What is the problem that the BBC has with using the term “terrorist”? Take this report headed “1970’s radical freed from jail”. It concerns a woman who spent 24 years on the run before pleading guilty to a 1975 attempted police car bombing, and who has been released after a seven-year jail term. Sara Jane Olson, formerly known as Kathleen Soliah, was a member of the terrorist group the so-called Symbionese Liberation Army. The group became famous for kidnapping newspaper heiress Patty Hearst in 1974. Olson also pleaded guilty to the second degree murder of a woman during a 1975 bank raid. This woman is NOT radical, she is a terrorist. Would the BBC please explain WHY the euphemism “radical” is employed rather than than the correct term “terrorist”? Moral relativism got their tongues?
A RADICAL VOCABULARY.
Bookmark the permalink.
Put in simple terms, ‘terrorist’ = a BAD word for a BAD person. Since (shock! horror!) the BBC cannot be judgmental, it cannot use BAD words. But this leaves us with a problem: by deciding not to brand BAD people with BAD words, the BBC is making its own ‘value judgment’ – ie, it’s implying that these people are not so bad after all. “Who are we to judge?”, they say – which means that even the Beslan outrage should be presented in ‘neutral terms’. Wouldn’t want to criticise the Chechen ‘narrative’, would we?
Disinterested Bystander | 22.03.08 – 1:18 am | #
Thank you for the information. The problem clearly lies in the definition of “terrorism” in law. While for most people, especially since 9/11, “terrorism” means military action directed specifically against civilians, this is nowhere to be seen in the law you quote.
I’m not trying to defend the BBC, who simply exploit this legal ambiguity for pursposes of moral inversion. Yet it is up to parliament to set the rules in this matter.
Arthur Dent | 21.03.08 – 11:07 pm |
Hugh | 22.03.08 – 5:58 am
David Preiser (USA) | 21.03.08 – 8:08 pm
I rather agree with all of you. I have gone on record here before saying that I personally believe the BBC is over-cautious about the use of the word terrorism in its guidelines. In practice, I know, many BBC journalists have used it (and its derivatives) without getting told off. I have done so myself.
Where I agree with Arthur Dent, in particular, is in his statement
Terrorism is a methodology not an ideology.
I think AD’s definition, though, is too narrow.: e.g.
so that they put pressure on their government to acceed to the demands of the terrorists
I don’t think, for instance, Al Qaeda are out for concessions from governments. They are involved in a kind of ultra-violent gesture politics.
A definition like ‘the use of violence involving the deliberate targeting of non-combatants or civilian property for the advancement of a political cause….’ would work for me.
I think the key issue is the targeting of the innocent. That means that terrorism is always and everywhere wrong. So weasel-like defences from Bryan, Jonah and others (on another thread) of the Stern Gang’s atrocities • bombings of cafes, markets and the blowing up of a train at Binyamina (killing 40 civilians) don’t wash. It doesn’t matter a fig what the British Mandate’s immigration policy was, terrorism is wrong.
Some time back the BBC came very close to changing its policy (after an external review) but the ‘consistency’ argument trumped other objections.
The debate no doubt will continue. What doesn’t help, I feel, are the kind of headbanger slanders from Bryan et al about the policy being down to ‘dhimmi submission’ or even active approval of terrorist outrages.
I can’t believe I find myself agreeing with JR on something. In fact, two things. First, that terrorism should be defined in terms of attacks on civilians (in JR’s words, the innocents). Second, that the Ezel and Lehi (Sterm Gang) were terrorists. Yet JR might have added that the mainstream of zionist leadership thought the same and acted against these gangs, both during British rule and later (sinking of the Altalena).
This is something JR could have mentioned in favour of Israel. Israelis rejected the terror gangs. Not so the Palis.
Anat, exactly.
Also it depends how far you stretch the definition of non combatants, and legitimate targets.
By saying you regard all Israelis as legitimate targets because you think Israel itself is illegal, does that mean you are not a terrorist if you kill a civilian?
When Bryan and Jonah explain the motivation behind the Jewish acts of terrorism, they were not denying that they were terrorist acts. They were putting them in perspective just as the BBC does with Palestinian atrocities and Muslim grievance-based violence, (because of foreign policy etc.) and more importantly to illustrate that this was a short-lived and controversial period which has long been abandoned, but is continually used by people who wish to demonstrate false arguments of moral equivalence.
This is something JR could have mentioned in favour of Israel. Israelis rejected the terror gangs.
If only that were true.
In 1975, the bodies of Ben Zuri and Hakim { the Lehi assassins of Lord Moyne} were returned to Israel in exchange for twenty prisoners from Gaza and Sinai.They were lain in state in the Jerusalem Hall of Heroism, where they were attended by many dignitaries including Prime Minister Rabin and President Katzir. Then they were buried in the military section of Mount Herzl cemetery in a state funeral. Great Britain lodged a formal protest. In 1982, postage stamps were issued in their honour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Edward_Guinness,_1st_Baron_Moyne
JR, you are wrong. You mix up meaningless ceremony with actual opionion as expressed in elections. You may note that only after veterans like Begin and Shamir changed course and objectives, in the 1970s, only then they could ever be elected and on a completely different ticket.
It is for this reason that Israelis in 1993 believed Arafat. We thought that he changed, as Begin and Shamir were. But he wasn’t.
Another note to JR, Ben Zuri and Hakim were executed for the assassination of Lord Moyne, who was part of the British colonial establishement. While by the Beeb’s own definition it is debatable if this kind of action is “terrorism” of “freedom fighting”, it certainly has nothing to do with blowing up trains and other such indiscriminate attacks on civilians, which is the current definition for terrorism as agreed by yourself.
In short, you move the goal posts. A typical Beeb act.
JR, I think you made a fatal mistake in your argument again, probably because of your personal grudge against the Jews in Palestine.
In fact you helped us prove that only in the face of Islamic terrorism did the BBC change its definition.
BBC didn’t have a problem branding people terrorists even if they were attacking military targets most of the time, let alone civilian targets.
I had to refresh my memory about the Stern Gang, for example in this link:
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm
Even though most Jews consider them terrorists and are ashamed of them, most of Irgun’s and Stern Gang’s activity does not fit your definition (i.e. targeting civilians alone), as they were targeting British military 100% the time.
The Stern Gang and Irgun idiots even did it while 60,000 Jewish volunteers from Palestine were serving in the British Army
(while Arabs joined German Hanjar SS Divisions, and Haj-Amin Al Hussaini became a war criminal in the Balkans).
So to conclude. Moral inversion is a relatively new concept for the BBC. It probably started occurring during IRA’s atrocities. But it blossomed with Islamic terrorism.
Sorry, my mistake, it was 30,000 Jewish volunteers from Palestine in the British Army during WW2. 60,000 in allied forces overall.
John Reith | 22.03.08 – 11:48 am,
The only “weasel words” are coming from you and your “guidelines” Reith. It’s been quite an education in what makes the BBC tick.
Some time back the BBC came very close to changing its policy (after an external review) but the ‘consistency’ argument trumped other objections.
I suppose that was the review of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of a few years back, though that was hardly “external” since the panel was appointed by the governors of the BBC.
That panel concluded that the BBC should stop shrinking from the T-word. Typically the BBC ignored the conclusion.
Now maybe you can get your BBC colleagues to apply the “consistency” argument to their trashing of Christianity while bowing to Islam.
While by the Beeb’s own definition it is debatable if this kind of action is “terrorism” of “freedom fighting”, it certainly has nothing to do with blowing up trains and other such indiscriminate attacks on civilians, which is the current definition for terrorism as agreed by yourself.
In short, you move the goal posts. A typical Beeb act.
Anat (Israel) | 22.03.08 – 1:21 pm |
Quite right Anat, JR’s knowledge of history seems to come from his “Electronic Intifada Crowd” (as he puts it in another thread).
Jewish terrorists under the British rule were targeting British military, not blowing up caffees with civilians indiscriminately (King David’s hotel was a British Army HQ). Not that I am in any way claiming that it was a legitimate target, as there were a lot of non military personnel there.
Moreover, those idiotic terrorist gangs were squashed by the emerging official Israeli army (as in the Altalena incident).
BTW, from the Altalena and other events where the Jews squashed their radical elements, there is a lot Arab-Palestinians could learn from Jews about how to create a functioning state, but I’m afraid the larger Arab and Iranian propagandists do not really want them to succeed. Instead they prefers them to forever be a festering grievance theater they can use to divert attention from problems at home.
Too bad BBC is giving Hamas a helping hand in this…
But, then again they are doing it to a lesser extent against British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as well, including a call to track British troop movements in a war zone. BBC is totally of the hook on this.
Anonymous | 22.03.08 – 2:11 pm
Stern Gang’s activity does not fit your definition (i.e. targeting civilians alone), as they were targeting British military 100% the time.
Rubbish, The Binamyin railway bombing killed forty civilians. They also bombed cafes, market places etc. and slaughtered many civilians.
Deir Yassin springs to mind too – not many military there.
Anat (Israel) | 22.03.08 – 1:21 pm
No – I’m not moving any goalposts. The shooting of Shlomo Argov in London was terrorism in my book.
Ditto that of Lord Moyne in Cairo.
But if you prefer a non-Brit example – Count Bernadotte.
JR, yes you are.
Definitions change. By your definition, many of the allied actions in WWII would likewise be terrorism.
For the Binyanima train, the British would nowadays be guilty of using a civilian train for moving troops, without separating them from civilians as required by the Geneva Conventions. But today is not yesterday.
“During the lead-up to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war the Cairo-Haifa train was mined several times. The train was attacked because it was used by the British soldiers. The attached military coaches were targeted.
On February 29, the Jewish underground group Lehi mined the train north of Rehovot, killing 28 soldiers and wounding 35. No civilians were hurt. One or more bombs laid on the track were detonated from a nearby orange grove. Lehi took credit for the bombing of the British train as revenge for the Ben Yehuda Street Bombing in Jerusalem. “The train was the normal daily passenger express to which four military coaches had been attached”.[1]
On March 31, the train was mined near Binyamina, a Jewish settlement in the neighborhood of Caesarea, killing 40 persons and wounding 60. The casualties were all civilians, mostly Arabs. Although there were some soldiers on the train, none were injured. The Palestine Post and the New York Times attributed the attack to Lehi.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo-Haifa_train_bombings_1948
Anat (Israel) | 22.03.08 – 2:51 pm,
Amazing, isn’t it, how Reith picks out some facts and omits others in his attempt to paint the Jews of that time as terrorists on a par with Arab terrorists. I don’t recall him talking about British soldiers.
No doubt Reith has nothing to say about the 1948 Arab massacre of 79 Jewish doctors and nurses and other civilians bringing medical supplies to Jerusalem’s Haddassah Hospital – one in a long line of Arab atrocities against Jewish civilians even before the establishment of Israel:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/Hadassah_convoy_Massacre.htm
Bryan | 22.03.08 – 3:18 pm |
Quite.
JR’s technique is the one used for whitewashing the well known fact that the various Arab gangs TARGET civilians, as they have done for almost ninety years now (since 1921), and which they do not even deny. The technique used by JR — for current events and for history alike — is to enlist civilian collateral casualties and pretend they were targeted by the Israelis, which they weren’t. The only purpose of this is to whitewash the Arab deliberate targeting of civilians.
The only amazing thing about this is that we are still amazed. We shouldn’t be. Fascist propaganda remains the same as ever, twisting reality for the purpose of creating confusion and masking the truth.
Furthermore, “radical” is not exactly a precise term in the BBC’s book. Collapsing walls on homosexuals, as practiced in Taliban Afghanistan, would be considered pretty ‘radical’ – even ‘etremist’ – in most non-muslims’ books. But the BBC, as another poster reminds us elsewhere today, term the Taliban constituency “traditional” and (wait for it! Yes, you’ve guseed it) “conservative”!
Bryan | 22.03.08 – 3:18 pm |
Anat (Israel) | 22.03.08 – 3:31 pm
… to enlist civilian collateral casualties and pretend they were targeted…. which they weren’t.
Bryan • you raise the Haddassah convoy massacre • which I unreservedly condemn. But since you are always crying out for ‘context’ – here it is:
The hospital attack took place on April 13th 1948. In the months leading up to that, the following atrocities had been committed by Jewish terrorists targeting civilians:
11 December1947 – 6 civilians killed and more than 25 wounded in bombings of buses in Haifa.
13th December – Bombs were palnted at a street market in Jerusalem, a bomb was thrown into a café in Jaffa. 6 civilians killed and 60 wounded.
19th December – A house at Safad was blown-up by the Haganah killing 10 Arab civilians, five of them children.
29th December • 11 Arab civilians killed at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem by a bomb thrown by an Irgun terrorist from a passing car.
30th /31st December • Irgun terrorists thre a bomb at a queue of Arab workers outside the Haifa Oil Refinery. An Arab mob then stormed the refinery and murdered 39 (or 41) Jews. Next day the Palmach made a reprisal attack on the Arab village of Balad-al-Shayh, murdering about 20 civilians.
4th Jan 1948 • Haganah terrorists disguised as British soldiers blew up the Ottoman Serai in Jaffa killing 40 of the staff of the Arab National Committee and wounding 98 passers by. (a ‘political’ target?)
5th Jan • Zionist terrorists exploded a bomb at the Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem killing a Spanish diplomat.
7th Jan • 17 Arab civilians killed by a bomb near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem.
3rd March • Stern Gang drove a truck filled with explosives up to the Salam apartment building in Haifa and exploded it, killing 11 Arab and 3 Armenian civilians.
22nd March • The Stern Gang repeated their truck bomb tactic in Iraq Street, Haifa • 17 civilians killed, more than 90 wounded.
31st March • 40 civilians killed in the Binyamina railway attack that Anat defends on the spurious grounds that ‘Brits used the railway’.
9th April • The Deir Yassin massacre. (Details much in dispute • so let’s just leave it there…)
So there’s your context. Now is this terrorism or not?
No more weaseling. I remind you Anat of your earlier admission – which you appear to have rescinded:
Second, that the Ezel and Lehi (Sterm Gang) were terrorists.
Anat (Israel) | 22.03.08 – 12:00 pm
JR, what exactly are you trying to prove?
Are you saying that the Israelis have been deliberately tragetting civilians? Can you elaborate for what purpose?
.
John Reith | 22.03.08 – 4:25 pm
Links, please, links. Do you really expect us to take this at face value when just a few hours ago you were leaving out the fact that British soldiers were the target of many of the alleged terrorist attacks by Jews? You are a fine one to talk about “context.”
You also made a derogatory comment about me re Baruch Goldstein, claiming that I somehow support his actions. I’ve said it before, a few times, and I’ll say it again, in case you really didn’t notice: Goldstein’s murder of dozens of Arab civilians in a mosque was a terrorist act. So please cut the bullsh*t and debate, if you possibly can, without the propaganda.
JR, for these examples to be terrorism, we need more context than that. Given that there was war on, we need to know who was targetted. For then as now, the Jihadi gangs were not differentiating between civilians the combatants, neither on the Israeli side nor on their own side. Therefore, a mere list of civilians casualties will not do. If you insist on such lists without the context of the war, you are deliberately obscuring the truth.
And the simple truth, plain for all to see, is that Israel has not been cleansed of Arabs. On the other hand, all Arab countries have been practically cleansed of Jews, including any part of Palestine which ever came under Arab rule, wether permanently or temporarily.
This is the truth you are trying to obscure.
JR,
From Anat’s post, and from historical record even you should be able to understand that even the most heinous Jewish terrorists (since Biblical Samson) killed more soldiers than civilians.
Besides BBC at the time called them terrorists (justifiably so) even though they targeted soldiers.
Moreover, to this day almost everyone in Israel refers to them as terrorists (few that survived later converted to more peaceful ways, just like Israelis believed Arafat did and gave him the benefit of the doubt).
Compare this to the fact that Imad Fayez Mughniyah, who orchestrated terror attacks in Argentine that killed dozens of civilians (not Israelis) is glorified throughout the Middle East, especially in Iran.
Hamas by contrast killed >90% civilians. Apart for Gilad Shalit they never even tried to hit Israeli soldiers, they were always going for soft targets, i.e. civilians.
Just like Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the cowards as soon as they realized they cannot fight the Americans and the Brits, started killing Iraqis.
Now Israel is walled off from Gaza and the West Bank so they can only fire missiles.
How many media organizations in the Muslim world refer to Hamas or Al-Qaeda as terror organizations openly?
There is much more condemnation in the Arab media against the West, Pope, Danish Cartoons and whatnot than against Al-Qaeda and Hamas.
Until that changes, there will always be at least 5% of the population that is radicalized to the point of being willing to commit suicide bombing throughout the world.
And if you insist viewing Hamas as freedom fighters, just try to imagine what kind of a Palestinian state will grow up from this, if 60 years after the fact Israel is still beating itself over the terrorism by Lehi and Irgun.
Now as to your case against the Jews and their religion which you claim is intolerant:
How many Germans did Jews kill in retaliation against the Holocaust?
How many times has Israel threaten to annihilate Germany?
(Quite the contrary – German PM Merkel just gave a speech in Knesset in German last week)
Also you should consider your unhealthy hatred of Israel in global context and the context of other similar events, for example:
In the partition of India in 47′, 1 million people died and at 14.5 million were moved (most of them forcibly).
This opposed to ~20,000 dead, 750,000 Arabs and 800,000 Jews that moved due to the partition of Palestine
And while the Israelis beat themselves over the terrorists in their midst.
Compile a list of the massacres Arabs committed against the Jews in the same period in Palestine.
Compile also a list of Arab volunteers to Nazi war machine and support they provided to Hitler and against the Alies as opposed to Palestinian Jews that fought in droves in the British Army.
You might see a very different picture as a result, if you are honest enough to try.
While every Israeli child learns about Deir Yassin and Baruch Goldsein, do any Arab children learn about the massacres starting with Hebron Massacre of 29′ to any of the recent Hamas massacres?
Instead these massacres are glorified and terrorists are portrayed as shaheeds.
Mr Reith I suspect that we could have a long and probably inconclusive discussion about the aims of Al Qaeda but your definition:
‘the use of violence involving the deliberate targeting of non-combatants or civilian property for the advancement of a political cause….’ would work for me as well.
I agree that the key issue is the targeting of the innocent. That means that terrorism is always and everywhere wrong. But I disagree with you when you say that
What doesn’t help, I feel, are the kind of headbanger slanders …. about the policy being down to …. active approval of terrorist outrages.
The only logical reason I can see for the BBC to be pursuing its current stance is the reason I stated earlier:
It seems to me that the underlying problem with the BBC guideline is that whoever wrote it is starting form the premise that some terrorist acts are ‘legitimate’ and that since it is difficult to always correctly differentiate these ‘lrgitimate’ events from those that are not legitimate it is better to avoid the word itself.
John Reith | 22.03.08 – 4:25 pm |
You are obviously using a Palestinian source (electronic intifada again JR?), since there is no context of Arab atrocities, and all victims are magically civilian.
Like in the recent violence in Gaza and Lebanon.
Stern Gang are terrorists. That’s in the Israeli school text-books (who do you think called them a “gang” in the first place?)
Nevertheless. This is tit-for-tat violence by terrorist gangs and mobs on both sides, which are as we all agreed reprehensible.
Similar number of Jews were killed in massacres by Arabs starting in Hebron in 29′ (where 69 Jewish civilians were massacred).
Not to say anything about anti-Jewish violence in the larger Arab world before, during and after WW2.
However all this violence amounts to well less than 2000 – again, very few for any reasonably sized civil war.
Just consider the past 20 years Sudan, Rwanda, the Balkans, etc.
Together more than 2 million dead at least.
The whole focus on this conflict is a joke. The atrocities in 48′ were relatively minor in comparison to what went on everywhere else before and since.
In fact if it were not for Muslim obsession with the West taking back some of their land (as they view it), this would have been a long forgotten conflict, instead of an additional grievance theater that it is now.
The point of this thread is to prove how BBC until global Islamic terror (and to a certain extent IRA) terror didn’t have any compulsions in calling terrorist a terrorist.
Now they do! Why?
The post modernist lunacy.
The Editorial guidlines show, if nothing else, that the BBC takes its committment to impartiality seriously and that the use of the word is the subject of considerable debate, as also evidenced by the opinions on this site.
…Or it could be an part of the pro-Al Quaeda conspiracy, you decide.
JR, your tactic of digging through history to create moral equivalence at any cost is not relevant.
British are not usually holding grudges against every people they fought during the history of the British Empire. They are above that.
Just like the Jews have now basically moved on after Germany slaughtered 6 million of their people during ww2.
But, if you are a Palestinian you should be thinking on how to create a responsible prosperous Palestinian state, not trying to prove how everyone is as bad as Hamas and Al-Qaeda. Even if they were they would not get you anywhere.
Jews don’t seek global domination. They don’t even seek domination between the Jordan river and the sea or in Gaza as opposed to what your propaganda has been feeding you.
Have you ever been to Israel and talked to people there?
The current government was elected to pull out from the West Bank (after the (it seems now unsuccessful) pull out from Gaza in 2005).
If people were not afraid that West Bank is going to turn into Gaza and Hamas will start lobing missiles on Tel-Aviv it would have already happened with territorial exchanges for population centers.
What exactly is Hamas’ goal? Do they have any goals apart from the goals of their Syrian and Iranian puppet masters, which tend to trigger a confrontation whenever UN is about to pass a new row of Sanctions against Iran.
Did you notice how Gilad Shalid abduction, Hezbollah’s attack, recent violence always coincide with a vote against Iran in the UNSC. The latest one on March 3th?
Iran are true gods of diversionary propaganda.
the use of the word is the subject of considerable debate, as also evidenced by the opinions on this site
Joel that is not how I read the comments to date, nearly everyone agrees even John Reith that there is a perfectly reasonable definition of terrorism that the BBC could use, but chooses not to.
The point of this thread is to prove how BBC until global Islamic terror (and to a certain extent IRA) terror didn’t have any compulsions in calling terrorist a terrorist.
Now they do! Why?
The post modernist lunacy.
Anonymous | 22.03.08 – 5:55 pm
Arthur Dent | 22.03.08 – 5:50 pm,
These are important points. If the BBC identifies terrorist acts, it will automatically be reflecting the fact that the vast majority of terror in today’s world is committed in the name of Islam. Since the BBC has a great deal of sympathy with and understanding for the cause of radical Islam, as it is expressed, for example, by the Palestinians, it has taken the cowardly route of obfuscating and minimising Islamic terror in order to show that cause in the best possible light. And what better way to do that than by excising the word “terrorism” from the English language?
Take the purely hypothetical scenario of the vast majority of today’s terrorism being committed by the West and Israel. In such a scenario the BBC would not be tiptoeing delicately around the ‘T’ word but shouting it from the rooftops. Anyone who doubts this need only look at the fact of Middle East “editor” Jeremy Bowen yelling “war crimes” at Israel during the Second Lebanon War – when Hezbollah was the side actually committing the war crimes – to imagine how the BBC would behave in a scenario like the one I’ve described.
This is the gross hypocrisy of the BBC laid bare. And the “guidelines” posted by Reith, which purport to show a concerned BBC treating the ‘T’ word delicately because it is “emotive” are just more of the same – weasel words from BBC propagandists who do their insidious work in the shadows.
“Maybe some of the beebers or trolls could come up with some “difficult” examples where it could be controversial or difficult to decide what is and what is not terrorism ?”
With pleasure:
> The Chinese security forces opening fire on protesters.
> Attacks on soldiers out of uniform.
> Nicaragua vs. United States 1986.
> 9/11, specifically the attack on the Pentagon.
Joel:
The Editorial guidlines show, if nothing else, that the BBC takes its committment to impartiality seriously and that the use of the word is the subject of considerable debate, as also evidenced by the opinions on this site.
…Or it could be an part of the pro-Al Quaeda conspiracy, you decide.
Nice try, Joel. I think this is called a straw man.
Nobody here is suggesting that the BBC is part of an AQ conspiracy.
Sometimes posters here get carried away and try to examine the motives behind the BBCs bias. This is understandable – but wrong. We just need to show day after day the examples.
One of the most clear examples of shying away from the “T” word is when the BBC change direct quoted speech. eg an Israeli IDF spokesman will say ” the terrorists did ….” this will be reported as “General X said: ‘the militants did …’ “
Alex:
That’s better. I am now convinced that if we work together we can produce something short and to the point that the BBC could issue instead of its pseudo-intellectual cant that passes for guidelines.
The Chinese security forces opening fire on protesters.
Not terrorism.
Attacks on soldiers out of uniform.
Need more context – who what when why.
Nicaragua vs. United States 1986.
Too vague. Was there a specific incident ?
9/11, specifically the attack on the Pentagon.Yes – this was terrorism. Remember who was on the planes ? (Hint: civilian passengers )
Keep going – you can probably come up with some borderline situation that needs to be referred to a “terminology czar”. MOst of the time its very clear and very obvious to ordinary people.
If there is a lot of terrorism in the world right now then there is nothing wrong in using the word a lot.
The Chinese security forces:
Why is this not terrorism? Is it not in part intended to intimidate the population?
Attacks on soldiers out of uniform:
For example, shooting at known soldiers when they are in civilian clothing, or attacking a club where local soldiers are often known to go.
US vs. Nicaragua:
From wikipedia
“The alleged violations included attacks on Nicaraguan facilities and naval vessels, the mining of Nicaraguan ports, the invasion of Nicaraguan air space, and the training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying of forces (the “Contras”) and seeking to overthrow Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.”
9/11 Pentagon:
Could this not be interpreted as an attack on a military target that included civilian casualties?
“our audience is as perceptive as we are, and can make up their own minds without being provided with labels.”
Biased BBC doesn’t think the audience is that perceptive though does it? You are the people who have seen the light, and are acting on behalf of all those poor millions that just aren’t as clever as you, and are being subliminally manipulated right?
The Chinese security forces:
Why is this not terrorism? Is it not in part intended to intimidate the population?
No. This is not terrorism. It might be all kinds of things – without more details it could even be legitimate police action to control a riot.
Attacks on soldiers out of uniform:
For example, shooting at known soldiers when they are in civilian clothing, or attacking a club where local soldiers are often known to go.
This is the only decent contentious example you have come up with. Who is attacking ?
US vs. Nicaragua:
From wikipedia
“The alleged violations included attacks on Nicaraguan facilities and naval vessels, the mining of Nicaraguan ports, the invasion of Nicaraguan air space, and the training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying of forces (the “Contras”) and seeking to overthrow Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.” Sorry but you need to be specific about a particular incident.
9/11 Pentagon:
Could this not be interpreted as an attack on a military target that included civilian casualties?
Alex you have over-used your Mental Inverter ™ You’re not supposed to have it so close to your head for so long.
Perhaps you could pause from the trolling and explain your own views on the BBC. Plenty of examples of bias on here – most of them are real, although some are imagined or exaggerated. What do you think ?
9/11 Pentagon:
Could this not be interpreted as an attack on a military target that included civilian casualties?
Alex | Homepage | 22.03.08 – 8:37 pm
Only by someone who has been fed too much BBC in between philosophy courses given by left wing lecturers.
Normal people know that it is a terrorist act to turn innocent civilian airline passengers into human bombs by flying them into a building to kill others.
“our audience is as perceptive as we are, and can make up their own minds without being provided with labels.”
Joel | Homepage | 22.03.08 – 9:38 pm
Then the BBC must be consistent and not label anyone. It isn’t.
Biased BBC doesn’t think the audience is that perceptive though does it?
Actually you have inadvertently stumbled on a truth here. Most people don’t have the time or inclination to analyse those who, like the BBC, manipulate the news behind the scenes. People turn on the news, watch it, more or less absorb it and move on to things of more vital interest in their personal lives.
Thanks for the attempt at pop psychology there, but speaking for myself no, I don’t think I’m superior to those who, as you rightly suggest, are being “subliminally manipulated.”
I simply have an interest in exposing BBC propaganda and trying to limit the damage the BBC does.
Anf Joel for goodness sake get rid of that “Homepage” of yours. It’s for people who have their own website or blog. Since you don’t have one, unless you’re in charge of The Editors, why don’t you just delete the URL? You don’t have to fill in the URL box when you post a comment.
The Chinese security forces:
Why is this not terrorism? Is it not in part intended to intimidate the population?
The aim of terrorism is to put pressure on the civilian population to get the government of that population to acceed to the terrorists demands. Think of it as assymetric warfare or conflict. Instead of direct action against the governemnt or its armies the terrorist atempts to subvert the civilian population by terrorising it.
The action of the Chinese government against it’s own population may be an atrocity but it’s not terrorism.
(Note: for those who have followed this thread in detail I apologise for one of my late night posts last night which referred to Halabja and Bethlehem, both of which were atrocities but clearly neither were terrorism in this context)
Attacks on soldiers out of uniform:
For example, shooting at known soldiers when they are in civilian clothing, or attacking a club where local soldiers are often known to go.
This is clutching at straws, the key principle is the intention to terrorise the civilian population, in the first case shooting at soldiers out of uniform may be despicable but is not terrorism, they are still part of the military whether in or out of uniform. The second case would be terrorism if the intention was to target the civilian population for association with the soldiers as opposed to targeting the soldiers themselves.
A suicide attack on a military base in which some civilians are killed is not a terrorist attack any more than the death of chinese laundry workers on board Sir Galahad in Bluff Cove was a terrorist attack, despite the fact that they were civilians.
The Chinese security forces:
Why is this not terrorism? Is it not in part intended to intimidate the population?
Alex | Homepage | 22.03.08 – 8:37 pm |
I agree, it might be brutal state repression, but it also might not be.
Probably in Chinese case it is.
However French police suppression of Muslim youth riots in 2005 is not state repression as its intention was to restore law and order.
Also Alex, note that the number of people killed on both sides is not an indicator, since in democracies the number of criminals that die vs. the number of police that die is approx. 100 to 1. And as long as law is respected by the police this is not terrorism, despite what some wackademics might try to say.
Anat (Israel) | 22.03.08 – 4:45 pm
Are you saying that the Israelis have been deliberately targeting civilians?
Those who committed the atrocities I listed were not ‘Israelis’ as Israel did not then exist. These attacks took place while the British Mandate was still in force. But we can be sure the Jewish terrorists were deliberately targeting civilians.
Can you elaborate for what purpose?
Who can divine the motives of terrorists? Well, the Owl of Minerva flies at dusk and recent historians tend to point to the following possibilities:
• In November 1947 the UN agreed its partition plan for Palestine. Some Zionists wanted more land than was provided for by the plan and hoped that if the British could be persuaded to leave before handing over to the UN administration charged with setting up the ‘two state solution’ envisaged, and if the Arab population could be terrified and cowed, then a land grab would be all the easier. (This is roughly what happened • the Brits left in May 48 as soon as the Mandate expired, instead of waiting ‘til August when the UN were due to take over. The State of Israel was proclaimed immediately.)
• Tit for tat reprisals.
• Competition between various armed groups for the honour of bringing the new state into being.
Given that there was war on……..
There was fighting, but the war proper was some way off.
Arthur Dent | 22.03.08 – 5:50 pm
I agree. But the problem is that not everyone agrees with our definition of terrorism (ie the one you and I agree upon). Bryan etc. for example. Perhaps the drafter of the guideline was anticipating this • rather than himself believing some terrorism to be legit?
Happy Easter.
But the problem is that not everyone agrees with our definition of terrorism (ie the one you and I agree upon). Bryan etc. for example.
I haven’t given my definition. You don’t have to invent facts here Reith. You are not writing for the BBC now.
Bryan | 22.03.08 – 11:08 pm
I don’t need your definition, thanks.
According to mine, terrorism is always and everywhere wrong and can never be justified.
You consistently seek to justify it whenever it is perpetrated by someone you see as ‘on your side’ and only ever condemn it when it is perpetrated by an ideological opponent.
“You consistently seek to justify it whenever it is perpetrated by someone you see as ‘on your side’ and only ever condemn it when it is perpetrated by an ideological opponent.”
Oh! The gloriously Blank Broadcasting Corporation,”ideological opponent”,what a wonderfully neutral expression for someone who is trying,and succeeding in killing people.
You consistently seek to justify it whenever it is perpetrated by someone you see as ‘on your side’ and only ever condemn it when it is perpetrated by an ideological opponent.
John Reith | 22.03.08 – 11:53 pm |
Er. Isn’t that what you are doing all the time JR. Digging a handful of examples to justify your moral equivalency argument for global Islamic terror today.
Hamas targeted and killed more civilians in several months of 2001, than Jewish terrorist killed Arabs in the past 100 years.
Al-Qaeda killed more Iraqi civilians in several months than Jewish terrorist did in the past 2500 years.
JR,
More importantly. Many governments in the Arab and Muslim world see terrorism against civilians as legitimate tactics (and even strategy) – hence the glorification of shaheeds in their media. Just look at Imad Mughniyah and George Habash glorification throughout the Muslim world in the past few months.
No Western country sees terrorism as legitimate and always condemns and fights it!
It is a simple as that. If you don’t want to see the difference, and the best you can do is to come up with is a handful of examples throughout the history, no one can help you.
John Reith | 22.03.08 – 10:56 pm | #
JR: “Those who committed the atrocities I listed were not ‘Israelis’ as Israel did not then exist.”
The “atrocities” you list are still to be proven, as you keep ignoring.
But in one thing you are right, the Jews you are referring to were not Israeli. They were Palestinian. It says so in my parents’ birth certificates. This is as opposed to the present re-definition of Palestinian, which is racist in that it excludes Jews.
JR: “Some Zionists wanted more land than was provided for by the plan and hoped that if the British could be persuaded to leave before handing over to the UN administration charged with setting up the ‘two state solution’ envisaged, and if the Arab population could be terrified and cowed, then a land grab would be all the easier.”
This is a lie. For one thing, you imply that the Jews were opposed to the two-state solution and the British were faithful to it, while the opposite is true. The Jews enthusiastically accepted the two-state solution, while the British abstained in the UN vote and in parallel trained an Arab army in Jordan to take over the whole country.
Your lie, that the Jews deliberately cleansed the Arabs for the purpose of grabbing land, is the one invented by the so-called “New historians”. They have absolutely no proof for it, and therefore invent and distort.
There was no shortage of land, and still there is no shortage of land despite the fact that the population of Israel is now more than ten times larger.
What you are saying is that the Jews ceansed the Arabs. A big lie. Those Arabs who wanted to stay are still there, and their numbers are growing.
But the opposite is true. The Arabs cleansed the Jews. Arabs cleansed the Jews from the West Bank during British rule (for which atrocity the British are therefore responsible), and from East Jerusalem after the Jordanian occupation (British-trained army). Jews were also cleansed from all Arab countries gradually between 1940 and 1956.
The British crimes against the Jews is something they are still to come clean about. At present, they don’t show any intention to do so, but rather contribute to a re-writing of history aimed at perpetuating the war.
Addendum to my previous post:
I don’t know if JR is a Beeboid, but if he is then his postings on this thread are definite proof that the Beeb has gone over to fascist rewriting of history, complete with distortions and even plain lies.
John Reith,
If you agree with Arthur Dent’s definition of terrorism then why won’t the BBC use the term?
Oh, wait a minute, they did use the term to refer to the 7/7 bombings, and in the case of the more recent attempted Picadilly circus bombing, and in the case of the recent Glasgow airport attack. All cases where British civilians were targeted for murder for political purposes.
Just not in the case where Jewish civilians in Israel were targeted, 131 times in suicide bombings alone as a matter of fact between 2000 and 2005 (with ten times as many attempts). So at the very least, the BBC has displayed an egregious double standard in its use of the term which amounts to outright bias. Hence the title of this website. How exactly do you explain this?
I note that John Reith “unreservedly” condemned the Arab massacre of the Jewish civilian convoy taking supplies to Hadassha Hospital
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/7489919930327707083/#390884
and then proceeded to qualify his condemnation by putting it into the “context” of Jewish attacks on civilians.
In contrast, though Reith wont admit it, I unreservedly condemned Baruch Goldstein, purposely not putting his terror act in context, here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/7489919930327707083/#390886
I asked Reith for a link to his list of Jewish attacks. I want to see that in context before I comment. As I mentioned on the open thread, wouldn’t it be a laugh if he got it from a neo-Nazi site and doesn’t want that revealed here.
“Alex you have over-used your Mental Inverter ™ You’re not supposed to have it so close to your head for so long.”
That doesn’t really answer my question. The Pentagon is a military target. Therefore, surely even if civilians were used as part of the ammunition, by many definitions including ones put forward by B-BBC readers on this thread, this attack was not terrorism.
“The aim of terrorism is to put pressure on the civilian population to get the government of that population to acceed to the terrorists demands. Think of it as assymetric warfare or conflict. Instead of direct action against the governemnt or its armies the terrorist atempts to subvert the civilian population by terrorising it.”
What about the Reign of Terror, that being where the word originally comes from? That was very much the state intimidating the population.