Planning the deaths of 'infidels'

The Telegraph reports that:

'Three Islamist fanatics plotted to attack one of the country's largest army bases and kill as many people as possible in what would have been the worst terror attack on Australian soil.

The radicalised Muslim men were yesterday found guilty of planning the brazen attack on Holsworthy Army Base, a training area and artillery range on the outskirts of Sydney that can host up to 2,000 soldiers at a time.

Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, 34, Saney Edow Aweys, 27, and Nayef El Sayed, 26 – all Australian citizens of Somali or Lebanese origin – plotted to walk into the base with high-powered weapons and shoot scores of soldiers until they had either used up their ammunition or had been killed or captured.

The men, who were also accused of having ties to al-Shabab, the powerful al-Qaeda-linked Somali terror group, wanted to carry out the suicide attack in revenge for Australia's role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The audacious plot was uncovered last year after one of the biggest police operations in Australian history. The ten month-long operation involved 400 officers and hours of phone tapping.

More than 2000 conversations were played to the jury during the three-month trial. In the discussions the men expressed their support for Islamic fighters and said they would be willing to become a martyr to advance the cause of Islam.

...

The group's contempt for Australia was laid bare in the trial.

Prosecutors said Aweys had described Australians as "infidels" and said that the 2009 Black Saturday bush fires, which killed 173 people, were punishment from Allah.

In one encounter with an undercover officer, Fattall had said: "If I find way to kill the army, I swear to Allah the great I'm going to do it."'

As I keep saying; these people make no secret of the fact that they hate us and want us dead. They make no secret of why they believe this and justify it, so why do so many in the West try and make excuses?

Airport Security in San Francisco

The hole in security that exists around ground staff is one that has worried me for quite some time and one day I fear that we will all have to take more notice of this matter.

Baby it's cold outside - For Christmas Eve

Rod Stewart & Dolly Parton duet



Tom Jones & Cerys Matthews duet

One Ronnie & a fruity technology related gag

Ronnie Corbett and Harry Enfield in a new One Ronnie sketch that appealed to me on many levels; techie, funny and reminded me of Saturday nights in the 1970s.

The Cancun accord

I disagree with Bolivia's reasons for not signing the Cancun accord but am intrigued by the way the agreement was approved:

'The "Cancún accord" was presented late Friday afternoon, and we were given two hours to read it. Despite pressure to sign something – anything – immediately, Bolivia requested further deliberations. This text, we said, would be a sad conclusion to the negotiations. After we were denied any opportunity to discuss the text, despite a lack of consensus, the president banged her gavel to approve the document.'

More here.

Tracking Santa

Norad are tracking Santa, currently 'Santa's next stop is: P’yongyang, North Korea' which is nice and topical!

'a scientific theory that implies predictions that turn out to be wrong, is false'

Powerline Blog explains why and it is Global Warming Climate Change Disruption related.

Complaining to the BBC and their partial replies (part 2)

Further to my complaints about the bias in the way the BBC reports isolated comments made by extremist Israelis and the far more common often genocidal comments made by Palestinian secular and religious leaders, I have received another reply from the BBC which I think raises some very interesting questions and one absolutely fascinating question which I have raised in my reply:

'Dear Sir or madam,

Thank you for your further comments on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11127409

I explained in my first email why we felt it editorially justified to report the story as we did. You appear to agree that it was reasonable to report Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s comments as we did.

I also felt that I answered your question, but I will try again.

Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and other Palestinian groups and organisations speak with several voices. At different times and to different audiences they say different things. Sometimes their comments are might be seen as “conciliatory”, sometimes very warlike. There are Hamas leaders, for example, who regularly call for violent Jihad to reclaim all of “Palestine”. Others have indicated that they are ready to accept (maybe live with for the foreseeable future) a truce with Israel and a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders. Hamas’ true position is somewhere in between and the argument within the movement is an important one. To report the shrill and extreme statements of some of the Hamas firebrands is therefore misleading.

So, to answer your question, no we have not reported Ziyad Abu al-Haj's comments, nor other comments by of Dr Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiah. But we do feel that across our coverage and in our background features we reflect accurately, fairly and in detail and the position of Hamas on the key issues.

Bets regards,

Tarik Kafala
Middle East editor
BBC News website '

Here is my reply:

'Dear Tarik,

Thank you for your reply which I find interesting, if incomplete.

I have responded to your points in turn as that is the most convenient way for me, however I have also highlighted the key question that I have posed so as to try and ensure that you do not miss answering it when you reply to all of my points.


I do indeed consider it reasonable to report Rabbi Ovaida's comments as I always said I did; my complaint is that the BBC seem unwilling to report the hate-speech often expressed by Hamas and Fatah's religious and secular leaders.

I accept that 'Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and other Palestinian groups and organisations speak with several voices' and that what they say often depends on the audience to whom they are speaking. You mention that there are 'Hamas leaders, for example, who regularly call for violent Jihad to reclaim all of “Palestine”' and I presume that you can show me coverage on the BBC of such leaders' sentiments. However can you also show me where the BBC have reported sentiments such as those I presented to you that not only should all of Palestine be reclaimed but that Palestinians are enjoined to "Kill the Jews and those among the Americans who are like them… Have no mercy on the Jews, murder them everywhere."?

You say that 'Others have indicated that they are ready to accept (maybe live with for the foreseeable future) a truce with Israel and a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders.' and I accept that some Fatah and other Palestinians have taken this line in discussions with the West, I am less certain that any Hamas leaders have, maybe you could tell me who?

You go on to state that 'Hamas’ true position is somewhere in between', how do you know this? How do you know that Hamas's position is somewhere in between the two extremes? Is it not possible that their true position is as in their Charter and statements made for home consumption and not anything to do with their statements made for the benefit of a gullible West? Do you know the meaning of the word taqiyya in this context?

If one person says that Sir Isaac Newton is dead and one says that Sir Isaac Newton is dead, is it necessarily the truth that Sir Isaac Newton is neither dead nor alive? Or is it the case that one person is telling the truth and one lying? Is it the BBC's position that the truth always lies between two sets of opinions?


You say that 'To report the shrill and extreme statements of some of the Hamas firebrands is therefore misleading. ' Yet the BBC were happy to report the extreme statements of one firebrand Israeli Rabbi. Why is it 'misleading' to report the words of 'Hamas firebrands' but not those of an Israeli firebrand? Do the BBC consider that Rabbi Ovaida's statements are isolated sentiments or representative of those of much of Israel? Does the BBC apply different standards to the speeches of Israeli and Palestinian 'firebrands'?


You conclude that 'So, to answer your question, no we have not reported Ziyad Abu al-Haj's comments, nor other comments by of Dr Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiah. But we do feel that across our coverage and in our background features we reflect accurately, fairly and in detail and the position of Hamas


I would appreciate your response to my above questions as I consider there still to be areas that need addressing regarding BBC bias in this matter.


Kind regards

NotaSheep '

I wonder if I will get a reply from Tarik Kafala and is so how he will deal with my point that asked Why is it 'misleading' to report the words of 'Hamas firebrands' but not those of an Israeli firebrand?; time may tell...

Complaining to the BBC and their partial replies (part 1)

I have received two replies to my complaints about bias in the way that the BBC eagerly report the comments of extremist Israelis whilst minimising coberage of genoicidal Hamas and Fatah leaders.

Here is the reply I received on 16 November from the BBC, apologies for the late posting of it and my late response but I missed the email arriving:

'On 16 November 2010 14:32, NewsOnline Complaints wrote:

notasheepmaybeagoat@googlemail.com
Dear Notasheep,
Thank you for your further comments.
I tried to explain in my first email why we felt it editorial justified to report Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s comments because of his importance and their timing.

We have, of course, reported the actions, policies and statements of Hamas and other Palestinian leaders. We tend, where possible to conduct our own interviews with such figures. 

The answer to one of your specific questions, based on a search of the site, is no. We did not report the statement by Ahmed Yassin regarding reconciliation with Israel being a crime or that Israel. In our obituary of Yassin we say: It was there that he formed the belief that Palestine was an Islamic land "consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day", and that no Arab leader had the right to give up any part of this territory.

Our current profile of Hamas makes it absolutely clear that Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, though its leaders often talk about a long tern truce following the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territory. This, I would argue, covers the substance of Yassin's comments and points to some range or nuance ion Hamas' position. 
The BBC News website was launched in 1997, so it's not possible for me to check whether we reported the Yasser Arafat comment that you refer to.

Best regards,

Tarik Kafala, Middle East editor, BBC News website

Here is my response:

'Thank you for your reply and I apologise for not replying sooner but I managed to miss your email arriving.

I note that you have looked into the BBC's reporting of Ahmed Yassin's comments and assure me that you reported in his obituary that 'It was there that he formed the belief that Palestine was an Islamic land "consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day", and that no Arab leader had the right to give up any part of this territory.' I think that is rather milder than the statements that I asked if the BBC had ever reported. It seems that the BBC is eager to  report the wilder comments of a relatively minor Israeli Rabbi but connives in hiding the true feelings and objectives of many Hamas and Fatah religious and secular leaders. Look at what the BBC wrote in the obituary and ask yourself if that comes close to truly representing the words that I quoted? 

I ask again, did the BBC web news report Hamas cleric Ziyad Abu al-Haj's Friday sermon of 3 April 2009 in which he said "The time will come, by Allah’s will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth."?

Maybe you could also show me where BBC web news reported the words of Dr. Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiah, a member of the Palestinian Sharia (Islamic religious law) Rulings Council, and Rector of Advanced Studies at the Islamic University on 13 October 2000 when he said "The Jews are the Jews. There never was among them a supporter of peace. They are all liars… They are terrorists. Therefore it is necessary to slaughter them and murder them, according to the words of Allah… It is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land. Make war on them any place that you find yourself. Any place that you meet them – kill them. Kill the Jews and those among the Americans who are like them… The Jews only understand might. Have no mercy on the Jews, murder them everywhere."


You go on to say that 'Our current profile of Hamas makes it absolutely clear that Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, though its leaders often talk about a long tern truce following the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territory. This, I would argue, covers the substance of Yassin's comments and points to some range or nuance ion Hamas' position.' I disagree. By choosing to report just one nuanced type of comments made by Hamas and Fatah leaders you are skewing public opinion, public opinion that should be allowed to see the full extent of Hamas avowed hatred for all Jews and declared murderous intent towards them. Maybe you could explain to me the nuance in the position that "The time will come, by Allah’s will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth."?' Maybe you could show me the range in saying " It is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land. Make war on them any place that you find yourself. Any place that you meet them – kill them. Kill the Jews and those among the Americans who are like them… The Jews only understand might. Have no mercy on the Jews, murder them everywhere."?

Do the BBC consider that sentiments like those I have quoted above are not worthy of reporting or were the BBC unaware of them?

Do you consider that Yasser Arafat's comments are worthy of reporting and would BBC Online have reported them had the means been available in 1993?


Once again I consider that the BBC have not fully addressed my complaint, please do so now.


Regards

NotaSheep'

Some questions for Vince Cable

Most of the media, especially the BBC with articles like this one, seem to be concerned with Vince Cable's disquiet over being secretly recorded, they seem relatively unconcerned by what he said and the implications of what he said.

So here are some questions for Vince Cable that he might care to answer:

1) You were recorded saying that you had "declared war" on Rupert Murdoch, was that a true reflection of your position on this matter or were you lying to your 'constituents'?

2) If this was a true reflection of your position then were you planning on declaring this position before or after you decided on Rupert Murdoch's takeover of BSkyB, or were you going to make a quasi-legal decision from a position of prejudged bias?

3) How do you reconcile your then role as independent arbiter on a major financial takeover with your declared position of being at war with one of the parties? Do you consider that position reasonable or moral?

4) Are there any other businesses, UK based or otherwise, that you consider you have declared war on?

What's so wrong with Natalie Portman's buttocks?

The edited trailer for the film 'Your Highness' with Natalie's Portman's buttocks disappointingly digitally covered up from 1:07


The unedited trailer for the film 'Your Highness' with Natalie Portman's buttocks free and unfettered by digital wizardry from 1:30


Thanks to The Mail for the spot, not that there are any spots on Natalie Portman's seemingly flawless bottom.

30 new facts about Gordon Brown

The Guardian has gleaned 30 new facts about Gordon Brown from Anthony Seldon's biography. Do take a read of them all, here's a few to whet your appetite (my comments in italics):

'4. Brown often swore about having to meet foreign dignitaries. "'Why the fuck are you making me do this?' he would complain to [Tom Fletcher, his foreign policy adviser] before almost every such meeting," Seldon and Lodge write
Polite chap wasn't he, must be the influence of his upbringing as a son of the manse...

6. Ed Balls is reported to have said: "Every appointment that Gordon has ever made on his own has been a disaster." Seldon and Lodge quote this in relation to the appointment of Stephen Carter to Downing Street.
Was Ed Balls appointed by Gordon Brown?

7. Brown is not able to read newsprint easily. According to Seldon and Lodge, he has to rely on others to keep him informed about what's in the papers.
So at one point we had a blind Home Secretary and a one-eyed poor sighted Chancellor...

8. Brown tried to get parliament to vote for 42-day pre-charge detention to please the Murdoch press, his colleagues believe. "Blair made it very clear to Gordon that he had to come across as tough; the News International people would worry if he was not. That is why he did 42 days," Balls told the authors.
This is the man of principles is it?

9. When Brown met Obama in Downing Street before Obama was elected president, Brown's sons were brought in to extend the length of the meeting because Brown wanted to keep Obama in No 10 for as long as possible.
How pathetic...

10. When Harriet Harman stood in for Brown during the summer holidays in 2008, she was overheard telling a cabinet colleague: "I don't know how Gordon manages to make this job seem so difficult."
Harriet Harman the perfect advertisement for sexual discrimination against women

26. Brown stopped speaking to Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, towards the end of his premiership because he thought King was taking a political stance in the argument about deficit reduction.
Another example of Gordon Brown's famed maturity...

27. Nick Macpherson, the permanent secretary to the Treasury, despaired of Brown's refusal to accept the need for a tougher stance on reducing the deficit. "He just doesn't get it," Macpherson often told colleagues.'

Why should Gordon Brown have got it, he never seemed to get it

And I thought Gordon Brown was wooden

And I thought Gordon Brown was wooden, maybe Ed Balls really is the 'son of Brown'.

Thanks to Guido Fawkes for the 'Son of Brown' video spot.

'Ed's judgment may have been flawed, but at least he could reach a decision rather than putting it off indefinitely,' - Jonathan Powell

The Guardian reports that

'Ed Balls is normally seen as someone who came to power as a protege of Gordon Brown's. Having spent the last few weeks reading the latest Labour memoirs and biographies, I'm beginning to wonder whether it might not be make more sense to view the relationship the other way round.
In their biography, Brown at 10 (which I've written about in more detail here), Anthony Seldon and Guy Lodge describe the Balls-Brown relationship as one that was "far more complex" than one between politician and powerful lieutenant.

In their time at the Treasury together, as their political journeys had developed, they had become increasingly co-dependent. "Ed compensated for Gordon's lack of intellectual confidence by being decisive," says one long-standing colleague. "His all-encompassing certainty became a crutch for Brown in his own intellectual and psychological insecurities." In the bitter atmosphere of the Blair years, that had led to a dangerous, spiralling dynamic. Brown "contracted out to Balls his evaluation of people", says one Treasury official, and Balls thought [Tony] Blair little better than an imbecile. In those difficult years while Brown waited desperately for power, Balls had protected him from attacks, and Brown remained deeply grateful.

There are plenty of anecdotes in the book illustrating Balls's influence over Brown and one of the most telling relates to the moment when Brown became prime minister. Brown agonised about whether to make Balls chancellor, but was worried about antagonising the Blairites. Balls then planted a story in the Daily Mail saying he would not be getting the job. Brown was cross. But Balls told Seldon and Lodge: "I decided to do so to make the decision easier for him."'

Fascinating and scary, Ed Balls was to a degree making economic decisions not Gordon Brown. If in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King then what about the one-eyed man's right-hand man?

Brotherly love - Miliband style

I read in The Telegraph that despite Ed Miliband saying that he expected to spend Christmas with David and adding that "no peacekeeping forces will be needed", his older brother has managed to flee the country. As The Telegraph says:

'Ed’s comments about how he evisaged spending Christmas with David, whom he narrowly beat to the Labour leadership, suggest the two are so estranged that they have little, if any, idea about each other’s plan'

I wonder if Ed & David Miliband's Christmas lunch would have been explosive as Ed & Will Grundy's is lining up to be?

The Telegraph reminds us that 'The Milibands were once so close that they would gather with their families each Sunday for lunch.' - Alas, no more; shame!

Do you remember what Labour were like in power?

Now aren't you glad they have gone?

A thought on the Vince Cable affair

The BBC, and much else of the media, are spinning this story as a Tory/Lib Dem feud story but I think that the real story is about the fitness for office of Vince Cable. Now I know that to the BBC he is Saint Vince but were his words those of a saint?

Vince Cable was the Secretary of State for Business and had under his department Ofcom. Ofcom was at the time considering the takeover of BSkyB by Rupert Murdoch's organisation. It seemed, based on previous Ofcom comments and decisions, that Ofcom would not adversely report on the takeover; remember that Ofcom have already decided (re ITV) that having 25% of a media company means that you have sufficiently significant influence over editorial content to cause a regulatory issues. Vince Cable's comments showed very clearly that he had made up his own mind re the issue without waiting for the Ofcom report and that he was in opposition to the likely conclusions of the said report. I believe that as a matter of administrative law Vince Cable was not permitted to do that. Thus to leave Vince with the power to block the Murdoch takeover would likely have led to a law suit, one that Rupert Murdoch was very likely to win.

It seems to me therefore that Vince Cable's words put into question the whole legal process and thus his fitness for government.

Why is five inches of snow shutting down London’s Heathrow airport? Because it’s more concerned with being a mall than plowing runways, writes aviation expert Clive Irving.

Read the whole tarticle here in The Daily Beast; food for thought especially if you have been stuck at Heatrow airport for the last few days.

What was happening at Heathrow during the recent snow?

Travel Mole reports some interesting news:

'Airlines offered Heathrow operator BAA help in clearing snow and ice from the runways but were turned down for health and safety reasons, it emerged today.

...

... according to the Daily Telegraph, it seems Lufthansa and another unnamed airline said they asked to help because BAA was not clearing snow fast enough but were told that it contravened health and safety rules.

...

The paper reports a Lufthansa spokesman as saying: "The whole process took too long and should have been started earlier. There was not enough manpower available, we were surprised how long it took to get things operational.

"We were not allowed to clean stands for health and safety reasons. BAA gets a lot of money to operate the airport and they refused to do that."

Another airline said BAA was being “jobsworth” about clearing the snow, refusing to allow frustrated airlines to help.'

What a surprise 'Health and Safety' was one of the factors, I would never have guessed.

Using free speech to attack Christianity

Imagine the furore if a Christian or Jewish group in the UK set-up a website and poster campaign entitled 'Ramadan is Evil'; the BBC would be apoplectic. However thee is not a word when a Muslim group calling itself 'xmasisevil.com' and claiming to be 'Representing the Muslims living in the uk' sets up a website calling Xmas 'the path to hellfire' and including a section headed 'Fruits of Christmas' that runs thus:

'On the 1st day of christmas my true love gave to me an S....T....D.

On the 2nd day debt

On the 3rd rape

On the 4th tennage pregnancy

* Followed by an abortion
* raves
* claiming god has a son
* blasphemy
* exploitation
* promiscuity
* night clubs
* crime
* paedophilia
* paganism
* domestic violence
* homelessness
* alcohol
* drugs...'

There is also a poster campaign

So where's the media fuss? Why are an Islamic group allowed to make such deliberately provocative claims about one of the key dates in the Christian calendar when I am sure any similar campaign aimed at Ramadan or another Islamic festival would be (rightly) attacked from all sides?