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.
…if Israel turns out to be the perpetrator then theoretically this would be an extra-judicial killing and therefore a murder…
Cockney | 14.02.08 – 8:41 am
Only for those who don’t realise that there is a war on terror and Israel is in the front lines.
Funny, the article includes the word ‘terror’ or derivatives FOUR times in quotes from Israelis, Americans and Syrians. What you’re complaining is that the BBC editorial doesn’t condemn the man, which of course it has no right to do and still consider itself impartial.
“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”
Exactly. I admit that guideline has a ridiculous pro-Britain bias in refusing to accept other legal systems, and think it should be extended to any convictions of terrorism in any court recognised by HMG where the trial meets international standards of fairness. But then since this bloke never quite made it to the courthouse that still wouldn’t help. And ‘alleged terrorist’ doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
“The BBC has no right to excise a perfectly valid descriptive term from the English language simply because people get emotional about it.”
The BBC is not ‘excising’ the descriptive term from the English language. It is declining to use it. As I said before, the BBC is under no obligation to use any word should it, rightly or wrongly, decide it is insufficiently neutral. I don’t insist B-BBC get the word ‘banana’ into every post simply because bananas exist, do I?
“Because that is an exact description of what Mughniyeh was (removed from this list any time now…) http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terror…s/ fugitives.htm What limp wristed tosser you are, preferring political correctness over accuracy.”
So you pick an (understandably) pro-American source to back up your terminology. The BBC, however, if it is to at least attempt impartiality, should not take the testimony of foreign organisations as gospel. It’s irrelevant whether you or I or Hezbollah consider it an ‘accurate’ description. It is not an impartial description, and is no more accurate than using ‘militant’ or ‘paramilitary leader’ and then reporting knowing attacks on civilian targets. However, it is a rather anti-Mughniyeh word. Pro- or anti-anything words should, where possible, be avoided.
Answer me this, if a Hezbollah spokesman described the BBC as anti-Muslim because it did not refer to this man as a ‘hero’ or ‘martyr’, would you take his point or would you laugh him off the site?
Hezbollah are terrorists, why would anyone take their word on anything?
I think when they say things like “Our late leader was a martyr and a hero!” you can assume they mean what they say.
But you would think it ridiculous that the BBC should use such overwhelmingly positive and emotive terms in a supposedly neutral article?
Did you miss the part of the report that refers to him as a Notorious ‘terror mastermind’?
The reports make clear what kind of man he was and describe his actions.
Preumably David Vance would have the IRA described as terrorists, as well as the Taleban, insurgents in Iraq, Chechens, Tamil Tigers, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PKK, ETA, Greenpeace etc etc.
It doesn’t really aid understanding does it? Especially not when there is a ‘War on terror’.
I think the BBC and the media wrestles with itself about the word terrorist, but the very least the BBC’s choice of words should show is that they are clearly striving for neutral language.
To suggest that not using the word ‘terrorist’ is some kind of conspiratorial attempt to garner sympathy for groups like the Taleban has no basis in reality.
Joel,
The IRA were vile terrorist scum. So were the UDA, the UVF, ETA, Hamas, Al Queda, etc. You have no point.
Memo to BBC ‘Newsnight’ and item last night discussing relegation of opposition to ‘Islamic jihad’:-
http://bp0.blogger.com/_t2Ry7I5DNuQ/R7FOgcdEyAI/AAAAAAAABS8/PvkTN9eZO1I/s1600-h/TerrorismBanned.jpg
His point is that it doesn’t aid understanding in any way. Answer that please, instead of just saying “Terrorist! Terrorist!”
Why do the BBC continually misspell Hizballah?
Hizb’allah are considered a terrorist organisation by the UK government, EU parliament and US authorities.
Considering the absurd word count limitations “terrorist” would offer far more clarity than “top hezbollah leader”. The victims would certainly consider “top..leader” emotive, its also a subjective call on the part of the BBC.
Why wasn’t Pinochet called a “top Chilean leader” on his death? Terms such as dictator don’t aid understanding in the warped view of beeboids yet they were happy to judge him. Its quite easy to conclude that if you help defeat communism the BBC consider you evil but if you blow up a few hundred Americans you’re a hero.
The BBC is not ‘excising’ the descriptive term from the English language. It is declining to use it.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 14.02.08 – 9:24 am |
Semantics, Alex, semantics. Now stop arguing in circles and reread this thread. Then you might be able to come up with a stronger argument.
Doesn’t it tell you more about ETA to describe them as ‘separatists’ as is usually the case?
Iraqi insurgents are made up of Al-Quaeda, former Saddam loyalists, militias, Iranains etc, it doesnt help to give a blanket name like ‘terrorist’ does it?
In regard to “Hizb’allah are considered a terrorist organisation by the UK government, EU parliament and US authorities” – The BBC is independent of these.
“Answer me this, if a Hezbollah spokesman described the BBC as anti-Muslim because it did not refer to this man as a ‘hero’ or ‘martyr’, would you take his point or would you laugh him off the site?”
Laugh him off the site.
Alex
“It’s irrelevant whether you or I or Hezbollah consider it an ‘accurate’ description. It is not an impartial description…”
Is it not possible to be both accurate AND impartial? If not why not?
Out of the following four:
1. accurate and impartial
2. accurate and partial
3. inaccurate and impartial
4. inaccurate and partial
the BBC tends towards 2. because of its bias by omission.
Alex
Why are accuracy and impartiality mutually exclusive?
They aren’t. Not unless you throw in Political Correctness.
There are so many factual stories that the BBC will simply not report. They see it as their duty to whitewash certain issues and stories, because the truths are uncomfortable for them and they are terrified of having their own smear terms, redirected at themselves.
For example, they will never report upon the national or racial origin of prisoners (unless it is to accuse the legal system of ‘institutionalised racism’). To do so, would be ‘discriminatory’ and would leave them open to charges of ‘racism’ down at the local Socialist Worker meeting.
For the BBC accuracy and impartiallity are necessary casualties of their politics. They console themselves by accusing anybody that wants these things of being a racist/crank/fascist/Tory (sneered insult)/etc.
It is plain for all to see, but they will never admit it.
“Doesn’t it tell you more about ETA to describe them as ‘separatists’ as is usually the case?”
Joël
Not all Basque separatists are terrorists, although some of them are.
It is terrorist actions that make the terrorist not his desire to live in a separate state.
There are quite a few Catalan separatists in north east Spain. The reason why none of them get described as terrorists is …?
See how easy it is Joël?
Joel: “It doesn’t really aid understanding does it?”
Yes, it does. The word “terrorist” gives you a good idea of a group’s legality and tactics. “Separatists”, for instance, also tells you something but critically not how the Basque lot differ from those chaps down in Cornwall. “Terrorist” is a useful word, with a fairly precise meaning. Excising it from news reports except in quotes on the basis that it’s emotive is a little ridiculous. The words suicide, cancer, pedophilia are also “emotive”.
Alex
Why are accuracy and impartiality mutually exclusive?
Anonymous | 14.02.08 – 11:44 am
Alex demonstrates the same naivety, or perhaps willful blindness, on another thread in which he infers that Arab propaganda is preferable to factually reliable information from the Israeli government, because that of course is “slanted” in favour of Israel:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4171987631574816351/#384560
The fact that Israel claims Jerusalem as a whole as its capital contradicts UN Security Council Resolution 478, which although non-binding, is a fairly neutral benchmark, your source of http://www.gov.il, though perhaps factually reliable, might have a teensy pro-Israel slant to it.
“None so blind as those who will not see” springs to mind…
BBC News 24 just described his death as a murder. In the next sentence they said he had “killed” Americans.
Ben | 13.02.08 – 11:09 pm |
“The Taliban is comprised of a pretty broad range of people. ”
Yes that’s right Ben. GPWM. Some of the taliban are a bit violent aren’t they ? But’s it all relative and we shouldn’t generalise and label people.
We should always remember the taliban who try to change afgan government policy with their highly effective letter writing campaign , the ones who lobby their MPs and the ones who believe in non violent direct action. I think their ongoing protest camp outside Bagram airbase has a message for all of us who want world peace.
Interesting that the beeboids can have a Toady prog report on insurance companies warning that cover for houses built on flood plains will be a problem, without mentioning the disasterous john prescott, who over ruled all oposition to the policy of building on flood plains !!!!
Imad Mughniyeh is being described by BBC World Service as military leader.
In regard to “Hizb’allah are considered a terrorist organisation by the UK government, EU parliament and US authorities” – The BBC is independent of these.
Understandable,the BBC has its own taxation,it may as well have its own foreign policy.
Biodegradable, at what point have I inferred that Arab propaganda is any more reliable that gov.il?
I stated that a non-binding UN resolution would be more impartial. Reliability never came into it, and in terms of disputed territory, is not actually relevant as opinion is everything.
National governments have a bias. They have a duty to be biased towards their own people and national interests. Gov.il is a perfectly reliable source for Israel’s official opinion. But I would expect Israel to take a rather pro-Israel stance, wouldn’t you?
Now, anonymous, if you would laugh a Hezbollah supporter off the site for accusing the BBC of bias because it avoided pro-Hezbollah language, why are you criticising the BBC for avoiding anti-Hezbollah language.
“Yes that’s right Ben. GPWM. Some of the taliban are a bit violent aren’t they ? But’s it all relative and we shouldn’t generalise and label people.
We should always remember the taliban who try to change afgan government policy with their highly effective letter writing campaign , the ones who lobby their MPs and the ones who believe in non violent direct action. I think their ongoing protest camp outside Bagram airbase has a message for all of us who want world peace.”
jimbob | 14.02.08 – 1:57 pm | #
Ok, given that suicide attacks on civilian targets in Afghanistan are only a recent occurrence, you tell me what marks them out primarily as being terrorists as opposed to militants – bearing in mind the history of the region, people and their principal methods of fighting the coalition (which I’d be interested to hear what you view as being).
Alex
Do you still think that accuracy and impartiality are incompatible?
I stated that a non-binding UN resolution would be more impartial.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 14.02.08 – 3:03 pm |
This only shows how willfully blind you choose to be towards one of the darlings of the Left – the UN.
UN General Assembly is very partial – it consists of huge blocks, including the Islamic and Arab blocks. Together with their Communist and “non-aligned” fellow travelers they were and still are a marked majority. Not to say anything about the clout $2 trillion in OIL dollars from OPEC can have over voting decisions.
Do you seriously think that if Sudan presides over the Human Rights Commission it will be an impartial body.
Your hatred of the West and years of brainwashing to think that US is the source of all evil, is preventing you from seeing that there are much worse regimes in the world. And, apart from the Security Council, they run the UN!
Angry Young Alex: “why are you criticising the BBC for avoiding anti-Hezbollah language.”
If everyone else describes them as a terrorist group other than their supporters and the BBC refuses to, that in itself is a partial position. The BBC’s commitment to impartiality doesn’t require it to operate in a parallel universe, and since it’s paid for mostly by UK residents, where there’s a dispute over terminology it can take the norms of its supposed customers.
“UN General Assembly is very partial – it consists of huge blocks, including the Islamic and Arab blocks.”
Non-binding Security Council Resolution 478 was not passed by the General Assembly. Now I freely admit the UN is not perfect, and probably not fully impartial. However, I know 100% that neither the Israeli government nor the Palestinian Authority can be expected to give an impartial view of the conflict. Therefore it is safer on the part of the BBC to trust a source such as the UN that may possibly be pro-Palestinian than one such as gov.il that will certainly be pro-Israeli.
“Do you still think that accuracy and impartiality are incompatible?”
I never claimed anything of the sort. ‘Militant leader’, ‘Paramilitary leader’ and ‘Hezbollah leader’ are all accurate descriptions, just as accurate as ‘Terrorist leader’, if not more since the late Mughniyeh was never convicted of terrorism. However they are more impartial, and when the BBC sees a clash with succinct and accurate expression and impartial and accurate expression, it is better to avoid the word ‘terrorist’ and simply describe the deceased’s crimes in neutral and non-emotive language.
“If everyone else describes them as a terrorist group other than their supporters and the BBC refuses to, that in itself is a partial position.”
Arguably so. But everybody else is free to their personal opinions. The BBC is not.
Now tell me, what does the report actually lose by avoiding the word ‘terrorist’ outside of the three separate quotations? Who do you expect to read this article and, due to the absence of one word, decide that Hizbollah’s actions do not constitute terrorism after all?
Biodegradable, at what point have I inferred that Arab propaganda is any more reliable that gov.il?
You’re more willing to accept the Arab version of history than the actual history of the Middle East.
I stated that a non-binding UN resolution would be more impartial. Reliability never came into it, and in terms of disputed territory, is not actually relevant as opinion is everything.
More naivety or stupidity from you. I honestly can’t make up my mind.
Non-binding means just that and it’s impartiality is in no way certain or indeed accepted as fact. In terms of disputed territory factual reliability is actually more relevant than opinion.
National governments have a bias. They have a duty to be biased towards their own people and national interests. Gov.il is a perfectly reliable source for Israel’s official opinion. But I would expect Israel to take a rather pro-Israel stance, wouldn’t you?
National governments have a right to decide where their capitals are, a right which in Israel’s case you deny claiming instead it all depends on somebody else’s opinion, which amongst other things leads me to believe you give more credence to Arab opinion than historical fact.
What you now call “Israel’s official opinion” you previously admitted was “factually reliable”. What exactly in Israel’s version of the history of Jerusalem do you dispute or simply write off as “opinion”?
http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic10_eng.htm
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Jerusalem+Capital+of+Israel/40th+Anniversary+of+the+Reunification+of+Jerusalem.htm
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1999/3/The+Status+of+Jerusalem.htm
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/State/JERUSALEM%20-%20Capital%20of%20Israel
Alex
“I never claimed anything of the “sort.
Huh???
“It’s irrelevant whether you or I or Hezbollah consider it an ‘accurate’ description. It is not an impartial description”
Ben | 14.02.08 – 3:20 pm |
Ok, given that suicide attacks on civilian targets in Afghanistan are only a recent occurrence, you tell me what marks them out primarily as being terrorists as opposed to militants – bearing in mind the history of the region, people and their principal methods of fighting the coalition (which I’d be interested to hear what you view as being).
Why do so many people have difficulty understanding the concept and definition of ‘terrorism’?
terror: n. 1. extreme fear. 2. a terrifying person or thing. 3. (informal) a formidable person, a troublesome person or thing.
terrorism: n. use of violence and intimidation, especially for political purposes. terrorist n. & adj.
(Source: Oxford American Dictionary)
The whole point of terrorism is to make people afraid that they can be assaulted at any time, from any place, by anyone, and to adjust their behavior accordingly. Suicide bombs are terrorist acts because they target civilians, often randomly, come without warning, and outside of the context of a battle, skirmish, or other forms of armed conflict. That’s why the suicide bomb attacks on civilians in Afghanistan are terrorist acts. That’s why the bombing of an embassy in Argentina is a terrorist act, even if perpetrated by people who are otherwise part of a quasi-military organization. That’s why the murder of more than 50 random civilians in London on 7/7 by Angry Young Arabs is an act of terrorism. That’s why the IRA bomb that nearly got a friend of mine many years ago was a terrorist act.
The history of Afghanistan has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of these terms. Nothing. Unless you are implying that as being primarily a caveman culture, Afghanis do not value human life as much as we do and therefore such Western terms are not appropriate. The guys in the mountains with guns and mortars who use those weapons against armed soldiers can be called militants. If those same guys strap a bomb to somebody and drive him into a crowded civilian market, they are terrorists.
Can it be any clearer? Why are so many people here trying to deny what terrorism is? Terrorism is a specific type of violent act, intended to accomplish specific goals. The fact that there is a fundamentally emotional context to acts of terrorism should not prevent the use of an accurately descriptive term.
Due to the way people here are questioning the term, even going all post-modern, I am starting to wonder if in fact these deniers feel that it’s just unfair to use the term because it might make the perpetrators look worse than the deniers think they are.
Angry Young Alex:'”If everyone else describes them as a terrorist group other than their supporters and the BBC refuses to, that in itself is a partial position.”
Arguably so. But everybody else is free to their personal opinions. The BBC is not.’
That quite clearly doesn’t address my argument.
Hugh, the BBC is clearly damned if it does and damned if it don’t, and it is within its rights to plum for damned if it don’t.
“It’s irrelevant whether you or I or Hezbollah consider it an ‘accurate’ description. It is not an impartial description”
Some descriptions are accurate, some impartial. It is possible to have an accurate description – “cold-blooded murderer of innocent Jewish people” for example, which is still too negative in connotations to be impartial.
“You’re more willing to accept the Arab version of history than the actual history of the Middle East.”
I have never said which version of history I accept. Only that the BBC should not accept one side’s version as you would have it do.
“National governments have a right to decide where their capitals are, a right which in Israel’s case you deny claiming instead it all depends on somebody else’s opinion, which amongst other things leads me to believe you give more credence to Arab opinion than historical fact.”
National governments do not have the right to include parts of other countries as their capital. Whether East Jerusalem belongs to Israel or not is disputed, admittedly only by Arabs whose opinion seems to be worthless to you, but it is disputed and therefore the BBC cannot side with Israel by saying Jerusalem.
Good God I can imagine the hysteria on here should the Irish government nominate Belfast as its capital and the BBC agree.
Angry Young Alex:”Hugh, the BBC is clearly damned if it does and damned if it don’t, and it is within its rights to plum for damned if it don’t.”
No, it’s not. The only people objecting to the word terrorists are sympathisers and those pretty far on the left. The corporation has no problem with all sorts of terms that some on the right might disagree with – take “pro choice” as an example. A lot of conservatives object to the term “Tory”; that doesn’t seem to faze the BBC.
The BBC’s reporting on terrorism frequently loses much of its sense because of its bizarre attitude to words like “terrorist” and “islamist”.
It should be possible to get the thrust and strength of a story into the opening paragraph. The BBC’s reads:
“The Lebanese group, Hezbollah says one of its top leaders, Imad Mughniyeh, has died in a bombing in Damascus, and has blamed Israel for assassinating him.”
“Group”? What does that tell you. It’s a bad piece of journalism forced on readers because the BBC is worried about offending people who share the views of George Galoway. If you don’t know the background (and a lot sadly don’t) the opening paragraph makes it read like Israel have knocked off the chief exec of an NGO.
This site, associated with the Christian, Lebanon-born, Brigitte Gabriel, which takes a more committed anti-Hezbollah line than the BBC, has this on the assassination of MUGNIYEH:
http://blog.americancongressfortruth.com/2008/02/14/gotcha-interview-with-ken-timmerman-on-mugniyeh-assassination/
National governments do not have the right to include parts of other countries as their capital.
Which “other country”?
If you’re talking about “Palestine” I thought I’d already shown that a country by that name has never existed. That is one of the reasons why Israel rejects accusations of “illegal occupation” and indeed rejects the concept of “occupation” as it is only applicable in the case of one state occupying another state. “Palestine” has never existed as a state therefore there is no occupation, illegal or otherwise of any “Palestinian land”. There are only disputed territories.
Please read the links I provided to the history of Jerusalem. Jerusalem has never been part of any other country and the Jordanian occupation prior to Israel’s liberation of Jerusalem was not internationally recognised.
Do read the history before repeating Arab propaganda, and by all means point out which historical facts you see as mere opinion.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/State/JERUSALEM%20-%20Capital%20of%20Israel
Under British rule (1922-1948), Jerusalem was the seat of the High Commissioner and most administrative offices of the Mandate, as well as of the central institutions of the growing Jewish community.
From 1948 to 1967, Jerusalem was a city divided as a result of a war thrust upon her. For nineteen years, concrete walls and barbed wire sealed off one part of the city from the other. Its eastern section, including the Old City, was annexed by Jordan, and ruled from its capital, Amman. The western sector of Jerusalem became Israel’s capital.
Following another war in June 1967, Jerusalem was reunited. The barriers dividing the city were demolished, the gates of the Old City were opened to people of all faiths, and the eastern sector was reintegrated into the nation’s capital.
In July 1980 the Knesset passed the Basic Law – Jerusalem, which restated Israel’s rights and obligations concerning the capital. The Law affirmed that the holy places of all religions be protected from desecration, free access to them be guaranteed, and the Government provide for the development and the prosperity of the city and the well-being of its inhabitants.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1999/3/The+Status+of+Jerusalem.htm
III. Historically Jerusalem is a United City
A. The nineteen year occupation of eastern Jerusalem — the only time that the city was divided — was the result of unprovoked attack followed by unrecognized annexation:
– On May 14, 1948 upon termination of the British mandate, Israel proclaimed its independence. Immediately following Israel’s proclamation, the surrounding Arab countries attacked the fledgling state. The Arab Legion besieged the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City.
– On May 28, 1948 the Arab Legion overran the Jewish Quarter and eastern Jerusalem, while Israel held on to the Jewish populated western neighborhoods of the city. Jerusalem was divided for the first time in its history.
– In 1950, Transjordan annexed the West Bank and Jerusalem, in an act which was neither recognized by the world community (except for two countries), nor by the other Arab states.
B. On June 5, 1967 an unprovoked Arab attack was launched on the Jewish populated western neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Indiscriminate artillery bombardment damaged religious sites, hospitals, and schools across the 1949 armistice line; the U.N. headquarters south of Jerusalem was seized, and enemy troops began to enter nearby Jewish neighborhoods.
C. Israeli Defense Forces repelled the invasion, and on June 7 they retook the Old City, reuniting Jerusalem. The barbed wire and concrete barriers which had divided Jerusalem were finally torn down, and Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration was extended to the eastern neighborhoods of the city.
D. Jerusalem is and has always been an undivided city, except for this 19 year period. There is no justification for this short period to be viewed as a factor in determining the future of the city, and to negate 3,000 years of unity.
“I never claimed anything of the sort. ‘Militant leader’, ‘Paramilitary leader’ and ‘Hezbollah leader’ are all accurate descriptions, just as accurate as ‘Terrorist leader’, if not more since the late Mughniyeh was never convicted of terrorism.”
Militant,paramilitary, Hezbollah leader are not accurate descriptions of a murderer who uses violence and fear to promote political agenda.
One can be a militant AGW greeny,paramilitary police,Hezbollah gets closer but could include Hezbollah’s cousin Murry .
Al Capone was never convicted of racketeering and murder,or even of being a gangster,but he was all those things.
David Preiser,
The other goal of terrorism is to delegitimise government.One, by making government look ineffectual and two,forcing government to draconian measures which alienates the people.
BTW,
“That’s why the murder of more than 50 random civilians in London on 7/7 by Angry Young Arabs is an act of terrorism.”
They were not Arabs,one was West Indian,sadly they were second/third generation from the Indian sub continent.Born and bred in Britain.
“… just as accurate as ‘Terrorist leader’, if not more since the late Mughniyeh was never convicted of terrorism.”
Another idiocy from the Angry Young One!
According to him a person now has to be tried and convicted before being legitimately called “terrorist”… is there no end to this stupidity?
Sheesh!
David, I’ve never denied that the suicide bombings in Afghanistan are terrorist acts. They obviously are – I’ve no problem in the definition of terrorism.
My problem is with the definition of the Taliban and how they are referred to. You think that their campaign is centred around suicide attacks as opposed to the guys up in the mountains? Or did the first bomb mark an overwhelming change in tactics? I don’t think their campaign revolves around what could be referred to as terrorism (even taking into account intimidation in the provinces).
The people who blew themselves up on 7/7 did not constitute a small part of a larger coordinated armed guerilla campaign against our armed forces. They were individuals acting in one specific way only, against a civilian population – terrorists.
I only bring this up because the terms in which people and organisations are referred to is such an issue here (and understandably so). I’m just saying first and foremost I wouldn’t describe them as terrorists (and I’m speaking specifically about the Taliban as a group). Before I’m inevitably accused, I’m certainly not condoning any actions of the Taliban either.
Peter | 14.02.08 – 5:09 pm |
BTW,
“That’s why the murder of more than 50 random civilians in London on 7/7 by Angry Young Arabs is an act of terrorism.”
They were not Arabs,one was West Indian,sadly they were second/third generation from the Indian sub continent.Born and bred in Britain.
Oops, my bad, you’re right. I should have said they were Angy Young Muslims. Come to think of it, this is a prime example of how criticizing Islamists is not, in fact, racist.
Ben | 14.02.08 – 5:22 pm |
Well, obviously the difficulty arises in trying to describe (or define) a group versus an individual. One can surely say that the Taliban use terrorist tactics. If that’s one part of their repertoire, it’s hard to downplay that aspect. On the other hand, if they just do one isolated act which we could define as terrorism, then it would be unfair to label the whole group that way.
Certainly the Taliban originated as something else entirely. However, a clear pattern has emerged here, in that a significant part of their strategy involves terrorist tactics. In fact, I would argue that they have more “success” that way than in armed struggle these days. It’s a bit awkward, but what percentage of their activities must be “terrorist” acts in order for them to be called “terrorists”? I’d say not so many, not even a majority.
As more and more of their activities lean in that direction, they are edging closer and closer to becoming a terrorist group.
The BBC’s slant in framing this issue as: “Does Europe risk becoming a fortress?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm
“Does Europe risk becoming a fortress? The EU Justice Commissioner has announced proposals to strengthen EU border controls for all countries signed up to the Schengen accord. Is this the right move for European border security?
…
Are these the correct border controls for European countries? Will increased restrictions make it harder for those seeking refuge from persecution? Is Europe at risk of making its security too tight?”
‘There are quite a few Catalan separatists in north east Spain. The reason why none of them get described as terrorists is …?’
Gordon, there are also quite a few people in Cornwall who’d like to be a separate entity, I believe, but to my knowledge haven’t started bombing Devon yet.
ben, speak to any one of the hazara community in London. they will tell you all about taliban ethnic cleansing in the 1990s.
if you want the full story there are many hazara in london and indeed right across the world now.
attacks on civilians is not a new taliban tactic. google “mazar-e sharif 1998”.
The BBC seems to be diffident in saying, in detail, what MUGHNIYEH was, and whether he was our enemy. The is no excuse for the BBC’s ‘multiculturalism’ to get in the way of our national security here.
I recommend the following to the BBC and to the BBC Arabic TV service in Broadcasting House for clarificatory study:
“The Importance of Imad Mughniyeh”
( by Doug Farah ).
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php?id=1386623
Also:-
“Terrorist Mastermind Mughniyeh Killed” (by W.Thomas Smith)
[ as well as additional reading at end]
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php?id=1386618
Non-binding Security Council Resolution 478 was not passed by the General Assembly. Now I freely admit the UN is not perfect, and probably not fully impartial.
Angry, Non-binding Security Council resolutions are known in UN circles as “letting off steam” of various large groups (especially the Islamic block). No matter what your opinion on Jerusalem or whatnot, UN is a ridiculous choice when it comes to impartiality.
Some descriptions are accurate, some impartial. It is possible to have an accurate description – “cold-blooded murderer of innocent Jewish people” for example, which is still too negative in connotations to be impartial.
Yet, BBC doesn’t have a problem in decrying majority of Israelis as “racists” that constantly “kill” Palestinians for no reason, while they themselves are dying from rockets or suicide bombings as if by a “rare” force of nature.
“Most” Lebanese that were killed were civilians, while “most” Israelis were soldiers. (Hiding the fact that most in the first case is only slightly over 50%, and in the second case around 70%).
BBC never said that: “Most” Israelis killed since 2000 were civilians (by a large margin > 80%), while “most” Palestinians killed were “militants” (over 60%).
All these quoted words are constantly used by the BBC to manipulate readers emotions. And all are used in a constantly same direction.
In the article from the following B-BBC thread, BBC repeats an unproven claim that breaking of six windows at the Stephen Lawrence Centre, in Deptford, was racially motivated. As if “racism” is not an emotionally charged word?
So the usual defense, that a doubleplusungood word “terrorism” is emotional charged and should not be used, simply fails to address the issue that many other emotionally charged words, mentioned above, are used all the time to either maximize or minimize someones empathy with a particular side in a story!
The empathy somehow always blows towards various Islamists (aka Hizb’allah) and antipathy towards the West.
If the BBC still isn’t sure about what MUGHNIYEH represented, let a US State Dept. official give a hint:
“he was a cold blooded killer, a mass murderer and a terrorist responsible for countless lost lives. One way or another he was brought to justice.”
See article:
“Imad Mughniyed: How he held America Hostage” (by Michael Kraft).
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/02/imad_mughniyeh_how_he_held_ame.php#trackbacks
“‘Militant leader’, ‘Paramilitary leader’ and ‘Hezbollah leader’ are all accurate descriptions, just as accurate as ‘Terrorist leader’, if not more since the late Mughniyeh was never convicted of terrorism.”
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 14.02.08 – 3:49 pm | #
So by your standard then, it would not be accurate to describe Adolf Hitler as a war criminal or mass murderer since he never had his day in court.
Brilliant reasoning.