still become victims of it, more than we know they are already.

        Perhaps Foley thought they weren’t really going to behead him, and it was only for a scam, but being the twisted beings they are, they decided it would serve their purposes better if they did.

        Perhaps Foley thought they weren’t really going to behead him, and it was only for a scam, but being the twisted beings they are, they decided it would serve their purposes better if they did. Possibly since the USA doesn’t pay ransoms for hostages they were trying to change their mind. I see one American hostage has been freed recently, could their plan be working?
        American man kidnapped when heading to Syria freed after two years in captivity


  47. Llareggub says:

    See my earlier post on this thread which cites sources which cast doubt on the Foley killing. Like Teddy Bear I am uncertain, but given that it is not as grisly as many other videos from these murderers it is interesting, as suggested, why this particular one has been blocked, and why we had the threat of prosecution for watching it. Perhaps to silence sceptics?

    And now for some irony. One of Foley’s last messages was that the far right are more dangerous than Al Quieda. But they still chopped his head off – well?


  48. Teddy Bear says:

    To Foley’s way of seeing things he may well be correct.
    Those on the right would have shown he had no brain, but letting him live.
    Whereas his ISIS buddies solved that for him.