| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
#1. "Officials blames Muslim insurgents for much of the unrest, although criminal motives are also thought to be at work."
#2. "The southern provinces are predominantly Muslim, with a separate language and culture to much of the rest of Thailand."
#3. "Militants often target schools and teachers because they see them as symbols of the Buddhist Thai authorities."
-- from this more or less typical and ordinary BBC piece
Let's take those three sentences in turn.
#1. The attempt to confuse by not sticking to the main, Muslim point: "although criminal motives are also thought to be at work." No evidence is given for this statement. No explanation as to what the "criminal motives" might be -- for example, what financial gain might result. This is simply tossed in, and the effect is simply to make listeners think: General unrest. Mixed motives. Muslims, criminal gangs, what have you. Too confusing to figure out.
#2. "predominantly Muslim, with a separate language and culture" -- so we recognize that the fact that they are Muslim has something to do with it, but we are going to immediately focus on the trivial -- that "separate language and culture" -- and not say a word about Islam, its tenets and its attitudes, as the main prompting for this behavior against Buddhists.
You find nothing in this report about what might conceivably be found in the Qur'an and Hadith to prompt such acts. Nothing about Muslim agitators from Malaysia, nothing about Saudi money -- are there those agitators, or radio stations beaming in? Has Saudi money been arriving? What is it that might prompt local Muslims to act this way? Has the Thai government suddenly started to behave terribly toward them, just as terribly, say, as the Spanish did to warrant Madrid, the English to warrant the bombs in the London metro, the French to warrant their own metro bombing a few years ago, and all the plots (including that against the Strasbourg Christmas Festival) that have been uncovered? Did the Thai government do something as bad as the Italians, which caused plots to be hatched that were not carried out only because the police seized the plotters in time? Was the Thai government as terrible as the terrible Danes, publishing those terrible cartoons, which earned Danes everywhere the threat of Muslim revenge -- i.e., death threats?
We want the BBC to tell us what, if anything, has changed in that south where, according to its report, that separate "language" and that separate "culture" needed to be mentioned, but not that separate "religion" as the explanation, both necessary and sufficient, of the whole business. That would take too much time.
#3. "Militants [sic] often target schools and teachers because they see them as symbols of the Buddhist Thai authorities."
Is that why? Or is it because schools and teachers and schoolchildren are the most helpless of victims, the easiest targets of all? And aren't schools not "symbols" of Buddhist Thai authorities but places where knowledge outside the only kind of knowledge that counts -- the Qur'an and Sunnah -- is imparted? And knowledge, if it is not that kind of "knowledge," is itself to be opposed. How many schools have been bombed by the Taliban, not because they were "symbols" of American-backed Karzai but because they were schools, and they were schools teaching girls things no girls should know -- that is, about the world. Why could not the BBC reporter mention the vulnerability of teachers and schools? Why not mention that without those schools of the government, there would be no schools at all save madrasas. Why not?
The effect, of course, is to weirdly justify, or attempt to justify, the bombing of teachers and schools -- that is, the bombing of schoolchildren. When the PLO seized schoolchildren at Ma'alot, and then held them hostage, and then murdered 21 of them, it was not because the school was a "symbol" of Israeli authority but because they could seize the schoolchildren more easily than they could seize anyone else. When the Muslims in Beslan seized the school, it was for the same reasons. Not a "symbol." (How that word somehow mitigates, suggests to the listener that if a mere "symbol" is attacked, then that's a bit more understandable, for then the attack itself seems...seems....seems somehow "symbolic" then, doesn't it?
But perhaps I am unduly harsh on the BBC. Yes, I suppose I am. How can the mere BBC be expected to offer its listeners a hint, the tiniest hint, of what Islam inculcates, of what the Hadith are, of what the Sira is, of how the doctrine of abrogation means for an understanding of those passages in the Qur'an that do not quite jibe? After all, the BBC is still a young organization, a fledgling finding its way, with so few resources, with all that constant fund-raising it has to do. Be patient. Give it time. Just the kind of time you will be asked to give Al-Jazeera ("As American as Apple Pie," according to an American hireling who works for the station, in the Sunday Bandar Beacon). But that is another, even more sinister matter.
Posted by Hugh at July 4, 2006 11:51 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
From the media "style" book:
Muslim. n.- (obs.) [Formerly a word for a member of a Middle Eastern religion.] Substitute any word you can think of that will lead away from the memory of this now disturbing linguisitic artifact.
Posted by: profitsbeard![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 4, 2006 2:31 PM
Good write up, Mr. Fitzgerald. I often and always feel the same way when I read the "journalism" taking place at the BBC. They always seem to find some way to ignore the centrality of Islam to so much of the unrest throughout the world that they report on everyday.
I once did something similar to this with a friend who considers BBC to be his favorite source of "news." I told him it was disgustingly biased, so biased as to not even be reliable, and took an article at random about the Middle East and showed him what was wrong with it (this was an article about one of the latest flare-ups in Palestine, so of course there was a lot!) Amazingly, he agreed with what I pointed out and said it was pretty bad now that he had seen it and had it explained... but he said he'd still read the BBC because he doesn't know of any other source of news worth reading.
Sadly, he now had a point.
Posted by: sologue at July 4, 2006 4:48 PM
The BBC has big plans to expand in the United States. If it does not cease its outragous coverage of the Jihad, most obvious in its malevolent and misleading coverage of Israel's attempts to defend itself against the still-misidentified (as a "nationalist struggle" of the recently-invented "Palestinian people" with those "occupied Arab lands yadayada"), but also in its mocking and vicious treatment of the United States and all things having to do with American political and legal institutions (though some folkloristic tales, heartwarming stories involving -- oh, Cajun dances in Plaquemines Parish -- are still permitted.)
The BBC must have its plans thwarted.
Posted by: Hugh at July 4, 2006 6:05 PM
On the other hand, there may yet be hope for Al BBCeera! I went back to their 'have your say' forum on the Mo Cartoons, looked at the 'most voted for' comments, and surprisingly most of them are saying things that should be quite familiar to JW/DW posters! The most popular one was:
'What hypociscy! Where was their outrage when the Buddhist statues at Bamiyan were destroyed in Afghanistan, or when Christian Churches are bombed and their followers killed in Iraq and Lebanon, or when a Catholic Priest was murdered in Turkey, or when Iran denies the holocaust happened? All in the name of Islam. The mindless mob violence by these fanatics just validates the message of the cartoon.'
(I'm sure the poster meant 'hypocrisy').
You can see the others at:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1011&edition=1&ttl=20060704230351&#paginator
Maybe they will finally get the message. At least they haven't 'moderated' these out of existence!
Posted by: Aardvark at July 4, 2006 6:17 PM
Isn't it amazing the BBC castigates the Thai government for not yielding its Southern provinces to Muslims[Serbia for not offering Kosovo up on a silver platter to Albanian Muslims-takes E.U & U.S to do that]?? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MULTICULTURAL PARADISE, the sharing & caring of different ethnic groups to achieve this happy state...Apparently THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO MUSLIMS ONLY TO THOSE REGARDED AS DHIMMIS OF THE GLOBAL CALIPHATE. In other words BBC is saying-give up all your possessions & lands to Muslims BEFORE WE TAKE THEM FROM YOU BY JOLLY JIHAD-BY BOMBS,BEHEADINGS,TERROR & INTIMIDATION just like its written in the Koran.
Sometimes I despair of Britain and grieve for her too:horrible to see this country's once proud
face and courageous spirit ground into the dust by Muslims and their Quislings.
By the way, news from Sarajevo. A muslim woman was murdered by her Islamist son "BECAUSE HE DIDN'T THINK SHE PRAYED ENOUGH..."
at July 4, 2006 7:35 PM
I live in Thailand and am as disgusted with the BBC as you. Ironically, most policy makers here consider the BBC to be a valuable news source since the local press is so heavily controlled by the government. Anyway, even the local press, which frequently mentions the fact that the terrorists are Muslim, cannot bring itself to examine the role of religion in the southern killings. There is a general unspoken fear here of what might happen if all Muslims started behaving the same way, country-wide. But that is an unspoken fear and is usually covered up with the same old “religion of peace – tiny minority of extremists” apologies that you hear everywhere else in the world.
Islam is a key catalyst to the killings in the south. There can be no denying that. But what is going on is also an ethnic cleansing of ethnic Thai and Chinese. By killing off and driving out all non Malay the claim that the provinces are not really part of Thailand appears stronger at face value. The Malays down there are pretty brutal. Even the Malays in Malaysia don’t like them, except along the border where there is strong support for Jihad. We Thais have been stupid to neglect the area for so long. The BBC and others roundly condemned one Thai senator’s idea of encouraging landless Thai from the Northeast to move to the Southern provinces where there is a land surplus, thereby increasing cultural diversity and understanding and brining the Malay into the mainstream. The BBC said that would be like genocide. Well, to me, the killing of monks and school kids seems like genocide, but to the BBC it is just an abstract ideological phenomenon because the perpetrators are Muslims and the victims are not. There is no cultural diversity now. But that is OK because the monotheism is Islamic.
The basic problem with the BBC as I see it is that their reporters are very liberal Europeans, mostly alcoholics who pass their days in the bars of Bangkok and who hate democracy, America (with who Thailand has been closely allied since the end of WWII), and their own white skin. They are not much different from the liberal NGO Europeans you see “working” in Bolivia to bring communism to that country. Anyway, the killings in the south are caused by a number of reasons but the fact is all killings are caused by an individual who pulls a trigger or holds a knife. They come out of Muslim religious schools and mosques before they do their killings, their killings are OK to them because the victims are not Muslims, and the BBC will never say that. BBC will just keep implying we Thai had it coming in some way. And we will keep letting them get away with it because no one really wants to stir up the hornets nest. We are afraid of Muslims.
at July 4, 2006 11:06 PM
Little irony that the world's first snuff video channel, Al Jazeera, was set up by staff from the BBC Arabic channel when its broadcasting was censored by the Saudi government. Next year they'll relaunch the BBC World Service Arabic Channel, and Al-Jazeera will launch their English-language version. It's great how we in the UK are legally forced to finance this insular little circle of anti-Western propagandists, for the privilege of being decieved and sold out to our enemies. Orwell's coffin must be doing 20,000 RPM, and rising.
I wonder how their American venture will be funded. I guess either there'll be a hike in licence fees, or they'll go the CNN route and only sell advertising exclusively to Arab airlines and hotel chains that none of us will ever use... (CNN's UK news channel is already indistinguishable from Al-Jazeera).
at July 5, 2006 12:27 AM
I would like the percentage of Muslims there is in the newsroom staff, not just reporters, er journalists, but at the editor and management level. Probably Muslims are overrepresented. I'm sure there are convenient prayer rooms throughout their Longdon building and the dhimmis are VERY respectable when they pass by and look in with awe at their colleague's reverence for their Allah and Mo. Makes you want to barf.
Posted by: John Sobieski at July 5, 2006 12:33 AM
The domination of the British foreign office by Arabists used to be put down to the fact that the ex-public schoolboys there were attracted by the all-male 'blokiness' (not to mention homoeroticism) of Islam. Sometimes I think the blind spot the BBC has for Islam has the same source.
If you ever have an hour to waste, and have a strong stomach, try listening to a BBC radio documentary about Mohammed. There are a few token comments by Ayaan Hersi and other critics of Islam, but they know the score and pull their punches. Otherwise it consists of unctous apologetics, sanitised pap, evasions and elisions. It can be downloaded at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/genres/religion/aod.shtml?fivelive/real_mohammed
Posted by: wallyUK at July 5, 2006 1:27 AM
Thank God for this article. For at least last 3 years I watch BBC news (specialy their documentaries, because on cable network I dont have something better to watch) and it disguises me how dhimmi they are. Specialy their show Doha debate, make me vomit. I send them on one occasion my last comment quite simmilar to what was said above (little bit more slanderous and much more brief) and off course they didnt publish it. Its sad that comments like this are only for a few viglant, awared and alerted.
Posted by: svemirko at July 5, 2006 3:26 AM
laosuwan
First of all, glad to see someone from Thailand. You have a Jihad as well, and nobody seems to cover that, which is a shame. There's a lot about Thailand that we'd like to learn from you, but thanks for this anyway.
I hope that the Royal family, which still seems well adored in Thailand, does both Thailand and humanity a favor:
Back to the BBC question - neither BBC nor al-Jazeera should be allowed to expand in the US. In fact, does the first amendment apply to foreigners? If not, neither of the above 2 organizations have a right to operate in the way, say, the NY Times does.
In fact, if al-Jazeera can just buy up the BBC, problem solved. While not too many people in Washington can oppose the BBC plans to expand, they can and are opposing al-Jazeera. If al-Jazeera can simply gain a majority stake in the BBC, it solves the problem.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 5, 2006 3:57 AM
To illustrate both bbc and cnn:
Last night, an Arab missile shot from northern Gaza [from the former Jewish settlement of Dugit, whose inhabitants were uprooted by Sharon's folly last year] came down in the center of Ashqelon, one of the six largest cities in Israel. CNN this morning [Israel time] reported an Israeli attack on the palestinian authority interior ministry [terrorism facilitating agency] in Gaza, then, as if as an afterthought, they reported a missile shot from the Gaza Strip into Israel. They did not mention that it came down in the middle of a city endangering civilians. One might have thought that it had come down in a field or a stone quarry.
That's CNN.
The BBC too reported the Israeli attack on the PA interior ministry in Gaza ["at least four persons injured"]. But NOT ONE WORD ABOUT THE MISSILE THAT HIT ASHQELON!!!
So CNN is bad and bbc is worse.
Posted by: Eliyahu at July 5, 2006 4:36 AM
I caught a few minutes of BBC World News on a US TV station last night. They had a long piece on the space shuttle launch. The entire report was seething with anti-US flavor. The entire report was negative about the space shuttle program, extensively covering what may have fallen off during the launch and how the entire program is riding on this launch, yadyadyada. The reporter concluded by saying something to the effect that the success of the launch won't be truly known until the shuttle safely returns. While he was saying this they showed full-screen footage of the previous shuttle breaking up on re-entry. The jealousy of the US space program was palpable.
On a side note, it seems comical that BBC TV news coverage of the World Cup has no footage of any games whatsoever. All they have is a reporter reading game highlights with the twinkling mega-ball in the background. Maybe there's a legal reason for a video blackout of games, but it seems like a pre-teenager production.
Posted by: perpster at July 5, 2006 6:03 AM
adding to perpster
I also watch the launch of Discovery, and with BBC old custom they called a "specialist" from some royal astro society in the studio to comment present launch. At the end, speaking about next americas steps, he simply said that nasa now build next generation of shuttle which will have no unreusablable parts, and will icomporate external fuel tank into main body. That will be like mega space plane who will launch and land like any other plane. I was amased by such ammount of technical faults and ignorance. The BBC "specialis" refered to abandoned SSTO concept (single stage to orbit), instead of true nasa concept which was publicly introduced last year. Next americas space vehicle will be Apollo like conic capsule,(Apollo on steroids) because its most prowen and safest. It will be anything but a shuttle. I wonder, if they hired specialist on all other topics like this benign one, some may ask to where the present anglo media are mislead their public.
Posted by: svemirko at July 5, 2006 7:05 AM
I have learned since my last post that the rocket that hit Ashqelon last night came down in a school yard but the kids were not there since it was the evening.
But the bbc is like the NYTimes. Some news is not fit to print.
Posted by: Eliyahu at July 5, 2006 7:48 AM
Eliyahu,
What will Israel do when the palirabs get hold of unmanned aerial vehicles that they can steer right to target, loaded with convetional explosives or WMD? The geography is so small that the detection/reaction times are infinitesmally small. I hope Israel (that shitty little country) can use some of it's brainpower to come up with new technologies to counter UAV's (and suicide bombers), but time is running out. The bad guys are able to take advantage of newer and cheaper technologies all the time.
Posted by: perpster at July 5, 2006 7:59 AM
The BBC is such a joke, yet they are held up by many as a shinning example of truth and inpartiality. It's an indoctrination service, not a news service. The US manistream liberal media is sadly no better.
Fortunately, if you have the curiosity and persistence required, there are alternative news sources out there that will give you real information. JW/DW is one. These days, if you don't get proactive with your news searches, you'll learn nothing about what's really going on.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at July 5, 2006 2:41 PM
The BBC needs different people on its Board of Governors or Overseers or whatever the body is called.
A half-dozen names come immediately to mind:
Vladimir Bukovsky (Moscow, Cambridge)
Prof. Aaron Klug, OM, FRS, former president of the Royal Society
Prof. Kenneth Minogue (LSE)
Dr. Oswyn Murray (Balliol)
Tom Stoppard (Prague, Shanghai, West End)
Prof. Donald Watt (LSE)
The British government must regain control of the out-of-control BBC, which at its best merely mirrors the world view of "The Guardian," and at its worst parrots Al-Jazeera. The Lord Haw-Haws of the age now broadcast not from Radio Berlin but right from Bush House. Drop by drop, they have poisoned minds against Israel and the United States, and are now undercutting the Europeans's own ability to come to grips with the instruments of Jihad -- Da'wa and demographic conquest -- that share the same goal, but use different means, as the instruemnt of terror.
This cannot be endured much longer.
Posted by: Hugh at July 5, 2006 4:07 PM
Hugh,
With all due respect, what good would "The British government ... regain(ing) control of the out-of-control BBC" do? The British Government is under the tight rein of Red Tony Blair, one of the worst dhimmis in the world. Yes, he supports the War, but look at the actions of his government at home, both in their deeds and what they tolerate. Now the CofE is discussing replacing St George as Patron of England, because "He's offensive to Muslims!" My advice is, if you listen to the BBC, only listen to BBC3. The music is great (I have it playing in the background now) and you can always turn down the volume when the news comes on!
Posted by: jovan66102 at July 5, 2006 5:48 PM
BBC3?
Do they play Jack Buchanan? Al Bowlly? Bix Beiderbecke? Those are the 3 B's who've been seen lately hangin' roun' my door.
at July 5, 2006 8:33 PM
Hi
BBC is worst and CNN is worse as well. They colours their own agenda onto the news and present it. It is the same in many of the Indian news channels as well.
The channel that came up in India "Sudarshan channel" is not in the packages being given to the subscribers but instead the useless channles of QTV(Quran TV) is given 24 hours.
I have noticed this attitude from BBC from long time. China and India literally doesnt feature in their news coerage except when they want to show the SLUMS of Mumbai and Displaced people in China.
And another supposed doumentary titled " being an Indian" shows a poor girl and calls her indegenous. I dontknow what is wrong with BBC. What does they mean by saying indegenous, does that mean the rest of Indians are immigrants and not belong to India. If I am poor I too look the same as that girl being showed as indegenious.
But The middleeast occupies a larger portion of their telecast and it is disgusting. What in the hell they are telecasting middle east news into India I dont understand. Even I was thinking of banning the BBC will be a good step
Thailand is a great country. The King of Thailand has real mass support. The thai's should not budge in like the Indian govt but it should press in homogenising its south otherwise it is damn sure tha Thailand will be partitioned by these so called self destructive western Nations who are destroying their own countries, cant expect any arbitration from them
at July 5, 2006 11:52 PM
I have been trying for nearly a year to post on HYS a comment that was a)moderately anti muslim, or b)slightly pro-American.
I managed the second on an unmoderated discussion, to howls of disgust from the usual left wing whingers, but unfortunately I`ve never managed to get a post critising Islam past the HYS censors.
Please believe me when I say the UK is not full of anti-American, muslim hugging lefties, most people in Britain view America as our closest ally, and are grateful for it, and the resentment towards the constant whining of the Muslims is much more widespread than the BBC would have you think.
at July 7, 2006 6:35 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)