curbishly:
The first link is to a BBC news report of a Conservative MP comments.

It would appear from the second link that it was the BBC "Journalist" who reported this matter to the Shadow Secretary of State.

So the BBC now sees itself as upholders of P.C. morality.

Of course one wonders if the MP had been Labour if this story would have ever seen the light of day

http://tinyurl.com/35dnx3

A few days ago, I blogged about Heather Mills pouring a jug of water over her ex-husbands barrister's head. It was an attempt to be funny, but the BBC's David Cornock reported me to the Shadow Secretary of Wales, and I suspect several others as well. The BBC have also run a story about this on their internet news site and Good Evening Wales asked me on to explain myself on air. For the first time in my life, I refused to appear, and I'm not going to approve any more comments on the offending post either. I would delete it, except that I think it would give the story more legs. I'm rather surprised by this turn of events.

http://tinyurl.com/2sh8pv
curbishly | 21.03.08 - 12:51 pm | #

backwoodsman:
The clue is in the blog title - anything that says 'A View From RURAL Wales' , is bound to be offensive to a beeboid.
The bbc seriously struggle to understand that rural people fail to buy into their hip, happening , multi culti utopia.
If you have a quick poll of MP's representing rural constituencies, they will tell you that they have a mandate from their voters to end the bbc in its current format. The bbc knows this, hence their consistent policy of bellitling rural values.
backwoodsman | 21.03.08 - 1:47 pm | #

GCooper:
The BBC - keeping the Stasi tradition alive!

http://glyndaviesam.blogspot.com...-to- humour.html
GCooper | 21.03.08 - 1:55 pm | #

Jonah:
From another thread:
John Reith | 18.03.08 - 12:04
“my daily experience of the good sense of the British people leads me to think that groups like MPAC are exaggerating when they bang on about Islamophobia. But when I come here, I have to acknowledge that they may have a point.”


I am amazed at John Reith’s and therefore presumably the BBC’s, position on Islam. It is not a phobia to be afraid of something that is dangerous, just common sense. When Muslims blow up people on trains and buses it is done not because the perpetrators happen to be Muslims, these acts of terror are done because they are Muslims.

These acts express what they believe to be right. If John Reith’s son or daughter were blown to pieces he might view things in a different light. Acts of terrorism are done by Muslims because they believe in their cause. This is what they believe Islam asks of them, and in doing so they are being good servants of Allah.

People in this country have every right to be afraid, and their genuine fear should not be twisted and turned into a phobia.

If law abiding and decent citizens of this country who are Muslims realise how much fear has been generated by the actions of their fellow Muslims, not only in this country but throughout the world, that can only be a good thing. They should make their voices heard to bring about change and diminish the hatred that seems to be at the heart of so much of Islam.
Jonah | 21.03.08 - 1:55 pm | #

Anonymous:
More shilling for Hamas (this time against Egypt).
There was not a peep from the BBC as long as Egypt was torturing thousands of their own Muslim Brotherhood.
But when Egypt touches Hamas this is what we get:
"Hamas men 'tortured by Egyptians' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/ 7308538.stm

Just what kind of a deal did they strike to release Alan Johnston?

BBC has realized that Israel is not the only enemy of Hamas, Egypt is much firmer, with the brand new wall with Gaza.
http://afp.google.com/article/ AL...VfoO_mSRfZT9EPw
Anonymous | 21.03.08 - 2:36 pm | #

truth will out:
"More shilling for Hamas (this time against Egypt).
There was not a peep from the BBC as long as Egypt was torturing thousands of their own Muslim Brotherhood.
But when Egypt touches Hamas this is what we get:
"Hamas men 'tortured by Egyptians' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/ 7308538.stm"

What an interesting post, a few questions to ask.

"A Hamas spokesman said security forces had demanded to know about Hamas leaders' movements and the location of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit"

Does that mean that the H terrorists used the pallywood event to smuggle Gilad Shalit out of philistia?

"Most entered the country in January when hundreds of thousands of besieged Gazans crossed into Egypt after militants breached its border wall near Rafah."

Mmmmmm that wasn't what al-beeb told us at the time. The bulls**t was that the starving philistine were crossing over to get food.
truth will out | 21.03.08 - 3:01 pm | #

bodo:
BBC gleefully reporting the 'Cameron on his bike' story today, 'and go to the Radio5 website for links to the video' they say.
Don't ever remember them telling us about when Gordon Brown was seen on TV picking his nose, or where we could see the video.
bodo | 21.03.08 - 3:47 pm | #

Ben:
bodo, can you really not see why one would be slightly more important than the other?
Ben | 21.03.08 - 5:05 pm | #

George R:
Easter Saturday, BBC 2 has a drama-documentary on: 'Richard the Lionheart' (10 pm).

The BBC (and much of the MSM) refuse, or are intellectually incapable of taking on directly the Islamic lies about the Crusades, such as those reproduced from Bin Laden this week; instead we are fed the mantras of ex-nun and Western apologist for Islam, Karen Armstrong.

The headline in the 'Radio Times' (a magazine, which, of course, has no connection with the BBC,etc.) is:

" Richard: lion or louse ?"

To put the Crusades in a politically incorrect context, here's Robert Spencer:

" So what did the Crusades accomplish? They bought Europe time - time that might have meant the difference between her demise and dhimmitude, and her rise and return to glory. If Godfrey of Bouillon, Richard the Lionheart, and countless others hadn't risked their lives to uphold the honour of Christ and His Church thousands of miles from home, the jihadistswould almost certainly have swept across Europe much sooner. Not only did the Crusader armies keep them tied down at a crucial period, fighting for Antioch and Ascalon instead of Varna and Vienna, they also brought together armies that would not have existed otherwise. Pope Urban's call united men around a cause; had that cause not existed or been publicized throughout Europe, many of these men would not have been warriors at all. They would have been ill-equipped to repel a Muslim invasion of their homeland.

" The Crusades, then, were the ultimate reason why Edward Gibbon's vision of 'the interpretation of the Koran' being 'taught in the schools of Oxford' did not come true."

Robert Spencer, 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)'
George R | 21.03.08 - 5:28 pm | #

Disinterested Bystander:
bodo | 21.03.08 - 3:47 pm |

The BBC has a track record for burying bad news stories for Labour.
Corruption, theft, cronyism, gerrymandering, personation, lying, wherever possible they will downplay it.
Where are the BBC investigative journalists when you need them to look at Livingstone/Jasper. Why are they not going to town on the most corrupt Speaker of the Commons in over 150 years.
UK PLC is slowly falling apart and the BBC find it vitally important to inform us of Kevin Maguire's Daily Mirror's fearless exposure of 'Call me Dave's' inability to stay in a cycle lane.
The fact that other papers have reported it are neither here nor there.
There are more pressing issues.
Disinterested Bystander | 21.03.08 - 5:37 pm | #

John Reith:
Disinterested Bystander | 21.03.08 - 5:37 pm

Where are the BBC investigative journalists when you need them to look at Livingstone/Jasper.

The Today programme did do a series of investigative reports on grants made by Jasper etc. a few weeks back.
John Reith | 21.03.08 - 6:37 pm | #

Martin:
I see the BBC is going into overdrive over David Cameron and his cycling.

Funny that they didn't do the same when all those Labour ministers were accused of having dodgy finances for their election campaigns for deputy leader.

Who was Peter Hain again and what did he do?

News 24 have just had that idiot Stephen Pound on (who got in a couple of jibes about Boris Johnson of course) doing a frame by frame account.

At least Cameron cycles, unlike backside wipes like McBean who talk bollocks about being Green then drive around in a massive gas guzzler.

God knows what the BBC will be like when we get to the next election if they think the "evil Torees" might win.
Martin | 21.03.08 - 6:40 pm | #

John Reith:
Jonah | 21.03.08 - 1:55 pm


Like many Brits my family’s first encounter with the phenomenon of terrorism took place in Palestine in the 1940s. You write:

When Muslims blow up people on trains and buses it is done not because the perpetrators happen to be Muslims, these acts of terror are done because they are Muslims.

True up to a point. But also it’s true that those who mounted terrorist atrocities in Palestine did so because they were Jews.

We did not conclude in the 40s that all Jews were terrorists because a few were. Why should we conclude that all (or most) Muslims are – as you seem to imply. Or perhaps more precisely – we did not conclude that terrorism was necessarily intrinsic to Judaism or Zionism. So why should we take the actions of a small number of the worlds Muslims as something completely permeating Islam?
John Reith | 21.03.08 - 6:49 pm | #

Galil:
But also it’s true that those who mounted terrorist atrocities in Palestine did so because they were Jews.

No, they did so because they were fighting the Brits for a variety of political reasons. They did not do so because somewhere in the Jewish scriptures it said that Jews should kill Brits. They did not commit terrorist acts because they were Jews.

We did not conclude in the 40s that all Jews were terrorists because a few were.

Quite, then even those few ceased to use terror tactics once they were taken seriously politically.

Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams ring any bells?

When will Muslims cease to carry out acts of terrorism? Under what circumstances?

Why should we conclude that all (or most) Muslims are – as you seem to imply. Or perhaps more precisely – we did not conclude that terrorism was necessarily intrinsic to Judaism or Zionism. So why should we take the actions of a small number of the worlds Muslims as something completely permeating Islam?

Please stop this ridiculous comparison between Islam and Judaism. As Bryan has pointed out you can count the number of Jewish terrorists on the fingers of one hand. See the link below and count the number of terror acts carried out in the name of Islam.

You know as well as anybody that Judaism does not promote terrorism while Islam does!

Why is there no Jewish equivalent of this website?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
Galil | 21.03.08 - 7:35 pm | #

Galil:
List of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 2 Months

In 2007 Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days.
Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10
countries during this time... while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize.
Galil | 21.03.08 - 7:42 pm | #

Jonah:
John Reith | 21.03.08 - 6:49 pm | #


Funny that. My family's first encounter with the phenomenon of terrorism took place in Jerusalem in the 1970s
It is interesting that you have some first hand experience of the area. But it also seems likely that yours has coloured your whole view of the conflict as perhaps mine has too.
Two family members went shopping in a market and were blown to pieces by an Arab terrorist bomb. But the point that I would make is that the Islamic faith has at its core a total intolerance of other religions and cultures, in fact of anything that is not Islam. Beyond that, the total hatred of the Jews is a fundamental part of Islam. It has no parallel in Jewish culture.

The Stern gang incident you refer to was at the time of the British Mandate when Holocaust survivors fleeing Europe were arriving at Haifa and were being beaten with rifle butts by British soldiers and forced back aboard ship to be returned to Europe.

I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists. There are clearly some Muslims who are intelligent, cultured and civilised people. There are also some who have the sense to put aside a faith which is deeply intolerant of anything other than Islam. What I am saying is that fundamental to that religion is a deeply entrenched hatred for the Jews which has no parallel in Judaism. It is this absolute intolerance and hatred which is perpetuated by indoctrination of the young and is at the core of Islam. This makes many British people rightly afraid of the growing presence and influence of Islam in this country.
Jonah | 21.03.08 - 7:48 pm | #

Bryan:
True up to a point. But also it’s true that those who mounted terrorist atrocities in Palestine did so because they were Jews.

John Reith | 21.03.08 - 6:49 pm.

Pure, biased crap from you, Reith. Unsurprising since you work for the BBC.

When are you going to stop your sly attempts at moral equivalence between Jews and Muslims?

http://www.haloscan.com/comments...6217268/ #390729

I suppose you are trying to tell us that you don't know that Islamic terror is aimed at establishing the Islamic Caliphate worldwide by infiltrating and subduing countries that pose no threat to Islam whereas Jewish guerrilla/terrorist actions in Palestine (e.g. the King David Hotel bombing) were aimed at thwarting the British attempts to stifle the birth of the state of Israel - which they were mandated to facilitate - by preventing Jewish immigration to Palestine from the ashes of the Holocaust and encouraging the Arabs to slaughter yet more Jews.

I am sorry that your family had an encounter with Jewish "terrorism" in Palestine. But that doesn't give you the right to lie and distort the historical record as well as current events.

As I have said before, if Arabs had blown up the King David, site of British military headquarters, the BBC would have praised them to the skies as bold freedom fighters.
Bryan | 21.03.08 - 8:00 pm | #

Cassandra:
John Reith wants you to believe that "the toady show did a series of investigative reports on grants made by Grasper etc".
Er, no John no! The toady show did a series of cover ups and justifications and dissembling of the truth.
The whole point of the 'reports' was to protect Livingslime and NuLabour and to attack Boris Johnson.
The toady show takes orders from NuLabour HQ and all the toady propagandists owe total loyalty to Gordon Brown and the NuLiebour elite.
when the toady jokers want to do a story they first clear it NuLabour and I truly think that they would be right at home working for julius streicher at Der Sturmer!
Cassandra | 21.03.08 - 8:19 pm | #

Sue:
Link from Mel P to an article in Investors Business Daily.

"When a poll reveals all but a fraction of Palestinians support the murder of eight innocent Jewish seminarians, it shows a people wedded to evil. It's a short trip from this hate to the kind Hitler espoused"

"The message we get from this is very clear: The vast majority of Palestinians advocate such acts of terrorism against young innocents because the victims were Jews.
Their version of the Final Solution may not entail gas chambers and concentration camps, as Germany's National Socialists did in the last century. But it does apparently include murdering, at random, Jews because they are Jews. Not to say that there was not a clear political purpose behind the choice of target. The Mercaz Harav yeshiva is considered the flagship of the religious Zionist movement, the roots of which date back to a century and a half ago."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/ IBD...290905719309261
Sue | 21.03.08 - 8:41 pm | #

joe bonanno:
Ben:
bodo, can you really not see why one would be slightly more important than the other?

-------------------------------------------------- ----

Prime Minister picks his nose, smears bogies on tie, eats the rest.

Leader of the opposition rides bicycle wrong way round bollard.


Dunno - I'm struggling to rank them in order of 'slightly more importance'. Is there anyone out there (who shills for a third-rate television/news channel) who can help me?
joe bonanno | 21.03.08 - 8:55 pm | #

John Reith spins in his grave:
Martin:
I see the BBC is going into overdrive over David Cameron and his cycling.

What a contrast with last weekend.

Biggest Tory poll lead in 25 years - nothing on the BBC website front page or the BBC TV news. Story - what story?

Tory leader jumps a red light - top link most of the day on the website plus separate front page feature all day - and all day rolling TV news coverage obviously. Biggest story since errr.... yes - Derek Conway!

Dave's cycling shame only interrupted occasionally to remind us that Conway is a crook - even though he can't be prosecuted.

Nothing this week about the league tables of MP's exorbitant expenses being totally dominated by Conwayesque Labour members of course:-

http://www.order-order.com/2008/...ows- labour.html
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 21.03.08 - 9:05 pm | #

Ben:
joe bonanno | 21.03.08 - 8:55 pm | #

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ ...ncameron121.xml

The Tory leader was photographed by the Daily Mirror, riding the wrong way up a one-way street, going the wrong way round a "Keep left" bollard, and crossing the white line at a red traffic light.

He was also seen riding across a toucan crossing for cyclists and pedestrians while the signal was red.

According to the paper, the incursions all occurred during Mr Cameron's 30-minute bike ride from his home in Notting Hill, west London, to the House of Commons.

The pictures are an embarrassment for the Conservative leader, who has made much of his enthusiasm for cycling to underscore his "green" credentials.

In a statement, he said: "I know it is important to obey traffic laws - but I have obviously made mistakes on this occasion and I am sorry."


Vs


Prime Minister picks his nose


Now, obviously not the biggest of news, but still struggling?
Ben | 21.03.08 - 9:08 pm | #

bodo:
Ben: Bike Vs Bogey, which is more important?

But it's not an 'either/or' problem is it?
Both stories are of public interest - they are about the personal standards of our leading politicians - but I'm sure people will disagree on which is more important.

The sensible thing would be for the BBC to report both. So why didn't they?
bodo | 21.03.08 - 9:21 pm | #

Ben:
bodo | 21.03.08 - 9:21 pm | #

You think Brown picking his nose is remotely newsworthy?

Incidentally, the Telegraph seem to agree with me in both cases. Guess they are biased against Cameron too.
Ben | 21.03.08 - 10:07 pm | #

John Reith spins in his grave:
Ben:
bodo | 21.03.08 - 9:21 pm | #

You think Brown picking his nose is remotely newsworthy?

Quite a lot of people do - apparently it was the most watched British political Youtube video of all time.

http://www.order-order.com/2008/...s-on- beach.html

Once more the appallingly gross tastes of the lower orders cause much wrinkling of refined beeboid noses.

I must be hell, having to make a living churning out drivel all day for such hoi polloi.

Never mind - won't be for long after the next election.
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 21.03.08 - 10:24 pm | #

Martin:
I see the BBC is spinning more lies. On the 10 pm news in regards to the Passport records being accessed in the USA of the presidential candidates, the BBC (Justin tosspot Webb) basically accused the Republicans of doing it.

The fact that John McCain's passport records were also accessed only "reduced" the suspicion.

Of course Webb produced no evidence for his claim. Not that that the lack of facts or evidence ever stops the good old Bum Bandit Corporation from telling a good lie.

Where does the BBC get such useless crap reporters from?
Martin | 21.03.08 - 11:17 pm | #

Mike:
A small victory perhaps…

The BBC reported Bush's speech on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion under the headline 'Bush speech hails Iraq "victory"'. Only trouble is he didn't say that at all. The headline is based on very selective editing of Bush's words, which also suggested that he 'claimed victory'.

I blogged on it here:
http://monkeytenniscentre.blogsp...ng- victory.html

Little Green Footballs picked it up and posted here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/...ng_Victory& only

The BBC has now changed the headline, although the misleading sentence remains in the report, and the 'Bush hails victory' headline is still on the video clips.

Of course the Beeb's commenters have already responded in typical fashion, with at least two calling for Bush and Blair to be hanged – and it's a 'fully moderated' thread!

I have a follow-up post here:
http://monkeytenniscentre.blogsp...ush- speech.html
Mike | Homepage | 22.03.08 - 12:09 am | #

David Vance:
Mike,

Good post, like it.
David Vance | Homepage | 22.03.08 - 12:51 am | #

Atlas shrugged:
John Reith spins in grave

Worry not about the BBC spinning faster then you ever could about Cameron's degree of cycling proficiency.

IMO this just won Cameron a few more thousand votes at least.

I do not for one second condone cyclists running red lights. IMO they should be made to hold 3rd party insurance and obtain a qualification to ride on London's roads.

However the silly death wish fools all brake the highway code all of the time. If Cameron did not also he would make himself look even more like a public school boy tof then he already clearly is.

There is simply nothing the BBC can do to save this government from the abyss now. They have repeatedly shot there many bolts already over the last 20 years at least. No one pays any attention to the BBC anymore with the possible exception of paid brainwashed propagandists like Polly Toynbee.

Floating voters have already floated. Now, even life time Labour supporters are leaving the sinking ship in there thousands every day. NEVER TO RETURN I hope, then turning to the Lib/Dems for comfort. While Lib/Dems are turning to the Conservative Party for salvation.

Cameron will win big time in my opinion. Which is the same opinion I had as soon as I heard Cameron's first big conference speech. He is not just clever he is a sublime politician, that could charm the birds from the trees.

The question is.

Can Cameron save this country from corporate fascism, or at least make life in Briton tolerable again for almost all, if he can not?

I will vote Tory as I have for in every election since and including 1979. Attended countless conferences and delivered thousands of leaflets. but I can not even start to answer my own question.

Because I truly do believe we have gone far too far down the road to a Marxist/Fascist totalitarian undemocratically accountable one world government hell and so only a bloody miracle can save us now.

If it helps my father used to say the same things back in the seventies. He died in 83 so did not live long enough to see the apparent miracle.

However the seeds of our destruction were still being sown during even the Thatcher years. As the miracle could only be sustained as long as socialism never took hold of the system again. Which one day it inevitably had to.

We now do not have controlled corporatism with a nice balance of free market capitalism and traditional conservatism thrown in.

We have almost in your face socialist fascism without yet the jack boots and concentration camps.
Atlas shrugged | 22.03.08 - 1:59 am | #

Disinterested Bystander:
Disinterested Bystander | 21.03.08 - 5:37 pm
Where are the BBC investigative journalists when you need them to look at Livingstone/Jasper.
The Today programme did do a series of investigative reports on grants made by Jasper etc. a few weeks back.
John Reith | 21.03.08 - 6:37 pm |

jr
You have me at a disadvantage here, but then again you knew that, me being 3 times further away from London than Moscow is.
Apart from BBC World I only see the website.
But you know very well the point I am making.
Be that as it may I'm prepared to forgive you for old time's sake.
The ghost of TPO is resurrected.
Disinterested Bystander | 22.03.08 - 2:52 am | #

David Preiser (USA):
So Stinchcombe is allowed to say twice that Iraq was a "Bush and Sharon" war, and Paxman leaves that unchallenged. And he wasn't talking about Sharon Osbourne.

No wonder so many Brits think the Jews call the shots if former Labour MPs can say things like this on Newsnight and the vaunted Paxman let's it slide.
David Preiser (USA) | 22.03.08 - 3:21 am | #

Atlas shrugged:
David Preiser

The BBC will let people say anything they want about who's war The Iraq war is, as long as it is not the real truth.

Could this be because the truth is that the Iraq war is for interests far closer to home then Israel or the USA?

Having said that you do a disservice to Jewish people by relating so automatically The State of Israel with Jewish people, when the two things are clearly not the same thing.

Please remember that not only do more Jews live outside Israel then in it. Most of the really important Zionist are not even Jewish. They are Roman Catholics other Christians, and people of distant Jewish decent. Like myself.
Atlas shrugged | 22.03.08 - 7:16 am | #

Anonymous:
The priest Michael Ainsworth and his wife Janina, who were attacked by "Asian youths" speaks out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...3/21/ do2102.xml
Anonymous | 22.03.08 - 9:45 am | #

Hillhunt:
Anon:

Michael Ainsworth and his wife Janina, who were attacked by "Asian youths" speaks out:

Time to visit Specsavers again. It's an entirely personal opinion by another clergyman, whose views are contrary to the published opinions of the Ainsworths. He doesn't even quote them...
Hillhunt | 22.03.08 - 10:26 am | #

Lemar:
Why has BBC been telling the story about the passports of the 3 USA candidates. what's so important about this, its so petty yet I have heard it on the news constantly.
Lemar | 22.03.08 - 10:46 am | #

George R:
Under BBC headline:

"Afghan Pop Idol winner declared"


there is this BBC euphemistic comment on presentday Afghanistan: ...

"criticism of the talent show is a reminder of how traditional and conservative the country remains..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...sia/ 7309029.stm


You mean this?:-

"Afghan Motoons/ Fitna protesters: 'Death to Denmark', 'death to the Netherlands', 'death to America', 'death to the Jews'"


http://www.jihadwatch.org/archiv...ives/ 020410.php
George R | 22.03.08 - 11:19 am | #

MartinW:
'Today' programme, 22 March -
Jim Naughtie yet again being 'economical with the truth. In the piece he introduced about Tibet, he said the Dalai Lama "lost control of the government [of Tibet] in 1959." He certainly well knows (as do these rest of us) that the Chinese government invaded the country that year and institgated a violent repression. The Dalai Lama did not "lose control of the government", he was forced to flee for his life. Jim Naughtie's extraordinary choice of words can only mean that he wants to visit China again as a BBC reporter, and wants to avoid any chances of being banned. This bit of shocking journalist sleight-of-hand looks like blatant self-interest to me.
MartinW | 22.03.08 - 12:19 pm | #

John Reith:
Bryan | 21.03.08 - 8:00 pm
Galil | 21.03.08 - 7:35 pm


When are you going to stop your sly attempts at moral equivalence between Jews and Muslims?

Don’t you think they are morally equivalent, Bryan?

I see. You think Jews are ‘morally superior’. Superior to Christians too, I suppose?


Just as Galil believes Muslims have a monopoly on terror.


Well, we don’t have to back to the King David Hotel bombing to find examples of terrorism where Jews were the perpetrators.


As we know, there have been a number of attacks on buses in Israel by Palestinian terrorists.

And there was this one in August 2005 by a Jewish terrorist against Israeli Arabs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/0...q=kahane& st=nyt

Morally equivalent? Absolutely.

Many of us are particularly revolted by terrorist attack on school buses and when otherwise deliberately directed at children.

In April 2002, Israeli police arrested a former Kach spokesman in connection with an attempt to leave an explosive-packed trailer outside a Palestinian girls school and hospital in East Jerusalem, but experts say the plot was arranged by individuals affiliated with another Jewish extremist group that is not affiliated with Kach or Kahane Chai.

http://www.cfr.org/

Morally equivalent? Yes.

I happen to believe that both Judaism and Islam are wrong about a lot of things and that their moral systems are both inadequate. I believe Christianity is the one wholly true religion and has the best moral system

But I do not think that that means the average - or any given - Christian will be a more moral person than a random Jew or a random Muslim.

Your stance on this Bryan is surely indistinguishable from plain old-fasioned racism?
John Reith | 22.03.08 - 12:22 pm | #

Mark56:
BBC being a bit quiet on this one.

"Meanwhile, a senior member of the DUP in Derry has questioned what the journalists were doing in Co Donegal. Gregory Campbell asked the BBC to explain their guidelines.

He said: “I would like to hear the BBC expand on that and say what it was exactly they [the journalists] were doing.

“They need to: A, explain what their guidelines are and B, explain the activities of the camera crew when gardaí took steps against them.” He added: “It’s all very well for them to say they have guidelines but the public need to know what these are.”

http://tiny.cc/OVoQH
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/north...and/ 7303436.stm
Mark56 | 22.03.08 - 1:13 pm | #

Anonymous:
I happen to believe that both Judaism and Islam are wrong about a lot of things and that their moral systems are both inadequate. I believe Christianity is the one wholly true religion and has the best moral system
John Reith | 22.03.08 - 12:22 pm |

Anat, Bryan and the rest. If you had any doubts about what hides behind superior condescending attitude BBC has towards Israel. I think this ends the discussion.

Any other BBC people care to comment on this?
Anonymous | 22.03.08 - 1:20 pm | #

Anonymous:
I happen to believe that both Judaism and Islam are wrong about a lot of things and that their moral systems are both inadequate. I believe Christianity is the one wholly true religion and has the best moral system
John Reith | 22.03.08 - 12:22 pm |

Also, JR you happen to work for an organization that bashes Christianity all the time, giving a free pass only to Islam.

I'm not religious in any shape and form. Agnostic if not and atheist, but you must admit that the BBC has double standards here.
Anonymous | 22.03.08 - 1:23 pm | #

Anonymous:
JR, all terror acts (against civilians) are reprehensible. Whether it is IRA, Kach, ETA, Hamas or Al-Qaeda.

However on a strictly strategic level, at this point in history, the sheer support of terror by many religious leaders in Islam and the tacit (e.g. Saudi) or open (e.g. Iran) support by many Islamic regimes is a global problem, as Western security services budget allocation to tracking Islamic extremism certainly indicates. Thousands of terror attacks occurred throughout the world in the past 20-30 years as a result of a combination of a radical nihilistic ideology with Islamic state sponsored propaganda and billions in oil revenues.

You, painting people as racist because they suggest this is less than honest.

However, like Anat I do agree with your definition of terrorism has to include the fact that civilians are targeted.
Targeting military is not terrorism.

BTW, by that definition alone your painting of King David's hotel bombing by Jewish terrorists is not terrorism - as it was a British Army HQ.

However, they were branded terrorists by mainstream Jewish movements in Palestine. Contrary to your opinion and personal grudge towards Jews in Palestine this is not an acceptable tactics for most Jews and it never was.
Anonymous | 22.03.08 - 1:35 pm | #

George R:
Is someone from the BBC saying here that Islam and Judaism is morally the same?!
George R | 22.03.08 - 1:54 pm | #

Bryan:
Bryan | 21.03.08 - 8:00 pm
Galil | 21.03.08 - 7:35 pm

When are you going to stop your sly attempts at moral equivalence between Jews and Muslims?

Don’t you think they are morally equivalent, Bryan?

Clarification time. I'm usually careful with words but I was posting in anger. I meant to say "no equivalence between Jews and Muslims when it comes to terror." Obviously there are normal, everyday Muslims around with no apparent links to terror. I have met quite a few since I live in Israel and work with them. Good, friendly people.

Now I see from your post that you really believe that there is an equivalence. So terror/guerrilla actions by Jews against the British who were doing everything they could to strangle the state of Israel at birth and facilitate the slaughter of Jews by Arabs is equivalent to the ongoing terror by Muslims worldwide against the people of countries that pose no threat to them in order to establish their Caliphate?

Some idea of morality you have, Reith. And again, you have to go back years to find a Jewish terrorist while there is probably yet another terrorist act committed by Muslims in their long and bloody trail of terror as I write this.

Your bitterness and one-sided attitude has disqualified you as a journalist unless you are able to divorce your bias from your work, which I seriously doubt. It's evident that the Bowens and Jim Muirs and Jon Leynes and countless others of the BBC hold similar attitudes of moral blindness when it comes to this conflict. So which BBC hack are you, Reith? Do tell, so we know whom we are dealing with the next time you inflict yourself on the public.

Old-fashioned racism? I suppose you mean "faith hate" since Muslims are not a race. No, I'll leave racism up to the "journalists" at the BBC.
Bryan | 22.03.08 - 1:57 pm | #

Bryan:
Good posts there anonymous.

In Reith's and the BBC's morally inverted universe the King David bombing, in which civilians were killed but which targeted the British military and was preceded by three warnings, is a terrorist attack on a par with Islamic terror attacks on civilians - after which Muslims dance in the streets in delight and hand out sweets to children.

Now we see that Reith regards himself as following a morally superior religion to Judaism. Strange that, coming from someone with such evident problems with his moral compass.

And I also wonder how Reith can reconcile being a Christian with working for an organisation that bows to Islam to the extent that it shrinks from naming Islamic terror.
Bryan | 22.03.08 - 2:11 pm | #

George R:
A clarification for the BBC on its 'moral equivalence':-


"Fitzgerald: Pseudo-symmetries and moral equivalences"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmi...ives/ 009586.php
George R | 22.03.08 - 2:14 pm | #

John Reith:
Anonymous | 22.03.08 - 1:35 pm

this is not an acceptable tactics for most Jews and it never was.

And I think you'll find that most Muslims would say that the tactics of Al Qaeda are not acceptable to them and never will be.

Those who are hell bent on establishing a Caliphate represent only a tiny proportion of the world's Muslims - just as Kahane Chai and its offshoots represent only a tiny minority of Israelis and a tinier minority of Diaspora Jews.

As for the King David bombing - I only mentioned that in passing to dismiss it from current consideration. What I did mention were rather more recent terrorist activities.

Since Bryan has glided insouciantly over these, I take it that he has no problem with the shooting-up of civilian buses, the bombing of girls' schools and considers Baruch Goldstein's Hebron massacre as entirely justified.

Yet he presumes to lecture me on moral relativism!

Bryan also clearly needs lessons in history:

guerrilla actions by Jews against the British who were doing everything they could to strangle the state of Israel at birth ...

Britain was not trying to strangle the State of Israel at birth.... in any case the King David bombing took place about 2 years before the State of Israel even existed.

He should also compare the Jewish population of Palestine in 1921 with the Jewish population of Palestine in 1947. Then check out the percentage of land owned by Jews in 1921 and compare it to that in 1947.

These figures don't support his newest attempt to justify plain murder - that the British had somehow failed to meet their mandate responsibilities in terms of facilitating Jewish immigration or the establishment of a Jewish national home.
John Reith | 22.03.08 - 3:04 pm | #

Bryan:
John Reith | 22.03.08 - 3:04 pm

You've been answered on the other thread while you are revealing the BBC's "pro-Israel" attitude on this one.

So which biased BBC hack are you Reith? Paul Adams, perhaps - the one who expressed his contempt for Israel in a cowardly fashion by maintaining that it's the attitude of UN personnel rather than his own? Or perhaps Alan Little - who came up with his Inside the Red Cross series wherin he couldn't resist portraying the Gaza Red Crescent as battling oppression by Israel? Or Alan Johnston, who, doing the bidding of his Hamas masters, hid the long post-biblical history of Jews in Gaza?

You are the one in serious need of a history lesson. You pick the facts from history that suit your prejudices and hide the others. So the girl's school was actually bombed was it? What a sly propagandist you are, Reith.

These figures don't support his newest attempt to justify plain murder - that the British had somehow failed to meet their mandate responsibilities in terms of facilitating Jewish immigration or the establishment of a Jewish national home.

No, not murder. Attacks on the British military. And you know very well that the British were doing everything they possibly could to prevent the establishment of Israel - from limiting Jewish immigration to a trickle, turning back ships with desperate Jewish refugees from Europe aboard and bolstering the Arabs. But you are too much of a hypocrite to admit it.

Actually Reith it's no wonder the BBC is in the state it's in with people like you aboard.
Bryan | 22.03.08 - 3:54 pm | #

George R:
What kind of an insidious, deviously-worded sentence is this from one John Reith?: -


"I think you'll find that most Muslims WOULD SAY that the TACTICS of Al Qaeda are not acceptable to them and never will be." (Caps. added.)


1.)Where, in actuality, are the global demonstrations by Muslims who supposedly WOULD SAY, but don't say, in numbers how anti-Islamic Al Qaeda is? The murderer, Bin Laden is popular in Islam. Instead, The Umma gets up a sweat about Western cartoons more than it does Al Qaeda' mass murders.

2.)And Mr. Reith is only putting up for questioning the 'TACTICS' of Al Qaeda. Deviously, he doesn't suggest that the Umma should publicly oppose the IMMORALITY of Al Qaeda's ISLAMIC JIHAD. This raises the issue of the extremism in Islam:


"What does 'tiny minority of extremists' mean?" (Hugh Fitzgerald).





http://www.newenglishreview.org/...fm/blog_id/ 2143
George R | 22.03.08 - 3:59 pm | #

Alan:
And I think you'll find that most Muslims would say that the tactics of Al Qaeda are not acceptable to them and never will be.
John Reith | 22.03.08 - 3:04 pm |

JR, Are you really that thick. It is not about Muslims (which are not a race) as individuals. Just like it is not about Jews as individuals.

It is about a radical ideology spread by the Saudis, Iranians and others propped by oil revenues. Call it Islamism. Just like Communism was in the last century. And it is a danger to global stability and security.

Just for a second try to see through a red haze. I'll try to point to you once and for all the fallacy of your "racism" battle cries against people on this board:

Take for example Adam Godahn, who originally Jewish, converted to Islam under the guidance of some very radical Imams and joined Al-Qaeda.
The fact that he was born ethnically Jewish and might have even been religious is irrelevant, until he was radicalized by various Imams.

In the 50's and 60's of the last century he might have turned into a Communist (as many did).

Islamism and Communism are ideologies.
Only that Islamism is based in Islam, while Communism, like Fascism was not based in religion (later was based in ethnicity).

Nazi's were German ethno-Fascist. Who were you fighting in WW2? You were fighting Nazi's, but you were also fighting Germans and you had to firebomb them into submission.
Was this anti-German. Of course it was! Large swaths of German population were under the spell of the National Socialist religion.

Today, you don't need to fight Kachane Jewish terrorism, because in the state of Israel it is a recognized terrorist organization and more people are allocated (per capita) to tracking it than to Hamas. There is an entire division of Shin Bet that deals only with Jewish terror organizations.
Just like Scotland Yard is tracking various Marxist or fascist nuts in Britain.

On the other side, radical imams are spread throughout the world, and receive training (tacit or open) from various Islamic regimes. Saudis are actively funding, training, building mosques and providing literature to radicalize people.

Much like the Soviets in the 50's, Saudis and Iranians, are spreading their ideology, through rhetoric, training (brain-washing), weapons (Hezbollah), finances (radical mosques are popping up at a much higher rate than any other houses of worship of minorities). They also view "demographic bomb" as a weapon (much like the Irish did against Britain).

As I said some of their ideology is spread to converts to Islam (like Adam Godhan), but regular Muslims are easier to reach.

Just in case you didn't know, in the Balkans, Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims were predominantly Sufi. Throughout the 80's Saudis financed building of 2500 mosques (originally there were 80).
People don't want to see this, but events in the 80's facilitated Milosevic's rise to power on an ethno-fascist platform to protect the Serbs.

Today a lot of Bosnian Muslims are Wahabi. And some of the recent terror cells captured in Europe were from Bosnia. Kosovar Albanians were plotting to blow up an Army base in the US last year - the same US that saved them from the Serbs and granted them asylum.

To sum this up:
Just like German ethnicity was a conduit for the rise of Nazism, so is Islam a conduit for the rise of Islamism.

I think most people in the west understand that Islam is just a conduit for a radical ideology.
But Left's fallacy in the story is the same one they made with the Communism. Throughout the Cold War Left was trying to create a moral equivalence between the West and the Communist world (which killed during the same period 200 million people).

With radical Islam, the Left, in order to create moral equivalence is trying to frame it as a religious conflict and not as a conflict of ideologies.
It is the Western liberal democracy against the radical (Islamist) ideology (that subdues women, kills their own by tens of thousands, etc)

Furthermore, to create moral equivalence, you JR, like most of the Left need to denigrate Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism to the point of equivalence not to Islam, but to radical Islam.
Thus you go through history and dig various atrocities that other religions committed, as if it is all relevant as to why there was 9/11 or 7/7 or Bali, or Mumbai, ...
Alan | 22.03.08 - 4:01 pm | #

Martin:
I see BBC News 24 have had that awful Caroline Hawley (Ms Sneer) reporting from some supermarket harassing customers all day.

If the frigging bitch came up to me and asked about carrier bags I think I'd just tell her to F**k off and mind your own business.

Haven't the BBC got any proper news to report on?
Martin | 22.03.08 - 5:39 pm | #

Atlas shrugged:
Alan

Agree with most of what you state, because it is mostly factual and based on common sense.

However let me make some points that may clarify your thinking.

Communism and fascism may seem to be not religiously based, but in reality they where both run or controlled by highly religious maniacs. Just not a religion you would easily relate to, or understand, and certainly would not like very much, if you did, I hope.

Also please remember that nothing of any real consequence in this world happens with out years of careful planning and literally tons of finance. Very often in the past, in the form of GOLD reserves.

Ask yourself why, after decades of fighting a so called Cold War after only 10 or so years the world is now involved in a slightly warmer one in the middle east again?

Islamism as you rightly say is financed and promoted in SAUDI-ARABIA. Not some silly cave in the middle of nowhere, by some kind of crazy rich boy with a grudge.

Just because the BBC is always telling lies hiding the truth when not propagating nonsensical equivalence.

Does not mean that people that seem to oppose the BBC are right either. IMO they are both as wrong as hell and some of them know it.

When reading history two things usually hits you between the eyes. One is that the reasons given for things happening at the time where hardly ever what the real reason turned out to be later. Far from being just bad luck or bad circumstances or plain inevitable events. They often turn out to be vast conspiracies planned and executed at the highest levels of financial, political and religious power. Ultimately for reasons which we as school children were indoctrinated to believe were worth it. Because it created the British Empire which was on the whole a reasonably good thing.

(I make no judgment whether it was ultimately a good thing. Because I like you can not imagine a world without the British Empire. The world could indeed be a far worse place. Who could possibly KNOW for sure?)

If you think about it. How could things like big wars happen and Empires be created and survive for long, it they where not?

Because ordinary human beings ie The Cannon Fodder, have little to gain from WARS of any kind. But always end up losing even when their own respective Ruling class tells them they have won.

The Cold War being a case in point.

Since the end of the old USSR. We in the west have lost almost as much liberty money and freedom then we did during the whole of the second world war put together.

AND FOR WHAT may I ask?

If just a few buses blowing up in London every 5-10 years, causing the amount of deaths equal to an average motorway pile up, is only the price to pay. Then surly that is a cheap price indeed, for not being involved in an endless and endlessly expensive world conflict. Where the amount spent could save the lives of thousands of British and literally millions of third world people.

Against a perceived enemy, we cant possibly beat, if what we have been told is true. That is they really do hate us that much they mostly all would gladly commit suicide just in order to destroy our free way of life. What ever that is these days ie draconian smoking bans not present anywhere in the Muslim world as yet.

If Muslims where really our problem. Then why does our government deliberately let more and more of them into the country. Then tell us we need ID cards to help save our own lives?

However as you correctly say it is not Muslims it is Islamism that is our enemy. But if you try hard to work out who is really promoting Islamism. Then you might be closer to knowing who the real enemies of a peaceful harmonious prosperous freedom loving world are.

Here is a clue.

The BBC helps as much as it can to promote Islamism not just here but around the entire Muslim world. As you know I am sure.

Now why do you think they might want, or more importantly be allowed by the British and worlds establishment, to do that?

There are two conclusions, you must come to.

The BBC, which is the most expensive, influential and largest TV and Radio corporation on the planet, has been COMPLETELY taken over by suicidal left wing 6th form British born school children and Islamic spies.

OR...........
Atlas shrugged | 22.03.08 - 6:55 pm | #

NotaSheep:
From the BBC website comes an article about factional fighting within the Palestinian Ain al-Hilwe refugee camp in Southern Lebanon. The combatants are Jund al-Sham and Fatah, here's the bit that caught my eye:

"Formed in 2002, Jund al-Sham - literally the Army of Greater Syria - is a radical splinter group. Its name refers to the area covering the modern states of Syria and Lebanon and the Palestinian territories - which the group says form one Muslim land."

Hold on, can you think of another Country that might be in that area that Jund al-Sham could also want to form part of "one Muslim land"? Have the BBC forgotten about Israel or are they still trying to convince us that the Islamists only want Israel to retreat back to its 1967 borders?
NotaSheep | Homepage | 22.03.08 - 7:19 pm | #

Galil:
And I think you'll find that most Muslims would say that the tactics of Al Qaeda are not acceptable to them and never will be.
John Reith | 22.03.08 - 3:04 pm |

We were talking about Israel/Palestine, Jews/Muslims, so let's concentrate on that:

Poll Shows Most Palestinians Favor Violence Over Talks
RAMALLAH, West Bank — A new poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians support the attack this month on a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem that killed eight young men, most of them teenagers, an indication of the alarming level of Israeli-Palestinian tension in recent weeks.

The survey also shows unprecedented support for the shooting of rockets on Israeli towns from the Gaza Strip and for the end of the peace negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli leaders.

The pollster, Khalil Shikaki, said he was shocked because the survey, taken last week, showed greater support for violence than any other he had conducted over the past 15 years in the Palestinian areas. Never before, he said, had a majority favored an end to negotiations or the shooting of rockets at Israel.

...

Mr. Shikaki’s poll also showed that the militant Islamist group Hamas, which Israel and the United States have been trying to isolate, is gaining popularity in the West Bank while its American-backed rival, the more secular Fatah, is losing ground. Asked for whom they would vote for president, 46 percent chose Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, the current president, while 47 percent chose Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas.

Three months ago, Mr. Abbas was ahead 56 percent to 37 percent. After Hamas forces pushed Fatah forces out of Gaza last summer, Mr. Shikaki’s polls showed the Palestinian public to be disillusioned with Hamas, and in the subsequent months many argued that Mr. Abbas, with the support of Washington and Israel, had an opportunity to win public support by easing living conditions and advancing in negotiations. That has not happened.

According to the poll, of 1,270 Palestinians in face-to-face interviews, 84 percent supported the March 6 attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, one of Israel’s most prominent centers of religious Zionism and ideological wellspring of the settler movement in the West Bank. Mr. Shikaki said that result was the single highest support for an act of violence in his 15 years of polling here. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

On negotiations between Ehud Olmert, prime minister of Israel, and Mr. Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, 75 percent said they were without benefit and should be terminated. Regarding the thousands of rockets that have been launched on Israeli towns like Sderot and Ashkelon, 64 percent support it.

Shikaki's findings
Galil | 22.03.08 - 9:05 pm | #

Galil:
Further to the above:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/ IBD...290905719309261
The message we get from this is very clear: The vast majority of Palestinians advocate such acts of terrorism against young innocents because the victims were Jews. Their version of the Final Solution may not entail gas chambers and concentration camps, as Germany's National Socialists did in the last century. But it does apparently include murdering, at random, Jews because they are Jews. Not to say that there was not a clear political purpose behind the choice of target. The Mercaz Harav yeshiva is considered the flagship of the religious Zionist movement, the roots of which date back to a century and a half ago. Religious Zionism holds that Jews have an inalienable and permanent right to the land of Israel because God bestowed the Holy Land upon the ancient Israelites… The Shikaki poll shows that nearly an entire people support the murder of innocent kids because they're religious Jews. The civilized nations once fought a world war to prevent the global dominance of that kind of hate.

Via: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melan...e-jews- 11.thtml
Galil | 22.03.08 - 9:12 pm | #

Bryan:
I don't think the World Service will be blaring the findings of this poll out for half a day on the hour and half hour on its newscasts as it did with the far left Israeli one that found most Israeli Jews were racist against Israeli Arabs.

And it is not in the Middle East section of the website.

After all, the BBC would never interfere with the Palestinians' natural expressions of resistance. That's hallowed ground to the BBC.
Bryan | 22.03.08 - 9:39 pm | #

DB:
It emerged today that the employee who accessed the passport details of both Obama and McCain had worked for a company run by an adviser to Obama’s campaign. This fact has been known for hours and yet, as of writing, still hasn't been added to the BBC's online account of the story. Could the same have been said if the company had been run by an adviser to the McCain campaign? Emphatically not. No way. Not in a million years, not in this universe. It is quite simply inconceivable that the BBC would have chosen not to update the article if there was the chance of pushing a VRWC angle, however tenuous. (FWIW I don't think there's a conspiracy of any kind but I repeat - if the Republican party could've been implicated the BBC would've rushed to do so.)
DB | 22.03.08 - 10:38 pm | #

Sue:
Galil | 22.03.08 - 9:12 pm

Sue | 21.03.08 - 8:41 pm
I linked to that yesterday. Do keep up chaps.

John Rieith has excelled himself today. Easter must have gone to his head.

"I happen to believe that both Judaism and Islam are wrong about a lot of things and that their moral systems are both inadequate."

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering, these wrong things about both Judaism and Islam, are they:

a)The same amount of things?
b) The same degree of wrong?

Also,

"I believe Christianity is the one wholly true religion and has the best moral system"

Well, I can't say I was surprised at that. But I do think ....

"I see. You think Jews are ‘morally superior’. Superior to Christians too, I suppose?"

.... is a bit - oooh er missus. a bit Carry On. A bit Frankie Howerd. Perish the thought.!! Stone the Crows! Stone the Infidels!! Righteous indignation!!!

Just out of curiosity I was wondering, exactly what is superior about Christianity?
Is it Pomposity? Piety? Pomp and circumstance? Is that where the superiority lies?

Christianity isn't a stranger to a bit of violence itself though, is it? So it can't be that.

The Forgiveness thing? Christians generously forgave the Jews for killing Christ. If a tad begrudgingly. Is that it?
(perhaps J.R. personally may be lagging behind in this respect. )


The Love thy neighbour thing? His esteem for Islam is a good start, but what about all the rest of us? He doesn't seem to love us. I suppose if he hangs about a bit Muslims WILL wholly constitute 'thy neighbour' and the discrepancy will self-resolve. Time will tell. Is it that?

The superiority thing? That must be it. Is superiority itself the Christian moral system?
Someone help me, I'm secular. As Frank Gardner once didn't say.
Sue | 22.03.08 - 10:48 pm | #

Bryan:
Sue, thanks for the laugh.

Reith is definitely not a turn the other cheek kind of Christian. He is venomous and vitriolic, superior and condescending and yet tolerant of the anti-Christian mockery and submission to Islam of his very own beloved BBC.

As a Christian he's a very strange case indeed.
Bryan | 22.03.08 - 11:03 pm | #

simon:
John Reith | 22.03.08 - 3:04 pm

John Reith,

If the British had wanted, hundreds of thousands to millions of Jews could have been saved from the Holocaust. They decided, instead, to block Jewish immigration to Palestine, when the rest of the world was doing very little to accommodate the possibility of a huge influx of Jews fleeing a mass-murdering killing machine.

And re: this comment by Reith: "Since Bryan has glided insouciantly over these, I take it that he has no problem with the shooting-up of civilian buses, the bombing of girls' schools and considers Baruch Goldstein's Hebron massacre as entirely justified.

Yet he presumes to lecture me on moral relativism!"

You simply prove a previous point eloquently made on this post earlier--that you can name those attacks on ONE HAND. The number of terrorist attacks in which Israeli civilians were deliberately targeted for murder by Palestinians is orders of magnitude greater in number.

Moreover, those attacks by fanatic Jews, every single one that you mentioned, were nearly universally condemned by Israelis of all stripes, as well as by government officials, as vile acts of terror. Sharon referred to the bus shooting in the Galilee as an act of terror. And these pronouncements were not just made for political expediency. It is deeply ingrained in Israeli and Jewish culture that deliberate attacks on civilians are repugnant and morally indefensible. On the other hand, massacres of Israeli civilians were often celebrated by not insignificant numbers of Palestinians. How can you possibly compare a recent poll by Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki that 84% of Palestinians approve the cold-blooded murder of children at a religious seminary (yes, 15 year olds are children, just as 17 year olds firing AK-47's at Israeli soldiers are counted as "children" by human rights groups), with the fact that equally heinous attacks on Palestinian civilians were roundly condemned by probably 99% of Israeli society?
simon | 22.03.08 - 11:32 pm | #

John Reith:
Sue | 22.03.08 - 10:48 pm



I was careful to include this qualification in my comment on the superiority thing:

I do not think that that means the average - or any given - Christian will be a more moral person than a random Jew or a random Muslim.

You, I note, were careful to exclude it in order to misrepresent my position.

Are you and Bryan related?
John Reith | 23.03.08 - 12:05 am | #

simon:
John Reith--

Sorry, you have given up all right to make any kind of defense against charges of bias at the BBC--moreover, if you are employed there as a journalist, you ought to be fired for this: "I happen to believe that both Judaism and Islam are wrong about a lot of things and that their moral systems are both inadequate. I believe Christianity is the one wholly true religion and has the best moral system."

Did I really hear you correctly? You believe Christianity is the "one wholly true religious and has the best moral system"? Excuse me?

Your answer to folks who claim Islam is "inferior" is to claim the Christianity is "superior"? Are you kidding me?

And rather than recognize that both Judaism and Christianity have gone through enormous reformation in the last five hundred years while Islam has not undergone similar accomodations to modernity and modern political thinking, and rather than chalking up Islamist-based terrorism to a culture of hardline interpretation of an Islam that has never had the chance to benefit from a reformation similar to Christianity and Judaism, you simply lump modern "Judaism", a religion in which 80% of the adherents are proponents of Reform or Conservative variety, in with the same brand of Islam that inspires that jihadi culture?

You probably also believe that the only claim Jews have, and offer, for their right to live as a sovereign people in Israel is there "claim" that "God promised it to them", as opposed to the fact that they have a historical, cultural, linguistic, spiritual, emotional connection to that land that spans 3000 years and is as valid a rationale without invoking "God" in the least.

Your attitude reminds one of the kind of early 20th century, patrician Protestant bigot mindset at best, the sort that gave all sorts of high-minded rationales for why there should be quotas at Ivy league schools to keep Jewish numbers to a minimum. Those "Hebrews", they're of "morally questionable character." Do some reading on it, Reith, you'll see when you claim "Judaism is morally inadequate" that you're in pretty unseemly company.

Thanks for exposing who you are and what you believe in. We'll keep it in mind next time you try to defend the BBC's attempts at "not making judgments."
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:06 am | #

John Reith:
simon | 22.03.08 - 11:32 pm


those attacks by fanatic Jews, every single one that you mentioned, were nearly universally condemned by Israelis of all stripes, as well as by government officials, as vile acts of terror.


yeah right. And the 7/7 bombing was condemned by the MCB.........
John Reith | 23.03.08 - 12:09 am | #

John Reith:
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:06 am |


Do keep your hair on. Naturally, if one chooses to be a Christian, one believes the Christian faith to be the true one and the one closest to the ideal.

It would be very odd to remain a Christian while conceding that, say, the Zoroastrians were really right.

Unless of course you think of religion as merely a 'historical, cultural, linguistic, ...emotional' thing. Which
is just another, religion-friendly, way of being secular.
John Reith | 23.03.08 - 12:20 am | #

simon:
simon | 22.03.08 - 11:32 pm

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but let's say you are--then you are implying that Israelis and Jews overwhelmingly supported those attacks against Arab civilians, and their condemnation was simply a kind of lip service for international consumption. In that case, you are either deliberately spreading an outright calumny, in which case you are evil, or you are simply unbelievably ignorant about Jewish and Israeli culture. There is a miniscule minority of vile extremists who would have supported an act as evil as that of Baruch Goldstein. To everyone else in the Jewish and Israeli world, the act brought utter revulsion. I know, because rabbis on synagogue pulpits around the world and Jewish newspapers worldwide universally condemned that attack. To suggest otherwise is simply grotesque and about as wickedly false a claim as one can make.

If you are not being sarcastic--and are saying that the MCB denouncing 7/7 somehow shows that Muslim organizations equally denounce acts of terror, the comparison is not a propos. Go find Muslim denunciation, en masse, of terror attacks against Israeli civilians, and I will grant you the comparison.
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:21 am | #

will:
Has it been noted that the BBC omit Pelosi's party affiliation throughout the report on China/Tibet? Odd, or just the kind of thing that can be left out?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...fic/ 7308169.stm
will | 23.03.08 - 12:21 am | #

John Reith:
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:21 am


Let's just take the most recent attack on the Yeshiva in Jerusalem.



Mr Abbas condemned the attack in a statement saying he "condemns all attacks that target civilians, whether they are Palestinian or Israeli".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/ 7282269.stm
John Reith | 23.03.08 - 12:25 am | #

simon:
John Reith | 23.03.08 - 12:20 am |

John,

Unfortunately, Jews have suffered more than any other group for their religion in the last 20 centuries under Christian rule, under the operating assumption that their “religion” was “less moral” than that of the prevalent religion in which they lived. The suffering was perhaps not as horrible, but still real and substantial, under Muslim rule. You can try to separate “religion” from “peoplehood” and cast the debate as one of “personal beliefs” all you want, but the fact of the matter is that your attitude is commensurate with one that cost the Jewish people endless suffering.

As to your claim that Christianity is the more moral religion, here’s a question for you: What’s more moral, to claim that one must believe in your religion or else face eternal damnation, or to state that those who don’t follow your religion (and commit to its attendant burdens) can still achieve eternal salvation as long as they observe seven simple rules, including no murdering, no theft, establishing courts of justice, and so forth?
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:32 am | #

simon:
John Reith said:
"Mr Abbas condemned the attack in a statement saying he "condemns all attacks that target civilians, whether they are Palestinian or Israeli".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/ 7282269.stm
John Reith | 23.03.08 - 12:25 am "

That's why I noted that the Israeli commentators who condemned attacks on Arab civilians did not do so out of political expediency, but rather out of genuine revulsion.

Now perhaps Mr. Abbas was genuinely sickened by the attack. The fact remains that, according to the AP and other news reports, THOUSANDS of Palestinians celebrated the attacks in the streets of Gaza. Excuse me if I say that it would be a cold day in hell before thousands of Israelis would celebrate Baruch Goldstein's heinous act in the streets.
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:35 am | #

simon:
John R.
Moreover, newspapers throughout the Arab world praised the Yeshiva attack, so much so that it was a shock to find a lone act of dissent, an editorial in the Kuwaiti paper Al-Watan, which condemned the attack in no uncertain terms. ( http://www.jpost.com/servlet/ Sat...d=1205162820639 )

You would never find the majority, if any, Israeli or Jewish newspapers condoning an attack such as Goldstein's.
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:39 am | #

John Reith:
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:32 am


Judaism has contributed enormously to Christian understanding of morality (and continues to do so). However, that moral understanding, Christians believe, can only reach perfection through the teaching, example and Incarnation of Christ.

As for your false dichotomy - I do believe that individuals can achieve eternal salvation without being a member of any particular Church.

You are now trying to do to Christianity what you do to Islam - to represent it only in terms of its most literalist or fundamentalist spokesmen.

Which brings us back to where we began - that to regard Muslims as if they were all Jihadis is as daft as regarding Jews as if they were all Kahane Chai.
John Reith | 23.03.08 - 12:43 am | #

simon:
John R.

We're talking about the rule here, not the exceptions. Unfortunately, Abbas' statement, and his sentiment, is the exception, and may likely be given for political expediency, to maintain his relationship with the U.S., which is keeping his regime propped up with regular infusions of cash. He may very well personally be revolted by the attacks, but certainly can't afford NOT to condemn them

Among Israelis and Jews, revulsion at similar attacks against innocent Arab civilians is the rule. It is nearly universal. To suggest otherwise is to dissemble greatly.
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:46 am | #

simon:
"Which brings us back to where we began - that to regard Muslims as if they were all Jihadis is as daft as regarding Jews as if they were all Kahane Chai.
John Reith | 23.03.08 - 12:43 am "

I joined in this debate late.

I no more regard Muslims as if they were all jihadis as I would regard Christians as if they were all members of the Christian Aryan Nation.

So I obviously agree with you on that.

I was simply responding to the absurdly hypocritical argument you made that it is unfair to state that Islam is morally inferior to Judaism while at the same time claiming that Christianity is morally superior to both.

And that to even frame the debate in those terms is highly naive, and does not remotely take into account the deep political complexities involved, some of which I elaborated on in an earlier post.
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:52 am | #

simon:
"As for your false dichotomy - I do believe that individuals can achieve eternal salvation without being a member of any particular Church.

You are now trying to do to Christianity what you do to Islam - to represent it only in terms of its most literalist or fundamentalist spokesmen."

Actually, the achievement of salvation through following the seven Noahide laws in Judaism IS the fundamentalist position. So even in the most fundamentalist position in Judaism it is possible for non-Jews to achieve salvation. Can't say the same about Christianity, unfortunately.

No judgment here. Just pointing out a fact.
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:56 am | #

John Reith:
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:46 am


That doesn't square with my experience of Israeli visitors to this blog.

The general rule is to deny or seek to justify any atrocities if they are perpetrated by Israelis or Jewish militants during the Mandate.

Even Today Bryan and others have sought to justify the bombing of the King David Hotel and the assassination of Lord Moyne, while remaining studiedly silent about the murder of Count Bernadotte. On another thread they seek to justify the planting of bombs in Arab cafes and market places and the exploding of truck bombs in civilian housing projects by the Lehi and the Irgun.

Even you peddle the lie that the British failed to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestine in line with its Mandate obligations. In fact, the Jewish population increased from
60,000 to 500,000 during the period of the Mandate. In percentage terms- from 2% to 33%.
John Reith | 23.03.08 - 1:01 am | #

John Reith:
simon | 23.03.08 - 12:52 am


I was simply responding to the absurdly hypocritical argument you made that it is unfair to state that Islam is morally inferior to Judaism while at the same time claiming that Christianity is morally superior to both.

But I never made any such argument.

What I did challenge was Bryan’s (later withdrawn) suggestion that Jews were morally superior to Muslims, which I hope you agree is rather different from denying that Islamic moral teaching has anything to learn from Judaism.

Anyway, I won't wish you a happy Easter but I do wish you good health and a long life.
John Reith | 23.03.08 - 1:09 am | #

simon:
I heard no one justify atrocities committed during the Mandate. I simply read an argument that there is no moral equivalence between walking into a pizza parlour filled with innocent civilians strapped with a bomb and phoning in several warnings to a military outpost to clear the area because there is a bomb planted there.

Moreover, the perpetrators of "militant" assaults, such as the assassinations you refer to, during the Mandate were cast to the fringes by the mainstream Hagannah and Ben Gurion, their ship filled with weapons, the Altelena, was sunk by the mainstream authorities, and their modus operandi were widely reviled and denounced by mainstream pre-State leaders. It's a question of what the mainstream believed and how they acted, versus the extremists.

On the other hand, 84% of Palestinians approved of the machine gun attack of religious children in a prayer hall recently.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you wouldn't wish me a happy Easter, but I'll wish you one.
simon | 23.03.08 - 1:35 am | #

simon:
Regarding your assertion in defense of British behavior with respect to Jewish immigration during the mandate, I offer you this article. If you read it in full, I submit you will be hard-pressed to argue that the British acted in a morally upright manner, especially during the war.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary....ry/ mandate.html

Here's a sample: "The gates of Palestine remained closed for the duration of the war, stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, many of whom became victims of Hitler’s Final Solution. After the war, the British refused to allow the survivors of the Nazi nightmare to find sanctuary in Palestine. On June 6, 1946, President Truman urged the British government to relieve the suffering of the Jews confined to displaced persons camps in Europe by immediately accepting 100,000 Jewish immigrants. Britain's Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, replied sarcastically that the United States wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine “because they did not want too many of them in New York.”1
simon | 23.03.08 - 1:55 am | #

FTM:
And I think you'll find that most Muslims would say that the tactics of Al Qaeda are not acceptable to them and never will be.
John Reith | 22.03.08 - 3:04 pm |

"almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year's 7/7 attacks on London were justified"

NOP Research, broadcast by Channel 4-TV on August 7, 2006

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/ 2...in1893879.shtml
FTM | 23.03.08 - 2:32 am | #

smallheathen:
Surely, tonight's "John Reith" is a troll?

I cannot believe that someone who so emphatically espouses "BBC-Think" can morph so rapidly into an evangelical.

Must be a wind-up.
smallheathen | 23.03.08 - 3:36 am | #

Bryan:
Since Bryan has glided insouciantly over these, I take it that he has no problem with the shooting-up of civilian buses, the bombing of girls' schools and considers Baruch Goldstein's Hebron massacre as entirely justified.
John Reith | 22.03.08 - 3:04 pm

Fascinating to see the workings of a BBC propagandist close up. Note how the cunning Reith mentions the bombing of the girls’ school in the same breath as other attacks as if it actually was carried out. I tend to avoid bold type, but I'll make an exception here: There was no bombing by Israelis of a Palestinian girls’ school. None. Not ever. On the other hand, since Reith is fond of going way back with his magnifying glass to find Israeli terror attacks on Palestinians, he might like to look at this page to see how Palestinians treat Israeli schoolchildren:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/ pf...orism_1970s.php

But of course, one doesn’t need to concentrate on the seventies to uncover Arab terror attacks on Jewish children. The murder of Jewish women and children has been a constant terror strategy of the Arabs since the 1920s up until the present.

It is also particularly reprehensible of Reith to elevate a planned attack on a Palestinian school to fact in the aftermath of the terror attack on the Jerusalem Yeshiva earlier this month in which eight youngsters were gunned down.

simon | 23.03.08 - 12:21 am

Let's just take the most recent attack on the Yeshiva in Jerusalem.

Mr Abbas condemned the attack in a statement saying he "condemns all attacks that target civilians, whether they are Palestinian or Israeli".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/ 7282269.stm
John Reith | 23.03.08 - 12:25 am

Reith, in the unlikely event that you really want to know what is going on in this conflict, don’t access BBC reports. Abbas has in fact elevated the terrorist to the status of a martyr. You’ll find that all over the Internet. Haven’t you found out yet that Abbas has a forked tongue? I guess your own hypocrisy prevents you from recognising it in others.

By the way, when are you going to post the links I asked for to back up your list of Jewish terror attacks on civilians in the 1940s?

http://www.haloscan.com/comments...7707083/ #390884

I suppose you got it from a neo-Nazi site and you don’t want that revealed here. Wouldn’t that be a laugh.
Bryan | 23.03.08 - 6:49 am | #

Bryan:
Must be a wind-up.
smallheathen | 23.03.08 - 3:36 am

Nope, it's Reith alright. Spreading the Gospel.
Bryan | 23.03.08 - 7:28 am | #

deegee:
Nothing new in the JPost article BBC admits inaccuracies in coverage. However the talkback is interesting.

Can't be the most pleasant thing to be a BBC correspondent in Israel - something like being a white South African in the era of Apartheid.
deegee | 23.03.08 - 9:13 am | #

Robin:
The Mail on Sunday carries extensive claims this morning that former BBC World Service Trust executive Kari Blackburn, who committed suicide last year by walking into the sea, was driven to her death by a culture of bullying among her senior managers. The BBC, of course, has denied the claims, citing an internal investigation that found no substance in any of what was alleged.

Whatever the case, Ms Blackburn's sad demise underlines that only the BBC (or its so-called 'independent' Trustees)ever normally examine the conduct of its staff, and that in 99 cases out of hundred, the corporation is exonerated on all counts.

I knew Kari quite well and find it astonishing that a woman so ebullient, enthusiastic and committed to her family should have killed herself in this way.

I have also worked with the WST and found it to be fat, complacent, unimaginative and immersed in the government gravy train of so-called 'aid' to developing countries.

A coroner will rule on the causes of Ms Blackburn's death in eight weeks. In the meantime, any evidence that supports Kari's husband in his search for the truth - and justice - would be gratefully received.
Robin | 23.03.08 - 10:31 am | #

George R:
"Livingstone inspirational says PM"




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/ 7307961.stm

From this BBC headline, 20 March 2008, the article then includes: "The two Labour politicians" (Livingstone
and Brown) "who have had widely reported differences in the past..."



Perhaps the BBC piece is implicitly referring to this previously voiced condemnation of Livingstone by Brown, recalled here by Matthew Ancona, under the headline:-

'Gordon Brown is scared of losing London'-

"On January 19 2000, Gordon Brown wrote a passionate article in the London Evening Standard, headlined 'LIVINGSTONE MUST NOT BE LONDON MAYOR' (caps. added). It was an openly personal attack upon Ken..."




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...3/23/ do2311.xml
George R | 23.03.08 - 11:47 am | #

Galil:
Nothing new in the JPost article BBC admits inaccuracies in coverage. However the talkback is interesting.

deegee | 23.03.08 - 9:13 am

Actually the misquoting of the UN chief was new to me, although I submitted this complaint a month ago and still haven't received a response:

Your report concerning "Iran [is] urging the UN Security Council to stop Israel threatening military action against its nuclear programme." Is not balanced by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's comments regarding Iran's comments regarding Israel, which the BBC has completely ignored.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Sat...ticle% 2FPrinter "Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman met with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on Wednesday to express "outrage" over recent statements by Iranian officials calling for the destruction of Israel. Ban agreed to meet on very short notice and said such statements were "unacceptable and unforgivable," according to Gillerman, who also stressed the need for a "quick and strong" resolution to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions. In the hour-long conversation, Gillerman said it was "outrageous for a member state to use racist, Nazi-like statements against another member state." In yet another verbal attack against Israel Wednesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Jewish state a "filthy bacteria" whose sole purpose was to oppress the other nations of the region. "The world powers established this filthy bacteria, the Zionist regime, which is lashing out at the nations in the region like a wild beast," the Iranian president told supporters at a rally in southern Iran. Referring to last week's assassination of Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh, the Iranian leader said that Israel "uses terror as a threat every day, and afterwards is happy and joyful." Ahmadinejad's remarks followed similar statements last week by Gen. Muhammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, who wrote in a letter to Hizbullah head Hassan Nasrallah that he was convinced "that Hizbullah's might is increasing with every passing day, and that in the near future, we will witness the disappearance of this cancerous growth called Israel." Following a letter sent Tuesday to the president of the Security Council by the Israeli Mission to protest threats by the Iranian officials against another member state, Gillerman asked to meet with the UN chief to personally express his outrage. Gillerman also used the opportunity to express "grave concern" about the situation in southern Lebanon, where there is a continued flow of arms to Hizbullah, and over the fact that kidnapped soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev are still being held without any sign of life. Additionally, Gillerman discussed the incessant rocket attacks on Sderot and the "fear and plight of the people." Several rockets fell in the area on Wednesday, but caused no casualties or damage. While Ban expressed concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza, Gillerman said a distinction had to be made between a country defending itself and Palestinian attacks on civilians. "

As far as I can see it's just one more of example of the BBC's unbalanced and indeed biased reporting against Israel.

Website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/ 7256915.stm

Galil | 23.03.08 - 12:01 pm | #

backwoodsman:
Good spot, whoever it was mentioned the Toady progs decision to label the Chineese invasion of Tibet as 'the Dalai Lama losing control of the government.' It registered with me as well. The bbc really are manipulative c**nts aren't they.
Some of you are still getting dragged into arguing semantics with beeboid trolls over the Israeli issue. Point out the bias and move on, don't respond, its clearly what they want.
backwoodsman | 23.03.08 - 12:20 pm | #

Galil:
I happen to believe that both Judaism and Islam are wrong about a lot of things and that their moral systems are both inadequate. I believe Christianity is the one wholly true religion and has the best moral system

John Reith | 22.03.08 - 12:22 pm

Judaism has contributed enormously to Christian understanding of morality (and continues to do so). However, that moral understanding, Christians believe, can only reach perfection through the teaching, example and Incarnation of Christ.

John Reith | 23.03.08 - 12:43 am

Reith has obviously been to Easter Friday Mass and come away feeling good about the new version, same as the original.

http://www.spiegel.de/ internatio...,542872,00.html
"Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord."

Thanks for all the fish, John!
Galil | 23.03.08 - 1:46 pm | #

Galil:
By the way, Ann Coulter expressed the same views as Reith:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=i1SrC0ErdH4

.
Galil | 23.03.08 - 1:53 pm | #

George R:
In all the reports like this one, from the BBC:

"Drug-resistant TB case confirmed"

no connection is made with the Labour Government's policy of mass immigration, and its contribution to huge increases in social costs of many kinds, including health costs. (This case invovles a person from Somalia.)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...est/ 7308364.stm
George R | 23.03.08 - 2:14 pm | #

Sue:
John Reith:
Sue | 22.03.08 - 10:48 pm

“I was careful to include this qualification in my comment on the superiority thing:

I do not think that that means the average - or any given - Christian will be a more moral person than a random Jew or a random Muslim. “

Does that mean some are superior, some are more superior than others, others are mother superior, some are just average, and some are random.

“You, I note, were careful to exclude it in order to misrepresent my position.”


Shake it up Baby. Twist and Shout!
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
John Reith | 23.03.08 - 12:05 am
“Are you and Bryan related?”

I already told you about Bryan and myself, not that it’s any of your business.

“Bryan,” I said, “what shall we call the baby?
John?........John Reith?”

“No.” he said, firmly.
“We’re calling him Abandon Ship!”


please address letters of congratulation to:
‘The Lobby’
Cabal Street,
Zionist Entity.
Sue | 23.03.08 - 6:04 pm | #

Sue:
Hillhunt | 23.03.08 - 11:03 am
“the vileness of all Muslims, do-or-die support for Israel.”


See, I knew you hadn’t been listening.

Vileness of all Muslims is quite, quite different from vileness at the core of Islam, a religion which demands whole/lifestyle commitment from ‘good’ Muslims

You may know zillions of ‘good’ Muslims, probably the ones who work at the Beeb and write for the Guardian. But they can only be good in one sense.

1. Good person/’bad’ Muslim,
or
2. ‘Good’ Muslim/ ‘bad’ person. (or ‘mad’ person.)

Even John Reith said something that amounted to admitting that he categorised them that way.


Do-or-die support for Israel.
The irony of that remark. If you don’t see it I can’t help you.
Sue | 23.03.08 - 6:11 pm | #

Sue:
Hillhunt: Hillhunt | 23.03.08 - 11:03 am
“Alex:

None of this is rational. It's emotional. “

You and Alex can sit there nodding sagely at our irrational emotional outbursts.
You can dismiss Melanie P. as ‘Mad Mel’ and sneer at what she says, and you can shake your heads knowingly to each other at our irrationality when we express our fears. You can ignore all the evidence that points to a threat you refuse to recognise. You can bend over backwards to do all these things. You can bury your heads in the sand. In synch. You can go to Specsavers but they can’t fix this kind of shortsightedness. Ask for your money back.

Carry on up Pompeii backwards with your earplugs in and your blinkers attached. In a basket.

“B-BBC currently shrieks its visceral opposition to the BBC as if that alone were proof.”

Same to you in reverse with brass knobs on. Being condescending isn’t enough to make you right and us wrong.
Sue | 23.03.08 - 6:15 pm | #

Hillhunt:
Sue, Sue, Sue:

you can shake your heads knowingly to each other at our irrationality when we express our fears. You can ignore all the evidence that points to a threat you refuse to recognise.

That's not what I was saying at all. Here is something I wrote:

(The BBC is) always going to face the fury of those who live in (sometimes understandable) fear of one group or another and those who long ago took sides in intractable disputes.

I recognise the reality of your fears and the reasons for them. I just don't understand why that has to translate into a cosntant demand for the BBC to use language it, for rational reasons, chooses not to use.

It was a point on semantics; not a wholesale dismissal of ther people's anxieties. I wouldn't presume to patronise you; I recognise brains when I see them, which isn't often around here.

If, for the sake of argument, the BBC decided to name every assault by a Muslim on a non-combattant as terrorism-this or terrorism-that, would it make one iota of difference to the global threat which you feel Jewish people face? Would it affect the quality of news if the BBC went around labelling everything the way a slice of its audience wanted it to?

Mel is mad. And bad. Her coverage of the Ainsworth assault shows very well just how nasty her brand of hackery is.
.
Hillhunt | 23.03.08 - 6:45 pm | #

joe bonanno:
Brian Matthew on Radio 2's Sounds of the 60s saturday a.m said something like...'Ted Nugent, who espouses what some believe are offensive Republican views'.

That old code 'some believe' for 'we at the BBC believe'.

Any BBC trolls on here care to recall for us any occasion where the phrase 'offensive Democrat views' has been used by a BBC presenter.

Because, you know, 'some believe that there can be such a thing as 'offensive Democrat views' such perhaps as 'we should raise taxes' 'or we should leave genocidal dictators in place'.
joe bonanno | 23.03.08 - 6:59 pm | #

Galil:
And I think you'll find that most Muslims would say that the tactics of Al Qaeda are not acceptable to them and never will be.
John Reith | 22.03.08 - 3:04 pm |

More proof that it is not true:
http://www.israellycool.com/2008...remist-muslims/
Galil | 23.03.08 - 8:10 pm | #

DB:
"The US plans to urge Britain to launch a "surge" in Basra to combat increasing violence in the southern Iraqi region, the Sunday Mirror newspaper reported."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/ 2008...nusiraqmilitary

Get ready for the next report from Hugh Sykes saying what a terrible idea this is.
DB | 23.03.08 - 8:24 pm | #

Disinterested Bystander:
Sue | 23.03.08 - 6:15 pm |

I doubt if any of the apologists for Islam who post here have ever lived or worked in an Islamic country.
Disinterested Bystander | 23.03.08 - 8:54 pm | #

Susan:
I note that the Torygraph and the Times have both covered the high-profile conversion of the former Muslim Egyptian-Italian journalist Magdi Allam to Catholicism and his baptism by the Pope on Easter Eve. I searched for the story on Al-Beeb and could not find it. Has al-Beeb covered the story? If it had been a prominent Christian conversion to Islam of course, Al-Beeb would have trumpeted it on the front page of their website, and then left a link to the story for months on end.
Susan | 23.03.08 - 9:59 pm | #

WoAD:
In the Netherlands they are trying their best to ban a film about the Koran called "Fitna". Apparently the film will quote the Koran and juxtapose these quotes with happenings from around the world.

It is clear: Quoting from the Koran is so offensive it must be banned. Which tells you all you need to know about the Koran and old Uncle Mo'.
WoAD | Homepage | 23.03.08 - 11:15 pm | #

Anonymous:
Bad publicity for the BBC's World Service Trust (patron Glenys Kinnock)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ pages...in_page_id=1770
Anonymous | 24.03.08 - 12:54 am | #

archduke:
i just note that bbc news 24 refuses to make ANY mention of the following story that emerged from the Popes easter cermonies today:


"Pope Blessing For Muslim Convert"
http://www.breitbart.com/article...& show_article=1
http://www.drudgereport.com/

hmm.. i wonder why they avoided it?
archduke | 24.03.08 - 2:39 am | #

archduke:
additional note: i have watched the bbc news 24 reports this evening ,and there were reports from the vatican .

but no mention WHATSOEVER of the baptism for a muslim convert to catholicism.

and he's not just any muslim..

"Italy's most prominent Muslim, an iconoclastic writer who condemned Islamic extremism and defended Israel, converted to Catholicism Saturday in a baptism by the pope at a Vatican Easter service."

the equivalent would be Ed Hussain, who wrote "the islamist", to convert to the Church of England , and to be baptised into it by the archbishop of canterbury no less.

(ok - thats HIGHLY unlikely, considering the archbishops dhimmi status, but that is the nearest non-catholic equivalent i can think of)
archduke | 24.03.08 - 2:45 am | #

archduke:
sidenote: i am not inferring that ed hussain will convert. i merely give that as an equivalent example.
archduke | 24