John Humphrys explains 9/11, Terrorism, and Where We Went Wrong

We don’t know whether the BBC has chosen its position on 9/11 and Islamic terrorism because the hierarchy sincerely believes in it or because it’s strategically pertinent, but John Humphrys set it out loud and clear in his 8:30 spot on the iconic Today programme. Tony Blair was also present.

  • 9/11 was a crime.
  • Islamic extremism is a separate phenomenon from Islam proper.
  • We exacerbated the problem with our ‘War on Terror’.
  • We should have concentrated on the criminals in Afghanistan and stayed out of Saddam’s Iraq
  • Eliza Manningham-Buller agrees.

In other words:
Islam is fundamentally peaceful.
Fundamentalist Islamism is a distortion of Islam.

9/11 and similar acts of ‘terrorism’ are crimes perpetrated by a minority, who have distorted (fundamentally peaceful) Islam.
These crimes have nothing to do with the peaceful religion known as Islam.
We mistakenly blamed the peaceful religion, Islam, for crimes which were unrelated to true Islam.
It was this mistake of ours, which radicalised fundamentally peaceful Moslems, turning them away from true, peaceful Islam, towards a distorted, ‘separate-from-Islam’ criminality, (which has nothing to do with Islam.)

‘Terrorists’ are straightforward criminals who have distorted the fundamentally peaceful religion of peace. We call them militants.

The BBC is impartial and non-judgmental. We don’t call them militant criminals.
We refer to ‘Militants’, or ‘militant Islamists’, meaning
‘militant ‘nothing-to-do-with-Islam-ists’.’

Earlier, someone said the glorious ‘Arab Spring’ is proof that we’ve won an ideological battle.

The news headlines state that ‘post-glorious Arab Spring’ Egyptians have attacked the Israeli Embassy in Cairo because of their anger at the killing of six Egyptian policemen by Israeli security forces. This apparently motivated their democratic decision to destroy the Israeli Embassy and its occupants.
It ignores the boiling hatred that has been driving the Arab World since the year dot, a hatred which was released and allowed to flourish and blossom as soon as dictator Hosni Mubarak was deposed. A hatred alluded to vaguely by the BBC itself in its own statement here:
”There have been protests outside the embassy for weeks amid a downturn in Egypt-Israel relations.” but in a statement further down in the same article, ‘for weeks’ has turned into ‘since 18th August
“There have been protests outside the embassy since the deaths on 18 August of five Egyptian policemen.”

So, the anti Israel protests are merely because of Israel’s recent provocative, unexplained aggression? Or perhaps, since the glorious Arab Spring?

The glorious Arab Spring doesn’t prove any ideological sea change whatsoever. The Arab world does not love us. 9/11 was not an isolated criminal act by distorters of a fundamentally peaceful ideology. Nor was it supported by a mere minority. It was celebrated throughout the Arab world, on September 11th 2001, and as acts against the West still are, to this day, September 2011.

Tony Blair gets it, but nobody likes him, nobody listens to him, and the BBC marches on.
Meanwhile the Any Questions panel drones on predictably. “The whole world was behind America after 9/11!” “We saw Yassir Arafat giving blood on television!”(wasn’t he supposed to have had aids?) “It was our foreign policy that turned the Arab World against America.”

Heaven help us.


Wonder if you caught this gem brought to us by the Muslim-adoring BBC? A B-BBC stalwart notes;

“The BBC launches yet another attempt to persuade us that even though Muslims think our culture is depraved, our Christian religion heretical and that they have no real intention of integrating in any meaningful way, we should thank them for their contributions to our society.

‘Eating plays a major role in Ramadan, and it’s now playing a surprisingly big role in British culture too. Stand-up comedian Shappi Khorsandi looks at the way in which food from Muslim countries has helped revolutionise the British palate… and she discovers the surprising effect those foods have had on British identity.”

The BBC’s very own Dan Brown version of history merging fact with fiction, myths and lies to create a story that paints a picture of Britain that the BBC want you to believe in. Muslim comedian Shappi Khorsandi, remarkably annoying and patronising, tells us that Curry is Muslim, coffee is Muslim and spices are Muslim….she doesn’t say much about that other Muslim invention the suicide bomber. We have a lot to be grateful for to the Muslims.

Except perhaps not so much.

Watch this programme and you will come away believing Britain goes home every night to a Vindaloo or Tikka Masala and is changing, evolving, into secret Muslims as you are what you eat as the programme keeps insisting. In that case presumably we are more likely to be Peruvian or at least part Spanish, as we eat so many spuds brought to us from South America by the Spanish….never mind Mexican, Chinese or MacDonald shaped.

For the BBC the history of spices in Britain begins with the Muslims and ends with them….missing out the vast spice trade in the Far East, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire…..Curry is ‘Muslim’ rather than Indian…never mind Thai, Burmese, even Chinese or Japanese.

Coffee is definitely a Muslim, not just ‘Arab’ invention. Shappi misses out the story of the goatherd who takes some ‘coffee’ berries to a monastery and the Abbot there eventually produces some form of concoction from them to produce a stimulant….that is a Christian Monastery.

‘According to the legend, the news of the “wakeful monastery” spread rapidly, and the magical berry soon “came to be in request throughout the whole kingdom; and in progress of time other nations and provinces of the East fell into the use of it.” ‘

And she certainly didn’t want you to hear about this…..The Arab slave trade and coffee….
‘Another story says that Sudanese slaves used to chewing berries to survive their hard journey. According to this version, this is how coffee reached Arabia from Ethiopia.’

Islam in fact had a retrograde effect on the coffee trade often banning it for religious reasons… was certainly Arabs who popularised it as a drink but Islam the religion, had nothing to do with it.

This programme is not about history it is about rewriting history as the BBC’s Professor Cox says…‘public service broadcasting had a “very important” role to play in changing the direction of society’.

So now you know….curry is Muslim not Indian, spices are Muslim not Far Eastern, coffee is Muslim not Arabic…or Ethiopian/Christian.

Curious that when Muslim terrorists let off bombs in London killing 52 people and injuring over 700 and tell us in videos that this is done in the name of Islam the BBC hurry to tell us that this is rubbish….this is not Islam, Islam means peace (and coffee, spices and curry)….these bombers are perverting and distorting Islam.

Trouble is the bombers were following the teachings of Islam…it is with programmes like this that the BBC are perverting the truth about Islam and attempting not only to rewrite history but to write the future as it wishes it to be….quite a dark future if Muslim countries are anything to go by.”


A B-BBC reader observes;

“The BBC’s pro Islam, pro radical Islam, stance has been notice by numerous people, even Harry’s Place:

‘Anyone looking for proof that Britain is being ‘Islamised’ and that we’re all doomed need frankly look no further than the murky world of Tower Hamlets politics of which Rahman is the central figure. Yet the BBC presented Rahman as the voice of moderation. This is really poor on the part of the BBC. I have to admit to being frankly embarrassed to have been part of the programme.’

and from ‘The Commentator’:

‘To assist them in the momentous task of analysing the life of such an important historical figure the BBC called upon the services of one “Abdur Raheem Green”.Abdur Raheem Green throughout his career as a preacher has launched attacks on many of the prized values of liberal society. He has lambasted the idea of sexual equality stating that society “pressures our daughters to get degrees, to be doctors or engineers” describing this as “sick”. Green also states that both homosexuality and adultery are “crimes” which should be dealt with “by a slow and painful death from stoning”. Most shockingly Green appears to sing the praises of violent jihad opining that “dying while fighting Jihad is one of the surest ways to paradise and Allah’s good pleasure”…..When institutions which have such a large influence on our society find no issue with these individuals they fail in their societal duty to challenge them.’

On the same programme the BBC also give a platform to the likes of Tariq Ramadan (‘one of the most influential voices on young Muslims’) the slippery Islamist…the one who claimed it was justifiable to kill Jewish children in a ‘war’, and Ikrima Sabri who justs loves Jews and the West…and is happy, like Ramadan to send children to be Martyrs for Islam…the man who wants to wipe out Israel…and the BBC think both he and Ramadan are suitable as respected commentators on the life of Muhammed…never mind the ever present Mehdi Hasan. If an all too powerful and influential media organistaion such as the BBC is promoting extremists as ‘moderates’ (whatever moderate Islam is) the future is very bleak indeed.


Azad Ali
Anyone catch this interview on the BBC this morning? It concerns the government plan to tackle Islamic extremism and in brings the BBC Former security minister Baroness Neville-Jones and Azad Ali, chair of the Muslim Safety Forum and an adviser to the previous Labour government. Azad plays the role of outraged moderate Muslim except that is not quite the entire picture.

Mayor Boris Johnson has given at least £30,000 of taxpayers’ money to an organisation co-controlled by an Islamist “extremist”, the Standard can reveal. Azad Ali praises a spiritual leader of al Qaeda on his blog, denies the Mumbai attacks were “terrorism” and quotes, apparently approvingly, a statement advocating the killing of British troops in Iraq. He also criticises those Muslims who “tell people that Islam is a religion of peace”. He describes non-Muslims as “sinners” and says Muslims should “hate [non-Muslims’] disbelieving actions”.

Is it possible that the BBC is actually promoting the views of an Islamic extremist whilst pretending to have a reasoned debate? Surely not?


In a preamble to an announcement tomorrow from Theresa May requiring our Universities to be less submissive in their disturbing accommodation of militant Islam, Today had a “debate” between James Brandon, head of research at the Quilliam Foundation, and Nicola Dandridge, of Universities UK. Mr Brandon was sympathetic to the views of the Home Secretary and got a tough time by Justin Webb. He was interrupted, corrected and he even had to endure the BBC interviewer actually challenging his questions on behalf of Dandridge!!! Ms Dandridge herself was the typical Ivory Tower dhimmi one would expect but her views obviously resonate with the BBC and so she gets an easy ride whereas Mr Brandon was attacked. The BBC is Islam’s little helper and this interview was just a small example of all that it does for the Religion of Peace.


A man waves goodbye to a passenger on a bus heading into Egypt at the Rafah crossing (28 May 2011)
The BBC seem pretty euphoric about the decision by the Egyptian military to open the Rafah crossing into Gaza. Naturally this is presented as the most benign and enlightened decision one could imagine. Israeli concerns are mentioned but presented as more begrudgery, in true BBC fashion. The fact that Hamas can now get much needed armaments more easily is dismissed as a mere detail as we are all asked to join in BBC praise for the alleged Arab Spring. I heard James Naughtie on Today this morning waxing lyrical about the new Egypt. No mentions of the gang rape of Lara Logan in Freedom Square, no mention of the emerging Nazi Party, no mention of the looming triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood. A secular-ish Egypt is morphing into a new Iran and the BBC can see nothing wrong in that – after all – if you hate Israel you can’t be all that bad, right?


Still electioneering but wanted to highlight this story for you! Does Al Queda have sympathisers in the BBC?

The files, obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph, disclose that a phone number of someone at the BBC was found in the phone books and phones of a number of extremists seized by US forces.  

A detainee assessment, dated 21 April 2007, states: “The London, United Kingdom (UK), phone number 0044 207 XXX XXXX was discovered in numerous seized phone books and phones associated with extremist-linked individuals. The number is associated with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).” Analysis by The Daily Telegraph suggests the number is one for Bush House, home of the BBC World Service.

The assessment continues that US forces uncovered many “extremist links” to this number, suggesting that extremists could have made contact with BBC employees who were sympathetic to extremists or had information on “ACM [anti-Coalition Militia] operations…”

I’m surprised that Bin Laden doesn’t have the State Broadcaster on speed dial…… 

Reflections on the Theme of Time Management. or: Me Me Me.

I’ve been writing on this website for a couple of years or more
and it don’t seem a day too much,
but there aint a broadcasting corporation livin’ in the land
as I wouldn’t “swop” for a bit of honest reporting.

However for all my efforts, and those of David Vance and the others, nothing changes at the BBC. In fact, things have taken a turn for the worse now that the chair of the BBC Trust happens to be a known pro Palestinian advocate.
The situation seems to be this. The BBC, and therefore the liberal unintelligentsia, have given special status to Islam by conferring a unique religious diplomatic immunity upon it. By qualifying as a religion, Islam as a whole is awarded sanctity which exempts it from being criticised. This applies in varying degrees to other religions and holy things. For example, in order to give vent to one’s antisemitic urges, one must stick to Israel-themed criticism. You’re not supposed to admit that this has anything to do with your distaste for Jews.
Christianity is an open target, and Catholic misdemeanours have made it acceptable to condemn the entire religion, whereas similar unmentionable Islamic practises are given a free pass or regarded as unrepresentative.
However, desecrating something holy is still thought not nice, particularly setting fire to it. So if Nazi ideology were elevated to the status of a religion with Herr Hitler as its prophet peace be upon him, it would immediately be distasteful to point out the racist, supremacist and murderous proclivities therein, and Mein Kampf would be a holy book, the fire-resistant immutable word of God speaking through the prophet. Can you imagine, post WWll – “It’s their culture, innit” ”Only an extremist minority” “Not inherent to the ideology”
and it would then have to be “ because of the Jews” rather than “because of Israel”

Being an atheist, I don’t see why anything should be given a free pass, or absolved from accountability, yet, perhaps inexplicably for some, I still have values which encompass what is loosely called right and wrong, and I don’t ask for God’s backing to justify them.

The BBC is a crazy mixed up place. In a good way, viz: On one hand it is all patriotic, with the most unlikely celebrities performing Royal Wedding-themed antics, and talking about ‘the big day’ as if the ordinary viewer regards it as such, and on the other, it’s giving air space to staunch republicans. I like that in principle, although I am more than indifferent about the topic. Or should that be less than indifferent. (Meaning I couldn’t care less) like when people mistakenly say something can never be underestimated when they mean overestimated.
But crazy mixed up in a bad way is when they eulogise about the uprisings in the Arab World without a care or a thought about the rise of Islam, and what this will mean for Israel, and the Jews and others who are trying to live there.

If you look back at my incontinent output, just click on the anti Israel tag in the label cloud, you’ll see that I’ve covered a myriad of variations on the theme, and not made one iota of an impression on the BBC.
Call me an idiot and knock me down with Louise Bagshawe, but how’s that for a waste of time?

“An Israeli teenager wounded when a Palestinian rocket hit a bus has died of his injuries.
Daniel Viflic, 16, was on a school bus in southern Israel on 7 April when it was hit by an anti-tank missile fired from the Gaza Strip.
The driver was slightly hurt in the attack, which happened just after the other children had been dropped off.

Nineteen Palestinians died in the ensuing wave of Israeli air strikes and Palestinian counter-attacks.
It was the most serious violence since Israel’s conflict with Hamas in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009.
About 1,400 Palestinians, more than half of them civilians, and 13 Israelis, including 10 soldiers, were killed.”

This hideous example shows that the BBC cannot report the death of a boy at the hands of terrorists without adding gratuitous references to previous unverified and disputed death-toll statistics; and by various weasely words, making light of the attack itself.

Them and Us

The way the recent upheavals in the Middle East have been reported by the BBC show clearly that it’s beyond their collective imagination to wonder whether the Arab/Islamic population is really and truly full of ordinary people just like us.

Even though Jon Donnison and Jeremy Bowen have spent considerable time in the Arab world, they still can’t grasp the concept that there is a “them and us” and that *their* worldview is antithetical to *ours* . Would Jeremy Bowen send his young relatives off to prosecute holy jihad wearing a suicide belt? Would Jon Donnison support the stoning of an adulteress or the limb amputation of a thief? Would he expect to enter Paradise if he copped it in the fog of struggle? Probably not. But they must know that these beliefs exist and can’t be shrugged off with a casual “I’m sure they don’t really mean it.”
The BBC’s reporting on the escalation of attacks from Gaza is an example of this moral equivalence. Towards the end, the BBC’s report demonstrates how the writer identifies with Hamas, “Last month saw some of the worst violence since Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in December 2008, says the BBC’s Jon Donnison in Gaza.” reminding us as usual, of Cast Lead.
“In one week in March, at least 10 Palestinians – including several civilians and children – were killed by Israeli attacks” Donnison begins, adding:
“In the same period, militants in Gaza fired more than 80 rockets and mortar shells into southern Israel.”
This implies that Israel killed “several” (how many?) innocents, then Hamas responded, pitifully, killing no-one.
“Hamas had pledged to try to restore a ceasefire that ended on 16 March when an Israeli air strike killed two of its militants in the Palestinian territory.”
This makes no sense. Would or could Hamas ‘try to restore’ a ceasefire that was allegedly broken by Israel?
“However, Israel said it had suffered “bouts of terror and rocket attacks.”
Israel said? Hamas has pledged? Which is more reliable, a *say* or a *pledge*?
“Despite recent calls for calm, neither side seems to be able to stop firing, our correspondent says. Both say the other started it. Israel says it holds Hamas responsible for all attacks coming out of Palestinian territory, even if it is other militant groups carrying them out”
Read Melanie Phillips and Honest Reporting on that kind of remark.

While I’m at it – “Attack on Bus” Why does Hamas attack just *a bus?* Is ‘damaging a bus’ their intention? When rockets land without killing any Israelis, is that intentional?
Also, when is a teenaged boy a child? When he’s a Palestinian, of course. Israeli children are ‘people’ or teenagers, young Palestinian resistance fighters are counted as children till they get the key of the door.
The invariable chronological inversion of attack and retaliation and the habitual emphasis on the retaliation and downplaying of the provocation is automatic for the BBC. Not many people used to know that, but thankfully more and more people are starting to notice.
Even Sky has:
“The violence began when Gazan militants launched an anti tank-missile at a school bus in an apparently deliberate escalation.”

The BBC prefers to begin their article by concentrating on Israel’s military might, emoting a disproportionate response to a damaged bus.
“Israeli tanks, helicopters and planes have struck Gaza after an anti-tank missile fired from the Palestinian territory hit a bus in southern Israel.”
If the BBC understood what is happening it could have speculated that the escalation in hostilities might be related to the “Arab Spring.” It might have occurred to someone that Hamas has been emboldened by the the Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood’s prospective rise to prominence throughout the Arab world.
Here’s a quote from a thought-provoking article everyone should read.

And, as in much other coverage of the Middle East, the journalists – take a bow, BBC – did not bother to exercise the elementary functions of their craft: to be inquisitive, to question assumptions, to look beyond the overheated excitement. Having written the script, they were determined to stick to it in breathless, eye-moistening interviews – “live and direct from Tahrir Square” – with self-selecting, highly educated, English-speaking protesters.

And just as the media made their bizarre extrapolations and re-wrote the script, they also changed their language. In less than a month, Mubarak had made the seamless transition from “moderate, pro-Western Egyptian president” to “corrupt, tyrannical dictator”.

I blogged something like this myself not so long ago.

Kites for Peace

In the last couple of days there has been an extraordinary mish-mash of television on the subject of Islam and Israel. All but one sanitising Islam and denigrating Israel.
For example, yesterday’s hostile portrait of Geert Wilders BBC2 seen through thick-lensed left-wing specs. The filmmaker’s agenda was showing – almost embarrassingly – so hopefully no-one will have been persuaded to change their minds on the issue from watching it. One thing that stood out was the way the filmmaker saw Israel. He assumed that just a slight association with it was enough to turn Wilders into a villain. And the bit where he approached Wilders with his furry microphone, feebly bleating something unintelligible while Wilders and entourage swept past, then “See! He wouldn’t speak to me!” I found that hilarious.
Straight away, most people will have switched on to Dispatches Channel 4 for the Islamic Schools programme. I thought they were trying to stretch a tiny bit of material too far – they kept repeating bits of it – they should have concentrated more on the Ofsted inspectors, and asked why nobody seemed to suspect anything or care. Melanie Phillips has this.
Nevertheless, these contrasting items provide a good example of the art of television, showing how it can make you think one thing one minute, and another, the next.
Which brings me to the major four-parter on Channel 4, The Promise. The director has a left wing agenda, and he tries to pretend he hasn’t. Take a look at the website, see Lindsay Hilsum’s potted history which leaves out the important bits, read some of the tweets and comments, and weep. The audience thinks they’re being educated.

Then for desert, last night’s Newsnight with Michael Morpurgo. He’s been to Gaza, and he’s got it into his head that Israelis target children. It’s so firmly embedded in his brain that even though Paxman says “the Israelis don’t go in to deliberately target children” , and he admits that “It’s not that they they’re targeted”, it still pops back in a few seconds later, when he says “You can’t achieve peace by targeting children.”
Call me cynical, but I think I know whose side he’s on. Even Paxo had a tiny go at him, reminding him of the traumas suffered by Sderot children. Louise Ellman did well, but she missed a few opportunities. Of the malnutrition he witnessed – not caused by the blockade of course – she should have pointed out the lorryloads of goods that go into Gaza every day, not to mention the international aid that pours in. Where is it all? She should have mentioned the hate that is taught to the children, not in Israel, but in Gaza.

I wondered why the donkey cart with the allegedly injured child rushed past at the exact moment they were filming. But Pallywood makes you cynical. I’d also like to know exactly what the Israelis had to say about targeting children. Of course, as Jeremy Bowen would say, they’d be partial, so we shouldn’t believe them, which makes rather a mockery out of all reporting. The BBC could just get ‘impartial’ people to speculate, and stop bothering to verify or investigate anything. That’s what they already do on the telly, some broadcasters more than others.

Middle Eastenders Like Us

The army of BBC reporters who’ve been plonked in Egypt have one thing in common – unalloyed joy at the people’s uprising.
We’ve heard people say, ‘Mubarak may be a monster, but he’s our monster,’ or, ‘ Careful what you wish for – some Iraqis long for the stability of Sadaam’ – but what we mainly hear is wholehearted enthusiasm for the ‘deposing of the tyrant’. They approve of Ben Ali’s removal from Tunisia, yet have little interest in what will follow.

Just because we all abhor torture and corruption, and applaud democracy and freedom, our enemy’s enemy is not necessarily our ally, and we should all be careful about expressing unreserved enthusiasm for what we know little about.

Even though the Muslim Brotherhood is not considered to be an immediate threat to Egypt’s future, none of the BBC interviews I’ve seen have questioned the bright-eyed protesters about their attitude to the West, and Israel in particular. Polls suggest that the majority of Egyptians sympathise with Sharia, which doesn’t auger well for an enlightened future. Remember Iran.

Representatives of the BBC should engage their brains and stop assuming all Egyptians view everything through the eyes of the western liberal. That’s a common failing of all the BBC’s reporting. None of them seem to have the imagination to put themselves in any shoes other than their own. I think I’ve said this before. The Middle East isn’t like Islington, and Islam isn’t a religion of peace.
H/T True Too for Caroline Glick

A Smirk Too Far

I’m sure B-BBC regulars trawl roughly the same blogs, and I often recognise familiar monikers on comments pages.
Grant wonders about the BBC’s lack of interest in Tunisia now that their uprising is old hat. I’d say it was a bit premature to hold it up as some sort of role model for the rest of the Arab World, though. Elder of Ziyoners will know what I mean.
Hat Tip to Hippiepooter for linking to this interesting thread from Harry’s Place.
I actually saw Jeremy Bowen say those words, and he had a distinct smirk on his face as he said them.
The Muslim Brotherhood is certainly not moderate, and as we already know, the BBC interprets *conservative* in its own unique way, but non violent? Pull the other one.

“A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel.”

All BBC reporters seem to have taken to referring to Hezbollah and Hamas as “Regarded by Israel as a terrorist organisation.” (But not by anyone else, impliedly.) Soon they’ll be applying it to Al Qaeda. I think they would like to see the British people prepare, not only for a war against Israel, but also for a losing battle against Islam.

Toppling Tyrants

Throughout the uprisings in Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen, and of course Egypt, the BBC has avoided raising the alarm over the danger, some say inevitability, that when repressive dictatorships topple, there’s a vacuum, and in Muslim lands, Islamists are waiting in the wings, poised and raring to go. The BBC aint bovvered.
Political turmoil in Lebanon poses a serious threat to the stability of the region, but in an erratic tribute to impartiality, the BBC reports the utterances of Hassan Nasrallah, being scrupulously careful to avoid taking sides.
Kevin Connolly thinks the appointment of a pro-Hezbollah PM is a way out of Lebanon’s immediate political crisis, with the caveat:

“It is an uncomfortable outcome for the US, which denounces Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation and reflects the growing regional influence of the movement’s sponsors, Iran and Syria.”

The Syria/Iran infiltration of Lebanon may not worry the BBC, but then they wouldn’t be worried by the content of this article by Michael J Totten.

“Hezbollah had 10,000 rockets before the war in 2006. Now it has between 40,000 and 50,000. Some are stored in warehouses. Others are hidden away a few at a time in private homes.”

Hezbollah positions itself amongst houses and mosques because they know the Israelis cannot retaliate without killing civilians.

“Its fighters and officers wear no uniforms. Only rarely do they carry guns out in the open.”

The BBC should be very alarmed at what is happening in Lebanon, not complacently telling us that the political crisis is over.

The Foreign Office is reported as stating that they have no objection to dictators being overthrown, but they’d prefer it if they were replaced by secular rather than religious governments. For example, “democratically,” as in Lebanon. What? Are my ears deceiving me?

Does this mean that the Foreign Office thinks that Hezbollah, having murdered the Lebanese Prime Minister, refused to accept responsibility for the murder, promised to cut off the hand of any accuser, embedded a massive stockpile of arms within civilian areas and in mosques, not to mention being dedicated to the destruction of Israel – does the foreign office or a spokesperson thereof, really hold Hezbollah’s roughshod trampling over the Lebanese government as an example of democracy, desirable for Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen et al ? And to add insult to that salty wound William Hague has gone off to suck up to Syria.
I wrote here about the BBC’s decisive action over a film produced by Christopher Mitchell. They abandoned it.

Professor Paul Rogers, author of “Why We’re Losing the War on Terror” has been on BBC discussing Rachid Ghannouchi’s return to Tunisia. “He’s anti American, but a moderate.” he reassures us casually.
Rachid Ghannouchi a moderate?
Christopher Hitchins begs to differ. He visited Tunis University:

“to talk to a female professor of theology named Mongia Souahi. She is the author of a serious scholarly work explaining why the veil has no authority in the Quran. One response had come from an exiled Tunisian Islamist named Rachid al-Ghannouchi, who declared her to be a kuffar, or unbeliever. This, as everybody knows, is the prelude to declaring her life to be forfeit as an apostate. I was slightly alarmed to see Ghannouchi and his organization, Hizb al-Nahda, described in Sunday’s New York Times as “progressive,” and to learn that he is on his way home from London.”

The BBC may be hoping Rachid Ghannouchi is a moderate, but didn’t blink an eye at his being “anti American.” To them that’s a trivial detail. The Ghannouchi daughter, or is that daughters, contribute to the Guardian and the BBC. Yusra Khreeji was on Broadcasting House a week ago, and Soumaya Ghannouchi is a regular contributor to the Guardian, and attends anti-Israel rallies, unleashing a mean impersonation of Lauren Booth.
Paul Rogers thinks we mishandle Islamists, driving them towards likes of Al Qaeda. Terrorism is our fault, we’re too hard line.

This morning we were treated to the oily reassurances of the odious Tariq Ramadan, another professor who has insinuated himself into the BBC’s speed dial directory.
We’ve seen John Kerry, he of the cylindrical head and massive chin, evidently fresh from overdosing on PaliLeaks, advising Israel to make concessions and stop oppressing the Palestinians.
“Israel is worried”, someone is saying now, on the BBC.
Abdul Bari Atwan, another speed dial buddy: “Illegal set-telments under internationallaw” he screeched, his eyes nearly popping out of his head. “Yes” said Polly Toynbee, also high on the Guardian’s deceitful spin on the PaliLeaks.“It’s all Israel’s fault.”

Everyone is rooting for the Egyptian protesters. “Look at the chaos! Whatever next?”
Whatever next indeed.

Fizzing, But Not Popping

I was going to post this morning on the topic D.B. refers to below, the stark contrast between the BBC’s treatment of two stories. Events overtook.
So belatedly here’s another post with the same starting point.(No Pasarani)

The left wing media’s laughably un-self-aware fantasy that violent metaphors are the prerogative of ‘the right’ is looking very ridiculous now. In their determination to blame the Tea Party for the Tucson shooting they ignored the facts and still went on contorting, finding ways to justify themselves rather than offering a simple retraction. It’s contortionism gawn mad.

Then the BBC’s bizarre reporting of religiously-motivated, Islamic-inspired violence in Egypt . As many of you have commented, they somehow manage to report a religiously-motivated Islamic-inspired shooting without blaming religion or Islam. In fact, like something straight out of the Basil Fawlty school of not mentioning the war, they go to the trouble of particularly mentioning that they haven’t allocated blame.

Robin Shepherd has written another superb article on what’s been happening in Egypt. It starts: “I had to rub my eyes a couple of times this morning as I opened the BBC website to find two more stories about the ongoing violence against Christians in Egypt.”
We’ve been rubbing our eyes over the BBC website for quite a while.
The contrast between the BBC’s anomalous positions over these stories clearly spotlights their hypocrisy, and begs the question, why?
What good does it do to suppress discussions about the rise of Islam? Will it make it go away?
The tendency of the left, even the moderate left, to side with Islam because of their hatred of Israel and America, and perhaps Britain, is beginning to look more and more irrational and less and less easy to explain or justify. No matter how many accusations of ‘incitement by gun-totin’ metaphor’ each side fires off against the other, the BBC’s Islamist heroes fire real bullets, and commit real violence. This ought to knock the left off any moral high ground they think they occupy.

Perhaps these verbal contortions are the last vestiges of the BBC’s institutional repression which will one day have to find an outlet. Perhaps all these suppressed inconvenient truths will suddenly burst forth like Jack Straw’s fizzing and popping testosterone, but the longer they put it off, the worse it will be.


Well, the New Year has truly begun with most of us now back at work. The BBC has also gone back to work this morning, with a vengeance. High up the list of priority news stories is the allegation that “increasing” numbers of White British people are converting to Islam. There is a report carried here on Today @ 8.41am by Catrin Nye of the BBC Asian network (natch) explaining why women in particular are so attracted to the Religion of Peace.  As a PR piece for Islam, it is sublime, with the remarkable statement by one convert that she felt “empowered” to be a Muslim. No tough questions asked, of course, but it’s nice to see the BBC setting off on 2011 with the usual pro-Islam agenda. I look forward to some of the BBC sisterhood doing the decent thing, converting to Islam, and thus removing themselves forever from our lives.