Well, it's understandable. People were getting too close to the truth, so obviously something had to be done.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at July 9, 2006 8:13 PM

Gee, if the War on Terror is the War on Islam, that could very well imply that Terror = Islam.

What is with the blind eye that Islamic apologists turn to, with regards to the crimes against humanity that Muslim countries commit against dhimmis, or even Muslims who may break the laws in Islamic countries, accidentally? Are they going to somehow attribute this to Israel somehow, or justify these acts by saying that it is because that Israel is committing atrocies, so therefore they are entitled to commit these terrorist acts themselves? I hear this same argument from my brother, who obsessively lives, breathes and eats anti-Israeli sentiment day in and day out. Blames Israelis for the plight of Hamas, etc.

Posted by: RaggedyAnn at July 9, 2006 8:25 PM

Perhaps a fellow poster from Britian could try to sneak in the word Jim Crow. It might escape the BBC censor.

Posted by: Pelayo at July 9, 2006 9:02 PM

The BBC. The BBC of John Simpson. The BBC of that enlarged Arabic broadcast section, and all those who work for it, working busily at Bush House, making sure that all the departments are doing what they, the Arabs and Muslims on staff, think should be done -- just in case the Guardian-reading staff, for the BBC is England as The Guardian -- should overlook something. The BBC of Barbara Plett, weeping for Arafat. The BBC of Orla Guerlin, married to a "Palestinian" and herself a true believer in Palestinianism. The BBC of Caroline Hawley. The BBC of Judy Swallow, of Robin Lustig, of Owen Bennett-Jones. The BBC that consults as its "experts" Azziz Tamimi, would-be suicide bomber (as he told Tim Sebastian), and Hamas supporter. The BBC that is quick to consult "Professor Tariq Ramadan, the noted scholar of Islam" as he peddles his snake-oil that even the French got tired of. The BBC that uses a loaded vocabulary at every turn -- the word "occupation" (jackbooted German soldiers, marching into Occupied Paris) for lands that the Israelis have a legal, moral, and historic claim to that goes far beyond their rights acquired through war. The phrase "Palestinian people" itself, never subject to the slightest critical examination, no one ever wondering where the phrase came from, or why it was never used by any Arab spokesman prior to the Six-Day War. The constant reitration of the phrase "occuped Arab lands" for lands that are disputed, and for which the BBC never thinks it has to give an explanation. The BBC whose speakers and speakerines enjoy hectoring the spokesmen, some of them admittedly not terribly effective in presenting Israel's overwhelming case, for the Israelis, on every conceivable and many inconceivable occasions. The BBC that also enjoys, come to think of it, explaining away Muslim behavior in southern Thailand, that never discusses the atrocities committed against non-Muslims in Indonesia (the thousands of churches burned down, carefully recorded by the Barnabas Fund, never mentioned by the BBC), or against Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan, and for decades has never dared to discuss the reasons that slavery persists in Mali and Sudan and elsewhere (including, Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells us --and she lived there -- Saudi Arabia), and why there never has been a Muslim William Wilferforce. The BBC, that cannot dare to ask why it is that all over Europe, no matter what the country, what the nature of the government, liberal or conservative, tolerant or strict, teutonic or latin, Muslims have proven to be a problem in every respect. The BBC, that cannot dare to ask why it is that in all of those countries, others who are quite different and have come to settle -- Vietnamese Buddhists, Hindus from India, Chinese, Indians from the Andes, black animists and Christains from West Africa, East Africa, South Africa, all seem able to integrate, to demonstrate their loyalty to the nation-state, for they may carry with them adherence to an alien creed, but not to an alien and a hostile creed.

And the nature of Islam, as a creed that inculcates hostility by its adherents to all others, is a subject that Infidels deserve to learn about -- and it is something that the BBC will never, ever hint at. Not under current management. Not with its current staff.

The BBC.

Posted by: Hugh at July 9, 2006 9:10 PM

When the British colonialists withdrew from India, they created the artificial "nation" of Pakistan out of their former colony. Now Pakistan has become the colonial master of the British.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 9, 2006 9:18 PM

Orwell would have referred to it as an "unword".

Posted by: Cornelius at July 9, 2006 9:33 PM

Start fighting back Gt Britain. This report is equivalent to the Nazis taking control of the BBC Glasgow and telling you that the German invasion in the north is just a natural progression of nature as it reaches equilibrium.

Fight back.

You are under attack. And the left wing appologists that tell you other wise are just Mullahs in waiting.

Storm the BBC and remove the quislings that want to sell your country to the Umma.

Posted by: km at July 9, 2006 10:32 PM

What surprises me is that the BBC knows about the word 'dhimmi' in the first place.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 9, 2006 10:59 PM

"When the British colonialists withdrew from India, they created the artificial "nation" of Pakistan out of their former colony."
-- from a posting above

No, the British did not create Pakistan. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, with a little help from Gandhi, and a lot of help from Muslim mobs, created Pakistan, or rather West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). The total number of victims in those Hindu-Muslim riots was far exceeded by the total number of victims of (West) Pakistani aggression in the newly-independent Bangladesh, in 1970-71. More people were killed by the Pakistanis in that part of Bengal that they had formerly controlled than were killed by the British in 200 years of the British Empire.

Posted by: Hugh at July 10, 2006 12:11 AM

Forgive me here for my ignorance, this is something that some of you probably know.

It sounds to me like the BBC is owned by, or at least heavily funded by muslims. Probably wealthy Arabs in the UK!?

Ever looked at their reporters? No wonder they're so biased. Complaints should be filed.

Yes and I agree that saying the war on Terror is a war on Islam pretty much sums up what they are and they admit it.

That's like the words "Thou shalt not kill" offending muslims. Hey, if you're not a murderer, why would those words be offensive to you?

Posted by: AIG at July 10, 2006 1:42 AM

km

I'm rooting for the BBC to be bought over by al Jazeera, so that a case can be made for banning it in the US. While on that topic, I'd like to know what those in the FCC, who are considering allowing al Jazeera to operate in the US, are smoking. Must be better stuff than what you get on Telegraph Avenue.

I'm willing to wager that the First amendment doesn't apply to non-citizens, and foreign corporations. Any takers?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 10, 2006 2:06 AM

Al Beebeeceera will not report anything that could upset the Ummah...

That is because Al Beebeeceera is completely infiltrated by Mohammedans and their agents....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 10, 2006 2:50 AM

What surprises me is that the BBC knows about the word 'dhimmi' in the first place.

That is not solely my fault, but I have used it, and "dhimmitude" in quite a lot of my posts to them on the subject of Islam, thinking it a concept about which the public should be better informed. It has always let me use the term so far (I see this is a very recent attempt on 5th July by Charles Martel) and I will keep trying to use it. In one debate a commentor was actually calling himself Nodhimmi, but I have not read anything my him for some weeks. THe problem I have it I can use the term, then my coment may even be published, then it gets pulled after 50 recommendations, presumably on one complaint. Yet whenever I complaint the comment is never pulled.

Also that comments accept box is very volatile, it frequently refuses my efforts as being too long when I have used character counter and they are well under the limit. I move one comma, and lo! it is accepted.

If this is a new regulation then we will have to box clever again. Dhimmi can be put into Latin alphabet several ways, although I prefer to use the same spelling a Bat Ye'or for obvious reasons. We shall have to see how long it takes them to realise what zhimmi is. or dhimma.

Slightly OT is this the same Charles Martel who posts here, but who I know was going to be taking a break due to relocation? If it is I am glad to see him up and running again.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 10, 2006 3:05 AM

It's very sad to see the once proud Brits reduced to scurrying about, hiding from the 'authorities', using their God given (yea right, dhimmi is god given, don't make me laugh..it's an invention of some sand munching raghead arab effwit) language in an 'acceptable' way.

Posted by: Mike_W at July 10, 2006 4:20 AM

I see this formulation online in Muslim sites "kafir dzimmi (protected infidels)".

How about using the alternate spelling "Dzimmi"?

(More common in Malaysia, for some reason.)

Since it is only a Western phonetics try at an Arabic word, go for the nearest approximation. "Dhzimmi". Or "Dzhimmi" - to get around their filter.

If they persist in censoring this perfectly valid term in all forms, call them "Dhimmitwits", and call it "the forbidden D-word".

Mock the self-pithing pukes.

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 10, 2006 4:46 AM

I've tried posting before on the Have Your Say forum. Quite often there is no mention of the elephant in the room artical that dominates the weeks news regarding Islam so am left to comment on Beckhams haircut and the like. What really hurts is I'm funding this Corporation.

Posted by: western infidel at July 10, 2006 4:48 AM

No wonder. A friend of mine, an Iraqi Arab who has been a political immigrant to Bulgaria for some 20 years, is a regular listener to the Arab-language service of the BBC. He is dead certain that it has been infiltrated by Saddamistas and other people who hate the West.

Posted by: highbg at July 10, 2006 5:23 AM

Using their search box I get four results for dhimmi. In addition, "There are no BBC recommended Web results for this query. Click here to search the Web for this query." Incredible, but telling!

I suggest sending them a message by making searches for words and phrases such as this and dhimmitude, bbc dhimmitude, barbara plett wept for arafat, al-bbcera, etc. I remember somewhere on their site you could see the latest searches, couldn't find it right now, but how about forcing them to closely monitor these results or altogether ban listings of verboten words?

Posted by: anti-uffe at July 10, 2006 5:24 AM

A much needed morale boost - Courtesy of Al-Beeb Or: "When it all goes horribly off-message"

It's not all bad on the BBC (though not for lack of trying on their part). Last week 'The Moral Maze' on Radio 4 had Islamic extremism as their topic - and they made the mistake of including Melanie Philips on the panel. I think she's only allowed on sometimes because she used to be associated with the Guardian.

Do yourself the favour and listen to her taking apart Anas Al-Tikriti. One of the 'finest' of British Islam. You may remember him going to Bagdhad as an 'envoy' to help secure the release of Norman Kember. (Who, by the way, spoke at Islam-Expo this weekend!)

He dodges, he squirms, he pleads ignorance, and then ends up blaming it all on MEMRI! Verdict: Total chump. I almost felt bad for his sake.

Go here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml

Click on: Listen to the latest edition
A new window should pop up
Fast forward to 33 Minutes (Using the 15 and 1 minute forward buttons)

Do have a listen. If you love Jihadist PR coming totally unstuck, this will make your day!

Posted by: PJS1 at July 10, 2006 7:13 AM

What's the Arabic for schadenfreude?!?

Posted by: PJS1 at July 10, 2006 7:14 AM

made the mistake of including Melanie Philips on the panel

She's a regular on the panel and talks a lot of sense. I've ordered my copy of "Londonistan".

Posted by: Interested at July 10, 2006 7:32 AM

Granny Weatherwax said:
We shall have to see how long it takes them to realise what zhimmi is. or dhimma.

You could resort to the famous rhyming 'cockney' slang to find words to outwit the PC gang.

Posted by: Cynic at July 10, 2006 8:21 AM

rhyming 'cockney' slang

You mean "Cockney rhyming slang".

Tricky. "Jimmy" is already taken - Jimmy Riddle = piddle. And it doesn't work, because the word that rhymes has to be the second, usually unspoken, word in the phrase.

The BBC are a right bunch of berks. (Berkshire hunt = punt).

Posted by: Interested at July 10, 2006 8:28 AM

Interested,

I was being ironic. I'm a great fan of Melanie and also have a copy of Londonistan. (Got it through Amazon by the way - has anyone seen it displayed somewhere?) I only meant that it must have felt like a 'mistake' from the controller's perspective to have put her on for this specific programme. If the intention was to put a positive gloss on Islam that is. As you may know, the panel for MM rotates so it is not necesarrily a given that she would have been on for this specific edition.

It may of course be that they wanted her on to produce some fireworks - which is certainly what happened!

Greetings from my little corner of Londonistan.

PJS1

Posted by: PJS1 at July 10, 2006 9:03 AM

With this kind of attitude, the UK will be Islamic within a generation or 2. Its said when a great nation gives up to the enemy without a fight.

Posted by: Elric66 at July 10, 2006 9:16 AM

That's why we will survive, and the UK will be conquered by the Islamic beasts---because we are Bible-thumping rednecks, and they are "sophisticated," "refined," "tolerant," self-hating, suicidal, multiculturalist dhimmis.

Bat Ye'or was right. Eurabia is not just in the realm of possibility and may be averted---Eurabia is reality. She lived among them, she knows the Eurabian mindset, she is qualified to make such predictions. The descendants of those who stopped the Mohamedan barbarians at the gates of Vienna have surrendered without fighting, and not only let them inside, but are making them citizens and nobility ("Lord" Nazir Ahmed)!

Posted by: US_infidel at July 10, 2006 11:49 AM

Why not try a term that, while certainly not exact, does possess a definite historical resonance: Quisling

Posted by: MP at July 10, 2006 1:21 PM

US Infidel, go easy on the Schadenfreude - it's German, you know, a product of Eurabia.

Posted by: Interested at July 10, 2006 2:34 PM

To "Interested"
"Berkshire Hunt" may rhyme with 'punt' but try another letter of the alphabet.

Posted by: Paul at July 10, 2006 2:56 PM

To my claim that it was the British Colonialists that created Pakistan, Hugh responded: "No, the British did not create Pakistan. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, with a little help from Gandhi, and a lot of help from Muslim mobs, created Pakistan..."

I stand by my statement. While it is true that Jinnah pushed for a Muslim state aided by the mobs and Gandhi's dhimmitude, the ultimately blaim for Pakistan must be laid at the feet of the British for giving in to this pressure.

The actual division between the two new dominions was done according to what has come to be known as the 3rd June Plan or Mountbatten Plan. Lord Mountbatten being the British viceroy with the responsibilty of arranging for India's independence. The border between India and Pakistan was determined by a British Government-commissioned report usually referred to as the Radcliffe Award after the London lawyer, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who wrote it.

On July 18, 1947, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act that finalized the partition arrangement. The legislation was designed by the administration of Prime Minister Clement Attlee, after Indian political parties came to an agreement on the transfer of power.

Therefore the British were responsible for the partition and creation of Pakistan through every step of the process.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 10, 2006 3:44 PM

Is the BBC owned by Saudi Arabia? I can't understand how this British network can be the hub of self loathing rhetoric.

How much do the network bosses hate western culture? It's nothing short of astonishing, way to go BBC you're the Dhimmi kings.

Niv

Posted by: niv at July 10, 2006 3:51 PM

Cockney slang challenge. Let's see if the readership here can help our pals across the pond with a two word phrase for dhimmi.
Here's mine, "Shake and shimmy".One problem in the present context will be confusion between sheik and shake.

Posted by: MP at July 10, 2006 3:59 PM

PJS1: Melanie Phillips wasn't merely associated with the Gruniad in some way. She held a fairly senior editorial position. Strident she may be in stating her views, but she is generally dead-on in her opinions.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 10, 2006 4:09 PM

If the BBC isnt owned by Saudi or Iran, they might as well be.

Posted by: Elric66 at July 10, 2006 4:26 PM

Hugh, terrific description of the beeb, Thanks for the belly laugh with "speakerines".
Speakerines, really? ;-)

Posted by: GA_boy at July 10, 2006 5:05 PM

Don't be an Arnold.
Arnold Rimmer - dhimma

I rather liked the alternative Rimmer, Ace, also played by Chris Barrie.
I'm talking about Red Dwarf BTW.
"Vulgar, occasionally crude but always witty, the dialogue more than matched the crazy plots - Arnold Rimmer was a whiny, shallow, self-centred hologram who had a sharp tongue and considered himself above the others (his other dimensional alter-ego Ace Rimmer on the other hand was an all-action, idolised, space hero)"

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 10, 2006 5:09 PM

Provoslavni

Hugh is right. There are a lot of things to fault the Brits on in India, but partition wasn't one of them. The only time the Brits tried it was in Bengal in 1905, and that had little support among either Hindus or Muslims, and they ended up having to can that plan a year later. It was also when they transferred the capital from Calcutta to Delhi.

What really drove that was a new political movement among Muslims that advocated seccession - things like Syed Ahmad Khan's Anglo-Oriental movement, which essentially was a campaign to re-create for Muslims an identity of their own, and 'anglicize' the community. The latter exercise only had enough staying power while he was alive, but after his death, the advocacy of a distinct identity remained. That movement evolved into the Muslim League, which begat Jinnah, and the rest is history.

In 1946, India saw a major bloodbath between Muslims and Infidels (i.e. Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists). That, and political rivalry between the dhimmi Congress and the Muslim League was what forced the Mountbatten plan. To expect the Brits to put India's unity on the top priority when Indian (read Congress) leaders weren't willing to forcefully suppress Muslim mobs and the Muslim League is putting the blame in the wrong place. If the Congress didn't have losers like Gandhi and Nehru at the helm, and had the balls to crush that rebellion, Britain wouldn't be dealing with Pakistan today.

Or Bandladesh.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 10, 2006 6:22 PM

Infidel Pride,
I don't deny that Muslim violence and Congress dhimmitude forced Britian's hand, but, in contrast to Churchill, the Attlee government was amenable to partition from the day it took office.

Lord Mountbatten openly leaned toward Jinnah in his sympathies (Maybe because he suspected Nehru of cuckolding his wife?). Even if the acceptance of partition was inevitable, Britian nevertheless is responsible for drawing the lines to favour Muslims. It was the Radcliffe Award that give large Sikh areas of Punjab in the west and the entire Hindu/Buddhist Chittagong Hills in the east to Pakistan. These are just a few reasons I find it hard to exonerate the British in the tragedy of Pakistan.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 10, 2006 9:15 PM

Everybody had Edwina - Lord Louis preferred the boys.

Posted by: wallyUK at July 10, 2006 9:26 PM

One more time:

The British were in no position, just a few years after World War II, and with their hands full in Mandatory Palestine, not to mention the troops still in Occupied Germany and Austria, to decide the fate of India. They couldn't, which was why they were giving in to demands for full Indian independence. As always during the Raj, from the time of Clive at Plassey, a handful of troops (and civilians) were in India, and could never, after World War II, imposed their will if it went against the will of the people in India.

Partition was up to the leaders, and to people, in India. Jinnah planned. Gandhi acquiesced. Muslim mobs went wild (see the memoir of the apostate Anwar Shaikh, expressing his own remorse for killing a Sikh father and son). The rest turned out to be history.

Posted by: Hugh at July 10, 2006 11:37 PM

Here's one from the 70's.

Sly & Limmie

Posted by: western infidel at July 11, 2006 2:52 AM

Provoslavni, Infidel Pride,
I ultimately hold islam responsible for the creation of pakistan. One only has to see the carnage that was inflicted on Hindus by ORDINARY EVERY DAY MUSLIMS. They went wild wherever they were. They got into Hindu houses and killed all they found. On the streets, in the temples, on the railway stations, everywhere they killed with ordinary knives and axes and hammers and sticks. They were not the majority, but whatever minority they were, they were sufficient to kill one million Hindus brutally. Because islam teaches them to be killers from birth. The sawing off of heads of animals in mosques and subsequent butchering desensitizes their entire society. No other culture allows their kids to do this to animals at a tender age. They have absolutely no feelings and that is why they are killers of this magnitude. We see it in the riots that happen in India. They don't have guns, they don't need guns. They are trained butchers and the crude tools of butcherey do very well for them. And they don't spare any thought for the women and children of infidels, inflicting the worst tortures upon them. It does not take sophisticated training to become a terrorist. islam is sufficient.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 11, 2006 4:30 AM

arjun sevak
I agree it is Islam that created Pakistan.
It was waiting for the moment to strike and with the British Empire weakened Islam raied its head in the form of Pakistan. Jinnah, Gandhi, Mountbatten - pawns in the game of Mohammed the Butcher.

Posted by: The Pig Loving Maldivian at July 11, 2006 3:01 PM

How about something like 'a man after midnight'? It may not fulfil the strict rules for rhyming slang, but most people would immediately think of 'gimme, gimme, gimme.'

Posted by: wallyUK at July 11, 2006 6:43 PM

Thanks for the link Mr Spencer - much obliged.

I'm beginning to think that the BBC has been infiltrated by pro-Islam elements.

For example - today's Mumbai bombings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5169332.stm

not a mention of the word "terrorism" , "islam" or "muslim" in that report. MiniTruth is alive and well, and working at Al Beeb.

(and the sad thing is - my tax money is funding this crap)

Posted by: archduke at July 11, 2006 7:05 PM

"I agree it is Islam that created Pakistan"

One aspect of that conflict that is seriously under-reported in the West, is the Bangladesh genocide of the early 1970s. Several million Hindus were wiped out.

Posted by: archduke at July 11, 2006 7:07 PM

What this all shows is that whenever the west has given up its colonies, the indigenious peoples are not worthy of it. England gave up India to the Pakistanis, France gave up Algeria to the arabs. Now, look. Indeed, look at Zimbabwe after the British sold out Rhodesia.

The colonial powers brought stability and culture and a respect for human life. Basic Christian principles. But, in the end, they also brought another western principle, albeit a Johnny-come-lately principle, - the right of indigenious self-government - which, after the second world war, was all the rage with the European colonial powers. They wanted to wash their hands of these fundamentally backward places. I don't blame them.

Unfortunately, by doing so, they turned over the shop to those that would produce enemies that would come after the colonial powers right in their own living rooms. Give those indigenious people the right of self-government, and they will, in the process, destroy everything good that the colonial powers bequeathed to them when they left. Just as the Palestinians destroyed the Greenhouses and everything else the Israelis left for them.

Take the colonial authority away, and the locals will form militias, warlords, terrorist gangs, and ultimately, in an eco-system where only the strongest survive, islam, as an organized crime family, comes to rule over the local chaos on their march to London and Paris.

Moral of the story - albeit a lesson learned too late: Don't give anybody self-rule. If they were primitive enough to be subjugated by you, they are too primitive to be trusted with power once you leave.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 11, 2006 11:03 PM

somethingaboutislam,

Civilized peoples are worthy of self-government while criminals and savages are not. Hindu India is a legitimate nation deserving of independence while Pakistan and Bangladesh are backward criminal states.

Likewise the comparison between a highly advanced society like Singapore and a country like Malaysia where millions of highly civilized and educated Chinese and Indians live under the oppressive rule of ignorant Malays. Clearly some peoples are worthy of self-determination while others are not!

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 11, 2006 11:52 PM

"Clearly some peoples are worthy of self-determination while others are not!"

Very few non-Western ones are.

Posted by: Television at July 12, 2006 3:04 AM

Archduke:

Beginning to think? The BBC, like the British Foreign Office, is absolutely infested with Arabists.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 12, 2006 7:35 AM

They need a good clocking in the George for this. Totally Pete Tong. No surprise really. It's all gone a bit Nick Cotton over at Auntie. A Weston in fact.

Posted by: TubeRider at July 13, 2006 3:58 PM