Detroit man who lived his life in the US dies after deportation to Iraq Watch

z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
A man who moved to the US as a child and lived his life in Detroit died on Tuesday after he was deported to Iraq, his lawyer told the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-mid...3YQflycvoGf7QM

This is a top story at the BBC this morning, to be found on BBC News, Radio 4 an even the Today programme. I picked it up as a vivid example of how they have replaced journalism entirely in favour of a child-like manipulative narrative where reporting facts has been replaced with a mission-driven zeal to inform people only of what they must think.

It's ll about making ICE, Trump and generally anybody opposed to the Open Borders utopia and deportations look evil, absolutely nothing else. Don't bother looking for any other motivation, there's no factual basis whatsoever for them to go on about it like this. The BBC 'spoke to his lawyer', as they always do in similar cases. Of course they did.

Facts: he had been in the US illegally for a couple of decades and accrued about 20 convictions, suffered from medical condition and was supplied with medicine on deportation, he is now dead and everybody is up in arms.

What did he die of? We're not told, it doesn't matter to the point being made by the BBC. Fox News have a lot more integrity about them these days because they don't make a secret that they work for a Conservative audience, the BBC have the gall to pretend they are 'unbiased, independent and honest'.

Sometime ago, they went out to put the boot on Austerity because they don't like it much. They interviewed half a dozen people claiming a lot of hardship and in come the Daily Mail to investigate and expose them as all being on the fiddle and much stuff let out of the supposed journalistic foray. That didn't matter to the BBC because they didn't go out to find examples of hardship induced by austerity, as old journalist would do. No, they went out looking for people they could use to make the case intended and don't even care about the credibility of their circumstances. That is not journalism, the Daily Mail investigation and exposure was.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
Can you include a tl;dr there please?
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
(Original post by z-hog)
This is a top story at the BBC this morning, to be found on BBC News, Radio 4 an even the Today programme. I picked it up as a vivid example of how they have replaced journalism entirely in favour of a child-like manipulative narrative where reporting facts has been replaced with a mission-driven zeal to inform people only of what they must think.
You provide no evidence or argument in support of this, all just assertion.

It's ll about making ICE, Trump and generally anybody opposed to the Open Borders utopia and deportations look evil
Nope, the facts of this case make Trump and ICE look bad on their own. No real need to spin it. Of course, you're too invested in the Trump cult to believe that Trump could ever make himself look bad out of his own incompetence or malice, so you perform mental gymnastics to make anything that does make him look bad the sole result of some hostile conspiracy.

Don't bother looking for any other motivation, there's no factual basis whatsoever for them to go on about it like this.
It went viral on social media, that's the reason they "go on about it", i.e. published an article about it.

The BBC 'spoke to his lawyer', as they always do in similar cases. Of course they did.
Is this supposed to be nefarious? They always do it because it's a common journalistic practice, as lawyers are obvious sources of information in such cases.

Facts: he had been in the US illegally for a couple of decades
False, he was a legal resident. His legal residency was revoked in order to deport him.

and accrued about 20 convictions, suffered from medical condition and was supplied with medicine on deportation, he is now dead and everybody is up in arms.
All details mentioned in the BBC's report, so what's the problem?

What did he die of? We're not told
Yes we are - there's a whole subtitled section "How did Jimmy Aldaoud die?", the very first sentence of which indicates it was due to inadequate access to insulin.
3
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#4
(Original post by anarchism101)
Yes we are - there's a whole subtitled section "How did Jimmy Aldaoud die?", the very first sentence of which indicates it was due to inadequate access to insulin.
That's a false statement on your part, would you like to rephrase it? There's no mention of how he died and it's implied that it was partly due to lack of medication but none of that is substantiated in any form and the anti-deportation lobby would always say that anyway. I'll resist the temptation of seeing you as incapable of understanding that, so why are you bending facts like this? You tell me what he died of or how we can even be sure he's dead.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
(Original post by z-hog)
There's no mention of how he died and it's implied that it was partly due to lack of medication
This is a contradictory statement. If there was an implication of how he died, then by definition there was mention of it.

but none of that is substantiated in any form and the anti-deportation lobby would always say that anyway. I'll resist the temptation of seeing you as incapable of understanding that, so why are you bending facts like this? You tell me what he died of
How exactly would it be "substantiated"? Do you want to BBC to include copies of a death certificate or autopsy report in the article?

Do you have an alternative explanation of how he died, with a source attesting to that explanation? If not, then you have no basis for disregarding the one based on insulin insufficiency, which is both the obvious explanation and, as far as I'm aware, the only attested one. You are choosing not to believe it only because it's politically inconvenient for you.

If you want more detail, here's a more substantive account. Aldaoud was found dead in an acquaintance's apartment (where he had stayed the previous night) the morning after being discharged from hospital after falling "violently ill". The Intercept article also concludes the most likely explanation was his diabetes. There's no real basis for assuming any other cause.

or how we can even be sure he's dead.
This makes it pretty clear that the problem isn't the information the BBC presents, just that you choose not to believe it for political reasons, even to the point of inventing conspiracy theories out of whole cloth.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#6
(Original post by anarchism101)
How exactly would it be "substantiated"? Do you want to BBC to include copies of a death certificate or autopsy report in the article?
That would do, if we are to believe what the BBC imply. Actually, this is just a case of them siding with their buddies across the pond, it's probably a youngish person just picking it up and reproducing it without any thoughts attached. That is the vibe at the Beeb, their pages are filled with similar non-journalistic stuff these days.

Thanx for looking up some further info, it was my point that for all the insinuations by the BBC there was no evidence to corroborate them. It remains the case that there is none to verify that this bloke died because of his diabetes, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever and yet that is what people are supposed to come away with. I pointed out how odd it was to leave the circumstances of his death blank, we still don't know what killed him.

You believe everything you're told, I question it and find no basis to assume anything at all. This isn't journalism, it's one of many ideological pamphlets the leftist media use to push their narrative and the most annoying thing is that it works for them. There will be thousand of people now believing some guy deported to Iraq died because of his diabetes anj there isn't a single shred of evidence to back that up with. The whole point is just to push the open borders/anti-deportations political view, to hell with facts.

Need another example? Sometime ago I published another one on some black guy that had been stopped outside a hospital by a security guy who thought he might be trying to leg it with a machine. Of course the WaPo, NYT, CNN, BBC/Guardian all 'reported' another demonstration of 'racism' in this world, however the case went to court and we were never told what the outcome was. Maybe the geezer was trying to nick it, we simply don't know it and journalism would have made them report it after the verdict. They don't because they are not journalists, they are all political activists who don't even care for journalism at all, their mission is no more than creating a narrative for people to believe in. Alas, the BBC has become the same after the cultural takeover it has been subjected to.
Last edited by z-hog; 1 week ago
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
It's a very peculiar brand of paranoia that you have.
1
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by Drewski)
It's a very peculiar brand of paranoia that you have.
Yes. What did this guy die of, smart guy?
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
(Original post by z-hog)
Yes. What did this guy die of, smart guy?
You tell me, since you know everything and can never be questioned.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by Drewski)
You tell me, since you know everything and can never be questioned.
I thought as much, you have a nice day because you're simply not worth the time.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#11
Here's the Guardian's front page for today, just to confirm the networking and concerted push against deportations of any type.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ortees-from-uk

They're all at it, the Americans get the ball rolling and our affiliated media complex follows suit for the sake of the mission and common purpose. Democratic US politicians are still using this non-story for their demonising of Trump and Immigration controls, the BBC are this morning doubling down on the same non-story without adding anything new and the Guardian have a front page on the evils of deportation. Were we to check what the Washington Post and New York Times are talking about today and it will be there, they're all joined at the hip and anybody thinking none of this is orchestrated from behind the scenes... doesn't really know what goes on in this world. Too naive.

Watch out for 'eco-anxiety', they are pushing that one too nowadays. Whatever the agenda is, it's always on something fictitious.
Last edited by z-hog; 1 week ago
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 days ago
#12
One burgular/home invader down. Now start sending the rest. Good job.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 hours ago
#13
(Original post by z-hog)
That would do, if we are to believe what the BBC imply.
So when have you ever seen the BBC, or any news organisation, post such a document alongside an article reporting a person's death? Do you refuse to believe every such death report? Do you think, for instance, that Ben Unwin might still be alive? Or just this one because it happens to be politically inconvenient for you?

Actually, this is just a case of them siding with their buddies across the pond, it's probably a youngish person just picking it up and reproducing it without any thoughts attached.
So your complaint is that an outlet is unbiased because it didn't add "thoughts", i.e. opinions?

Thanx for looking up some further info, it was my point that for all the insinuations by the BBC there was no evidence to corroborate them. It remains the case that there is none to verify that this bloke died because of his diabetes, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever and yet that is what people are supposed to come away with.
The description of his manner of death matches what someone dying of diabetes would look like. Unless other evidence comes to light contradicting that, it's clearly the most obvious and likely explanation. If you have contrary evidence of an alternative explanation, it's on you to provide it.

I pointed out how odd it was to leave the circumstances of his death blank
And I pointed out that they did no such thing.

we still don't know what killed him.
We do, however, have an educated guess based on the circumstances. There are plenty of things we don't "know" for sure but can clearly see what is the most likely explanation.

You believe everything you're told, I question it and find no basis to assume anything at all.
No, you don't "question" it. Questioning implies critical examination and being open to the possibility that the information could well be true. What you do is uncritically reject it, which is very different. Reflexively and automatically disbelieving a piece of information is no more sophisticated or intelligent than reflexively and automatically believing it. Indeed, it is even less so as, in the absence of any other knowledge, the believer is at least treating the one piece of information available as useful, whereas the disbeliever considers it preferable to continue to know nothing at all.

If you lack any evidence contradicting the version of events supplied by the article, and can provide no alternative version of events, then you lack any basis for disbelieving the article, and are doing so only because you find the information politically inconvenient to yourself.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 19 minutes ago
#14
(Original post by anarchism101)
No, you don't "question" it. Questioning implies critical examination and being open to the possibility that the information could well be true. What you do is uncritically reject it, which is very different.
I can't comment on your fragmented format of choice but that is the bottom line, the switch where we go from fact to fiction. News source reports a death without telling us how it happened, it implies a medical condition was relevant without any evidence other than hear-say, to point out the lack of real evidence behind all that is... disbelief. That's some fancy notion you have of what 'questioning' and 'critical examination' mean, what we have is an exaggerated sense of credulity on your part that makes these things simply go unquestioned. You piously believe it all, I question it as a journalistic matter.
Last edited by z-hog; 3 minutes ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

2,690

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
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

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (170)
12.84%
Excited (114)
8.61%
Worried (245)
18.5%
Terrified (304)
22.96%
Meh (107)
8.08%
Confused (33)
2.49%
Putting on a brave face (181)
13.67%
Impatient (170)
12.84%

Watched Threads

View All