Dhimmi BBC+Governments Outcry on Anti-Islam Film

[Teddy Bear]

Every month we note here how many attacks and the continued persecution of Christians throughout the Islamic world, that the BBC prefers to ignore. This is besides the occasional stories that occur within this period that beg attention, and highlight the BBC ostrich-like mindset where the menace of Islam is concerned. I did hear them mention persecution of Gays in Iraq on Radio4 midday news, so it appears it's only when it touches something close to their own hearts that the BBC raises the subject at all.

But now a poorly made anti-Islam film has created a furore in the Muslim world, resulting in the murder of the American ambassador in Libya, among others, and the BBC can't produce enough articles about it.

Here's just a few of what they have on offer:

• Anti-Islam film protests spread across Middle East
  
• Egypt protesters breach US embassy over 'insulting' film
  
• Innocence of Muslims: Mystery of film-maker 'Sam Bacile'
  
• Media outraged by prophet film
  
• Protests as they happened
  
• 'Blasphemous film' protests continue
  
• In pictures: US embassy protests
  

[/url]
And these are only a fraction of what they have produced - each article linking to 4 or 5 others.

Point is, the articles are more about the mystery of who produced the film, than the crass mentality of those who are so incensed by it that they justify violence - even against those who had nothing to do with it. Even without any real evidence, the BBC had no problem identifying the producer as an Israeli Jew, which now turns out to be nonsense. But any violence committed by Muslims against Jews as a result of this misreporting will hardly phase the BBC.

The left-wing mentality so virulent at the BBC, and dominating more and more of the seats of power in many Western countries, carries the responsibility that creates this kind of insanity, by continually appeasing and avoiding any confrontation of it - the definition of Dhimmi, bending completely to the strategy of militant Islam to overthrow the West.

Expect more and more incidents of this type as the Islamists become more and more brazen and empowered. Left-wing mentality never learns from their mistakes, so convinced that their way of thinking is true.

Until it's too late.

Daniel Pipes has more on the subject:Another Islamist Assault, Another Western Cringe
as does Melanie Phillips below.

The guilty men behind the Arab winter.

So now we can see the terrible results of western liberal hubris, the so-called Arab Spring so credulously and stupidly brought into being by Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy. In Libya, the American ambassador and three colleagues have been murdered. In Egypt, the embassy has been sacked. In Yemen, the mob inflamed by Muslim Brotherhood incitement has today stormed the US embassy there.

How Obama et al preened and postured over their role in helping the Libyan 'opposition' get rid of Gaddafy! How they congratulated themselves at the fall of Mubarak in Egypt! It was the dawn of democracy, they gushed, a new era for Libyans and Egyptians who were all on Twitter and Facebook and so were clearly modern folk keen to enjoy human rights and the rule of law, and who could now have all of that thanks to the enlightened help of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy.

In fact, the most likely result always was the empowerment of Islamic radicals who would enslave the people and make war against the west. Obstinately, these arrogant western fools nevertheless stuck to their fantasy of a democratic 'spring', even while the evidence mounted up that what they had actually done was create a vacuum which would unleash the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic radicals and thus set Libya and Egypt on a path back towards the 7th century.

In Egypt, they helped depose a ruler who was in the pocket of the west; the man they helped install instead, Mohamed Morsi, is not only a Muslim Brotherhood placeman but has been cosying up to Iran. An alliance between the Sunni mortal enemies of the west and the Shia mortal enemies of the west - that's quite an achievement. Well done, Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy!

Now the American ambassador to Libya and three of his colleagues, along with up to ten Libyans, have been most foully murdered by the very mob that we were told represented the new Libya. They burned the American flag and ran up instead the black flag of jihad.

The ostensible reason for the violence, an apparently amateurish and deliberately inflammatory film that insulted Islam, was just a pretext (the identity of the film's maker remains a mystery, with the theory growing that it was a Coptic Christian rather than, as originally reported by the BBC, an Israeli film-maker). It now turns out that this was probably a long-planned Islamist attack, possibly by al Qaeda in revenge for the killing of its second-in-command Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed in a US drone strike in Pakistan in June.

The Arab Winter has not brought forth democracy but unleashed anarchy and religious fanaticism, with Islamic mobs hitherto kept under control by Gaddafy and Mubarak now empowered, strengthened and rampaging out of control throughout the region.

We know who are the real guilty men here. Even now, Obama is stroking the enemies of the west while kicking its allies in the crutch. 'Too busy' to see Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu when he comes to Washington later this month to beg for American help in preventing Iran from obtaining the nuclear weapons which it will use to achieve its declared aim of wiping Israel from the face of the earth, Obama will nevertheless meet Morsi, who has so far refused to condemn the storming of the US embassy in Cairo, demanded instead that the US government take action against the maker of the anti-Islamic film -- and who last spring released from an Egyptian prison Mohammed Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda's current leader and who led the mob who stormed the Cairo embassy this week. As James Lewis observes in a fine piece at American Thinker:

'The United States now stands with the forces of destruction...'

While America reels under assault from the very forces unleashed by its own President, the fanatics running the Iranian regime are holding their breath that Obama will be re-elected so that they can progress unhindered to the creation of their genocide bomb. Never have the American people been faced with such a momentous choice for the future of the world than the one they will make on November 6.

[Teddy Bear]

The murder of Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, contains a message for the BBC and those of their ilk in light of the escalating violence throughout the Islamic world under the pretext of this film.

It first shows how true is the maxim that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Also if one closes ones eyes to the reality, simply because it refutes what one wants to believe, it will end up biting one in the arse.

In Stevens case, he ended up being sodomized before being murdered. He was somebody who believed that he was really aiding the forces of democracy, by assisting the rebels to oust Gaddafi, without considering that the Islamic militants who took over had anything but democracy in mind for the future. A case of 'one vote - one time'.

Here's more about it, and as I said, the BBC should consider it very carefully, and study exactly what it is they're really dealing with - not what they want to believe.

Christopher Stevens: Devoured by a Monster He Helped Create

Posted by Robert Spencer

When the Libyan uprising against Muammar Gaddafi began to gather steam in April 2011, American diplomat Christopher Stevens was determined to get there, but it wasn’t easy. “We arrived April 5th,” he later explained. “It was difficult to get there at the time. There weren’t any flights. So we came in by a Greek cargo ship and unloaded our gear and our cars and set up our office there” – in Benghazi, that is, the center of the uprising.

There were already numerous indications that the Libyan rebels were not the democratically-minded, America-loving pluralists of media myth. Rolling Stone magazine, of all publications, had warned in their March 21 issue that “America is now at war to protect a Libyan province that’s been an epicenter of anti-American jihad.”

That province was Cyrenaica, with its capital Benghazi. Rolling Stone noted that in 2008, “a West Point analysis of a cache of al Qaeda records discovered that nearly 20 percent of foreign fighters in Iraq were Libyans, and that on a per-capita basis Libya nearly doubled Saudi Arabia as the top source of foreign fighters.” The main source of those fighters – who mostly became jihad martyrdom suicide bombers, was Cyrenaica.

Stevens’ experience of Benghazi, however, was different – or at very least, the presence of al-Qaeda operatives among the rebels didn’t trouble him. According to a December 2011 piece in the State Department’s magazine State, “Stevens said the Libyans were genuinely grateful to the United States for supporting their aspirations for freedom, as demonstrated by the greeting the team received. The Libyans had hoisted British, French, Qatari and American flags at Freedom Square, the vast open area in front of the Benghazi courthouse.”

There is no way to tell whether any of the Libyans expressing their gratitude to Stevens in April 2011 were among those who brutally tortured and murdered him on September 11, 2012, but it’s entirely within the realm of possibility. Whatever the case, Christopher Stevens has now become the quintessential symbol of what U.S. foreign policy is doing vis-a-vis the global jihad, and of what ultimately will be the outcome for the U.S. if this continues. His story also demonstrates yet again how the establishment Left creates monsters that then devour their creators – as well as numerous bystanders.

Perhaps the most notorious example of relatively recent times is Jimmy Carter’s betrayal and abandonment of the Shah of Iran in 1979, in favor of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini and his fellow mullahs showed their gratitude to Carter by storming the U.S. embassy and taking hostages that they kept until Ronald Reagan’s first Inauguration Day. Carter had no one but himself to blame for his crushing defeat the previous November, for there would have been no hostages, and Khomeini would not have been in Tehran, had it not been for his efforts.

Carter would not and did not understand that there was no winning over a man like Khomeini, for the Ayatollah’s core beliefs included a hatred and contempt for non-Muslims simply because they were non-Muslims. No adjustment of their public policies would mitigate that hatred and contempt, or the warfare and subjugation that followed from them.

Christopher Stevens, and those for whom he worked, have long made the same mistake, assuming that hearts and minds initiatives and gestures of good will toward the Islamic world will eventually pay off in reciprocal action. What happened to Stevens instead, however, is more indicative of how they actually pay off.

What happened to Stevens is a microcosm of what is happening to the country in general. Christopher Stevens, after aiding the Libyan jihadists, ended up being tortured and murdered by them. And with this murder the Obama administration’s folly in aiding the “Arab Spring” uprisings is laid bare. Just as Stevens rushed to Libya to aid the forces that ended up murdering him, so also the U.S. rushed to aid rebels in Egypt and Syria, as well as Libya, thereby installing regimes that are proving to be much, much more anti-American than those they supplanted. The monster unleashed in the Arab Spring has already begun to devour its chief benefactor.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Christopher Stevens “will be remembered as a hero by many nations. He risked his life to stop a tyrant then gave his life trying to help build a better Libya. The world needs more Chris Stevenses.”

And the world will get them. Lenin never feared there would be a shortage of capitalists ready to sell the communists the rope they would use to hang them. And now, even despite this brutal murder, there is no shortage of diplomats in Washington, ready to show their nation’s good will and bestow its largesse among those who will stab them in the back as soon as they turn in the other direction. If our nation continues indefinitely down this road, the entire country will eventually suffer the fate of Christopher Stevens, writ large.

[Teddy Bear]

Looking at the current BBC article for this event on their Mid-East page, which was last updated at 10pm, they state
The film’s exact origin and the motivation behind its production remain a mystery.

I got online a few hours ago and read this from other sources – the amateur filmakers are Klein, an Evangelical Christian and “Bacile” is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula a Coptic Christian. Even yesterday it was pretty much certain that the real producer was an Egyptian Copt.

Perhaps the BBC is withholding this information knowing it will create more persecution for all the Coptic Christians throughout the Muslim world than exists already. But then this raises the question of why they could publish so readily when they thought it was an Israeli Jew.

Of course, we already know the answer to that one.

[Teddy Bear]

Excellent article in The Commentator that properly identifies the mindset of the BBC, and others of their ilk, and why they increase the likelihood of further demented and barbaric attacks.

While I haven't watched this film, as far as I can tell it's statements are based on facts, much as the Islamic world might not like to be identified with them.

Westerners who fuel the Muslim world's grievance culture

Condemning the "grievance" as much as the perpetrator is fast becoming the default response to mass Islamist violence. This must not be allowed to stand


So flag burning isn't a "provocation"?

By Jeremy Havardi

Rather predictably, The Guardian this week argued that the wave of violence sweeping the Middle East was a spontaneous reaction to the anti Islamic film, "The Innocence of Islam". The film, we were told, set off a "long fuse that led to an explosion of violence that killed the US ambassador to Libya".

The Independent adopted a similar line with its article headlined: "An incendiary film –and the man killed in the crossfire". It added: "The mob enraged by film mocking Prophet Mohamed kills US ambassador in Benghazi rocket attack".

Then on BBC Newsnight on Thursday, ex-Foreign Office mandarin Sir Jeremy Greenstock waded in. The film, he declared, was definitely the "immediate, proximate cause" of the bloodshed.

Nor was this a British reaction alone, for in the US Hilary Clinton made the same causal linkage. The Guardian's Andrew Brown went even further. "The Innocence of Islam" was an "incitement to religious hatred" that deserved to be banned.

Those who blame this murderous mayhem on an obscure film miss the point by the proverbial country mile. The killing of the ambassador appeared to be the result of a carefully planned assassination by jihadist extremists, such as the violent Sunni group, Ansar al Sharia, rather than a mere spontaneous act of anger.

Far from being an expression of Muslim protest in Libya, it was a deranged act of militancy from radicalised Muslims for whom America and all western influences are mortal enemies. The same can be said for much of the violence sweeping every major Arab capital right now. Reducing murderous violence to "protest" risks legitimising behaviour or at least failing to understand its true motivations.

Certainly, one can understand why this amateurish production, a 13 minute clip of which appeared on YouTube, was insulting to Muslims. Its depiction of Muhammad as a pervert and child molester was certainly designed to be intensely provocative. But so are the venomous anti-Semitic and anti-Christian cartoons and images that proliferate in the Middle East. These too cause outrage but we never see mosques or the embassies of Muslim states torched as a result, and rightly so.

It stands to reason that those who are genuinely enraged by this film have a choice about their behaviour. To suggest otherwise is to paint Muslims as backward people who cannot respond to insults except by the sword or the bomb.

It attributes to them a complete inability to defuse their rage by more democratic forms of protest, effectively viewing them as savages from which little better can be expected. Such a view panders to the Islamist grievance culture rather than demanding that Muslims, like everyone else, behave better.

But condemning the "grievance" as much as the perpetrator is fast becoming the default response to mass Islamist violence. In 2002, Muslim mobs went on a murderous rampage in Nigeria, following newspaper comments that Mohammed would have approved the Miss World pageant which was being held in that country. Afterwards, some commentators condemned the organisers of Miss World in more forthright terms than the violent jihadists.

In 2006, there was a prolonged and outrageous display of global violence following the publication of satirical Danish cartoons in Jyllands-Posten. Some of the cartoons depicted the prophet Mohammed in unflattering terms though again, much of the violence was stoked up by local agitators using these cartoons as an excuse.

But as well as condemning sword bearing, embassy burning fanatics, former British Foreign Minister Jack Straw and some of his European counterparts condemned "irresponsible" Danish newspaper editors for publishing the material.

There was another global outpouring of Muslim rage following a speech by the Pope in September 2006 in which he quoted an obscure medieval Emperor, Manuel II. Manuel had condemned Muhammed’s command to "spread by the sword the faith he preached" and the Pope noted, quite correctly, that Islam had a history of using force to spread and defend the faith.

Indeed the instant frenzy of anti-Christian violence was evidence for that very point. Again, many non-Muslims made the mistake of criticising the Pope’s comments, rather than condemning the illegitimate responses of the extremists. Some media outlets gave airtime to the outrageous and incendiary comments of the Islamist Anjem Chaudhry who argued that "capital punishment" would be an appropriate punishment for the Pope.

Lumping offensive remarks or publications with barbaric behaviour excuses the latter while nurturing the extremists’ own victim mentality. But in one sense, this already mirrors the Zeitgeist in liberal Europe. Islamic fanaticism and its terrorist offshoots are seen as the understandable response of a minority aggrieved at "unjust" foreign policy. It is our "provocative" policies in Iraq, Afghanistan or "Palestine" that cause a violent reaction among Muslims.

Hence, it is necessary both to condemn the terrorism and address its "root causes" in foreign policy. As well as being an intellectually false argument, it is morally dubious because it suggests that there is only one inevitable way for enraged Muslims to respond to "our" behaviour. Terrorism remains a choice, and a highly illegitimate one.

Certainly, "The Innocence of Muslims", like the Danish cartoons, is provocative and, for most Muslims, blasphemous. But mob terror and the slaughter of innocents is the preserve of those with an unyielding hatred for western values.

To truly defend those values, our leaders must uphold a system in which we can be offended and, in turn, give offence. The alternative is that we cease to be a magnet for those fleeing from repressive and backward societies.

Jeremy Havardi is a journalist and the author of two books: Falling to Pieces, and The Greatest Briton

[Teddy Bear]

Douglas Murray at the Spectator picks up on the dhimmi response by the Obama administration that is undermining the values of our society.

Freedom betrayed
Douglas Murray

The leaders of the free world are not defending the values of the people they serve.

I have a piece in the magazine this week on the disgraceful behaviour of Hillary Clinton and other US officials in the latest round of cartoon wars. During the last week the US Secretary of State turned into a film critic, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – head of the most powerful and expensive military in history – relegated himself to a telephone-salesman offering up his country’s founding principles at a knock-down price, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney decided that his job included condemning the work of amateur directors. But it gets worse. The same Jay Carney has now decided that his remit extends to commenting on what French journalists should or should not publish.

Last year the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was fire-bombed when it ran a picture some Muslims did not like. But the Paris-based publication has shown it has more commitment to the principles of free speech than anyone in the US government by running another edition with the same. And what does the spokesman for the head of the free world have to say?

‘We have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this,’ said Carney. Really? Only ‘questions’? And would those ‘questions’ by any chance be ones that could result in the answer that Charlie Hebdo should not have published? Or is Carney willing to be persuaded that the French magazine is right?

At least the White House’s man had the decency to add that ‘it is not in any way justification for violence’, but he then added, ‘We don’t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it.’

I know that there are some people who wonder why these things aggravate some of us so much. So let me be clear. Until very recently, in America and Britain, we lived in countries where we had the freedom to comment on, criticise and discuss ideas. These included ones we did not believe in, including Islam. But over the last two decades the rules have changed.

You can criticise ideas which involve, say, Christianity or Mormonism. But if you think it is possible to point out certain historical facts about Islam or comment on the religion in a way that is even mildly questioning, then a different rule applies. The White House spokesperson does not ‘question’ the judgement of journalists who criticise Catholicism. He does not describe as ‘reprehensible’ a Broadway musical which satirises the founding of the Mormon religion. He does not criticise people who put excerpts from the films of Mel Brooks on YouTube. And nor does he call the reams of violent films pumped out from America as ‘disgusting’. Only a feeble internet film or a French cartoon gets that treatment – and the reason is obvious.

The response of many people to all of this is to say that we must defend Charlie Hebdo because it is to do with ‘freedom’. That is true. But it is also about the flip side of that. To go the route Carney and Clinton and co would take us is not simply to go down a road where we are no longer free. It is to go down a road where we are no longer free for a very particular reason: because we have chosen to submit ourselves to Islamic law.