No Mention of Rape Victim Who Receives 101 Lashes

[Teddy Bear]

How is it The Telegraph with resources far less than the BBC is able to cover this story from Bangladesh Rapevictim receives 101 lashes for becoming pregnant , yet no mention of it on the BBC site?

Can it be that the BBC prefers to hide stories that show the real depraved mentality of these extremist Sharia law Muslim states? Of course it is!
Same as it has done with the numerous other similar type stories mentioned on this forum, and the many many more covered by Jihad Watch or Religion of Peace.

Is there really any doubt about the insidious immoral nature of the BBC?

Rape victim receives 101 lashes for becoming pregnant
A 16-year-old girl who was raped in Bangladesh has been given 101 lashes for conceiving during the assault.

By Dean Nelson, South Asia Editor
Published: 4:30PM GMT 25 Jan 2010

The girl's father was also fined and warned the family would be branded outcasts from their village if he did not pay.

According to human rights activists, the girl, who was quickly married after the attack, was divorced weeks later after medical tests revealed she was pregnant.

The girl was raped by a 20-year-old villager in Brahmanbaria district in April last year.

Bangladesh's Daily Star newspaper reported that she was so ashamed following the attack that she did not lodge a complaint.

Her rape emerged after her pregnancy test and Muslim elders in the village issued a fatwa insisting that the girl be kept in isolation until her family agreed to corporal punishment.

Her rapist was pardoned by the elders. She told the newspaper the rapist had "spoiled" her life.

"I want justice," she said.

[englishanglican]

Trouble is the only websites that cover the true issues and nature of islam, are the ones that they can just palm off as "Islamophobic" Websites.

[Teddy Bear]

'There are none so blind as those who will not see'

Welcome English'.
Any with an open mind would realise that these sites linked to above merely provide details of events going on throughout the world perpetrated by fundamentalist or extremist Muslims. The fact that most of the mainstream media doesn't report these events is merely evidence of an attempt by them to either cover it up, or as you say, avoid being deemed 'Islamophobic'. For example, I notice an article in today's Telegraph Iraqi Christians under fire , which concerns the fact that nearly half the population of Christians in Iraq have been forced to flee their homes and country because of violence against them, and while I haven't checked, I'm almost positive there will be no mention of it on the BBC website. To protect it's Islamic protective agenda, rather than admit to committing bias by omission, the BBC would first try to denigrate the Telegraph. This is precisely one of the reasons that the false cloak of unbiased and balanced reporting that the BBC is credited with, makes it difficult for other media to properly report news too. But as I say, those with an open mind would easily be able to discern what is going on if they wanted to. Those who don't - there's no helping, and they will continue to skew events to support their chosen view.

[englishanglican]

What I said about sites being deemed "anti-Islamic"

Ive found the perfect solution.

spy on comments on Muslim Internet forums, all the muslims on them, from those born into and the converts all agree with the stuff they tell us they dont agree with!

[djfearross]

What would be the point of the BBC reporting it? They would only angle the story to make it look like a 'cultural' thing and nothing to do with Islam. Acutally, they wouldn't even angle it, they would just plain come out and say it :-)

Then at the end, they would say how Christians do this as well, just to ensure any Muslim reading the article doesn't feel victimised. It's so so predictable now.

[Teddy Bear]

Apr 26, 2010 0:56:59 GMT englishanglican said:

What I said about sites being deemed "anti-Islamic"

I've found the perfect solution.

spy on comments on Muslim Internet forums, all the Muslims on them, from those born into and the converts all agree with the stuff they tell us they don't agree with!

Question is EA, what will you do with the discrepancies you find?
There are many instances already documented where senior Muslim leaders have made threatening statements at one time, and then later have made statements directly denying the original, yet haven't been picked up by it.

One in particular that comes to mind which I posted on this site a while ago, and concerned a militant Islamic cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, who had justified terrorism in interviews with the BBC, yet in another interview with the BBC a year later, gave a completely different account, yet it wasn't picked up on by the BBC.
Eventually Bakri fled the country to avoid terrorist charges, but not before he was allowed to operate for years, with the appeasing sanction of the BBC to help him further his cause.

Here's a short segment from the posts here at the time to illustrate:

If the subject of this one topic is understood by those who read it, it should be enough to raise a huge outcry against the BBC. The BBC allowed a radical Muslim cleric, one who incited terrorism in his subjects, to pursue any line he chose without question, research, or investigation. Basically they gave him a free hand to continue his incitement giving him a 'clean bill of health'. Despite his having declared his incitement on air in a BBC interview in 2000, one year later, post 9/11 when he declared again in the BBC that he had never urged others to commit terrorist acts, he was not challenged. It was only last year when he was forced to flee the UK because of the noose tightening on these Imams, no thanks to the BBC.

Tonight on Channel 4, a programme dealing with the making of a suicide bomber. Not a Palestinian dissenter, but homegrown here in the UK. The same Omar Bakri Mohammed was mentioned by the presenter, an ex CIA agent - Robert Baer, as one of those who had encouraged them.

If the failure of the BBC to expose this man years ago, before 9/11, before 7/7, allowing him to continue to contribute to the deaths of many innocent people here and around the world, does not make every reader angry, and vigorously demand from every corner that can bring pressure to bear against the BBC, to investigate TRULY INDEPENDANTLY, their bias and sedition.

Too much bias by the BBC has been observed over the last years for this ommision by the BBC on Bakri Mohammed to be deemed an oversight. This is not negligence, this is criminal in the pursuit of world media domination by the BBC. They will sacrifice anything to achieve it, as they are already seen to sacrifice our own society under their understanding of 'liberal'.

Don't just get angry, please take action.