You Can't Make This Stuff Up

In Afghanistan, illiterate mobs have been whipped up to rampage in the streets because the US army burnt a few terrorists Korans. So far this mob violence has probably cost upwards of twenty lives, and with many more injured. I can only point out once again that hundreds of copies of the Koran have been blown up, burnt and defiled with human blood, in the frequent bombings of mosques in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Somalia to name just a few places where this frequently happens.

How many Korans blown up in mosques?

At the same time as these protests cost lives in Afghanistan, an attack in Iraq kills 55 Muslims as both the Shia population and the police are targeted, while in Pakistan, many Sunni Muslims die as a car bomb hits Peshawar bus stop. You can't make this up ..... the apparently low value put on human life in the Muslim world is almost breathtaking.

If they put even one tenth the value that they claim they do on life and even the Korans, into efforts for peace then they would finally stop the bloodshed that rages seemingly forever across the Muslim world.

Complete Silence .... How Strange.

When an American pastor threatened to burn a copy of the Quran, all of the Muslim world went loco (as usual), with protests and mobs, and burnings ....

Another Peaceful Protest - Only Five Died

.... and also as usual in a 'peaceful Muslim protest', a few protesters died.

Rapist Escapes Justice (And It's Not The In UK)

Roman Polanski and admitted child rapist has escaped extradition to the US to be sentenced for photographing a thirteen year old girl while she was topless, before drugging, raping and sodomising her ..... I repeat, she was only thirteen years old.

What sort of people in Switzerland believe that this crime is something for which there should be no punishment? Would they like Polanski to do this to their thirteen year old daughters or grand daughters?

A Happy Rapist?

The reason for this extraordinary decision (which by the way, the US is not allowed to appeal), is as follows: "The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request." which is legalise crap for 'we don't like you or your open justice system, we don't care that he admitted to 'unlawful sex' (as a plea bargain to spare the child a court appearance), and we can't prove that there isn't some hidden flaw in your request, so we will assume that there is and throw it out'.

Absolutely shameful and on a par with some third world nations idea of justice.

If I was the US president I would make Switzerland wince for this decision by blocking their banks etc from access to the US systems, and restricting Swiss travel to the US ..... maybe that would make them consider again ..... but no doubt the US will do nothing and Polanski will go to his grave untroubled by his crimes.

I repeat, there is one justice for you and me, and another for the rich and powerful, and none for the poor

The BBC and Dr Badri

If you read this story on the BBC UK terror tactics 'create unease' you might be forgiven for believing that Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari was being entirely reasonable in his opinions, indeed mild might be the term used when he claimed that

“Every society has to be really careful so that situation does not lead us to a time when people's minds can be poisoned as they were in the 1930s. If your community is perceived in a very negative manner, and poll after poll says that we are alienated, then Muslims begin to feel very vulnerable. We are seen as creating problems, not as bringing anything, and that is not good for society."

He was responding to comments by the head of MI5, that there were 2,000 people living in Britain who pose a terrorism-related danger, and that youngster’s aged 15 were being groomed to be suicide bombers.

Unfortunately I happened to look up and read the full story on the Daily Telegraph only to find that the most prominent part of the interview wasn’t the part we could all agree had some truth (no one likes being vilified in the press), but this veiled threat

“But some police officers and sections of the media are demonising Muslims, treating them as if they're all terrorists — and that encourages other people to do the same. If that demonisation continues, then Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists — 700,000 of them in London," he said. "If you attack a whole community, it becomes despondent and aggressive."

In other words “If you don’t treat us as with the respect that we want", then you can expect to be attacked “with two million Muslim terrorists” this wasn’t worthy of report by the BBC. Read the two stories and make up your own minds.

If you agree with me and think that the BBC have deliberately misled people over the content and thrust of Dr Badri's comments then I suggest that you complain to the BBC.

If the BBC realise that they must not apply different reporting standards to certain groups (presumably because their 'ethnic' and its 'cultural'), then maybe they will not risk becoming just another biased news group with a PC 'multicultural' agenda.

My Complaint to the BBC On both Radio 4 and the subsequent hourly news headlines on Radio 5, they both discussed the interview given by Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari with the Daily Telegraph, in which they reported that he had said that the way Britain had responded to the terror threat would "create unease" in the Muslim Community. In fact the word "Unease" didn't feature on the Daily Telegraph article on the web. What Dr Bari did say was "If that demonisation continues, then Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists — 700,000 of them in London". This statement, or threat, was not mentioned once in the BBC reporting, nor in any interview, despite the fact that it featured at the top of the reported newspaper interview. In fact the article also attributed Dr Bari with the opinion that "continued negative attitudes towards people of his faith could provoke a vast and angry backlash" but the words 'vast and angry' appear to have bypassed the BBC. He also was quoted as saying that he picked up a mood of "anxiety, frustration and, especially among young people, anger" but not the word ‘unease’. The BBC on both the Radio and on the web chose the word 'Unease' in quotes to characterise the tone of the interview (as reported on the web), when it wasn't apparently used. The fact that he predicts 700,000 terrorists in London alone, was never mentioned once, despite the both apocalyptic tone of these predictions, and the implied threat to the media to change or else. Either the guy is a self appointed delusionist who thinks that "700,000" Mujaheddin will rise up in the streets of London if the media carries on reporting Islam and Muslims negatively, or he a credible voice and deserves to be quoted properly when he makes these predictions. The BBC can't just make up a moderate quote, that didn't actually exist, and attribute it to an interview that was neither moderate (with its threats of 2 million Muslim terrorists rising up), nor very considered, and expect this to be the basis of further discussion just because the subject is a Muslim. I put it to you that if the BBC had ignored the phrase “the River Tiber foaming with much blood” from the Enoch Powell speech in 1968, that would have been considered bad reporting. So why 40 yrs later is the BBC now apparently willing to ignore provocative sections of a speech on a similar subject to make its author appear moderate? Is it because there are now separate reporting standards applied to Muslims, and the non Muslim populations? If so, then surely this a charter matter and we deserve to know what these new standards are?

Note: I will report back and publish the BBC dismissal of this complaint.... it won't go farther because its not an opinion that the BBC hierarchy wishes to encourage.

The Muslim Council of Britain is an umbrella group representing over 500 Muslim groups in the UK. Dr Bari, the chair of the East London mosque, succeeded Sir Iqbal Sacranie as leader of the organisation last year.

The BBC has replied and obviously I was wrong (it appears that there were two versions of the story on the web) ..... LOL, but I publish the replies anyway.

BBC Replies Thank you for your e-mail regarding the 10 November edition of 'Today'.I understand that you felt that the 'Today' programme and subsequent Radio 5 Live reports erroneously quoted Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari from an interview with the Daily Telegraph. However, the following Daily Telegraph webpage emphatically demonstrates that the "thick with suspicion and unease" term was apparent in their interview with Dr Bari:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/10/nbari110.xml Please note that the BBC disclaims responsibility for the contents of non-BBC webpages. The "unease" quotation can be found four paragraphs in to the above Daily Telegraph webpage.I would like to assure you that we have registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC. Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. Regards Rory Egan BBC Information ************************************************* Thank you for your e-mail of 10 November. The Telegraph.co.uk article you consulted dates from September 2006 whereas our story was based on the interview Dr Bari gave to the Telegraph last weekend. Some of the views he put forward were similar but they were very different interviews. I have checked our article against the newspaper and also how other newspapers and media outlets covered the story and I am satisfied we gave a fair and balanced account of the views Dr Bari put forward in this interview, as well as the responses it generated later that day. Thank you again for contacting us. Yours, Pat Heery Pat Heery, UK Editor, BBC News

 

Well that answers that then, but just leaves the little question why the more provocative interview was not reported by the BBC?

***************************************

This post is from the site No PC Views. if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen. You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (http://no-pc.blogspot.co.uk/)