ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

dowie · 6 Dec 2015 at 10:26

asim18 said:
Islam isn't the root cause of anything You can test it actually, go read the Quran and lets see if you suddenly want to start murdering people.

that test isn't very well thought out - it doesn't matter how much violence there is in the Quran if you don't believe in Allah or that Mohammed was his messenger... it is just a story. Also if you believe in some interpretation that excuses the violent bits or says they're no longer applicable or only applied in some limited circumstances etc.. then you can also easily negate them. Fact is there is plenty of violence in the Quran.

People blame Islam because that's what you're instructed to blame and a psycho is instructed to kill people in the name of Islam well because that's what he's instructed.

this is a common misconception - plenty of terrorists aren't psychos and quite a few are well educated - for example the recent US shootings were carried out by a professional muslim couple. Dismissing them all as psychos is quite common for people who want to deny that ideology has anything to do with it. Fact is it is ideology that is responsible for a lot of it and in the case of Islamic terrorist it is Islam that is the root cause of it. That isn't to say that all muslims interpret things the same way, but denying that Islamic terrorism is linked to Islam is pretty silly.

dowie · 6 Dec 2015 at 10:29

Blackjack Davy said:
Aye, but they have 24hr police protection. At least those deemed at risk.

nope, you're being a bit naive there - the PM and a few senior cabinet ministers do, MPs don't... there were several hundred voting for bombing in Syria and they're still members of the public just like anyone else... in fact they're at higher risk as their views are made public and their home addresses are easily accesible

or you can just turn up at their surgery - MP stabbed over vote re: Iraq:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11682732

do_ron_ron · 6 Dec 2015 at 11:00

Werewolf said:
IIRC the official BBC editorial guidelines basically say they need
X number of independent sources.
Y Number of independent sources that are known reliable.
Z A definitive source.

So they probably won't respond to twitter etc as a breaking news, unless it's an official feed, or they can verify that something is going on in which case they'll likely couch it terms that make sure people know they're uncertain exactly what is happening (it saves on having to do a retraction when it turns out the witness is going on hearsay and was two streets over at the time, or when it turns out the picture is an old one from a previous incident).

They won't report based on what say Sky or the Mirror say unless they know both are getting information from different sources.

They will report very quickly from a single report from say an official Police (or other emergency service) source.

I believe the BBC is meant to place far more importance on getting it right first time, than getting it out first in most cases.

Having watched the BBC when the UK is getting involved in troubles abroad they always follow the Govt. line. I used to think the BBC was unbiased until satellite TV came along and I could get the same news from different sources (French etc.) Now I realise it is just Govt. propaganda in these situations. It also does make me wonder about the accuracy of other BBC news.

Buddy · 6 Dec 2015 at 11:26

do_ron_ron said:
Having watched the BBC when the UK is getting involved in troubles abroad they always follow the Govt. line. I used to think the BBC was unbiased until satellite TV came along and I could get the same news from different sources (French etc.) Now I realise it is just Govt. propaganda in these situations. It also does make me wonder about the accuracy of other BBC news.

Every news source has its own bias. Even satellite TV as a whole picks and chooses which news channels to show - e.g. press tv was removed in 2013.

It's sometimes difficult to work out exactly what's going on especially in events abroad. One tries to get information from opposing sources and make an educated opinion. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.

Danthus · 6 Dec 2015 at 11:37

The BBC ran a report yesterday from RAF Akrotiri and sensibly disguised the faces of the service personnel.

Werewolf · 6 Dec 2015 at 12:02

Buddy said:
Every news source has its own bias. Even satellite TV as a whole picks and chooses which news channels to show - e.g. press tv was removed in 2013.

It's sometimes difficult to work out exactly what's going on especially in events abroad. One tries to get information from opposing sources and make an educated opinion. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.

Press.tv was removed because it broke several of the most serious of the rules for broadcasting in the UK, repeatedly (even then it had the choice to either abide by the broadcast licencing regulations in the UK or not - I don't think they even responded to the regulator).

IIRC for example it showed what were obviously forced/coerced confessions etc.

Buddy · 6 Dec 2015 at 12:58

Werewolf said:
Press.tv was removed because it broke several of the most serious of the rules for broadcasting in the UK, repeatedly (even then it had the choice to either abide by the broadcast licencing regulations in the UK or not - I don't think they even responded to the regulator).

IIRC for example it showed what were obviously forced/coerced confessions etc.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jan/20/iran-press-tv-loses-uk-licence

Well it wasn't the main reason. That was one event. One could probably find fault in some of the questionable approaches of current broadcasting cooperations. Anyway that's an entirely other debate.

WikiLeaks cables say London and Washington have explored ways to limit the operations of Press TV in the UK

Skunkworks · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:19

Caged said:
Where would you prefer it featured? Is reporting it like this preferable - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rothers-jumping-lorry-Keele-services-M6.html?

The BBC reported the story ok, but I'm of the opinion that during a time when migrants and terrorists are topical, to put such a story in the local section of the site stinks of downplaying the negative side of the migration situation.

Caged said:
I don't choose news outlets because I want to be reassured that my own prejudices are totally fine to hold, I generally look for facts. When the BBC stop being factual then I'll stop using it.

Aaaaand out come the cards.

asim18 · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:27

dowie said:
Fact is there is plenty of violence in the Quran.

So? There's plenty of violence in Disney movies for kids. In fact they ban peace adverts before a film and replace it with adverts for substances which cause anger and violence. It's apparent you have no idea what's happening do you?

asim18 · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:29

dowie said:
this is a common misconception - plenty of terrorists aren't psychos and quite a few are well educated - for example the recent US shootings were carried out by a professional muslim couple.

Again you have abolutely no idea about anything.

You assume as long as you're a "couple" and a "professional" you cannot hold psychopathic tendencies? hahahaha

I know a psychopath with a PhD lmao. You don't have a clue what psychopathy is mate, but I'll tell you that being "clever" is actually a common trait of psychopathy.

Caged · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:29

Skunkworks said:
The BBC reported the story ok, but I'm of the opinion that during a time when migrants and terrorists are topical, to put such a story in the local section of the site stinks of downplaying the negative side of the migration situation.

You say not putting it front-and-centre is downplaying it, I say elevating a relatively minor incident to a hyperbole-filled headline (not forgetting that one of the sub-headings in the Mail's take said that two people had been shot, which was untrue) would be hyping it up unnecessarily. Two different opinions, neither one right or wrong.

Skunkworks said:
Aaaaand out come the cards.

Mynight · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:31

There's a good chance a few people on this board are physcopaths. Chances are everyone knows someone who falls into the band even if they don't realise it.

Physcopath doesn't equal murderer.

dowie · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:33

asim18 said:
So? There's plenty of violence in Disney movies for kids. In fact in this country they stop peace adverts before a film and replace it with adverts for substances which cause anger and violence. You really have no idea what's happening do you?

you realise there is a big difference between a disney movie, which is seen by all as fiction and a book which is seen by some as god's word

I'm not aware of any acts of violence where the perpetrators have cited Disney movies, I'm aware of plenty where the perpetrators have cited Islam

perhaps you can provide an example to back up your point?

asim18 said:
Again you have abolutely no idea about anything.

You assume as long as you're a "couple" and a "professional" you cannot hold psychopathic tendencies? hahahaha

I know a psychopath with a PhD lmao. You don't have a clue what psychopathy is mate, but I'll tell you that being "clever" is actually a common trait of psychopathy.

you don't seem to have a clue about Islamic terrorists - dismissing them all as psychos is just sticking your head in the sand - fact is they're generally not psychos they're people with strongly held beliefs

if you think the US couple suffered from mental illness then cite some evidence... otherwise your protests about that are meaningless

asim18 · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:38

dowie said:
you realise there is a big difference between a disney movie, which is seen by all as fiction and a book which is seen by some as god's word

you don't seem to have a clue about Islamic terrorists - dismissing them all as psychos is just sticking your head in the sand - fact is they're generally not psychos they're people with strongly held beliefs

if you think the US couple suffered from mental illness then cite some evidence... otherwise your protests about that are menaingless

I'm not dismissing or protesting about anything.

But youve said people cant be psycho if they're "professionals" and "educated" and now you've just said people aren't psychos as long as they have a "strongly held belief"? What's going on mate?

dowie · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:39

asim18 said:
But now you've just said people aren't psychos as long as they have a strongly held belief? What's going on mate?

no I haven't said that

perhaps quote the sentence you're struggling to read properly and I'll try to help

asim18 · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:43

dowie said:
That isn't to say that all muslims interpret things the same way, but denying that Islamic terrorism is linked to Islam is pretty silly.

I didn't say Islamic terrorism isn't linked to islam. I said Islam isn't the root cause of terrorism.

asim18 · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:44

dowie said:
no I haven't said that

perhaps quote the sentence you're struggling to read properly and I'll try to help

they're generally not psychos they're people with strongly held beliefs

But the initial "belief" is obviously incorrect and based upon nonsense in the first place, doesn't matter how strongly a psycho believes something. The inability to hold correct beliefs can be a sign of psychopathy whether it's induced by external stimuli or not.

TheVoice · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:46

scorza said:
There's gotta be a discussion about letting vetted individuals carry firearms in public now.

There might well be e.g. on Facebook or Twitter or forums like this, but it's certainly not going to be taken seriously by anyone rational.

dowie · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:48

yes they're generally not psychos

do you understand why my statement

they're generally not psychos they're people with strongly held beliefs

isn't the same as

said people aren't psychos as long as they have a strongly held belief

I think part of the issue here is basic reading comprehension, I'm not negating the possibility that someone with strongly held beliefs can also be a 'psycho' I'm just pointing out that Islamists generally aren't psychos, it is their ideology/strongly held beliefs that are the root cause

asim18 · 6 Dec 2015 at 13:51

dowie said:
yes they're generally not psychos

do you understand why my statement

isn't the same as

I think part of the issue here is basic reading comprehension, I'm not negating the possibility that someone with strongly held beliefs can also be a 'psycho' I'm just pointing out that Islamists generally aren't psychos, it is their ideology/strongly held beliefs that are the root cause

Well no because that assumes the initial "belief" is correct/right. In actual fact the belief is polluted and wrong from the onset. The root idea of religion is not based on anything logical whatsoever and if they're willing to kill themselves in the name of something which is actually 100% fallacious, but the fact that in their head it is correct, means that they're pretty psycho.