An interesting snippet
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- wwfc Dec 22, 19:28
Weekend 21st December 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCMlEHGHtjQ&ab_channel=LondonNPC - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 19:19
Weekend 21st December 2024
Dis is zer German vetter station Alles ist normal und wunderbar. Heute ist vetter. Morgen ist jest vetter. Nexter vochen… - Guest Who Dec 22, 19:09
Weekend 21st December 2024
https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AWBnLoYN_tg/olivia-rudgard Livvy is so sweet. - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 19:08
Weekend 21st December 2024
A nation in grief as the rotating helicopter blade came a bit closer. - tomo Dec 22, 17:53
Weekend 21st December 2024
[img]https://i.ibb.co/DMrTDjx/chrome-y-OIa6k-JNIt.png[/img] - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 17:26
Weekend 21st December 2024
This guy is actually quite funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaPbUvPOkD8 Apologies if this has been posted before. - Fedup2 Dec 22, 17:19
Weekend 21st December 2024
Excellent – the Marxists legislating to ban unapproved donations to other political parties – just a step to banning other… - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 17:18
Weekend 21st December 2024
The wonders of bBC output. Where would we be without Planet Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2A07ToxkTI This is a 100% genuine episode bBC…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Apoligies for being completely off topic.
I see that the BBC’s coverage of the Russian school atrocity has the perpetrators described as “militants”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3627030.stm
Betty Friedan is a militant, these creatures are TERRORISTS. It’s time the Beeb learned the difference.
StinKerr
I blistered my telephone and gave the poor low paid girl at the other end of the BBC Complaints line a headache over this yesterday.
I’ve requested a response (something which the BBC has been forthcoming with following previous complaints) so if anyone’s interested next week and its still topical I’ll post their words.
I’d be interested, Pete, so if you don’t post I’d appreciate an email.
I’m getting ready to blister the Associated Press for the same thing. They refer to these child murderers as “militants” and “rebels”. I am thoroughly disgusted with the mainscream media. I kicked al-Reuters to the curb months ago.
Sky News also called these people ‘militants’ and ITV called them ‘hostage takers’.
Guardian readers abound in all the british news media!
I dread discovering what it will take before they begin to identify terrorists for what they are.
Clearly they are terrorists – clearly they are also militants and hostage takers – if you use the phrase terrorists where do you draw the line?
My dictionary defines terrorism as attempting to influence political decisions through the unlawful use or threat of violence. Are Sinn Fein terrorists? Are the animal welfare nutters terrorists? Are the PLO terrorists? Are the Israeli government terrorists? Probably yes to all of the above strictly speaking.
I’m sure shouting at people who can’t answer back made you feel better though. Big man.
It’s quite a safe bet to call people who have a deliberate plan to Mass murder children in a school as terrorists.
The lefts appeasement of terror is truly one of their worst characteristics (amongst many others).
Of course in this case there is no doubt that they’re terrorists. They are also militants and hostage takers so it’s no less factually accurate to describe them as such.
What has annoyed me this morning is that some of the comments on this site seem to actively object to the BBC providing some of the context behind the atrocities and endeavoring to report facts as facts and rumours/speculation as rumours/speculation.
It’s as though the ideal report should read ‘Terrorists have murdered 600 children. In addition they raped and bayonetted them at random. The reason for this is that they are evil Arabs, therefore this vindicates all past and future actions of Bush and Sharon. Putin would be perfectly justified in nuking Chechnya out of existence immediately’.
Ah, THFC, back at your desk at the BBC I see.
Your paraphrasing above is clearly nonsense – I’m sure most here, as in the population at large, value context and objectivity, but not ‘moral equivalence’ between all-comers.
What is silly about the whole terrorists vs. militants thing is that the word terrorist is apparently judgmental because of what terrorists have done in the past and what people thus impute to terrorists.
So the PC BBC uses the word ‘militant’ as a less than ideal synonym. There are two problems with this (imprecision aside):
1) It wastes a perfectly good word that has other current and historical uses (e.g. Degsy Hatton etc.);
2) Over time the word ‘militant’ will acquire the same negative patina as the BBC perceives terrorist to have.
Thus to label terrorists as militants because ‘people don’t like terrorists’ is simply linguistic deception.
If people’s methods involve terrorising civilians they are terrorists, whatever their case is.
THFC
I have seen some stupid comments from you over past months, but your comments here are plain sick. Why can’t you accept that these are Muslim fanatical terrorists, some of whom are from outside the region. Why do you try to drag Palestine and Iraq into the matter ?
I’m not the one dragging Iraq into it – that’s exactly my point.
People on here appear to be utterly desperate for some link to Al Quaeda or whatever so that this hideous atrocity can be linked into the ‘war on terror’ without reference to any actual evidence. That is sick.
Do any of you know anything about the Russia – Chechen conflict? Is it really not possible that this might be a localised element of that? What is this whole bullsh*t effort to simplify everything into some good against evil comic book story for morons? The world isn’t that simple.
Been trying to just read the comments and keep my own to myself, but… JohninLondon – how are THFC’s comments sick? Sick is shooting innocent kids, sick is not arguing a particular case over terminology.
Superglaze –
Fair point. But I think people are jsut justifiably angry that the media in free democratic countries don’t stand up for the principles of freedom and democracy. One of the principles is you do not target civilians to achieve political ends.
If someone takes over a school and deliberately kills children in the school when those children are no threat to them, there is no doubt he or she has committed murder. That is a matter of plain English. I find it repulsive in those circumstances when reporters in pursuit of some non-existent “balance” refer to such people as militants or whatever.
David
superglaze
sick is using twisted arguments, sophistry and moral equivalence to avoid calling the Breslan atrocity what it really is – Muslim terrorism.
Yes, I regard THF’s comments as sick. He is in denial about the reality of these atrocities. The reality is Islamic fundamentalism. Just note the words, the beliefs of the Chechnyan rebel leader, just note what was said on TV by one of the captured terrorists.
JiL – If you’ve paid attention to disasters and tragedies in Russia over the last couple of years then you’ll see a pattern here. Think back to the Kursk disaster. What was Moscow’s first pronouncement? That the sub had been torpedoed by a foreign nation – of course, this was complete BS and very typical of Russia’s kneejerk responses.
Now, obviously we’re dealing with a very different situation here, but I still think the official Russian line should be taken with more than a pinch of salt. As things stand right now, we have had no independent verification of there being Arab bodies amongst those of the terrorists. The only evidence we have comes from the mouth of the most scared-looking terrorist I’ve ever seen (and damn right the bastard should look scared), who would say anything the authorities tell him to say.
(cont)… And it is clearly in the authorities’ interest to deflect attention from Putin’s hamfisted, dialogue-free, Chechnyan policies, which even George W spoke out against when campaigning for the presidency the first time round. Of course, Russia’s co-operation in the War on Terror (particularly in Afghanistan) means that the West has spent the last few years strangely muted on the subject of Chechnya.
I daresay in about a week’s time we might have a clearer picture. I would be very surprised if religion played no part in the Beslan massacre, since the Christian/Muslim divide is crucial to Caucasian politics. But that region’s history goes way back, a heck of a lot further than the new Islamofascism.
Looking at the big picture is neither sick nor twisted (nor sophistry) – it’s trying to get at the truth, no matter how complicated that may be.
superglaze
More sophistry. This was an unforgiveable, toally unjustifiable atrocity. Cold-blooded, deliberate, planned. There can be no excuse for this, so why do you try to muddy the issue ? You too are in denial about the root cause – cruel Islamic fundamentalism that attches no value to human life. If you can’t see the pattern, you are being blind or obtuse. Even some Muslim leaders are calling for an end to the evil being done in the name of their religion. Do you think they have any doubt about Arabs being involved ? No – so why do you ?
People like you – and much of the BBC – are far too ready to put blame on the victim. It is the perpetrators of this evil that deserve condemnation.
JiL – Trying to see things in black and white won’t give you the truth, so I would count that as muddying the issue. No-one here is trying to excuse what happened. Remember 9/11, when people who tried to look further back in history than that horrible day, trying to figure out why it happened, were branded as apologists for the terrorists? That argument was nonsense then and it’s nonsense now.
Furthermore, Muslim does not = Arab. Yes, the attackers were Muslim, but there’s no evidence yet that they came from outside the former USSR. And I’m hugely insulted at your accusation that I’m blaming the victims! They’re kids, ferheavenssake, and even if they weren’t there is no justification for attacking civilians.
The apologists for 9/11 were also apologists for evil. Word-choppers, sophists, unable to call evil by its name.
9/11 happened because a bunch of people had a perverted view of their religion. All Arabs. Same views with Breslan, it appears – including some Arabs and likely withsome Arab funding.
But – true to form – the apologists are already popping up, before the children have been buried. Sick.
Hang on JiL – let me look up the word “apologist”…
OK, let’s go with this one: “A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.”
Now, I’m not doing any of that. I have the same view of terrorists as you do. I feel the same outrage (and don’t you dare tell me I don’t) at what happened in Beslan, and at what happened on 9/11. So you and I are mostly singing from the same hymn sheet.
What I don’t agree with is your willingness to jump to conclusions by lumping together every Muslim terrorist under the same banner, like they have a hive mind or something. They’re not all members of al-Qaeda or even fighting the same “cause”. How can you ignore this? Don’t you have to know your enemy before you can fight them?
They are ALL citing their religion as justification for their evil deeds. That is what lumps them together. They lump themselves together.
JiL – you’re getting taken in by Islamofascist BS here. This reminds me of when Saddam took up the Palestinian cause (with which he had neither any connection nor any real sympathy) because he knew it would garner favour in the Arab world.
These various terrorist groups are all pursuing their own political aims, territorial disputes, blood feuds, megalomaniacal fantasy worlds and whatnot, and they try to pretend they’re fighting a more noble cause by claiming it’s all for Allah. And with al-Qaeda only too happy to provide funding to fundamentalists, it certainly makes sense to play their game.
Why don’t you ask some Muslim friends or acquaintances whether they think these people are fighting for Islam or for themselves?
Superglaze
Oh so they are only ‘pretending’to invoke religion and the expansion of Islam as their cause.
How very prescient of you to see through their sophistry and whatnotiness
And yet the example you give of Saddam is one which you admit united a vastly disparate Arab world; namely their hatred of Jews.
Or is this only a pretence aswell?
JiL/YoY: do you guys really understand that Russians and Muslims have been slaughtering each other in horrible ways in Central Asia for over 500 years?
It’s not the same as Al Qaeda. It’s a continuation of history. It’s evil and it’s sick, it’s going to keep on happening unless both sides do something rather surprising (and there’s an odds-on chance that the next horrible child slaughter in the region will be carried out by the Red Army, and will be brushed under the carpet because we’re All United Against The Evil Muslims Now).
It also appears the Russians may have been lying about the 10 Arabs – all survivors to be interviewed have so far said there weren’t any involved.
“really not understand”, even. (I corrected it from something more exasperated and a bit ruder at the last minute, hence proof reading failure).
John b
‘It’s not the same as Al Qaeda. It’s a continuation of history’
So how do you interpret Bin Laden’s so called ‘Tragedy of Andulucia’
and his evocation of the Crusades as justification of Al-qaeda’s actions?
Is that not history?
Be as rude as you like mate
It might distract from the nonsense you write.
Jonn b
maybe you should have your odds on bet a little closer to home.
Or do you still think its different?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml
(press OK once only)
Erm, I may be wrong here but I don’t think john b was saying al-Qaeda didn’t have an historical bent, I think he was saying that the North Caucasian issue has a long history and can’t just be lumped in with al-Qaeda because the terrorists are Muslim.
That region can’t get past its history. Bin Laden just likes to use selective history as an excuse for his megalomania. Same goes for that al-Muhajiroun guy, though of course he could just be barking.
Superglaze is right. Bin Laden is very good at painting historic conflicts as part of a giant conflict between Islam and Others; so are the extreme hawks on the other side.
The more we accept this (very flawed) picture as truth, the more we risk being drawn into a fight to the death between the West and Islam. And the more we ally with people we don’t much like on the grounds that at least they’re not Muslim, the more dodgy Muslim regimes who would otherwise hate each other will ally with each other against us.
While the West would probably win a fight against the Islamic world, it would involve killing an awful lot of innocent Muslims, enormous casualties in the West, and the risk of everyone being obliterated nuclearly – so it’s not a prospect I relish.
We are not saying all Muslims are the enemy. We are saying that Islamofascists are the enemy. People who use the religion as a call to arms, as a justification for events like Madrid or Bali or 9/11 or now Beslin.
Muslims admit this is the case – eg
http://www.iht.com/articles/537653.html
which is just one example of Muslim concern about what is being done in their name.
What is ridiculous is for people to deny that Islam is being used as justification for evil.
JohnIL, for once we are in agreement. I’m no longer religious myself but I have a lot of time for those who genuinely are – and nothing pisses me off more than people using religion as an excuse for the atrocities they perpetrate. We’re all against this falsehood which, as JohnB pointed out so well, threatens to morph into reality if we’re not all vigilant.