As even Guardian disowns it, British PM Cameron now isolated Leftist extremist on "not Islam" narrative over terrorism

The Guardian has applauded the BBC for rejecting isolated Left-extremist narrative from Prime Minister Cameron that we shouldn't call Islamic State, er, "Islamic State" because it might offend Muslims. Cameron isn't the brightest star in the sky. His advisors are Left-leaning imbeciles

by Westminster shrink on 2 July 2015 12:46

As a psychiatrist, specialising in British politics, it is my duty to point things out when they offend the manner in which a normal human mind would process reality.

After David Cameron's constant remarks that devout Muslims who follow the Koran to the letter, even if that means killing people, aren't really Muslims, I was already primed to get a bit psychotic myself.

Little could I have imagined that it would be the Guardian and the BBC that had decided that this superficial, imbecile of a Conservative Prime Minister would be judged far too Left-wing even for them.

Here's the Guardian's long-standing, Lefty media critic, Roy Greenslade:

"The BBC was right to reject demands from MPs that it should stop referring to the Middle East terrorist group as “Islamic State”.

"As I wrote in my London Evening Standard column yesterday, that demand - plus an ill-advised outburst on radio by the prime minister, David Cameron - played into the terrorists’ hands."

Thanks Roy. When you copy your ideas and writings from The Commentator -- don't worry, The Spectator and the Telegraph do it all the time -- it's polite to say so, and cite us. But carry on, this is too much fun:

"Some 120 MPs signed up to a letter to the BBC’s director general, Tony Hall, which urged the corporation to adopt the term “Daesh” (an Arabic acronym that is used by Islamic State’s opponents).

"Cameron claimed that the term “Islamic State” annoyed Muslims in Britain because the group was neither Islamic nor a state. The moment he made that specious remark on Radio 4’s Today programme I shook my head.

"Did he seriously think that anyone was fooled by that description? Did he really believe that its use amounted to some kind of propaganda coup? If so, in what way?"

I could get into trashing the Guardian at this stage. Greenslade doesn't really get it. But, still.

The fact that a newspaper that backed the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and which has consistently played fast and loose with terrorist narratives, can't stomach a 2015 narrative that only extremists on the far Left would agree with tells you all you need to know about modern Britain.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus