The Guardian: BBC to review use of 'Islamic State' after MPs protest against term
More than 120 MPs, backed by David Cameron, sign letter saying name gives legitimacy to terrorist group that is neither Islamic nor a state.
The BBC is reviewing its use of the term “Islamic State” after a cross-party group of MPs, backed by David Cameron, accused the broadcaster of legitimising the terrorist group by continuing to use the name in its journalism.
A BBC spokesman said the corporation would consider the letter, signed by 120 MPs and sent to the BBC director general, Tony Hall, last week, but that it had had little choice other than to call the group “by the name it uses itself”.
WNU Editor: I have been calling the "Islamic State" since their declaration of the Caliphate. I have no plans (nor interest) to change that name to something else.
More News On U.K. Prime Minister Cameron Wanting The BBC To Stop Using The Phrase 'Islamic State'
'I wish the BBC would stop calling it Islamic State' – David Cameron unleashes frustration at broadcaster -- The Independent
Cameron tells BBC to stop calling barbaric terror group 'Islamic State' because name is offensive to 'many Muslims' -- Daily Mail
David Cameron blasts BBC for using 'Islamic State' name for 'poisonous death cult' -- Express
David Cameron: 'I wish the BBC would stop calling it Islamic State' -- IBTimes
8 comments:
Well if you can't beat it maybe try to change its name.
This is pretty hilarious, but nothing more. Pretty sure Conservatives are even more cowardly and politically correct than their opponents. I do wonder what alternative name he wished to use. Barbaric Terror State, maybe? Death (sorta like Daesh if you can't hear) State?
Above all I have to wonder how many non-Sovietophile British socialists, like George Orwell, were able to survive the USSR being called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
"Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" does seem to imply that the nations in the union were republics who voluntarily joined each other. It does seem kind of a misnomer.
As for ISIS being a state in the traditional sense of a nation, it most definitely seems to be. In fact, ISIS seems more coherent and stable as a state than the United States, the United Kingdom or pretty much any Western European state is right now. As such, it would be far more accurate to not call any of these states a state than it would be to not call ISIS a state.
As I've pointed out here and elsewhere many times, ignoring reality in favor of something we wish it to be as opposed to what it is, is not going to be helpful. At best this is comical. At worst such non sense thinking is going to get allot of the citizens of our countries killed.
Bottom line: Islamic State is a "state." This state is more stable than America or any other "western" nation for that matter. Denying this reality because someone does not want to give it "legitimacy" is ridiculous. I suspect Mr. Cameron is not dumb per say but adherence to ideology tends to make one dumb.
ISIS poses a far greater threat than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever did or ever could have. If the UK and other allies had refused to recognize that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were states because they did not want to legitimize them, it's hard to envision how they could have won WWII. ISIS is a state and it will have to be dealt with on those terms. Now is it "Islamic?" While the jury may still be out on that so to speak, ISIS has captured and held territory at a faster rate and more efficiently than America or any other "western" country or coalition of said countries ever could have. As such, I think it correct to infer that ISIS is, in fact, Islamic. In summary, ISIS is both a state and it is Islamic. If ISIS is to be defeated or "degraded" as has been explained, we best understand that ISIS is both a state and it is Islamic.
I'll wager that by 2020, there will be diplomats flying into Ankara for talks with their IS "diplomatic counterparts."
"I'll wager that by 2020, there will be diplomats flying into Ankara for talks with their IS "diplomatic counterparts."
I won't take that bet.
"ISIS poses a far greater threat than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever did or ever could have. If the UK and other allies had refused to recognize that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were states because they did not want to legitimize them, it's hard to envision how they could have won WWII. ISIS is a state and it will have to be dealt with on those terms. Now is it "Islamic?" While the jury may still be out on that so to speak, ISIS has captured and held territory at a faster rate and more efficiently than America or any other "western" country or coalition of said countries ever could have. As such, I think it correct to infer that ISIS is, in fact, Islamic. In summary, ISIS is both a state and it is Islamic. If ISIS is to be defeated or "degraded" as has been explained, we best understand that ISIS is both a state and it is Islamic. "
Not sure I get the logic here. What does its success have to do with whether or not it is Islamic?
It certainly is based on the principles of one fairly common interpretation of Islam. I am not sure I would say it is the dominant one, exactly, but it is certainly no less valid and no less prevalent than the moderate/liberal Islam that Western politicians are pretending to think is "the real Islam". That being said I doubt they really think it isn't a state, or that Islam has nothing to do with it - it's just something they feel they must insist on in today's pluralistic, politically correct society. They have to pretend to be more stupid than they are (and they may well be very stupid - just not this much/not in this specific way).
The legitimising argument is indeed absurd. It reminds me of how Americans spent the first couple of decades of its existence calling the PRC "Red China" to deny it its legitimacy. Yeah, that sure worked wonders on it, didn't it.
IS being compared to the Third Reich/Imperial Japan, that's some hyperbole right there.
Post a Comment