Islamic State

Damn the BBC and their facts to hell. Right?

Drumstick wrote:Damn the BBC and their facts to hell. Right?

Facts are only facts if Cal agrees with them.

Moggy wrote:

When I say the BBC has taken fully 24-hours to finally arrive at a truthful headline about the Lahore suicide bombing

Ahh so you are angry that the BBC waited for all of the facts to be in and didn't just put up a headline that you approved of instantly?

That's what it boils down to - and predictable silence from the other side.

Cal: some of the responses, some of the time (but only when it's convenient for him).

Poncho wrote:

Moggy wrote:

When I say the BBC has taken fully 24-hours to finally arrive at a truthful headline about the Lahore suicide bombing

Ahh so you are angry that the BBC waited for all of the facts to be in and didn't just put up a headline that you approved of instantly?

That's what it boils down to - and predictable silence from the other side.

Cal: some of the responses, some of the time (but only when it's convenient for him).

Didn't I just show - with evidence - that BBC clearly doesn't wait for all the facts to come in, or was that retraction/correction in the Brussels protest piece something I imagined?

The BBC only waits (and waits, and waits) when they know exactly what the story is but just can't bring themselves to report it fully for fear of having to mention the dreaded 'I-word' or 'M-word', but if there are a few white, balaclava-wearing protesters in a Brussels square holding up an anti-Islamic State banner and having a bit of a shout they rush to press with their knee-jerk reaction and prejudice, instantly branding the protesters (people with a legitimate right to protest, btw) as 'fascists' or worse.

All of which makes me wonder, time and again, where this mythical 'far right backlash' the BBC worries so completely about actually is? Anyone seen it? The only 'far right' activity I can see tends to come from Islamic terrorists and usually involves blowing innocent people up in public spaces. Perhaps the BBC could focus on the real 'far right' threat instead of their imagined one - but I think that might be wishful thinking in these politically correct times.

I assume he disagrees with it as it's a strawberry floating stupid picture. Nobody blames anybody but the terrorists for terrorism. The closest anyone comes is by explaining reasons why terrorism might exist amongst certain groups but that's nothing like apologising for the actions of terrorists and certainly isn't the left blaming themselves.

Edit: Cheers for deleting your post!

I had my moment (It's still what I think of this garbage thread - no offence to the good posters out there)

Moggy wrote:I assume he disagrees with it as it's a strawberry floating stupid picture. Nobody blames anybody but the terrorists for terrorism. The closest anyone comes is by explaining reasons why terrorism might exist amongst certain groups but that's nothing like apologising for the actions of terrorists and certainly isn't the left blaming themselves.

Edit: Cheers for deleting your post!

Twitter is full of apologists who blame the West, Western culture, George Bush, inequality etc etc for terrorism. You should take a look.

Also, remember how politicians trip over themselves to claim that the latest terrorist atrocity is "nothing to do with religion"? Yeah, that.

Some of the propaganda you see one Facebook!

There's a photo of a blood soaked baby one the floor with someone with brown skin pointing a kalashnikov at it with sandals on...

...underneath it says #prayforpalestine

jamcc wrote:

Moggy wrote:I assume he disagrees with it as it's a strawberry floating stupid picture. Nobody blames anybody but the terrorists for terrorism. The closest anyone comes is by explaining reasons why terrorism might exist amongst certain groups but that's nothing like apologising for the actions of terrorists and certainly isn't the left blaming themselves.

Edit: Cheers for deleting your post!

Twitter is full of apologists who blame the West, Western culture, George Bush, inequality etc etc for terrorism. You should take a look.

Also, remember how politicians trip over themselves to claim that the latest terrorist atrocity is "nothing to do with religion"? Yeah, that.

Perhaps there's a difference between perceived apologising for acts of terrorism and merely finding detailed, rational reasoning on how and why these actions have come about beyond "because they're Muslim and that's what they do."

ISIS and al-Qaeda before it did not spring up overnight and have flourished because of a multitude of complex reasons, both modern and historic, both connected to Western intervention and not. What exactly do you want politicians to say in the wake of Islamist terrorist attacks? Do you want them to use the situation to suggest or even confirm there's a general incompatibility between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West, despite a vast vast majority of practicing Muslims living peacefully within this country and around the world?

Cuttooth wrote:

jamcc wrote:

Moggy wrote:I assume he disagrees with it as it's a strawberry floating stupid picture. Nobody blames anybody but the terrorists for terrorism. The closest anyone comes is by explaining reasons why terrorism might exist amongst certain groups but that's nothing like apologising for the actions of terrorists and certainly isn't the left blaming themselves.

Edit: Cheers for deleting your post!

Twitter is full of apologists who blame the West, Western culture, George Bush, inequality etc etc for terrorism. You should take a look.

Also, remember how politicians trip over themselves to claim that the latest terrorist atrocity is "nothing to do with religion"? Yeah, that.

Perhaps there's a difference between perceived apologising for acts of terrorism and merely finding detailed, rational reasoning on how and why these actions have come about beyond "because they're Muslim and that's what they do."

ISIS and al-Qaeda before it did not spring up overnight and have flourished because of a multitude of complex reasons, both modern and historic, both connected to Western intervention and not. What exactly do you want politicians to say in the wake of Islamist terrorist attacks? Do you want them to use the situation to suggest or even confirm there's a general incompatibility between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West, despite a vast vast majority of practicing Muslims living peacefully within this country and around the world?

Have I said "because they're Muslim and that's what they do"? No.

But the Quran and particularly the Hadith have some extremely violent verses which support terrorism and the actions of groups like ISIS. We need to be realistic about that. The Bible is violent too, don't get me wrong, but Christianity has been through the enlightenment - Islam hasn't.

I wonder how many verses there are in the Quran which forbid the taking of life and y'know, other shitty things we see the likes of IS do, and why they're not given credence by terrorists and... others.

Btw, am I correct in assuming Moggy was replying to a deleted post and not the Facebook image?

Saint of Killers wrote:Btw, am I correct in assuming Moggy was replying to a deleted post and not the Facebook image?

I was replying to both, Kezzer had asked if Jamcc was supporting or disagreeing with the Facebook post.

jamcc wrote:Twitter is full of apologists who blame the West, Western culture, George Bush, inequality etc etc for terrorism. You should take a look.

I am not going to search Twitter, if you have something to post then post it, but it is not up to me to help you back your arguments up.

I think you may well be confusing apologists with people who try and explain what happened. It is a fact that the American led intervention in the Middle East has created ISIS, that doesn't mean ISIS should be forgiven or should not be held responsible for their actions.

As an example, compare it to the rise of Nazi Germany. Hitler didn't rise to power because everything was lovely and great. There were a number of factors that led to the conditions where having an evil banana split in charge seemed like a solution to the German people. Explaining those factors does not mean you are apologising for Hitler, it just means that you are explaining it and hopefully means that people learn from it and don't repeat the same mistakes.

Also, remember how politicians trip over themselves to claim that the latest terrorist atrocity is "nothing to do with religion"? Yeah, that.

Yeah that what? What would you rather see politicians do?

You have to remember that there are over a billion followers of Islam in the world. ISIS represent a microscopic number of them. It makes perfect sense for the leaders of Western countries to make clear that an ISIS attrocity has nothing to do with 99.99999% (made up figure but is probably pretty close) of Muslims.

The alternative is for Obama or Cameron to endorse the idea that ISIS represent Islam as a whole. Which is a terrible idea, first you would be playing into the hands of ISIS (they would love nothing more than a full relgious war), second you would opening up idiotic reprisals against innocent Muslims, third it would be giving ISIS a kind of legitimacy and fourth you would be pissing off every Muslim nation out there.

Nobody doubts that ISIS call themselves Muslims or that they follow a twisted version of it, but they do not represent Islam as a whole which is why people will say that they are not true Muslims or that they have nothing to do with the (vast!) majority of Muslims.

jamcc wrote:Have I said "because they're Muslim and that's what they do"? No.

But the Quran and particularly the Hadith have some extremely violent verses which support terrorism and the actions of groups like ISIS. We need to be realistic about that. The Bible is violent too, don't get me wrong, but Christianity has been through the enlightenment - Islam hasn't.

No doubt there are violent passages in the Quran (as well as ones decrying violence), but I'm not sure what it is you actually want to happen?

Cuttooth wrote:

jamcc wrote:Have I said "because they're Muslim and that's what they do"? No.

But the Quran and particularly the Hadith have some extremely violent verses which support terrorism and the actions of groups like ISIS. We need to be realistic about that. The Bible is violent too, don't get me wrong, but Christianity has been through the enlightenment - Islam hasn't.

No doubt there are violent passages in the Quran (as well as ones decrying violence), but I'm not sure what it is you actually want to happen?

Domestically we need to be able to criticise the Quran and Islam with the same intensity we would the Bible and Christianity. That isn't possible in the UK at the moment without massively inflaming tensions further. For example, look at how very, very few print newspapers reprinted the Charlie Hebdo cover after the attack last year.

What form of critique would you be interested in hearing more of? There are plenty of people around in the UK who point out that every religion - and indeed the entire idea of religion - is kind of silly. But when all religions are more-or-less equally silly (and they are) it starts to smell a little of racism if you single out Islam.

I've watched a lot of those 'religion vs. science' public debates and I've seen plenty of atheists debating Muslims who are arguing from an Islamic viewpoint. There are also plenty of Christians they get up there to debate with, and I'm fairly sure I saw a rabbi up there once too. In fact it seems to me that the only religions I don't ever see 'critiqued' in that sense are the Eastern faiths, like Shinto, Buddhism, and Hinduism. They are often accepted by Westerners (who don't know anything about them) as being pure and wholesome when in reality they are just as silly as our religions and their texts contain just as many dodgy passages which could be used to incite violence if read with that skew.

I agree it's regrettable that people get death threats for publishing anti-religion arguments. We hear a lot about these threats coming from Muslims but you have to bear in mind that every religion has fundamentalist dickheads who will try to bully to get their own way. For instance, Stewart Lee received death threats from Christians after his involvement with Jerry Springer: The Opera.

Karl wrote:What form of critique would you be interested in hearing more of? There are plenty of people around in the UK who point out that every religion - and indeed the entire idea of religion - is kind of silly. But when all religions are more-or-less equally silly (and they are) it starts to smell a little of racism if you single out Islam.

Well their general views on homophobia are as repugnant as Christianity and the treatment of women in the faith is appalling.

Western society seems comfortable to debate those issues around Christianity, but Islam seems to be afforded less criticism through fear of offending someone.

captain red dog wrote:

Karl wrote:What form of critique would you be interested in hearing more of? There are plenty of people around in the UK who point out that every religion - and indeed the entire idea of religion - is kind of silly. But when all religions are more-or-less equally silly (and they are) it starts to smell a little of racism if you single out Islam.

Well their general views on homophobia are as repugnant as Christianity and the treatment of women in the faith is appalling.

Western society seems comfortable to debate those issues around Christianity, but Islam seems to be afforded less criticism through fear of offending someone.

Who is too scared to say that Islam is homophobic? I doubt you will find many Western people (outside of Islam) that do not think that the Islamic faith contains a lot of sexism and homophobia.

The reason you will hear more people debating it around Christianity is because Christianity is the dominant religion in the West. Indeed, in the UK it is so dominant that we still have religious figures in one house of our Government! While there are many Muslim homophobes, they have very little say in the laws of the land and as such get an easier ride when we look at things like gay rights.

It's less to do with fear of offending somebody and much more to do with the power of the religion in the country.