Priceless! Watch as Dr. Sebastian Gorka calls out BBC bias to snarky, condescending interviewer’s face

evan-davis-and-sebastian-gorka-clash-over-trump-768494American Thinker, by Thomas Lifson, Feb. 18, 2017:

Dr. Sebastian Gorka has a PhD, big vocabulary, huge knowledge base and even a British accent  — all the markers of an elitist establishment, if not leftist, thinker. But he seems to be in complete sync with his boss, President Trump.  The BBC interviewer, with his fashionable three-day beard, open collar, and heavy ‘tude, probably was not expecting what he got when he led off his live shot interview from the White House lawn with a snarky dig at President Trump’s sanity.

‘Real Housewives of ISIS’

real-housewives-of-isis

Geller Report, By Pamela Geller – on January 4, 2017

The BBC created a short video designed as a fake trailer for a show parodying Real Housewives – ‘Real Housewives of ISIS.’

I, for one, do not think it funny. Not for the reasons that Muslims and leftists don’t. Leftists and most especially Muslims don’t think it’s funny because they see it as mocking Islam and many support the work of ISIS. Insulting, mocking or criticizing Islam is punishable by death which is why I have been targeted for assassination multiple times by devout Muslims.

I don’t think it’s funny because the oppression, subjugation, misery, and slaughtering of millions to impose Islam across the world is happening now. The blood in Istanbul still stains the streets. Berlin, Nice, San Bernardino, Paris, Copenhagen, Orlando, Ohio State, Garland, NYC, Jerusalem, Brussels, Munich, Nairobi, etc — it’s too fresh, the flesh and the bone.

And yes, while Charlie Chaplin was funny and phenomenal as Hitler in The Dictator, his film was a warning in 1940. And Hogan’s Heroes was funny because we had already won the war.  But the films of the mid-forties about the Nazis were dead serious and rightly so. America was in the thick of it then just as ewe are now. And like the Europe is really in the throes of war.

I guess we should applaud the BBC for evening attempting such a thing because they are as much the problem as the ideologies they protect — jihad and sharia. Still it is something.

WATCH: LEFTISTS AND MUSLIMS HAVE MELTDOWN AFTER BBC AIRS PARODY ‘REAL HOUSEWIVES OF ISIS’

The Rebel, January 4, 2017:

The BBC did something no one expected and amusingly mocked the Islamic State and women who travel to Syria in a clip from their show Revolting.

The short video is designed as a fake trailer for a show parodying Real Housewives. There’s actually some fun shots thrown at Islamists, feminists, and the religion of Islam itself. It’s borderline politically incorrect, which means it’s way funnier than anything the CBC has ever done.

However, some on the left don’t like this one bit. On Facebook Aftab Bashir wrote, “Let’s make satire about British soldiers being killed in Iraq and let’s ridicule their widows and children coz its all a bit of a laugh ain’t it.”

In a follow up comment, Ebrahim Dar-wa said, “Funny for non Muslims but we don’t take this as a joke. Even though ISIS is made up by the West a lot of views are based on religion so this is attacking Islamic values.”

Another user, Hannah Berry wrote, “How about instead of putting in the money to make this you could actually send the money out to help those suffering in places like Allepo.”

More Muslims whined saying “Disgraceful and distasteful. The BBC is normalising Islamophobia through comedy” and “So a show depicting hijab wearing women as terrorists. How do you think this will help the Muslim women living in west suffering daily attacks from ignorant, hateful people? This is really sick.”

While these may seem like minority Muslim opinions, you’d be surprised. A poll released last year found that 23 per cent of British Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law. And that’s not all. 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband.

Think Tank Report Merges Racism With Criticism of Islam To Achieve ‘Islamophobia Crisis’ Numbers

BBC-Demos-3-640x480Breitbart, by Liam Deacon, Aug. 19, 2016:

The BBC has seized upon a report by a left-wing think tank, which openly conflates criticism of Islam with racism, to claim “islamophobia” on social media has “peaked” and imply more censorship is needed.

Demos, whose Chief Executive is Claudia Wood, who joined the think tank from Tony Blair’s strategy unit, developed a method of supposedly automatically identifying Tweets that are “hateful, derogatory, and anti-Islamic”.

They claimed that over 5,000 “Islamophobic” tweets are sent every day and that the number “peaked” after a number of Islamist terror attacks rocked Europe this July.

“Over July, we identified 215,247 Tweets, sent in English and from around the world… On average, this is 289 per hour, or 6,943 per day”, the report claims.

“Islamophobic tweets ‘peaked in July’”, claimed a BBC article and extended segment on the BBC News Channel, after they were given “exclusive access” the report which they published alongside a series of emotive and subjective interviews with “offended” and aggrieved British Muslims.

These “possibly socially problematic and damaging” online utterances were said to “contain one of a number of specified keywords”.

However, the National Secular Society (NSS) labelled the report “an accidental case-study in why we should all stop using the meaningless and sinister word ‘Islamophobia’”, and identified some serious methodological flaws.

Benjamin Jones, the communications officer of the NSS, explained in a blog post:

“In their report Demos selects some tweets it included in the study, which they presumably think are good examples of their methodology in action. A tweet stating “Morocco deletes a whole section of the Koran from school curriculum as it’s full of jihad incitement and violence The Religion of peace” is treated the same way as a tweet saying “I fucking hate pakis” in their methodology.

“One of these tweets criticises an idea. The other is racist. One describes and mocks a belief system, the other (verbally) attacks people. Demos’ methodology treats both of these tweets in the same way.

“I have read (an English translation of) the Koran. Saying it contains violence (it does) is in no way comparable to using racist language.

“This is an appalling conflation, which creates a false moral equivalence between racism and criticising a set of ideas.

“Another tweet Demos offer as an example reads: “Priest killed in #Normandy today by a Radical Islamic Terrorist yet Hillary says that Islam is peaceful! 1274 attacks this year=peaceful? Ok.”

“Is asserting that Islam doesn’t seem to be conducive to peace really ‘Islamophobic’? The BBC apes Demos’ dangerous line, referring not to anti-Muslim, but explicitly to “anti-Islamic” tweets as ‘Islamophobic’.

“… Wanting to jail homosexuals might also be “socially problematic”, but pointing out that half of British Muslims do want to criminalise homosexuality and most think it is immoral would have me labelled an ‘Islamophobe’ under Demos’ methodology.”

The report’s authors claim that “we believe it is important that the principle of internet freedom should be maintained… However, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic and misogynistic abuse can curtail freedom…”

In the methodology section of their paper, they write that “An Islamophobic expression was defined as the illegitimate and prejudicial dislike of Muslims because of their faith”, but conceded that, “Islamophobia can take on a very large number of different forms, and its identification, especially within Twitter research, was often challenging.”

“Ultimately, this research comes down to the judgement of the researchers involved”, they add.

Screen-Shot-2016-08-19-at-13.56.03

According to NSS, Demos clearly failed to successfully identify bigotry, and by conflating it with legitimate criticism Islam and Islamism, they and the BBC have damaged people’s ability to speak freely on the subject.

An example of this conflation came within the BBC’s own report, when a man interrupted one of the Muslim interviewees to say that “there is no sharia law here” and “we’re losing our freedom of speech”.

The man was immediately castigated by the Muslim interviewee, and the BBC ran a second article titled: “BBC Islamophobia discussion interrupted by Islamophobia”, implying that stating Sharia law isn’t part of UK law is itself Islamophobic.

Convictions for crimes under Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003, a law increasingly used to prosecute “internet trolls”, have increased ten-fold in a decade.

Earlier this week, the office of London’s first Muslim mayor announced they had secured millions of pounds to fund a police “online hate crime hub” to work in “partnership with social media providers” to criminalise “trolls” who “target… individuals and communities.”

And in May this year, the EU announced that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft had “committed” to working more closely with them and national governments and “their law enforcement agencies” to help “criminalise” perceived “illegal hate speech” online.

Also see:

Al Qaeda’s 20-year plan to violently impose Sharia on the West in stages is just entering Phase Six (2016-2020) of “Total Confrontation”. This timeline, hatched well before 1996, was known to the West for ten years.

The other death-to-the-West Islamic timeline implemented ten years ago by a highly powerful and influential organization — the world’s second largest intergovernmental organization (next to the United Nations) and largest Islamic organization — is also building momentum in a less violent but parallel way.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the largest voting bloc at the UN (comprising the world’s 57 Islamic states) proposed a Ten-Year Programme of Action (at a two-day summit in Mecca concluding on Dec.9th) to internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam or so-called Islamophobia, culminates this week (December 8th and 9th).

Criminalizing Islamophobia[1] was the OIC’s major initiative since 1999, at which time it began pushing for a blasphemy-against-Islam UN resolution. That resolution finally passed in 2011 as UN Resolution 16/18 — the underpadding of which is to establish a global Islamic hegemony or caliphate that subjugates the entire world to Sharia. UN Resolution 16/18 and the hate-speech laws that it gave rise to simply facilitate the Islamization of the West.

Both timelines are influencing, guiding, and mobilizing jihadists worldwide to launch attacks that are gaining momentum throughout the West. All-out war has begun with more and more Islamic terrorist attacks launching worldwide, including now in the U.S.

Video: Islamic State’s Most Wanted

_89335169_89335168BBC, April 20, 2016:

A group of Syrian teenagers decided to resist when the so-called Islamic State group took control of their city. They became citizen journalists and used the internet to show the reality of life in Raqqa.

***

On BBC Radio Chloe Hadjimatheou tells the astonishing story of a group of young men from Raqqa, Syria, who chose to resist the so-called Islamic State, which occupied their city in 2014 and made it the capital of their ‘Caliphate’. These extraordinary activists have risked everything to oppose ISIS; several have been killed, or had family members murdered. ISIS has put a bounty on the resistance leaders’ heads forcing them to go into hiding. But the group continues its work, under the banner Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently. Chloe meets the group’s founders, who are now organising undercover activists in Raqqa from the relative safety of other countries.

***

Playlist (5 videos)

***

Also see:

World’s Richest Terror Army – BBC Documentary 2015

isis-flag (2)

Published on Apr 22, 2015 by b7

This World World’s Richest Terror Army BBC Documentary 2015
The inside story of how a small band of fanatical jihadi fighters became the world’s richest terror army ever. Featuring the first major TV interview with an imprisoned senior leader of the so-called Islamic State, Peter Taylor looks behind its medieval savagery and investigates how it became so fabulously rich and resilient. Part of a season of films on BBC Two about the Islamic State.

Surrender: BBC Arabic and Al Jazeera English want to ban the word “terrorist” from reporting

Slide111-300x180By Allen West, Jan. 28, 2015

Is anyone still talking about Charlie Hebdo? I wondered how long the response would last. We saw world leaders come together – well, one was missing — to denounce the violence and stand for free speech.

Everyone was saying this would be the turning point and perhaps finally there would be global and widespread condemnation of militant Islamic jihadism.

Well, the only sustained response has come from the Islamic terrorists themselves– from the Philippines, to Yemen, to Kabul, and just recently in Tripoli. And all you have to do is listen to the words of Turkish President Erdogan, who blamed the cartoonists and the violent protests from across the Islamic world — because you’re not allowed to “mock” Muhammad. And if you didn’t know, that’s one of the traditions of Muhammad, since he killed those who mocked him.

So here we are, what — two, three weeks later after the horrific massacre in Paris? And what is the response from Western media?

Surrender.

As reported by the UK Telegraph, a senior executive at the BBC said “the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris should be not be described as “terrorists” by the BBC as the term is too “loaded.”

“Tarik Kafala, the head of BBC Arabic, the largest of the BBC’s non-English language news services, said the term “terrorist” was seen as “value-laden” and should not be used to describe the actions of the men who killed 12 people in the attack on the French satirical magazine.”

“We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist,” Mr Kafala told The Independent.“What we try to do is to say that ‘two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine’. That’s enough, we know what that means and what it is.” He added: “Terrorism is such a loaded word. The UN has been struggling for more than a decade to define the word and they can’t. It is very difficult to.”

The BBC is not alone. The Washington Times reports that “Al Jazeera English executive Carlos van Meek banned his news employees from using words like “terrorist,” “Islamist” and “jihad,” explaining that it’s important to realize that some might take offense — that one person’s idea of terrorism is simply another person’s fight for freedom.”

Yes, one person’s savage beheading of a civilian, is just…well, a savage beheading – but it’s ok, because it’s in the fight for freedom.

It just never ceases to amaze me how the Islamapologists will just break their necks to play nice and not offend the enemy. They’ll come up with the most inane excuses to basically say there’s no reason to refer to the enemy in the manner in which they refer to themselves.

Not only are Islamic terrorists killing us, they’re making us too scared to even call them who they are — the ultimate in forced censorship. How could this happen?

Think of the battles Western civilization has fought against Islamic jihadism. Charles Martel in 732 at the Battle of Tours. The Venetian fleet in 1571 at Lepanto. The Germanic and Polish Knights at the Gates of Vienna in 1683. Or how about a young America which crushed the Barbary pirates of North Africa in the early 1800s? When did we become so cowardly — and folks, that is exactly what this is. Oh, excuse me, not all of us — when did the leadership in the West become so doggone skittish?

“Of the Paris case, Mr Kafala said: “We avoid the word terrorists. It’s a terrorist attack, anti-terrorist police are deployed on the streets of Paris. Clearly all the officials and commentators are using the word so obviously we broadcast that.” Mr Kufala’s stance is in line with the BBC’s editorial guidelines on reporting “terrorism” which state: “[The BBC] does not ban the use of the word. “However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the perpetrators.”

You gotta be kidding me. It appears the Patriots football team isn’t the only place you’ll find deflated balls.

Folks, if I were the Islamic terrorists, I’d press the attack as well. Weakness is so enticing and has a sweet aroma for those who sense fear. Can any of you imagine Sir Winston Churchill going on the air during the Battle of Britain and imploring the Brits not to speak ill of the Nazis?

“The value judgements frequently implicit in the use of the words ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorist group’ can create inconsistency in their use or, to audiences, raise doubts about our impartiality. “It may be better to talk about an apparent act of terror or terrorism than label individuals or a group.” When reporting an attack, the BBC guidelines say it should use words, which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper” or “militant.”

In other words, try to find anything to call the enemy something palatable — not to the enemy, but for us. This goes beyond PC, it is abject dismissal and reflects a cowardly reticence to confront the “boogeyman.”

Some say we don’t need to define the enemy. Then how do you defeat them when you refuse to acknowledge the ideology that fuels them and is the core of their belief system? When Western media outlets run away in fear and report in a fearful manner, we will never see the enemy for who they are – because the media reports are in effect censored.

What this means is that the Islamic jihadists are winning the propaganda and information war.

You want an example of how insidiously pandering we appear? Read this closing statement: “A BBC spokesman said: “There is no BBC ban on the word ‘terrorist’, as can be seen from our reporting of the terrorist attack in Paris, though we prefer a more precise description if possible – the Head of BBC Arabic was simply reflecting BBC editorial guidelines and making a general point about the nuances of broadcasting internationally.”

There is no nuance when someone is being beheaded — and there should be no nuance in reporting such savage and barbaric behavior.

BBC Asia interviews a Hamas leader on their ties with Iran and ambitions

By Vlad Tepes:

This is a significant interview and while it was supposed to be available in English by request, no request was answered by those who asked. Please download and spread this video by any and all means in case it is removed. It must be seen and understood. While it isn’t a ‘sexy’ video of psychos screaming, it is an extremely powerful person calmly discussing geopolitically significant matters such as nuclear weapons, genocide, strategic alliances and enmity as well as ambitions as well as the implementation of sharia in Gaza. Add to this recent demonstrations of Hamas’ alliance with Turkey and we see what could be a game changer in the region.