A sadly unsurprising report by Terry Trippany at Newsbusters (thanks to all who sent this in):
Violence and chaos are terms that are pretty well defined in society. A person tends to conceptualize events tied to such words by visualizing bombs exploding, bullets flying and all commonly associated images from the ravages of war and crime.But violence is not limited to the media driven coverage that most often captures the readily available public examples of violence. There are plenty of examples of violence that occurs relatively unnoticed to the public eye. Violence such as the quietly executed political and religious persecution that happens in the middle of the night and well away from western cameras. Violence such as the forced recognition of Islamic law by dhimmi slaves and non-religious infidels. These examples, which have plenty of evidence to back them up, are sadly considered non-chaotic because they happen either quietly or with the acceptance of many.
Which makes the BBC characterization of the Islamic takeover of Somalia all that more appalling. Such willingness to ignore the quiet forms of violence and perpetuate the myth that there is a lack of chaos simply because certain crimes against humanity are perpetrated away from the media's selective eye is an affront to journalistic integrity.
Read it all.
Barf! Islamic stability is as welcome to the world as the kind of stability North Korea currently enjoys. Is that supposed to be a good thing for the world? Or even for the people living in these places? Hitler once provided stability for Germany-we know what happened afterward.
The Beeb is a boob. Yellow journalism is the only kind that's out there nowadays. So much for it being a noble profession.
BBC Contends That Islamic Rule Was Stabilizing Force in Somalia
No surprise there. After all Stalin was a stabilizing force in the Soviet Union as was Pol Pot in Cambodia, Castro in Cuba and what's his name (the short fat guy with a funny haircut) in N. Korea.
Let's not forget Saddam Hussein. He was a stabilizing force in Iraq. The Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites lived in perfect harmony.
I guess the Islamists made the trains run on time.
Yes, it was a stabilizing force
And the Times of London can provide a whole stack of yellowed sheets on which are printed editorials about the wonders that Mr. Hitler is doing, whatever nastinesses he may have been accused of by his detractors (or sentiments to that effect), in raising Germany from its post-war prostration, and in bringing at long last order, and national pride, and national order, and pride. And those volkswagens for the Volk, and the autobahnen for them to ride on, and the paid holidays for workers, and the tramping through the German forests (ah, that German air! those German hunters! that German game to be shot!), and the healthy Hitlerjugend, healthily learning how to march in lockstep, as their parents were learning how to think in lockstep, and everyone, children and parents alike, were learning to raise their hands in lockstep salute while the goosesteppers walked by: Heil Hitler!
And then there is that other person who Brought Order of the kind the BBC is apparently so fond. That is, Il Granitico, Mussolini, who aside from that little nastiness about Matteotti (oh, and hundreds of others at the same time, often overlooked), aside from the Blackshirts and the Balilla, aside from those jaw-jutting harangues (hence the name "Il Granitico") from the balcony of the Palazzo Venezia overlooking the Piazza Venezia -- aside from all that, he was making the trains run on time, the rapido, the rapidissimo. And draining the swamps.
Ordre, avant tout chose. It doesn't matter how it is achieved. It doesn't matter if it is this totalitain and menacing belief-system or another, for the BBC as for the appeasers of the 1930s before it.
Order, order, order.
"Such willingness to ignore the quiet forms of violence and perpetuate the myth that there is a lack of chaos simply because certain crimes against humanity are perpetrated away from the media's selective eye is an affront to journalistic integrity."
....to so many simpletons,,, out of sight ... out of mind....it is too easy just to look the other way.... The world is mad....MAD I tell you.......
How long before the NYT comes to the same conclusion?
The BBC's reporting from Somalia is consistently pro-islamist. Even for the BBC, it stands out.
Today's article about khat isn't too bad, but recently they published some amazing 'man-in-the-street' pieces. In one, a camel rancher was insisting his area was being bombed by American jets (it was probably Ethiopian SU-27s). But the BBC simply printed the accusations with no further explanation or research. I checked AlJazeera, and their reporting of the incident was more balanced.
In another piece, the BBC quoted a woman who claimed to miss the "freedom" that the Islamic Courts had brought to Somalia. Again, no explanation or other POV, just opinions printed with no challenge whatever.
It's the worst of the BBC, and that is really saying something!
Well, hell.If you admire stability for stability's sake just encase everyone in concrete.
The word "stability" seems to have a particular appeal to those who want to pull the wool over your eyes. Until recently I had a bank account which refused to raise its interest rate, despite several recent rises in the Bank of England base rate, and justified this by saying that its customers preferred rate "stability". Needless to say, I and doubtless many other customers, voted with our feet!
JFGR:
Re: "and justified this by saying that its customers preferred rate "stability"
That's a good line. Any thoughts on how the bank would have handled their customers preference for rate stability if the Bank of England had been dropping their base rate?
BBC, Al Jazeera's western correspondant reports Isam a stabilizing force.
I hope no one is surprised by that one, let's face it we here all know who the BBC supports.
Withg stability like Islam who the hell needs war????
The BBC is completly is out to lunch all the time if they believe that it was beter under Islamic rule.
The BBC is completly is out to lunch all the time if they believe that it was beter under Islamic rule.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106
I call that a six-course lunch!
Supersized lunch.
Nothing makes me puke like the word "stability." Appeasement of facists, communists, street gangs, drug dealers, despots, etc. is always justified by maintaining of stability.
Ever since the Baker surrendor group issued their report, the word "stability" seems to be used exclusively by idiots or those with bad intentions.
Pursuit of stability will always lose in the end. If something is already unstable, it is far easier to make it even less stable than it is to make it more stable---especially if someone else is actively trying to make it unstable.
If the West ties itself in knots, it loses.
islam is such a disgusting idealology, they believe that peace on earth comes through genocide of non muslims and a world held together through religious doctrine and fear. but what the hell is wrong with us in the west for allowing socialist groups such as the BBC to even function. the people pay their licence fee, stop paying, switch off and boycott all socialist organisations and islamic run companies.
people, please, grow some balls! less internet chatter, more direct street action!
The leftist press is active around the world using its media to propagandise and promote it's leftist, socialistic agendas while ignoring most everything that they don't like.
But, I came in here to give you all good news of great joy!
A new political party is being offered to the tens of millions of Americans who feel that both the Republican party and the Democrat party have NOT led them to achieve what they really want our government to do for them.
We want our borders secured and our immigration laws ENFORCED NOW! We want tax reform-and we want it ASAP! We want much more efficient, innovative and effective SMALLER government that gives us more bang for our hard-earned buck. We want Senate rules that currently do not allow an up or down vote for all executive appointment to the federal judiciary changed to allow a constitutional up or down vote. We want our second amendment right to keep and BEAR arms VIGILANTLY protected! We believe America’s best and brightest days are YET to come! We yearn for REAL change that PRODUCES real results that truly satisfies our good desires for our families, America’s future and our posterity. And, we want it all RIGHT NOW!
The new party is called the ‘New Republican Party’ and can be further studied at my website. This party is what we, and millions of others like us, have all been searching for…but it has never existed before…until NOW!
"Re: "and justified this by saying that its customers preferred rate "stability"
That's a good line. Any thoughts on how the bank would have handled their customers preference for rate stability if the Bank of England had been dropping their base rate? "
Not only thoughts, johnb, but evidence -- they reduced their rates! (Did you doubt it?)
Re BBC bias, there was an excellent "fisking" of the BBC's darling John Humphrys in The Times yesterday by David Aaronovitch (with many a good point about moral relativism), describing
"the arresting interview with the Prime Minister conducted by John Humphrys for the Today programme last Thursday.
In the first half of Thursday’s affair Humphrys was robust and deployed good quotes from important witnesses to suggest to the PM that he may have something to apologise for over Iraq. In the second part Humphrys did something that I really admired; he effectively took off the disguise of neutered interviewer and began to argue his own views. The Iraq invasion had, he asserted, come about purely because “Washington neocons were determined to get rid of Saddam, come what may”.
Tony Blair demurred. Then came this exchange. The PM referred to the “global struggle” in which “we need a policy based on democracy, on freedom and on justice . . .”
Humphrys: Our idea of democracy.
Blair: I don’t know that there is another idea of democracy.
JH: If I may say so, that’s naive . . . in the view of many people.
TB: The one basic fact about democracy, surely, is that you can get rid of your government if you don’t like them.
JH: The Iranians elected their own government, and we’re now telling them . . .
TB: Hold on John, something like 60 per cent of the candidates were excluded.
JH: They had a form of democracy, but let’s turn to . . .
Now we could see what the argument was about. Mr Blair could have pointed out that, in addition to Iran being ruled by an unelected supreme council, there is no Iranian John Humphrys. If there were, he’d be in prison or already have been sorted out by the Revolutionary Guards, and not as an accident but as an aspect of policy.
But Humphrys’s point surely was that the Iranians don’t want our kind of democracy. They might prefer one where most of the candidates can’t stand because they are too reformist. Others have argued, more extremely, that in some Islamist cultures women aren’t yearning for the right to education, or to be treated by (male) doctors. or to be anything except shut up in their father’s or husband’s houses. And what is bloody wrong with slavery anyway? Three meals a day. Basic security. The Western idea of freedom isn’t everything.
I am well aware that nothing of the above argument makes what has happened in Iraq the less appalling. Hating the occupiers I could cope with, but I didn’t remotely foresee the insanity — the bloody aimlessness — of blowing up students or day-labourers, with Allah knows what long-term objective in mind. And we in the West can take from that experience the lesson of being careful in the way we intervene, of course. But not — not — that you shouldn’t do it. Not that there shouldn’t be moral foreign policies. Not that we think that democracy, basic human rights or liberty are relative values. No John, no John, no. "
See
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article1443879.ece
From the UK.
You are probably aware, given that it will denigrate the USA at the drop of a hat, that the famously independent truthful BBC is alas no more and hasn’t been for some time. There are a few brave independent soles left but they drowned out by the flabby leftists, who spew nothing but hate against those who question beliefs they hold.
Sadam Hussian was a stabilising force and of course should not have been removed, according to most commentators at the BBC. The comments on Somalia were entirely predictable.
Why is the BBC Tax Payer funded?
The myth of tolerance is transparent. The video mentions two recent murders of western women in Somalia; a New Jersey female was killed a short time after her arrival, and a Swiss nurse was hacked to death as she was setting up a Christian school.
Source: PBS
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2007/02/somalia_a_repor.html