It’s always heartening when an Islamist terrorist warlord gets sent to paradise and the waiting 72 virgins a little ahead of schedule and so it is that the death of Imad Mughniyeh, who has died in a bombing in Damascus, is welcome news. Mughniyeh was a senior terrorist within Hezbollah, and his death has seen him eulogised him as a “jihadist” and as a “martyr” by those who hate Jews and Americans. This monster was involved in a series of bombings that took the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of people. And yet, the BBC headline describes him as a “top Hizbollah leader.” The BBC studiously avoids describing him as a terrorist because as we know that would be judgemental and that would never do. The BBC lets itself down by shying away from calling terrorists by their proper name. In failing in its’ duty to accurately describe Mughniyeh the BBC conveys spurious credibility on this evil man. It’s moral relativism and it is rampant in the BBC.
ONE LESS TERRORIST, ONE MORE EUPHEMISM.
Bookmark the permalink.
Since when does the BBC have a duty to use the word ‘terrorist’ when you feel like it? It has a duty to report stories in neutral, non-emotive language, ‘terrorist’, accurate or not, does not fit either bill.
Besides, since when does Anti-Aunty condone car-bomb attacks? And you call the Beeb terrorist sympathisers…
Channel 4 news managed to use the ‘t’ word without blushing. But then Channel 4 is notorious for being to the right of Fox isn’t it ? 🙂
It’s okay Angry Alex. Calm down.
It’s “terrorism” to the BBC when London subways are bombed, but not when 94 innocent people at a Jewish cultural center in Argentina are blown up, an operation overseen by this man. Your “emotive language” argument, lifted from the BBC editorial guidelines, is ridiculous. A perfectly non-emotive definition of terrorism is the intentional murder of innocent civilians for political purposes. Mughniyeh was no innocent civilian. His elimination is not an act of terrorism, but rather of prevention of terrorism, at least as overseen by him.
“It has a duty to report stories in neutral, non-emotive language, ‘terrorist’, accurate or not, does not fit either bill.”
You have another non-judgemental word for terrorist?
It really is a very simple concept, Angry. The BBC has no right to excise a perfectly valid descriptive term from the English language simply because people get emotional about it.
If certain acts are acts of terror and certain friends of the BBC are terrorists, the BBC has a duty to describe them as such. Unless you really want to claim that there is no such thing as terrorism. That would be the one and only justification for the BBC not using the word.
The BBC article said:
A spokesman for the US state department, Sean McCormack, described Mughniyeh as a “cold-blooded killer, a mass murderer and a terrorist responsible for countless innocent lives lost”.
“The world is a better place without this man in it,” he added. “One way or another he was brought to justice.”
David said:
“The BBC studiously avoids describing him as a terrorist because as we know that would be judgemental and that would never do. ”
You are clearly smart and you clearly understand that this is and must be the case. I have no problem that you do not like it, that is your prerogative. And do we need the BBC to say ‘this man was a terrorist’ when interviewees and the facts tell us who and what he was.
Any sane person reading that article will draw only one conclusion about Mughniyeh and it would be the morally correct one.
This is the difference between showing people the information they need to make their own judgements, and telling them what to think.
Cheers
“Mughniyeh was among several suspects indicted in the US for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA airliner in which a US Navy diver was killed.”
Thus do the BBC describe a young man who happened to be on the flight, was found out by his military ID card and then tortured for a long time in front of the passengers before his horribly injured body was held at the doorway, shot and then thrown onto the tarmac below like a piece of trash.
‘a US Navy diver was killed’ in no way describes what actually happened. Yet again the BBC use language designed to soften the brutal reality of what this piece of filth and his so called fellow militants actually did.
Alex
An independent report commissioned by the BBC Governors has already pointed out that the decision to not use the word ‘terrorist’ is in itself a value laden judgement of the type from which the BBC pretends to stand aloof.
The report – commissioned by the Governors – pointed out that the BBC reporting did “not consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture.”
Someone (Orwell?) provided a good parallel when they pointed out that sportsmen touring a pariah regime such as apartheid south Africa and pretending to be ‘not involved in politics’ were fooling only themselves.
To decide not to use a commonly used and easily understood word such as “terrorist” is also an act of unmistakeable political significance.
But then you knew that didn’t you….
“Since when does the BBC have a duty to use the word ‘terrorist’ when you feel like it?”
Because that is an exact description of what Mughniyeh was (removed from this list any time now…)
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm
What limp wristed tosser you are, preferring political correctness over accuracy.
Sarah-Jane, well said!
Another example of David pushing his own agenda and dressing it up as bbc bias.
“”The world is a better place without this man in it,” he added. “One way or another he was brought to justice.”
Like Sarah-Jane thats what I read, I also saw and heard a Jewish representative on BBC 6 o’clock news says words of similar effect.
Good riddance to him and good luck to David pushing his own agenda on biased bbc.
But if the BBC described everyone as terrorists who any other people described as terrorists, the world section would be full of the word ‘terrorist’ – so how would that help?
I believe it’s reserved for those that UK courts have found guilty of terrorist offences – which seems clear, if not necessarily to your/ others liking
Well, they used the word Hezbollah, which implies – whether they intended it or not – that he was an Islamic Terrorist what with Hezbollah being an Islamic Terrorism organisation (whose stated goals are the annihilation of Israel and the imposition of an Iranian-style theocracy on Lebanon) and all.
But then, there’s a little ‘Who are Hezbollah’ link, wherein they’re described as a ‘military organisation’.
Anywho, it’s not to clear what sort of bombing killed this poor, misunderstood, mistranlated, innocent flower arranger and part-time bunny wabbit breeder (i.e. whether it was an act of Violent Extremism by People of no Discernible Relgious Affiliation or Ethnic Extraction, or if it was a JDAM), but let’s go with ‘Z0mG te Zi0nIsTs!!1!LOL’ like the Syrians – whose word is gold because they’re not either Britain, America or Israel – allege.
“And do we need the BBC to say ‘this man was a terrorist’ when interviewees and the facts tell us who and what he was.”
Sorry,the Pontius Pilate defence will not work.
If you insist,perhaps we can eradicate emotive and judgmental language like “Licence evasion”,call it voluntary defunding.
Actually he has just been described on the News at Ten as the ‘Bin Laden of the 80s’ and ‘one of the most wanted international terrorists’ so clearly it can be done.
The US Diver was clearly murdered and should be described as such IMO.
If you insist,perhaps we can eradicate emotive and judgmental language like “Licence evasion”,call it voluntary defunding.
Peter | 13.02.08 – 10:18 pm | #
No problem with that here – ‘voluntary defund’ away and good luck.
Having, I dont know but as a guess say a third of the money it currently has would force the Beeb to make some real choices rather than endlessly growing with no real discipline.
My “agenda” is to have a terrorist described as such. How is that in any way unreasonable????
This is where the BBC loses its way in my opinion.
Why should the BBC describe the Taliban as ‘fighters’ or ‘militants’ when it is quite clear, from the British perspective, they are no more than common terrorists? This is one of the few things which quite frankly pisses of most of the people who post on this blog – we PAY for the bloody BBC, not the F’ing Taliban, how about supporting the British point of view?! When a Muslim straps a bomb to himself and blows himself up on the tube, or tries to blow up Tiger Tiger or Glasgow Airport, they are terrorists. To say otherwise will only rile us. This is a case of the BBC trying to take the whole ‘inpartial’ thing too far, and it ends up being called bias, because the BBC ALWAYS seems to be against Britain by taking such a stance (whether they really are or not. We view it as being against Britain). Hence the allegations of bias. I am SICK to DEATH of the BBC not calling a spade a spade. Good grief, imagine the BBC as it is today during the Second World War? We’d all be speaking German today, and would’ve waved the white flags during the Battle of Britain no doubt.
While I’m here, I remember very clearly the day of the Glasgow Airport attack. John Smeaten who helped the police apprehend one of the terrorists, said the terrorist was waving punches and shouting “Allah Ackbar” over and over live on BBC News 24. This part of his interview went missing on BBC News 24 on subsequent repeats after I saw it live the first time. I wonder why…
They call it “Radical Impartiality” in the champagne bottle strewn beeb offices.
I seek to have a terrorist called as such. In what way is that me pursuing “an agenda”. It’s common morality and Sarah Jane should have a good read of the BBC heading I linked to.
But David – not everyone would agree with your definition.
Isn’t that the point?
Sarah-Jane,
So what would YOU call a man who engineered the mass murder of hundreds? Isn’t that the point?
Steve Jones wrote
“But David – not everyone would agree with your definition.
Isn’t that the point?”
Maybe, but quite frankly seeing as it is the British who pay for the bloody BBC and not Hizbullah, Hamas, Al Queida or the Taliban, surely thay should report them as terrorists, as to the average BBC funder, they ARE terrorists. This is a case of the BBC taking things too far for me.
Why should the BBC describe the Taliban as ‘fighters’ or ‘militants’ when it is quite clear, from the British perspective, they are no more than common terrorists?
King Henry II | 13.02.08 – 10:28 pm |
Moral and cultural relativism is the answer to your question.
As I am sure any Leftoid disciple of Edward Said will be happy to tell you that British perspective cannot possibly be objective and cannot be used to judge misunderstood Islamic terrorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)
Sarah Jane and Steve Jones,
What is the difference between the intentional murder of civilians by bombing on the London subway, and the intentional murder of civilians by bombing of the Jewish cultural center in Argetina?
Why does the BBC refer to the first, Sarah Jane, as an act of terrorism, but not the second? Is it because people who read about the bombing on 7/7 are incapable of making their own judgments about what happened, and people who read about the bombing in Argentina are? Your logic is execrable.
Steve Jones | 13.02.08 – 10:42 pm,
The UN also couldn’t agree on a definition of “terrorist”. That was because all those terrorist UN member states are incapable of self-awareness.
Sarah-Jane | 13.02.08 – 10:03 pm
Sorry to burst your bubble. The World Service also quoted the Americans and Israelis mentioning the dreaded “terrorist” word but they also made damn sure to include the Iranians saying something like state terrorism from the Zionist regime.
Bryan: So now a state can be ‘terrorist’ can it?
Baffled. I thought the whole point of ‘terrorist’ was that it related to individuals/ groups rather than countries.
Why should the BBC describe the Taliban as ‘fighters’ or ‘militants’ when it is quite clear, from the British perspective, they are no more than common terrorists?
King Henry II | 13.02.08 – 10:28 pm |
I wouldn’t say this is particularly clear cut. Though they are obviously guilty of orchestrating terrorist attacks, I personally wouldn’t categorise them first and foremost as terrorists. I’d see this as secondary to the type of guerilla warfare they are engaging in (and have significant experience of). The Taliban is comprised of a pretty broad range of people (hence efforts by some parts of the coalition to bring some onside)
By your definition, Tony Blair is a terrorist, but I would not describe him as such. War criminal yes, terrorist no.
Ben says:
“I personally wouldn’t categorise them first and foremost as terrorists. I’d see this as secondary to the type of guerilla warfare they are engaging in”
The type of guerilla warfare known as suicide bombings? That, in my book, is known as terrorism, as I’m sure most Afganistan people would tell you. Not to mention every NATO soldier in said country (who we should be supporting – they are there after all to stop the Taliban resuming control of this country so as to prevent Al Quieda training camps returning, the same camps which spawned 9/11). But you would never know that on the BBC. I’ve seen so many people post on Afgainistan Have Your Say topics say they can’t even remember why we are in that country, and incorrectly lump it together with Iraq (which is a totally different situation, and for which the leftoids have a case for once). The BBC are supposed to educate people. How about continuously reminding people WHY we are in Afganistan and why it is important that the Taliban are beaten back?
Steve
I notice you again have not addressed the fact that a BBC Governors inquiry chided them for not using the “t” word and pointed out that its omission is in itself a value laden judgment.
Given that the public would agree with it. Given that an independent BBC inquiry has criticised its omission.
Why on earth is the justification for its continuing omission?
Instead the BBC resorts to the stock elaborate formulations.
It is an abuse of position which is both dishonest and cowardly.
Dishonest because they have to resort to convoluted justifications to disguise their underlying sympathies.
Cowardly because it has to done in such as a way as leave no risk to themselves.
As I said before …. but you know that don’t you.
“My “agenda” is to have a terrorist described as such. How is that in any way unreasonable????”
Because you are hung up on the headline and do not see other references to terror/terrorist in the article you linked to.
Included in your link is a video of ”notorious TERRORIST mastermind”
with quotes from various sources:-
But a former head of Israel’s Mossad secret service, Danny Yatom, called the killing “a big achievement for the free world against TERRORIST organisations.”
A spokesman for the US state department, Sean McCormack, described Mughniyeh as a “cold-blooded killer, a mass murderer and a TERRORIST responsible for countless innocent lives lost”.
“The world is a better place without this man in it,” he added. “One way or another he was brought to justice.”
Steve Jones,
‘Terrorist’ refers to the emotional impact of the acts carried out. Murdering innocent civilians at what seem to the general public to be random intervals is intended to make people afraid. It is a tactic which can be used by an individual or a state. The term derives from the emotions caused by the act, and not any quality or quantity of the perpetrator(s).
It’s an adjective as well as a noun. There is no logical reason why ‘terrorist’ must refer to an individual only.
Interestingly, while everyone is debating the BBC’s use of the word, the innocent Muslims who downloaded extremist literature win terror appeal.
The latest definition of terrorism in NI came out on Sunday BBC I section of the Politics show. Described by a professor at Queens university as ‘that which is illigimate and not acceptable’!
So thats the latest definition, and according to this professor, Queens in NI is the best place to study terrorism, since we are ‘best placed for it’ especially now that terrorism has a global outreach.
Pretty lousy latest definition I’d say, but the disagreement among experts as to what a definition of terrorism is – is hardly the fault of the BBC. So if it is included in their reports its best if someone else says it and they report it.
Can’t say that is bias, just neutral reporting.
Also, it would be nice if, in their ‘Who Are Hezbollah? piece, the BBC would be a little more honest about the formation of Hezbollah. Full marks for fully disclosing Hezbollah’s desire to destroy Israel entirely – a nice change from the usual description of the motives purely as defending Lebanon against Israel. Except, of course, they get points deducted for being dishonest about the formation of the group.
The article says that “Hezbollah was conceived in 1982 by a group of Muslim clerics” – from where, BBC? – “after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.” I guess we’re supposed to assume they were all Lebanese, even though the support force was from the Iranian military.
So why not mention the reason for the invasion, BBC? The way they have it in the ‘Starting out’ section, nasty Israel just invaded and occupied Lebanon, and Hezbollah was formed as a resistance group. This clearly makes Israel the monster here, as they apparently invaded without cause. So the casual reader might be justified in thinking Hezbollah had a valid reason to fight Israel. They’re just protecting the country from a nasty invading force.
David Presier said:
“Interestingly, while everyone is debating the BBC’s use of the word, the innocent Muslims who downloaded extremist literature win terror appeal.”
Indeed, and I saw one of the Muslim ‘Bradford five” almost hang himself live on air on Channel 4 news this evening. Jon Snow, the presenter asked him if he supported “Islamic violent jihad” and after not answering the question the first time, said Muslim refused to answer the question. Fair enough. But it suggests he supports violent jihad, although it doesn’t mean he will become a terrorist and act on it. The question is, how indiciative is this of the thinking of the general silent majority of Muslims in the UK? Probably not representive, but there is a scary proportion of UK muslims (5% to 30% I guess) who think like this if newspaper polls are to go by, but you wouldn’t know it with the BBC output? Why is that? I have to turn to the Times, Daily Telegraph or Daily Mail/Express to get any decent commentry on these issues.
One of Hezbollah’s top military leaders has been killed by a car bomb in Damascus the world Service told us this afternoon.
Strange, that. I didn’t know Hezbollah was a country with a government and a military. I thought it was a Lebanese terrorist group. It’s also strange that one of its top leaders was hiding in Syria, but I’m sure the BBC will be able to explain that to us.
The World Service then changed the description and called him One of the top commanders of the Hezbollah militant group but soon reverted to military leader. A stern memo must have gone out. I heard somewhere on non-BBC news today that he had had plastic surgery to disguise his appearance. This gets weirder and weirder. I’ve never heard of a military commander who found it necessary to flee his country, change his face and hide like a rat in a hole. But then that other Hezbollah leader, Nasrallah, was also hiding for a year or two after the Israel-Hezbollah war and Hamas leaders have now gone into hiding. And Saddam Hussein was found hiding in a hole. Could it be that these people were/are all terrorists? No, it can’t be. The BBC would have told us if they were.
The World Service went on to tell us that The Israelis blame Mughniyeh for explosions at their embassy and a cultural centre in Buenos Aries and that the US has welcomed the killing of a top Hezbollah commander implicated in numerous spectacular bombings like the US Marine barracks in Beirut. What a spectacle that must have been. If I didn’t know the BBC better I’d almost think they would have liked to have been there.
What a quaint way with words the BBC has. I’m not sure why it is so coy about telling us that more than 100 innocents were killed in the Buenos Aries attacks. (It mentioned the number of Americans killed but soon dropped that as well.) And another memo must have gone out. Because the bombings got edited out and explosions retained. Hell, it almost seems as if the BBC is being careful not to make terrorists appear guilty of something.
The World Service continues: Americans and Israelis see this as a significant victory in their long and often shadowy war against their most formidable opponents.
I must have a word with the BBC about that. Why put those who fight terror into the shadows and elevate a chief terrorist and put him in the sunshine:
Iran openly and proudly supports Hezbollah just as it opposes Israel proclaims Jon Leyne. My, my, those courageous and outstanding Iranians. Please don’t tell me your eyes were moistening as you said that, Jon.
The World Service then displays the impartiality and balance for which it is renowned. It puts an Iranian spokesman on who informs us that the killing was State-sponsored terrorism by the Zionist regime. But it also puts on an ex-Mossad head who tells us that Mughniyeh was a top terrorist guilty of many murders and quotes Americans who say he was a terrorist and a mass murderer responsible for bloody massacres and a cold-blooded killer of innocents and that the world is a better place without him.
But now I’m really puzzled. The Americans and Israelis say he was a terrorist but the BBC says he was a military commander. Surely the impartial BBC wouldn’t lie? So are the Israelis and the Americans lying? And if they are, is Iran therefore telling the truth and the Zionists are terrorists who have killed an innocent military commander? And do military commanders habitually kill women and children in non-combat zones because of their race and religion? Someone from the BBC better help us out here. This is getting confusing.
King Henry,
That is because you and I are incapable of controlling our evil racist inpulses. If the BBC were to report these things, then we would immediately go out and start stringing up the first Muslims we encountered.
After the July bombings, there was an interview/article in the UK press praising the success of the ‘long standing plan’ to ‘portray Muslims as the real victims’ to ‘avoid reprisal attacks’.
That is what the BBC truely thinks of the British population.
The early editions of this article infer that Israel is guilty of state assassination with no evidence whatsoever. The denial by Israel of accusations by Syria, Hizb’allah and Iran is followed by:
“But a former head of Israel’s Mossad secret service, Danny Yatom, called the killing “a big achievement for the free world against terrorist organisations.”
The beeboid who wrote this has intentionally pointed the finger at Israel here. The same sentiment was voiced by current governments yet the BBC specifically linked the sentiment to a former government official of Israel.
According to Revesionista at News Sniffer, there have been 17 versions of the “Bomb kills top Hezbollah leader” article (31 characters including spaces – perfect for Ceefax!)
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/96621/diff/16/17
If Imad Mughniyeh was not a terrorist by every reasonable definition, who in the BBC’s eyes is a terrorist?
King Henry II | 13.02.08 – 11:16 pm | #
“The type of guerilla warfare known as suicide bombings? That, in my book, is known as terrorism, as I’m sure most Afganistan people would tell you.”
No, the type that involves guerilla fighting such as in the south of the country, which for various reasons much of the coalition is struggling to defeat.
“I’ve seen so many people post on Afgainistan Have Your Say topics say they can’t even remember why we are in that country, and incorrectly lump it together with Iraq (which is a totally different situation, and for which the leftoids have a case for once). The BBC are supposed to educate people. How about continuously reminding people WHY we are in Afganistan and why it is important that the Taliban are beaten back?”
Actually the public in Britain are far supportive of our role in Afghanistan than Iraq and I think are far clearer on why we are there.
The people most renowned for “decapitation” bombing to take out key figures are the Syrians and Hezbollah itself.Perhaps Imad Mughniyeh pissed of Assad ,perhaps the money was good,who knows? Live by the sword,die by the sword”.
By your definition, Tony Blair is a terrorist, but I would not describe him as such. War criminal yes, terrorist no.
N. Watkins | 13.02.08 – 11:12 pm |
I see the most simpleminded of moonbats are now defending the BBC on this board. Way to go BBC! You have some very nice friends, indeed. Judging just by the company you keep, your bias is now indisputable.
David Vince, I think you are really starting to rattle their cage. Good job!
Besides, since when does Anti-Aunty condone car-bomb attacks? And you call the Beeb terrorist sympathisers…
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 13.02.08 – 9:36 pm | #
Huh??
It all probably makes perfect sense to our brave little Alex, ‘ sticking it to the man ‘ from the subsidised comfort of the Student Union bar.
I’m tempted to formulate a Viz theory of modern liberalism, i.e. a cadre of Student Grants, mixed with varying amounts of the Modern Parents and topped off with a great big dollop of Aldridge Prior.
Did the “Have your say” thread ask for “your tributes” on Imad Mughniyeh?
News at Ten – That’s on ITV
It suddenly dawned on me why John Reith is not here fiercely defending his pro-terrorist BBC. He’s in Lebanon for the funeral:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7244132.stm
I don’t really see the point of this. ‘Terrorist’ is a subjective word. As long as the Beeb sets the story in the context of what this bloke is alleged to have done, which it does, and what Hezbollah has done, which it does, I don’t see the need.
I know there’s a danger of getting caught up in the left wing argument but if Israel turns out to be the perpetrator then theoretically this would be an extra-judicial killing and therefore a murder, but if it was described as such…..
Did the “Have your say” thread ask for “your tributes” on Imad Mughniyeh?
Ted S. | Homepage | 14.02.08 – 4:24 am
There was a link to the HYS last night from the main article on Mughniyeh, but when I clicked on it I was taken to “Page not Found”.
If that HYS ever got going, they must have dropped it like a hot potato.
And last night I was half-expecting World Have Your Say on the World Service to be dealing with the subject, since they claim to be sensitive to what people want to talk about. But instead they were discussing the responses to pain. How enlightening.
The BBC wouldn’t be trying to keep the lid on this, would they?