The B.B.C . . . Continuing to Aid and Abet Islamic Terrorism

Although the B.B.C. has long been recognized as one of the principle Western media supporters of, and apologists for, international Islamic terror, its directors have apparently decided to pull out all the stops in their campaign to minimize or entirely ignore the atrocities being committed by Mohammedans worldwide, while censoring all negative references to Islam in their website, print media and electronic broadcasts.

Additionally, not only are they actively censoring negative comments regarding Islam, they are, as well, now actively promoting anti-Semitic and anti-Christian content even in the face of a deluge of complaints from these communities.

Recently, on one of their listener forums, they allowed such material as:

"Are you a christian? You do know that jesus had to hide all his short life he
lived in those promised land because his tribesmen used to call him fatherless,
ridiculed him for being a B-A-S-T-A-R-D...'

It was added: "Jesus...was also persecuted because the jews would never accept as their Messiah a person whose father was missing...' This comment was contributed by a listener calling himself "colonelartist", a regular and virulently anti-Semitic poster to B.B.C. forums.

The comments were not only allowed to remain for an entire week despite a deluge of complaints, but were subsequently given greater prominence in the forum itself.

They were only deleted following an enquiry from another British media source which questioned the B.B.C. regarding this posting.

The same contributor has also written: "The jews in much remembered concentration camps had even better quality of freedom that these palestinians have...'

One curious website user wanted to see if BBC editors were allowing these offensive remarks to remain while blocking others. He wrote: "No one can surpass the Muslims for denial of their role in Terrorism and Suicide bombing."

The remarks were immediately deleted.

The BBC has also been condemned for allowing virulently anti-Semitic posts from a contributor called "Iron Naz'. In a message left on the site for more than a month, Iron Naz wrote: "Zionism is a racist ideology where jews are given supremacy over all other races and faiths. This is found in the Talmud...which allows jews to lie as long as its to non-jews."

These blatantly anti-Semitic remarks brought justifiably outraged complaints from the Board of Deputies, the organisation that represents Britain's Jews.

However, the BBC said the remarks did not merit removal or censure. A spokesman said postings were removed only if they were considered likely to 'disrupt, provoke attack or offend others or are considered racist, homophobic, sexually explicit or otherwise objectionable'.

Obviously, the phrases " . . . offend others" and " . . . or otherwise objectionable." have, for the B.B.C., lent themselves to a far more lax and flexible interpretation than most civilized individuals in this post-Nazi era would endorse.

The Board of Deputies has stated that it will pursue its complaints against the B.B.C.. Mark Gardiner, of the Community Security Trust, stated: "The BBC obviously no longer recognises anti-Semitism. The BBC is a public body, funded by the British taxpayer. It has legal obligations."

What the B.B.C. itself considers those "legal obligations" to be is anyone's guess.

While the B.B.C.'s editorial policies have long been widely condemned for their blatant suppression of any unfavorable coverage of the Mohammedan community, the B.B.C. has, until recently, generally refrained from actively encouraging anti-Semitic and anti-Christian content.

Now, in the face of a growing Western groundswell of anti-Islamic reaction to the terrorist atrocities being committed daily by Mohammedans around the globe, the B.B.C. has clearly decided to take off the kid gloves and mount an aggressive counter-offensive by endorsing transparently pro-Neo-Nazi and anti-Christian submissions while suppressing any anti-Islamic comments.

It should be remembered that the B.B.C. refused to characterize the 7/7 London atrocities committed by "Livingstone's Lads" as "terrorist" acts, nor have they allowed ANY atrocities committed against Jews, and especially Israeli civilians, by Mohammedans to be described as "terrorist acts".

It has been the B.B.C.'s long-standing policy to refrain from using such terms as "Palestinian terrorists", "Islamic terrorists", "Arab terrorists" or "Muslim terrorists" in any of its reports dealing with atrocities committed by Mohammedans anywhere at any time.

Oddly, they have had no problem characterizing similar acts committed by relatively small and unknown groups such as the Greek organization "November 17", also known as the "N 17" group, as "terrorists" or having committed "terrorist acts". In its twenty year existance the
"N 17" organization killed a TOTAL of 80+ people, mainly politicians, military and diplomatic figures. The B.B.C. directly, and repeatedly, characterized "N 17" as "terrorists".

"Livingstone's Lads" murdered 53 British citizens in ONE DAY, but the B.B.C. categorically refused to describe them as "terrorists".

As per B.B.C. editorial policy, ALL Islamic terror organizations are exempt from such characterizations.

With such clear and transparent endorsements of Islamic terror by the B.B.C. as well as the widely publicised pro-terrorist, and subsequent vitriolic anti-Semitic, statements by the London mayor Ken Livingstone ( after whom the 7/7 terrorists were nicknamed "Livingstone's Lads" ) and, more recently, by the Liberal Democratic British politician Baroness Jenny Tonge, it is little wonder that London has become the new Mecca and base of European operations for Islamic terrorists.

As noted in a previous posting here, sources within the British intelligence and security services have unequivocally stated that the recent increase and frequency of "chatter" gleaned from known Mohammedan terrorists and their sympathizers in London and its environs have led them to believe that an attack or a series of coordinated attacks in the London area are expected to be attempted within the next two months.

In closing, we would remind our readers that the B.B.C. is funded in large measure by the British government and its editorial policies are therefore closely defined by Whitehall and the historically pro-Arabist policies of that institution.