. I was intrigued by this BBC report which is entitled “ETA “Political Leader” arrested.” This is a very odd heading because the guy arrested in a joint Spanish-French operation Javier Lopez Pena is not in any way “a political leader” but rather a cold-blooded terrorist killer. Spanish police said Lopez Pena was one of the major movers behind the abandonment of Eta’s ceasefire last year. He is accused of being involved in the December 2006 car bombing at Madrid’s airport that killed two people, an attack that signalled the ending of the ceasefire. Eta is blamed for the deaths of more than 820 people in its 40-year campaign for an independent Basque nation. So, Lopez Pena is a TERRORIST, and there is not need to put any quotation marks around that. I wish the BBC did not have this constant problem in understanding the nature of a terrorist.
“POLITICAL LEADERS” AND TERRORISM
Bookmark the permalink.
David,
An idiot is posting on all of the recent threads with perverted garbage, using the names of regular posters, attempting to bring this blog to ridicule.
It is clearly all the same person.
Please moderate off all of his posts.
Please ban him indefinitely.
Please inform him this blog does not protect him, inform him of the illegality of personation and that legal action could be taken against him.
libertus | 22.05.08 – 8:38 am
I agree, but I would worry that If the BBC does its duty and reports the case, they will just treat the verdict as merely a judgement that confirms Karsenty’s sincerity.
“The statement added that the case was nevertheless overturned because “the court believed Karsenty had the right to stridently criticize the [France 2] report, since it dealt with an emotional topic, and that Karsenty’s investigation into the matter convinced the court he was being sincere.”
A source close to Enderlin’s side of the case explained that “you can get out of a libel suit either by proving you’re right, or by showing you were sincere and had some research. The court found the latter to be the case.”
Don’t forget the BBC snapped up Enlerlin’s nasty bit of film at the time.
That topic is so involved it could do with its own thread, don’t you think?
A statement forwarded to the Post from Enderlin said “the appeals court ruled that Karsenty’s words were, in fact, libelous, and that Karsenty failed to prove that the news was staged and/or false.”
However, as Melanie Phillips points out:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/722516/a-milestone-victory.thtml
The Jerusalem Post is running a bare bones story; the court’s written judgment has not yet been released. But the implications of this victory are enormous. At the very least it means that it is no longer libellous in France to say what is plain to all who have studied this case and, most particularly, seen the footage that France 2 did not transmit and which it fought hard to prevent from ever seeing the light of day.
Sorry bout the change of subject.
According the BBC the Golan Heights are “Israeli-occupied”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7413437.stm
Strange, since this area borders Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan and the issue of which country owns which part remains contentious.
Israel have even offered the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace, thus making “Israeli-occupied” and inaccurate and (deliberately?) inflammatory term.
Baggie Jonathan,
Have tried to do so. Such a pain.
Out of interest, what is your definition of the word terrorist?
Out of interest, what is your definition of the word troll?
I think it’s a valid contribution to the thread, not ‘trolling’. So, come on, how do you define it?
A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.
But with the Left if the facts don’t fit, give ’em a twist!
That’s why the BBC favour vague and meaningless terms like “militant”, “jihadist”, “political leader” etc to describe such ruthless and sadistic men.
The definition and use of “terrorism” has been discussed at length on several other threads. One of which includes contributions from the BBC’s own Nick Reynolds. Search through the archives and comment there, where nobody will see what you say.
You have never made a “valid contribution” to any thread you have invaded.
Why not provide a link to your own blog so those who don’t know who you are can get an idea about where you’re coming from before wasting their time responding to you?
Andy, and anybody else tempted to rise to “korova’s” bait; he’s a long time troll here. He’s been thankfully absent for some time but apparently has decided to crawl out from under his stone in search of somebody to pester.
Please don’t encourage him. Attempting a discussion with him is akin to trying to teach a dog how to sing; it just tires you out and annoys the dog.
From Korova’s own site……
>> the very foundation of right-wing ideology). Take, for example, the following commentator over at the right-wing conspiracy site Biased BBC:
Tells you all you need to know about why this Troll comes fishing here, It also posts responses from commentators here on the site for purposes of ridicule. N.O. some of your remarks are up there.
Ignore IT
I’ve just had a look at, it really is a collection of half-baked sixth-form agitprop bilge.
He is someone whose arguments are regularly and comprehensively demolished, but never quite gets the message.
Example classic on Boris Johnson:
“Yes, sadly there were many Londoners who were happy to vote for this elitist Tory who is completely out of touch with the working man.”
Korova – YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW ANY WORKING MEN.
I blame the parents.
“out of touch with the working man….”
The working man?
Seriously? This is how the reactionary leftists still think — and, even more hilariously, talk?
Isn’t their constituency those who don’t work, can’t work, won’t work?
Thanks to them, and at least 50 years of their welfare state failures.
For an anarchist karova is very left wing.
So anyway, this definition of terrorist thing……
What is our education system coming to…turning out people who cannot define the meaning of Terrorism and therefore that of the Terrorist. tut tut where will it all end..
Yes,an anarchist who cannot define terrorism is pretty feeble.They just don’t make revolutionaries like they used to.
To the Trot tit
The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
If I remember right Biodegradable caught you out lying the last time you were here.
To put it a succinctly as possible, piss off.
korova,
The term “terrorist” has been defined down to the bone in many past threads, and those of us who have asked the BBC to use it all agree on its definition. The BBC does too, which is why they refrain from using it when it suits them.
If you are actually interested in how we define the term, and not just trying to start a fight, then spend some time reading past threads in which we have discussed it ad nauseum. If you can’t be bothered to make an effort to pay attention, then your contributions here have little meaning. I have a sneaking suspicion that you have read previous threads on this blog in which people have discussed how we define “terrorism” and “terrorist” at length, yet you have chosen to ignore that for the moment. If you honestly have no idea what I’m talking about, and have never, ever seen anyone here discuss the definition of the term, then please by all means do some homework before wading in with demands that we give you our notes from previous lessons.
This blog is not some television series which gives you “On Our Last Episode….” recaps each time. Please go look at past threads which you have ignored (or conveniently forgotten?) and participate with integrity, or go harass commenters on Fox News or something.
From Korova’s own site……
>> the very foundation of right-wing ideology). Take, for example, the following commentator over at the right-wing conspiracy site Biased BBC:
Tells you all you need to know about why this Troll comes fishing here, It also posts responses from commentators here on the site for purposes of ridicule. N.O. some of your remarks are up there.”
I am honoured, I –think–. Do you have a link to my comments? Thanks.
Korova is not an anarchist, merely a confused child who moreover cannot read and certainly cannot comprehend joined-up arguments. I place her at around 12-13 years of age. Those who direct her to past threads and expect her to get any intellectual benefit from them, and learn what the word ‘terrorist’ means, are deluding themselves, imo, although with the best of motives without a doubt.
Nearly Oxfordian:
Here is the thread where korova quotes you, with its links to the comments here:
http://maskofanarchy.blogspot.com/2008/05/berlusconi-civil-liberties-and.html
As TPO pointed out I did expose its lies about a year or more ago.
I also gave it a right bollocking for publishing my IP address on its own blog.
It’s a nasty little weasel, best ignored.
Here you go korova. The thread on the definition of terrorism and its use in reporting. Reading the comments, including those from the BBC’s Nick Reynolds, should keep you occupied for a while.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2008/04/gunnar-comments-seriously-can-you.html
Don’t say I’ve never given you anything.
What is “The Mask of Acne” ?
Thanks for that, Bio.
I stand corrected. The standard of debate is probably as high as 15- to 16-year olds in a middling to goodish school. There is no attempt to counter my argument except to damn it by saying that it comes from someone who is allegedly educated.
TPO – Nice one, many thnaks. As you say:
“The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.”
This makes Luis Posada Carriles a terrorist and, by extension, the US is guilty of harbouring a terrorist. Does that mean, therefore, that the BBC article entitled:
Venezuela in Cuba ‘bomber’ demand
Is an example of right-wing bias because the headline isn’t:
Venezuela in Cuba ‘terrorist‘ demand
Just wondering…..
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5414986.stm
Still, nice to see the posters on here focusing in on the argument itself rather than insults. Oh, hang on…..
So you don’t deny being caught out lying and posting someone’s IP address on your “blog”.
As to how holding someone in custody while they await trial can be construed as harbouring a terrorist is beyond me.
And, of course, look again at the “impeccable” record of safeguarding rights that the two countries which seek to extradite this man have.
I won’t indulge you any further.
Now which part of piss off didn’t you understand?
So, you admit that he is a terrorist then? Well, that is progress indeed. And come, come TPO. I have not indulged in any personal attacks so far. I am disappointed that you feel the need to restrict my rights to free speech. Can’t we discuss this like civilised individuals? I have had many discussion with other bloggers of opposing views without resorting to petty name calling. Surely you are mature enough to enter into a serious discussion?
“So, you admit that he is a terrorist then? ”
Are you holding a conversation with yourself? There is nothing that can be construed as that.
The Spanish press from Left to Right always call ETA terrorists or criminals. Would that they would do the same with the scum trying to defeat Iraqi Democracy.
hippiepooter | 23.05.08 – 12:28 pm
Hear hear!
And would that the Spanish government’s refusal to talk to ETA or Batasuna be applied to Hamas, who they are all in favour of “engaging” with.
“Alliance of Civilizations” mi tia fanny!
Well hopefully el PP will get rid of Rajoy soon and they’ll choose someone who can actually win an election like Jaime Mayor Oreja and Spain can return to its Aznarian glory. If PP nearly won the last election under (imho) a poor leader like Rajoy imagine what the result would have been if Aznar hadn’t ended his tenure with a poor piece of judgement on his succesor.
oh, hippiepooter above
Let’s not kid ourselves, even under Aznar’s leadership the PP was in no way pro-Israel and we only ever heard Aznar talk about the Islamist threat after he’d left power. In fact one of the criticisms leveled against him in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings was that he had diverted security resources from tracking Islamist cells to watching ETA – had that not been the case that atrocity perhaps could have been avoided.
I don’t agree with you about Big Ears (Mayor Oreja) 😉
They need somebody young… Gallardon perhaps?
Lopez Peña has held many positions in his ETA career; at one time or another he’s been in charge of training, in charge of weapons caches, and in charge of safe houses. His most recent post before his arrest was leader of what is called ETA’s “political branch.” ETA has two other branches, “military” and “logistics.” My understanding is that the political branch is in charge of overall strategy and decision-making, and gives orders to the military and logistics branches, which carry them out. The political branch also gives orders to ETA’s extensive network of front organizations, including the banned political party Batasuna, the ETA-prisoner support group Gestoras pro Amnistia, and the labor union LAB.
It’s true that the Spanish media unanimously refer to ETA as “el grupo terrorista armado,” “the armed terrorist group.” Sometimes they call it a “banda,” a gang. Most Spaniards are very indignant that the foreign-language media call ETA “separatists” or “rebels” or “guerrillas.”
I’m not surprised that the BBC isn’t multicultural enough to understand the Spanish perspective, as the BBC only understands one culture, that of the international perennially indignant do-gooders working for the bureaucracy, in academia, in the media, and in the so-called arts.
Biodegradable wrote:
“They need somebody young… Gallardon perhaps?”
! Bit too liberal for me. Good points about Aznar inexplicably missing the ball on domestic Islamic terrorism, but what a pair of cojones he had backing to the hilt the US Coalition in Iraq .. and his party was heading to a 7 point electoral victory when 90% of the Spanish public had been against it, till Zapatero had last minute ‘outside help’ to win.
I’m not aware of Aznar being unfriendly to Israel. The exact opposite in fact. Not long ago he was urging that Israel be made a member of NATO. He’s also state the defence of Israel is the defence of freedom.
If it wasn’t Trampa-Tregua Big Ears replacing Rajoy, María San Gil would be excellent to my liking too.
Oh, and by the way, Aznar was talking about the Islamist threat long before 9/11, when Maggie was in power in fact.
Meh? This article does not contain the words ‘political leader’. It acknowledges that Lopez Pena is a criminal accused of murder and gun-running, which is what he is. Calling ETA terrorists gives them more credit than they deserve – they’re organised criminals pure and simple in the eyes of the Spanish government and that seems to me an excellent way of looking at them. Is your objection entirely to the absence of the word ‘terrorist’ or do you have an actual point?
Meh? This article does not contain the words ‘political leader’.
Catulus | 30.05.08 – 9:56 am
It did.
The BBC did a stealth edit after David’s post went online.
See here: http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/124763/diff/4/5