Who are the militants in Afghanistan [and India]?

BBC World News, broadcast overnight on BBC One, looks to be recognising the new Taliban regime, even if the UK government hasn't yet.

Here BBC newsreader Karin Giannone describes the people opposing the Taliban as 'militants':

Now there are reports of from Afghanistan of heavy fighting between Taliban forces and militants who oppose the Islamist takeover around the Panjshir Valley.

The Daily Express today has it the other way round, with the Taliban remaining ''the militants'' and the forces of former vice-president Amrullah Saleh and Ahmad Massoud in the Panjshir Valley being ''resistance fighters'':

The Taliban have clashed with a group of resistance fighters in Afghanistan's Panjshir province as the final stronghold against the militants hangs in the balance. 

---------------- 

On a possibly related theme, this glowing headline following the death of a leading pro-Pakistan, Islamist Kashmiri separatist hasn't gone down well in India, where he's a highly controversial figure - understandably so given his pronouncements about Osama bin Laden and the Mumbai attackers:

The introductory paragraph goes on to say: 

Kashmir's top separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who spearheaded the resistance movement against Indian rule, has died, aged 92. 

This is the language of approval. 

Here's a flavour of the reaction:

• As expected, the BBC turns Syed Ali Shah Geelani into a freedom fighter when even Al Jazeera refers to him as "separatist". Is the BBC completely tone deaf when it comes to reporting? What's the reason behind this sustained anti-India stance? What kind of biased journalism is this?
• Geelani fought to make Kashmir a totalitarian Islamist hellhole. He was partially responsible for massacres and ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus. He was an enemy of freedom. BBC's headline is unbelievable but reflects their anti-India and anti-Hindu bias.
• If Geelani was a Hindu, the tone of the article would have been very different. 
• Interesting. BBC News calls a Talibani-style terrorist Geelani a freedom fighter. The way it is BBC will stitch a burqa for the British queen. 

Mark his words

Computer problems prevented me posting this a couple of days ago, but there's no time like the present, so...

Charlie, on the Open Thread, noted that BBC Home Editor Mark Easton "does not like the emergency Jihadi legislation one little bit".

As I've said before, I personally think that Mark Easton is the BBC's most seriously biased reporter. He has a propagandist's gift for cleverly loading the language of his reports in such as way as to steer viewers and listeners in the direction he desires. 

In his report on last night's BBC One News at Ten [Craig - well, it was 'last night' when I first wrote this] he could have said this:

This evening, the Government announced emergency legislation to keep new and existing terrorism offenders in prison for longer and with tougher controls on release.

But, being Mark Easton, a loaded word was added:

This evening, the government announced controversial emergency legislation to keep new and existing terrorism offenders in prison for longer and with tougher controls on release.

With Mark Easton something is "controversial" if he doesn't agree with it.

The worst was yet to come though. Mark Easton employs every trick in the book here to steer the argument his own way:

The trouble is we've been over this ground before: searching for a way to balance the rights of the public to be kept safe against the human rights of those dealt with by the courts. The government may well find even today's proposals come under legal challenge. The Government will most certainly get its emergency legislation through the Commons but will it get through the courts? For ministers to retrospectively basically increase the prison terms of people already convicted by court and change the terms of their release is certainly I think open to legal challenge. But perhaps the bigger problem with the Government's approach is that it won't necessarily stop actually extremely dangerous terrorist offenders being released from prison without anything in their way. It just delays that process. No, the Government could have gone for indeterminate sentences but, as we know, that idea is expensive and difficult to manage and some would argue it goes against the principles of fair justice. Many people, I think, would challenge that idea. And it just goes to show that governments, whenever they deal with this problem of radical extremism, discover there really are no easy answers. 

Despite this, the BBC's 'degrees of separation', once again, fell down. In the BBC newsreader's introduction, the News at Ten said:

Critics say the new plans would merely defer the problem of what happens on release.

Later, as we've seen above, Mark Easton didn't even bother to pretend it was 'critics' saying it. He said it himself:

But perhaps the bigger problem with the Government's approach is that it won't necessarily stop actually extremely dangerous terrorist offenders being released from prison without anything in their way. It just delays that process.

So, ergo, Mark Easton is himself a "critic" of the Government's plans here out of the BBC's own mouth and, thus, took a side. QED.

Is the BBC up to its old tricks again?

There's a familiar charge on anti-BBC bias blogs that the BBC seeks to downplay the specifically Islamic character of many serious crimes, due to its left/liberal oversensitivity to the 'cultural sensitivities' of Muslims. 

That charge will doubtless be made again today in the wake of the excellent news that police have captured the man suspected of carrying out the murderous anti-Semitic terrorist attack on the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

This is an example of why such charges are made against the BBC: 

Here's how the Sky News website reports the arrest:

Jewish Museum Shooting Suspect Arrested

The 29-year-old, who has suspected ties to Islamic radicals in Syria, is held in Marseille over the deadly attack in Brussels.

Police investigating a shooting at a Jewish museum in Belgium that left four people dead have arrested a man.

Mehdi Nemmouche, a Frenchman with suspected ties to Islamic radicals in Syria, was detained in Marseille in southern France, investigation sources told the AFP news agency.

The 29-year-old, who is being held on suspicion of murder and attempted murder in connection with a terrorist enterprise, was allegedly found with a Kalashnikov rifle and a handgun.

Two women and a man were killed in the shooting in Brussels on May 24, which French President Francois Hollande said was clearly of "anti-Semitic character".

And here's how the BBC News website reports it:

Brussels Jewish Museum killings: Man held in Marseille

A Frenchman has been arrested at a train station in Marseille over a fatal shooting at the Jewish Museum in Brussels eight days ago.

Mehdi Nemmouche, 29, is being held on suspicion of murder and attempted murder. He was reportedly carrying a Kalashnikov rifle and a handgun similar to the ones used in the May 24 attack.

Three people were killed while a fourth victim is critically injured.

Security was tightened at Jewish sites across Belgium following the attack.

Mr Nemmouche, a French national who is believed to be from the northern town of Roubaix, is also suspected of having been with Islamists militants in Syria last year.

As you can see, Sky mentions the alleged Islamist connection underneath its headline and again in the second paragraph proper of its news report while the BBC holds off mentioning it until the end of the fifth paragraph of its article.

If Nemmouche is a French Islamist terrorist then that's obviously a key part of the story and should, I would have thought, be mentioned at the start of the report - unless you're deliberately seeking to downplay that aspect of it (for whatever reason).

Update: There's a characteristically cogent article now about this from Douglas Murray at the Spectator titled 'They always come for the Jews'.

He notes that this isn't a one-off. French Muslim Mohamed Merah targeted a Jewish school in Toulouse.

He also dismisses though who blame the West for failing to intervene in Syria and thus, in some way, being responsible for radicalising the likes of Nemmouche, noting that both intervention and non-intervention (as well as intervention that didn't go far enough) have all been used as excuses by Muslim terrorists in the past.

He also recalls the specific anti-Jewish atrocity committed by the Muslim terrorists who carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

And the reason? Well, it's what Mehdi Hasan said:

It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article – if they are honest with themselves – will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret.

As Douglas Murray concludes,

And this hatred, which is taught among Muslims in the UK and across Europe, is part of the reason why when a radical decides to go on a killing spree it is always Jews who are at the top of the target list. It is the point. They always come for the Jews.

Trojan Elephant.

There are several pieces on the web about Robert Fisk’s disgraceful report in the Independent, a newspaper that has acquired a reputation for being even more antisemitic than the Guardian. Fisk himself couldn’t have Fisked it any more Fiskishly than Cif Watch has here.

Hamas…handed Israel a gift by bombarding Sderot from Gaza with thousands of inaccurate rockets, most of them home-made. It allowed Israel to kill hundreds of Palestinian civilians as it sought revenge, and deprived the Israeli left (that which still existed) of their support for the original Israeli withdrawal from Gaza;

Amongst a sack of disingenuous chaff in that paragraph there is one grain of truth. 

Of course anything that harms your enemy hands them a potential propaganda gift at the same time.  It’s when only the gift is seized upon and any injury or harm is all but forgotten that things become more complex. For example, when the Fogel family were butchered by Palestinian youths, some of us used that  (and still do) to illustrate the sadistic nature of individual acts of Palestinian “resistance”. But there would be something deeply wrong if we relished its impact as a weapon more than we anguished over the stark brutality of the act and its impact on the survivors. Not to mention the very idea that this deed had handed anyone a gift.

Similarly, when the Israeli army (arguably legitimately) rashly used white phosphorus near civilians, they too could be said to have handed a ghastly gift to their enemies. The fact that this has been interpreted as a deliberate attack on civilians and is now embedded into the narrative as such was so predictable that the mind boggles as to why its use was ever authorised. As we would all know, if the BBC hadn’t systematically avoided reporting it, the Israelis take great pains to avoid harming civilians even when responding to deliberate and outrageous provocation, often to the detriment of their own safety. No wonder it’s so easy to seize upon such things when there is little or no interest from the BBC in countering them.

The BBC’s habit of allowing a litany of embellished falsehoods to be repeated on air, unchallenged, was demonstrated in Sunday’s The Big Questions. “Is Islamism the biggest threat to the modern world?”

This was supposed to be a debate about Tony Blair’s infamous warning about the threat from Islamism. 

Anne Marie Waters (Sharia Watch) and Sam Westrop (Gatestone institute) were pitted against a gaggle of the BBC’s favourite Muslims, ranging from Usama Hasan (Quilliam)  through Bangladeshi-born British Imam Ajmal Masroor to Abdel Bari Atwan (from multiple BBC appearances as ‘expert on the Middle East’, the most inappropriate description that there ever in this world could be, as well as a regular on the panel of the BBC’s Dateline.)

 “It’s an exaggerated threat” opines Atwan, and “Tony Blair is responsible”  before launching into an  illogical diatribe of exquisite stupidity, ending “we-in-the-West *created* Islamism.”  Predictable Blair-bashing ensued.

“Mr Atwan, you famously said ‘Were nuclear missiles ever to strike Israel I would dance in Trafalgar Square’  so I don’t think...”
“This is misquotation. This is not true..”
“It’s not true? You never said that?”
“no no no no. It was out of context”
“What does that mean?”
“I was talking an hour programme, they took few seconds and anyway who is bomb-bing? Who is bomb-bing the Arabs now? The Israelis. Who is committing massacres against Arabs? The Israelis!”

You cannot call this a debate. The Muslims seem incapable of listening to anything but their own voices. Once they start, they cannot be stopped.

Sam Westrop promises to post, on the Stand for Peace website, conclusive proof that Ajmal Masroor did claim that American security forces orchestrated the Mumbai attacks, and also that the Westgate shopping mall attack by Boko Haram was  the work of shadowy forces. Which he denies.

“Hamas leader is honest and great man as opposed to Benjamin Netanyahu anytime” announces Masroor, to loud applause.

Nasr Emam (Muslim Chaplain in Scarborough) is wearing an distinctly unIslamic tie. He splutters:

“I don’t support Hamas. Hamas isn’t even an Islamic ideology.”

“What is it then?”

“Waffle waffle. They want their country back. Waffle waffle inanity splutter. Who is funding you (Anne Marie) to pay for Sharia Watch?”

UnIslamic tie

Uh oh. Palestinian Musher el-Farra of Sheffield PSC is on the programme. On the front row.

Why? Obviously to tell us that Hamas is the outcome of Israeli Zionist aggression and repeat the lies that have embedded themselves into the narrative. “Phosphoric bombs” “Ethnic cleansing of Palestinians” “Massacres” Lies that are accepted as the truth; so embedded that they can be uttered unchallenged.

“... ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians which started in 1948 when they destroyed five hundred thirty two villages.” 

Musher el-Farra wants Tony Blair to be prosecuted for war crimes against the Iraqi people. Thunderous applause.

 “The killin’ of fishermen... just for fishin’ in the waters. The killin' of farmers, the pollutin’ of Palestinian waters..” ”Killin’ of people wavin’ white flags, all this.. don’t talk to me about threat radicalism and threat to global... Islamism........Zionism is....... Israel is big power....” 

No more Mrs. nice-guy; I use dialect in a denigrating manner because I’m fed up with half-wits being afforded credibility by the BBC in their relentless unprincipled pursuit of ratings. 

This man cannot be stopped. He’s in full flow, eyes blazing. Nicky Campbell  has to put a hand on his arm to get him to stop.

In my opinion the BBC introduced this person and Abdel Bari Atwan into the mix solely because the BBC knew they would automatically launch themselves off into anti-Israel tirades, thereby tidily diverting the topic away from facing the undeniable truth. That Islam is incompatible with the West and it is indeed the biggest threat to the modern world.

In my opinion, no Imam, no spokesperson for Islam, no community leader, no Islamic authority I've ever seen or heard is sure about what exactly Islam is. They cannot agree on what Islam is as a religion, they are evasive about what Islamism is as an ideology and no-one can agree upon the legitimacy of much of the weighty paraphernalia that surrounds the whole doom-ridden palaver. 

The one motivating, unifying element, the only thing that they’ll readily agree upon, the glue that holds them together, is their hatred of Israel and the Jews. That is what sets them on fire. Their eyes glow, their hands flail and their tongues lash. 

Why do I think the bulk of the audience is so ready to clap at any anti-Israel utterance, and boo and hiss at the slightest mention of the Israeli Prime Minister? 

Because of the BBC’s anti-Israel bias by omission, its susceptibility to pro-Palestinian emoting and its politically correct kow-towing to half-wits. 

Look at this document (H/T Biased BBC) download from here  setting out rules for Muslim education. What a load of restrictive, repressive, cruel orders.

My husband’s “Rules Concerning Toast” make more sense. And they were (half) tongue-in-cheek.

One minute The MCB issues a 72 page document detailing a list of intrusive demands that schools adapt to 72 pages-worth of Islamic superstitions, the next this statement:  'Education and Muslims: End this Witch-Hunt of British Muslims' denying that state schools are the target of a 'Muslim takeover', where supposedly conservative Muslim views and mores are imposed, and where non-compliant teachers are forced out.

Never mind the Trojan Elephant. It’s Islam itself that is ‘in the room’, and this room ain’t big enough for both of us.

"The crucial thing is that yer live and let live, isn't it?"

The aforementioned Sunday Morning Live partly followed its usual pattern of juxtaposing sharply opposed points of view, and hoping that some light comes out of the inevitable heat. I think some light did come out of the heat of this edition.

The opening subject (and the subject of the viewers' poll that saw 95% saying 'yes' to the question), was "Does the English Defence League represent a view that needs to be heard?", and it pitted the former EDL leader Tommy Robinson against former Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala. 

Although placed on an end chair, Esther Rantzen was (metaphorically) positioned between them.

There were only two Skype/phone guests - Jamie Barlett from the Demos think tank and Usama Hasan of the Quilliam Foundation - because, unusually, this segment was dominated by presenter Samira Ahmed's questioning of Tommy Robinson. 

Jamie Barlett expressed caution about Tommy Robinson, while Usama Hasan was warmly welcoming of his move.

Like Sue, I think Samira tends to be pretty even-handed during most editions of Sunday Morning Live, but here she clearly applied most of the pressure to the ex-EDL man, making this segment half-a-discussion and half-an-interview.

The discussion itself was preceded by a short commentary from Samira, in the course of which it again became clear [as it did on Newsnight last week] that Tommy Robinson's decision to leave the EDL and to work alongside Muslim groups like the Quilliam Foundation was brought about partly through the agency of the BBC itself. The corporation had invited him to take part in a BBC documentary. During it, he was encouraged to engage with members of the Muslim community. He did precisely that, and the consequences are now known to all. Should be BBC be seen as a godparent to his decision?

Tommy Robinson made many points on the programme which must have struck a chord with many viewers - if the results of the viewers' poll are anything to go by.

He must have made a better impression than Inayat Bunglawala, who came across as a nasty piece of work - especially for his unpleasant, unprovoked attack on Usama Hasan [ironically after Usama had just praised all three guests for discussing the issue in a civilised manner.]

Esther probably imagined herself to be playing the part of 'the voice of sweet reason', saying lots of nice things about how lovely it would be if we were all able to get along with each other, but, alas, she came across as being charmingly out of her depth (without realising it). For those of you who can't face watching the programme (unlike Sue and myself!), here's a flavour of Esther's contributions:

"If you two gentlemen can get together I see hope for the future."

"The crucial thing is that yer live and let live, isn't it?"

"You both need more women in your various...nice sane women whose focus is that their children can grow up in peace and prosperity."

"What you have in common is so much more important that what divides you".

She also clearly hadn't paid much attention to this week's news, asking all kinds of naive questions. She was obviously winging it a bit.

After the results of the viewers' poll were announced, Tommy returned to join Esther and another guest, journalist Kenan Malik [another critic of Tommy Robinson]. Samira grilled Tommy Robinson again.

The other topics discussed were press regulation and care for the elderly.

Plenty of heat. Some light.

Breaking news

I really don't understand why this keeps happening.

If you've been reading the news online today you'll know that a radical Muslim cleric, Sheikh Issa Ponda, has been on the run after being shot by police on Zanzibar - and, according to the Daily Mirror, has now been caught and is under armed guard in hospital. The Islamist is suspected of involvement in the cruel acid attack on two British girls last week. 

I won't quote them all but Sheikh Issa Ponda's flight from the police has been reported right across the media today - in the Mirror, on Sky News, ITV News, Channel 4 News, the Daily Mail, the Independent, Metro, the Daily Telegraph, the Times, the Sun, etc. 

Understandably, it's a story their viewers and readers want to be updated on. We want the perpetrators to be brought to justice. 

Only the Guardian and the BBC websites have failed to report it. There's nothing on their websites about this story. The Guardian's last report on the acid attack in Zanzibar came two days ago and the BBC have added nothing since early yesterday morning and have made no mention at all of Sheikh Issa Ponda in recent days. So, when will the story finally appear?

I just don't understand why this keeps happening. Do you?

Unhelpful Variations

Following on from the earlier Panorama posts, it's fascinating - and not a little disturbing - to read the differing accounts of the opening day of the court martial of Maj. Nidal Hasan, the suspect in the Foot Hood massacre of 2009 which saw 13 U.S. soldiers killed and many others injured. 

I read the Daily Telegraph's take first:

Fort Hood trial: US soldier Nidal Hasan says 'evidence will show I was the shooter'

Nidal Hassan, a US army major and self-styled "soldier of Allah", has spoken publicly for the first time since shooting dead 13 of his comrades in a gun rampage at a military base four years ago.

The paper's account included several direct quotes, including the following, first from Hasan himself...

"The evidence presented here will only be one side of the story. I was on the wrong side. I then switched sides. The evidence will show we Mujahideen are imperfect soldiers trying to form a perfect religion. I apologise for any mistakes in this endeavour."

...and then from the prosecutor in the case:

"He yells Allahu Akbar and opens fire on unsuspecting and defenceless soldiers in the surrounding area. He uses the laser sights to kill the uniformed soldiers, and only the uniformed soldiers. Laser sights flashed through the now gun smoke-filled building."

Then I moved onto the BBC's account. Note the missing word in the direct quotation here, as compared to what appeared in the Daily Telegraph:

"The evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter," Maj Hasan told the jury of 13, including nine colonels, three lieutenant colonels and one major.

He added: "We are imperfect Muslims trying to establish the perfect religion."

What happened to the word "Mujahideen"? The use of "Mujahideen" would mean that Hasan is explicitly identifying himself as an Islamist jihadist. Who is quoting Hasan correctly here? And why is someone misquoting him? 

Similarly, compare the second paragraph from the Daily Telegraph with this one from the BBC's account: 

During the prosecution's opening statements, Col Steve Henricks said Maj Hasan deliberately targeted "unarmed, unsuspecting and defenceless soldiers" when he opened fire, and planned to "kill as many soldiers as he could".

What became of "He yells Allahu Akbar" in the BBC's account?

The Telegraph, incidentally, reminds its readers that Maj. Hasan is "a Muslim born to Palestinian immigrants in Virginia" - a detail missing from the BBC account but which Sky News's report doesn't fail to include either. ("Hasan, a US-born Muslim of Palestinian descent...")

I was curious as to how the BBC One's News at Six and ITV News (at 6.30) would report the story. Oddly, only ITV News did report the story. The BBC's News at Six ignored it. 

Checking different versions of stories for yourselves, thanks to the internet, can result in added confusion in the reader's mind - given the differences between various takes - but at least it teaches you not to believe everything you read and to wonder what you're missing from the particular account you're reading.

********

Well, yes. I was about to post this well over an hour ago, but severe confusion really did begin to creep in. 

Digging a little further shows that both the Washington Post and Jihad Watch (among others) use exactly the same quotation as the BBC - "We are imperfect Muslims trying to establish the perfect religion" - and both of them cite the Associated Press as their source. So presumably the BBC is also quoting the Associated Press. If Hasan did use the word "Mujahideen" then it appears that it's the Associated Press whose reporting isn't up to scratch.

But when you look further you find all manner of variations on Hasan's statement across the media:

"We are imperfect Muslims trying to establish the perfect religion." (BBC) 

"we Mujahideen are imperfect soldiers trying to form a perfect religion." (Daily Telegraph)

"We the Mujahideen are imperfect Muslims trying to establish the perfect religion in the land of the supreme god." (Atlas Shrugged)

"We in the mujahideen are imperfect beings trying to establish a perfect religion" (CS Monitor)

I'm puzzled. Is there no official court transcript? Why can't professional journalists transcribe what this man said, exactly, word for word? (You would think that would be one of the first requirements of a professional journalist). Whose version is the correct one?

Frankly, who knows!

Alarm bells

Tonight's Panorama, The Brothers Who Bombed Boston, looks as if it's going to try to paint the Boston bombing suspects as being more akin to far-right, anti-government white supremacists than to Muslim jihadists. 

As if the two things are mutually exclusive. 

After all many Muslim jihadists share the same hatred of Jews and the American government as those on the conspiracist far-right - and expressions of admiration for Hitler are far from uncommon among Islamists.  

The programme's blurb raises alarm bells:

On the 15th of April, in the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, two homemade bombs exploded at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring more than 200 participants and spectators. With interviews with those who knew them, Panorama reporter Hilary Andersson explores how the two suspected bombers - brothers raised and educated in the US - became radicalised, and asks if America's war on terror has come home.

With the surviving brother due to stand trial later this year, she goes on patrol with New York Police Department's anti-terrorist squad which uses the latest technology to protect New Yorkers from future terrorist attacks. But she finds a backlash amongst many Muslims in America against law enforcement programmes they believe are designed specifically to profile, map and spy on Muslims. Panorama asks: are the authorities spying on the right people? 

"...and asks if America's war on terror has come home" has an ominous ring to it. Is Hilary going to imply that America brought the Boston bombing on itself through its own foreign policy or security strategies?

The focus then looks to shift to the usual one for the BBC - changing the story from an attack by Muslim terrorists into an attack on Muslims  (the inevitable "backlash" angle we're so familiar with from the corporation).

The closing question, "Panorama asks: are the authorities spying on the right people?", leads me to suspect that the "right people" won't turn out to be Muslim extremists but white, right-wing Americans instead - the very people the BBC speculated were really responsible for the attacks in the first place. 

So, are we about to see a revelatory BBC investigation that changes everything we thought we knew about the Boston bombings, or are we able to see a manipulative piece of BBC agenda-pushing? 

Well, we'll see.

Those alarm bells might not have rung so loudly were it not for a post by the ever-excellent DB at Biased BBC:

BBC tries to blur the lines over Boston bomber

DB spots that the video report accompanying the BBC website write-up shows Hilary Andersson looking at the right-wing American publications one of the Tsarnaev brothers is said to have read.

For some reason the BBC has blurred the footage of the literature that Andersson is reading so that only a couple of headlines can be made out. 

DB then wondered "why the BBC [is] so reluctant to identify the publications that Andersson is seen reading?" (You can see his screengrab at Biased BBC).

DB identifies the publication in the blurred image as being from the American Free Press (AFP) - "a vehemently anti-Semitic weekly paper which peddles all manner of conspiracy theory, usually linked in some way to the neocon New World Order that’s run by the Jews."

Here's the nub though:

What doesn’t quite fit Andersson’s narrative, and perhaps explains the reluctance to identify the publication, is that while the AFP is very anti-Jewish, it is also sympathetic to Muslim grievances. In one article which blames pro-Israeli propaganda for inciting Anders Breivik’s horrific murderous spree, the writer says Europeans should fear Jews, not Muslims.

DB details several further examples of this - its defence of Iran's Press TV, its anti-Gitmo stance - and adds: 

"I imagine quite a few young Muslims read the American Free Press. It spouts the same bullshit that Islamists do, and that is what will have appealed to Tamerlan....It’ll be interesting to see if the full Panorama programme highlights any of the above information, because the teaser items certainly haven’t."

It will indeed be interesting to see if Panorama does that tonight. 

An article by Charles Moore

Here's a little Saturday morning reading related to the theme of this blog - an extract from a thought-provoking piece by Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph, which deserves reading in full:

It is less than a month since Drummer Lee Rigby was murdered in Woolwich, yet already the incident feels half-forgotten. In terms of the legal process, all is well. Two men have been charged. There will be a trial. No doubt justice will be done. But I have a sense that the horror felt at the crime is slipping away.

The media, notably the BBC, quickly changed the subject. After a day or two focusing on the crime itself, the reports switched to anxiety about the “Islamophobic backlash”. According to Tell Mamma, an organisation paid large sums by the Government to monitor anti-Muslim acts, “the horrendous events in Woolwich brought it [Islamophobia] to the fore”. Tell Mamma spoke of a “cycle of violence” against Muslims.

Yet the only serious violence was against a British soldier, who was dead.

****** 

A trap is set here, inviting those of us who reject such statements, to defend the EDL. I do not. While not, in its stated ideology, a racist organisation like the BNP, the EDL has an air of menace. It must feel particularly unpleasant for Muslims when its supporters hit the streets. But the EDL is merely reactive. It does not – officially at least – support violence. It is the instinctive reaction of elements of an indigenous working class which rightly perceives itself marginalised by authority, whereas Muslim groups are subsidised and excused by it. Four days ago, six Muslim men were sentenced at the Old Bailey for a plot to blow up an EDL rally. The news was received quietly, though it was a horrifying enterprise. No one spoke of “white-phobia”. Imagine the hugely greater coverage if the story had been the other way round.

Charles Moore's characterisation of the reporting of the BBC here is spot on, as earlier posts on this blog have hopefully shown. 

Angles

It's in the nature of blogs to be both personal and topical. My posts tend to be neither, but this one will be both...

The savage murder of Drummer Lee Rigby by two British-born, second generation immigrant Muslim converts, one of whom spouted religious (Islamic) and political (Islamist) justifications for their sick killing of a young British soldier, has shocked, disgusted, depressed and confused me. 

From discussions with friends, family and work colleagues I know that I'm far from being alone in feeling this way. Acts of sectarian murder aren't exactly new to the British Isles (think of the Troubles in Northern Ireland) but this kind of 'look-at-me-and-film-me'  butchery and would-be beheading of a serving British soldier with a young wife and a two-year-old son by a pair of Muslim fellow Brits is - however expected, given the many threats of Islamists to do just this kind of thing - something truly sickening and unprecedented for this country. It's very hard to come to terms with, especially given a personal, family reason that has made the story strike home even harder for me.

It's also very hard to blog about such things - and harder still to blog about something that seems like a side-issue in comparison, namely BBC bias. 

The corporation's coverage of the events on the day struck me (as it struck some commenters at Biased BBC) as being admirable rather than objectionable. The BBC's much-complained-about tendency to try to deflect attention away from the specifically Muslim nature of the crime  (and all the implications that flow from that) onto, say, the the failings of the police, the EDL, the security services, "Islamophobia", British foreign policy, the BNP (etc), didn't come into play much that day. 

That soon changed. 

Last night's The World Tonight was much more what I expect from the BBC. I will permit myself a grumble about this, but nothing else at this stage.

I sent Sue an e-mail moaning about the programme immediately after it was broadcast but found, the following morning, that a commenter at Biased BBC had outlined the programme's coverage at least as well as I'd done, so (with a due hat-hit) here is that comment: 

graphene fedora says:

May 25, 2013 at 6:22 am 

Radio 4, 10pm News, last night, Friday. Missed first 3 minutes, then caught a cursory mention of the Rigby family’s heartbreaking press conference. Next, Kim Howells, former New Labour Home Office/Security minister, who spoke sensibly about the overstretched security services trying to monitor thousands, thousands, of terror suspects, & how they have to make extremely difficult judgements; who is ‘peripheral’, who is a main player. Howells then went spectacularly off-message, he picked up a loose ball & smashed thru’ the BBC’s defences. He said, with increasing passion, it was really down to the muslim communities to come forward & identify the potential terrorists in their midst, & their reluctance to do so would, in time of war, render them TRAITORS. Cue nervous & hurried curtailment of the interview by panicky lady beeboid. A bit too much Old, Real, working class Labour for the refined Islington/Barnes palate.
Next, a man & a reassuring survey, telling everybody everything’s fine – no increase in animosity against muslims, besides, it’s a generational thing, 16-24s are cool about it. So that’s OK, then. Lot of young muslim men in my ‘hood who are very cool with it.
On to a purring muslim gentleman, teacher, resident of Woolwich for 40 years, muslim community, all fine, thank you, muslim community has recieved many messages from concerned Christians, muslim community, muslim community, muslim comm…
Next, a muslim man, who had been chairman of the Fabians, &….Medhi Hasan….to discuss whether the media has got the Woolwich atrocity out of perspective.
Switched off.

I also switched off at that point. 

Please take a listen for yourselves and you will see that the commenter gives a very accurate flavour of the programme. Presenter Philippa Thomas's ending of the interview with Labour's Kim Howells really did sound "nervous and panicky". This is how the closing section of that interview concluded, in response to a question from Philippa about whether government interventions might "alienate" Muslims:

Kim Howells: The people who should be stopping all this are Muslims. They are those Muslim communities who ought to have the guts to stand up and identify these people because they live in a democracy, they should abide by the rules of the democracy and by the laws of this country. If they don't do so they are effectively traitors. They are doing things which in wartime would be considered to be the acts of traitors...

Philippa Thomas (interrupting): Kim Howells...

Kim Howells: ...and they should be treated as such.

Philippa Thomas: Kim Howells, thank you very much for joining us.

That she evidently felt uncomfortable when Dr. Howells made the point that it's down to the Muslim community to tackle the extremist element in their midst and that that their failure to do so would make them traitors does, I think, speak volumes about the BBC presenter's own attitude. I'm firmly with Dr. Howells (and Simon Heffer) here. It clearly is treason....which is a discussion none of the BBC Radio 4 staples (or Newsnight) is prepared to focus on or discuss. Their failure to do so also, I think, speaks volumes about their (institutional) attitude. It denies a hearing to a strong strand of public opinion, as represented by Dr. Howells, Simon Heffer - and me. 

The man with the "reassuring survey", helping to shift the focus onto the far-Right (EDL, etc), was BBC regular Dr Matthew Goodwin. Dr Goodwin - a left-wing academic - has, as far as I can see, been all over the BBC in recent days (Newsnight on Thursday, Today this morning), highlighting the dangers of an "extreme-Right" reaction, "prejudice" and "Islamophobia". This survey, carried out by YouGov on his behalf, apparently shows that the British public hasn't become more "Islamophobic" as a result of the murder of Lee Rigby. D Goodwin's presence is what I would expect from the BBC, as is the shift of focus onto the far-Right and the possibility of a backlash. (Philippa didn't interrupt or cut him off).

Also to be expected was a reassuring Muslim voice, voicing the fears of "the community" about that backlash - and the warm feelings of other "communities" towards his own "community". (The word "community" was used ten times during this discussion). That voice was provided by Saeed Ahmad of the Greenwich Multi Faith Forum, who had been invited to a meeting with Labour leader Ed Miliband that day (Philippa told us). Philippa didn't fail to invite him to criticise the newspapers for distinguishing between "the Muslim and the other" (and he didn't fail to take up her invitation). 

I'd been rather taken aback by the line John Humphrys had been pursuing during his interview with Communities Secretary Eric Pickles that morning (here, at 1:35:30, for a few more days), which was also based on the "backlash" and "fears of the Muslim community" angle. John Humphrys's specific angle was that the story  of "a man being killed in the streets" was being got out of perspective - that "we" "over-reacted" (as he put it.) Lo and behold, next up after Mr Ahmad on last night's The World Tonight was a discussion framed, as the Biased BBC commenter said, by the very same question from Philippa Thomas: Has the reaction been "proportionate" and "appropriate"? The programme gathered together two like-minded left-wingers, Sunder Katwala of the Fabian Society and Mehdi Hasan of the UK Huffington Post. "Have we over-reacted?", Philippa asked Mehdi, further pursuing the matter in her follow-up question. Philippa then asked Sunder another variant on the same question. Neither of them, I'm relieved to say, agreed that we had over-reacted. 

It's this sort of thing that gets the BBC a reputation for being biased and pursuing certain angles.

UPDATE: Tonight's PM led with that "rise" in "Islamophobic attacks" and "questions" for the security services.

Paddy O'Connell's interview with Haris Rafiq of the counter-extremist organisation Centri was interesting. In response to Paddy's question about whether our security services have been embarrassed by the Newsnight Islamist's so-called revelations, Mr. Rafiq strongly (and convincingly) disputed the legitimacy of those allegations. Also, in response to Paddy's question about whether MI5 was alienating Muslims, Mr. Rafiq revealed something truly astonishing, which I've not heard before:

I think that, from my own personal experience, I've spoken to a number of British Muslims since the incident in Woolwich and I would say that approximately 60% of the people I've spoken to have thought, before they spoke to me, that this was a government cover-up or this was an MI5-instigated incident to have a go at Muslims. 

That's not good, is it? Really not good.

You say "extremist", I say "radical". Let's eat a tomato instead.

You never quite know whether to take these sort of stories at face value:

BBC tells its staff: don’t call Qatada extremist

The BBC has told its journalists not to call Abu Qatada, the al-Qaeda preacher, an “extremist”.

In order to avoid making a “value judgment”, the corporation’s managers have ruled that he can only be described as “radical”.

...BBC journalists were told they should not describe Qatada as an extremist. The guidance was issued at the BBC newsroom’s 9.00am editorial meeting yesterday, chaired by a senior manager, Andrew Roy.

According to notes of the meeting, seen by The Daily Telegraph, journalists were told: “Do not call him an extremist – we must call him a radical. Extremist implies a value judgment.”

A BBC spokesman said: “We think very carefully about the language we use. We do not ban words – the notes are a reflection of a live editorial discussion about how to report the latest developments on this story.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9067754/BBC-tells-its-staff-dont-call-Qatada-extremist.html 

That came from February last year.

So did BBC journalists obey Andrew Roy's guidance or, following the BBC spokesman's assurance that it wasn't a ban, did they exercise their own judgement on that? "Extremist" or "radical" then. Well BBC, was the Telegraph having its readers on?

A search of the BBC News website (from February 2012 onwards) using the terms "extremist Qatada" brings up a  mere 8 results, of which seven quote others describing Qatada as an "extremist" rather than describing him in such a way themselves. Only one off-message, anonymous BBC reporter uses the oh-so-unbanned word in a single report.

A search of the BBC News website (from February 2012 onwards) using the terms "radical Qatada" brings up brings up 157 results. As you will see if you click on the link above, the term "radical cleric" is used without quotation marks. Mr. Roy's guidelines have been followed to the letter. The ban-that-isn't-a-ban-(but-is-really!) has been implemented. 

Abu Qatada, described by a Spanish judge as "Osama bin Laden's right hand man in Europe" remains, of course, an extremist. Just not according to BBC guidelines.

Is 'Islamist' about to go the same way as 'terrorist' at the BBC?

Not Islamists? 

The BBC has frequently been criticised for its refusal to use the word "terrorist" in its reporting of terrorist acts. This isn't merely an informal refusal. It is enshrined in the BBC's Editorial Guidelines:

• There is no agreed consensus on what constitutes a terrorist or terrorist act. The use of the word will frequently involve a value judgement.
• As such, we should not change the word "terrorist" when quoting someone else, but we should avoid using it ourselves
• This should not mean that we avoid conveying the reality and horror of a particular act; rather we should consider how our use of language will affect our reputation for objective journalism

From a piece which has just appeared on the corporation's College of Journalism (COJO) blog it appears as if rules governing the use of another word might also be about to become enshrined in the BBC's Editorial Guidelines:

‘Islamist’ - acceptable shorthand or dangerously misleading?
Friday 8 February 2013, 12:15 Cathy Loughranis currently editing the College of Journalism blog

The article outlines a discussion between three BBC correspondents - Artyom Liss, head of the BBC Russian Service; BBC Urdu's Aamer Ahmed Khan; and Josephine Hazeley of the BBC African Service. 

Cathy Loughran notes the "common if crude theme" to people's general take on the word "Islamist", a point Artyom Liss amplifies:

“The answer I got back from quite a lot of people was ‘a bearded guy who runs around wielding a Kalashnikov’” 

There has apparently been "heated debate in the BBC African newsroom" about the use of the term, though the article itself merely presents one side of that "heated debate" at this point:

The concerns of journalists there seemed to centre on the use of ‘Islamist’ as journalistic shorthand for Islamist militant/extremist/rebel/terrorist, or in circumstances when the militancy or violence referred to has nothing to do with Islam.

The discussion between the three BBC reporters then begins. The BBC Urdu reporter shares both of those concerns:

Aamer’s view was that precise language is the only way to avoid misleading readers and audiences. “The confusion is where you use [Islamist] interchangeably with the words ‘militant or extremist’. It’s just plain wrong - as wrong as calling a tortoise a coconut,” he argued colourfully.

Besides, not all militant groups are Islamist. The Taleban in Pakistan? Yes. It would be inaccurate to describe the Taleban as just a militant organisation, Aamer believes. But al-Qaeda? In his opinion it is not necessarily an Islamist militant group because its driving political focus is anti-Americanism.

Now I have to admit that my jaw dropped open (and not only figuratively-speaking) at this point. al-Qaeda isn't Islamist?!?!?!? Probably not, according to a top BBC reporter. Isn't that a truly astonishing thing for a BBC reporter to say? To believe it requires us to ignore what we know to be the prime aims of al-Qaeda and its affiliates in the countries of the Maghreb, in Kashmir, in Somalia, in Syria, in Nigeria, in Yemen, etc. They want Sharia. They want to establish Islamic rule. They want an Islamic Caliphate.  Yes, anti-Americanism is important to al-Qaeda, but their enemies are many and various. They also hate Israel and India. al-Qaeda kill Westerners and non-Westerners of all colours and creeds. They kill Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and, wherever they can, Jews. They also kill non-orthodox Muslims. To dismiss the movement's driving belief in political Islam is quite incredible and really makes me worry even more about the BBC Urdu Service.

Anyhow, back to the question in hand: "‘Islamist’ - acceptable shorthand or dangerously misleading?"

Aamer believes it's dangerously misleading. So he falls into one camp. What of the two other BBC journalists party to the discussion? Well, the BBC African Service's representative is in the same camp as Aamer:

An uncompromising Josephine Hazeley thought the word ‘Islamist’ should be qualified whenever it is used: “If you’re talking about a group that espouses violence by using, unfortunately, the Islamic religion, you should qualify it.”

So that's two in the "unacceptable shorthand" camp. What about the third BBC reporter, Artyom Liss? Is he going to dissent from this emerging BBC consensus and stand up for the use of "Islamist"? Of course not. This is the BBC after all:

Her Russian counterpart concluded that ‘Islamist’ is an empty shell of a word: “It’s bit like ‘the international community’ - a convenient term when you don’t really know what you want to say.”

So far then, this "heated debate" within the BBC has only heard from one side of the argument - the argument opposing using "Islamist" as a stand-alone term. 

Cathy Loughran then put these concerns to Ian Jolly, the BBC newsroom's style guide editor. Ian is clearly already heading in their direction of travel, but hasn't quite arrived there yet:

“Our own view is that an Islamist is someone who derives a political course from Islam. But it’s vital that we make clear what sort of course that is. For instance, there are Islamist political parties in various countries and Egypt has an Islamist president.

“So, if we are talking about Islamists pursuing a violent course, we should say so - ‘Islamist militants’, ‘Islamist rebels’, ‘Islamist extremists’. But context is, as always, important too and once we have established what we’re referring to then ‘Islamists’ on its own can be an acceptable shorthand."

He's getting ever closer though to the emerging BBC consensus, ending by 'conceding' much of their argument:

"In general, though, Ian says to be specific. “Although sometimes even these labels are no substitute for a more detailed explanation of what is motivating a group or individual,” he concedes."

I wouldn't be surprised if this marks the first stage in the process of banning the use of the word "Islamist" from BBC reporting (in much the same ways as the word "terrorist" has been banned), namely a Editorial guideline prohibiting the stand-alone use of "Islamist" (except in quotations from outside the BBC). It looks as if the BBC is already moving in that direction and the force behind this COJO piece strongly suggests it will be a point conceded at the highest levels of the BBC. Where will it lead onto from there? 

What will the Islamists make of all this BBC hand-wringing?

The Two Faces of Tunisia

Douglas Murray has written a thought-provoking post about the 'Arab Winter' over at The Spectator. Its starting point is the man Sue and I have been keeping a careful eye on for some two years now, ever since we both heard his daughter being courted by Paddy O'Connell's Broadcasting House back in January 2011. He's Sheikh Rachid al-Ghannouchi, the guiding light behind post-revolutionary Tunisia's election-winning Islamist party, Ennahda. 

Mr. Murray is scathing about Britain's role in helping his rise to power and goes on to describe the sheikh's influence on the North African country in this way:

Since returning to Tunisia this Brotherhood leader and leading Hamas fan, has – through his leadership of the major Brotherhood party in the coalition – helped to lead Tunisia down the road of Islamic fascism.

Douglas Murray reports that Mr. Ghannouchi has recently taken part in a Tunisia-based ‘International Conference in Support of Palestinian Prisoners in the Jails of the Zionist Occupation' - a conference so closely tied to Hamas that the Palestinian Authority (Mahmoud Abbas's lot) were only invited as ‘observers’, provoking them to boycott the event in response to this snub. Having sat alongside a convicted Hamas terrorist who helped orchestrate the murder of eight Israeli children in a suicide bombing on a pizza restaurant, Sheikh Rachid went on to make the following statements:

‘Every day, the ummah is getting closer to the liberation of Jerusalem and Palestine…’

'Allah, permit me to pray at the Al-Aqsa mosque, or [grant] me martyrdom at Jerusalem’s doorstep.’

Not very moderate remarks, are they? And yet 'moderate' is the word that keeps getting applied to Rachid al-Ghannouchi and his Ennahda party - not least by the BBC. And that's been going on for some time.

Shamelessly plugging an old comment of mine from a Biased BBC Open Thread from the early days of the 'Arab Spring', he's how I heard the afore-mentioned appearance by Mr. al-Ghannouchi's daughter at the time:

Craig has commented 16 January 2011,19:54:40

George R's predicted likely Islamist takeover of Tunisia may be about the get the BBC's blessing if this morning's Broadcasting House (Radio 4) is anything to go by.     

The programme put in a call to the daughter of one of the exiled opposition leaders and, almost inevitably, it was an Islamist politician: "Yusra Khreeji is the daughter of Rached Ghannouchi, the chairman of the Tunisian moderate Islamist En Nahda movement".     

    

When the likes of Paddy O'Connell call an Islamist movement "moderate", we know from experience that this probably needs taking with a large pinch of salt.  Does a "moderate" man really believe that Zionists are plotting to take over the world? Sheikh Ghannouchi does:       

"The Zionist project wants to inherit our Ummah and inherit the West itself. It wants to lead the world. After (the natural shift of) the center of civilization from London to Washington, it wants to move it to Orshalim (Jerusalem) and destroy all other civilizational and religious projects we have today."     

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/ghanush.htm     

Paddy O'Connell asked Ms Khreeji nothing about her father's ideology.    

 Sue was soon on the case too:

Toppling Tyrants

  By Sue | January 29, 2011

Throughout the uprisings in Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen, and of course Egypt, the BBC has avoided raising the alarm over the danger, some say inevitability, that when repressive dictatorships topple, there’s a vacuum, and in Muslim lands, Islamists are waiting in the wings, poised and raring to go. The BBC aint bovvered.

Political turmoil in Lebanon poses a serious threat to the stability of the region, but in an erratic tribute to impartiality, the BBC reports the utterances of Hassan Nasrallah, being scrupulously careful to avoid taking sides.

Kevin Connolly thinks the appointment of a pro-Hezbollah PM is a way out of Lebanon’s immediate political crisis, with the caveat: “It is an uncomfortable outcome for the US, which denounces Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation and reflects the growing regional influence of the movement’s sponsors, Iran and Syria.”

The Syria/Iran infiltration of Lebanon may not worry the BBC, but then they wouldn’t be worried by the content of this article by Michael J Totten.

“Hezbollah had 10,000 rockets before the war in 2006. Now it has between 40,000 and 50,000. Some are stored in warehouses. Others are hidden away a few at a time in private homes.”

Hezbollah positions itself amongst houses and mosques because they know the Israelis cannot retaliate without killing civilians.

“Its fighters and officers wear no uniforms. Only rarely do they carry guns out in the open.”

The BBC should be very alarmed at what is happening in Lebanon, not complacently telling us that the political crisis is over.

The Foreign Office is reported as stating that they have no objection to dictators being overthrown, but they’d prefer it if they were replaced by secular rather than religious governments. For example, “democratically,” as in Lebanon. What? Are my ears deceiving me?

Does this mean that the Foreign Office thinks that Hezbollah, having murdered the Lebanese Prime Minister, refused to accept responsibility for the murder, promised to cut off the hand of any accuser, embedded a massive stockpile of arms within civilian areas and in mosques, not to mention being dedicated to the destruction of Israel – does the foreign office or a spokesperson thereof, really hold Hezbollah’s roughshod trampling over the Lebanese government as an example of democracy, desirable for Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen et al ? And to add insult to that salty wound William Hague has gone off to suck up to Syria.

I wrote here about the BBC’s decisive action over a film produced by Christopher Mitchell. They abandoned it.