Why the Media Doesn’t Cover Jihadist Attacks on Middle East Christians

cufiThe Torch (Christians United for Israel’s Magazine, Winter 2014) by Raymond Ibrahim:

“To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace”—Hebrews 6:6

The United Nations, Western governments, media, universities, and talking heads everywhere insist that Palestinians are suffering tremendous abuses from the state of Israel.  Conversely, the greatest human rights tragedy of our time—radical Muslim persecution of Christians, including in Palestinian controlled areas—is devotedly ignored.

The facts speak for themselves. Reliable estimates indicate that anywhere from 100-200 million Christians are persecuted every year; one Christian is martyred every five minutes. Approximately 85% of this persecution occurs in Muslim majority nations. In 1900, 20% of the Middle East was Christian. Today, less than 2% is.

In one week in Egypt alone, where my Christian family emigrated, the Muslim Brotherhood launched akristallnacht—attacking, destroying, and/or torching some 82 Christian churches (some of which were built in the 5th century, when Egypt was still a Christian-majority nation before the Islamic conquests).  Al-Qaeda’s black flag has been raised atop churches.  Christians—including priests, women and children—have been attacked, beheaded, and killed.

Nor is such persecution of Christians limited to Egypt.  From Morocco in the west to Indonesia in the east and from Central Asia to the north to sub-Saharan Africa to the south; across thousands of miles of lands inhabited by peoples who do not share the same races, languages, cultures, and/or socio-economic conditions, millions of Christians are being persecuted and in the same exact patterns.

Muslim converts to Christianity and Christian evangelists are attacked, imprisoned, and sometimes beheaded; countless churches across the Islamic world are being banned or bombed; Christian women and children are being abducted, enslaved, raped, and/or forced to renounce their faith.

Far from helping these Christian victims, U.S. policies are actually exacerbating their sufferings.  Whether in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, or Syria, and under the guise of the U.S.-supported “Arab Spring,” things have gotten dramatically worse for Christians.  Indeed, during a recent U.S. congressional hearing, it was revealed that thousands of traumatized Syrian Christians—who, like Iraqi Christians before them are undergoing a mass exodus from their homeland—were asking “Why is America at war with us?”

The answer is that very few Americans have any clue concerning what is happening to their coreligionists.

Few mainstream media speak about the horrific persecution millions of people are experiencing simply because they wish to worship Christ in peace.

There, is of course, a very important reason why the mainstream media ignores radical Muslim persecution of Christians: if the full magnitude of this phenomenon was ever know, many cornerstones of the mainstream media—most prominent among them, that Israel is oppressive to Palestinians—would immediately crumble.

Why?  Because radical Muslim persecution of Christians throws a wrench in the media’s otherwise well-oiled narrative that “radical-Muslim-violence-is-a-product-of-Muslim-grievance”—chief among them Israel.

Read more at Raymond Ibrahim’s blog

Breivik and the Wicked Leftist Media

breivikmedia (1)Gates of Vienna, by Paul Weston:

A world controlled by the wicked and immoral Left is a very unpleasant place in which to live. At the furthest extremity of Left-wingery we have genocide, totalitarianism, gulags and evil. At the softer end of Left-wingery we have propaganda, lies, MSNBC, smears, the BBC, hatred of tradition and decency, and the concomitant incremental demise of the Western democracy historically defended by millions of our young men who now lie in graves both marked and unmarked across the Western world.

Unfortunately for the decent, intelligent and moral people today, the Left have largely carried out their Long March and now control the institutions which form the thoughts and opinions of the vast majority of Western peoples. He who controls the media and the educational establishment controls the past, the present, and the future, just as Hitler, Stalin and their present-day Socialist comrades-in-arms intended.

To really see what this means in 2014, we need look no further than the case of Anders Behring Breivik, the counter-jihad movement, and the truly obscene behaviour of the Leftist media — particularly so in Scandinavian countries.

In 2011 Breivik carried out his murderous spree, to the shock and horror of all decent people everywhere. The Leftist media, however — which had already made up its mind about certain individuals within the counter-jihad movement — sought to use this act of evil purely to mount an assault upon high-profile individuals whose “crime” was to peacefully and accurately draw attention to the dangers involved in allowing a barbaric ideology by the name of Islam to flourish both demographically and “culturally” within the cohesive, peaceful and Christian West.

I am not going to go into forensic detail about the actions of the Leftist media, which have been covered in depth already by Robert Spencer, Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna, and Fjordman, all of whom were viciously attacked by Left-wing journalists who were outraged (rightly so) by the actions of Breivik, but who had all remained smugly mute for years over the numerically far higher number of murders carried out in the name of Islam or Socialism.

Just to give a couple of typical examples, the Guardian newspaper, chock-full of wicked Leftists, remarked that America had been given the bloody nose she so manifestly deserved on 9/11, whilst the BBC bent over backwards to excuse Islam whilst reducing the then U.S. Ambassador to tears in front of a baying mob of specifically imported Muslims and Leftists within a BBC studio.

But why such overt double standards over two acts of similar atrocity? Why the total failure to hold up the Koran and the hadith for 9/11? And why the massive, concerted and hysterical smear campaign against Bodissey, Spencer and Fjordman?

The answer of course is because the Left wish to use Islam as a pawn in the breakdown of Western Nation States, Christianity, and free enterprise, a.k.a. capitalism. An orderly, affluent, peaceful, civilised country contains very few potential voters for the far Left, so even if Islam did not exist, the Left would have to invent it — and then eagerly import it. There can be no better ideological ally if the intention is to manufacture social unrest and potential civil war, which justifies ever-increasing authoritarianism prior to the eventual full-blown Leftist totalitarianism necessary to keep a lid on things.

Hence the smearing of the counter-jihad, and the politically deceitful defence of the so called religion of peace. But in a rational and sane world (ie: a non-Leftist world) there is one overwhelming and striking difference between the gentle, polite, articulate and well informed output of the counter-jihad movement, and the murderous actions of both Breivik and similarly violent Muslim supremacists, which is starkly simple — Bodissey, Spencer and Fjordman have never once called for violence to be inflicted upon Muslims or Leftists, but Muslims and Leftists routinely call for (and practice) violence upon those they disagree with.

Which, over a long and meandering route, brings me to the point of this article, which is the near total refusal of the MSM to publicise the recent Breivik letter to the MSM where he essentially admits he considers the counter-jihad movement to be comprised of a bunch of panty-waisted individuals with no appetite for killing, no admiration for Nazism, no desire for violence and perhaps even worse, a sympathy for Israel. Ho ho ho, he says, I have attempted to discredit the entire movement which I hate with a passion for its passive, intellectual, peaceful approach to the Islamic problem, and I have been greatly assisted by the cretinous Leftist media…

Breivik is positively gloating over the ease with which he pulled the wool over the Leftist media’s eyes, but he should not be so hubristic, because the anti-Western Leftist media actively wanted to be deliberately blinded to truth, reason, decency and fact. And what then, is the outcome of this?

Not good is the answer. Not good for anyone. Mild-mannered, scholarly and peaceful people have been falsely smeared and stigmatised, whilst violent Islam has been falsely defended. And all the while, the anger amongst the peoples of the West continues to build to an eventual future extent where the Bodisseys, Spencers and Fjordmans of this world — who provide an accurate, impartial and peaceful analysis of our problems — will be replaced by people with an altogether different outlook, as we are already beginning to see in the rise of several real fascist movements in Europe.

So please allow me to offer my most sincere congratulations to the Leftist media. You have attacked the peaceful, native defenders of Western civilisation and labelled them as evil, whilst defending the foreign, violent attackers of Western civilisation, who you disingenuously promote as harmless, virtuous and good.

What a thoroughly evil lot you are. No journalistic integrity; no personal morality and no common, basic decency amongst any of you. Will we see a single one of you publish Breivik’s admission? Of course not, and of course not for a pretty simple reason — you are too immersed in your wicked Leftist activism to behave in a way any normal person outside the all-smothering political Leftist world would recognise as brave, responsible, impartial, good or decent. You are more than a disgrace to your profession; you are a treacherous disgrace to humanity.

Paul Weston, Jack Buckby and Enza Ferreri of Liberty GB are standing in the European Union elections in May 2014. If you would like to financially support their campaign, do please DONATE HERE.

Paul’s website may be found here, and his political Facebook page here.

Read more at Gates of Vienna (links to extensive coverage of this subject are given at the bottom of the article)

 

Benghazi Scandal – Questions Still Remain After Clinton’s Benghazi Testimony – Pat Smith On Cavuto

111

Breitbart, 20 Jan 2014 by Kerry Picket:

Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren claims someone in the Obama administration told her to direct colleague Jennifer Griffin to stop investigating and reporting on the deadly September 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound and CIA annex in Benghazi.

Van Susteren wrote:

I remembered a disturbing phone call from a good friend in the Obama Administration. I have known this friend for years. The call was a short time after 9/11 (maybe Oct. 2012?) In the call, my friend told me that my colleague Jennifer Griffin, who was aggressively reporting on Benghazi, was wrong and that, as a favor to me, my friend in the Administration was telling me so that I could tell Jennifer so that she did not ruin her career. My friend was telling me to tell Jennifer to stop her reporting. Ruin her career?

In 20 plus years, I have never received a call to try and shut down a colleague – not that I even could – this was a first. Here is what I know: Jennifer is a class act…experienced…and a very responsible journalist. One of the absolute best in the business – no axe to grind, she just wants the facts.

I told my friend before I go to Jennifer telling her she is wrong, I need proof she is wrong, strong proof and you need to be specific – what are you saying she is getting wrong? We went around and around — including the statement again that this was just a call as a favor to Jennifer and me to save Jennifer’s career from reporting incorrect information. I got no proof. Zero. I smelled a rat. Favor to me? Hardly. My friend was trying to use me. I feel bad that a friend did that to me, tried to use me for a dirty reason. I knew then — and it is now confirmed by BIPARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committee — Jennifer was getting her facts right. I think it is really low for the Administration to stoop this low.

In her post on Gretawire, Van Susteren points out that in the early days following the assault on the facility, Fox was not invited to participate in a conference call hosted by the State Department press shop regarding the attack that other media outlets were invited to.

“Our friends in other media outlets were scandalized that Fox was not included and told us all about it. They were suspicious of State Department forgetting us/Fox and courageous to tip us off. The State Department claimed it was [an] accident and not intentional,” Van Susteren writes.

However, it did not stop there. The network was later shut out of a CIA briefing that other outlets were invited to:

Then we had to listen to all the silliness about a video…what was with that? Did anyone ever really think that was legitimate?

And there were many times in the months and years since September 2012 when Obama Administration officials would make comments to suggest that Fox was just doing the Benghazi reporting for political reasons. The Administration was doing what it could to deter and demean the Fox News Channel investigation. They did not want to give us the facts — so their strategy was to attempt to belittle and demean our reporting.

It should be noted that CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson frustrated the administration and her employer with her Benghazi attack investigation. The Washington Post reported in May of 2013 that her own network was growing discouraged with her reporting of the issue, and she was having problems getting her Benghazi stories aired. The administration’s constant stonewalling of the CBS reporter never deterred her, but it did annoy the veteran journalist.

The Post reported:

I find [that] improper,” she said. “You could say suspicious.” Suspicious? “We don’t know what we don’t know,” she says. “There could be political reasons or valid national security reasons [for not replying]. I just don’t know. I know they haven’t made a good argument” for why public disclosure of the material would harm national security.

In August of 2013, it was confirmed that Attkisson’s computer had been hacked. CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair said that a cybersecurity firm hired by CBS News “has determined through forensic analysis [that] Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions in late 2012.” CBS, however, did not accuse the government of accessing Attkisson’s computer. This revelation came on the heels of the Justice Department’s July 2013 seizures of Fox News Channel’s James Rosen’s e-mails.

Many sources related to the Benghazi attack were stifled by the administration as well.Breitbart News first reported in December of 2012 that the State Department was keeping American evacuees from Benghazi from speaking to Congress. Additionally, Breitbart Newsfirst noted in February of 2013 that Benghazi survivors were more than likely forced to sign non-disclosure agreements immediately following the assault on the compound.

According to Fox News, the FBI interviewed Benghazi survivors over a three-day period shortly after the attack. None of the survivors mentioned a protest over a video critical of Islam.

The look of terror in Obama's eyes when he thought Romney was about to expose him on Benghazi by turning it into a campaign issue

The look of terror in Obama’s eyes when he thought Romney was about to expose him on Benghazi by turning it into a campaign issue

Inside Egypt’s Terrorist Camps: Torture, Rape, Mass Murder

Egyptian man describing how he was tortured, electrocuted, and had his finger severed in the name of Allah in the Brotherhood’s torture camps

Egyptian man describing how he was tortured, electrocuted, and had his finger severed in the name of Allah in the Brotherhood’s torture camps

by Raymond Ibrahim:

Now that the Egyptian military has finally begun to neutralize Muslim Brotherhood terrorist bases, the so-called mainstream media are doing what they do best—twist reality to the Islamists’ benefit by casting them as innocent victims merely “holding vigil” only to be slaughtered, while calling for the prosecution of the military for “human rights abuses.”  They essentially follow the pro-Brotherhood Al Jazeera’s lead of portraying these bases in Rab‘a al-Adawiya and elsewhere as peaceful “sit ins.”

What the mainstream media have failed to report is that for over two months in these “sit ins”—or more appropriately, mini-emirates in Egypt—many Egyptians have been tortured, mutilated, raped, and mass murdered in the name of Islam and/or Brotherhood rule.  (Of course, this is unsurprising considering how the media also failed to report on the nonstop and heinous attacks on the nation’s Christian minority and its churches, all validated by Brotherhood leadership.)

The anecdotes are many.  For instance, one man accused of stealing was tortured and had his finger chopped off (in accordance to Sharia).  He appears inthis video—his face beaten to a bloody pulp—describing his ordeal.  Like so many in Rab‘a, he was there not as a Brotherhood supporter, but because he worked in the area.  Accused of stealing, he insisted he was innocent.  When his accusers refused to relent, he said, “Fine, if I’m a thief, hand me over to police,” but they said, “No, we will hand you over to Allah.” He was taken to a room and tortured for fourteen hours, including by being sprayed with water and repeatedly electrocuted and stabbed and sliced with a switchblade (in minute 3:47 he exposes his mutilated chest).   Then, his “pious” tormentors supplicated their god by saying, “In the name of Allah,” before hacking his finger off.

Women are also easy prey in the Brotherhood camp.  According to a recent report, women are being abused for refusing to have sex with Brotherhood supporters.  One woman was reportedly tortured to death and another critically injured and hospitalized.  An Egyptian organization concerned with female rights said it “will expose in the coming days the extent of the violations and crimes against humanity which our sisters have been exposed to by the orders of the General Guide [Muhammad Badie] to coerce women to engage in sex-jihad, with torture to death for those who refuse.”

Here is another live interview with an Egyptian reporter who was kidnapped in Rab‘a, beaten, and told she must stay “because we need women for sex.”  The logic behind the sex-jihad (or in Arabic jihad al-nikah) is that women are permitted to copulate with single, male Brotherhood protesters to help alleviate their sexual frustrations so they can focus on empowering Islam—which among the Brotherhood is synonymous with empowering the Brotherhood—without becoming too restless and possibly abandoning the jihad.

Then there are the corpses that are being found.  According to journalist Ahmed Musa on Tahrir TV channel, one of the arrested terrorists confessed that Brotherhood leadership murdered more than 80 people who were either suspected of being police informants or were trying to escape the Brotherhood camps. The Brotherhood then buried the bodies in a mass grave inside Rab‘a.  According to the arrested terrorist, the Brotherhood fears that, “if their camps are broken up, their crimes against humanity will be exposed and that the Ministry of Interior will take pictures of this mass grave and broadcast them to the world.”

Aside from these atrocities and accusations of atrocities, reports of general beatings surface every day.  The majority revolve around people working or living in Rab‘a, who are pressured to join the pro-Morsi protests, only to be beaten savagely if they refuse.

Despite the many serious human rights abuses that took place under Brotherhood auspices, the only Western media ever to allude to any of this was an AP report that, after explaining how bound, dead bodies were found near Rab‘a and how many in Egypt insist it’s the work of the Brotherhood, immediately went into default mode by suggesting these could all be false allegations and, if dead bodies are being found, perhaps it’s the work of the military trying to frame the Brotherhood—exactly what the Brotherhood has been caught doing, killing their own supporters to frame the military.

Read more

Video: Mordechai Kedar on Al Jazeera

aljaz

 

 

Mordechai Kedar is an Israeli scholar of Arabic literature and a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University. He holds the Ph.D. from Bar-Ilan University. Kedar is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population. Listen to him debate on Al Jazeera the issue of Israeli settlements and the so called “occupied” territories:

 

C-SPAN Video: Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News asks tough questions on Benghazi

Sharyl Attkinson

Watch —>C-SPAN Video: CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson discusses the investigation into last year’s attack at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya in the wake of a hearing before the Oversight & Government Reform Committee on Wednesday.

Related articles

The Media’s Character Assassination of Lars Hedegaard

pic_giant_030613_SM_hedegaard-450x328By :

It’s starting to look like the Book of Job. For years, he’s been demonized in his nation’s media for criticizing Islam. In 2011 and 2012, he was put on trial – not one, twice, but three times – for violating a Danish law that makes it a crime to insult or denigrate a religion. Last month, a guy came to his door dressed as a mailman and tried to kill him; his survival seems nothing short of a miracle.

You might think that in the wake of this assassination attempt, Lars Hedegaard would get some respect – or at least solidarity – from the Danish media. But you could only think that if you were unaware of the aftermath of the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, whose bodies weren’t even cold when Dutch journalists set about smearing them even more enthusiastically than they had before, essentially blaming them for their own deaths. Many of Lars’s fellow Danes, to be sure, did rally round him after his close call. But in large part, the Danish media’s reaction was depressingly predictable. As I noted just last week, a couple of morally challenged employees of the newspaper Ekstra Bladet actually tried to follow a moving van to Lars’s new home, apparently so they could print the address; fortunately, the police foiled their effort.

Alas, that wasn’t the end of it. On Sunday, Deadline, a program on the state-owned TV channel DR2, aired a half-hour taped interview with Lars by reporter Martin Krasnik. Krasnik’s introduction, tacked onto the beginning of the show later, was not promising. In a manifest attempt to paint Lars as an extremist, Krasnik mentioned Lars’s hosting of Geert Wilders at the Free Press Society and Anders Behring Breivik’s citation of Lars in his “manifesto.”

Read more at Front Page

See also:

In Defence of Lars Hedegaard (counterjihadreport.com)

New York Times Encourages Attacks Against Jews

RETRO-ISRAEL-INTIFADA-PALESTINIANSBy :

The New York Times has crossed the line this weekend by encouraging Palestinian Arabs to embark upon a “third intifada” against Israel with an article by Ben Ehrenreich titled “If There is a Third Intifada, We Want to be the Ones who Started It.” This article is tantamount to calling upon the Arabs to kill Jews.  Against the backdrop of Thursday’s rock attack where a two-year-old Israeli was severely injured with brain injuries when the car she was in veered off the road as a direct results of Arab youth throwing rocks, one wonders where is the decency of the NYT? Rock attacks have caused deaths and serious injuries on Israel’s roads for decades.

The New York Times Magazine celebrated the people who consider their rock attacks “non-violent,” defining them as “peaceful protestors.” Rock-throwers aren’t “peaceful” – anywhere in the world. To even allow Ehrenreich to write an article, rather than an op-ed shows the inherent bias of this outlet.

Read more at Front Page

 

‘A Stew of Anti-Muslim Bile and Conspiracy-Laden Forecasts’

Picture-10-450x295 (1)By :

At 11:20 a.m. on Feb. 5, Lars Hedegaard answered his door bell to an apparent mailman. Instead of receiving a package, however, the 70-year-old Danish historian and journalist found himself face to face with a would-be assassin about one third his age. The assailant shot him once, narrowly missing his head. The gun locked, Hedegaard wrestled with him, and the young man fled.

Given Hedegaard’s criticism of Islam and his even being taken to court on criminal charges of “hate speech,” the attack reverberated in Denmark and beyond. The Associated Pressreported this incident, which was featured prominently in the British press, including the Guardian, the Daily Mail, and the Spectator, as well as in Canada’s National Post. The Wall Street Journal published an article by him about his experience.

When the New York Times belatedly bestirred itself on Feb. 28 to inform its readership about the assassination attempt, it did not so much report the event itself but an alleged Muslim support for Hedegaard to express himself. As implied by the title of Andrew Higgins’ article, “Danish Opponent of Islam Is Attacked, and Muslims Defend His Right to Speak,” he mainly celebrates Danish Islam: “Muslim groups in the country, which were often criticized during the cartoon furor for not speaking out against violence and even deliberately fanning the flames, raised their voices to condemn the attack on Mr. Hedegaard and support his right to express his views, no matter how odious [emphasis added].” This theme pervades the piece; for example, Karen Haekkerup, the minister of social affairs and integration, is quoted pleased that “the Muslim community is now active in the debate.”

(For a close dissection of this agitprop, see Diana West’s evisceration; and see Andrew Bostom’s analysis for a comparison of Higgins to Walter Duranty, the NYT reporter who whitewashed Stalin’s crimes.)

Secondarily Higgins delegitimizes Hedegaard, my topic here. In addition to the snarky “no matter how odious” reference, Higgins dismisses Hedegaard’s “opinions” as “a stew of anti-Muslim bile and conspiracy-laden forecasts of a coming civil war” and claims the Dane has “fanned wild conspiracy theories and sometimes veered into calumny.”

These characterizations of Hedegaard’s work are a vicious travesty. A few specifics:

1. What Higgins airily dismisses as Hedegaard’s “opinions” is in fact a substantial oeuvre in several academic books and articles laden with facts and references dealing with Islamic ideology, Muslim history, and Muslim immigration to Denmark. Those books include:

I krigens hus: Islams kolonisering af Vesten [In the House of War: Islam’s colonization of the West] (with Helle Merete Brix and Torben Hansen). Aarhus, Hovedland, 2003

1400 års krigen: Islams strategi, EU og frihedens endeligt [The 1400 Year War: Islam’s strategy, the EU and the demise of freedom] (with Mogens Camre). Odense, Trykkefrihedsselskabets Bibliotek, 2009

Muhammeds piger: Vold, mord og voldtægter i Islams Hus. [Muhammad’s girls: Violence, murder and rape in the House of Islam] Odense, Trykkefrihedsselskabets Bibliotek, 2011

Hedegaard’s major articles include:

“Den 11. september som historie” [September 11 as history] in Helle Merete Brix and Torben Hansen (eds.), Islam i Vesten: På Koranens vej? Copenhagen, Tiderne Skifter, 2002.

“The Growth of Islam in Denmark and the Future of Secularism” in Kurt Almqvist (ed.), The Secular State and Islam in Europe. Stockholm, Axel and Margaret Ax:son Johnson Foundation, 2007

“Free Speech: Its Benefits and Limitations” in Süheyla Kirca and LuEtt Hanson (eds.), Freedom and Prejudice: Approaches to Media and Culture. Istanbul, Bahcesehir University Press, 2008

“De cartoon-jihad en de opkomst van parallelle samenlevingen” [The cartoon jihad and the emergence of parallel societies] in Hans Jansen and Bert Snel (eds.), Eindstrijd: De finale clash tussen het liberale Westen en een traditionele islam. Amsterdam, Uitgiverij Van Praag, 2009

To the best of my knowledge, no one has claimed these writings contain sloppy scholarship or wrong references. As Hedegaard puts it, “I am a university-trained historian and take my craft seriously.” The real criticism of Hedegaard is not about his scholarship – but that he raises difficult and even unpleasant questions.

Read more at Front Page

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Is Saudi prince steering News Corp. coverage?

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (center) with the Supreme Advisory Board of Al Risala TV

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (center) with the “Supreme Advisory Board” of Al Risala TV in December 2012. The board includes Muslim Brotherhood figure and al Qaeda-linked financier Omar Abdullah Naseef (to the left of Alwaleed, I believe), at whose home this photo was taken. The occasion was Al Risala’s receipt of an award for excellence. Part-owner Rupert Murdoch was not in attendance.

By Diana West at WND:

Ever since Al Gore sold Current TV to Al Jazeera, the network founded and funded by the oil-rich emirate of Qatar, the former vice president has drawn continuous fire in conservative media. Fox News, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, for example, have all castigated Gore, a man of the left and leading avatar of “global warming,” for such hypocrisies as timing the deal to avoid lefty tax hikes and bagging $100 million in greenhouse-gas money.

These same news outlets share something else in common: They all belong to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. That means they also belong to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Alwaleed owns the largest chunk of News Corp. stock outside the Murdoch family. Shortly after his purchase of 5.5 percent of News Corp. voting shares in 2005, Alwaleed gave a speech that made it clear just what he had bought. As noted in The (U.K.) Guardian, Alwaleed told an audience in Dubai that it took just one phone call to Rupert Murdoch – “speaking not as a shareholder but as a viewer,” Alwaleed said – to get the Fox News crawl reporting “Muslim riots” in France changed to “civil riots.”

This didn’t make the “Muslim” riots go away, but Alwaleed managed to fog our perception of them. With a phone call, the Saudi prince eliminated the peculiarly Islamic character of the unprecedented French street violence for both the viewers at home and, more significantly, for the journalists behind the scenes. When little owner doesn’t want “Muslim” rioting identified and big owner agrees, it sets a marker for employees. Alwaleed’s stake, by the way, is now 7 percent.

We can only speculate on what other acts of influence this nephew of the Saudi dictator might have since imposed on Fox News and other News Corp. properties. (I have long argued that News Corp. should register as a foreign agent, due to the stock owned by a senior member of the Saudi ruling dynasty.) Alwaleed hasn’t shared any other editorial exploits with the public. But that opening act of eliminating key information from News Corp.’s coverage of Islamic news might well have set a pattern of omission.

Recently, such a pattern of omission in News Corp.’s coverage of the Gore-Al Jazeera deal seems evident. I say “seems,” because I can’t be entirely certain that I haven’t missed something in my research. But judging from online searches of news stories and audio transcripts, two salient points are missing from at least the main body of News Corp.’s coverage.

One is reference to the noticeable alignment of Al Jazeera with the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamic movement whose motto is, “The Quran is our law; jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The second (with an exception noted below) is reference to Al Jazeera’s superstar host and ideological lodestar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leading Muslim Brotherhood figure. The influence of al-Qaradawi at the network and in Qatar – where, according to Freedom House’s 2012 press report, it is against the law for journalists to criticize the Qatari government, the ruling family or Islam – can hardly be overestimated.

Strange omission? This relationship between the Qatari-controlled network and the Muslim Brotherhood organization has been observed for years. Back in 2007, for example, Steven Stalinsky reported in the New York Sun that various Arab commentators referred to Al Jazeera as “the Muslim Brotherhood channel” and the like. What’s more, reference to the relationship appears at least in passing in coverage of the Gore deal at mainstream media sites such as USA Today and the Seattle Times. More discussion is available at some conservative outlets, including Rush Limbaugh and The Blaze. (Searches at Breitbart and the Washington Examiner, like News Corp. sites, yielded nothing on these same points. Call it, perhaps, “the Fox effect.”)

Given the rise of Muslim Brotherhood parties in the revolutions of the so-called Arab Spring – undeviatingly cheered on by Al Jazeera – the network’s Muslim Brotherhood connection, which extends to Al Jazeera’s sponsors inside the Qatari ruling family, is a crucial point to miss. Especially when it seems to be missed across the board.

The same goes for failing to mention Al Jazeera’s leading personality, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, in the Gore deal coverage. This longtime “spiritual guide” of the Muslim Brotherhood hosts one of Al Jazeera’s most popular shows, “Shariah and Life.” Among other poisonous pronouncements, al-Qaradawi has called for Americans in Iraq and Israelis everywhere to be targeted by terrorists (“martyrs”) who would then find a place in Islamic paradise. Given Al Gore’s refusal to sell his network to Glenn Beck’s The Blaze TV due to political differences, Muslim Brother Al-Qaradawi and his Shariah ideology become highly relevant. Then again, maybe one man’s news story is just another man’s clipping on the cutting-room floor.

Meanwhile, the one story I found in News Corp. coverage of the Gore deal that mentions al-Qaradawi – a column by Gordon Crovitz – neglected to note al-Qaradawi’s place in the Muslim Brotherhood. Particularly given current events, this is a little like forgetting to mention that Hermann Goring was in the Nazi Party.

Could normal editorial discretion or plain ignorance be at work here? I suppose so. Still, there is that tie-in between News Corp. and the House of Saud to consider, a partnership I find more troubling than Gore’s deal with the Qatari emirate. Not only does Alwaleed own a stake in News Corp., Murdoch owns an even more substantial stake (18.97 percent) in Alwaleed’s Arabic media company Rotana.

Within the Alwaleed-Murdoch-Rotana galaxy is a 24-hour-Islamic outlet called Al Risala, which Alwaleed founded in 2006. The channel’s director and popular “tele-Islamist” is Tareq Al-Suwaidan, widely reported to be a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait. The station’s “Supreme Advisory Committee” includes Abdullah Omar Naseef, who, according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, is “a major Muslim Brotherhood figure” involved in the financing of al-Qaida.

Al Risala, then, would seem to fit right into the Al Jazeera-Qaradawi-Muslim-Brotherhood lineup.

We know Alwaleed has influenced Fox editorial matters before. Could that Alwaleed influence – even his very presence – account for why News Corp. hasn’t hit harder on the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaradawi angles of the Gore-Jazeera deal?

I don’t know, but I wonder. Don’t you?

Related articles

Hatred’s Strange Bedfellows

By Frank Gaffney, Jr. at Center for Security Policy

Last week’s near-massacre at the Family Research Council (FRC) put into sharp relief a curious fact:  The people most aggressively denouncing others for their “hatemongering” sure are engaging in a lot of it themselves – with dangerous, and potentially lethal, repercussions.
Take, for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).  Back in the heyday of the civil rights movement, the SPLC helped counter the Ku Klux Klan and other racists and anti-Semites.  At the moment, though, the SPLC is hanging out with today’s counterpart to the KKK and the preeminent threat to civil rights – especially those of women – in America: Islamists bent on insinuating here their anti-constitutional, misogynistic and supremacist doctrine known as shariah.
A case in point occurred last Wednesday night, just hours after a gunman named Floyd Lee Corkins entered the headquarters of the FRC. Corkins apparently was bent on killing as many of the Center’s employees as possible, perhaps because of the social conservative group’s listing (along with this columnist and a number of others) earlier this year by the SPLC as among the worst hate groups and bigots in America.
It turns out that, as with the Family Research Council, what seems to qualify one for smearing by the Southern Poverty Law Center is disagreement with its political agenda.  If you lawfully object to, say, the erosion of traditional marriage or open borders, you stand to be condemned by the SPLC as a hater.  It seems that if you are militantly in favor of the radical homosexual agenda or racist groups like La Raza, however, you get a pass from that organization.
Particularly striking in this regard is the utter blindness of the SPLC to the hatemongering in which Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist organizations in this country regularly engage.  If you warn, on the basis of abundant evidence – including such Islamist groups’ own statements – that they are seeking to subvert our freedoms and form of government by insinuating shariah into this country then, boom, the self-appointed arbiters of hate will brand you a monger of it.  But those whose Islamic creed promotes hatred of other religions, man-made laws and people who embrace them are never mentioned as a problem.
On Wednesday, August 15th, the director of the SPLC’s “intelligence project,” Heidi Beirich, participated in an open conference call organized by one such Islamist group, the Muslim Public Affairs Council. She used the occasion to inveigh against anti-Muslim hate groups and to declare that her group was “very, very concerned” about their proliferation.
What makes this performance absolutely bizarre is the fact that MPAC is not simply a Muslim Brotherhood-associated organization that, by definition, is in the business of promoting shariah’s virulently intolerant code.  The organization also has a documented history of anti-Semitism, including such hatemongering as: the contention on 9/11 by its executive director, Salam Al- Marayati, that the Jews should be viewed as possible perpetrators of the attacks of that day; repeated claims that Zionists and Jews “own” the Congress, its staff and the American media; and vitriolic support for the designated terrorist organization, Hamas, whose explicit goal is destroying Israel.
So egregious is Muslim Public Affairs Council’s record of hatemongering that an ecumenical group of seven leaders of national faith-based and civil rights organizations wrote the leadership of the Southern Poverty Law Center last week urging the SPLC not to associate with those Islamists.  An attachment noted that  an MPAC-sponsored event in December 2000 featured an exhortation from Imam Mohammed Al-Asi, a supporter of the quintessential Islamist hate group, Hezbollah, and director of the Islamic Education Center in Potomac.  He declared on that occasion:
“Now, all our khatibs (speakers), our imams, our public speakers, should be concentrating on militarizing the Muslim public.…Rhetoric is not going to liberate Al-Quds [Jerusalem] and Al-Aqsa [the mosque on the Temple Mount]. Only carrying arms will do this task. And it’s not going to be someone else who is going to carry arms for you and for me.  It is you and me who are going to have to carry these arms.”

It is deeply regrettable that the Southern Poverty Law Center has been reduced to a propaganda arm of enemies of freedom.  It should be embarrassed about its evident refusal to hold accountable any of the myriad Islamist entities that are authentic promoters of hatred – apart from Louis Farakhan’s Nation of Islam, a group so racist, so anti-Semitic, so hateful that even the SPLC evidently could not overlook its record.  And the SPLC should abandon its odious practice of listing as hate groups those – like the Family Research Council – with whom it simply disagrees politically, and seeks to silence.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is quick to allege ties between people it calls haters and people who use violence against the object of the purported hatred.  If the SPLC is genuinely interested in preventing such behavior, then the organization and its leaders should stop what amounts to encouragement of it.

 

Spiking the Examiner

By Diana West

News flash: The Washingon Examiner spiked my syndicated column on the Muslim Brotherhood and why five House Republicans — Reps. Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney and Lynn Westermoreland — were correct to call on Inspectors General to investigate MB influence on US government policy-making. And therein lies a tale.

If the newspaper’s online search function is accurate, it is even more perplexing to note that the Examiner hasn’t run a single news story on the media-politics feeding frenzy, led by Sen. John McCain, directed at Rep. Michele Bachmann for raising questions about strong indications of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the Washington policy-making chain. The geyser of Left-cum-GOP-Establishment hysteria arose from Bachmann et al pointing out in a letter to the State Department IG that Huma Abedin, a top advisor of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has close family members involved in MB-associated groups and movements, which are dedicated to the destruction of the West. Indeed, it was on the mention of Huma Abedin that the Examiner told me the paper turned down my column (full column reprinted below).

A little backstory.

I have noted before with dismay that the Washington Examiner automatically spikes any syndicated column I write regarding what might be referred to as President Obama’s identity issues.

These include: the debate over the constitutional requirement that the president and vice president be “natural born”; this same debate as it enters court in eligibility challenges litigated from New Jersey to Georgia to the US Supreme Court; and related pieces of “natural born” legislation introduced in some state legislatures, including Arizona’s. Since April 27, 2011, when Obama published a highly problematic illustration of a birth certificate on the White House website, the debate has taken a darker turn. There is now extensive evidence that fraud and forgery took place in the creation of the White House birth certificate. What that means to the Examiner is that it now also auto-spikes columns about this evidence and other sensational news coming out of the Cold Case Posse investigation mounted by the renowned Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Regrettably, Townhall.com has this year decided to spike columns on this same subject by myself and others. In fact, the silence on this epic story extends across the public square, from Left to Right, from CNN to Fox, from Democrats to Republicans. When, earlier this year, this began happening to my column in a more systematic way, I was shocked. Others, too. I will note for the record that concerned scribesexpressed outrage and alarm over such censorship, for which I remain grateful. It is a more than passing strange sensation to write about what clearly seems to be important news in our country’s history involving Americans from different states, from different walks of life — lawyers,  judges, detectives, computer experts, government officials including the president, and more — knowing full well that some outlets won’t run it because the subject is verboten in the public square. I have even come to expect this treatment on the subject, which must be some dangerous stage of complacency.

In a way, then, I almost welcome this latest, very different spike as a salutary jolt of alarm.

Here’s how Examiner editorial page editor David Freddoso explained why the column didn’t appear:

We opted not to use it this week.  We also passed over other syndicated columnists’ offerings about the insinuations against Huma Abedin.  The reason is simply that there is no hint of proof that she has done anything improper.

But the five House Republicans made no such claim. Amid their broad concerns about MB influence on US government policy-making, the members raised a red flag over Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to the US Secretary of State. Why? Abedin’s family members have been deeply involved with groups and movements dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. This concerns the five House members. As it should, in my opinion – which is what my fact-based opinion column argued. What we learn from this escapade is that such an opinion is not considered printable at the Examiner.

Meanwhile, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy writes:

A person is not required to have done anything wrong to be denied a high-ranking government position, or more immediately, the security clearance allowing access to classified information that is necessary to function in such a job. There simply need be associations, allegiances, or interests that establish a potential conflict of interest.

To sample some of what McCarthy has further reported:

1) Saleha Abedin, Huma’s mother, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood.

2) Saleha is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. The IICDR has been long banned in Israel for supporting Hamas.

3) Moreover it turns out that Huma Abedin herself was, until late 2008, a member of another of her mother’s Islamist organizations, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs.

Huma’s parents actually started this institute in Saudi Arabia in the 1970s, McCarthy explains, “with the backing of Abdullah Omar Naseef.”

Who is Naseef?

McCarthy: “Naseef is a former secretary-general of the Muslim World League, which, as I’ve previously explained, has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology. Under the auspices of the MWL, Naseef not only backed the IMMA” — which, remember, was Huma’s parents’ Saudi project — “Naseef founded the Rabita Trust, which …is a specially designated international terrorist organization under federal law.”

Can’t you just hear the background-checker? So, Huma, your folks were in business with a guy who started a designated terrorist group, your mom’s on a board of a group banned in Israel for supporting Hamas, and you want top secret clearance to work alongside the SecState…HAHAHAHAHA. 

And there’s even more, so much more.
Read more: Family Security Matters

2012 London Olympics: Munich Massacre Moment of Silence, Zionists, & Media Bias

Michael Coren looks at why we need to commemorate the innocent Israeli athletes ruthlessly murdered during the 1972 Munich Olympic Games by Palestinian Terrorists.

Huffington Post, MSM Facilitate Destruction of Egypt’s Pyramids

By Raymond Ibrahim

Because my article “Calls to Destroy Egypt’s Great Pyramids Begin” went viral on the Internet—read nearly 400,000 times on FrontPage Magazine alone where it first appeared—as expected, the infamous “hoax” charge has been made to lull the West back to sleep.

According to Daily News Egypt’s “Another hoax: cleric calls on President Morsy to destroy Giza Pyramids,” the calls from the Bahraini cleric I cited “urging President Mohamed Morsy to destroy the Giza Pyramids were issued from a parody Twitter account online, the Daily News Egypt has learned.”

That’s all—that’s the “proof” that this story is a “hoax”: Daily News Egypt (DNE) “has learned” that someone was “impersonating” the Bahraini cleric, whom I quoted.  Unlike my article, DNE offers no evidence, no links, no proof to back its story:  “Just believe us—you’ll feel better,” seems to be the message.

Some questions:  If, as DNE suggests, this was a hoax to scare people over the rising influence of Egypt’s Islamists, why did the hoax perpetrators choose a cleric from Bahrain, a small, foreign nation—why not parody an Egyptian cleric, which obviously would’ve made for a much more effective “hoax”?

More importantly, why does DNE not address the other sources I had cited—including Egypt’s very own Salafi party, which is on record calling for the elimination of Egypt’s pyramids? Even Elaph, “one of the most influential websites in the Arab world,” documents that both the Bahraini cleric and Egypt’s Salafis are calling for the Pyramids’ destruction.

Needless to say, DNE’s hoax charge was quickly disseminated by others, who added their own “logic.”  For example, after quoting DNE as evidence, one Kate Durham, writing in Egypt Today focuses on portraying me as having an “agenda” (which, of course, I do: safeguarding the Pyramids).

Likewise, after quoting the DNE report, RT’s“Holy hoax: Radical Islamists call on Egypt to destroy pyramids” offered a revisionist history that truly resembles a “hoax,” arguing that “demolishing the pyramids was prohibited during the 7th century—so the structures remained untouched.”

Really?  This almost suggests that the Arabian marauders, who invaded Egypt in the 7th century, pillaging and destroying, were “respectful” of the “cultural significance” of the Pyramids—perhaps designating them as “tourist attractions”? What about 8th century Caliph Ma’mun, who—as this comprehensive English-language fatwa dedicated to explaining the Islamic obligation of destroying pagan monuments, including the Pyramids, puts it—“wanted to destroy the Pyramids in Egypt and he gathered workers but he could not do it”?

What about 12th century Bin Yusif, Saladin’s son and ruler of Egypt?  He attempted to destroy the Pyramids, and had an army of laborers work day and night to dismantle Menkaure’s Pyramid, only to quit after eight months, realizing the futility of the task, though his vandals did manage to leave a large vertical gash in the Pyramid’s north face (see here).  What about Egypt’s Mamlukes who, with the advent of gun powder, used the “pagan” Sphinx for target practice, effacing its nose?

After citing the DNE report, Huffington Post’s Llewelyn Morgan offers his assurances: “Let’s be crystal-clear about this right here. The answer to the question in my title [“Are the Pyramids Next?”] is a mile-high, neon ‘NO’. The pyramids of Giza are under no threat whatsoever, and neither is any of the rest of Egypt’s glorious archaeological record.”

He then portrays me as “scaremongering” and “offer[ing] a deeply misleading account of what has been happening in Timbuktu,” because I had written, “Currently, in what the International Criminal Court is describing as a possible ‘war crime,’ Islamic fanatics are destroying the ancient heritage of the city of Timbuktu in Mali—all to Islam’s triumphant war cry, ‘Allahu Akbar!’”  Morgan explains:

To read that that you’d think that the only Muslims involved in events at Timbuktu were the ones doing the vandalism.  But of course it was Islamic buildings that they were attacking. Ansar al-Din, the al-Qaeda-affiliated zealots in northern Mali, consider the traditional Sufi practices of Timbuktu to be heretical.

This is strange logic, indeed.  Because the Salafis of Mali consider Sufi buildings insufficiently Islamic—as all Salafis, Wahhabis, and “radicals” do—according to Morgan, that is proof positive that the Pyramids, which are purely pagan, are “under no threat whatsoever” from Egypt’s Salafis.

If Morgan’s point is that, by destroying Sufi Muslim shrines, the “al-Qaeda-affiliated zealots” are not practicing “true Islam”—that’s still neither here nor there.  All Salafis—whether in Mali or in Egypt, whether “al-Qaeda affiliated” or not—reject Sufism as a heresy and pagan Pyramids as worse; and in Egypt, the Salafis are now out of the prisons and sitting in Parliament.

All of these apologists are unaware that the Koran portrays pre-Islamic Egypt’s Pharaoh as the quintessential infidel, with the result that the Pyramids, the handiwork of Pharaoh, have always been seen by the pious as an affront to the total victory of Islam in Egypt—hence why any number of Muslim leaders through the centuries tried to lay low those defiant symbols of Egypt’s pre-Islamic past; hence why such calls are again become vocal.

Indeed, here’s the latest bit of evidence: just published in El-Balad, on July 17, “Egypt’s Justice and Development for Human Rights warned against the ongoing incitements from a large number of men of the Islamic religion to destroy the Pyramids and other Pharaonic antiquities, deeming them pagan symbols of pre-Islamic Egypt…. these calls have greatly increased after the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Dr. Muhammad Morsi.”

These calls are not a joke—nor a “hoax”: the same mentality that sought to destroy the Pyramids in the past, is the same mentality that is gaining mastery over Egypt in the present—with the exception that, if destroying the Pyramids was an impossible task then, it is realizable now, a wonderful feather in the turban of any aspiring “champion of Islam”—a feat that none of the greatest caliphs and sultans could accomplish, try as they might.

Read more at Front Page

The BBC Broadcasts Its Own Dhimmitude

by David J. Rusin at Islamist Watch:
Media outlets tiptoeing around Islam are a dime a dozen, but the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) stands apart for the egregiousness of its self-censorship and bias. Even more striking than the number of controversies involving suppression of Islam-critical speech on its channels are the frank acknowledgements that BBC policy is shaped by fear.

During a recent interview (full transcript) for a University of Oxford project, BBC director general Mark Thompson provided the most in-depth admission yet of the BBC’s double standards with respect to faith. Christianity, he explained, receives less sensitive treatment because it is “a broad-shouldered religion, compared to religions which in the UK have a very close identity with ethnic minorities.” Specifically, Islam in Britain is “almost entirely a religion practiced by people who may already feel in other ways isolated, prejudiced against, and where they may well regard an attack on their religion as racism by other means.” Thus, when asked whether the BBC would run a Muhammad-mocking program on a par with the Jesus-ridiculing Jerry Springer: The Opera, which it aired over Christian protests in 2005, Thompson answered that it would not. Depictions of Islam’s prophet, he maintained, could have “the emotional force” of “grotesque child pornography” for Muslims.

Concern about Islamist violence undergirds BBC self-censorship, as evidenced by Thompson’s citations of the Salman Rushdie affair, which he described as “an absolute watershed,” and 9/11. “A threat to murder … massively raises the stakes,” Thompson pronounced. “‘I complain in the strongest possible terms’ is different from ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms and I’m loading my AK47 as I write.’” Jonathan Neumann of Commentary observes, “The lesson the BBC appears to be teaching — a lesson we always knew and apparently is also policy — is that complaints get more credence if they are backed up by force.”

Thompson’s publicly enunciated views have evolved and serve as a microcosm of creeping dhimmitude, which refers to the subjugated status of non-Muslims under Islamic law. Four years ago, Thompson bemoaned the “growing nervousness about discussion about Islam and its relationship to the traditions and values of British and Western society as a whole.” Seeing the BBC as a defender “of freedom of speech and of impartiality,” he contended that it and other media outlets “have a special responsibility” to make certain that debate on any religion “should not be foreclosed or censored.”

Just six months later, Thompson introduced his argument that Islam, as a minority belief system, must be dealt with carefully. “There’s no reason why any religion should be immune from discussion, but I don’t want to say that all religions are the same,” he opined. In the BBC’s defense, however, he boasted that it had not shied from displaying the Danish Muhammad cartoons — which seemingly had yet to reach the level of “grotesque child pornography” that they would in 2012. A BBC spokesman attempted to soften his words further: “What Mark Thompson said is that all religions are not the same — he did not say Islam, or indeed any faith, should be treated more sensitively than Christianity.”

But now the mask has dropped for good, with double standards being confessed and visions of firearms elbowing out high-minded expressions of tolerance. Though his candor is refreshing, it does not begin to offset the lengthy and damaging record of cowardice that has defined Thompson’s eight-year reign.

The BBC’s asymmetrical approach to Islam and Christianity was palpable long before Thompson admitted to it. An internal memo leaked in 2006 provided an important glimpse of the prevailing worldview by revealing that BBC officials had deemed it acceptable to show a Bible, but not a Koran, being tossed into the garbage. Numerous insiders have gone public since then to confirm and criticize such policies. In 2008, comedian Ben Elton deplored how “the BBC will let vicar gags pass but they would not let imam gags pass,” which he attributed to “genuine fear … about provoking the radical elements of Islam.” Former BBC radio host Don Maclean lamented in 2009 that programs “seem to take the negative angle every time” regarding Christianity, even as they are “keen on Islam.” News anchor Peter Sissons, who left the BBC several years ago, echoed him in a book published in 2011: “Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.”

At its most obnoxious, this mindset is manifested in bizarre inversions of reality, such as the infamous scene of a fanatical British Christian decapitating a peaceful Muslim in a 2008 episode of the BBC archaeology drama Bonekickers. One reviewer slammed “the BBC’s paint-by-numbers version of political correctness,” adding that “a Martian watching TV drama of late would probably conclude that the country is crawling with homicidal Islamophobes.” Christians accused the BBC of smearing evangelicals by attempting to “transfer the practice of terrorist beheadings from Islamist radicals” to them, but the BBC Trust exonerated the network. The BBC spy series Spooks ignited a similar storm in 2006 when it showed Christians carrying out grenade attacks against Muslims and a bishop organizing the assassination of an Islamic cleric.

Even as it concocts Christian terrorists, the BBC balks at depicting Islamic ones. Editorial staffers nixed the Islamic suicide bombers in a planned episode of the BBC medical drama Casualty in 2007, so as not to “perpetuate stereotypes.” They were replaced with animal rights extremists. A year later, executives reportedly canceled a film on the 2005 London transit bombings because they found the script “Islamophobic” — discounting the opinions of the jihadists’ own families who had backed the portrayal of their kin. Journalist Nick Cohen put it best: the BBC actually was advancing “the belief that all Muslims are potential terrorists … by arguing that a dramatic examination of terrorism would be offensive to all Muslims.”

Read more