« America's changing religious right | Main | McCain touts democratic alternative to the United Nations »

Comments

601

"You would not realize it from the BBC’s treatment of these stories, but behind every one of them is the spectre of radical Islam. In each case, militarized young Muslims are engaged in activities to murder innocent men, women and children. This is what they spend every waking moment thinking about."

Yes and after Iraq they have increased in number. 25% increase in attacks from the U.S government themselves.

malcolm

Not sure why you are singling out the BBC Joseph. The entire British media seems to me to be extremely gloomy about events in Iraq. That includes ITV,Sky,all the national press and the Economist. Are they all lying or are they completely mistaken?

Hil Hunt

Heard the same bulletin and don't recall the BBC shying away from the underlying story at all. I also watched the Ten O'clock News and Newsnight which looked in depth at the radicalisation of Muslim youth and the role of hate-filled preachers. Seems to me the BBC did an excellent job describing this story - and the others you mention - from several viewpoints. Compare the BBC to most other national broadcasters - and the USA's own dumbed-down brand leaders - and you see a remarkable forum for informed discussion. Iraq a success story? Amazingly, not everyone see it that way.

tired and emotional

Loconte is right about the BBC on Iraq, they have admitted that they pulled the programme about the young VC winner Private Beharry because it was 'too positive' and might offend the parts of their audience that disagreed with the Iraq war. That programme is apparently going to ITV.

Iraq has not been a runaway success it is true, however there really is no effort at all to present a balanced picture about life outside of Baghdad and the main areas of terrorist activity. There are no news stories about the British Army successes with getting services running or working with the local populace. Nothing positive - however important - is ever allowed to reach our screens.

The story as far as the BBC is concerned - and the same goes for all the news networks over here which, by the way are not noticably more intelligent than US ones in my view, is: 'the Americans are getting a bloody nose and that's the way we like it'.

And yes, the primary cause and justification for Muslim violence is the Koran and the words and teachings of Muhammad. The BBC will never accept that.

Londoner

"Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign," Petraeus said.

Remind me, was it the central front before the invasion in 2003? I don't think so.

Remind me also - did the invasion help to fuel, or damp down, extreme Islamic youth in the UK?

To the extent that there is any unwarranted cynicism about all of this, it has almost entirely been caused by the Iraq blunder. It is difficult to believe people who have been proved so wrong to date, even if, as may be the case, they are right about the extent of the threat now.

Derek Buxton

What happened to the crime of "giving aid and succour to the enemy". The terrorists are the enemy and anyone helping them is a criminal. The terrorism was happening before the invasion of Iraq despite what al-BBC says. Wake up before it is too late.

tired and emotional

Londoner – we should relish the fact that the ‘extreme Islamic youth’ in Britain you speak of are angry and up in arms. That means we are striking back against their cause and inflicting damage upon them. Would you prefer that they were all happy and quiet – just sloping off to Pakistan to get trained up before heading off one of the many other flashpoints around the world where Muslims are murdering non-Muslims?

It’s when Muhammad’s army have gone quiet and happy that you have to worry – that’s when they think they are winning without a fight.

Londoner

"We should relish the fact that the ‘extreme Islamic youth’ in Britain you speak of are angry and up in arms"

Tell that to the relatives of the people killed in London on 7/7.

"Would you prefer that they were all happy and quiet...?" Yes and, if they are, they won't be going to training camps in Pakistan. I do not believe that Iraq has merely altered the target, it has helped to radicalise these people.

"Tired...": your comment only makes sense if you assume we are for ever in a state of perpetual violent conflict with Islam - there is no reason why this is necessarily so. And, even if your convince me that it is, yes I would prefer that the fight didn't take place in British cities, thank you. Your sort of messianic zeal puts the safety of people in this country, in their own cities, at a very low priority.

Now, if the invasion of Iraq could be justified on other grounds, for other objectives, some additional risk may be justified. But it wasn't and thus Bush and Blair will go down as two of the worst ever failures in foreign policy of their respective countries. Even Vietnam succeeded, arguably at least, in slowing the spread of communism in s.e. asia.

Jack Coupal

It's ironic that the British public must pay their annual TV licence fees for access to biased news reporting from the BBC.

At least in the US, biased news reporting from CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. are free (except for the cable TV fees that pay for all channels carried).

No wonder so many yanks have abandoned the mainstream media as a source of news and go to the net for objective and accurate reporting.

Dennis

J Loconte wrote:
'You would not realize it from the BBC’s treatment of these stories, but behind every one of them is the spectre of radical Islam. In each case, militarized young Muslims are engaged in activities to murder innocent men, women and children.'

Are you suggesting that the actions of Muslim terrorists should not be televised or reported on from a balanced, historically aware point of view?
I am sure you are aware of the causes that aided the rise in radical muslim thought and action.
Since the days of Mossadeq in Iran, our governments have manipulated and ochestrated dissent in pre-dominately Muslim states to further our economic goals at the expense of Muslim populations.
The Islamic revolution in Iran was the first significant Muslim uprising (post WWII)in direct response to our nation building. It demonstrated to Muslim people worldwide that Islam and western values are in 'perpetual conflict' and inspired the fathers of the current radicals.
This was followed by the Russian invasion of Afghanistan as further impetus for the radicalistion of Muslim thought. We encouraged, funded, supplied and armed the radical muslims who are now turning their attentions to us.
Post Operation 'desert storm', the siting of US/UK forces on Muslim lands in close proximity to their holiest sites was the rallying cry of Osama bin Laden's fledgling Al-Qaeda. The state they formed against, from within is Saudi Arabia, also incidentally our premier client state.
The methods employed by radicalised Muslims are barbaric in the extreme and cannot be justified even by the most radical interpretation of the Koran.
The BBC is biased and in no way 'fit for purpose', however the news content they produce is significantly more balanced and informative than the news output and commentators in the US mainstream media.

malcolm

'Iraq has not been a runaway success'-Tired and emotional. Surely one of the understatements of the year.
'the Americans are getting a bloody nose and thats the way we like it'. Do you really believe that our media really believe this Tired and emotional? Perhaps I'm naive but I have never drawn that implication from any TV programme or press report that I've ever seen.

joe loconte

I completely agree about America's dumb-down approach to the news, especially international news. The BBC outstrips just anything we do in this regard. I also agree that one of the unintended consequences of the Iraq war has been the influx of al Qaeda terrorists there. It remains one of the great blunders of the Bush administration to fail to plan adequately for such a scenario. Granted. But this is now where the enemy is taking a stand and we have to be clear about the consequences of failure, yes?

Dennis

Tired and Emo wrote -It’s when Muhammad’s army have gone quiet and happy that you have to worry – that’s when they think they are winning without a fight.

It's funny that you think that, considering that the tomb of Muhammad is based in Medina ,Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 hijackers were pre-dominatly Saudi. The Sunni insurgency that has claimed 75% of US military casualties in Iraq is funded through Saudi Wahabi organisations.
The most radical elements of Muslim society have a haven in Saudi mosques, so long as they do not attempt political interference.
We have not dared to attack Saudi Arabia, the bitter reality is that our PM compromises the independence & integrity of our country to placate the Saudi establishment. The Saudi Royals are family friends of the US President and can be seen hand in hand at family gatherings.

So I ask you what 'victory' are YOU winning?

I would suggest your victory is equivalent to ' punishing the delivery boy for the inadequate quality of the bread and meat in a steak sandwich, while congratulating the baker and butcher for their services'

Steevo

"Are you suggesting that the actions of Muslim terrorists should not be televised or reported on from a balanced, historically aware point of view?"

He is suggesting balance. It is reported only 1 way and that is the way you want. You eat it, digest it, and love it. You fear its opposite reality and truth. You don't want it known. You don't want its influence. You are the BBC, Dennis.

There is a very different side(s) to this war not being reported. Your BBC, Guardian, Mirror... etc. just like many in our big media have intentionally shut it out. They are and you are the Left.

This side is news indeed, that which would give balance. It shows success and hope. It shows the exact opposite of what you revel in your cause against the troops' presence and American power. Here's just a few of your stated enlightened BBC et al facts which are erroneous and blatant lies:

lie) Regarding al-Queda most are Iraqis. truth) most of the leadership appear to have been foreign, the young suiciders appear to be a mix of foreigners and a relative handful of Sunnis who no longer live in privileged status free from Saddam's brutality.

lie) You claim al-Queda's power is not in striking fear of submission through mass killings of innocents and sensational bombings intent to stir sectarian war. truth) That is all they have to rely on in spite of increasing numbers of Iraqi citizens hating them, turning them in, and fighting them... period! It is motivation for their numbers to continue to increase in the army and police.

lie) You claim al-Queda's strength is in its teachings (Sharia law). truth) Iraqis despise Sharia law, from the Kurds in the north, to their fast fading ally of leftover privileged Sunni, to the Shia in the south.

lie) You claim the "insurgents" are "freedom fighters." truth) The overwhelming majority of Iraqis don't call them that or think of them with remotely similar sentiment. How utterly perverse (I mean you, not them.)

lie) You claim we are there as invaders perceived as wanting to destroy and take. truth) Our sole mission on the ground is fighting those who destroy and want to take, so the Iraqis can be free from terror. Initially after being brainwashed for generations most may have thought that. Not now. They know the enemy and it is not the American or British soldier. It is the terrorists who wantonly kill their men, women and children.

It appears a majority of Iraqis trust the Americans. Our soldiers and your soldiers (I should say soldiers from the UK) are not the wanton killers you try to make them out as. They are the real freedom fighters, not your insurgents (sic).

Your answer is mass death and destruction by taking away the only hope the Iraqis have. They are vehemently opposed to you because they chose life.

With the exception of a few here who disregard the fate of the Iraqi people and/or don't believe there is a real war on terror, those who desire even a glimpse of the other side of this conflict go to the link below. Mind you, this is in the midst of the war zone. The northern third and much of the south is not, thanks to being liberated.

This is on the spot journalism. You will NEVER get this from the Leftwing agenda-driven big media.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/desires-of-the-human-heart-part-ii.htm

Teddy Bear

Excellent article Joseph and spot on.

Melanie Phillips, the author of Londonistan, has also highlighted similar points in her latest article today 'When will the British stop appeasing terror?'

Unlike a few of those above, and I'm sure you know who I mean, who believe because they too have the ability to write that any unconsidered garbage that emanates from their efforts is equal to proper research and intelligent conclusions.

Until you really have facts to support your wild 'living in denial' or the BBC based view of the world, please spare us from reading your drivel.


The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march.
It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide.
It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.
It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill.
It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.
It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.

And you really think if we wouldn't oppose them they would give us a miss?

MORONS!

malcolm

er Steevo, your weird ramblings get ever weirder.I can't see where Dennis claimed any of the things you allege.If you are going to argue these points it might be a good idea to quote some examples.

Steevo

er Malcom, one prerequisite when entering discussion is to know what *you* are talking about. This one is too easy.

I get it, you couldn't find any spelling errors to make your case, eh?

Denise

Malcolm, Steevo's comment wasn't 'weird ramblings' at all. He actually makes excellent points. And as for your comment, "I can't see where Dennis claimed any of the things you allege," Dennis had made those claims on a previous thread.

tired and emotional

Londoner – It is not possible to avoid confrontation with Islamist ideology regardless of foreign or domestic policy. The irreconcilable wing of Islam (hat tip: Newt Gingrich) seeks bloody confrontation with the West, with non-Muslims generally and with the fabled moderate Muslims it describes as apostates. There is nothing that we can do to prevent Islamists from seeking to destroy us and our way of life through violence and intimidation as well as through ‘soft jihad’ and the demographic ‘baby bomb’. To believe otherwise is pre-9/11 thinking.

The state of perpetual war you refer to is in fact the state of relations between the dar al Islam (the Muslim world) and the dar al harb (the world of war which belongs to the non-Muslims) that the Koran requires Muslims to create. The only conditions for permanent peace that Muhammad allows for are when the entire world is dar al islam. Of course, waging all-our war all the time is not possible, so Muhammad received revelations instructing him that Muslims might use a variety of means to overcome their non-Muslim enemies, warfighting when strong enough, trickery and diplomacy when weaker or consolidating.

You have to understand that both these Muslim means to power are operating simultaneously today, right now. The military wing of Islam (al Quaeda, hamas, hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, GSPC etc etc) are fighting their holy war with IEDs, jumbojets and the knife across the throat.

The political wing of Islam (MCB, Muslim Brotherhood, MAB, the Saudis, countless imams etc etc) are fighting their holy war with books, support, money, mosques, websites, charity work, intelligence etc).

The messianic zeal you refer to is not mine, it is that of the Islamists and their inspiration and guide in violence and holy war – Muhammad.

The deaths of 50 or so Londoners is very sad. But compared to what is at stake it is a pin prick.

You refer to Vietnam as a partial success, Perhaps if the US had not been forced to pull out and hamstrung by the effects of media pressure on voters then millions would not have died in South East Asia under communist oppression. Can you see the alternate parallels yet?

Malcolm – the idea that our news media don’t actively want America to fail is laughable. You don’t see it – or don’t see anything wrong with it – because you believe the same thing.

Dennis – I don’t know what your point is. I am aware of the great danger posed by the Saudis and in fact, Muhammad’s army was pretty quiet – or at least we allowed ourselves the luxury of ignoring them (a la Londoner). 9/11 changed that didn’t it? Surely if 9/11 proved anything it proved that we cannot sit back and placate these people. Whatever we do they are coming after us, so if we must take casualties, which we must, let’s kill more of them then they take of ours.

I never used the word ‘victory’, so don’t pretend to quote me. If you want my definition of victory it is this: I am prepared to risk dying on my feet in the tube in order to see democratic, judeochristian-based democracy endure and overcome rather than live on my knees like you. If you can’t see why that is preferable you are already dead.

Dennis

Denise you wrote -Dennis had made those claims on a previous thread.
Maybe you can direct me to where I wrote of the things contained in Steevo's 'wierd ramblings'

Tired you write - I am prepared to risk dying on my feet in the tube in order to see democratic, judeochristian-based democracy endure and overcome rather than live on my knees like you.

I guess you belong to the 'lunatic fringe' occupied by a minority of people in all societies.
I must add that you share that accolade with the legion of muslim suicide bombers who would rather die than live in a 'judeochristian-based democracy'

Tired -'Whatever we do they are coming after us, so if we must take casualties, which we must, let’s kill more of them then they take of ours.'

I can see the Muslim Jihad Naval carrier group crossing the mediteranean as we write.
In their crusade they occupy and ransack Italy.
Can you imagine how ridiculous that sounds? Now scroll up and read your paranoid writings.

tired and emotional

I love the idea that being prepared to risk murder at the hands of fanatics rather than simply allow them to destroy our way of life puts me into the lunatic fringe. Churchill would be so proud of you.

The difference between being willing, but not eager, to die to defend my right to live in a democracy and not to be a Muslim and being, as suicide bombers are, eager to murder innocents randomly because I believe it furthers the cause of my God should be clear even to you. Go ahead and see the two stances as morally equivalent if it helps you avoid the truth of the matter, it doesn’t matter to me or to Islam.

You don’t address any of the points I made to Londoner - nor do you seem to understand the reality that Islam does not need a aircraft carrier in order to invade, degrade and ultimately take over. It simply needs to outbreed us - which it is doing, all over Europe.


Steevo

"Maybe you can direct me to where I wrote of the things contained in Steevo's 'wierd ramblings'"

What are you trying to pull with this Dennis? Like you didn't make these statements? Or since I've directly exposed them for what you are, you now need to... clarify? Oh, if of course you can be 'directed' to them.

I used to consider it having an unbelievable state of denial but no longer. The Left is a lie unto itself. You live in your own reality. Its a game. Constant manipulation as a result of no core values, you know like honesty for starters.

Each one of these is what I've essentially stated and responded to in my post above:

lie) "Al-qaeda's operatives in Iraq are mostly Iraqi's."

lie) "It's power is not in insurgency or sectarian conflict."

lie) "Al-qaeda's strength lies in it's teachings, message and the ideas it implants in the Iraqi conciousness."

lie) "It is [not] possible to distinguish between Al-qaeda and Iraqi freedom fighters(insurgents)."

lie) "The view of us as ruthless invaders determined to destroy their Muslim ways of life and pillage their natural resources."

The 11th post in this thread written by one calling him/herself, Dennis:

"Lieberman: The Bush surge might deliver security, Harry Reid's retreat will only bring defeat."

I forgot this:

"The population [Iraqis] they are fighting for do not appreciate their sacrifices."

Placed in context with your other lies its not hard to draw a conclusion on this. Much too much first and second hand accounts speak to the contrary. Increasingly Iraqis accept, trust, and are fully convinced our soldiers are on their side and if they leave, their hopes... for survival and freedom, die.

The 2nd post in this thread written by one calling him/herself, Dennis:

"The Democrats once supported the Iraq war..."

I will repeat posting this link written in my above post. Read the captions and commentary to this most recent account by Michael Yon:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/desires-of-the-human-heart-part-ii.htm

Dennis

'If this tide is to be held back, Islamist extremism in Britain must be stopped and British values reasserted and stoutly upheld.'

Melanie Phillips does not give any great insight into the challenges we face today. She simply regurgitates the same 'fearmongering' that has been a staple of racism for thousands of years.
I tend to think of it as the 'pitiful small island invasion' mentality that holds back UK society.
In the 60's it was the 'black menace' 70's the Asian invasion, e.t.c
She speaks of dissolution of British culture without a hint of irony, considering the people she claims are attempting to usurp 'our culture' are citizens of the United Kingdom too.
Even allowing for that blatantly divisive rhetoric, most of the Muslims who migrated to the UK came from countries that have contributed to the fabric of British society.
It must gall her to see integrated communities, inter-marriage, mixed-heritage children and other examples of the mixed heritage of the UK .
I think it is fitting that she writes for the 'Daily mail'.
Sharia law in the UK, I have no recollection of any terrorist atrocity in the UK that was inspired by the desire to enforce Sharia law
She speaks of 'values, I ask
What values?

She writes 'We have to defeat the ideas driving some British Muslims to commit these acts in the first place.'
yet makes no attempt to examine the basis of the ideas.

How can you defeat ideas except by challenging and expoloring their basis?
In any exploration of radical Islamic justification for terrorism certain uncomfortable themes will inevitebly arise.
Principal amongst these is 'Palestine'.
Maybe Mrs Phillips has conveniently side-stepped history but the 'Balfour agreement'which created that problem was made during our watch.
The 'partition of India' that created Pakistan as a Muslim country was also created under our watch.
These are only two examples of history, however they occured while we were busy exporting British values and culture while simultenously altering and usurping foreign culture's and values.
It's ironic that UK born muslims are now travelling to Pakistan to train as islamic terrorists, fighting for amongst others the Palestinian cause.

Teddy Bear

Dennis - you don't get it do you?

We know what you and the rest of your mates here are about, and your purpose in expressing the views you do - we're way ahead of you.

Just because you've been brainwashed, and believe in your cause and gain 'converts' to your way of thinking by your 'reasoning', don't think everybody is stupid.

We weren't made with a finger.

BTW - Do you really think you get 72 virgins and serving boys at the end of all this? You consider that heaven?

Kevin Sampson

"I can see the Muslim Jihad Naval carrier group crossing the Mediterranean as we write."

Dennis
If France indeed becomes a predominately Muslim nation, and I see no compelling evidence that it won't, your 'Muslim Jihad Naval carrier group' may not need to cross the Mediterranean. It will already be there, under a French flag. And before you dismiss this as baseless fear mongering, as most Europeans are eager to do, I suggest you read up on the career of Alaric the First. You may find there are several interesting parallels between the Western Roman Empire of Arcadius and the EU.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

ExtremeTracker

  • Tracker