I see that the BBC has determined that the savages behind the mass murder attack in Islamabad are “militants” Now I don’t know about you but I would have thought that the brutal homicidal car bombing of a tourist hotel rather qualified as an act of unmitigated terror which would in turn make the culprits..terrorists. Then again, I also note that the Islamic terrorist scum behind this were able to get in contact with the BBC to explain that the aim behind the mass murder was “to stop America interference in Pakistan”
The BBC – the terrorists preferred broadcaster of repute.
Milliband today won a ‘stunning’ ovation in the five live news reports.
Stunning? How does one measure ‘stunning’?
Can the word stunning ever be used in an objective context???
In the 1980s, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former U.S. represenative to the United Nations argued that “what the terrorist does is kill, maim, kidnap, torture. His victims may be schoolchildren…. industrialists returning home from work, political leaders or diplomats”. It is a clear statement. We know exactly where she stood.
At the time BBC’s News Guide advised reporters that “the best general rule” was to use the term “terrorist” when civilians were attacked and “guerrillas” when the targets are members of the official security forces. Terms like “guerrilla” or “freedom fighter” carried positive connotations of a justified struggle against an occupying power or an oppressive state; to label an action as “terrorist” was to consign it to illegitimacy.
How useful that the term “militant” showed up and has been so happily adopted by the BBC. It has none of the judgmental overtones of “terrorist” and slyly skims the positive endorsement that “freedom fighter” implies. It is the new verbal smokescreen behind which our enemies can hide.
Now even civilians (including schoolchildren) are killed by “militants”.
The BBC’s ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDISTS IN PAKISTAN: They are still in the front-line in support of attacks on their enemy, the United States. (The BBC’s ‘militants’, the Taleban, hardly get a mention, which must suit the Islamic Jihad propaganda machine.)
Barbara (tears at Arafat’s funeral) PLETT:
“Pakistan troops ‘repel US raid'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7628890.stm
A very different analysis of Pakistan, which would never see the light of day at the BBC; it’s pro-US:
“Pakistan and the growing threat of a Sharia Mini-State” (by Jeffrey Imm).
{Extract]:
“The Pakistan Taliban (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan or TTP) is in the process of gaining territory and power within Pakistan, as a result of numerous “peace treaties” and agreements to empower the Taliban to enforce an anti-freedom theocracy based on Sharia law in Pakistan. This is a critical American national security issue that requires revisiting the very ideologies that provide the foundation for jihadist action itself, and answering difficult questions regarding the role of Sharia law and the reliability of Islamic republics in a global war against jihad.
“The American national security challenge in the nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Pakistan includes the Taliban, but is not limited to Taliban efforts to create a Sharia mini-state. What these current efforts by the Taliban highlight is the larger, national challenges with a Sharia ideology supported by many of the Pakistani people and by members of the Pakistan government that affects their vision towards fighting Jihad and also that affects Pakistan international relations on peace and on freedom itself.”(Jeffrey Imm).
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/06/pakistan_sharia_threat.php
LOOK AT THIS It seems that there are many out therethat have had their fill of the BBC.
Of course the majority of victims were Pakistanis, but the BBC don’t care about them. So long as some Westerners got killed, it is ok.
The racism of the BBC is amazing.
Intense 8:13
Great link. I urge all posters to watch it. I like the early bit when there is a photo of the, amazingly smug, Humphreys and Naughtie.
I have had a really bad day today, but now cheered up. Just going to watch it again.
Intense,
Thats the best Ive seen!!
Tim in Aguascalientes, Mexico – Tequila anyone?
Little know ‘militant’ Fedayeen-e-Islam group translates to …’those who sacrifice for Islam’.
That’s not ‘those who sacrifice for Pakistan’.
If it had been some kind of islamic uk inter-faith (Lol) group, we would have been given a translation.
Tim 8:43
Just watched it again and it gets better. I loved the way Stalin’s moustache rises with a smile.
A tequila for Intense, I think, for bringing this link to our attention !
What of the reporter last week who went to speak to the Taliban commander and pretty much blamed us for forcing them to buy weapons from Iran (thus exonerating both the Taliban and the Iranians)?
Intense 8:13
Thanks for the link , but I would like to register a complaint about the video. It is an insult to cockroaches.
On BBC World a Pakistani government official was being interviewed by Barbara Plett.
The official was adament where the blame for the atrocity lay. This was not good enough for Plett who switched into near hysteria mode. I caught the bit where she said ‘But surely US action must play some part.`
No said the official adamant that Islamic terrorists where solely to blame.
And the Briish public are complelled by law to pay Plett`s wages.
Personally I would burn her alive.
Muslims mass-murder muslims. Who’s to blame? Why, it’s obvious: the Americans! Thanks Barbara Plett!
(militant) has none of the judgmental overtones of “terrorist” and slyly skims the positive endorsement that “freedom fighter” implies
I disagree. Militant still has some positive overtones in this context.
Personally, I would disembowel Plett.
John Simpson linking the bomb to the Taliban on the 10 oclock news tonight. Mentioned “extremist groups”.
Then again, I also note that the Islamic terrorist scum behind this were able to get in contact with the BBC to explain that the aim behind the mass murder was “to stop America interference in Pakistan”
Terrorists are not stupid, just very brainwashed by one method or another.
I appeal to peoples common sense.
How on earth could anyone expect to STOP the American and allied armed forces doing anything they damned well want to, by killing innocent people and themselves?????????????
If the combined forces of The European Axis forces could not STOP the British and Allied versions, from forcing then all the way back to Hitlers Bunker. How could a few rag heads armed with a few sacks of high explosives hope to change anything in their favor????
Have any of you gone up to a starving fully grown lion lately and given its tail a hard pull?
No I thought not, otherwise you would not be reading this comment.
Terrorists are very often trained by people, who are trained by people, who are corrupted by people, who get their massive finance from the very last people you might expect they would be getting it, and therefore there orders from.
For example
There is much evidence that The Provisional and Official IRA where not only backed by the BBC as much as the BBC could get away with. They where getting finance and training from the British American and Israeli secret services. I have no idea, whether the likes of Jerry Adams mates knew this to be the case. However my common sense tells me they must have at least suspected that someone very high up in the British or American establishments rather liked the idea of them murdering many innocent Irish and British people.
Such is the way of the world, because the people that own most of it, greatly desire it to be just so.
Also and even more to the point.
If they did not want it to be just so, it would not be, it is as simple as that.
I thought that it was curious that the BBC rarely use the word ‘terrorist’ these days. However, I recently came across this report from the Guardian which goes some way towards explaining the BBC policy. Sorry about the length but I think it is worth reading.
Tara Conlan MediaGuardian, Friday December 16 2005
The BBC has issued new guidance to staff telling them to take care when using the term “terrorist”, and to opt instead for less loaded terms.
Following criticism from some quarters about the corporation’s coverage of the July 7 London bombings, the BBC’s governors have approved fresh guidance on “the use of language when reporting terrorism”.
The new guidance has been sent out internally and tells journalists: “The guidelines do not ban the use of the word. However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the perpetrators. And there are a number of important editorial factors that must be considered before its use to describe individuals or a given group that can be justified.”
The BBC said the rise of digital media meant there was no longer a split between domestic and overseas audiences, making careful use of such terms even more important.
“Careful use of the word ‘terrorist’ is essential if the BBC is to maintain its reputation for standards of accuracy and especially impartiality … that does not mean we should emasculate our reporting or otherwise avoid conveying the reality and horror of what has occurred; but we should consider the impact our use of language may have on our reputation for objective journalism amongst our many audiences … we must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit – and unwarranted – value judgement.”
The edict reminds BBC staff of the existing BBC editorial policy, which states: “The word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.”
“We should not adopt other people’s language as our own. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like ‘liberate’, ‘court martial’ or ‘execute’ in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as ‘bomber’, ‘attacking’, ‘gunman’, ‘kidnapper’ ‘insurgent’ and ‘militant’.”
The new guidance suggested using words such as “bomb attack” instead, or “bomber” or “assassin”.
It concluded: “This is an issue of judgement … If you do decide to use the word ‘terrorist’ do so sparingly, having considered what is said above, and take advice from senior editors.”
After the London bombings, the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, dismissed claims that the BBC banned the use of the word “terrorist” in its news coverage.
John Bosworth: In the 1980s, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former U.S. represenative to the United Nations argued that “what the terrorist does is kill, maim, kidnap, torture. His victims may be schoolchildren…. industrialists returning home from work, political leaders or diplomats”. It is a clear statement. We know exactly where she stood.
Where would she now stand (if she were still alive) in relation to the U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Grant,
I agree Tequila all round.
I enjoyed the Hell (which is in Norway, if I remember correctly) freezing over picture – Kinda sums up the Beebs Global Warming Policy – loads of other good stuff.
As mentioned, now stuck down Mexico way – I see loads of examples of BBC biased on my travels globally, as a security consultant (not least in Baghdad, where I regularly blogged for this site)
Here in Aguascalientes, Mexico there have been 8 top cops whacked and numerous gang members murdered,in only the past month, since I´ve been here.
The weapons used by the Narcos, have all been AK47 (7.62 short) so far.
I strongly remember seeing a Beeb propaganda piece recently, about how US M16 are the narcos weapón of choice and how the situation down here awash with US weapons and is all Americas fault.
Makes me so mad, as usual.
Hey, I wonder why the Beeb news site doesn’t have a free for all comments section under each article like the majority of big news sites do. Could it be that like most socialist propaganda machines, their greatest threat is the opinion of the masses?
Here’s the problem:
Killers kill
Murderers murder
Terrorists terrorize.
Militants also kill, murder and terrorize – and they seem to have been given an excuse tor doing these things. A bad action should be called what it is and bad people should be held to account for what they do. They are, quite simply, killers, murderers and terrorists.
There seems a disconnect between the real world and the linguistic dances of journalists.
A ‘Times’ leading article as an alternative to BBC’s PAKISTAN-based, anti-West propagandists:
“Terrorism’s Curse: Pakistan comes ever closer to the definition of a Failed State”
[Extract]:
“Pakistan has brought this crisis squarely upon itself. Politicians and military leaders, beginning with General Zia ul-Haq and including General Musharraf, have pandered to the Islamists, exploiting religion to shore up their shaky authority and opening the way to narrow, intolerant, sectarian extremism. Squabbling politicians have been intent only on eliminating rivals and enriching themselves through corruption. Governments have abdicated responsibility for basic services such as health and education to indulge in a nuclear arms race, while feudal landlords have ignored the growing desperation of a burgeoning and impoverished population.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article4805479.ece
John, Al Beeb has been displaying all the signs of clinical schizophrenia for years.
Newmark – if you are not a Peter Taylor or a John Ware and lack the experience and confidence to prevent the programme preventions departments interfering, then the trick is to use attribution.
Describe them as they are, but in other people’s words.
Eg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7627944.stm
so, it is possible, sometimes…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/22/pakistan.terrorism1
This angle on the story seems to be missing from the beeb’s coverage too.
I wonder why?
All the UK casualties are said to be “making good progress”, according to Prime Minister Gordon Brown
Oh, great, now the beeboids think that McOneEyedTurd is a medical practitoner as well as the messiah?
Nearly Oxfordian:
‘All the UK casualties are said to be “making good progress”, according to Prime Minister Gordon Brown
Oh, great, now the beeboids think that McOneEyedTurd is a medical practitoner as well as the messiah?’
I imagine he was simply passing on what the High Commissioner’s staff had reported to him from Pakistan.
The BBC also tell us with all confidence that Jerusalem crash ‘not deliberate’. But here’s a little detail they choose to leave out:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017359506&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
‘J’lem terrorist was a Hamas member’
Here’s a whole story they didn’t bother reporting on:
Soldier attacked with acid may lose eye
[…]
The woman, identified as a 19-year-old resident of Nablus, was behind a similar attack earlier in the month when she threw acid in the face of an officer at the checkpoint but succeeded in fleeing back into Nablus. On Monday she was captured and taken into police custody.
[…]
Anan Abd el-Haq of Rafidiya Hospital in Nablus said soldiers wounded three bystanders with gunfire and shrapnel immediately after the incident. The military said, however, that soldiers fired only one shot in the air to keep the crowd at bay.
The IDF said that the woman came to the checkpoint from Nablus and entered the “humanitarian lane” which is meant to be used by Palestinians who are in need of immediate medical attention and are therefore allowed to bypass an inspection in the regular lane.
IDF sources said that the attack demonstrated a “cynical” use of IDF humanitarian efforts by Palestinian terrorists. The IDF, the sources stressed, had eased travel restrictions throughout the West Bank in recent weeks to enable Palestinians to travel more freely during the month of Ramadan.
Meanwhile Monday, the IDF revealed that the Palestinian terrorist who was killed on Saturday as he tried infiltrating Yitzhar with a Molotov cocktail was the same terrorist who infiltrated the settlement a week earlier and stabbed a nine-year-old boy.
The BBC didn’t report the first acid attack either, or the stabbing of a nine year old boy.
After the London bombings, the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, dismissed claims that the BBC banned the use of the word “terrorist” in its news coverage.
Newmark | 22.09.08 – 11:16 pm |
More offensive to journalism standards is when the BBC reports a statement using the ‘T’ word. When a foreign government or military spokesman e.g. Israeli or Indian uses the word ‘terrorist’ as they tend to do the reporter is likely to use indirect speech replacing ‘T’ with ‘M’ e.g Gen Krishna Hindu of India said that militants attacked the bus.
Or worse, Gen Krishna Hindu of India said that ‘militants’ attacked the bus. The scare quotes leave the impression than even the omnibus word militant is open to debate. Perhaps the bus blew itself up?
Less common, but it happens, the BBC simply misquotes and mistranslates ‘T’ to ‘M’. Only those who understand the language the General used and heard the original interview will pick the deception.
Hi deegee – yes that is crap and shouldn’t be happening. If someone says “terrorist” then you should not write ‘militant’. The guidelines are perfectly clear on this, in attributed speech, it is fine.
Biodegradable | 23.09.08 – 6:14 pm |
That bulldozer attack wasn’t deliberate either, according to early BBC reports. I remember quite clearly they went out of their way to say on air that this was not a terrorist attack, even before any police statements had been given or anything else.
Tim Franks really should know better by now, but I expect he’s under orders. Or maybe he wouldn’t even have his job if he wasn’t sympathetic to that cause.
“Intense”, and those who are so thankful for that video link: while it’s good to know that others share our loathing of the BBC, have any of you looked at the company we’re keeping? Comments attached to the video discuss in detail how many news readers are black or asian (on the grounds that there is something “Un-British” about this), and one comment praises the video while wishing we could exclude “Paki vermin”.
So as far as I am concerned, no thanks. I can oppose the BBC without allies like that. The comments may have no connection with those who made the video, but in a political cause (which is broadly what we are fighting) guilt by association must be something we take into consideration.