UK: BBC drops London bombers docudrama

Far in the distance, a protracted scream comes out of a dark tunnel. As it rises, the ground begins to shake. A dot of light speeds towards the viewer. In seconds, it fills the screen and a rattling blur of the cold steel shrieks past the camera.


The action cuts to the forecourt of King's Cross station. Hasib Hussein, a gawky 18-year-old with soft eyes, looks imploringly at the authoritative figure of Sidique Khan.


"Sidique ... wait ... ," he says, with a voice full of fear and uncertainty. The older man calms the boy with a bear hug.


"There is nothing to fear in death, Hasib," he says. "When the time comes, we'll face towards Makkah together, as one." He looks Hussein in the eyes. "Our lives begin today."


Hussein nods. Khan ruffles his hair, and disappears to slaughter commuters on the London Underground. Hussein screws up his courage and prepares to murder an equally random collection of passengers on a bus heading out from King's Cross.


So begins The London Bombers, one of the most thoroughly researched and politically important drama-documentaries commissioned by British television. A team of journalists, at least one of whom was a British Muslim, reported to Terry Cafolla, a fine writer who won many awards for his dramatisation of the religious hatred which engulfed the Holy Cross school in Belfast.


(more)


Source: Standpoint (English)

24 comments:

Joachim Martillo said...

A docudrama that posits the origin of Anglo-Pak Islamism in Saudi "Wahhabism" while failing to discuss the Deobandi Sufi Reform movement or the Kashmir issue is heavy on the drama and absent on the documentary aspect.

The BBC judgment of Islamophobia was probably completely reasonable, and once again media Jewish Zionists were probably trying to put Saudia in the gun sights and to distract from the real problems of Zionist Jewish depredation in the ME and manipulation in the West.

Big Shaker said...

Mr. Martillo, was it Jews who committed the London 7/7 bombings? I would love to hear you acknowledge that it was Muslims, but to do that would open yourself up to your own relentless charge of Islamophobia.

Andrew said...

So the documentary concluded what the majority of the rest of Britain, Europe and the rest of the Western world already knows: the motivation for mass murder and mayhem was Islam. Not some spurious bullshit about the treatment of the primitive barbarians in 'Palestine' or the wars in A'Stan and Iraq &c. Just Islam.
Hopefully another channel will have the balls to broadcast it. Channel 4 for instance. Their Undercover Mosque programs were a scary insight into the kind of hatred and advocation of murder all too present in Britain's mosques.

Daphne said...

Wahhabis are true muslims. They look to the Koran for their motivation and anyone who looks to the Koran will finds that over half the book is full of hatred for non muslims. There is nothing like the parable of the Good Samaritan in Islam.
A book that is full of hate will encourage its followers to hate. Hatred then becomes part of the religion. After all if allah hates non muslims then it must be 'good' to hate non muslims.
Below is an example of islamic hatred that is spread through the mosques.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo

Esther said...

Daphne,

Wahhabis are true muslims

Wahhabis are people who see things only in black and white and who do not think Islam can or should change from the way it was in the 7th century. Why is that 'true' Islam?

Westerners, especially those who do not think they themselves should live like their forefathers did 1400 years ago, should not expect Muslims to 'stay true' to their religion.

Connie said...

esther,

True Islam is based on the lies and manipulations of Judaism and Christianity by Muhammad. Nothing "true" can come from lies.

Esther said...

Connie,

Since Christians believe that Jews have refused to see the truth, and Jews believe that Christians have followed a false prophet,and both think that about Islam - what does that mean, really?

I don't think the question is 'which one is the true religion'. Wahabbis say that that they're the real Islam. I don't see any reason to agree with them, any more than I would agree with Jews or Christians who would claim that we must live in exactly the same way that Abraham or Jesus lived.

Joachim Martillo said...

Anyone that believes as Esther does about the Islamic reformism of Muhammad ibn Abdel Wahhab has not read his books.

Zionist Jews have created a cartoon image of his ideas in their ongoing effort to demonize Muslims and Arabs so that Arabs cannot hold a rational dialogue with the West and challenge Zionist propaganda.

In truth, Muhammad reads a lot like Saadyah Gaon (especially when read in Arabic). Both use similar terminology in their preference to call their religion tawhid (monotheism or yihud) and to call believiers muwahhiduna (monotheists or meyahedim). Both had to deal with competing ideas that had grown over the centuries to assume major heretical proportions.

(Muhammad's thought also has a current reminiscent of Protestantism as the Ottoman Empire encountered this version of Christian religion in Bosnia. Some Protestant ideas may have been incorporated in the Kadizadeli reform movement and made their way to Baghdad where Muhammad may have encountered them.)

In Subjugating Americn Muslims to Israel I discuss the misrepresentations and intellectual dishonesty of Zionist Jews, provide a brief discussion Jewish anti-Saudi prejudice as well as a pointer to a recent book on Wahhabi Islam by Natana Delong-Bas.

Daphne said...

Esther,
The Wahahabis are right because Islam is a black and white religion. There are few grey areas. Muslims believe the Koran is the literal waord of god. That means they believe in flogging adulterers without compassion and chopping off the hands of thieves.
How can you have a reformation of islam. Are you going to reform Allah?
Christianity could have a reformation because the Christian church had corrupted the true teachings of Jesus and become a corrupt state. Islam cannot have a reformation because the true teachings of Muhammad are brutal and fascist.
Muslims will have to abandon islam if they want a different religion.

Esther said...

Daphne,

Islam is not a black and white religion. In fact, unlike Judaism where things are either allowed or not allowed, Islam has 2 'grey' steps between halal and haram. Something might be not recommended but allowed. In today's Wahabbi inspired Islam, these things are disappearing.

We've had this discussion before, but *every* religion believes their holy books are the literal word of God. Somehow, Christianity and Judaism found ways to deal with it, and Islam should find a way to deal with it too.

Cultures change. Why is it that everybody expects the Middle-Eastern/Arabic culture to stay constant.

Wahabbists do believe in reinterpretation of the Koran. They believe the doors of ijtihad are open. In fact, that's how they base their own changes in law.

Daphne said...

There are some grey areas. Such as the problem muslims have over whether the adulterer should be flogged or stoned. I bet the islamic jurists have many sleepless nights pondering that one.
Believing a book is the literal word of god is a disastrous belief. This is why I said there are few grey areas. Once you have a book that is the literal word of god then how can there be a grey area. God makes commandments. He does not hedge his bets or see both sides of an argument.

Every religion does not believe their holy books are the literal word of god. Buddhists do not. Jains do not. Most pagans do not. It is only the revelatory religions who have this presumption.

I do not know of any changes in Sharia law enacted by an Islamic govt. If anyone knows of an Islamic govt that has amended Sharia law I would be interested to know. I am aware of Atataturk's reforms of Islam but he is despised by Islamists.

Esther said...

Daphne,

Ataturk might be despised by Islamists but he's revered by Muslim Turks.

I realize that we don't agree and that you'll reject everything I say. The fact is that Mohammed didn't use halal shampoo or halal soap and that throughout history religious Muslims found ways to explain away why they did various things which did not fit in with the 7th century philosophy and that not all Muslims sit around all day to discuss chopping hands vs. flogging.

In general, corporal punishment was quite common in Europe and around the world until the past couple of centuries. The Church itself was quite proficient in torture and used it in particular on those it claimed were apostates (some of whom had been forced to convert from Judaism or Islam).

I wouldn't have wanted to be an apostate in Europe 500 years ago. And those apostates would have probably preferred the 'chopping the head off' method you dislike rather than the 'torture till you confess you really love Jesus and then be burned at the stake' method preferred by the Church.

You mentioned a few times that Islam doesn't have anything comparable to the parable of the Good Samaritan (who, btw, might be a Samaritan and not a Jew due to some antisemitic rewriting). I don't know if they do or not. I know that Judaism doesn't have a similar parable but has similar views regarding abusing the letter of the law. But even in Christianity, it was just a parable on the books, as far as those poor people tortured by the Inquisition were concerned.

I realize there are Muslims who believe that the Koran should be read as literally as possible and that you think there is no other way to read it. I hope for both the sake of Muslims and Westerners that the Muslims who don't think so (what you would probably call the 'false Muslims') would wake up and stop it.

Joachim Martillo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Daphne said...

Esther,
Attaturk is revered by Turks who place their country before islam. Attatutk instituted a secular state and Islamists have been trying to tear it down ever since. There have been many military coups in Turkey to prevent the religious fascists from getting back into power.

I do not reject everything you say, Esther. It's just that when I agree with you I do not usually post.
Sharia law is primarily based upon the Koran. Everything that is in the Koran is inviolate and cannot be changed. After the Koran the hadiths are used as judgement for what constitutes Sharia law. There are discrepancies here because different branches of islam use different hadiths. There are various issues that are not contained within the Koran or Sharia law. Then Islamic jurists determine what sharia law should be on those issues.
So there can be a grey area regarding shampoo or soap but regarding chopping off hands and flogging adulterers there is no discrepancy. The same applies to anything else in the Koran.

Europe did have corporal punishment. I am not claiming that corporal punishment is right or wrong. What I am opposed to is some fuhrer in heaven dictating what the laws should be rather than people on earth deciding democratically. Because the fuhrer in heaven is in reality Muhammad & the imams on earth who decide.

Esther said...

Joachim Martillo,

You can try reposting your comment without insulting a fellow commentator.

As for the essence of your comment - the Ottoman Empire treated foreigners nicely only thanks to the Capitulations treaties. I don't understand how it was an 'almost complete rechtstaat' when most of its residents weren't educated enough to read its laws, when those very laws encouraged lawlessness and lack of personal responsibility and when everything could be done if you just paid enough bakshish, but I would guess that most of its residents then (just as most of its residents now), would have preferred living under those British laws which you claim lacked equality.

Joachim Martillo said...

The effectiveness of bribes in obtaining favorable court decisions in the Central Ottoman Empire is strongly disputed by most modern experts in the field.

Too many Westerners take anti-Ottoman propaganda as truth.

As for pointing out that a lot of Jews have crossed over into a form of Judeonazism (a term coined by Yeshayahu Leibovitz), as long as Jewish Zionists fling terms like Islamofascism, calling Jews Nazis should be permissible.

In any case in the scholarly literature the similarity of Zionist and German Nazi ideology has long been a topic of discussion. George Mosse was talking about it during a series of lectures at Hebrew University in the 1950s. (Some of the material is collected in his anthology Germans and Jews.)

Max Nordau was at least as much a source of German Nazi ideology as he was of Zionist ideology.

From the blogentry From Anti-Semitism to Islamophobia

In point of fact, the Ottoman Empire, which was, until its vivisection at the end of World War I, the most advanced Sharia state, eliminated dhimmi status in the middle of the nineteenth century well before many European countries (including Germany) removed legal discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities from their law codes.

Hebrew University Professor Haim Gerber provides some of the results of his research into the Sharia-based legal system of the Ottoman Empire in State, Society and Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective.

Gerber's data and analysis indicates that in a comparison of the courts of the core Ottoman Bursa/Istanbul region with those of core English region of the UK, the Ottoman State was far closer to the ideal of a Rechtstaat and achieved far greater legal equality among members of different religious groups or economic classes than the contemporary UK at all periods that Gerber studied.


Gerber was talking about Ottoman subjects (in the last period citizens) and not about foreigners or capitulations.

Esther said...

Joachim Martillo,

I think you can prove anything if you try hard enough. I've read quite a few biographies from that era, and the term 'rechtstaat' is the last I would use for the Ottoman Empire. It might not have been effective, but that does not negate the fact that paying off officials in order for them to do what they were supposed to was extremely common and an accepted norm.

I didn't say you can't call Jews Nazis. Over the past few days you have used this blog as a forum for your Zionist conspiracy ideas quite freely and you had called Jews almost every conceivable name. I said you can't insult other commentators on this blog.

Joachim Martillo said...

I am not arguing that there is a Jewish conspiracy. I am arguing that modern political science is much too restrictive in its definition of a colonial motherland or a state in general.

Judonia functions effectively as a virtual state with approximately 500 Zionist Jewish political economic oligarchs, about 5000 members of the Zionist intelligentsia and about 50-100,000 employees.

It has immense revenue streams, media capabilities, and assets. It has effectively rendered the USA a dependent and intimidated client state.

Yet, this relationship is not particularly stable, and when the structure finally collapses. The oligarchs and intelligentsia will not take the fall.

wendy mann said...

"Mr. Martillo, was it Jews who committed the London 7/7 bombings?" - big shaker

one should be aware that the motivating factor is foreign policy, that is what is the main cause for radicalisation. the 7/7 attackers have stated that in their videos.

mi5 have recently stated that :

"Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation. "

wendy mann said...

f.a.o. daphne:

i think this might be instructive for you since you do appear to have a very curious estranged understanding of islam.

http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html

Big Shaker said...

Ms. Mann, this is from former Islamist Hassan Butt:

"When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology."

Daphne said...

Wendy,
Sorry, as interesting as the site may be I do not have time to read it. Tell me, does it say anything about the separation of the state from religion in Islam.

wendy mann said...

daphne:

separation of state from faith?

even the uk hasnt achieved that after 2000 years of christianity why do you expect islam to be any different?

wendy mann said...

big shaker:

"Islamist Hassan Butt:"

i dont think the islamozionist hassan butt has anything to say of importance since he is now on the lucrative book circuit as with his former friends and colleagues. he has a vested interest to deny foreign policy that even john reid (ex home secretary) accepts as a causal radicalisation factor.

i think all but the hardened anti muslims/anti islam (this is akin to anti semites who direct their ire at judaism and jewish people) now recognise what the primary radicalisation factor is.

there is no need for islam as mi5 acknowledge what is required is a telly and news bulletins of the carnage , the death and destruction our foreign policy brings.

what binds people together is their faith, in the same manner jewish people do react to their fellow co religionists hardships or demonisation.

so to simplify matters for you, the primary radicalisation factor is foreign policy and the way the govt has sought to play the demonisation of islam card at home creates an alienation of those being scapegoated.

the issue that binds people together is their faith , that is their sense of belonging because the host country is effective disowning them through a media campaign/propaganda.

we should also recognise that with respect to afghanistan nato troops are also killing many pakistans innocent with their incursions and drones. that means that many people of that region see this as a war on pakistans sovereignty, their families and friends.

it has been recently disclosed (but not in the uk media) that usa/uk special forces are training afghan militia to start an insurgency in pakistan, the importance of this is that baluchistan and the nwfp are of major strategic importance and the former is rich in resources.

that is the intent is to break the country into smaller statelets.

unless you have an insight into the bigger political picture you will always go with your prejudices and the propaganda that suits your world view.

however the reality is somewhat different.