back to article True fact: 1 in 4 Brits are now TERRORISTS

One in four Brits could be facing imminent arrest by the Metropolitan Police after apparently falling foul of the boys in blue's astonishing new definition of a terrorist. As we revealed earlier this week, simply viewing a beheading video is enough for the cops to label you a card-carrying threat to public safety. Now it …

  1. dogged


    Are we not calling them ISIS anymore?

    Has Archer been round?

    1. Bloakey1

      Re: ISIS

      No. They are now known as IS i.e. Islamic State, they seem to morph and change on a regular basis.

      There are a few suspects and Jubayer Chowdhry and Shahool Islam are currently heading towards an interview with some nice people from the Stratford branch of the Met and also by some suited rum coves who hang around in a green building on the Thames. they might know or have contact with this chap.

      Personally I think that we are now hindered by common law and the Geneva convention and we can no longer effectively deal with these people. In the event that I was "the man" I would release 2 REI and 2 REP {1.} from the constricts of law, Geneva convention etc. (2.) and let them loose upon IS, ISIS, ISIL etc. we did the job recently in Mali and all was good so it could be done again.

      1. Second Foreign Legion Infantry Regiment and Second Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment.

      2. Terrorist are not bound by it and the playing field could be levelled somewhat.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Enjoy your blowback!

        You might want to sell the World Schutzstaffel crud to the only democracy in the Middle East.

      2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: ISIS

        What has the Geneva convention got to do with anything. Are you one of these idiots who thinks we should no longer afford our citizens basic human rights 'because terrorists', and then brand every criminal in the country as a terrorist to suit our needs?

      3. NumptyScrub

        Re: ISIS

        quote: "2. Terrorist are not bound by it and the playing field could be levelled somewhat."

        Yes, because committing atrocities in the name of stopping atrocities has always worked out well, hasn't it? Not to mention that it's a perfectly stable moral platform to claim "well they did it first!" when asked why you've broken several international conventions on the humane treatment of people.

        We have 2 choices here:

        a) take the moral high ground, and show by example why we are right and they are not, i.e. not stooping to their level, and not giving in regardless of whatever atrocities are committed.

        b) go full retard (as defined in Tropic Thunder) and decide that genocide of all Muslims is the only way to "stop terrorism", and carpet nuke the entire Middle East region into glass whilst sending all local Muslims to concentration camps (which were invented by the British, so it's not out of character for us to use them again). This will not stop terrorism, by the way, it will simply foster more radical hatred amongst the inevitable survivors, and push them to more horrific atrocities.

        3 guesses which one I would prefer...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ISIS

          Concentration camps were (IIRC) first used by the Spaniards in their colonial wars in the Caribbean.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: ISIS

            And also, 'concentration camp' just means getting lots of a certain demographic together. So "concentrating" them.

            In the British camps the captives died because of poor management of waste and supply of food/water/medicine. Look at refugee camps- logistics are hard, especially for people who don't want to be there.

            The Nazi ones people automatically think of were also used to concentrate a demographic- the people the Nazis didn't like- but they were deliberately tortured, raped, murdered, and generally war-crimes-ed in an organised, deliberate way.

            One's bad- not looking after the welfare of people who probably weren't even a threat- and the other's evil- actively doing evil harm to people.

            1. TDog

              Re: ISIS

              The Nazis ran at least two different forms of camps that routinely killed people and distinguished very carefully between them. There were death camps (extermination camps) in which the sole process was to kill the inhabitents (Treblinka II or Sobibor for example) and concentration (work) camps e.g. Auschwitz I (not II) where arbitrary killing occurred as well as mass exterminations, often claimed to be done due to "overcrowding".

              They also ran a series of POW camps in which, in general they obeyed the Geneva conventions if you were a citizen of a country that was a cosignatory. If you weren't then look at how the Germans treated Russian POW's.

              Comparing these to the inefficient, bloody awfully ran "concentration camps" in which a large number of Boer women and children died misses the fundamental factor of intent. The Nazis and Germans intended to kill the inhabitants and indulged in wholesale slaughter - we (the Brits of which I am one) had no such intention.

              Nor did we invite the equivalent of Dr Mengele to experiment on our captives.

              In the 1960's in Malaysia the Briggs plan ( demonstrated clearly and effectively how to run concentration camps.

              Old Fart

          2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

            Re: ISIS

            Concentration camps were (IIRC) first used by the Spaniards in their colonial wars in the Caribbean.

            Concentration camps, in terms of rounding a group of people up and putting them in one place, have been used throughout recorded history by pretty much everyone. The term Concentration Camp was coined by the British Empire during its escapades in Africa during the late nineteenth / early twentieth century. The Spanish camps in Cuba prior to this were used under 'Reconcentrado' policy, which probably contributed to the coining of this term, but these were not referred to specifically as 'concentration camps'.

          3. Stevie

            Re: first used by the Spaniards

            There's an account of what *I'd* call a concentration camp in Thucydides' Peloponnesian War which I read in the Penguin translation back in the late 70s.

            Wassat, like 460 BC or something?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: first used by the Spaniards

              "Wassat, like 460 BC or something?"

              Bloody good guess, Stevie! I couldn't have done anything like as well without Wikipedia...

              1. Stevie

                Re: without Wikipedia...

                Or you could just read The History of the Peloponnesian War.

                Or play the two-person Strategos wargame that came packaged with Imperial Governor, for those times when you couldn't scare up three or more would-be dominators of the Mediterranean Theatre.

                Wikipedia is faster, Strategos is more fun and THOTPW more historical, innit? You pays your drachma you takes your chance.

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: ISIS

            "Concentration camps were (IIRC) first used by the Spaniards in their colonial wars in the Caribbean".

            As a history graduate with a continuing interest in the subject, I feel very reluctant to accept any claim of "the first" on such a matter.

            I suspect similar institutions have existed ever since enough space was cleared for an enclosed area and material provided for a fence. Certainly around 413 BC, after the Athenian expedition to conquer Syracuse was comprehensively defeated, the Syracusans imprisoned the few Athenian soldiers who survived in their silver mines and worked them to death. Perhaps the critical date - about 4,000 BC? - was when prisoners were no longer eaten, but merely detained (and occasionally beaten or tortured for the amusement of the guards). As for "who invented the concentration camp", who didn't? I wouldn't like to guess. Who was that nasty ruler in "The Scorpion King"? Oh yes, Memnon. Might have been him.

            (For extra credit, please note that it's *incorrect* to claim that "democracies never wage war on one another". Athens and Syracuse were the first two democracies on record, and they fought a vicious war to the death - as it happened, of Athens).

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ISIS

          Muslim != Terrorist extremist psychopath

          All Muslims? Seriously? It's "thinking" like that that just creates more terrorists. Just as not every Christian goes on cinema rampages with an AK47; and not every Buddhist sets themselves/monasteries alight; not all Muslims are psychopaths.

          If you treat all Muslims like they're going to break out into jihad and dodgy raps at any second, you're going to create resentment and -in the end- create the conditions to create more terrorists.

          The vast majority of Muslims just want to be left alone to get on with things, same as the vast majority of everybody else.

          Neither of your choices are actually choices. The truth -as ever- lies somewhere between the two extremes.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            All Muslims terrorist?

            Knowing (and having worked with) a fair number of Muslims I have to agree - I have never met a single one that has anything but disgust for radical Islam and terrorism.

            That said, having read the Qu'ran a few times I also have to point out that (despite it's excellent prose and lofty ideals in places) it is not possible to follow the Qu'ran properly and be anything but a radical.

            Whereas at their core Christianity and Buddhism *by their written precepts* (and I know opinion on their 'canon' varies) restrict themselves to the personal/spiritual and as far as they involve themselves in the secular mainly teach separation, the Qu'ran teaches engagement in the political - including actual specific proportional values for the opinions/votes of non-believers, protection taxes for non-believers in Islamic jurisdictions, and legal precepts based upon Islamic values.

            Islam as practiced generally is not evil and neither are it's adherents. Islam practiced properly according to the Qu'ran on a widespread basis would be a real problem for Western systems as, again unlike the others, it explicitly involves itself in the political/legal workings of society (imagine the old Holy Roman Empire but with modern scale/comms/power).

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: All Muslims terrorist?

              "Whereas at their core Christianity and Buddhism *by their written precepts* (and I know opinion on their 'canon' varies) restrict themselves to the personal/spiritual and as far as they involve themselves in the secular mainly teach separation, the Qu'ran teaches engagement in the political..."

              Which doesn't explain why so many people down the ages have been killed, maimed and tortured by Christians and - yes, even Buddhists. Unfortunately, many adherents to (and even leaders of) religions depart rather widely from the prescriptions of their holy books (if any).

              Although Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have the Old Testament to fall back on, which gives quite explicit and detailed instructions on unprovoked aggressive war, systematic and extremely effective genocide, rape, and enslavement.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ISIS

          It should be noted that British inventions (see sports) are usually improved and refined in other countries.

        4. <shakes head>

          Re: ISIS

          so faces with an enemy that belive that you are less than human, and it is acceptable to lie to and generally abuse you, your sugestion is to just let them be....? how did that work out for yo uin school?

          1. dogged

            Re: ISIS

            so faces with an enemy that belive that you are less than human, and it is acceptable to lie to and generally abuse you, your sugestion is to just let them be....? how did that work out for yo uin school?

            can't tell if irony...

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: ISIS

            "how did that work out for yo uin school?"

            Generally speaking, I just avoided them. On the one occasion when they cornered me, I threatened them with a pitchfork, and they seemed discouraged.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: ISIS

              Some Hateful Islamic Terrorist State?

        5. LucreLout

          Re: ISIS


          The problem is that neither of the options you've outlined will work. We've been doing option number 1 for rather a long time and it isn't working. Option number 2 is unlikely to work any better.

          Unless we in the West can figure out a viable 3rd option, then the only pragmatic thing we can do is set a date by which option 1 must deliver meaningful progress / succeed, or move onto option 2. Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome n all that.....

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: ISIS

            I don't think we've tried option 1; We've got caught offering bribes, selling weapons, helping our current favourite fight against the others, propping up despots, getting involved in wars we don't understand, using them as tools to fight our enemies etc. etc.

            I don't think we've tried taking the moral high ground for a long time, if ever.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: ISIS

              "I don't think we've tried taking the moral high ground for a long time, if ever."

              Morality is relative. You can't take a moral high ground against an adversary whose moral code is different from yours. What you consider to be the high ground they could consider to be low ground and vice versa.

              Take the matter of facing certain defeat. Some cultures see surrender in this case as a practical nod to the situation. In return, the winner must treat the loser with respect. In other cultures, it's the opposite: concession is considered shameful, and "death before dishonour" to them is the preferred route and has real meaning to them.

              Here's a question to pose: How do you deal with an enemy for whom Mutual Assured Destruction is a winning scenario?

          2. BongoJoe

            Re: ISIS

            Option 1 is never going to work. We know that it's not going to succeed and IS are not going to stpp being bastards because we're playing by the Queensbury Rules.

            Which leads us to Option 2. I can't honestly think of a third option. If we go that way then we have to accept that the West is at war with Islam. And then what to do? Internment for every Muslim? Close every mosque?

            I would like to see a third option but can't imagine one. The first option isn't working and is never going to work and it's going to be seen as a weaness by IS. And there's no way that I would want Option 2 but, honestly, is there going to be a least worse solution?

            I really hope that there is.

            1. Al fazed
              IT Angle

              Re: ISIS

              Free opium supplies for their school kiddies, Bonfires of Ganja bales lit on Saturdays and built down wind of mosques, LSD and flouride in their water supply, Free Entry tickets for Glastonbury 2015 for anyone converting to consumerism, sponsored Primark factories, open Job Clubs ?

              Al Fazed

        6. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ISIS


          "3 guesses which one I would prefer..."

          1 guess as to which one won't happen.

        7. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ISIS

          "a) take the moral high ground, ...

          b) b) go full retard (as defined in Tropic Thunder) and decide that genocide of all Muslims is the only way to "stop terrorism", ...

          3 guesses which one I would prefer..."

          And one guess which one Matt Bryant would prefer.

        8. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          take the moral high ground

          I applaud your high principles, let me know how that works out for you when they decide to leave their caliphate and want to kill YOUR family because they don't believe in ISIL's particular version of sky fairy.

          They've effectively declared war on all of us so as far as I'm concerned the legitimate response is for the western nations to declare total war against them and kill them all while they are boxed up nice and tight where they can be got at efficiently.

          You are right in that they will come back with a grudge and want to kill us all but what's the difference to the present situation? We'll just have to rinse and repeat as required.

          Thinking we won't have to exterminate them sooner or later is just wishful thinking, they really aren't interested in having a dialogue about their "feelings" they just want to kill us all.

          1. iRadiate

            Re: take the moral high ground


            Interesting use of the phrase 'we'll just have to rinse and repeat as required.'

            Easy to say when you're not the one doing the rinsing or repeating.

            1. Peter2 Silver badge

              Re: Geneva convention

              Regarding the geneva convention of civilised warfare prohibiting putting terrorists up against a wall and shooting them, actually it doesn't.

              Spies, saboteurs and anybody engaging in combat who is not in uniform (other than civilians spontaneously rising up against invading troops to defend their homes who have not had time to organise into units and arrange appropriate uniforms or identifying marks) are not protected by the Geneva conventions. They would therefore be subject to execution if the law of the land allowed it.

              1. BristolBachelor Gold badge

                Re: Geneva convention

                I suspect that the original poster was refering to the requirement (request?) to not simply bomb the fuck out of whole areas containing "civilians". The murdering/maiming aught to be constrained to the "enemy combatants".

                Personally I don't see anything civilised about a list of rules for who it is ok murder. From this I don't understands about "innocents" being murdered (probably because I don't understand the concept of being "guilty of being on a list of those ok to be killed). While I'm at it, why do the press then go on to say "...including women and children" - wtf? is it suddenly ok to murder men? It's only a problem if you murder women or children?

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @ iRadiate - Easy to say

              That's right of course, depends who the enemy is though doesn't it?

              These vermin are NOT the Wehrmacht or the Red Army, they're just a large armed gang that have been stupid enough to go from insurgent to conventional war type operations without a real military infrastructure.

              Any modern large mechanised military (once the gloves come off) would squash them flat like the cockroaches they are. Please don't quote the "highly trained ex-Saddam army troops" horseshit either, because, well, they did such a fantastic job against against the Yanks in the Gulf war didn't they?

              However, I'm guessing your snide inference with the easy to say thing was that I don't know what it means to fight in a war.

              Sorry to disappoint, I've been infantry at the pointy end of a few nasty little wars over the last couple of decades from central Africa to Somalia to Afghanistan amongst others and I can tell you it's not too difficult to crush these type of vermin once they come out in the open as they are now.

              You just need lots of ordnance and the will to use it properly.

        9. iranu

          Re: ISIS

          False Dichotomy.

        10. Jaybus

          Re: ISIS

          Third option. Fight religious idiocy with religion. Get an Israeli agent to pose as a prophet predicting that Allah will destroy Mecca for the sins of the jihadist if they don't stop killing people. Some months later launch a 20,000 kg lump of pig iron into low Earth orbit with guidance rockets attached. Cause said lump of pig iron to re-enter and direct it to strike Mecca, thus fulfilling the prophecy and allowing the "prophet" to build a following. With luck, a jihadist will kill the prophet and ensure a lasting new anti-jihad religion.

          1. DrBobMatthews

            Re: ISIS

            There are enough mossad agents wandering around on stolen and forged passports of other countries, so I wouldn't go down that road,

        11. Cloud, what..... Sorry... Um... - you just made that up.
          Thumb Up

          Re: ISIS

          Upvote for mentioning Tropic Thunder - a superb film.

        12. DrBobMatthews

          Re: ISIS

          Well said, but your lucid and logical response will be lost on those who immediately follow the knee jerk reaction of our appalling government and suffer from the same lack of basic intelligence.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: ISIS

        An escalated response by the state is exactly what they seek - see 'What terrorists want' by Louise Richardson. And besides, are they terrorists or a group staging a military coup for religious reasons? I understand that the majority of deaths amongst the people going out to join the fight are due to fighting between the various factions. Do you go to paradise if you are shot by the wrong type of Muslim?

        1. Jaybus

          Re: ISIS

          A tricky question. I will guess yes, but then he may have to share virgins with his killer.

    2. Simon Harris

      Re: ISIS

      "Are we not calling them ISIS anymore?"

      According to that bastion of truth, Wikipedia, since they were formed in 2004 they've been called all sorts of things...

      Early 2004 Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, "The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad" (JTJ)

      Oct. 2004 Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn, "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers" and described by the West as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI)

      Jan. 2006 "Mujahideen Shura Council"

      Oct. 2006 Dawlat al-ʻIraq al-Islāmīyah, "Islamic State of Iraq" (ISI)

      Apr. 2013 "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", also known as "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" (ISIL/ISIS)

      June 2014 "Islamic State" (IS)

      The last name change to piss of the US who had decided to settle on calling them ISIL in May 2014 (that reason's probably not strictly true!)

      If nothing else, at least they're keeping their stationers in work reprinting letter-heads for them at regular intervals!

    3. Daniel von Asmuth


      Do you mean Britons are starting to talk in Gaelic, drink black beer and celebrate St. Patrick's day?

      1. BongoJoe


        Do you mean Britons are starting to talk in Gaelic, drink black beer and celebrate St. Patrick's day?

        Gotta love these Welsh patron saints...

    4. The elephant in the room

      Re: ISIS

      Islamic State is better because ISIS is not an anagram of "camel ass titi".

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hypocrites R Us

    Does seeing this count?

    No, thought not.

  3. Aqua Marina

    Democratic process

    Here's a thought. If those 25% got their act together, they could become a significant majority and use the democratic process to effect real change. It would probably be more effective than any act of terrorism with the way voting apathy has been going in Britain.

    1. midcapwarrior

      Re: Democratic process

      "Here's a thought. If those 25% got their act together, they could become a significant majority and use the democratic process to effect real change"

      25% can't be a majority. Perhaps a plurality but not a majority.

      1. Vic

        Re: Democratic process

        25% can't be a majority

        It can in British politics :-(


      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Democratic process

        It's hardly encouraging that you can get downvoted on The Reg for stating a fact. Oh well...

        The best lack all conviction, while the worst

        Are full of passionate intensity.

        - William Butler Yeats

      3. Al fazed

        Re: Democratic process

        25% can't be a majority.

        Then how did the Tories get in at the last election ? And the next one too ?


        1. midcapwarrior

          Re: Democratic process

          Getting the most votes does not automatically make a majority.

          You can win with 25% if you have multiple candidates and no one gets more than you.

          Still not a majority.

          Simple math.

  4. John G Imrie

    Now we are all perverts

    Because that image in the article is a big nipple.

    Now go wash your mind out. :-)

    PS I would like it known that not all John's go around beheading people who's religious affiliations they disagree with.

    1. Malcolm 1

      Re: Now we are all perverts

      It's a particularly bad choice of visualization as 25% of the population are rendered as just 6.25% of the area. Infographic fail.

      1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: Now we are all perverts

        "It's a particularly bad choice of visualization as 25% of the population are rendered as just 6.25% of the area. Infographic fail.""

        It's obviously been based on radius/diameter rather than area, which would be too complicated for the mass unwashed to understand!

      2. John H Woods Silver badge

        Re: Infographic Fail

        They've quietly changed it.

    2. Bloakey1

      Re: Now we are all perverts


      "PS I would like it known that not all John's go around beheading people who's religious affiliations they disagree with."

      You are not all terrorists agreed, but you are all the clients of prostitutes and you are all unknown American male murder victims.

      1. ShadowedOne

        Re: Now we are all perverts

        "You are not all terrorists agreed, but you are all the clients of prostitutes and you are all unknown American male murder victims."

        So..all prostitutes are necrophiliacs?

  5. brain_flakes

    I remember this plotline from TV

    Life imitates Black Mirror?

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I've seen it...

    ...but without sound, the thought of listening to a London accent was too horrific.

    1. Nigel 11

      Re: I've seen it...

      And you didn't barf?

      A good few years ago (not long after 9/11) one of our secretaries received an e-mail from her abusive finally-ex, opened the attachment (bad idea!), and it was a video of a similar terrorist murder. (I refuse to call it an execution, which word implies judicial legitimacy). She lost her lunch before she could reach the wastepaper basket. No-one else wanted to look.

      I had to look, as the sysadmin. I still wish I hadn't. Then I made sure that he'd not mailed it to anyone else at our site, and called the police. I really hope they gave him a hard time, though I suspect they had bigger fish to fry. (He was a piece of shit who abused his girlfriend, not, as far as I know, a terrorist in the more commonly accepted meaning of the word).

      1. Don Jefe

        Re: I've seen it...

        Yes, stuff like this is terrible to watch. Seeing actual people actually get killed always sucks, even if you don't like the person who died. I'm actually pleasantly surprised by the small numbers who watched the entire thing.

        I see no point in people watching this sort of thing, but I see no point in criminalizing the viewing and sharing of it either. It is real, it did happen and to attempt to deny that by discouraging its viewing is just fucking stupid. If ignoring something made it not real then the aliens would stop coming into my bedroom at night.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I've seen it...

          Just to be clear for the brain dead, I haven't actually seen the video nor have I any intention of trying to do so. Further clarification will I fear be a waste of my time however I will hint that the second half of my comment might contain a clue.

        2. Cynic_999

          Re: I've seen it...

          Of course, when its scenes of hundreds of people being killed and maimed at one time, such as Western "shock and awe" bombings, it's shown on national TV news channels, and we are supposed to look at what our heroic soldiers have done with pride.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I've seen it...

          "Yes, stuff like this is terrible to watch. Seeing actual people actually get killed always sucks, even if you don't like the person who died".

          I couldn't agree more, and nothing would make me watch the beheading video.

          Nevertheless... the actual killing is much, much, MUCH worse than the video - whether anyone watches it or not. If a million people are killed in Iraq and no one notices (quite deliberately)... did it really happen?

          YES IT DID, and that is far worse than any video that could ever be made. Let's get our thinking and our priorities straight.

  7. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    Life of Brian

    That video seems to be the new JEHOVA!! Have you watched JEHOVA??

    And any description of it must OBLIGATORILY be accompanied by one or several adjectives chosen from the set {DISGUSTING, HORRIFIC, NASTY}.

    To illustrate its poll, YouGov issued this image, which resembles the 20th century charts which terrified Londoners by showing the damage a Soviet nuke would inflict upon their city.

    Looks like they map the percentage to the radius instead of the surface covered? How bad can government make those diagrams? 80% of the population say: very bad!

    1. Canonical Exegesis

      Re: Life of Brian

      Are you deliberately being completely fuckwitted or is gratuitous offence part of your dna?

      "JEHOVA" is one of the renderings of the Tetragrammaton or literal Name of the LORD GOD sans vowels and is thus sacred to both Christians and Jews.

      The fact that we don't have a practise of fatwa, knowing that He can win all His battles doesn't really offer carte blanche to casual blasphemers.

      If your intention was to parody the Muslim/ IS thinking behaviour (closely related to mediaeval Catholicism), you need to apply the correct deity to start with...

  8. Mike Bell

    Graphic plays it down

    It's worse than that! The core of that graphic (25%) is way too small compared with the area of the whole (100%).

  9. thomas k.

    rather than living under a rock

    we chose to show Mr Foley some respect by not watching it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: rather than living under a rock

      The percentage referred to was of those who haven't even heard of it.

      If you look at the graph only 2% have seen it in it's entirety and a further 23% have seen or heard a clip. For the rest, well it's difficult not to haver heard of it or seen a still from it because it's on the front page of most news media sites. Hence the disbelief that such a high percentage are in the dark about it, however I suspect a few of those could be under 5s. Or possibly those with the same comprehension skills as yourself.

      1. Tom 260

        Re: rather than living under a rock

        The poll question is rather leading, seeing or hearing a section of the video, well the BBC news at 6 on the day showed a still with a few words voiced from the executioner, so everyone that watches that falls into the 25%. New headline perhaps, BBC turns 25% of UK into terrorists?

      2. thomas k.

        Re: rather than living under a rock

        Yes, apologies for just glancing over the beginning of the article before posting.

        Still, amazing that 17% haven't even heard of this, it's been front page on the Guardian every day since it happened and I would imagine, from comments here in the past, that it's probably gotten even more play in the Daily Mail.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: rather than living under a rock

      The comment about living under a rock was related to the 17% who had not even heard that the video existed (i.e. didn't even know about the news story). Therefore how could they be showing Mr Foley respect, as you have to know about something and choose not to do it to actively show some respect?

  10. denzil

    ive never understood why people watch this type of video ?

    if people didnt watch them they would stop making them simple as that .

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      The majority of people choose not to watch but for a certain target audience these are watched as recruitment videos.

    2. Sir Runcible Spoon

      What about the other extremists whom this will inspire? Are you expecting them to show some common decency and not watch it too?

      I'm not sure the page 'views' are determined by the predisposition of the watcher - who knows who they are? All they will see is their video being watched.

      It's not a great argument to suggest that they would stop making them if 'people' stopped watching them, because it isn't realistically going to happen.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I watched it to fact check, simple as that. To compare what I observe with what's being shovelled at us via the media.

    3. b166er

      And it will be that type of people dismayed that the Highways Agency are now starting, at long last, to erect screens around road traffic accidents.

      That your life is so dull only the horrendous sight of someone having their head removed can remind you what it was once like to feel.

      1. LucreLout

        "And it will be that type of people dismayed that the Highways Agency are now starting, at long last, to erect screens around road traffic accidents."

        Slightly different reasoning, I think. HA are doing it to cut down on rubbernecking, as that causes further accidents and still longer delays.

  11. Bunbury

    Censorship poll

    The poll on the site asks whether and to what extent people want the material censored. It would be better had they also asked "why?". For me, I would be happy to see censorship here because the widespread distribution is clearly very distressing for Mr Foley's family. However, others might feel there is a need to censor it because of the political dimension.

    Whereas those in favour of no censorship might do so because they support the extremists in question. Or they may be taking the "right to know" approach.

  12. kmac499

    A Dignified Reaction

    The attitude of the Met does seem a little hysterical. Presumably the intention was if we say it's illegal then no one will watch it especially the impressionable ones who might be encouraged to support IS and it's aims here in the UK

    The dignified reaction is what I believe most of us are doing. We know the footage exists, we are disgusted by it, we feel compassion for Foley, his friends and family, and utter contempt for the perpetrators. So all we are interested in seeing or hearing is enough to help identify the IS killers.

    I don't for one minute think that 'viewing figures' will influence IS in anyway at all. They will still keep terrorising the tens of thousands Iraquis and Syrians that don't agree with their twisted fanaticism.

  13. alain williams Silver badge

    Distasteful or Terrorist Act ?

    Whereas watching someone being beheaded could be thought of distasteful or ghoulish, is it really a terrorist act ? This overly enthusiastic condemnation makes me less likely to believe that ISIS/IS really is ''The Threat'' to our way of life - just as Saddam being able to hit us with missiles in 45 minutes never was.

    Anyway: what is the difference between watching this clip and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or World War II footage or even playing Grand Theft Auto, all show people being killed - to various levels of realism ?

    For the family involved - I have complete sympathy, but that is another matter.

    1. Bloakey1

      Re: Distasteful or Terrorist Act ?

      I have not seen it and have no wish to see it as I have seen other despicable acts such as this in real life.

      I do not think viewing it makes you a terrorist, people have a myriad of reasons for watching it such as:

      To see what friends are talking about and to be able to make informed comment.

      Genuine curiosity.

      To further re-enforce hatred of such people.

      To hear voice and see if you know it and can identify the person.


      I hope that the person who did this is dealt with by a Sharia court and that Mr Foley's family refuse to take diyahh{1.},

      1. Blood money.

    2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      @Mr Williams

      Pleas do not confound media entertainment or historical documents with the horrific act of a subhuman madman.

      Wartime footage was made by journalists to show what was going on. The fact that it was war and horrible (or extremely boring, depending on what part is shown) does not detract from the fact that it was reality - that is what they were there to report.

      Wartime footage is what proved to the world the Auschwitz massacres and put Nazi genocide into the spotlight. Without that proof, Holocaust deniers would have easy times denying things or calling on conspiracies (not that they don't try, they're just not credible).

      Media entertainment, be it films or games, is tailor-made to pull a string, nothing more. Nobody is harmed, it's all magic (pixel or silver, doesn't matter). You don't like it, you don't watch (or play), simple as that.

      A beheading cannot be reduced to a simple distasteful act. Somebody lost their life because an asshole decided he had the right to make that decision on his own, for spurious reasons.

      Comparing that act to games or films cheapens the victim's life, and that is a shame. Comparing that to wartime films elevates that asshole's act to the same level as wartime journalism, which is totally, undeniably unjustified.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maybe I'm just being naive but perhaps some who accessed the video wanted to listen to the audio track in case they recognized the voice of the murderer. To watch it for any other reason than trying to help doesn't make you a terrorist but certainly makes you someone who is not nice to know.

  15. Jamie Jones Silver badge

    "True fact"

    I hope my irony filter has turned American (*snigger*) today, and that was intentional.....

  16. Rikkeh

    Some of this seems awfully familiar...

    REG: Listen. If you wanted to join ISIS, you'd have to really hate the Americans.

    BRIAN: I do!

    REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

    BRIAN: A lot!

    REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Americans are the Judean People's Front.... I mean, the Shia.

    P.F.J.: Yeah...

    JUDITH: Splitters.

    P.F.J.: Splitters.

    1. dotdavid

      Re: Some of this seems awfully familiar...

      Wondered for a moment there why El Reg was recruiting for ISIS. Reading comprehension fail.

  17. Dr_N

    I'm Okay Then...

    Didn't look at it.

    Didn't feel the need to look at it.

  18. nbc

    What's Changed?

    Out of respect for Mr Foley's family I have not watched the video.

    However, as this is just the latest in a long list of jihadist beheading videos I'm interested to find out why this one has received the publicity it has whilst previous videos have received scant attention from the media or the Met.

    Perhaps the Met's attempt to brand everyone as "terrorist" is merely a positioning exercise for greater funding and future surveillance.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What's Changed?

      I imagine it's received more attention because the victim was American and the guy in the video is reported to have a British accent.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Met

    Meanwhile, what sanctions are being applied to a police force that may have lied about the meaning of a law or its application? The police are supposed to uphold the law, not make it up as they go along.

    But then they're also not supposed to shoot innocent Brazilian electricians and then promote the people who were involved. All the people who want violent solutions to terrorism should consider that one day, with their current level of professionalism, the Met might mistake you for a violent terrorist about to plant a bomb. Is that really what you want?

    1. Bloakey1

      Re: The Met

      <snip but agree>

      "But then they're also not supposed to shoot innocent Brazilian electricians and then promote the people who were involved. All the people who want violent solutions to terrorism should consider that one day, with their current level of professionalism, the Met might mistake you for a violent terrorist about to plant a bomb. Is that really what you want?"

      I agree with what you say about Menedes, he should never have been shot indeed he was incapacitated once until the guy involved was told to step clear. Also the presence of military personell and their involvement has never been addressed in any meaningful manner,

      I believe in dishing out exterme violence on the battlefield, people like me should never be allowed to use our "skills" in a civillian environment.

    2. Rikkeh

      Re: The Met

      It's like the "it's illegal to take photos" rubbish all over again.

      Experience seems to suggest that the best thing to do when it comes to legal advice from the police (if it's not on blatantly obvious things like throwing bricks through windows or beating people up) is to assume that it's wrong until someone who knows what they're doing agrees with them.

  20. Dave 62

    Twisted their words.

    It seems to me Jasper Hamill is twisting what the Met have said, they simply stated that viewing the video could be, in the strictest letter of the law, viewed as an offence and could be used as one piece in building a case against someone or to bolster an application for a warrant, at no point have they said than anyone and everyone watching the video will be branded a terrorist, singled out for cavity searches at airports and have a florists van parked outside 24/7.

    Now it's not completely beyond the realms of possibility that one might be sent the video, unsolicited, on snapchat or similar, and fined for it, but that's not what the Met said.

    Seems Jasper is getting all indignant about nothing.

    1. Drem

      Re: Twisted their words.

      The thing I found interesting about that was that when David Allan Green challanged The Met as to which law they thought applied, they couldn't tell him, then pointed to bits of legislation that didn't apply, then backtracked on whether simply watching it was a terrorist offence.

      As usual, the Met have difficulty finding their derrieres with both hands.

    2. teebie

      Re: Twisted their words.

      But it isn't an offence - they are unable to give any single offence that viewing the video would constitute. So they are lying about what the law is. It would be better if they refrained from doing so.

  21. Tim Elphick

    I'm part of that quarter

    Just so you know, BBC news has been playing clips of his voice. If that counts as hearing part of the film then I don't think this statistic is outrageous as is made out. You'll be familiar with the saying...

  22. Arthur the cat Silver badge

    Why the Beatles anyway?

    Surely bastards like this should be named after a bad death metal band?

    If that last phrase is not a tautology.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why the Beatles anyway?

      I think it's the bad death metal bands that are usually named after bastards like this.

    2. Irony Deficient

      Re: Why the Beatles anyway?

      Arthur the cat, perhaps because John was “the angry Beatle”.

  23. Alien8n


    The problem with this law is it's not looking at intent. The video become illegal to watch or disseminate due to the intent when it was created, as propaganda to promote a terrorist cause. As such the news outlets displaying the video could be viewed as promoting terrorism. By watching the video it becomes, under law, an offence as you have viewed materials produced for the purpose of promoting terrorism. So under the law as it currently stands, yes, 25% of the population are now classed as terrorists.

    This is of course complete nonsense, the BBC does not want it's viewers planning the next bombing campaign of London, and the vast majority of people who have viewed* this video are quite rightly outraged by it's content and have no intention of packing their bags to visit the IS Holiday camp and adventure training ground based outside Baghdad or Damascus (bookings dependant upon availability).

    But then this law has *always* been used in it's loosest sense. Try downloading a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook** for "entertainment" purposes and see how long it is before your door gets knocked down and you're whisked away with a black bag over your head.

    * No, I have not watched this, or any other video currently being pushed by the gullible like farming scam surveyors on Facebook.

    ** Again, no, I have not read or downloaded a copy of this. I do however remember seeing a fantastic lecture at Leicester University in the 1980's on the uses and production of a variety of explosives (complete with demonstration of firing a candle through a door using a C19th black powder musket) proving that at the end of the day everyone likes blowing stuff up for fun***

    *** Or watching stuff being blown up for fun in the case of Didcot Power Station

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Intent

      Intent is a lot more difficult to prove, which makes it a hassle for coppers to justify detaining people for looking a bit muslim.

    2. Vic

      Re: Intent

      The video become illegal to watch

      Under which piece of legislation?


    3. Bloakey1

      Re: Intent

      Good post but I found it offensive as it was 'houseist', yes the sons of the desert live in tents but we should not cast aspersions on them for that.

      The interesting ethical dilemma that I would have, is whether watching the video or killing an American is a greater crime.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I knew it!

    ITIL really were terrorist handbooks!

  25. Anomalous Cowshed

    No good any more

    This business of "we are all terrorists" or "the people are the real terrorists" is simply not good enough any more. We cannot cope with so many terrorist men, women, old age pensioners and toddlers. The system needs to be refined. It is clear that there are different degrees of terrorism. I propose the following scheme, to keep everybody happy:

    To keep the police and government happy, we will no longer be known as 'British subjects' but as 'Terrorists of the British Isles' or 'Her Majesty's Terrorists'.

    We will be graded according to our terrorist rating (TR). This will be calculated by Terror-Rate, a new quango set up by the government.

    Thus, "Mr. Bloggs, a resident of Giggleswick"

    Will be replaced by:

    "Mr. Bloggs, a terrorist with a 55% Terror Rating from a British town whose name cannot be disclosed for security reasons..."

    And when discussing the relative opinions of different people, we will proceed as follows:

    "Mr. Sloggs, who, as a terrorist with a 77% Terror Rating, outranks Mr. Cloggs, who hasa a Terror Rating of a mere 45%..."

    In day-to-day use, such as in the pub, 'Terrorist' will inevitably be shortened to 'Terry'. As in:

    "Oy, you, Terry over there!"

    - "Who, me?" (someone unfortunately named 'Terry' by his parents before the name was banned for security reasons)

    - "No the other Terry over there, the one with the 30% Terry Rating!"

    1. adrianww

      Re: No good any more

      Actually, the "HM Terrorists" idea could have legs you know...

      Drop the whole Geneva Convention/Human Rights thing and just become the ultimate mercenary state. Hire out our armed forces to whoever needs them the most (and pays best). Become the world's biggest bunch of utter, you-know-whats.

      "Hey Uncle Sam? Got a problem with terrorists in <insert foreign state name here>? No worries, for a mere several billion in untraceable readies, we'll get in there, flatten the place and get out again, no questions asked."

      New passports with really scary looking covers, nationality listed as "HM Terrorist" and taking the Stewart dynasty's old "Nemo me impune lacessit" as a new motto (with the agreement of the Scots of course, who still get to join in and play the game whatever the result on September 18th).

      Once we have a few successful and sickeningly violent operations under our belt, it might get to the point that no other terrorist nutter in the world would ever want to mess with us. We'd be the equivalent of the little bloke in the pub who no-one particularly likes, but who is never given any bother because absolutely everyone knows "Don't mess with him - he's a total psycho! He once bit someone's kneecaps off and spat them back into the poor fella's eyes!" etc. etc.

      Insane? Me? Whatever makes you think that...?

      1. Charles 9

        Re: No good any more

        But what happens when said psychos run into even worse psychos, sucb a people willing to nuke a city or three just because they're in the way?

        1. adrianww

          Re: No good any more

          No, you don't understand. The psychos who would be willing to nuke a city just 'cos it got in the way or because it was eying up the girlfriend, spilled the pint, etc? That would be us. Prepared to release a deadly chemical plague across a continent? Us again (if you pay enough and we have the antidote). Prepared to strap people to chairs and force them to watch back-to-back episodes of Eastenders, Big Brother and Hollyoaks for hours? Still us. Strapping headphones to people's ears and forcing them to listen to One Direction, N'Dubz and Ed Sheeran on repeat? Yes, you guessed it, us yet again.

          Basically, you just have to make sure that you're the ultimate psycho's psycho at all times. Job done.

          Not always easy, I grant you. And a bit downright odd as modern foreign policy goes. But we have a fine history of being both creative and inventive. We just need to channel it in the right way.

  26. ElNumbre


    I wonder what category I land in? I went and found the video on a popular 'crowd-sourced' news site, but wussed out at the last minute, having seen a similar video before and having the memories. Perhaps this puts me in some kind of 'four-lions' category?

    1. Bloakey1

      Re: Category

      You sir showed intent to view and also to publish aforementioned terrorist propaganda and are guilty as charged.

      Back in the days of the IRA the police took a far more balanced view. The newspaper An Phoblacht was widelay available for sale in pubs etc. and nobody as much as blinked when they saw it for sale. The funds went directly to the 'Bhoys' ,sic. .

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Category

        Nasty as they were, and are, the IRA were white, and most people in this country didn't know that they were officially communists.

        However, the ideology hardly matters. The situation seems to be that there is always a subset of young men, and a few young women, who are disconnected from wider society and have psychological problems. If someone offers them an opportunity to shoot of weapons and commit acts of violence, they will do it even if self harm is involved. If there is a difference between this country and the US it may be that the widespread access to guns over there means that more of them commit local acts of destruction (Columbine) whereas in this country they more often have to go abroad to do it.

        "Primitive" societies often put a lot of effort into socialising adolescent males, in some cases involving initiation ceremonies in the course of which the more dysfunctional accidentally get killed before they can do any harm to others.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I know who the strange 17% are

    Think about it. Everyone who reads the paper, watches the news, has a Facebook feed, everyone has heard about it.

    The only people who'd deny seeing it when they had are the terrorists themselves, or those being radicalised and, while not yet ready to cause a terror attack, don't want to be seen to NOT support such action.

    So 17% or thereabouts of the country are the terrorists.

  28. ratfox

    There is a special kind of hell…

    For people who represent percentages as concentric circles, with the percentage represented by the radius instead of the area.

    I understand that the concentric circles are useful to represent a series of consecutively included percentages, but the area is all wrong.

  29. gautam

    AM i terrorist for watching this? - That's Americans BTW

    When I was young, came across this front page on Life magazine and the image has haunted me ever since. Didn't know much about Napalm or Agent Orange. But now....... Oh America. You rascals.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What no TOR usage?

    I though we got on "the list" if we used TOR to view the Conservative/LibDem/Labour/MonsterRavingLoonie/... party websites too....

  31. Yugguy

    Islam needs to mature

    Islam seems to be where Christianity was many centuries ago - crusades and conversion by force.

    Apart from a few nutjobs like Westboro Baptist it has grown up.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Christianity has grown up ?

      Really ?

      With all the raving lunatics approving Dubya's wars from pulpits, it has grown up ?

      With the nutjobs trying to push creationism (no, I will not honor that name with a capital C) in school, it is growing up ?

      All the stupid fools regularly parading with signs that start with "God Hates <insert pet hate here>" prove that Christianity has grown up ?

      No, Christianity has not grown up. Quite a lot of Christians have, thankfully, but Christianity itself is still in the Middle Ages.

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: Christianity has grown up ? (More than you have)

        Sorry Pascal, your bullshit will no longer be tolerated. You are an asswipe that needs to shut up and stop your anti american, atheistic, propaganda that you spout in almost every post.

        EVERY thing you mentioned is based on the revulsive Westboro Baptist church or their ilk.

        Why is YOUR continued hatred even tolerated? Because you and your whole group here are agreed it is totally okay to be anti Christian and anti American.

        How are you any different than them ?

        You deliberately paint anyone with anyone with "faith" as misguided, antiquated and wrong and make all American Conservative Christians out as being part of that ONE small church with less than 100 members, a dead leader, no real power and all the intolerance you could ask for.

        Those Westboro scum have been denounced by almost all Americans and religions in this country. They hardly even exist anymore. Really great example; 100 assclowns out of 300 million average people? Big mouths don't mean big numbers! EXCEPT YOURS!

        In reality there are very few "creationists", it's just idiots like you that pick up on a headline from AP in Texas or Louisiana about a school board meeting and try to stir shit up not knowing anything about what really happens in this country. Ignorance can be forgiven but stupidity can't.

        No different than you and your dummycrat peacenik love your neighbor crap that has worked so well that IS/ISIS/ISIL feels they can safely cut the heads off journalists and rape hundreds of women. How about Boko Haram? I suppose you think they are justified too?

        Let's see hmmm, exactly WHO has grown up? It sure isn't the "Peaceful Muslims" because they don't publicly denounce the crimes of believers like the ISIS murderers, they'd rather send them checks. The atheists just blather on about how having "Belief" is wrong and should be banned and "they been done wrong by religion", while they bully others who have done nothing to them except have a religion.

        Grow up yourself! Stop the BS! Quit being so stupid! Don't blame others for YOUR OWN shortcomings.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Christianity has grown up ? (More than you have)

          Did the 'christians' in Rwanda grow up? This happened only 20 years ago.

    2. Dr Dan Holdsworth

      Re: Islam needs to mature

      The real problem here is actually oil. Oil is difficult to extract and process, so hardly anybody can just set up an oil well in their back garden; in the Middle East what happens is that whoever is in charge ends up with this magic money tree which they alone control, and nobody else has anything much.

      The ruling system in these states thus tends to end up something like a Mafia family, and if you don't subscribe to the peculiarly narrow brand of lunacy of the rulers, you don't get much of anything. Politics in these countries thus ends up at a dictatorship, and in the interests of a quiet life the dictators ruthlessly kill off dissenters.

      Us Westerners marching in and topping the dictators merely opens the field for all manner of would-be dictators to take the field and try to substitute in a different brand of lunacy instead. There seems to be no end of different flavours of bloody stupid to choose from over there, so perhaps the best option would be to sit back and let them slug it out until the most violent ones have decimated each other. It also appears like most of these different factions hate the sight of each other and only ever unite in the face of a much bigger threat, i.e. the USA.

      So, best to sit this one out. If our politicians fancy being useful for a change, then a very useful ploy that would benefit everyone including themselves would be a spot of intelligent economic warfare. Oil is useful portable energy, because it is so easy to use. Investing in cheap nuclear power would rapidly make electricity a lot cheaper, and investing in research into battery and supercapacitor technologies would make these work better as well.

      If we suddenly can fuel our cars on cheap electricity stored in very fast-charging batteries, then the utility of oil suddenly will decline, and the price (and thus the profitability) of it also drops. Less money going into the oil states ought to calm them all down a fair bit.

  32. Infury8r

    Possessing "Information useful to a terrorist"

    1950's / 1960's A-level chemistry books are deemed now to contain "Information useful to a terrorist"

    The older chemistry students amongst your readers were actually taught knowledge deemed now to be useful to a terrorist.

    Whatever you do, don't mix Harpic with Domestos; the resultant poison gas was used as a weapon during WW1.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Possessing "Information useful to a terrorist"

      On the contrary, I would recommend to all potential terrorists that they lock themselves in a lavatory, close the windows, and mix as much Harpic with bleach as possible in order to make a very useful short distance weapon. Guaranteed to assist Jihadists in getting to the next world.

    2. BristolBachelor Gold badge

      Re: Possessing "Information useful to a terrorist"

      So is a bus timetable "Information useful to a terrorist". Basically it seems that the law was written by a bunch of nitwits, or was deliberately vague to allow it's easy use to arrest, hold and convict people. (notice that's "or", not "XOR")

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Possessing "Information useful to a terrorist"

      So that's why our education system is dumbing down our kids. Dumb kids can't be terrorists.

      Good one Gove.

      (AC so they don't find out who I am)

  33. Ken Darling

    It does no such thing

    shows a man with a London accent appearing to behead journalist James Foley.

    Have you seen the video or are you just repeating what other lazy journalist are stating? From what I understand, the video fades out so any 'beheading' is not shown.

    Although there is no doubt that the beheading DID take place, it is NOT shown in the video.

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Isn't the truth classified?

    I thought mere more mortals weren't allowed to know the truth.

    /sarcasm off.

    Our lords and masters (sic) are already asking what laws they can introduce to increase censorship and erode civil liberties still further.

    Looks like the days of the UK being a free country are well and truly over.

  35. David Glasgow

    Terrible infographic

    Please don't think I am ignoring the horror and tragedy of this event.

    However, that infographic is seriously misleading. In what way is the 25% circle 25% of the whole? (Don't respond with the correct answer. The fact that there is an answer is not the point)

    Edward Tufte would be turning in his grave if he was dead.

  36. Anonymous Coward

    So, this is one of the most commented threads currently on the Register

    My only comment is that I find it depressing that watching some part of the newsworthy, if brutal, video gets you put on the public enemies list.

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    OMG I've been working with ISIS

    I never knew a supermarket could be so dangerous!

    Not sure anyone ever tried to behead me though, I guess the "please wear a hard hat & steel toecap shoes", was just to lul me into a false sense of security.

    Am I on a watch list now? :(

  38. Stuart Halliday

    "True fact"

    Is there any other kind?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Is there any other kind?"

      have you ever encountered the mainstream media? (aka "presstitutes")

    2. BongoJoe

      "True fact"

      Is there any other kind?

      Philip K Dick would tend to disagree.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Philip K. Dick sensed the platonic layer of reality better than most.

        The idea of Ferris Fremont playing here as a little boy the idea of Ferris Fremont as a little boy at all, anywhere was too bizarre to be believed. He had rolled his tricycle by these very houses, skipped over the very cracks we had tripped on in the night; his mother had probably warned him about cars passing along this street. The little boy playing here and inventing fantasies in his head about people passing, about the mysterious word ARAMCHEK inscribed in the cement under his feet, conjecturing over the weeks and months as to what it meant, discerning in a child's mind secret and occult purposes in it that were to blossom later on in adulthood. Into full-blown, florid, paranoid delusions about a vast conspiratorial organization with no fixed beliefs and no actual membership but somehow a titanic enemy of society, to be hunted out and destroyed wherever found. I wondered how much of this had come into his head while he was still a child. Maybe he had imagined the entire thing then. As an adult he had merely voiced it.

        In his inaugural statement, Ferris Fremont discussed the Vietnam War, in which the United States had been actively involved for a number of years, and declared it to be a two-front war: one front six thousand miles away and the other front here at home. He meant, he explained later, the internal war against Aramchek and all that it espoused. This was really one war fought in two areas of the world; and the more important battlefield, Fremont declared, consisted of the one here, for it was here that the survival of the United States would be decided. The gooks could not really invade us, he explained, and take us over; but Aramchek could. Aramchek had grown more and more during the last two administrations. Now that a Republican had been returned to office, Aramchek would be dealt with, after which the Vietnam War could finally be won. It could never be won, Fremont explained, so long as Aramchek operated at home, sapping the vitality and will of the American people, destroying their determination to fight. The antiwar sentiment in the United States, according to Fremont, derived from Aramchek and its efforts.

        As soon as he had been sworn in as President, Ferris Fremont declared open war on the surface manifestations of Aramchek and fanned out from there in all directions.

  39. Stuart Halliday

    Haven't we been here before?

    I've not seen this video and quite honesty I don't want to.

    A good while ago there was reports of an American getting beheaded on video and I stupidly thought I'd try to find it. Well I did and I had nightmares for days afterwards. My fault I know. But who cares what accent these murderers have. Just stop them OK?

  40. Stevie


    Description in final paragraph nails it.

    Someone should launch a kickstarter to fund a reward for the outing of the real name and a matching photo of the git in the snuff movie.

    Which I haven't watched on two principles: I don't watch torture porn and I don't contribute knowingly to the no-doubt sky-high web hit stats that make these videos so attractive to the murderers.

    If they want to suppress all press coverage in their domain I say fine, and I'll start with yours.

  41. silver darling

    yougov surveys and hiding under rocks

    Consider that :

    - yougov reward survey participants with entry in a prize draw

    - the same participants are asked to take part in multiple surveys - typically 2 or 3 a week

    - it may be in participants interest to click whatever answer and get back to watching the cat videos, especially if the wording of the question could lead to any confusion

    - anyone taking the survey and aware of the police 'you're a terrorist if you watch it' stance may be more inclined towards a 'never heard of it' answer.

  42. Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance
    Big Brother

    They seem to be upping the ante lately

    Lot of people very upset by this latest piece of psychological warfare/brainwashing.

    Even the normally mild mannered El Reg seems to have a bit of niggle in its tone with this one.

    For all of you people saying 'I have no doubt he was killed, but I haven't watched the video', can I just beseech you from the bowels of christ that maybe you are mistaken? If that doesn't work, I'll refer an argument to logic. You're clever kiddies. I hopefully don't need to spell this one out further for you.

    I only believe what I see with my own two eyes. Certainly nothing I read in the MSM. Until I see a video of the guy having his head chopped off I will question it at least. Then again, I am a bit squeamish and actively avoid stuff like this. No amount of money could make me watch shit like this voluntarily.

    When did it become acceptable to post snuff movies in the MSM and actually have government ministers condone this? Yet, a little later on, the same government ministers/ptb/authority are telling us we will all be guilty by association. Do you remember that large internet corporation actively promoting the last beheading video and 'the authorities' saying it was ok? It's not fucking ok. It has never been ok. I have gone my entire life without seeing shit like this and now you are pushing it to the masses? Where kids can see it? Fuck them seeing pictures of people fucking in fast motion, one still of this shit is enough to give a kid nightmares for years. How fucking dare you say it is ok.

    They are just yanking our ding-dongs. It is legal to watch snuff movies in the MSM. It has always been illegal to watch snuff movies in the MSM. It is legal to watch snuff movies in the MSM. It has always been illegal to watch snuff movies in the MSM...

    The uproar seems to be from the double standard being imposed, by those who are responsible in the first place for these events happening. It isn't the man on the Clapham omnibus going round slaughtering infidels. It is the government ministers and those in power who have shares in and fund the arms industry. That sign the papers to go to war. Or not as they case sometimes is. The whole lot is blowing up and something nasty is brewing in the air, because they just don't care any more. They can't govern by propaganda so they will govern by force.

    I did come across some stills that someone posted in the alternative media and they did this without warning the fucking assholes, so I got to see what looked like someone's head chopped off. But here is the thing: I don't know if it was real or playmobil. It might have been either. I would have had to download it and test my forensics skills in photoshop to find out. No thanks! Not my idea of a good time.

    But, I have it on good authority that no such video exists of the actual decapitation. Yes, there is a man standing next to another man, with a knife. But then it cuts (no pun intended) to just, well, the gruesome part. And no one anywhere has actually seen the act take place. Now, if you were going to all the trouble to shoot this in hi-def and broadcast it to the world to show what a fanatical badass you really are, you would have thought they would have included the best bit.

    No one anywhere has actually seen this event take place. It may be that the guy really did have his head chopped off, but I question where this was done and just who actually did it.

    And why is this an offence? Even though it isn't really. When I open up the Daily Mail I got all the snuff I need. The shit I have seen in there has been the most harrowing and worst kind of true pornography I have ever seen in my life. Victims of bomb blasts - limbs spread around - blood everywhere. A terrorist act that I had no part in. All without warning. Nothing to let you know what you were about to see. That kids could see. Does net nanny block the daily mail? So how is this video different? Fucking mind games or what.

    So, if anyone has seen the video of this guy _physically_ being decapitated, then please do say, even anon coward. Then again you can't because there are laws against that now and you would be a criminal. Next there will be a law against us discussing it or giving our viewpoints on the matter.

    It is hard to know whether they just over egg the pudding at the mind control for the masses dept. or whether they have it down to such a fine art, that they know just how to yank our chains, just so...

    And the Beatles thing? People are getting very very angry. They are being goaded and shat on from a greater height than ever before and it's gone past insulting to threatening. This is NOT about one unfortunate man who might have been the victim of mad men. This is about control and manipulation of the masses. And everyone knows it.

    If we hadn't already, we will be crossing the Rubicon very soon. Hold on to your hats, and your heads (pun intended) if you can. It's going to get hairy!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: They seem to be upping the ante lately

      Cocaine is a helluva drug...

  43. Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance

    For Don Jefe, genuine question


    Yes, stuff like this is terrible to watch. Seeing actual people actually get killed always sucks, even if you don't like the person who died. I'm actually pleasantly surprised by the small numbers who watched the entire thing.

    I see no point in people watching this sort of thing, but I see no point in criminalizing the viewing and sharing of it either. It is real, it did happen and to attempt to deny that by discouraging its viewing is just fucking stupid. If ignoring something made it not real then the aliens would stop coming into my bedroom at night.


    Don Jeffe, I have a couple of questions here. They are both genuine questions without malice.

    1: Did YOU actually watch the video yourself?

    2: If you DID, then DID the video that you watched actually show the bit where they saw the head off?

    Like I say, I am genuinely intrigued to know. Not because whether I care if you watch things like this. For the same arguments and logic that you have yourself put forward, with regard to the general morality of watching subect matter such as this, I agree with your viewpoint and therefore would find it ironic or paradoxical if you HAD watched the video. I didn't word that very well. I'm just trying to say that a man with such a viewpoint, might not want to see something like this. Maybe I got that wrong. I am just trying to clarify. For the important bit.

    If you did watch the video, I would like to know if you actually saw the most horrific part.

    I am just perplexed by your certainty and unwavering belief - 'It is real, it did happen' you said. I just want to know how you know that. Like I said, I don't believe anything unless I see it with my own two eyes and not even then sometimes.

    As I said, these are genuine questions to you. I have something to learn from your answers, coz on the whole I do respect you and value your opinion. But this is not opinion I am looking for here, I am looking for the science stuff - data - binary, yes or no, black and white. They are two very easy questions and pretty unambiguous, so I eagerly await your reply.

  44. RegGuy1 Silver badge

    ...the people of Albion...

    Perfidious Albion, please.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: ...the people of Albion...

      If you think of it, Foley was basically killed by the UK's and France's dismembering of the Ottoman empire.

      Great job!

  45. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    Kurtz was right

    "We train young men to drop fire on people, but our politicians won't allow us to watch beheading videos on the Internet because it's terrorism!"

  46. razorfishsl

    I choose not to give such scum a platform to voice their sick fanatical ravings, so I avoid seeing such video material.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Very commendable.

  47. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    In other news, I wish Americans would just take the B Ark

    The Defense Department on Friday pushed back against Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) claim that fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) might have entered the United States across its southern border.

    Perry, who is weighing another run for the president in 2016, made the assertion Thursday during a speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

    "Yes! A monstrous creature from the pit of hell with scything teeth ten thousand miles long, breath that would boil oceans, claws that could tear continents from their roots, a thousand eyes that burned like the sun, slavering jaws a million miles across, a monster such as you have never ... never ... ever ..."

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Take II. They really have found the new "evil de la semaine"

      ISIS the Rock Band Mistaken for the Terrorist Group

      The name of the militant Islamic group ISIS is probably one of the most reviled names in the country at the moment. It is also the name of a defunct post-metal rock band with the same name that is getting "off color comments" on its Facebook page.

      The rockers may be hard to confuse with Islamic militants, but some have managed it.

      What will they do if they find out it is an ancient Egyptian $DEITY, "goddess of magical power and healing"?

  48. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Simple solution

    Ban anyone found to have viewed the video from the Internet for say a year, thereby increasing available bandwidth to the rest of us.

    Karma's a b*tch.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Simple solution

      American freedomer, please.

  49. Expectingtheworst

    Type of graph

    "To illustrate its poll, YouGov issued this image, which resembles the 20th century charts which terrified Londoners by showing the damage a Soviet nuke would inflict upon their city."

    That is the description.

    Although it may not be as you want it, it does state why and in that context it is accurate as a nuclear bomb would have an effect decreasing with increasing radius.

  50. Potemkine Silver badge


    You are all terrorists! That's why we are all watching you.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon