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

[AgaPanthers]

'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'.

Freudians, nothing wrong with trying to understand their motivations. To do that you would do things like, hmm, I don't know, recruit extremists and get info.

Oh wait, that's what MI5 did with 'Jihadi John'

But it doesn't amount to giving significant airtime to a shitbag terrorist apologist - this man gets wheeled out every few months in the name of balance. It's like putting up a representative from 'Answers in Genesis' every time there is a story about evolution.

You said that even though your husband had been detained lots of times at boarder control he had never gone on to behead people, indicating therefore that it couldnt be anything to do with actions of mi5, but I think that's too simplistic a way of looking at things. What triggers in one person, may not in others specifically because of the interconnected factors we were talking about. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

"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."

Speak for yourself. Plenty of us find abnormal psychology really quite interesting.

Cerie Bullivant isn't exactly a neutral commentator on these issues

Heh, that made me laugh Aga. I was thinking similarly. If we want someone nuanced to talk about extremism and its appeal, why someone from CAGE?

It is like when they have debates about vaccinations and some nutter who thinks the MMR causes autism gets air time next to a doctor. Both views aren't equal and you don't need to have the nutter on to show balance!

Have you done any research into CAGE, countess there pretty partisan in there views and not really going to provide any balance.

I was about to post that link chaya, when you watch Kay burley and come away thinking she isn't the worst thing in the interview you know there is something wrong

Heh, that is funny saucyjack. What I meant was that we don't care in terms of culpability.

Well, the commentator against the apologist the other night was Claire Fox who is highly problematic also.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of balance. It doesn't mean that every individual has to provide a balanced viewpoint.

They apparently tried to recruit him not sure that is trying to understand what lead him to where he is now

Do you want the BBC to not air views that cause discussion he is airing his own views but ones that are supported by others are we to ignore them when we have such a dangerous situation going on

The BBC aired Sinn Féin spokesmen throughout the NI Troubles, and only introduced that stupid broadcasting ban in 1988. Still, didn't stop broadcasting them altogether.

I don't think banning or silencing is helpful here either.

We do care in terms of culpability though, most often its was it the parents fault? were they abused? molested as children? raped? The public are fascinated by what makers killers kill and the media always reports on this, particularly in prolific cases. There's always contesting opinions and its never hardcore fact, but there's always theories flying around. This is no different in that sense.

Janine, I don't think Sinn Fein were posing as some sort of human rights group.

If they want to put up jihad spokespeople that's one thing, but at least be straight that that's what they are.

www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/26/meet-gentle-jihadi-john-the-care-bear-of-jihad/

FuckUp

The first thing we need to do us stop calling Isis or anyone connected with them or terrorists Muslims.

They are not. That insults true peaceful Muslims.

Rather like Catholics and Protestants who burned smd disembowelled each other in the kiddie ages were not Christians.

It's an insult to Islam and we shouldn't be describing then this way as it validates a twisted nihilistic ideology that has nothing to do with any religion.

I don't think there is any prescribed definition of 'true Muslim'.

They are the 'Islamic State'. It's not like they are just a bunch of psychopaths who incidentally happen to be Muslims, it's up-front and central. And while their ideology isn't a majority of Muslims, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who do support things like execution for apostasy and such like - and the reason they support that is their religion, which is Islam.

i read that he was charged and acquited of theft, was this given as an example of state harassment or just a detail of his background?

sadly it seems entirely believable that m15 would take someone from one country to another, then threaten their family and try to ruin their life. that doesnt mean it happened in this case, but the examples of innocent people being caught up in rendition since sept 11 certainly give it a believable air. i can also see how that might further alienate an already radicalised idealistic young person. the sad thing is that, lie or not in this case, plenty of people will see it as plausible, and for that, our state security and govt should be ashamed

Sorry, but the crusaders absolutely were Christians on a religious mission, as are these zealots. Their actions are a direct result of their twisted interpretation of Islam.

I take your point, it might be a good idea not to call them that to prevent the Muslim faith being unfairly vilified. However, as others have mentioned, we do need to consider why islam is being used in this way to promote violence, and whether Muslim teens are more vulnerable to radicalization than non Muslims, and for what reasons. I think it is possible to do this without referring to Isis as 'Muslims', but for the sake of analysis sometimes its easier to apply a label. There is clearly a link between the Muslim faith and Isis but that's not to say its causal, in fact I really would dispute it.

they are islamists, following political islam, or islamism

or perhaps military islamists?

Just watched the Kay Burley interview and I enjoyed it immensley.

No dought he hated being questioned and totally out smarted by a woman.

Fantastic.

Thanks for the clarification San. I won't use Muslim again, that was just ignorance because im not that clued up on Islam, or religion in general really, and don't know all the different fractions.

Rather like Catholics and Protestants who burned smd disembowelled each other in the kiddie ages were not Christians.

They certainly would have regarded themselves as Christians, and so would much of the population, which regarded heresy as a terrible sin. Because that was the mindset four or five hundred years ago.

well i might be wrong

i meant to say that i agree with your posts, FuckUp (although your username makes me as i am a delicate flower)

No I disagree. I am not religious at all but true religious people are tolerant, gentle and kind.

Of course there are passages in all the religious books that don't bear scrutiny but surely we should move past that.

Hermione no thru weren't Christians at all as Jesus taught the old peace and love.

Totally take all the points but I think we allow far far too much hiding behind religious ideology to be just vile cunts really.

Maybe not allowing people to justify their vileness by religion would protect the truly good.

[sorry San I nc a while back and forgot to change back [gr