BBC Condemns Lists Shown to Terrorist Suspects

It must be real tough being a muslim in Britain. Maybe as tough or even tougher then being a Christian in Pakistan, Bangaladesh or some other muslim country.

Best thing to do for all muslims who feel the humiliation, is to get back to dar ul islam. In exchange, we will gladly have the persecuted Christians.

One of the most significant points of this story, to me is the by line.

By the BBC News social affairs correspondent (sounds nice and harmless, non controversial, not quite as trivial as the Royal garden parties perhaps, but his/her field is Ministerial visits to oil refineries and such like)
Barnie (sounds very old fashioned, should be spelt with a y of course, sort of bloke your Dad played football with) Choudhury
Ah, all is made clear. Suddenly the whole article falls into place, comes into focus. It's the Dawa in public schools above, only writ large. Because this is my national broadcaster.
The BBC. 60 years ago Europeans risked their lives to hear their broadcasts on hidden radios. Not no more.

I met Ghalem Belhadj at his solicitor's office in Glasgow. A big man, over 6ft, dressed in Islamic shalwar-kameez, and beard. There is no doubt he is a Muslim. And he says, with no irony in his voice, that means he must be a terrorist.
***************************

Yes, exactly... It's not OUR fault that 99.9% of terrorist acts are committed by or on behalf of muslims. It's not our fault that your 'religion' is wrestling in a pile of sh*t, its not our fault that your people are being scrutinized because of the actions of your beloved brethren.... And for you to ask US to come and save your cult from destruction is simply insane.

You reap what you sow. Enjoy the fruits of your jihad. "WE WILL NEVER FORGET"

The BBC effectively has an Islamic agenda and when it dances to the Islamic tune it also marginalises true racism by focussing on the boy-who-cries-wolf phantom of Islamophobia.

They are wilfully becoming Useful Idiots for the benefit of the Jihadis of Britain.

"The BBC effectively has an Islamic agenda..."

Not so much the BBC, but a number of powerful people at the BBC. The BBC World Service is run by John Simpson (whom google, along with "jihadwatch"), deeply anti-American and anti-Israeli, who in turn reports to the Foreign Office, for the World Service is under its control.

Another factor is that the kind of semi-educated young, without any particular skills or training, who are picked up by the BBC. Like hires like. Someone who appeared to believe that Islam exhibited many of the features of Fascism, or who thought, for example, that the cost of Muslim migrants in the Western world or the U.K. was simply too high for the indigenous Infidels to continue to pay, would not be hired by the B.B.C. today or, if hired, promoted. Someone who was seen to read The Telegraph, and not The Guardian or The Independent, someone who did not think that the American government was necessarily entirely of the devil's party, someone who seemed to think that Western civilization might actually exist, and be worth protecting, is unlikely to be hired by the B.B.C. today. It is not only a question of high policies. It is a question of personnel. In this respect the B.B.C. is only a more extreme case of NPR, or for that matter of most academic departments of literature and history.

Think of the mental makeup of America's Bright Young Things. Think of their proud parents, describing those 2-3 month "internships" by which well-off and well-connected young people, go for a few months in Moscow (battered women), or Cambodia (teenage prostitutes), or Darfur (black refugees). They may know not a word of the relevant local language (so just imagine what that means), they arrive to "help" for a few months, and then just as quickly depart (while the real workers stay on and on), and these 2-3-4 month stints presumably give them an "insight" into things and, though they would not recognize it, prove valuable to them, in helping swell their resume and hence their future job prospects, just as the enterprise of colonialism permitted those middle-class British or French or Belgians who went out to the colonies to live lives that, materially, were an improvement on what they would enjoy at home.

The old colonialist has been replaced by the NGO careerist. The propagandist for Empire has been replaced by the propagandist (on the BBC) for Arab imperialism. It has been the most successful and most damaging imperialism in world history. For the Arabs used Islam, a faith concocted to justify and promote Arab conquest, as a vehicle for Arab supremacist ideology. Those conquered by Islam, and forcibly converted (for the need to escape the onerous conditions of dhimmitude certainly constitutes "force"), did not merely convert. They surrendered their own histories, their own pre-Islamic pasts. They assumed Arab names, and false Arab lineages. They took as the models of behavior some Arabs of the 7th century -- the sole models of behavior. It has been an extraordinary phenomenon. No European imperialists came close to such an achievement, whereby those conquered remained unaware of the extent to which their minds and histories had been appropriated -- and permanently.

I agree with Hugh in that I've discussed international issues with these on-the-spot Young Things, and inevitably there is a sense of all-knowingness from them because their parents made the investment of buying them a return plane ticket to somewhere exotic. When I ask them to explain how that gives them better insight into something than I, who have researched it, all I get is a shrug of the shoulders and a smug smile. And: "Well you really have to experience these things." When pressed, that devolves into how they 'saw' how things were.

Meaningless dribble, ultimately.

Geoff

Hugh:

How does your theory about Simpson and the Beeb fit in with Orla Guerin receiving an MBE?

I check out Melanie Phillips's website almost daily and what she has to say about anti-Semitism in the UK's media and academic corps these days is stomach-turning.

"How does your theory about Simpson and the Been..."

I present no "theory" about Simpson. He is what he is, deeply anti-Israel, so deeply that it must emerge from that pathological condition which all civilized people have gotten use to detecting.

I will now introduce into evidenceSimpson's review of the absurd book by his good friend Peter Hounam. Hounam has been doing what damage he could to the state of Israel for the past 30 years, perhaps most effectively in his encouraging the quasi-demented Mordechai Vanunu in his own revelations; indeed, when last heard from, Hounam had been arrested in Israel for more of the same. Hounam wrote a book about the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, which the Israelis always maintained was an accident, with considerable evidence, and their version of events was completely vindicated not only by the book-length investigation of an American judge, but by the tapes of the pilots' conversations, finally released by the American government a year or two ago.

Nonetheless, it is one of the favorite topics of American and other antisemites. James Akins likes the topic; so do the Saudis and all of their hirelings. And John Simpson and Peter Hounam are fond of it. Hounam even wrote a book, "The Cyanide Conspiracy," which charges that the attack was deliberate, that it was crchestrated from within the American government by pro-Zionist agents, and that it was designed to be a casus belli between America and Egypt. All nonsense, but not for John Simpson.

Here is his review:

OPERATION CYANIDE: Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War
III, by Peter Hounam, Vision, a division of Satin Publications, Ltd, London,
2003, $24.95

Since it reviewed A. Jay Cristol's book, THE LIBERTY INCIDENT, in August 2003,
MILITARY HISTORY was bombarded with letters, including some from outraged
survivors, insisting that the Israeli attack on their ship on June 8, 1967,
was not in error, but deliberate (see letters, P. 8), and demanding that the
guilty party confess to the crime. Absent from all such accusations, however,
was a substantial explanation of motive: What would make it worth Israel's
while to attack a ship -- even a spy ship -- being operated by one of its
few supporters in the world?

In OPERATION CYANIDE, Peter Hounam, an investigative reporter for the
SUNDAY TIMES and the British Broadcasting System with 30 years' experience,
presents the results of his research into the question of "who really dunnit,"
which evolved into more of what he called a "why dunnit." Hounam structures
his book accordingly, as the reader follows him from interview to interview,
gathering clues like a detective from testimonies that tend to be scattered,
fragmentary, guarded and sometimes almost cryptic. As Hounam "connects the
dots," however, the scenario that emerges is fantastic and yet, in view of
the United States' rush to war with Iraq in 2003, not entirely implausible.
In essence, President Lyndon B. Johnson and some key officials, seeing the
increasingly Soviet-leaning Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser as a
threat, made secret arrangements to help Israel in its coming June offensive
with the intention of toppling Nasser. As part of Operation Cyanide, USS
LIBERTY was sent to operate off the Sinai coast, where it was to be sunk
with all hands by unmarked Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats, after which
the United States would blame the attack on Egypt and launch carrier air
strikes against Cairo -- with nuclear weapons if necessary. The stubborn
refusal of LIBERTY'S crew to die or let their ship sink after 75 minutes
of air and sea attack -- in spite of two American carrier sorties to aid
her being inexplicably called back -- led to the cancellation of Operation
Cyanide, Israel's apology and offer of restitution for a "tragic mistake,"
the Johnson Administration's swift acceptance of that explanation and an
equally quick, reassuring "hot line" telephone call to Soviet premier
Alexei Kosygin.

The first book to seriously examine the possible reason behind the
attack on USS LIBERTY, OPERATION CYANIDE presents fragmentary evidence to
support an extraordinary theory. If, however, the emergence of further
evidence proves its premise to be true, one cannot help but wonder if
their being set up for destruction by the government they swore to serve,
in the interests of starting a nuclear war based on a lie, is the sort of
truth that LIBERTY'S bitter survivors were hoping for.

Jon Guttman

================================================================================

BOOK REVIEW OF "OPERATION CYANIDE"
By John Simpson
BBC World Affairs Editor

This is an extraordinary story, one of the most extraordinary, perhaps, of
the entire twentieth century. Suppose, in an attempt to shore up his
critically damaged presidency, Lyndon Johnson deliberately engineered an
event in which American lives were sacrificed and the United States was
brought disturbingly close to an all-out nuclear war with Russia? Suppose
this involved a secret agreement between Israel and American intelligence,
which resulted in an Israeli attack on an American naval vessel, in the
latter stages of the Six-Day War?

It sounds, I know, like one of those depressing conspiracy theories which
cluster round every big controversial event from the death of Princess
Diana to the attack on the World Trade Centre. People often have problems
in handling the banality of truth, and prefer to imagine deeper, darker
plots beneath the surface. Yet this book is based on careful, rigorous
investigation by a well-known and respected journalist who has metic-
ulously tracked down the people and the documents who have survived from
the event itself: the attack on the USS Liberty, in the eastern Mediter-
ranean in June 1967.

As with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, four years earlier,
the official version is even more unlikely than some of the conspiracy
theories. In order to believe the hasty, often contradictory account
which came out of Washington, you would have to accept all sorts of
virtual impossibilities: that Israeli planes and torpedo boats could have
mistaken a modern American warship of ten thousand tons for an elderly
Egyptian horse transport less than a quarter of its size, come to within
fifty feet of it without spotting that it was flying a particularly large
American flag, and blazed away at it from close range for forty minutes
before realizing what it was they were shooting at. A hasty American
enquiry immediately afterwards called it 'a bona fide mistake.' That
seems, to say the least, a little implausible.

Yet this is the official version, which stands to this day. Any other
version -- that of the Liberty's surviving crew members, for instance --
has been extremely hard to establish because of the intensity of the
security blanket which the Israelis and Americans wrapped around the
entire incident.

The blanket remains in place to this day, yet this book provides
sufficient evidence for any open-minded person to see that something
else lies underneath: something very disturbing.

I have found Peter Hounam's research compelling, and the story which
unfolds in these pages rivetting. It is time a little daylight was
shed on Operation Cyanide. This book does precisely that, and we
should be grateful for it.


John Simpson
Paris
October 2002

Do you still think that it is a "theory" about John Simpson, the man who conveys the Foreign Office line, along with a considerable anti-Israel animus, deeply felt, passionately believed, of his own, to everyone (not that everyone needs encouragement -- Judy Swallow doesn't, nor do a good many others on the BBC World Service) at the BBC World Service.

As for the detestable Orla Guerin (married, I think, to a "Palestinian" Arab), she has no business being awarded anything, and has no business being kept on in a job where she can mouth her venomous views, paid for by the hapless license-fee payers of Great Britain, not all of whom can possibly enjoy enduring the requirement that they pay the salary for someone who is as much part of the enemy camp, as Lord Haw-Haw or Tokyo Rose.

Note, please, that were this understood as the kind of war it is, a man like John Simpson would be treated as were Nazi sympathizers during World War II. He would long ago have lost his job, and at the very least be under surveillance. That he helps to mold minds all over the world, at the direction of the Foreign Office, and that he continues to keep a real sense of what Islam is all about from listeners everywhere (even as he endorses, and even accepts and repeats, the most absurd anti-Israel canards, like that of Peter Hounam), gives one pause.

If there is any conspiracy, it is one involving rich and powerful Arab interests, who have bought and paid their way into the chanceries, and the minds, of Western leaders everywhere. Sometimes the bribery is clearcut, as with Chirac. Sometimes it comes indirectly, through the promise of business deals (chiefly armaments sales and oil concessions to the oil companies of sufficiently-compliant nations).

Does John Simpson have friends and acquaintances in high places? How could he not? He is in a very high place himself. Is he friendly with Alistair Crooke? With James Akins? With Patrick Seale? Does he get along well with Edward Mortimer, Chief Speechwriter to Kofi Annan, himself the enthusiastic endorser of a book by Lennie Brenner about how Zionists collaborated with Nazis -- as vicious a book as can be imagined, but one that was a positive boon to our Edward (quasi-plantagenet) Mortimer when he went looking for work at the U.N. and, having just come off a stint of Euro-Arab Dialoguish stuff, was the right rat for the right office at the right U.N.

Hugh

The BBC has many Muslim producers and decision makers. The recent hagiographical farce called An Islamic History of Europe was produced by a Muslim BBC employee. The BBC has given itself the task of raising British-Muslim self-esteem. I dont ever see 'Hindu History Week' or 'Sikh History Week' or 'Jewish History Week' on BBC2, but that is the kind of Dawah nonsense that comes out on television these days. The whole organisation is terrified of doing anything that upsets the Muslim Council of Britain and other shrill outfits. Re-name it DBC for Dhimmi Broadcasting Corporation.

Good god, the Islamic History of Europe was repeated last night on BBC 4.

I heard Raggah Omah say "They even reached and contributed as far as Paris"... I thought to myself, Thank God they didn't 'contribute' to the history of Britain.

Of all the stupid things I have seen or read in terms of abject dhimmitude in the last few years, The Islamic History of Europe takes the biscuit. It was atrocious. And the pathetic desperation and hagiography showed how the Muslim mindset actually is one incapable of subtlety or generosity. To interpret the normal osmosis of culture and civilisation that takes place between peoples as in some way signifying a great lost civilisation of superior nature and genius that was somehow snuffed out or marginalised by the wicked and intolerant West displays an narcissistic and arrogant conception of history that imagines Islam as the true centre of everything. This just adds to the self-delusion and idiocy of the Islamic world.

Do Muslims have any idea how they leeched knowledge and culture from Persians, Hindus, Christians and Jews? To even mention it is to be a Zionist, dont you know, Islam is the true root of all light and brilliance.

And how much of my licence fee did it cost for the Scud Stud to keep jetting between Granada, Paris and Sicily, as if he were following a hot trail of current events? Even had the bias not been blatantly wrong the presentation was shallow and uninspiring.

More scholarship. Less gadding.

Michael Wood may have been pbuhing like crazy last month to get access to Arabian sites while searching for the Queen of Sheba, but the final program was informative and factual. The Bible says so, the Koran says such, and here is the archaeology.

And I think it is significant that Malta is always left out of this Golden Age of Islamic culture myth.

I was watching D-Day to Berlin last night. At least that seemed to be up to the old standard.

Hugh-

Don't forget that England also overlooked the likes of Kim Philby, and barely punished the real atom spy Klaus Fuchs (while the U.S. executed the Rosenbergs, who were somewhat smaller hammer and sickle fish).

There has always been an anti-Churchillian traitor-admiring "cock a snoot" streak in the Brits that almost negates their great valor at times.

Some are so transfixed by their petty class warring that they fall prey to being used by the larger interests at work in the world. Whether flirting with communism or Islam.

The BBC- and similar outlets- seem to embody a lot of Julien Benda's classic thesis of the 'treason of the clerks'- where those who should know their culture best, being exceptionally 'well-educated' by it (and whom you would think should uphold it most doggedly) end up smarmily selling it out.

For ego? Or petty spite? Or smug contrarianism?

Whatever their political (or psychological) rationale, the West suffers while they prance through sophistries and give the big, bad "hyper-power" its 'come-uppance'.

As trusting and unwary as Danny Pearl.

(Although I would trade a hundred of their heads for one of his.)

Naive as he was, he was on the right trail.

But the 'Beeb' types knows only faux populism and specialize in kicking their own tame-toward-them watchdog.

Criticizing Islam is a little more if-fy.

I dont have the link to this article, but a while back Rod Liddle, former producer of the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, wrote a comment piece for The Sunday Times in which he said specifically that there is a culture in the BBC that will not brook or allow any criticism of Islam, that will not turn a critical eye on Islam or Islamic history, and that sees it as its specific duty to act as a propagandist for Islam, to counteract 'Islamophobia' and negative connotations of the religion, to counteract 'false impressions' of the religion.

I have yet to meet a Hindu or Sikh or Jew who feels their religion needs this kind of moronic boosterism. Why?

As I said before, it should be know today as the DBC, the Dhimmi Broadcasting Corporation. They broadcast blatant Dawah for the religion.