Should Cameron apologise?

[999tigger]

Calling them IS validates 2 claims which we do not wish to validate.

1. They're a state.

2. They represent Islam.

 

Daesh is an arabic word which is insulting, and a homophone for another arabic word which is insulting. It's also an acronym for the organisation in Arabic.

It's the name the locals use for IS (when they can't hear them) and it's the name the friendlies in and around IS territory have asked us to use.

 

So, no: IS is not incorrect. It's just not the best term for a variety of reasons.

 

Thanks uB, still waiting for erics explanation though. Im more interested in his accusation against the beeb.

 

Btw I dont think it validates either, its just a name.

 

BBC News has been using that term, but qualifying it as "Islamic State group" or "self-styled Islamic State" and shortening it to "IS" on subsequent mentions.

I dont see anything wrong with that policy. Edited December 2, 2015 by 999tigger

[Eric Arthur]

Is IS incorrect? Got anything to back up your claim? Preferably non Daily Mail and a credible source.

 

I don't "make claims" when commonly known facts are available. Please check it yourself if that irritates you but I will get you started. http://www.google.co.uk

[999tigger]

I don't "make claims" when commonly known facts are available. Please check it yourself if that irritates you but I will get you started. http://www.google.co.uk

 

Well if you fail to back it up then its a claim.

[Eric Arthur]

Why would it even need backing up. Since everyone else seems to know this basic fact you might like to re-appraise the quality of your contribution to this discussion, especially as you seem unable to use Google to fill the gaps in your basic knowledge.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=BBC+Daesh

[Penistone999]

I hear that Mr Cameron yesterday characterised those who oppose killing people with bombs in Syria as 'terrorist sympathisers'.

This sounds exactly the sort of dim witted and offensive nonsense you might find on here and frankly, loathe Cameron as I do, I expect better of him.

 

 

Should he apologise?

 

He said exactly what most normal , sane people are saying .

 

Nowt to apologise for.

[mort]

Back on topic and keep it civil please

[scania]

I hear that Mr Cameron yesterday characterised those who oppose killing people with bombs in Syria as 'terrorist sympathisers'.

This sounds exactly the sort of dim witted and offensive nonsense you might find on here and frankly, loathe Cameron as I do, I expect better of him.

 

 

Should he apologise?

 

No he should not apologise. As much as I dislike Cameron, the world coming together to anialate these filthy pig scum is the only way forward. There's no other conceivable plan. They won't talk, and to be fair have no grasp on reality if they believe their fight is justified because of religious beliefs.

Of course, just blowing them to smithereens is not enough. We need to chastise their goats as well, just to really mug em off.

[betterman]

ISIS is a cult within a country. We are not at war with the country. Most Syrians living here do not agree with bombing.

 

We didn't bomb Ireland to stop terrorists and bring about a peace agreement.

 

 

How will the Syrians living here get their country back from this Islamic cult if not by force?

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 16:44 ----------

 

I'd be interested in your evidence for this.

 

Many Syrian victims of Assad’s regime want us to take action in Syria against ISIS as well as Assad's regime. Not that Diane Abbott would want us to know about Syrians supporting bombing.

 

http://leftfootforward.org/2015/11/stop-the-war-refuse-to-listen-to-syrians-during-debate-on-syria/

 

It would apear my question as already been answered.

[999tigger]

No he should not apologise. As much as I dislike Cameron, the world coming together to anialate these filthy pig scum is the only way forward. There's no other conceivable plan. They won't talk, and to be fair have no grasp on reality if they believe their fight is justified because of religious beliefs.

Of course, just blowing them to smithereens is not enough. We need to chastise their goats as well, just to really mug em off.

 

Thats one of the arguments though, they have no long term plan beyond bombing. They would like to know where the bombing leads. By iyself its not going to do much. Just becayse certain MPs will vote against extending the bombing campaign doesnt make them terrorist sympathisers.

[betterman]

No, actually it's not...IS, infers that it's a state, which it isn't...Whatever they are called it should be preceded with So-called .......

 

A state is a territory with an organized political community under one government. The area that is occupied by IS fits that dsicription.

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 16:51 ----------

 

Calling them IS validates 2 claims which we do not wish to validate.

1. They're a state.

2. They represent Islam.

 

Daesh is an arabic word which is insulting, and a homophone for another arabic word which is insulting. It's also an acronym for the organisation in Arabic.

It's the name the locals use for IS (when they can't hear them) and it's the name the friendlies in and around IS territory have asked us to use.

 

So, no: IS is not incorrect. It's just not the best term for a variety of reasons.

 

They are a state even though it isn't recongnised by the world, and they are Islamic even though they don't represent all muslims. D.A.E.SH is a transliteration of the Arabic acronym formed of the same words that make up I.S.I.S

Edited December 2, 2015 by betterman