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.
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.
Anat (Israel) | 23.03.08 – 5:13 am
Yes, he most definitely does work for the BBC. I believe he broadcasts for them on contract, according to what he said a long time ago. He doesn’t seem to realise how much credibility he is losing here – and losing credibility for the BBC as well, of course.
And great post of yours at 5:05 am. Regarding this:
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.
According to the source I’m currently reading, it was discovered that when the files were opened after thirty years, the British government had destroyed many documents from that time. I wonder what they were hiding.
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
See my comment at 7:51 am. And see Peter’s and Alan’s below yours.
How exactly do you explain this?
simon | 23.03.08 – 5:45 am
That’s a tough one for Reith. But I’m sure he’ll find a way
Alex, I give up:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/7489919930327707083/#390922
Sorry, missed your comment.
“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.”
To kill which others? Among them, military personnel. At no point did I say the Pentagon attacks were in any way justified, I merely pointed them out as an example of a terrorism-grey area.
Many definitions of terrorism exclude attacks military targets even if civilians are killed at the same time. It’s generally accepted that the Pentagon attacks were acts of terror. How do you personally reconcile this contradiction?
Alex:
None of this is rational. It’s emotional.
The overwhelming desire here is to demand the BBC constantly damn as terrorists those whom they fear – and hate – the most.
The BBC’s guidelines may be an imperfect balancing act, but they are a rational attempt to understand that its viewers and listeners will come to this from many perspectives and that the best approach is to provide the facts and let others decide. It’s always going to face the fury of those who live in (sometimes understandable) fear of one group or another and those who long ago took sides in intractable disputes.
This is not a balanced audience. Its obsessions are narrow – the vileness of all Muslims, do-or-die support for Israel, climate-change obsession and various shades of Libertarianism. In an earlier version, there appeared to be some attempt to convince the outsider. B-BBC currently shrieks its visceral opposition to the BBC as if that alone were proof.
Hence the idiocy of the conservatism debate. No matter how often you point out the worldwide consensus on this style of reporting, the BBC is held to be at fault because B-BBC knows the Corporation’s motives and therefore they alone are proven to be impure.
.
Bryan
Docs marked WO are War Office, those marked CO are colonial office. UN are self-explanatory. They are in UK Public Records Office .
Early on the morning of 1 January, 1948, Haganah patrols, in fact, carried out an attack on Balad es Sheikh. While one group of about 15 Jews disguised in white Arab head-dresses gave covering fire from the hills overlooking the village, a second party, somewhat larger than the first, entered the outskirts and attacked several houses with grenades and sub-machine gun fire. 14 Arabs were killed and 11 seriously wounded.
WO 275/79
At 12:25 p.m. two Jewish terrorists, one driving a truck loaded with time bombs and the other driving a jeep, both as usual in British uniforms, drove to the end of a lane between the Arab welfare and relief centre in Jaffa housing children and the Barclay’s Bank. The truck was driven in the lane and left there, and the driver was picked up by the jeep driver who was waiting for him. As they drove away, the whole town was rocked by a powerful explosion and many distant buildings were damaged by the concussion. The welfare centre was demolished. Seventeen Arabs were killed in this coldblooded murderous attack and 106 were wounded. Among those killed and seriously wounded were women and children.
United Nations Security Council Official Records, Supplements – 1948.
1240 hours, Jaffa. The Old Serrai in Clock Tower Square which houses the offices of the Arab National Committee, was completely destroyed by an explosion which killed 15 and injured 98 persons. Buildings nearby including Barclay’s Bank, the Central Police Station and several shops and houses were also extensively damaged. Full details of how the attack was carried out are not yet available, but it is believed the attackers arrived at the scene in two vehicles? a 3-ton truck laden with orange boxes and a saloon car. Proceeding up Bustros Street towards Clock Tower Square? the truck turned left into the narrow lane between Barclay’s Bank and the Old Serrai. The saloon car was seen to park some 20 metres north of Central P.S. near the road leading to the port area. The truck was parked at a point about 20 yards along the above mentioned lane. Two persons, dressed as Arabs, were seen to alight from the truck and walk across the square. They got into the waiting car which drove off in the direction of the Ajami Quarter. Almost immediately following the departure of the car, the explosion occurred. Tons of masonry from the Old Serrai building completely blocked the land running beside it, A fire subsequently broke out in Barclay’s Bank but was extinguished. A strong-room situated in the upper storey of the bank was blown in and a considerable amount of money was salvaged and taken into police custody. The entire area was wired off to facilitate salvage operations and to prevent looting. It is reported from TeI Aviv that Irgun Z’vai Leumi have claimed responsibility for this outrage.
CO 537/3855
terrorists made a most barbarous attack at one o’clock in the early morning of Monday, 5 January 1948, at the Semiramis hotel in the Katamon section of Jerusalem, killing innocent people and wounding many. The Jewish Agency terrorist forces blasted the entrance to the hotel by a small bomb and then placed bombs in the basement of the building. As a result of the explosions, the whole building collapsed with its residents. As the terrorists withdrew, they started shooting at the houses in the neighborhood. Those killed were: Subhi El-Taher, Moslem; Mary Masoud, Christian; Georgette Khoury, Christian; Abas Awad, Moslem; Nazira Lorenzo, Christian; Mary Lorenzo, Christian; Mohammed Saleh Ahmed, Moslem; Ashur Abed El Razik, Moslem; Ismail Abed El Aziz, Moslem; Ambeer Lorenzo, Christian; Raof Lorenzo, Christian; Abu Suwan, Christian family, seven members, husband, wife and five children. Beside those killed, 16 more were wounded, among them women and children.
United Nations Security Council Official Records, Supplements – 1948.
“The overwhelming desire here is to demand the BBC constantly damn as terrorists those whom they fear – and hate – the most.”
That is the impression I’ve got here, yes, but I thought it was worth picking away and seeing if there was any rationality at the bottom. I found quite a bit too.
contd….
7 JANUARY 1948
5 Jews in vehicle threw bomb at Jaffa Gate. 17 Arabs killed and 41 injured. Police fired at escaping car. 3 Jews killed, other 2 captured. 1 Police Constable killed, 1 British Sergeant and 2 British Constables injured? 1 Police Constable seriously injured and 1 TAC slightly injured. 1 Jew later escaped.
WO 261/573
At 4:15 p.m. Jewish murderers drove an armoured police 167 car to that section of Jaffa gate in Jerusalem where Arab fruit peddlers park their carts and tossed a very powerful bomb into their midst, then speeded away swerving towards Mamilla Road. …Arabs killed, 14: Isa Abou Halawa, Christian; Isah Kelbo, Moslem; Ahmed Taha el-Bazlit, Moslem; Hayk Jackian, Armenian Christian; Awad Mohammed, Moslem; Soubhi Rabah Barakat? Moslem; Hasan Mohammed Batroukh, Moslem; Mohmmed Mahmoud Jaber, Moslem; Mary May Majaj, Christian; Hanna Samain Abdo, Christian; Isa Tabnan, Christian; Zalek Ahmed Dana, Moslem, and many others whose identity was unknown. Those wounded were 35, some seriously. Among them were women and children.
United Nations Security Council Official Records, Supplements – 1948.
3 MARCH 1948
A larger operation for which they claimed the responsibility was carried out on 3 March. A 3-ton truck was driven up to the Salami Building in Stanton Street, the driver got out, warned the ghaffirs in the Arab Boys’ Remand Home on the opposite side of the street that the vehicle was about to blow up, and made off in a 15 cwt truck or a pick-up. The ghaffirs endeavoured to give a warning to the surrounding houses, but within five minutes the truck exploded. Extensive damage was done to the area, 11 Arabs were killed and a number injured. Anti-British feeling was fairly high amongst Arabs in the neighborhood as a result of a rumour that persons dressed in British uniform had carried out the attack.
WO 275/79
22 MARCH 1948
1740 hours, 1 Jeep and 5 ton Military-type vehicle, manned by 6 Jews in British Airborne uniform, entered Iraq Street, Haifa. 5 ton vehicle abandoned, later blew up. Extensive damage to Arab property. 4 Arabs killed and 19 Arabs injured.
WO 261/573
31 MARCH 1948
The only known activity indulged in by the Stern, apart from the murder of Mrs. Ducas, who was unjustly suspected of being an informer, has been the blowing up of the Haifa train at Binyamina on 31 March, when some 40 Arabs were killed. The Stern announced that they were responsible for the action but omitted to mention their motive.
WO 261/574
See here for list of attacks in December 1947 plus analysis of Irgun and Lehi relationship with Jewish Agency political leadership:
http://www.washington-report.org/archives/May-June_2006/0605014.html
see also for docs and casualty figures/ background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa_Oil_Refinery_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balad_al-Shaykh_raid
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/default.htm
http://www.palestine-encyclopedia.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
JR, what’s your point?
We have already agreed the Irgun and Lehi (Stern gang) were terrorists, as agreed by the Israelis themselves. They do not represent the Jewish leadership in Palestine, as they were a minority opposed to the Jewish leadership. Nothing the Stern gang did represents the Jewish-Palestinian and later the Israeli policy. If you claim so, you simply lie. In the first Israeli elections, 1949, the Herut party, representing Irgun and Lehi together, received only 11.5%
It is a fine example of inversion when the evidently small minority of Irgun and Lehi supporters are quoted by propagandists falsely as if representing Israeli policy at the time, while the terror groups repeatedly elected by the Palestinians are described as fringe groups. An inversion of truth if there ever was one.
Anat (Israel) | 23.03.08 – 12:50 pm
You asked me what the motivation of the Stern and Lehi violence was.
When I answered you, you went into a long tirade about how I was lying about the motivation of Israeli leaders like Ben Gurion. I never said anything about them.
Every time I answer one of your questions, you twist my replies and rant on about Benny Morris and Avi Schlaim as if they were Nazis or anti-semites instead of being among Israel’s best known historians.
Stop reading stuff into my answers that is not intended.
JR, you lie again. I never mentioned Ben Gurion, nor called anybody Nazi or antisemite. As per usual, you invent.
I did say that your propaganda is fascist, because this is exactly what it is: inverting the truth by selective details embedded in a false context, and substituting your own inventions (like your theory on the intention of the Jews) for real facts.
Maybe it is time you faced up to the truth:
The Jews never cleansed the Arabs, but rather the Arabs cleansed the Jews wherever they had a chance, as proven by the results on the ground.
.
Anat (Israel) | 23.03.08 – 1:28 pm
JR, you lie again. I never mentioned Ben Gurion
I am fed up with your malicious accusations. There are a whole string of things you have accused me of lying about which I never said.
Go back – read my posts in reply to your specific questions. `you asked me to elaborate on the possible motives of the Lehi and Irgun. I did.
You then falsely represented my answers as relating to the founders of the state of Israel and ‘the Jews’.
Go read the Lehi’s own statement of principles – they are clear enough.
Alex I am happy to debate this in a logical sense free from insults
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 objective of the 9/11 attacks was to to cause terror in the US civilian populations in order that the US citizens would put pressure on their government to acceed to the demands of Bin Laden. Remember ge issued quite clear demands as to how the US could prevent a similar attack. Yes, you can argue that the Pentagon is a military target but that is to miss the point, the aim of the attack was to demonstrate the vulnerability of ALL US centres of population. Look back at the definition that John Reith and I agree with.
Introducing ‘The Reign of Terror’ is simply a strawman argument, no one here is trying to subvert the normal meaning of the word ‘terror’, we are talking about terrorism a methodology which uses terror in the way described.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet
Plan D
The introduction states:
a) The objective of this plan is to gain control of the areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders. It also aims at gaining control of the areas of Jewish settlements and concentrations which are located outside the borders (of the Hebrew state) against regular, semi-regular, and small forces operating from bases outside or inside the state.
This passage has been interpreted to mean that Plan Dalet was not really of defensive nature, and that the founders of the Jewish state intended to disregard the 1947 UN Partition plan and secure positions outside the partition plans borders. The Jewish historian Ilan Pappe found confirmation of this in the diaries of Ben Gurion,
Plan D – As described by Walid Khalidi a well known propagandist.
JR’s personal grudge is blinding him and pushes him into selectivity on what parts of history he wants to remember and what parts of history he doesn’t.
It is really sad that he represents the BBC on this board, as I am sure his views are not shared by all BBC employees.
I don’t represent the BBC and am open to any history you care to discuss.
What I have cited here has been in response to specific questions.
This thread was actually getting somewhere and Arthur Dent and others were coming up with a constructive critique of the guideline on terrorism.
All ruined, however, by venomous posts from the usual suspects.
The difference between ‘military’ and ‘civilian’ determines whether an act of aggression against such targets constitutes ‘terrorism’. It should be noted that casualties from the latter are usually called ‘innocent’ as in ‘innocent civilians’, a typical UK-scenario being an attack by the IRA which killed say soldiers, RUC policemen and ‘innocent civilians’.
But the BBC is heavily islamicised and the term ‘innocent’ does not apply to civilians (unless they are muslims), therefore an act of aggression against any non-muslim civilians cannot be an act of terror because no ‘innocents’ were killed or maimed. That is why the term ‘terrorist’ is not applied to attacks in western countries, especially when perpetrated by muslims. It is consistent, and it does reveal what is happening within the BBC.
John Reith | 22.03.08 – 11:53 pm |
“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.”
I’m tempted to say Jeremy Bowen behaves like an ideological opponent, and he tries to justify terrorism. But I won’t.
None of us ever tried to justify terrorism.
The heartbreaking circumstances behind the Jewish Terrorist acts were mentioned in the same spirit as one would mention that, say, a woman who killed her abusive husband had been subjected to intolerable provocation. It would not necessarily condone her action, just place it in context in comparison with a motiveless murder.
Speculation over the Yeshiva terrorist’s alleged ‘justification’ was not acceptable when it became incorporated into all Jeremy Bowen’s reports which appeared to legitimise the motivation and justify the act.
Putting forward context is a different thing from welding speculative justification to an act of terror almost from the moment of the breaking news. Every time he mentioned the incident it was gratuitously accompanied by the ‘justification.’ The justification that was in any case speculative and feeble.
The way your ‘lot’ bent over backwards to justify Bowen’s ‘context’ that was permanently wedded to his reports came across as far more akin to justifying the act itself than anything we said when putting the Stern Gang into context.
And we never said we condoned their acts.
John Reith you really take the biscuit, it is because of you and your biased comments that some posters have started to use less than constuctive language to answer you back in the only language you seem to understand.
I also note that as youcould not answer Anat’s main points you resorted to attacking him, so don’t come on this site and whinge when people start using your own language back at you.
But for some good news the SLA cunt is back in jail. if there is a god she’ll die there.
John Reith,
Can you answer my previous post please?
As this site is devoted to exposing examples of bias in BBC reporting, I believe I’ve revealed clear, indisputable evidence of bias, related to use of the word “terrorism”.
Again:
“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?
simon | 23.03.08 – 5:45 am ”
Here are the links to the uses of the term “terror” or “terrorism”, unattributed, in the three most prominent cases of attacks in Britain in recent years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6252276.stm
?
The attempted car bombing at Picadilly circus, in which NO ONE was killed, was referred to, without quotes, by the BBC, as a terrorist plot. See the middle of the article.
Here’s a direct quote from yet another BBC article, on the Glasgow airport attack: “A badly burned man detained after the suspected terror attack at Glasgow Airport has died in a Glasgow hospital.”
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6928854.stm )
Here’s another direct quote from the Glasgow airport attack at the BBC online: “Passengers used their cameras and mobile phones to record how an off-duty policeman used a fire extinguisher to try to save the terror suspect after he drove a second-hand Jeep packed with propane gas canisters into a doorway.” ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6928854.stm )
“Terror suspect”, no quotes. Two mentions of the t-word in one article.
Additionally, John, in not a single case between 2000 and 2005, in which 1000 Israelis, most o them innocent civilians, were killed by suicide bombings and deliberate shooting attacks targeting civilians, was the word “terror” or “terrorism” used, unattributed, to describe the attacks.
How you can possibly claim there is no double standard, no bias, at the BBC, in this case, in the face of this evidence, is mind-boggling.
I am curious as to your answer.
This passage has been interpreted to mean that Plan Dalet was not really of defensive nature, and that the founders of the Jewish state intended to disregard the 1947 UN Partition plan and secure positions outside the partition plans borders. The Jewish historian Ilan Pappe found confirmation of this in the diaries of Ben Gurion,
Anonymous | 23.03.08 – 2:50 pm
And you believe Ilan Pappe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Pappe
In 2007, Pappé left his position as a senior lecturer of Political Science at the University of Haifa, claiming that he found it “increasingly difficult to live in Israel” with his “unwelcome views and convictions.” He is to join the History Department at the University of Exeter in Britain. In a Qatar newspaper interview explaining his decision, he said:
“I was boycotted in my university and there had been attempts to expel me from my job. I am getting threatening calls from people every day. I am not being viewed as a threat to the Israeli society but my people think that I am either insane or my views are irrelevant. Many Israelis also believe that I am working as a mercenary for the Arabs” [2]
He further said:
“I support Hamas in its resistance against the Israeli occupation though I disagree with their political ideology. I am for separating state from religion …Any state that perpetrates occupation cannot be called a democratic state”
Pappe left Haifa University in 2007 after his endorsement of the boycott of Israeli universities led the University president to call for his resignation. [3]
Nice…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Pappe#Praise_and_criticism
Pappé’s works have been praised by many other historians, academics and writers, such as Walid Khalidi, Richard Falk, Ella Shohat and John Pilger. According to John Pilger:
“Ilan Pappe is Israel’s bravest, most principled, most incisive historian.”
That should tell you all you need to know about his credibility, but do read on…
“Additionally, John, in not a single case between 2000 and 2005, in which 1000 Israelis, most o them innocent civilians, were killed by suicide bombings and deliberate shooting attacks targeting civilians, was the word “terror” or “terrorism” used, unattributed, to describe the attacks. ”
Simon, see my post:
But the BBC is heavily islamicised and the term ‘innocent’ does not apply to civilians (unless they are muslims), therefore an act of aggression against any non-muslim civilians cannot be an act of terror because no ‘innocents’ were killed or maimed. That is why the term ‘terrorist’ is not applied to attacks in western countries, (NB that this includes Israel) especially when perpetrated by muslims. It is consistent, and it does reveal what is happening within the BBC.
Allan@Oslo | 23.03.08 – 6:06 pm | #
“The objective of the 9/11 attacks was to to cause terror in the US civilian populations in order that the US citizens would put pressure on their government to acceed to the demands of Bin Laden. Remember ge issued quite clear demands as to how the US could prevent a similar attack. Yes, you can argue that the Pentagon is a military target but that is to miss the point, the aim of the attack was to demonstrate the vulnerability of ALL US centres of population.”
Attack or attacks? If I’m reading you right, what you’re getting at is that attacks should not be analysed in isolation. That the other three planes were intended for civilian targets and that the overall intention was to intimidate the US population means an attack at least partially intended to destroy or damage an important military facility can be classified as terror.
simon | 23.03.08 – 7:07 pm
The word has been used many times in relation to attacks on Israeli civilians in radio and television broadcasts.
I watched the breaking news of the attack on the Yeshiva in Jerusalem on News 24 and it was used then.
The guidelines are as set out above.
You can see from them that the word is not ‘banned’.
The website – as has been noted here often – is perhaps sometimes overscrupulous in its adherence to house rules.
Okay Alex, so let’s take your facile hairsplitting a step further and say, for the sake of argument that the attack on the WTC was terrorism, because only civilians were involved, while the attack on the Pentagon was a “military assault.” The fact that a plane full of innocent civilians was used as a guided missile against a military facility certainly qualifies it as a new kind of “military assault” in the annals of military history, wouldn’t you say? Certainly one that comes palpably close to being able to be called “terrorism”? You’re inverting the argument for purposes of goading those in disagreement with you. You are arguing that because the 911 attacks in part involved a military installation as one of several targets, attacks on military installations in general can therefore be termed “terrorist”—but if attacks on military installations in general can be called “terrorist” that would only contribute to confusion in the use of the term, therefore it ought to never be used (or rarely). This is logic-twisting nonsense, and using the attacks of 911 as a basis for this argument betrays a lack of clear, logical thinking.
John,
I’m talking about the website only. I’ve been reading it for several years, daily.
Not once in the entire time has the site used the term “terror” or “terrorism” in relation to shooting or suicide bomb attacks against innocent Israeli civilians. We are talking about HUNDREDS of attacks since 2000. Including the Yeshiva attack, where the site referred to the attacker only as a gunman.
But during that time, ALL of the prominent attacks that occurred against British civilians in the UK were characterized, without attribution, as acts of terror.
I don’t get BBC television where I live and I don’t listen to BBC radio.
The primary mode of news dissemination for the BBC worldwide, and hence its greatest influence around the world, including in Arab countries, comes from the website. The fact that the BBC made a very clear distinction in this medium is a demonstrably clear example of bias, which improperly influences readers worldwide. It is not possible to deny it. Why won’t the BBC simply admit it?
John,
Why do you think, for the most part, the Arab world is content with BBC reporting on the Middle East, whereas the Jewish world, for the most part, despises it?
Is it because a) you believe the BBC reports the objective “truth”, that Israel is the aggressor and the Arab world are the victims, and the Jews “simply can’t face reality”? Or b) because Jewish readers discern a negative slant, whereas Arab readers are content with that slant?
If you answered a) then that is evidence of bias, since everyone knows the issues are so complex they cannot possibly be reduced to one side being the general aggressor and the other side being the general victim. If you answered b) then that is evidence of bias either because it’s true, there is a negative slant, or if you believe Jews discern a slant where there is none, then you are characterizing almost all Jews who read the site, in the US, Canada, Europe, and around the world, as incapable of being objective, which is, of course, a bigoted opinion.
Or is there some other reason I haven’t thought of?
“You’re inverting the argument for purposes of goading those in disagreement with you.”
Not at all. I’m looking at the more difficult types of warfare to classify as terror/non-terror.
“You are arguing that because the 911 attacks in part involved a military installation as one of several targets, attacks on military installations in general can therefore be termed “terrorist””
No, I am arguing that the general definition of terrorism proposed by most people here does not necessarily include something generally accepted as being terrorism.
“but if attacks on military installations in general can be called “terrorist” that would only contribute to confusion in the use of the term, therefore it ought to never be used (or rarely).”
Not only that. If attacks on military targets that also kill civilians are to be considered terrorism, this would expand the term to include strategies warfare used by America, Britain and Israel, which I’m sure you wouldn’t be comfortable with.
“This is logic-twisting nonsense, and using the attacks of 911 as a basis for this argument betrays a lack of clear, logical thinking.”
No, I picked 9/11 because it is almost universally considered terrorism, often without recourse to clear logical thinking.
Alex,
But the argument on these pages is that terrorism involves the deliberate targeting and murder of innocent civilians for political purposes. Several posters have clearly pointed out that attacks such as those on the U.S.S. Cole shouldn’t necessarily be considered “terrorism” because the targets were military, and others have argued that IRA attacks on British soldiers in uniform should not be considered terrorism, whereas IRA attacks on civilians in London should. That seems a pretty clear dividing line. By that definition, the bombing of pizza parlours in Jerusalem should certainly be referred to as “terrorism”, but the BBC website has seen fit to never characterize those attacks as such, which is an affront to common sense, let alone to the English language.
What about attacks on military targets where civilians are also killed?
It’s not terrorism if the intent was not to target civilians.
What’s so hard to understand about that?
If the intent, however, was to harm civilians, with the idea that that would provoke a political response, then that is terrorism.
If the intent was not to kill civilians, and the policy was to do the best to avoid civilian deaths as a result of “collateral damage”, while balancing that with the need to stop the opposing force from harming that entity’s civilian population, then it is not terrorism.
Alex | 23.03.08 – 10:28 pm | : What about attacks on military targets where civilians are also killed?
“The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations.”
Protocol 1, Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, Article 51, clause 7.
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm
.
Alex appears to be trying to push the definition to its limits to find grey areas and I agree there may be some areas at the edges where it is indeed sometimes grey. However, I think Simon (11.02) has it right and I pose the same question – what’s so hard to understand.
If, and it is a really big IF, most incidents fell into the grey area there might be difficulty in using the word but even then there would be many incidents when it was cristal clear.
However I would like to return to the current BBC Guideline kindly provided by John Reith, because I think this gets to the heart of the issue. The guidance is not, in the main, concerned with the ‘grey’ area being discussed by Alex but is concerned about the greyness surrounding the motivation of the perpetrators. This is a critical phrase in that guideline The use of the words can imply judgement where there is no clear consensus about the legitimacy of militant political groups
In other words the rationale, for the BBC, as to whether to descibe an event as terrorism or not seems to be dependant not on the action itself but on the legitimacy of the perpetrator. I would contend that this has only one meaning – that the BBC considers that some acts of terrorism are acceptable.
That is something with which I profoundly disagree and, from his statements on this thread so does John Reith.
Alex is a troll.
No point at all in any more debate with him (her ?): he is never ever going to say anything remotely like “sorry – you do have a point”.
Arthur: spot on there.
One area where the BBC gets it totally wrong is where they change quoted speech. If an eyewitness, or a senior policeman, or an Israeli general uses the word “terrorist” then to quote his words but change the ‘T’ word is plain dishonest.
This reminds me of the bizarre incident when the fuel depot blew up in Herts and they quoted a man as saying “you could see the flames from 1.6 km away” all in quoted speech.
For the hard-of-thinking 1.6km = 1 mile which is probably what the eyewitness really said.
Arthur Dent | 23.03.08 – 11:26 pm |
To be fair to the drafter of the guidelines, you should consider an alternative meaning for the key phrase you cite:
Take a notional group called Islamic Hokum that had an armed wing and a political wing. One could imagine circumstances where IH was on the US State Department list of terrorist organizations, but only its armed wing was proscribed in the UK and on the EU terrorist list.
Under such circumstances there would be ‘no clear consensus about the legitimacy’ of Islamic Hokum and to append the epithet ‘terrorist’ would be implying a judgment.
Jack Hughes | 23.03.08 – 11:38 pm | #
LOL,
This is why some people wouldn’t touch the BBC with a 0.9144 metres pole.
Alex | Homepage | 23.03.08 – 10:28 pm |
What about attacks on military targets where civilians are also killed?
US law (at least in some states) has a notion of ‘depraved indifference’ used in the prosecution of homicides.
A crime committed recklessly is generally regarded as less serious and blameworthy than a crime committed intentionally. But when reckless conduct is engaged in under circumstances evincing a DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE, the law regards that conduct as so serious, so egregious, as to be the equivalent of intentional conduct.
I can see no reason why a comprehensive definition of terrorism could not include this concept – such that attacks on military/legitimate targets would be treated as tantamount to terrorism if the attacker displayed depraved indifference.
In my view, anyone using the phrase ‘collateral damage’ or selectively quoting the Geneva Conventions should be immediately suspected of depraved indifference.
John Reith said:
“Under such circumstances there would be ‘no clear consensus about the legitimacy’ of Islamic Hokum and to append the epithet ‘terrorist’ would be implying a judgment.
John Reith | 23.03.08 – 11:49 pm ”
Not when there was a suicide bomb attack against innocent civilians in which the armed wing claimed credit.
In that case, I think even you, JR, would agree that it would be proper to refer to the attack as “terrorist” in nature. Note I did not pass judgment on the group in general; rather, I characterized the attack according to an objective definition, which was Arthur Dent’s entire point–the definition relates to methodology, not ideology.
I’m not asking the BBC to characterize any group as “terrorist” or not. I’m only expecting the BBC to characterize incidents as “terrorist” in nature when they occur. Does that not clear up the confusion?
Please respond, also, however, to my earlier post. Sorry, I’ll re-post it here, since there are several and I want to make sure you are aware of which post I am referring to:
”
I’m talking about the website only. I’ve been reading it for several years, daily.
Not once in the entire time has the site used the term “terror” or “terrorism” in relation to shooting or suicide bomb attacks against innocent Israeli civilians. We are talking about HUNDREDS of attacks since 2000. Including the Yeshiva attack, where the site referred to the attacker only as a gunman.
But during that time, ALL of the prominent attacks that occurred against British civilians in the UK were characterized, without attribution, as acts of terror.
I don’t get BBC television where I live and I don’t listen to BBC radio.
The primary mode of news dissemination for the BBC worldwide, and hence its greatest influence around the world, including in Arab countries, comes from the website. The fact that the BBC made a very clear distinction in this medium is a demonstrably clear example of bias, which improperly influences readers worldwide. It is not possible to deny it. Why won’t the BBC simply admit it?”
Under such circumstances there would be ‘no clear consensus about the legitimacy’ of Islamic Hokum and to append the epithet ‘terrorist’ would be implying a judgment
I don’t think so, the epithet terrorist applies to the attack and its perpetrator, not to the legitimacy of otherwise of the group.
John Reith | 24.03.08 – 12:03 am | #
SELECTIVELY quoting the Geneva Conventions? You have a link there to the whole thing, for your scrutiny in context. So nothing here is selective, as opposed to your own lists of historical events.
simon | 24.03.08 – 12:09 am
I can only reiterate what I said earlier.
And you are wrong about the website being the primary mode of news dissemination for the BBC. The website is a relatively small operation within BBC News, hasn’t been going long, and though it may before long become very important indeed, up til now has been seen as an adjunct to the core business of TV and radio broadcasting.
You appear to have spotted an inconsistency of precisely the type the guideline was introduced to deter.
Personally, I can live with the odd inconsistency and wish the guideline were even less stringent.What I mean by that is that I agree with you and Arthur Dent on the methodology point.
JR–
Re: “depraved indifference.” There is overwhelming evidence that Israeli security forces have repeatedly cancelled operations against known terrorists who have either murdered Israeli civilians or have directed attacks against them specifically, or who were in the immediate process of carrying them out, when the danger to civilians was deemed too great. That doesn’t mean the Israelis have been successful all the time. But there are policies in place which take this into account very seriously, it is a matter of great import to the Israeli Supreme Court, and attempts to weigh it against the danger of not acting to Israeli civilians, sometimes even result in the tragic death of Israeli civilians, and certainly have resulted in the deaths of Israeli soldiers, especially in Jenin.
This would hardly constitute “depraved indifference.” Now, Russians levelling Grozny, claiming they were trying to root out Chechen guerrillas might fit that definition.
Still, I must say this is the first time I’ve ever heard this argument voiced so clearly. Though I disagree with it, why do you suppose the doesn’t the BBC use this rationale in its guidelines? At least then there would be a target to attack, rather than vaguely worded mush.
JR,
I’m assuming “Anonymous” at 24.03.08 – 12:20 am is you.
It would be an odd inconsistency if three of the close to 200 attacks against Israeli civilians were described as “terrorist” in nature.
However, none of them were.
ONLY in the attacks against British civilians, and in ALL cases of the most prominent attacks against British civilians in recent years, was the term “terrorist” used, and furthermore it was used several times in each article, hardly an odd “inconsistency”, but rather a deliberate usage. In fact, the BBC protested vigorously when some Britons complained that the BBC deliberately removed the use of the term vis a vis 7/7 ex post facto, claiming that there was no policy to do so and defending strongly the fact that they had, in fact, used the term. This is no “odd inconsistency”, and to characterize it as such is insult one’s intelligence.
Moreover, to downplay the impact of the website is absurd, and without a doubt it will have a growing impact as billions worldwide have turned and will turn to the web for their news.
You will find that many Western liberal newspapers migrated to a similar policy to the BBC’s regarding the use of the word terror in the last several years, and this “understanding” among editors worldwide is having a poisonous effect.
You can find guidelines similar to the BBC’s at the CBC’s website in Canada, but many papers and news websites won’t even explain their rationale. This is a growing phenomonon of which the BBC is in the vanguard.
Anat
I forgot to put a grinning emoticon after my remark about selective quotations from the Geneva accords.
But you have to admit, we hear a lot about the part you cite from people who (wrongly) wish to give the impression that the convention greenlights any attack where people are using ‘human shields’.
By contrast, we rarely hear anything about this bit:
an attack {is deemed indiscriminate} which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
simon | 24.03.08 – 12:33 am
I have been thinking about your point and honestly don’t know the answer.
A kind of ‘attitude’ point occurs to me – but it’s merely speculative:
maybe when a terrorist atrocity takes place in the UK, most people think of it as a ‘crime’; whereas when such things happen in the ME they’re regarded by Brits as being part of a ‘war’.
John Reith | 24.03.08 – 12:35 am | # : By contrast, we rarely hear anything about this bit: an attack {is deemed indiscriminate} which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
I disagree. We hear a lot concerned with that bit as well. This is precisely what stands behind simon’s comment at | 24.03.08 – 12:22 am |
Another interesting clause is no.4:
“Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.”
This is what stands behind Israel’s targetted attacks on terrorists, which a few years ago the BBC was morally inverting by calling it “Israel’s assassination policy”. Admittedly, I have not heard that expression for some time now. Maybe someone at the Beeb has finally had a look at the Geneva Conventions.
.
JR,
Earlier you mentioned there was serious consideration given at the BBC to re-examining its policy on the use of the T-word, following the independent report that encouraged it to do so, making the point that blowing up civilians on busses (in Israel, for example), quite clearly constitutes a terrorist attack, by any measure of common sense.
Ultimately, for other reasons, the BBC decided against it. (I, for one, would be fascinated to hear why, in detail.)
You seem to have been there. Now that you are hearing the rather persuasive argument first put forward by Arthur Dent regarding methodology vs ideology, why not bring the issue up again in this context, at the next confab at the Beeb?
It would certainly be possible for the BBC to refer to certain types of attacks that fall within Dent’s definition as “terrorist” in nature without appearing to cast judgment on groups in general.