Saturday, September 29, 2007

BBC Feeds UK Youngsters Al Qaeda Propaganda

Oh, dear, there goes the fifth column, marching on to glory, though not everyone is pleased about their tactics:

Britain’s former spy chief accused the BBC of “parroting” Al Qaeda propaganda to children as young as six.

Dame Pauline Neville Jones, who is also a former BBC governor, is infuriated at the stance the corporation’s Newsround programme took on the September 11 attacks.

She accused the flagship children’s news bulletin of feeding an “ugly undercurrent” which suggests the terrorist outrage was somehow justifiable.

Newsround is aimed at viewers aged between six and 12.

Here is their take on 9/11:

On its website it answered the question concerning 9/11, “Why did they do it” by saying: “The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al Qaeda — who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.”

Needless to say, this bit of agit-prop aimed at children annoyed some of the Brits and they were vocal enough in their complaints that Newsround amended their answer to this lame lie:
- - - - - - - - -
Al Qaeda is unhappy with America and other countries getting involved in places like the Middle East.

“People linked to al Qaeda have used violence to make this point in the U.S.A, and in other countries.”

“Other countries” include Spain, Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, Argentina, France, Kenya, Yemen, Tunisia, Pakistan, Afghanistan (long before we ever got there), Egypt, Bali, Turkey, Qatar, and, last but not least, the UK.

Of course, the television “journalists” feeding this poison to young children would no doubt blame that on the former Prime Minister.

But Dame Pauline is having none of this tripe. She points out the fallacy in their of thinking:

Dame Pauline, who headed the Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee and is described as the most formidable female diplomat Britain has produced, said the new version was even worse.

“It still says it’s all America’s fault, and now for daring to be involved in the Middle East at all,” she said.

“It wasn’t ‘people linked to’ al Qaeda who killed 3,000 people that day, it was al Qaeda itself.

“Osama bin Laden even boasted of the attacks. Is the BBC really saying that if you’re ‘unhappy’ it’s quite normal behaviour to murder people?

“Is the BBC so naive as to take al Qaeda’s propaganda at face value? Or is there something more sinister at work here?”

Good questions. I think the BBC is so infested with fellow travelers that they pose an active danger to the continued existed of the UK — at least as we know it. She says:

“Al Qaeda make the manifestly false claim that America is part of an enormous Jewish-Christian conspiracy to dominate the world and kill Muslims.

“This is no secret — Osama bin Laden has said as much himself.

“We know that in the long run the struggle against terrorists is a battle for hearts and minds.

“How can we expect to win when our national broadcaster is parroting their line to our own children?

“There is only one set of people who are ever to blame for terrorist attacks and that’s the perpetrators themselves.”

In the old Cold War days, these traitors would eventually have made one way trips to the great Soviet Union. Now, as part of the elite MSM, they are content to watch Western civilization die the death of a thousand cuts.


Hat tip: Fausta


Exile said...

Couldn't agree more with your final statement Dymphna. Bastards they are, and funded by a public that is forced to pay for a "license" to have to hear or read this crap.

Utterly distasteful, dishonest, and disgraceful. The BBC should declare itself morally bankrupt.

Chris Bering said...

If the BBC supports terrorist organizations, does that make paying your TV license a criminal act ? ;-)

spackle said...

And whats even better is that that anti-American tool Matt Frei (and his evil twin Katy Kay) now has his own news show for the BBC dealing exclusivley with America. Like we dont have enough domestic leftist America bashing news orginizations, now we get the BBC jumping on the bandwagon. Oh joy, I cant wait!

Dymphna said...

I forgot that Brits actually have to pay for the broadcasts. How sad. Well, I guess I'd do the same thing there that I did here: give the boob tube the boot. Haven't missed it in these almost-thirty years, either.

We pay indirectly for "public" radio and tv since they are subsidized by our federal government. I never listen to them, but my taxes fund their upkeep. Those media outlets lean so far left they almost fall over. Almost but not quite.


Another reason to cut govt spending.

Vol Abroad said...

The BBC sends constant threatening letters to every address in the UK that does not have a registered TV license. Not possessing a TV is no defense, they will not believe you and will continue to send the letters threatening prosecution.


Jakester said...

Really, why did they attack the US, and not, say Denmark? Maybe cause the US is involved in the Middle East? They didn't attack us because of Gay Lib or Evangelicals. It is the truth. It doesn't make Al Qaeda right or the US bad. Osama mentioned the embargo of Iraq, US troops in Saudi Arabia and support of Israel. Is any of that a lie? Why do right wingers insist that the attacks had nothing to do with foreign policy? Why do you live a lie? it seems the commenters here are fundamentally dishonest fanatics who love walking around feeling like they are the victims, like some white Al Sharptons.

Dymphna said...

Umm, Jakester, I don't know how to tell you this, but Denmark is "involved" in the ME. I think they would find your dismissal of their work and economic ties insulting.

So Osama gets to decide for Saudi Arabia who it will let into its country? Osama himself is persona non grata there-- I guess he *would* mention the Sauds.

I think the attacks were the plan of a bunch of educated Muslim fanatics who loather the West and everything it stands for. America is merely the most obvious example of their loathing.

Do the attacks Al Qaeda claims for itself in Spain, the UK, Morocco, Kenya, Bali, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., ad nauseam have to do with our foreign policy or Al Qaeda's goals? Does Al Qaeda kill Middle Eastern women and children because of the US? That's sick.

I think our foreign policy has a great deal to do with the continued rise of Islamic terrorism, which has been going on since the 1920, with the aid and abettance of Hitler.

If our State Department would just disappear into Foggy Bottom we might have a chance to develop a more robust, intelligent and coherent approach to other countries. But with a career service diplomatic corps(e), we can kiss that hope goodbye.

Your ad hominem attacks prove nothing except that you don't know how to present an argument. I don't feel like a victim at all, and inferring to me motives and feelilngs I do not have is a boundary violation.

I am determined to do what I can to protect the sovereignty of my country when I can. That hardly makes my life a lie, nor does it make me fundamentally dishonest.

I just don't agree with *you* and that's the crux of the matter.

As for the Danes, they have been attacked by Islamists. In fact, the Danish government issued a warning to its citizens not to travel there until the fanaticism had died down.

All you did here was disrespect the Danes and call us a few names.

Whatever case you were making is lost in the smoke.

I'll sitck with Dame Pauline's opinion of things, since her creds far surpass yours:

“Al Qaeda make the manifestly false claim that America is part of an enormous Jewish-Christian conspiracy to dominate the world and kill Muslims.

“This is no secret — Osama bin Laden has said as much himself.

“We know that in the long run the struggle against terrorists is a battle for hearts and minds.

“How can we expect to win when our national broadcaster is parroting their line to our own children?

“There is only one set of people who are ever to blame for terrorist attacks and that’s the perpetrators themselves.”

"Mainfestly false claims..." as are yours. Nothing to back up yours either.

Jakester said...

I am not moralizing. It's like the Japanese in WW ll. They attacked us cause they rightfully saw the US as the only capable obstacle in their goals to take over East Asia and China. They didn't attack us because, as sadistic, brutal and racist as they were, just for the sake of killing white people or destroying America. Notice, I am not justifying or excusing them at all. (But think if the Nazis and Bushidos had an alliance similiar to the Anglo-American, they might have won if they combined their strategies.)

In the same vein, Al Qaeda attacked us cause they saw us as an obstacle in their goal of establishing some radical, Islamic reign. They attacked us cause we were involved in the Middle East, not because they envied our freedomor or hated Britney Spears or decadence. This seems to be what some moralizers on the right say, hoping to chastize us by blaming porn or gays to advance their own cause. Surely, they may hope to topple or incapacitate us, but they are not as crazy as you may imagine. A successful strike like 9/11 did galvanize some radical support for their cause. Face it, Islamic radicalism is like re-occuring malaria: It can't be wiped out but contolled with proper methods. We survived the Cold War against enemy regimes not only far more powerful and better armed (thousands of h-bombs), but they had an incomparable 5th column that would make a few imans or Mideast Studies professors here and there look like a joke. If Europe is going to go Islamic, it will be cause the Euros let them immigrate, not becuase they stormed the beaches ala Normandy.

My main point is that so many people on the right seem to look at these people as some sort of serial psycho killers like in dozens of slasher/killer movies. They have plans and motives that are not all that irrational, as awful as they are. They might want to get us, but do they really want to lay waste to the world? After all, what would they have to rule and convert if everything was vaporized.

Dymphna said...

You obviously haven't been reading the jihad take on things. It is not Western rationality; it is their own particular world view re what is most important. And the individual and his puny life doesn't figure in that. Vaporizing everyone, including themselves, is dandy if it brings on the Ummah. Read some of the primary sources.

I don't think Jihadists are psycho -- at least not in the way I define that term, i.e., someone who is not oriented to time or place. The only way they are "psycho" is that they represent a "clear and present danger to themselves and others" -- which in American law can get you a temporary detaining order so a psychiatrist can examine you. I would say annihilating yourself in order to smash targets in the US definitely makes one "psycho" if you use the American code of law. They don't -- but that doesn't mean we have to accept their terms or definitions.

Islamic terrorism is not like malaria. Like any utopiain world view, it is more akin to a metastasizing growth. Their shame culture and their impotent envy is killing them and us. Who in their right mind would want to live in, say, Iran? And the Palestinians well know that should Iran nuke Israel, all of Palestine is nothing more than collateral damage. What else would a suicidal culture expect or want? In Darwinian terms, a culture which kills its women and does not value individual members of its group -- or "honors" them with suicide belts -- cannot survive in the long run.

The fact that de Gaulle deliberately set up an arabization of France in order to guraantee its oil supply does not have anything to do with the "right" side of US political theory, but it has much to do with the rise of Islamism.

My main point is that so many people on the right...[fill in the blank with some pejorative statement here].

I wrote this post and I am an individual. I am *not* "so many people."

And what does "on the right" mean? Our divide in this country is mainly between (1)the Wilsonians, who think war is always avoidable if you "dialogue" long enough -- and many of its members have stated repeatedly that there is nothing worth dying for; and (2)the Jacksonians, who thinnk war is sometimes inevitable in order to protect our sovereignty and our citizens. There is not a lot of meeting ground between these two groups.

That's the division on foreign policy. The division domestically has to do with Keynesian economics, which believes in an ever larger government, intervention in state affairs, and a tax code which penalizes those who earn in favor of those who don't.

Those who follow Bastiat's ideas, or Ludwig von Mises are the polar opposites of the Keynesians. In their opinion, Keynes has long been proven wrong, even as the Big Government proponents on both the "left" and "right" continue to promulgate his policiies.

As for why AlQaeda attacked us, who in this thread mentioned the motives you lay out? I don't recall anyone here moralizing about gays or Brittnay Spears (I wouldn't know her the woman if I fell overher). Have you actually read our posts and commenters? We don't "do" celebrities -- they are trivial beyond bearing. We also don't do much in the way of day-to-day politics. It is enough to know that our Senators and Congressmen met for a total of 103 days last there's a place for welfare reform to begin. If you want to meet moralizing hypocrites, visit Congress.

As for what happened to the Europeans, that was done out of the sight of average citizens who had little to no say in the destruction of their cultures. Why do you think so many are fleeing Europe now? It was the decisions of ruling elites, not ordinary citizens, to allow so many immigrants in. The rulers live in their safe, gated communities and send their children to private schools. Just like here: no need to mix with the hoi polloi.

There were few referenda, and what few managed to see the light of day were simply ignored by those in charge in Brussels. Even the countries which voted a loud "NO" on the EU constitution are still stuck with it. The fantasy "vote" was a sick joke played on Europeans.

The bureaucratic organization which calls itself the European Union is a cynical thumb in the eye of most citizens who once comprised the individual nations known collectively as Europe.

Gay-bashing and moralizing don't go on here. In fact, we have gay blogs on our blogroll, and they also link to us.

We also have some evangelical homeschoolers who read us, so our audience covers the spectrum.

I don't know how you landed here, but you sure haven't looked around much.

I'm done. Carry on your confused arguments by yourself -- you have simply demonstrated how clueless you are about who *we* are and I don't have the time or energy to address your unfounded claims any longer.

Have a nice life, just have it somewhere else.

Jakester said...

Have I insulted you with my musings? I don't pretend that what I wrote on the fly is the ne plus ultra end argument. But if you can't tolerate me, it's because you are intolerant. Try to learn from all people, even those you don't absolutely agree with. It's called maturity. Please work towards enlightment, instead of condemning. I did not come here to bash evangelicals or gays, what gave you that idea?

As far as Wilsonians go, Wilson got us into WW l, which a true pacifist could have weaseled out of since Germany never directly attacked us. Once involved, he gave the maximum effort, and even jailed pacifists. Wilson was in the end correct, if we had gotten involved more in the peace treaty of Versailles and post war security according to Wilson's ideals, we could have nipped Hitler in the bud.

As far as Jackson goes, his wars were simple frontier expeditions to whittle off more land in the west from Indians and the declining European colonials for homesteading. Going to an ancient, very Muslim and Arab country and forcing democracy down their throats, while securing our oil, was beyond his ken. I don't know too many people who would not fight for anything, but if the enemy attacked us, and our leaders tried to rally the whole country and declare war properly, I'm sure 90% of the people would actively support the effort.

But people like Dymphna, would rather whine about the media in a fashion that reminds me of the saying: "Don't kill the messenger cause you don't like the message." That is congruent to your basic intolerant ways.