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'.

The fact is we don't know if that's why he is doing this. It may not be related to his behaviour at all!

"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."

I'm open mouthed at this. No causal link between ISIS and Islam? Seriously?

For heaven's sake, ISIS has declared itself the new caliphate. That's why so many people are going to fight there - the religion says it's the duty of all Muslims to join the caliphate and fight for it.

Far from being an insult to true peaceful Muslims, ISIS is arguably - certainly the psychos there would argue - actually a true manifestation of what Islam requires.

No causal link

Agree, OTheHugeManatee - it beggars belief that people on this thread believe that a world caliphate isn't the end goal of Islam - it is perfectly explicit in Islam that Islam is the best religion and good Muslims should covert others, by the sword if need be, to create a Muslim world. This isn't bias, it's just fact. The same, historically went for christianity, too, in that Christians believe they have the monopoly on religious truth, everyone else is damned and therefore Christian missionaries try to convert all non-Christians. Admittedly, they haven't converted anyone by the sword for a few centuries now, but it's not that long ago that Christians were brutally murdering non-Christians or the wrong type of Christians.

I mean why do you think there are so many Christians and Muslims in the world compared to say Jews or sikhs? Because Christians and Muslims breed more? No - because the former two religions do not encourage people to convert to their faiths, the latter two have gone on massive and very violent killing sprees to ensure people did convert.

Stop whitewashing Islam and Christianity. It's dishonest. There are lots of lovely Christians and Muslims out there BUT that doesn't change the fact that Christianity used to and Islam still does believe in a duty to convert others, by force if need be. So those Muslims who try to put this into practice are just doing what their religion dictates.

skip to 5 minutes and 20 seconds into the programme to see Andrew Neil interview Asim Qureshi

I wonder what proportion of christians are now educated and in more modern countries where as mojorty of muslims are from poor third world countries and those with bad eudcation?