Brave, non-denominational freedom fighters

4 November 2013

Those of you who wonder why the BBC is so politically correct, so craven in its expressions regarding, for example, Islamic terror, may find a partial answer here: 

Stephen Whittle
Director of Editorial Policy at the BBC

Dear Stephen,

We have received many complaints over the last 24 hours from British Muslims regarding the use of the phrase ‘Islamic terrorists’ by your news reporters in connection with the struggle for Kashmiri independence.

We believe this phrase is totally inappropriate and adds nothing to the story and even distorts what is a long-standing struggle by the Kashmiri people to gain control of their own destiny.

Claim your gift

We have noticed that your news reports are also failing to adequately report the background to this conflict. It is crucial that viewers and listeners are made aware that Kashmir is a Muslim-majority area which should have become part of Pakistan but did not because of the Hindu Maharajah who opted for union with India. This has caused immense misery for both countries but especially for the people of Kashmir.

Your recent news reports have not adequately mentioned that the Indian army is widely detested by the people of Kashmir and is regarded as an occupation force. The Indian army has been severely criticized for not allowing free access to the media in occupied Kashmir and has been blamed for many widespread human rights abuses against Kashmiri civilians.

The only way to resolve this issue is to allow the people of Kashmir a referendum on their future, not by military conflict.

Please could we meet to discuss this issue urgently as it is causing much distress to people who have strong family ties to Kashmir.

Kind regards,

Mr Inayat Bunglawala
Media Committee,
The Muslim Council of Britain


Response from Stephen Whittle

Thanks for your note. I have discussed this with the various output editors. It is not our policy to describe Kashmiri separatists in this way and that has been made clear. It was an isolated incident and will not be repeated.

Well, you can’t blame Inayat (a decent enough bloke, btw) for trying, seeing the immediate capitulation that occurs…

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments
  • chan chan

    The brave, non-denominational freedom fighters of Syria are now launching mortar rounds at the Vatican embassy in Damascus. Why can that be? Dear Reader, we may never know…

    • Bonkim

      Because the Vatican is an evil Empire and supporting murderous Assad. Faith or inter-faith – superstition.

  • Kennybhoy


    • RaymondDance

      Probably on grounds of good taste.

      • Kennybhoy

        And on what pray tell do you base this speculation?

  • Cornelius Bonkers

    So what should we call a Kashmiri separatist who blows people and stuff up? Come on Mr Punkawalla, give those who took you in and saved your life a break

    • RaymondDance

      ‘Freedom fighter’ obviously.

      • Cornelius Bonkers

        Also: Nelson Mandela, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness (sp.?) Stern Gang, Osama Bin Laden, Robespierre…

  • DaHitman

    “We believe this phrase is totally inappropriate and adds nothing to the story”

    Is he having a laugh? – Should we re-write history so the Nazis aren’t called National Socialists next??

    I really do hate fascists like the above

  • Rupert Bravery

    Can someone please explain the democratic process by which people attain a seat on the Muslim ‘council’?

  • Rodney G James

    Funny then Bokim that in France, Spain, Greece, belgium and Holland the Sunday morning service has high viewing figures, especially among the old, ifirm and those in isolated areas. Or don’t you care about them? You are totally out of touch.

  • artemis in france

    I assume, Rod, that you don’t approve of the BBC’s response because you see it as bowing to the over-sensitivity of the Islamic diaspora within the UK. As it happens I think that Kashmir is a tragic place and it is a great shame that the majority are denied their full democratic rights. But as others have pointed out there are many instances where the boot is very much on the other foot. But what about the majority in the UK? How much say do they have in their own country about the rising tide of Islamic influence? Very little, because the politicians are too afraid to voice their constituents’ complaints, unless, that is, they happen to be Muslim.

  • Toby Esterházy

    Mr. Bunglawala’s Bengali ancestors would surely be turning in their graves!

    Having said that, the Indians are fighting a hopeless insurgency in (Lower) Kashmir. Whoever controls Lahore, Peshawar and Kabul also gets to control Srinagar and the Kashmir Valley, not Delhi, and the first three are definitely not controlled by the Hindus of Hindustan (India). The Mohammedans of the Kashmir Valley would never submit to majority Indian Hindu rule from Delhi, any more than the Mohammedans of Dhaka would.

    Kashmir is part of this failed grand Indian secularist/atheist and nationalistic project of inducing the Mohammedans to abandon their separate Mohammedan States and return back to India.

    When Delhi finally wakes up from their own curry-induced Indian slumber and realises this (but I don’t think that they ever will), perhaps Delhi might wish to consider turning the Kashmir Valley over into a Sikh homeland, or Khalistan; after clearing out the Valley’s inhabitants, of course. Or the Indians can turn the Valley over to the Hindu Dogra Rajputs of Jammu in their place and stead. Although, even a Sikh, or an Hindu (or even a Twelver Shia, or an Ismaili, or a Tibetan Lamaist-Buddhist) Kashmir Valley would likely only buy the Indians a few hundred years, before the Valley is being overrun by the (Sunni) Mohammedans again.

  • chan chan

    I can almost hear the craven handwringing in his repsonse

  • Daniel Maris

    Pakistan is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with Sharia installed as law. So, if these terrorists wish to join Kashmir with Pakistan, then they are engaged in an Islamic project.

  • David Lindsay

    They have a point here. Kashmir is a very complicated situation, and those seeking independence (by no means all of the Muslims there) are nationalists, not, in the main, Islamists.

    • Daniel Maris

      Independence? Being joined with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not independence.

      • David Lindsay

        That is not what they all want. It is immensely complicated situation.

        Of course, for those who identify as Pakistani within the definition of the term at the time of its creation, it is.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    Stephen Whittle

    Director of Editorial Policy at the BBC

    Dear Stephen,

    We have received many complaints over the last 24 years from
    British Citizens regarding the use of the phrase ‘Far-right’ by your news
    reporters in connection with the struggle for British independence.

    We believe this phrase is totally inappropriate and adds nothing
    to the story and even distorts what is a long-standing struggle by the British
    people to gain control of their own destiny.

    We have noticed that your news reports are also failing to
    adequately report the background to this conflict. It is crucial that viewers
    and listeners are made aware that Britain is a English-majority area which
    should have stayed independent but did not because of the LibLabConBBC who
    opted for union with Europe. This has caused immense misery for both countries
    but especially for the people of England.

    Your recent news reports have not adequately mentioned that the BBC
    is widely detested by the people of England and is regarded as an occupation
    force. The BBC has been severely criticized for not allowing free access to the
    media in occupied England and has been blamed for many widespread informational
    rights abuses against English civilians.

    The only way to resolve this issue is to allow the people of England
    a referendum on their future, not by BBC dictat.

    Please could we meet to discuss this issue urgently as it is
    causing much distress to people who have strong indigenous ties to England.

    Kind regards,

    Mr Geezer

    Response from Stephen Whittle

    Thanks for your note. Why don’t
    you go fck yourself you ignorant bigoted loon and fruitcake. Just hand over the
    Licence Fee or I will call on the police to deal with you. I have, in any event,
    passed your letter on to them with a suggestion that you be questioned for your all too obvious racism and threatening tone.

    • Bonkim

      overblown and malicious fake.

      • Hexhamgeezer

        Leave little Inayat outta this.

      • The_greyhound

        You should always sign yourself so.

      • Colonel Mustard

        No, pretty much spot on in its exposure of the hypocrisy, double standards and double-dealing forced upon the English in their own country by the current “establishment”.

        • Bonkim

          The establishment looks long term, not pandering to the prattle of street politicians. Britain has a dependency index of 75% which is very high – that means we are dependent on the outside world to a much larger extent than most other countries and resources are depleting fast. Britain just cannot shut itself in – and society and economics have come a long way from the neolithic/subsistence times of ancient Britons. The English/British have survived and prospered because of the relative stability brought in by the establishment over the centuries – through tyrannies and civil wars, and a huge measure of pragmatism.

          Small minded people usually degenerate into tribal factions in perpetual warfare. Just look at all the conflict zones across the world – with a population of 2% of world – we will be dependent even more on the rest of the world for essential resources for survival. Isolationism suggested in some of the posts therefore is not a practical proposition.

          • Hexhamgeezer

            ‘The English/British have survived and prospered because of the relative stability brought in by the establishment over the centuries ‘

            Wow – thanks ‘Establishment’. If it wasn’t for you us peasants would be living in a colder version of Waziristan.

            Once again, grateful thanks ‘Establishment’ for saving us from our ignorant unstable selves. And thank the Lord that there are enough like Bonkim who recognise the debt we owe you.

            • Bonkim

              The British values projected and that all aspire are those of the establishment that created Britain’s wealth – not the Plebs on benefits.

              • Hexhamgeezer

                There’s a massive swathe of the population (aka the majority) both current and historic whom you’ve chosen to leave out there.

                How very LibLabConBBC.

                • Bonkim

                  Not at all – the vast majority of the population (in any society) just want to get on with life and have little time to dig deep in social and political structures or dissect the establishment and its workings they have inherited. The only let go when external changes start upsetting their stable environment.

                  By and large the British system has endured – the Monarchy, unwritten constitution, an established Church that does not ram religion down your throat, enough material rewards for its workers, etc. So a winner in most respects compared with the rest of the world.

                  People have a right to, and can raise issues, mobilize support for the causes they believe in – and nobody is taken to task for disagreeing with anyone else.

                  I don’t expect everyone to agree with my posts or views – the objective is to raise awareness of the issues – and we have diverged too far from the issue covered in the report.

                  This cha is quite correct technically – today’s terrorists become tomorrow’s government – and terrorists or freedom fighters – defined by which side of the fence you are. Queen Budica was a terrorist to the Romans.

                • Hexhamgeezer

                  In short you believe in a top down attribution of the benefits in British society and a bottom up one for the downsides with ‘the plebs’ having no role at all in the upsides. Grateful thanks (again) to our munificent patrician establishment.

                  And as for the smokescreen of co-opting ‘white British’, Assad, the Romans, the IRA , Boudicea etc etc …how very LibLabConBBC.

                • Bonkim

                  Popular democracy – people elect their representatives to battle out political direction. British society may not be what you imagine to be. Not everyone has access to information and ability to analyse the minute details in complex decisions. So bottom up – street communes following the French revolution did not work and an elite group had to step in to bring order back. Street communes end up being a directionless rabble and soon break into warring factions – look at some of the failed states – and soon are taken over by despots.

                • Hexhamgeezer

                  Earth calling Bonkim…..

                  Sorry mate, yer’ aal ower the place. Taking the mick out of the BBC obviously upsets and disorientates you. The IRA, Boudicea and now the Paris communes have kcuf all relevance to my original bit of fluff.

                  Message ends.

                • Bonkim

                  You should take up fuzzy logic and sideways look. Life is never straight or certain – we are insignificant particles swimming in the sea of Brownian motion.

                • Hexhamgeezer

                  Agreed, we are still swimming round in the Brown motions

                • Bonkim

                  Motions are egalitarian and colour blind. All smell.

                • Kennybhoy

                  Once again a strange blend of insight and wrongheadedness…

                • Bonkim

                  wrong or right – depends on your knowledge base and ability to analyze.

              • Kennybhoy

                Strange mix of insight and caca….

          • bwims


            • GrumpyDenier

          • Roger Hudson

            If people are healthy, well fed, in a nice secure home and have a well paid job they don’t tend to care about theoretical things like nation, politics, faith etc.
            Conflict is a symptom of unhappy life.

            • Bonkim

              You will be surprised how many well fed and wealthy people are nationalists or ideologues, political, indulge in abstract thinking of the longer term future and man’s history on earth, and the conflicts taking place in far off lands. You can be wealthy, have all the creature comforts at your command and also thinking.

    • Daniel Maris


  • Kennybhoy

    Am I not allowed to post hereabouts?

  • Rodney G James

    The BBC as you must know is strongly anti-Christian. It is the only Western European state broadcaster which does not show a full sunday morning Euchrist service on TV. Even therepublics of Greece and France do this, a great service to the old and infirm. The Anglican religion is our official state church and, despite the BBC, over 60 % of the population desribe themselves as Christian. But ,the BBC is far more interested in sucking up to Islam, althogh not even 10% of the population are Muslim.
    Commercially, it is a disgrace that being totally paid forby tax it is allowed to unfairly compete with the commercial stations, acting far beyond its remit. The best solution is to sell it off and start a proper PBC with one TV station, the World Service and 2 radio stations, scrapping the licence fee.

    • Bonkim

      There is plenty of Christian programmes and a full blown Church Service is not on – most people in England will not watch that. No religion on public service broadcasting – Christian or Islamic or any other superstitions.

      • bwims

        I think you are a marxist sock puppet.

        • Bonkim

          coming from an illiterate – all is forgiven.

          • Hexhamgeezer

            overblown and malicious fake.

            • Bonkim

              Glad you are learning fast. Keep it up, do 100 lines before you go home.

  • manonthebus

    Well, the basic facts about Kashmir are correct. Whether or not people who kill innocent people should be called Islamic terrorists or merely Kashmiri separatists is another matter.

  • futtruytuiuiy

    The BBC is just basically a pro eu pro immigration pro muslim propaganda tool

    Please sign the Daily Express petition to stop EU
    immigration. Over 21,000 have signed online (thousands more on paper) in less
    than a week.

  • greggf

    Rod, has Bunga bunga inayat got an email address?
    Please post it so we can send him some greetings.

  • roger

    Whatever excuse any particular ‘murder gang’ has for killing; politics, religion, lust or greed, we should show our disdain for all of them , support none of them and keep our noses out.
    As for the BBC, scale back their crappy output. I like the old BBC one line radio reports ” Reports of continued fighting in Kashmir, no British casualties” .

    • Bonkim

      agree with you roger – the world is full of ethnic and sectarian conflict – may be the BBC can cover all that in the World Service.

  • sarahsmith232

    got snowed in in Kashmir quite a few moons ago, so am a bit familiar with the place. what’s going on up there is shocking, what the corrupt to it’s core Indian military, which is basically an aggressive, hostile occupying force, is shocking.
    the Left-wing media ignores what goes on up there ’cause they don’t dare go anywhere near opening themselves up to the possibility that immediately after the British Imperialists left India Imperialism didn’t end. for the Kashmiri’s there was just a new chapter, different coloured faces but identikit experience of living under the dominion of a hostile, brutal, oppressive regime.
    the Left loves to spin itself so many fairy stories about our history of Empire, the BBC being the biggest spinners of all. it all rests on the idea that there was something unique about our Imperialism. that it couldn’t ever be replicated because we were a uniquely racist/fascist/sub-humanly brutal, reasons for this being our uniquely racist/fascist etc white English culture. they’ll not go anywhere near reporting on world events that can reveal otherwise.
    so they’re in a corner, either reveal that the oppressors are brown skinned Indians or go after another e.g of brown skinned brutal oppressors. what to do ey the BBC? answer: pathetically surrender to the whole ****dy lot. useless

    • Forest Fan

      I was there in 1988 when it kicked off. Many Kashmiri people I met didn’t want the trouble…bad for business. I stayed on a houseboat for 2-3 weeks. Great memories.

      • Bonkim

        Spon on Forest Fan – the Kashmiris are a far more civilized lot that wants to be left alone and get on with their life – but the terrorists from next door have precipitate a conflict they are suffering from – Poor Pakistan too – not sure they are enjoying their people blown up by the same Taliban and related terrorists that appear to be gaining an upper hand in that lawless corner of the world. Much of Kashmir’s business thrives because it is part of India – you have poverty and ignorance in the Pakistan occupied part of Kashmir.

        • Porphyrogenitos

          So civilised that they’ve completely ethnically cleansed the valley of its minority Hindu Pandit population.

          • Bonkim

            Tragic – the situation in1947/48 was chaotic with the Taliban invasion, there was a huge scale killings and movement of people at the time arising from sectarian conflict across the sub-continent.

            and why didn’t they stay back and fight their corner? The Indian Army has been there for the past six decades – Land has to be defended if they thought it was theirs. Now history.

            • Porphyrogenitos

              The Kashmiri Pandits weren’t ethnically cleansed at independence but in the 1990’s by the Kashmiri Muslim separatists. They were the target of rapes and assassinations and received little protection from the Indian government which didn’t want to upset the Muslim population.
              I guess you are saying that the Pandits should have behaved like the EDL and fought back against their Muslim persecutors, but then your ilk would have condemned them for Islamophobia.

      • Alexandrovich

        Did you notice, as I did, that shortly after the chicken that was clucking on shore became quiet, you were served your kashmiri chicken?

        • Forest Fan

          I was there for Eid, so it was sheep bleating.

  • zanzamander

    But deleting comments critical of Rod/BBC/Guardian/Inayat stance on “Islamic terrorism” is not capitulation? How is Spectator different to BBC/Guardian/Inayat? I see the whole lot of you part of exactly the same cabal. Ok, compared to other media you might prefer slow coach jihadis , but your ultimate aim is the same.

  • Eddie

    Well, some terror suspect escaped yesterday wearing a burka. Do the BBC lead with the story or highlight it?
    Oh no, they tuck it down in their listings and don’t even mention the word ‘burka’ in the headline – like it’s not connected!
    In contrast, Ken Clarke was almost headline news yesterday for stating some common sense: we should not allow the burka to be worn in courts of law. The BBC Islamophiliacs made the new story HIS shocking comment which could be seen as racism or Islamophobia.
    Blatant biased reports at the moment from Egypt too – with the BBC and Channel 4 100% behind the Islamists and the deposed Islamofascist president.
    The BBC is not just leftwing now – things are far more serious than that: it purports to be unbiased and neutral whilst actively campaigning FOR Muslim groups and AGAINST any who criticise them. That is against the BBC charter and may well be against the law.

    • arnoldo87

      Eddie, Please see headline story on BBC news on line

      • Bonkim

        the blind don’t see.

      • David Prentice

        What, US Senate backs gay worker bill?

        The BBC: all gay, all the time.

      • Eddie

        Yes, I looked at it earlier than you – the FIRST headline did not make a big deal of the burka thing. The Islamophiliac BBC always plays down that anything bad might have anything at all to do with Islam and Muslims.

        • Kennybhoy

          Has the headline been changed?

    • Kennybhoy

      Ceterum autem censeo BBC esse delendam!

  • allymax bruce

    So, why is it us Christians, here in UK, must kow-tow to the ‘politically-correct’ bureaucractic Imposition, on tenter-hooks at saying anything, that may be construed as ‘offensive’, or ‘politically-incorrect’, when fanatics, weirdos, and zealots in other countries get to murder us Christians in their countries?
    Quite frankly, I’m sick & tired of this ‘politically-correct’ bureaucratic nonsense; if they don’t like our embedded Christian culture of Free Speech, and Freedom of Expression, then they shouldn’t come here; and stay in their own country!

    • Eddie

      Agreed. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again:

      All I have to say is this: THE MUSLIMS ARE NOT HAPPY!

      They’re not happy in Gaza .. They’re not happy in Egypt .. They’re not happy in Libya ..They’re not happy in Morocco ..They’re not happy in Iran ..They’re not happy in Iraq ..They’re not happy in Yemen ..They’re not happy in Afghanistan ..They’re not happy in Pakistan ..They’re not happy in Syria ..They’re not happy in Saudi Arabia. They’re not happy in Lebanon ..They’re not happy in Somalia


      They’re happy in Australia . They’re happy in Canada .They’re happy in England ..
      They’re happy in France ..They’re happy in Italy ..They’re happy in Germany .. They’re happy in Sweden ..They’re happy in the USA ..They’re happy in Norway ..
      They’re happy in Holland .They’re happy in Denmark .

      Basically, they’re happy in every country that is not Muslim and unhappy in every country that is!


      Not Islam. Not their leadership. Not themselves.


      AND THEN; They want to change those countries to be like….


      • bhutanbeau

        Can’t fault your logic there, Eddy

      • Kennybhoy


      • Augustus

        That’s because Islam’s objectives for the world’s political and social order are not compatible with Western ideals and civilization. Islam divides the world in two parts: Dar al-Islam; the house of Islam, and Dar al-Harb; the house of the infidel, or that place where people have not yet accepted Islam. To convert the entire world into Dar al-Islam is the declared aim of Islam. A relentless struggle has arisen for achieving the establishment of Islamic rule wherever it had not yet been established. It meant that Muslims living in non-Muslim countries would not settle for peace and cooperation with the local society, culture and traditions. They always remained active in their search for establishing Dar al-Islam. The basic tenets of Islam do not accept any other religion, therefore it is considered a religious imperative to annex non-Muslim countries and then join them into the Muslim world. Once people in whole regions of South Asia like Kashmir were Hindus. Kashmir was a totally Hindu area 700 years ago. Their roots were in the Indian culture. Under the centralised rule of the Indian kings people in all these states lived a happy life. Politically, geographically, socially and culturally the region remained united. But the tables were turned with the advent of Islam. It marked an end of unity, humanity, culture and nationalism. Freedom of worship, religious unity, local deities and religious rites were all sacrificed on the altar of Islamic brotherhood. Forcible religious conversion was rife, refusal to accept Islam resulted in the wholesale massacre of people, destruction of temples and shrines, the burning of books and manuscripts, rape of women, the sale of enslaved men belonging to the conquerors, the looting of property of non-Muslims and the encasing of children in walls. These acts were all done in the name of Islam to ‘please’ Allah. Wherever Islam has spread in the world similar acts of destruction have taken place. The followers of Prophet Mohammed believe in a religion which satiates their imperialistic desires through which they can quench their thirst for wars, lending religious legitimacy to their centuries of barbaric tendencies, and through which they derive a distorted strength for their egos, passions and greed for power.

      • bwims

        That’s because the dumb-arses don’t realise that it’s their religion causing the unhappiness!

      • meqmac

        And not a small number are happy in Israel.

    • bwims

      I agree, but you and your mates need to vote UKIP to change things, because LIBLABCON will not.

  • ADW

    1. Inayat says the separatists are fighting because Kashmir, as a Muslim-majority area, should have been part of Pakistan. He gives no reason why it should have been part of Pakistan other than the fact that it is Muslim-majority. So far from them being “Muslim” having nothing to do with their fight, it is the _only_ thing to do with it.

    2. Which human rights are respected by the government of Pakistan? How free is the media there? Or Freedom of religion? Their constitution provides it, but I can’t quite see the implementation on the ground with the attacks against Christians and the very fact that Inayat thinks being a Muslim means one ought to be ruled by a Muslim government. I wonder what would be the lot of the Hindu minority if his wishes came to pass …

    • sarahsmith232

      I’m gonna guess that this Inayat is a Pakistani himself. the male can make a statement like that to an idiot at the BBC and they’re not going to know any different. this BBC one would prob’ need to have explained to him that the Kashmiri’s absolutely DO NOT want to be occupied by the Pakistani’s. they’re not even the same ethnicity as them, something I don’t doubt he’s also not aware of.
      you would prob’ need to have to give further explanation. the Kurds under fellow muslim Saddam Hussien, them under fellow muslims Turkey. Arabs living under Ottoman rule. plenty of e.g’s but all will be lost on the BBC.

  • andy_gill

    I nominate Stephen Whittle for Dhimmi of the Year.

  • Bonkim

    Why is the Muslim Council of Britain meddling about in international affairs? The insurgents are not local Kashmiris who have benefited by being within India, but Pakistani military and irregulars coming through the line of control. A large proportion of Kashmir’s population was driven out by invading tribals supported by Pakistani Army following partition. Doubt if the average Kashmiri supports the insurgents that have been a pain to them for over 60 years.

  • Hippograd

    Please could we meet to discuss this issue urgently as it is causing
    much distress to people who have strong family ties to Kashmir.

    If people are distressed, it can’t be true. The Indian army is not behaving well in Kashmir, but imagine how well the Pakistani army would be behaving in a Hindu-majority region of Pakistan. There isn’t one, of course. If you want to know why not, this is how the Pakistani army behaved in Muslim-majority Bangladesh:

    The genocide in Bangladesh began on 26 March 1971 with the launch of Operation Searchlight, as West Pakistan began a military crackdown on the Eastern wing of the nation to suppress Bengali calls for self determination. During the nine month long Bangladesh war for independence, members of the Pakistani military and supporting militias killed approximately 3 million people, and raped between two- and four hundred thousand Bangladeshi women in a systematic campaign of genocidal rape.

    There have been one or two hints that our own vibrant Pakistani community might want to run an action replay in another country:

    Etc ad nauseam.

    • Daniel Maris

      Look what’s happened to the Hindu and Christian minorities in Pakistan…slow genocide you might call it.

      • DaHitman

        They don’t seem to want anyone to know or see the truth about their precious cult religion

  • NewImprovedPretendName

    Fine. In which case there are certainly parts of Turkey that should be in Greece, parts of Pakistan that should be in India, parts of Bosnia and Kosovo that should be in Serbia, and so forth. Should white British people be allowed a “long-standing struggle … to gain control of their own destiny”, perhaps against people like Mr Bunglawala? Whoa, whoa, controversial! Well, yes, it is, and Mr Bunglawala should adhere to the same rules of decency as the rest of us.

  • crosscop

    “A decent enough bloke”? You are far more gullible than I thought, Rod.

    Inayat Bunglawala campaigned against Salman Rushdie, has called Bin Laden a “freedom fighter,” praised the terrorist leader Omar Abdel-Rahman as “courageous,” and refers to Geert Wilders as a “rabble-rouser.”

    This is what Ed Husain had to say about him – “every Wednesday night Inayat would pick me up and drop me off after a session of Koran recitation, religious discussion, anti-Semitism, and good food.”

    He once rhymed off a list of prominent Jews and called them “the Tribe of Judah.”

    “Christopher Hitchens described him as – “A preposterous and sinister individual named Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain and a man with a public record of support for Osama bin Laden, was made a convener of Blair’s task force on extremism despite his stated belief that the BBC and the rest of the media are “Zionist controlled.”

    Here’s what Bungawala said after the 7/7 bombings – notice the repeated use of the word “innocent.” He knows full well, of course, that as the Koran describes disbelief as the greatest sin of all, no non-Muslim is ever “innocent.”

    “Well let me make clear then, once and for all, we condemn the killing of all innocent people, wherever they are.”

    “We always condemn the taking of innocent life anywhere.”

    “The Koran says you cannot take innocent life.”
    Some of us can recognise taqiyya and kitman when we see it.

    • GarethSoye

      Maybe Rod is only describing him as a decent enough bloke lest he get a visit from some people wishing to re-educate him.

    • David Lindsay

      campaigned against Salman Rushdie

      Not the most attractive of characters, with a profound hatred of the country that protected him.

      refers to Geert Wilders as a “rabble-rouser.”

      Well, there’s no arguing with that.

      Christopher Hitchens

      And that is where you lose the argument.

      The Islamists on one side, and Rushdie, Wilders and the ghost of Christopher Hitchens on the other, deserve each other. The rest of us do not deserve any of them.

      • Daniel Maris

        Three democrats against a Sharia-supporter.

        • David Lindsay

          It is one of the oddities of the British Right, which used to dislike Hitchens if it had ever heard of him, and which used to despise and revile Rushdie as a point of principle, that it has now managed to canonise them both.

          Hitchens defined, as Rushdie exemplifies, the West that you now wish to defend: everything against which you defined yourselves into the present century. It is all very strange.

          • Apaliteno

            How about viewing it this way: the Right loathes Rushdie but considers a death sentence for an irreverent depiction of a paedophile prophet just a little excessive?

            • crosscop

              Exactly – I don’t like Rushdie. But I despise those who wanted to kill him for writing a book.

        • kingkevin3

          Hitchens was a gin soaked popinjay too fond of his own voice, Wilders a right out racist and Rushdie incapable of writing anything that would want you to take up reading high brow literature as a hobby. Bungawala…well at least he has an argument

          • GeeBee36_6

            and of course Hitchens had no arguments to make did he? As for gin-soaked, popinjay, fond of his own voice – guilty as charged. This, of course, by no means precluded him from being an absolutely vital voice in the name of freedom and justice, to say nothing of Lord High Pricker in Chief of redundant, mediaeval lifestyle choices, and debunker of attempts to usher in dark-age culture amidst the precious and rare cultural advancements of the West…

          • crosscop

            Come back when you have any evidence that Wilders is a “right out racist.”

      • crosscop

        If telling the truth about the Islamic colonisation of the West is rabble-rousing – we definitely need more rabble-rousers.

  • richard Orange

    Um, but they’re not Islamic terrorists. Their primary motive is independence from India, not imposing an Islamic caliphate. This isn’t about political correctness, it’s about accuracy. It’s like calling the IRA ‘Catholic terrorists’.

    • The Red Bladder

      Or lumping the IRA together with UDF and describing them as ‘Christian terrorists’?

      • john p reid

        We know they’re christians, they thought they were having a war, and if there’s two side in a war, then maybe catholic Christian terrorists, might have been o.k

      • global city

        took you a while to think up that gem, hey?

    • Mr Grumpy

      Um, Mr Bunglawala rather lets the cat out of the bag by saying that Kashmir “should have become part of Pakistan”. Naturally the only reason he offers for this is, um, religion. India has a huge Muslim population but that’s not good enough for Inayat. Muslims must live under Muslim rule.

      • Bonkim

        and the world populated by Muslims when all others are eliminated.

    • Mr Grumpy

      Oh yes, and may a Catholic inquire what’s wrong with calling the IRA “Catholic terrorists”? We all know that the conflict in NI is a sectarian one. It’s not the job of the BBC to prettify that reality.

      • richard Orange

        I think the clue’s in the “Irish Republican” bit of Irish Republican Army. But if you genuinely think that ‘Catholic terrorists’ is OK news shorthand for the IRA, then I suppose that if we accept that Kashmiri separatists are a) terrorists b) Muslims then ‘Islamic terrorists’ is OK.

        • Mr Grumpy

          Got it in one! I’m not saying “republican” is incorrect (though would it really make much difference to the IRA’s agenda if the Irish Republic was a monarchy or come to that if the UK was a republic?). But they have no entitlement to be described by their own label of choice.

          • rodliddle

            So “um” Richard, you’ve missed the al Qaeda links to the brave Kashmiri freedom fighters, huh?

            • johnslattery

              What should be ditched is the word ‘terrorist,’ in nearly all contexts. It is almost meaningless, and little more than an insult, a signal that ‘these are nasty people we do not approve of.’ What our lazy, biased media call ‘terrorists’ are usually rebels, militants (violent political activists), freedom fighters, or lone wolf nutters, this latter the one group to whom the word terrorist does arguably apply, as sowing terror is often their goal. All the others are pursuing (reasonable or unreasonable) political or religious goals using violence. Like states do with armies.

              • roger

                I’ve always liked the term ‘murder gang’ , has no political tint and sums up their low status within humanity. It was well used in Palestine in the 1940s, we could still apply it to Mossad today.

              • allymax bruce

                John, I’m just sick & tired of all of the ‘religious’ Imposition; full stop.

              • Kennybhoy

                Complete and utter caca!

              • global city

                Dumb fuck. A terrorist is one (or group) who deliberately sets out to terrorise civilians, in order to spread terror.. hence terrorist. If your ‘freedom fighter’ attacks a school or shopping mall, a church, etc, then they are terrorists, indulging in terrorism. If this is their primary or exclusive tactical MO then they are terrorists and nothing else.

                Some people are just so feckin stupid!

                • Daniel Maris

                  I agree – terrorism is capable of being defined. Terrorism involves deliberate targetting of civilians, to spread fear which then is used as a political weapon, to achieve political goals. The IRA were terrorists. So are Al Queda. The RAF bomber crews in WW2 were arguably terrorists when engaged in “dehousing” – a noble purpose does not absolve one of moral responsibility for targetting . I believe the Kashmiri terrorists do target civilians as well as military personnel.

                • global city

                  Yes, many people, even during the war labelled those raids as ‘terror raids’

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Those “many people” would be Hitler’s propagandists and the machinery of his regime.

                • global city

                  No, many within the British war machine used the term to differentiate between them and the specific targetting of infrastructure.

        • Bonkim

          The common theme in Kashmir and Pakistan is Islam not Kashmiri freedom – which they have – how deluded you are, have no clue about Islamic nationalism whose main aim is to have a World populated wholly by Muslims and where Shariya rules.

        • Jambo25

          Various terrorist groups were referred to as Catholic or Protestant paramilitaries during the N. Irish war.

      • Daniel Maris

        It was unnecessary flattering of the Provos to pretend they were somehow non-sectarian republicans in the Wolfe Tone tradition. They were almost exclusively embedded in the Catholic culture of Northern Ireland. In their pomp they were not prepared to make any concessions to Protestant cultural traditions.

        Let’s not forget: not a single IRA terrorist, no matter how gross their crimes, was ever excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

        I think in this sort of situation it’s up to individual journalist to choose their words. It would depend more on context I think.

    • Bonkim

      The terrorists infiltrating into Kashmir are not fighting for Kashmiri independence – supported by the regular Pakistan Army, and the Pakistan Taliban has the ultimate aim for converting Pakistan which includes Kashmir within a Taliban dominated Shariya State. Hence they are Islamic terrorists.

    • sarahsmith232

      a terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what’s behind it. they’re fighting for an independent Islamic state, thus are – Islamic terroritsts.

  • Verk

    Raped, tortured, massacred non-muslims = no problem.
    Offended bearded paedo-loving bum-raiser = tragedy.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here