Please do not use this occasion to voice your opinion of the BBC's coverage of jihad-related activity. - Robert.

Thank you for the idea.

Posted by: DrWolffenstein at January 29, 2007 11:17 AM

The BBC has requested the assistance of JihadWatch?

Posted by: tgusa at January 29, 2007 11:17 AM

Wolffenstein:

Cut it out. I'm serious.

Tgusa:

Yes.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 29, 2007 11:21 AM

The BBC is finally taking websites like this one seriously. It appears they are waking up to the threat under their noses.
It would not be in anyone's best interests to alienate them

Posted by: freedomschool at January 29, 2007 11:33 AM

Very encouraging news. Which we sorely need.

Posted by: EricInTexas at January 29, 2007 11:39 AM

I would also like to take this opportunity too, for all take a look at BBCwatch.com and biased-BBC.blogspot.com . Both sites take acritical look at the Puppet-Masters mouth piece .

Posted by: BornInfidel at January 29, 2007 11:46 AM

The BBC should contact the 'London Evening Standard'.
If my memory serves me well, I remember an article in late 2001 or 2002 showing a photo of a Muslim worker at Gatwick airport who lived in Crawley. He was wearing a al-Muhajiroun t-shirt with words to the effect of 'The final prophet, the final revelation, Islam' emblazoned across it. The article gave his name. The worrying thing was that he actually worked inside the aircraft at Gatwick.

Posted by: Elephant at January 29, 2007 11:53 AM

WOW is the only thing that comes to mind. Simply incredible, I never would have expected this. Not that coming to the foremost authority on the subject is surprising, but that the BBC would be the one to reach out. This is a huge step for them, I hope any who respond realize just how big it is. It might be a good idea to warn them about some posters here of dubious origin / motives(the islamists) although they may cherry pick those for other uses.
Thank you.

Posted by: tgusa at January 29, 2007 11:59 AM

Today I become a Briton. Gave Save the Queen and her constitutional monarchy.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at January 29, 2007 12:20 PM

Sorry, I was simply so excited about this that I typed 'Gave' instead of 'God'. My apologies.

God save the Queen and her constitutional monarchy.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at January 29, 2007 12:21 PM

Will CNN and Fox do the same? Maybe Glenn Beck can pay a visit to this site.

Posted by: wrathofasma at January 29, 2007 12:33 PM

Dear All at Jihad Watch

I have been a regular reader of this website for some months now and although the UK features regularly in its news columns I have never felt any immediate connection with any of the stories, despite living in the UK. However, this post brings the world of Jihad a little too close to home. Before leaving for university, I lived in a town neighbouring Crawley and made many visits and had a number of very good friends there. However, Crawley always had a reputation for being the kind of place you wanted to stay clear of at night, during which gangs of alcohol fuelled yobs roamed the streets. In fact, an extremely amusing incident that made the national news some time ago typifies local behaviour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Z0WC_OJQY). I apologise for my gross generalisations, but if that is how the native British youths spend their weekends to let off steam, one wonders how their Muslim contemparies, who should not drink etc, spend their time. I seriously doubt we should be worried about the majority of those in question, but in a town that is not new to fostering Islamic fundamentalism it may be worth keeping an eye open for the ever more familiar Jihad.

Thankyou for reading

Posted by: nickh at January 29, 2007 12:55 PM

Correction: The URL in my previous entry is incorrect due to the unintended incorporation of a bracket. It should be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Z0WC_OJQY

Posted by: nickh at January 29, 2007 12:59 PM

One cannot say that one would not be sorely tempted to respond to this BBC overture as the fat boy Ciccio did to the beautiful girl Aldina in Fellini's Amarcord (1973), who had smugly ignored his pining attraction to her for so long but then, when he became the center of famous attention, suddenly curried his favor. Ciccio, beaming with certitude and joy in that juicy moment of revenge, in effect said to her to go fuck herself.

Posted by: remote_control at January 29, 2007 1:32 PM

I was going to suggest "footballs" or somesuch, but mum is the word.

Posted by: DP111 at January 29, 2007 2:07 PM

This is the BBC report about the attack in Eliat:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6309029.stm

When you get to the end this is what you get:

"The last suicide attack was at a Tel Aviv restaurant, killing 10 people. Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in that time, mainly in the Gaza Strip."

The BBC have been telling people they are not biased against Israeli.

You can read many things into that statement, but the first thing that springs to mind is of the valiant down trodden Pali's reacting to numerous attacks on them by the Israeli's, I also read into it a condoning of sucide attacks as resistence. This is why the BBC sucks big time.

Perhaps they will do a big exposee and do it properly, but at the end there will be a simple sentence like tha bove that will blame us, sadly.

Posted by: Daffersd at January 29, 2007 2:16 PM

I have no personal experience, but your right about the media reports.

Tottenham Ayatollah
(see BMMS for September 1996; February and March 1997). Asian Age (09.04.97)(Times, 09.04.97, Scotsman, 09.04.97, Daily Telegraph,09.04.97, Independent, 09.04.97, Scotland on Sunday, 13.04.97, Observer, 13.04.97)

Papers local to Crawley, such as the Crawley Observer (16.04.97) and Crawley News (09.04.97), report that the local council have cancelled the lease of a hut rented out to al-Muhajiroun, because the television programme alleged that it was being used as a training-camp "to mould militants into Islamic warriors" (Crawley Observer, 16.04.97). Sheikh Omar Bakri told the Crawley News (09.04.97): "We hire out a hut for two hours every week. It is just a youth club". The Tablet (19.04.97) included in its review of the programme, a concise account of the cancellation of the Rally for Revival (see BMMS for August and September 1996. They write: "His [Omar Bakri Mohammed’s] supporters fly-posted by night...and 28 London boroughs complained. BMMS April 1997 Vol. V, No. 4, p. 3/4
http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/bmms/1997/04April97.html#Tottenham%20Ayatollah

Posted by: ostiekam at January 29, 2007 2:18 PM

I think this is some kind of leg pull,because if the BBC wants to get info,then all they have ti do is contact Ron Jonson who spent a year with Bakri,and could give more info than any of us here ae able to.

News update: 24th August 2005
Jon is delighted to announce that Channel 4 will be repeating his film about Omar Bakri Mohammed 'Tottenham Ayatholla' - with a new beginning and ending - at 8pm on September 5th. Although the date might change, so check the listings for details.

Posted by: shiva at January 29, 2007 2:23 PM

"...sorely tempted to respond to this BBC overture as the fat boy Ciccio did to the beautiful girl Aldina in Fellini's Amarcord (1973), who had smugly ignored his pining attraction to her for so long but then, when he became the center of famous attention, suddenly curried his favor. Ciccio, beaming with certitude and joy in that juicy moment of revenge, in effect said to her to go fuck herself."
--- from a posting above

One of the best things in "Amarcord" is Fellini's invention of the name "Gradisca" for the sweet prostitute The BBC is just like "Gradisca," except without her sweetness, her light, her services to humanity. But still, let's not imitate Ciccio and say "vaffanculo" to Aldina (if that's the word you were searching for).

Not everyone at the BBC, not absolutely everyone, is like Lustig, Plett, Swallow, and of course the inimitable John Simpson (quid vide or rather google), the great and good friend of Peter Hounam (author of that conspiracy theory book about the "Zionists").

Let's help out, if we can. Perhaps the saner ones there will begin to get a glimmer of the truth, and more than a glimmer. Perhaps they will find out that at JW are perfectly sane, amusing, people of the Infidel world, not crazed Bible-belt snake-healers or whatever it is we are supposed to be, but rather in the line of Spinoza, Hume, Tocqueville, and others who would not have lasted one minute in a Muslim-ruled country. There have to be some at the BBC capable of seeing what is in front of their eyes all over London, capable of deciphering the mene-mene-tekel-upharsin scawled on the wall of Bush House.

Posted by: Hugh at January 29, 2007 2:29 PM

We don't have to comment; just replay all the beheadings for the BBC, maybe that'll wake-em up ?

Posted by: Jeff at January 29, 2007 2:56 PM

First a little, thence to more, from past postings on John Simpson, director of the BBC World Service, a man deeply and viciously anti-Israel and slightly less deeply, and only a bit less viciously, anti-American. Note in particular his friendship with Peter Hounam (last noted when he was arrested by the Israleis when he was in their country making as much trouble for them as he could -- see Simpson's glowing review of Hounam's protocolish "Operation Cyanide":

#1.

"The BBC effectively has an Islamic agenda..."
-- from a posting above

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.

[Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2005 10:06 AM]

#2.

"How does your theory about Simpson and the Beeb..."
-- from a posting above

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 evidence Simpson'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 are two reviews of this conspiracy thoery deeply antisemitic book by Peter Hounam, for which not only was there not the slightest factual basis for it, but the recent release of the tapes made at the time by the Americans, of the Israeli pilots' conversation, and their analysis, shows clearly, as sane (i.e., non-antisemitic) commentators have shown, that the Israeli version of the incident -- that it was a mistake -- was in fact the real one.

The first review is simply to give a flavor of the book.

The second review -- the one by John Simpson, for years the czar of the BBC World Service, is given so that BBC supporters and detractors alike may get a hint of what John Simpson is all about when it comes to Israel:

Review #1:

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 stubbornrefusal 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

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

Review #2:

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 thelatter 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 meticulously tracked down the people and the documents who have survived from
the event itself: the attack on the USS Liberty, in the eastern Mediterranean 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.

[Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2005 01:36 PM]

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.

[Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2005 01:54 PM]

John Simpson should not be running the BBC World Service. In wartime, one incarcerates those who sympathize with the enemy, and who work to undercut one's allies. Israel is a fellow Infidel and ally of all Infidels. Muslim Arabs are the enemy. Simpson, in a well-ordered world, would have, at the very least, his phones tapped, his every move monitored. He is an Agent of Influence -- whether out of conviction or for pay, or the overlapping of the two, doesn't matter. Objectively, John Simpson and the BBC World Service -- like other parts of the BBC but with special venom -- help to promote the apologists for Islam.

They must be exposed, andthen must be turned out. The mixture as before will not do.

Posted by: Hugh at January 29, 2007 2:57 PM

Walid Shoebat to speak at UC Davis February 6th 7PM Freeborn Hall.
Description: Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist who is now a peace activist will speak on campus. Shoebat will discuss his transformation from hate to love as a former terrorist. This lecture is excellent for anyone interested in homeland security, the Middle East, political science and history or just current events. Admission is free to UC Davis students with a student ID card. General admission seats are $12, and special reserved VIP seating is $25. VIP Tickets can be purchased by emailing walidevent@aol.com, regular tickets through the UC Davis box office, (530) 752-1915, 10 a.m.-5 p.m., Monday-Friday. This is expected to be a sold-out event, co-sponsored by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Walid Shoebat Foundation, so attendees are advised to purchase or obtain tickets early. A question-and-answer session will follow. For more information on Walid Shoebat, visit http://www.shoebat.com or http://www.3xterrorists.com/.
Starting date: 2/6/2007 Ending date: 2/6/2007
Starting time: 7:00 PM Ending time: 9:00 PM
Event type: Lecture
Location: Freeborn Hall
Sponsored by: Associated Students of UC Davis

This event is of interest to anyone interested in the mindset of militant Islam.

Posted by: TheHussar at January 29, 2007 2:59 PM

Will CNN and Fox do the same? Maybe Glenn Beck can pay a visit to this site.

Posted by: wrathofasma

He knows all about this site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93e5a6oPAoI

Posted by: Lorgan at January 29, 2007 4:45 PM

"Perhaps they will find out that at JW are perfectly sane, amusing, people of the Infidel world, not crazed Bible-belt snake-healers" (Hugh)

I'm devastated. I always imagined JW staff frantically monitoring the heavens for signs of the imminent Rapture. Next thing you will tell me Santa Claus doesn't exist?

Seriously, one former Al-Beeb reporter recently quoted here said that their multiculturalism was "visceral," and not something that could be reformed. I wouldn't put too much into them doing this particular piece of research. The fact that some dissident faction within the Beebst are working on this exposé is unlikely to herald a dawning age of glasnost, jihad wise.

Posted by: anti-uffe at January 29, 2007 4:46 PM

Anti-uffe:

A saying that I heard quoted in a popular movie some years ago applies well to this situation:

"Don't shit where you eat".

I agree with everyone above who advises tact, discretion, and avoidance of anything that antagonizes the BBC. You may be right that the results of this move within the Beeb will be disappointing, but it's better to give it the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Better to have the MSM as even an UNCERTAIN ally than as a hardened opponent. Your "one ... reporter" was just that - one reporter, not the whole BBC.

The earliest phase of any transition is always fragile, including the transition to a new ideology or point of view, and the party venturing the move to unfamiliar new ground is in a vulnerable position regarding anything that can shake its confidence in its new partner. These issues relate to everything from personal ego to the credibility of arguments.

Let's assume their good faith and offer a spirit of cooperation, good will and mutual respect, demonstrate reasoned and sound thinking, and do our best to secure a good outcome.

KnightHospitaller (aka "Templar")

Posted by: KnightHospitaller at January 29, 2007 5:20 PM

I hope your optimism is justified; however, a change in the course of a juggernaut like the Beeb will surely manifest itself not just in the odd programme anomaly. Signals authorizing it must come from the very top, and will have to be inculcated at every level (let's just say re-education is required). Size alone of the institution will inevitably make the proceedings of such a transformation known to the outside world.

Posted by: anti-uffe at January 29, 2007 5:49 PM

But WHY would the Beeb be interested in knowing about Bakri? Given the Beeb's pro-Arab slant, maybe they are just so enamoured with Bakri's musings, they'd like a fuller accounting.

Posted by: J.S. at January 29, 2007 7:15 PM

Hugh wrote:

"Perhaps they will find out that at JW are perfectly sane, amusing, people of the Infidel world, not crazed Bible-belt snake-healers or whatever it is we are supposed to be, but rather in the line of Spinoza, Hume, Tocqueville, and others who would not have lasted one minute in a Muslim-ruled country"

Well, I hope so, Hugh, but I hope they concentrate on your contributions and manage to turn a blind eye to some of the recent posters on JihadWatch (or should that be renamed BritRant?), who would probably write off Spinoza, Hume and de Tocqueville -- if they had heard of them -- as washed-up Europeans.

Posted by: JFGR at January 29, 2007 7:20 PM

Sad to see Crawley go so far downhill. I used to live there, many years ago. Back then (in the 1960's) it was a very desirable place to live. Fond memories of fields and woodland, used to worship at a beautiful little old Anglo Saxon church which was just up the road from where we lived. In fact my parents are buried in the graveyard there.
Now it sounds as if the whole town is turning into some kind of cesspit. Very sad.

Posted by: Ginro at January 29, 2007 8:13 PM

It's not all darkness at the beeb. Here's an interesting interview (although with an antagonistic - and typically precious sounding interviewer) giving a voice to Aayan Hersi, on radio 3.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/nightwaves/pip/t710k/

Having said that, I'd swear that, given the gratuitous pieces of dawa and PR items on behalf of the Muslim community it broadcasts, the news editor of their radio 5 must be a Muslim. They occasionally leave Sarfraz Manzoor in charge of presenting stories from around the world for an hour or so in the middle of the night.A man who writes articles about how Britain has a lot to learn from Islamic values and and is on record as saying that he has christian girlfriends but wouldn't dream of marrying one, presents the world to us. At one point he did a sympathetic interview with CAIR spokesman about the flying imams incident, immediately followed by an interview with an NY Arab stand-up comedian about his difficulties in overcoming unjust American prejudices against Muslims after 9/11.

Posted by: wallyUK at January 29, 2007 9:02 PM

Remind me to remove my bible belt and hide the snakes.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at January 30, 2007 12:13 AM

But still, let's not imitate Ciccio and say "vaffanculo" to Aldina (if that's the word you were searching for).

Excerpted from Hugh

For those like myself who sometimes are flummoxed by the occasionally esoteric "verbiage of Hugh" I'd like to offer the following site as a very detailed explanation of the word "vaffanculo".

http://www.affanculo.org/af/affan_e.html

[Even more OT but I couldn't resist:]
Something all of Germany and France [and maybe Australia and the USA too] were saying to Italy's football team after their ignoble play throughout the World Cup - proving that the ends justify the means. Namely winning the Cup is more important than Fair Play.

Of course we are all firmly on Italy's side when it comes to defense against pigslam. I'd hate to see Italian youtes deprived of watching football by gun-toting islamo-thugs.

We all know the islamos hate our game so much because WE ALWAYS KICK THEIR ASSES!!!! For the islamo-lands it's a success just to score a goal against a European or Latin American team. And THAT's a fact :-)

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 30, 2007 12:31 AM

Oh How could i forget:
[come potrevi dimenticare]

AFFANCULO musulmani!!!! Stronzi sporchi!!! Andate via, sporchi mahometani!!!!

Odiamo all'islam!!!

http://www.affanculo.org/af/affan_e.html

AFFANCULO ISLAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A F F A N C U L O ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Andatevi a casa!!!

Fuori de NOI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 30, 2007 12:37 AM

Correspondent Richard Smith via r.smith@bbc.co.uk.

Please do not use this occasion to voice your opinion of the BBC's coverage of jihad-related activity.

Is it OK we tell them to stick islam where the sun don't shine??

In German: islam ist Sch**ße!!!!!!!!

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 30, 2007 12:44 AM

I know they're making a law in Gemany where we can't say this anymore.

All the more important to say it here in the USA while we STILL CAN!!!!

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 30, 2007 12:45 AM

I just had an idea.. we should start fake internet "islamic charities" and get their donations - then use the money to WORK AGAINST pigslam. :-)

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 30, 2007 12:49 AM

The voice of the BBC said

Please do not use this occasion to voice your opinion of the BBC's coverage of jihad-related activity.

Sounds like they, like Glenn Beck, are aware of the content at JW/DW. Why wouldn't they assume that we would be greatful for the wonderful job they have done?

The only good thing coming out of this is that JW/DW has gained enough recognition to come to the attention of the BBC.

As far as this portending some change in coverage of the jihad by the BBC, let's just say that this is not the occasion to voice our opinion on that subject.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2007 2:02 AM

Remember the Channel4 "Dispatches" documentary about what's being said in UK mosques. Most of what Channel4 puts out is vaguely or strongly dhimmi, but that's not true of everyone there.

Organisations like Channel4 and the BBC are loose coalitions of people with varying attitudes. One faction (the dhimmis) may be the majority, but don't discount the possibility that you're talking someone in another faction, that's more sympathetic.

Posted by: Edward Pellew at January 30, 2007 5:36 AM

The tide here in the UK is changing.
We have had years of Dhimmi media and political coverage. Unfortunately our friends in the USA exported something called PC (Political Correctness). This was taken on board with fanaticism within the Brit media and mainstream politics, as well as large corporations who live in fear of "discrimination" lawsuits brought under "the race relations act". Unfortunately the only people it has served well are the extremist left wing, and any form of "ethnic" group they support (that would include radical Islam). There is a real culture of fear in any organisation like the BBC that prevents the telling of the truth if it is not to the liking of ethnic groups. The outcome will be swift and simple. You will be branded a racist and fired at once. This does not make for good unbiased coverage. The BBC has anyway been a traditional home for anti-USA leftie types (sorry cousins). However I assure you this is not the view of the majority of us UK Citizens. We value our ties with the USA, and our "special relationship"
I would applaud any efforts by the BBC to make news coverage more unbiased. Whilst there are doubtless many there who will oppose this coverage there will be just as many who wish the truth to be known about the activities of these maniacs. Long may it continue! Until at last our politicians listen and start to react by passing laws for the majority of Brits.
They started this war of terror, we will finish it! they are historical losers and low-life's.

Posted by: Defender of The Realm at January 30, 2007 7:31 AM

This is a good sign and should be welcomed and encouraged.
But my cynicism can't help getting the better of me.
It's one lone voice in a noisy choir.The BBC is overun with Arab apologists and sympathisers.You only have to look at the ethnicity of the staff to see there is a VERY strong muslim bias.
It's something close to 20 plus percent of staff numbers who are muslim or arab.
This is not a reflection of the population as a whole and therefore non-representive and divisive.I suspect it was a "positive discrimination" policy set in place 10 years ago.
Which is by the way around the same time I stopped paying my license fee having seen the bias which continues today.
I could no longer stomach John Simpson's flabby overfed face spouting biased reports concocted from his flabby underfed brainbox.

Not a penny will I ever give to any organisation that promotes such things.
You run the risk of a fine of a £1000 pounds and 6 months in Jail for refusing to pay the license fee.
Big Brother?
The best way is to have no correspondence with the powers that be.Ignore all letters threatening court action for "non-payment" never,ever reply.
They can swivel and I urge every Brit to do the same whenever I can.

Posted by: ovinesongs at January 30, 2007 10:49 AM

Screw the licensing fees! I read in the Economist [

so the ordinary britons are being forced to fund an anti-British propaganda outlet that is staffed by moslems and Dhimmis.

Blar should be ASHAMED of himself!!!

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 30, 2007 12:39 PM

It's not just blair it's been ongoing for 50 years or more.

Ordinary britons aren't forced to pay it,depnds how much bottle you have.. but the bully boy sheriff of nottingham tactics used by the outsourced and little known private debt agencies that is TV licensing make it seem obligatory.
Yes they have the law on there side but the law is an ass and rules are for fools.
I'm not a fool and am perhaps more reckless than most and my principles will not allow me to fund such an egregious institution.

I believe it's against my religion and human rights to be forced to pay for something I don't approve of nor asked for in the first place.
Imagine being sent copies of books,CD's,magazines,newspapers etc that you never ordered then being forced to pay for them.
It's cohercion and extortion tactics and it dont wash with me.
I don't own a T.V. I watch free to air stations on my powerbook.
Just by doing this I'm liable to pay £120 a year.
Dream on..

You'll never take me alive copper!

Still the topic of this thread is encouraging and I would urge anyone to co-operate with the Beeb on this and other related issues.

Posted by: ovinesongs at January 30, 2007 1:59 PM

Defender of the Realm (or any others familiar with current affairs in Britain):

I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on this statement: "The tide here in the U.K. is changing."

(Posted by Defender of the Realm)

It might be helpful if you could provide readers here with a political update on the U.K.

I'm writing this from Canada so my info about the current British scene is fragmentary and incomplete but based on what I know, or think I know, about things on your side of the pond these days, I'd say that even if Labour is on the way out, the Conservatives, their most likely replacement, are just as PC-programmed, and will have little positive effect on fortifying Britain against this Jihadist onslaught.

I don't think anything is going to change much anywhere until not only Europe's left-wing governments, but their current policy matrices, are swept away entirely. And this, I have the impression, is not going to happen nearly completely enough even if the Tories are returned to power in Britain, nor, I believe, is it going to happen under Labour, despite the occasional encouraging sign that we might hear from the musings of Jack Straw or Tony Blair that hint vaguely at a supposed reconsideration, on Labour's part, of the policy of multiculturalism.

Now my own political background is perhaps a bit unusual, in that I'm a sterotypical right-winger since I favour a society that's strong on tradition, marked by relatively fixed boundaries between different classes of people and in their social behaviour, and a firmly established order in society based on a clear and effective rule of law. But owing to my religious and moral principles, which are derived from the classical Christian sources, including the papal social encyclicals, I've felt that there have been certain gaps in the ideologies of the right-of-centre parties that historically have allowed people to suffer needlessly from some of the harsher edges of capitalism. My response to this perceived deficit has always been, until recently, to align myself electorally with the NDP - our equivalent over here of Labour - because I've seen the Social Democratic policies of that party as providing at least some sort of reflection - however imperfect - to the types of solidaristic reforms that Christian social teaching has historically called the capitalist ownng and ruling classes to undertake. (I think, for example, of medieval Europe's guild system as, at least potentially, analgous for today's trade unions, and I reflect positively on the fact that policies that aimed to provide universally available publicly funded health care were pioneered not by wacky socialists but by European conservatives such as Bismark in the 19th century and Emperor Charles the Great (Charlemange) in the 9th). The problem with present day Conservative parties for me has been that their faith in the market system - generally commendable in itself - isn't usually balanced very well with policies that tend to blunt the harsher edges of the capitalist economy, which it seems to me is something legitimately within the scope of both the rule of law and the maintenance of proper relations among social classes. Unfortunately, in recent history, most of these types of policies, where they've existed at all, have been advocated primarily by the left. Hence, I've usually felt obliged to hold my nose and put my trust (or pretend to) in the party of the left that we have around here, and I've spent a good deal of time working within it trying, vainly, to influence that party for the better.

Having said all this, I can assure you that I know the left from the inside, perhaps better than most other Jihadwatch posters. Of course, we're all familiar with the increasingly well-known downside of today's social democracy - the bloated welfare state, high taxes, resistance to growth and investment, the encroachment of big government seemingly in every realm of life, the taking hostage of society by the demands of big labour and corrupt trade unions making exhorbitant demands, and all sorts of ridiculous social engineering that, as a Catholic, I find completely bizarre, if not downright apalling! None of this is surprising given that the parties espousing that ideology continue to derive it from traditional socialism, which in its most radical (Marxist) form, have all but completely destroyed Eastern Europe, but what has me even more disgusted than any of this, is the continuing espousal of the multicultural delusion and its concomitant ideological cover for Islam and Jihadism which also seems to be an integral part of this mix. And even though I've often argued that the left is not monolithic - there are a significant number of thinkers on the left who feel as I do about Islam who we need to bring overtly into the anti-Jihadist struggle - it's clear that most of the left is quite simply hung up on its current multicultural agenda and shows every sign of hanging on to it tenaciously whether out of sincere conviction or just to cynically wring out of it every vote that it can buy for them. I simply do not see any solution in the offing unless the right is brought back to power across Europe with a whole new set of policies about immigration and multiculturalism, and the right in the U.S. manages to come up with a brand of Republican - or a Democrat - that similarly expunges the PC multicultural mindset and its Saudi-appeasing Arab-oil-whoring objectives from the policies of that government as well. As a matter of fact, I read just the other day on another site some socialist blowhard decrying the support that the CCF - the forerunner of the NDP - did reluctantly provide (after finally overcoming a GREAT deal of internal opposition) to Canada's participation in the war effort against Germany and Japan in World War II as a betrayal of its left-wing principles! If that is how the left in this country regarded the struggle against fascism in that conflict, its likely to be at least as ambiguous, if it comes around, in the struggle against Jihad. The left can provide some support, perhaps a considerable amount, to this struggle, but it will almost certainly never be on board as a unified force, and despite the principalled committment many of its adherents might make as individuals, as a whole it will likely always be a weak ally.

So I've decided to finally get my heart and my ballot into alignment here by voting for the Conservative Party in the next election, but I'd say that our Conservatives are about where yours are on the question of Islamist Jihad - better than the Liberals and the NDP but, nowhere near as tough and agressive as they need to be, and if there were a better alternative available here, I'd throw my support behind that instead.

In Britain, however, you have at least one other option - the BNP. Now from what I know, (or again, what I think I know) about that party it seems to me that that's an option worth considering. I haven't had time at this point to do any significant research into it, or even to read their policy manual, but I've seen it described, somewhere on this site I think, as having a platform in most ways similar to Labour's but with a good, solid edge of nationalistic pride in British achievements and the traditions of Anglo-Saxon culture, and most importantly, a good deal of backbone to stand up militantly to defend that culture's enduring values and to agressively take on internal threats against it. If its so, then to me that sounds like a very good combination and this would be the party I'd be supporting if I were a Brit, or I'd support a similar party if it were available in Canada. Yet from what I recall reading most recently, its support continues to hover at around 14 or 15 percent, nowhere near having the ability to take power, unless it could exercise it indirectly through another party in a minority parliament, and it continues to be plagued by accusations that it's "racist" for reasons apparently not connected to anything to do with Islam or Muslims.

So I wonder if you or other posters familiar with the situation in Britain would be good enough to enlighten me as to the current status of the BNP and the controversy around it and to clarify your thoughts as to just how change that you say is in the wind in Britain is going to come about there, or for that matter in continental Europe. If the more skeptical commenters posting in this thread are correct in what they say about the prospects for change in the BBC, then we won't see its editorial policies or ideological baseline change without a significant change in government, but based on my reading of the electoral situation in Britain it just doesn't seem to me that that change is going to happen anytime soon except at the level of names and faces, unless it comes about through armed revolution.

Even though you say that the dhimmi policies of the media and political establishment of the U.K. do not reflect the majority of public opinion of British society, it doesn't seem to me that the British public is yet embracing any significant political change. I'm sure hoping you or other posters can give me reason to be more optimistic.

Posted by: templar at January 30, 2007 4:15 PM

Hugh wrote:
"Perhaps they will find out that at JW are perfectly sane, amusing, people of the Infidel world, not crazed Bible-belt snake-healers or whatever it is we are supposed to be, but rather in the line of Spinoza, Hume, Tocqueville"

Really Hugh, do you actually read most of the comments on this site? So many Spinozistic pantheists and Humean sceptics, if only!

Sadly, the BBC's purported prejudices will be confirmed, with all these anti-European xenophobes and BNP supporting nationalists (fascists) spewing forth their hate-filled rants.

Posted by: schmegel at January 30, 2007 4:52 PM

"Unfortunately our friends in the USA exported something called PC (Political Correctness)."

Actually, the roots of PC are in Europe in the 18th century -- though that's not to say that American culture has not, in the intervening centuries (particularly the late 20th), imaginatively fertilized, watered and lovingly pruned that malignant growth.

Posted by: remote_control at January 30, 2007 8:37 PM

Schmegel:

After scanning the thread and finding no direct mention of the BNP other than my own, I naturally am wondering whether your disparaging reference to "... anti-European xenophobes and BNP supporting nationalists (fascists) spewing forth their hate-filled rants" is meant to refer, at least in some part, to me.

If so, you need to read more carefully. I did not say I support the BNP, only that at least one of the few sources from which I knew anything about it gave a generally positive evaluation. If you actually read my most recent post you should know that I was explaining my current assessment, shaped largely by the perspective derived from my own experience and background, of the question of Britain's current political culture vis a vis the challenge of Islamic violence, and asking for help developing a more complete and more informed understanding of the situation. I indicated that I was aware of the allegations about BNP ties to racism and it should have been clear that I would not favour such sentiments if they are actually found in BNP ideology and policy. My posting was meant to elicit helpful information, including information on that very topic, and I wanted to do it before the thread became so stale that no one was reading it or paying any attention to it any longer. I do not like to have to rely on Wikipedia - an ambiguous source by nature - for information, but was hoping to be put on the trail of more solid information.

Nonetheless, having received no reply so far to my invitation, I have at last checked the Wikipedia article on the BNP and, assuming that that article is generally accurate and objective, clearly the BNP has earned its reputation as racist, and is not a respectable or credible organization deserving of any decent person's support.

However, I must say that your negative evaluation of Jihadwatch readers suggests that you have some considerable prejudices of your own that could easily be characterized as "phobias" - how does the term "Fasciophobe" sit? It doesn't have nearly the vaguely exotic ring to it that that wonderful word "xenophobe" that you used does, I grant you, but as another old cliche has, it, "if the shoe fits, wear it".

Speaking of which, FYI, nationalism - admittedly often a negative and destructive movement - though one that, I dare say, most people identify with to a considerable extent when it is found among oppressed groups - is not identical by definition with Fascism. In my part of the world, most high school graduates know this. Nice try, but you'll have to work harder - and think harder, if you can - if you want to make your insults stick.

Posted by: templar at January 31, 2007 2:53 AM

P.S. Schmegel:

Things do indeed seem pretty dead now on this thread. What about you? Are you still lurking somewhere, or have you crawled back under your rock?

Posted by: templar at January 31, 2007 3:14 AM

Templar,

I wasn't referring to your post, or to this thread in particular, but to the comments on the site in general. If you look at the other threads you'll find a plethora of the type of comments I referred to.

I think a majority of all the comments on this site are aimed at monopolizing anti-jihad sentiment for the extreme right.

I maintain that this is regretable, as it is the modern world as such (i.e. democracy, human rights, freedom, universal education, etc.) that the jihad is being waged against.

Posted by: schmegel at January 31, 2007 5:42 AM

Templer,

You sound very much like me in that I am fairly libeal and believe in social capitalism, but also am very aware of the need to deal with Islam.

First of all do not believe Wikipedia.

The BNP grew from the National Front which what I knew as a youngster, they were the typical far right racists with shaven heads and steel toed boots and of course there are still such people in the BNP.

I had a good long look at the BNP a few times and I see a party in a state of change, I see people who are middle of the road joining it as they want to see something done about Islam and the BNP is the only one to say it as it is.

When we have such a move in any political party then the extremists lose ground, note that the left attacked the middle class BNP members because if it could be shown that middle class and decent non-racists were joining it would open the flood gates, which has already started.

Recently in France a Socialist politican suspended himself from the party for saying that there was too many black players in the French national football team. Is the French Socialist party a racist party because of this person or people who hold similar views.

I suggest that you look at the sort of people being attracted to the BNP including non-racist people like myself and think again.

schmegal, I like many many others just hope that the left sees it, but alas the left seem to see the jihadists as a natural ally against the West. If I could see the left picking up Islam on womans rights, human rights etc. then I would be fully supportive, but we do not see that. Core values of the left are just discarded when it comes to Islam, that is why people like me have a lot of contempt for the left because if the left does not protect and cherish their core values then they are just a bunch of deranged mercenary whores.

Take the socialists in France, they knew that there was an issue with the pensions in France, but they did nothing because they would upset their supporters, they waited for the right to get in to sort out the issue, typical, and now we have a large block of voters who vote socialist because it furthers their aims, I wonder why the left does not address those core values, I wonder?

Posted by: Daffersd at January 31, 2007 9:37 AM

Schmegel:

Thanks for clarifying that. I was a little rude to you above and I apologize for that. I actually have had to deal of late with the label "fascist" thanks to my ideas on Jihad and Islam and I've gotten somewhat defensive about this not because of hurt feelings but because its such an annoying distraction considering the reality of the situation that we're all aware of on site.

You're right of course about the site often being exploited by extreme rightists.

Again, sorry for my outburst. Take care.

Posted by: templar at January 31, 2007 7:28 PM

Daffersd:

Thanks for your response. Yes, it does sound like we have some common ground. Don't worry, I haven't written off the BNP based on the Wikipedia article. I'm always wary when using a source like that. You may have noticed that everything I say about the BNP in my other comments is hedged about with the qualifier "if". Most of my ideas about it are conditional and tentative and I still give it the benefit of the doubt. And I certainly give it high marks for its stance on Islam. I know that media spin, political rivalries and all sorts of related things often result in manipulation and distortion, and this is even more true when loaded terms like "racism" are available to be used exploitively to stir things up even more and I strongly suspect that there's a lot of this at work here.

Actually, I have some ideas about the whole issue of the question of race and how its dealt with in the media, in academe, in policy debates, in political parties, etc., that I'd share with you, and that I'd like to think might provide some interesting food for thought, but I think I'll save it for another thread since this one's getting kind of stale at this point, and I'd have to write at some length on a matter that's a kind of OT for this thread.

So maybe another time. In the meantime, if you can provide any info on what the other three parties over there are saying on Islam and related matters and what their current electoral prospects are I'd appreciate knowing about that.

Cheers.

Posted by: templar at January 31, 2007 7:53 PM