Al-Queda in Dublin this week

frantic_mel

Guys,

What do u think of the article in "The Sun" today about militant leaders who look up to Osama Bin Laden coming to Dublin this week. There coming to Trinity College for a debate on there religion etc. These guys are also saying they defend the children getting slaughtered in russia and also that ken bigley deserved to die. there going to turn the UK into islamic so they say, and also have some particular targets to hit.

Opinions please.

Blub2k4

My opinion would be that you should read a real newspaper and not that sensationalist rubbish written by thousands of trained monkeys with typewriters.

RE*AC*TOR

Why would you want opinions on what the Sun writes? Don't they give you your opinions?

Anyway, who cares if they turn the UK islamic? Is there something wrong with Islam? Is it a big scary unknown coming to get you, like communism, homosexuality or Pepsi Max?

billy the squid

Pepsi Max !!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

seriously though, Are they al queda supporters or are they just very devout muslims, the sun has a tendency to get the two mixed up.

Lump

The Sun..... HA HA HA Nuff Said!


John

embee

frantic_mel wrote:

Guys,

What do u think of the article in "The Sun" today about militant leaders who look up to Osama Bin Laden coming to Dublin this week.

I think that it is an article in "The Sun" and as such can only be taken with a rather large drum of salt.

Cactus Col

Blub2k4 wrote:

My opinion would be that you should read a real newspaper and not that sensationalist rubbish written by thousands of trained monkeys with typewriters.

Wow ... they must have a heck of an editor.

People seem to have a pretty bad opinion of the Sun here, I wonder, is that because it deals with issues that are more relevant to real people, taking on stories that happen to the normal joe blogg on the street?

Things that aren't important enough for the self-aggrandizing intellectuals that seem to populate the boards.

Tellox

I would quite safely say that they approached a bunch of shirt ninja's trick or treating, and began interviewing.

I once got an A2 in English for answering the question "Please state how your tabloid newspaper of choice is not entirely factual", with "Because its the Sun, and it speaks utter bollocks"..

Blub2k4

Cactus Col wrote:

People seem to have a pretty bad opinion of the Sun here, I wonder, is that because it deals with issues that are more relevant to real people, taking on stories that happen to the normal joe blogg on the street?

Things that aren't important enough for the self-aggrandizing intellectuals that seem to populate the boards.

No, you're wrong. It's because it's a load of ****e!

RE*AC*TOR

Cactus Col wrote:

Wow ... they must have a heck of an editor.

People seem to have a pretty bad opinion of the Sun here, I wonder, is that because it deals with issues that are more relevant to real people, taking on stories that happen to the normal joe blogg on the street?

Things that aren't important enough for the self-aggrandizing intellectuals that seem to populate the boards.

Perhaps... it deals with lots of issues...
1. David Beckham
2. Victoria Beckham
3. See point 1

ixoy

Cactus Col wrote:

People seem to have a pretty bad opinion of the Sun here, I wonder, is that because it deals with issues that are more relevant to real people, taking on stories that happen to the normal joe blogg on the street?

Eh? Well their website has the headline "Oil Giant's Staff Caught Romping" .. not quite sure what that's got to do with Joe Bloggs...

The reason people have a problem with this better, and other tabloids like the Daily Mail, is not so much the issues they choose to report (although that's paart of it), but their sensationalist unbalanced method of reporting. It's not just selective omission/inclusion of facts, but the fact they take a moralely outraged stance on issues - e.g. video game violence - solely to increase sales. They play to people's fears, stoke them, just to sell a few more issues. That's why they're disliked..

RE*AC*TOR

ixoy wrote:

Eh? Well their website has the headline "Oil Giant's Staff Caught Romping" .. not quite sure what that's got to do with Joe Bloggs...

The reason people have a problem with this better, and other tabloids like the Daily Mail, is not so much the issues they choose to report (although that's paart of it), but their sensationalist unbalanced method of reporting. It's not just selective omission/inclusion of facts, but the fact they take a moralely outraged stance on issues - e.g. video game violence - solely to increase sales. They play to people's fears, stoke them, just to sell a few more issues. That's why they're disliked..

Well said, and you didn't even have to mention the Hillsborough Disaster! Kudos...

Cactus Col

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Perhaps... it deals with lots of issues...
1. David Beckham
2. Victoria Beckham
3. See point 1

Yes, yes, yes, the times or the indo never stupe so low as to feature stories about celebrities or sports stars.

RE*AC*TOR

Perhaps they do, but the difference is they are stooping. The Sun is permanently in that gutter.

yossarin

Cactus Col wrote:

People seem to have a pretty bad opinion of the Sun here, I wonder, is that because it deals with issues that are more relevant to real people, taking on stories that happen to the normal joe blogg on the street?

Things that aren't important enough for the self-aggrandizing intellectuals that seem to populate the boards.

no - it is because it is a terrible newspaper with a poor quality of writing.
I suppose it boils down to what you want a newspaper for: do you want to know that two BP workers had sex in their office plus "how it might look pictures" or that a couple have been given the right to screen their ivf baby for genetic cancer?
One of these stories has huge implications for future childbirth, while the other is just about some science thing.

I find that the Sun also tend to sensationalise and dumb down the stories that they do cover. Also, while no newspaper could claim to be bias-free, the sun toes the murdoch party line a lot.

therecklessone

Cactus Col wrote:

Wow ... they must have a heck of an editor.

People seem to have a pretty bad opinion of the Sun here, I wonder, is that because it deals with issues that are more relevant to real people, taking on stories that happen to the normal joe blogg on the street?

Page 3 is relevant?

is relevant?

Gotcha is relevant?

Apologising to Liverpudlians 15 years after its coverage of the Hillsborough disaster is relevant?

:rolleyes:

Cactus Col

ixoy wrote:

Eh? Well their website has the headline "Oil Giant's Staff Caught Romping" .. not quite sure what that's got to do with Joe Bloggs...

The reason people have a problem with this better, and other tabloids like the Daily Mail, is not so much the issues they choose to report (although that's paart of it), but their sensationalist unbalanced method of reporting. It's not just selective omission/inclusion of facts, but the fact they take a moralely outraged stance on issues - e.g. video game violence - solely to increase sales. They play to people's fears, stoke them, just to sell a few more issues. That's why they're disliked..

They do play to peoples fears, but that does not negate everything that's written in it. Michael Moore plays to peoples fears as well remember, but that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong.

Blub2k4

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Perhaps they do, but the difference is they are stooping. The Sun is permanently in that gutter.

so true

Blub2k4

Cactus Col wrote:

They do play to peoples fears, but that does not negate everything that's written in it. Michael Moore plays to peoples fears as well remember, but that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong.

Michael Moore is a muppet too, what's that got to do with the Sun being cack?

<edit> this is all off-topic anyway

Cactus Col

yossarin wrote:

I find that the Sun also tend to sensationalise and dumb down the stories that they do cover. Also, while no newspaper could claim to be bias-free, the sun toes the murdoch party line a lot.

Like you said, every newspaper is biased, at least the sun wears its bias on its sleeve. And what's wrong with dumbing stories down, that's what has to be done to make them more easily understandable.

Even the broadsheets have frivoulous stories. The tabloids might highlight them more on their front pages but so what. The tabloids act in a very "That's Life" (the Esther Ransom [sp?] tv show that used to be bbc) fashion, dealing with stories that happen to ordinary people, such as families getting thrown out on the street for whatever reason, people getting abused by the gardai, etc. etc. etc.

billy the squid

therecklessone wrote:

Page 3 is relevant?

is relevant?

Gotcha is relevant?

Apologising to Liverpudlians 15 years after its coverage of the Hillsborough disaster is relevant?

:rolleyes:

You dont even have to go back that far to find relevent news

todays Sun

no wonder the price of oil is going up and down

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2004501322,00.jpg

RE*AC*TOR

Cactus Col wrote:

Like you said, every newspaper is biased, at least the sun wears its bias on its sleeve. And what's wrong with dumbing stories down, that's what has to be done to make them more easily understandable.

Even the broadsheets have frivoulous stories. The tabloids might highlight them more on their front pages but so what. The tabloids act in a very "That's Life" (the Esther Ransom [sp?] tv show that used to be bbc) fashion, dealing with stories that happen to ordinary people, such as families getting thrown out on the street for whatever reason, people getting abused by the gardai, etc. etc. etc.

Ok The Sun is wonderful! Are you happy? We're all going to go out and buy the Sun.

Look.... there we go....

Bye Cactus Col!! ... We're all going to buy the paper... no need to reply again, there's nobody here.

Cactus Col

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Ok The Sun is wonderful! Are you happy? We're all going to go out and buy the Sun.

Look.... there we go....

Bye Cactus Col!! ... We're all going to buy the paper... no need to reply again, there's nobody here.

Never said it was wonderful ... don't read it myself ... just saying that it serves a function and that people here should not be so quick to disregard any stories in it, or any of the tabloids.

orangerooster

Has any actual newspaper covered this story?

yossarin

Cactus Col wrote:

people here should not be so quick to disregard any stories in it, or any of the tabloids.

I find this hard to reconcile with your admission that the sun is biased. you admit that stories in it are light-hearted, manipulative and dumbed down in nature, yet argue that people should regard it as a valid information source.

Cactus Col wrote:

... don't read it myself ...

ffs. why is that then ? whats wrong with it? practice what you preach.

steveland?

Blub2k4 wrote:

My opinion would be that you should read a real newspaper and not that sensationalist rubbish written by thousands of trained monkeys with typewriters.

It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times??????


Stupid monkeys

therecklessone

billy the squid wrote:

no wonder the price of oil is going up and down

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2004501322,00.jpg

ROFL.

Must get a copy, they've got the US Election Latest!

In case you're wondering Cactus, that link is why I hate the Sun.

Blub2k4

SteveD wrote:

It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times??????


Stupid monkeys

Well there is a lot gets thrown into the bin before the actual articles come out, the rates of binnage can be lowered by adding more monkeys.

Winters

Its good they are coming over, shows we have this freedom thing working well. If we welcoem them they might just not attack us.

Id be worried about the US launching a full scale invasion of Ireland when they come visit though.

steveland?

Blub2k4 wrote:

the rates of binnage can be lowered by adding more monkeys.

That's your solution for everything

Pet

Anyways, back to the original topic? Those "Al-Qaeda" members are in Trinity for a debate, ie, we're not just going to let them shoot off their mouths, they'll have to have points that they can back up too.

Oh, and the Sun is utter ****e.

Blub2k4

Pet wrote:

Anyways, back to the original topic? Those "Al-Qaeda" members are in Trinity for a debate, ie, we're not just going to let them shoot off their mouths, they'll have to have points that they can back up too.

Oh, and the Sun is utter ****e.

What Al-Qaeida types? Surely they are being arrested as they touch down on Irish soil? Or maybe they are just muslims protesting against the illegal invasion of Iraq or occupation of Palestine?

Blub2k4

Does anyone have a link to this story in any paper, the sun itself did not seem to have it when I searched it?

Carpo

Cactus Col wrote:

just saying that it serves a function and that people here should not be so quick to disregard any stories in it

But its function is to provide 'Celebrity Gossip' and 'Human Interest'* stories, not to be a credible and reliable news service. Rest assured that when the Irish Times does a 10 page supplement on the latest chapter in the Posh and Becks Saga, they too shall be chewed out.

(*both of which would be filed under 'drivel' in my personal lexicon, but to each thier own)

therecklessone

Carpo wrote:

But its function is to provide 'Celebrity Gossip' and 'Human Interest'* stories, not to be a credible and reliable news service.

But they promised me the US Election Latest!

Glad I saved myself a trip to the shops now...

Blub2k4

ON-TOPIC

Does anyone have a link to the REAL story?

Civilian_Target

frantic_mel wrote:

Guys,

What do u think of the article in "The Sun" today about militant leaders who look up to Osama Bin Laden coming to Dublin this week. There coming to Trinity College for a debate on there religion etc. These guys are also saying they defend the children getting slaughtered in russia and also that ken bigley deserved to die. there going to turn the UK into islamic so they say, and also have some particular targets to hit.

Opinions please.

My opinion is that the Sun is one of the most efficient ways of converting trees to crap known to man.....

mike65

I've done done a google - zip, nada and nothing! (and that includes the Stun.)

Mike.

Blub2k4

So we need to add more monkeys, the story will eventually appear!!!!

yossarin

maybe we're the monkeys, typing away.

in fact, frantic_mel are you a phil or hist member ? (or whoever in tcd is who having this debate)

Blub2k4

yossarin wrote:

maybe we're the monkeys, typing away.

in fact, frantic_mel are you a phil or hist member ? (or whoever in tcd is who having this debate)

Lol, he reads the sun now what are the chances that he debates in the Phil or the Hist, unless he is looking for a view of what the proletariat is reading, what ho?

frantic_mel

Ive nothing to do with trinity college. I dont even live in Dublin.


I saw it on yesterdays Sun page 15 with a heading saying "Trinitity Host Debate for Al-Qaeda Nuts"


For more info or other news check out this site which has updates every 5 minutes from different sources.

http://www.newsnow.co.uk

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Like you said, every newspaper is biased, at least the sun wears its bias on its sleeve. And what's wrong with dumbing stories down, that's what has to be done to make them more easily understandable.

a bit late.. but... this made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside

ecksor

Cactus Col wrote:

Like you said, every newspaper is biased, at least the sun wears its bias on its sleeve. And what's wrong with dumbing stories down, that's what has to be done to make them more easily understandable.

Even the broadsheets have frivoulous stories.

Frivolous is a very big word for a Sun reader.

pork99

I must say I'm outraged at The Sun's coverage of these fancy-pants intellectuals

I'm a keen member and treasurer of the Stillorgan branch of Jamaat al-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad (incorporating the Sandyford Taliban). We regularily send press releases to the media outlining the good work we do in the community but how much attention do we get? Diddley-squat that's how much.

For example our October "Send an Idolator to meet judgement at the hands of Allah" drive (something like this maybe ) which I feel could have been so much more successful if we had the neccessary media exposure. As it was it was a bit of a damp squib with brother Ahmad's attempted flour bombing of the local branch of Extravision lacking the neccessary impact I felt.

Cactus Col

yossarin wrote:

ffs. why is that then ? whats wrong with it? practice what you preach.

But I do practice what I preach. I never said anybody should buy the sun, all I'm saying is that people should not dismiss its news stories out of hand. The reason I'm saying this is because of the first couple of replies to this thread which were pretty much mocking Frantic Mel for reading the Sun:

Blub2k4 wrote:

My opinion would be that you should read a real newspaper and not that sensationalist rubbish written by thousands of trained monkeys with typewriters.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Why would you want opinions on what the Sun writes? Don't they give you your opinions?

And all he wanted to do was see what people thought. The combination of ignorance and arrogance in these replies annoyed me.

RE*AC*TOR

Cactus Col wrote:

But I do practice what I preach. I never said anybody should buy the sun, all I'm saying is that people should not dismiss its news stories out of hand. The reason I'm saying this is because of the first couple of replies to this thread which were pretty much mocking Frantic Mel for reading the Sun:

And all he wanted to do was see what people thought. The combination of ignorance and arrogance in these replies annoyed me.

Oh boo-fecking-hoo! He found out what we thought. Ok? Happy?

As for you not reading the Sun, by not reading it - you are dismissing it. Surely if you thought it was a reliable source you would read it? Have you ever read it?

I have.
Its garbage.

Cactus Col

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

As for you not reading the Sun, by not reading it - you are dismissing it. Surely if you thought it was a reliable source you would read it?

No, I'm not dismissing it at all.

I don't read plenty of papers, by your argument that would mean that I dismiss them all as reliable news sources, which is just silly, don't you think?

RE*AC*TOR

Cactus Col wrote:

No, I'm not dismissing it at all.

I don't read plenty of papers, by your argument that would mean that I dismiss them all as reliable news sources, which is just silly, don't you think?

I think you are quick to defend a newspaper that you don't read, and therefore have no basis upon which to defend it.

Cactus Col

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I think you are quick to defend a newspaper that you don't read, and therefore have no basis upon which to defend it.

And what I've been saying all along is that I think not only are you quick to attack a newspaper you don't read, but you are equally as quick to attack the people that do read it.

As I have read it before (admitedly on the odd occassion) I do have a basis for defending it.

RE*AC*TOR

"Attack" is such a strong word. Moreso "criticise" I would say. I think you are taking a "high-horse" stance on this one, playing devil's advocate for the "common man's" paper, despite the fact that you yourself are not bothered to read it (except on an odd occasion).