"When I was captured...I told them not to kill me, I am on your side." (Alan Johnston, in an interview)
Johnston has been a terrible reporter from Gaza, and he shows every sign of continuing to refuse to comprehend, or even to recognize, the evil that is in front of his face. He was a tool, a tool when a free reporter, a tool when captured, a tool now that he has been freed -- a tool of Fatah, and then a tool of a particular local clan, and finally, a tool of Hamas, attempting to burnish its image.
And the entire BBC effort to "free Alan Johnston" was blatantly based on an appeal to the "Palestinians" to free him not because he should never have been taken in the first place, not because he was a journalist, but because he was so "friendly" to the Arab cause, so intent on "telling their story," so firmly in their camp. I collected a dozen or so examples of this transparent semaphoring -- the BBC's public admission, by executive after executive, of Alan Johnson's "value" to the "Palestinians" as their propagandist ("telling their story to the world"). In other words, the BBC admitted publicly, but only because it had to, it felt, in order to free him, to the very things which others have charged the BBC with, as part of its systematic anti-Israel and pro-Arab, pro-Muslim bias. Had Alan Johnston never been taken hostage, the BBC would not only never have admitted to these things, but would have stoutly, even indignantly, denied them.
Might the BBC somehow be taken to task by members of Parliament? By Charles Moore? Has anyone noticed that the BBC of Huw Weldon is not the present-day BBC? It is not only a question of atrocious accents and constant misuse (and mispronunciation) of English, not to mention the shrillness of the Judy Swallows, and the palpable nastiness both in her voice and in that of Lyse Doucet. Could we not have some of those well-modulated voices of yesteryear, or are they as rare in England as they are now in the United States? The speech of radio announcers ought to be a model of mellifluousness, not grating -- as Judy Swallow grates -- on ear and in every other way.
The BBC is bad. The BBC World Service, which answers not to Bush House but to the Foreign Office and its Arabists, is even worse.
Think of all the Muslim personnel. Are they known for taking even a pretend stab at objectivity, anywhere they may be? Think of Robin Lustig, or that Mr. Bennett-Jones who loves to grill those he regards with hostility (you should have heard his nasty treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but she held her own, and then some).
The BBC, you will recall, has as its World Affairs Editor a certain John Simpson. To truly understand the antisemitic and anti-American and for that matter anti-British BBC World Service, you must find out about Simpson, the man who has described Rafsanjani, that monster, as a "moderate." Possibly the way that Goebbels was a "moderate" compared to Hitler, or Beria to Stalin. Simpson is a key figure in the IslamIntern -- along with Edward Mortimer and Mona Rishmawi, the Palestinian Arab behind Mary Robinson.
Simpson is a good friend of the anti-Israel conspiracy theorist, and promoter of Mordecai Vanunu, Peter Hounam. Hounam wrote a book called something like "The Cyanide Conspiracy" -- about "Zionists" in the American government and so on. A book not out of place at any Nazi webpage. Simpson liked the book so much he wrote an introduction to it. Ca dit longue, John Simpson's involvement in this favorite treatment of the American antisemites' favorite topic -- why, he is just the man to run the BBC World Services. So the next time you have to endure the sneers and snarls directed at Israel from Judy Swallow, Robin Lustig, et al -- do make sure to direct some of your ire at John Simpson, No. 3 at the BBC.
So now Johnston is out. And it's the mixture as before, for brave little Alan Johnston. He may have had a shower and a shave and a haircut after his "terrifying ordeal" (which ordeal is par for the "Palestinian" and Arab Muslim course, but Alan Johnston isn't focussing on that -- Alan Johnston is focussed entirely on...Alan Johnston), but he remains as morally unkempt as ever.
Quote: he should never have been taken in the first place, not because he was a journalist, but because he was so "friendly" to the Arab cause, so intent on "telling their story," so firmly in their camp
- Yeah well, it's the same old story in Britain. The British appease, apologise for, promote and facilitate these people and their goals, and then they're bewildered when jihadists go and attack them.
It's essentially a deadly case of naiveté.
Johnston has been a terrible reporter from Gaza, and he shows every sign of continuing to refuse to comprehend, or even to recognize, the evil that is in front of his face. He was a tool ...
Why do you assume that he has no agenda, is not a willing actor in the scene?
Could it not be that he threw in his lot with the evil?
I don't think I ever had any doubts they were going to release him. That whole kidnapping business was a sham.
i thought that Robert Fisk was the lowest of the low....i was wrong
In an interesting interview, viewable here: (and elsewhere)
Edward Griffin - Soviet Subversion of the Free Press - An Interview with ex-KGB Agent Yuri Bezmenov (1984)
... Bezmenov asserts that once a person has been adequately conditioned, they will literally not believe the evidence of their own senses if it contradicts their conditioning.
They will rationalize, fantasize, accuse, whatever is required to maintain their comfort level with their conditioned beliefs.
=======
Off topic but interesting, Bezmenov asserts that KGB planners based their strategic schedules on a generational cycle of 20 years, for their propaganda programs to fully take hold and bear fruit.
Based on that reasoning, if he is right we can assume:
a) That it will be a minimum of 10-20 years before the west fully wakes up from it's currently appeasing and self-effacing attitudes toward the jihaddis -- and that's if everything goes well and quickly.
and,
b) That if all the jihaddis in the world surrendered and laid down their arms today, that it would be a minimum of 10-20 years before the tide of jihaddi thinking receded and lost its prominence in mohammedan culture.
Therefore:
If we had won this morning, it would be at least a decade or two before we were fully safe again.
There is no time to lose.
============
Back on topic, this Alan Johnston creature is by no means the first specimen of this syndrome.
There have been several cases when western leftists were caught and released by the jihaddis, and the victims shrugged the whole thing off as an innocent mistake. If my memory serves, there was some woman journalist from Italy just a year or two ago who had pretty much the same experience.
Personally I detest the Beeb and never watch it.
joeblough brought in a link to Edward Griffin. While I like Edward Griffin for his book exposing the Federal Reserve and his writings against totalitarian trends worldwide, I have been concerned about his sending links to his email list directing subscribers to articles full of the most extreme conspiracy theories against the US and Israel. Among these have been articles claiming that terrorists, including el-Qaeda, are working with the US government, or alternatively, are a fiction dreamed up by Bush and Blair, and that 9/11 was an inside job by the CIA. Also, Edward Griffin apparently believes that Iran poses no threat to anyone. I have had personal email exchanges with Mr. Griffin; his replies to me have, unfortunately, not given me any reason to believe that I am misrepresenting his views.
But some from Al Qaeda claim that CIA has been helping them. The US Administration doesn't have a problem with Al Qaeda so long as it doesn't strike at US interests. Search for Ali Hamad. He has a book coming out. I'll try get it if it really manages to come out. Not surprisingly, there were attempts at his life.
There's a channel 4 documentary on Monday night(in the uk), that shows the links between the hard left(socialist worker) and radical Islam.
I've said this before on here, but( and I know this is going to seem strange to Americans), Channel 4 is a private company allowed to broadcast as long as it has so much public service broadcasting. It's not towing the party line, that's a fact, with its documentary on radical Islamic preachers in what the British public are told are "moderate mosques".
Should be an interesting watch.
The BBC has lost all hope. First chasing ratings, and now it's given up all pretense of objectivity. It's a shame that anything run by the public sector becomes infested by the left and people unable to see the difference between right and wrong.
Black kids spend their whole lives in care, because they can only be adopted by people from their cultural roots, so the white people who want to give them a home(and a chance at life) are deprived of the chance.
It's like all religions, dogma over humanity. Be it Christianity, Islam, Communism, Freudianism. Never mind what works, just follow the "party line".
It's all a crock, but then again, life is.
Ian, you are wrong. To dismiss all religions as the same is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
And I presume you don't know what the real meaning of "dogma" is? It means "right thinking". It means that the mind has been taught and exercised well enough to discern, analyze and critique information in order to come to correct judgments and conclusions. Religious dogma is a result of blending faith with reason in order to know the Truth, whether it be the existence of God or the morality of war.
Unfortunately, nihilistic people like you provide the vacuum into which Islam will happily fill.
atheling
"To dismiss all religions as the same is throwing out the baby with the bath water."
Wonderfully vague, but tell me exactly what religion has ever actually added to the sum of humanities knowledge? I'd be interested to hear, I really would. The examples will just roll, I know that.
The real meaning of dogma is irrelevant, the actual meaning is "strict observance to a doctrine(what does doctrine mean?) without any consideration of the consequences". Here's an example, moral people consider shagging young boys as immoral no matter what, Catholics consider that god will forgive the shagger, as long as he kneels down a lot and lies. Obviously they changed this point of view when reality intruded. For any given religion, just insert a cruelty, and then argue semantics, you'll notice that the cruelty stays the same, and god isn't listening.
"Religious dogma is a result of blending faith with reason in order to know the Truth,"
Well that's obvious by the amount of truth that religion, and it's silly books has revealed. Wasn't it the bible that first showed the formula for mass and gravity, the hindu books(whatever they're called?) which first revealed the benefits of antibiotics to the world, the koran that showed how clean water could stop deaths from typhus.
No, don't tell me, the Bible accuratly predicted the age of the Earth.
No my mistake, it was science that did all that.
Still, atheling, at least you have the satisfaction of knowing that the bones you tread on are only the grizzled remains of Jesus's beliefs.
"Unfortunately, nihilistic people like you provide the vacuum into which Islam will happily fill.!"
nihilistic means,
"an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth."
Which is hardly me, as I only believe in the objective basis of truth. That's why I don't believe in silly belief systems like your own. The way to beat primitive cults is to destroy them with the rational, not combat them with the irrational.
You'll be telling me people can rise from the dead next, no surely not?
"When I was captured...I told them not to kill me, I am on your side."
Boy, is that funny.
Ian,
I can see that it's no use to debate the issue with you since you cannot argue intelligently without ad hominem attacks.
Grow up a little, and learn some critical thinking skills and then we'll talk.
Maybe he can marry the Italian "hostage" who got her secret agent rescuer killed when rushin a checkpoint in Iraq a while back.
"Hostages" of a feather ...flock things up.
Probably taken in preparation for Hamas needing some "good p.r." later when they "freed" him.
atheling I answered your points, very intelligently(even if I do say so my self). You can't debate, because there's no debate to be had. So rather than think about realisms, or answer points, you act offended, in order to close down debate. Now what other religion is famous for that?
Still, birds of a feather, and all that what?
The very fact that you compare my response to Islam demonstrates your inability to reason properly. Moral relativism and hyperbole is alive and well among atheists like you.
Not worth the powder.
Ian, your cavalier denunciation of the value of all religion is intellectually reckless. Atheism is a point of view only. It does not hold the ultimate answer to what constitutes reality.
Read Einstein. Read quantum physics for the layman. Maintain an open mind. Religion is greatly misused in this world, but it has value.