The BBC discovers 'terrorism,' briefly

[drdon326]

Britain's first bus bombing took place barely half a mile from the BBC's central London headquarters, and for a day or so after last Thursday's multiple bomb attacks the BBC, the influential leftist daily Guardian and even the British-based global news agency Reuters all seemed suddenly to discover the words "terrorism" and "terrorist." In Saturday's Guardian, for example, one or other of these words appeared on each of the first 11 pages.

In marked contrast to BBC reports about bombs on public transport in Israel – bombs which in some cases were even worse than those in London since some were specifically aimed at children and most were packed with nails, screws, glass and specially-sharpened metal shards in order to maximize injuries – terms like "guerrilla," "militant," "activist" or "fighter" were suddenly nowhere to be seen.

Nor – again in contrast to their coverage of Israel – did BBC correspondents, on either its domestic or international services, provide sympathetic accounts of the likely perpetrators, or explain to viewers that we must "understand" their "grievances." Instead they did what an objective news organization should do: just report on the attacks, and their atrocious nature, and on the sufferings of the victims.

The world's premier broadcast network appeared to throw away its own ridiculous "BBC Producer's Guidelines." BBC online reports, for example, had headlines such as "Terror of passengers stuck on tube" and "London Rocked by Terror Attacks."

BBC executives had previously insisted that for the sake of what they call "evenhandedness" terrorists should not be called terrorists. Their Guidelines state: "The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier to understanding... We should try to avoid the term, while we report the facts as we know them."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1121048976775

......................................................

'Terrorists ???......only when some psycho kills us....not some israelis.'

Funny how that works.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. The article is a croc of shit

YOu also don't see the British demonizing all Muslims due to the acts of a few terrorists..nor do you see them steamrolling over their homes in response to the events last week.

[drdon326]

4. "A few terrorists"??

....exactly how many terrorists is "a few"??

[Colorado Blue]

36. Oh for heaven's sake. Since when is Britain in the same

situation as Israel? And from what I've read there is a distressing amount of anti-Muslim bigotry in England.

Also, a little reading on English history might clarify matters regarding the involvement of that great nation in warfare. World wars. Empires, civil wars, wars in Europe that lasted decades - one was called the Hundred Year's War. What about Ireland? Scotland?

Gimme a break.

[bennywhale]

39. I've left a thread full of nutters claiming the London bombings to be the

work of Mossad to come here and have people imply we had it coming. This forum often descends into madness.

Where is the rational debate about what should be done rather than the sniping and the point scoring.

England is a great nation full of great and decent people 50 of whom were murdered last week.

A little further reading of history will reveal that many wars were repelling would be conquerers and would also reveal a nation operating within the most violent continent anywhere in the world.

The English are not to blame for everything.

[Behind the Aegis]

40. Welcome to the club..sort of.

The same complaints you have about the treatment of England is very similar to the treatment of Israel on this very board. I won't speak for CB, but I am sure she agrees, we don't think the English are to blame for everything. I certainly don't think they are responsible for the suicide attack; terrorists were responsible! It has been VERY frustrating to see how Mossad, Blair, Bush, aliens, everyone BUT the terrorists are being held responsible for the attacks. This is nothing short of embarrassing.

No country, be it England, the US, Israel, Iraq, or Spain, deserves to have their citizens murdered by cowards pretending to be heroes! It is a shame that the hatred people have for Blair has spilled into attacks on England, including the implications that "she had it coming." Personally, I was disgusted with several posts following the terrorist attacks in England. I was disgusted with the cries of "what about the innocents killed in Iraq" only to have those people belittle the innocents killed in England with caustic remarks and completely ignore the deaths of innocents in Israel, just the other day.

You and I may not always agree, but you have always been polite and easy to disagree with (if that makes sense). I am sorry that you have had to endure some of the hatefulness and offensive remarks.

Glad you are safe and well. Hope the same for your family and friends.

[bennywhale]

41. I appreciate your sentiments. I have been very

dissapointed by the reaction by some at DU. Initially there was a real sense of sorrow and solidarity towards the British DUers to which we replied with a joint statement of thanks (its on the UK forum). Then came the comparisons with Iraq. Which i wholeheartedly accept. (26 young children have been murdered today, a more disgusting act i can barely think of.) I have been making this point amongst mates and family myself.

But then after a period of a few days the conspiracy theorists came out. Now i am a serious cynic, and i realise that the secret services of all Western nations including the CIA, MI5 MI6 and Mossad have done some very morally dubious things, and all have blood on their hands, but for people to suggest they conspired to murder 50 people on the tube and a double decker bus last Thursday barely deserves an answer.

Then the other view. It was Wahhabi, Sabtist, Islamic, Muslim religious (whatever) bombers. However what the fuck does England expect given its behaviour over the centuries. Then Drdon sneering at the coverage of the BBC first saying Terrorist, then bomber, then backtracking. Ha now they know what its like. Drdon sounds pleased people were murdered last week. A kind of "now you know what we go through" But London's had this for decades and beyond. I think its entirely noble and professional for the worlds most objective news broadcaster to alter the initial (possibly emotive) wording to a more rational approach. Labelling and categorising blurs the real point. Who the fuck were these murdering bastards and why the fuck did they kill 50 of my countrymen and women.

Not just shout terrorist scum and launch ill thought through emotionally and politically driven attacks on mosques up and down Britain or on countries across the globe. I think we are too stoical and rational for that. I hope i'm proved right.

[Maple]

2. The BBC changed it

to 'bombers' within 24 hours.

[drdon326]

3. Yeah....after they were called on it.

shame they didnt call them "freedom fighters".

[Maple]

5. They were bombers

not 'terrorists'....terrorism is a tactic, not a group.

The BBC tries to be accurate, and decided that word wasn't.

[drdon326]

7. No

Terrorists are people use terror tactics usually against innocent people like those...

eating pizza
riding in a bus


or now riding in a subway.


May they rot in hell.:)

[Maple]

8. Yes, it's a tactic

One used in 1776 against the Brits as well

[drdon326]

9. Oh.....this is interesting.....

you equate the War of Indepedance in 1776 with the actions of al-queda,hamas and islamic jihad??.....in your view they BOTH used terror tactics??....do I have that about right?

[Maple]

11. You were fighting

against what you saw as an occupying power, preventing you from living the way you wished.

Instead of lining up in rows on a battlefield and doing a charge...an insane move against better equipped and trained forces, you wore camoflauge clothing in contrast to their red uniforms, and shot at them from behind trees in surprise attacks.

It was early guerrilla warfare.

Now that you are the occupying power in a country that clearly doesn't want you there, and you're dropping bombs on innocent men, women and children, guerrilla warfare tactics are being used against you.

You should have seen this coming.

[pelsar]

12. this is rich.....

since every "movement" against an occupying power is now deemed "terrorism" by maple....shall we go through the list?

gosh where shall we start?

american native indians killing each other over various hunting grounds?....sure

thats too far away from England...seems to me the scots want their independance from big brothers occupation over their in london..btw how did it come to be that Englands laws are in scotland? ahs yes....they were conquered...seems to me its about time the Scots set free their freedom fighters!!!!

http://www.freescotlandparty.org/Manifesto.pdf

did I forget N. Ireland as well.....and btw the citizens of wales are getting tired of the yoke that those in England have put upon them

LONG LIVE WALES INDEPENDANCE...

[Guy_Montag]

31. Going to have to call you on the Scottish example:

Scotland was never conquered by England

it was united by the Acts of Union(1707) to create the United Kingdom some 103 years after the Union of Crowns in which the James VI of Scotland became James I of Britain. (Not seen much conquering of Scotland there).

Anyway jogging on, Scotland has always had a legal system completely indepenent from England, English law is based on Common Law, while Scottish Law is based on Roman Law.

But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

btw. Never heard of free scotland party. Guess they don't poll very well. Try Scottish National Party next time.

[bennywhale]

37. England and Scotland were joined through the "Act of Union". It was

through marraige and the Scots ruling class did very well out of it. Still do in fact. The Welsh have voted against independence twice and only barely voted for (51%) their present assembly with limited devolved powers. Britain is a union of peoples from the same island. If we used your logic we should just keep dividing and dividing along whatever lines we can find. Religion, race, ethnicity, hair colour, wrong side of the street.

Grow up.

[Coastie for Truth]

22. When I was in the service

and had to "memorize" FM 27-10 and Brittin's "International Law for Sea Going Officers" - we were taught that guerrillas are not terrorists, and that terrorists are nor guerrillas, and that the terms are neither interchangeable or synonyms.

And don't come back with Wiki-pedia --- try a military law book or an international law book.

I would suggest a read of FM 27-10 or Brittin or Henkin.

[Monkie]

15. whats really interesting is the hypocrisy,israel was founded on terrorism

and some people still have the gall to go around condemning one form of terror while whitewashing the terrorist foundation of the "democratic state" of israel.
You explain to me the difference between irgun and the stern gang and hamas?
You explain to me how Menachem Begin and David Ben Gurion both terrorists who became prime ministers of Israel are any different from the leaders of Hamas??
This state that was founded with terror can bomb and bulldoze and fire missiles from helicoptergunships with impunity in cities filled with innocent civilians and this is different from Hamas??
The only difference i see is that one is a terrorist organisation and the other is a terrorist organisation pretending to be a democratic state.
To be clear so there are no misunderstandings, I do equate the creation of the state of Israel and its known terrorist leaders with the terror tactics of Hamas and its leaders and history is pretty unambiguous in support of that opinion.
Whats really interesting is that its fine to generalise and demonise when its muslims, but heaven forbid anyone tries to point out the hypocrisy here.
What i dont understand is its fine to use highly emotive language to demonise ALL muslims but use the same kind of emotive language to point out the hypocrisy and....

you might challenge my emotive use of language and the lack of cites, its not that i dont have them, or am not prepared to exhaustively back my opinion with facts its just i dont see why i have to prove "the sun rises" every day.

[pelsar]

16. which morality?

since just about every country in the world today was established and (continues to rule) with violence, I am assuming that you are also willing to equate hamas and its leaders with churchill, chamberlin, rosevelt, carter, clinton, thatcher, stalin, pot pol, Marx, De Gaull, washington ec etc etc...

unless of course you will claim that morality has now changed and no longer is violence so acceptable....

israel was founded during one of the most violent decades known to mankind, and in fact the violence used to establish the state was very moderated in comparison to the violence of the previous years in the world as well as in relation to the method other countries used to establish and preserve themselves.....so if this world morality changed...when was that?....I'm guessing that it has, but that sure wasnt in the in 1940's....do you have a period?

and yes there is a difference between hunting down civilans and blowing them up, planning for as many dead man, women and children as possible vs hunting down those who are bent on killing and attempting to keep the death toll down to a minimum....its strange to me that you see no difference between the two. And you would be hard to find enough examples of of the irgun/stern gangs to compete with hamas/islamic jihad/ etc not only in terms of numbers of killed, but in their methods as well (how many busses did the stern gang blow up?....how many resturants? schools? busses when the passengers were shot one by one?...how many society wide celebrations were held when the irgun succeeded in killing?......

If israel acted like hamas, using their morality we would see gaza being bombed using 1,000kilogram bombs, artillary etc, instead of missles with minimized payloads....after all sucide bombers sent by hamas/islamic jihad goals are to kill as many civilians as possible....your telling me that, that is what the IDF is now doing? that the irgun stern gang were doing that?....

anyway, i never had demonize all muslims....dont know where that came from

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Pelsar...

anyway, i never had demonize all muslims....dont know where that came from

I know where it came from because Monkie wasn't replying to a post of yrs. While I've never seen you demonise all Muslims, and it's a safe bet you'd never do it, let alone think it, unfortunately there does exist a small number of folk who do like engaging in the demonisation game...

Violet...

[Monkie]

20. i do see a difference between terrorist violence and state violence

well the scale of horror perpetrated by Churchill,stalin, and pol pot where on a completely different scale than the horrors of Hamas but yes i can see that there is a fair comparison there.I specifically include Churchill as i am british and he is a "british hero" at the same time as being a grubby little racist mass murderer in my opinion.

The "big thing" for me is the difference between state terror and terrorism, a state that pretends to be democratic and abide by the rule law should be held to higher standards than individuals that break the laws of a state.
That these individuals should be rotting in jail prosecuted to the extent of the law is a no-brainer.
I didnt mean to imply YOU demonise all muslims nor do i think you do,i didnt post this as a reply to something you said or use your name when complaining of the demonisation and im sorry if i gave you that impression.

[pelsar]

29. murky waters....

now were getting in to the murky waters of morality....i would say that democratic states attempt to attain a certain standard..but when threatened and depending upon the threat those "higher standards' become a very flexible thing.

examples of carnage by the "state' is obviously easy to find..the more serious the threat, the lesser the morality used. But now were getting in to a very philisophical area if 'true liberalism is allowed to defend itself" since in its purest form, it cannot. (but thats a side subject....)....and when and when does not the end justify the means.....

I would say when its your own children/buddies we tend to forget the moral issues and want to eliminate the threat at whatever the cost...once that is established moral flexibilty becomes a very luxerious issue (am i making sense?)

which then means, we apply different morals (as you are) to different societies and different environments.....which then brings up a whole different set of issues, for instance,

why should there be different moral values for different societies and if so, can they even live side by side?...would you accept your neighbor slicing his daughters throat for going out with your son?...probably not....though you probably wouldnt mind if they wore a turban/yalmuka on their head

which values are acceptable which ones arent? and who decides?...i once read an article by a muslim rep in europe claming that true democracy would let them live their lives as they see fit, and that includes shari law (with the punishments of stoning etc). Well by not agreeing to that, we are declaring our values and morality are superiour are we not?...we are in fact demanding that he fit our values and we are not accepting his....this attitude should be applied to suicide bombers as well....

n/p with the muslim thingy..... (though I am not going to say my best friend is a muslim, i did have the hots for this cute muslim girl in grad school with....well thats for different forum)

[Monkie]

30. there is a power imbalance between "the state" and "the people"

higher standards was the wrong phrase to use but i think you understand that i mean is that "the democratic state" (any state) is based on law and the rule of law.when the state brings its almost infinite powers to bear on a individual this is inescapable.But when this same state uses unlawful means against an individual, the individual is powerless.
as to the rest of your comment,all i can give is the example of algeria where the overwhelming majority democratically voted for muslim law and parties (for a large part because they where sick of the previous corrupt western puppets) only to have the west support a coup by the military who went on to violently suppress the human rights of these people which gave rise to wave after wave of ever more horrific attack from ever more radical muslims.
So in my eyes yes it is the west and pretend democracies (like mine) that need to address their morals and a deeply deeply institutionalised racism that most wont even admit too.
while i'm no defender of it,before we throw stones at shari we could do well to look at our own abuses and instead of supporting the extremists and despots, as the west continues to do, it would do well to embrace and learn to love the peaceful majority of muslims warts and all,because they are having to embrace a pretty ugly western world.
edit for dyslexia :P

[pelsar]

33. which is better.....

i'm familiar with the algeria elections.....i believe it was the algerian army that decided that the results werent acceptable....anyway the real problem lies in declaring which of the less than perfect and at times hypocritical govt systems are best...and if they are good enough to defend and or promote with violence....it is here where we differ.

I divide the world between the democratic countries and the others....the others are defined as dictactors that have stolen their countries from the people...and hence have no rights on the world stage.

Thats the black and white aspect. I also believe that in this imperfect world democracies with their base in civil rights have to be defended and promoted, for at times if we dont, govts like the taliban arise....and in my eyes that type of govt has absolute no business being around, their treatment of women/ non muslims, whether based in religion or not was ghastly...i cannot fathom such a thing being defended.

and algeria for an example of a failed govt, failed state etc. i dont have the answer.....would it have been better if they had a govt like the taliban or like iran took over?.....none of us have an answer. But again in my eyes, theocratic govts, like dictatorship inherently destroy civil rights, and that is incompatable with democracies and in the long run threaten them...and consequently must be removed from this world (it may take time....). In fact I see the taliban as an example of the worlds failure to protect its citizens...and iran may not be far behind.....N. korea being another fine example. Though i am not advocating their invasions..i definitly advocate intense political pressure on them through every way possible, encouraging govt change.

you seem to be looking for a utopia.....there are many books about small communities that have attempted such societies, be it the amish, the israeli kibbutizim etc.....those that have survived have managed to all have a way to let out those that dont fit to live in a different society, they all have some form of concensus or democratic system. Dictatorships and theocracies dont allow for that. However even these idealistic societies are far from perfect, many many fail due to human failings and these are on small scales. The larger the scale the more complex and less homogenic they are.

Bascially, its not a pretty site, and full of human mistakes since predicting the future is not something we can do..but the western democracies of the world with their civil rights remains the best we got, and they have to be defended while balancing the morality as best we can....the bombings in madrid, the towers and now in the UK and others are evidence of failures in that respect.....which means those govt may have to modify the moral values of a country during peacetime..to one that is now in a low level conflict.

If liberalism is not defended, which by defintion means being non-liberal, it will be overun and destroyed by other less liberal systems....

[Monkie]

35. its the centuries of white christian war on "inferior people" for profit

that lies at the heart of all this,any internal liberalism in these western democracies has been hard fought for and as anyone can see is under constant threat from within.
To use America as an example, if i look on the rest of this board its not screaming out about the threat to their democracy from muslim or arab extremists. Its cries are really about the same-old same-old.a small group of mainly white males, enriching themselves on the backs of others while doing everything in their power to destroy the precious few rights we do have.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. And you completely ignore

the White Paper, and the failure of the Democratic West to grant asylum to the asylum seekers -- the doomed voyage of Steam Ship Saint Louis was not a work of fiction.

Listen - the majority of my wife's family and the overwhelming majority of my maternal grandmother's family were killed- DEAD - gassed or shot -- and cremated in massive ovens in the textbook ethnic cleansing.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Maybe because that's no justification for terrorism..

n/t

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Monkie]

32. its the opposite i honour the memory by speaking out loudly

i speak out loudly in defense of the weak the downtrodden and oppressed regardless of race colour or creed.
i cant ignore something that is my very being, my upbringing, its in my genes.
My greatgrandfather fought in WWI and it was the stories he told me as a child that made me a pacifist.

My father fought in WWII and it was the stories he told me as a child that made me hate fascism with every molecule in my body.

If you read my posts you should know that my scorn for the official "pretty" history of the UK as it relates to other peoples is LIMITLESS.
there are allot of "dark forces" that played allot of cynical and disgusting "games" during and after WWII and the UK "powers that be" where among the darkest.
I dont bring up the holocaust and its effects on the jewish people in every post i make on the issue of israel and i dont think i should as it would only increases tension.I think i would also be seen as crass if i did,especially because from where i view things it only emphasises my point it doesnt detract from it.

[pelsar]

17. civililans...

it seems that maple here has a hard time descerning between active combatants vs civilians.....the way maple is writing, all civilians of an "aggressor" country at war are equally guilty and can be killed for that complacently.

interesting "policy"...though it kinda goes against the basic "rules of war" which civilzation today is based on.

I guess that justifys stalins killing since "those soviet civilians" were threatening the USSR...so too with Pot Pol, I mean those dudes wearing glasses were also a threat.

[Coastie for Truth]

21. Say again

With the folk-loric possible exception of Ethan Allen's "Green Mountain Boys" (which did have a recognized command structure and was under the command of the governor, and Washington, and had insignia and a flag and an attempt at uniforms)==>

<>

the Continental Army was funded by Congress and the Colonies, had a recognized command structure (even if the officers were elected by the soldiers), and many wore uniforms of a sort - or other identifying indicia.

Guerrillas? Yes.

Terrorists? No. (Except maybe Ethan Allen) - except in the eyes of the British Judge Advocate General.

[Lithos]

34. Mostly true

However, there were guerillas in the South (not the Swamp Fox, but rather small parties) who would sit and snipe at the British on the march from a safe distance using a variation of a long rifle.

Same goes with the troops who resisted the British in the Appalachian campaigns (including up and around what is now Chattanooga Tennessee).

L-

[Beaver Tail]

6. Briefly?

I have 3 Letters to debunk that shit

I R A

[newyorican]

10. It's not called "blind Hatred" for nothing...

It blinds one to many things, including history.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Yeah, but...

They weren't Muslim. Don't you know that an integral part of the definition of 'terrorism' according to JPost is 'must be Muslim'...

Violet...

[Andromeda]

13. Interesting...

"BBC executives had previously insisted that for the sake of what they call "evenhandedness" terrorists should not be called terrorists. Their Guidelines state: "The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier to understanding... We should try to avoid the term, while we report the facts as we know them."

Is this the kinder, gentler approach?

Must not offend the terrorists. We must be more sympathetic and understand their grievances. If I blow up your school, it's your fault because you don't "understand" me.

Give me a friggin' break!

[drdon326]

14. Pretty amazing. isnt it ?

we wouldnt want to insult the terrorists by calling them.....terrorists.

A few more terrorist bombings in London and trust me, that PC talk will change real quick.

It was only a matter of time.

[bennywhale]

38. Its nothing to do with not offending anyone its to do with facts and

accuracy.

Since 9/11 every tinpot basket case murdering dictator has miraculously produced terrorist problems out of their pockets, secured US funding and proceeded to shit on the basics of humanity. Torture, murder, rob, boil, kill, rape, steal from, oppress parts of the human race within their country.

But hey if we're are talking straight, no messing about whats the fucking problem. A terrorist is a fucking terrorist right? If they ain't white, western, or speak English they are morally void animals. Lets fusk em up. Terrorist terrorist. it leads us to so many solutions.

Due to that overwhelmingly helpful attitude people like you have, sneering at anything that doesn't give your world view unquestioning obedience, nothing is understood. Meet it with violence its the only way eh?

The Jerusalem post is surely a hack rag that can't be believed is it not? I would not come on here and insult your intelligence by quoting the "Sun". Why do you hate the BBC so much? And why do you think we will soon be "changing" our attitude? Do you assume we have no moral compass? 10s of thousands died in the Blitz yet crahh landing Germans were treated to cups of tea. The prisoners of war were treated as human beings. 3 days were spent in Parliament discussing the condition of those interned on the isle of man. Some were concerned they were getting enough nourishment.

Why do you assume our morality to be so weak if we suffer further bombs?

And what was a matter of time? You seem to be gleefully commenting on this.

I left another thread full of conspiracy theorists claiming it to be the work of Blair and Mossad to come here and be face by this.

This last week has nearly convinced me to leave DU.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Benny...

This last week has nearly convinced me to leave DU.

That's what shits me more than anything when small but hatefilled contingents peddle their special agendas at DU. It's the good people who actually have something to say worth listening to that end up leaving just to get away from the crap. Someone who used to post here a few years ago gave up and left after the hate brigade had repeatedly insulted him and compared him to David Duke....

Here's my hint on how to handle that sort of stuff. When I see a thread started by the main culprits, I rarely bother clicking on it to see what hate they're spewing, and when I do get involved, I don't waste my time on the main culprits. I've seen it all before and they're not interested in anything but yelling and screaming. My approach makes for a much better time for me at DU...

Violet...

[Lithos]

43. Locking

The secondary discussion about who are terrorists is non-productive and in violation of I/P rules concerning accusations of unilateral/biased apologetics.

Lithos
I/P Forum Moderator
Democratic Underground