Boy, 6, beheaded for not being the right type of Muslim. Watch

ah317
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 week ago
#21
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
He meant the killer, not the boy.
To me this argument smacks of lazy thinking and eager acceptance of an argument to fit a particular predisoposition.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 week ago
#22
(Original post by ah317)
To me this argument smacks of lazy thinking and eager acceptance of an argument to fit a particular predisoposition.
Which argument?
0
reply
ah317
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 week ago
#23
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Which argument?
As I understand it, it is being suggested here that the proposed 6 year old boy was not killed because he was a shia. In other words, sectarianism isn't responsible. Rather it was due to the mental poor health of the taxi driver.

The other argument made is that this is "fake news".

Both arguments seem to me, to be ideological rather than grounded in fact.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 week ago
#24
Media not reporting this story right now.

* Washington Post
* BBC
* Al Jazeera
* CNN
* France 24

Either this is proof of a global conspiracy to avoid attacking Saudi Arabia which includes many agencies normally only too keen to attack it, or they know the story is largely fictional and so are not reporting it.
0
reply
username3315892
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 week ago
#25
Any 'real' muslim knows that to kill one life is as if you were to kill all of humanity. The media and society are recurrently being brainwashed into this toxic view that these types of people are what reprents Islam as a religion and a way of life. I think people need to grow up and think that petty feuds over clans, race, etc is NOT what Islam accepts nor promotes, let alone any decent human being.
3
reply
ah317
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 week ago
#26
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Media not reporting this story right now.

* Washington Post
* BBC
* Al Jazeera
* CNN
* France 24

Either this is proof of a global conspiracy to avoid attacking Saudi Arabia which includes many agencies normally only too keen to attack it, or they know the story is largely fictional and so are not reporting it.
This is fallacious. As I said a number of agencies reported this worldwide from Australia, to Nigeria to UK and Pakistan based agencies. What the BBC or others report isn't the defining point of news. How they produce their criteries or agenda is a matter of internal dialogue. Indeed, there a number of major events not reported by these news channels on a frequent basis. For example, problems have been occuring in Venezuala for months and fringe outlets have been reporting it. It has only risen to media prominence recently. That is the whole point of diversity in news agencies. Different agencies focus on different things. I accept it is possible that they chose not to report this on the basis of dubious sources; 100% possible. But that is speculative. It is more likely, unfortunately, that this is seen as a minor story, because these kinds of things happen across the world on a regular basis. There are ~32 inadvertent pedestrian deaths by police in the UK for example. None of those are usually reported by either the BBC or Al Jazeera.

What is clearly ideological is "everyone that reports anything against me MUST be fake news, because not EVERYBODY is reporting it". How is that logical. To me it is a simple matter of "do I care about truth or not?" - if the only source calling this fake news are those that defend Saudi Arabia as "progressive" I think most logical thinkers would conclude that, that claim is most probably spurious.
Last edited by ah317; 1 week ago
2
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 week ago
#27
(Original post by ah317)
This is fallacious. As I said a number of agencies reported this worldwide from Australia, to Nigeria to UK and Pakistan based agencies. What the BBC or others report isn't the defining point of news. How they produce their criteries or agenda is a matter of internal dialogue. Indeed, there a number of major events not reported by these news channels on a frequent basis. For example, problems have been occuring in Venezuala for months and fringe outlets have been reporting it. It has only risen to media prominence recently. That is the whole point of diversity in news agencies. Different agencies focus on different things. I accept it is possible that they chose not to report this on the basis of dubious sources; 100% possible. But that is speculative. It is more likely, unfortunately, that this is seen as a minor story, because these kinds of things happen across the world on a regular basis. There are ~32 inadvertent pedestrian deaths by police in the UK for example. None of those are usually reported by either the BBC or Al Jazeera.

What is clearly ideological is "everyone that reports anything against me MUST be fake news, because not EVERYBODY is reporting it". How is that logical.
There is diversity in news, but the vast majority of the sources on this story that can be found on a Google search are clearly just repeating what they have plucked from other news media, they are not the results of journalistic investigations. Most of the news sources you refer to around the world do not retain international staffs themselves, or have local journalists in each country. They rely on centralised news feeds, or on looking at what is top in other news media.

The list I supplied are some of the few leading international media agencies that actually do have journalists working in many countries around the world, but with the decline of news media generally because of Google and Facebook taking their ad revenues, the number of these has been in decline. Only a small number of major outlets now have truly global ability to check stories. The main ones I have mentioned. The fact that they are not carrying the story is highly indicative that it is likely to be false or unsubstantiated.

From the coverage so far, it sounds as if there was an incident resulting in the death of the boy, but there is no substantiated evidence that the motive was religious hate. The Shia part of the story seems to have been fabricated by pro-Iranian outlets. That is probably why the main media outlets are ignoring it.
0
reply
chelseagirl2002
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 week ago
#28
This boy got killed for being the wrong muslim. I'm not even a muslim.....
1
reply
ah317
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 week ago
#29
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
There is diversity in news, but the vast majority of the sources on this story that can be found on a Google search are clearly just repeating what they have plucked from other news media, they are not the results of journalistic investigations. Most of the news sources you refer to around the world do not retain international staffs themselves, or have local journalists in each country. They rely on centralised news feeds, or on looking at what is top in other news media.

The list I supplied are some of the few leading international media agencies that actually do have journalists working in many countries around the world, but with the decline of news media generally because of Google and Facebook taking their ad revenues, the number of these has been in decline. Only a small number of major outlets now have truly global ability to check stories. The main ones I have mentioned. The fact that they are not carrying the story is highly indicative that it is likely to be false or unsubstantiated.

From the coverage so far, it sounds as if there was an incident resulting in the death of the boy, but there is no substantiated evidence that the motive was religious hate. The Shia part of the story seems to have been fabricated by pro-Iranian outlets. That is probably why the main media outlets are ignoring it.
This is what baffles me - on what basis - what evidence of pro-Iranian outets?

There are videos of a funeral speaking about shia events like Karbala. I am an Arabic speaker I watched them I've seen Saudi outlets, again in Arabic writing about this. I don't think you are stupid because the point about the journalism is fair, but its like I don't get why you are making the argument. It seems so ideological. Even if this story isn't true (which I don't think is the case) Saudi Arabia is KNOWN to be and to have been intolerant of Shia Islam for decades. This is simply one manifestation of that.
0
reply
Bright Student
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 week ago
#30
(Original post by Pinkisk)
What about the other million and one beheadings that have taken place the past 5 years? where they done by mentally ill people too? Is there a mental health crisis in the middle-east? or is this an issue with an ideology that likes to murder anyone that does not subscribe to its interpretations of right and wrong?

I hope muslims don't take offence from this comment. It is not directed at all of them. This is merely directed at those who subscribe to the extremist Saudi interpretations of Islam.
Beheading those who don't adhere to Islam is not an Islamic precedent. Yet I agree, this ideology of harming someone because they do not fall into your niche view of what is wrong and right is immoral and erroneous, and that is an issue with the individual, not the religion itself.
1
reply
Abd al-khaliq
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 week ago
#31
(Original post by Pinkisk)
What about the other million and one beheadings that have taken place the past 5 years? where they done by mentally ill people too? Is there a mental health crisis in the middle-east? or is this an issue with an ideology that likes to murder anyone that does not subscribe to its interpretations of right and wrong?

I hope muslims don't take offence from this comment. It is not directed at all of them. This is merely directed at those who subscribe to the extremist Saudi interpretations of Islam.
no, i just said this case there is reports that the man was mentally ill lol
0
reply
Vinny C
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 week ago
#32
Christianity promotes itself as the one true religion and firmly believes that anyone not of their faith will go to Hell. In short... they are condemning people spiritually. Only a small step from that to condemning them physically. Most of us being secular consider the former acceptable but the latter unacceptable... but to a more spiritually motivated individual? Any religion maintaining I am the only true way and everyone else is wrong will inevitably cause conflict by definition. It's simply then a question of how that conflict manifests itself.
Last edited by Vinny C; 1 week ago
1
reply
faqir
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 week ago
#33
It's funny how the more reliable news outlets are not reporting this... it is only the unreliable one's like the mirror, the sun, daily star etc etc reporting it

If such a bad thing really happened then news stations like CNN, Sky news etc etc would have been all over it, so I wouldn't accept this report without verification. It seems the usual suspects of fake news are just regurgitating what the daily star initially reported 😀

The Iranian press tv is reporting it but they're always up for some anti Saudi propaganda so they're unreliable too
2
reply
Qup
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 week ago
#34
(Original post by Abd al-khaliq)
the man was mentally ill
That sounds like a convenient excuse. I am aware of some mentally ill... yet they don't go around killing people.
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 week ago
#35
(Original post by Abd al-khaliq)
no, i just said this case there is reports that the man was mentally ill lol
reports from Saudi Arabia. Im sure if the family said that their son's murderer wasn't a mental case they would also wind up loosing their heads. No person with half a brain in Saudi Arabia would say anything that would make their regime or country look bad... cause they would freakin be dead. I mean the Saudi states decapitates its opponents on the streets of freakin saudi arabia every other day.
Last edited by Pinkisk; 1 week ago
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 week ago
#36
(Original post by Vinny C)
Christianity promotes itself as the one true religion and firmly believe that anyone not of their faith will go to Hell. In short... they are condemning people spiritually. Only a small step from that to condemning them physically. Most of us being secular consider the former acceptable but the latter unacceptable... but to a more spiritually motivated individual? Any religion maintaining I am the only true way and everyone else's is wrong will inevitably cause conflict by definition. It's simply then a question of how that conflict manifests itself.
This condition is not isolated to religions. You find it in athiestic and secular groups and ideologies. You find it very regulalry among feminists. If your views don't agree with mine I must silence you even if that means destroying your life. Oh you however do not have this privilege. You do not have the right to be intolerant of my views. Only I am allowed to be intolrrent of yours...This is the definition of authoritarianism. Its 'tolerance' that's one sided. You find it very commonly among unpopular ideologies that struggle convincing people to follow their ideas and so struggle imposing their views on society by any other means than through authoritarianism.
Last edited by Pinkisk; 1 week ago
0
reply
Vinny C
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 week ago
#37
(Original post by Pinkisk)
This condition is not isolated to religions. You find it in athiestic and secular groups and ideologies. You find it very regulalry among feminists. If your views don't agree with mine I must silence you even if that means destroying your life. Oh you however do not have this privilege. You do not have the right to be intolerant of my views. Only I am allowed to be intolrrent of yours...This is the definition of authoritarianism. Its 'tolerance' that's one sided. You find it very commonly among unpopular ideologies that struggle convincing people to follow their ideas and so struggle imposing their views on society by any other means than through authoritarianism.
Very philosophical... Nichze? Nietzche? Oh... knee chair, ffs. I'm a unitarian Christian but the orthodox church still considers me condemned even though I believe in the Bible. I just don't interpret it quite the way they do... or to be more accurate, they way they're told to. None have ever actually tried interpreting it for themselves which worries me somewhat.
Last edited by Vinny C; 1 week ago
1
reply
Abd al-khaliq
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 week ago
#38
(Original post by Pinkisk)
reports from Saudi Arabia. Im sure if the family said that their son's murderer wasn't a mental case they would also wind up loosing their heads. No person with half a brain in Saudi Arabia would say anything that would make their regime or country look bad... cause they would freakin be dead. I mean the Saudi states decapitates its opponents on the streets of freakin saudi arabia every other day.
regime probably but over this probably not
1
reply
awkwardshortguy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 week ago
#39
It happens.
0
reply
Vinny C
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 week ago
#40
Their denominations are so funny... sunny, shite and fatter.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (35)
12.5%
Yes - a food allergy (32)
11.43%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (9)
3.21%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (9)
3.21%
No (195)
69.64%

Watched Threads

View All