THE MISSING WORD.
Part of my problem with the BBC is not just outrage at the totalitarian license tax, it is the profound moral malaise that the corporation exudes, funded at my (and your) expense. I guess this sickening moral relativism is manifest in this evening’s news that eighty people are murdered in Bombay, many more injured and held hostage, and the best the BBC can do is call them “Islamic radicals”. No, they are evil TERRORISTS, they have TERRORISED innocent people and brought about their deaths this day in the most barbaric fashion possible and the fact that the bloody BBC cannot bring itself to utter the T-word in connection to this event is appalling. How long before we hear the mantra that these terrorists are really victims?
For once David you actually paint a pretty picture of the BBCs apologising for Islamic terrorists.
As far as I can tell, the report seems desperate to suggest Islamic radicals may not be responsible at all. The report is breathless in it’s suggestion that we shouldn’t jump to conclusions just yet.
It could have been a pissed of American college student from some hick town.
Kill The Beeb,
Yeah – it’s worse than I thought. Dhimmis.
the times of india doesnt have a problem with the T word
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
and ndtv india
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/default.aspx
I’ve been watching the IBN (cnn.com) and NDTV (foxnews.com) live feeds. Oddly enough the Indian press have no problem with uttering the t-word every few seconds!
IBN live stream…
http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/video_streaming.php
sky news are reporting that the terrorists were driving around mumbai throwing grenades out at random.
now, if the bbc cant define that as “terrorism”, then they really do need to have their head examined.
David David David, do you not know that it is now official that there are no islamic terrorists any-more, but those who indulge in anti-islamic activity?
Get with the programme, Labour has spoken and decreed, and where they lead, the BBC follows.
They’re freedom fighters. They just want Kashmir back, remember?
IBN tv are showing clips of the indian ARMY being deployed.
I’ve got to laugh (and in no way do I wish to demean the deaths of so many people) at how the bBC reports just who may be behind the killings;
“If this report is true, our security correspondent Frank Gardner says it suggests that Islamic militants are behind the attack.”
Err Al beeb, the last person i would employ as a security correspondent is Frank (Don’t shoot I’m a Muslim) Gardner. Any twat who doesn’t have the common to know that he’s dicing with death when reporting from a dodgy area. (And so many bBC reporters actually don body armour in safe areas in which promote their version of the news) doesn’t deserve to be reporting at all. Never mind been made a figurehead for bBC security reporting.
It is quite likely that as this group does not have any relations with al Qaeda, thus, in the thinking of our security chiefs and politicians, this terrorist atrocity has nothing to do with Islam.
I’m off to hit the sack. But before i do. I just wonder how long it is before Al beeb are running a story about Indian police brutality?
interesting,… mumbai’s anti-terror chief policeman was shot dead by the terrorists. (they must have had specific intell on his location?)
“..The motive is far from clear”
so says the BBC – it may be unclear to you BBC but it is clear to normal people. The motive is terror.
“At least seven sites have been targeted across the south of the city by terrorists armed with explosives and automatic weapons.”
“Alex Chamberlain, a Briton caught in the attacks, told Sky News an attacker asked tourists if they were British or American before opening fire.”
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Mumbai-Terror-Hostages-Caught-In-Major-Fire-In-Taj-Mahal-Palace-Hotel-Mumbai-Bombay-India/Article/200811415162454?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_0&lid=ARTICLE_15162454_Mumbai_Terror%3A_Hostages_Caught_In_Ma
“If this report is true, our security correspondent Frank Gardner says it suggests that Islamic militants are behind the attack.” Says the BBc – so they don’t believe Mr Chamberlain then.
It is not just the BBC. Even SKY News now refers to a terrorist attack undertaken by militants. If they can call it a terrorist attack why the hell do they not describe the perpetrators as terrorists. Have they learnt this from the BBC?
I’m watching Indian TV via Fox News now! Interesting views and reporting.
Please, Al Beeb, spare us your correspondents from India. Give us the voice of the people. Or, to make myself even clearer: “F*** off with your so-called reporting”
pounce | 27.11.08 – 12:12 am |
Being my sarcastic self a look into my crystal ball has just given me the details of another scenario:
“Massive terrorist attack on the UK / the US” (not the Al Beeb headline, it’s my own headline)
Al Beeb: “We’ve just learned of militant action against the UK / the US. We will now switch over to our security correspondent who is hiding out in the mountainous region of Pakistan…”
Unlikely? I wouldn’t bet my mortgage on it.
Let’s hope that the Indian counter terrorism teams can exterminate these evil cunts without further innocents being killed.
Grimer | 27.11.08 – 12:44 am |
Don’t let “The Winy Liberal” read that. He / she might think you’ve got something against terrorists.
The BBC had no problem using the “T” word just the other day when describing an attack which took place in the UK (Glasgow airport).
So, the only explanation I can think of for refusing to use it to describe these attacks in India is that they view this as part of an ongoing war, both sides are responsible to varying degrees, and thus this cannot be considered “terrorism”.
The BBC still can’t understand the proper definition of the term, and still think it’s a political label. I can only guess why they make that association.
Stupid Beeboids: it’s really about the method and not the motivation. The excuse we’ve been given time and time again – even by Nick Reynolds in one of his rare visits here – is that it’s an emotional term, and they’d rather use a more mundane description. All in the interest of accuracy, of course.
So why is it okay for Scotland and not India? Because the BBC knows they have to get real when describing attacks on British soil, but they can dodge the issue the rest of the time. That’s not much of an editorial standard.
Tsk tsk tsk…those pesky “militants.” I wonder if Derek Hatton was involved again this time.
I would expect little from the BBC on this other than an attempt to play down what is an act of war against India. Very serious indeed.
In addition;
Israel is under huge pressure on all sides from peace loving Arab states.
Iran is about to go nuclear and has delivery systems almost ready.
Pakistan is unstable to say the least and Kashmir is a war zone.
North Korea is busy making God knows what.
Throw in Iraq and Afghanistan and it makes 1914 Europe look tranquil.
I hope our leaders have a cunning plan
According to FNC Westerners are being held hostage in Mumbai / Bombay…
I hope our leaders have a cunning plan
dave s | 27.11.08 – 1:05 am |
Barack has a plan: Keep Gates on… Change alright.
Over the nextfew days there will be a dozen or more Mumbai stories on the BBC website. They will use the T word if, say, A Govt Minister uses it. (But then again – they may change his words?.
But the BBCstaff themselves will, I hazard, never use the T word directly.
It will be interesting to keep a count of the times they use anodyne words like “militants” – versus the number (likely nil) they use the T word.
No doubt the spineless Reuters and Associated Press will also seek to avoid the T word.
As was noted above, and many times before on this blogsite, the BBC has been forced by public opinion to use the T word in relation to terrorists and terrorist attacks within the UK. (Though often slipping into the “militants”/plumbers/doctors euphemisms.)
But in Mumbai it looks as though some of the attacks were aimed specifically at British (and American) travellers. Does a Brit earn the T word if he is attacked in the UK – but loses that rare BBC privilege if he ventures abroad ?
Maybe I should warn my daughter and her boyfriend they may lose this privilege – they are booked to fly to Mumbai next Saturday. I am pleased to note that she intends to go ahead with her trip.
I’ll never forget the Al-Beeb coverage of the Beslan massacre. I think that was when my opinion of them crossed over from amused contempt into outright burning hatred.
JohnA – I hope your daughter has a great time in Mumbai.
HSLD -> same here. it was beslan that made me have my “nick cohen” moment, when i was pushed from left to right.
911 and 7/7 didnt do it – it was beslan.
This horror in Bombay (no one calls it Mumbai except the BBC) signals a new target other than the West.
Militant Islam has understood how powerful India is and that India is on the ascendant. As is China. Islamic terrorists are running scared. So many targets. Now it’s the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Canada (forget Europe; who cares?) and the economically powerful and militarily powerful India they’re going have to go after.
This attack was not against Westerners, per se. It was against India.
disillusioned_german | 27.11.08 – 12:35 am | #
I believe the the policy now is to go straight to ‘interpreting events’.
That way anything can be shared in any way ‘necessary’.
My heart goes out to the people of India – for centuries they have suffered slaughter by the likes of these mujahedeen.
Back in the 70s & 80s the BBC was fond of calling anti-communist south american militias “Right Wing Death Squads”. I believe the most appropriate name for the likes of the terrorists in Mumbai is “Muslim Jihadi Death Squads”, but I have zero expectation that the BBC or any other part of the MSM would have the guts so to name them.
By not naming our enemy, and thus blinding us to the religious ideology that motivates them, the BBC enables these terrorists around the World and their supporters in this country, and is in a small way culpable when atrocities like the Mumbai massacres are perpetrated.
Watching Breakfast this morning you’d be hard put to guess who was doing this.
10 minutes in and I havent heard the I or M words once.The nearest they have come is to talk about some Mujahadin group claiming responsibility.
According to the BBC’s online report on the Bombay massacre this morning, it is a massacre being carried out by 2 attackers, 4 gunmen, 2 armed men, 2 assailants, 1 group and just 1 terrorist preceded by the word “suspected”.
Perhaps we could get some comment from our resident ROP enthusiast from the other thread? Put it in perspective, mention the IRA etc?
It obviously wouldn’t have happened if India hadn’t been involved in the invasion of Iraq
In passing, the BBC has mentioned the singling out of Jews for attack by the Islamic jihadists in Mumbai, but the reporting is not given much of a context. In contrast:
“Even in Mumbai, the Muslim war against the Jews” (by Hugh Fitzgerald)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/18168
Additional information from ‘Times of India’:
“Exchange of fire intensified at Nariman House, a residential complex with a Jewish prayer hall, where also a hostage situation was prevailing. There were unconfirmed reports of a similar situation in Cama hospital.”
‘Terrorists holed up in Taj, Trident (Oberoi)”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai_attacks_Terrorists_inside_Taj_Oberoi/articleshow/3763863.cms
While the T-word gets the most p.r., you’ll notice the Beeb assiduously avoids another word in their reporting as well–the “h” word. That is, “hostage.”
” Israel says it is concerned for the safety of its citizens in Mumbai, as a rabbi and his family are feared captured by gunmen”
Feared “captured”, instead of “taken hostage”? It conjures of images of a white-bearded rabbi somehow running off impetuously and “captured” before he could get into trouble! Remember, the Israeli soldiers on Israeli soil who were kidnapped by Hamas infiltrators were only “captured” according to the BBC. Same for the Israeli soldiers “captured” by Hezbollah.
Simply outrageous.
“We think they should call terrorist acts ‘terrorism’ because that term is clear and well understood”.
Report of the Independent Panel for the BBC Governors on Impartiality of BBC coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. April 2006
“Jihadist death squads” – I like that. It describes who the perpetrators are and their aims without having to resort to the ‘terrorist’ word.
More seriously, last night I watched the Taj Mahal Hotel in flames. I stayed there when I was in Bombay on business – India has huge, unexploited oil wealth in the Bay of Bengal – and the hotel is/was a jewel, now in ruins thanks to the BBC’s favoured terrorists. The BBC interviewed the Britsh Ambassador and the interviewer stil described the perpetrators as ‘militants’. Their coverage really is appalling.
Verity: “This horror in Bombay (no one calls it Mumbai except the BBC) signals a new target other than the West.”
There is nothing new about India being targeted by Islamic terrorists.
If the BBC can break free of its dhimmitude and obfuscation in reporting the Mumbai Islamic jihad (= BBC ‘militants’), it should read this analysis closely and adopt the accurate designations:
‘Counterterrorism blog’:
Walid Phares –
..the perpetrators -although calling themselves Deccan Mujahideen- are in fact members or trained by Lashkar e Toiba/SIMI (who according to Animesh Roul now call themselves Indian Mujahideen). Here is the condensed report I discussed on Fox News, the BBC, Russia Today TV and other international outlets:-
[-his excellent report is available below:]-
“Mumbai Terror attacks: Urban Jihad comes to India” (by Walid Phares)
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/11/mumbai_terror_attacks_urban_ji.php
Great, we are soon to get the skinny on Mumbai on BBC Breakfast from… Lonely Planet!
Why not? I guess we’ll have the Woolworth business news from BBC Worldwide.
I am also feeling distinct unease at the ongoing studio/victim phone conversation going on from one of the hotels.
His call (literally), but I’d be keeping my battery life for when it matters, not to give clues to my location if it is indeed dodgy.
Especially when you get the blonde and bouffant saying ‘All the best. Meanwhile, because we can’t tell you where he is, let’s tell you where he is not to help narrow it down’.
While it might make for great ratings, I’d have though it more responsible to tell such guys so keen to share to keep their heads down and not broadcast blow by blow accounts. It doesn’t really add to my understanding of what’s going down and seems to be more voyeuristic than newsworthy.
Yes, that appallingly weasel word ‘militants’ was, as usual, to the fore on the Today programme. But thank goodness for the British Aambassador who, whilst being interviewed by Naughtie, quite straitforwardly called them ‘terrorists’. You could feel Naughtie tensing up at this shocking display of candid truthfulness!
And, by the way, I too am extremely irritated by the use of the name ‘Mumbai’. As a previous correspondant implied, residents of that city call it Bombay, and so should the BBC.
Prolonged personal rant, forgive me – I’m angry:
Due to what must’ve been accidental nudging of the tuning dial during my sleep, I woke up to the infantile Radio 5 Live this morning. They were discussing the attacks, and for approximately 15 minutes I did not once hear the words “Islamic”, “Islamist”, “Muslim”, or “Jihad”.
They did use the word “terrorism” once, evidently uneasily, when introducing a guest who –
“Lectures on terrorism, and is an expert on…. that very subject.”
At that point I decided I’d heard enough. A quarter of an hour into my listening, and I had been given no clue as to the identity or purpose of the attackers. It could all have been carried out by “men”, or “plumbers”, or Fathers For Justice, or aliens for all 5 Live had told us. What other type of major world news event would be reported in such a cowardly, deliberately opaque fashion?
Will the BBC spend all day agonising, I wonder, over the backlash that muslims in this country will suffer from British people of Indian origin? Or are such backlashes only imaginable from white anglo-saxons? I remember, vividly, listening in disbelief as – literally hours after the London bombings – this same 5 Live was taking calls from muslim “community leaders” predicting a racist backlash, and opining that muslims could be “the real victims” of what had happened that morning.
5 Live is a little sack of juvenile sh*t that should be taken off the airwaves: infantile presenters twittering on about crap, horrifically on-message, endlessly self-important and self-regarding (witness their conceited current self-advertisement: “This … is Five Live”) and utterly lacking the intellect, the honesty, the decency, or the bravery to tackle events such as these.
MartinW, you deserve the utmost respect for putting yourself through the ordeal that is listening to Today. I know that if I did that my blood pressure would hit alarming levels. Kudos.
Mumbai Jihad; some historical context for BBC:
Andrew Bostom:
[Extract]:
“Rarely understood, let alone acknowledged, however, is the history of brutal jihad conquest, Muslim colonization, and the imposition of dhimmitude shared by the Jews of historical Palestine, and the Hindus of the Indian subcontinent.”
“The Legacy of Jihad in India” (by Andrew G. Bostom)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/07/the_legacy_of_jihad_in_india.html
The world is in major crisis due to Islamic terrorism and financial disaster while Al-Beeb plays soothing lounge music accompanied by the smug faces of the Blonde and the Bland.
Rome is burning and Al-Beeb fiddles like its GMTV.
“Attackers” seems to be the best they can come up with at present.
The Today programme uses he word “terrorism” – but the perpetrators are gunmen or militants or extremists – not terrorists. Political leaders around the world – US, India, Russia, are calling the bastards terrorists.
But still the precious BBC evades using the correct word.
Spineless moral equivalence. Led as usual by Frank Gardner.