Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that the BBC don't need to put up apologists for terrorists

130 replies

AgaPanthers · 26/02/2015 23:13

'Jihadi John', face of the violent murder of various aid worker, has been named as Mohammed Emwazi.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31637090

The BBC unquestioningly quote an 'Asim Qureshi' saying that he's a lovely guy, and before he was "harassed" by MI5, starting around 2009, when he finished university and attempted to fly to Tanzania (to go and pursue jihad in Somalia - MI5, or to go safari - he claims), he was a "beautiful young man".

In fact, it seems fairly clearly that he had extensive links with terrorist sympathisers in London.

And moreover, Asim Qureshi, as 30 seconds on Google would show, is a jihadist himself, here in 2009:

Not exactly your regular 'human rights activisit'.

OP posts:
SaucyJack · 27/02/2015 12:09

But if that's what AQ thinks, then that's what he thinks funnyossity. Why wouldn't he give his own opinion when asked what he thinks of his former acquaintance?

Clearly he's biased due to the nature of his work- and in fact it's probably making him more defensive of his misplaced faith in ME rather than less.

Just strikes me as slightly racist to think no one should be able to give a human response to ME in the same way that no one would bat an eyelid if it was the former friend of a white serial killer.

funnyossity · 27/02/2015 12:10

Why on earth racist?

funnyossity · 27/02/2015 12:11

I don't accept the serial killer analogy anyway. Northern Irish terrorist from 70s would be more like it.

Arsenic · 27/02/2015 12:20

SaucyJack

He was not giving a 'human reaction'. He was taking the opportunity to advance an agenda, to promote a narrative about the causes of islamic radicalisation.

This didn't all pop into his head yesterday when asked for some off the cuff reflections on his mate Mo. This is his cause. Have you read up on Mr Quereshi?

Arsenic · 27/02/2015 12:21

Who do you think called that press conference? And why?

Arsenic · 27/02/2015 12:26

To go back to the original question, the reason CAGE and AQ got so much coverage yesterday is because they/he was all there was, journalistically, for a good couple of hours after the Washington Post article hit.

Everyone was scrambling for more information, the pickings were slim but what there was was the press conference,

No accident from CAGE's POV. AQ was the source for the story and then he stepped in and seized the initiative in the media scramble.

This didn't just happen.

Rjae · 27/02/2015 12:34

Apparently, according to this CAGE, police harassment and requests to become a double agent turned a beautiful, soft spoken boy into a rabid fanatic who beheads innocent men. The news channels are repeating this load of rubbish.

Can I break my self imposed rule on the internet and tell them to FUCK OFF!

He's a murdering bastard and no end of harassment is going to turn a nice boy into that.

worksallhours · 27/02/2015 12:37

This "MI5 blame" and proclamations of angelic innocence are fairly common features in media interviews with associates of known jihadis.

It is an attempt to sow doubt or publicly muddy the waters. Journalists have fallen for it in the past, particularly ones that do not have the private contacts that can give them the other side of the story. Somehow, it never occurs to many journalists these days that some people, particularly those connected to criminals and radicals, could be lying through their back teeth.

Again, it is also a technique to blindside the wider Muslim community so they do not fully realise the extent to which they are being used by certain religio-political agents and factions.

SaucyJack · 27/02/2015 12:45

Yes, I know who he is. Of course he has his own agenda due to the nature of his work as I already said.

I just don't think he's said anything so offensive that the Beeb shouldn't be allowed to publish it is all.

Abra1d · 27/02/2015 12:53

So, have I got this right? MI5 hurt his feelings by their concern that he was turning to extremism and terrorism, and so he responded by turning to extremism and terrorism. They put the idea into his head?

Nice try.

Lovemycatsandkids · 27/02/2015 12:59

Rjae spot on post.

And as said before you cannot be accused as a racist to criticise a religion.

Religion is a life style choice.

Race is a race and so protected.

funnyossity · 27/02/2015 13:11

I have a human response of pity when I see the little boy photos.

But I expect an adult to be responsible. And for his mates to remove their delusional goggles about the "humble" nature he showed them, whom he judged presumably his spiritual equals.

Hakluyt · 27/02/2015 13:15

There is an important conversation to be had about why people are radicalised. Wanting to have thwt conversation is not being an apologist for terrorism.

Fuckup · 27/02/2015 17:27

People are being too simplistic. Its not a case of whether mi5 did or didn't cause him to become a terrorist. The person speaking obviously thought (rightly or wrongly) that his encounter had an influence on his subsequent actions, and the BBC has a right and an interest in allowing that view to be expressed.

chaya5738 · 27/02/2015 17:34

I think it is pretty fucking culturally imperialistic for a boy from West London to go over and murder aid works who are trying to help innocent victims of a civil war half a world away. But maybe I am missing something.

Fuckup · 27/02/2015 17:34

and I agree hakyulat about the conversation that needs to be had without reactionary simplistic notions of right and wrong.

I can see saucyjacks analogy of the serial killer thing as well, the media always wheels someone out who's shocked or surprised at the identity of a criminal, who wants to stick up for them a bit, why wouldn't they do that here? He's not saying it is mi5's fault, although that's a conversation that needs to be had about the extent to which our own policy is responsible for extreme resistance, but more that it had an effect, or is a possible reason for his hatred of the west. Its different to saying that mi5 is responsible. Its a controversial view point which is what the media likes so end of the day no wonder he was given a platform. We shouldn't sensor that though or we're on dangerous territory.

chaya5738 · 27/02/2015 17:35

aid workers

chaya5738 · 27/02/2015 17:37

We shouldn't have simplistic conversations about right and wrong? Holy fuck, I have some sympathy for cultural relativism but if we cannot roundly condemn this fuckwit's actions as wholly wrong without it being label simplistic then we are fucked as society.

chaya5738 · 27/02/2015 17:41

It is not like MI5's policies are resulting in a rash of people just like Jihadi John so to say it caused his actions (or contributed to them) such that they need to be reconsidered is a red herring. He is a pyscho. End of. Noone engages in this sort of apologism when a serial killers murders people, so why for this fuckwit? Why are we so invested in blaming his actions on others?

Fuckup · 27/02/2015 17:42

argh I condemn his actions too I've never said that I don't. The discussion was about whether the BBC should have published comments in which an acquaintance of jihadi john has indicated that his experience with mi5 had an influence on his hatred if the west. Which, as it may well have done, doesn't seem like something inappropriate to say. It doesn't make his actions mi5's fault, its acknowledging his possible motivations and experiences which have led to an extremist stance. This is something we really need to understand (objectively) if we have any hope of preventing more people becoming radicalized.

Bowlersarm · 27/02/2015 17:43

Yanbu OP.

Totally agree, Rjae.

Fuckup · 27/02/2015 17:45

Not everyone in Isis will be a 'pyscho' (not by the psychological definition of psychopath anyway) just like not everyone who voted for the Nazis was a sociopath, these evil radical movements are born out of desperate social and political conditions. We can't ignore the role of context if we want to have a chance of preventing such things happening again.

FreudiansSlipper · 27/02/2015 17:46

he may once have been a nice polite young man I have no reason to believe he wasn't

there are many reasons as to why he became radicalised, he has made choices he is responsible for his actions but what led him there? we have to listen to many opinions some will not be popular but they are coming from people who may have a better understanding of why this is happening and surely to understand or to try and understand is a step closer to stopping others in the future become radicalised

I do not want the BBC to censor people because for many it is not what they want to hear maybe mi5 have something to learn from this case too we don't know

Fuckup · 27/02/2015 17:48

anyway, I'm going off topic, in terms of the BBC they have a right and responsibility to broadcast opposing views in the interest of fair coverage. So of course they shouldn't be prevented from putting this guys view across, right or wrong as he may be.

chaya5738 · 27/02/2015 17:48

As I said, it is not like the MI5 is causing thousands of British Muslims to go over and behead aid workers so taking this so called "contribution" to his evilness is a red herring.

Do we care that the serial killer was prompted by the strange look of the woman at Tesco into murdering her? Do we care that the husband murdered his wife because she cooked his eggs funny? No, we do not give a shit. Because the murderer's response was totally disproportionate to the action that prompted the murders and doesn't not deserve to be given weight when considering cause.