A (mostly) brilliant piece on the MCB's moral double standard from Rod Liddle in The Spectator, with thanks to all who sent this in:
Sometimes things are altogether more simple than we wish them to be. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the eminent chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain, recently refused to attend the Holocaust memorial day. When asked why this was so, he muttered something about how lots of people had been killed all over the place, not least the poor Palestinians and why shouldn’t we remember them, etc., etc. In the liberal press, extravagant excuses were made for Sacranie and his ludicrous chef de cabinet, Inayat Bunglawala. But I suspect that the simple answer, the one we didn’t want to hear, is the most accurate: Sacranie and Mr Bunglawala don’t like Jews. They are both unequivocal anti-Semites. You do not refuse to grieve for one bunch of people because another, much smaller, bunch of people have been murdered as well. Nor should you automatically equate Jews with the right-wing Zionism of Ariel Sharon: that would be like equating all black Zimbabweans with Robert Mugabe.
Come on, Rod. I love you, but Sharon = Mugabe? We could only begin to consider this if Mugabe gives back all the land he has seized from whites in Zimbabwe...I'm not holding my breath.
It’s a racist thesis, isn’t it? Those people who are opposed to Israel’s policies are usually at pains to point out that they are not being anti-Semitic, merely anti-Zionist. It is not the Jews to whom we are opposed, they say — it’s the Zionists. In which case you’d expect them to be happy to spend two minutes in silence commemorating those six million Jews, those non-Israeli citizens by definition, murdered by the Nazis. But Sacranie and Bunglawala wouldn’t even cross the road to attend such a memorial. It wasn’t because there are altogether too many of these sorts of commemoration these days, to the extent that they have become almost meaningless. It was because the commemoration was for the Jews; ergo, in my book, they’re anti-Semitic. They’re Jew-haters. I thought as much at the time and think it even more so now. Sacranie is in a bit of a bait right now because the BBC Panorama team has just completed a programme looking at this false dichotomy I’ve been banging on about for the last couple of years: the New Labour notion that there is moderate Islam, represented by the likes of the Muslim Council of Britain (which speaks for, we are told, some 50 per cent of British Muslims, although by what democratic mechanism we can’t be sure) and the rogue ‘handful’ of extremists who want the rest of us dead; and the idea that Islam, as a religion, had nothing to do with those bombings on 7 July. The journalist responsible is John Ware — a first-rate investigative reporter if ever there was one, but I’m not sure how far his powers of investigation were stretched digging into the background of the Muslim Council of Britain. There’s plenty of stuff on the record which even journalists as hopeless as, say, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown or even Martin Kettle could find, if they cared to look. As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, Sacranie once said that death was ‘too easy’ for Salman Rushdie; Bunglawala meanwhile has called the creation of Israel a ‘terrible mistake’.
Read it all.
Speaking of the MCB, Sacranie, Bunglawala and the rest of the Taqqiya merchants, a new blog that keeps a watchful eye on all the above
MCB Watch
http://mcbwatch.blogspot.com/
DP:
FYI,
MCB Watch has been linked from Jihad Watch for several weeks.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Robert S
Thanks for the info. So much to read that one misses the small print occasionally.
So SIR Sacranie thinks death is "TOO GOOD" for Rushdie.
What an utter swine.
Hey Saccy - I support Rushdie completely. What are you going to do to me?
Punk.
Geoff
Robert
A new blog -'The Truth project'
http://www.thetruthproject.blogspot.com/
And in this new site first up for reading matter is is this
For Starters:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
(and the Crusades)
Author: Robert Spencer
Format: Paperback
ISBN: 0895260131
Publish Date: 2005
Publisher: Regnery Publishing
Blair in the U.K., like Bush, have not accepted that islam is a danger to our civilization; not radical islamists, but islam itself.
Is there no embarrassment at knighting an asshole like sacranie ? Guess they thought they'd spotted a moderate asshole, the acceptable face of our enemy.
Ultimately, as little as our leaders want to accept it, islam, as an ideology that is organized to destroy our civilizition, is our enemy; thus, so are moslems, whether we like it or not. I don't like it, but accept that it is the truth.
Sometimes i wonder why my country allows people to enter whose avowed religious duty is to kill me and my family. When the Brit government honours such people with knighhoods, or the american prez invites them to white house dinners, i wonder where there might be safety on this planet, away, far away, from muslims.
Let me live with Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Pagans and atheists; any and all i feel safe with, anyone but sacranie's muslims.
I've been a Spectator fan for years now. The Spectator and The Telegraph have been leading the way in telling the truth about Islam. The Guardian (a left-wing paper) has been apologising for Islam and appeasing it.
The Spectator and The Telegraph are regarded as right wing, but ironically they are standing up for progressive ideas against the onslaught of a 7th century reactionary death cult.
Typo in title ?
bbc instead of mbc ?
Or was it put that way because of the bbc's love of islam ?
Has anyone ever traced the start of the bbc's conversion to islam ? (was it just so they wouldn't have to work for a living?)
Was it when they realised that Christian values would not sustain them ,but the islamic attitude that they show to those who will not fund them would?
If you don't get what I mean just look at any of their tv licence "evader" stories they give to the local press .
Example here : http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/print/news/5035182.shtml
They claim things like
"The evaders bring shame on their towns" because they don't follow the "one true media group(?)" that is the bbc !
I wonder which other group thinks like that ?
As for the tv licence (bbc tax) which all must pay
Is that not dissimilar to the islamic taxes paid by those non muslems in islamic countries ?
Hey Geoff!!!!
Have you calmed down yet!!!
Enjoying the summer?
Geoff;
"punk"
once again, you have incisively reduced it to it's crystalline essence. well done. Unfortunately you have roused the slumbering troll from contemplating his navel. a shame, that.
TruBrit:
could you fill me in on this policy of tv-licensing and "evasion". reading the link didn't help as the article was written for people who knew what he was talking about. is there some sort of mandatory jizya due al-BBC to support it, and you can't receive signals unless you submit? is it like stealing cable or satellite service here in the US? what's up?
The 'Guardian' had to sack an Islamo-fascist journo for his unpalatable views. Seems they have recruited another a-sole:
Comment
The risk of a third intifada
Marwan Bishara
Thursday August 18, 2005
The Guardian
Once the media circus is over, Israel's melodramatic withdrawal from the Gaza Strip should be judged by how it improves Palestinian lives and the chances of a just and peaceful resolution of the conflict.
On the face of it, ending 38 years of Israel's military and civilian occupation is welcome news. The evacuation of hundreds of illegally implanted Jewish families from the midst of a million and a half Palestinians, 85% of them refugees, will close the curtains on some of the occupation's most cynical scenes. That's why Palestinians are celebrating the withdrawal as a defeat for the occupation and victory for years of resistance. As a new Palestinian slogan goes, they hope for "Gaza today, tomorrow Jerusalem and the West Bank".
That is precisely what Ariel Sharon's plan aims to prevent. As settlers grieve, most Israelis approve of the withdrawal as a necessary demographic disengagement from an area that encompasses 2% of historical Palestine and 20% of all Palestinians. Israel's strategic redeployment around the hostile Strip and its total control over Gaza's ports and crossings allows it, at will, to turn the area into one big prison.
Once Palestinians are preoccupied with rebuilding their shattered lives under international scrutiny, Israel will accelerate the de facto annexation of the settlement blocs in the West Bank and Jerusalem. In the first three months of 2005, construction in the West Bank settlements increased by 83%, when in Israel proper it decreased by a quarter. As a general, Sharon understands that in war one must at times cede tactically in order to win strategically. Accordingly and "in the absence of a Palestinian peace partner", Israel will disengage from Gaza in order to impose its vision on the 10 times larger West Bank and Jerusalem: the crown jewels of the occupation.
This translates into a de facto disengagement from the peace process. Instead of basing Israel's steps on agreements with the Palestinians, Sharon is doing the opposite - act first, talk later - in complicity with Washington, which wants the Palestinians to accept the Sharon plan as the only game in town, regardless of its motives, in order to reshape their destiny. Their leadership should begin by "dismantling the infrastructure of terrorism" and raise the banner of good governance in its stead.
Palestinians have every interest in making Gaza work for its people and as a step towards their goal of full statehood in all lands occupied in 1967. The Palestinian Authority has made commendable efforts to organise the security forces, improve transparency and end corruption. Mahmoud Abbas, the president, has reached ceasefires with the armed Palestinian factions, and the largest, Hamas, has joined the political process. After an impressive showing in the municipal vote, the Islamist group will participate, for the first time, in the legislative elections, now set for January.
The politicisation of the Islamist groups will make them more accountable to their electorate for their actions, including all attacks on Israeli civilians. They will be forced to balance their relations of force with Israel against their power relations with competing groups in the emerging Palestinian entity.
The viability of Gaza, according to the World Bank, will depend primarily on its open crossings, especially to the West Bank. That will prove an uphill battle with a Sharon government that demands, as a precondition to "concessions", that the Palestinian Authority crack down on Hamas and other armed factions, whose supporters constitute from a third to a half of the Gaza Strip population. Any such attempt will escalate into civil war.
Squeezed between Sharon's war and a war among brothers, the Palestinian leadership and opposition will probably appeal for international intervention. My guess is that Sharon will unilaterally impose the "state in Gaza first" option and open the process for years of bargaining that one day could lead to half a state on half of the West Bank and Gaza. If the Bush administration goes along with Sharon, a third intifada will follow the one that erupted five years ago when American and Israeli leaders tried to corner another Palestinian president at Camp David.
All Palestinians deserve an immediate end to an ordeal that includes freedom from occupation that has lasted decades. Anything less would transform Israel's Gaza nightmare into a daily West Bank reality.
· Marwan Bishara is a lecturer at the American University of Paris and author of Palestine/Israel: Peace or Apartheid
marwanbishara2000@yahoo.com
Re Sacranie; personally, I'd just as soon that blatant anti-semites DIDN'T attend memorial services. Would you want your worst enemy at YOUR funeral?...Dancing on your grave?
At least he's out in the open.
Terminator
al Guardian doesn't need Islamofascists to write anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic tripe; they have plenty of left-wingnuts on staff to do the job:
These cruel evictions have of course been reported, and some foreigners who tried to block or record them, such as Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall and James Miller, paid with their lives alongside scores of murdered local Palestinians. But coverage was never as comprehensive or intense as this week's removals of Israelis. Sharon wanted the world's media to see the protracted agony of the settlers, so as to make the (spurious) point that if it is hard to get 8,500 to leave Gaza, getting 400,000 to withdraw from the West Bank and east Jerusalem will be impossible. However sincere the settlers' grief is at leaving their homes, for the organisers of the retreat it was theatre of the cynical.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1552360,00.html
Geoff:
"Hey Saccy - I support Rushdie completely. What are you going to do to me?"
You support Rushdie completely. That’s interesting Geoffrey.
You are either a racist and depraved or an inconsistent Islamophobe, which one is it Geoff?
*************************************************
Lets analyse some of Rushdie's work.
"White Women - Never Mind Fat, Jewish, Non-Deferential White Women - Were For F*cking And Throwing Over. "(PAGE 261 The Satanic Verses)"
"Nigger Eat White Man's sh*t," (PAGE 461 The Satanic Verses)"
"he found himself dreaming of the Queen, of MAKING TENDER LOVE to the MONARCH. She was the body Britain, the avatar of the state, and he had chosen her, JOINED WITH HER; she was his Beloved, the moon of his delight." (PAGE 169 of The Satanic Verses.)"
http://jamaat.net/rushdie/Rushdie.html
Wow, look at this:
"CHRISTIAN AND JEW UNITE
What would they say of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Robert Rucie, who has said in the first official statement by the Church of England "ONLY THE UTTERLY INSENSITIVE CAN FAIL TO SEE THAT THE PUBLICATION OF SALMAN RUSHDIE'S BOOK HAS DEEPLY OFFENDED MUSLIMS BOTH HERE AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD." The Anglican Primate continued: "I UNDERSTAND THEIR FEELINGS AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT OFFENCE TO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM OR ANY OTHER FAITH IS QUITE AS WRONG AN OFFENCE AS TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF CHRISTIANS."
And what have the dullards on the Rushdie bandwagon to say of the Chief Rabbi of Britain, Lord Jakobovits, who has the first religious leader in Britain to "DEPRECATE....THE OFFENCE CAUSED" by the book, has reiterated his view that it "SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED." In a letter to The Times (4th March 1989) the Chief Rabbi also agreed on the need for "PROHIBITING THE PUBLICATION OF ANYTHING LIKELY TO INFLAME, THROUGH OBSCENE DEFAMATION..." What motives can we attribute to the three above? Nothing other than the Love of God and Love of Man based on Eternal Thrust. The Holy Qur'an describes these godly men as "And among them (the Jews and Christians) are Mu'mins, (meaning Faithful, Sincere People)..." Holy Qur'an 3:110"
rather typical of you, terminator, the only way you can fill up space is to quote someone else. incidentally, are you saved yet? if not then you are with the muslims!
yes, rather interesting, that - "the people who are opposed to israeli policies are usually at pains to point out that they are not being anti-semitic" - nice one robert, whoever you are.
actually im not surprised, given the right-wing, antichrist, fascist tenor of this site.
only two days ago i pointed out that the "law of return" does not permit christian jews to become citizens of israel, even if they are 100% jewish.
and sure enough, the filthy, fascist accusation arrived on my screen - "you just loathe jews".
how can i hate jews, the Lord of Glory was a jew, and so were all his disciples. is it my fault that the state of israel passed this law?
is it my fault that israel rejected christ and even now will not have his people?
the smartass politically correct right wing brigade will tell me i dare not speak of such things - i say - you do not own my mouth yet.
as for "scheinermann - alias - sharon - alias - arik - alias - butcher of beirut" who can tell, robert? is he worse or better than the hell-bound robert mugabe, who has destroyed a country, and brought happy, contented people into abject poverty and misery. all i know is that they can both still be saved. isnt that amazing after all theyve done?
There appears to be 2 True Brits here at JW/DW the only difference I can see in our names is the space between True and Brit.
True Brit and TrueBrit
Although I'm here every day I don't post very often so I hope this duplication doesn't cause any confusion to everyone else here.
t-ham
I thought you WERE British but I'll try to answer your question about the tele licence as best I can.
BTW I'm True Brit not TrueBrit..lol
without researching, all I can say is that the British people have always had to pay for a licence if they own a TV. We used to have to pay for a radio licence at one time but that was scrapped donkey's years ago... I think after TV and battery operated portable radios hit the high streets.
Not having a licence doesn't stop anyone from receiving signals (via an aerial) but the authorities have detector vans that go around to addresses that aren't registered as having a licence and if they detect a signal being received in those homes (using their signal detecting equipment in the van) the householders are confronted and can be fined £1000 and can be imprisoned, if they can't produce a licence.
The reason we pay a licence fee is because the BBC being the very first company to broadcast TV signals in the UK doesn't fund itself like other stations, by selling advertising airtime, so they've got to get their cash from us aided and abetted by our governments. It is the law and as far as I know every time a TV is sold the retailer has to inform the authorities of the name and address of the purchaser.
I hope that answers your question :-)
Freddie Flearider asks,
how can i hate jews, the Lord of Glory was a jew, and so were all his disciples.
How?
Does Flearider really think anyone can take that infinitely crude, bogus “argument” seriously? Even as its obvious hypocrisy has been demonstrated endless times before?
Almost all the Jew-hating pigs I met in my long life who, for reasons of political or ideological expediency, preferred to conceal their loathing would invariably resort to that phoney claim.
Really, how could Germans, Ukrainians, Croats, Lithuanians, Latvians… - ALL of them as good Christians as Flearider, methodically torture and murder, either on the spot, or in extermination camps, million of Jews? How could deeply Orthodox Russians and Catholic Poles murder countless thousands of Jews in pogroms?
The answer is very simple; their Jew-Hatred was their Primary Religion – Christianity came as a distant number two. And that is exactly the case with the Flearider. His “Christianity” is a clumsy alibi for his pathological anti-Semitism.
t-ham:
BTW, becuse of satelite TV the British are paying twice to watch tele.. once for the BBC and again if they want satelite or cable.
There has been noises made in recent years (since satelite and cable) by individual MPs to scrap the licence but it doesn't look like it's going to hppen anytime soon.
I think it's now £128 ( for a year) but no doubt it will go up in the chancellors tax budget, like tobacco, booze, petrol and the car tax licence does almost every year. :-)
sorry about the typos my letter "a" keeps failing
thomas - "the answer is very simple" i would suggest that so also is the provider of the answer.
so perpetrators of mass murder are just as good as peace loving people who have never killed anyone? well you said that these evil people were just as good christians as me.
or are you just another atheistic fascist claiming that christianity is essentially evil?
incidentally your simple simon answer is exactly what i get from muslims, but at least theyre usually polite about it
Sorry for the confussion the other "TrueBrit" here does does anyone know how to change the username ,or can I just register a new one to my email address ?
t-ham this is what you wanted I think
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/
TwoBrits;
thank you both.
freddiefreeloader,
You should ignore the rude comments made by some of the fanatics on this site. Some of the people here are death worshippers.
freddy flearider,
“so perpetrators of mass murder are just as good as peace loving people who have never killed anyone? well you said that these evil people were just as good christians as me.”
Where in the world do I say you are a “good Christian”?! This is what YOU are saying and constantly simulating in each of your posting.
I said “AS good Christians AS you” – which means that you and these mass murders belong to the same category of “christians” – the Jew-hating category. The only difference between you and these murderers is that you haven’t had the historical opportunity to join them.
When saying that your “Christianity” is a clumsy alibi for your pathological anti-Semitism.” I am pointing at the brazen falsehood and stupidity of your “argument” that the fact that Jesus was a Jew automatically immunizes you from Jew-loathing.
It was the obvious idiocy and mendaciousness of your defense that was the gist of my comment - not my concern about how good, or bad, Christian you are - and you know that.
Your comment is a deflection, screaming straw man, - as obvious as your Jew-hate.
"or are you just another atheistic fascist claiming that christianity is essentially evil?"
No, I am not even claiming that YOU are essentially evil.
What I am claiming is that you are a miserable goebelesque creep, a vicious anti-semite and your hatred consumes both your honesty and your wits.
And no, I am not an atheist - just an ordinary Christian. Far from being a good one, but at least I am not sullying my faith by using My Lord’s name to advance a dirty agenda.
well thomas now youve got all that fascist bile out your system i do hope you are feeling better. perhaps a nice little lie-down would now be in order
incidentally in screeching these putrid lies at me it is you who are advancing "a dirty agenda"
also thomas - you are now saying that a "vicious anti-semite" would NOT be "essentially evil" - how very strange
Flearider,
incidentally in screeching these putrid lies at me it is you who are advancing "a dirty agenda"
Gosh, do you really believe you can be anyone’s “agenda”?
You must do something about that megalomania of yours…
also thomas - you are now saying that a "vicious anti-semite" would NOT be "essentially evil" - how very strange
I don’t presume to know the essence of anyone. That knowledge is sole prerogative of God.
I can only comment on the part of your person which you consistently expose in this blog – please read my previous entry.
Well, enough of you already.
i am fully aware thomas, that i am not your agenda, i am fully aware that you are you agenda and what a dirty agenda it is. having your comments on my screen is like having an open sewer running through my living room
you said to me "i am not even claiming that you are essentially evil"
you then said "what i am claiming is that you are a miserable goebelesque creep, a vicious anti-semite"
now I believe that josef goebels WAS essentially evil and that so also are anti-semites
Flearider,
having your comments on my screen is like having an open sewer running through my living room
Little wonder, considering that you are the subject of these comments…
Unfortunately I am unable to follow the desperate and tortured logics of the remaining part of the letter where you attempt, or so it seems, to refute my claim that you are a miserable goebelesque creep, a vicious anti-semite and your hatred consumes both your honesty and your wits.
While you have amply demonstrated before the effect your Jew-loathing has had on your honesty - your most recent wacko performance in “logics” shows that your wits, too, have been most adversely effected by that hate. But, of course, there is a chance you were born stupid. In that case I apologize.
Well, regardless whether you stupidity is inborn, or acquired it makes exchange with you (after minor initial fun of kicking you around) a rather tedious affair, therefore I won’t bother replying to you in the future.
I hope, (but am not sure), you will understand.