I don’t see what the outrage is about.

By jimrob | September 13, 2007

Stop the ACLU has more info on the BBC Kid’s 9/11 Explanation, which I wrote about earlier.

In short she said that the majority of people clicked through Drudge to an older version and provides a Drudge Archive. As reported earlier, she said she took that page down (we will come back to this). Down a few paragraphs in her piece she says that she later realized that many blogs were actually complaining about the newer version…which you can find here. She wants it to be known that her apology did not apply to the newer version and that BBC stands by it.

Problem #1: The Drudge Archive she links to links to the exact same web address as what she claims is the newer version. A Blog called Biased BBC has the entire transformation history captured from google caches.

Even more curiously, having retrieved the original guide on 11SEP2007, watched it disappear on 12SEP2007 (page not found) to reappear as a sanitised single page version, it now seems today that the 11SEP2007 guide version is back online (compare with versions retrieved from Google’s cache at Biased BBC) - or is it still not fully purged from your systems (even though the timestamps have been updated to say 12SEP2007)?

What gives?

This leads us to problem #2: No matter which link that she provides…if you follow it, it now has the page that was removed yesterday. The same page that Drudge linked to and we all complained about. The quote below:

The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.

In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war - called a jihad - against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.

When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.

Sinead ends her editorial saying that the “old version” will not return but they stand by the new version. Well…either the old version returned or the BBC is standing by the “new version” we all complained about. I think Sinead needs a few more complaining emails to get the picture.

The following text is from a comment I left on the article:

I don’t see what the uproar about this is.

The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.

Is that not the truth? We have military bases in the middle east. Some people over there don’t like it, so they formed a militia group to attack us.

Is the outrage because she used the words “widely thought” instead of just saying that they did it?

In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war - called a jihad - against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.

Is this not also the truth? This group of third-century cave-dwellers have declared a holy war on America. Part of this holy war includes (duh) attacking American interests.

When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.

What isn’t truthful about that? Bin Laden has said he doesn’t want our troops in Saudi Arabia. That doesn’t mean we should yank them out based upon his opinion, it’s just stating fact.

I am a very conservative individual, but I fail to see what all the outrage is over. Is it because this article didn’t contain the standard hyped-up drum-beating rhetoric that most American-written causes of 9/11 contain?

I originally had also written the following, but decided to only post it here. Would this had been more acceptable to those who are oddly perturbed by the BBC 9/11 article?

“America’s heroic efforts to free the enslaved Muslim peoples of the middle east has angered some. One man, accused of molesting his children and hating baby Jesus, gathered together a group of people he met while serving time for raping an elderly woman and attacked the U.S. of A.

These anti-Christian individuals have declared a holy war on God’s new Israel, America. As part of this war, these evil people have decided to attack the innocent Christian peoples of America.

When these dirty non-Christians attacked us innocent Americans on that holy day of September 11, 2001 (pause for 3000-ish bell rings), we had troops in Saudi Arabia to protect these violent people from themselves. Osama Bin Laden didn’t like this, becase we were between him and the field of goats he liked to have sex with.”

The article gives a simple summarization of what caused 9/11 for children who wanted to know what happened that day. I really don’t see what the big deal is. Maybe if there was a bald eagle, an animated .gif of a waving American flag, a few crudely-drawn bitmaps of shining crosses, and a midi file of The Star Spangled Banner, Dale Earnhardt and co. wouldn’t be complaining.

Topics: Praise Allah, Kill Someone! |

One Response to “I don’t see what the outrage is about.”

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.