. Nicholas Vance rightly points out the BBC’s awful double standards in its presentation of, for want of a better word, TERRORISM.
This contrast in particular is striking:
‘I’ve finally determined how the BBC defines the word “terrorist.” A “terrorist” is someone who kills a Briton, whether civilian or military. …
Watching John Simpson on Sunday’s Panorama attempt to clarify Iraqi government claims about civilian deaths caused by “terrorists” by interjecting the phrase “i.e., insurgents” was deeply offensive.’
To which I can only add- absolutely.
Off topic:
Australian PM lashes out at BBC anti-americanism during live debate.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12100697-2,00.html
I never thought John Simpson would sink so low.
I have always respected Simpson…but this is vile. He has in the past been very guarded about allowing his own views to cloud his reporting, but it seems the influence of his more “outspoken” colleagues may have told.
From your article on John Howard, Monkey:
“He said the BBC debate “was based on an anti-American mindset which was established right at the beginning by the moderators from the BBC”.
Priceless!
I suppose Howard’s gonna get the orange chimp/drooling idiot photo treatment at BBC Online from now on.
Al-Beeb is all-atwitter because some Belgian nutter sent some nasty emails to a guy who employs a headscarfed Muslim woman:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4223307.stm
OTOH, they still haven’t reported one iota on the slasher murder of an entire family of Coptic Christians in New Jersey by suspected Islamic extremists.
The BBC are hardly alone, all nations define terrorists this way. Hitler called Commandos & Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto terrorists, Clinton said the KLA weren’t.
Re: the BBC Online article on the Belgian woman and her headscarf. It is a terrible story and must be horrible for all concerned. But doesn’t the pious tone that the BBC adopts make you want to puke? “Originally from Morocco, she had done everything possible to integrate into Belgian society – speaking French and Dutch and carrying a Belgian passport” they coo, obviously concerned that we’ll all think her deserving of her fate unless we’re told what a sterling woman she is. You can just imagine the scene at BBC Online: all the little Islingtonians hugging themselves with delight: “Oh look at how much we care! We’re proving that it’s not only Muslims who preach hatred and murder people who disagree with them!”
James;
Where’s your sense of priorities? The murder of an entire infidel family by Islamonutters is NOTHING compared to the terrible tragedy of a Muslim woman who’s harassed for wearing a hijab!
It simply pales in comparison!
Susan
Read my message again. Where do I suggest that the persecution of the woman in Belgium is better or worse than any other persecution • or vile behaviour • going on? I merely said that it is horrible. Which it is. I then went on to express my distaste at the BBC’s patronising and smug tone.
Still, you were obviously keen to believe that my message states that the Belgium headscarf incident is worse than the murder of an entire family in the USA. So that’s what you read into it.
Perhaps you should get a job at the BBC.
James
Erm … I think there may have been some slight, small element of sarcasm in Susan’s comment.
I can’t say I’ve ever had much time for John Simspson, then again I’m not a resident of Kabul and he hasn’t liberated my city. To me he’s always been a 15 stone baby.
Pete_London
and Susan
Yes, I see now. Having berated Susan for not reading my message properly, I see that I completely misread hers. Sorry Susan. I think I’ll withdraw for a while as soon as I get my foot out of my mouth.
JH
And you guys say we Yanks don’t “get” irony!
No harm, no foul and please come back James Hope!
Actually that first post was supposed to be a parody of a typical Islingtonian/BBC/Guardian mindset. I even signed it that way in parenthasis, but the Haloscan software cut that part off.
Either it was a very, very bad parody, or a very, very good one. I can’t tell which one.
As I watched the Aushwitz ceremonies I thought to myself…”Well, those Jews were lucky, at least the Nazi’s didn’t put panties on their heads!”
Have you heard about the horrific torture methods the Americans are using…having women sit on the prisoners laps and shake their thang…oh my god!
I thought of the thousands of men being tortured by lapdancers…oh the humanity! Someone save them!
With regards to the use of the word “insurgents” – see the Fox News website (front page):
“Insurgents Strike Back in Iraq”
I guess that makes them vile, low, antiamerican bastards, eh?
Mark
Fox frequently uses the correct term, terrorists. The BBC virtually never uses it, and has even enunciated a declared policy not to use it.
Certain people of the Irish persuasion doing violence are always called “terrorists” by the bbc. So then, when Palestinian bombers and gun and knife murderers manage to kill British born Israelis, and British dual nationals in Israel,(sadly quite a few over the years) they are still called insurgents or militants!
Burt
An interesting question: when is a terrorist a terrorist and when is he a freedom fighter?
there is a simple reason they don’t say TERRORIST. If they don’t report any TERRORISTS it makes Bush’s “War on Terror” look less legit. For example why was there NO coverage of the hostage taking at the Spanish Consulate in Bern? Not a word on the international news channel.