"Does the BBC actually want to see Britain subjugated and Islamized?"

Yes

Posted by: Elric66 at December 5, 2007 9:08 AM

This ... BBC... it's government funded, right? Perhaps it's not just the BBC wanting to watch the British people grovel in Dhimmitude... but the actual government of Britain?

Posted by: senor doeboy at December 5, 2007 9:14 AM

senor doeboy,

That too. I dont understand how a democracy can be a true democracy with a state funded media.

Posted by: Elric66 at December 5, 2007 9:34 AM

The BBC needs to be cleaned out, top to bottom, and this requires a Parliamentary investigation. . It needs to have John Simpson (google "John Simpson" and "Hugh Fitzgerald" for more) discharged as head of the World Service. It needs to be asked why it is refusing to reveal the contents of an investigation into BBC bias in its coverage of the "Middle East conflict" (which means: the Lesser Jihad against Israel).

In a few -- just a few --- cases, the outcry wastoo strong, and the outrageousness of the coverage too egregious, to be ignored, so a few transfers were made. For example, there was Orla Guerin, married to a "Palestinian" and a determined propagandist herself for The Cause, whose steady drip-drip-drip in her outrageous coverage did so much to poison the minds of so many listeners, steadily over so many years, about Israel. She's now been sent to South Africa, where she will continue to do what she can -- for example, she'll never cover the growing Muslim threat in Capetown, because for her, with her view, there is no Muslim threat.

There is Barbara Plett, who on air wept after Arafat -- that great man -- died, and who, only because of that on-air sobbing, revealing her bias, had to be transferred. In other words, her years of viciously one-sided reporting from Israel (along with Orla Guerin) could have continued forever, had she not wept for Arafat those real, not crocodile, tears. She's now in Afghanistan -- or is it Pakistan?

And then there is Lys Doucet, of the unusally hard and nasty voice, who was a cross between Guerin and Plett. Quite a trio. She's been transferred, for her outrages, to Pakistan -- or is it Afghanistan?

But what about all the Arabs and Muslims on staff, who influence the kind of young, leftist, Englishman, already trained to accept an anti-Israel narrative, already raised up to "know" that is this place called "Palestine" and people who apparently -- so they think -- always called
"Palestinians" which must mean it's their country, and those terrible Jews - yes, we regret the Holocaust but for god's sake that was a long time ago, wasn't it, and (now repeating a staple of Arab Muslim propaganda) "why should the Arabs have to pay for the crimes of Europeans"? Never a hint of wondering over the position of Jews under Islam, never a recognition that more than half of the Jews in Israel never left the Middle East, no hint of recognition that Islam must be understood if Arab opposition, and permanent Muslim refusal to countenance an Infidel nation-state (a refusal that can be ignored if, and only if, Israel remains, militarily overwhelmingly stronger, and if, and only if, it has the ability to deal with the demographic conquest that threatens not only Israel, but ultimately, Great Britain and the other countries in Western Europe).

The BBC has been attacked for its totalitarian anti-Western bias by Vladimir Bukovsky (if you don't know that name, look him up -- he should be known). Its coverage has been dissected by Trevor Asserson and others now monitoring the BBC. But as yet there has been no outcry in either House of Parliament. And we need an outcry, well-informed and devastating, like the outcry in the House of Lords, forty years ago, when Lord Shackleton and Lord Maugham (in his maiden speech) ripped into slavery in Arabia, especially that malign place, Saudi Arabia, and their efforts, that outcry, forced the Saudis and other Arabs, by 1962, at least formally, to end the practice of slavery, at a time when there were nearly half-a-million slaves in that country, our "staunch" ally then and now.

The BBC is the source from which many obtain their news and therefore their world-view. Like the U.N., it has been infiltrated and captured by Muslims ably abetted by non-Muslims who are -- not all, but many -- subject to those two mental pathologies that has done such damage in Western Europe, anti-Americanism and antisemitism. There have been recently cases of people quitting the BBC, people who did not share either the anti-Americanism or the antisemitism, and who are disgusted by what may be called the "culture" (as that word is now used) of the BBC. They too should testify. The few decent papers should make a stink, raise holy hell. And in this country, people should raise holy hell about the BBC being transmitted by NPR -- and supported, therefore, by American taxpayers, either as donors, or as those who subsidize NPR because it has charitable status.

Posted by: Hugh at December 5, 2007 10:15 AM

Lets quickly put an end to the unsubstantiated claims re a state-sponsored BBC. If only they were. The BBC is sadly funded by every citizen in the UK. Any household that purchases a tv must also pay an annual license of £135.50. Yes, a license to watch television. The BBC board of governors/BBC Trust, a board working on behalf of licence fee payers, is charged with to ensuring that the BBC provides high quality output, good value, and independence. There are no private companies involved i.e. advertisement/commercials. Therefore the independence and impartiality is supposedly protected and guaranteed. However, the governors are of course appointed by the Government... Nominally, Her Majesty... So there is an obvious point of debate. But state-sponsored media?

Posted by: robertdb at December 5, 2007 10:20 AM

yes the BBC can have you thrown in jail if you refuse to pay a license fee. how very socialist.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at December 5, 2007 11:51 AM

Let's pause for a moment to take stock of our British ally.

Their primary news organization, the BBC, regularly exhibits an anti-Western pro-Islam bias. It refuses to take the Great Islamic Jihad seriously, and congenitally whitewashed, sanitizes and distorts Islam's role in global terrorism. It habitually blames Israel and to a far lesser extent Britain's former 'colonialism' for virtually ALL of the hideous and legendary and ubiquitous failures of the Arab/Islamic world, and regularly distorts the news and facts to comport with this propaganda narrative. Check.

Britain's primary cleric, the archbishop of Canterbury, can be regularly seen and heard subverting the relationship between America and the UK, can be regularly seen and heard slandering and smearing America's reputation for the benefit and delight of all British and American mortal enemies, and can be regularly seen and heard pandering to Mulims/Jihadis, and fawning before Muslims/Jihadis, and debasing himself and his church before their Muslim enemies -- enemies that openly state that they would like nothing more than to annihilate Britain and America and replace them with more malodorous Islamic cesspools such as those from whence they came. Check.

The heir to the British throne has regularly shown himself also to be a cringing fawning Islamophile. While only a hollowed out figurehead, the crown still nevertheless posesses still a semblance of power and influence -- at the very least, the British monarch exemplifies something about the tone and spirit of the British nation and people. Check.

So here we see that the primary organ of Britain's free press, the primary ecclesiastical organ of Great Britain, the Anglican Church, and the heir to the throne itself are little more than horrid tools for the most hatred filled enemies their nation has ever faced down. Correction: it doesn't look like Britain is facing anything down. Her major institutions of state are collapsing before our eyes on a daily basis.

So

Posted by: jsla at December 5, 2007 11:52 AM

Cuckoo's eggs look enough like those they parasitize to fool their unwitting hosts.

Until they hatch, kill the real offspring of their victims, and steal the sustenance of the murdered children.

I guess they don't know their birds in Britain as well as they pretend.

Islam: cuckooland on the dole.

Posted by: profitsbeard at December 5, 2007 12:19 PM

No surprise. The BBC even admits to being in favour of the muslim takeover:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Sadly this is the norm for all European media and most American media as well...

Posted by: LastNorwegian at December 5, 2007 12:56 PM

The BBC is a totally disgraceful organisation.
About 8-10 years ago they produced a "documentary" re: Kashmir.
Two British "asians" one moslem pakistani and one Sikh of Indian descent, were going to visit "Indian Occupied Kashmir" to find out the truth !
The moslem girl was a UK trained Doctor, commissioned into the army medical corp (qualified doctors receive an automatic commission), the Sikh/Indian girl was also a professional of some sorts.

Anyway while on their trip to kashmir (Occupied)
The moslem girl disappeared without trace for a few days.The Sikh girl is frantic with worry and tried everything to trace her "Friend", she even visits the police and army bases to find her "friend".
The BBC commentator is harping on about the "disappearance" and "deaths in custody" or "civilian" "deaths/disappearances"
50, no 60, no 70 Thosand deaths, the commentator is very emotional, and their language as well.
And the the Moslem "friend" reappears !!! (que dramatic music)
She calmly announces that she has been staying with the "resistance"
Thats "MOSLEM TERRORIST" to You and I.
Sikh/Indian girl feels betrayed by her friends actions.
BBC explains it all with due bias and sympathy for islam.

The lesson as every SIKH/HINDU/INDIAN will tell you.
NEVER TRUST A MOSLEM
ANd trust the non moslems that lie and excuse them even less !!

Regards

AI

Posted by: apostate_islam at December 5, 2007 1:20 PM

Boy, there's a shock! Not even Al-Jazeera does that.

Talk about a misuse of tax funds!

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 5, 2007 1:20 PM

"Britain's primary cleric, the archbishop of Canterbury, can be regularly seen and heard subverting the relationship between America and the UK, can be regularly seen and heard slandering and smearing America's reputation for the benefit and delight of all British and American mortal enemies"

Did it occur to you that some of that "anti-American propaganda" might contain a lot of truth?

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 5, 2007 1:34 PM

"Did it occur to you that some of that "anti-American propaganda" might contain a lot of truth?"

Why am I not surprised you would say something like that?

Posted by: Elric66 at December 5, 2007 2:16 PM

"Did it occur to you that some of that "anti-American propaganda" might contain a lot of truth?"

No, because it comes from Leftists who have mastered the art of lying and are fundamentally anit-American anyway. The Left has been lying and undermining the West for decades, and the US has been the primary obstacle to them achieving their aims. The Left is all about playing up the West's (And America's) faults while playing down the West's (and America's) acomplishments.

Not surprising Leftist and Islamic weasels are "birds of a feather."

Posted by: Proud Infidel at December 5, 2007 2:27 PM

The irony of the "Television Licence" is that it is simply a BBC poll tax.

There are so many cable or satellite packages available that it is ridiculous that we are forced to spend £135.50 each year to fund the BBC.

It'e like being forced to buy a particular magazine each week regardless of whether you want to read it.

Posted by: Celsius at December 5, 2007 2:28 PM

Oh look an instant apology for a "mo" joke from the bbc ,but Jerry Springer the opera not really worthy of one !

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2810

Posted by: TrueBrit at December 5, 2007 3:07 PM

RoobartSbunsar....it does not take alot of enlightenment to realize that in every lie is a 'little' truth, that is what makes it believable and causes the recepiant to be decieved.

That is so Sunday School.

You have either been deceived or are a deceiver, I believe you are a deceiver, and I believe we have seen your posts here under other names.

If you choose to draw a line, I would rather be on the side of greatness that makes mistakes, intentionally or non-intentionally, then to be on the side of nothingness, that has intentionally deceived to appear great and are able to do their deceiving by the wealth of their non-intentional actions.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at December 5, 2007 3:09 PM

alaskan1000,

Amen.

Posted by: Elric66 at December 5, 2007 3:10 PM

With all this talk of anti-Americanism I think you guys should demand the right to see the latest series of bbc's show "spooks"
This was in the Sunday Express:
"Peter Firth,who plays MI5 chief Harry Pearce,says:"They've stopped showing it because we've taken too much of an anti-American stand in the programme but it's really flowering now and the gloves are off.Americans just don't like that.
"They can take criticism of their foreign policy in their own tv programmes like the West Wing,but don't like it from foreigners and certainly not the British.If they were to see this latest series they'd be horrified."

Maybe you could get that vile organisation kicked out of America .

Posted by: TrueBrit at December 5, 2007 3:39 PM

"Britain's primary cleric, the archbishop of Canterbury, can be regularly seen and heard subverting the relationship between America and the UK, can be regularly seen and heard slandering and smearing America's reputation for the benefit and delight of all British and American mortal enemies"

Did it occur to you that some of that "anti-American propaganda" might contain a lot of truth?

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar

Sorry, Roobart, but you would know the Truth if it smacked you upside the head.

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at December 5, 2007 3:46 PM

TrueBrit,

Actually we are more horrified that the Brits are so dhimmified that they will order overworked nurse to move beds for their Muslim overlords 5 times a day.

Posted by: Elric66 at December 5, 2007 3:51 PM

would = woudn't

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at December 5, 2007 3:52 PM

would = wouldn't

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at December 5, 2007 3:52 PM

tough time today...

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at December 5, 2007 3:52 PM

HOT OFF THE PRESS FROM THE LONDON TIMES !!!!

British imam's daughter under police protection after converting to Christianity

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3006561.ece

How will this be explained by the BBC/Guardian ??

Posted by: apostate_islam at December 5, 2007 4:29 PM

more info about Narseen Suleaman

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2007/12/uk-bbc-took-217-muslim-terrorist.html

She like the London bombers is British born of muslim Pakistani descent.

She and the BBC knew what motivated them to go paintballing. "The men used to spend time paintballing, trips that would take place immediately after watching extremely violent videos depicting muslim suffering around the world"

She's worked for the BBC for 11 years - "Don't Panic I'm islamic" yikes!

Posted by: Rob at December 5, 2007 4:57 PM

Americans can handle criticism of our policies. Provided the criticism has merit and is constructive. But to criticize just to criticize, hell yes we take issue. Whenever their is danger in the world, who does the world look to for action. The US. And when we are criticized and demonized for doing so just because those asking for our help would not have done it that way, it's infuriating. There was no reason for us to become involved in the Balkans during the 90's except it was constantly pounded that the violence would spread into Europe proper. And since the Europeans had eschewed their military in favor of social programs, they were incapable of doing anything about the Balkans. Appeasement wasn't working. Fast forward. 9/11. The US decides, briefly, to quit screwing around and fight back. Boy did that ruffle feathers. Now we are backing away. One criticism of the US by Europe is our lack of history as a nation. And when we try to learn from our past mistakes we are chastised. Europe has a tremendous history, a grand history. But how they have forgotten. Appeasement is once again the name of the game. How like the 30's.
So yes, we can be sensitive to criticism of our policies by foreign groups. And rightly so. Until Europe wakes up and begins to contribute to a safe world, we Americans are going to do what we believe to be right. Even if we have lapses of judgment as our government is having now.

Posted by: Kevin at December 5, 2007 5:12 PM

"The Left has been lying and undermining the West for decades"

Uh-huh. And conservatives have done such a great job of fighting jihad, haven't they?...no, wait.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 5, 2007 6:41 PM

Kevin
Glad you explained that,my friend. Unfortunately
America will be judged by its Foreign Policy.
Past sins cast long shadows-ask those whose nearest & dearest have died because of U.S bombing
raids.
As for U.S continually pontificating about 'democracy',Human Rights & ordering other countries what to do-rest of world is sick of this crap
particularly as America needs to set its own house in order before preaching to anyone.
You've had a two party system for 200yrs-what's
democratic about it? Especially as we see only the
richest candidates elected Prez & big corporations
who back ém influence policy,of course they do!
Explain how two dynasties Bushs & Clintons will
control White House longer than Putin...Yet Vlad is all Bad & your lot 'squeaky clean.' Reason U.S
hates Russia is because that's where huge reserves
of gas & oil are and Putin [rightly] refuses to
let U.S & Western companies rape the land as they
did in the 90's when drunken Boris was West's puppet. Too bad. Putin is highly intelligent while
your Prez is a moron.

Posted by: Morgane at December 5, 2007 7:22 PM

The thing about a two-party system is that it naturally gravitates to the center. The European parliamentary systems see a huge variety of tiny special-interest parties that often end up deciding elections by tipping the balance. This gives the small parties influence far beyond their actual support among the voters. When you have two political blocks needing the support of the tiny party to take power the tiny parties can make the most outrageous demands in return for their support. In the US such special interest parties have no real influence while in Europe they can have an influence as large as the largest political parties in a country.

Posted by: LastNorwegian at December 5, 2007 8:38 PM

The US has done no more than Europe to contribute to a safer world. The Balkans? You mean where you sided with the muslims and supported an ethnic cleansing of the Serbs (which was the reason Milosevic came to power in the first place)? Not a very good example of the US trying to set things right. Not to mention it was more about buddying up to the muslims than acting on European concerns. In any case the appeasement only came when we (Europe and the US) decided it was convenient to allow Kosovo and Krajina to be cleansed of Serbs.

As for standing up against terrorism... You do know that the IRA got a major part of their funding from the US, right? And that a US court ruled that it was legal to give money to them (in NY, I think). And of course British appeasement of the IRA was actively encouraged by the US. And then there are the terrorist groups that the US has sponsored directly in South America and the Middle East. Heck, you even gave money to the taleban. And today you are arming and training palestinian terrorists. Yes, I know European aid money also goes towards cheaper bullets. But the point remains: The US has done no more than Europe to stand up for freedom.

Appeasement... Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia. Every one of those conflicts was characterized by appeasement. On each occasion the US held back and sent a signal that all you had to do was harm Americans and the US would back down. There is no real difference between American and European political attitudes when it comes to conflict. Even the current wars sees the US forces so hampered by PC rules of engagement that people ought to impeach the scumbags in Washington. And what would you call the recent pressure on Israel if not appeasement? It seems to me that people are asleep on both sides of the Atlantic...

Ah yes, 911. When your allies came forth with expressions of sympathy and promises of support. And then Bush decided it was a good idea to tell everyone to take a hike. In one short year he managed to piss away a unique opportunity to take advantage of worldwide goodwill, and estranged his allies rather than use the situation to strengthen bonds and strengthen US leadership of the free world.

And even after 911 the US *still* didn't stop screwing around. The US still didn't go after the Saudis for sponsoring terrorism through their network of koran-schools. The US instead went on a half-hearted war against the Taleban and decided to make friends with the Pakistanis who pretty much made the Taleban what they were. Thus we got the absurdity of the US paying tribute to Pakistan while ignoring them spreading nuclear technology. -And the US going to war against Iraq who basically had no nuclear technology to spread.

When exactly did the US try to learn from their mistakes? An admission after 911 that US support of terrorism was a mistake would have gone a long way towards improving your reputation. Instead we got a US government openly advocating torture and blatantly lying about Iraqi WMD's. If Bush had been trying to decrease support for the US he could have done no better job than he did.

But for all his incompetence this American arrogance is nothing new. Since the end of WW2 US politicians have asssumed they could act arrogantly without consequence. In NATO meetings European diplomats have been told to behave or else. There have been cases of espionage -nothing like a CIA agent being caught in the PM's office to strengthen relations between our countries. The decades old trade embargo you have against Norway isn't going to make you any friends this side of the pond either. American warships have been acting like they own the place. And then there are the threats of buying American fighters or else (Norway is currently planning to replace our old f-16s). -Support the Iraq war or else... And then the US has not only failed to support us in our border disputes with the Russians, but has actually held secret meetings with the Russians and other nations interested in the Arctic to discuss the future of Norwegian territory. Well, you get the picture. And this is still only the tip of the iceberg. On the bright side the new ambassador doesn't have people cursing the US everytime he opens his mouth, but I doubt that it's because Americans have started to recognize just how badly their diplomacy is being handled.

For decades American leaders have acted like total assholes, figuring that everyone would just quietly accept it since the US was #1. Too arrogant to make friends and too PC to scare anyone. As a result Norway has gone from a country where hippies were beaten up for opposing the Vietnam war to a country that barely cares what the US does. A change that is mirrored in the whole western world. The US thought it could rule its allies and as a result has seen its position of leadership steadily eroded over the years as more and more people realize that the US will not support those who support them.

Posted by: LastNorwegian at December 5, 2007 8:42 PM

"Instead we got a US government openly advocating torture and blatantly lying about Iraqi WMD's."

You win "Moonbat Post of the Week"

And wow, American foreign policy history isn't perfect. It's enough to make a Euroweenie parasite cry like a baby.
It is interesting how the insane left has twisted the truth on Iraq WMD's as if Bush deliberately lied, which of course he didn't.

-----------------------------------------------

Major Sites Associated With Iraq's Past WMD Programs
Biological sites:
· 1 - Salman Pak: Laboratory scale research on Anthrax, Botulinum toxin, Clostridium, perfringens (gas gangrene), mycotoxins, aflatoxins, and Ricin. Researchers at this site carried out toxicity evaluations of these agents and examined their growth characteristics and survivability. Located 40 km SE of Baghdad.
· 2- Al Hakum: This site was specifically designed and constructed as Iraq'ss main biological agent production facility. Prior to the Gulf War this facility produced thousands of lines of Anthrax and concentrated Botulinum toxin. Hundreds of litres of Clostridium perfringen were also produced. The site was destroyed by UNSCOM in May and and June 1996. Located 60 km SW of Baghdad.
· 3 - Daura Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility. Also known as Al Manal, this site was taken over by the BW program in fall 1990. Site conducted initial research on viral warfare agents including: haemorraghic conjunctivitis, human rota virus, and camelpox. The site was also used to produce thousands of litres of botulinum toxin. Located in Southeastern outskirts of Baghdad.
· 4 - The Agricultural and Water Resources Research Centre at Fudaliyah: Also known as Al Safa, this site was a dedicated aflatoxin production facility. Nearly 2000 litres of agent were produced. Site was converted from a scientific agricultural research station. Located in Northeastern outskirts of Baghdad.
· 5- Taji Single Cell Protein Plant: This site was converted for the production of hundreds of litres of Botulinum toxin in the late 1980s. Located 10 km NW of Baghdad.
· 6 - Muthanna State Establishment: Initial location for Iraq's BW program in 1985/86. Researchers at this site carried out initial toxins evaluations of several BW agents and examined their growth characteristics and survivability. Agents investigated include Anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflatoxin, and ricin. Muthanna also conducted small scale production of botulinum toxin. BW equipment moved to Salman Pak in 1987. Muthanna heavily damaged during Gulf War. Muthanna also provided weaponization expertise to the BW program, primarily CW munition technology and testing. Located 170 km NW of Baghdad.
Chemical sites:
· 1 - Muthanna State Establishment: This 5 km by 5 km facility was Iraq's primary chemical weapons research, development, and production facility. The site operated continuously from 1983 to 1991, producing thousands of tons of precursors, nerve agents and mustard gas. Chemical agents included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX. The site was heavily bombed during the Gulf War. From 1992 to 1994 the UNSCOM Chemical Destruction Group operated at this site to eliminate remaining precursor materials, destroy production plants and equipment, and hydrolyse or burn remaining chemical warfare agents. Located 120 km NW of Baghdad.
· 2 - Fallujah I: This site was intended to be an additional precursor production facility for the chemical weapons program. The facility was in the initial phases of construction at the time of the Gulf War. Located 60 km WNW of Baghdad.
· 3- Fallujah II: This facility produced chemical weapons precursors destined for the Muhanna site. Products included chlorine, phosphorous trichloride and oxychlorode, thiony1 chloride, and with high probability two direct nerve agent precursors. The site was bombed during the Gulf War. Remaining precursors and equipment were transferred to the Muthanna site for destruction under the supervision of the Chemical Destruction Group. Located 65 km WNW of Baghdad.
· 4 - Fallujah III: This site was in the late stages of construction at the time of the Gulf War. The facility, intended to support the Muthanna site, contained multi-purpose production plants. These production areas were all destroyed by bombing in 1991. The intended products of this site remain unclear, but may be connected with the VX program. Located 70 km WNW of Baghdad.
· 5 - Muhammadiyat: This site was the primary storage area for filled chemical weapons. At the time of the Gulf War the site contained numerous CW munition, many filled with chemical agent. The site was heavily damaged during the war. The UNSCOM teams, and the Chemical Destruction Group completed elimination of CW weapons that survived the bombardment. Located 140 km W of Baghdad.

Posted by: savitch at December 5, 2007 11:05 PM

"as if Bush deliberately lied, which of course he didn't."

Some conservatives just can't bring themselves to admit that they voted for a bumbling liar (and rumor has it he's been hitting the bottle again over this past year).

There were no WMDs. Period.

The sooner people accept it, the better.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 6, 2007 7:47 AM

"Instead we got a US government openly advocating torture and blatantly lying about Iraqi WMD's."

Absolutely true.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 6, 2007 7:48 AM

So typical. The US should keep quiet until it gets its own house in order. And while the US is busy getting its own house in order, the rest of the world, which naturally is in order, will prosper and all join hands and sing "Kumbaya." That is until those peace loving muslims explode their first nuke with the technology so lovingly given it by those icons of virtue, the Russians and Chinese. Two nations that so obviously show restraint in the proliferation of nuclear and missile technology. I guess all those years that the USSR was giving away AK-47's and RPG's was just a misunderstanding of brotherly love. After all it's the M-16 and the LAW rocker that are featured so prominently in terrorist's hands. Or MLRS rockets being launched across borders with the sole intent of killing non-combatants. Yeah. How droll of me to think that the rest of the world would be such a perfect place were it not for the US. How stupid of me to think that the US isn't the only nation to make mistakes. How ignorant to think that the chaos in the ME would all be gone had we not supported Israel and allowed Islam to just exterminate the Jews. Okay boys, lets pack it up. The world doesn't need or want us.

Posted by: Kevin at December 6, 2007 2:21 PM

"The US should keep quiet until it gets its own house in order. "

Indeed. For my entire life I've endured lectures from arrogant Europeans and Brits who take ever opportunity to piously point out every sin, real or imagined, that America is guilty of. There's no end to the nasty criticisms, much of it focusing on the overblown notion that America is a seething racist cauldron of hicks and hayseeds. Never mind the fact that only a short time ago, most of Europe was still stuck in the feudal era, where people were little more than slaves and serfs -- "slave" is a word based on the ethnic Slav -- a race of men who were so often enslaved by their fellow Europeans that the name became synonymous with slavery. Never mind the fact that slavery itself was an inherited crime in America -- a crime originally practiced by the ancient British, Dutch, French, and Spanish on our soil. Never mind the fact that, despite many benefits and contributions which are often overlooked in the marxist discussion of Europe's former colonial past, it also was a past which lasted until the middle of the 20th century, and it also involved the staggering plunder of most of the planet under greedy European application. Never mind the fact that if on defines Europe as consisting only of those western nations, many Europeans lived as recently as the mid 1970s under completely fascist tyrannies and regimes, or the fact that a mere 60 years ago, Europeans were guilty of one of the most wild slaughters of humankind in history.

As if all of this weren't bad enough, we now see the incompetent Europeans blundering their way to their own extinction while multiculturalism runs amok.

Those pious arrogant lecturers are still filled with venom and wag their fingers towards America -- it seems they haven't noticed how utterly horrid they are at "integrating" their new restive races -- perhaps it's not as easy as America has made it look? Perhaps integration is a far harder task than all those arrogant Europeans ever imagined? It would seem so -- for they are doing a horrendous job of it all.

Posted by: jsla at December 6, 2007 8:18 PM