Debate Debacle

 

Just watching some of the debate….no wonder May wants to stand aside….it’s a mess…. interruptions, dodgy stats, usual emotive bluster and bluffing…Corbyn’s supporters out in force…Mishal Husain out of her depth.  Format is completely flawed, C4’s much better and allowed the leaders to give rounded answers that inform the viewer without a loudmouthed disruption from your opponent trying to shout you down….Paxo of course was useless…but that’s him not the format.

Looks like pretty much everyone, including the lefty New Statesman, think audience packed with Corbynistas…maybe they’re just louder….

Complete farce that is more Colosseum than collegiate [Eaton called it a ‘pub brawl’….quality].  No one learns nuffink. They just get to make splendid grandstanding statements that everything is going to wrack and ruin with no proof and no challenge….and of course Amber Rudd is vastly outnumbered as everyone is against ‘her’.

The FT has had its own debate and despite being Remain it has come out in support of May as the least worst choice…

Yet the alternative to Mrs May is worse. Mr Corbyn is a fringe figure who has spent his entire political career in opposition — to his own Labour leadership. Despite his recent media makeover, he is a pacifist relic of the 1970s, in hock to the trade unions, with no grip on economic issues.

It is no accident that the arrival of Mr Corbyn and his hard-left supporters in mainstream politics has coincided with a revival of anti-Semitism and misogyny. Labour’s team is unfit for government, let alone the delicate Brexit talks.

The Liberal Democrats have failed to make an impact with their pledge of a second EU referendum. All the evidence points to the end of European-style coalition and the return of two-party politics, with the exception of Scotland where the independence movement remains slightly diminished but a potent force.

Faced with such uncertainty at home and abroad, Mrs May is the safer bet.

But accepting her as prime minister does not amount to a blank cheque. A substantially increased Conservative majority, even a landslide, could lead to an increase in the number of hardline Eurosceptics, who advocate a crash exit from the EU, a contemporary version of the Charge of the Light Brigade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health, wealth and dealth [poetic licence]

 

The BBC is going in hard on the Brexit doom and gloom with Tory May being the standard bearer for it and Corbyn the man who wants to keep us in by stealth.

Everytime I switch onto the BBC on the radio there’s some doom and gloom about the NHS, agriculture or industry and Brexit….the NHS will collapse as the East Europeans flood back home and people will die, or crops will rot in the fields without the cheap imported labour or industry will flee the country as there will be no workers and the economy will collapse…not forgetting the BBC’s constant refrain that the NI border will mean terrorism makes a comeback…‘The days of the Troubles are behind us – days lived in the dark shadow of watchtowers and turrets are vanished. But now the UK is getting ready to leave the EU, and the people of the borderlands are uneasy….None of them wants a hard border, but the EU has stressed that there will have to be some form of customs control. ‘ [no surprise that the EU is insisting on a hard border…it suits their purpose to make Brexit look as difficult and negative as possible.]

The BBC makes no attempt to challenge statements made by Remain voters in their vox pops that British workers are too lazy or that Brits are racist.  Curious how the BBC just accept that abuse but were up in arms when the Tories were going on about the ‘slackers’ or the ‘workshy’ and hence they tried to bring in incentives to make work pay rather than life on the dole being the acceptable option.  The BBC’s answer?  Leave ’em on the dole and import lots of cheap foreign labour instead.  What we do hear constantly from the BBC is that the NHS, agriculture, industry needs immigration, that is, mass immigration of cheap unskilled workers...’Britain will collapse without them’ rolls off the BBC presenters’ tongues as if it were actually true.  Curiously way back when in 2002 we had a budget surplus, the economy was doing great, the NHS was muddling through as always and the crops always got harvested.    All without the massed ranks of East European immigrants that have since flooded into the country.  And as for the NHS being underfunded….back in 1997 it was something like £42 billion per year, then Blair ramped that up to over £110 billion…and yet we’re still in a funding crisis?

Look at today’s big news…..the NHS will face a massive bill from Expats coming to the UK after Brexit….

Tens of thousands of expat pensioners may return to the UK to use the NHS after Brexit – unless a deal can be done to let them keep receiving care abroad, a think tank has warned.

Hmmm….so the BBC is scaremongering with an alarmist report that tens of thousands of expats will use the NHS and cost us a fortune.  Soooo…how come they do not raise the same alarm about the 300,000 +/- immigrants who come here every year [not just a one off as with the expats] and use the NHS?  Never mind the schools, GPs, housing, prisons etc etc etc….did no think tank warn us of the dangers?  Maybe they did and the BBC just didn’t bother to report it…likely.

And what about all that cheap labour?  Corbyn himself said it was undercutting British jobs in his election Q&A the other day and that he would limit it…turns out that was another of his lies as a leaked document suggests he will continue to flood Britain with cheap labour.  The BBC has always attacked the government for what it called the ‘productivity puzzle’….productivity being too low apparently…but that’s only if you measure it per man hour…with cheap labour the calculation changes to pounds per hour…and as wages are cheap employers can employ more people to turn out the same amount of goods…so on man hours productivity looks low…but isn’t.  The answer to actually improve productivity is to invest in upskilling the workforce and invest in machinery such as robots to do more work…the BBC claims we will have an economic armageddon due to Brexit as we run out of workers but that’s not true…we need people to work smart not work in sweat shops.

The BBC et al insist we need the imported workers to fund and look after our aging population…again not true…if productivity was raised by mechanisation and upskilling we’d receive more taxes and the revenue would pay for care.

The BBC solution of importing more and more people has an obvious problem…these people get old too….and then what?  Import yet more people to fund and look after them as well?

The BBC’s answer is dumb, so we need smart…smart will solve the problem long term, the BBC’s dumb answer doesn’t solve it at all, it in fact makes the problem ever bigger.

 

Arsi Warsi

 

The good Baroness Warsi is an Islamist…..she consorts with radicals and every word, every action, is directed towards increasing the influence and presence of Islam in Britain.

Here she is [H/T Is the BBC biased?] complaining about Douglas Murray’s appearance on the BBC…

 

Amusingly her own Tweet could apply equally,  or just [as DM clearly isn’t racist or an extremist] to her.  Odd that.

As for ‘group accountability’…well as the ‘group’ all read and follow the teachings of one book and that book is a toxic, extremist manifesto encouraging hate and war, then if they do not denounce its teachings how can they not be also somewhat responsible for events that happen when people use that book to give divine licence to their murderous ways?  As Churchill might say… a book ” of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”

Here’s what ‘One Law For All’ think of Warsi.……not a lot actually…..

Sayeeda Warsi’s Blinkered View of Islamism

LifestyleBooks
The Enemy Within: A Tale of Muslim Britain by Sayeeda Warsi – review
A blinkered view of Islamism, says Maryam Namazie

Sayeeda Warsi’s new book catalogues some of the hypocrisy and double standards of the British Government, the rise of the far-Right and bigotry against Muslims, yet has a glaring blind spot when it comes to Islamism. According to Warsi, Islamist terrorism is the result of everything but Islamist ideology.

Since most of those killed by Islamists are “Muslims” in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa, her argument that terrorism is the result of Islamophobia, racism, foreign policy and social exclusion is unconvincing. Also, she fails to see that many aggrieved people end up involved in progressive political and civil rights work rather than inciting violence or murdering women, men and children in schools and marketplaces.

Without any apparent understanding of the context and rise of the contemporary transnational Islamist movement, including Iran’s key role in it, Warsi says “simmering resentment” began when the British Government apparently failed to prosecute Salman Rushdie for blasphemy. “Muslims,” she says, “wanted British laws to protect Islam,” and when it didn’t happen, the Iranians were more than happy to step in with what she characterises as “concern and moral support”. According to her, Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa put Iran in “pole position, ready and willing to come out leading the collective Muslim sentiment”.

Like any good apologist who is more concerned with blasphemy than murder, and who homogenises “Muslim sentiment” to coincide with her own, Warsi doesn’t seem bothered that the act of “concern” was a fatwa against a British citizen, nor that it took place during the bloody Eighties, when thousands of Iranians were executed by the regime. Warsi also seems to conveniently overlook the fact that blasphemy laws continue to persecute freethinkers such as Ayaz Nizami in Pakistan and Sina Dehghan in Iran.

Her apologia for Islamism is shocking. She says, for example, that “Islamist ideology has created a new generation of Muslim democrats” such as the AKP in Turkey (though President Erdogan has arrested tens of thousands, limited freedoms and rights of citizens, and is murdering Kurds).

She approvingly quotes a former US assistant secretary of state saying “’Islamists’ are Muslims with political goals”, which is like saying Pegida are Christians with political goals. She compares the “young men who first went out to help as the Syrian civil war started” with the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War, which is like comparing fascists with anti-fascists.

She says prominent Islamists such as Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood are “democratically engaged both in the UK and overseas” (though in 1971 in Bangladesh, some members of Jamaat-e-Islami were implicated in organising lynchings against people demanding independence, and senior UK-based Muslim Brotherhood leader Kamal Helbawy has praised Osama Bin Laden).

Every Islamist agenda Warsi writes about, such as gender segregation, the veil or Sharia courts, is sanitised and trivialised, while almost every organisation or personality is either misunderstood, misrepresented or merely branded “controversial”.

Zakir Naik, for example, who promotes the death penalty for apostates and ex-Muslims is, according to Warsi, “considered sectarian by some, an intellectual by others, an inciter of hatred by some and an enlightened orator by others”.

Having bought into the Islamist narrative, she falsely conflates criticism of Islam and Islamism with bigotry against Muslims and uses “Islamophobia” to scaremonger people into silence. And while she is critical of identity politics and the homogenisation of “Muslims”, she — wittingly or unwittingly — promotes both.

Warsi’s solution to the situation we are faced with today is more of the same: more religion in the public space and stronger “religious identities”, though it is clearly less religion that we need, not more. And while she considers secularisation a threat, it is in fact the separation of religion from the state, universal values and citizenship rights that will provide minimum guarantees against the intolerance and violence of religion in politics and power.

Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born co-spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

 

 

 

One man and his baby photos

 

Remember the massive abuse heaped upon May for going on the One Show?  Corbyn must be a brave man…coz he’s been there, done that too…

 

Of course it is highly unlikely he will get any abuse…from the BBC….the same BBC that heaped the abuse upon May despite the One Show being BBC.

Unbelieveably it’s the top story on the Guardian right now…funny how a chat on the sofa suddenly is so very important whereas apparently May’s chat on the sofa was her trying to avoid scrutiny [despite being scheduled for many interviews and public appearances] giving us soft focus pap instead her critics cried.

Ah yes…already the praise starts…

And that’s it from Jeremy Corbyn on The One Show. The twitterati seem to be saying that Corbyn comes across as far warmer and nicer than Theresa May did.

The Mirror’s Kevin Maguire:

Whereas May…

Supreme leader produces pure TV Valium on The One Show

And

Revealed at last: Philip May, Theresa’s determinedly dull human shield

Corbyn’s Stormtroopers on the march

If the BBC saw the above they would surely be outraged and fill the airwaves with tales of Far-Right hate speech as they did after Brexit….question is would they if it was done by one, or many, of Corbyn’s stormtrooper supporters?

Barnett asked Corbyn today if he knew what the cost of his childcare policy would be…he didn’t know….apparently this was akin to the Jewish Barnett bombing Muslim children in a Gaza hospital…or so it would seem judging by the Fuerhious abuse she has received for having the nerve to ask the Leader a simple question that he should have been able to answer without problem….Guido reveals…

Corbynistas Send Emma Barnett Anti-Semitic Abuse

Back in 2014 Barnett herself revealed the truth about the New Europe and the Left’s response…

Where is the hand-wringing from the liberal Left about this new wave of anti-Semitism? To Mira Bar-Hillel, and others, I’d say this: British Jews aren’t scared to talk to each other about the situation in Israel. We’re becoming scared to talk at all.

The BBC has been very quiet on this, reluctant to dig too far into those anti-Semites in the labour Party itself and not ascribing the real cause of the rise in anti-Semitism that is sweeping Europe again…Barnett in her Telegraph piece was not so shy….

Many [Jews} are just scared – scared not just about events in Gaza, but events in Europe. These include reports about gangs of Muslims chanting “death to Jews” on the streets of France, and attacking synagogues and setting fire to Jewish-owned stores. Eighteen people were subsequently arrested in the suburb of Sarcelles, just outside Paris, where this particular outpouring of violence happened. The stunned local mayor says the Jewish community is now living in fear.

Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Germany, too. In Essen, 14 people have just been arrested, accused of plotting an attack on a synagogue. Protesters at a rally in Berlin turned on two Israeli tourists (identifiable by the man’s skull-cap) so viciously that they had to be protected by the police. The city’s authorities have also had to ban pro-Gaza protesters from chanting anti-Semitic slogans and are investigating a sermon last week by Abu Bilal Ismail calling on worshippers at Berlin’s Al-Nur mosque to murder Jews. Jews, not Israelis.

The situation is so bad that the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Italy have issued a joint statement condemning the rise in anti-Semitic protests and violence in response to the Gaza conflict – and saying they will do everything possible to combat it. “Anti-Semitic rhetoric and hostility against Jews, attacks on people of Jewish belief and synagogues have no place in our societies,” they felt compelled publicly to state.

Perhaps Douglas Murray s right…..immigration is once again the problem.

 

 

Paxoed?

 

Nothing to write home about on the Paxman interviews with May and Corbyn….only thing of note was that Paxman was rubbish and illustrates why he hung up his boots at Newsnight…should not come out of retirement really.

He asked May a daft question at the start of her interview and then kept on with it for an age….had she changed her mind on Brexit?  Complete waste of time as whichever way she voted she is now obliged and duty bound to carry out the wishes of the people, that is Brexit….should we only have a PM who wants Brexit or is Paxman saying she should ignore the referendum based solely upon her own vote and beliefs?  Are we in a one woman dictatorship?  Paxman seems to think so.

Quizzing May on immigration he quotes Osborne after his recent attack on May calling limits on immigration ‘economically illiterate’….Paxman, as Osborne himself does, ignores the fact that the policy to cut immigration to ’10’s of thousands’ was done when he was Chancellor and in fact he was boasting about cutting immigration in a party speech in 2013….and note the ‘never again’ on uncontrolled immigration….unless he wants a big job in Brussels it seems….

And an open-door immigration policy meant those running the economy
didn’t care. There was always an uncontrolled supply of low-skilled
labour from abroad. Well, never again.

We’ve capped benefits and our work programme is getting people into
jobs. We’ve cut immigration by a third.

The Conservative party's 'contract' promised to 'control immigration, reducing it to the levels of the 1990s – meaning tens of thousands a year, instead of the hundreds of thousands a year under Labour'

2015 election and still Chancellor…and still selling the Tories as a low immigration Party…

Immigration

Keep an ambition of delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands.

As I post this Guido has also come up with an Osborne quote on the immigration 10’s of thousands figure….now economically illiterate but once a grand ambition…

“I think it is achievable… It’s an ambition we intend to reach… In the manifesto that the country voted on last year, we set it out as an ambition. I believe it is an ambition we will achieve.”

Paxman failed entirely to grip Corbyn whose stock answer is no answer just a rambling monologue with the Pavlovian trigger-words peppered throughout…peace, justice, equality, a fairer society…yadda yadda yadda.  He did this with the audience questions as well…his last ‘answer’ on whether he would press the button on a nuke completely avoided the answer…he just wanted a nuclear free world and would do whatever he could to achieve that and bring peace to us all…but would he press the button?…and if not why spend billions upon Trident?

Emma Barnett, so often my go to person if I need to fill space here, has actually done some good work…skewering Corbyn ala Abbott as Paxman never did…he had absolutely no idea what his policy on child-care would cost…despite  this being its big announcement…Corbyn’s best guess?….’It will obviously cost a lot’.  

Of course he has no idea either how much any of his massive ‘investment’ on infrastructure will cost…not the amount he will have to borrow, nor I suppose the interest payments we must add to that.  I suspect he has no idea what anything will cost as the IFS has said Labour is bascially lying about the costs…and borrowing will be the biggest amount ever in peace-time….scary perhaps as borrowing is alrready massive and interst costs something like £40 bn per year…more than the defence budget.

And on that interest…Corbyn wants to nationalise and borrow….because, he says, that will stop the profits going to the evil internatinal corporates and they can be reinvested in our country….so who does he think will lend him that money and where will the interest payments go?  From and to all those evil international corporates….and who does he think already pays for the massive investment in the rail system now?  Those corporates….who use the profits to invest in this country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Manchester Effect

 

Looks like the police are taking some action against Muslim extremists who all too often get away with it….of course it’s not just the police who look down on the white, working class like Tommy Robinson…the BBC does as well….he has the same views as many more well spoken anti-Sharia campaigners, such as Peter Tatchell, but gets nowhere near the respect….even Polly Toynbee is a supporter of ‘One Law for All’...don’t see the BBC calling her a racist or a fascist do we?

 

Lawfare and Media Jihad

 

 

It has often been pointed out that the real threat to the West is not Islamic violence, the Hoy War ‘Jihad’,  but the cultural Jihad in which Islam slowly builds a dominant position through a process of demographic change, population increase, the cultural cringe of those afraid to ‘offend’ and not stand up for their own values and culture, a fear of the ‘native’ Establishment of being called racist/Islamophobic and thus refusing to challenge Muslim behaviour as well as granting special, favoured status upon Muslims….ala Rochdale or Rotherham or where they are promoted to positions, such as the Chair of the Tory Party, that are only given because of the supposed need to appease and placate the Muslim ‘community’.  Then there is the practice of Muslim lawfare and media Jihad where Muslim activists launch endless legal challenges to any laws or regulations or inhibitions placed upon them that restrict their desire to practice their religion completely as they like as well as an orchestrated campaign of intimidation against media organisations in order to scare them into not publishing or broadcasting anything that reflects badly on Islam and Muslims.

 

 

Today we have a classic example as the Muslim Council of Britain launch a complaint at the BBC for daring to allow Douglas Murray onto the airwaves (H/T Pounce)…

Untitled-3.jpg

Yet again it is the Daily Politics, Jo Coburn this time, the female Andrew Neil, that asks the hard and ‘controversial’ [for the BBC] questions.

The MCB naturally doesn’t complain about the airwaves being filled with a relentless stream of pro-Islam programmes from the BBC or the more usual constant reassurances the BBC serves up about the ‘religion of peace’ as well as the excuses and downplaying of Islamically inspired terrorism and the support for the Islamist narrative that Muslims are victims of the West and that all the problems in the Middle East  and further field [Manchester] can be traced back to ‘duplicitous British’ activities over the last century…as Jeremy Bowen tells us.

As Boris said medieval ‘Islam’, not violent Jihad, may well be the actual problem…incompatible as it is with Western, progressive, liberal values.

Sara Khan demonstrates the problem…she’s not violent, she’s not ‘radical’, she in fact campaigns against such things…an yet…and yet…she still adheres strongly to the ‘Faith’….a faith that has some extraordinarily unpleasant and violent commands which just aren’t part of other religions.  Does she consider herself Muslim first or British?  An important consideration and test of identity when it comes to foreign policy….do you oppose ‘British’ foreign policy because it, in your opinion, impacts badly upon Muslim countries…and oppose it solely on the basis of those countries being Muslim?  You have chosen your dominant identity then…Muslim first…your loyalty is to the ‘Ummah’ not Britain.  Which could be a problem.

The BBC’s programme ‘Muslims Like Us’ was very instructive and showed the reality….even the ‘westernised’ Muslims were Muslim first and held strong views antagonistic to British foreign policy and culture…. ‘British values for me are colonialism, institutional racism and theft, and genocide.’  What it also showed was how a minority of extremists could dominate the community as the less ‘radical’ and less determined backed away from confrontation and let the radicals dominate and control the house.

The programme of course wasn’t meant to develop like that…as I’ve said before...’Far from turning people’s perceptions about Islam and Muslims on their heads this programme just reinforces them’…..It shone a light, unexpectedly I’m sure, onto some dark secrets that need to be discussed….and that’s where the likes of Douglas Murray come in saying the ‘unsayable’ unless the MCB gets their way.

 

From the Spectator…Douglas Murray and Haras Rafiq [not Mehdi Hasan as in the photo]….note Rafiq saying the problem stems from within those Muslim ‘community leaders’ and groups who have access to the ‘Establishment’ and thus have the influence to ensure the narrative is theirs, and who are homophobic, anti-semitic, who create the victim mentality, the otherisation…it is not Al Qaeda or ISIS that radicalises Muslims, they merely tip over the edge Muslims who are under the sway of those ‘community leaders’ who thrive on identity politics, those who create the ‘prism’ that so many Muslims see the world through such as the West is bad and the cause of all the Muslim world’s problems..and ISIS says ‘thankyou very much’….which is pretty much what  we’ve said and urged the BBC to consider…the root cause is ‘Islam’ and the values it instils and the identity and loyalty it creates…not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists right now are Muslim…because of that command in the Koran to ‘defend’ Islam and the false belief that Islam is under attack.

 

 

 

 

May versus The High Sparrow

 

 

‘You are the few, we are the many’

 

Corbyn is extremely sinister…anyone who adopts that quiet, steady, repressed tone of voice, that way of speaking. is hiding a lot…..it’s a mask…..curious how many people fall for it and believe Corbyn is a ‘nice’ person…..(H/T Sue at Is the BBC biased? for the video)…..

 

 

My recommendation?……

 

 

 

Islam is the problem…said Boris Johnson

 

Boris told us that terrorism in the UK was due to Islam…he said this in the same article that Corbyn’s fans use to defend Corbyn’s policy of outsourcing Britain’s foreign policy to Al Qaeda or its branch office IS…naturally that part of the article does not get quoted.

 

Corbyn and his supporters, the BBC as well, claim the Iraq War was the catalyst for British Muslims to become radicalised and that we should therefore alter our foreign policy to suit these terrorists…they use the words of ex-MI5 chief, Eliza Manningham-Buller, to back them up as she made the assessment that the Iraq War did give British Muslims a pretext to attack Britain.  What the likes of Corbyn don’t say is that that pretex was based upon an entirely false narrative…that the West was  attacking Islam completey ignoring the reality that Saddam was a secular dictator that nearly all Iraqis wanted removed. [and most Iraqis hate the foreign Jihadis who have invaded their country…they like Sykes-Picot thanks very much] They also conveniently forget to mention that Manningham-Buller made no judgement on the rights and wrongs of going to war, merely warning government of a potential threat….a threat which she said did not mean we should change our behaviour….something Corbyn ignores as he seeks to do just that…..

You could say that even if terrorism increases, that shouldn’t stop you doing what you believe, as the government believed, to be right.

She also stated that even if we had not gone to war it is likely we would have been targeted anyway as looking on ‘favourably’ at a US invasion of Iraq…

I think even if we had supported the United States in sentiment but not militarily, we would still have been seen as supporters so it probably wouldn’t have altered it.

She states the obvious about the root cause…Islam…and the narrative of Muslims under attack…and of course that it pre-dated not just 2003 but 9/11 as well….back to the 1990’s….

A few among a generation who saw our involvement in Iraq, on top of our involvement in Afghanistan, as being an attack on Islam.   An increasing number of  British-born individuals living and brought up in this  country, some of them third generation, who were attracted to the ideology of Osama bin Laden and saw the west’s activities in Iraq and Afghanistan as threatening their fellow religionists and the Muslim world.

It is part of what we call the single narrative, which is the view of some that everything the west was doing was part of a fundamental hostility to the Muslim world and to Islam, of which manifestations were Iraq and Afghanistan, but which pre-dated those because it pre-dated 9/11, but it was enhanced by those events.

It is important to say that threat from Al-Qaeda did not begin at 9/11.  My Service was already engaged in concern about the threat posed by Al-Qaeda from the late — mid- to late 1990s; after all the fatwa by Fawwaz from Osama bin Laden was issued in London in 1996.  We had various operations at that time, some of which had connections to Afghanistan, and well before 9/11 we were anxious and worried and doing investigations.   We were far from relaxed about the threat from Al Qaeda, which again, if I can refer to that open document, said back in 2001 the UK was a target.  There was increasing information around the world of that.

Now of course the narrative is that the Iraq War caused terrorism in the UK…but again that’s not true….in 2000 British Muslims were arrested and jailed for a plot…and plenty of Muslims were being ‘radicalised’ in the UK pre-2003….Siddiq Khan of 7/7 infamy was radicalised before the war.

 We had had a operation to which David Omand referred in his evidence, which was a case in Birmingham in 2000,   where we retrieved and prevented the detonation of a large bomb.  David Omand said he thought that was  related to Al-Qaeda.  That was the case at the time I thought I retired.  We now think, I gather from my colleagues, it probably wasn’t.  But those were British citizens of Bangladeshi origin planning an attack.

Certainly the Iraq War was used by Al Qaeda as propaganda, helping them create a narrative of Islam under attack, but that is a narrative that should be easy to dispel.  However it was one adopted enthusiastically by many, including the BBC, who added fuel to the fire by claiming we went to war on a lie.

The BBC has run an anti-Iraq War campaign from the start, it was John Humphrys and Andrew Gilligan on the Today show that really gave an impetus to the terrorist narrative though as they falsely declared that Tony Blair had lied in the Iraq Dossier and thus Humphrys and Co gave the terrorists a pretext to attack us.

The BBC has maintained that attack after being brought to heel, Greg Dykes removed from office and the Gilligan/Humphrys story shown to be false, fake news, very dangerous fake news.  The BBC has never forgiven this chastisement and has spent the last decade rewriting history so that now you will hear BBC presenters telling us that ‘Blair lied’ without any thought that they are themselves lying.

We had Marr yesterday adding Libya into the mix blaming Cameron for the terrorist attack in Manchester and going  on to attack May for having the nerve to criticise Corbyn’s speech on foreign policy…a narrative Marr himself supports as his words on Libya show.

‘And of course it has to be said Libya collapsed into a failed state on David Cameron’s watch.  It was our intervention there that knocked out the Gaddafi regime and unfortunately left a failed state.’

[on May’s criticism of Corbyn]

‘It’s very difficult to accuse someone in the middle of an election after Manchester of supporting terrorism…it’s a matter of good taste, what’s appropriate and reasonable to say is hard for people to get right.’

Eliza Manningham-Buller gives us a more rounded picture...the threat eminates from around the world due to a huge number of ’causes’….no matter what you do or don’t do they will find an excuse, a ‘pretext’, to blame and attack you…

There has been much speculation about what motivates young men and women to carry out acts of terrorism in the UK. My Service needs to understand the motivations behind terrorism to succeed in countering it, as far as that is possible. Al-Qaida has developed an ideology which claims that Islam is under attack, and needs to be defended.

This is a powerful narrative that weaves together conflicts from across the globe, presenting the West’s response to varied and complex issues, from long-standing disputes such as Israel/Palestine and Kashmir to more recent events as evidence of an across-the-board determination to undermine and humiliate Islam worldwide. Afghanistan, the Balkans, Chechnya, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Kashmir and Lebanon are regularly cited by those who advocate terrorist violence as illustrating what they allege is Western hostility to Islam.

The video wills of British suicide bombers make it clear that they are motivated by perceived worldwide and long-standing injustices against Muslims; an extreme and minority interpretation of Islam promoted by some preachers and people of influence; and their interpretation as anti-Muslim of UK foreign policy, in particular the UK’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Then we have the other defence of Corbynthe fine words of Boris Johnson in the Spectator in 2005….what those who quote him do not do, for obvious reasons when you see his article complete, is to provide a link to that article so that you can judge his words in the round, something that would give a completely different picture of what he intended to say….from the Guardian’s report….

Yes he said:

“Isn’t it possible that things like the Iraq war did not create the problem of murderous Islamic fundamentalists, though the war has unquestionably sharpened the resentments felt by such people in this country and given them a new pretext?”

And:

‘the Iraq war did not introduce the poison into our bloodstream but, yes, the war did help to potentiate that poison. It is difficult to deny that they have a point, the ‘told-you-so’ brigade.”

But note how, in this case C4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy, dodges the two big stand-out points in the first quote….that the Iraq War did not create the problem of murderous Islamic fundamentalists and that the Iraq war merely gave those who wanted to attack Britain a ‘pretext’..that’s a pretext, not a credible, authentic, rational, informed reason.  Yes the war may have stirred up the anger, but was it reasonable or rational anger?  No says Boris, not ‘noticed’ conveniently by those who partially quote him….

To the paranoid Muslim mind, the evident bogusness of the ‘war on terror’ — in so far as it applied to Iraq — suggested that the war was really about something else: about oil, about humiliating and dominating the Islamic world; and because they make no separation between religion and politics, the bogus ‘war on terror’ seemed to imply an undeclared war on Islam.

The ‘paranoid Muslim mind’?  Hardly gives the impression that Boris thinks they are making rational, informed decisions…more that they are the subject of hardcore anti-western propaganda…a lot coming from the left-wing media itself…such as the BBC.

That second quote misses out the first part of the paragraph which indicates Boris has his doubts about the theory..

In groping to understand, the pundits and the politicians have clutched first at Iraq, and the idea that this is ‘blowback’, the inevitable punishment for Britain’s part in the Pentagon’s fiasco. George Galloway began it in Parliament; he was followed by Sir Max Hastings, with the Lib Dems limping in the rear. It is difficult to deny that they have a point, the Told-You-So brigade.

‘Difficult to deny’ but possible in truth.

And why miss this out?:

Supporters of the war have retorted that Iraq cannot be said to be a whole and sufficient explanation for the existence of suicidal Islamic cells in the West, and they, too, have a point. The threat from Islamicist nutters preceded 9/11; they bombed the Paris Métro in the 1990s; and it is evident that the threat to British lives pre-dates the Iraq war, when you think that roughly the same number of Britons died in the World Trade Center as died in last week’s bombings.

What do these folks want? Do they really want British troops out of Iraq, when most people I met in Baghdad secretly or openly want them to stay and help fight the insurgency?  There are plenty of people in Iraq who think Britain did a wonderful thing in helping to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and it is still too early to reach a final verdict on the success of the Iraq war. 

There’s absolutely no doubt why they miss the last bit out…it says the real problem is Islam and the Muslim community’s ghettoisation….

We have a serious and long-term security problem, not in Iraq but in this country, among young men who speak with Yorkshire accents. This is a cultural calamity that will take decades to correct.

We — non-Muslims — cannot solve the problem; we cannot brainwash them out of their fundamentalist beliefs. The Islamicists last week horribly and irrefutably asserted the supreme importance of that faith, overriding all worldly considerations, and it will take a huge effort of courage and skill to win round the many thousands of British Muslims who are in a similar state of alienation, and to make them see that their faith must be compatible with British values and with loyalty to Britain. That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem.

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?

 

On the Bandwagons

 

What magic is this?  So glamorous…the new Jacqui Smith……

The former MP has ditched her customary boxy jackets in favour of a sleek new look     Image result for olive on the buses

 

Apart from the BBC not seeming to get enough of Jacqui Smith at the moment what else was on Marr?

Marr’s paper review had the above mentioned Smith, and the Trump hating BBC journo Jon Sopel, and ex-BBC PR guru for the liberal ‘Tory’ pro-EU Cameron, Craig Oliver….so none likely to be onside for May…and indeed not…and of course Sopel just put the boot into Trump not forgetting a gratuitous dig about his ‘machoness’.  Smith spent her time attacking May on social care so not really a paper review but a political broadcast on behalf of Labour from her.

Marr was on hand to help her with that as he promoted Corbyn’s message about Western intervention causing the deaths in Manchester saying…

‘And of course it has to be said Libya collapsed into a failed state on David Cameron’s watch.  It was our intervention there that knocked out the Gaddafi regime and unfortunately left a failed state.’

…which led to an angry Libyan heritage man to bomb a pop concert targeting mostly young girls….all the Tories’ fault.

Except no…it bloody well wasn’t.  Marr is so caught up in the BBC’s narrative of Western intervention that he can’t even read the news and put the facts together into a coherent whole.

Abedi’s family fled Libya to get away from Gaddafi…they returned to Libya along with Abedi to fight against Gaddafi with the help of that ‘Western intervention’….an intervention directed by the United Nations….action to prevent a massacre that if it had been allowed to happen the BBC would have been making outraged films about, using a Muslim extremist as the presenter just as they did with Srebrenica [and getting that completely wrong…failing to  mention the Muslim fighters were killed because they had been massacring Christians in the surrounding villages] telling us how we had stood by as ‘Muslims’ were massacred once again.

So we helped to fulfil the wishes of Abedi and his family…Gaddafi gone.  How then does this feed into the BBC’s narrative that Western intervention in Libya caused the bomb attack in Manchester?

Marr is talking complete rubbish, dangerous rubbish as he peddles what is not just Corbyn’s line but the terrorist line as well.

He goes on talking rubbish, highly partisan rubbish.  Naturally he doesn’t criticise Corbyn for linking ‘Western intervention’ to terrorism, he himself did just that, he instead targets May and says it is inappropriate and tasteless for her to criticise Corbyn and his own very close ties to and support for terrorists…

‘It’s very difficult to accuse someone in the middle of an election after Manchester of supporting terrorism…it’s a matter of good taste, what’s appropriate and reasonable to say is hard for people to get right.’

Really?  Really?  Are you f**king kidding me?  It’s bad taste to draw attention to the close links a man who wants to be Prime Minister has to terrorists?  It is inappropriate to draw attention to the fact that he thinks the IRA were honourable freedom fighters, that he praises Islamic terrorists, that he wants to hold negotiations with ISIS?  Is there no more appropriate time than after a terrorist attack to state the bleeding obvious about him and what he will do to the country and national security and to point out the absolute lies he tells as he grandstands with feigned outrage…outrage he never expressed towards the IRA or Hamas or Hezbollah as they tried to murder their way to victory?

Red Andy lives.  Twenty two young people don’t any more.  Part of the reason they don’t is the false narrative spread by the likes of Red Andy that excuses and cheerleads for the Islamic terrorists.