Skip to main content

BBC Crowd Applauds Muslim Woman 'Depressed' by Osama Killing, Boos 'Elated' Man

Tim Graham's picture

In Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, Andrew Roberts, who just finished analyzing the Royal Wedding for NBC, penned a piece titled “Britain Goes Wobbly on Terror.” In it, he lamented how much British TV pundits despised American cheering for Osama bin Laden’s death:

By total contrast, when Douglas Murray, the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, told the BBC’s flagship program Question Time last Thursday that he felt “elated” at the news, he was booed, heckled, and almost shouted down.

Another panelist, the writer Yasmin Alibhai Brown, was applauded when she said she was “depressed” by the killing, as it “demeans a democracy and a president who has shown himself to be the Ugly American. He’s degraded American democracy, which had already degraded itself with torture and rendition.”

The former Liberal Party leader Paddy Ashdown was then cheered when he said: “I cannot rejoice on the killing of any man. I belong to a country that is founded on the principle of exercise of due process of law,” as though the United States was founded on some other idea.

The Biased BBC blog offered a similar analysis:

A remarkable example of BBC bias, or incompetence, call it what you like, came following Douglas's explanation that the West didn't need to "be seen" to use due process of law to deal with Osama Bin Laden in order to show that we are "better than them", because the West patently shows that this is the case the whole time. (Merely by being libertarian, democratic, and free as opposed to Islamic, oppressive and barbaric).

Paddy Ashdown, however, deliberately or through stupidity, totally misrepresented this by repeating indignantly, despite Douglas's protestations, that Douglas had merely said we don't have to show that we're better than Al Qaeda. (Cut to shot of Alibhai Brown's bizarre, exaggerated clapping.)

Meanwhile, [host] David Dimbleby who was filing his nails or tweeting, or not paying attention for reasons of his own, sat back and allowed this slanderous disingenuous drivel to continue unchallenged. (I'm fairly sure a shot of this was edited out of iPlayer.) But whether he couldn't see, or wouldn't see what what Paddy was getting away with, it was appalling chairpersonship.

Murray offered more details of British disdain for the Osama mission:

The Archbishop of Canterbury. Rowan Williams, told reporters: “I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done.” Writer Henry Porter whined about “vital moral issues” in The Guardian. Add to that lawyers Geoffrey Robertson in The Daily Beast and Michael Mansfield in The Guardian defending bin Laden’s human rights, and a commentator on the radio station LBC saying that no one should celebrate the death because “we live in a multicultural society,” and you can see how utterly degenerate modern Britain has become when it comes to prosecuting the war against terror.

Murray wasn’t so shocked to hear this from pundits, but also found “pusillanimity” among ordinary people:

There was the lady at a cocktail party who told me “It’s those gun-toting Yanks at it again.” There was my son’s classics teacher informing his young charges that he thought bin Laden deserved the “dignity” of a fair trial. And there was the letter about the U.S. celebrations to the conservative-leaning Daily Telegraph stating that terrorist cells “will be further fuelled by those inappropriate reactions by people who should have known better.” How? How, Ms. Tess Hyland of Bathurst, could al Qaeda possibly hate us more than they do already?

To the man who told me he didn’t believe bin Laden was buried at sea “according to Muslim rites,” I repeat that Mussolini was hung upside down on a meathook and then urinated upon. And as for those people who genuinely thought the United Nations and Pakistan should have been informed of the raid beforehand, Lord, give me strength!

Roberts concluded that all his pride over the Royal Wedding has faded: “Today all I feel is shame at my country’s pathetic reaction to your own great day of joy.”


#1 "Did you plug the terrorist yet, Daddy?"

"Yes i did. Yee ha!"

#2 British arrogance.

The Brits aren't the people who should be chastising us regarding torture. Secondly, I can't help but wonder how the families of the bombings feel about this. Lastly, if it wasn't for those gun toting Americans they'd all be speaking German.

Stick to the coverage of the Royal Wedding.

Proud member of the 53%!

#3 British and torture

Perhaps someone should ask the sensitive British souls about some of the torture technics they learned and used in HongKong and various other spots around the globe.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid

#4 Hey UK. WW1, WW2 . . . you're &%$#@! welcome!

Now that's gratitude. /sarc off

#5 They are so on their way to becoming the United Kingdomistan...'s ridiculous.

And what concerns me is I am seeing these types of attitudes expressed more and more by people on this side of the pond as well. 

Western Society is in deep trouble if it fails to understand the ultimate goal of the Islamic horde.

And if America had had a similar attitute towards the Germans when they threatened the UK twice in the last century, most Brits, like their French friends across the Channel, would be driving around today in Volkswagens and eating wiener schnitzel on a stick.


Vote for the American in November

#6 The Archbishop versus the Blue Teals six

The Archbishop of Canterbury. Rowan Williams, told reporters: “I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done.”

Navy Seals or Navy frogmen or blue tailed Teals whatever they're called need to be restrained not encouraged to behave like Japanese Ninja warriors.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is correct and maybe that's why Obama did it: to incite more hatred against America and to invite another attack so that BO can bring us martial law? Hard to believe or too difficult to think outside the box?

The Green Frogmen or Blue Seals, whatever, take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Tealers or Blue heelers Six or Seven come 11 somehow don't strike me as the kind that sit around discussing the Constitution. They just take orders and carry them out even if the orders are totally unconstitutional and outside the bounds of common decency and international codes of justice as the Archbishop suggests

Most signees to this blog consider the present POTUS as toally unsuited to be president. But let the man loose on a former CIA asset (OBL) and they make BO look and sound like he's the greatest thing since FDR.

It's interesting that both FDR and W. Bush allowed thousands of people to suffer death by sneak attacks that history has shown in the case of Pearl was known to FDR. Roosevelt didn't warn sleeping sailors on Sunday morning they would get it in their sleep.

This guy sounds liberally but he does have a point:

#7 Irgon

We were at war with Bin Laden. He was killed by soldiers during a military conflict.

How did Bush allow thousands of people to suffer death due to a sneak attack?

Proud member of the 53%!

#8 at war with a tactic

Congress has yet to declare that war.

Bush used UN's resolutions and ignored the US Constitution.

The war is against the Constitution not against some CIA former asset whose usefulness as a live bogeyman was used up. His death has roused up the anger of the muslims. You think the POTUS didn't know that would occur?

Back to Bush
He must of had plenty of waring signs about the al-Qaeda terror network operating in the US. I won't excuse Clinton. Warning signs to the first WTC attack should have tipped our intelligence agencies off. The field agents knew so why didn't Clinton and Bush know?

al-Qaeda cells under the leadersip of the blind shiek bombed the WTC basement in the 90's . If I were advising the POTUS I would advice him to heed the early warning signs and put all intell agents, border guards, local police, customs, Pentagon on high alert of an imminent strike wouldn't you?

*Those hijackers were in the US with legally issued government VISAs.
*FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota tracked these killers and were not permitted to arrest the murderers.
* Agents knew their names. For months they tailed them at bars, and flight training schools. This was during the first Bush term. Clinton had the Cole, WTC and OKC to warn his ass of pending attacks but he chose to sit and wait.

Bush should have had his team step up their tracking of suspects and arrest them and deported them to Yemen, Saudi Arabia where they came from. Did any come fromIraq?

Ben Laden, during the Russians' occupation of Afghanistan was our ally. The US funded and helped him and the mujahadeen with stingers to bring down the Russian helicopters. The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan morphed into the Taliban and the Taliban have a cozy relationship with Iraq and with Iran.

So who in hell are you supposing we are at war with? The Hamas controlled region of the PNA, (Palestian National Authority ) received foreign aid money from Bush and now Obama wants to fund the terrorists of the PNA who have ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda!

How can you aid them and then fight them at the same time?

It does not require sending in thousands of US troops to get a handful of terrorists.

We had a moral obligation to go after Bin Laden. But use your head man you don't use a canon or a shot gun to bring down a mosquito in a china shop.

The whole entire world was on our side after 9-11 but we attacked Iraq where Bin Laden did not originate from. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11 yet Bush sent our army and airforce to blow up thousands of innocent women and children along with their homes, busnessess and infrastructure.

Our WWII sailers on the USS Arizona were asleep when the rising sun planes came armed with torpedoes and killed them. That still angers me that a president would do that just to go after a man in Europe whose own people would have assassinated!

The secret of Pearl Harbor was that a US president knowingly allowed that to happen. Let that sink in and then ask yourself around 3 AM when you can't sleep why the best intelligence agencies on the planet did not have the hijackers in their sights? Were they not permitted to arrest them? According to one agent the answer is yes. Two others are under a gag order not to talk about it. Those are the ones who knew the names of two of the hijackers in the Phoenix region. They wanted to arrest them and confiscate their lap tops but upper management said no.

#9 lrgon

And after this epic-length post that attempts to dazzle us with your history lesson of WWII and Pearl Harbor, Rad79's question remains unanswered:

How did Bush allow thousands of people to suffer death due to a sneak attack?


- Shy Vinyl

#10 Irgon

No one asked (or cares) about your opinion on FDR and Pearl Harbor. But you felt that would bolster your other arguments? Don't think so.

This comment: Back to Bush He must of had plenty of waring signs about the al-Qaeda terror network operating in the US.  Is far from proof, it's pure conjecture.

What isn't conjecture is Bin Laden's repeated threats and actual terrorist acts against the U.S. 

Bin Laden declared war on the U.S.  That's good enough for me.

Proud member of the 53%!

#11 Insufferably arrogant post

You'd be fast enough to cower in a corner if you ever said such tripe to one of these men's face.

Quite the armchair keyboard warrior, Irgon. Congrats.

#12 “There was my son’s classics

“There was my son’s classics teacher informing his young charges that he thought bin Laden deserved the “dignity” of a fair trial.”

It’s KSM all over again. “We have to give him a fair trial, then we’ll find him guilty and kill him” But if you’ve already decided he’s guilty how is that a fair trial? Isn’t that a show trial? What if the judge throws the case out for lack of evidence? What if he’s freed on a technicality? “Please, I’m trying to bask in the glow of smug self satisfaction.”

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.

#13 totally lacking in facts post

Blonde who are you to say what men's reactions to the truth will be?

The truth is the truth and as far as I know God -given rights are still written in plain English in the US Constitution. God granted all people the right to free speech; to speak their mind.

Those truly wishing to suppoirt this land called America and support the men in uniform should call rtheir congressman and demand he work to bring our troops home to guard our own borders not those of Iraq and Afghanistan.

None is so blind as he who will not see.So take your bllinders off and be a real American and quit hiding behind false bravado and cliches.

#14 Really guy?

None is so blind as he who will not see.So take your bllinders off and be a real American and quit hiding behind false bravado and cliches.

As stupid as your Mike Church talking points are, this really takes the cake.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#15 taking the cake from Obama

After this staged event in Pakistan and no corpse of the al-Qaeda leader it's you, my gullible friend, who has taken the line or is that the cake?

The cake is all over your face so much so that you are blinded by it like some clown smacked in the face with one at a carnaval show.

The razzle dazze display of the O. Bin Laden story put on by the LIBERAL NEWS MEDIA" has served them well. You fell for it hook* line* and sinker. and now you're choking trying to debate facts with jibberishness.

Why is Obama suddenly your hero?
Hasn't his lies done enough damage to the Constitution already; that he has to missue US troops in the manner that a emperor would to satisfy your appetite for lies?

#16 Oh, I see now. Your a seminal Conservative

And a delusional one at that.

BTW your a sorry a$$ed mind reader also

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#17 Irgon, You seem to have

You seem to have forgotten that clinton could have had osama but that little fact doesn't fit your KOS narrative now does it? Where are the pictures of these "thousands" of innocent victims? Filed away with the pictures of the " thousands" of babies myself and my fellow veterans supposedly killed in Vietnam?
You really need to learn the proper way to cut and past.

Non, je ne regrette rien. "You aren't angry because I might be a racist, you're angry because you know I'm right".

#18 Clinton and OBL

I read about Osama Bin Laden in a magazine when Clinton was in office. The publishers of The New American exposed OBL on their front cover in an issue titled" "Is this the face of terror?" Oct. 12, 1998
A follow-up article was done on Bin Laden long before Bush came to office.

The facts of terrorism and who are the terrorists' state sponsors was brought out in that issue.

The ignorance and inaction of not only Clinton and his advisers plus congress's ignorance and inaction led to events like the USS Cole, the first bombing of the World trade Center, OKC and other terror strikes.

The warnings of terrorist strikes coming to the US go back to the seventies. It was during the heyday of the Weather Underground and other leftwing communist outfits that were making headlines but again very few people were listening.

What was congress' response?

For years before Congress had investigated and led to the exposure of communst fronts operating in America. In the late 60's & 70's despite the emergence of terror organizations in the USA congress shut down all committees investigating internal subversion. Why?

The efforts of the FBI were greatly curtailed by attorney general Edward Levi who served under Ford
Levi was a radical lawyer memeber of either the ACLU or the National Lawyer Guild.

J.Edgar Hoover knew about the NLG and labeled it a legal bulwark of the communist party.

#19 Brits should stop sermonizing..

One word: Ireland!!!!

#20 First thing I should tell our

First thing I should tell our American cousins is that the BBC have been loony left wing for over 20 years and are currently waging a war on our current coalition government. Secondly the radio and TV program Question Time is the flagship program for the BBC left wing with a champagne socialist Chairman who busses audience participants in to promote loony left and Labour Party interests. How can this happen with a public sector media funded by the taxpayer? The last Labour Government fully encouraged this practice by placing one of their own in charge, and the current Coalition government seem not to have the balls to take them on.

Colin Holland

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.