ISIS talks of religious genocide, killing "hundreds of millions"

aREALgod · January 20, 2015, 01:04:02 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/18/german-embed-reporter-isis-plans-on-killing-hundreds-of-millions-in-religious-cleansing/

Quote

Jurgen Todenhofer, the first Western reporter to embed with Islamic State fighters and not be killed in the process, spoke to Al Jazeera about his time with the terror group.

Todenhofer lived side by side with the jihadist fighters for ten days in the Islamic State-stronghold city of Mosul, Iraq. He was accompanied only by his son, who served as his cameraman.

“I always asked them about the value of mercy in Islam,” but “I didn’t see any mercy in their behavior,” explained Todenhofer. He added, “Something that I don’t understand at all is the enthusiasm in their plan of religious cleansing, planning to kill the non-believers… They also will kill Muslim democrats because they believe that non-ISIL-Muslims put the laws of human beings above the commandments of God.”

The German reporter then elaborated on how shocked he was about how “willing to kill” the ISIS fighters are. He said that they were ready to commit genocide. “They were talking about [killing] hundreds of millions. They were enthusiastic about it, and I just cannot understand that,” said Todenhofer

He warned that the Islamic State “is much stronger than we think,” and that their recruiting has brought motivated jihadis from across the globe. “Each day, hundreds of new enthusiastic fighters are arriving,” explained Todenhofer. “There is an incredible enthusiasm that I have never seen in any other war zones I have been to.”

The journalist asserted that the U.S.-led bombing campaign was not going to stop the Islamic State and its continuing jihad. He told Al Jazeera that he believed the terror group would only be stopped if fellow Sunni Iraqis would rise up against them.

So uh, seems like a "Holy War" is coming...

Alternative Facts · January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM

First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"

Second off, ISIS hasn't exactly made this goal elusive or hidden. Pretty sure they've flat out said this before.

aREALgod · January 20, 2015, 01:26:54 AM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM

First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"

Second off, ISIS hasn't exactly made this goal elusive or hidden. Pretty sure they've flat out said this before.

Who cares about the source? It's not the source that matters, its the information. Which, one of the important points, is that ISIS seems to be far stronger than we thought. That's not a thing to be taken lightly.

Alternative Facts · January 20, 2015, 01:30:38 AM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on January 20, 2015, 01:26:54 AM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"

Second off, ISIS hasn't exactly made this goal elusive or hidden. Pretty sure they've flat out said this before.

Who cares about the source? It's not the source that matters

Gonna stop you right there. The source of a material always matters, because it directly impacts how the story is written, what details are used, etc. A conservative website is, most likely, going to cater to those in that party who feel we need a full scale war and elimination of these religious extremists.

Second off, ISIS can plan as much as they want - and yes, they can kill plenty of people. But to believe that they have the size and power to kill "hundreds of millions" is laughable. They are not that powerful - not at the moment.

aREALgod · January 20, 2015, 01:37:10 AM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:30:38 AM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on January 20, 2015, 01:26:54 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"

Second off, ISIS hasn't exactly made this goal elusive or hidden. Pretty sure they've flat out said this before.

Who cares about the source? It's not the source that matters

Gonna stop you right there. The source of a material always matters, because it directly impacts how the story is written, what details are used, etc. A conservative website is, most likely, going to cater to those in that party who feel we need a full scale war and elimination of these religious extremists.

Second off, ISIS can plan as much as they want - and yes, they can kill plenty of people. But to believe that they have the size and power to kill "hundreds of millions" is laughable. They are not that powerful - not at the moment.

You never fail to show your bias, Icy. Sorry I didn't pick out a liberally biased source so you wouldn't have to whine about it.

ISIS can plan, and that's dangerous. Currently they're far away from everyone else, but they're growing in strength and influence. What they do is either approved by the majority of Muslims elsewhere or just shrugged off. I can honestly see ISIS growing big enough to have a war (not just the bits of fighting in Iraq and Syria). To say they aren't a threat is absurd.

Alternative Facts · January 20, 2015, 01:53:08 AM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on January 20, 2015, 01:37:10 AM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:30:38 AM
Quote from: aTALLmidget on January 20, 2015, 01:26:54 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"

Second off, ISIS hasn't exactly made this goal elusive or hidden. Pretty sure they've flat out said this before.

Who cares about the source? It's not the source that matters

Gonna stop you right there. The source of a material always matters, because it directly impacts how the story is written, what details are used, etc. A conservative website is, most likely, going to cater to those in that party who feel we need a full scale war and elimination of these religious extremists.

Second off, ISIS can plan as much as they want - and yes, they can kill plenty of people. But to believe that they have the size and power to kill "hundreds of millions" is laughable. They are not that powerful - not at the moment.

You never fail to show your bias, Icy. Sorry I didn't pick out a liberally biased source so you wouldn't have to whine about it.

I can honestly see ISIS growing big enough to have a war (not just the bits of fighting in Iraq and Syria). To say they aren't a threat is absurd.

Well, if you actually quoted the interview article and not a Breitbart report of it, you'd see that Todenhofer disagrees in the notion of having a full scale war (at least involving western entities).

But let's just link the conservative write up

More Than Mortal · January 20, 2015, 01:57:11 AM

The war on terror turned into a conventional war, not just one of ideas, with the rise of this sort of Islamism. We're in a quasi-cold war with the world of Islamic values, and I wouldn't be surprised if our militaries meet a few Koreas or Vietnams along the way.

aREALgod · January 20, 2015, 02:21:09 AM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:53:08 AM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on January 20, 2015, 01:37:10 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:30:38 AM
Quote from: aTALLmidget on January 20, 2015, 01:26:54 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"

Second off, ISIS hasn't exactly made this goal elusive or hidden. Pretty sure they've flat out said this before.

Who cares about the source? It's not the source that matters

Gonna stop you right there. The source of a material always matters, because it directly impacts how the story is written, what details are used, etc. A conservative website is, most likely, going to cater to those in that party who feel we need a full scale war and elimination of these religious extremists.

Second off, ISIS can plan as much as they want - and yes, they can kill plenty of people. But to believe that they have the size and power to kill "hundreds of millions" is laughable. They are not that powerful - not at the moment.

You never fail to show your bias, Icy. Sorry I didn't pick out a liberally biased source so you wouldn't have to whine about it.

I can honestly see ISIS growing big enough to have a war (not just the bits of fighting in Iraq and Syria). To say they aren't a threat is absurd.

Well, if you actually quoted the interview article and not a Breitbart report of it, you'd see that Todenhofer disagrees in the notion of having a full scale war (at least involving western entities).

But let's just link the conservative write up

Of course, any rational person would like to disagree with war, but it may come to it. Plus he's a journalist, I don't know why I should give his opinion any more credit than someone else.

aREALgod · January 20, 2015, 02:22:00 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 20, 2015, 01:57:11 AM

The war on terror turned into a conventional war, not just one of ideas, with the rise of this sort of Islamism. We're in a quasi-cold war with the world of Islamic values, and I wouldn't be surprised if our militaries meet a few Koreas or Vietnams along the way.

That, and eventually it'll meet in the middle. It's the only way I see it "resolving" in any sort of manner.

Mr. Psychologist · January 20, 2015, 08:57:13 AM

I wonder if they are stupid/arrogant enough to try getting into a pitched battle with a western army, that would put a dent in their egos I think <.<

But IIRC that's exactly the same sort of thinking that turned vietnam into a right old mess.

That being said, we can't wipe the middle east's arse for it all the time.

Kinder Graham · January 20, 2015, 09:08:33 AM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:30:38 AM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on January 20, 2015, 01:26:54 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"

Second off, ISIS hasn't exactly made this goal elusive or hidden. Pretty sure they've flat out said this before.

Who cares about the source? It's not the source that matters

Gonna stop you right there. The source of a material always matters, because it directly impacts how the story is written, what details are used, etc.

Like Huffington Post?

challengerX · January 20, 2015, 09:14:57 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

The Lord Slide Rule · January 20, 2015, 09:19:27 AM

The problem isn't that their not powerful enough to do it.

They're crazy enough to try it, that makes them a threat to everyone.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · January 20, 2015, 10:57:36 AM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on January 20, 2015, 01:37:10 AM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:30:38 AM
Quote from: aTALLmidget on January 20, 2015, 01:26:54 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"

Second off, ISIS hasn't exactly made this goal elusive or hidden. Pretty sure they've flat out said this before.

Who cares about the source? It's not the source that matters

Gonna stop you right there. The source of a material always matters, because it directly impacts how the story is written, what details are used, etc. A conservative website is, most likely, going to cater to those in that party who feel we need a full scale war and elimination of these religious extremists.

Second off, ISIS can plan as much as they want - and yes, they can kill plenty of people. But to believe that they have the size and power to kill "hundreds of millions" is laughable. They are not that powerful - not at the moment.

You never fail to show your bias, Icy. Sorry I didn't pick out a liberally biased source so you wouldn't have to whine about it.

ISIS can plan, and that's dangerous. Currently they're far away from everyone else, but they're growing in strength and influence. What they do is either approved by the majority of Muslims elsewhere or just shrugged off. I can honestly see ISIS growing big enough to have a war (not just the bits of fighting in Iraq and Syria). To say they aren't a threat is absurd.

>Breitbart.com

midge pls

BaconShelf · January 20, 2015, 11:11:33 AM

Looks like those 200 extra tanks may come in handy soon then.

Mordo · January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM

First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"

It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.

Alternative Facts · January 20, 2015, 11:47:09 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.

Not saying I haven't. I've even cited Fox News a couple times.

challengerX · January 20, 2015, 11:48:12 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mordo · January 20, 2015, 11:48:28 AM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 11:47:09 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.

Not saying I haven't. I've even cited Fox News a couple times.

So why question the authenticity of a source when you know the ones you use are just as equally biased?

Hell, why use them?

challengerX · January 20, 2015, 11:52:25 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Alternative Facts · January 20, 2015, 11:55:38 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:48:28 AM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.

Not saying I haven't. I've even cited Fox News a couple times.
So why question the authenticity of a source when you know the ones you use are just as equally biased?[/quote

Hell, why use them?

Because he's not just citing a "oh hey, daily news article, Congress is shit, praise Obama!"

He's citing an interview, not a news story, done on a reporter who spent time with ISIS, by a far less biased news source which is even mentioned in the first sentence. The Breitbart article proceedings to do what every great source (Including MSNBC, Fox News, etc) does with interview, and pick five sentences and leave the rest - when the entire thing is an important read.

Mordo · January 20, 2015, 12:02:45 PM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 11:55:38 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:48:28 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.

Not saying I haven't. I've even cited Fox News a couple times.
So why question the authenticity of a source when you know the ones you use are just as equally biased?[/quote

Hell, why use them?

Because he's not just citing a "oh hey, daily news article, Congress is shit, praise Obama!"

He's citing an interview, not a news story, done on a reporter who spent time with ISIS, by a far less biased news source which is even mentioned in the first sentence. The Breitbart article proceedings to do what every great source (Including MSNBC, Fox News, etc) does with interview, and pick five sentences and leave the rest - when the entire thing is an important read.

That's not why you originally attacked the source though, was it? You specifically said citing something like Breitbart is unreliable because Breitbart is known to cater to conservative audiences. Which in and of itself isn't wrong, but it's nothing short of hypocritical when you continue to post news articles and stories from partisan news outlets, as was aforementioned. A little consistency goes a long way.

No, what actually happened is that you saw the name which immediately raised your liberal heckles, so now you're backpedaling.

Alternative Facts · January 20, 2015, 12:16:14 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 12:02:45 PM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 11:55:38 AM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:48:28 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.

Not saying I haven't. I've even cited Fox News a couple times.
So why question the authenticity of a source when you know the ones you use are just as equally biased?[/quote

Hell, why use them?

Because he's not just citing a "oh hey, daily news article, Congress is shit, praise Obama!"

He's citing an interview, not a news story, done on a reporter who spent time with ISIS, by a far less biased news source which is even mentioned in the first sentence. The Breitbart article proceedings to do what every great source (Including MSNBC, Fox News, etc) does with interview, and pick five sentences and leave the rest - when the entire thing is an important read.
That's not why you originally attacked the source though, was it? You specifically said citing something like Breitbart is unreliable because Breitbart is known to cater to conservative audiences.

Yes, because the interview Breitbart is reporting on is minced up to cater to the Conservative audience. It's a shit story on a somewhat decent interview, that is what is the problem.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 12:02:45 PM

No, what actually happened is that you saw the name which immediately raised your liberal heckles, so now you're backpedaling.

Not at all.

Mordo · January 20, 2015, 12:26:48 PM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 12:16:14 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 12:02:45 PM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 11:55:38 AM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:48:28 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.

Not saying I haven't. I've even cited Fox News a couple times.
So why question the authenticity of a source when you know the ones you use are just as equally biased?[/quote

Hell, why use them?

Because he's not just citing a "oh hey, daily news article, Congress is shit, praise Obama!"

He's citing an interview, not a news story, done on a reporter who spent time with ISIS, by a far less biased news source which is even mentioned in the first sentence. The Breitbart article proceedings to do what every great source (Including MSNBC, Fox News, etc) does with interview, and pick five sentences and leave the rest - when the entire thing is an important read.
That's not why you originally attacked the source though, was it? You specifically said citing something like Breitbart is unreliable because Breitbart is known to cater to conservative audiences.

Yes, because the interview Breitbart is reporting on is minced up to cater to the Conservative audience. It's a shit story on a somewhat decent interview, that is what is the problem.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 12:02:45 PM
No, what actually happened is that you saw the name which immediately raised your liberal heckles, so now you're backpedaling.

Not at all.

I'm not going to get caught up in a semantics argument, but all I'm going to say is that you never mentioned or addressed the credibility of the interview in your initial posts until I called you out.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · January 20, 2015, 12:28:59 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM

Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.

Breitbart.com is objectively worse.

Mordo · January 20, 2015, 12:35:18 PM

Quote from: Kupo on January 20, 2015, 12:28:59 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Breitbart.com is objectively worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies
Yeah I don't know about that.

MSNBC was also the news outlet that had the cumnugget Matt Binder on air and took everything he had to say as the gospel truth and refused to give any credence to gamergate arguments. Top notch journalistic practices right there.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · January 20, 2015, 12:38:48 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 12:35:18 PM

Quote from: Kupo on January 20, 2015, 12:28:59 PM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Breitbart.com is objectively worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies
Yeah I don't know about that.

MSNBC was also the news outlet that had the cumnugget Matt Binder on air and took everything he had to say as the gospel truth and refused to give any credence to gamergate arguments. Top notch journalistic practices right there.

Not being open to debate on Gamergate is hardly as bad as believing in a fictional terrorist organization. You have failed your readers if you refuse to acknowledge presenting utter falsehoods as fact.

Mordo · January 20, 2015, 12:41:52 PM

Quote from: Kupo on January 20, 2015, 12:38:48 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 12:35:18 PM
Quote from: Kupo on January 20, 2015, 12:28:59 PM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Breitbart.com is objectively worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies
Yeah I don't know about that.

MSNBC was also the news outlet that had the cumnugget Matt Binder on air and took everything he had to say as the gospel truth and refused to give any credence to gamergate arguments. Top notch journalistic practices right there.
Not being open to debate on Gamergate is hardly as bad as believing in a fictional terrorist organization. You have failed your readers if you refuse to acknowledge utter falsehoods.

Actually taking everything in such a black and white manner is the antithesis of good journalism. Reputable journalism is supposed to analyze, investigate and consider two sides of the argument in an egalitarian manner. That's why I respect David Pakman on his reporting on Gamergate despite him being relatively left leaning. He remains non partisan and neutral.

Not sure why you're trying to compare Gamergate with ISIS anyway.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · January 20, 2015, 12:43:25 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 12:41:52 PM

Quote from: Kupo on January 20, 2015, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 12:35:18 PM
Quote from: Kupo on January 20, 2015, 12:28:59 PM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Breitbart.com is objectively worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies
Yeah I don't know about that.

MSNBC was also the news outlet that had the cumnugget Matt Binder on air and took everything he had to say as the gospel truth and refused to give any credence to gamergate arguments. Top notch journalistic practices right there.
Not being open to debate on Gamergate is hardly as bad as believing in a fictional terrorist organization. You have failed your readers if you refuse to acknowledge utter falsehoods.
Actually taking everything in such a black and white manner is the antithesis of good journalism. Reputable journalism is supposed to analyze, investigate and consider two sides of the argument in an egalitarian manner. That's why I respect David Pakman on his reporting on Gamergate despite him being relatively left leaning. He remains non partisan and neutral.

Not sure why you're trying to compare Gamergate with ISIS anyway.

Because you did.

Mordo · January 20, 2015, 12:46:13 PM

Quote from: Kupo on January 20, 2015, 12:43:25 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 12:41:52 PM
Quote from: Kupo on January 20, 2015, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 12:35:18 PM
Quote from: Kupo on January 20, 2015, 12:28:59 PM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: Icy on January 20, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart"
It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Breitbart.com is objectively worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies
Yeah I don't know about that.

MSNBC was also the news outlet that had the cumnugget Matt Binder on air and took everything he had to say as the gospel truth and refused to give any credence to gamergate arguments. Top notch journalistic practices right there.
Not being open to debate on Gamergate is hardly as bad as believing in a fictional terrorist organization. You have failed your readers if you refuse to acknowledge utter falsehoods.
Actually taking everything in such a black and white manner is the antithesis of good journalism. Reputable journalism is supposed to analyze, investigate and consider two sides of the argument in an egalitarian manner. That's why I respect David Pakman on his reporting on Gamergate despite him being relatively left leaning. He remains non partisan and neutral.

Not sure why you're trying to compare Gamergate with ISIS anyway.
Because you did.

No I brought up an example of poor journalistic practices within MSNBC and multiple major discrepancies within their reports to bring attention to the fact that they're just as bad, if not perhaps worse, than Breitbart.

It was you that conflated the two together, actually.