Military procurement

Rockets, guns and ammunition don't come cheap these days. Much, if not most, of this money will end up in the hands of Hamas. The UN are happy for Hamas to use their property as launch pads for rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, do you really think they are going to baulk at passing on the cash?

Liberalism, defined

The sort of mindset which shies away from making any moral judgements on ideological grounds will inevitably come up with an abomination such as this. Terrorists treated in precisely the same way as their innocent victims. Still, I'm amazed it is that even handed - I would have expected the killers to get a premium.

Boilerplate leftist surrenderism

No surprises that this was originally written in the Guardian, or that the BBC welcomes it enthusiastically.

He said the right response to the threat was to champion law and human rights - not subordinate it.

That's why you want to hold us without charge for 42 days, invade our private property on even more flimsy pretexts, and use anti-terror legislation to persecute Enemies of the People, such as parents who want a good education for their children.

The BBC, after a post-Christmas famine of scare quotes and qualification, vomits up a pile of them in this next quote:

US President George Bush's administration, which has led the so-called "war on terror".

"So-called" and scare quotes! You can feel the Leftist, patrician derision from a thousand miles away. Shame the BBC didn't follow its guidlines and use qualification in stories such as this or this, the Dear Leader's plan to "create 100,000 jobs" (see, it's easy, anyone can do it).

Anyway, back to Milliband's articles of surrender:

Calling for groups to be treated as separate entities with differing motivations, he wrote that it was not a "simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists, or good and evil" and treating them as such was a mistake.

Milliband doesn't think that we are moderates and the Taleban, al-Qaeda etc are extremists. Let's just check the score here. Milliband thinks that people who do this, or this, or this, or this...we could be here for the rest of the day and the flow wouldn't stop. If Milliband thinks that these are not extremists, and that we are not moderates, then he is mentally ill. Obviously he gets all of his information about the world from the BBC, so it is likely that he is utterly ignorant of what is actually happening in Islam. He might think that he is practising nuanced and serious thinking, as against cowboy simplisme, but if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, no amount of nuanced thinking is going to make it anything other than a duck. Nuanced thinking in the context of terrorism is simply the process of denying reality in more and more sophisticated ways. It goes down well in Paris and Hampstead but, sadly, it is suicidal.

the stance he now promoted was international "co-operation"

Co-operation with whom? Who are we not co-operating with that we should be? Is he referring to terrorist groups which he doesn't consider to be extreme?

Islam - trendsetter in convenience

While many parts of Islam are straining every sinew to return us to the 7th century, other parts are eagerly embracing the modern world. Divorce is often a tedious and exhausting process, so the innovation of being able to send an SMS saying "I divorce you" three times was a welcome and bold innovation.

However, even that was deemed to be too onerous for some. Now, you don't even have to send it! All you have to do is enter it into your phone, and Bingo! Allah takes care of the rest. That irritating chattel you were tied to is gone and a new, exciting and quite possibly above the age of consent chattel is yours.

I'm sure this convenience is open to women as well, of course...what's that? It isn't? WHAT!!! The International Sisterhood will be all over this, any minute now...tumbleweeds...

On a related note, more work for Feminism from Afghanistan. Western feminists might have a stroke over 'Trophy wives', but these are real, actual trophy wives, chattels stolen from their families and wedded to murderous maniacs. What a shame that the International Sisterhood doesn't give a shit about them, and in fact campaigns to get us out of Afghanistan. You see, the Taleban are no different from us really.

And so it begins, again

The BBC, suffering as it does from Institutional Stockholm Syndrome, is already beginning the long and sly process of shifting blame for the Mumbai atrocities away from the people who actually carried it out, the terrorists (sorry millitants, sorry activists) and onto the authorities, the police.

They have done it so successfully in Britain that now the Menezes case is more widely known and reported than the terrorist, sorry, activist attacks of two weeks previously.

Note that by enclosing 'error' in scare quotes how they slyly insinuate that it may not been an error at all! Perhaps the police deliberately lured the guests to a point where the terrorists, sorry activists would have no choice but for their guns to accidentally go off on their own accord and accidentally shoot them.

Three things characterise each and every terrorist atrocity the BBC 'covers':

The word 'terrorist'

They never use the word terrorist, unless it is in a quote from a lunatic describing the actions of western governments. The BBC believes that using the 'T' word is not helpful in accurately describing the events. Even at Beslan, where the terrorists shot terrified children in the back of the head, they were described as militants, or on one notorious and appalling occasion, activists. Activists go round pushing political literature through letter boxes at election time, they don't shoot children. The BBC, however, thinks it is clearer to label both groups of people with exactly the same word.

The 'M' or 'I' words

The BBC would rather die in a ditch with only a copy of the Daily Mail for company than mention the facts that everyone knows, that the terrorists who carried out the Mumbai attacks were Muslims, and that they did it in the name of Islam. Finding the words 'Muslim' or 'Islam' in BBC articles reporting terrorist, sorry activist attacks is like winning the Lottery. Even the f*cking Guardian mentions it. The BBC, when it is forced to identify them, prefers the word 'Asians', which libels another approximately two billion Chinese, Indians, Japanese and other sundry nations in a casually racist slur, rather than point out the completely fucking obvious.

We are always to blame

The BBC will find someone, usually within the first two or three paragraphs, to blame us, Israel, the First Crusade, the Battle of Actium, whatever, instead of the people who are actually responsible. The BBC and the rest of the Left will laugh themselves into a hernia whenever someone supporting the right to bear arms says that "guns don't kill, people do", but mysteriously when the people holding the guns are Islamic terrorists, suddenly it becomes true. People aren't murdered by the terrorists, they 'die' during the attacks, as if they suffered a heart attack or something. This is particularly prevalent in the BBC's appalling coverage of Israel vs Hamas and sundry Islamists. Israel kills Palestinians; Israelis happen to die during Palestinian attacks.

Incredibly, the BBC is still considered a trusted news source by the bovine herd which characterises the British population. This is partly down to the cunning and skill with which the BBC presents their bias, but mostly it is down to the fact that the average Briton doesn't have a clue what is going on in the world and doesn't realise he/she is being spoonfed poison every day of their lives.

The new plumbers

Plumbers are out; "NHS Doctors" are in - the latest must-have euphemism for avoiding at all costs the phrase "Muslim terrorist". In fact, the BBC does its usual trick of not mentioning the I or the M words AT ALL in the article.

Still, they did manage to get in the usual Lefty equivalence about "we are as bad as the terrorists", except of course they avoid using the word "terrorist" as well, in case it might offend. They only use it when an unimpeachable source (e.g. a terrorist) says it, and then they quote. The left-wing media in the court (i.e. most of it) must have creamed in their pants when the terrorist said:

he believed the British government and Army could equally be accused of terrorism for their actions in Iraq.

A dream quote for them; they so want to believe. Islamic terrorists know that all they have to do to get the Left onside (and it doesn't take much effort, believe me) is to say the correct slogans about Bush and Iraq. Never mind that their attacks are planned years in advance, often beginning before the events they 'blame' have ever took place. No, all it takes is for the slogan to be said, and it becomes real.

Looking on the bright side

Today's Spin Award goes to this article. 75% of terrorism plots in Britain involve Pakistan. Many people, no doubt, will be shocked by this. I was; I thought the percentage would be at least 90%. Still, just look how Brown spins this catastrophe:

Mr Brown said a £6m partnership with Pakistan would be "the most comprehensive anti-terrorist programme" between the UK and another country.

Right...great. Ever wondered that if Pakistani Muslims weren't at the epicentre of world terrorism, we wouldn't have a problem which required a "comprehensive anti-terrorist programme"?

The story that just keeps on giving

I have blogged previously about this trial. It just gets better and better. Today's headline was almost as good as the "I'm a patriot, really" one from a few weeks ago.

One thing gets me though - does this show that British justice is good and impartial, or is it just taking the piss?

It's the Iraq War, stupid!

No doubt the Left will be along any moment now to blame this on the Iraq war, or Israel's 'occupation' of Palestine. You see, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, these people wouldn't have been forced to become terrorists (sorry, radicals) and lay waste to various parts of Bombay.

There's logic in there somewhere.

More Bollocks from the trial

This trial is coming out with some whoppers, fair play. Last week we had the one about how the defendant (another one) was a British patriot, who loved Britain so much he wanted to bomb Weegieland into small pieces. Now, apparently, another one of them is a pacifist. It's Taqqiya galore in Woolwich at the moment.

Now, I am by nature a cynic. However, you would have to be as credulous as a Guardian leader writer to believe his claim.

Sales of Onions rise in SE London

Ahahahaha! Loved it so much he wanted to blow it up (even though he confusingly targeted an airport in Scotland). This is, I think, what is called taqiyya. Most of the population of Britain would once have thought this some sort of Mexican burrito type dish, and most probably still would. It is, however, the practice of a Muslim lying his arse off to promote the Islamic faith.

Our media class haven't got past the "Muslims cannot lie because of their religion" bit, so the concept of taqiyya is advanced for them. His 'evidence' also pushes all the right buttons at the BBC, in that he blames the war in Iraq and America. Nowhere does the BBC see fit to point out that Saddam was able to sell oil to pay for medical supplies, but instead spent the cash on himself and let the kids die. For this maniac, the BBC and the rest of the deranged Left, this is America's fault.

It's now a BBC campaign

The BBC are really pushing the 'out of control' Menezes officers thing. Under the cover of reporting from the inquest, they are in fact hyping up a partisan campaign. They are also continuing to push the 'police gave no warning' theme, even though it is COMPLETELY OBVIOUS that the police DO NOT shout a warning to a suicide bomber because he will then DETONATE HIS EXPLOSIVES.

I don't like to shout but sometimes you just have to, I cannot believe the BBC, who in their conceit pride themselves on being so worldly-wise, are unaware of this. The only conclusion possible is that the BBC are perfectly aware of this, but chose to lie.

Anyway, back to the inquest. Some imbecile has been giving evidence:

Anna Dunwoodie said she believed officers were "out of control" and gave off a "sense of panic" before shooting.

Hmm. This doesn't quite match the BBC's 'they cooly murdered an innocent man' meme but it is close enough. Who would have thought, two weeks of grinding tension after four (yes, FOUR!) successful suicide bomb attacks in London that the police might be visibly nervous boarding a tube train to kill a suspected fifth? Why, no-one in advertising behaves like this! Surely the police should not also?

She said she did not hear officers shout any warning at the electrician.

For the fucking obvious reason outlined above. Honestly, how stupid have the British become?

Discussing the moments before Mr Menezes' death, Ms Dunwoodie said he had closed his eyes and looked "almost calm".

Like, perhaps, a crazed Islamist might do as he contemplates his very imminent martyrdom?

The shooting of this man was a terrible error committed by people who had spent two weeks on the edge of the edge, their nerves ground down. These people put their lives on the line to protect the public. Fifty-two innocent people (note that in this article the BBC refers to Menezes as 'innocent', but I have NEVER seen them refer to the 52 murdered as 'innocent') were murdered by Islamists on July 7th, but the BBC aren't interested in them.

The Left: stupid or mendacious?

With such a title we could be here all day, but I have a specific point: this article. The main thrust of it is criticism of the police for not shouting a warning to the suspect before shooting him.

The huge, glaring omission from this article is that shouting a warning would have allowed the suicide bomber (and the whole point of the incident was that the police, under pressure, thought he was a suicide bomber) to detonate his bomb vest. That's why they shoot them several times in the head, to stop even a reflex detonation of the device.

My best guess is that this article deliberately left out this vital fact to piss on the police and hamper their efforts to combat Islamic terrorism (sorry, make that 'Asian' terrorism, as the BBC is so fond of libelling an entire continent to cover up the actual culprits).

The BBC - telling you half the story.