why do the news people always say “so called” Islamic state?
I just notice it every time I watch the news

Because it’s not a state, and that the name they gave themselves.

Because they are not a state. Yet. And their name keeps changing.

Because you can’t just give yourself a title and expect everyone to refer to you as that, from then on

Its like Sting saying he was given the nickname Sting, by his mates, because he wore a yellow and black jumper at uni. No way did did they! Nobody gets given cool nicknames. Ever!

Everyone knows thats bollocks because if that was your mates, they’d have christened you buzzy-bollocks, bumble-****, or queeny

In the same spirit, I think from now on everyone refers to the so called Islamic State as shouty, beardyland

“Lord hall dismissed a letter signed by 120 MPs demanding that the BBC stop using the term on the grounds it gives undue credibility to the Islamic extremists, saying the BBC would “redouble our efforts” to use caveats such as “so called Islamic State group”.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/why-isis-will-hate-it-if-we-start-calling-them-daesh–bkC822p_zl

hth

PS there was this kid Nigel at school who used to call himself ‘Mr Ultra-Boss’. If we called him ‘Nigel’ he would get his two friends to beat you up. They wore ankle-length drainpipes with 16-hole DMs. If you wore a denim jacket or any kind of fatigues they’d beat you up for that too*

*OK I made most of it up but it sounds about the same.

I think this ‘so called’ question has been asked on here before.
😛

The problem is the so called news readers

Are they so-called readers, or is it so-called news?

Alleged news

I see that some so called world leaders have started referring to the so called islamic state as Daesh.

The name “Daesh” is beginning to gain traction. A good thing because apparently the members themselves hate it and it makes them really irritated…

The BBC should apply the same logic to their boss – so called Lord Hall. His actual name is Tony.

It gives the so-called ” ‘big-hitters’ ” something to post about. (gratuitous use of punctuation intentional)

On what basis do you say it’s not a state? Or for that matter not Islamic?

The name “Daesh” is beginning to gain traction. A good thing because apparently the members themselves hate it and it makes them really irritated…

This. My Arabic-speaking students say it is about as dismissive/insulting as you can be towards the Islamo-fascists. It’s what they themselves use to refer to the horribly evil feckers.

Because you can’t just give yourself a title and expect everyone to refer to you as that, from then on

Alleged the ‘so called’ binners….

The name “Daesh” is beginning to gain traction. A good thing because apparently the members themselves hate it and it makes them really irritated…

Even the most dictatorial and authoritarian regimes only get to choose what they’re called to their faces, they can’t control what people say behind their backs.

[invokes Godwin] The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei didn’t really appreciate their name being abbreviated to ‘Nazi’ as it looked and sounded a bit too much like ‘Nazi’ – which was slang for an awkward, clumsy, backwards peasant. The Nazis didn’t call themselves Nazis, but everyone else did. Amusingly the American Nazi Party do call themselves Nazis. But probably do so quite correctly. ( I don’t thing Dunning Kuger is a member). [/invokes Godwin]

That’s not Godwin’s law: In a discussion about evil authoritarian regimes it’s perfectly acceptable to bring up the Nazis.

In a discussion about evil authoritarian regimes it’s perfectly acceptable to bring up the Nazis.

What about tories?

Because it’s not recognised as a state or nation by anybody else. Kind of like the so called state of Scotland.

Because it’s not recognised as a state or nation by anybody else. Kind of like the so called state of Scotland.

Because it’s not recognised as a state or nation by anybody else. Kind of like the so called state of Scotland.

States and nations are different things.

No-one says that Scotland is a state.

Why is recognition determinative of whether it’s a state or not. Lots of countries don’t recognise Israel but it’s patently a state.

Because it’s not recognised as a state or nation by anybody else. Kind of like the so called state of Scotland.

States and nations are different things.

No-one says that Scotland is a state.

Why is recognition determinative of whether it’s a state or not. Lots of countries don’t recognise Israel but it’s patently a state.

Not as keen to push the brand as they were in the early days are they.

I don’t get why this was ISIL and not ISIS seeing as it revolves around the Syria situation. Am I missing something or do they just call them what they want because they seemingly can

States and nations are different things.

There are currently 195 recognised sovereign states – back in the early 1900s there were only 50.

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9734894/daesh-isis-isil

There are, broadly speaking, four things that people call the group: ISIS, ISIL, the Islamic State, or Daesh. This is largely ISIS’s fault; a big reason the group has so many names is that it keeps changing it.

When the group’s predecessor organization was created in 1999, it was called Jamaat al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, which means Unity and Jihad. In 2004, the group’s founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, pledged an oath to al-Qaeda, changing his group’s name to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn — or, as it was called in English, al-Qaeda in Iraq.

After AQI took over huge swaths of Iraq in 2006, the organization declared itself to be a state in northern Iraq, and started calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq. When it took a bunch of territory in Syria in 2013, it began calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham — ISIS.

Al-Sham is a difficult-to-translate Arabic term referring to a specific geographic area along the eastern Mediterranean that includes Syria. Some English speakers translate al-Sham as “the Levant,” which refers to a broader region in the Middle East that generally overlaps with al-Sham. This is how you get ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant), as the White House and others call it. Others still approximate al-Sham to Syria, which yields the same ISIS acronym.

The full name in Arabic is transliterated like this: al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa al-Sham — which produces the acronym DAIISH (usually spelled Daesh in English). That sounds an awful lot like the Arabic word “dahes,” which the Guardian translates as “one who sows discord.” ISIS kind of hates this insulting connotation, and so banned the name “Daesh” in its territory.

But it doesn’t use ISIS either. Crucially, the group now claims to be a caliphate — that is, the successor of the original seventh-century founding Islamic nation. As such, it dropped the geographic identifiers from its name, and simply calls itself “the Islamic State.”

ISIL because Iraq & the Levant, a term for Syrial Lebanon, bits of Turkey, etc.

Yep. daesh would be lost on most folk

Yep. daesh would be lost on most folk

Doesn’t matter, once people hear or read the name in context, they’ll quickly recognise it and associate it with IS, without needing to understand what it actually means.

It is because they don’t want people to confuse the barbaric murderers with the soppy Labrador in Downton Abbey, that would cause some embarrassment.

If I refer to them as “a bunch of ****s” could we get the media to start calling them a “so called bunch of *****s”?

The UN does, which is the most basic measure. As I wrote, everybody doesn’t recognise ISIS, not just some. Of course recognition is a basic requirement, otherwise anybody could go round declaring themselves a state.

King of the State of Bastonford

I don’t mind invoking Godwin’s – but invoking Miranda Hart?